Title For Camilla

[Fireweaver]

Camilla could become part of the family. There isn't really a law that says that they can't. It's just not really done.

[wymanda]

Originally posted by Fireweaver@May 2nd, 2004 - 11:05 am
Camilla could become part of the family. There isn't really a law that says that they can't. It's just not really done.

WHY?

If the Queen accepts the marriage and the government does then it is no business of the rest of us.

[Fireweaver]

I think the British Royals are very careful to attempt to give their subjects what they want. And apparently they don't want a Queen Camilla.

[nivek517]

Thank you, Alexandria, for attempting to keep the forum the way it was designed to be. Unfortunately, some people can't read (much less write....), and therefore, are not getting the message and continue posting negative comments about other members just because they don't agree with them.

[nivek517]

Wymanda - you hit the nail right on the head! Thank you for elaborating on the previous generations and why Charles and Diana were doomed from the very beginning!

[moosey60]

Originally posted by nivek517@May 2nd, 2004 - 12:18 am
Thank you, Alexandria, for attempting to keep the forum the way it was designed to be. Unfortunately, some people can't read (much less write....), and therefore, are not getting the message and continue posting negative comments about other members just because they don't agree with them.

That's not nice....not nice at all.

[Elspeth]

Originally posted by wymanda@May 1st, 2004 - 9:35 pm
Sara,
You obviously aren't aware that there are changes afoot in the Church of England which will allow divorcees to remarry with the blessing of the church. As, in the eyes of the church, Charles is considered a widower and his involvment with Camilla did not cause the failure of her marriage they would be allowed to marry in church.

I think that while this may well technically be the case for Prince Charles, it'd cause any amount of bad publicity for the church if it did happen. There aren't many people who are going to believe that his involvement with Mrs Parker Bowles had nothing to do with the collapse of his marriage. If he's allowed to marry a woman with whom he was so heavily involved while he was married to his previous wife, there's no reason why the same shouldn't apply to anyone. And if it's seen that a special case is being made for leniency to the one person who should be held to the highest of standards, the church might as well give up its standards altogether in this particular area.

It certainly could be argued that the church's position on divorce and remarriage is still rather behind the times, but in this day and age where deference to the monarchy appears to generally be a thing of the past, it'd set a bad precedent if it appeared that the church's policy was being shaped even partly as a result of Prince Charles's needs and desires.

[lori]

And it won't be the first time the church policy customized a king's desire. The problem for Charles will always be the public opinons. Are his subjects ready for Camilla?

[wymanda]

Originally posted by Elspeth@May 3rd, 2004 - 12:26 pm
There aren't many people who are going to believe that his involvement with Mrs Parker Bowles had nothing to do with the collapse of his marriage. If he's allowed to marry a woman with whom he was so heavily involved while he was married to his previous wife, there's no reason why the same shouldn't apply to anyone.

The thing is that he is considered, in the eyes of the church, as a widower and so whatever caused the breakup of his marriage would not be considered relevant.

The circumstantial evidence of Camilla's former husband having remarried very quickly after their divorce became final (possiblity that he was involved with another woman) would be considered as the reason their marriage broke down rather than her involvement with Charles.

I think that the British public would prefer the situation to be cleared up (he either marries her or ends the relationship) rather than the current situation where she is "neither fish nor fowl" (as my great grandma used to say).

[Elspeth]

The thing is that he is considered, in the eyes of the church, as a widower and so whatever caused the breakup of his marriage would not be considered relevant.
The circumstantial evidence of Camilla's former husband having remarried very quickly after their divorce became final (possiblity that he was involved with another woman) would be considered as the reason their marriage broke down rather than her involvement with Charles.

I think both would have to be taken into account. She was involved with Charles before and after her marriage; her husband doesn't seem to have had such a long-term relationship. If this chuch rule about remarriage not being permitted in a situation where the second spouse was a factor in the breakup of the marriage of the first spouse is to mean anything, then it has to be applied to the Parker Bowles marriage. According to reports they both spent decades being unfaithful, but it seemed to be her relationship with Prince Charles that drove the marriage past the breaking point.

Plus, like I said before, he isn't just any old person wanting to marry an old flame. Like it or not, he needs to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, since he's in direct line to become the head of the church, which still includes "forsaking all other" and "till death us do part" in its marriage vows, which he took and then quite spectacularly broke. His behaviour during his marriage was simply not appropriate for someone in his position. His ex-wife might have died and made him a widower, but before that happened he went through a divorce partly because of his relationship with Mrs Parker Bowles, and there's still a strong public perception (however unfair) that his wife died largely because of the marital situation. If he marries Camilla in the Church of England, it's going to cause hideous problems for the church. I think the stuff about gay bishops will pale by comparison.

I think that the British public would prefer the situation to be cleared up (he either marries her or ends the relationship) rather than the current situation where she is "neither fish nor fowl" (as my great grandma used to say).

I'm not really sure what people would prefer; I'm hearing opinions across the board. A lot of people think he should give her up, but we all know he won't. Not many people think she should become Queen, and quite a few of them would rather have the present situation continue than to have them marry and then have to address the thorny issue of what her status would be. I think the Archbishop would be well within his rights to refuse to crown Charles in his present situation, but I assume the present Archbishop wouldn't do that. I think George Carey might have, but Rowan Williams probably won't.

[tiaraprin]

CAMILLA CAN NEVER BE PRINCESS OF WALES!! NO ONE WILL STAND FOR IT!! She should just get some forgettable subsidary title from the Queen or Charles. You cannot replace a beautiful swan with an ugly "ROTTWEILER" who is a home wrecker!!!

[sara1981]

Originally posted by tiaraprin@May 28th, 2004 - 8:03 pm
CAMILLA CAN NEVER BE PRINCESS OF WALES!! NO ONE WILL STAND FOR IT!! She should just get some forgettable subsidary title from the Queen or Charles. You cannot replace a beautiful swan with an ugly "ROTTWEILER" who is a home wrecker!!!

i would agree it!

many people would getting upset of remind of Princess Diana lots! i told mom another days before my birthday about Camilla would get Diana's title i dont think so! but if Camilla would get married to Charles if she and Charles becoming King and Queen if Charles would losing rights! by his mother the Queen.

Princess Diana called Camilla as rotweiller like as cat and mouse because Diana got heartbreaking of their married because Charles been gone see Camilla lots everyday and he been phone everyday, write letters since he and Diana was in honeymoon because Charles had pictures of Camilla but Diana dont like to bring pictures of Camilla!

I would disagree Camilla cant become Queen nor becoming Princess of Wales many people would hates Camilla believe me!

Sara Boyce

p.s. im tell you the truth!

[Julian]

The Church of England isn't about to change its laws just to suit the Prince of Wales's possible remarriage agenda, much as some people around here imagine it.

Were they even to do so, he would just be sabotaging himself because then it would become transparent that not even the Church is willing to stand up for its own previous standards it has required of its members much less the person who is supposed to become the Supreme Governor.

Edward VIII gave up everything for the woman he loved, Charles Prince of Wales gave up the woman he pretended to love but will never give up anything else for the one he claims to love. He's really just too selfish, self-pitying and self-involved to ever contemplate that sort of sacrifice. If the Duchess of Windsor deserved no HRH then certainly Camilla Parker Bowles does not. She is a home wrecker and a thoroughly deceitful dishonest woman who already has the only title she will ever deserve: Whore!

[Georgia]

I think your comments regarding Camilla are both invalid and very unfair. It takes two people to make a marriage, it also takes two people to wreck one. Diana was not some blameless creature. She grew up closley with the Royals, she knew what she was getting into. She also had her fair share of affairs and don't get me started on the way she manipulated the press. Lets just say she puts Victoria Beckham to shame!! As for Charles remarrying, there is nothing constitutionally to stop him. It was the government of the day that stopped the Duke of Windsor marrying Wallis. I would say, something has to be said officially so we know exactly what kind of role he (Charles) sees Camilla having either now or in the future.

[carlota]

poor camilla! you are being so rude with her.
she really loves charles... maybe she deserves an opportunity.

[sophie]

I THINK CAMILLA SHOULD NOT BE CALLED THE PRINCESS OF WALES, BUT SHE SHOULD TAKE ANOTHER TITLE. AND I HOPE THEY DO GET MARRIED.

[wymanda]

Originally posted by carlota@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 pm
poor camilla! you are being so rude with her.
she really loves charles... maybe she deserves an opportunity.

I agree; and if she marries Charles the title of Princess of Wales is her's by right. Diana was not the first Priness of Wales and she certainly wont be the last. She wasted her opportunity in the job and now it is someone elses chance to have a go.

CAMILLA FOR PRINCESS OF WALES B) B) B)

[CD.]

I agree with Julian on this one

[sara1981]

Originally posted by wymanda+May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 am--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wymanda @ May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 am)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-carlota@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 pm
poor camilla! you are being so rude with her.
she really loves charles... maybe she deserves an opportunity.

I agree; and if she marries Charles the title of Princess of Wales is her's by right. Diana was not the first Priness of Wales and she certainly wont be the last. She wasted her opportunity in the job and now it is someone elses chance to have a go.

CAMILLA FOR PRINCESS OF WALES B) B) B) [/b][/quote]
i disagree, wymanda!

Camilla cant become Princess of Wales because many people would hurt feelings of famous Diana,Princess of Wales following British law!

Sara Boyce

[royal_sophietje]

Camillia princess of wales??? No way!!!!!!!!!!!!