Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[Russophile]

Saudi's are always over the top. I think they're gaudy as well. But that's just me!

 

[jcbcode99]

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".

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?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

While I agree Prince Charles seems more comfortable with himself, married to Camilla Parker-Bowles,

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Saudi's are always over the top. I think they're gaudy as well. But that's just me!

And she only wore it once, in a town and country where people enjoy great bling and gaudiness if it is the real stuff.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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?

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.

 

[Fabulous Fake]

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.

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?

 

[jcbcode99]

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.

Really, Jo? I hate to think that she would not have matured enough in her own life to contiinue to behave that way. What if Diana had married Hasnat Khan (because we all know she was totally in love with him)--he seems like such a "level" kind of man...
I don't see how she could have orchestrated such a movement without appearing to be extremely petty. It would have brought her bad press, don't you think?
I do think you make an excellent point about Diana never realy realized that she got her position through marriage--and she fought to keep that HRH until the bitter end of the divorce. While I do think it was right to be taken away, I also feel badly for her. Since she was 20 she was a Princess, and an HRH. It was her identity. Interestly, since Camilla's identity seemed to be wrapped around just being with Charles--something Diana wanted but couldn't ever really get. What a connundrum!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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?).

 

[Fabulous Fake]

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?).

OK.I see what you mean now.

Of course we should now refer to her as The Duchess of Cornwall.

 

[scooter]

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?

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

Are you really saying that YOU would have turned it down or refused to wear it!

It's pushing the envelope of moral rectitude and it's a bit morbid actually, to appear to be elevated over a "dead body"

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?

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. However, she didn't marry the Prince of Wales, she married Charles Philip Arthur George.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

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. For example widowed Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy became Jacqueline Bouvier Onassis after her marriage to Aristoteles Onassis. And her sister Lee Bouvier Canfield became Lee Bouvier Princess Radziwill after her divorce from Michael Canfield and remarriage, but when she divorced Prince Radziwill and married again, she, at least IMHO, stopped being Princess Radziwill.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

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.

 

[Charlotte1]

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.

No Charles was NOT a widower, this discussion has come up before and I posted the relevant links to the official Church of England statements on divorce and remarriage. The CoE recognises civil divorce, therefore Charles was a divorcee from 1996, according to the official church documents he ( and along with any other CoE divorcees) was to be considered a single man in the event of a remarriage. At the time of his marriage to Camilla he was considered a divorcee not a widower as he was not married in the eyes of the church from 1996 onwards. The fact that his former wife died in 1997 did not make him a widower as he was not married to her, in the eyes of the church since the church recognised his civil divorce. He was a single man.

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!

The official CoE documents relating to divorce and remarriage are all available on line, please don't keep perpetuating the myth that Charles was considered a widower, he wasn't, his civil divorce was recognised, he was a divorcee as was Camilla. ( Catholics do not recognise civil divorce, CoE do)

 

[jcbcode99]

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.

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?

 

[Elspeth]

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!

While this is true, I believe the CofE does specify the scenario of a second marriage to a partner who was a factor in the breakdown of the first marriage as one where it's recommended that a church wedding be refused. In this case, Camilla was a factor in the breakdown of the marriage of Charles and Diana, and I think that a second marriage in church, whether Diana was still alive or not, would have been highly ill advised.

 

[Duchess101]

charles & camilla

This just my oppion Camilla is okay but she is not my favorite
Princess Diana was my favorite

 

[scooter]

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?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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?

When Camilla was Charles' bride, she of course was Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles. But since the wedding she is not longer Camilla Parker Bowles so why use a name that describes a period in her life that is over? Will Charles be forever called The Prince of Wales after he became the king? Do people name the queen The Princess Elizabeth? I don't think so. So why name Camilla still Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles? Or to quote Wiki:

Titles and styles

• 17 July 1947 – 4 July 1973: Miss Camilla Rosemary Shand
• 4 July 1973 – 3 March 1995: Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles
• 3 March 1995 – 9 April 2005: Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles
• 9 April 2005 –: Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall

• Legally: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (not used)
• in Scotland: Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Rothesay

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

 

[scooter]

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?

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:

"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."

This does not sound like someone who wanted to perform the ceremony, IMO. If the 1st wife was still alive, I'm not sure at all that the ceremony described above would have taken place.

BTW, this book is a very positive one on the Royal Family, written by an author (quoting from his bio) 'Known as a respected and authorotative chronicler of royal events, he has interviewed several members of the royal family for radio and television and has had many articles on royalty published in newspapers and magazines world wide. He is the author of numerous books on maritime and royal history. These includeThe Royal Yacht Brittania, Anne: The Princess Royal, The Queen and her Family, Prince William, and Snowdon'

 

[scooter]

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

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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

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.

 

[scooter]

I'm just saying this was the name she had on the invitation. Also, as to why a divorced woman might keep her previous huband's name is if she had children with him, as did Camilla, who have that last name (much simpler when dealing with schools, doctors etc). Also, Jo made the analogy to Jacqueline B.K.O. I live in NYC area as did 'Jackie'. The papers,magazines, etc almost invariably discribed her as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Just be glad they dont call her Camilla Rosemary Shand Parker-Bowles Mountbatten-Windsor Princess, Duchess, etc. You could die of old age trying to get it all out!

 

[Roslyn]

"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.

 

[rmay286]

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.

I actually admire Dr. Williams for sticking to his principles. Too many times churches nowadays don't seem to follow the very principles the church is grounded on. No one has to be a church leader but if they've chosen to follow that path, obviously they should hold to the principles of their church.

Why Charles needs to be head of the church in this day and age though, I don't know. I never get the impression his beliefs fit into too well with traditional Christianity. He's entitled to believe whatever he wants but any contradictions between Charles' values and the church's values does pose a problem, given that he's supposed to be the head of the church someday.

 

[scooter]

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.

Yes, in America we call it the first amendment to the consitution, specifically banning the establishment of a State religion. While there are some nutty religious types (JMO) who would like it disallowed in this country, I think it's a nifty thing to have. In case you couldn't tell, they made us study this(consitutional law) ad nauseum from junior high/secondary school to post graduate school.

Dont know about the Pss Consort part and AofC.

 

[wbenson]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

I doubt the Princess Consort business has to do with Dr Williams. At least, I really hope it doesn't. If the Archbishop gets to decide who is or isn't suitable to be crowned, we're in a very bad way (especially considering some of the crowned monarchs and consorts we've had). That's one thing which might have gained Camilla so much sympathy that it would have backfired on the Church, which isn't the most popular institution in the country as it is.

 

[MARG]

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.

Not flippant at all. Historically there was a lot of politics involved in marriages, both royal and aristrocratic. Marriage had more to do with the politics of power than undying love (or lust), and an heir was more important than either. It must also be noted that the separation of the church and state was hardly possible since the King at that time was effectively both the state and the head of the church. As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, he has publically demonstrated that he perceives the Anglican Communion in a far more radically liberal way than most sitting in his pews. Seen in the light of his public sackcloth and ashes approach to the wedding of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, IMHO he demonstrates a breathtaking hypocrisy.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

Scooter, I replied to Lozange who said:
"Originally Posted by Lozange: While I agree Prince Charles seems more comfortable with himself, married to Camilla Parker-Bowles, "

And as Charles is not Charles Parker Bowles and The Duchess of Cornwall was not born Miss Parker Bowles, it is impossible for Charles to be married to Camilla Parker Bowles.

That's all I wanted to state. No comment from me on the way Camilla is named on the DVD in the time before she married Charles.