Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[Zonk]

Please note that posts questioning/stating the motives of the wives of Charles have been deleted as speculative.

Please note that I said wives...that means that once again Diana was brought into the equation.

 

[Queen Camilla]

This is very well put.

The current state of their marriage is - status quo - in certain respects. Charles has always held the power situation in this relationship; most affairs are more about power and less about sex, yet marriages tend to find a power equilibrium. Even after their marriage, Camilla holds the current wealth, power and position due solely by the grace of Charles. She must dance to Charles' tune, probably more so than during the very brief time that she was single, after Andrew divorced her.

While her divorce settlement from Andrew was in keeping with Andrew's position as a miliary man of moderate means, Camilla was at that time the recipient of a settlement from Charles that made her independent for the first and only time in her life.

Camilla certainly bettered her financial situation by marrying Charles, and the financial situation of her children. (It's wildly disingenous to suggest that Camilla was blind to the monetary advantages of such a match.) But I think that even she knows that it's an unequal equation. An unequal marriage, right down to the titles.

It's a bargain that needs to be kept, however, in this case; the bargains that were broken to get here demand it to be so.

Camilla inherited 500,000 pounds (today equal to $12,000,000 U.S.) from the Cubitt family when she turned 18.

In 1986 when Sonia her grandmother died she inherited another 500,000 (equal today to $2,500,000 U.S.)

 

[Mermaid1962]

IOW Camilla was already wealthy, particularly if her money was wisely invested.

Camilla inherited 500,000 pounds (today equal to $12,000,000 U.S.) from the Cubitt family when she turned 18.

In 1986 when Sonia her grandmother died she inherited another 500,000 (equal today to $2,500,000 U.S.)

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

How was Camilla already wealthy? JW because I have not been able to find a lot of info on Camilla's personal life especially prior to her becoming involved with Charles. I do believe that she has never had a job or a career, and that is how she was raised. Does her wealth come from her family, her husband, or both?

 

[Iluvbertie]

How was Camilla already wealthy? JW because I have not been able to find a lot of info on Camilla's personal life especially prior to her becoming involved with Charles. I do believe that she has never had a job or a career, and that is how she was raised. Does her wealth come from her family, her husband, or both?

In Post #742 Queen Camilla said:

Camilla inherited 500,000 pounds (today equal to $12,000,000 U.S.) from the Cubitt family when she turned 18.

In 1986 when Sonia her grandmother died she inherited another 500,000 (equal today to $2,500,000 U.S.)

That is why it is fair to say that she was wealthy in her own right. She needed to be in order to truly mix with Charles and the polo set in the 1970s.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Who is the Cubitt family? And I just assumed, perhaps wrongly, that any money Camilla inherited when she was 18 (the 60s) would have been gone by the time she married Charles if not before. But I guess I am just used to hearing of celebs who squander 300 million dollars.

 

[Zonk]

Didn't Camilla lose a large share of her money during the 90's when the market crashed, or when Barings went under? I think that is what happened if.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Who is the Cubitt family? And I just assumed, perhaps wrongly, that any money Camilla inherited when she was 18 (the 60s) would have been gone by the time she married Charles if not before. But I guess I am just used to hearing of celebs who squander 300 million dollars.

The Cubitt's were her mother's family. This is about her great-great-great-grandfather who basically started the family business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cubitt He was responsible for the east front of BP and worked at Osbourne House amongst other buildings.

His son by his wife Mary Anne Warner, George, who was created Baron Ashcombe in 1892, was the great-great-grandfather of Camilla Parker Bowles.

I can't find anything to confirm that Camilla lost everything in the Barings collapse but it is possible of course.

 

[Zonk]

I don't believe she lost all of her fortune, just some of it in the Baring collapse. Of course, I am looking for the sources.

Either way it makes no difference now IMO. She is the wife of Charles and what his is her and vice versa.

 

[MARG]

She got a settlement from Charles? You mean a financial settlement? I know that he gave her jewelry over the years, but the suggestion here is that he gave her a large sum of money.

While her divorce settlement from Andrew was in keeping with Andrew's position as a miliary man of moderate means, Camilla was at that time the recipient of a settlement from Charles that made her independent for the first and only time in her life.

Mermaid queried the suggestion that Charles paid her a large sum of money, and you have not seen fit to provide any source or reference other than you said it.

Camilla inherited 500,000 pounds (today equal to $12,000,000 U.S.) from the Cubitt family when she turned 18.

In 1986 when Sonia her grandmother died she inherited another 500,000 (equal today to $2,500,000 U.S.)

Queen Camilla has provided information, which is verified on several different websites that Camilla was a wealthy woman in her own right by the age of 18, a woman of independent means, and received a further large bequest, which rather squashes your statement that Camilla's only income was her (by your estimation) modest divorce settlement.

In point of fact, you know as little of Camilla's personal wealth as you do about that of her husband and their married life, not to mention her divorce settlement.

But none of the above answers the question of where you got the idea that Charles paid her a large sum of money, giving her her first and only, real independence.

Would you care to respond?

 

[Zonk]

You know I am wondering if the tale of Charles setting up monies (i.e. a trust fund or something) for Camilla prior to their marriage is a load of bunk. I can't find ANY information to support that statement. I also remember at one time it was suggested that Charles set up trust funds for Tom and Laura as well, and I found articles where Tom supposedly refuted that claim.

So maybe its the same thing.

 

[NotAPretender]

I read briefly a bunch of pages back that Camilla had other options to marry within their circle, I think to make the point that her marriage to Charles wasn't as advantageous as one might think.

Now that's the sort of thing that intrigues me, genuinely new information (rather than the retreads.) I really had no idea that she was being courted elsewhere. I had always thought that her concurrent/sequential relationships with her husband and Charles were the summation of her romantic life after her rambunctious period between coming out and marriage to Andrew.

However, if it's true that she had alternatives to Charles, that would be a rather deft juggling of more than one marriage minded suitor within the concurrent/sequential mix of Charles and Andrew PB. Rather strategic! Who were these suitors courting her that provided that alternative? Again, this is new information to me and that's rare.

I'll go back and see if I can find it....

 

[NotAPretender]

Didn't Camilla lose a large share of her money during the 90's when the market crashed, or when Barings went under? I think that is what happened if.

Barings, or Lloyds of London crash? I seem to be remembering the number of titled and non-titled aristos who lost a considerable packet when Lloyds went whump. After all, who could ever imagine that Lloyds -the stalwart house which exemplified Empire - could ever wobble?

 

[Warren]

The Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael and Angus Ogilvy were among those Lloyds 'Names' who it was claimed suffered financially when the company called on the syndicates to pay up to cover the huge insurance losses.
ref: Truth About Lloyds

As to Camilla...
"...PRINCE Charles's close friend Camilla Parker Bowles is facing losses thought to top £30,000 as a Name" at insurance Giants Lloyd's of London
ref: Truth About Lloyds

and

"Her lifestyle survived largely unscathed when she was one of the “names” (investors) in Lloyds of London who lost money in a scandal that engulfed many Lloyds insurance underwriters in the 1980s."
ref: Camilla, duchess of Cornwall

 

[MARG]

I read briefly a bunch of pages back that Camilla had other options to marry within their circle, I think to make the point that her marriage to Charles wasn't as advantageous as one might think.

Now that's the sort of thing that intrigues me, genuinely new information (rather than the retreads.) I really had no idea that she was being courted elsewhere. I had always thought that her concurrent/sequential relationships with her husband and Charles were the summation of her romantic life after her rambunctious period between coming out and marriage to Andrew.

Rambunctious? Care to elucidate?

However, if it's true that she had alternatives to Charles, that would be a rather deft juggling of more than one marriage minded suitor within the concurrent/sequential mix of Charles and Andrew PB. Rather strategic! Who were these suitors courting her that provided that alternative? Again, this is new information to me and that's rare.

I'll go back and see if I can find it....

Deft juggling? We're still waiting for carification.

