Charles and Camilla to Marry: February 10, 2005

[tiaraprin]

Thank You!

I would like to thank Moonlightrhapsody and Regina for their support and thank yous. This issue is quite a divisive one and there will never been 100% percent agreement on it. I will never back down from my view, and neither will the opposition. I left this site for months due to the increasing antipathy of the opposition; but I felt I had to come back when the marriage of Charles and Camilla was announced. I also realized I was just as entitled to my opinion as they are. My country is based on this simple fact.

The British monarchy is struggling for a way forward here in the 21st century. Charles marrying Camilla at this point--well I don't care one jot about that. What I DO CARE ABOUT is her receiving an HRH and the possibility of becoming Queen once his mother dies. The thought of the Countess of Wessex, The Princess Royal, and the rest of the Royal Duchesses "technically" having to curtsey to this woman makes me feel nauseous! Her past behavior does not entitle her to the honors that will be bestowed on her. It doesn't matter if she has never talked to the press, her other actions speak much louder than words.

People say Diana emotionally harmed her children?? Well, Camilla has done the same to hers. Tom Parker-Bowles has had many difficulties with drugs. If I recall correctly, during her famously taped conversation with Charles, she was dismayed it was Tom's birthday and she had to host a bunch of his friends at her home instead of seeing Charles. Oh the agony!!! Who knows what damage has been inflicted upon Tom Parker-Bowles due to his mother's legendary liasion??

Prince Harry has had a scrape with drugs and alcohol also. Poor Harry lost his mum at such a young age and it has been asserted all the attention went to William as the heir and Harry was forgotten within the Windsor family. If Diana poured out too much to William, well she was the only one who really gave Harry the love and attention he deserved. Let us remember that Charles was highly disappointed at Harry's birth. He wanted a daughter, but got another son. As Frances Shand-Kydd has been quoted saying to Charles: "At least you had a child that is healthy and normal." It has also been said the late Queen Mum basically ignored Harry and fawned over William as the heir. That is just so sad. You would think the Queen Mum would have known the importance of the second son from life experience!

The hope of the British Monarchy lies solely with poor William with Harry as his supporter. I feel so awful for William. To know that so much is dependent on one has to be one of the most daunting feelings one could ever experience.

 

[tiaraprin]

matching hearts of steel

Yes, dear, I know. Check my avatar.

Well Elspeth's "heart of steel" in relation to Diana matches my "heart of steel' for Camilla Parker-Bowles!!!!!!

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Yo- I heard that the Queen won't allow Charles' organic veggies at the reception. She also wants there to be only one large table instead of alot of small ones. And, due to the fact that she is Queen, she will have her way.

 

[Danielle]

Yo- I heard that the Queen won't allow Charles' organic veggies at the reception. She also wants there to be only one large table instead of alot of small ones. And, due to the fact that she is Queen, she will have her way.

Why would she object to organic veggies? That's just a silly thing to worry about in light of the situation.

 

[MoonlightRhapsody]

I don't hate Camilla, I just have a deep sense of dislike for her for what she represents. She represents all the adulterous women who can't seem to honor religious premises of marriage by engaging in adulterous acts with married men. I'm a devout Catholic and marriage is sacred for me. It's "till death do us part" like it says in the vows. Now, personally for me, as a woman and at the very basic level, my husband now becomes my territory and anyone who trespasses on that I will be severely savage to. Find your own man.

Now, Camilla, not only did she get involved in a marriage that was not yet terminated, she also betrayed her husband and her children. It doesn't matter if your married lover's marriage is "on the rocks" or they are separated. If in the eyes of the law and/or God they are still married, they are still married and therefore, not free to pursue a sexual relationship or otherwise with other people.

