Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Bertie and Marg, I agree with you for the most part. However, I was wondering what could have been in the Church doctrines that would have prevented a divorced King from taking the throne.

I don't think there is anything - it's unlikely Henry VIII. would have allowed such a doctrine. There was excommunication in the Catholic doctrines which could have prevented it -maybe, but I don't see that either the Catholic or the Anglican church held such a politically controlling position in a country after the Early Middle Ages (Canossa et al.).
 
There's nothing that would prevent a divorced or even remarried person taking the throne as far as I know. George I was divorced and had imprisoned his wife and was living openly with a mistress when he showed up in England.
 
Thanks Jo and Elspeth.

I tried to find another article published when the separation was announced and I couldn't find anything to compare it to. I just thought it strange that the Guardian would mention some barrier to a divorced Charles becoming King if there wasn't something on the books no matter how innocuous.

Is it really a republican paper?
 
Constitutionally, the Crown is compelled to accept the advice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. If the Government signals opposition to The Sovereign's activities, whether personal or government related, The Sovereign must act accordingly.

This is the basis of a constitutional monarchy in which The Sovereign reigns, but does not rule. If Edward VIII hadn't voluntarily abdicated the throne, Parliament would have passed legislation removing him as King after the Government resigned in protest. He had no choice but to step down.
 
You said it!

With the benefit of 20 20 hindisght we all tend to forget that there has been a quantum leap in social behavior since 1936.

Those "fair-minded" people who rail against to inequities of that era are using the social yardstick of the 21st Century to measure the difference. It does not, and can not work.

In 1936 Wallis was seen as, quite frankly, a whore at worst or a mistress at best. Neither being a suitable Queen. In an era where divorce was still a scandal, Wallis had managed a scandalous two! It was also common knowledge among the social circle in which they moved that she had other lovers both before and during her relationship with Edward.

Decades later you only have to look at the "scandalous" divorce of Princess Diana's parents with it's subsequent "banishment" of her mother to see that it was still inequitable and unfair. But, between then and now, the law has finally caught up with reality (OK, so not Coronation Street reality but llife in the 21st century).

Divorce is unfortunately the reality of the times in which we live. Trying to selectively resurrect the cruel and unfair practices of the past to justify a personal opinion in the 21st century is hypocritcal. If you don't like the people concerned, fine! But trying to say their marriage is invalid is a little to "out there" to be taken seriously.
It hasnt been quite the quantum leap you describe. There were and remain many people who view Camilla the exact way that you describe Wallis and for exactly the same reasons, with the exception of it being one husband instead of two. On the other hand, Wallis was not famous for saying 'Your Great Grandfather', etc. Nor did Wallis come between Edward VIII and his Queen, only of course because he didnt have one... I am not selectively resurrecting anything. I am pointing out that in the exact same situation, in Charles' family in the last two generations,his Great Uncle, who was already King, was not permitted to marry 'the woman he loved' in the same situation. He was required to abdicate. His Aunt The Princess Margaret was also told she would have to give up her place in the succession and any income from the civil list, should she chose to marry her divorced lover . This is not something I am 'resurrecting'. It's called History and Precedent, something the BRF is loathe to disrupt. This is the same reason I find the 'They chose to have a civil marriage' argument unlikely.
 
This is not something I am 'resurrecting'. It's called History and Precedent, something the BRF is loathe to disrupt. This is the same reason I find the 'They chose to have a civil marriage' argument unlikely.
They may have but, the marriage is legal and binding under the law of the land and, shoud anyone be stupid enough to create a stir about the legality of their marriage, there are a very large number of fellow citizens who would take issue with the fact that by extension, their own marriages were null and void and, in many cases, their children illigetimate!

As to "the third person in the marriage", I find myself, somewhat against type, believing Charles when he said he and Camilla resumed a relationship after the marriage was irritreavably broken down. That being the case, there was not "third person" in the marriage, but there was a very astute and vindictive woman on screen in the Panorama interview.

For me the heavy black eyeliner was ever so slightly OTT, as was her part in the breakup of the marriage of Will Carling.

"Let he who is whithout sin cast the first stone". I don't know about you, but I have yet to meet a sinless person.
 
This is not something I am 'resurrecting'. It's called History and Precedent, something the BRF is loathe to disrupt. This is the same reason I find the 'They chose to have a civil marriage' argument unlikely.

I think the British Royal Family paid a personal price for the decisions made regarding Edward and Wallis and then later Margaret and that may have led to the Queen softening some of her decisions later. Edward's abdication put a lot of pressure on the family and a lot of responsibility on his younger brother, George VI, who was always nervous and stammered when he was under a lot of pressure. Taking the throne under those circumstances was putting him in the most high pressure situation imaginable. Also banishing the oldest son of a family effectively from the rest of the family and his native country for the rest of his life had to have been disruptive on the family in general. Princess Alice was close to her brother; both Elizabeth and Margaret were fond of their Uncle David.

Margaret also didn't handle not being able to marry Peter Townshend well. She spent the rest of the 50s rather aimlessly and then married out of a fit of spite when Townshend remarried. That marriage ended up a disaster. The Queen would have seen the effects on Margaret firsthand and since the sisters were close, I think she allowed Margaret to be the first to divorce precisely because she saw the effects that the previous decision had had on her sister.

The precedent for royals divorcing and being allowed to keep their titles started with Princess Margaret. The precedent for Charles' and Camilla's marriage was set when Princess Anne was allowed to marry the man she had been exchanging love letters to while she had been married to her first husband. So the Royal Family had one previous similar marriage. The rules were already relaxing before their marriage.
 
But to me, the biggest point is that social norms changed very considerably through the 20th century, to the point where divorce was no longer seen by the vast majority of Britons as anything other than unfortunate and sad, but certainly not one to makeone a social pariah. Lets not forget, in the UK, about 25-30% of children today are born out of wedlock. Unfrotunate as tha may see to some of us, that is the reality of scoiety today. The royal family, its various trials and tribulations, and its stance on moral issues only reflects social mores today - and that is somethign we are largely comfortable with. I have often wondered why some peope are keen to use a different moral code of conduct for themselves, and another for the royal family or people in public life. Even the CoE has softened its position on issues such as divorce and remarriage, IMO in its own tacit admission of current day society. No rules were being bent for C&C - British society today comfortably accepts divorce and remarriage!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It hasnt been quite the quantum leap you describe. There were and remain many people who view Camilla the exact way that you describe Wallis and for exactly the same reasons, with the exception of it being one husband instead of two. On the other hand, Wallis was not famous for saying 'Your Great Grandfather', etc. Nor did Wallis come between Edward VIII and his Queen, only of course because he didnt have one... I am not selectively resurrecting anything. I am pointing out that in the exact same situation, in Charles' family in the last two generations,his Great Uncle, who was already King, was not permitted to marry 'the woman he loved' in the same situation. He was required to abdicate. His Aunt The Princess Margaret was also told she would have to give up her place in the succession and any income from the civil list, should she chose to marry her divorced lover . This is not something I am 'resurrecting'. It's called History and Precedent, something the BRF is loathe to disrupt. This is the same reason I find the 'They chose to have a civil marriage' argument unlikely.

I find this a bit off-topic, as we are discussing the fact IMHO fi the marriage of Charles and Camilla could be illegal because they did not marry in a church but a civil wedding. I understand it has been pointed out that in the Uk there are two possibilities of getting legally married: in a CoE/CoS wedding or in a civil wedding at the registry office. (It's different for example in Germany, only civil weddings are considered legally binding here).
Charles and Camilla chose the civil wedding because of reasons unknown to us. Speculation about their reasoning does not help to answer the question: is this way to get married legally binding? The problem that arises is that according to the wording of the Act which makes civil weddings legal this is not a possibility for members of the Royal family. But when it comes to laws, it is necessary to look into all their details to see if they are according to the main principles of law valid in a country. If not, these articles are not legally binding. As the exception of a group of people due to the circumstances of their birth from rights accorded to all others in the country is illegal under the main principle of "equality" in the EU-law about Human Rights which is valid in the Uk, the laws barring Charles from getting married in a civil wedding are void. Thus, Charles and Camilla are legally married.

