Charles and Camilla to Marry: February 10, 2005

[Elspeth]

I don't understand why people think the Queen's absence from the wedding has to do with her disapproving of it. She was originally going to have the wedding take place at Windsor, and I seriously doubt she'd have boycotted it there.

 

[kittencrews]

i am very happy they are finally getting married... i don't think this marriage has anything to do with diana and i think they are very happy... i was actually in italy when i found out they are getting married at first i didn't understand what the tv program was saying but i finally realized and was very happy... it was pretty funny because i was sitting in a little local spaghetti place watching the show... i was so happy... yea! for charles and camilla!!!

 

[ElisaR]

The Queen is religious and she regards the following church service much more important than the civil wedding itself.
I don't think she doesn't approve this marriage and it was a difficult decision for her.
My sympathy to her.

 

[aninhas]

Finally Her Majesty had seen that this decision of charles and camilla get married was a huge mistake.
My support to The Queen.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Yes,it's lots troubles for Her Majesty!She always gets from her children "give" to her!

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

I think as The Head of Church of England, The Queen can not attend this non-religion wedding.

 

[wymanda]

I think as The Head of Church of England, The Queen can not attend this non-religion wedding.

It's not that she "cannot". She has chosen, as a very religious woman & head of the C of E not to attend.

I still maintain that the security issues have also been a part of this decision and I notice that it has only been said that the Queen will not attend the civil ceremony, There is no mention of Prince Phillip staying away.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Well, there was that whole big deal about the wedding being in the palace. A licence would have to be granted, letting future royal weddings occur there.

 

[sara1981]

i got Majesty covers this evening of Prince Charles and Camilla

http://www.majestymagazine.com/about.php

Sara Boyce

 

[MoonlightRhapsody]

I still maintain that the security issues have also been a part of this decision and I notice that it has only been said that the Queen will not attend the civil ceremony, There is no mention of Prince Phillip staying away.

Actually, Prince Philip will not be attending the wedding either.

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2005/02/23/queenwedding/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1496446,00.html

 

[susan alicia]

yes, imagine that the security will be under high pressure not to blunder like they did with the intruder on williams 21st birthdayparty,
(the intruder turned out to be perfectly harmless and kind man but imagine if it had been someone entirely different)

It's not that she "cannot". She has chosen, as a very religious woman & head of the C of E not to attend.

I still maintain that the security issues have also been a part of this decision and I notice that it has only been said that the Queen will not attend the civil ceremony, There is no mention of Prince Phillip staying away.

 

[Dennism]

BBC

A sense of disbelief is apparent on many front pages, following the Queen's decision to avoid Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles' civil wedding.

The headlines give a flavour of the general feeling that the move will be perceived as a snub to the couple.

The Daily Express and Sun both opt for "Queen Won't Go To Wedding", while the Daily Mail calls the decision a snub.

According to the Daily Mirror

Prince Philip and Prince Charles' siblings will also give the ceremony a miss.

'Saddened'

Noting that Her Majesty will be the first monarch in 142 years to miss a wedding of one of her children, the Sun says the announcement is a "bombshell".

But it quotes "sources" as saying she won't change her mind - "The Lady's Not For Turning Up", the paper quips.

The Sun's editorial goes on to say it's one thing for the couple to want a low-key wedding, but many will be saddened by the Queen's absence.

The decision is simply "extraordinary", according to the Mirror.

The Mirror also says the reason given - that Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles want the ceremony to be low key - is "simply pathetic".

Its opinion page accuses the Queen of spoiling the wedding, calling this the "latest chapter in the saga of Britain's most dysfunctional family".

'Chav wedding'

The latest development is another "intriguing twist" in the wedding tale, according to the Guardian.

A series of blunders to have so far beset the plans have been capped by the Queen's decision, it says.

After all these years is the prince beyond being hurt by his parents, asks the paper?

"All it needs now is a punch-up at the reception to make it a chav wedding rather than a Chas wedding," it adds.

Mocking

The palace has gone into "panic control mode" over suggestions the decision was a snub, according to the Independent.

Opinion writer Philip Hensher adds that the way some papers are trying to humiliate the royals is "terribly distasteful".

If people want rid of the royals they should do it, not just "mock them until they wish they'd never been born", he says.

Stop wedding

The Mail describes the Queen's move as a major humiliation for the prince and a strong sign the monarch doesn't approve.

The development could further fuel family division, says Mail columnist Richard Kay.

Where will the Queen's absence leave her relationship with her son and his bride, he asks?

Perhaps the signs are there that this is a wedding that should never happen, says the Daily Express.

Referring also to questions again raised over the legality of the marriage, the paper urges Prince Charles to put the ceremony on hold.

The prince should admit he has acted prematurely without considering all the constitutional implications, it says.

 

[Zina]

Well, she obviously doesn't 'bless' the marriage, otherwise she would be going.

I believe in Karma, and that what goes around, comes around. With all the problems and setbacks that Charles and Camilla are having with their wedding...I can only think that this is the way the Universe is repaying them for all the hurt they caused to Diana and others with their past actions.

I'm indifferent to the wedding, but I do think - it serves them right.

 

[Dennism]

BBC

The civil marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles is legal, the lord chancellor has said. In a written statement to the House of Lords, Lord Falconer said he was satisfied such a ceremony was in accordance with the Marriage Act 1949. Lord Falconer's statement was in response to claims first reported by the BBC's Panorama programme that Royals could not have civil weddings. On Tuesday the Queen said she would not attend the 8 April civil ceremony. Downing Street has said it will only comment on the issue of the prime minister's attendance in the event an invitation has been sent.

The lord chancellor - who is currently out of the country - said in his statement that the government was aware that in the past different views had been taken, but that they had been "overcautious".

"We are clear that the interpretation I have set out in this statement is correct," he wrote.

On Monday Sir Nicholas Lyell, a former attorney general, suggested emergency legislation may be needed to clarify the legal position before the wedding. He said he felt "disquiet" about the government's advice to the Queen and that he believed the 1949 Marriage Act, which updated the law on civil marriages in England, excluded the Royal Family. And he maintained on Thursday Lord Falconer's position risked being regarded as "tenuous", saying the government should introduce a short bill to clear up the matter.

"The Human Rights Act does help but it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs when the legality of the marriage of the Prince of Wales has to depend on that," he said.

After it was revealed the Queen would not attend the marriage, both Buckingham Palace and Clarence House were quick to deny her non-attendance was a snub to her eldest son and Mrs Parker Bowles, saying it was intended to keep the civil ceremony at Windsor's Guildhall a low-key affair. Commentators have also suggested that, as Supreme Head of the Church of England, the Queen would have been reluctant to attend a civil marriage. However, the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh will attend a blessing by the Archbishop of Canterbury at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, followed by a reception.

"The Queen's prime concern is that the civil ceremony should be as low key as possible, in line with the couple's wishes. Clearly if the Queen were to attend, the occasion would no longer be, by definition, low key," said a Buckingham Palace spokeswoman.

Downing Street said the Cabinet had sent their warmest congratulations to the couple but had not yet discussed whether to send a present.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

"The apparent snub by The Queen also made it perfectly clear that she does not want Mrs Parker Bowles ever to be known as Queen Camilla when or if Charles succeeds her to the throne."
The Daily Telegraph.

 

[Elspeth]

I wonder if the Daily Telegraph really thinks the Queen was planning to stay away from the wedding if it had gone ahead at Windsor. The timing of the announcement that she'd be staying away suggests that the venue was the deciding factor.

If she'd disapproved to the point of wanting to boycott the wedding from the start, it's hard to understand why she was prepared to have it take place in her home.

 

[tiaraprin]

I believe in Karma, and that what goes around, comes around. With all the problems and setbacks that Charles and Camilla are having with their wedding...I can only think that this is the way the Universe is repaying them for all the hurt they caused to Diana and others with their past actions.

I'm indifferent to the wedding, but I do think - it serves them right.

Very valid point!!

Also last night on Larry King Live, it was reported that Charles will have no "supporters" at his wedding. It was suggested that his sons would be the supporters, but alas, it will not be so. Gee, I wonder why??? How could William and Harry stand up and support their father to this extreme?? Standing up with tacit approval to a union with a woman who hurt their mother so deeply?? I don't think so. Poor William and Harry are caught up in a mess that they cannot get out of. They love their mother, they love their father. How do they go forward??

As Robert Lacey pointed out on the programme, this all isn't the happiness and sunshine that Charles wants this to be. It has been chaotic. The memory of Diana still remains, and will remain--no matter what Charles and Camilla do.

 

[tiaraprin]

I wonder if the Daily Telegraph really thinks the Queen was planning to stay away from the wedding if it had gone ahead at Windsor. The timing of the announcement that she'd be staying away suggests that the venue was the deciding factor.

If she'd disapproved to the point of wanting to boycott the wedding from the start, it's hard to understand why she was prepared to have it take place in her home.

The answer to this question is that HM has been backed into a corner with the Charles and Camilla debacle. I believe the Queen wants resolution on this matter before her death and the time to see if Charles and Camilla can live up to the task. HM doesn't want her son continuing to have a mistress. I think HM had to diplomatically bend on certain issues relating to this relationship to seek the solution to the debacle. Just because she is giving an HRH and throwing a reception does not mean she approves of this entirely. As Robert Lacey said last night on Larry King Live, he can't wait to see the wedding photograph and all the faces of the Windsor clan. He bet that much computer re-imaging was going to be necessary to put smiling faces on the entire Windsor clan. HM, against her personal feelings, is doing what she feels is the lesser of the two evils in relation to this adulterous liasion.

 

[Regina]

I don't think that William and Harry are delighted with this wedding. They said that because they had to say something to the press...
Like I always said (and I'm not a witch to guess, it's a matter of Good sense), they can marry but they will not have an easy life together, because like Zina said, they caused suffer to many people... Charles will never be King.
Everyone has the right to be happy, I agree with that. But Life is always Fair and what goes around, comes around... they didn't have the right to do what they did to Diana and to William and Harry.
Diana was 19 years old, was in love and she wanted to marry forever... but Camilla and Charles used her to their own goals, and no matter what Camilla fans could say, that was not correct.
My sympathies go to The Queen, a person that I admire very much, as much I admired the late Princess Grace of Monaco.

 

[Genevieve]

But Life is always Fair

Life isn't always fair. If it were, for all the goodness Diana did why isn't she alive still? And if life were fair, Charles would've married Camilla in the first place back in the seventies and Diana would never have been entangled in this situation or suffered so much as a result of it.

I don't think that William and Harry are delighted with this wedding. They said that because they had to say something to the press...

So you've talked personally to William and Harry then? Anything else is conjecture and speculation.

And they didn't have to say anything about their father's impending marriage. Camilla's children haven't said anything. The Wessexes haven't said anything. Princess Anne hasn't said anything. Nobody had to say anything. William and Harry said they support their father and Camilla's engagement because they want their father to be happy.

as much I admired the late Princess Grace of Monaco.

What does yor admiration for Princess Grace of Monaco have to do with anything? Has she said from the grave that she doesn't support the marriage of Charles and Camilla? I think Grace has her own children to worry about rather than worry about Charles and Camilla.

 

[Reina]

Actually Sophie Wessex said she and Edward were delighted with the wedding. And you don't know if Camilla's kids have said anything or not.

But you should not focus on the fact that W&H said anything. You should look at how terse their response was. Read between the lines (or maybe in this case line).

 

[Alexandria]

And you don't know if Camilla's kids have said anything or not.

With the wall to wall coverage of this engagement and the upcoming wedding, I'm sure that if Tom and Laura Parker Bowles had made any sort of public statement about their mother's engagement and wedding it would've been reported by now. Entertainment Tonight reported on Jane Seymour's comments on the wedding -- I'm sure that if Tom and Laura had said even a peep Jane's comments would've been bumped. And even if the international press wouldn't have covered the Parker Bowles' children's comments, the British press would've at least. They have certainly chronicled enough of their lives over the years, whether it was Tom's drug usage or his love life.

But you should not focus on the fact that W&H said anything. You should look at how terse their response was. Read between the lines (or maybe in this case line).

Reading between the lines is interpretive and subjective as it was a written statement, and not one verbally spoken by either of the boys so that you could hear the influcuations in their voices and their demeanor as they issued the comment. How one person reads between the lines is different from someone else. If you support the marriage of Charles and Camilla you see into William and Harry's that they are happy about it, but if you disapprove of the marriage you would say that William and Harry are unhappy and miserable about it.

 

[Reina]

You should look at how terse their response was.

 

[Alexandria]

You should look at how terse their response was.

But that's my point exactly: It was a written response issued by St. James' Palace. How can a written response be "terse?"

Maybe some people read it as "terse" but not all. Just as I can read any post here and say that a member was sarcastic in his or her reply even if the member didn't mean it that way or if another member doesn't read it as such.

Unless you see a person making such a statement, so you can see how they say it, their facial reactions and body languages, words are static and are open to interpretation.

 

[Reina]

“We are both very happy for our father and Camilla and we wish them all the luck in the future.”

That is quite terse for a written statement.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Their response doesn't really seem to matter. They are going to get married anyway.

 

[wymanda]

Reina,
a lot depends on how your own feelings are about the matter.
If you reread the statement with a positive attitude and take the trouble to believe them on the written words, then you might see it differently.

William & Harry are two young men in their 20s. They said what was expected of them for public consumption. Did you expect them to have the Poet Laurette write an ode in honour of their fathers upcoming nuptuals????

 

[Warren]

Their response doesn't really seem to matter. They are going to get married anyway.

So now we've got that sorted, can we move on, instead of going round and round in ever decreasing circles?

 

[Regina]

Ok, Ok... let's see in the future who was right about Charles & Camilla & Harry& William, etc etc etc!!


Regards!!

 

[Reina]

Do you expect them to actually agree with this union?