Charles and Camilla to Marry: February 10, 2005


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
susan alicia said:
as far as i can read in the times article it says that she might not go with charles to washington, that must be a decsicion she does not take alone and something that is meant for the benefit of all concerned.

the work she does at the moment is charitable and has been offered to her because of her position and it would be strange if she did not accept it and do her best.

going with charles to washington is not the same

But the article talks about the future and how she hasn't really planned to participate in royal duties.

From the article:

She has told officials that even after their marriage in April, in an apparent breach of protocol, she will not automatically accompany Charles on every foreign tour.

One friend of Parker Bowles said she never had any intention of taking on a full programme of public duties. He said: “Anybody coming into the royal family struggles to cope because the pace never lets up. What you do today was put in the diary six months ago. Camilla has had to cope with a lot but she has never worked in her life.”

I can see why she wouldn't go to Washington. Diana was very popular in America, so things might be a bit akward. But to breach protocol and not accompany Charles on every foreign tour? There's no reason. If she will be in the Royal family, she should work hard like the other members do, like The Queen and Princess Anne.
 
ANd ppl do deserve to be happy, but they should also be dutiful. I am glad that Charles and Camilla are getting married cuz the alternative was not good at all. However I am against that she gets the HRH status and even a title. They could have had a ceremnoy where she did not get a title. That would have been more suitable.

However, if a morganatic marriage is possible now, then it would have been possible for the Duke of Windsor, since as far as I know the law hasn't changed in the meantime. It was said at the time that a morganatic marriage would require special legislation and the permission of the commonwealth countries and goodness knows what else, and Parliament refused to countenance it. That was a case where Edward was already king and there was no ex-Princess of Wales to complicate things. If they suddenly decide that morganatic marriage is viable now, then they're saying they turfed a king off the throne illegally back in the 1930s. I doubt they'll want to do that. Giving Camilla a title that's not quite Princess of Wales is a compromise.
 
Binky said:
But the article talks about the future and how she hasn't really planned to participate in royal duties.

From the article:

I can see why she wouldn't go to Washington. Diana was very popular in America, so things might be a bit akward. But to breach protocol and not accompany Charles on every foreign tour? There's no reason. If she will be in the Royal family, she should work hard like the other members do, like The Queen and Princess Anne.

I would agree with that!

Princess Diana been popular Princess many people love her lots! since 1986 im not sure! when Diana went Washington D.C. meet late President Reagon and former Lady Nancy Reagon for gala dinner and late President Reagan dances with Princess Diana and John Travolta and Diana attend Chicago,for gala dinner and meet former lady Hillary Clinton in 1996 and 1997 and Diana attend Washington D.C. for Red Cross dinner gala funds before she died in 1997 with Mrs.Dole and Diana meet designer im not sure what name is! Diana loves visit USA lots!

HM Queen attend state dinner with President Reagon twice when HM Queen comes visit US visit him and Washington D.C. for speech i think so!

im not sure about Princess Anne! she never visit US! i not read about Princess Anne visit to US

Sarah,Duchess of York visit New York couples times for talk show and lots of more of funds dinners but she would lived in New York she says that.

Sara Boyce
 
The thing that makes me really mad about Camilla is she wants the best of both worlds. I cannot believe she will not take on any royal duties.

She'll have to start doing significant royal duties if this wedding isn't just going to end up causing more problems than it solves. People really aren't going to stand for her getting married, getting a title, getting legitimate access to the Duchy of Cornwall income, and then freeloading.

She doesn't have to accompany Charles on all his foreign trips - other royals do solo foreign engagements - but she'll have to accompany him on some of his engagements and take on some of her own or there'll be trouble.

Like I said the other day - as mistress, she had the best of all worlds, with the perks but not the responsibilities. Now she's got the responsibilities too, and she'll just have to make the best of them.
 
Last edited:
Sara, Princess Anne visited the USA with Prince Charles during the Nixon Administration. I'm not sure how many visits, if any, she's made since then.
 
Camilla Parker Bowles is marrying the Prince of Wales. That makes her HRH The Princess of Wales. It also means she should be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne -IF they both live long enough. While the compromises are admirable I think they are unneccessary and purely political. Are they perfect? No. Are any of those casting stones perfect? They apparently think so - but guess what? They're not either.......

I wish them every happiness they can find in the remaining years of their lives and SHAME on those who can't because they are so bitter and unforgiving...sad people!
 
nivek517 said:
Camilla Parker Bowles is marrying the Prince of Wales. That makes her HRH The Princess of Wales. It also means she should be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne -IF they both live long enough. While the compromises are admirable I think they are unneccessary and purely political. Are they perfect? No. Are any of those casting stones perfect? They apparently think so - but guess what? They're not either.......

I wish them every happiness they can find in the remaining years of their lives and SHAME on those who can't because they are so bitter and unforgiving...sad people!

no!

