Camilla & Charles: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Camilla's full style is Her Royal Highness, The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland

Yes, NOW she is. We were discussing her name at the time leading up to the engagement. On the invitation in the DVD, it says Mrs. Camillia Parker-Bowles. That's all I was saying.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by scooter

Both the book 'Life with the Queen' and the DVD a' Year at Windsor' cover the wedding in some detail and each refers to the bride as Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles many times. s

Having sat through many civil marriages, it really is immaterial what name is used before, at the actual ceremony it is only the forenames of the bride and groom that are used.

[scooter]

I'm just saying this was the name she had on the invitation. Also, as to why a divorced woman might keep her previous huband's name is if she had children with him, as did Camilla, who have that last name (much simpler when dealing with schools, doctors etc). Also, Jo made the analogy to Jacqueline B.K.O. I live in NYC area as did 'Jackie'. The papers,magazines, etc almost invariably discribed her as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Just be glad they dont call her Camilla Rosemary Shand Parker-Bowles Mountbatten-Windsor Princess, Duchess, etc. You could die of old age trying to get it all out!

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by scooter

"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, was known to have had severe reservations about the union, even though he agreed, after private consultations with the Queen, to conduct the service of blessing (or dedication)in St George's Chapel following the civil ceremony outside the castle walls. If the Archbishop's expression was anything to go by during the service, it appeared that he had retained his doubts and was merely performing a duty demanded by the Queen of the senior cleric of the Church of England.

But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a Church wedding could be arranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and that the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment. But Prince Charles did have a private audience with the Archbishop in the weeks leading to the ceremony and persuaded His Graceto allow a Windsor blessing in spite of his obvious misgivings. The Archbishop was adamant that the service in St George's Chapel should be one of repentance on the part of the bride and bridegroom, not a gloification of the marriage, which is why on the day itself, he refused to wear his full State robes and appeared instead in the simplest vestments he possessed, with the full agreement of the Queen."

Wow! Another good argument for separation of Church and State.

I wonder if Dr Williams is the reason for the announcement that Camilla will just be Princess Consort.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Wow! Another good argument for separation of Church and State.

I wonder if Dr Williams is the reason for the announcement that Camilla will just be Princess Consort.

I actually admire Dr. Williams for sticking to his principles. Too many times churches nowadays don't seem to follow the very principles the church is grounded on. No one has to be a church leader but if they've chosen to follow that path, obviously they should hold to the principles of their church.

Why Charles needs to be head of the church in this day and age though, I don't know. I never get the impression his beliefs fit into too well with traditional Christianity. He's entitled to believe whatever he wants but any contradictions between Charles' values and the church's values does pose a problem, given that he's supposed to be the head of the church someday.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Wow! Another good argument for separation of Church and State.

I wonder if Dr Williams is the reason for the announcement that Camilla will just be Princess Consort.

Yes, in America we call it the first amendment to the consitution, specifically banning the establishment of a State religion. While there are some nutty religious types (JMO) who would like it disallowed in this country, I think it's a nifty thing to have. In case you couldn't tell, they made us study this(consitutional law) ad nauseum from junior high/secondary school to post graduate school.

Dont know about the Pss Consort part and AofC.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by rmay286

Too many times churches nowadays don't seem to follow the very principles the church is grounded on.

Not to be too flippant, but in Dr. Williams' case, he's a member of a church that was founded to allow a famous royal to marry more than once.

[Elspeth]

I doubt the Princess Consort business has to do with Dr Williams. At least, I really hope it doesn't. If the Archbishop gets to decide who is or isn't suitable to be crowned, we're in a very bad way (especially considering some of the crowned monarchs and consorts we've had). That's one thing which might have gained Camilla so much sympathy that it would have backfired on the Church, which isn't the most popular institution in the country as it is.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by wbenson

Not to be too flippant, but in Dr. Williams' case, he's a member of a church that was founded to allow a famous royal to marry more than once.

Not flippant at all. Historically there was a lot of politics involved in marriages, both royal and aristrocratic. Marriage had more to do with the politics of power than undying love (or lust), and an heir was more important than either. It must also be noted that the separation of the church and state was hardly possible since the King at that time was effectively both the state and the head of the church. As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, he has publically demonstrated that he perceives the Anglican Communion in a far more radically liberal way than most sitting in his pews. Seen in the light of his public sackcloth and ashes approach to the wedding of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, IMHO he demonstrates a breathtaking hypocrisy.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by scooter

Yes, NOW she is. We were discussing her name at the time leading up to the engagement. On the invitation in the DVD, it says Mrs. Camillia Parker-Bowles. That's all I was saying.

Scooter, I replied to Lozange who said:
"Originally Posted by Lozange: While I agree Prince Charles seems more comfortable with himself, married to Camilla Parker-Bowles, "

And as Charles is not Charles Parker Bowles and The Duchess of Cornwall was not born Miss Parker Bowles, it is impossible for Charles to be married to Camilla Parker Bowles.

That's all I wanted to state. No comment from me on the way Camilla is named on the DVD in the time before she married Charles.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by scooter

I'm just saying this was the name she had on the invitation. Also, as to why a divorced woman might keep her previous huband's name is if she had children with him, as did Camilla, who have that last name (much simpler when dealing with schools, doctors etc). Also, Jo made the analogy to Jacqueline B.K.O. I live in NYC area as did 'Jackie'. The papers,magazines, etc almost invariably discribed her as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Just be glad they dont call her Camilla Rosemary Shand Parker-Bowles Mountbatten-Windsor Princess, Duchess, etc. You could die of old age trying to get it all out!

Much more sense for the children to have the fathers surname and the woman to keep her own! All of my children have their fathers surname, just not the same father and I have not had any problems with schools, doctors or anything else.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

And as Charles is not Charles Parker Bowles and The Duchess of Cornwall was not born Miss Parker Bowles, it is impossible for Charles to be married to Camilla Parker Bowles.

I know women who have chosen to keep the name of a previous (living) husband after they get married again. It's usually because they want to keep the name of their children.

I don't think Camilla did, though.

[scooter]

Or for example, I have friends/relatives who were sucessful professionally/famous or wellknown for what ever reason and chose to keep the name. But, most often, it' s that they have children with that surname. We have had conversations in the past about how Camilla and Andrew's daughter in law Sarah chose to keep her maiden name and people (some of the same) were very offended when I suggested that she might want to keep her own family name. To each his/her own, dont you think?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by scooter

Or for example, I have friends/relatives who were sucessful professionally/famous or wellknown for what ever reason and chose to keep the name. But, most often, it' s that they have children with that surname. We have had conversations in the past about how Camilla and Andrew's daughter in law Sarah chose to keep her maiden name and people (some of the same) were very offended when I suggested that she might want to keep her own family name. To each his/her own, dont you think?

You're right, as long as it is the person him/herself to get to make this choice. What we are discussing here is that while the former Camilla Shand took on her husband's name after each wedding, she still is called by some by a somewhat notorious name. Now that is unnecessary, don't you think?

[Warren]

We now have something like 17 posts arguing about Camilla's pre-DOC surname.
Could we return to the thread topic please.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Warren

We now have something like 17 posts arguing about Camilla's pre-DOC surname.
Could we return to the thread topic please.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

Warren, you're right. And at least they don't call her that spiteful "mistress" anymore.