Title for Camilla

[Julian]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Charles in turn does not care what his grandmother would have thought in the least.

And you know this exactly how?

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.

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.

 

[tiaraprin]

Originally posted by wymanda@May 30th, 2004 - 11:47 pm

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!

 

[tiaraprin]

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!!!

 

[Julian]

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).

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.

 

[Julian]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

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...

 

[Georgia]

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?

 

[sara1981]

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

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Wouldn't it make sense to not make Camilla queen? After all, she is not the princess af wales.

 

[sara1981]

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

 

[Jann]

Isn't Camilla Parker Bowles catholic? Making this pointless as royals cannot marry catholics as the law stands?

 

[Julian]

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).

 

[Julian]

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!

 

[Jann]

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.

 

[sara1981]

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

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

Originally posted by Julian@May 31st, 2004 - 3:10 pm

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.

 

[Julian]

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.

 

[CathyEarnshaw]

Originally posted by Jann@May 31st, 2004 - 5:20 pm
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.

Camilla is not Roman Catholic. SO much for the "wonders of the web." Andrew Parker Bowles is Roman Catholic.


Camilla's parents were married at St. Paul's church in Knightsbridge in 1946. All three children were baptised according to the rites of the Anglican church. You will find the baptisms in the court pages of the Times.

Camilla and Andrew were married in the Guards Chapel, Birdcage Walk.

Some years ago, when this question came up, I did a Nexis search and pulled up dozens of articles which state that Camilla is not Catholic -even a quote from officials at the Palace regarding Camilla's religion.

Andrew Parker Bowles used to date Princess Anne, but marriage was out of the question because of his religion. He remarried in a civil ceremony.


Don't assume that everything you find on the web is accurate. Ask yourself several questions - what is the authority of the site. the veracity of the source, and so on.

 

[tiaraprin]

Originally posted by Elspeth+May 31st, 2004 - 6:39 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Elspeth @ May 31st, 2004 - 6:39 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
certain biographers of Charles and Camilla have asserted she is, who knows?

 

[tiaraprin]

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?

Well, I can't answer for Julian, but I can tell you what I wish for (although it will never happen):

For once, I want Charles to be a real man--I want him to apologize for his wrongs and selfishness. Diana is not here to repent hers, but Charles is. It is time he stands up and takes responsibility for what he has done. At least Diana took her share of the blame in the Panorma interview in 1995.

 

[sara1981]

Originally posted by Elspeth+May 31st, 2004 - 6:39 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Elspeth @ May 31st, 2004 - 6:39 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
i told somebody about Camilla had relgions! but her ex-husband who is catholic! but i think she is roman catholic but she cant married into Royal Family because Royal Family have strict!

Sara Boyce

 

[CathyEarnshaw]

Originally posted by tiaraprin+May 31st, 2004 - 9:55 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tiaraprin @ May 31st, 2004 - 9:55 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Elspeth@May 31st, 2004 - 6:39 pm
<!--QuoteBegin-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.

certain biographers of Charles and Camilla have asserted she is, who knows? [/b][/quote]
If an article or a book says that Camilla is RC, the article or the book is incorrect. her former husband is RC. Camilla is not. If Camilla were Catholic, everyone would know it and the media would be all over this like a bad rash.


Charles does not need to apologize to the world. That is something between God and himself - and no one else.

 

[H.M. Margrethe]

Originally posted by sara1981+May 31st, 2004 - 10:42 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sara1981 @ May 31st, 2004 - 10:42 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Elspeth@May 31st, 2004 - 6:39 pm
<!--QuoteBegin-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.

i told somebody about Camilla had relgions! but her ex-husband who is catholic! but i think she is roman catholic but she cant married into Royal Family because Royal Family have strict!

Sara Boyce [/b][/quote]
Say what Sara Boyce ????
I realy don´t understand what you are saying with the RF in GB.

 

[sara1981]

Originally posted by H.M. Margrethe+Jun 1st, 2004 - 2:36 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (H.M. Margrethe @ Jun 1st, 2004 - 2:36 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by sara1981@May 31st, 2004 - 10:42 pm

Originally posted by Elspeth@May 31st, 2004 - 6:39 pm
<!--QuoteBegin-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.

i told somebody about Camilla had relgions! but her ex-husband who is catholic! but i think she is roman catholic but she cant married into Royal Family because Royal Family have strict!

Sara Boyce

Say what Sara Boyce ????
I realy don´t understand what you are saying with the RF in GB. [/b][/quote]
im serious, HM Margrethe

because British RF have provide cant married to catholic! you know im deaf im raise as deaf!

Sara Boyce

 

[Julian]

Marlene, read the thread and see whom I was referring to in my post. It certainly wasn't you. Nor is my neighbor the Prince of Wales, nor is my neighbor discussed ad nauseam on internet boards. B)

 

[tiaraprin]

Originally posted by tiaraprin@May 31st, 2004 - 10:04 pm
Well, I can't answer for Julian, but I can tell you what I wish for (although it will never happen):

For once, I want Charles to be a real man--I want him to apologize for his wrongs and selfishness. Diana is not here to repent hers, but Charles is. It is time he stands up and takes responsibility for what he has done. At least Diana took her share of the blame in the Panorma interview in 1995.

Julian,

If you read my post correctly, you would have seen that what I wanted was a "wish that would never happen". There is a great difference between wishing for something totally outrageous, and thinking it will happen.

As for the other person you mentioned in your post, I really do not care what she thinks anymore than she cares what I do. I just like to play devil's advocate at times and I admit some of the things she has said have made me see red!!

Just because she had dinner once in a group with the POW does not make her know him better than we who haven't met him. Charles is guarded in front of strangers (as most royals are), and only confides to his antiquated, sycophantic cronies like Fatty Soames.

Saying she had dinner with the POW is her way of making herself look more noble and above the rest of us. In my country, having dinner with the POW does not make the hoi polloi think more of you!!

 

[tiaraprin]

Uh, I have the Wendy Berry book and cannot seem to find the page that mentions Diana threw a hairbrush at a staff member--could you tell me the page??

Wasn't that book banned in Great Britain???