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

[Russophile]

Saudi's are always over the top. I think they're gaudy as well. But that's just me!

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by Lozange

While I agree Prince Charles seems more comfortable with himself, married to Camilla Parker-Bowles, I would have some reticence still in considering the latter worthy of the role of Queen Consort, let alone be referred to as Princess of Wales. It's pushing the envelope of moral rectitude and it's a bit morbid actually, to appear to be elevated over a "dead body".

Is it not morbid to allow the memory of deceased ex-wife who at death only held the courtesy title of princess by marriage to keep the current wife of the monarch from taking her place at his side and holding a title that is, by all rights, hers as the wife? Additionally, the title of Princess of Wales did not belong to Diana, it is the title of the wife of each and every PoW; Camilla became HRH The Princess of Wales as soon as she married Charles. She simply chooses to not use the title because of its close association with the memory of her predecessor. However, I will say that had Diana lived, I do think that Charles would have married Camilla anyway. Would there have still be opposition to her using the title of Queen then?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Lozange

While I agree Prince Charles seems more comfortable with himself, married to Camilla Parker-Bowles,

Charles is not married to "Camilla Parker Bowles". Miss Camilla Shand was married to Andrew Parker Bowles and is now married to The Prince of Wales.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Saudi's are always over the top. I think they're gaudy as well. But that's just me!

And she only wore it once, in a town and country where people enjoy great bling and gaudiness if it is the real stuff.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

However, I will say that had Diana lived, I do think that Charles would have married Camilla anyway. Would there have still be opposition to her using the title of Queen then?

I'm afraid there would have been. Orchestrated by Diana and supported by her reporter friends. Because I don't think Diana liked to be upstaged and that would have happened once Camilla became Charles' queen. Just imagine William's marriage if Charles was already king and Diana alive... It makes me shudder - poor bride. Okay, this is not going to happen as life went a different path, but still...

Plus I believe Diana did never really realise that she only got her position as a princess due to her marriage to Charles. She believed she was born to be a princess, no matter how she achieved this position (as she told on the Morton tapes) and that attitude led to a lot of decisions which were wrong.

[Fabulous Fake]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Charles is not married to "Camilla Parker Bowles". Miss Camilla Shand was married to Andrew Parker Bowles and is now married to The Prince of Wales.

As far as I'm aware Camilla was Parker Bowles when she married The Prince Of Wales.
Wasn't that the name she used for the marriage?

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I'm afraid there would have been. Orchestrated by Diana and supported by her reporter friends. Because I don't think Diana liked to be upstaged and that would have happened once Camilla became Charles' queen. Just imagine William's marriage if Charles was already king and Diana alive... It makes me shudder - poor bride. Okay, this is not going to happen as life went a different path, but still...

Plus I believe Diana did never really realise that she only got her position as a princess due to her marriage to Charles. She believed she was born to be a princess, no matter how she achieved this position (as she told on the Morton tapes) and that attitude led to a lot of decisions which were wrong.

Really, Jo? I hate to think that she would not have matured enough in her own life to contiinue to behave that way. What if Diana had married Hasnat Khan (because we all know she was totally in love with him)--he seems like such a "level" kind of man...
I don't see how she could have orchestrated such a movement without appearing to be extremely petty. It would have brought her bad press, don't you think?
I do think you make an excellent point about Diana never realy realized that she got her position through marriage--and she fought to keep that HRH until the bitter end of the divorce. While I do think it was right to be taken away, I also feel badly for her. Since she was 20 she was a Princess, and an HRH. It was her identity. Interestly, since Camilla's identity seemed to be wrapped around just being with Charles--something Diana wanted but couldn't ever really get. What a connundrum!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Fabulous Fake

As far as I'm aware Camilla was Parker Bowles when she married The Prince Of Wales.
Wasn't that the name she used for the marriage?

I'm not sure about that. But I don't think it is okay to still call her Camilla Parker Bowles when the use of that name ended the moment of her new marriage. It's like when the newspaper claimed that the Aga Khan married the princess of Leiningen when the lady in question was just a divorced princess of Leiningen but born Miss Homey (I think?).

[Fabulous Fake]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I'm not sure about that. But I don't think it is okay to still call her Camilla Parker Bowles when the use of that name ended the moment of her new marriage. It's like when the newspaper claimed that the Aga Khan married the princess of Leiningen when the lady in question was just a divorced princess of Leiningen but born Miss Homey (I think?).

OK.I see what you mean now.

Of course we should now refer to her as The Duchess of Cornwall.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Is it not morbid to allow the memory of deceased ex-wife who at death only held the courtesy title of princess by marriage to keep the current wife of the monarch from taking her place at his side and holding a title that is, by all rights, hers as the wife? Additionally, the title of Princess of Wales did not belong to Diana, it is the title of the wife of each and every PoW; Camilla became HRH The Princess of Wales as soon as she married Charles. She simply chooses to not use the title because of its close association with the memory of her predecessor. However, I will say that had Diana lived, I do think that Charles would have married Camilla anyway. Would there have still be opposition to her using the title of Queen then?

Well, I think the Archbishop of Canterbury would have had something to say about the marriage of a Prince of Wales with a living ex-wife remarrying. Technically, Charles was a widower in the eyes of the church.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I think that the "problem" might be that the Queen is more restrained in her fashion and jewelry than her predecessors (who certainly thought more was better) and that makes Camilla look over the top. Although I still don't like that huge diamond necklace the Saudis gave Camilla.

Are you really saying that YOU would have turned it down or refused to wear it!

Originally Posted by lozange

It's pushing the envelope of moral rectitude and it's a bit morbid actually, to appear to be elevated over a "dead body"

That view would certainly make things very awkward for the 1000's of women who married widowers. What do you suggest their wives are called? Lady X the 2nd or the Red Lady?

Originally Posted by FabulousFake

As far as I'm aware Camilla was Parker Bowles when she married The Prince Of Wales.
Wasn't that the name she used for the marriage?

It would probably have been Parker Bowles on the certificate but the actual ceremony does not involve surnames and we never heard any mention of her reverting to her maiden name. However, she didn't marry the Prince of Wales, she married Charles Philip Arthur George.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

It would probably have been Parker Bowles on the certificate but the actual ceremony does not involve surnames and we never heard any mention of her reverting to her maiden name.

Skydragon, what I meant was that if the media or anyone else has a reason to use a different name from that that Camilla has today, they should not use the Parker Bowles surname but the one she was born with. I think it's okay to use the current name or, in some cases, the maiden name but not one acquired and gotten rid of through divorce. For example widowed Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy became Jacqueline Bouvier Onassis after her marriage to Aristoteles Onassis. And her sister Lee Bouvier Canfield became Lee Bouvier Princess Radziwill after her divorce from Michael Canfield and remarriage, but when she divorced Prince Radziwill and married again, she, at least IMHO, stopped being Princess Radziwill.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Skydragon, what I meant was that if the media or anyone else has a reason to use a different name from that that Camilla has today, they should not use the Parker Bowles surname but the one she was born with. I think it's okay to use the current name or, in some cases, the maiden name but not one acquired and gotten rid of through divorce.

Jo I agree with you 100% and it always puzzles me as to why a divorced woman is allowed to 'hang on' to the name of a man she is no longer married to. Although happily married for very many years, I still use my maiden and married name, but never that of my first husband who died.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by scooter

Well, I think the Archbishop of Canterbury would have had something to say about the marriage of a Prince of Wales with a living ex-wife remarrying. Technically, Charles was a widower in the eyes of the church.

No Charles was NOT a widower, this discussion has come up before and I posted the relevant links to the official Church of England statements on divorce and remarriage. The CoE recognises civil divorce, therefore Charles was a divorcee from 1996, according to the official church documents he ( and along with any other CoE divorcees) was to be considered a single man in the event of a remarriage. At the time of his marriage to Camilla he was considered a divorcee not a widower as he was not married in the eyes of the church from 1996 onwards. The fact that his former wife died in 1997 did not make him a widower as he was not married to her, in the eyes of the church since the church recognised his civil divorce. He was a single man.

Again according to official CoE documents, it is up to the individual CoE minister if they are prepared to give a church wedding to divorcee. There is no prohibition on church weddings just a moral conscience decision by the individual minister. ( The preferred option according to the church documents is if the divorcee (s) have a civil marriage and then a church blessing which is what Charles and Camilla did) We will never know whether the Archbishop of Canterbury would have married the POW to a woman whose husband was still alive, as no permission was asked for a church wedding so therefore none was refused!

The official CoE documents relating to divorce and remarriage are all available on line, please don't keep perpetuating the myth that Charles was considered a widower, he wasn't, his civil divorce was recognised, he was a divorcee as was Camilla. ( Catholics do not recognise civil divorce, CoE do)

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by scooter

Well, I think the Archbishop of Canterbury would have had something to say about the marriage of a Prince of Wales with a living ex-wife remarrying. Technically, Charles was a widower in the eyes of the church.

So what are you saying? As long as Diana was alive Charles couldn't remarry? His divorce was recognized and he was married and then had a church blessing. What would Diana being alive have to do with anything? He was still divorced, he was treated as a divorced man.
Are you also saying that if Diana were still alive that Camilla would not be able to become Queen?