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.
"What would Diana say?"
demanded The Daily Express tabloid in a huge front-page headline.
ANDDiana's former Butler, Paul Burrell, said holding the wedding before a coroner's inquest into Diana's death is completed next year was "crass." Charles, he wrote in the Daily Mirror, should never be king. "Millions will not have forgotten the misery Charles caused his wife," Burrell wrote. "And nor should we. We certainly should not forgive."

There are many reactions to the proposed marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles. Very interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4252851.stm

Today, the Herald Sun makes the same headline: "What would Diana say?"

So, what would she say?
 
ACC, he made Diana's life miserable... and Camilla helped him a lot... Yeah, they can marry but he NEVER will be King, neeeeever!

It doesn't sound as though Diana went out of her way to make him happy either; there are faults on all sides of this sorry situation.

However, if Charles outlives the Queen, he'll be king. That's the way the British monarchy works. He and Camilla wouldn't have taken the step of getting married if public opinion was felt to be such that he'd have to withdraw from the line of succession to do so.

All the people who are so keen for Prince William to become king directly after Queen Elizabeth might want to stop and think about what they're asking. He's got very little experience, he's not even married yet, and he really hasn't had an opportunity to have a life. If he becomes king sometime in the next 10 years, with a new young family, it'll be repeating the pattern the Queen went through - and you can see how her family suffered from having a parent with the responsibilities of monarchy from the time the children were very young. It didn't seem to have done Princess Margaret a lot of good either, having a father who was so weighed down with his responsibilities that she had to start behaving outrageously to get his attention.

The monarch is a working member of the government; can you really see William being able to stand up to Tony Blair at any time in the next few years? A PM with Blair's experience and with no really effective opposition party would ride roughshod over the guy. That isn't a healthy situation, however handsome and charming William might be.
 
If you don't have nothing nice to say, it is sometimes better not to say nothing at all (my personal opinion)

Martine

Ok, so why are you writing?... Be quiet then. This is a free forum and nobody is offending others, if you don't like... don't read, even if you are a super moderator.

And I will write to Administration to tell him about your comment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please read the rules before posting:
If you have a complaint about a member or a situation please do not post it publicly in the middle of the thread in question or in Forum Support and Feedback. Please contact an Administrator or Super Moderator via e-mail or PM to help you sort out the problem privately.

Please keep the thread on topic, and be civil to the other members.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Norwegianne,
The Royal Forums Moderator
 
I said it was my personal opinion !

and yes this is a free forum, but you do have to follow the forum guidelines
and some in this thread are clearly not doing that and are offending others who might like Camilla and Charles

oh yes, you are offending me with saying that i don't do my work as an moderator wel
 
Ok, so why are you writing?... Be quiet then. This is a free forum and nobody is offending others,

The whole point is that people ARE offending others. This is a subject where feelings are very strong on both sides, and people should be posting with consideration for other people, not trying to get into fights about whether Diana was a saint or an idiot or whether Camilla was a homewrecker or a devoted companion. We can all express our opinions without breaking board rules about being insulting to royals or other members.


if you don't like... don't read, even if you are a super moderator.

It's the moderators' responsibility to read all the posts in the forum and try to ensure that the forum is running in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the site. In this particular case, Martine was making it clear that she was speaking as an individual and not as a moderator. She's perfectly entitled to express an opinion about when to speak out, and you're perfectly entitled to disagree with it, as long as you stay within the forum guidelines in the process.

And I will write to Administration to tell him about your comment.

That, of course, is your right.
 
I think william being king in 10-20 years time is great. He will be ready. FOr pete's sake he'll be at least 33. I think that is an ok age to be king
 
Elspeth said:
It doesn't sound as though Diana went out of her way to make him happy either; there are faults on all sides of this sorry situation.

All the people who are so keen for Prince William to become king directly after Queen Elizabeth might want to stop and think about what they're asking. He's got very little experience, he's not even married yet, and he really hasn't had an opportunity to have a life. If he becomes king sometime in the next 10 years, with a new young family, it'll be repeating the pattern the Queen went through - and you can see how her family suffered from having a parent with the responsibilities of monarchy from the time the children were very young. It didn't seem to have done Princess Margaret a lot of good either, having a father who was so weighed down with his responsibilities that she had to start behaving outrageously to get his attention.

The monarch is a working member of the government; can you really see William being able to stand up to Tony Blair at any time in the next few years? A PM with Blair's experience and with no really effective opposition party would ride roughshod over the guy. That isn't a healthy situation, however handsome and charming William might be.

Very well said!
 
Reina said:
I think william being king in 10-20 years time is great. He will be ready. FOr pete's sake he'll be at least 33. I think that is an ok age to be king

Yep, it's an OK age, but he'll still have a young family in 10 years' time, and at nearly 80 the Queen will be needing help with all her duties much sooner than that. It'd be hard to ask Charles to do that and then pass over him in favour of William when it comes time for someone to succeed to the throne.
 
Elspeth said:
It doesn't sound as though Diana went out of her way to make him happy either; there are faults on all sides of this sorry situation.

Do you honestly think that Diana even stood a chance of making Charles a loving and faithful husband? I have my strong doubts. Looks like he married her out of duty with only a superficial attempt at caring for her. He was unfaithful to her even before he married her, he was unfaithful to her through his marriage to her, just from the sheer fact that he wanted another woman.

This part is not directed at anyone specifically: I am so sick and tired of people in general justifying even the most heinous of actions with "love". So, because you're in-love with someone else, that gives you a proper justification to betray your spouse, your children, your family, and your friends? Because you're in-love with someone else, that gives you the right to humiliate your spouse? The one you promised before God and/or the law to "love and to hold, till death do us part"? Is nothing sacred anymore? Is it because "love" excuses it all?

I understand that people want to find love and happiness, but how many lives does one have to ruin to achieve that? In Charles' position, he is not automatically entitled to his personal happiness. He has other considerations to bear in mind before his own. As sad as that is, that was what he was born into. Did he not think on how many people he'd make misrable with his past actions that he is now trying to legitimize? No matter how many spin directions can interpret this outrage, they are legitimizing an adultery. They are saying that 'although you two people were factors in the demise of two marriages, we'll marry you anyway and reward the fact that you betrayed the sanctity of marriage'. To me, it's an outrage and a hypocracy.
 
Very well said, Moonlightrhapsody. You put into words exactly how I feel about this whole thing.
 
Do you honestly think that Diana even stood a chance of making Charles a loving and faithful husband?

Yes, I think if she'd been more mature and more confident and they'd had more in common, she could have done, especially when the children are considered, which is one thing he didn't have in common with Camilla. Charles seems to be a romantic, and part of the whole romantic fantasy is a secure and happy home such as he seems to have not had himself. Someone who doesn't like furious confrontations would hardly have gone into a marriage expecting his wife to simply be a smoke screen for his continued affair unless everybody concerned knew that it was simply a marriage of convenience, which obviously wasn't the case.


Looks like he married her out of duty with only a superficial attempt at caring for her. He was unfaithful to her even before he married her, he was unfaithful to her through his marriage to her, just from the sheer fact that he wanted another woman.

Well, the idea that he was unfaithful throughout his marriage is disputed. Diana says they never stopped their affair, Charles says he didn't go back to Camilla till his marriage had broken down despite their efforts to make it work. It depends who you believe.

In Charles' position, he is not automatically entitled to his personal happiness. He has other considerations to bear in mind before his own. As sad as that is, that was what he was born into. Did he not think on how many people he'd make misrable with his past actions that he is now trying to legitimize? No matter how many spin directions can interpret this outrage, they are legitimizing an adultery. They are saying that 'although you two people were factors in the demise of two marriages, we'll marry you anyway and reward the fact that you betrayed the sanctity of marriage'. To me, it's an outrage and a hypocracy.

He isn't going to give her up, and continuing to just live together was beginning to be a logistical problem as shown by this investigation of his finances; marrying at this stage is probably the most sensible thing to do. He obviously thinks that he and Diana gave their marriage a legitimate shot and it didn't work out, and they both went their separate ways. Whether that's a true reading of the situation or rationalisation coupled with wishful thinking is another matter, and one that most of us can only guess at. Her early jealousy of Camilla's relationship with Charles may have been justified or it may not; if it's true that Charles had put a stop to his affair once he was about to get married, the jealousy and accusations from Diana would have poisoned the relationship before it had ever started. These things do happen - a new spouse or lover can't tolerate the notion of a previous lover and refuses to believe that the relationship is over, thus showing the sort of lack of trust in his/her partner that usually leads to disaster for the relationship. Under those circumstances, the marriage is going to collapse and it's not healthy for anybody to force them to stay together. After the marriage collapses, it's unrealistic not to expect the people involved to try to find other partners they're happier with.
 
Last edited:
Lots of people do not agree with this marriage.I'm afraid that this marriage can destroy the Royal Family.It may be not good to see Camilla "mix" together with our Royals at Trooping The Colour in the carriage or at Royal Ascot.She can not have that.I prefer Diana than.
 
Charles should choose one: the throne or Camilla.How can we stand to see Camilla together and smile with The Royal Family at Banquets,Trooping The Colour or Ascot?It's so ashmed for the British Royal history!
 
HMQueenElizabethII said:
Lots of people do not agree with this marriage.I'm afraid that this marriage can destroy the Royal Family.It may be not good to see Camilla "mix" together with our Royals at Trooping The Colour in the carriage or at Royal Ascot.She can not have that.I prefer Diana than.

the royals have stated that they do not only not object, they are happy about the coming marriage.

Lots of people, including the tabloids would have prefered diana because she was more photogenic but diana disappeared from public events with the royals from the moment of their divorce (at least I think so). she probably would have appeared on official occasions that had to do with her children but that would have been all.
 
susan alicia said:
Lots of people, including the tabloids would have prefered diana because she was more photogenic

Indeed. There was an interview with someone from Associated Press on Norwegian TV2, and he said that you couldn't expect the same media focus on Camilla as had been on Diana. Mainly because two people, who're rapidly approaching their 60th birthdays, getting married, doesn't quite have the same fairy tale viewpoint.
 
As HRH The Duchess of Cornwall,Mrs Camilla can attend The Trooping The Colour,Royal Ascot,Opening of Parliarment,Rememberance Day in The Royal Box or the upcoming VE Day.
 
Maybe this year The Queen can not attend The Chelsea Flower Show and The Windsor Horse Show too because at that time The Queen is visiting Canada.Maybe Duchess Camilla will attend with Prince Charles on the representive of The Queen.
But what can we think if after the marriage Camilla will attend lots of Royal Events with higher Royalty than her and also talk and laugh to The Queen?How can she have that position?
 
Maybe she can attend these events.But never see The Princess Royal or The Countess of Wessex or the Gloucesters,Kents curtsey to her!
 
But what can we think if after the marriage Camilla will attend lots of Royal Events with higher Royalty than her and also talk and laugh to The Queen?How can she have that position?

don't you think that privately they talk and laugh together, she already has that position

about the curtsying, elspeth will know for sure but it seems to me that once she is the wife of the prince of wales, anne and sophie will have to curtsy to her at public events. It has nothing to do with emotions, it is a formality with wich they probably have no problem with
 
susan alicia said:
But what can we think if after the marriage Camilla will attend lots of Royal Events with higher Royalty than her and also talk and laugh to The Queen?How can she have that position?

don't you think that privately they talk and laugh together, she already has that position

about the curtsying, elspeth will know for sure but it seems to me that once she is the wife of the prince of wales, anne and sophie will have to curtsy to her at public events. It has nothing to do with emotions, it is a formality with wich they probably have no problem with

As far as I know, the princesses did not have to curtsey to the Princess of Wales. Even though the Prince of Wales is the heir they are of equal rank.
 
David Frost's Program

Splodger posted a link to David Frost's program this morning which discussed Charles and Camilla's engagement and wedding. Two editors, Dr. David Starkey, a representative from the Church of England and Prince Charles's long time friend King Constantine of Greece were guests.

You can see the entire program at the link Sploger has provided, see his post #162,
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=175850#post175850.

A few highlights:
The Spencer family (Earl Spencer and Diana's two sisters) have been invited but apparently Charles hopes they will not come. (The female editor wondered why invite them in the first place then.)

The female editor (wish I had caught her name) said that the rumours of William and Harry being disappointed with the decision or that they dislike Camilla are untrue. It's the media who doesn't like this engagement or Camilla because they wanted another Diana who would be glamourous and sell papers. (Norwegianne's point, as stated previously.)

King Constantine's comments:
He heard the news when the rest of the world heard it, while he was in Paris for an Olympics conference.

He's delighted for them.

He thinks the marriage is a good thing for both of them and their families.

The most important thing to William and Harry that their father be happy and that that in turn brings happiness to them.

He says the marriage will make both of their lives easier because now they can always be together in public life.

He thinks that they are a great team and the best of friends.

The King describes Camilla as being full of fun, having a great sense of humour, very interested in how others are doing and asking them questions about their life.

Peace of mind has always been important to Charles.

From his own experience, King Constantine says that it's nearly impossible to do this (be a King) kind of work without the kind of support Camilla would be offering. And that such support is imperative.

King Constantine felt that Charles would be a "philospher king."

Dr. David Starkey's comments:
He feels the Duchess of Cornwall/Princess Consort title was merely a "heading off situation." For now Camilla would be the Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Consort when Charles ascends the throne. But that by the time Charles does become King they are hoping that opinons will change enough for Camilla to become Queen.

(What others have already said in this thread): Camilla will be Queen because that is what the Constitution states unless there is a change in parliament to make not make Camilla Queen.

He said the coronation ceremony itself is a long and tedious occasion and that for Charles it would soften the process and humanize it to have someone next to him.

On the topic of it being a morganic(sp) marriage, he siad: Women are equal nowadays so why not Camilla?
 
Alexandria said:
A few highlights:
The Spencer family (Earl Spencer and Diana's two sisters) have been invited but apparently Charles hopes they will not come. (The female editor wondered why invite them in the first place then.)

The female editor (wish I had caught her name) said that the rumours of William and Harry being disappointed with the decision or that they dislike Camilla are untrue. It's the media who doesn't like this engagement or Camilla because they wanted another Diana who would be glamourous and sell papers. (Norwegianne's point, as stated previously.)

The editor was Eve Pollard. Dont forget that they were reveiwing the news papers and that the British Press will say anything to sell a story. They did discuss it but there is no firm evidence at all that William and Harry do not like Camilla and were oposed to the marriage.
 
The Spencer family (Earl Spencer and Diana's two sisters) have been invited but apparently Charles hopes they will not come. (The female editor wondered why invite them in the first place then.)

...........................................................................


Are they saying the wedding invitations have gone out already?
I could very well be wrong, but I wouldn't think the invitations have been printed yet!

And I don't think Charles has a problem with Diana's sisters; any problem (if at all) would lie with the Earl Spencer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warren said:
The Spencer family (Earl Spencer and Diana's two sisters) have been invited but apparently Charles hopes they will not come. (The female editor wondered why invite them in the first place then.)

...........................................................................


Are they saying the wedding invitations have gone out already?
I could very well be wrong, but I wouldn't think the invitations have been printed yet!

And I don't think Charles has a problem with Diana's sisters; any problem (if at all) would lie with the Earl Spencer.

the husband of one of diana's sisters worked for the RF or for charles directly, do not know excactly, while charles and diana were divorced. Perhaps he does not work for them anymore.
 
Warren said:
Are they saying the wedding invitations have gone out already?
I could very well be wrong, but I wouldn't think the invitations have been printed yet!

And I don't think Charles has a problem with Diana's sisters; any problem (if at all) would lie with the Earl Spencer.

I don't think the invitations have been printed yet but they should be soon. And they would certainly have a guest list at this point -- the wedding is 6 weeks away, which is roughly the same amount of time all the wedding books say you should be sending out invitations, especially if you are expecting out of town guests.

And a question by the media about Diana's family attending the wedding would be a natural and obvious question that any good public relations person would expect and prepare Charles and Camilla and the palace representatives to answer. The answer, in my personal opinon though, was off. I'm not sure exactly where the answer came from (which of the newspapers printed thsi comment from who at the royal court), but the answer should've been left succintly at "Diana's brother and sisters will be invited to the wedding." Adding the "But we hope they don't come" doesn't really do anything for Charles, Camilla or the royal court. Why invite them if you really don't want them to come; they've broken protocol and royal expectations on various levels so far, so why invite the family of your ex-wife?

(Wonder if they'll invite Andrew Parker-Bowles -- but hope he doesn't come, too.)

Charles also dated one of Diana's sisters, although I don't think there were any hard feelings between them when they broke up and when Charles and Diana became engaged and married.
 
Alexandria said:
the answer should've been left succintly at "Diana's brother and sisters will be invited to the wedding."

Or even better perhaps: "William's and Harry's uncles and aunts will be invited to the wedding."
 
selrahc4 said:
Or even better perhaps: "William's and Harry's uncles and aunts will be invited to the wedding."

sensitive and intelligent observation, it is their relationship to charles children which makes them important.
 
I think that Charles is gonna be king, but maybe for ten or five years. The man has lived for this job and he will do it. It also the best for William, so that he can ajusted to the situation of becoming one day king.
 
o.gif
tonight: for those lucky enough to receive the bbc on tv:



Lawful Impediment?


o.gif
_40816295_charlescamilla203.jpg

BBC One, Sunday, 13 February 2005 at 22:15 GMT


In a change to the advertised programme, Panorama asks whether, despite the official line from the palace on her role as Prince Charles' future wife, Camilla Parker Bowles could still become Queen?

Panorama looks at the implications for the future of the Anglican Church posed by Prince Charles' decision to opt for a civil marriage. Rowan Williams, The Archbishop Of Canterbury who will bless the union, has already given his support, saying that it is

"... consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

But is the rest of the Church of England as willing to follow him down this path?

And do any lawful impediments lie on the path for the couple? Commentators have often pointed to the byzantine tangle of parliamentary law as a possible obstacle. We try to unravel centuries of law-making designed to protect the crown but which could still create problems for it.

Panorama also asks what it means in the ongoing debate over the future of the monarchy. Sunday's programme updates "Queen Camilla?", first broadcast in 2002. [font=Arial, helvetica]Production team:
Reporter: Steve Bradshaw
Producer: Darren Kemp
Editor: Mike Robinson
Deputy Editors: Andrew Bell, Frank Simmonds
[/font]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom