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.
Camilla WILL eventually become Queen. When Charles takes the throne- he will give her the title of Queen because it it up to him now, not Elizabeth since she wouldnt be around
 
HMQueenElizabethII said:
Camilla can make people hate the Royal Family if she married and be in the Royal Family.People do not like Camilla!
Some people may not like Camilla.

Some people may even "hate" Camilla.

But I doubt that anyone will "hate" the Royal Family just because Camilla happens to be a member.

Are you saying Camilla will "make people hate" the Gloucesters, Kents, William, Harry The Queen etc etc? Will they "hate" Princess Alexandra? Will people now "hate" Princess Beatrice and Eugenie?

I think its time to either get a grip on reality, or take a cold shower.
 
Warren I think you are right, most definately. Just because some people hate Camilla doesnt mean they will hate other members.

I think Camilla will eventually become Queen becasue whenCharles takes the throne he will make her Queen.
 
Australian said:
I think Camilla will eventually become Queen becasue whenCharles takes the throne he will make her Queen.

Should he live long enough. If his mother lives as long as his grandmother did, his chances of getting on the throne diminishes significantly.
 
Well, as both of Charles' parents seem to live long, there is no reason for why he shouldn't do the same ;) How old is the Duke of Edinburgh?
 
Warren,
I couldn't agree more!
Some of us really are taking this all much too seriously. Charles & Camilla are two people pushing 60 who happen to love each other. Their marriage isn't going to affect the succession as Charles already has his "heir & spare" and Camilla is beyond childbearing age.



Warren said:
Some people may not like Camilla.

Some people may even "hate" Camilla.

But I doubt that anyone will "hate" the Royal Family just because Camilla happens to be a member.

Are you saying Camilla will "make people hate" the Gloucesters, Kents, William, Harry The Queen etc etc? Will they "hate" Princess Alexandra? Will people now "hate" Princess Beatrice and Eugenie?

I think its time to either get a grip on reality, or take a cold shower.
 
norwegianne said:
Well, as both of Charles' parents seem to live long, there is no reason for why he shouldn't do the same ;) How old is the Duke of Edinburgh?

I think that he is in the 80´s or in the 90´s,but i can´t remember.
 
The Duke of Edinburgh was born in June 1921, so he's 83. He's five years older than the Queen.
 
I remember that officially Princess Anne and Princess Margaret have to curtsey to Princess Diana but they rarely do that maybe at specially events so maybe the same as Camilla?

I think the Queen and Queen Mother, as crowned queens, are/were the only royal ladies who the other royal ladies curtsey to in public.
 
Yes The Queen was born in 1926,she will turn to 79 on April 21st.The Duke of Edinburgh,i remember,was born on 12th June 1921.
 
As far as i know,The Queen Mother also had to curtsey to The Queen as the reigning Queen. In the past,when The Queen became Queen,her grandmother,Queen Mary did it. But i think maybe The Queen does not want her mother to curtsey to her everytime.
 
Elspeth said:
Well, my suspicion is that the "men in grey suits" making these decisions have said and done as little as possible about matters for the longer term as possible, on the grounds that there's a real possibility that the Queen will outlive Charles and none of the stuff about what to call Camilla when Charles is king will ever come to anything anyway. No point in stirring up hornets' nests if you don't need to.

For the present, they have to give Camilla the HRH title because of the quicksand of the issue of morganatic marriage. It's only speculation that Charles wants to make her Queen and the "Princess Consort" title is just a smoke screen. I mean, I tend to agree that he'd want to make her Queen if he could, but that's just an unsupported hunch.

There's also the issue of whether she wants it. It's been rumoured that she didn't want to be HRH and doesn't want to be Queen because of the duties and lack of freedom and privacy involved. She's had the best of both worlds up till now - all the pleasure and privilege and gifts and infuence that go with being the beloved of the heir to the throne without the duties and responsibilities that go with the job. Now she gets the duties and responsibilities and the loss of privacy and the regimented life whether she wants it or not, and as a very private person, she probably doesn't want it at all. However, she can't use the excuse of being Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales to get out of it - she's HRH, she's the Prince's wife, she's paid for by the Duchy, and neither of them are popular enough for her to dare to take all that and give nothing (or very little) in return. She's had a dead cushy number for years - now she gets to pay.

