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

[BellaFay]

Originally Posted by rawsilk

Are you quite sure about this? I believe that members of the Royal Family still have to ask the permission of the Queen before marrying. Does it matter whether this is actually law or custom? Could the Queen have prevented a marriage by law prior to the European Convention of Human Rights?

The Royal Marriage Act of 1772, as amended in 1956 (at the Queen's request and contrary to the advice of her Lord Chancellor who recommended its abolition), states that if a member of the Royal Family is older than 25yrs the Queen has to consult the Houses of Parliament before refusing approval for a marriage. Up to that age the Queen appears to have the right to refuse approval without any political consultation. That the Queen takes this power seriously has just been revealed by the public release of documents from the National Archives about a meeting the Queen had with her Privy Council (senior govt ministers) in 1976 in which they discussed for 30-minutes whether or not the Queen should give her approval to the 2nd marriage of her cousin the Earl of Harewood, who was 18th in line to the throne. If she took so much trouble over a cousin who was 18th in line she would definitely have wielded the power over her eldest son who was 1st in line! Furthermore, the Act states that if you marry without the Queen's approval you lose your job (i.e. you're removed from the line of succession) and any children you have are declared bastards - i.e. illegitimate.

[rawsilk]

Originally Posted by BellaFay

The Royal Marriage Act of 1772, as amended in 1956 (at the Queen's request and contrary to the advice of her Lord Chancellor who recommended its abolition), states that if a member of the Royal Family is older than 25yrs the Queen has to consult the Houses of Parliament before refusing approval for a marriage. Up to that age the Queen appears to have the right to refuse approval without any political consultation. That the Queen takes this power seriously has just been revealed by the public release of documents from the National Archives about a meeting the Queen had with her Privy Council (senior govt ministers) in 1976 in which they discussed for 30-minutes whether or not the Queen should give her approval to the 2nd marriage of her cousin the Earl of Harewood, who was 18th in line to the throne. If she took so much trouble over a cousin who was 18th in line she would definitely have wielded the power over her eldest son who was 1st in line! Furthermore, the Act states that if you marry without the Queen's approval you lose your job (i.e. you're removed from the line of succession) and any children you have are declared bastards - i.e. illegitimate.

If this is the history it seems remarkable, indeed, that the monarchy allowed European Union laws to interfere with longstanding British laws on their own traditions. Do you know in what way the EU laws were "incorporated" into British law so as to affect The Royal Marriage Act? Was it simply rendered null and void, or at least the part of it which dictated that the Queen could tell an adult whom to marry? Why would the EU law not, also, protect a member of the Royal Family from marrying a Catholic without losing his place in the line of succession if it is so powerful that it overrides British law? Is there a solicitor reading the board who knows anything about this?

[normalil]

Just found this thread. As a newcomer, here are my thoughts. Since the wedding, Charles seems to have reverted to the happy man of earlier times. As for Camilla, although always dignified and discreet, she is now the epitome of dignity. They seem to be happy and supportive of each other. Camilla seems to be taking on the role of the Queen mother, always there, always beautifully dressed, dignified and regal. The Queen mother never blabbed or gave an interview, maintaining the mystique of Royalty. Camilla seems to be following in her footsteps. My admiration for her knows no bounds...

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by milla Ca

Every Royal has the possibilitiy to get the´best material things´ , and does every Royal woman look as generous as Camilla does?

I apologise for not sharing you adoration of Duchess of Cornwall. I for one think that she looks plain typical English. Duchess of Cornwall may have fresh English countryside charm, which I have not got appreciation for. I prefer more ethereal ladies with the style, which I define as sophisticated simplicity. In my very subjective opinion, only Lady Gabriella Windsor has got this style, although she may not be defined as ethereal.
I am not sure what you mean by “look as generous as Camilla does”. I think that a fair number of royal ladies from the older generation look great.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I apologise for not sharing you adoration of Duchess of Cornwall. I for one think that she looks plain typical English. SHORTENED.

Many of the worlds top models come from England and it is slightly insulting to be generalised as 'plain typical English'. Obviously coming from different cultures, one would simply not make comparisons based on country. That would be similar to suggesting that all German ladies wear national custume and their hair in plaits, whereas they are among the most beautifully turned out women I know and not a plait in sight.

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I apologise for not sharing you adoration of Duchess of Cornwall. I for one think that she looks plain typical English...

I completely agree with you on this - Camilla looks like a 'plain typical English Lady'. And I love it.
We all may have different opinions, of course, but for me the Duchess represents the 'old school' of Royals, when everything was not turned into soap opera and Hollywood-type show.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Avalon

I completely agree with you on this - Camilla looks like a plain typical English Lady. And I love it.
We all may have different opinions, of course, but for me the Duchess represents the 'old school' of Royals, when everything was not turned into soap opera and Hollywood-type show.

Avalon, she may be seen as 'typically' English by some, but I object to allowing all English women being described as plain!

[Al_bina]

Dear Skydragon,
I have expressed my personal, thus, inherently biased opinion. I come from the country, where ladies have never earned such titles as “the most beautiful in the Central Asian region” or “one of the most beautiful in …” This privilege belongs to Russian ladies. Let them have it. Citizens of stable European democracies also like generailsing us in an insulting manner.

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Avalon, she may be seen as 'typically' English by some, but I object to allowing all English women being described as plain!

I certainly didn't mean it in any offencive meaning: having great respect for English women, I used 'plain' as 'typical'.
The Duchess does seem to be very English, and English Ladies are anything but plain (in negative meaning).

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Avalon

I completely agree with you on this - Camilla looks like a 'plain typical English Lady'. And I love it.

Dear Avalon,
Thanks for accurately grasping the meaning of "plain typical English". Yes, Duchess of Cornwall may be seen as a typical representative of the English nation. By the way, the word "plain" has got a meaning "genuine" in the Russian -English dictionary.

[BeatrixFan]

Al bina, plain can also mean that someone isn't attractive or good looking. It's one of those wierd English words. I think that's where the confusion has come from.

[Al_bina]

Thanks for additional explanation. I shall be very careful with choice of words in future. I always forget how sensitive deeply devoted fans can be.

[sirhon11234]

My opinion of Camilla has not changed at all after the wedding. I have some respect for Camilla for trying to re-invent her image and keeping her head held high when her name was under scrutiny but that is it. I've never been a fan of hers and never will.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Thanks for additional explanation. I shall be very careful with choice of words in future. I always forget how sensitive deeply devoted fans can be.

My objection wasn't connected as such to Camilla, devotee or not, it was the assumption that English women are all plain (ugly, unattractive), All nations have some 'unusual' looking women and all nations have some absolute crackers! The definition in the UK Oxford dictionary when pertaining to a woman is - ugly or unsophisticated, when speaking of a man - homely, which is another description of ugly! It is a standard British word, but with a variety of meanings, So perhaps you can see where I misunderstood your comment.

Avalon - I was only teasing you, I knew you didn't mean it in a negative way!

[reen]

I like Camilla a bit more now that I see how happy Charles is. He's a lot more centered, for lack of a better word. She looks more confident. They seem happy together, and that's a good thing. I don't like the circumstances that they found themselves in, but I don't feel I can judge them for what happened in their lives, as I'm not them.

[Lady-in-waiting25]

It may not be the most popular thing to say. I think that Camilla is a good match for Charles. Being born royal must be a very odd world to live and love into. Diana will always be my favorite but Camilla is better for Charles.

[jcbcode99]

Camilla is a wonderful match for Charles, and a wonderful addition to the Royal Family and to the monarchy as well. She is not given to hysterics or theatrics and she is who she is--Camilla. She seems to be steadfast person who knows who she is and where she comes from and who loves her husband and is devoted to being supportive of him. I say she is exactly who he has always needed and together they appear to be a well suited, witty, and happy couple who are comfortable with each other. Diana may have been more sequined and glamourous, but that is all she had on Camilla--things that don't have a whole of substance, in my own humble opinion.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

That would be similar to suggesting that all German ladies wear national custume and their hair in plaits, whereas they are among the most beautifully turned out women I know and not a plait in sight.

Except at Oktoberfest-season.... You get to wonder where all those plaits come from (it's fairly obvious where those dresses were bought - speciality fashion boutiques in Munich and the fashionable villages close to or in the Alps..)

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Thanks for additional explanation. I shall be very careful with choice of words in future. I always forget how sensitive deeply devoted fans can be.

At least you didn't use the word "sensible" instead of "sensitive" - that's another of those language mistakes us foreigners like to make...

But it's often useful to look up all meanings in a dictionary of a certain word, because it gives a clearer view on what is additionally implied with the word.
Plain for example can mean genuine, but genuine rather in the sense that it's simply so, other explanations of plain are: it is simple, flat, frugal or even ordinary, trivial or vulgar (that's what my dictionary has to say to it).

[andrew]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Camilla is a wonderful match for Charles, and a wonderful addition to the Royal Family and to the monarchy as well. She is not given to hysterics or theatrics and she is who she is--Camilla. She seems to be steadfast person who knows who she is and where she comes from and who loves her husband and is devoted to being supportive of him. I say she is exactly who he has always needed and together they appear to be a well suited, witty, and happy couple who are comfortable with each other. Diana may have been more sequined and glamourous, but that is all she had on Camilla--things that don't have a whole of substance, in my own humble opinion.

I very much agree with you! It's a pity that the circumstances were not favourable for them from the beginning.