Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It is well know that C&C regularly hold weekends at Sandringham, amongst other country homes, for people from the arts and literary world. Jeremy Paxman and Stephen Fry have commented about these in the past.

Cool! That's what I mean - fun stuff like that! Interesting weekends with interesting people. But I think I understand - we don't know about them per se because they are not 'advertised' since they are considered 'private'. I think I am starting to understand. Monarchy is 'on view' only at official engagements and that includes all the charity stuff. Its like the charity stuff is in lieu of 'court'.

But then, what about the 'presentation at court' that the Queen discontinued in the late 50's? The phrase says 'at court' - so where was the court? Where the Queen happens to be? Why did she do that BTW - stop the presentations?
 
Last edited:
[The Queen] is amazing coming out to us in Australia with prince Phillip at their age. Wonderful to see. Can't remember when Charles was last here and camillia has never been ( doesn't like the heat?? )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tyger, I think (not certain) that the now defunct "presentation at court" was an annual debutante ball.

The Court of St. James's is named after St. James's Palace, which is the senior palace of the sovereign. It is still the official residence of the British Monarchy. Although St James's Palace is the official residence of the Sovereign, the Court moves with the Queen. Buckingham Palace is the London home of the Queen.
 
She is amazing coming out to us in Australia with prince Phillip at their age. Wonderful to see. Can't remember when Charles was last here and camillia has never been ( doesn't like the heat?? )

Short memory? Charles was last in Australia in March 2005, a few weeks before his wedding to Camilla. He got quite respectable crowds, including a very large one at the Sydney Opera house with people hanging over the edge to see him. British royals need an invitation from the Australian government to visit, they don't just 'arrive'. Even William had to ask for an invitation to come to Australia in 2010, then prime minister Kevin Rudd (a noted republican) made a point of announcing that William asked for an invitation and that's why he was coming, the government didn't just decide to issue one to him.

The Queen isn't 'coming to visit us', she coming to Australia as Perth is the venue for the next Commonwealth Heads of government meeting, and the Queen is coming as the Head of that association. (If it weren't for CHOGM it would be debatable whether or not she would have ever made another trip, her last one to Australia was in 2006) It's a long way to come for 2 days so her trip was extended (with suitable rest periods) and she's in Australia for a decent amount of time. (Keeping in mind both hers and Prince Philip's ages)

Charles (and Camilla) make 2 official trips abroad a year, (as does the Queen and Prince Philip) it's the UK Foreign Office who decide where they go. It's not just a matter of 'Let's go to Australia" or "send us an invitation" these trips are planned years in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So 6 years ago and do you really think the government said let's not ask Charles we will ask Will instead a week before his wedding.

Charles will one day be king of Australia and as everyone says camillia will be Queen so maybe they should "ask" to come. William is 'only" the heir to the heir as we hear all the time but he was moved enough to ask to come and see the people that had suffered that wasn't planned years in advanced

Anyway we better not talk about that anymore or will be deleted for being off topic as this one us only about CC marriage and sadly I started it by saying how amazing the Queen is for her age and flying out to us so maybe that's for another thread or I'll be in trouble
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:
I guess it's a toss-up between being deliberately argumentative and taking the thread off-topic.
I would seriously suggest you don't push it. :)
. . . . .

While the institution of 'Royal Courts' has largely disappeared the practice of wealthy couples and individuals hosting private luncheons, dinners and weekends in the country certainly hasn't. I'd imagine the Prince of Wales would host many such gatherings of friends, interesting people, and those in positions of power and influence. Unfortunately for us it's all done rather discreetly and only occasionally do we get clues (eg, Stephen Fry talking about his friendship with the Prince, and Joan Rivers popping up - who'd have thought it? :D). Possibly for security reasons we don't hear or see much about Highgrove these days but Charles did create a large pavilion where he could host his gatherings and no doubt it's being used.
 
A few needlessly argumentative posts have been removed as they added nothing of substance to the discussion. As a result, members' replies to those posts no longer have context and have also been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator
 
Charles will one day be king of Australia and as everyone says camillia will be Queen so maybe they should "ask" to come. William is 'only" the heir to the heir as we hear all the time but he was moved enough to ask to come and see the people that had suffered that wasn't planned years in advanced.
Those are the key words in this. Charles and Camilla's calandars are planned over a year in advance and William just took (I am guessing) Leave Without Pay to enable him to fit in the visit to Australia and New Zealand's natural disasters.

Distasters, as you obviously realise, are not planned in advance!
 
Thank you all those who answered my questions about 'the court'. That was informative. Thank you. :flowers: (I really should read up on these things!)
 
Thank you all those who answered my questions about 'the court'. That was informative. Thank you. :flowers: (I really should read up on these things!)

Where is Diarist when we need her? :D I have NO clue.
 
Those are the key words in this. Charles and Camilla's calandars are planned over a year in advance and William just took (I am guessing) Leave Without Pay to enable him to fit in the visit to Australia and New Zealand's natural disasters.

Distasters, as you obviously realise, are not planned in advance!

William, as I understand it, had to put in a specific request to the British government that he would like to go. The British government then talked to the Australian government which then issued the invitation to William. Its not a case of "I want to go and see" but the ok has to be given by both sides as he IS a major royal. As we all know, William is a search and rescue pilot by trade and the work the search and rescue missions did during this disaster were of interest. I'm not saying that's his sole reason for wanting to go but I can understand very much why he wanted to go.

Remember too that with the shifts that William does work, its very easy for him to schedule days so he can do what he does. Two 24 hour shifts a week would be over a normal 40 hour work week for most people. On duty for a shift doesn't necessarily mean rescuing all the time but also doing maintenance and making sure supplies are at the ready and that the craft you fly is in perfect working order. They can and do sleep "on station" but they're prepared to fly at a moments notice.

Along these same lines when we think about it. Perhaps this is why HM's visit to the Republic of Ireland was so monumental. They invited and she accepted. In William's case he expressed the desire to visit and it was done via the proper channels.
 
:previous: My apologies for going off topic there but it does kind of illustrate how sometimes things happen and events happen that were unplanned.

If we think back about Charles and Camilla's engagements (to bring this back on topic), all I have to remember is recently when Ali..err Camilla fell down the rabbit hole. The events they were slated to attend during this time afforded us a few pictures that we probably never would have seen otherwise. Charles pushing Camilla in a wheelchair, her on crutches and her on a scooter and forget what else.

Its what the Firm does and I do agree its booked a long time in advance. To be honest, I don't think I've ever heard of a royal engagement going badly. If one has been cancelled, there's usually a good reason behind it.
 
I don't have selective memory thank you very much.

I have always seen Camilla as the rigth woman for Charles and certainly since 2005 - and this thread has nothing to do with anything before that date.

Since 2005 she has been the perfect consort to the heir to the throne and it is great to see him getting that support from his wife.
 
Iluvbertie said:
I don't have selective memory thank you very much.

I have always seen Camilla as the rigth woman for Charles and certainly since 2005 - and this thread has nothing to do with anything before that date.

Since 2005 she has been the perfect consort to the heir to the throne and it is great to see him getting that support from his wife.

What do you base your "perfect" on ? that's a pretty big call. You say he is getting support from her in what way? Does he support her?
 
Charles and Camilla both seem genuinely happy, content and secure as each other's spouses. It is never talked about what the women, Camilla and Kate, receive from their respective partners, but that doesn't mean they don't find fulfillment in them. Perhaps from Charles, Camilla finds support, a genuine love, a life where she is more than a housewife (which seems to be what she was raised to be), and a friend as well as lover.
 
She is discreet, clearly helps him in his public role, plays hostess for him when required, appears groomed for public occasions, is friendly when out and about etc. She doesn't seek the limelight or to overshadow him - after all he is the heir to the throne not her.

He obviously supports her as well - have a look at the images of him pushing her in the wheelchair last year, helping her physically as well as emotionally, letting her have the time she needs to be with her own family, including her family with his etc.
 
So she does what's expected of her position nothing more
 
I really like this quote from the Prince of Wales (2010)

"Having somebody who obviously supports you and is on your side and understands is hugely valuable. And anybody who has that knows only too well it makes the whole difference. She's my eyes and ears as well.":wub:
 
Last edited:
I pretty much agree with what everyone has said about Charles, but remember it was a dfferent time, you didn't dis-obey the Queen, either on of them, in his time and he was raise to think of the "firm" first. I do think he treated Diana bad but I also think she treated him bad, it was a classic example of two people who weren't honest in the beginning and they both paid for it. I think they both were after something that wasn't real. Daina wanted to be Princess of Wales and Charles wanted someone who would be moldable(?) and young. How else was he going to find a virgin????? It is too bad Daina died before they could work out a friendship.
On Camilla, I understand she wanted to be like her Great grandmother and be the mistress to the Prince of Wales, no matter what and I also hear that Andrew was never faithful to Camilla anyways. It is a big mess no matter who tries to unravel it and no one was a winner in this one.

This is very well put.

The current state of their marriage is - status quo - in certain respects. Charles has always held the power situation in this relationship; most affairs are more about power and less about sex, yet marriages tend to find a power equilibrium. Even after their marriage, Camilla holds the current wealth, power and position due solely by the grace of Charles. She must dance to Charles' tune, probably more so than during the very brief time that she was single, after Andrew divorced her.

While her divorce settlement from Andrew was in keeping with Andrew's position as a miliary man of moderate means, Camilla was at that time the recipient of a settlement from Charles that made her independent for the first and only time in her life.

Camilla certainly bettered her financial situation by marrying Charles, and the financial situation of her children. (It's wildly disingenous to suggest that Camilla was blind to the monetary advantages of such a match.) But I think that even she knows that it's an unequal equation. An unequal marriage, right down to the titles.

It's a bargain that needs to be kept, however, in this case; the bargains that were broken to get here demand it to be so.
 
The current state of their marriage is - status quo - in certain respects. Charles has always held the power situation in this relationship; most affairs are more about power and less about sex, yet marriages tend to find a power equilibrium. Even after their marriage, Camilla holds the current wealth, power and position due solely by the grace of Charles. She must dance to Charles' tune, probably more so than during the very brief time that she was single, after Andrew divorced her.

Hmmm.....you are convinced of your point of view. I won't be changing it, or trying to, but just to say, as a woman who has heard the skinny from friends who have engaged in affairs - of many 'kinds' - I would say affairs are more about sex and lust - as much as opportunity - and sometimes love, believe it or not, and loneliness - than power. From the 'outside' they may seem to be about power but not from the inside perspective. Again, it all depends on the who and where and when. No generalities possible.

When a man lusts and loves, too, its the woman who holds the power position.

Any 'tune' Camilla must 'dance' to is more likely to do with the role she agreed to take on as the Duchess of Cornwall and The Princess of Wales and eventual Queen Consort. It has to do with the constraints of 'the firm' and nothing to do with Charles being a dictator. I suspect Camilla would 'walk' if the marriage were not to her liking, regardless of the past - which says to me its going along fine. Charles owes her a lot and I think he is grateful - not a tyrant. I doubt Camilla would have married Charles if she didn't love him and he her and they both had not talked it out at great length, possibly even with the Queen. If anything, I think Camilla is someone who loves her country and respects the monarchy - her discretion is proof of that - and given what she has been willing to take on. No amount of money is worth the loss of privacy and disruption of personal life Camilla has taken on. A younger woman might be seduced by the perceived 'glamour' but not someone of her age and habits IMO.

Given how Camilla is, its quite possible she could have remarried someone other than Charles (she seems to be very attractive to men even at her age) - and been less encumbered with Royal trappings and duties. Unlike Charles' first wife, I don't think - given what I have heard about Camilla - that she viewed marriage to Charles as 'the brass ring' - which is precisely why she was so suitable for him. She married for him not for his position or money.
 
Last edited:
She got a settlement from Charles? You mean a financial settlement? I know that he gave her jewelry over the years, but the suggestion here is that he gave her a large sum of money.

While her divorce settlement from Andrew was in keeping with Andrew's position as a miliary man of moderate means, Camilla was at that time the recipient of a settlement from Charles that made her independent for the first and only time in her life.
 
When a man lusts and loves, too, its the woman who holds the power position.

Any 'tune' Camilla must 'dance' to is more likely to do with the role she agreed to take on as the Duchess of Cornwall and The Princess of Wales and eventual Queen Consort - it has to do with the constraints of 'the firm' and nothing to do with Charles being a dictator - I suspect Camilla would walk if the marriage were not to her liking, regardless of the past - which says to me its going along fine. I doubt Camilla would have married Charles if she didn't love him and he her and they both had not talked it out at great length, possibly even with the Queen.

Given how Camilla is, its quite possible she could have remarried someone other than Charles (she seems to be very attractive to men even at her age) - and been less encumbered with Royal trappings and duties. Unlike Charles' first wife, I don't think - given what I have heard about Camilla - that she viewed marriage to Charles as 'the brass ring' - which is precisely why she was so suitable for him. She married for him not for his position or money.
I totally agree with that. The idea of Camilla dancing to Charles tunes seems totally out of her character to me. Imho she loves him and the lifestyle she lives now is a burden she carries because of this love. I've never seen any evidence that Camilla aspired a public role or excessive wealth. On her own, she would fare well, living a ather modest, but still rather opulent lifestyle on the countryside with her own big family, her exhusband financially caring for her. (Again imho) the fact that Charles spend alot of money to give her a splendid lifestyle in the years before the marriage has much more to do with his liking than with hers.
 
:previous:

So true.

Camilla was very happy in the background being a helper and supporter and would have been very happy to remain in that role. She accepted the invite to become a public figure out of love for Charles and for no other reason.
 
:previous:Bertie, at last we agree on something. :D
However, you said it much better than I! :flowers:
 
But then, what about the 'presentation at court' that the Queen discontinued in the late 50's? The phrase says 'at court' - so where was the court? Where the Queen happens to be? Why did she do that BTW - stop the presentations?

There was a very interesting exhibit at Kensington Palace that delved into this.
Originally these presentations were rather limited and fairly modest: an older woman who was a former debutante presented a young woman to the Queen ( the girl was supposed to be a relative or a goddaughter).

However, the presentations became so popular that some of these chaperones were accepting money to sponsor young women who were not in any way connected with the sponsor. There were long lines to be presented, and eventually rather large sums of money changed hands. It smacked of bribery and was causing criticism.

The Queen did not discontinue the presentations because they were no longer popular, but because they became excessively so.
She substituted the less-formal garden parties instead.

Sorry for the digression.
 
Camilla certainly bettered her financial situation by marrying Charles
It's somewhat self-evident that marrying into wealth will make a person better off financially.
Perhaps you could give an example of a spouse of a British heir/heiress to the throne who didn't "better their financial situation" by such marriage.
 
It's somewhat self-evident that marrying into wealth will make a person better off financially.
Perhaps you could give an example of a spouse of a British heir/heiress to the throne who didn't "better their financial situation" by such marriage.

Wouldn't that be off-topic? I know you and the other mods spent many an hour mopping up here.
 
Wouldn't that be off-topic? I know you and the other mods spent many an hour mopping up here.

No. Not off-topic. The thread is about the marriage - someone suggested that in marrying Charles, Camilla was improving her financial status - possibly suggesting that that would be a reason why Camilla would marry Charles - for money, an improved financial status.

The poster is simply saying that 'improving one's financial status' is a given if one marries into the royal family - so why would it be an 'issue' for comment regarding Camilla - making her motives suspect and venal - when for every other spouse who has married into the royal family its about being in love and idealistic and all of that.
 
Kate's financial situation was bettered when she married William, Sophie's situation bettered when she married Edward, heck Philip's financial situation improved when he married Elizabeth. Just because there is some financial gain doesn't necessarily mean that was the only reason for the marriage.
 
Maybe not the only reason. But it is a nice added bonus and could tip the scales depending on the person
 
Back
Top Bottom