If it's any consolation to you (although I think you might be beyond consoling!), the title "second lady in the land" and the entitlement to curtseys from the Countess of Wessex and Princesses Anne, Beatrice, and Eugenie are going to be far less of an issue in her day-to-day life than her diary being forever full of boring routine engagements six months ahead and her loss of privacy and ability to speak her mind without getting in deep trouble. As a rule, you don't see the members of the royal family curtsying to anybody but the Queen (and the Queen Mother when she was alive); I don't think Anne and Margaret used to spend much time, if any, curtsying to Diana. So Camilla won't get the curtseys, but she'll sure get the work, if Charles has any sense of self-preservation. This whole business is too unpopular with too many people for her to dare to even appear to be freeloading.


Some interesting points Elspeth!! I must admit you made me laugh with the thought of Camilla leaving her "cushy comfort." :p :p Perhaps the marriage is going forward because of the accusations of Camilla receiving duchy funds and HM was backed into a corner. Charles is also scheduled to testify after his honeymoon into the inquest of Diana's Death. This is all too interesting!!

In relation to the infamous "Grey Men", you never know what they are truly thinking. I do suspect they are against this marriage and may be biding their time. It will make me laugh hysterically if Charles becomes king and they pull the carpet right out from under him!! For once, I will approve of the "Grey Men"!!!!!!:D :D

His Uncle Edward deluded himself to think he could get Wallis "the whole bag of tricks." Could Charles once again be following in Uncle David's footsteps with this delusion??:rolleyes: :D
 
He looks very good for his age, I would never have thought he was that old
(sorry off topic)

Elspeth said:
The Duke of Edinburgh was born in June 1921, so he's 83. He's five years older than the Queen.
 
edward and charles were 2 entirely different men. really entirely different.

always thought it was unfair to men in general to call that particular group of people "grey men". There are sure to be women in that group too.


tiaraprin said:
Some interesting points Elspeth!! I must admit you made me laugh with the thought of Camilla leaving her "cushy comfort." :p :p Perhaps the marriage is going forward because of the accusations of Camilla receiving duchy funds and HM was backed into a corner. Charles is also scheduled to testify after his honeymoon into the inquest of Diana's Death. This is all too interesting!!

In relation to the infamous "Grey Men", you never know what they are truly thinking. I do suspect they are against this marriage and may be biding their time. It will make me laugh hysterically if Charles becomes king and they pull the carpet right out from under him!! For once, I will approve of the "Grey Men"!!!!!!:D :D

His Uncle Edward deluded himself to think he could get Wallis "the whole bag of tricks." Could Charles once again be following in Uncle David's footsteps with this delusion??:rolleyes: :D
 
Well, I think the top advisors and Members of the Household really are all men, though. Maybe someone has some information about women in high places in the hierarchy of royal advisors?
 
For the ones who understand spanish language:

"Desde que el príncipe Carlos y Camilla Parker-Bowles anunciaran sus nupcias para el próximo 8 de abril, se ha abierto un polémico debate en Reino Unido, realmente incómodo para la Familia Real inglesa. Los contratiempos a los que los novios han tenido que hacer frente desde su anuncio de compromiso -cambio de escenario de la boda, posibilidad de que enlace civil no fuera legal...- no han hecho más que agravar la situación y han enfurecido a la reina Isabel, que se ha visto obligada a llamar la atención a la pareja.

La soberana se reunió la semana pasada con su hijo para adevertirle de que no debía excederse con los festejos de su próxima boda. Le exigió que las celebraciones nupciales fueran discretas, tal y como habían acordado, y que la lista de invitados se redujera al máximo. Y es que, hasta la reprimenda de la Reina, el Príncipe de Gales tenía previsto invitar a unas 750 personalidades, entre ellos un gran número de aristócratas y celebridades del mundo del espectáculo.

Boda discreta
Otro de los puntos que se trataron durante aquel encuentro fue la hora en que debían concluir los festejos de la boda. Isabel II insistió en que no debían sobrepasar las seis de la tarde, a diferencia del enlace del príncipe Carlos y la princesa Diana, que finalizó de madrugada. Asimismo, reprochó a su hijo que regalara a su futura esposa como anillo de compromiso una joya que había pertenecido a la Reina Madre, máxima detractora de su relación con Camilla. La soberana fue contundente en su mensaje, tanto que, al parecer, el Príncipe volvió a Clarence House con lágrimas en los ojos.