Again, I agree with tiaraprin. Frankly, I don't care about Camilla and Charles. What I'm arguing for is the principle. The Church of England, I found, is being very hypocritical in their decision to let those two adulterers get married. When they relaxed remarriages by divorcees, one stipulation was that their current partners must not have been a factor of the break-up of the other's marriage. They are both guilty of that, and yet they're still sanctioned? They are legitimizing an old wrongdoing. Two guilty and self-admitted adulterers are being allowed to marry with the woman who came between a man and his legal and spiritual wife being able to become royal by virtue of a marriage that has a pretty discouraging start. Uh huh...


And, while I may not be without sin, I sure as heck have never and would never get involved with an involved man, dating, married, or otherwise. I respect relationships and the sanctity it entails. Don't do unto others what you don't want them do unto you.

 

[Danielle]

I don't hate Camilla, I just have a deep sense of dislike for her for what she represents. She represents all the adulterous women who can't seem to honor religious premises of marriage by engaging in adulterous acts with married men. I'm a devout Catholic and marriage is sacred for me. It's "till death do us part" like it says in the vows. Now, personally for me, as a woman and at the very basic level, my husband now becomes my territory and anyone who trespasses on that I will be severely savage to. Find your own man.

Now, Camilla, not only did she get involved in a marriage that was not yet terminated, she also betrayed her husband and her children. It doesn't matter if your married lover's marriage is "on the rocks" or they are separated. If in the eyes of the law and/or God they are still married, they are still married and therefore, not free to pursue a sexual relationship or otherwise with other people.

Again, I agree with tiaraprin. Frankly, I don't care about Camilla and Charles. What I'm arguing for is the principle. The Church of England, I found, is being very hypocritical in their decision to let those two adulterers get married. When they relaxed remarriages by divorcees, one stipulation was that their current partners must not have been a factor of the break-up of the other's marriage. They are both guilty of that, and yet they're still sanctioned? They are legitimizing an old wrongdoing. Two guilty and self-admitted adulterers are being allowed to marry with the woman who came between a man and his legal and spiritual wife being able to become royal by virtue of a marriage that has a pretty discouraging start. Uh huh...


And, while I may not be without sin, I sure as heck have never and would never get involved with an involved man, dating, married, or otherwise. I respect relationships and the sanctity it entails. Don't do unto others what you don't want them do unto you.

I agree with every single word you have written. Thank you!

 

[tiaraprin]

Geniune question - would you explain why it makes you nauseous?

I personally don't have a problem with her and I have a lot of trouble understanding the people who are SO angry with her and Charles.

I see it as life... these sorts of things happen everyday... do the people who hate her hate her because they've experienced something like this in their own lives? Because their faith tells them it's "bad". Their own personal code tells them so.

I hope I don't sound totally stupid.

I'm geniunely trying to understand, I don't understand the depth of hatred - how can one person create such strong feelings in people?
Thank you.

I appreciate the fact Trinny that you are asking why I feel the way I do. I have no problem explaining my feelings to you. Just as Diana stirred in me great feelings of love and admiration, Camilla stirs feelings of anger and hatred inside of me because she hurt the monarchy, Diana, Diana's sons, her own children, and her own marriage.

I see Camilla as a major factor in the breakup of the Wales' marriage. Yes, there were other problems of incompatibility, the pressure for Charles to marry, and the pressure for Diana to marry into the royal family. However, Charles and Camilla were cheating and degrading Diana before she took the adulterous steps they did.

Diana was a very young 19, and Camilla picked her out of a list of potential brides because she would be the least trouble to her liasion with Charles. Diana was set up from day one and no one cared--Charles, Camilla, the royal family, or the Spencer family. To do this to another human being is deplorable. Diana's hand was forced and she made a tremendous mistake marrying Charles. All Diana wanted was to have a husband that loved her, children, and a good marriage. Love and a warm marriage were never going to be in the cards with Charles just marrying for the sake of marrying; Camilla picking "a mouse" that would not undermine her position; a royal family that wanted an heir and not another "Uncle David"; and the Spencer family who wanted to be forever tied to the Windsors. How could Diana possibly win and have any hopes of a happy life with all of this?? This is what makes me side with her. Yes, Diana made mistakes in her attempts to free herself from the disaster she found herself in the middle of. However, she stood up for women everywhere by not accepting the shoddy behavior being accorded to her.

Camilla betrayed her own marriage, inflicted unknown damage upon her own children to follow in the footsteps of her great-grandmother, Alice Keppel. Diana did do similar things when she was forced into lonliness, despair and the misguided hope of saving her marriage. Camilla did it out of ambition and greed.

That is why Camilla does not deserve any honors, titles, or deference that would normally be due the wife of the Prince of Wales. She should just marry Charles and have a marginal title such as Her Grace, the Duchess of Cornwall.
How can Camilla deserve the curtseys of Sophie and the other royal ladies who have lead exemplary lives thus far?? How could William's or Harry's future wives curtsey to the woman that brought such unhappiness to their mother?? It is UNACCEPTABLE and DEPLORABLE. If I were a British citizen, I would NEVER curtsey to her or Charles. Curtseying to her is a betrayal of the monarchy. My heart is made of steel when it comes to Camilla, and there is nothing she could ever do to change it--not that she would care.

I would curtsey to William and Harry--even as an American!!

 

[Elspeth]

Yo- I heard that the Queen won't allow Charles' organic veggies at the reception. She also wants there to be only one large table instead of alot of small ones. And, due to the fact that she is Queen, she will have her way.

OK, this is getting bizarre. What sort of veggies does she want, for goodness sake?

 

[Elspeth]

Again, I agree with tiaraprin. Frankly, I don't care about Camilla and Charles. What I'm arguing for is the principle. The Church of England, I found, is being very hypocritical in their decision to let those two adulterers get married. When they relaxed remarriages by divorcees, one stipulation was that their current partners must not have been a factor of the break-up of the other's marriage. They are both guilty of that, and yet they're still sanctioned?

No, it isn't being sanctioned. It's a civil wedding, not a CofE one. The service of prayer and dedication afterwards is perfectly standard and has been the way things have been done for years. You might argue that it's hypocritical of the church to forbid these marriages and then appear to sanction them by this service of prayer and dedication, and I'd tend to agree with you, but it's not something they dreamed up specially for Charles, it's the way things have been done for decades.

 

[tiaraprin]

Can I have an Amen to that????

I don't hate Camilla, I just have a deep sense of dislike for her for what she represents. She represents all the adulterous women who can't seem to honor religious premises of marriage by engaging in adulterous acts with married men. I'm a devout Catholic and marriage is sacred for me. It's "till death do us part" like it says in the vows. Now, personally for me, as a woman and at the very basic level, my husband now becomes my territory and anyone who trespasses on that I will be severely savage to. Find your own man.

Now, Camilla, not only did she get involved in a marriage that was not yet terminated, she also betrayed her husband and her children. It doesn't matter if your married lover's marriage is "on the rocks" or they are separated. If in the eyes of the law and/or God they are still married, they are still married and therefore, not free to pursue a sexual relationship or otherwise with other people.

Again, I agree with tiaraprin. Frankly, I don't care about Camilla and Charles. What I'm arguing for is the principle. The Church of England, I found, is being very hypocritical in their decision to let those two adulterers get married. When they relaxed remarriages by divorcees, one stipulation was that their current partners must not have been a factor of the break-up of the other's marriage. They are both guilty of that, and yet they're still sanctioned? They are legitimizing an old wrongdoing. Two guilty and self-admitted adulterers are being allowed to marry with the woman who came between a man and his legal and spiritual wife being able to become royal by virtue of a marriage that has a pretty discouraging start. Uh huh...


And, while I may not be without sin, I sure as heck have never and would never get involved with an involved man, dating, married, or otherwise. I respect relationships and the sanctity it entails. Don't do unto others what you don't want them do unto you.

AMEN TO THAT!!!! And while I may not be without sin, I have never cheated on my significant other with another man--I was taught better by my mother!! It seems Camilla just had her great-grandmother's example to follow. Cheating is one of the WORST things you can do to another human being--except Charles because he didn't care as long as Diana didn't bother him and he didn't love her anyway by his own admission to Jonathan Dimbleby.

 

[Elspeth]

That is why Camilla does not deserve any honors, titles, or deference that would normally be due the wife of the Prince of Wales. She should just marry Charles and have a marginal title such as Her Grace, the Duchess of Cornwall.

They can't do that. There's more at issue here than people's feelings about a couple of women the Prince of Wales has been involved with. It was claimed back in the 1930s before the abdication of Edward VIII that a morganatic marriage of a king or someone in the direct line of succession was not legally possible without a change in the law and the approval of the Commonwealth and goodness only knows what else, none of which would be possible in practical terms.

They kicked a king off the throne on the grounds that morganatic marriage didn't exist in British law.

They simply can't backtrack now and say that, OK, Diana was terribly popular and Camilla is seen as the cause of her suffering so she must be satisfied with a morganatic marriage - not less than 100 years after deposing a monarch on the grounds that such a marriage wasn't possible. Charles and Camilla are pushing 60 - Charles is almost certainly going to have a short reign if he even outlives his mother, and in practical terms he's really not going to make much impression on kingship with half the country focussed on William already - it simply isn't worth the legal awfulness to push the morganatic marriage option when it isn't a long-term issue anyway. It makes a total mockery of the abdication and would show that Edward VIII had been got rid of illegally. It simply isn't worth it.

 

[tiaraprin]

They can't do that. There's more at issue here than people's feelings about a couple of women the Prince of Wales has been involved with. It was claimed back in the 1930s before the abdication of Edward VIII that a morganatic marriage of a king or someone in the direct line of succession was not legally possible without a change in the law and the approval of the Commonwealth and goodness only knows what else, none of which would be possible in practical terms.

They kicked a king off the throne on the grounds that morganatic marriage didn't exist in British law.

They simply can't backtrack now and say that, OK, Diana was terribly popular and Camilla is seen as the cause of her suffering so she must be satisfied with a morganatic marriage - not less than 100 years after deposing a monarch on the grounds that such a marriage wasn't possible. Charles and Camilla are pushing 60 - Charles is almost certainly going to have a short reign if he even outlives his mother, and in practical terms he's really not going to make much impression on kingship with half the country focussed on William already - it simply isn't worth the legal awfulness to push the morganatic marriage option when it isn't a long-term issue anyway. It makes a total mockery of the abdication and would show that Edward VIII had been got rid of illegally. It simply isn't worth it.

While I do see some of your point Elspeth, there should be provisions made that she NOT become Queen. It is wrong, no matter who Charles was married to. Charles is already planning to throw aside the Princess Consort title to make her Queen. It is just wrong morally and would also damage the monarchy.

 

[susan alicia]

the curtsying bit was discussed on feb 13 #345 posting of elspeth:

Far as I know, as the wife of the Prince of Wales and an HRH, she becomes the second lady in the land. Officially that means the other royal ladies (apart from the Queen) would have to curtsey to her, but I don't think the royal family tends to be so formal, apart from curtseying to the Queen at official functions (not sure about private ones).

I appreciate the fact Trinny that you are asking why I feel the way I do. I have no problem explaining my feelings to you. Just as Diana stirred in me great feelings of love and admiration, Camilla stirs feelings of anger and hatred inside of me because she hurt the monarchy, Diana, Diana's sons, her own children, and her own marriage.

I see Camilla as a major factor in the breakup of the Wales' marriage. Yes, there were other problems of incompatibility, the pressure for Charles to marry, and the pressure for Diana to marry into the royal family. However, Charles and Camilla were cheating and degrading Diana before she took the adulterous steps they did.

Diana was a very young 19, and Camilla picked her out of a list of potential brides because she would be the least trouble to her liasion with Charles. Diana was set up from day one and no one cared--Charles, Camilla, the royal family, or the Spencer family. To do this to another human being is deplorable. Diana's hand was forced and she made a tremendous mistake marrying Charles. All Diana wanted was to have a husband that loved her, children, and a good marriage. Love and a warm marriage were never going to be in the cards with Charles just marrying for the sake of marrying; Camilla picking "a mouse" that would not undermine her position; a royal family that wanted an heir and not another "Uncle David"; and the Spencer family who wanted to be forever tied to the Windsors. How could Diana possibly win and have any hopes of a happy life with all of this?? This is what makes me side with her. Yes, Diana made mistakes in her attempts to free herself from the disaster she found herself in the middle of. However, she stood up for women everywhere by not accepting the shoddy behavior being accorded to her.

Camilla betrayed her own marriage, inflicted unknown damage upon her own children to follow in the footsteps of her great-grandmother, Alice Keppel. Diana did do similar things when she was forced into lonliness, despair and the misguided hope of saving her marriage. Camilla did it out of ambition and greed.

That is why Camilla does not deserve any honors, titles, or deference that would normally be due the wife of the Prince of Wales. She should just marry Charles and have a marginal title such as Her Grace, the Duchess of Cornwall.
How can Camilla deserve the curtseys of Sophie and the other royal ladies who have lead exemplary lives thus far?? How could William's or Harry's future wives curtsey to the woman that brought such unhappiness to their mother?? It is UNACCEPTABLE and DEPLORABLE. If I were a British citizen, I would NEVER curtsey to her or Charles. Curtseying to her is a betrayal of the monarchy. My heart is made of steel when it comes to Camilla, and there is nothing she could ever do to change it--not that she would care.

I would curtsey to William and Harry--even as an American!!

 

[grecka]

I would think that Princess Anne wouldn't have to curtsey to Camilla, no matter how senior she may be.

 

[susan alicia]

always found the being blessed and forgiven the most important bit of the church, their condemnations less important.
(But I am greek orthodox and certain things that were visible about greek priests are now in the news)

No, it isn't being sanctioned. It's a civil wedding, not a CofE one. The service of prayer and dedication afterwards is perfectly standard and has been the way things have been done for years. You might argue that it's hypocritical of the church to forbid these marriages and then appear to sanction them by this service of prayer and dedication, and I'd tend to agree with you, but it's not something they dreamed up specially for Charles, it's the way things have been done for decades.

 

[Elspeth]

While I do see some of your point Elspeth, there should be provisions made that she NOT become Queen. It is wrong, no matter who Charles was married to. Charles is already planning to throw aside the Princess Consort title to make her Queen. It is just wrong morally and would also damage the monarchy.

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.

 

[Elspeth]

always found the being blessed and forgiven the most important bit of the church, their condemnations less important.

Well, I suppose so - but it still strikes me as hypocritical for the church to be in the business of conducting services to celebrate a marriage that the church refused to perform.

 

[susan alicia]

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

elspeth,

it might be the truth but it sounds scary

 

[Elspeth]

Well, I did mean that she'd outlive Charles naturally, not that there was any sort of plot to ensure she outlived him.

That really would be scary...

 

[trinny]

Thank you very much for explaining your opinions so thoroughly Moonlightrhapsody & Tiaraprin, I appreciate them very much

 

[abir]

From Timesonline http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1491821_1,00.html

February 20, 2005

Churchgoers ordered to pray for Camilla
Christopher Morgan

CHURCHGOERS are to be commanded by royal warrant to pray for Camilla Parker Bowles as part of regular Sunday services after her marriage to the Prince of Wales on April 8.

The Queen is planning to issue the warrant in formal recognition of her new daughter-in-law’s status as one of the most high-ranking members of the royal family.

At the moment, only the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and Charles are individually remembered by the Church of England in state prayers during services of matins and evensong.

Meanwhile doubts have been raised by senior lawyers over the legality of Charles and Camilla’s marriage. The couple are due to marry in the register office at Windsor Guildhall.
In a paper submitted to Lord Goldsmith, the attorney- general, Stephen Cretney QC, an emeritus fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, argues that members of the royal family are barred by a 19th century law from marrying in civil ceremonies.

The decision to change the prayers is controversial on two counts. The Queen removed the name of Diana, the late Princess of Wales, from the list after her divorce in 1996, at the same time as she withdrew her style of royal highness. The decision was attacked by Diana’s circle as “spiteful and humiliating”.

Some churchgoers may also object to praying for the woman whose adultery played a part in the divorce and who is not allowed to remarry in church.
The new wording to be used in the prayers is expected to state: “Almighty God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Charles, Prince of Wales, and the Duchess of Cornwall.” There is a separate prayer for the Queen.

Yesterday senior church sources disclosed, after informal contacts with BuckinghamPalace, that the warrant would be issued. The palace said: “The granting of a royal warrant to incorporate the duchess into state prayers will be done in consultation between the church and the palace. That consultation has still to be held.”
Lord Puttnam, a friend of Diana, said he found the decision “a little puzzling” and said he would discuss it with bishops in the House of Lords.

Opposition will also come from groups in the church that remain opposed to the remarriage of Charles and Parker Bowles. Two bodies, Church Society and Reform, believe Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was wrong to approve of the arrangements.

Senior lawyers have also voiced opposition.
They include Cretney, whose view is supported by one former attorney-general and two other former senior law officers. He argues that the Marriage Act 1836 disallows members of the royal family from marrying in a civil ceremony.

This exclusion, Cretney argues, was updated in every subsequent amending statute, including the Marriage Act 1949 which governs civil weddings today.
Cretney recommends a “simple bill putting beyond doubt the capacity of members of the royal family to contract civil marriages”.

Sources close to Goldsmith said he would respond directly to Cretney but that there could be no comment on whether the palace had asked for fresh advice.
Paul Williamson, a parish priest at St George’s, Hanworth, west London, will lodge a formal objection tomorrow to force the palace to publish its legal advice.

This weekend one former attorney-general endorsed Cretney’s argument. He said: “If I was advising the Queen now, I think I’d have the legislation clarified. It could be passed through both houses in about five minutes.”

The wedding has already been dogged by one legal hitch. It had to be switched from WindsorCastle to the Guildhall because officials failed to advise Charles and Camilla about the difficulties of obtaining a licence for the castle to host the marriage.

The palace remains adamant, however, that the wedding was endorsed ahead of the announcement by four independent experts.
Goldsmith will now consider whether the government may need to put a bill through parliament to allow the civil ceremony.

However, Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, indicated last night that the government was content with the legality of the marriage, saying the prohibition on royal civil marriage ended in 1949.

He said the government had been thorough, ministers were confident of the ceremony’s legality, and they wished to put no bar in the way of the wedding.

 

[selrahc4]

I don't think Anne and Margaret used to spend much time, if any, curtsying to Diana.

Elspeth, you just gave me my laugh of the day

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

I don't think any Windsors with a lesser title than her would have.

 

[wymanda]

A Funny Take on the Wedding



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

 

[Elspeth]

Oh my...

Now, if those were actually being marketed, the seller would make a fortune!

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

How can Princess Anne, The Countess of Wessex, The Kents or the Gloucesters curtsey to Camilla?Never!

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Camilla can make people hate the Royal Family if she married and be in the Royal Family.People do not like Camilla!

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

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?

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

When The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret still alive, they did not approve with this marriage.

 

[hillary_nugent]

OMG i've been on holidays in the USA for almost a month and i haven't heard a single thing about this upcoming marriage ^__^ well good on Charles and Camilla i wish them all the best for their marriage ^___^