Camilla and The Public

[MARG]

Not quite sure where this fits in with the Duchess of Winsor being robbed?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Make that two of us MARG!

Far from being "robbed", the multi-divorced adventuress Wallis Warfield Simpson of Baltimore MD did very well for herself in the end.

Camilla is nothing like that woman, lucky for the BRF!

 

[Dman]

I was just saying that the Duchess of Windsor was robbed (yes I said robbed) of the opportunity to be a consort and gain a connection with the public. Camilla has been given that opportunity.

 

[HRHHermione]

I was just saying that the Duchess of Windsor was robbed (yes I said robbed) of the opportunity to be a consort and gain a connection with the public. Camilla has been given that opportunity.

The a Duchess of Windsor was a nazi sympathizer in love with a weak man. While the reasons he stepped down were probably unfair, it was most certainly the best thing that could have happened to the country.

I think it does Camilla a disservice, this comparison


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Dman]

The a Duchess of Windsor was a nazi sympathizer in love with a weak man. While the reasons he stepped down were probably unfair, it was most certainly the best thing that could have happened to the country.

I think it does Camilla a disservice, this comparison


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Okay, that hasn't been proven true, but I'm dropping that. I'm just saying that a path was paved for Camilla. It's not a disservice to her.

 

[MARG]

uee

People need to see things in context. In the 1930's a divorced woman was ruined forever and would never be fully accepted in society proper, let alone re-married or crowned Queen Consort in Westminster Abbey.

Just as Prince Albert would never have been able to marry a real (think Catherine Middleton) Commoner in the 1920's. The marriage of Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923 in Westminster Abbey was pushing the envelope more than a little. Albert's marriage to someone not of royal birth was considered a modernising gesture.

Time has marched on and Princess Margaret didn't marry royalty and neither did Charles, Anne, Andrew or Edward. Today the Queen's sister and three eldest children have all divorced, which is pretty much in line with the social mores of our time. Whether we should take it as a lesson that royals should only marry royals or just that's life these days is a question without an answer.

Consequently, Charles and Camilla who married in 2005, are a whole other kettle of fish and for all the rubbish written about them in the DM et al, the notion of Camilla and Wallis being in the same situation is rarely argued.

 

[soapstar]

I've deleted and edited a few off-topic posts and moved the rest to the Distribution of jewels in the British royal family thread.

 

[Mbruno]

People need to see things in context. In the 1930's a divorced woman was ruined forever and would never be fully accepted in society proper, let alone re-married or crowned Queen Consort in Westminster Abbey.

Even today, I'm not sure how the Church of England would feel about crowning a divorced Queen Consort at Westminster Abbey. I assume that might still be an issue for Camlla.

Just as xPrince Albert would never have been able to marry a real (think Catherine Middleton) Commoner in the 1920's. The marriage of Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923 in Westminster Abbey was pushing the envelope more than a little. Albert's marriage to someone not of royal birth was considered a modernising gesture.

Time has marched on and Princess Margaret didn't marry royalty and neither did Charles, Anne, Andrew or Edward. Today the Queen's sister and three eldest children have all divorced, which is pretty much in line with the social mores of our time. Whether we should take it as a lesson that royals should only marry royals or just that's life these days is a question without an answer.

Consequently, Charles and Camilla who married in 2005, are a whole other kettle of fish and for all the rubbish written about them in the DM et al, the notion of Camilla and Wallis being in the same situation is rarely argued.

 

[MARG]

Even today, I'm not sure how the Church of England would feel about crowning a divorced Queen Consort at Westminster Abbey. I assume that might still be an issue for Camilla.

Well since they now consecrate divorced clergy as Bishops, I don't think that's going to be much of an issue by the time HM dies.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Well since they now consecrate divorced clergy as Bishops, I don't think that's going to be much of an issue by the time HM dies.

Are the divorced Bishops remarried?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Some are CoE bishop given permission to remarry after divorce | Anglican Ink 2015 ©

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Yeah, that takes time. It is a process of "investigation" to make sure you are not a womaniser or whatever. Can you imagine that being done on Charlie and Camm?

 

[Roslyn]

Haven't Charles & Camilla been given a clean slate by the Church as a result of that ceremony of blessing and thanksgiving after they were married, in which they admitted they had been naughty children and promised to be good in future? Surely the Archbishop who conducted that service would have had in mind that a likely consequence of the Prince of Wales' marriage would be that his wife would become Queen and be crowned at a coronation.

Though now I'm wondering whether there was some deal struck with the C of E and that is the reason behind the "intention" clause.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

You could be right. It does sound logical.

Would the rest of the church hierarchy be happy with that? And would their laws allow it?

 

[MARG]

Haven't Charles & Camilla been given a clean slate by the Church as a result of that ceremony of blessing and thanksgiving after they were married, in which they admitted they had been naughty children and promised to be good in future? Surely the Archbishop who conducted that service would have had in mind that a likely consequence of the Prince of Wales' marriage would be that his wife would become Queen and be crowned at a coronation.

Though now I'm wondering whether there was some deal struck with the C of E and that is the reason behind the "intention" clause.

Yes they are married, yes they repented their sin for our edification and there's an end to it.

I introduced the point of allowing divorced Bishops to remarry to underline that even within the good old CofE, which so very many people claim to belong and who have never set foot over the threshold of a church, moves ever so slowly toward kindness.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

Marg, I don't profess to know how the church of England operates. I attend an Anglican church and forgiveness and love are the go but being seen as doing the right thing as well as being Christ like are likewise important.

Leading by example would mean that neither he nor she would be the ideal. That does not mean they are not forgiven or loved, just that others who may be walking a more "righteous" path should take up the job if they are to represent the church.

Perhaps this is not relevant with the English RF situation. I have no idea.

 

[lucien]

Some thruth...finally..."I have no idea"...Now,that's plain honest!Chapeau!

I don't understand the fuzz about the Title by any British,I mean really...a country where one out of three marriages end in divorce...How sad...How sad indeed there are so many thinking they're all about manners and protocol....Hilarious...Like an on-line version of Last of the Summer Wine & Mr.Bean in distress or the Christmass editions of Grumpy Old Bats!

 

[Pranter]

No one has the spine or will to call sin sin nowdays so we all walk around pretending everything someone does is good and ok and it's considered kind and nice if we just confirm them in their sinful behavior.

And we wonder why our countries are going to hell in a handbasket.


LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

Yes they are married, yes they repented their sin for our edification and there's an end to it.

Charles and Camilla never remarried in the Church. Again, I am not so sure the Church would crown her.

The point is moot though as Prince Charles, at least according to his current position, is not seeking that Camilla be crowned queen.

 

[Marty91charmed]

I came to like Camilla.She has slowly grown on me. What she did in her past was a sin (religiously speaking) but IMo in these 10 years she has proven a lot. She has proven she is worth more that to be a lover. She has proven with her work ethick, wit and politeness that the label "mistress" is not the only thing connected to her. She comes across as a kind and ironic woman who is fully aware of the public perception about her. She strikes me even as a humble lady. I suspect that she doens't even mind to be adressed one day as "Princess Consort" because IMO she know that back in the 2005 that was a smart decision. I don't know what people demands from her now... haven't these 10 years been enough to make ups' one mind? I am happy to say that I changed my mind about her. That my feelings changed from "distate", to indifference, until up to respect and appreciation.
Okay, just my 2 cents!

 

[Osipi]

Up until 2005 when Charles and Camilla married, the public actually had no clue of what Camilla was like outside of all the bad press and stories that surrounded her resulting from the infamous "War of the Wales". Throughout all of that mess, Camilla kept quiet and away from the press no matter what mud was slung at her. To me, remaining in the background and not retaliating against all the accusations and public furor that was directed at her showed a respect for Charles along with a strength of character that a lot of people wished they possessed.

Over the next 10 years through her dedication and support of Charles in every aspect of his life, we've come to "know" Camilla more as the person she really is. People are warming up to her because she is a warm, easy going person. She does her part for the Firm the best that she can and most importantly, she makes Charles happy. I honestly think people are starting to admire and respect Camilla for all the same reasons that Charles was initially drawn to her for.

Although there are many out there that cannot forget the past and still focus on the "Rottweiler" days, when I think about it, maybe that moniker isn't too far off the mark. A Rottweiler or just about any breed of dog perhaps are the best examples of unconditional love and loyalty a human being can experience.

 

[muriel]

Leading by example would mean that neither he nor she would be the ideal. That does not mean they are not forgiven or loved, just that others who may be walking a more "righteous" path should take up the job if they are to represent the church.

> I continue to be amused by this need to try and impose a standard of moral and social righteousness on members of the BRF that are no longer relevant in the UK.

> Divorce is common, if anything, marriage and remarriage are increasingly less relevant to most British peoples lives today.

> In my view, most people do not particularly care if a "couple" are married or not. Lets not forget this is a nation where people of the same sex have the same rights to marriage as one of different sexes.

I guess, in summary, I just don't think Charles and Camilla's marital history is scandalous in any way to the average Brit.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Regarding the Princess Consort designation, I'd never really had an opinion about it (except to wonder 'why not' have her be known as Queen?) until it just struck me how 'young' the appellation sounded and basically incongruous paired with King Charles. Imagine them being announced: HRH King Charles and The Princess Consort. It will sound like Charles wedded a sweet-young-thing in his dotage. Or is being accompanied by his daughter/niece.

But more to the point, it struck me how in-one's-face and front-and-center it places an unfortunate soap-opera drama from decades ago with a none-too-balanced first wife of Charles. Must Charles, but especially Camilla, drag that ball-and-chain forever?

 

[muriel]

Regarding the Princess Consort designation, I'd never really had an opinion about it (except to wonder 'why not' have her be known as Queen?) until it just struck me how 'young' the appellation sounded and basically incongruous paired with King Charles. Imagine them being announced: HRH King Charles and The Princess Consort. It will sound like Charles wedded a sweet-young-thing in his dotage. Or is being accompanied by his daughter/niece.

But more to the point, it struck me how in-one's-face and front-and-center it places an unfortunate soap-opera drama from decades ago with a none-too-balanced first wife of Charles. Must Charles, but especially Camilla, drag that ball-and-chain forever?

I think the solution to all of this would be King Charles, on Day 1, being advised by the PM of the day that his wife should keep and use the title of Queen. This can then be announced, and the matter ends there.

This would be similar, IMO, to QE2 being advised by Churchill that she could not continue to live at Clarence House, as hoped by HM and the DoE, and would have to live at BP.

 

[amaryllus]

I agree. Giving her a lesser title will keep the Royal family in an ugly past and forever remind people of it... This starts a new chapter and should start clean. I also agree other than a very small vocal minority and the usual trash tabloid nonsense what with mourning for The queen and the excitement and press hoopla over the Coronation no one is going to fixate on it.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Charles and Camilla never remarried in the Church.

Euhhh.... How do I interpret the words made bold below, spoken by the highest clergyman of the whole Anglican Church, during the wedding of the couple:

Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall stand before the Archbishop, who says: Charles and Camilla, you have committed yourselves to each other in marriage, and your marriage is recognised by law. The Church of Christ understands marriage to be, in the will of God, the union of a man and a woman, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till parted by death. Is this your understanding of the covenant and promise that you have made?

Husband and Wife: It is.

The Archbishop continues: Charles, have you resolved to be faithful to your wife, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live?

Husband: That is my resolve, with the help of God.

The Archbishop continues: Camilla, have you resolved to be faithful to your husband, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live?

Wife: That is my resolve, with the help of God.

The Archbishop continues: Heavenly Father, by thy blessing let these rings be to Charles and Camilla a symbol of unending love and faithfulness and of the promises they have made to each other; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Archbishop says to the Congregation: Charles and Camilla have here affirmed their Christian understanding and resolve in the marriage which they have begun. Will you, their families and friends, support and uphold them in their marriage, now and in the years to come?

All say: We will.




https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Press%20Pack.pdf.

 

[Osipi]

Now that totally sums it up nice and proper. The CoE does recognize and blesses the union of Charles and Camilla as husband and wife. What more needs done?

 

[Winnie]

Good Grief........There will always be some that think Diana a saint and Camilla a "tart mistress" while others say, Damn, that was old history, can't be changed so get over it. People will never completely agree. Almost like having a heated discussion about which religion is correct or which county is better place to raise a family. There will Never be total agreement. Camilla is now P. Charles wife. History books will record this. Depending on who is writing the book and what their preferred "slant" will be, [lets remember, all authors have their own agenda on what they want you to read as truth and facts] so Diana's place in history, other than giving birth to future king, will be noted. She will never be a Queen and Camilla probably will. Plus 300 years from now no one will actually care.

 

[sophie25]

Euhhh.... How do I interpret the words made bold below, spoken by the highest clergyman of the whole Anglican Church, during the wedding of the couple:

Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall stand before the Archbishop, who says: Charles and Camilla, you have committed yourselves to each other in marriage, and your marriage is recognised by law. The Church of Christ understands marriage to be, in the will of God, the union of a man and a woman, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till parted by death. Is this your understanding of the covenant and promise that you have made?

Husband and Wife: It is.

The Archbishop continues: Charles, have you resolved to be faithful to your wife, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live?

Husband: That is my resolve, with the help of God.

The Archbishop continues: Camilla, have you resolved to be faithful to your husband, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live?

Wife: That is my resolve, with the help of God.

The Archbishop continues: Heavenly Father, by thy blessing let these rings be to Charles and Camilla a symbol of unending love and faithfulness and of the promises they have made to each other; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Archbishop says to the Congregation: Charles and Camilla have here affirmed their Christian understanding and resolve in the marriage which they have begun. Will you, their families and friends, support and uphold them in their marriage, now and in the years to come?

All say: We will.




https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Press%20Pack.pdf.

They had to marry in the register office precisley because the COE couldn't do it as Andrew PB is still alive.

 

[amaryllus]

I think most reasonable people can admit Diana was no blameless paragon of virtues and Camilla is no scheming evil stepmother or witch in a fairytale. That kind of black and white thinking is a result of to much Harlequin reading and Disney movie watching IMO..

Camilla will be at his side whether she is called Queen or Princess or jumped up mistress. But calling her something other than queen consort won't bring DIana back or get revenge for the 'wrongs' done her according to some people.