Perhaps Charles should just take to roaming the streets while scourging himself with chains and demanding that people stone him publicly.
One might have thought, Elspeth, that with a topic such as 'the marriage',that this may well have been inevitable? Not to worry, I'll go away.
Well, from my certain knowledge, the Spencers were already close to the throne. Indeed, like many aristocrats in the UK, they thought themselves somewhat superior to the throne and its family, as, indeed, in an historical sense they were.
The entire situation could have been avoided had Charles been permitted to marry Camilla much earlier. But he wasn't, and he lacked the spine in those days to press his desires.
The fact that he carried on a 30-year affair with her after she was married suggests to me that some DNA testing is required and not on Harry of Wales, either; if this is the love story across decades, then let's call it like it is.
There are much rumours about Tom and Laura. I´ve no doubt about their father, too. But what is trying to hide: Tom´s third name is Charles...
There are much rumours about Tom and Laura. I´ve no doubt about their father, too. But what is trying to hide: Tom´s third name is Charles...
Well, if Charles ever creates Tom Parker Bowles a duke with the family name of "Fitzroy", we'll know....
Wouldn't that be a hoot...
Prince Charles’ grown-up stepchildren are not capable of earning their living?! Have the children of Duchess of Cornwall got any legal grounds to claim financial support from the British Royal Family?
Prince Charles’ grown-up stepchildren are not capable of earning their living?! Have the children of Duchess of Cornwall got any legal grounds to claim financial support from the British Royal Family?
ah, again this disregard for the female line and inheritance through a grandmother, not a grandfather....
But I write it again. Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James VI./I., born a princess of Scotland and becoming a princess of England after her father inherited the English crown from Elizabeth I., was queen of Bohemia and the mother of the electress Sophia and grandmother of George I. George's father, prince elector of Hannover, was the Head of the oldest European Royal family, the Welfs - they can prove that they ruled since the 800s as independent rules somewhere (not only Hannover, but Bavaria, Saxony , Bohemia, as Guelfs in Italy etc.)
So where is the "historical sense" that the Spencers were ever superior to that august ancestry?
The Georges, 1 - 4, fell far short of monarchial prestige, and not one of them excited the nation or engendered any of the support and loyalty which we can all easily and readily ascribe to, say, Elizabeth II, today. They were, without exception, ugly, greedy, gross and vain, and rather stupid, as well.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Nonetheless, the Salic Law has little to do with Great Britain which has enjoyed the benefits of honouring and valuing more than one Queen.
As for the Electress Sophia and her progeny: well, so far as I'm aware, the difficulty, to which a great many objected, was that her heirs were selected only because they were Protestant. Alternatively, of course, there were many Protestants who objected to George I on the basis that he was only 50th (or somewhere around that) in line to the throne, and, it must be said, was immensely unpopular.
I don't think Charles wanted to marry Camilla at all when he was young................................
Diana wanted it all and Charles was not able to give her what she wanted. So it began...
This makes sense -- young people in-love stick to each other like crazy glue. There is no way to pry them apart. If Charles had really loved Camilla back then, he would have married her no matter what anyone said. Charles certainly shows that he is perfectly capable of doing what he wants with little regard to propriety or the expectations of anyone else.
Furthermore, I think Charles did fall madly in love with Diana, as everyone did, and she rejected him first and early on -- probably even before the marriage. I've often suspected this because:
1) Look at Diana's subsequent boyfriends. It's easy to see what her type was, and it was not Charles's type.
2) Diana's mother wasn't keen on her getting married. She asked her if she loved Charles or if she loved becoming the Princess of Wales, and Diana replied something like what's the difference?
3) During Charles and Diana's wedding, both Queen Elizabeth and Diana's mother looked grim and unhappy, which supports the above scenario.
4) Later on, Charles's family and friends became exceptionally spiteful and nasty towards Diana, which is something that normally doesn't happen to a loving wife who has been spurned by her husband.
5) The lack of any evidence of remorse or guilt by Charles and Camilla and what their affair had done to Diana has always been somewhat puzzling. Could it be they both know their affair took hold when picking up the shattered pieces after Diana had already moved on?
6) The seemingly easy acceptance of Charles and Camilla by William and Harry is also somewhat puzzling.
So what is more preferable: a cheating Prince of Wales or a cuckolded Prince of Wales? No doubt, Charles's pride wanted to at least appear to emulate the history of other Princes of Wales, so a bit of spinning started..............
As the PR genius she was suppose to be, would Diana ever have admitted she never really loved Charles? Never. But she would protest her love -- a little too much.
Well, it sort of depends what VuMom had in mind when asking the question. I think she's asking whether Charles and Camilla would have married earlier if there hadn't been a requirement for him to marry someone like Diana (if he married at all). I think it's really hard to say, because he was in the Navy and she, by all accounts, was in a serious relationship with Andrew Parker Bowles and didn't have ambitions to be a royal wife (although she did appear to have ambitions to be a royal mistress if it's true that her first words to Charles were an invitation to repeat history!). The trouble is that there was this requirement for Charles to marry a sweet young daughter of the top drawer of the aristocracy, and he knew it, and everybody else knew it, and that coloured what happened in reality.
As an American, I probably shouldn't be saying this, but George III, was neither stupid nor gross and vain. He became mentally ill. He loved his wife and children. His illness caused him and the nation great problems.