Because of the content I will quote the entire article:
Palace inquest after Prince William names Kate as his Princess
PRINCE WILLIAM'S description of Kate as a Princess has sparked a royal inquiry into why Palace officials have insisted for two years that she is a Duchess.
By Richard Palmer 00:00, Mon, Aug 5, 2013
Buckingham Palace is struggling to explain confusion over her status after William describe her job as “Princess of the United Kingdom” on Prince George’s birth certificate on Friday.
It contradicted statements from the Royal Household when the couple were made Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their wedding day in 2011.
Until last week, officials at the Palace, Clarence House and in the couple’s new office at Kensington Palace had insisted Kate’s title as a Duchess meant she was not a Princess.
On Friday, however, Kensington Palace performed a swift U-turn, insisting that, although she chose to use the title of Duchess, Kate was also Princess William of Wales.
A senior aide at Buckingham Palace suggested William might simply have taken it upon himself to decide that his wife was a Princess.
Spokesman James Roscoe said: “I will check further, but I’m getting the impression there are no hard and fast rules in this area.” Since the wedding, experts have insisted that a woman marrying into the Royal Family automatically takes on her husband’s rank.
Although a royal dukedom trumps the title of Prince, they insist Kate also has the right to call herself a Princess, using her husband’s name.
Historian Marlene Koenig said: “Anyone with any knowledge of royalty ... knows a woman takes her husband’s rank. I would have spoken up in 2011 and said precedence shows that the wife of a Prince is a Princess by rank.”
The Daily Express put this point to the Royal Household after the wedding, citing precedents including the late Queen Mother and Prince Edward’s wife, Sophie.
Palace officials insisted neither of them was ever a Princess.
Yet Sophie, for example, has a stall plate at the Queen’s Chapel of the Savoy which reads: HRH The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex. In 1923 when the Queen Mother, then Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, married the future George VI she became Duchess of York but was described as having the rank of a Princess.
In May 2011, a Palace spokesman said: “The Duchess of Cambridge would have been Her Royal Highness Princess William if she had not been given her new title, but it is not correct to say she is a Princess now.”
The Palace may simply have wished to promote Kate’s title as a royal duchess and to discourage the world’s media from calling her Princess William or Princess Kate.
Paddy Harverson, communications secretary at Clarence House in 2011 with oversight for William’s office, told reporters at the wedding: “You don’t automatically become a Princess when you marry a Prince. She’s not a Princess, though we’re quite relaxed about it and realise some people will call her a Princess. We are not going to get upset about it.”
Buckingham Palace said it would respond fully today, pending further inquiries about Kate’s title.'
From a personal perspective, it was not what was written on the birth certificate that caught my attention but from the expression of the registrar who attended Kensington Palace. I did wonder why.
The Birth Certificate is a legally binding document so perhaps this was done at the request of Kate to appease her husband, or indeed because he chose this status, but you can be sure that he also knows this is a legally binding document, with a population of people who are already 'subjects' to their whims - with an army and police force who take their oaths of allegiance and obedience to orders so that they can be paid - but I thought it was most revealing that a police office was clear that she ;only took her oath to serve Queen Elizabeth II - No one else;, she said in a very serious tone indeed.
Here is the wedding gues list and who declined to attend.
If the officers or anyone else knows the truth - I doubt we are in the days of people being hung drawn and quartered, but even if that was so, that would give more determination to some to speak out, if they have any faith and really do Trust in God....Who is the Diana Lookalike at the wedding?.
People are asking if Diana attended William and Kate's wedding?
Well if she did attend, she did say she will not go silently! But something else, if this is Diana, this is happening with the lie to the people enduring in a Church - a Church of God?
And if this is Diana you can be sure that the Church hierarchy knows about it and so does Queen Elizabeth which might be why she had limited input on the Wedding invitations
In another article the Telegraph reported with the headline
Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke
The Queen faces a dilemma over what to call Kate Middleton after Prince William suggests that she should become 'Princess Catherine'.
Mandrake can disclose that the 28 year-old has, however, let it be known that he would prefer to remain Prince William rather than be made a duke.
"He says he was born Prince William and wants to continue to be known as that," says a courtier. "He wants Kate to become Princess Catherine."
This presents a thorny dilemma for the monarch, however, as princesses, traditionally, receive their titles through birth rather than marriage.
If Prince William is not given a new title, his 28-year-old bride will, automatically, become Princess William, not "Princesss Catherine". Although his late mother was often referred to as "Princess Diana", her correct title was the Princess of Wales. After her divorce, she became Diana, Princess of Wales.
'Kenneth Rose, the royal historian, tells me: "Kate is a commoner and could not be known as 'Princess Catherine'. However, it is up to the Queen what title she gives her and there have been one or two exceptions.
"When Prince Henry, the Duke of Gloucester died, the Queen gave the Duchess of Gloucester the title Princess Alice. This was, though, to reward her for years of loyal service.
"If this happened, I am pretty certain that Princess Michael of Kent, for example, would ask to become Princess Marie-Christine. I should think that there will be some pressure put on him [William] not to change the system."'
The article was published on 12th December 2010.
In other articles Carol Middleton has been portrayed as being pushy, but we cannot ignore like mother like daughter. Has Kate wanted this title and pushed her husband for this?
The law was changed but we will have to see how this will work in everyone's favour because now it does not. The law change about royal succession seems to have removed the illegitimate bloodline not being eligible for the crown and the act of Treason to prevent succession to the Imperial Crown...This was surely a deliberate move.
'Under the Treason Act 1702 and the Treason (Ireland) Act 1703, it is treason to "endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding ... to the imperial crown of this realm". Since 1998 the maximum penalty has been life imprisonment.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (c. 20) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It altered the laws of succession to the British throne in accordance with the 2011 Perth Agreement. The act replaced male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture for those born in the line of succession after 28 October 2011, which meant the eldest child regardless of gender would precede their siblings. The act also ended the disqualification of a person who married a Roman Catholic from the line of succession, and removed the requirement of those outside the first six persons in line to the throne to seek the Sovereign's approval to marry. It was brought into force on 26 March 2015,[1] at the same time as the other Commonwealth realms implemented the Perth Agreement in their own laws.
House of Lords
On 21 January 2013, the House of Lords Constitution Committee published a report opposing the Government's plan to fast-track the bill, citing the legislation's "constitutional significance" and "possible unintended consequences."
When we start to assess the information that is provided by credible reports with statements from people who are supposedly in place to protect the people, we can start to question who is exactly in power over this land and why are the laws being manipulated to the detriment of people.
As far as Biblical Law is laid down it is very clear indeed:
Election and Duties of Kings
14"When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,' 15you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.16"Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.' Deuteronomy 17:14-16
14"When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,' 15you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.16"Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.' Deuteronomy 17:14-16
If God chooses someone, there is no need to be underhanded, with anyone. Why on earth would God choose to go against what he has already said...And why would he break all his laws?
But we are told he will send a great deception ...
We are warned..
And I have just found a few more articles that relate to this topic..it certainly does require looking at and also understanding that there are people who strongly oppose it too.
Ahhh the Game of Thrones - How much Truth is This Series?.
Peace be with you
Pauline Maria
..
.
No comments:
Post a Comment