Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[maryr0249]

I appreciate the reminder to get back on track. However, respectfully, I, for one, have not lost track of Charles and Camilla's marriage. There might be other places to learn about primogeniture, the declaration of war by various countries in the Commonwealth and the history of other royals' marriages, but here they relate directly to what we began talking about: the question of how and when Prince Charles and his wife and his Kingdom will decide what to call the legal Queen (settled) once he is King. It is sobering to think that knowing all these things about Parliamentary procedure, and knowing how many other people know the same things, the PoW website continues the farce. Or maybe they really don't know WTF they're doing. I just feel silly. But I have learned a lot.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The fact that times have changed seems to have been missed by some people - in the 1930s a divorced person wasn't accepted at court and to get a divorce involved one party being proved to be 'at fault'.

These days it is recognised that marriages 'irretrievably break down' - that is what happened in the case of Charles and Diana - there was no way to repair the marriage but neither was one party more at fault than the other.

Camilla, since 2005 (which is the basis of this thread), has supported her husband and the family into which she married with grace and charm and has clearly been accepted by that family.

 

[VictoriaB]

Camilla, since 2005 (which is the basis of this thread), has supported her husband and the family into which she married with grace and charm and has clearly been accepted by that family.

I agree 100% and it's on that basis that she should be Queen, not denied because of things that may or may not have occurred before her marriage into the Royal Family.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I believe Wallis has been scapegoated by the British as well.....
Anyway back to post 2005, how many times has Camilla worn a tiara? Just trying to bring up something else to talk about. Also I wonder why Charles chose to give Camilla was of his grandmother's rings as an engagement ring?

 

[muriel]

The fact that times have changed seems to have been missed by some people - in the 1930s a divorced person wasn't accepted at court and to get a divorce involved one party being proved to be 'at fault'.

These days it is recognised that marriages 'irretrievably break down' - that is what happened in the case of Charles and Diana - there was no way to repair the marriage but neither was one party more at fault than the other.

Camilla, since 2005 (which is the basis of this thread), has supported her husband and the family into which she married with grace and charm and has clearly been accepted by that family.

I completely agree with IluvBertie. Britian has changed considerably since the 1930s, and social norms reflect the current state of play. Whilst divorce was rare at the time, we now live in a society where c25% of children are born out of wedlock. Like it or not, this is the reality of Britain (and most Western societies) today.

Charles and Camilla are not alone in Britain to have had affairs whist married, got divorced and subsequently remarried. This is largely acceptable across Britain today (and to the CoE), so I query why some find it unacceptable for the next King and Queen.

 

[MARG]

. . . . . Anyway back to post 2005, how many times has Camilla worn a tiara?

Not often enough! And oh how I would love to see the Delhi Durbar get another outing

. . . . . Just trying to bring up something else to talk about. Also I wonder why Charles chose to give Camilla was of his grandmother's rings as an engagement ring?

Well, that ring is certainly a beauty and full of good memories but perhaps for no other reason than he thought it would suit her and that she would like it. And let's be honest . . . what's not to like?

The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: Flashback Friday: A Few of Camilla's Sparkliest Things

Like most engagement rings, I think it is a gift of love.

 

[Mirabel]

Like most engagement rings, I think it is a gift of love.

I agree!
Regardless of what some may think of them, Charles and Camilla have loved one another for a long time, and he deeply loved his grandmother as well.

It doesn't surprise me that he wanted to give her a family ring that meant something to him, rather than having Garrard's call around with a tray and let her choose something for herself.
(I'm not faulting that; there's much to be said for picking out a ring you'd like to wear rather than having one wished on you).

But I do think it reflects Charles' attitude to his two marriages.

 

[Nico]

Just amazing, and kind of sad, that more than 7 years later after the marriage some people are still stuck with a so called C&C original sin and spend a lot of time and energy to persuade us that Camilla has to live with the word "whore" tattooed across her forehead. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the arguments seem now a little bit tired (and some comparisons with some events 76 years ago more than far-fetched). Forgiveness people, forgiveness ! Strong word i know, but taught by the Church as well ...
And if you can't stand the woman, which is your own right, you just can't deny that she has done a pretty good job since 2005 and that her increasing popularity, apparently still hard to swallow , is well deserved.
The marriage was not really a PC decision at that time but 7 years later it has proved to be a really wise one...

 

[casualfan]

Charles and Camilla are not alone in Britain to have had affairs whist married, got divorced and subsequently remarried. This is largely acceptable across Britain today (and to the CoE), so I query why some find it unacceptable for the next King and Queen.

Agreed about adultery and infidelity becoming more acceptable worldwide, not just in Uk.

Why is anyone looking at any of these people as moral role models? It's the same for a lot of royals from years past-Napoleon was a narcissist; Edward (Victoria's son) was also a philanderer; the list goes on and on...

 

[Zonk]

Seriously folks...how much clearer must one be?

I've deleted a slew of posts from folks that are stuck in pre 2005 and will continue to do so.

Or do we need to close a thread so we can all take a breather?

 

[MissJanet]

Maybe I just missed it, but I was pretty disapointed in the lack of C&C at the Olympics. This two always seem so happy around each other. It is heartwarming to see a couple their age actually wanting to be together instead of staying together for convinence.

 

[maryr0249]

Otherwise, I love you folks who love Camilla, but I don't like the way she looks with a tiara, so have fun. I'll be thinking of the Marriage after 2005, hiking in Scotland.

 

[Madame Royale]

but I don't like the way she looks with a tiara.

It's the hair. There's just too much of it to suit a tiara. It's volume takes over and doesn't support a tiara as much as it does overshadow one when worn. Theres little equilibrium. Shorter hair would make a world of difference imo.

 

[SLV]

On the other hand, it also makes sure that those huge tiaras she has worn don't overwhealm everything else.
When seeing the pictures in the Sartorial-website, I was thinking that she had the perfect hair for them.
They would not suit Catherine or Sophie.

 

[MissJanet]

I saw that too and I agreee. It certainly helps that with her hair, you don't see the base of any tiara.

 

[casualfan]

On the other hand, it also makes sure that those huge tiaras she has worn don't overwhealm everything else.
When seeing the pictures in the Sartorial-website, I was thinking that she had the perfect hair for them.
They would not suit Catherine or Sophie.

I think she looks okay with tiaras, but I wish her hair was a bit more 'tamed' and sleek. That's why I think Catherine and Sophie would look wonderful in them. Let's face it-anyone would look amazing with beautiful diamonds on top of their head

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

The reason I asked about the engagement ring was because I have read that Charles' grandmother was against them ever getting married. Just seemed kind of strange to pick a ring belonging to someone who was against your marriage.
Oh wow I didn't know Camilla's family had a tiara.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I don't think we'll ever know the Queen Mother's true feelings. Bear in mind that she allowed Charles and Camilla to use her Scottish residence and she was pretty indulgent of Charles' passions, whatever they might be. Maybe her opinions were in the stash Princess Margaret took care of? But a dead woman doesn't care where her jewellery ends up so once the rocks went from mother to daughter, I suppose it was the Queen's decision which bling the Duchess ended up with.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Maybe I just missed it, but I was pretty disapointed in the lack of C&C at the Olympics. This two always seem so happy around each other. It is heartwarming to see a couple their age actually wanting to be together instead of staying together for convinence.

I actually liked the fact that Charles went to the Mey Games instead - something he has done as a tribute to his grandmother since 2002 and that she did as well.

Rather than get caught up with the hype over the Olympics, and Charles did attend on the first day of competition as well as visited the military doing the security, he went to the traditional games - the organisers even expressed surprise that Charles did go to those games but appreciated the fact that he continued to value their games and traditions.

Camilla did attend quite a bit in the first week - as Patron of the British Equestrian Federation. She then joined her husband in Scotland (I assume) as neither of them did any engagements during the second week - only the second full week this year for Charles with nothing official to do.

 

[Lindy]

And if you can't stand the woman, which is your own right, you just can't deny that she has done a pretty good job since 2005 and that her increasing popularity, apparently still hard to swallow , is well deserved....

I am someone who can't stand Camilla. I think she is unattractive, rough around the edges, and lazy. I don't think she has done much with her role and she seems to keep her royal engagements to a minimum. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine.... lol

 

[HRHHermione]

I am someone who can't stand Camilla. I think she is unattractive, rough around the edges, and lazy. I don't think she has done much with her role and she seems to keep her royal engagements to a minimum. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine.... lol

And that's fine, but you should also be aware that you're woefully misinformed. She was lovely as a young woman, and now looks like a normal woman in her sixties. She's the patron of many organizations and works hard to support Prince Charles. She's also from a well to do family and her background is in no way rough. She also seems to get on well with almost everyone that knows her personally.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, that doesn't mean all opinions are equally accurate.

 

[Daria_S]

You're absolutely correct. I also wanted to add that what some see as 'rough around the edges' others see as 'down to earth'. She's very friendly and makes others feel at ease.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Just as a matter of interest - how many engagements do you think she does a year? Without looking it up - take a guess.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Alright! Camilla ain't winning no beauty pageants! She's aged hard, there is more to her than her face and figure.

 

[Mirabel]

Perhaps, but how many women in their sixties do win beauty pageants?

I think Camilla looks very attractive for her age, and I like that she hasn't gone the celebrity route of cosmetic surgery and lipo.

 

[HRHHermione]

Just as a matter of interest - how many engagements do you think she does a year? Without looking it up - take a guess.

Perhaps 150-200?

Am I close or way off here?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Maybe I'm old fashioned but, since when did someone's appearance determine their ability to carry out a public role?

 

[Artemisia]

Perhaps 150-200?
Am I close or way off here?

As far as I know, even in the first year after marriage Camilla performed over 200 public engagements. I believe the number has been above 300 per year since then. For instance, Camilla has already made about 230 public engagements this year (according to Iluvbertie's excellent list, which I think is fairly accurate) - and there are still four months to go. Also, September to December tend to be the busiest for royals, although perhaps not this year, what with Diamond Jubilee and Olympics.

 

[HRHHermione]

So she's working even harder than I thought, and certainly no one should call her lazy.

 

[VictoriaB]

So she's working even harder than I thought, and certainly no one should call her lazy.

She is working hard, but it's not just about the number of engagements.
As wife of the Prince of Wales, Camilla's role is to support her husband, the Queen and the royal family rather than overshadow them and i think her engagements reflect that.

I know this has been commented on before, but the strength or character it must have taken to start performing public duties in her mid-fifties without knowing how she would be received must have been enormous. She has carried out her engagements with diligence, warmth and humour. She always appears to be well informed about the people and the organisations she meets and genuinely pleased to be there.

IMHO that is far more important than whether she has aged well or not.