The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #541  
Old 04-11-2008, 09:53 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,071
Saudi's are always over the top. I think they're gaudy as well. But that's just me!
__________________

  #542  
Old 04-11-2008, 11:20 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lozange View Post
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?
__________________

__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #543  
Old 04-12-2008, 05:42 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lozange View Post
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.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #544  
Old 04-12-2008, 05:45 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
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.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #545  
Old 04-12-2008, 05:50 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
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.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #546  
Old 04-12-2008, 11:35 AM
Fabulous Fake's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Blackpool, United Kingdom
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
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?
  #547  
Old 04-12-2008, 11:45 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
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!
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #548  
Old 04-12-2008, 11:46 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabulous Fake View Post
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?).
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #549  
Old 04-12-2008, 12:02 PM
Fabulous Fake's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Blackpool, United Kingdom
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
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.
  #550  
Old 04-12-2008, 03:46 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
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.
  #551  
Old 04-12-2008, 04:04 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle View Post
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozange View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabulousFake View Post
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.
  #552  
Old 04-12-2008, 04:16 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
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.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #553  
Old 04-12-2008, 05:22 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
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.
  #554  
Old 04-12-2008, 11:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
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)
  #555  
Old 04-12-2008, 11:44 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
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?
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #556  
Old 04-12-2008, 11:57 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post

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!
While this is true, I believe the CofE does specify the scenario of a second marriage to a partner who was a factor in the breakdown of the first marriage as one where it's recommended that a church wedding be refused. In this case, Camilla was a factor in the breakdown of the marriage of Charles and Diana, and I think that a second marriage in church, whether Diana was still alive or not, would have been highly ill advised.
  #557  
Old 04-13-2008, 11:02 PM
Duchess101's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SOME WHERE, United States
Posts: 5
Cool charles & camilla

This just my oppion Camilla is okay but she is not my favorite
Princess Diana was my favorite
  #558  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:53 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabulous Fake View Post
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?
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. Sometimes I think the most devoted fans of Camilla want to revise history so that the whole Parker Bowles chapter, which encompasses the years she was his *ahem* long time companion while married to her 1st husband, is erased. I have no need to begrudge people their happiness, but must we white wash history for that to happen?
  #559  
Old 04-14-2008, 01:14 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
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. Sometimes I think the most devoted fans of Camilla want to revise history so that the whole Parker Bowles chapter, which encompasses the years she was his *ahem* long time companion while married to her 1st husband, is erased. I have no need to begrudge people their happiness, but must we white wash history for that to happen?
When Camilla was Charles' bride, she of course was Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles. But since the wedding she is not longer Camilla Parker Bowles so why use a name that describes a period in her life that is over? Will Charles be forever called The Prince of Wales after he became the king? Do people name the queen The Princess Elizabeth? I don't think so. So why name Camilla still Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles? Or to quote Wiki:

Titles and styles
  • Legally: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (not used)
  • in Scotland: Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Rothesay
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
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #560  
Old 04-14-2008, 01:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
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?
I think it would have been much harder for the A of C to have gone along with the marriage blessing service (which I've read in several books he was already not keen on), if the POW's ex-wife were still alive. As she was not, they only had to concern themselves with CPB's divorce. If her first husband had not been alive, I think that Charles and Camilla would have married several years yearlier. Now before you start shouting at me that the Archbishop had no problem let me quote Brian Hoey in 'Life with the Queen', page 51:

"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."

This does not sound like someone who wanted to perform the ceremony, IMO. If the 1st wife was still alive, I'm not sure at all that the ceremony described above would have taken place.

BTW, this book is a very positive one on the Royal Family, written by an author (quoting from his bio) 'Known as a respected and authorotative chronicler of royal events, he has interviewed several members of the royal family for radio and television and has had many articles on royalty published in newspapers and magazines world wide. He is the author of numerous books on maritime and royal history. These includeThe Royal Yacht Brittania, Anne: The Princess Royal, The Queen and her Family, Prince William, and Snowdon'
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, relationships, royal duties


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 of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall: Visit to Portugal - March 28-30, 2011 Princess Agnes The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 45 04-06-2011 08:24 PM
Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Current Events 12: February-March 2006 Elspeth Current Events Archive 203 03-08-2006 12:30 PM




Popular Tags
andrew scott cooper ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coronation coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dictatorship duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy murder new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 october and november 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mette-marit fashion and style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises