Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Her detractors are uninterested in history... they want only to punish and defame her for her [perceived] transgession of THEIR moral values...

Ouh that's a good one ! And so true ....
 
While Henry was certainly a hypocrite, the CoE was founded as a non-Popish, but 'Catholic' (in Henry's words) religion. In more recent Windsor family history, Uncle David had to abdicate to marry Wallis as she had '2 living husbands'. One cannot swear to uphold and defend the established faith if one is not in good standing with that faith.
 
Last edited:
Church of England has moved on since 1936 but, not surprisingly, only as far as sitting on the fence. This is from their website under "Divorce"


"The Church of England agreed in 2002 that divorced people could remarry in church under certain circumstances. However, because the Church views marriage to be lifelong, there is no automatic right to do so and it is left to the discretion of the Priest."

Not helpful
 
Not only has the CoE moved on since 1936 so has society. No longer does one partner to the divorce have to be proven to be 'at fault', no longer are divorcees seen as pariahs in society, etc.

The other factor to consider is why Edward VIII abdicated. Was it because of Wallis' divorces or was that just the convenient excuse given to the public rather than the government having to admit that he wasn't up to the job?

Considering that there were murmurings within the government about his lack of understanding of his role, the comments he was making which were clearly political, his failure to do the necessary paperwork, the fact that the government of the day was even keeping back information from him due to his indiscretions e.g. having confidential papers returned to the minister's with coffee stains and having some of that information discussed over dinner when only Edward should have seen them before Wallis' second divorce and some ministers already discussing how to get rid of him there was clearly more going on than just Wallis being divorced.

She was a god-send to the government but not the real reason he was forced to go but a reason the public would swallow.

I do believe that as the percentage of people who are now divorced in the general public, that divorced persons are so accepted in all levels of society, that to hold that fact against Camilla now shows double standards as the people who are objecting to Camilla are probably friends with someone who is divorced so it is all right for their friends and family but not for Charles and Camilla.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I didn't think this discussion, really, was about Camilla, so this venue is incorrect, but the queen would have been less amenable to Charles marrying had Diana been alive. It would have been harder for her to swallow. I could care less. Charles loves Camilla and that is that. It was just the other facts. And, since they did not occur, it is all conjecture. And, since Wallis, may have been a God send, I don't think she was viewed as that, at that time. It was a calamity to his mother and the government. His brother, did not want to be king. Today, we judge that it was good. And Cepe is right, there are ambiguous rules deciding remarriage, today.
 
Yes, it is ambiguous. However I think it is fair to ask why exactly would C and C have chosen an unheard of, ground breaking for a royal, civil marriage ceremony, which at the time had the legality of it much discussed, if the CofE had been willing to perform it. Which is in answer to DMAN's earlier question of why the Queen might have not sanctioned the 'move on' had the first wife not died.
 
Last edited:
Correct. They were not married in the church. I do not know the COE rules, but I assume marriage performed out of the church are ,certainly, legal for the state, but not by the church. There is a great deal of ambiguity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No! The royal marriages act of 1772 specifically forbids civil marriages within the royal family. It was hotly debated at the time whether the civil marriage was/is legal.
 
The RMA of 1772 did not forbid civil marriages as they weren't legal for anyone in the UK at the time so there was no need. In fact the law mandating that any marriage, to be legal in England was passed in 1753, had to be a religious ceremony conducted in a chapel or church of the CoE, with the exception of Jews and Quakers. This meant RCs and other non-conformists who married in their own churches weren't legally married in England after that date until the Marriage Act of 1836 that legalised their marriages and established the legality of Civil Marriages - so the RMA wouldn't have needed to make any mention of Civil Marriage as the law of the land at the time of the passing of the RMA was that only marriages in a CoE church was a legal marriage. The law of 1753 only applied in England and not Scotland which is why young couples eloped to Gretna Green as they could legally marry in Scotland outside the CoE.

It was the law of 1836 that specifically excluded the Royal Family from Civil Marriages not the RMA. That act was repealed in 1949 and the wording of the rights of the royal family to contract a Civil marriages was worded differently to the 1836 Act. Any final doubts about the legality of the civil marriage for the royal family was the 1998 Human Rights Act that says that everyone has the right to marry without discrimination and that was interpreted to mean that Charles could legally marry in a civil ceremony as to deny him that right was to deny him one of the defined human rights.
 
But Bertie, this history contradicts the anti-Charles and Camilla conspiracy that Scooter believes, and everyone knows that the true story is the conspiracy that only a few realize.

I wonder what a basic human rights look at the attitude towards Catholics being in the succession would say... I find it odd that only a movement in Quebec has spoken out against that in the courts.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm lost. Which conspiracy? I just thought Scooter said that the RMA forbade Civil Marriages. Is it or is it not the fact? And the Bertie said the Human Rights Act allowed everyone to marry in a civil ceremony and that was in 1998. What is truly confusing me, is that acceptable to the COE, not to the state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you read through here and in other threads you'll see that scooter is of the opinion that Charles is not fit to be king on the grounds of his behaviour during his first marriage and the woman he chose to make his second wife.

She choses to represent facts in a manner that isn't always true and when it is true often isn't the full story. I refer to this as a conspiracy theory - the theory that Charles has somehow actually made himself unable to become king because of his affair, divorce and/or second marriage.

Consider the parallel that scooter has made between Charles and Edward VIII, the man who is commonly depicted as being the king who gave up his throne in order to marry a divorced woman. This isn't nearly as clear cut as scooter (and others) want to make it. Wallis Simpson was at the time of the abdication an American woman who had already been divorced once and was currently married to another man going through a divorce that wasn't a guarantee and threatened to bring the king into it. Divorce was not easy to get at the time, especially if both parties had cheated as had happened in the Simpson marriage. Further, Wallis had a history of not exactly being loyal to men - at the time, it was seen that Wallis was using Edward for her own personal gain and would one day take the money she could and run. She wasn't a person who was well liked or had the right connections within British society. In short, her person was not acceptable as a possible Queen consort. The fact that Edward himself wasn't exactly suited to rule was just icing on the cake - and they surely had figured that one out by them. Likewise, the fact that he wasn't involved in the church didn't help either.

In the 70 years since then, times have changed. While the CoE may not be fully embracing divorce yet, overall British society has accepted it as a part of life. Charles is not the first British Royal to divorce, nor the first to remarry. Perhaps if he was a pioneer there attitudes may have been different, but the failures of his siblings and aunt's marriages and the remarriage of Anne all helped things. Camilla, while having a past, does not have one that is remotely comparable to that of Wallis, especially when you factor in the changing of times. Furthermore, her relationship with Charles was already long lived well before marriage talks, making it clear she wasn't just going to love him and leave with the family jewels. And unlike Wallis, Camilla was accepted by Charles' family. The church may not have been the location of the ceremony, but the CoE did bless the marriage, the Queen consented to it, and the governments of Charles' future realms decided it was a non-issue.

Furthermore, as Bertie pointed out the stipulation that royals can't enter into civil marriages isn't actually still valid. It was not a part of the RMA like scooter professes, but rather a part of a later law that has subsequently been repealed. The issue was solved well before Charles entered into his marriage, and had it actually still been in effect Charles would have followed his sister's example and married in Scotland.

There is this idea that Charles has misstepped in marrying Camilla and made it so that he can't inherit the throne. The idea is that either the royals are aware of this and are just keeping it a secret - either so Charles can steal the throne or so that we get a great shock when the Queen dies and William is proclaimed King - or else all their lawyers aren't smart enough to realize something that those of us creeping on the Internet have figured out.
 
Not in good standing with the faith? Ok let's list some of these defenders of the faith.
Henry VIII divorced twice murdered (yes I say murder) two wives almost murdered a third.
James I had affairs with men and women
Charles II had how many illegitimate children?
A few of the George's had mistresses
How many illegitimate children did William #4 have?
And then there was the immorality of the Catholic monarchs and even the pope's.
History is full of religious people doing un-religious things when it comes marriage and fidelity.
 
Charles behavior is mild compared to previous Kings . It was only Camilla. Compare that to Edward VII, who had numerous affair right from the beginning. Most Kings did and even someone like George VI who may not have cheated still slept with married women during his single days. Sexual Morality isn't a requirement for the Crown.

Mark Philips is still alive and the Queen approved Anne's 2nd marriage to Tim. There is no evidence that the Queen wouldn't approve Charles remarrying if Diana was still alive. Kate may have had a more difficult time as I would think that Diana would have a difficult time sharing William with a different woman but that isn't the topic of this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I don't want to go off topic here but Scooter has a point. Charles will not just be King, he will be head of the Church of England. I'm not a member of the CoE but my religion requires me to extend forgiveness and to avoid judging others.

My sense is that with each year, people are moving on. They have forgiven Camilla. Many people in the UK do not belong to the CoE or, if they do, don't agree with the teachings on divorce--just look at the statistics. Many others have had affairs themselves.

It's been 17 years since Diana's death. There will always be a vocal group of people who will continue to rehash Camilla's mistakes. But the vast majority of people have accepted her and will continue to get on with their lives.
 
If you read through here and in other threads you'll see that scooter is of the opinion that Charles is not fit to be king on the grounds of his behaviour during his first marriage and the woman he chose to make his second wife.

She choses to represent facts in a manner that isn't always true and when it is true often isn't the full story. I refer to this as a conspiracy theory - the theory that Charles has somehow actually made himself unable to become king because of his affair, divorce and/or second marriage...
:ROFLMAO: I love your post - it's beautifully clear worded and to the point :flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hesitate to say this, [lest i should be seen as xenophobic] but i've observed, both here and on other sites [notably Facebook], that the majority of people who have a problem accepting Camilla, as a second wife, as a Royal, and as future Queen Consort are not from Britain, or the Commonwealth Realms at all.

Most are From the Americas {both the USA, and South America}, where Religion is taken rather more seriously than 'post-Christian' Europe. It seems that Diana is still worshipped in those places, and the damage Camilla is thought to have caused this 'secular saint' is unforgivable, consequently making Camilla unacceptable as future Queen.

Fortunately the British public take a more tolerant line, and as they have become accustomed to Camilla's warmth, tact, and support of her husband, and the Throne are prepared to let bygones be bygones and MOVE ON !

I'm so glad i was born into such a forgiving, pragmatic society .
 
Last edited:
Well said. The fact of the matter is that, IMO, in current-day Britain, divorce and remarriage is not really considered an issue. This is not a new social phenomenon, and family breakdowns probably peaked in the 1980s and 1990. I just don't think that for most Britons, Charles & Camilla's affair, divorces and subsequent marriage is not a major issue at all.

As regards the CoE, they really do need to think about what it is they need to do to be more relevant in our lives today. There are relatively few people I know that attend church with any regularity (weddings, christenings and funerals excepted). Without trying to be controversial, are they anything more than a fringe group today, notwithstanding the trappings of a large institution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't agree more ! Some of our US friends tend to be far more bitter about the whole story than the Europeans. America litterally swoon over the late Princess of Wales as she was the epitome of some of America's best obsessions : wealth, youth, fashion, celebrity (and royalty was just the cherry on the cake). She gained the icon status, and of course an icon can't do wrong ... In a way i can't blame their attitude toward Camilla as the death of Diana was trully lived as a trauma (it was a trauma for everyone, but maybe a bit more across the pond) and of course the coming of Camilla, the old, wrinkly, frumpy ex mistress was just a deep culture shock.

The press of course played a big role by vehiculing some good olds stereotypes (good vs evil) and Camilla was of course perfect to play the role of the evil witch. ..."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Off topic - but understandable point. I often check location before I read a post. On some topics, we Americans can get fairly shrill. Some of us think we know better than others can. Also and in general, English as a second language helps me understand the post as composed. :flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am American and I was 9 when Charles married Diana. In the preinternet age, the US coverage of them was the fairy tale like, here is young girl who marries Prince Charming, has 2 kids and then you see her sad and unhappy. The stuff with Camilla comes out and you wonder why would Charles pick her over Diana? They divorce and then Diana tragically dies.

We weren't getting the constant news that the British were and now with the Internet we can see stuff for ourselves. I notice is that Camilla makes Charles happy which we all want in our personal life. Some people can't let go and move on from 1997.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a lot of people have a hard time understanding why Charles would chose Camilla over Diana. Diana was beautiful and the epitome of class and to a lot of people Camilla was (or still is) the opposite. I used to feel the same... But after coming here and hearing more about these two women who aren't all they seemed to be I think I might prefer Camilla. I don't how much of everything is true but Diana now seems far more self-centered than I thought she was while Camilla seems kinder and warmer than I thought she was.
 
I think Camilla was always warm, kind and very down to earth. The problem was that she made some mistakes in the past. Charles didn't get involved with terrible and very nasty women. He married two good women but who weren't perfect.
 
I don't want to go off topic here but Scooter has a point. Charles will not just be King, he will be head of the Church of England. I'm not a member of the CoE but my religion requires me to extend forgiveness and to avoid judging others.


Scooter had a point in that the monarch should be in communion with the CoE as the monarch is the head of the CoE. However, the suggestion that Charles isn't in communion with the CoE is a stretch.

The CoE's official position on divorcees remarrying is basically "it's okay, but the priest has the right to decide in each individual case." Given as ceremony would have likely been performed by the ABC it puts the church in an awkward position - they can't say "we're both okay and not okay with divorcees remarrying" but then have the ABC perform the very public marriage ceremony of two divorcees (or a widower and a divorcee).

The ABC has however blessed the marriage. He did it on TV the day they married. That means that Charles is in the clear as far as the church goes when it comes to his second marriage.
 
I don't want to go off topic here but Scooter has a point. Charles will not just be King, he will be head of the Church of England.
Slight correction: The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the C of E. The Head of the Church is Jesus Christ. :flowers:
 
Slight correction: The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the C of E. The Head of the Church is Jesus Christ. :flowers:


That's semantics. The titular leader of the CoE is the Supreme Governor of the CoE, the monarch. Most would consider that person to be the head of the church, at least on this realm.
 
For the past few weeks I have been listening to specials on Kate and William and it is mostly British commentators gushing over Diana and how great she was, oh the perfect Princess, and saying Charles shouldn't be King William should for no other reason than he is younger and looked like Diana. Quite honestly the US, from what I have seen, don't give a second thought to Diana. I assume it is a select few in both countries who are obsessed with youth glamour and the fairy tale bull crap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Camilla was always warm, kind and very down to earth. The problem was that she made some mistakes in the past. Charles didn't get involved with terrible and very nasty women. He married two good women but who weren't perfect.

Excuse me, but I do not look at Diana as good. Diana was manipulative and spiteful and mean to The Queen who always tried to help her.
 
Excuse me, but I do not look at Diana as good. Diana was manipulative and spiteful and mean to The Queen who always tried to help her.

Really, whose PR machine is feeding you. This was a dreadful mess and no one person was to blame. And let me tell you, the dead cannot defend themselves. She was just as good as her husband who was busy with another woman from the onset of their marriage ( I know many do not want to acknowledge that) and now his mistress will be the queen. It is her right. Shem, too, had a husband and children. The Queen often ignored her and thought she should buck up and face the fact that husbands cheat. Diana was an insecure person who brought the RF into the forefront, which they liked. Until she took center stage and they became the understudies. "Diana changes hairdo when queen opens parliament". Who cares. And if that isn't insecurity what is. There is no one person to blame and the queen did little or nothing to ameliorate the situation. Until Diana died and there was the big hooha, the RF really had no idea that you have to go out and really care. Diana was no saint, much to her discredit, she could have avoided the messes she got into, but her feeling of abandonment was real. Frankly, I would never want anyone them, in my life.
 
That's semantics. The titular leader of the CoE is the Supreme Governor of the CoE, the monarch. Most would consider that person to be the head of the church, at least on this realm.


If I may put on my History teacher's hat for a minute:

When Henry VIII broke from Rome he had the parliament officially create him as 'Head of the Church of England' in the original Act of Uniformity. Edward VI also held that title officially but...

Queen Mary had that act repealed and so the monarch was no longer the 'Head of the Church of England'.

Along comes Elizabeth and she wanted to pass an Act of Uniformity again but the Church of the day was very strong in its teaching that women couldn't be in charge of a church and so refused to agree to the term 'Head of the Church of England' for a woman and hence the term became 'Supreme Governor' - semantics maybe but there are historical reasons why it is 'Supreme Governor' and not 'Head' which it had been originally in the days of Henry VIII and Edward VI.

As for Charles being in communion with the Church of England - he was confirmed into that church as a teenager, has married in that church, has had a second marriage blessed by that church and regularly attends CoE services. All that says that he is in communion with the CoE.

Camilla is also in communion with the Church of England.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that once you break one commandment that you are no longer able to be in communion or be classed as a Christian - but the teachings of Christ himself is that sinners who confess their sins are welcome to be his followers.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom