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

[Elspeth]

I've just removed an off-topic conversation. Just a reminder that if you really need to spend your time at TRF chatting about political issues that have nothing to do with royalty, we have the chat room available.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator

 

[Moonmaiden23]

CaliforniaDreamin, did the PdeV article give any sources for this story that looked reasonable? Or was it the usual "sources close to..." stuff?

Hi Elspeth!

They allegedly interviewed the servants...or people that know the servants! The only photos they posted was the famous one from the early 70's that show a young Charles and Camilla standing in front of a tree staring into one another's eyes.

The second photo...the "proof" of trouble photo was taken a couple of weeks ago on the couple's third wedding anniversary. They are together at some public engagement. Neither is smiling and they are standing next to one another but looking in opposite directions.

So there you have it!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I would have thought that the Queen would be delighted if they divorced as she hasn't supported the marriage from day one. Over the last week the christening of Prince Edward's son at Windsor was scheduled for the one weekend that Charles & Camilla couldn't attend as they had engagements in Scotland. Neither do they seem to have been ivited to the Order of the Garter ceremony on April 23rd (although all the rest of the Queen's children were there) despite the fact that both Charles & Camilla were at engagements in nearby London. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rumours about the couple's marriage being promoted around the world were not the handiwork of the Queen's staff.

I don't think HM The Queen would be "delighted" at the thought of her eldest son and heir being a double divorcee.....when one remembers the anguish and chaos caused by the Prince of Wales first divorce, no one who supports the monarchy could ever want such a thing, even if they didn't want Charles and Camilla to marry.

A second divorce would effectively end all chances Charles has of one day becoming King.

 

[Skydragon]

They allegedly interviewed the servants...or people that know the servants!

The same drivel the D Mail came up with, with unnamed royal aides, unnamed close friends. They obviously reprinted the D Mail article, IMO.

A second divorce would effectively end all chances Charles has of one day becoming King.

The only thing that will end his chance of becoming King, is his death.

 

[Russophile]

A second divorce would effectively end all chances Charles has of one day becoming King.

I highly doubt that that will EVER come to pass. We're talking about a couple here who pretty much completes each other and each other sentences.

 

[BellaFay]

That is interesting--I was unaware that the Queen was unsupportive of her son's marriage to someone who makes him happy and comfortable with who he is. In fact, the fact that the Queen allows Camilla to wear her mother's jewels makes a fairly big statement, don't you think? It isn't as if Camilla is only wearing a sentimental piece or two--we have seen, among other things, two substantial emerald brooches which belonged to Queen Alexandra, the Delhi Durbar tiara which was in essence a coronation crown for Queen Mary while in India, and her mother's favorite tiara-the Boucheron honeycomb. In addition to all of those visible tokens which HM has allowed Camilla to wear, there is also the matter of the five strand greville necklace, a riviere of huge diamonds given to QEQM by her husband, King George VI, and let's not forget the token of love and promise--the engagment ring--a lovely trio of emerald cut diamonds--another piece belonging to the QUeen's mother.
If HM really didn't support the marriage, Camilla would not be wearing such sentimental and historic pieces. I know if I didn't like my daugher-in-law she would never get any of my mother's jewelry.

I was under the impression that the Greville necklace and ring were given directly to the then Queen (later the Queen Mother) by the Hon. Lady Greville in 1942 and that the KIng was so horrified at the extravagnt gift that he forbad his wife from wearing it in public. This is why the Queen Mother didn't wear the 5 strand necklace until the state visit of President De Gaulle in 1960, when her husband was long dead. I know from the Queen Mother's attitude to her picture collection that she was very protective of those works that had been given to her directly rather than to her husband & she regarded them as her personal property not part of the Royal Collection. So presumably Camilla was given the Greville ring as her engagement ring by Prince Charles because it was known that the Queen Mother wanted that. But we won't know what the Queen Mother's will actually said until William Shawcross's official biography of the Queen Mother is actually published. According to the publishers' website it was due to be published by Penguin books in October 2007, but never appeared. When I emailed Penguin in March 2008 to ask them why it hadn't appeared they told me that they were not publishing it but Macmillans were. But Macmillans website made no mention of them publishing any biography of the Queen Mother.

