Charles and Camilla to Marry: February 10, 2005


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
(AFP) - Britain's Queen Elizabeth II is "livid" at plans to conduct the April 8 civil wedding of Prince Charles and longtime partner Camilla Parker Bowles at a town hall.

The couple were to have wed at Windsor Castle, the royal family's weekend retreat west of London, but then switched venue to the Guildhall in Windsor -- used for local council meetings and other public gatherings.

"The queen believes that by having the service in the local town hall, the last vestige of the mystery of monarchy will be smashed forever," an unidentified source was quoted as saying in Friday's edition of the Sun newspaper.

The Sun added that Queen Elizabeth was also "miffed" at Prime Minister Tony Blair for agreeing to the April 8 wedding date, which will be just under a month before an expected May 5 general election.

It said the date suits Blair because it would create "a 'white-out' of political news" to the detriment of the main opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

Clarence House, the official London residence of the Prince of Wales, said Thursday that the wedding venue was being switched because licensing the royal palace for a civil wedding would cause too much disruption.
 
AP

The Church of England owes its creation to a royal spat over divorce and remarriage: Henry VIII's break with the Vatican after the pope refused to grant the monarch dispensation to wed his lover. Now, nearly five centuries later, questions over another wedding are pulling at Anglican unity — the planned marriage of Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles, the first in line to inherit the throne and become the next titular head of the church.

Conservative groups complain the scheduled April 8 civil ceremony and post-vows service by the Archbishop of Canterbury — although fully legal — run counter to Church of England traditions against remarriage and will deepen rifts at a delicate time for the world's 77 million-strong Anglican Communion, which includes Episcopalians in the United States. Anglicans are struggling with serious quandaries over doctrine and structure. Chief among them: whether to sanction the ordination of gay clergy, give blessings to same-sex unions and allow women priests to become bishops. Fresh debates are expected at a global gathering of Anglican leaders beginning Monday in Northern Ireland, where the Episcopal Church also could be sanctioned for consecrating a gay bishop. The wedding plans add another point of friction, conservative leaders say.

"We know there's a head of steam to liberalize the church already," said George Curry, chairman of the Church Society, comprising tradition-minded Anglican clergy and lay members in Britain. "There are theological questions at stake. Charles is now one of them." Actually, it's the bride-to-be who appears to be deeper in the religious quagmire. Her ex-husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, is alive. For conservatives, this is an affront to Anglican tenets, whereas Charles is free to remarry as a widower.

"It has grave consequences for the future of the church," delegate Allan Jones told the Church of England's governing General Synod, which met this week in London. A statement from another conservative group, the Evangelical Alliance, applauded plans to give the relationship "a more moral footing." But it noted broad reservations persist.

"The couple's previous divorces, their documented adultery and the nature of their extramarital relationship up to this point do present difficulties for many of our Anglican members and others with respect to Charles' suitability to govern the Church of England," said a statement from the London-based alliance, which claims 1 million members from various denominations. The Church of England disapproves of the remarriage of divorced people in church except under special circumstances. There are no annulments — as possible with Roman Catholics — that open the way for a new, church-sanctioned wedding. But there are sidesteps available for Anglicans. The royal wedding is taking the most popular one: having a civil service and a later blessing by a priest. On Thursday, Charles' office announced the civil ceremony is even taking place at the local town hall — another common touch.

"What the Archbishop of Canterbury is doing is perfectly legal, so you could say it's not pushing the envelope," said the Rev. Gerald Bray, an Anglican theologian at the Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Ala. "But there's something more subjective: It may be legal, but is it wise?" Bray predicted it "won't be encouraging for people who want to encourage traditional moral standards."

Some already feel on the defensive. In 2002, the General Synod loosened rules on remarriage in the church. Parish priests were given discretion to deem whether the couple met the new guidelines. Among the caveats: The new relationship shouldn't be the cause of breaking up the previous marriage — which is precisely what the supporters of the late Princess Diana claim.

But the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, insisted there was no reason for Buckingham Palace to seek loopholes for Charles.

"These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage," said a statement from the archbishop. It's a clear reflection of a broad attitude shift in the church since one of the most stunning moments in Britain's royal history: the decision by King Edward VIII in 1936 to abdicate in order to marry a twice-divorced American, Wallis Simpson. Geoffrey Wainwright, a professor specializing in Protestant affairs at Duke Divinity School, said the upcoming wedding also may revive questions about the Church of England's constitutional ties to the monarchy, which can't change doctrine but can in theory influence "temporal" matters. The government's duties — acting in the name of the monarch — include appointing the Church of England's two archbishops and other senior clergy.

"Some theologians would welcome disestablishment for the sake of the church's freedom," Wainwright said. "Others would see it has yet one more sign of the `de-Christianization' of the country." In the early 16th century, King Henry VIII sought a papal annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could wed his mistress, Anne Boleyn. The pope, however, had already given special dispensation for Henry's marriage to Catherine, who was the widow of his brother. The Vatican was unwilling to admit papal misjudgment and rejected Henry's request. Also, the papacy was under the influence of Henry's nemesis — and Catherine's nephew — Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Henry's advisers came up with a radical proposal: Break with Rome and set your own rules. During the 1530s, English clergy and parliament members gradually cut ties with the Vatican and declared Henry the head of the new Church of England. Henry wasn't through. He was back to the altar after Anne was beheaded for alleged infidelity. He had a total of six wives, including another who lost her head.
 
This sounds as though all the arrangements for the wedding were made without the Queen even knowing about them. That strikes me as unlikely.
 
Elspeth said:
This sounds as though all the arrangements for the wedding were made without the Queen even knowing about them. That strikes me as unlikely.
Very unlikely, since it is her castle and her chapel.

I wouldn't imagine much happens at Windsor without the Queen knowing about it. My understanding is that she is quite a formidable woman, even more so on her home turf.
.
 
Last edited:
AOL news

http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/article.adp?id=20050217131109990001

Queen's 'Fury' Over Wedding Switch

The Queen is reported to have been 'livid' on hearing that the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles are to get hitched at a town hall.

The Sun newspaper reports that the monarch is appalled at the prospect of a ceremony she regards as 'common' and unfit for the heir to the throne.

Charles and Camilla have changed the venue of their civil ceremony to the Guildhall in Windsor.

The couple will no longer wed in Windsor Castle after it was decided that licensing the royal palace would cause too much disruption.

Clarence House said the new venue, which is Windsor's town hall, would allow the public to see the couple arrive and leave.

The blessing afterwards will still take place in Windsor Castle's St George's Chapel.

Mrs Parker Bowles has chosen Robinson Valentine to design her outfit and Philip Treacy to design her hat.

The licensing problems stemmed from the fact that members of the public may have subsequently been permitted to wed in the castle.

A Clarence House spokesman said: "There were a number of issues around the licence.

"It would have meant that the rooms which are normally open to the public would have to be closed numerous times.

"Thousands of people visit the castle each year. A licence is not just for one event."

He added: "People will be able to see the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles arrive and leave, rather than them being behind the Ccstle walls."

The Guildhall, completed by Sir Christopher Wren, is close to the castle.

Clarence House said about 700 guests will watch the couple take their vows in the civil ceremony.

After the blessing, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Queen will give a reception in the State Apartments at Windsor Castle.
 
Well, that's what I meant. It doesn't make sense that she's now throwing a hissy fit about the change of venue as though it had all been done without consulting her first. I wonder where these newspapers get stories like this?

Plus, she was miffed with Blair for agreeing to the date? I don't suppose Blair was told about it until after the Queen had approved it.
 
elspeth,

"Blair was told about it until after the queen had approved it"
after she had approved did she not need his approval too?

& her having some sort of fit, can't imagine it,
it is the sun, isn't that a sensational newspaper, with big headlines?

the people who are organising the wedding, licence and stuff might have thought that an exception could be made for charles and camilla or
they thought so initially and later thought it might have implications or
everyone thought it was ok except the government who would not play ball
 
it is the sun, isn't that a sensational newspaper, with big headlines?

Yep. It doesn't pay to believe everything you read in the tabloids.
 
Elspeth said:
Yep. It doesn't pay to believe everything you read in the tabloids.


Tabloids are so utterly irresponsible and they really really REALLY annoy me! :mad: On one hand it is vital there is freedom of the press, but on the other hand it leads to extensive exaggerated rumors to be spread around about all kinds of things that are hearsay gossip and have no basis in fact at all.

I know the things the Queen and her family do are reported in the Court Circular (think both are still available in the Times & Telegraph (UK), however I wish that the Queen and Buckingham Palace Press Officers would be more open about the family's activities and provide 'responsible' news media organizations with more statements to counter the wild sensational headlines of the tabloids.


I was involved in a previous discussion about an International Royals News Agency that royal families could trust to report their activities accurately if they could provide them with more statements and reports to administer. It would do the Monarchy so much good to have reliable news reports as opposed to leaving all the media to speculate and the tabloids to print utter rubbish which only leaves one to ask what side of the naked page three girl's cleavage was the story printed on :p
 
This is where Charles and Camilla will marry
From Abaca Press
 

Attachments

  • 317351.jpg
    317351.jpg
    131.8 KB · Views: 130
  • 317352.jpg
    317352.jpg
    156.2 KB · Views: 201
  • 317353.jpg
    317353.jpg
    144.1 KB · Views: 133
  • 317354.jpg
    317354.jpg
    135.9 KB · Views: 237
Oh come on, it's nice after all. And there are portraits of the Queen and previous monarchs, which give a royal atmosphere.
 
The Queen should probably be more open about things, but she is old. Her generation, and even Charles' generation had it drilled into their brains that what is private should be kept private.
 
wymanda said:
tiaraprin,
there is a verse in the bible that says "Let he who is without sin caste the first stone"
I dont think that any of us are perfect or candidates for sainthood so how about we lay off the name calling. I don't notice anyone calling Diana an adulteress and yet she did her share of enticing and sleeping with other womens husbands.

Wymanda,

When Diana walked down the aisle on July 29, 1981, she was a virgin, who to the best of her naive knowledge, loved the man she was marrying and fufilling the all too popular fantasy of actually becoming a princess. Prince Charles invited his mistress to his wedding and lied before God and the world when he took his wedding vows! Yes Diana did have lovers--God knows Charles treatment of her drove her to it in the isolated position she was in. In regard to her affair with the married Oliver Hoare, that was wrong. However, I did read recently that Hoare had planned to leave his wife for Diana and had been separated from his wife before he and Diana had their affair. Whether that be true or not, I do not know.

Camilla and Charles were the sinners long before Diana was, although I don't excuse her errors. At least Diana went in with good faith and wasn't like Camilla who was vetting her out to see what her position would be once Charles married Diana. At least Diana was no hypocrite being kind and smiling as Camilla was desperately trying to "protect her property."

Camilla does not deserve an HRH and does not deserve to be Queen. She was a vital element to the breakdown of the marriage of Charles and Diana who already had enough problems. If she had not been a factor in the disintegration of the marriage and not the mistress of Charles, I would be in favor of it. I just wish Charles could have found a nice, respectable lady who would be an asset and a tribute to England.
 
Diana Leave Her Son?? NEVER!

I'm sure the doctors would have preferred that Diana got lost too and left them to do their jobs, without the deference they would have had to show while she were present, and let William rest.
Diana had every right to be with her son. What kind of mother would she be if she left?? Contrary to what Diana's detractors believe, she was a good mother and had a heart. Here in the United States, many mothers stay with their children overnight in the hospitals to comfort their children. What Diana did was NOT ABNORMAL, at least by American standards!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You Got That Right!!!!

HMQueenElizabethII said:
Anyway not!She can not become Queen.Never!Never become Princess of Wales or Queen of England!She's the one who has destroyed the marriage of Charles and Diana.

You have hit the nail right on the head!!!! Bravo to you!!!!
 
When Diana walked down the aisle on July 29, 1981, she was a virgin, who to the best of her naive knowledge, loved the man she was marrying and fufilling the all too popular fantasy of actually becoming a princess. Prince Charles invited his mistress to his wedding and lied before God and the world when he took his wedding vows!

He said he'd ended the relationship with Mrs Parker Bowles before the wedding. You have no more idea than any of the rest of us whether he meant it and whether he was or was not lying when he took his wedding vows. It's been stated by several people who knew the Prince and Princess that she was consumed with jealousy about his relationship with Camilla from the start of their marriage and wouldn't let the matter drop - and eventually she became so impossible to live with that he went back to Camilla because he wanted to be with someone who wasn't forever screaming at him. Diana was just as responsible for the problems in the marriage as Charles was, if she couldn't be rational about Camilla and if she couldn't see her way to making Charles's life pleasant rather than unpleasant. If I'd had nothing but inquisitions and accusations and rants and raves about previous boyfriends from my husband from the first day of our honeymoon and nothing I said had made any difference, I don't think I'd have stayed married very long. Nor would most people.

Camilla and Charles were the sinners long before Diana was, although I don't excuse her errors. At least Diana went in with good faith and wasn't like Camilla who was vetting her out to see what her position would be once Charles married Diana. At least Diana was no hypocrite being kind and smiling as Camilla was desperately trying to "protect her property."

Diana had to have known about the Charles-Camilla affair before she and Charles were engaged; too many people in the tight-knit upper-class society knew about it for her not to have also known. She went into that marriage knowing that he'd had a long-term relationship with Camilla but had assured her that he'd ended it; this wasn't some revelation that hit her out of the blue too late for her to do anything about it. Knowing about that relationship, she had the option of making herself an attractive alternative to Camilla. It might not have worked, but she could at least have tried. Instead of which, she went about things in a disastrously immature and possessive sort of way, and predictably it had the opposite effect. She also had to have known that the royal family weren't emotionally open and that they were a closed shop in terms of uniting against perceived threats. She took a potentially bad matter and made it a great deal worse with her response to it. Of course Charles's family was going to stand by him and look the other way. The thing I've always wondered is why her own parents and sisters did so little for her when things were difficult at the beginning and she needed wise advice.
 
But she was so young, innocent, and just immature. SHe was only 19. And she tried to get out of it, but it was too late as her sisters told her that her face was already on the tea cups or something like that. No one warned her cuz they thought she was stupid and wpudl only fo the things they expected her to do. Both her and Chalres were very emotionally needy ppl.
 
Yes, she was young, innocent, and immature, and she needed help from her family. Her sisters didn't tell her the stuff about the tea towels until a day or two before the wedding; she needed serious guidance from her mother and sisters long before that, but it seems that they were too fixated on having her marry into the royal family.

And when she was married and was shouting and screaming at Charles about her suspicions about his relationship with Camilla, it sounds as though at that point she needed some serious help from people who were emotionally close to her, and it also sounds as though she didn't get it.
 
Tiaprin, I really like your messages and I agree with you a 100%.
 
Regina said:
Tiaprin, I really like your messages and I agree with you a 100%.

Elspeth, I really like your messages and I agree with you a 100%.
 
tiaraprin said:
Wymanda,

When Diana walked down the aisle on July 29, 1981, she was a virgin, who to the best of her naive knowledge, loved the man she was marrying and fufilling the all too popular fantasy of actually becoming a princess. Prince Charles invited his mistress to his wedding and lied before God and the world when he took his wedding vows! Yes Diana did have lovers--God knows Charles treatment of her drove her to it in the isolated position she was in. In regard to her affair with the married Oliver Hoare, that was wrong. However, I did read recently that Hoare had planned to leave his wife for Diana and had been separated from his wife before he and Diana had their affair. Whether that be true or not, I do not know.

Camilla and Charles were the sinners long before Diana was, although I don't excuse her errors. At least Diana went in with good faith and wasn't like Camilla who was vetting her out to see what her position would be once Charles married Diana. At least Diana was no hypocrite being kind and smiling as Camilla was desperately trying to "protect her property."

Camilla does not deserve an HRH and does not deserve to be Queen. She was a vital element to the breakdown of the marriage of Charles and Diana who already had enough problems. If she had not been a factor in the disintegration of the marriage and not the mistress of Charles, I would be in favor of it. I just wish Charles could have found a nice, respectable lady who would be an asset and a tribute to England.

Here, here, tiaraprin! I completely agree; hit the nail squarely on the head!
 
Elspeth said:
He said he'd ended the relationship with Mrs Parker Bowles before the wedding. You have no more idea than any of the rest of us whether he meant it and whether he was or was not lying when he took his wedding vows. It's been stated by several people who knew the Prince and Princess that she was consumed with jealousy about his relationship with Camilla from the start of their marriage and wouldn't let the matter drop - and eventually she became so impossible to live with that he went back to Camilla because he wanted to be with someone who wasn't forever screaming at him. Diana was just as responsible for the problems in the marriage as Charles was, if she couldn't be rational about Camilla and if she couldn't see her way to making Charles's life pleasant rather than unpleasant. If I'd had nothing but inquisitions and accusations and rants and raves about previous boyfriends from my husband from the first day of our honeymoon and nothing I said had made any difference, I don't think I'd have stayed married very long. Nor would most people.



Diana had to have known about the Charles-Camilla affair before she and Charles were engaged; too many people in the tight-knit upper-class society knew about it for her not to have also known. She went into that marriage knowing that he'd had a long-term relationship with Camilla but had assured her that he'd ended it; this wasn't some revelation that hit her out of the blue too late for her to do anything about it. Knowing about that relationship, she had the option of making herself an attractive alternative to Camilla. It might not have worked, but she could at least have tried. Instead of which, she went about things in a disastrously immature and possessive sort of way, and predictably it had the opposite effect. She also had to have known that the royal family weren't emotionally open and that they were a closed shop in terms of uniting against perceived threats. She took a potentially bad matter and made it a great deal worse with her response to it. Of course Charles's family was going to stand by him and look the other way. The thing I've always wondered is why her own parents and sisters did so little for her when things were difficult at the beginning and she needed wise advice.

Okay, let's try this: Everyone, do this with me.

Let's play the "Put yourselves in her shoes" game. Imagine you are 19 years old, a sheltered virgin, falling in-love with a literal Prince at-least-to-you Charming. You know that he had been involved with a married woman for a very long time but he swears it's over. He then presents you with a tray of engagement rings for you to choose instead of picking it out himself. Hmm...okay...Then you have second thoughts about the whole thing. However, there is absolutely no way out and decide to trust your fiancee and go ahead with the wedding. To your surprise, your soon-to-be husband's former lover/mistress is at your wedding at his invitation! Then, at your wedding night, he is wearing a pair of cufflinks his lover/mistress had given him. On top of that, he is calling her while on your honeymoon....Everyone get that?

Okay, how would you feel? Personally, I'd have doubts that his relationship with the other woman is over. While he may not have been physically committing adultery at that time, to me, emotional adultery is just as bad. If you were in-love with this person you married and he's still talking to his ex, wearing stuff she gave him, and being at your wedding...how would you take it?
 
Well, there's the option of not getting involved with the guy (knowing about this long-term relationship), there's the option of getting married and making the best of things by trying to provide an attractive alternative to the ex-mistress, and there's the option of getting married and expecting everybody else to do the changing. Sure, she can be excused on the basis of being too young and naive to handle the situation, but that doesn't help things from a practical point of view if she's making Charles's life hell on earth in the process.

If Charles really had given up Camilla - and even persuaded himself he'd done it permanently - then the constant accusations from his wife that he was still seeing her would have been not only intensely annoying but a clear declaration of lack of trust. Sooner or later he was going to put two and two together and figure out that as long as she was never going to shut up about Camilla, he might as well go back to Camilla because the only practical difference would be that he'd be spending some of his time with someone who did care about him. The possibility of her possessive and angry behaviour leading to Charles going back to Camilla is something she needed to have pointed out to her by a trusted family member, and it seems as though nobody was there to do it.

Diana needed help from older and wiser heads before the engagement and marriage to show her that if she went ahead, there were better and worse ways of handling the situation. Either she didn't get it or she didn't heed it. Since she seemed not to be especially close to her mother or the most sensible of her siblings and since it seems that her grandmother was more concerned about the royal family's welfare than Diana's, it seems that she didn't get it.

I'm sure you've read books even by people who were supporters of hers who said that from quite young she showed this tendency toward extreme possessiveness. It's tragic that she should have ended up in a marriage where the worst side of that aspect of her personality was given an excuse to dominate, but unfortunately that's what happened. To blame Charles and Camilla totally and excuse Diana entirely is, in my opinion, a very biassed reading of the situation. When I've come across highly possessive and insecure people having problems with relationships, the problem is always at least partly theirs.

Having said all that, I don't see a problem with Charles marrying Camilla now, and much as you might think Camilla doesn't deserve an HRH, realistically they're having to give it to her or they're showing that they turfed Edward VIII off the throne under false pretences. In the long view, that's more important than the feelings of the Diana supporters.
 
Last edited:
it was partly built by sir christopher wren, son of the dean of windsor. He was perhaps the greatest architect of england or of the late 17th century.
after the great london fire of 1666 destroyed the gothic cathedral of st paul he built the church (1675-1710) as we know it now.

so camilla and charles are getting married in an ok building but I read somewhere that the buillding needs some cleaning and stuff to make it perfect for a royal wedding

and then everyone will want to get married there...


~*~Humera~*~ said:
This is where Charles and Camilla will marry
From Abaca Press
 
Elspeth said:
Well, there's the option of not getting involved with the guy (knowing about this long-term relationship), there's the option of getting married and making the best of things by trying to provide an attractive alternative to the ex-mistress, and there's the option of getting married and expecting everybody else to do the changing. Sure, she can be excused on the basis of being too young and naive to handle the situation, but that doesn't help things from a practical point of view if she's making Charles's life hell on earth in the process.

:( :( :( :( :( :( :(

You have a heart of steel... :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, dear, I know. Check my avatar.:D

On the other hand, practically speaking, what other alternatives were there?
 
it was partly built by sir christopher wren, son of the dean of windsor. He was perhaps the greatest architect of england or of the late 17th century.
after the great london fire of 1666 destroyed the gothic cathedral of st paul he built the church (1675-1710) as we know it now.

Oh, my - so Charles is getting married for the second time in a building associated with the building where he got married the first time?
 
I have to say... What is in the past is in the past. What truly happened only the real parties involved know and it is their business. Diana died 7 years ago. Let's let her rest in peace and move on. Charles and Camilla have a right to happiness. Besides it is not our place to judge.


(and I go on record saying that I was a huge Diana fan)
 
you are so quick,

I have been thinking about it being a building of wren for a few days now and the thought never crossed my mind. that is a funny coincidence and I have not read the association in a single newspaper either.:)



Elspeth said:
Oh, my - so Charles is getting married for the second time in a building associated with the building where he got married the first time?
 
Elspeth said:
Since she seemed not to be especially close to her mother or the most sensible of her siblings and since it seems that her grandmother was more concerned about the royal family's welfare than Diana's, it seems that she didn't get it.

IMO Lady Fermoy & the Queen Mum were the instigaters of a marriage between Charles & one of the Spencer girls. When Lady Sarah let them down with her ill timed remarks about Dustmen their sights obviously fell on Diana who was meek enough to do what Granny told her to do.

When you consider that Lady Fermoy had gone to court and declared her own daughter an unfit mother you really can't expect her to give two hoots about her granddaughters welfare or happiness in her marriage. Had she still been alive when Charles & Diana split she probably would have done the same thing to Diana so that she lost access to William & Harry.

I have never thought Diana was a bad mother. I just think she made some poor choices like using William to pour out all her troubles too. For Heavens sake he was a child! I also thought she was wrong in badmouthing Charles to his children. Whatever went on between Diana & Charles he was still their father. Mind you I think Diana's biggest mistake in the whole saga was her inability to keep her own counsel or to put it more bluntly, TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT!

The ability to do this is something I have always admired about Camilla. She has never spoken to the press about her relationship with Charles & has obviously never said anything of any importance about the relationship to her freinds. Either that or her freinds are "true friends" who also know how to mind their own business and not blab to the press at every opportunity. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom