Why is there a consort coronation for female consorts but not for male ones in the United Kingdom? Wikipedia: Charles's wife, Camilla, will be crowned alongside him as queen consort. (...) This will be the first coronation of a consort since that of his grandmother Queen Elizabeth (later known as the Queen Mother) in 1937. In addition to this, wives of Kings of England are styled as &quot;queen consort&quot;, while husbands of Queens of England are styled as &quot;prince consort&quot; - and it seems that Philip of Edinburgh even had to be specifically made prince by Elizabeth II, i.e. it wasn't automatic due to their marriage (prince of Britain I mean, since he was already prince in other monarchies). What are the rules when it comes to the coronation of a consort in the UK, and what are all the differences relating to the sex of said consort? Where do there these differences come from?
There has only been one Prince Consort Albert, the husband of Victoria, was the only Prince Consort in post-conquest English/UK history. It was a title created specifically for him because the establishment and the country didn’t like him very much. The titles of the five pre-Victorian male consorts varied widely. Mary I of England's husband Philip was declared king jure uxoris and given powers equal to his wife while she reigned, but Queen Anne's husband Prince George of Denmark received no British titles other than the Dukedom of Cumberland (his princely title being Danish). Meanwhile, the official title of the three husbands of Mary, Queen of Scots was never fully resolved. At least one (Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley), was declared king consort, and both he and his predecessor Francis II of France sought recognition as king jure uxoris (under a proffered theory of the &quot;Crown Matrimonial of Scotland&quot;), but the title and powers of the consort were a constant issue during Mary's reign and remained unresolved when Mary was captured and executed. Philip was not Prince Consort, he was made a British Prince - the same title held by his sons. The only legal requirement is the oath The Coronation Oaths Act 1688 requires the oath to be taken by the Monarch and specifies its form. This is the only thing required to make the coronation legal. Everything else is due to religion, tradition, and choice. It is not true that all Queen consorts have been crowned In general, when the King was married at the time of the coronation, the Queen consort was also crowned. However, there have been exceptions. When the King married after the coronation, sometimes there was a coronation for the Queen consort but often there wasn’t.
Where the primary part of two acts in the same year would be the same, commonly a secondary phrase is added in brackets indicating the narrow subject of the act to avoid this happening. For example, the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2016 was followed later in the year by the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2016. However, where such a secondary phrase would be inappropriate, especially where the later act replaces the earlier act, the main part of the short title of the second act is appended with "(No. 2)". One such example occurred in 2009, where the Appropriation Act 2009 was replaced by the Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2009. So in your hypothetical case, the later act would likely have "Parliament Act (No. 2) 1911" as its short title. I should note though that this is governed by custom, so there is no guarantee that a particular act must follow this approach.
Currently there is nowhere in the USA where polygamy is legal. So regardless of their sexual or gender expression or orientation, being married to MORE THAN ONE person at the same time is illegal. If, however, it turned out that someone had more than one spouse at their death, I'm sure that property distribution would be a matter for the probate court to sort out. As far as legally-married &quot;trans spouses&quot;, for lack of a better term, I don't see why that would that impact inheritance in any way?
The earliest mention of the principle that I can find is in Rolston v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [1975] NI 195, where the matter of compensation for the widow of a police officer murdered in Northern Ireland arose. I am sure there are earlier cases that express the same principle in different terms, however. It is a broad principle that applies to most areas of civil law, and I cannot find an original source for it. I imagine that it is simply &quot;received wisdom&quot; that has been repeated long enough to become a cornerstone of the law of restitution in England and Wales. There is currently no statutory basis for the principle so I cannot cite any relevant Acts of Parliament either.
Is it gender-based discrimination against C and in favour of B and thus a constitutional right violation? Apparently not, according to this source LGBT rights in India, Wikipedia: Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in 2018. [India] has ... explicitly interpreted Article 15 of the Constitution to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. But many legal protections have not been provided for, including same-sex marriage. ... Same-sex marriages are not legally recognised in India nor are same-sex couples offered limited rights such as a civil union or a domestic partnership. However, things appear to moving towards equality - albeit slowly: In 2011, a Haryana court granted legal recognition to a same-sex marriage involving two women. After marrying, the couple began to receive threats from friends and relatives in their village. The couple eventually won family approval.
Isn’t this discrimination since nationals do not have to apply? Yes it is discrimination. But that does not make it illegal. In fact discrimination is in general legal unless it is based on some characteristic which is specifically forbidden as a basis for discrimination (e.g. race). And in general, all of the countries in the world allow and enforce discrimination based on nationality; for example non-nationals will not be able to run for Head of State (and additional restrictions may apply). The EU members allowing similar rights to the citizens of other EU countries is the exception, not the rule, and once the UK stops being bound by EU treaties it can impose its own legal system on non-nationals. And while EU treaties give lots of rights to EU member-countries citizens, they still allow for discrimination based on nationality (for example you cannot run for Prime Minister or MP of Spain as a foreign EU resident). Isn’t the UK Government breaking the law? This could go against EU treaties, but the point is that the UK will no longer need to comply with them. is the UK Government responsible for the harm and distress caused to the individual health and mental wellbeing? No, the UK Government is not responsible if you do not like its laws to the point that it affects your health. Is there any ground for challenging this scheme legality in court? Unlikely. In any case it will not be because you are frightened by it, any challenge would be in the grounds that the government actions act against some other UK law. For example, if the decision to make such a list was made by the Executive but it contradicts some law approved by the Parliament. If this list does not contradict any law, then there are no grounds for challenging it. Would there a breach of my human rights if I was not to apply for settle status and then subsequentially got deported (taken away from my children, home, business, etc.)? How about if I was refused, re-entry or access to public services (NHS for example)? If you do not apply you will not have any evidence that you were settled, and the government could legitimately believe that you are irregularly in the country and try to expel you; you probably would have an opportunity to prove that you were settled even if you were not in the list but that could be way slower, more expensive, riskier and stressful than just registering now. Get this clear: that settled person list is to help you to show that you were a UK resident before Brexit and to give you the protections that are being negotiated between the UK and the EU for expatriates. Probably you could choose not to enlist, but it would work against you.
The short answer, is "it's complicated". I can think of situations where any of the above options you listed might be true. (Another possible option is "The baby has no nationality at birth", and would therefore be considered stateless, and would fall under the birth country's rules regarding statelessness). To find a definitive answer for your specific situation, I would start with Wikipedia: British nationality law Spanish nationality law Although Wikipedia is not authoritative, it does give you a good overview of the situation for both countries. There are then links to authoritative sources in each article. In the case of a British and Spanish couple, their baby would probably be both British and Spanish at birth. Additionally, if the baby is born in a country (such as the US) which follows the jus soli rules, then the baby would also acquire the citizenship of their birth country.
&quot;Regina&quot; or &quot;R&quot; or &quot;The Crown&quot; or &quot;The Queen&quot; is the respondent. These are different ways of expressing the same concept. However, it is not typical to name &quot;Crown Prosecution Service&quot; in the citation, or the formal heading of the case. This differs from Scottish practice where appeals look like &quot;Adam v HM Advocate&quot;. Other public prosecutions can be brought by bodies other than CPS, such as the Health and Safety Executive, so R does not invariably mean the CPS. For England and Wales, the philosophy is that criminal prosecutions are brought by the Crown as the fount of justice, and maintained as such on appeal, and it so happens that the interests of the public are represented by agencies such as the CPS. They are not representing their own interests and are not parties to the case. We do see &quot;Adam v Crown Prosecution Service&quot; in judicial review cases, which are civil rather than criminal. For example, SXH v Crown Prosecution Service [2017] UKSC 30 was about challenging the CPS's decision on whether to prosecute somebody. An &quot;appeal by way of case stated&quot; may also arise in this way, where there is a point of law to be decided in the Administrative Court of Queen's Bench, such as Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin). The DPP is the head of the CPS. The distinction is that a judicial review is about whether the public body's decisions were lawful - they are the ones being scrutinized - whereas in a criminal case, the prosecution is mounted on behalf of the public in general, with the CPS merely happening to be the agency usually responsible. Equally, the CPS can be a party to employment disputes and things like that. &quot;R (Crown Prosecution Service)&quot; looks a little unusual because &quot;R (Somebody) v Anotherbody&quot; usually means a judicial review on behalf of the Somebody, against Anotherbody, with the R being a vestige of the historical basis for this kind of review. It would be odd for the CPS to be in that position. If you look through recent Court of Appeal judgements you will see some variations in presentation, but a common pattern of saying something like this: In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) On appeal from Oxford Crown Court Mr Justice Glossop Before: Lord Justice Tibbs Mrs Justice Bloggs Mr Justice Dubbs Between: Regina (Respondent) and Adam (Appellant) B Smith (instructed by Appeals-R-Us Solicitors) for the Appellant C Jones QC (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent