The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1: Apr - May 2005

[Anna_R]

Charles and Camilla at the opening of a new playground

Newlyweds Charles and Camilla carry out their first official engagement together when they opened a children's playground in Ballater near the Balmoral Estate in Scotland

22 pictures From Colourpress: http://www.colourpress.com/index.cfm...882&MaxShow=22

[Warren]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

of course she knew they would notice. she is sending a message, she does not give a d***

Yes. She is making it quite clear from the start that she will not be a clothes horse.

Don't expect Camilla to be wearing a new frock at every event. The focus will be on the work she is doing, not on what she is wearing.

Notably, just before the engagement was announced, some people were indignant at the fact that Charles was paying for Camilla's frocks. But now she is criticised for wearing the same coat two or three times. It's a funny old world, isn't it?
.

[james]

I post this with a heavy heart but I cannot, as a British citizen and practising member of the Church of England, continue suppprting the Church and the Monarchy under the auspicies of Prince Charles and "that woman". I hope to still enjoy Royal news updates etc. on this forum but no longer have any interest in the Prince of Wales and the, excuse me while I laugh heartily, Duchess of Cornwall!

[wymanda]

Originally Posted by james

I post this with a heavy heart but I cannot, as a British citizen and practising member of the Church of England, continue suppprting the Church and the Monarchy under the auspicies of Prince Charles and "that woman". I hope to still enjoy Royal news updates etc. on this forum but no longer have any interest in the Prince of Wales and the, excuse me while I laugh heartily, Duchess of Cornwall!

How sanctimonious of you, James!!

I thought that the church practiced forgiveness? . Obviously its lessons have not got through to you.

[grecka]

I don't think the monarchy and the church should continue to be one unit. Charles obviously hasn't lived by the church's law and I don't think he should be supreme governor over it. Aside from that, separation of church and state in modern Britain is impossible while the monarch remains head of the church. That doesn't mean, however, that Charles and Camilla should not be forgiven. They love each other, and, if they realize, recognize, and repent for the fact that they committed adultery, then they're worthy of forgiveness.

[Reina]

Oh James I feel your pain. In fact I wasn't even going to visit this thread until I saw that you posted here. I think it is very important to look to the future-to support a long reign for QEII and for when William is king.

Anyway I think what james is feeling is that PCharles and his girl have severely compromised what the monarchy-and, cough, the future head of the Church of England-is supposed to be about. Sure all may seem well with PCHarles finally getting the love of his life, but one has to remember that alot of stuff happened that just was not supposed to happen. camilla should have never been in the position that she is in. It is not right b/c the end justified the means. I believe this whole thing is a disgrace and a very dark period for the BRF. Yes one is supposed to forgive, but that does not mean accepting something that is not right. Sure it is ok for them to be married. But it is not ok for her to get all these rewards. I don't care what it would have taken for her not to receive the titles and status. They should have done it. It seems as if it has all been about convenience for these two.

Originally Posted by james

I post this with a heavy heart but I cannot, as a British citizen and practising member of the Church of England, continue suppprting the Church and the Monarchy under the auspicies of Prince Charles and "that woman". I hope to still enjoy Royal news updates etc. on this forum but no longer have any interest in the Prince of Wales and the, excuse me while I laugh heartily, Duchess of Cornwall!

[james]

I am not being malicious but please respect my adherance to the teachings of the Church of England even if the Prince of Wales no longer does. Unfortunatley for some the Church is not a "free for all" where one can do as one likes, say " I'm sorry", and then carry on. The Prince and his mistress had no qualms about making holy vows to other people and then sleeping with each other. The Church the Prince of Wales hopes to head one day dosn't acknowledge divorce and thus I, like millions of Anglicans, am at a loss to see how the Archbishop of Canterbury could bless the union when Camilla's ex-husband a.k.a. Andrew Parker-Bowles still lives. This is not a matter of forgiveness or of percieved spitefulness but of legitimate concern to Anglicans around the Globe. I, for one, feel very confused, let down and angry about the current situation and, as a result, no longer feel able to support the British Monarchy as things stand.

[bigheadshirmp]

Quote:
Originally Posted by james
I post this with a heavy heart but I cannot, as a British citizen and practising member of the Church of England, continue suppprting the Church and the Monarchy under the auspicies of Prince Charles and "that woman". I hope to still enjoy Royal news updates etc. on this forum but no longer have any interest in the Prince of Wales and the, excuse me while I laugh heartily, Duchess of Cornwall!

Originally Posted by james

I am not being malicious but please respect my adherance to the teachings of the Church of England even if the Prince of Wales no longer does. Unfortunatley for some the Church is not a "free for all" where one can do as one likes, say " I'm sorry", and then carry on. The Prince and his mistress had no qualms about making holy vows to other people and then sleeping with each other. The Church the Prince of Wales hopes to head one day dosn't acknowledge divorce and thus I, like millions of Anglicans, am at a loss to see how the Archbishop of Canterbury could bless the union when Camilla's ex-husband a.k.a. Andrew Parker-Bowles still lives. This is not a matter of forgiveness or of percieved spitefulness but of legitimate concern to Anglicans around the Globe. I, for one, feel very confused, let down and angry about the current situation and, as a result, no longer feel able to support the British Monarchy as things stand.

i couldn't agree more with u!!! i support what u say....

[susan alicia]

my thoughts exactly:

Originally Posted by wymanda

How sanctimonious of you, James!!

I thought that the church practiced forgiveness? . Obviously its lessons have not got through to you.

[lori]

Originally Posted by wymanda

How sanctimonious of you, James!!

I thought that the church practiced forgiveness? . Obviously its lessons have not got through to you.

Really! If the church practices forgiveness, there is no sinner to begin with. And on the premise all is forgotten and forgiven, then we don't even need churches. It's not religion for me, it's human consciousness, and what's right/wrong. Some memories do live longer than others.

[lori]

Originally Posted by wymanda

How sanctimonious of you, James!!

I thought that the church practiced forgiveness? . Obviously its lessons have not got through to you.

Really! I got the message pretty well, I thought it's church that put restrictions on forgiveness, in this case, someone's forgiveness is easier to obtain than others. Namely even money and power buy forgiveness more than a plain layman's. You think that big guy who gave Charles blessing would be giving blessing to an ordinary adulterous groom and bride. Take a hike.

[susan alicia]

from an interview with penny junor:

If you look back over the Kings and Queens of England, they`ve hardly been a straightlaced bunch! Why is it that we expect the Royal Family today to behave as paragons of virtue?
'That`s absolutely true. The hypocrisy really takes your breath away, because the rest of us are less moral, probably, than we have been for centuries, and yet we expect our Royal Family suddenly to be paragons of virtue. It`s terrible hypocrisy. Why? I simply don`t know. Again I think it`s the media. I think Kings and Queens of old could behave as they chose and very few people really knew about it. There was no instant communication, it wasn`t whizzed around the world in seconds in glorious technicolour. I think that`s probably what`s changed things.'

Originally Posted by lori

Really! I got the message pretty well, I thought it's church that put restrictions on forgiveness, in this case, someone's forgiveness is easier to obtain than others. Namely even money and power buy forgiveness more than a plain layman's. You think that big guy who gave Charles blessing would be giving blessing to an ordinary adulterous groom and bride. Take a hike.

[lori]

This penny dude is crap. You don't compare historical figure from today's politics. The kings and queens of the HISTORY had absolute power to do whatever they wanted to without being subject to anyone's standard. Today's constitutional monarch has to answer to people. Why indeed that we expect the Royal Family today to behave as paragons of virtue? Simply because we can. Prerogative, yes, and for a change. And for your information, the rest of us are not less moral, your hearing more incidents do not mean less had been done in the past.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by james

I, for one, feel very confused, let down and angry about the current situation and, as a result, no longer feel able to support the British Monarchy as things stand.

The Monarchy is an institution, not a person. Those of us who give or feel loyalty to the Crown will continue to do so.
.

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Prince Charles and Camilla attend Sunday Service today,the first photo from Getty:

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Reina

I don't care what it would have taken for her not to receive the titles and status. They should have done it. Anyway...I am just thankful to the Founding Fathers...

I don't know how many times it has been stated in these forums, but I suppose it needs to be repeated, yet again:

Under British common law a woman takes the name and titles of her husband.
That's pretty simple and straightforward.

To deny Camilla the titles of her husband would require special legislation. So the "they" in the above quote means the government, or more particularly the British Parliament.

I am unsure of the relevance the Founding Fathers of the USA have with the marriage of a British couple in 2005.
.

[HMQueenElizabethII]

The Duchess of Cornwall will attend the 60th Anniversary of the end of the Second World War:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...572358,00.html

[GrandDuchess]

Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII

The Duchess of Cornwall will attend the 60th Anniversary of the end of the Second World War:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...572358,00.html

Great news! I will be looking forward to these commemorations, it seems like they are planning a very nice and dignified way (the schedule for the anniversary) to mark this day.

[wymanda]

Originally Posted by lori

Really! I got the message pretty well, I thought it's church that put restrictions on forgiveness, in this case, someone's forgiveness is easier to obtain than others. Namely even money and power buy forgiveness more than a plain layman's. You think that big guy who gave Charles blessing would be giving blessing to an ordinary adulterous groom and bride. Take a hike.

My understanding is that the service of blessing & prayers of penitance are available to ALL divorcees who remarry. It wasn't something that was thrown together to make Charles look good with the public. The Archbishop acted as his own consience told him he should. Had he wished to be "bought" Charles & Camilla would have had the full blown church wedding.

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Originally Posted by GrandDuchess

Great news! I will be looking forward to these commemorations, it seems like they are planning a very nice and dignified way (the schedule for the anniversary) to mark this day.

So i think maybe this year the Duchess of Cornwall will attend Trooping the Colour too.