Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part 1

[Elspeth]

Possibly because of what happened to King Edward.

[kobe]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Possibly because of what happened to King Edward.

If he is affraid because of what happen to Edward, than he put his fear above his love for Camilia. That's human but in the end no matter the reason why Charles did not stand up to his parents, the person that paid for his decision was not him but Diana. Diana, unlike Charles, never got the happy ending. And that makes have negative feelings towards Charles & Camilia.
Also King Bhumibol of Thailand stood up to the military that could have easily killed him when necessary and for that he was able to bring about stability to Thailand. So, what I am trying to say is that yes it is hard to defy those we love, especially our parents whose approval means the world to some of us, yet people, not just kings or princes, make these decisions every single day.

[lashinka2002]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It seems to be pretty well established that the royal protection services were withdrawn from Diana at her request because she wanted her freedom and she thought the police bodyguards, being paid for by the royal family, were in the enemy camp. It seems that the Queen insisted that royal protection officers be assigned to the two princes, so they were there during the earlier criuse on Al Fayed's yacht when the two princes were there, but when Diana went back to have her cruise alone with Dodi, she didn't have any royal protection officers. It seems to have been her choice, not the choice of the royal family.



The decision was apparently hers.

Hmmm...Looks like I've been proven wrong.
I would have to wonder why she would refuse royal protection officers?
Maybe because they could report on her every move to top officials?
The last thing you would want as a divorcee is to have your every move reported on to your ex husbands family. Had she refused them in other situations? Did Al Fayed have protection guards? maybe she thought that was enough...

[lashinka2002]

Originally Posted by kobe

So, what I am trying to say is that yes it is hard to defy those we love, especially our parents whose approval means the world to some of us, yet people, not just kings or princes, make these decisions every single day.

Very good statement! You also earn respect when you stand up for what you believe in. Charles doesn't seem to have any respect.

[Reina]

Yeah Diana refused them before. I guess that was a step in her gaining her independence. Can't blame someone for trying to do that.

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

Very good statement! You also earn respect when you stand up for what you believe in. Charles doesn't seem to have any respect.

For Diana?

[sara1981]

Originally Posted by gaggleofcrazypeople

For Diana?

yeah i think so! but Diana needs big needs! than Camilla and Sophie because Diana is popular Princess! that unfair for Camilla and Sophie!

Sara Boyce

[james]

I think that a lot of damage has come from this "marraige" because Charles has underestimated or rather, ignored, the country's feelings on the matter and the long term casualty will be the institution of Monarchy itself because it has undeniably lost a great deal of respect because of it.

[wymanda]

The worst part is that Diana will be forever under 40 and pretty (I never did buy the line that she was "gorgeous, stunning, etc"). However, things will come into perspective when William & Harry have wives & children & these people cannot conceive the idea of Diana as a Grandmother. I am sure that Camilla will fulfil that role for both her own & Charles' grandchildren.

[sara1981]

Originally Posted by wymanda

The worst part is that Diana will be forever under 40 and pretty (I never did buy the line that she was "gorgeous, stunning, etc"). However, things will come into perspective when William & Harry have wives & children & these people cannot conceive the idea of Diana as a Grandmother. I am sure that Camilla will fulfil that role for both her own & Charles' grandchildren.

i totally agree with you!

im wishes Diana was here! but she and Charles would loves being as grandparents of their boys to become dad in future but Charles still alives over 50's but he almost 60 years old! but Camilla would loves being as grandparents of Charles's grandchildren but if im correct or im mistakes! but Princess Diana still in heaven and she is current 43 will become 44 in July 1st many people will still in Diana's legacy after her death in 1997 for almost 8 years but now as 7 years.

Sara Boyce

[lashinka2002]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lashinka2002
Very good statement! You also earn respect when you stand up for what you believe in. Charles doesn't seem to have any respect.



Quote [For Diana?] Quote

yes and for himself. He could have said no to a marraige with Diana or anyone else for that matter if did not want to marry them. If he wanted to marry Camilla he could have held his ground (look at Hakoon and Mette-Marit of Norway - he threatend not to take the throne at all if he couldnt marry her or he could have just refused to marry like Prince Albert) In this day and age I don't think the RF would have thrown him out.
Yet he married Diana with mistress in tow and then didn't stand by her through their marraige. After he did his duty by fathering the children he just sort of abandoned trying to repair the marraige and fled to his mistress. Doesn't seem like a very strong man to me. Marraige is always hard work and never easy; not to be entered into lightly. If anything this should have been drummed into his head as a child considering the huge role he had to play. Very cowardly! No respect for this man here!
He seems to be trying to stand up for what he wants now with Camilla but to little to late. The damage is done. The respect people had for him relationship wise is gone. How can he respect this marraige if he could'nt even take the first one seriously??

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

He could have said no to a marraige with Diana or anyone else for that matter if did not want to marry them. If he wanted to marry Camilla he could have held his ground (look at Hakoon and Mette-Marit of Norway - he threatend not to take the throne at all if he couldnt marry her or he could have just refused to marry like Prince Albert) In this day and age I don't think the RF would have thrown him out.

When Charles and Diana married, it wasn't "this day and age" however. It was 1980 and times were different for monarchies. Haakon and Felipe both (allegedly) threatened to give up the throne in 2000 and onwards -- a lot has happened in monarchies in those 20 years, especially in the British royal family where we saw Anne get divorced and married again, Andrew get married and divorced, and Charles himself get divorced, and all the subsequent scandal associated with all of these divorces and controversies for the British royal family. It was not just an "anus horribilus" for the Queen, but a solid decade of "horribilus."

In a (bad and unfortunate) way, Charles and Diana's tragic and troubled relationship paved the way for Haakon and Mette-Marit and Felipe and Letizia. The othe royal families must've looked at the public scandal that Charles and Diana's mutual affairs and subsequent divorce created and wanted to avoid such scandal at all costs. If it mean allowing their sons to marry a single mom or a divorcee, yet two women their sons loved deeply, then letting true love prevail might be a better chance then forcing Haakon and Felipe to marry someone else they didn't love at all yet may have been a more "presentable" choice of bride.

The Queen would not have thrown her son out of her family, yes. But, Charles could've been removed from the line of succession. In the Dutch royal family Johan Friso and Mabel failed to seek permission from the Dutch government and as such, while Johan Friso is still his mother, Queen Beatrix's second son, he is no longer part of the royal family though he is part of the Queen's family.

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

Yet he married Diana with mistress in tow and then didn't stand by her through their marraige. After he did his duty by fathering the children he just sort of abandoned trying to repair the marraige and fled to his mistress.

Charles never abandoned his children. Even by Diana's own accounts Charles was always a good father to his sons. And judging by the affection his sons show him, I don't think they feel abandoned by their father in the least. They may be disappointed that their father and mother's marriage didn't work out or that they didn't live happily ever after, but William and Harry were most certainly not abandoned by Charles because of his affair with Camilla.

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

Marraige is always hard work and never easy; not to be entered into lightly. If anything this should have been drummed into his head as a child considering the huge role he had to play. Very cowardly! No respect for this man here!

Both Charles and Diana are responsible for the failure of their marriage. It is really unfair to point the finger at Charles solely.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

The Queen would not have thrown her son out of her family, yes. But, Charles could've been removed from the line of succession.

Please explain how Charles could have been removed from the succession and on what grounds.

The only grounds I can think of are adultery - which hasn't been a bar in the past and in which quite a few British people have also committed. It isn't a crime so he has done nothing illegal.

Being divorced - something which happens to about one third of the British people I believe.

OK remarrying - again not illegal.

Next remarrying a divorcee - again not illegal.

If any of the above were sited for being reasons to remove him from the succession they would be seen as being against the Discrimination Act as you can't discriminate on the grounds of marrital status.

At a time when the people want the discrimination against Roman Catholics removed the only way to bar Charles would be to include disrimination against divorcees and remarried people.

The government couldn't just pass an act to bar one person as that would be discriminatory.

The Netherlands situation is different because the government has to give consent at the beginning whereas in Britain only the monarch does - once the monarch has given their consent the government can't do anything. The parliament is only involved if the monarch won't give consent and then the person, being over 25, can appeal directly to the parliament, wait a year and if both houses agree the person can then marry.

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Please explain how Charles could have been removed from the succession and on what grounds.

Adultery, for one.

[Elspeth]

The Netherlands situation is different because the government has to give consent at the beginning whereas in Britain only the monarch does - once the monarch has given their consent the government can't do anything. The parliament is only involved if the monarch won't give consent and then the person, being over 25, can appeal directly to the parliament, wait a year and if both houses agree the person can then marry.

Where Princess Margaret and Group Captain Townsend were concerned, it sounds as though Parliament was prepared to refuse to grant her any money through the Civil List if she went ahead and married him, and that Parliament was also prepared to see to it that she was essentially relegated to the position of a private citizen, even though she'd waited until she was 25 before trying to insist on anything. I realise that Prince Charles has income independently of the Civil List, but it was pressure by Parliament that stopped both Edward VIII and Princess Margaret from marrying people considered unsuitable while staying in the line of succession.

I doubt Camilla Shand would have been considered to be as unsuitable as the other two since she wasn't divorced at the time she first knew Charles. However, at that time Charles was in his early twenties and a naval officer who was being heavily influenced by his parents, grandmother, and Lord Mountbatten (who had his own ideas on a suitable candidate for Charles's wife, i.e., one of his own granddaughters); some of these other crown princes who have stood up to their parents have been men in their thirties in somewhat less formal monarchies than the British ones and living in countries where there isn't a ready-made aristocracy and nobility from which royalty were supposed to pick spouses.

It sounds as though the Queen isn't someone who likes to give a direct "no" to her children in matters concerning their personal lives, but if Charles had been set on marrying Camilla in the early 1970s the Queen would probably have been telling him to wait for a while, in the hope he'd have found someone considered more suitable. This is the way the Queen also put off dealing with her sister's romance until the government more or less took the decision away from her by turning it into a Hobson's choice.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by gaggleofcrazypeople

Adultery, for one.

Adultery is not grounds for removing someone from succession otherwise, Edward VII, George IV, George II, George I, Charles II (Diana's closest royal ancester), et. al. would have been barred. Most English/Scottish/British kings and heirs to the throne have committed adultery. It is almost a requirement of the job and could almost be included in the job description. The exceptions appear to be, in recent times anyway, George III, George V and George VI. Charles II and Edward VII were well known philanderers and both made fine kings and were both very popular as were there wives. In fact if Charles II had not committed adultery we wouldn't have most of the English nobility as they are today as most are descendents of one or more of his illegitimate offspring (the Spencers and Sarah Ferguson included).

There are NO grounds for removing Charles from the succession. Get past his bedroom and no Prince of Wales has been better prepared for his role as king, or really worked harder as Prince of Wales. You just can't get past the one mistake he has made - he married the wrong woman.

Princess Margaret never asked Parliament for its consent. She was given some advice by the Prime Minister of the day and the Archbishop of Canterbury, but not the parliament. Who knows for sure what a debate in open parliament about the suitability or otherwise of Group Townsend might have done. They may have agreed to her request, they may have agreed with the advice given, they may have changed aspects of the RMA - who knows as it didn't happen.

Edward was NOT removed by the government over his choice of bride. They needed/wanted an excuse to get rid of him - her being divorced once and about to get a second divorce was a convenient excuse and the people would accept it. If he had been married to a suitable woman they would have come up with something else - he was a security risk at a time of heightened sensitivity in Europe - 1936. You can't take his situation out of the European one of the time.

[Elspeth]

Princess Margaret never asked Parliament for its consent.

It had been made clear to the Queen that consent would not be forthcoming. The Royal Marriages Act states:

"Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in case any such descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, being above the age of twenty-five years, shall persist in his or her resolution to contract a marriage disapproved of or dissented from, by the King, his heirs, or successors; that then such descendant, upon giving notice to the King's privy council, which notice is hereby directed to be entered in the books thereof, may, at any time from the expiration of twelve calendar months after such notice given to the privy council as aforesaid, contract such marriage; and his or her marriage with the person before proposed, and rejected, may be duly solemnized, without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors; and such marriage shall be good, as if this act had never been made, unless both houses of parliament shall, before the expiration of the said twelve months, expressly declare their disapprobation of such intended marriage."

http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html

The Marquess of Salisbury and other hard liners had made known their opposition to the marriage and their intention to resign from Parliament if it went ahead, so there was no point in her asking Parliament for its approval since she knew ahead of time that she wouldn't get it. I've also read that there was talk of putting a Bill of Renunciation before Parliament so that if Princess Margaret went through with the marriage she would have been required to give up her royal status legally. As it was, Parliament had already made clear that no Civil List income would be forthcoming after her marriage to Peter Townsend, which would have effectively prevented her from performing public duties.

Edward was NOT removed by the government over his choice of bride. They needed/wanted an excuse to get rid of him - her being divorced once and about to get a second divorce was a convenient excuse and the people would accept it. If he had been married to a suitable woman they would have come up with something else - he was a security risk at a time of heightened sensitivity in Europe - 1936.

Indeed. Meaning that if a person is considered unfit to be monarch, excuses will be found somewhere. In Edward's case, Mrs Simpson was the perfect excuse. In Charles's case, if enough powerful members of the Establishment are sufficiently concerned that he's too inclined to meddle in politics to be a politically neutral monarch or that he's too tainted by his actions and his statements regarding the Church to be a suitable Supreme Governor or that the Archbishop of Canterbury felt that he could not in good conscience go through with the coronation ceremony, then this remarriage might have provided a suitable excuse to suggest he step aside.

I think that if Diana had still been alive and Charles and Camilla had decided to marry, assuming Diana hadn't done something foolish PR-wise like marrying Dodi, there might have been quite a public outcry for the succession to skip to William under the guidance of his mother and to leave Charles and Camilla in a Duke-of-Windsor type of situation. Whether anything would have actually happened along those lines is a different matter altogether, but ultimately the existence of the monarchy does have to do with public acceptance of it, and they've been through some rough times over the past few years. The Establishment seems to be prepared to do what it takes to preserve the institution of monarchy even if that means being quite ruthless toward senior royals who are perceived to be a threat to the institution.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It had been made clear to the Queen that consent would not be forthcoming. The Royal Marriages Act states:


The Marquess of Salisbury and other hard liners had made known their opposition to the marriage and their intention to resign from Parliament if it went ahead, so there was no point in her asking Parliament for its approval since she knew ahead of time that she wouldn't get it. I've also read that there was talk of putting a Bill of Renunciation before Parliament so that if Princess Margaret went through with the marriage she would have been required to give up her royal status legally. As it was, Parliament had already made clear that no Civil List income would be forthcoming after her marriage to Peter Townsend, which would have effectively prevented her from performing public duties.



Indeed. Meaning that if a person is considered unfit to be monarch, excuses will be found somewhere. In Edward's cas