Russophile
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2007
- Messages
- 4,069
- City
- Portland
- Country
- United States
Saudi's are always over the top. I think they're gaudy as well. But that's just me!
Last edited by a moderator:
While I agree Prince Charles seems more comfortable with himself, married to Camilla Parker-Bowles, I would have some reticence still in considering the latter worthy of the role of Queen Consort, let alone be referred to as Princess of Wales. It's pushing the envelope of moral rectitude and it's a bit morbid actually, to appear to be elevated over a "dead body".
While I agree Prince Charles seems more comfortable with himself, married to Camilla Parker-Bowles,
Saudi's are always over the top. I think they're gaudy as well. But that's just me!
However, I will say that had Diana lived, I do think that Charles would have married Camilla anyway. Would there have still be opposition to her using the title of Queen then?
Charles is not married to "Camilla Parker Bowles". Miss Camilla Shand was married to Andrew Parker Bowles and is now married to The Prince of Wales.
I'm afraid there would have been. Orchestrated by Diana and supported by her reporter friends. Because I don't think Diana liked to be upstaged and that would have happened once Camilla became Charles' queen. Just imagine William's marriage if Charles was already king and Diana alive... It makes me shudder - poor bride. Okay, this is not going to happen as life went a different path, but still...
Plus I believe Diana did never really realise that she only got her position as a princess due to her marriage to Charles. She believed she was born to be a princess, no matter how she achieved this position (as she told on the Morton tapes) and that attitude led to a lot of decisions which were wrong.
As far as I'm aware Camilla was Parker Bowles when she married The Prince Of Wales.
Wasn't that the name she used for the marriage?
I'm not sure about that. But I don't think it is okay to still call her Camilla Parker Bowles when the use of that name ended the moment of her new marriage. It's like when the newspaper claimed that the Aga Khan married the princess of Leiningen when the lady in question was just a divorced princess of Leiningen but born Miss Homey (I think?).
Well, I think the Archbishop of Canterbury would have had something to say about the marriage of a Prince of Wales with a living ex-wife remarrying. Technically, Charles was a widower in the eyes of the church.Is it not morbid to allow the memory of deceased ex-wife who at death only held the courtesy title of princess by marriage to keep the current wife of the monarch from taking her place at his side and holding a title that is, by all rights, hers as the wife? Additionally, the title of Princess of Wales did not belong to Diana, it is the title of the wife of each and every PoW; Camilla became HRH The Princess of Wales as soon as she married Charles. She simply chooses to not use the title because of its close association with the memory of her predecessor. However, I will say that had Diana lived, I do think that Charles would have married Camilla anyway. Would there have still be opposition to her using the title of Queen then?
Are you really saying that YOU would have turned it down or refused to wear it!I think that the "problem" might be that the Queen is more restrained in her fashion and jewelry than her predecessors (who certainly thought more was better) and that makes Camilla look over the top. Although I still don't like that huge diamond necklace the Saudis gave Camilla.
That view would certainly make things very awkward for the 1000's of women who married widowers. What do you suggest their wives are called? Lady X the 2nd or the Red Lady?It's pushing the envelope of moral rectitude and it's a bit morbid actually, to appear to be elevated over a "dead body"
It would probably have been Parker Bowles on the certificate but the actual ceremony does not involve surnames and we never heard any mention of her reverting to her maiden name. However, she didn't marry the Prince of Wales, she married Charles Philip Arthur George.As far as I'm aware Camilla was Parker Bowles when she married The Prince Of Wales.
Wasn't that the name she used for the marriage?
It would probably have been Parker Bowles on the certificate but the actual ceremony does not involve surnames and we never heard any mention of her reverting to her maiden name.
Jo I agree with you 100% and it always puzzles me as to why a divorced woman is allowed to 'hang on' to the name of a man she is no longer married to. Although happily married for very many years, I still use my maiden and married name, but never that of my first husband who died.Skydragon, what I meant was that if the media or anyone else has a reason to use a different name from that that Camilla has today, they should not use the Parker Bowles surname but the one she was born with. I think it's okay to use the current name or, in some cases, the maiden name but not one acquired and gotten rid of through divorce.
