The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 05-29-2004, 10:52 AM
carlota's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 5,795
well, if she marries charles, that would be her title.... princess of wales and future queen of britain
however, she will not be as wonderful and as nice as diana... :(
__________________

__________________
Sign the United Nations Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare: http://www.animalsmatter.org
YOUR DAILY CLICK HELPS ANIMALS SURVIVE!
Feed an animal in need, click for free.
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Take some time to sign the petitions @: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/animal-welfare/all
  #82  
Old 05-29-2004, 01:33 PM
USCtrojan's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Phoenix, United States
Posts: 1,688
If and when HRH the Prince of Wales marries Miss Camilla Parker-Bowles she will most likely be granted his titles and the right to use them. Camilla as his wife should have the right ( I feel otherwise) to use any titles granted to her husband... However I am sure that HM could say otherwise if she is not 100% fond of Miss Parker-Bowles....
__________________

__________________
  #83  
Old 05-29-2004, 01:34 PM
USCtrojan's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Phoenix, United States
Posts: 1,688
When Charles becomes King, Camilla as far as I am concerned should simply be Princess (if that). Like the wife of the King of Morrocco! Lalla Salma!
__________________
  #84  
Old 05-29-2004, 02:44 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
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.
I think your comments are not only invalid but also stupid and evasive. All people like you ever do anytime this issue of Charles and Camilla in the present is raised is start whinging on about a woman who has been dead for SIX YEARS, to continue blaming for the ongoing behaviours and situation of two other adults. Get over it already.

The true facts of the matter are there for anyone to see without dragging in lame and stupid excuses involving other personalities and long past events: if Parker Bowles is the so-called "love" of this man's life, then why hasn't he married her years ago IF as some assert he can constitutionally do so without any impediment? Why if the Church and his family SUPPOSEDLY don't object to this whore marrying in doesn't he do the honorable thing any ordinary person in the street who was truly in love would have done years ago? You are left with only three possible true general answers:

1. They don't truly love each other at all. They are just two middle-aged failures who are used to each other like an old cushion. He looks the other way at the public criticism of her, is in denial of the true distaste with which his mother, sons and family regard her while she looks the other way at his flirtations elsewhere, backstairs buggery with his staff, and the fact that he treats her as the old pair of shoes he can always rely on back at Highgrove.

2. The double standard between Charles behaviour and consequences and those dealt to Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson would become very apparent again. The governments of countries that objected to the Simpson marriage would either object again or head for the door and become republics at the prospect of a woman like Mrs. PB becoming Queen consort in name of their own country. In fact, that's happening already -- no one's watiing for her to arrive on some yacht on a state visit and swan around their capital in a tiara. No thank you.

3. The scandal of these two marrying and him retaining everything else--becoming King, becoming Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Church changing centuries old teachings just to suit these two, her getting every one of his titles--would be more than the present government of the U.K. would be likely to support the Prince of Wales in doing. The likelihood is Charles realizes this, doesn't "love" this woman at all to the extent he's attributed to, and so he's not going to "go for it" because he full well realizes that except for die-hard conservative monarchists and establishment types in upper British society no one is going to support him. He'll only truly succeed in weakening and damaging the monarchy further. So he's already acknowledged his mediocre situation with this woman by not taking it a step further and marrying her.
__________________
  #85  
Old 05-29-2004, 05:15 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally posted by Georgia@May 29th, 2004 - 3:17 am
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.
I don't think so. I stand by my comments. While Diana made some mistakes, Charles was the one at the Altar LYING in front of everyone!! Just because Diana had some closeness to the Royal Family, they still don't let even their closest friends see all!! Camilla and Charles were committing adultery long before Diana met James Hewitt--and who could blame her for needing comfort and support being stuck with a man like that!! Camilla deserves no sympathy--she knew what she was doing and did not care!

The thing that will stop Charles is public opinion. Diana will not be forgotten and Camilla will never be Princess of Wales.
__________________
  #86  
Old 05-29-2004, 05:21 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally posted by Julian@May 29th, 2004 - 1:44 pm
your comments are not only invalid but also stupid and evasive. All people like you ever do anytime this issue of Charles and Camilla in the present is raised is start whinging on about a woman who has been dead for SIX YEARS, to continue blaming for the ongoing behaviours and situation of two other adults. Get over it already.

No Julian I won't get over it! Diana will never be forgotten and I do not appreciate being told my comments are stupid--maybe you should get over it!
__________________
  #87  
Old 05-29-2004, 07:29 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
tiaraprin, I wasn't addressing my remark at you. Look at the flow of the thread. Look at who I quoted. Diana never being forgotten and what goes on in the present with two other people are two very different and separate issues as far as I'm concerned. They should only be viewed by their own characters and actions in the present, should bear responsibility for the entirety of their lives rather than their situation being laid continuously at Diana's feet. Responsiblity for one's life begins and ends mainly at one's own front door.
__________________
  #88  
Old 05-29-2004, 11:57 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,436
Quote:
Originally posted by sara1981+May 29th, 2004 - 10:10 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sara1981 @ May 29th, 2004 - 10:10 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by wymanda@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 am
<!--QuoteBegin-carlota
Quote:
@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 pm
poor camilla&#33; 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&#39;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)
i disagree, wymanda&#33;

Camilla cant become Princess of Wales because many people would hurt feelings of famous Diana,Princess of Wales following British law&#33;

Sara Boyce [/b][/quote]
Sara,

Read my lips "DIANA IS DEAD"

Her feelings can&#39;t be hurt.

As I said she was not the first Princess of Wales and she won&#39;t be the last.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #89  
Old 05-30-2004, 12:19 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally posted by wymanda+May 29th, 2004 - 10:57 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wymanda @ May 29th, 2004 - 10:57 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by sara1981@May 29th, 2004 - 10:10 pm
Quote:
Originally posted by wymanda@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 am
<!--QuoteBegin-carlota
Quote:
Quote:
@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 pm
poor camilla&#33; 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&#39;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)

i disagree, wymanda&#33;

Camilla cant become Princess of Wales because many people would hurt feelings of famous Diana,Princess of Wales following British law&#33;

Sara Boyce
Sara,

Read my lips "DIANA IS DEAD"

Her feelings can&#39;t be hurt.

As I said she was not the first Princess of Wales and she won&#39;t be the last. [/b][/quote]
She may no longer be here, but her memory will live on&#33;&#33;&#33; When will people understand just how special she was despite her flaws???
__________________
  #90  
Old 05-30-2004, 12:37 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally posted by Julian@May 29th, 2004 - 6:29 pm
tiaraprin, I wasn&#39;t addressing my remark at you. Look at the flow of the thread. Look at who I quoted. Diana never being forgotten and what goes on in the present with two other people are two very different and separate issues as far as I&#39;m concerned. They should only be viewed by their own characters and actions in the present, should bear responsibility for the entirety of their lives rather than their situation being laid continuously at Diana&#39;s feet. Responsiblity for one&#39;s life begins and ends mainly at one&#39;s own front door.
Ok Julian, I respect your beliefs but I reserve the right to disagree--the great thing about being an American is you can respect someone&#39;s beliefs but not share them.

I truly feel Diana still, after all this time, is a factor in Charles and Camilla&#39;s relationship. She will never go away. Many people will never forget or forgive what they did starting during Charles&#39;s courtship with Diana. It sheds light on two people who did not care they were breaking marriage vows, lying, and ruining the lives not only of Diana, but of Diana&#39;s children AND Camilla&#39;s children. Charles had his chance will Camilla, but went to sea and Camilla just married herself off. I admit Diana made mistakes, but the brunt of responsibility remains on Charles and Camilla. They were cold and callous--highly indicative of their true personalities whether it is in the past or present. Diana was the first royal woman to tell the world she wasn&#39;t going to stand for it.

In regards to Diana&#39;s affairs with men, Ken Wharfe, Diana&#39;s former PPO, has emphatically stated in interviews on NBC here in the USA that Diana was desperately trying to fill a void in her life and make Charles jealous and bring him back. Maybe that was foolish thinking, but she was desperate and lonely. Her tactics may not have been the best, but I sure can understand where she was coming from.
__________________
  #91  
Old 05-30-2004, 12:43 AM
sara1981's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Little Rock, United States
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally posted by wymanda+May 29th, 2004 - 10:57 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wymanda @ May 29th, 2004 - 10:57 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by sara1981@May 29th, 2004 - 10:10 pm
Quote:
Originally posted by wymanda@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 am
<!--QuoteBegin-carlota
Quote:
Quote:
@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 pm
poor camilla&#33; 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&#39;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)

i disagree, wymanda&#33;

Camilla cant become Princess of Wales because many people would hurt feelings of famous Diana,Princess of Wales following British law&#33;

Sara Boyce
Sara,

Read my lips "DIANA IS DEAD"

Her feelings can&#39;t be hurt.

As I said she was not the first Princess of Wales and she won&#39;t be the last. [/b][/quote]
i can understood, wymanda&#33; im not stupid&#33; im not baby&#33;

Sara Boyce
__________________
  #92  
Old 05-30-2004, 01:38 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I think people are just going to have to agree to disagree about this. It won&#39;t really affect what happens anyway, because in the last analysis the Establishment (senior civil servants, senior churchmen, and senior members of the royal household) are going to do what they think will best protect the country and the institution of monarchy. They did it with Edward VIII, and I assume they&#39;ll do it with Charles, whether that involves puting obstacles in the way of his marriage, forcing a morganatic marriage like Edward had (even though he couldn&#39;t have it while he was king - it was still a morganatic marriage), or letting her become Princess of Wales and Queen. The only difference is that Charles is likely to be pretty old by the time he becomes king and he already has a popular young heir, so what happens to Mrs Parker Bowles really won&#39;t be that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. It&#39;s not as if she could have a child whose position in the succession would be relevant anyway, and that&#39;d be the big deal in the longer term.

As it stands, though, it isn&#39;t clear that Charles would be able to marry her if it was shown that he was a factor in the breakup of her marriage. That&#39;s such a subjective thing, though, and not just in this particular case, that the CofE might be better off using more clear-cut guidelines. If the Establishment thought that a marriage and the subsequent difficulty about her status was going to be unpopular enough to put the monarchy at risk, they&#39;d probably put pressure on senior clergy to not allow the marriage on those grounds. Whether the archbishop would be prepared to crown Charles while he was in an adulterous relationship is another matter, of course. Never stopped archbishops in the past, but things are different these days, what with everybody knowing details that even 50 years ago were only known by a select few but weren&#39;t mentioned to the rest of us.

I hope that these decisions are made with a view to the future and not held hostage to Diana&#39;s image. Diana is part of the past now; William is the future, Diana isn&#39;t.
__________________
  #93  
Old 05-30-2004, 03:14 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
I hope that these decisions are made with a view to the future and not held hostage to Diana&#39;s image. Diana is part of the past now; William is the future, Diana isn&#39;t.
This is false since obviously you cannot separate people and events into past/present/future so easily. No one does, no matter what their views. Why is Diana even appearing in a thread about Mrs PB&#39;s possible future title if she&#39;s only part of the past? Obviously because she was vocal in saying that she held this woman responsible for the breakup of her marriage. The Church cannot get around that, you can&#39;t get around that. She had evidence from the minute of her honeymoon about the facts of that assertion too.

William is the future? Future what? More like future bone of contention since he is the son of both these parties and both want to see him as the fulfillment of their side of an argument/vision/mindset/attitude about monarchy, the past and the future and who was in the right about what. Everyone looks to William for VINDICATION in the future.
__________________
  #94  
Old 05-30-2004, 04:19 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Why is Diana even appearing in a thread about Mrs PB&#39;s possible future title if she&#39;s only part of the past? Obviously because she was vocal in saying that she held this woman responsible for the breakup of her marriage. The Church cannot get around that, you can&#39;t get around that.
Of course the church can get around that. Diana&#39;s dead; whether Mrs Parker Bowles played a part in the breakup of her marriage is irrelevant to whether Charles can marry her, because he doesn&#39;t have an ex-spouse living. He can marry anybody who&#39;s legally able to get married. If he and Camilla were both divorced with ex-spouses living, then Diana would be relevant. As far as Charles&#39;s remarriage situation is concerned now, legally at any rate, she isn&#39;t. The church-related obstacle to Charles and Camilla marrying would be whether Charles was a factor in the breakup of Camilla&#39;s marriage, not whether she was a factor in the breakup of his marriage. If her ex-husband died, there&#39;d be no church-related obstacle for either of them. The breakup of Charles&#39;s marriage is irrelevant to the church because he doesn&#39;t have an ex-spouse living.


Quote:
She had evidence from the minute of her honeymoon about the facts of that assertion too.
What happened before she got married has no legal or theological bearing on the state of her marriage. As long as Charles wasn&#39;t married to Camilla when he married Diana, any affair he had with her before his marriage to Diana wasn&#39;t relevant to his marriage. As far as who drove whom to adultery and who did it first, I don&#39;t suppose any of us will ever know - there are too many conflicting stories out there by too many authors with their own interests firmly at heart.

Quote:
William is the future? Future what?
Future king, of course. Future British head of state.

Quote:
More like future bone of contention since he is the son of both these parties and both want to see him as the fulfillment of their side of an argument/vision/mindset/attitude about monarchy, the past and the future and who was in the right about what.
He isn&#39;t the son of two parties, he&#39;s the son of two people. Both parties may be alive, but only one of the people is. And William seems to be making it fairly clear that he isn&#39;t interested in being used as a pawn by different groups of people wishing to rewrite the personal marital history of an incompatible couple in ways favourable to whichever group thinks it has his ear. It appears that he knows that his future as king has more to it than that, even if others can&#39;t see past the Charles-Diana affair and are insisting on limiting him to simply being a partisan in the matter of his parents&#39; marriage. It&#39;s a shame if people think that&#39;s all he&#39;s good for; I hope he has the maturity to prove them wrong.

Quote:
Everyone looks to William for VINDICATION in the future.
He&#39;s unlikely to be able to help them, then. He has no more idea when his parents started being unfaithful than you or I do, and it isn&#39;t going to be relevant anyway. It&#39;s going to be really sad if Diana and Charles partisans are still looking at him as the vindication of their side of events after both his parents are dead and he&#39;s king. It isn&#39;t that important.
__________________
  #95  
Old 05-30-2004, 08:57 AM
hillary_nugent's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Australia
Posts: 3,048
PRINCESS OF WHALES ^___^
__________________
I came. I saw. I posted.
  #96  
Old 05-30-2004, 09:16 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hamilton, United Kingdom
Posts: 123
Julian, I was not blaming the Princess of Wales for the current state of affairs. I do howver find your personal attack on CPB degrading and insulting. Camilla as supported and been there for Charles for nearly 30 years. During the Camillagate tapes, once you got past the crude references, you had a women completly devoted to this man, listening to him as well as being interested in what he had to say.
In addition Charles has long since hinted that he does not want to be Governor of The Church of England but defender of all faiths.
Tiarapin, doesn&#39;t Charles deserve happiness and a women to stand beside him? Many Royal watchers comment on the fact that the Queen has had quite a lonley life and that the only person she can truly trust is Philip. Does her son not derseve this also?
Finnally, no one will ever forget Diana and neither they should. She was an inspirational women but those left behind can not live in her shadow.
__________________
  #97  
Old 05-30-2004, 01:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
I was not blaming the Princess of Wales for the current state of affairs.
Then you are a liar because you most certainly were.

Quote:
I do howver find your personal attack on CPB degrading and insulting.
I really don&#39;t give a fig what people of your type think, Georgia. I find your personal attack on the dead to be degrading and insulting. You sound as though you spend the weekend sneaking off to Althorp to go and spit on Diana&#39;s grave. .

Quote:
Camilla as supported and been there for Charles for nearly 30 years.
ROFLMAO&#33; How touching. Yes, she&#39;s been there for 30 years, interfering in his marriage and life when it was convenient for her. She already has a title she&#39;s earned for her efforts at having her legs high in the air on call for him for 30 years--but you already know what that only title she ever deserves is so I don&#39;t need to repeat it to you, do I?


Quote:
During the Camillagate tapes, once you got past the crude references,
The crude references summarize what your two Idols are all about and always will embody to most people outside of the wackier confines of the internet--two deceitful, lurid and disgusting individuals who without their money and privilege would be nothing but a worthless nobody on the dole and his whore.


Quote:
In addition Charles has long since hinted that he does not want to be Governor of The Church of England but defender of all faiths.
What Prince Charles "wants" or doesn&#39;t want is neither here nor there. He was raised in the full awareness of what his responsibilities and duties to the royal house and the future of the monarchy were. Being the failure he is however he wants to get out of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England because he knows it will cast his own moral deceits into further highlight. I sincerely doubt whether most Anglicans much less people of other faiths want him as their "supreme defender" in any case. The only thing Prince Charles ever has or ever will defend consistently is his own selfish, dishonest life.
__________________
  #98  
Old 05-30-2004, 02:04 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
The breakup of Charles&#39;s marriage is irrelevant to the church because he doesn&#39;t have an ex-spouse living.
Completely untrue.

The breakup of his marriage and the circumstances and parties involved continue to be relevant no matter who&#39;s living or dead. If John Q. and Jim Q. rob Fred J.&#39;s house and make off with Fred&#39;s possessions, then Fred dies and the law only catches up with John and Jim after Fred&#39;s death, does that mean that John and Jim are any less criminal just because Fred is dead? Obivously not, and the Church considers moral responsibility and the partners in adultery in the same light, especially when the two are asking for (a) the Church to sanction their cohabitation through marriage, (B) validate those past acts even further in the public perception through making one of the two parties the civil head of the church.

As to William, he&#39;s not just the son of any two individuals. He&#39;s the son of two very different individuals with quite radically different views on life and the world, or obviously there wouldn&#39;t be such vehement differences frome each side six years on about that. And it&#39;s not going to change either, not even in 30 or 40 years from now. I do think it&#39;s interesting however that you inadvertently admit that Prince Charles has never had an honest discussion with his grown sons to this day about the facts of his marriage. That says a lot not only about him but about the true state of his relationship with them. So if you want to focus on what&#39;s truly "sad", I suggest you start right there in the present.
__________________
  #99  
Old 05-30-2004, 02:23 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 64
Just curious . . . Wasn&#39;t the Church of England founded upon the concept of divorce when Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon. He split with Rome and the Pope and wound up beheading and divorcing some more wives, until one outlived him. The dichotemy confuses me, the founding of the English church and the insistence that there is no divorce allowed for the head of the monarchy or remarriage. Is that true for other English couples? They can&#39;t remarry in the English Church if they divorced?
__________________
  #100  
Old 05-30-2004, 04:28 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
The breakup of his marriage and the circumstances and parties involved continue to be relevant no matter who&#39;s living or dead.
Would you like to back that up with a statement from the Church about it? Because the CofE site says:

1.8*Entitlement to marry. Any person of British Nationality who normally resides in England is entitled to marry in his or her Church of England parish church, provided that (1) the other partner is also of British Nationality and also normally resides in England, (2) that there are no legal impediments of the kind described below [Section 6], and (3) that neither of the couple is a divorcee whose previous partner is still living (the Church of England&#39;s regulation on this matter is recognised in law [Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, s.8] - see below, section 10.1). This entitlement applies irrespective of whether either of the couple normally attends church and irrespective of whether either of them has been baptised. It also applies irrespective of whether either partner is a member of the Church of England, or of another denomination (or of none) [but see paragraph 10.4 regarding the marriage in church of persons of non-Christian Faiths]. However, the entitlement only applies to the parish church of the person concerned, and does not extend to any other Church of England churches (for which additional requirements must be fulfilled - see Sections 3 & 4). [emphasis added]

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifechanges/index.html
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/papers/mcad.htm

As I said in a previous post, I think that Charles ought to be held to a higher standard by the church because of his position as head of the church when he becomes king. I think the Archbishop would have every right to refuse to crown him if he continues in his present situation, although the present Archbishop probably wouldn&#39;t force the issue.


Quote:
I do think it&#39;s interesting however that you inadvertently admit that Prince Charles has never had an honest discussion with his grown sons to this day about the facts of his marriage. That says a lot not only about him but about the true state of his relationship with them.
I&#39;m not just saying that. I&#39;m saying that neither son was around before the marriage and during the honeymoon, neither son was capable of understanding what was going on for several years after their birth, and neither son was an eyewitness of every single thing that happened even when they were old enough to understand. Therefore, most of what they know was told to them by their parents or other partisans on both sides. There&#39;s no way for us to know if Charles, Diana, or both had discussed things with their sons honestly or just tried to present their own sides of the problem in order to get the children to side with them against the other parent.

Prince William is going to become the British head of state. He&#39;s being trained for it by the Queen, and he&#39;s going to have to pay attention to the senior members of the royal household and the government; he isn&#39;t going to be able to do anything he wants. The fact that his parents were two very different people is irrelevant. He isn&#39;t going to be able to indulge his own feelings - even assuming he has them, which he very well may not - and turn the monarchy into some sort of tribute to Diana.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker bowles, duchess of cornwall, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]