The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1401  
Old 07-10-2014, 11:26 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
I am American and I was 9 when Charles married Diana. In the preinternet age, the US coverage of them was the fairy tale like, here is young girl who marries Prince Charming, has 2 kids and then you see her sad and unhappy. The stuff with Camilla comes out and you wonder why would Charles pick her over Diana? They divorce and then Diana tragically dies.

We weren't getting the constant news that the British were and now with the Internet we can see stuff for ourselves. I notice is that Camilla makes Charles happy which we all want in our personal life. Some people can't let go and move on from 1997.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1402  
Old 07-10-2014, 11:53 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 449
I think a lot of people have a hard time understanding why Charles would chose Camilla over Diana. Diana was beautiful and the epitome of class and to a lot of people Camilla was (or still is) the opposite. I used to feel the same... But after coming here and hearing more about these two women who aren't all they seemed to be I think I might prefer Camilla. I don't how much of everything is true but Diana now seems far more self-centered than I thought she was while Camilla seems kinder and warmer than I thought she was.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1403  
Old 07-10-2014, 01:35 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,419
I think Camilla was always warm, kind and very down to earth. The problem was that she made some mistakes in the past. Charles didn't get involved with terrible and very nasty women. He married two good women but who weren't perfect.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1404  
Old 07-10-2014, 03:05 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I don't want to go off topic here but Scooter has a point. Charles will not just be King, he will be head of the Church of England. I'm not a member of the CoE but my religion requires me to extend forgiveness and to avoid judging others.

Scooter had a point in that the monarch should be in communion with the CoE as the monarch is the head of the CoE. However, the suggestion that Charles isn't in communion with the CoE is a stretch.

The CoE's official position on divorcees remarrying is basically "it's okay, but the priest has the right to decide in each individual case." Given as ceremony would have likely been performed by the ABC it puts the church in an awkward position - they can't say "we're both okay and not okay with divorcees remarrying" but then have the ABC perform the very public marriage ceremony of two divorcees (or a widower and a divorcee).

The ABC has however blessed the marriage. He did it on TV the day they married. That means that Charles is in the clear as far as the church goes when it comes to his second marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #1405  
Old 07-10-2014, 05:32 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I don't want to go off topic here but Scooter has a point. Charles will not just be King, he will be head of the Church of England.
Slight correction: The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the C of E. The Head of the Church is Jesus Christ.
Reply With Quote
  #1406  
Old 07-10-2014, 05:49 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
Slight correction: The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the C of E. The Head of the Church is Jesus Christ.

That's semantics. The titular leader of the CoE is the Supreme Governor of the CoE, the monarch. Most would consider that person to be the head of the church, at least on this realm.
Reply With Quote
  #1407  
Old 07-10-2014, 07:23 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,702
For the past few weeks I have been listening to specials on Kate and William and it is mostly British commentators gushing over Diana and how great she was, oh the perfect Princess, and saying Charles shouldn't be King William should for no other reason than he is younger and looked like Diana. Quite honestly the US, from what I have seen, don't give a second thought to Diana. I assume it is a select few in both countries who are obsessed with youth glamour and the fairy tale bull crap.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1408  
Old 07-10-2014, 08:02 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I think Camilla was always warm, kind and very down to earth. The problem was that she made some mistakes in the past. Charles didn't get involved with terrible and very nasty women. He married two good women but who weren't perfect.
Excuse me, but I do not look at Diana as good. Diana was manipulative and spiteful and mean to The Queen who always tried to help her.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1409  
Old 07-10-2014, 09:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
Excuse me, but I do not look at Diana as good. Diana was manipulative and spiteful and mean to The Queen who always tried to help her.
Really, whose PR machine is feeding you. This was a dreadful mess and no one person was to blame. And let me tell you, the dead cannot defend themselves. She was just as good as her husband who was busy with another woman from the onset of their marriage ( I know many do not want to acknowledge that) and now his mistress will be the queen. It is her right. Shem, too, had a husband and children. The Queen often ignored her and thought she should buck up and face the fact that husbands cheat. Diana was an insecure person who brought the RF into the forefront, which they liked. Until she took center stage and they became the understudies. "Diana changes hairdo when queen opens parliament". Who cares. And if that isn't insecurity what is. There is no one person to blame and the queen did little or nothing to ameliorate the situation. Until Diana died and there was the big hooha, the RF really had no idea that you have to go out and really care. Diana was no saint, much to her discredit, she could have avoided the messes she got into, but her feeling of abandonment was real. Frankly, I would never want anyone them, in my life.
Reply With Quote
  #1410  
Old 07-10-2014, 09:25 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
That's semantics. The titular leader of the CoE is the Supreme Governor of the CoE, the monarch. Most would consider that person to be the head of the church, at least on this realm.

If I may put on my History teacher's hat for a minute:

When Henry VIII broke from Rome he had the parliament officially create him as 'Head of the Church of England' in the original Act of Uniformity. Edward VI also held that title officially but...

Queen Mary had that act repealed and so the monarch was no longer the 'Head of the Church of England'.

Along comes Elizabeth and she wanted to pass an Act of Uniformity again but the Church of the day was very strong in its teaching that women couldn't be in charge of a church and so refused to agree to the term 'Head of the Church of England' for a woman and hence the term became 'Supreme Governor' - semantics maybe but there are historical reasons why it is 'Supreme Governor' and not 'Head' which it had been originally in the days of Henry VIII and Edward VI.

As for Charles being in communion with the Church of England - he was confirmed into that church as a teenager, has married in that church, has had a second marriage blessed by that church and regularly attends CoE services. All that says that he is in communion with the CoE.

Camilla is also in communion with the Church of England.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that once you break one commandment that you are no longer able to be in communion or be classed as a Christian - but the teachings of Christ himself is that sinners who confess their sins are welcome to be his followers.
Reply With Quote
  #1411  
Old 07-10-2014, 10:26 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Camilla And The Public

Bertie, I love when you put your History Teacher hat on.

My point wasn't meant to mean that there was no reason why the title is Supreme Governor and not Head (and I greatly appreciate that you've provided the history in the title, that's something I didn't know). I more meant that the title isn't so as to name Jesus as the Head of the church.
Reply With Quote
  #1412  
Old 07-11-2014, 12:08 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 517
I know this is not on topic but, as Bertie pointed out, Charles is a regular churchgoer. Other than for formal services, I have never heard of William attending church and, given the interest in him and his family, if he were at church I would expect the sighting to be all over twitter.

I'm sure the Church of England would rather have a titular head who actually goes to church than one who doesn't.

As for the CofE's attitude to divorce, I had a CofE Vicar in the 90s who was divorced and remarried. His second marriage took place in the church.
Reply With Quote
  #1413  
Old 07-11-2014, 10:29 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
Excuse me, but I do not look at Diana as good. Diana was manipulative and spiteful and mean to The Queen who always tried to help her.
Balance people, Charles wasn't the unfeeling brute certain people tried to make him seem and Diana wasn't the evil scheming manipulator either, though she did manipulate some situations.
It is some people's opinion that Charles was still seeing Camilla when he got married, Charles says he didn't start seeing her again until the late 80's. And the Queen did not just tell her to buck up and get on with it, she tried to help Diana but didn't seem to want help from anyone who didn't agree 100% with her.

Watching all the docs it keeps coming up the William should be king instead of his father, and I still ask why, what has William done to warrant beING King over Charles except be younger and better looking?
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1414  
Old 07-12-2014, 12:12 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
This thread is not about Diana, and I'll be a bit careful to talk about this here. My mother is British, and this is stuff I've heard from family members who have worked for the royal family. I'm not a big fan of Diana or her enemy number one The Queen Mother, but I respect those who are.

I really like Camilla and I think she's going to be a fantastic Queen Consort.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1415  
Old 07-13-2014, 06:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
If you read through here and in other threads you'll see that scooter is of the opinion that Charles is not fit to be king on the grounds of his behaviour during his first marriage and the woman he chose to make his second wife.

She choses to represent facts in a manner that isn't always true and when it is true often isn't the full story. I refer to this as a conspiracy theory - the theory that Charles has somehow actually made himself unable to become king because of his affair, divorce and/or second marriage...