Well, I think the Archbishop of Canterbury would have had something to say about the marriage of a Prince of Wales with a living ex-wife remarrying. Technically, Charles was a widower in the eyes of the church.
Well, I think the Archbishop of Canterbury would have had something to say about the marriage of a Prince of Wales with a living ex-wife remarrying. Technically, Charles was a widower in the eyes of the church.
Again according to official CoE documents, it is up to the individual CoE minister if they are prepared to give a church wedding to divorcee. There is no prohibition on church weddings just a moral conscience decision by the individual minister. ( The preferred option according to the church documents is if the divorcee (s) have a civil marriage and then a church blessing which is what Charles and Camilla did) We will never know whether the Archbishop of Canterbury would have married the POW to a woman whose husband was still alive, as no permission was asked for a church wedding so therefore none was refused!
Both the book 'Life with the Queen' and the DVD a' Year at Windsor' cover the wedding in some detail and each refers to the bride as Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles many times. Sometimes I think the most devoted fans of Camilla want to revise history so that the whole Parker Bowles chapter, which encompasses the years she was his *ahem* long time companion while married to her 1st husband, is erased. I have no need to begrudge people their happiness, but must we white wash history for that to happen?As far as I'm aware Camilla was Parker Bowles when she married The Prince Of Wales.
Wasn't that the name she used for the marriage?
Both the book 'Life with the Queen' and the DVD a' Year at Windsor' cover the wedding in some detail and each refers to the bride as Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles many times. Sometimes I think the most devoted fans of Camilla want to revise history so that the whole Parker Bowles chapter, which encompasses the years she was his *ahem* long time companion while married to her 1st husband, is erased. I have no need to begrudge people their happiness, but must we white wash history for that to happen?
I think it would have been much harder for the A of C to have gone along with the marriage blessing service (which I've read in several books he was already not keen on), if the POW's ex-wife were still alive. As she was not, they only had to concern themselves with CPB's divorce. If her first husband had not been alive, I think that Charles and Camilla would have married several years yearlier. Now before you start shouting at me that the Archbishop had no problem let me quote Brian Hoey in 'Life with the Queen', page 51:So what are you saying? As long as Diana was alive Charles couldn't remarry? His divorce was recognized and he was married and then had a church blessing. What would Diana being alive have to do with anything? He was still divorced, he was treated as a divorced man.
Are you also saying that if Diana were still alive that Camilla would not be able to become Queen?
Camilla's full style is Her Royal Highness, The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland
Having sat through many civil marriages, it really is immaterial what name is used before, at the actual ceremony it is only the forenames of the bride and groom that are used.Both the book 'Life with the Queen' and the DVD a' Year at Windsor' cover the wedding in some detail and each refers to the bride as Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles many times. s
"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, was known to have had severe reservations about the union, even though he agreed, after private consultations with the Queen, to conduct the service of blessing (or dedication)in St George's Chapel following the civil ceremony outside the castle walls. If the Archbishop's expression was anything to go by during the service, it appeared that he had retained his doubts and was merely performing a duty demanded by the Queen of the senior cleric of the Church of England.
But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a Church wedding could be arranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and that the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment. But Prince Charles did have a private audience with the Archbishop in the weeks leading to the ceremony and persuaded His Graceto allow a Windsor blessing in spite of his obvious misgivings. The Archbishop was adamant that the service in St George's Chapel should be one of repentance on the part of the bride and bridegroom, not a gloification of the marriage, which is why on the day itself, he refused to wear his full State robes and appeared instead in the simplest vestments he possessed, with the full agreement of the Queen."
Wow! Another good argument for separation of Church and State.
I wonder if Dr Williams is the reason for the announcement that Camilla will just be Princess Consort.
Wow! Another good argument for separation of Church and State.
I wonder if Dr Williams is the reason for the announcement that Camilla will just be Princess Consort.
Too many times churches nowadays don't seem to follow the very principles the church is grounded on.
Not to be too flippant, but in Dr. Williams' case, he's a member of a church that was founded to allow a famous royal to marry more than once.
Yes, NOW she is. We were discussing her name at the time leading up to the engagement. On the invitation in the DVD, it says Mrs. Camillia Parker-Bowles. That's all I was saying.