The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 09-17-2007, 06:25 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Charles waited until after 2002 to marry Camilla, and I believe he did this in order to spare any unnecessary trauma to the Queen Mother's final years. So he waited until the mourning period was more than respectably passed to begin putting the wheels in motion of making Camilla his wife.
It wasn't that the Queen Mother was an obstacle, or that anyone in the royal family objected to it. As BeatrixFan says, the divorce taboo was ancient history at the highest levels. Yet the Queen Mother was from another time, an Charles loving her dearly, he waited until she was gone before doing something which he knew must be painful for her to accept.
I also think the "second class" theory is very likely, in the cases of both Camilla and Wallis.
__________________

__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 09-17-2007, 07:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,534
Oh, I think you are both right. Yes, Charles could marry her, but she would never fall into the parameters of a "first class citizen" Yes, Wallis would have found the same situation. I think, that to a certain degree, both ladies did not find it unacceptable to remain unmarried, because marriage would not be the panacea their husbands thought it would be.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 09-18-2007, 08:24 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Well, the marriage is not morganatic, which certainly was the case with The Duchess being denied what was rightfully hers by George VI. And Charles is not The Sovereign, so it didn't raise the same constitutional issues faced by Edward in marrying against the advice of the Government.

However, if Camilla becomes HRH The Princess Consort, rather than HM Queen Camilla, she will most definitely be a morganatic wife since Parliament would have to intervene to legally deny her right to share her husband's rank and title.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 09-18-2007, 08:39 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
If anyone who knew that David had mumps as an adult, they could justifiably assume that David was sterile after that point.

The temperature that the mumps cause is so high it kills all the sperm in an adult male. For little boys whose bodies haven't yet begun to produce sperm, their future ability to reproduce is not affected.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 09-18-2007, 08:39 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Well, the marriage is not morganatic
Legally maybe not but in all other aspects it seems to be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 09-18-2007, 08:45 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
I doubt it. There's not really any reason why any Royal shouldn't marry whoever they want to these days.
Well that's pretty much what is going on with the royal families in Europe today but I don't think the royal families are quite used to it yet. I admit I don't get a warm and fuzzy by a young hotshot heir to the throne marrying the first girl he falls in love with because she's the one.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 09-18-2007, 08:54 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I have to agree. Though I said there's no reason why any Royal shouldn't marry who they want to, I don't agree with that though it is the case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 09-18-2007, 09:20 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
There are rational objections to some royal matches. For instance, an overtly politically controversial match like a prince/princess and a Nazi "Skinhead" could be considered a rational objection. I think, however, that the objections to Wallis and Camilla have been irrationally based on stereotypes or prejudice.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 09-18-2007, 10:11 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
I don't think Charles and Camilla's situation is anything like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's situation. The Church, the Government and the majority of the establishment decided that Edward VIII was too much of a liability and Wallis was a convenient way of getting rid of him. Charles and Camilla have been allowed to marry and Camilla has been allowed to become a kind of Royal, even though IMO it's a second class one. If the two situations were at all similar I think we'd have seen Charles giving up his rights to the throne before a marriage could take place.
we refering to their feelings for one another. but you're right, things have changed a lot since the windsors.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 09-18-2007, 08:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
I don't know if I can agree there are not "rational" objections to either Wallis or Camilla as royal consorts.

Wallis was not an honourable woman, given what we know now about her carrying on with another man while still married and seeing Edward at the same time. She certainly was greedy and self-indulgent with no real sense of the sacrifices that come with being a member of the royal family.

Camilla was the mistress of The Prince of Wales for years, including while she was married to Andrew Parker-Bowles. While that doesn't excuse Diana's own comforts outside her marriage, it certainly raises questions of character that are uncomfortable for the monarchy and its future Sovereign.

