The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 05-31-2004, 02:40 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
This situation has always said to me that what I thought was correct. Diana was a very poor mother! Children should be sheltered from any conflict in their parents lives not used like an emotional football. Charles was always careful that while they were children the boys recieved no inkling of his relationship with Camilla from him, anything they knew was told to them by their "loving" mother.
And you of course were another one who was there to witness what St. Charles did and said, weren't you? No wonder the situation says so much to you.
__________________

__________________
  #122  
Old 05-31-2004, 02:53 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
How dishonest can you get. Even though you try to be clever about it.
How about skipping the personal insults? Your posts to everybody who disagrees with you are full of them, and they're adding precisely nothing to the conversation.

Quote:
Your post just shows what most people are aware of: that William was certainly an eyewitness on at least one if not more occasion (judging at least from his own note to his mother), while Harry has certainly formed an opinion much as it may chagrin his control freak father.
Of course William was an eyewitness to the marital discord and probably to some of the extramarital friendships. However, the point I was making is that neither he nor his brother have first-hand knowledge of everything and have also had to depend on what they've been told - by partisans on both sides.

Quote:
His father does anything he wants right now. Always has, always will.
He didn't want to go to Gordonstoun. He didn't want to go into the Navy. He apparently didn't want to marry Diana. He didn't want the restoration of Windsor after the fire to be done the way it was done, but his father, not he, was in charge of decision making. He spent years trying to get the Thatcher government to take him seriously about social issues and didn't manage to do so.

Quote:
No one cares about grey men and courtiers, they're there to implement the perceived desires and personal whims of those they serve
Yes, I'm sure Princess Margaret was very grateful to them for letting her marry Peter Townsend while retaining her royal status. Oh, wait...

Quote:
You truly are strange. Who on earth would want him to "turn the monarchy into some sort of tribute to Diana"? He has no need to do that. Her blood runs in his veins.
I think you were the one going on about him being some sort of vindication of Diana, or her partisans expecting that he would be. He's also got the Queen's and Charles's genes in him, and the Queen seems to be taking his training seriously.

Quote:
I don't think any of those are valid reasons. The Establishment has stood behind Prince Charles every inch of the way over the past 15-20 years.
No it hasn't. There have been reports about how he's been told by senior civil service and government people to be more discreet about public statements about politics. Letters of his have been leaked, showing what an interfering nitwit many politicians think he is. It'll be interesting to see how much support he has when he becomes king.

Quote:
Charles in turn does not care what his grandmother would have thought in the least.
And you know this exactly how?

Quote:
His mother's permission isn't needed either afaik as he's over 25. We've all been told a million times over by the St. Charles worshippers that his mistress's appearance at the Jubilee events and other public official events since then signify she has been "accepted". Accepted at that level means marriage is certainly not off the table either in the world of royalty.
His mother's permission isn't formally needed, just as it wasn't formally needed once Princess Margaret turned 25. However, between the Queen and the government, particularly the present government, which seems to take some delight in belittling the monarchy at every opportunity, he might find himself in a position like Margaret did, where some serious obstacles are placed in the way of his getting married.

Quote:
As to Princess Margaret, how interesting you mention her because all of a sudden the story conveniently also "emerged" in the Charles-loyal broadsheets last year that Margaret could have married even 50 years ago had she wanted to, no matter the Church's teachings then either.
I think we already knew that, since she waited till she was 25 and then decided not to marry even though she could have. She just couldn't have married in the CofE and kept her position as a princess. It remains to be seen if Charles will be able to marry Camilla in the CofE in Andrew Parker Bowles's lifetime.
__________________

__________________
  #123  
Old 05-31-2004, 10:53 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 30th, 2004 - 11:47 pm

Quote:
However, speaking as one of "the people," I'm a bit fed up with the whole Saint Diana business. There was fault everywhere in that relationship, and she wasn't without her own share.
I couldn't agree more! Anyone would think she was the Virgin Mary reincarnated the way these people carry on.


I have never stated that Diana is a saint--she did make mistakes. But Charles started the whole ball rolling by lying through courtship and taking marriage vows that were false. At least Diana didn't lie at the altar!!

I am not a bible toting Middle American (heaven forbid), but I do know what is right and wrong. Standing in a church and lying to all and to God is blasphemy no matter what religious outlook you have! Even an athiest who knows the rules would agree that while he/she does not believe in God, this man broke the rules according to religious principles!
__________________
  #124  
Old 05-31-2004, 10:59 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally posted by King Christian@May 31st, 2004 - 1:17 am
Isn't her title, "Squidgy" ... like, Charles called her that when he was married to 'her who can not be named' ?
Yeah King Christian, but that was in 1989 when Charles and Camilla had been together already quite awhile!!!!

And being called "Squidgy" is a heck of a lot better than her husband saying he wanted to be reincarnated as a tampon so he could live in CPB's pants!!!
__________________
  #125  
Old 05-31-2004, 01:43 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
He didn't want to go to Gordonstoun. He didn't want to go into the Navy. He apparently didn't want to marry Diana. He didn't want the restoration of Windsor after the fire to be done the way it was done, but his father, not he, was in charge of decision making.

Is this recitation anything new? It provees nothing as far as the basic fact that he has always done what he wanted, said what he wanted. Some people have a way of rewriting history extensively. Particularly funny is the "he didn't want to marry Diana" bit, since Marlene Koenig and others on royal boardland who heartily loathe Diana even more than you assert quite the opposite: "he was besotted with her" (Koenig, May 2004).

Quote:
He spent years trying to get the Thatcher government to take him seriously about social issues and didn't manage to do so.
Well afaic that was certainly one thing that happened back then that the Thatcher government actually did right. No one really cares what Prince Charles has to say except types like Fatty Soames and his other sycophants that live on his every word. Genuine professionals in every field from architecture to agriculture to urban sociology have had to suffer enough of his opinions. Unfortunately for him it's no longer the Middle Ages so those are not about to be taken as the law of the land come down from on high.

I don't believe Prince Charles basically ever gave a hoot what his grandmother the QM ever thought in the long term about his mistress. He might have wanted to prevent her outright vocal disapproval filtering down, so he just waited till she died before living in town with his mistress, along the way obliterating most signs of the QM's former presence at Clarence House.

As to courtiers and grey men and them enabling him along the way, I did say "perceived" desires, i.e., what they judge to be the best course or choice for a royal. Furthermore, there is a distinction too between most of the royal household's possible agendas and what the government of the day wants or doesn't want. In my opinion, the courtiers and grey men have become active in enabling whatever suits Charles in the short term while the government has rightly done more to preseve the long-term prestige and interests of the monarchy in a more disinterested way.
__________________
  #126  
Old 05-31-2004, 01:58 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
I think you were the one going on about him being some sort of vindication of Diana, or her partisans expecting that he would be. He's also got the Queen's and Charles's genes in him, and the Queen seems to be taking his training seriously.
And where exactly was I "going on"? I mentioned it precisely once, and I never said that I personally believed he should only be or even partly represent any so-called vindication of Diana. Actually, I also pointed out that there are two sides that I perceive wishing him to be some vindication. Considering he does indeed have the Windsor genes (obviously, no one is trying to airbrush that side of his ancestry out), and considering also whose more extensive influence and control he has grown up under, I would hesitate if I were you in overemphasizing that side of anything.

So perhaps you should stop distorting/putting words into other people's mouths in every post where you disagree with them. That doesn't advance anything either.
__________________
  #127  
Old 05-31-2004, 02:21 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
I am not a bible toting Middle American (heaven forbid), but I do know what is right and wrong. Standing in a church and lying to all and to God is blasphemy no matter what religious outlook you have! Even an athiest who knows the rules would agree that while he/she does not believe in God, this man broke the rules according to religious principles!
That's only the case if, at the time he got married, he really did intend to continue his affair with Camilla, which he denies. Then it becomes an issue about whether people believe his denial.
__________________
  #128  
Old 05-31-2004, 02:22 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Is this recitation anything new? It provees nothing as far as the basic fact that he has always done what he wanted, said what he wanted.
OK, so a list of things that he had to do while not wanting to do them doesn't prove anything as far as a claim that he's always done exactly what he wanted to do? Whatever...
__________________
  #129  
Old 05-31-2004, 02:29 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hamilton, United Kingdom
Posts: 123
Julian, I think you need to calm down!!! Exactly what is it that you want Charles to do? Dump Camilla, marry her or go on as they are? If he dumps her is he to be alone for the rest of his life with only his plants to talk to or is there a women worthy of our throne?
__________________
  #130  
Old 05-31-2004, 05:13 PM
sara1981's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Little Rock, United States
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally posted by Georgia@May 31st, 2004 - 1:29 pm
Julian, I think you need to calm down!!! Exactly what is it that you want Charles to do? Dump Camilla, marry her or go on as they are? If he dumps her is he to be alone for the rest of his life with only his plants to talk to or is there a women worthy of our throne?
julia,

georgia was right!

Charles was divorces from late wife Princess Diana many people in England wont agree about Charles and Camilla getting married without Queen's permission if have right or dont!

if William would become King ? if his dad would lose rights!

Sara Boyce
__________________
  #131  
Old 05-31-2004, 05:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,194
Wouldn't it make sense to not make Camilla queen? After all, she is not the princess af wales.
__________________
Hasta la vista, baby!
  #132  
Old 05-31-2004, 05:28 PM
sara1981's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Little Rock, United States
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally posted by gaggleofcrazypeople@May 31st, 2004 - 4:17 pm
Wouldn't it make sense to not make Camilla queen? After all, she is not the princess af wales.
you're right!

many people would hurt feelings of famous Princess Diana lots! but Camilla cant become Princess of Wales for 300 years but Diana already got'em in 1981 when she got married but Camilla not Royals! Diana would still as Princess of Wales for long times! many people would known as Princess Diana or Diana,Princess of Wales.

Camilla cant become Queen nor become Princess of Wales without HM Queen's permission if she would fit not if she can! since she had affair with Prince Charles in 1973 before Diana Spencer they later Prince Charles return to Camilla after Harry's birth in 1984.

Sara Boyce
__________________
  #133  
Old 05-31-2004, 05:46 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 14
Isn't Camilla Parker Bowles catholic? Making this pointless as royals cannot marry catholics as the law stands?
__________________
  #134  
Old 05-31-2004, 06:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Jann,
There has been speculation that CPB is indeed a closet Catholic--and "closet" because if her actual faith were known then marrying Prince Charles would automatically strip him of his succession rights. I think it more likely however that the Catholic Church in England would still take a very dim view of her if she did remarry. In the first place, if she married Andrew Parker Bowles in a Catholic ceremony of any kind then in the eyes of the Church she remains married till one or the other of them dies, and no civil or other divorce is recognized. Certainly she would be regarded as living only in a state of fornication and no wife much less Queen of Charles III. Any Catholic knows that myself included. Secondly, even if it were only a C. of E. ceremony she married APB in, the Catholic Church would still take a disapproving view of her; the Cardinal Archbishops of Westminster have tried to develop closer ties with the Anglican Church over the past quarter century and I think any Anglican church ceremony would also have a degree of validity in Catholic eyes in a situation where someone had been married in one, been responsible for the destruction of the marriage of the man she subsequently lived with, and then sought to remarry in a church ceremony again (whether in England or Scotland, doesn't matter).
__________________
  #135  
Old 05-31-2004, 06:10 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
OK, so a list of things that he had to do while not wanting to do them doesn't prove anything as far as a claim that he's always done exactly what he wanted to do? Whatever...
A list of things that he either fabricated later in the rewriting of his life as "Charles as Victim" and/or items that cannot be proven one way or another. If not being in charge of restoring Windsor Castle was the first roadblock he ever encountered in his life by middle age then what a spoilt little man!
__________________
  #136  
Old 05-31-2004, 06:20 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 14
Julian - the wonders of the web confirm that Camilla is catholic.

As the law stands (with little chance of being changed in the Quenn's life time) they cannot marry.

I hope that the personal attacks and bashing (of Charles, Diana, Camilla and anyone else) will stop along with speculation.
__________________
  #137  
Old 05-31-2004, 07:02 PM
sara1981's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Little Rock, United States
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally posted by Jann@May 31st, 2004 - 4:46 pm
Isn't Camilla Parker Bowles catholic? Making this pointless as royals cannot marry catholics as the law stands?
her ex-husband had it!

Sara Boyce
__________________
  #138  
Old 05-31-2004, 07:39 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally posted by Jann@May 31st, 2004 - 2:46 pm
Isn't Camilla Parker Bowles catholic? Making this pointless as royals cannot marry catholics as the law stands?
She isn't Catholic. Andrew Parker Bowles is the one who's Catholic.
__________________
  #139  
Old 05-31-2004, 07:42 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally posted by Julian@May 31st, 2004 - 3:10 pm
Quote:
OK, so a list of things that he had to do while not wanting to do them doesn't prove anything as far as a claim that he's always done exactly what he wanted to do? Whatever...
A list of things that he either fabricated later in the rewriting of his life as "Charles as Victim" and/or items that cannot be proven one way or another. If not being in charge of restoring Windsor Castle was the first roadblock he ever encountered in his life by middle age then what a spoilt little man!
Well, if things can't be proven one way or another, there's no basis for your statment that he's done exactly what he likes for his entire life. As far as the Windsor restoration is concerned, it's by no means the first example, it's just one which he's on record as being upset about the fact that his wishes were overlooked in favour of his father's.
__________________
  #140  
Old 05-31-2004, 09:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
he's on record as being upset about the fact that his wishes were overlooked in favour of his father's.
I have no doubt of it, however it's hardly an issue which provides evidence of a life filled with obstacles and self-denials. I also think that this particular incident seems to add to the perception of his ongoing competiing against/challenging his parents' wishes. It's not enough for him to have a rival court, it sounds as though he's still acting out his Injured Son syndrome. The DoE was acting in accordance the Queen's own ideas on the matter, not just his own arbitrary tastes. Charles wanted to be in charge to show he's some architectural/design genius whose opinions are so important they become the basis for restoring a national landmark. Also, of course, demonstrating at the same time that he's taken over the prerogatives of the monarch.
__________________

__________________
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
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince joachim prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess eleonore princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 AM.

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]