 

[jcbcode99]

Yes, the Greville necklace was given to the QUeen Mother by Lady Greville--but there was a riviere necklace made for the Queen by her husband that Camilla wore for her 60th birthday party--completely seperate. Regarding the ring used as the engagement ring--I have heard two differing stories regarding its origin: one is that the King gave it to her upon the birth of one of their children/grandchildren and I have heard that it was Mrs .Greville's as well. But, either way, it was still personal property of QEQM--along with all those brooches that the DoC is wearing. I just know that she's wearing the QM's jewels.
On another note--I have been waiting for the bio for I don't know how long now! WHen will it appear???

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The same drivel the D Mail came up with, with unnamed royal aides, unnamed close friends. They obviously reprinted the D Mail article, IMO.
The only thing that will end his chance of becoming King, is his death.

You may be right, you are citizen of the UK and in a better position to know. But do you really think the Prince could or would survive a SECOND divorce and be able to be crowned King?? Technically-in the eyes of the Church, he was a widower when he married Camilla.

I simply cannot see the Archbishop of Canterbury crowning Charles under those circumstances.

 

[wbenson]

I can't see the Archbishop being given an option.

And he wasn't a widower in the eyes of the church.

 

[Elspeth]

Surely the Archbishop has an option. He's the head of the church.

Now, if he does decide to take a stand and refuse to crown Charles, I think the repercussions for the church would be worse than the repercussions for the monarchy. But if the church isn't just an extension of Parliament, the Archbishop has to be free to make this sort of decision.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I can't see the Archbishop being given an option.

And he wasn't a widower in the eyes of the church.

He most certainly WAS a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce.

I remember reading in the NY Times that he signed the register as "widower" which is what he was in Church.

The divorce he received from the late Princess of Wales was considered a civil one....if she had still been alive he would have had to marry in the Church of Scotland as his older sister Anne did when she married Tim Laurence as a divorcee.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Surely the Archbishop has an option. He's the head of the church.

Now, if he does decide to take a stand and refuse to crown Charles, I think the repercussions for the church would be worse than the repercussions for the monarchy. But if the church isn't just an extension of Parliament, the Archbishop has to be free to make this sort of decision.

Thanks for clearing that up Elspeth-you are quite right. The Archbishop of Canterbury ALWAYS has a choice and anyone who thinks otherwise just needs to remember Edward VIII and the "woman he loved". He said straight out that he would not crown Edward if he married Mrs Simpson and there was no talk of forcing him to do a thing.

 

[wbenson]

He most certainly WAS a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce.

The CofE does recognize civil divorces now.

And I think if the Archbishop ever decided to get on some high horse and decide against the policies of his church that divorce shouldn't be recognized, another prelate would be commandeered very quickly.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The CofE does recognize civil divorces now.

And I think if the Archbishop ever decided to get on some high horse and decide against the policies of his church that divorce shouldn't be recognized, another prelate would be commandeered very quickly.

I think any Archbishop or church prelate who gives a thumbs up to multiple divorces-especially for members of the Royal family-should probablyfind a new vocation.

If the Church does not defend the sanctity of marriage who will??

 

[wbenson]

What is the "sanctity of marriage"? Does it mean that people should stay married even if their relationship no longer works? Does it mean that people who make bad choices should be punished by churches for not living with those choices for the rest of their lives? If that's what the "sanctity of marriage" is, then I don't want anyone defending it.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

What is the "sanctity of marriage"? Does it mean that people should stay married even if their relationship no longer works? Does it mean that people who make bad choices should be punished by churches for not living with those choices for the rest of their lives? If that's what the "sanctity of marriage" is, then I don't want anyone defending it.

wbenson, I do not think this is the proper place for the two of us to debate marriage or it's sanctity. I understand that people make mistakes, I have made enough of them. But I also do not feel that a person with multiple divorces can or should be the King or Queen of a country where he or she is also going to be called upon to be Head of the Church....in the Gospels the Lord did not tell His disciples that men and women are free to marry and divorce until they get it right, quite the contrary.

I understand if you disagree.

 

[Elspeth]

I think if the Archbishop decided to take a stand on this issue, it'd be a lot more likely to end in disestablishment than abdication.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I think if the Archbishop decided to take a stand on this issue, it'd be a lot more likely to end in disestablishment than abdication.

Isn't disestablishment an issue that has been being debated in Britain at least since Prince Charles' divorce, and his controversial statement about wanting to be the "Defender of Faith" rather than the ancient "Defender of THE Faith" which is a title that was never intended for an Anglican monarch to begin with...it was granted by the Pope to Henry VIII whilst he was still Roman Catholic.

But I completely agree with you, if the Archbishop takes a stand that will be the result..

 

[Elspeth]

Disestablishment has been discussed on and off for a while. But, like a lot of these things, probably nothing will be done till a situation arises that backs everyone into a corner and they have to deal with it.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

He most certainly WAS a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce.

I remember reading in the NY Times that he signed the register as "widower" which is what he was in Church.

The divorce he received from the late Princess of Wales was considered a civil one....if she had still been alive he would have had to marry in the Church of Scotland as his older sister Anne did when she married Tim Laurence as a divorcee.

Somehow I think he should have married her in Scotland in church and she should have used "Duchess of Rothesay" as her title...

 

[Skydragon]

He most certainly WAS a widower in the eyes of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce.
I remember reading in the NY Times that he signed the register as "widower" which is what he was in Church..

I was recently a witness at a civil wedding where the bride had been divorced from her 1st husband who later died. The register was filled in for her (as it usually is, so that she only had to sign her name) and her status was divorced.

The only register that is signed at a civil wedding/church blessing, is signed at the registry office, so I think the NY times might have it wrong. There would have been no signing at the blessing, therefore his status would not have anything to do with religious interpretation.

I think any Archbishop or church prelate who gives a thumbs up to multiple divorces-especially for members of the Royal family-should probablyfind a new vocation.

If the Church does not defend the sanctity of marriage who will??

The church will have to change or lose an even larger number of its devotees. The 'rules' of any church are man made anyway.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I was recently a witness at a civil wedding where the bride had been divorced from her 1st husband who later died. The register was filled in for her (as it usually is, so that she only had to sign her name) and her status was divorced.

The only register that is signed at a civil wedding/church blessing, is signed at the registry office, so I think the NY times might have it wrong. There would have been no signing at the blessing, therefore his status would not have anything to do with religious interpretation.
The church will have to change or lose an even larger number of its devotees. The 'rules' of any church are man made anyway.

I am sorry the the Church does not "have" to do anything. And laws that were instituted by Christ should not and cannot be changed. If people decide to leave that is their choice.

I realize that the Church of England is different historically and theologically from the Orthodox and Catholic one, which is the perspective I am coming from, but do you really think the Christian faith should permit people to get married and divorced as many times as they want?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

And laws that were instituted by Christ should not and cannot be changed. If people decide to leave that is their choice.

But what are the laws "Christ" - if Jesus ever was that, if he even lived! - instituted? There are so many interpretations, so many "facts" disputed so it makes sense that believers organise in churches, so that they at least have like-minded people around.

But what if, like Charles, you "inherit" a church? As there is no factual basis, only belief, but a social position to fulfill, it makes sense to work towards dealing with all problems with common sense, a bit of tact and the hope that all might be turning out as it has been intended all along: well-intentioned.

 

[wbenson]

I am sorry the the Church does not "have" to do anything.

True. There are consequences for every (in)action, though. The consequence in this case is greater irrelevance.

but do you really think the Christian faith should permit people to get married and divorced as many times as they want?

I don't understand a moral obligation to divorce, so yes. What good can come from telling people that they are bad people for being in a bad relationship?

 

[Skydragon]

I am sorry the the Church does not "have" to do anything. And laws that were instituted by Christ should not and cannot be changed. If people decide to leave that is their choice.