Camilla will known as Duchess of Cornwall or Princess of Consort but Camilla cant become Princess of Wales nor become Queen of England what Prince William told Camilla about replace his mother's titles many people wanted to low-profiles of late Princess of Wales in 1997 that why! but thankness godness no replace to taking his mother's titles

Sara Boyce
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes,now the title for Camilla is Her Royal Highness Duchess Camilla of Cornwall.If Prince Charles become King,she will be The Princess Consort not The Queen.But Prince Charles still hope the public agree for Camilla become Queen for the crowning at Westminster Abbey.
 
Camilla will known as Duchess of Cornwall or Princess of Consort but Camilla cant become Princess of Wales nor become Queen of England what Prince William told Camilla about replace his mother's titles many people wanted to low-profiles of late Princess of Wales in 1997 that why! but thankness godness no replace to taking his mother's titles

Sara, she WILL be Princess of Wales, she'll just be KNOWN AS Duchess of Cornwall. Equally, without legislation to prevent it, when Charles become king she will be queen, even if she's known as Princess Consort. Obviously these titles are being used to avoid it looking as though they're insulting the memory of Diana, but Camilla will still have the PoW title even though she won't be using it.
 
Regarding this uproar about a civil ceremony not being legal. The Earl & Countess of St Andrews married in a british registry office at Leith in Scotland in 1988. That was well before the establishment of the Scottish parliament and, even now, Scotland is still a part of Great Britian so it looks to me like these legal "experts" just like to hear the sound of their own voices.
 
Last edited:
The Earl of St Andrews isn't an HRH, though. I'm not sure if that makes a difference.
 
At that time he was still in the line of succession and his children remain so.
 
Yes, but by not being an HRH, I mean that he's too far removed from the monarch, not that he had to give up his position in the succession. Prince Michael of Kent is still an HRH by virtue of being George V's grandson, even though he isn't in the succession. The Earl of Ulster isn't an HRH even though he's married to a Protestant and is still in the line of succession.

I'm not really clear whether by "royal family" the law just applies to those with HRH titles or the immediate family of the current sovereign or what. I mean, if you count the royal family as being anyone with descent from Queen Victoria, there's hundreds of them, and I assume some of them have married legally in Register Offices.
 
Elspeth said:
Sara, she WILL be Princess of Wales, she'll just be KNOWN AS Duchess of Cornwall. Equally, without legislation to prevent it, when Charles become king she will be queen, even if she's known as Princess Consort. Obviously these titles are being used to avoid it looking as though they're insulting the memory of Diana, but Camilla will still have the PoW title even though she won't be using it.

im royalwatcher! but i knew about Princess Diana's fans since 1997 but many people in England wont wanted Camilla become Princess of Wales or Queen of England because Diana is DEAD! but Camilla cant become Queen that it! if people thinks Camilla will become Queen i cant support her! PEROID! but William would hurt feelings about replace his beloved mother's titles they wanted to hold for his future brides getting as POW not as Camilla! if she would grants as Queen i would break my feelings!

Sara Boyce
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HMQueenElizabethII said:
Yes,now the title for Camilla is Her Royal Highness Duchess Camilla of Cornwall.If Prince Charles become King,she will be The Princess Consort not The Queen.But Prince Charles still hope the public agree for Camilla become Queen for the crowning at Westminster Abbey.

Camilla cant become Queen! she is not popular! she is homewrecker into Prince Charles and Princess Diana's marriages i knew it!

Sara Boyce
 
Apparently there was something in the 1836 Act that excluded members of the royal family from the ability to contract civil weddings, and there seems to be some controversy about whether the 1949 act did anything about that exclusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4262963.stm

I'm sure the royal family will have taken some first-rate legal advice about this matter before deciding to go ahead, so I assume they don't see a problem.
 
Sara, we'll just have to wait and see what Camilla's title will be when Charles becomes king or whether there's some legislation passed in the current reign to allow for the possibility of a king's wife not becoming queen.

In the meantime, there's nothing we can do to affect things one way or the other, so there's no point getting worked up about it.
 
Elspeth said:
Sara, we'll just have to wait and see what Camilla's title will be when Charles becomes king or whether there's some legislation passed in the current reign to allow for the possibility of a king's wife not becoming queen.

In the meantime, there's nothing we can do to affect things one way or the other, so there's no point getting worked up about it.

okay!

Prince Charles will become King after his mum and Camilla cant become Queen you know that.

Sara Boyce
 
AP

LONDON - Officially, it's off the agenda. But the marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles — two divorcees — was looming large over the Church of England's general synod on Monday. Several delegates urged Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and synod president, to raise the royal wedding as an emergency issue. But he said the agenda was too full. However, the issue could be raised later as a question during the four-day meeting. During Monday's two-hour session, the Rev. David Houlding, a member of the Archbishop's Council, asked the synod to congratulate Prince Charles and Parker Bowles on their engagement. The 579-member group applauded loudly. But three delegates questioned the legality of the couple's decision to marry outside the Church of England in a civil ceremony.

"It has grave consequences for the future of the church. It has grave consequences for the future of this nation," said Allan Jones, a delegate from the diocese of Liverpool. He and the two other delegates said the church must decide whether that course of action is right or wrong, and tell the public. But the Rev. Richard Turnbull, chairman of the synod's business committee, said "now is not the moment" to discuss it.

The major issues on the agenda at the meeting, which is held twice a year, are homosexuality and the ordination of women bishops — topics which have caused major divisions within the church. But the church is now in a delicate position regarding the royal wedding. As a divorcee, Charles is free to remarry because his former wife, Princess Diana, died. But Parker Bowles's ex-husband is alive, so in some eyes she is not free to remarry. Charles and Camilla are planning a civil ceremony on April 8 at Windsor Castle. It will be followed by a separate service of prayer and dedication overseen by Williams, the head of the Church of England. The unusual plan to avoid a church marriage apparently was agreed upon because of the divorce issue. Last week, Williams issued a statement confirming that the marriage was within church guidelines and had his "full support."
 
Thanks for the information, Dennis.

I'm sure there are branches of the Church of England that are really having bad problems with this issue. Considering the way things are divided over the way to treat homosexual clergy, this isn't great timing (assuming there ever would be a good time to have to work through something like this).
 
I am a diana fan, but i think we should just all be happy for them both. i saw the photos of them together and think, they SHOULD be together because they both look so happy. despte my misgivings about the charles-di breakup, i wish camilla and charles (or fred and gladys hehe) well and that they may have a good married life together... :) cheers to our ole farts :)
 
thanks for articles,dennism

that totally strange articles but i never know about that! but i never understand about that! if who are homosexual? or not! if have pastor have it!

Sara Boyce
 
You´re welcome. Nightline did a whole piece tonight on the marriage. The various things included discussion of the title debate and such things. It was basically a primer for those people, unlike my fellow watchers, who have not been paying attention. A little discussion about the children who according to Tina Brown are basically something akin to "It´s his life. We are adults now. We don´t really like her too much but he can do what he wants." Well, it was something like that.
 
Elspeth said:
Apparently there was something in the 1836 Act that excluded members of the royal family from the ability to contract civil weddings, and there seems to be some controversy about whether the 1949 act did anything about that exclusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4262963.stm

I'm sure the royal family will have taken some first-rate legal advice about this matter before deciding to go ahead, so I assume they don't see a problem.

Elspeth,
I work in a legal environment and my understanding is that if a piece of legislation is rewritten (as the 1836 Act obviously was) it ceases to exist. In the same way some of the clauses in the 1949 Act have been superceeded by clauses in the Amendment Act which came out a couple of years ago. If the Registry Services in the UK operate with the 1949 Act as their principle peice of legislation then that is the legislation that applies. I think that it is likely that some minor royals have been led astray with false information and forced to marry overseas. For example Prince & Princess Michael married in Vienna & the Earl of Harewood married his second wife in Conneticut. As the 1949 Act reads there is no reason a civil marriage cannot be undertaken in the UK by a member of the royal family.
 
off topic, i think camilla would look SO MUCH better if she recuts her hair. the shag hair is just not working for me...
 
Anyway not!She can not become Queen.Never!Never become Princess of Wales or Queen of England!She's the one who has destroyed the marriage of Charles and Diana.
 
Not only because of her hair.She does not have enough personality to become The Queen.How can a woman who have divorced become Queen?You know,in the 1930s,when King Edward VIII loved Wallis Simpson,The Queen Mother Elizabeth(at that time she was the Duchess of York)did not approve.She had told the courtiers do not curtsey to Wallis Simpson.
 
wymanda said:
Elspeth,
I work in a legal environment and my understanding is that if a piece of legislation is rewritten (as the 1836 Act obviously was) it ceases to exist. In the same way some of the clauses in the 1949 Act have been superceeded by clauses in the Amendment Act which came out a couple of years ago. If the Registry Services in the UK operate with the 1949 Act as their principle peice of legislation then that is the legislation that applies. I think that it is likely that some minor royals have been led astray with false information and forced to marry overseas. For example Prince & Princess Michael married in Vienna & the Earl of Harewood married his second wife in Conneticut. As the 1949 Act reads there is no reason a civil marriage cannot be undertaken in the UK by a member of the royal family.

Well, that certainly seems to make sense, and as I said, I doubt they'd have made this decision without taking expert legal advice. I wonder how much of the stuff about possible problems of legality is true and how much is either people wanting to make trouble or media execs wanting to sell newspapers.
 
susan alicia said:
charles gave her a favorite ring of the queen mum

in one of the newspapers im sorry i cant remenber which one, they said the ring was worth £1/2 million
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom