That's not true about Luxembourg being snubbed because they're Catholic. Grand Duke Jean served with the Irish Guards, I believe, in WWII and for many years attended the Guard's Ceremonies. He and Grand Duchess Josephine-Charlotte were invited to many of the Queen's official celebrations as has now Grand Duchess Henri and Maria Teresa. Grand Duke Jean and Grand Duchess Josephine Charlotte attended Charles and Diana's wedding. In Febr. 1981 the Duke of Edinburgh attended the wedding Henri and Maria Teresa. I think Andrew represented his mother at Josephine Charlotte's funeral. I don't think the British Royals have "snubbed" Luxembourg because it's only a Grand Duchy and Catholic.
Prince Charles's Marriage Prospects pre-Diana and Camilla
- Thread starter WreathOfLaurels
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,267
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
Maybe its just me but if its Charles we're talking about here, I don't think I've heard of any other heir to the throne that is more respecting of other faiths than he is. He is the man reputed to want to change "Defender of the Faith" to "Defender of Faith" according to rumor.
Although I do believe it was done out of tradition and respect for tradition, when Prince Ernest August of Hanover wanted to marry Caroline (Grimaldi) of Monaco in 1999, he formally asked the Queen's permission to marry. No kingdom here and Caroline is Catholic but the tradition still stood.
OP
OP
WreathOfLaurels
Courtier
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2016
- Messages
- 592
- City
- Wellington
- Country
- New Zealand
I was speaking in general. Although some individual members of the catholic families can have good relations with the RF, as a general rule the relations are poor. The grimaldi-Windsor relations have improved over the past 20 years but for a long time they weren't invited to major royal events and protocol was often jogged to avoid the awkward fact that under standard etiquette the late Rainer would take precedent over the queen. Relations between the Windsors and the Belgian RF have been very poor since WWII and still are. They did not like the other catholic families like the orleans, Habsburg and savoia. The exceptions are the Spanish RF and that was because of the mountbatten and glucksburg connection, and luxembourg so you guys are correct on that one so i apologise but i stand by my comment about the windsors relations with the catholic families overall.
The palace grey men were the ones who made up the Marie Astrid story and just picked her as she was from a country most people in the UK could not find on a map and a family who were regarded as being too obscure to object.
The palace grey men were the ones who made up the Marie Astrid story and just picked her as she was from a country most people in the UK could not find on a map and a family who were regarded as being too obscure to object.
Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,267
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
I see the point that you're making and as I'm not that informed about past relations between the Windsors and other principalities and/or Catholic monarchies, I'm going to take your word for it on this.
I always thought though that the relationship between the Windsors and the Belgian RF was a pretty good one as normally as a rule, the Queen does not attend the funerals or weddings for other monarchies but when King Baudouin passed, she made an exception and attended his funeral. I can understand though a frosty relationship with King Albert of the Belgians as I don't hold an overly high opinion of the man myself.
Thanks for creating thought provoking threads that are a joy to come to read and learn and participate in. Its appreciated on this end.
I always thought though that the relationship between the Windsors and the Belgian RF was a pretty good one as normally as a rule, the Queen does not attend the funerals or weddings for other monarchies but when King Baudouin passed, she made an exception and attended his funeral. I can understand though a frosty relationship with King Albert of the Belgians as I don't hold an overly high opinion of the man myself.
Thanks for creating thought provoking threads that are a joy to come to read and learn and participate in. Its appreciated on this end.
Minister of Court
Aristocracy
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 222
- City
- -
- Country
- Finland
Surely Majesties outrank Serene Highnesses, length of reign notwithstanding?
melina premiere
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 3,864
- City
- Sassenage
- Country
- France
Nowadays, all the monarchies and principauties are invited to big royal events as the festivities of the reigning of HM Queen Elizabeth but in the years 1950 to 1980, BRF did not invite all the monarchies to the weddings of their families.
From 1940 to 1963, there were no relations between BRF and Belgium monarchy, the king Leopold of Belgium and his second wife Lilian could not forget that Churchill and the royal family said that Leopold had a bad behaviour during the second war, King Baudoin did not attend the funeral of Geoeges IV, but after the wedding of the King Baudoin, the royal couple of Belgium turned the page and came to an official visit , I think that the Queen came to the funerals for the behaviour of King Baudoin for this gesture.
For the grimaldi, when Rainier married Grace Kelly who was an actress of Holliwood, no royals come to the wedding of the prince , at that time an actress was not well estimed in the monarchies. But the behaviour of P Grace who was more royal than the other princesses, Prince Rainier was a very serious prince of a small principauty, the couple was strongand little by little the princely couple was invited to the big britrish events.
In the years 1980 90 , there were a lot of divorces in the royal families in the BRF, three children of the queen had scandals and they divorced, divorced wife, single woman with a child , commoners wifes married in the 'main big royal families'
BRF could not snub the other families, it had the same problems inside the family than the others.
I saw in a documentary about the principauty of Monaco, the letter that the english ambassador gave to Albert, we could read that the quenn called the Prince Albert ' dear cousin'
Apart all this, the royal families do not search a ' correct wife for the heir' , the crown princes do not want marry a wife that they don't love, it is finish , they marry the wifes of their country.
But the british family goes on to stay apart sometimes , no british royal came to the funerals of queen Fabiola, after the death of Diana when he was again single man, Charles attended with his brother P Edward the weddings of the heirs of other monarchies, now he did not attend anymore to the weddings or enthronments and so, the couple Edward and Sophie are attending the royal events in other monarchies.
From 1940 to 1963, there were no relations between BRF and Belgium monarchy, the king Leopold of Belgium and his second wife Lilian could not forget that Churchill and the royal family said that Leopold had a bad behaviour during the second war, King Baudoin did not attend the funeral of Geoeges IV, but after the wedding of the King Baudoin, the royal couple of Belgium turned the page and came to an official visit , I think that the Queen came to the funerals for the behaviour of King Baudoin for this gesture.
For the grimaldi, when Rainier married Grace Kelly who was an actress of Holliwood, no royals come to the wedding of the prince , at that time an actress was not well estimed in the monarchies. But the behaviour of P Grace who was more royal than the other princesses, Prince Rainier was a very serious prince of a small principauty, the couple was strongand little by little the princely couple was invited to the big britrish events.
In the years 1980 90 , there were a lot of divorces in the royal families in the BRF, three children of the queen had scandals and they divorced, divorced wife, single woman with a child , commoners wifes married in the 'main big royal families'
BRF could not snub the other families, it had the same problems inside the family than the others.
I saw in a documentary about the principauty of Monaco, the letter that the english ambassador gave to Albert, we could read that the quenn called the Prince Albert ' dear cousin'
Apart all this, the royal families do not search a ' correct wife for the heir' , the crown princes do not want marry a wife that they don't love, it is finish , they marry the wifes of their country.
But the british family goes on to stay apart sometimes , no british royal came to the funerals of queen Fabiola, after the death of Diana when he was again single man, Charles attended with his brother P Edward the weddings of the heirs of other monarchies, now he did not attend anymore to the weddings or enthronments and so, the couple Edward and Sophie are attending the royal events in other monarchies.
Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,267
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
With this topic of discussing who may have been the best "royal bride" before Diana came along and discounting Charles' relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, I think we're getting some really good insights into just how things were changing as far as who would have been the ideal bride for Charles during that time period of the 1970s. World War II was still very much alive in the memories of people at that time and it was that generation of powers that be that remembered them best for the most part and acted accordingly.
Sometimes traditions and ingrained habits and beliefs are the hardest and the last things to change and I realized this the other day talking with hubby. I'm nearing 65 and hubby will be 70 in January (on the same day no less) and I found it quite interesting that he'll still refer to the refrigerator as an "icebox" while simultaneously asking me to look up a hockey score on NHL.com.
As the phrase "icebox" dies out with my generation because no one alive then would ever have experienced an "icebox" or had parents or grandparents that actually owned one, so will the mindset of monarchies and principalities and republics change in their ways of looking at things.
Sometimes traditions and ingrained habits and beliefs are the hardest and the last things to change and I realized this the other day talking with hubby. I'm nearing 65 and hubby will be 70 in January (on the same day no less) and I found it quite interesting that he'll still refer to the refrigerator as an "icebox" while simultaneously asking me to look up a hockey score on NHL.com.
As the phrase "icebox" dies out with my generation because no one alive then would ever have experienced an "icebox" or had parents or grandparents that actually owned one, so will the mindset of monarchies and principalities and republics change in their ways of looking at things.
To return to the original topic, from the mid 70's on and especially the late 70's the press, main and the tabloids in particular, decided Charles was getting on in age and that he needed to settle down. There were an absolute frenzy to link him with any European Princess or English aristocrat if he was even pictured looking at such a young woman. I don't know the story about the planting of the Marie-Astrid as a potential girlfriend so as to catch the press, but she was and is a very lovely woman who was a Royal acquaintance with Charles, but both were aware of the "rules" of the British Monarchy that the press should have known also.
I'm being flippant, but at that time Charles could have been photographed walking with Princess Grace on his arm and their heads down in conversation and the tabloids especially would have had screaming headlines about Grace leaving Rainier and Monaco, converting to Anglican, to marry Charles. It's ridiculous of course, but that's the frenzy the press was in.
Harry is going through the frenzy now as his father went through.
I'm being flippant, but at that time Charles could have been photographed walking with Princess Grace on his arm and their heads down in conversation and the tabloids especially would have had screaming headlines about Grace leaving Rainier and Monaco, converting to Anglican, to marry Charles. It's ridiculous of course, but that's the frenzy the press was in.
Harry is going through the frenzy now as his father went through.
OP
OP
WreathOfLaurels
Courtier
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2016
- Messages
- 592
- City
- Wellington
- Country
- New Zealand
I always thought though that the relationship between the Windsors and the Belgian RF was a pretty good one as normally as a rule, the Queen does not attend the funerals or weddings for other monarchies but when King Baudouin passed, she made an exception and attended his funeral. I can understand though a frosty relationship with King Albert of the Belgians as I don't hold an overly high opinion of the man myself.
The Queen did not want to go to Baudouin's funeral and the F/O only got her to agree after it was made clear that all the other reinging monarchs would be attending and that a snub like that would not be easily lived down. The fact that Philip couldn't even be arsed to wear the correct order to the funeral (he wore one that was for the Congo - an easy enough mistake As they have similar names but it still stood out like a sore thumb in he pictures) says it all. The relations between Britain and Belgium need to be good given the traditional U.K. Interest in the low counties on grounds of geopolitics but there is a lot of bad blood between the two RF's over what happens to Leopold 3 in WWII and all the spats and counter spats that followed.
But returning to topic - it did get crazy about Ch in ge 70s and was far worse than what William had to endure. Knowing what we know of Ch now it must have been very tough esp compared to some of his relatives and colleagues on the continent.
Actually no, depending on country precedence can be done on length of reign not rank, so by that logic Rainer could have been allowed to go first on the pudding queue over Elizabeth despite the descripency of rank. Also precedence based on age of the dynasty's possession of the crown can also be the decider and under that system R could have gone ahead over E as well as the Grimamdis have ruled Monaco for longer than the Hannovers/Cobugs/Windsors have reigned in the U.K.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but the Hanoverian Kings had a direct ancestral link from the Stuarts and through them to the Tudors, (Margaret Tudor and James IV of Scotland,) dynasty name changes or no. (The Queen's ancestry has been traced back to the Anglo Saxon kings.)
Blog Real
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 12,624
- City
- Lisboa
- Country
- Portugal
The press also spoke at the time about Amanda Knatchbull, who reportedly turned down a marriage proposal from Prince Charles.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...arles-girlfriend-proposed-royal-house-windsor
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...arles-girlfriend-proposed-royal-house-windsor
Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,267
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
Amanda and Charles always got along very well but there wasn't any "spark" there. They've remained close ever since. I think, really, that the Amanda and Charles duo was a hope of "Uncle Dickie" Mountbatten. It just didn't pan out though. It wasn't long after Amanda turned down Charles that things started heating up between Charles and Diana at Cowes Week.
I think Camilla has always been The One, but Dickie Mountbatten told Charles:
(1) sow your oats
(2) you have got to pick a virgin
(3) she needs to be aristocratic (and also he wanted Amanda)
Camilla was
(1) fun to sow oats with
(2) not a virgin
(3) not aristocratic
I think any discussion of other possibilities for Charles needs to include why Camilla wasn’t considered suitable. And she knew that she wasn’t suitable *at the time*, which is why she married Andrew PB.
Insisting on virginity meant someone young, naive, and unprepared (a recipe for disaster). Insisting on aristocracy was supposed to mean someone who understood what the future *marriage* would look like — a solid public marriage, with an understanding that there are private needs. Charles would be married to Diana, who was assumed to understand their marriage was mostly public and that there would (eventually) be lovers for each.
Charles came of age in a time of great social change and the insistence of Mountbatten (a modernizer!) and others that Charles stick to the old rules and marry a virginal aristocrat directly led to Diana’s unhappiness and death, which then led to Harry’s wrenching and dramatic self-ejection from his family.
What might the monarchy look like if Charles did not need to marry a virgin?
(1) sow your oats
(2) you have got to pick a virgin
(3) she needs to be aristocratic (and also he wanted Amanda)
Camilla was
(1) fun to sow oats with
(2) not a virgin
(3) not aristocratic
I think any discussion of other possibilities for Charles needs to include why Camilla wasn’t considered suitable. And she knew that she wasn’t suitable *at the time*, which is why she married Andrew PB.
Insisting on virginity meant someone young, naive, and unprepared (a recipe for disaster). Insisting on aristocracy was supposed to mean someone who understood what the future *marriage* would look like — a solid public marriage, with an understanding that there are private needs. Charles would be married to Diana, who was assumed to understand their marriage was mostly public and that there would (eventually) be lovers for each.
Charles came of age in a time of great social change and the insistence of Mountbatten (a modernizer!) and others that Charles stick to the old rules and marry a virginal aristocrat directly led to Diana’s unhappiness and death, which then led to Harry’s wrenching and dramatic self-ejection from his family.
What might the monarchy look like if Charles did not need to marry a virgin?
CyrilVladisla
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 12,111
- City
- Conneaut
- Country
- United States
What if Prince Charles had married a widowed young lady?
it didnt necessarily lead to all that. Diana was unfortunatly not just young but very fragile.. Harry's departure from the RF is due to his own decision, nothing to do with his fahter's marriage.
I dont think that the RF expected Charles to make a cynical marriage for public consumption.. just that he took care to select a bride who was well born, who knew about royal life, and who was aware that the marriage had to last so that if it DID go wrong, they would hanlde it discreetly rather than go for a divorce. Charles did try and find a girl who shared his interests and who was from a couriters family, but perhaps because he had left things a bit late, he ended up rushing it and marrying a girl he didn't know very well
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2014
- Messages
- 13,235
- City
- City
- Country
- Netherlands
Camilla's mother was the Honourable Rosalind Maud Cubitt.
Camilla's maternal grandfather was Roland Calvert Cubitt, 3rd Baron Ashcombe.
Camilla's maternal grandmother was the Honourable Sonia Rosemary Keppel (granddaughter of the 7th Earl of Albemarle and the 4th Baronet Edmonstone).
Camilla herself may not have the predicate of Honourable or Lady, she is not from the street. Together with Lady Diana she shares Louise Renée de Penancoët, Duchess of Portsmouth and Aubigny and King Charles II as ancestors - via the Gordon-Lennoxes (Dukes of Richmond), married into the Earls Spencer (Diana) and married into the Earls of Albemarle (Camilla).
If the dot comes to the i, the unmarried Camilla would have been acceptable, also in 1981: Antony Armstrong-Jones was acceptable, Mark Phillips was acceptable, Sarah Ferguson was acceptable, Sophie Rhys-Jones was acceptable.
Last edited:
As always, plenty of German Protestant princesses he could have chosen. Is a foreign queen consort unacceptable in the United Kingdom these days?
It was not so much a question of tradition, but of law. The Royal Marriages Act required that Ernst August received the Queen's permission to marry for the marriage to be considered legal in the UK. E-A at time would be excluded anyway from the succession for marrying a Catholic, but his children would not if they were legitimate and baptized and raised as Protestants, which I believe is the case at least for his sons, who are members of Evagelical Lutheran Church of Hanover.
Although there is no chance of the Hanovers ever succeeding to the British throne, I believe that, for some reason, remaining in the line of succession matters to them, not least to stress their descent from former British sovereigns, which is why they have always made a point of complying with the Royal Marriages Act. Since the Royal Marriages Act was, however, repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, they don't have to worry about that anymore. BTW, the Succession to the Crown Act also restored E-A's position in the line of succession.
Last edited:
He was not going ot marry a foreign princess, unless he had fallen madly in love with her.. and that wasn't all that likely. the RF has married into the British aristocracy since the 1920s why would they change in the 1980s
how on earth can anyone know? He could marry anyone he liked, in theory, as long as she was a Protestant.
Moonmaiden23
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,465
- City
- Los Angeles
- Country
- United States
Camilla Shand was truly madly deeply in love with Andrew Parker Bowles when she married him. She liked Charles but there is no evidence that she started pining away for him until her own marriage to APB began to go sour due to Andrew's chronic infidelity.
Camilla might always have been The One for Charles, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
Camilla might always have been The One for Charles, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 6,728
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States
While I am aware that Prince Charles's first marriage grew unhappy, I have not heard of another proposed marriage (to Camilla Shand or anyone else) being vetoed because the would-be bride was a commoner or not a virgin. Is that information based on a reliable source?
In my opinion, Charles couldn't marry Camilla because she was already married by the time he realized Camilla was the one. Even today, bigamy is against the law. It had nothing to do with her sexual history. It was the 1980's, not the 1880's. Most of the many women Charles dated were undoubtedly not virgins.
It's never been clear to me that Charles was actually being forced to marry a virgin, beyond his uncle's misogynistic advice and attitude. I'm not even sure the RF knew in advance that Diana's father was going to alert the press about his daughter's absence of sexual partners. Or how her father would even know she was a virgin.
It's never been clear to me that Charles was actually being forced to marry a virgin, beyond his uncle's misogynistic advice and attitude. I'm not even sure the RF knew in advance that Diana's father was going to alert the press about his daughter's absence of sexual partners. Or how her father would even know she was a virgin.
Alison H
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,767
- City
- Manchester
- Country
- United Kingdom
I think there were concerns than an ex-boyfriend might sell stories to the press. This did actually happen with Davina Sheffield - her former boyfriend told the press that they'd lived together. He didn't go into detail, but it was all rather awkward and embarrassing.
Charles couldn't marry Camilla because, at the time, she chose someone else over him. Charles went abroad, before marriage had even been mentioned. Whilst he was away, Camilla got engaged to Andrew Parker Bowles, whom she'd been dating on and off for a while. It never got to the point where Charles asked the Queen, Lord Mountbatten or anyone else if it would be OK for him to marry Camilla.
Charles couldn't marry Camilla because, at the time, she chose someone else over him. Charles went abroad, before marriage had even been mentioned. Whilst he was away, Camilla got engaged to Andrew Parker Bowles, whom she'd been dating on and off for a while. It never got to the point where Charles asked the Queen, Lord Mountbatten or anyone else if it would be OK for him to marry Camilla.
Marrying someone who was already married at the time of course would be unlawful and, therefore, impossible, and that was the main problem with Camilla. Other than that, I doubt the Queen would forbid Charles from marrying whoever he wanted as long as the chosen bride was minimally suitable (e.g. was not a known drug addict or convicted criminal) and was not otherwise divorced and/or had children of her own.
Although Charles later married Camilla exactly under those latter circumstances, I don't think the Royal Family would be ready for a marriage of the heir apparent to a divorcee in 1981.
Although Charles later married Camilla exactly under those latter circumstances, I don't think the Royal Family would be ready for a marriage of the heir apparent to a divorcee in 1981.
Last edited:
I think there is another possibility. Charles and Camilla knew they could not get married from the moment they met for two reasons: First, at the time there was still a virgin requirement (in part because of stories from ex boyfriends being unseemly for a future Queen). Camilla was likely not a virgin when she met Charles.
Second, she was not considered aristocratic enough to marry a future King. Queen Mary was born a Princess. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was born a commoner and then part of the aristocracy at a time when future kings were supposed to marry other royals, but she did not marry someone who was expected to be King. She was acceptable for Bertie, who was never supposed to be crowned. Her merely being part of the aristocracy (and not royal) was new for a British consort. Queen Elizabeth married someone born a Prince. When it came time for Charles to marry, I believe he was expected to marry a royal or someone higher in the aristocracy than Camilla Shand.
Thus they both knew she was “unsuitable” from the start.
But they clicked. Can you imagine meeting someone, clicking, knowing you cannot be with them, and yet falling in love anyway?
She was also interested in Andrew PB and married him for several reasons, including trying to move on a build a life because she knew she and Charles would not be allowed to marry. She married Andrew, tried to move on, and set a tone that Charles should as well.
So Charles did his duty and married an higher-level aristocratic girl, since aristocrats “knew the rules” — that marriages at that level were more about marrying the “right” person from a public perspective. There would be a public marriage and private pleasure, as that had been common in those circles for a very long time.
When Charles and Camilla reconnected, they were still operating under those unspoken rules. Since they could not have married each other, Charles had the public marriage as expected, and saw Camilla for private pleasure. There are many examples of this in royal and aristocratic circles throughout history.
Diana, however, was a romantic and idealist and of a different generation. She did not understand that Charles and Camilla were operating under established, unspoken rules. It went so poorly for everyone that it continues to negatively affect each and every day for the British Royals (see recent Harry comments, his coming book, etc.).
Had there been a previous aristocratic marriage of someone Shand-level to a future king, it would have been much easier. But previous kings had only married royals, with the exception of Bertie, who was not meant to be king.
Charles and the Queen eventually figured out that they needed to change things going forward, and now we have our first future Queen, Catherine, who was a commoner. In addition, Prince Harry had even more latitude than William and was able to marry an American divorcee, succeeding where Edward could not, three generations prior.
Had Camilla Shand been considered suitable at the start, things may have looked startlingly different.
Second, she was not considered aristocratic enough to marry a future King. Queen Mary was born a Princess. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was born a commoner and then part of the aristocracy at a time when future kings were supposed to marry other royals, but she did not marry someone who was expected to be King. She was acceptable for Bertie, who was never supposed to be crowned. Her merely being part of the aristocracy (and not royal) was new for a British consort. Queen Elizabeth married someone born a Prince. When it came time for Charles to marry, I believe he was expected to marry a royal or someone higher in the aristocracy than Camilla Shand.
Thus they both knew she was “unsuitable” from the start.
But they clicked. Can you imagine meeting someone, clicking, knowing you cannot be with them, and yet falling in love anyway?
She was also interested in Andrew PB and married him for several reasons, including trying to move on a build a life because she knew she and Charles would not be allowed to marry. She married Andrew, tried to move on, and set a tone that Charles should as well.
So Charles did his duty and married an higher-level aristocratic girl, since aristocrats “knew the rules” — that marriages at that level were more about marrying the “right” person from a public perspective. There would be a public marriage and private pleasure, as that had been common in those circles for a very long time.
When Charles and Camilla reconnected, they were still operating under those unspoken rules. Since they could not have married each other, Charles had the public marriage as expected, and saw Camilla for private pleasure. There are many examples of this in royal and aristocratic circles throughout history.
Diana, however, was a romantic and idealist and of a different generation. She did not understand that Charles and Camilla were operating under established, unspoken rules. It went so poorly for everyone that it continues to negatively affect each and every day for the British Royals (see recent Harry comments, his coming book, etc.).
Had there been a previous aristocratic marriage of someone Shand-level to a future king, it would have been much easier. But previous kings had only married royals, with the exception of Bertie, who was not meant to be king.
Charles and the Queen eventually figured out that they needed to change things going forward, and now we have our first future Queen, Catherine, who was a commoner. In addition, Prince Harry had even more latitude than William and was able to marry an American divorcee, succeeding where Edward could not, three generations prior.
Had Camilla Shand been considered suitable at the start, things may have looked startlingly different.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 27,104
- City
- São Paulo
- Country
- Brazil
As the queen allowed her daughter to marry Mr. Mark Philips and she allowed her sister to marry a Mr. Armstrong-Jones, I am not sure the royal/aristocratic birth was needed for the wife of the Prince of Wales. The Queen never seemed to be particulary narrow-minded on that account but remarkably modern for the time, at least from a continental perspective. Her sister was the first royal from a European royal family that married a non-noble commoner ánd retained her succession rights in a while. The British RF was more liberal in that aspect than other royal families, though I am not sure if Pss Patricia of Connaught retained her succession rights or not.
A bride from the upper classes was expected perhaps, which the Duchess of Cornwall is. And in the end Diana was the daughter of a relatively recent (15th century) and modest noble family, while Diana's mother's family was only ennobled in the 19th century - like the family of Camilla's mother.
As for the 'virginity' requirement. Is that a real thing or something that just gets repeated over and over again & becomes a truth on its own? Do you know what the source for that assumption is? Though it may very well be a correct one of course.
A bride from the upper classes was expected perhaps, which the Duchess of Cornwall is. And in the end Diana was the daughter of a relatively recent (15th century) and modest noble family, while Diana's mother's family was only ennobled in the 19th century - like the family of Camilla's mother.
As for the 'virginity' requirement. Is that a real thing or something that just gets repeated over and over again & becomes a truth on its own? Do you know what the source for that assumption is? Though it may very well be a correct one of course.
Last edited:
Some English kings like Henry VIII and James II had married commoners before. To be honest, the requirement of "equal" royal marriages was a German custom more so than an English one. I am not sure for example that Edward VIII would have married a European princess if he hadn't married Wallis given how the British Royal Family distanced themselves from continental European royals following World War I. King George VI and the Queen Mother allegedly favored Princess Elizabeth marrying a British peer instead and were not particularly fond of her match with Prince Philip although Philip was related to several European royal houses and had impeccable royal credentials.
Furthermore, although Diana, as the daughter of an earl, had a higher social standing than Camilla, I don't see them as being radically different from each other in terms of family background once the requirement of an equal marriage to another royal is dropped.
Last edited:
Hallo girl
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,182
- City
- Scotland
- Country
- United Kingdom
I think it is more the fear of an old boyfriend telling tales , causing red faces rather than a truly innocent bride.
How anybody could truly know other than an ex partner defeats me. I
I agree, but it did happen that at least one boyfriend talked to the papers so I think that because of hte fear of that, Charles and the RF were wary if a girl was known within his own circles to have had a lot of partners. But I think that when Charles was invovled iwht Camilla, he was in love but she was not really committed that deeply. She loved him but she was more in love with Andrew PB and she did not want to marry Charles. Besides, Charles was quite young then and might have felt that he loved Camilla but he was a bit young to get married, so he wasn't sure what he wanted to do. I think if the 2 of them had been deeply in love and willing to wait several years, as Harald of Norway did with his wife, the RF would have come around in time, as social mores changed and became more liberal. If they had been dating for several years, and it seemed like both of them wanted ot marry each other and noone else, by the later 70s, the queen would have felt that she would have to give permission and that it was not likely to result in embarrassing stories because by now "everyone was doing it" . However, Camilla wasn't really willing to wait because she wasn't that keen on a royal marriage and she was in love with Andrew who was fond of her and willing to marry her though he was never welling to settle down. It was a case that Cam was the right woman for Chales but not at the right time.
Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 6,728
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States
Is there a reliable source for the widespread assumption that Camilla Shand was (for one reason or another) considered controversial as a potential bride in the 1970s by either the royal family or by the British public? Or is that simply an assumption made by commentators?
Moved here:
Moved here:
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
