Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I guess he was ok as a family man, but the way he kept his daughters virtual prisoners always bothers me a bit. :eek:

You are right in that he prevented his 6 daughters from marrying. Perhaps, part of his mental illness. But with 9 sons and 6 daughters, two died in infancy, he had his hands full.
 
I agree with many of the points and arguments posted above by zhontella, jcbcode99 and Duchess. However, I'm not sure that the Queen thought (at the time of the wedding) that it was a bad idea. It's my feeling that she was happy that her eldest son was marrying and on the way to enjoying the support of his own family and domestic life. It also seems very reasonable to me that the Prince of Wales went into the marriage with every intention of making it a success on every level, and that the Queen knew this. As for her "grimness" at the ceremony, I didn't see it as any different from her usual demeanor when attending services in a church; indeed there are images of her in the videos which seem to show her as barely being able to suppress a grin. Besides all this, though, I suspect that within a few months she was aware of some of the early problems between the couple and that she found certain behaviors of the Princess of Wales unexpected and worrisome.
 
I saw a special about King George III some time back on the History Channel and it was fascinating. Not only is it believed that he suffered from a blood disease, porphyria--and recent studies have shown that he contained high levels of arsenic in his hair (a sign that he was being poisoned). Porphyria is a blood disease that can affect the mind neurologically. That could account for his "madness".
Obviously, King George III and his wife, Queen Charlotte, were quite happy. They had 15 children. They also were protective of their children, but I've not read anything that would suggest they were locked away. I do recall that King George would not let his younger daughters marry until the older ones were wed.
 
You are right in that he prevented his 6 daughters from marrying. Perhaps, part of his mental illness. But with 9 sons and 6 daughters, two died in infancy, he had his hands full.

Hm, three of them were married - especially the eldest daughter, princess Charlotte is still remembered in Germany's Stuttgart as queen Charlotte of Wuerrtemberg. The square named after her (in between the old and new palace) is the most important transfer point for public transport in Stuttgart.
 
I did some quick reading and several of his daughters did get married, but it was very close to his own death. How sad that they had to wait to get married until his illness kept him from even knowing about it.
 
I saw a special about King George III some time back on the History Channel and it was fascinating. Not only is it believed that he suffered from a blood disease, porphyria--and recent studies have shown

This is very interesting. I previously thought the porphyria gene was from Queen Victoria. I don't think she actually had the disease, but could have carried the gene from the Hanover line. One of her children suffered from it, right? The gene must have carried down through Edward VII, George V, and actually afflicted Prince Henry of Gloucester. I think Prince William of Gloucester also suffered from it.
 
I think you're thinking of haemophilia, which originated with Queen Victoria. That's the disease which prevents blood clotting and which was passed to the Hessian, Russian, and Spanish ruling families through daughters of hers who were carriers. Her youngest son, Leopold, suffered from haemophilia and died young as a result.

Porphyria is a metabolic disease which is caused by a buildup of porphyrins in the bloodstream and can lead to symptoms similar to those experienced by George III. It's been theorised that his bouts of mental trouble were due to porphyria rather than directly to mental problems, and the researchers who put forward this theory claim to have traced porphyria back as far as Mary Queen of Scots. There are claims that Princess Margaret and also Prince William of Gloucester suffered from it, but nothing has been substantiated, and as far as we know, the disease (even though it's inherited as a dominant gene) isn't in the British royal family these days.

I think the arsenic in George III's system is thought to be due to some of the medicines he was being given for his symptoms. Unfortunately, back in those days, doctors tended to do at least as much harm as good.
 
Last edited:
I agree with many of the points and arguments posted above by zhontella, jcbcode99 and Duchess. However, I'm not sure that the Queen thought (at the time of the wedding) that it was a bad idea. It's my feeling that she was happy that her eldest son was marrying and on the way to enjoying the support of his own family and domestic life. It also seems very reasonable to me that the Prince of Wales went into the marriage with every intention of making it a success on every level, and that the Queen knew this. As for her "grimness" at the ceremony, I didn't see it as any different from her usual demeanor when attending services in a church; indeed there are images of her in the videos which seem to show her as barely being able to suppress a grin. Besides all this, though, I suspect that within a few months she was aware of some of the early problems between the couple and that she found certain behaviors of the Princess of Wales unexpected and worrisome.

i think as a parent she certainly hoped that her son's marriage would be a happy one and last a life time and i agree that her demeanor during church services is usually very reverent so you're probably right about that. i also agree that she saw, very early on, that there were problems with behaviors that were coming to the forefront. i just can't help but feel that charles didn't go into his first marriage with an honest heart(and i'm beginning to feel that diana didn't either). i think he's got the right idea on this one though.
 
Interesting -- where'd you get this information. The only thing I remember is that most of them seemed to have terrible relationships with their parents.

From my university books and studies, specifically:

The Oxford History of England -

Vol. 10 - The Later Stuarts 1660-14, by Sir George Clark
Vol. 11 - The Whig Supremacy. 1714 - 1760 by Basil Williams
Vol. 12 - The Reign of George III 1760 - 1815 by J Steven Watson
Vol. 13 - The Age of Reform. 1815 - 1870

and sundry other pertinent publications.
 
So, there was not that much alternative to Sophia of Hanover (she died only shortly before queen Anne, thus her son inherited), who was next after Anne Marie d'Orleans if we don't take catholic Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans, born Princess Palatine, into account, Anne Marie's stepmother and born as grandchild of Elizabeth Stuart by her firstborn son, the prince elector of the Palatinate - Sophia of Hannover was her aunt, born a princess of the Palatinate as well. Elisabeth Charlotte could have been queen of the UK from 1714 to 1722 - and her son and heir would have been the prince regent of France of that time, having to hold both the posts of regent of France and king of the UK for a year, till Louis XV. became of age... what a choice.

So if look at it this way, Sophia Princess Palatine, married Princess Electress of Hannover was a much better choice for the British parliament than her niece and grand-niece.

They were still not regarded as sufficiently English. That is the rub, which continues to this very day in some circles. Princes or princesses of other places simply don't count, unless they're spouses, and even then, not always.

I don't know how many of you know how much overt resentment there was towards Queen Victoria when she ascended the throne. She was, commonly, called 'hausfrau' and positively disliked, and amongst some very influential aristos. Luckily for her, she reigned at a time when England was politically supreme and a world leader in innovation, letters and exploration, unlike our own current Queen who's had to enforce her individual sense of values and worth on the monarchy to nurture and preserve it. I wouldn't hesitate for one moment in nominating who's the more successful Queen.

The dumb and dull Hanoverian monarchs of England were all immensely fortunate in that they had a slew of brilliant politicians and statesmen to maintain them and their dignity.
 
From my university books and studies, specifically:

The Oxford History of England -

Vol. 10 - The Later Stuarts 1660-14, by Sir George Clark
Vol. 11 - The Whig Supremacy. 1714 - 1760 by Basil Williams
Vol. 12 - The Reign of George III 1760 - 1815 by J Steven Watson
Vol. 13 - The Age of Reform. 1815 - 1870

and sundry other pertinent publications.

Thanks for the references. I'll have to order some and dig in.
 
This is very interesting. I previously thought the porphyria gene was from Queen Victoria. I don't think she actually had the disease, but could have carried the gene from the Hanover line. One of her children suffered from it, right? The gene must have carried down through Edward VII, George V, and actually afflicted Prince Henry of Gloucester. I think Prince William of Gloucester also suffered from it.

There are historical studies which seem to prove that porphyria was a disease several of the Stuart kings of Scotlands and their relatives suffered from - eg James V., the father of Mary queen of Scots.
 
I hadn't heard that before, Jo, and find it very interesting. Do you have references to those studies? I tried to track something down on the web, but to no avail.
 
OK, Jo, I found a reference to James VI and I, who, apparently, may have had the disease.

From the net: "James was the product of a consanguineous union, i.e. he was descended from Margaret Tudor through both his father and his mother, so it is likely that Margaret had the porphyria gene. It is now thought that George III, a sixth-generation descendant of James, also had porphyria."

Thanks for that, Jo. I learn something new every day!

Interesting to note (to me, at least) that James, although sometimes very melancholy and sick and sorry for himself, was never actually thought to be mad as was George III.
 
Polly, a couple of books which trace the history of porphyria in the royal family back to the Stuarts are McAlpine & Hunter's "George III and the Mad Business" (Pantheon, 1970) and Rohl, Warren, & Hunt's "Purple Secret: Genes, Madness, and the Royal Houses of Europe" (Bantam, 1998).
 
Thank you, Elspeth.

I'll track them down. The second title looks most intriguing to me.

From a C21 perspective, it's a pity, n'est ce pas, that so little was known about genetic inheritance and pre-disposition, in the past? How much anguish, suffering, and indeed, revolution, might have been avoided?
 
Thanks for the references. I'll have to order some and dig in.

Far be it from me to discourage you, Zhontella, but they're all fairly weighty, historical tomes. Perhaps they are not entirely suitable to those who do not have a professional interest in the various periods outlined, so it may well be better to check them out at your local library, and/or avail yourself of the inter-library loan facilities first. After checking them out, you can then decide whether or not to purchase. Twenty years ago, they were not cheap, sad to say.
 
Far be it from me to discourage you, Zhontella, but they're all fairly weighty, historical tomes. Perhaps they are not entirely suitable to those who do not have a professional interest in the various periods outlined, so it may well be better to check them out at your local library, and/or avail yourself of the inter-library loan facilities first. After checking them out, you can then decide whether or not to purchase. Twenty years ago, they were not cheap, sad to say.

I found these books on Abebooks for only a few dollars. A lot will happen to the price of a book in 20 years.

My interest in royals has always been more for the personal, psychological history -- rather than any politics or formal fanfare. So your descriptions are exactly the kind of info I've been searching.
 
Good for you, Zhontella! Such enterprise is commendable, in my opinion.

The Oxford Histories are, however, more concerned with bald history and constitutional matters than gossip, though, of course, there are many qualifications, along the lines which I suggested, throughout.

If you find them too dry, PM me and I'll try to nominate more specific titles along the lines of your interests. I have a lot of books, all of which informed my very strong opinions, attitudes and fancies.
 
Thank you, Elspeth.

I'll track them down. The second title looks most intriguing to me.

From a C21 perspective, it's a pity, n'est ce pas, that so little was known about genetic inheritance and pre-disposition, in the past? How much anguish, suffering, and indeed, revolution, might have been avoided?

Funny you should mention that, because I've often wondered how many major wars in the ancient world were caused because the kings involved had toothache or something.

It's sort of interesting that there seems to have been insanity in the royal line before Mary Stuart (I'm thinking of Henry VI in particular, but some of the others didn't seem to be too stable). Presumably Mary inherited the porphyria gene from somewhere (assuming she really did have it), but I suppose the medical records further back in history are too sketchy for modern researchers to really know what was causing the symptoms.
 
Funny you should mention that, because I've often wondered how many major wars in the ancient world were caused because the kings involved had toothache or something.

.

Do you know, Elspeth, that I think that one of the most profound comments I've read on this Board, or anywhere, for that matter, and I read a lot of history.

It's not funny at all: I'm convinced that it's a genuine contender for serious investigation and reflection, though I wouldn't restrict it to an examination of the ancient world, alone.
 
So where is the "historical sense" that the Spencers were ever superior to that august ancestry?
Of course they weren't!
Polly said:
the censorious, striving, middle-classes of England, who've only ever struggled to emulate the ingrained influence of the aristocracy which it, so sadly, futilely envies.


Envy is a very negative emotion, but it doesn't start and end with the middle classes. Viscounts are envious of Earls, Earls of Marquesses, Marquesses of Dukes, they were all envious of the power of the monarch of course and all fought among themselves to be one of the powers behind the throne.

The Spencer's lineage is only traceable back to 1330, with the family tree starting with plain old William, the title of Earl Spencer being created in 1765 (If you look at their family tree, you will see many careful marriages to daughters for advancement purposes). Many aristocratic families can trace their titles back a further 120- 330 years and some of the Scots beyond that.

All aristocratic families, tried to stay close to the throne, (some like the Spencer's even changed allegiance to pursue that goal). Most tried to advance themselves through the system, becoming Baron - Viscount - Earl - Marquess - Duke, as always, loyal servants were rewarded, those that fell from favour lost everything.

Most people have witnessed some of the back stabbing that goes on within a company, climbing the social ladder was no different 500-700 years ago, than it is today, although the stabbing tended to be real. Women were commodities, to be used to advance the family and that has not changed, Diana's father, IMO, planted the seed from an early age, that Diana at last could achieve what had eluded the Spencer's for so long. So their lineage may have been prestigious, but they were still scheming to achieve the ultimate goal and marry into the ('inferior') royal family.
 
Diana's father, IMO, planted the seed from an early age, that Diana at last could achieve what had eluded the Spencer's for so long. So their lineage may have been prestigious, but they were still scheming to achieve the ultimate goal and marry into the ('inferior') royal family.

One might argue that the hopes were pinned on Sarah first, then Diana.
Or maybe it was Diana, Sarah, Diana again; if the Earl merely hoped for a Diana, Duchess of York until Sarah managed to be a girlfriend of the Prince of Wales. Who knew that Jane would best them all, by bagging and keeping arguably one of the most prominent royal courtiers in the land? :D But thank goodness Lady Sarah A-J or Lady Helen Windsor didn't marry Charles Spencer. :eek: :sick:
 
One might argue that the hopes were pinned on Sarah first, then Diana.
Or maybe it was Diana, Sarah, Diana again; if the Earl merely hoped for a Diana, Duchess of York until Sarah managed to be a girlfriend of the Prince of Wales. Who knew that Jane would best them all, by bagging and keeping arguably one of the most prominent royal courtiers in the land? :D
I think any one of them would do, but he had more of a chance marrying Diana into the BRF because Frances wasn't about to keep his ambitions in check! I think Sarah and Jane were well grounded and perhaps, having had their mother about for longer, less guilible.
But thank goodness Lady Sarah A-J or Lady Helen Windsor didn't marry Charles Spencer. :eek: :sick:
:eek:Oh CasiraghiTrio, shame on you, what a terrible thought! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
So their lineage may have been prestigious, but they were still scheming to achieve the ultimate goal and marry into the ('inferior') royal family.

Was that the ultimate goal? Short sighted I think! They have achieved far more. Spencer blood will one day reign....albeit mixed with a dash of that pesky Windsor blood, of course. :)
 
Was that the ultimate goal? Short sighted I think! They have achieved far more. Spencer blood will one day reign....albeit mixed with a dash of that pesky Windsor blood, of course. :)
Ha Ha, you are right, they exceeded even their wildest dreams! :ROFLMAO:
 
"I don't think anyone else matters to Charles except Charles"

Charles only thinks about Charles. Lying Camilla is desperatly needed, to tell him only things he wants to heir, such as to reasure him on a daily basis that his close-set-eyes do not mean insincerity. Characteristically, that trait means you cannot be trusted. Many thiefs have eyes like that.

Also, does anyone in their right mind sincerily believe what the boys are forced to say about Camilla? My heart goes out to them......... how sad.
 
such as to reasure him on a daily basis that his close-set-eyes do not mean insincerity. Characteristically, that trait means you cannot be trusted. Many thiefs have eyes like that.

Also, does anyone in their right mind sincerily believe what the boys are forced to say about Camilla? My heart goes out to them......... how sad.

Right... Eyes determine personality.

Yes.

Perhaps he stole Christmas as well.
 
i dont think things would have turn out much different, because Camilla wouldn't wait for charles and she fell in love with someone else and married him while charles was in the Navy. Charles would still have had to marry someone if it wasn't diana and the out come would be similar either way. Camilla wanted both men (if she didnt she would never of married Andrew) and would have been happy going back and forth between them like she had already and if the affair didnt go public she still would be going between both men, i dont however and never have believe Charles was Camilla love of her life, otherwise she would have waited for charles instead of marrying someone as soon as charles left the country.
 
Back
Top Bottom