I realize that the Church of England is different historically and theologically from the Orthodox and Catholic one, which is the perspective I am coming from, but do you really think the Christian faith should permit people to get married and divorced as many times as they want?

If the Church of England wants to survive, then like the monarchy, it has to have the support of the people. Whether a mythical being ever existed or laid down any 'laws' is open to argument, (it was male members of the Catholic church who decided to impose the rule of celibacy for instance) an argument that is not for this forum.

I think that if your god is a forgiving and understanding god, he would want 'his' children to live in peace, harmony and happiness and if that means two or three divorces, being an all forgiving being, that should be acceptable to it/him. It is only man who is deciding what 'god' would want.

I meant to ask for a link to the information that appears to have been published by the NY Times.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

But what are the laws "Christ" - if Jesus ever was that, if he even lived! - instituted? There are so many interpretations, so many "facts" disputed so it makes sense that believers organise in churches, so that they at least have like-minded people around.

But what if, like Charles, you "inherit" a church? As there is no factual basis, only belief, but a social position to fulfill, it makes sense to work towards dealing with all problems with common sense, a bit of tact and the hope that all might be turning out as it has been intended all along: well-intentioned.

Jo you do seriously expect us to use this forum to debate whether or not Christ ever existed? Again, from the Catholic point of view we are discussing apples and oranges when you compare it to the Anglican Church. The Catholic Church can and does trace itself in an unbroken line in time and history back to the Apostles, and according to the Gospels credits Christ as Her founder. No committed member of our Church would even entertain such a ridiculous thought.

As far as Charles "inheriting" a Church...well. This is the problem when one decides to found one's own Church with the monarch as Supreme Head, as the illustrious Henry VIII did in the 16th century isn't it? Perhaps he should have listened to Thomas More and the others who tried to get him to look at the big picture!

I think, as Elspeth pointed out earlier that the Church of England can and should be disestablished. No offense, but what does it stand for nowadays anyway? I can't think of a single thing.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

If the Church of England wants to survive, then like the monarchy, it has to have the support of the people. Whether a mythical being ever existed or laid down any 'laws' is open to argument, (it was male members of the Catholic church who decided to impose the rule of celibacy for instance) an argument that is not for this forum.

I think that if your god is a forgiving and understanding god, he would want 'his' children to live in peace, harmony and happiness and if that means two or three divorces, being an all forgiving being, that should be acceptable to it/him. It is only man who is deciding what 'god' would want.

I meant to ask for a link to the information that appears to have been published by the NY Times.

Why bother to get married at all then? Why not just scotch the entire institution and just live together if it ultimately is A) NOT a commitment and B) not instituted by Christ? and C)people should feel free to do as many times as necessary??

And I read the NY Times article in Apr 2005, the time the wedding took place. Even if I could access it there is no way I could link it...you are speaking to a person who only recently learned to cut and paste!

 

[Skydragon]

I think, as Elspeth pointed out earlier that the Church of England can and should be disestablished. No offense, but what does it stand for nowadays anyway? I can't think of a single thing.

If the church is disestablished, it doesn't cease to be, it just means it is separated from the government.

Why bother to get married at all then? Why not just scotch the entire institution and just live together if it ultimately is A) NOT a commitment and B) not institued by Christ?

Commitment and/or marriage has nothing to do with religious views. If someone chooses to marry, they can choose to have a civil ceremony or a religous ceremony. Couples committed to each other long before religion was involved!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

If the church is disestablished, it doesn't cease to be, it just means it is separated from the government.
Commitment and/or marriage has nothing to do with religious views. If someone chooses to marry, they can choose to have a civil ceremony or a religous ceremony. Couples committed to each other long before religion was involved!

I know that "disestablishment" doesn't mean it ceases to be...I believe it should be separated from the government.

But I am not a citizen of the UK, and that is a matter that should be decided by Her Majesty's subjects.

 

[wbenson]

Why bother to get married at all then? Why not just scotch the entire institution and just live together if it ultimately is A) NOT a commitment and B) not instituted by Christ? and C)people should feel free to do as many times as necessary??

There are important legal rights that come with a marriage that do not come with living together. Otherwise, I would agree with you.