 

[VictoriaStyles]

I would just like to say that I deeply admire HRH the Prince of Wales and HRH the Duchess of Cornwall. They are a lovely couple and I believe they will be a good halfway step between the more traditional reign of HM the Queen and what is expected to be the more "modern" reign (eventually) of HRH the Duke of Cambridge.
Recently, I saw a video of the Prince and Duchess in Tanzania. There were local musicians and dancers who were trying to coax both of them to dance. Bless their hearts, they both made an effort. They may not have been as fluid and graceful at the native dances as the locals were but I don't think that too many other people who go to foreign countries as representatives make that kind of effort. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the clip and will always speak well of them both.

 

[Dianas Ghost]

I love Prince Charles, always have and always will. I collect Charles books, magazines, I even have a doll of him! I visit his website daily. But I will never in my life get what he sees in that Parker Bowles woman. Is he really as "happy" with her as people claim? Why do they do so many engagements separately? Why do they live in separate houses?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Royals always do separate engagements - the Queen and Philip do lots of separate engagements, as do Edward and Sophie.

It allows the family to cover more engagements and allows more people to see a royal.

They don't live in separate houses. Camilla having had a life before marrying Charles also has a separate family and she likes to have a home where she can spend time with them. Charles likes to also have his time alone to do his own things. As a result she has Raymill house where she spends some time but most of the time they are together either at Highgrove or at CH. Like many couples they have some separate interests and so sometimes they are apart to enjoy those interests.

If, as you claim you have always like Charles, then you will have seen just how happy and relaxed he is now since his marriage to Camilla. She soothes him, she loves him for himself, she coddles him - which he loves.

I remember the happy smiling Charles of the 1970s and then the miserable unhappy man of the 80s. What we have back now is the happy Charles from the 70s and that is down to Camilla.

What he sees in her is her warmth, her fun, her kindness.

She isn't the 'Parker Bowles' woman. She is HRH The Duchess of Cornwall - the love of Charles' life - the woman he should have married in the early 70s when he was talked out of it by Mountbatten and others.

 

[Daria_S]

I love Prince Charles, always have and always will. I collect Charles books, magazines, I even have a doll of him! I visit his website daily. But I will never in my life get what he sees in that Parker Bowles woman. Is he really as "happy" with her as people claim? Why do they do so many engagements separately? Why do they live in separate houses?

Separate engagements are not indications of any troubles in the marriage. It just means that they support different patronages. Also, it's not always possible to attend your spouse's engagements if you have one on the same day and at the same time. As for living in separate houses, that's just a matter of personal space. Not all married couples want to be together 24/7/365. I remember reading that Charles like his space, so Camilla gives him that by going and visiting her children, or what have you. I think the ability to be apart from one's spouse is a sign of a healthy relationship, where both partners are not co-dependant on one another and are able to function and have their own individual interests.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Seeing as how your not Prince Charles, it doesn't matter if you see what he likes about the "Parker Bowles woman". He likes her, he loves her, he married her THE END!

 

[Lady74]

How would anyone know if she soothed him or coddles him. Sounds like something from a fairy tale. And I know that I don't know that she doesn't. He is a 60 something man doubt he needs soothing

 

[Tyger]

What surprises me always is how women themselves play into the belief that 'beauty' (always subjective - but glossy magazine 'beauty' in this instance) is necessary to achieve love. Talk about buying into the fantasy of the most empty of rationales for a loving relationship.

That a man given a 'choice' between a Victoria's Secret runway model and a regular sort of normal looking woman - would choose the runway model - asks one to believe that Charles (or any man) is not capable of mature distinctions and is completely at the mercy of very superficial considerations.

Love is not about the outside but the inside. The outside may start the ball rolling - but there has to be substance on the inside. There are some who stimulate attraction - but it takes something more to stimulate love, beyond just attraction. That's been my experience - and having that experience - it all makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Lady74]

I agree with what you say but don't know what this has to do with any of the above posts. Maybe it's just your random thoughts if so sorry

 

[VictoriaStyles]

How would anyone know if she soothed him or coddles him. Sounds like something from a fairy tale. And I know that I don't know that she doesn't. He is a 60 something man doubt he needs soothing

I think we pretty much ALL bought into the fairy tale when he became engaged to Diana so why would him having another chance at a true fairy tale ending seem peculiar? I think that since we are all on the outside (as it were), we simply have to go on what is said (by those who do or don't know them), what we observe in public personally or through media, and, to be perfectly honest, the rumour mill.

I do have to say that he seems to be once again a happy person and since that appears to be due to Camilla's influence, all I can say is... Bravo for her! I wish them both all the happiness they can find.

(By the way... my husband is English also and only a year older than Charles. My observation is that age doesn't particularly negate a person's periodic need to be soothed and even coddled now and then. Whether that's simply luck of the draw, English men of a certain age, or something else entirely, I can't say. Just the way it happens in my experience so I don't find the idea odd at all.)

 

[HRHHermione]

I love Prince Charles, always have and always will. I collect Charles books, magazines, I even have a doll of him! I visit his website daily. But I will never in my life get what he sees in that Parker Bowles woman. Is he really as "happy" with her as people claim? Why do they do so many engagements separately? Why do they live in separate houses?

They've loved each other for many, many years and they seem to really get each other as people and respect each other as equals. I admire that. I've always been a fan of both Charles and the late Princess of Wales, and I understood that while they were both very admirable people, they didn't have a functional partnership. I think he has a functional and happy partnership with the Duchess of Cornwall and I think they work together very well as a team.

I wish that everyone could let bygones be bygones and understand that theirs was a very human courtship- not the stuff of fairy tales, but the stuff of real life. And I hope that they're treated with respect when they eventually become King and Queen.

 

[Tyger]

I agree with what you say but don't know what this has to do with any of the above posts. Maybe it's just your random thoughts if so sorry

I may have scrambled the content of several threads I've been reading tonight - but someone on this thread did say 'But I will never in my life get what he sees in that Parker Bowles woman.' Given that I have often heard the argument that Charles' first wife was young and pretty - so with that 'choice' how could he 'like', 'love', Camilla - I was addressing what I felt was an age-old embedded argument 'against' Charles loving Camilla.

 

[Lady74]

I may have scrambled the content of several threads I've been reading tonight - but someone on this thread did say 'But I will never in my life get what he sees in that Parker Bowles woman.' Given that I have often heard the argument that Charles' first wife was young and pretty - so with that 'choice' how could he 'like', 'love', Camilla - I was addressing what I felt was an age-old embedded argument 'against' Charles loving Camilla.

I don't think " don't know what he sees in her " means how she looks. It is a common saying where I live and can mean a range of things

 

[HRHHermione]

I don't think " don't know what he sees in her " means how she looks. It is a common saying where I live and can mean a range of things

See, and I agree with Tyger that in the context of the Charles/Camilla relationship, it usually is meant to compare the looks of the Duchess of Cornwall to the looks of the late Princess of Wales. I've observed that as well, and I feel the same way about that comparison. Diana was objectively more physically beautiful, but it's clear that the Duchess and Charles have an equal partnership and that they love and respect each other as people.

That's actually something I've always found endearing about Charles- that he defied certain shallow expectations about what men like and was attracted to someone because of their inner qualities.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Yes, I agree that Charles earned points by following his heart.

 

[MARG]

Where I come from "I don't know what he sees in her" would mean anything except youth and beauty! It is more depth, humanity, personal qualities like wit, humour, compassion, intellect, etc.

If you don't "see" it then you are saying "there's not a lot going on there, or she's as deep as your average puddle.

Bottom line . . . you see an awful lot of intelligent men walk down the aisle with a vacuum packed Barbie doll, but you don't see many intelligent women walking down the aisle with a vacuum packed Ken doll!

Personally, I think Camilla's wit, humour and intellect are all pretty well documented and to be honest, whilst she is not a raving beauty she has the loveliness and maturity of a woman of her years.

They just seem to complete and compliment each other.

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Prince+Charles+Camilla+Prince+Charles+Visit+ZRy26uAXfE9l.jpg

The above photo says it all. They are both on the same page and when he reaches back for her he knows she's there.