Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[MARG]

I once saw a biography of her in which one of her former schoolmates said that although she wasn't very pretty she was able to get any boy she wanted. She had a lot of appeal even then. I happen to admire the way she has comported herself through everything. She has behaved with discretion and dignity and for the first time in my recollection Prince Charles looks happy, relaxed and at peace.

If these allegations of "sleeping around" are true, she certainly knew how to behave with the utmost discretion. If she hadn't I think those of the "burn her at the stake" mindset would have printed every gory little detail in foot high headlines to underline her "shame"! Funny, I must have missed those papers and TV stories. As for the endless kiss and tell ex partners, hmmm wonder where the bodies are buried?

 

[BellaFay]

Christopher Wilson isn't necessarily to be believed. I once caught him out telling a bare-faced lie in an article in the Daily Mail. He claimed that Prince Charles and Camilla had had secret meetings and sexual relationships at Camilla's grandmother's house close to a naval base in Petersfield where Charles was based, after Camilla was married & given birth to her son Tom in December 1975. But Prince Charles was only ever based at Petersfield once in his entire naval career, in the Spring-Summer of 1972. In fact it was probably when they first met. When I wrote to the editor of the Daily Mail to point this out I got a very shirty letter back from Christopher Wilson and have ever since distrusted anything he claims about the couple. IMO the only person who can be trusted is Jonathan Dimbleby because he's the only one to have seen much of the Prince's correspondence and diaries.

 

[Al_bina]

Only Duchess of Cornwall knows for sure how many men she had. She was clever enough to keep her relationships discreet, which has proven expedient in the long-term.

 

[Skydragon]

She was clever enough to keep her relationships discreet,

If in fact she had any! As I haven't seen a rush to tell all to any media, I rather think that all her relationships are in other people's minds!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

She was clever enough to keep her relationships discreet, which has proven expedient in the long-term.

How does one do that, I wonder? What has "cleverness" to do with it? Okay, you could be "clever" in finding discreet partners, but you never know...

I guess we're here in on one of the "errors about a generation not ours" - for Dowager-types like Lady Fermoy or Queen Mum a young woman who actually engaged in banter and a bit of innuendo like "my and your ancestor - how about us?" could well be considered to be on the "loose" or even "fast" side while she was only "racy". But marriage material due to the dignity and earnestness she applied when it came to the serious decisions of her life...

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think it'd also be too Barbara Cartland to assume that those white brides who married Princes were actually entitled to don the garb. From what I know of country house weekends, a girl doesn't keep her virtue for very long. Nor does a man for that matter. English stately homes have housed the most outrageous depravity for centuries so I'd assume most people brought up in that atmosphere would have had many 'discreet relationships'.

 

[Al_bina]

I think it'd also be too Barbara Cartland to assume that those white brides who married Princes were actually entitled to don the garb. From what I know of country house weekends, a girl doesn't keep her virtue for very long. Nor does a man for that matter. English stately homes have housed the most outrageous depravity for centuries so I'd assume most people brought up in that atmosphere would have had many 'discreet relationships'.

As usually, your post is very insightful. I dare to presume that the above applies to a fair number of stately houses throughout the world.

 

[Elspeth]

If in fact she had any! As I haven't seen a rush to tell all to any media, I rather think that all her relationships are in other people's minds!

Or that she's a very good judge of character and knows how to pick discreet friends. She does seem to have the ability to inspire loyalty.

 

[diamondBrg]

Or that she's a very good judge of character and knows how to pick discreet friends. She does seem to have the ability to inspire loyalty.

In either case it is certainly to her credit as she is now a member of the Royal Family. Very sad that others before her did not have the same strength of character or high enough IQ to choose companions that would not kiss and tell. I would suppose water seeks it's own level thought.

 

[MARG]

Or that she's a very good judge of character and knows how to pick discreet friends. She does seem to have the ability to inspire loyalty.

Wow, any notion that "morality" as an "old fashioned" ideal is shot to pieces by Wallace Simpson (twice and divorced and ?X an adulterer) who was never ever going to be suitable to be married to the Prince of Wales, and Camilla who for much less reason, has been vilified to the extreme. And this in the noughties (2000's)?

Wallace was never discreet or apologetic, and yet some expect the Duchess of Cornwall to grovel and accept crumbs and endless humiliation for no real reason other than some moralists have declared that that is all she deserves. (And they haven't even got a twisted riding teacher or the Butler's published memoirs to support their assertions). Nuts! Go figure!

The Duchess of Cornwall seems only to engender warmth and admiration in the lives of those she touches. Not a Rat in the bunch to date!

 

[Skydragon]

The Duchess of Cornwall seems only to engender warmth and admiration in the lives of those she touches. Not a Rat in the bunch to date!

Lovely post. I think those who know Camilla would agree with you!

 

[Duchess]

of course never having met her, i can only assume that maybe she just has those qualities that attract a lot male friends. this doesn't mean that they've all been sexual partners. she obviously likes to surround herself with people that are discreet and extremely trustworthy and they obviously feel protective of her. i think she takes great care in who she considers her "friends". MARG...i think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Iluvbertie]

of course never having met her, i can only assume that maybe she just has those qualities that attract a lot male friends. this doesn't mean that they've all been sexual partners. she obviously likes to surround herself with people that are discreet and extremely trustworthy and they obviously feel protective of her. i think she takes great care in who she considers her "friends". MARG...i think you hit the nail on the head.

I have to agree totally - not every male a woman is seen with is a lover!

My mother had a number of male friends but would never have considered sleeping with any of them. She just enjoyed male company (including that of her husband). Dad was fully aware of Mum's enjoyment of male company and fully trusted her as he knew her.

I see a lot of Camilla in Mum in that way - enjoys male company without necessarily going to bed with them.

 

[Elspeth]

The derail into the Charles-Camilla-Diana eternal triangle, along with the needling comments about Saint Camilla and about Diana, have been removed.

Let's get this thread back on topic. If there's nothing more to be said about the circumstances of the Prince's current marriage, feel free to just leave the thread alone.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator

 

[Skydragon]

I have to agree with Skydragon - my thoughts when Wallis was mentioned -times have changed.

In those days you would never have seen a member of the royal family divorced or marry a divorcee (or even a non-virgin). Now that happens- in the UK one in three marriages end in divorce. It was hardly heard of in the 20/30/40's

Not just members of the Royal Family, a divorced man was acceptable, a divorced woman was suddenly on the fringes. The latest figures suggest that 45% of marriages in the UK will end in divorce.

Channel 4 - Family - 21st Century Family
Mr and Mrs: the marriage report - Times Online

and that with a falling marriage rate in the first place.

 

[branchg]

Divorce was a social disgrace and unacceptable to the Church of England in 1936. It was unthinkable for a twice-divorced woman to marry The King or become a member of the royal family, never mind Queen. So, Edward had no choice but to abdicate the throne due to his own selfishness and refusal to do his duty. What choice did George VI have but to deny her royal rank as a consequence?

However, as time went on and social attitudes changed, Wallis certainly should have been granted what was rightfully hers. In spite of the initial fears, she did stay married to Edward and worked hard to maintain his dignity in an honourable way, all the while encouraging him to try and make peace with his family. She earned the right to be a Royal Highness in my view with her dignified behavior, which certainly was better than anything Diana or Sarah later demonstrated.

Camilla is a totally different situation in that she is already married to the heir to the throne and will automatically be Queen when the time comes. Whether Parliament will be prepared to introduce legislation will depend greatly on public opinion at the time. If opposition is strong to her being Queen, it can be done.

 

[Elspeth]

You are certainly welcome to your perception of the situation, but that was not a Church of England marriage ceremony that was performed in Windsor, just a "blessing". My perception, on the other hand, regarding that is that is why they took as long to get married - because they were hoping the Church of England would soon change their teachings just to suit Charles.

The CofE had already made a pretty major change in its position about remarriage of divorced people, and I don't think it was going to lighten up any more in the immediate future. Unlike previously, at the discretion of the clergyman concerned, divorced people can remarry in the CofE, but I believe it's seriously frowned on for a remarriage to take place in the CofE if one of the partners was instrumental in the breakup of the other partner's previous marriage. Even if Charles had wanted to remarry in church, he's intelligent enough to see what sort of effect it would have had for him to insist on a church marriage under conditions where his subjects would be denied one. This wedding was controversial enough as it was.

The general opinion seems to be that they waited till the Queen Mother had died because she didn't want Charles to marry Camilla. Don't ask me why the whole royal family seemed to treat the Queen Mother as though she was God, but that seems to be how it was.

 

[Monika_]

The general opinion seems to be that they waited till the Queen Mother had died because she didn't want Charles to marry Camilla. Don't ask me why the whole royal family seemed to treat the Queen Mother as though she was God, but that seems to be how it was.

Elspeth, I so agree about the QM. They did tip-toe around her, did they not? But perhaps Charles waited not because of her feelings for Camilla, but because of her life-long hatred of the DoW and the whole subject of divorce, etc. I've read that the QM actually sanctioned his relationship with Mrs Parker-Bowles and even allowed them to use Birkhall from time to time. The same story was revealed during a "Royal Biography" series here in the States. I realize Wallis was another story, but for Charles to go so far as to ask his grandmother to publicly accept a marriage to Camilla, well perhaps he felt that would put her in a rather awkward position. It's possible...

 

[jcbcode99]

Completely right at the QM.

 

[Madame Royale]

Elspeth, I so agree about the QM. They did tip-toe around her, did they not? But perhaps Charles waited not because of her feelings for Camilla, but and the whole subject of divorce, etc. I've read that the QM actually sanctioned his relationship with Mrs Parker-Bowles and even allowed them to use Birkhall from time to time. The same story was revealed during a "Royal Biography" series here in the States. I realize Wallis was another story, but for Charles to go so far as to ask his grandmother to publicly accept a marriage to Camilla, well perhaps he felt that would put her in a rather awkward position. It's possible...

Whatever the QM thought of Camilla, privately, there was an image to maintain and image, above all else, was at the crux of Elizabeth's life of dedication. With all that her family had endured, and to yet again anticipate the posibility of notoriety would have been all but too much for this much beloved 'Granny'.

She wouldn't deny her grandson his happiness, privately, but the social responsibility he had, in her eyes, surely outweighed the need to have Camilla by his side in any official manner. A mistress is what she was, not what she remained, though once labelled it is often hard, if not most times impossible, to repair such an image. Was it too late? I think Elizabeth believed it was, and I'm sure even hearing the word dicorcee would have provided her with the worst acid reflux!

I'm of the mind that the QM had no issue with Camilla being Charles companion in private. There was nothing she could do to sanction her grandsons relationship in such a way. Officially however, she had it in the bag. To welcome Camilla as an active member of the royal family, and so officially ordained into the House of Windsor...dream on 'Chucky'.

And I empathise with such sentiments, if infact shared by the late QM, which I believe they were. I don't necessarily agree, but...

As is the case, things have panned out rather well considering which is great. I'll just await legislation to create Camilla Princess Consort and...

...her life-long hatred of the DoW

That actually isn't so. When the Duchess was unwell, and nearing the end of her life in France, the Queen Mother sent her flowers with a card that read, "In friendship". They had previously last seen each other at Edwards funeral and apparently the QM was quite sympathetic towards Wallis even then, who at that time, was experiencing a certain degree of disorientation.

After all was said and done, they were but two widows, aged and afflicted with lifes 'rent'..

I'm not saying they were friends like we would think a friend to be, but I think a sense of understanding grew. Or at best, acknowledgement.

 

[Skydragon]

... They were actually married in the civil ceremony.

Which of course is all it requires for it to be legally accepted. There is no requirement to have a service of blessing.

 

[brandon]

Brandon, I agree with you. The 'blessing' was just that, a blessing. They were actually married in the civil ceremony. I think we all recall the confusion during the planning stages when Clarence House announced the marriage's change of venue from Windsor Castle to the Guildhall, Windsor. This substitution came about when it was discovered that the legal requirements for licensing the royal castle for civil weddings would require opening it up to other prospective couples for at least three years.

In other words, it appears that a civil ceremony was necessary; otherwise the whole thing could have been taken care of within the cozy walls of the castle.

Yes, it's necessary. However how often do we witness the civil ceremony of an heir to the throne? So the whole day at Windsor just underscored that the whole arrangement was just...strange, to say the least. For an heir to the throne to be seen going into the town registry office down the street to get married, not even George IV went that far. The whole emphasis should have been on a regular religious marriage ceremony, but he couldn't have that, and as heir to the style of "Defender of the Faith" that matters. His PR spin to put a cloak over all that was to suggest he should expand beyond being "Defender of the Faith" to become something grander like "Defender of Faiths"? I note that nonsense only started coming from him around the time he probably ascertained that he couldn't have a second religious wedding in a Church of England ceremony. The church wasn't going to bend their rules any further just to fit his agenda.

 

[brandon]

After all was said and done, they were but two widows, aged and afflicted with lifes 'rent'..

I'm not saying they were friends like we would think a friend to be, but I think a sense of understanding grew. Or at best, acknowledgement.

I sincerely doubt there was any sense of positive understanding much less friendship. If you read the accounts of the Duchess of Windsor in the days following her husband's death, she was extremely knowing and cynical about the RF and her opinion didn't change upon her return after the funeral either. Yes, the QM came up to her after the funeral and said something like "I know exactly how you feel.." but is there any account of what the Duchess answered? No. An icy silence is maintained. Two old people, but one knows the other is just probably trying to square her conscience toward the end of her own life and nothing more. Then when she returns to France, the Duchess continues in her usual form of mocking the QM's lack of style: "That hat at the funeral....it reminded me of an arrow in a bush. "I shot an arrow into the air, but where it landed I know not where" or words to that effect to her friends. Then she complained bitterly about how Charles's mentor Lord Mountbatten had browbeat her to get back any jewels or other signficant mementoes left her by the Duke of Windsor. She very much continued to see the immediate RF as a bloc that was out to destroy her, and with good reason. When the QM came to Paris some years later -- same thing. She wanted to visit with her but was told the Duchess couldn't see her. QM made sure the media got the word that she'd tried and sent flowers. Her pastor told her to go on making empty gestures, and the other advisers thought it would make great PR too. But the Duchess understood about "life's rent" just as much as the QM.

 

[love_cc]

. The whole emphasis should have been on a regular religious marriage ceremony, but he couldn't have that, and as heir to the style of "Defender of the Faith" that matters. His PR spin to put a cloak over all that was to suggest he should expand beyond being "Defender of the Faith" to become something grander like "Defender of Faiths"? I note that nonsense only started coming from him around the time he probably ascertained that he couldn't have a second religious wedding in a Church of England ceremony. The church wasn't going to bend their rules any further just to fit his agenda.

I totally disagree with this part.I think "defend of faiths" stuff has nothing to do with Charle and Camilla's marriage. It is more about his ideas among different religions because he think all regions have some share values and he will be willing to adpeted to a mutliculure society as the future Britain. So he spoke to be defend of faiths in 1994, long before the marriage in 2005.

It is quite understanding why Charles and Camilla cannot have a religious wedding but a blessing. Anyway I don't see civil marriage as a devalued option for him..... On the contrary, I think his wedding in the Windsor Guildhall made another history note which made the Guildhall with some historical significance, which is not a bad thing at all.

Don't care where they got married, but care that they would be happy because they got married.

 

[brandon]

I totally disagree with this part.I think "defend of faiths" stuff has nothing to do with Charle and Camilla's marriage. It is more about his ideas among different religions because he think all regions have some share values and he will be willing to adpeted to a mutliculure society as the future Britain. So he spoke to be defend of faiths in 1994, long before the marriage in 2005.

It is quite understanding why Charles and Camilla cannot have a religious wedding but a blessing. Anyway I don't see civil marriage as a devalued option for him..... On the contrary, I think his wedding in the Windsor Guildhall made another history note which made the Guildhall with some historical significance, which is not a bad thing at all.

Don't care where they got married, but care that they would be happy because they got married.

Yes, he started to speak about being "Defender of Faiths" the minute he realized his first marriage was probably headed toward the divorce court. How convenient. As if anyone would really want such a disgraceful, deceitful individual to be defender of their faith when he can't even honor his own. No doubt the Guildhall ceremony was appropriate for him but not in any sense that contributes well to the history of that family, that's for sure. Charles is happy in his lies, alright, but unfortunately for you many people in the Commonwealth are headed to the exit door and want to be a republic. No Millie for Queen in Oz-land it seems.

 

[Charlotte1]

However how often do we witness the civil ceremony of an heir to the throne?

In recent times? December 1999, Prince Philippe heir to the Belgium throne marries in a civil ceremony followed by a church ceremony. February 2002 Prince Willem-Alexander, heir to the Dutch throne marries first in a civil ceremony followed by a church ceremony.

 

[branchg]

The Instrument of Abdication specified that children of the marriage would not be eligible to inherit their father's royal status but would be styled as the children of nonroyal Dukes.

Actually, the Act of Abdication did not say anything of the sort. It simply stated Edward was renouncing the throne for himself and his descendants.

The matter of his title and style was settled early on when George VI told the Cabinet his brother would remain a Prince of the UK and a Royal Highness, with precedence before The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, but after Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. He also told his brother he would create him Duke of Windsor.

 

[brandon]

In recent times? December 1999, Prince Philippe heir to the Belgium throne marries in a civil ceremony followed by a church ceremony. February 2002 Prince Willem-Alexander, heir to the Dutch throne marries first in a civil ceremony followed by a church ceremony.

Of course when I said "heir to the throne" I was thinking of the British throne, not everybody else's since this is a British royal forum. Don't think they were marrying divorcees they'd had affairs with, anyway.

 

[Sister Morphine]

In recent times? December 1999, Prince Philippe heir to the Belgium throne marries in a civil ceremony followed by a church ceremony. February 2002 Prince Willem-Alexander, heir to the Dutch throne marries first in a civil ceremony followed by a church ceremony.

That's because that's how things are done in those countries. You marry for the State first, then the Church. You can't do the religious service before the civil.


I don't think the same thing applies in England.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

In recent times? December 1999, Prince Philippe heir to the Belgium throne marries in a civil ceremony followed by a church ceremony. February 2002 Prince Willem-Alexander, heir to the Dutch throne marries first in a civil ceremony followed by a church ceremony.

In most European countries a church marriage alone is not considered valid, so pre-church service the marriage certificate of the registration offcie has to be shown. For Royal weddings the "civil" part is handled after the church wedding in a side room of the church where the wedding took place - at least that's what I gathered from the European Royal weddings of the past years.