The question if they could have married in church or not is absolutely of no juridical interest to Camilla's legal position as wife of The Prince of Wales.

As for the question about Charles' accession to the throne as a divorcee:
the law in the Uk has two requirements for a man or woman to become king or queen. He or she must be the heir of the souverain and be alive in the moment the predecessor dies. Charles is the heir of HM Queen Elizabeth the Second and we'll see if he survives his mother for more than a second. That sounds laughable but it's important in any case where an inheritance is involved. If two persons die for example in the same minute because of an accident but person One dies at 2:01:01 and person Two dies at 2:01:02 then person Two was for a second owner of person One's bequest if that is the line of succession.

In the law of the UK when it comes to the throne this is given by the fact that there is no interregnum. The moment the souverain dies, the heir becomes the next souverain. This may sound unimportant but it was discussed after queen Victoria's accession to the throne: what would have been if the widowed queen Adelaide had been pregnant at the time of her husband's death? As the law of the UK only accords rights to people born, the late king's unborn child would not have been his heir. As there is no interregnum the moment William IV. died, his heiress became queen. Okay, Queen Adelaide was not pregnant, so in the end this was a more or less theoretical discussion by the experts but it made the constitutional position on the acccession to the throne quite clear.

So: Charles and Camilla are legally married and Charles will be king if he is alive when his mother dies.
 
Great writing and explaning the whole situation Jo. I totally agree.:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The royal family, its various trials and tribulations, and its stance on moral issues only reflects social mores today - and that is somethign we are largely comfortable with.

The British Royal Family doesn't move with the times in all things but the situation with Edward and Margaret had a direct impact on the Queen as a person and so would be more likely to change her attitude if she or someone she loved dearly was impacted.
 
Constitutionally, the Crown is compelled to accept the advice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. If the Government signals opposition to The Sovereign's activities, whether personal or government related, The Sovereign must act accordingly.

This is the basis of a constitutional monarchy in which The Sovereign reigns, but does not rule. If Edward VIII hadn't voluntarily abdicated the throne, Parliament would have passed legislation removing him as King after the Government resigned in protest. He had no choice but to step down.

If constitutionally the Crown is compelled to accept advice from the PM or cabinet how come in 1956 when the then Lord Chancellor (the highest legal officer in the land) advised the present Queen to agree to the abolition of the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 as it was a 'total anachronism', she refused.
 
The British Royal Family doesn't move with the times in all things but the situation with Edward and Margaret had a direct impact on the Queen as a person and so would be more likely to change her attitude if she or someone she loved dearly was impacted.

The Queen changed her mind because Prince Charles wanted and loved The Duchess of Cornwall. It took a long time in coming and it was only after the Queen Mum died that she felt she could change her attitude.:).
 
The Queen changed her mind because Prince Charles wanted and loved The Duchess of Cornwall. It took a long time in coming and it was only after the Queen Mum died that she felt she could change her attitude.:).

I don't think that's the only reason. The Queen loved Margaret and knew Margaret loved Peter Townshend but that didn't stop her from saying no to the marriage.

But by the time Charles did marry Camilla, the Queen knew the effect that her earlier decision had had on Margaret so she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make.
 
I don't think that's the only reason. The Queen loved Margaret and knew Margaret loved Peter Townshend but that didn't stop her from saying no to the marriage.

But by the time Charles did marry Camilla, the Queen knew the effect that her earlier decision had had on Margaret so she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make.

I must have tried about a dozen times to put that argument into words today and gave up - you have done it perfectly.
 
This might be the wrong place to pose this question. Well, it's about marriage, and it's about Charles and Camilla, so here goes. :flowers:

Does the marriage of the divorced Heir Apparent to the Throne to a divorced woman set a new precedent for future Heirs Apparent, and indeed the whole royal family, present and future? Now that this has occured, how can it be inadmissible for, say, Prince William, or Prince William's son to marry a divorced woman? Doesn't this mean that the divorce stigma is broken?
 
I don't see a problem at all any more.

In the past, society had a negative attitude to divorced people whereas today with so many people being divorced the entire social stigma has changed so I don't see a problem.

If heirs apparent to other thrones can marry divorcees (or annulled first marriages or whatever the case in Spain) or women with a child out of wedlock as in Norway, why shouldn't the heir apparent in Britain (Charles) marry a divorced women or his heir apparent (William) also marry a divorced women along with future royals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe the problems people in former times had with divorcees in general is that if the - according to Christian belief - god-given unity" of a married couple is broken through divorce, the divorcees have shown that they are capable of breaking holy laws which of course made them into people not to be trusted at all levels: if they did it once, they might do it again and again and not only when it comes to marriage...These views of society and the people have changed. They saw that even the notorious Duchess of windsor could stay true to her husband while their very own princess Margaret couldn't. They've seen it in their own families that not to be able to live with another person for a whole life does not necessarily mean that the divorced person is evil or not able to live according to the wedding vows with another person.

I think it was this growing understanding of human nature which WW2 forced on us that changed the attitudes of people. Today the idea of the god-given "unity" of two people on marrying is not longer the only way to view marriage. Much more people nowadays accept that it can be as well the bond two independant people decide to form with each other, which of course is solvable if life doesn't turn out as one had wished. And with that changing attitude, people feel more comfortable around divorcees.

That's why I think second wifes are more accepted than fourth, because you can once have made a mistake and chosen better for the second time, but once you're through the acqauintance of three spouses already, it doesn't make sense to form a deeper attachment to a new person in your circle which might be gone as fast as she/he arrived on scene.

I believe Charles and Camilla have shown the world that their marriage really is something reliable, that Camilla is there to stay and that's what a lot of people wanted to be sure about before accepting her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The British Royal Family doesn't move with the times in all things but the situation with Edward and Margaret had a direct impact on the Queen as a person and so would be more likely to change her attitude if she or someone she loved dearly was impacted.

I don't think that's the only reason. The Queen loved Margaret and knew Margaret loved Peter Townshend but that didn't stop her from saying no to the marriage.

But by the time Charles did marry Camilla, the Queen knew the effect that her earlier decision had had on Margaret so she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make.

My view is that the reason that the Queen agreed to Margaret's divorce was that it was very acceptable in British society by the late 1970s, compared to the postion in the 1950s when she wanted to marry Townsend. As you rightly point out, the Queen was not averse to making a difficult decision when it came to family members, so I believe the key reason she agreed to the divorce was not that "she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make" but because she felt that society had changed enough to accept divorce.
 
I wonder if HM would have agreed to Charles & Camilla marrying if Margaret was still alive?
 
Perhaps the "social stigma" has changed, but the negative fallout on people's lives hasn't.:nonono: A broken home is still a broken home, and children are still victimized. With wealthy people, there aren't as many financial problems after a divorce; but it's devastating on middle or lower-class people. Most of the children living in poverty are from single-parent families, at least in this part of the world.

In the past, society had a negative attitude to divorced people whereas today with so many people being divorced the entire social stigma has changed so I don't see a problem.
 
I wonder if HM would have agreed to Charles & Camilla marrying if Margaret was still alive?
No, there was no discussion of marriage while QEQM or Pss Margaret were still alive, though Mark Bolland was busy rehabbing Camilla's image.
 
No, there was no discussion of marriage while QEQM or Pss Margaret were still alive, though Mark Bolland was busy rehabbing Camilla's image.


May I ask how you know that Charles and his mother never discussed the possibility of a marriage to Camilla? Unless you are one of these two people I simply don't believe that anyone can possibly make that comment as there are times when the two people are alone and what is said then would not necessarily be told to other people.

I can actually invision a scenario like this:

Queen and Charles walking in gardens at BP/Sandringham/Windsor/Balmoral alone and Charles turns to the Queen and says "Mummy, I really want to marry Camilla but I do know there are problems with Auntie Margaret having been stopped from marrying a divorced man and Granny being so opposed due to the events in 1936 but do you think there is ever a possibility?" Queen replies "Not at the moment but we might consider it if some circumstances change". That is all that needs to have been said (or something like that) for the matter to have not been raised anywhere officially until after the deaths of Margaret and the Queen Mother.

Now your statement that it was never discussed would mean that you have to be either Charles or The Queen to be able to categorically state that you know every private conversation that ever took place between these two people.

Sorry but I get so fed up with such blanket statements about what might have said between two people in private when they were the only two people were present to report what was said.

Whether a discussion such as the one outlined above as a possible scenario ever took place I don't know because I am not privy to the private conversations of these people.
 
My view is that the reason that the Queen agreed to Margaret's divorce was that it was very acceptable in British society by the late 1970s, compared to the postion in the 1950s when she wanted to marry Townsend. As you rightly point out, the Queen was not averse to making a difficult decision when it came to family members, so I believe the key reason she agreed to the divorce was not that "she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make" but because she felt that society had changed enough to accept divorce.

I agree with you that the Queen took into account the social mores of the times; I simply think that in her later years, she started to factor the effect on her family into her decisions as well as paying attention to social conventions.
 
No, there was no discussion of marriage while QEQM or Pss Margaret were still alive, though Mark Bolland was busy rehabbing Camilla's image.

I'm sure there was discussion with the courtiers all the time, although not necessarily between The Queen and Prince Charles. But that's the way the Household and Private Secretaries run the business of the monarchy.

There was no point in Charles broaching the subject directly with his mother until after The Queen Mother's death. She made it quite clear it was not an option while her mother was still alive.
 
If constitutionally the Crown is compelled to accept advice from the PM or cabinet how come in 1956 when the then Lord Chancellor (the highest legal officer in the land) advised the present Queen to agree to the abolition of the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 as it was a 'total anachronism', she refused.

That's not formal advice being tendered from The Prime Minister to the Crown on a constitutional matter. It must be formally presented in that way as being the majority opinion of the Government as represented in the Cabinet and Parliament.

The Royal Marriages Act was passed at the request of The Sovereign at a time when the Hanovers were making a disgrace of the monarchy with common law marriages and bastard children. The Act ensures that members of the family in-line to the succession understand they must seek approval to marry from the Crown, a standard practice in all royal houses.

There is sufficient provision in the Act for a member of the royal family to marry without approval, provided Parliament does not object. So why would The Queen want to repeal it?
 
I'm sure there was discussion with the courtiers all the time, although not necessarily between The Queen and Prince Charles. But that's the way the Household and Private Secretaries run the business of the monarchy.

There was no point in Charles broaching the subject directly with his mother until after The Queen Mother's death. She made it quite clear it was not an option while her mother was still alive.

When did she do this?

I want to know how we know what is said between these two people?

Was it ever raised? How would any of us know what was said between these people?

Is this more a matter of people making assumptions based on their perceptions of the attitudes of people, of the dating of events etc?

Unless we can ask Charles or the Queen themselves we can't be sure that this issue was not raised between them and what the Queen said in response.
 
Forgive me...during my typing I omitted the word public in my earlier post...as in public discussion of the possibility of Charles marrying his divorced mistress while the Queen Mother was alive . I would find it very unlikely that QEII or the POW would have the *cough* nerve to bring up Charles marrying his divorced mistress with his grandmother who became Queen Consort for no reason except for the fact that Edward VIII was not permitted to marry his divorced mistress. Can you imagine being a fly on the wall for that discussion? Or for that matter the one with The Princess Margaret? Well I know I forbade you to marry Group Captain Townsend when you were 4th in line and told you that you would have to give up your place in the succession and any money from the Civil List, but now Charles has made Camilla Non Negotiable so were going to have to give in, let him be continue to be heir to the Throne and retain the $million income from the Duchy of Cornwall...sorry I screwed up your life.
 
No one can say for sure what discussions took place between any of the parties involved during this time. All of this is complete speculation.
 
No one can say for sure what discussions took place between any of the parties involved during this time. All of this is complete speculation.

That is exactly my point:

We can't say whether any discussion did or didn't take place because none of us, as far as I am aware, are either Prince Charles or The Queen.
 
Back
Top Bottom