...Furthermore, as Bertie pointed out the stipulation that royals can't enter into civil marriages isn't actually still valid. It was not a part of the RMA like scooter professes, but rather a part of a later law that has subsequently been repealed. The issue was solved well before Charles entered into his marriage, and had it actually still been in effect Charles would have followed his sister's example and married in Scotland.
This is quite an exercise in dubious 'mind reading' of me on your part. Leaving aside all your speculation and entering into the facts, I ask again: If the Church of England was willing to perform the marriage ceremony between Charles and Camilla, then why did they have a precedent breaking civil service of questionable validity when they could have trotted down to the chapel at Windsor Castle and married there like several members of the family? Why open the door to all that if the Archbishop of Canterbury would have performed the marriage? NO member of teh BRF has EVER had a civil ceremony. For the Future Defender of the Faith, it is quite an anomaly.
Reply With Quote
  #1416  
Old 07-13-2014, 06:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
The explanation has been given time and time again.

There is no 'questionable validity' to the marriage at all as has been shown time and time again.
Reply With Quote
  #1417  
Old 07-13-2014, 06:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
And what is your explanation of why Queen Elizabeth refused to attend the civil ceremony as it was incompatable with her role as Defender of the Faith?
Reply With Quote
  #1418  
Old 07-13-2014, 06:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The explanation has been given time and time again.

There is no 'questionable validity' to the marriage at all as has been shown time and time again.
You are avoiding the question. Why have a civil ceremony instead of the religious one, if there was the possibility of one, if one will be Defender of the faith?
Reply With Quote
  #1419  
Old 07-13-2014, 06:43 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
This is quite an exercise in dubious 'mind reading' of me on your part. Leaving aside all your speculation and entering into the facts, I ask again: If the Church of England was willing to perform the marriage ceremony between Charles and Camilla, then why did they have a precedent breaking civil service of questionable validity when they could have trotted down to the chapel at Windsor Castle and married there like several members of the family? Why open the door to all that if the Archbishop of Canterbury would have performed the marriage? NO member of teh BRF has EVER had a civil ceremony. For the Future Defender of the Faith, it is quite an anomaly.

It's not mind reading scooter, it's a conclusion about you I've drawn after having read your comments about Charles and Camilla on this thread and others in the time I've been on the forums. If I'm making an incorrect conclusion then I apologize, although you might want to reconsider how you word things in future posts because that is the impression you're leaving now.

Also, I'm not speculating. Unlike you, I have looked at the facts. I know the facts of the Abdication Crisis and I understand why they don't apply to Charles. I also know the facts about Charles' second marriage and am not blinded by a hatred of him because he cheated on his first wife.

At the time of Charles' second marriage there was no law in place that said a British Royal could not enter into a civil marriage. The church has an official position on divorcees remarrying that is complicated - officially, yes they can remarry, but it's ultimately up to the priest to make the decision. This stance is quoted earlier on in this very thread by cepe. Anyone can draw the conclusion that given that on-the-fence stance, it would have been awkward for the ABC to perform the marriage ceremony of two divorcees, so instead they had a civil ceremony and the ABC blessed the marriage - anyone who's not blinded by prejudice would see that if the church blesses a marriage, even a civil one, they're probably okay with it.

If Charles could not enter into a civil marriage - which the lawyers the family hires would have surely been aware of - then there were many options open to him. He could have gotten married in the CoE and had the ceremony performed by someone else. He could have, like Anne, gotten married in the Church of Scotland. He could have gotten married in an Anglican Church in a different realm. He could have entered into a civil marriage in a different realm - there is no law in Canada that a member of the royal family can't enter into a civil marriage.

But he didn't do any one of these things. He entered into a civil marriage with both the blessing of the monarch and the ABC.

Furthermore, being in communion with the church technically has absolutely no grounds upon which to remove a person from the line of succession. Charles is a legitimately born descendant of Sophia of Hanover - the senior most descendant other than his mother. He is not a Roman Catholic. He is not married to a Roman Catholic. Therefore, all the requirements for him to inherit the throne are met.
Reply With Quote
  #1420  
Old 07-13-2014, 06:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
You are avoiding the question. Why have a civil ceremony instead of the religious one, if there was the possibility of one, if one will be Defender of the faith?

Because he chose not to. There is no rule that says that he has to get married in a church in order to be the Defender of the Faith. In fact, the first man to hold the title in England was granted it after defending the supremacy of the pope. The later recreation of the title was granted upon him sometime after his 6th marriage. So, yeah.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales


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





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grahamm grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdulah ii king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament photo picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess eugenie eveningwear princess ingrid alexandra princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats 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 revolution 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 09:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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