In my opinion, the British monarchy has to demonstrate mystique and a sense of duty to survive. Once everyone starts marrying the risque girl down the street and getting divorces left and right, it diminishes their standing and makes it a common affair.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 09-19-2007, 05:04 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
The greatest monarchs have had strange bedfellows. Look at Henry VIII....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 09-19-2007, 06:20 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
quite normal for the age actually, some marriages where arranged and others were based on lust.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
The greatest monarchs have had strange bedfellows. Look at Henry VIII....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 09-19-2007, 08:48 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Wallis was not an honourable woman, given what we know now about her carrying on with another man while still married and seeing Edward at the same time. She certainly was greedy and self-indulgent with no real sense of the sacrifices that come with being a member of the royal family.
i can't see a difference....both women carried on extra marital affairs.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 09-19-2007, 02:04 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
As to extra-marital affairs......... these were engaged in by Camilla, Wallis, Diana, Prince Charles, King Edward VII, King George IV, his wife Princess Caroline too I think, Charles II, James II, probably William III as well, needless to mention Henry VIII.... the list goes on and on. But obviously the kings of centuries past aren't held to the same standards as the royal wives of XX and XXI. Do you see my point about hypocritical, irrational objections?
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 09-19-2007, 09:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,534
Sorry, Caroline was miserable and married to a cad, as Diana, what they did wasn't correct, but their husbands were not worth spit. Wallis was a trollop and David loved her to all ends. Charles was married to Catherine of Braganza who did not produce any children and just wasn't his type, also not an excuse. Charles was the "Father of his Country", literally with many illigitimate children. James was not much better. At least his wasn't divorced, not that I care, from his first wife, Anne Hyde, she died then he married Mary of Modena. As for the present Duchess of Cornwall, she had no problem having affairs before and after and during her marriage. I don't care, as she represents nothing to me. They were all held, at their times, even Henry VIII, as problems. Their just wasn't the media coverage as today. People also often could not read in those times, so how could they know.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 09-19-2007, 09:39 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Right! I was just pointing out what you are also implying here, that people have affairs, as they have done since the earliest times of humankind, for many reasons and it's hypocritical to judge them to be "bad" or "unworthy" or something because of these things. Prince Charles, just to use one example, is much more than accountable for his extra-marital affair; he is simply much more in the sense of being an incredible person, brilliant and progressive, and imo worthy of being a king! Just like Diana, she was more than just her affairs and her problems, still worthy of admiration imo. Having affairs simply does not make anyone good or bad. It's too simplistic. People, that is everyone in the world, deserves to have more credit for themselves, or at least the benefit of the doubt (excepting abusive, cruel, sadistic kind of people, naturally).
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 09-19-2007, 10:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,534
Oh, quite right. I, personally, find that people who can betray a spouse can betray anything. Diana's getting back was no better. In fact, it was sadder. It basically said she knew better. I don't find Charles incredible in anyway, just a guy who was born in the right bed and he should be king, he hasn't done anything that many past kings have done. Why anyone would question his right to be king seems silly to me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 09-20-2007, 08:03 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 39
Duke of Windsor's son

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I think that claim has been discussed here before and generally considered to be untrue.
There was an actor in England who was reputed to be the Duke of Windsor's son, his name was Timothy Ward Seely. I do not know that the DOW had any children and I very much doubt that either Wallis or David had a child. But who can really say. I do know that the Duchess had a hysterectomy after she was married and she had had no children with either of her other two husbands or with her several lovers. When asked why they had no children she would blithely answer "because David is not 'heir conditioned."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 02-08-2008, 04:05 PM
Jeniann's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia Beach, United States
Posts: 57
Has anyone read The Last of the Duchess by Caroline Blackwood? I read it recently and it's a really good book, but depressing. It's about the last few years of Wallis Simpson's life and it's very sad how her lawyer controlled her. Does anyone know how true it is?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 02-08-2008, 07:48 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeniann View Post
Has anyone read The Last of the Duchess by Caroline Blackwood? I read it recently and it's a really good book, but depressing. It's about the last few years of Wallis Simpson's life and it's very sad how her lawyer controlled her. Does anyone know how true it is?
I've heard that's true. Also, you might want to check out Greg King's The Duchess of Windsor: The uncommon life of Wallis Simpson.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, britain, duchess of windsor, duke of windsor, edward viii, king edward viii, wallis simpson


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 15 11-20-2014 11:41 AM
Duchess Of Windsor Jewellery micas Royal Jewels 200 12-12-2013 11:34 PM
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor Duchess Royal Library 106 07-15-2013 11:49 AM
The Duke of Windsor & Wallis Simpson - 3 June 1937 aussiechick12 Historical Royal Weddings 25 06-26-2013 04:27 PM
The Duke And Duchess Of Gloucester: Oct 03-Jan 06 A.C.C. Current Events Archive 132 01-13-2006 10:37 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:33 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]