No obstante, los preparativos de la boda más esperada de la corte británica siguen su marcha y, pese a las diferencias con su hijo en cuanto a la organización del enlace, también la Reina se ha lanzado a preparar diversas cuestiones para el gran día. Así, Isabel II ya ha dado órdenes de que las plegarias que se pronuncian durante los servicios de la Iglesia Anglicana incluyan a Camilla a partir del 8 de abril.

Legislación nupcial, a examen
La aparición del Heredero en un servicio religioso en el pueblo de Badminton coincidió ayer con una nueva mala noticia en torno a su futura boda: la próxima investigación del fiscal general del Estado, Lord Falconer, sobre la legalidad del enlace civil de la pareja. Y es que, al parecer, una ley del siglo XIX no permite el matrimonio civil a los miembros de la Familia Real. De manera que, tal vez, el Parlamento deba modificar la legislación nupcial antes del día 8 de abril.

Para colmo de males, la boda de Carlos de Inglaterra y Camilla Parker-Bowles ha sufrido un nuevo revés después de que el Gobierno estadounidense decidiera no agasajar a la futura Duquesa de Cornwall en la Casa Blanca, "por tratarse de una divorciada" ya que, en opinión de George W. Bush, de firmes convicciones cristianas, lo considera "inapropiado"."
 
I thougth top advisors and members of the househould are visible personalities and sort of friends of the royals (and perhaps wearing grey suits)

"men in grey suits" sounds like people that are not noticible as personalities,
I thougt one of the royals gave them that name but am not sure who.

Elspeth said:
Well, I think the top advisors and Members of the Household really are all men, though. Maybe someone has some information about women in high places in the hierarchy of royal advisors?
 
yes, i think the queen mum thought that her husband became ill and died so young because of enormous stress suffered during his life.

Charles has all that wholesome food, alternative therapies and camilla, and medical science has progressed.
his chances of becoming a very old man seem fine.


norwegianne said:
Well, as both of Charles' parents seem to live long, there is no reason for why he shouldn't do the same ;) How old is the Duke of Edinburgh?
 
Aninhas, please could you provide a rough translation or summary of your post in English? Posts in other languages should always be accompanied by something in English so the majority of participants can understand what's being said.

Thanks.
 
susan alicia said:
I thougth top advisors and members of the househould are visible personalities and sort of friends of the royals (and perhaps wearing grey suits)

I was meaning the private secretaries and high-grade civil servants and legal advisors; some of them are familiar to the public, but most of them probably aren't.


"men in grey suits" sounds like people that are not noticible as personalities,
I thougt one of the royals gave them that name but am not sure who.

The Duchess of York did; I don't know if she was the first to do so or if she was repeating something someone else had said.
 
Aproximate translation of Aninhas spanish post:

Ever since prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles announced their wedding plans for 8th of April, a controversial debate in United Kingdom has been opened, really uncomfortable for the English Royal Family. The misfortunes to which the fiancés have had to make from their announcement of commitment - change of venue for the wedding - they could have not done more to aggravate the situation and have infuriated Queen Elizabeth, that she has been forced to call to the attention of the couple.

The Queen met last week with her son to inform him that she did not want the festivities to be excessive. She demanded of him that the nuptial celebrations were discreet, and that the list of guests was reduced to the minimum. And it is that, until the Queen says otherwise. The Prince of Wales had predicted to invite to 750 people, among them a great number of aristocrats and celebrities of the world.

Another one of the points raised at the meeting was the hour by which the celebrations must finish. Elizabeth II insisted they did not exceed 6pm, unlike the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, which finished at daybreak the next day.

Also she reproached her son who gave his future wife an engagement ring, a jewel that had belonged to the Queen Mother. The Queen was forceful in her message, so much so that apparently the Prince returned to Clarence House with tears in the eyes.

(small section i did not understand to translate)

Whilst the Prince was at a religious service in the town of Badminton yesterday, further bad news was anounced by Lord Falconer, on the legality of a civil wedding. A law of the 19th Centiary does not allow members of the Royal Family to contract civil marriages. Therefore in order for the Prince to marry, the Government must modify the Royal Marriages Act before the 8th of April.

To make matters worse, the wedding of Charles and Camilla has undergone a new mistfortune after the American Government decided not to enterain the future Duchess of Cornwall in the White House beacuse she is divorced as this goes against President George W Bush's religious beleifs and considers her "unsutiable."
 
Splodger said:
To make matters worse, the wedding of Charles and Camilla has undergone a new mistfortune after the American Government decided not to enterain the future Duchess of Cornwall in the White House beacuse she is divorced as this goes against President George W Bush's religious beleifs and considers her "unsutiable."

I am not sure where Aninhas found this article from the earlier spanish post, however I can not believe the White House actualy released that statement. I know Mr Bush is religious and some would say he has some pretty bizzar idea's but exactly WHO does he think HE is to pass judgement on the future wife of the future head of state of the United Kingdom. Last time i looked the "collonies" were not part of the British Empire anymore. I can not beleive he actualy said this. He might think it in person but to go and officialy refuse to entertain her, when there are not even any imediate plans for Prince Charles and Camilla to be at the White House is insane. The White House has entertained persons with far more contraversial atributes than being divorced.
 
I wouldn't put to much credence to that "Press Release".
 
Splodger said:
I am not sure where Aninhas found this article from the earlier spanish post, however I can not believe the White House actualy released that statement. I know Mr Bush is religious and some would say he has some pretty bizzar idea's but exactly WHO does he think HE is to pass judgement on the future wife of the future head of state of the United Kingdom. Last time i looked the "collonies" were not part of the British Empire anymore. I can not beleive he actualy said this. He might think it in person but to go and officialy refuse to entertain her, when there are not even any imediate plans for Prince Charles and Camilla to be at the White House is insane. The White House has entertained persons with far more contraversial atributes than being divorced.

Well actually, the White House refusal is in the British paper called The Mirror and Charles was planning on bringing her to the US, so the White House would be the lynchpin of the trip:

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15209578%26method=full%26siteid=106694%26headline=camilla%2dbanned%2dfrom%2dwhite%2dhouse-name_page.html

I think it has more to do with Charles not supporting the Iraq war...Karl Rove probably made the decision.
 
Splodger said:
I am not sure where Aninhas found this article from the earlier spanish post, however I can not believe the White House actualy released that statement. I know Mr Bush is religious and some would say he has some pretty bizzar idea's but exactly WHO does he think HE is to pass judgement on the future wife of the future head of state of the United Kingdom. Last time i looked the "collonies" were not part of the British Empire anymore. I can not beleive he actualy said this. He might think it in person but to go and officialy refuse to entertain her, when there are not even any imediate plans for Prince Charles and Camilla to be at the White House is insane. The White House has entertained persons with far more contraversial atributes than being divorced.

I read the article in Spanish at Hola.com
 
I have a very hard time believing that George Bush hasn't hosted remarried divorcees at the White House before this. Either something's changed in the policy or he's offering a deliberate insult or the news report is incorrect.
 
I doubt it. His brother last year married his long-time mistress. But anyway, it´s all stupid. We want to see Camilla! Yes, King Karl probably did.
 
Splodger said:
Another one of the points raised at the meeting was the hour by which the Also she reproached her son who gave his future wife an engagement ring, a jewel that had belonged to the Queen Mother. The Queen was forceful in her message, so much so that apparently the Prince returned to Clarence House with tears in the eyes.

To make matters worse, the wedding of Charles and Camilla has undergone a new mistfortune after the American Government decided not to enterain the future Duchess of Cornwall in the White House beacuse she is divorced as this goes against President George W Bush's religious beleifs and considers her "unsutiable."


HOORAY TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN!!:) :) How dare he give her the Queen Mum's ring as an engagement ring!!:mad: That is the ultimate in declasse behavior.

As for the President of my country, you never know what he is going to do when it comes to "family values.":rolleyes: :rolleyes: You have to understand, my country is under attack from right-wing conservatives who want to turn us back to the Puritan age! He courted these people during his re-election campaign, so he has to pay them back somehow. I would say before this statement, divorced people were invited to the White House. I don't know how he cannot invite divorced people, because half the country is divorced for one reason or another! It could be pay back to Charles for not supporting the Iraqi war (one of the very few things I agree with Charles about). Also, Charles left very quickly last year after the funeral of former President Ronald Reagan. It was noted at the time that he was not comfortable coming to the United States due to the war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom