Title for Camilla

[sara1981]

Originally posted by wymanda+May 29th, 2004 - 10:57 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wymanda @ May 29th, 2004 - 10:57 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by sara1981@May 29th, 2004 - 10:10 pm

Originally posted by wymanda@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 am
<!--QuoteBegin-carlota

@May 29th, 2004 - 5:29 pm
poor camilla! you are being so rude with her.
she really loves charles... maybe she deserves an opportunity.

I agree; and if she marries Charles the title of Princess of Wales is her's by right. Diana was not the first Priness of Wales and she certainly wont be the last. She wasted her opportunity in the job and now it is someone elses chance to have a go.

CAMILLA FOR PRINCESS OF WALES B) B) B)

i disagree, wymanda!

Camilla cant become Princess of Wales because many people would hurt feelings of famous Diana,Princess of Wales following British law!

Sara Boyce

Sara,

Read my lips "DIANA IS DEAD"

Her feelings can't be hurt.

As I said she was not the first Princess of Wales and she won't be the last. [/b][/quote]
i can understood, wymanda! im not stupid! im not baby!

Sara Boyce

 

[Elspeth]

I think people are just going to have to agree to disagree about this. It won't really affect what happens anyway, because in the last analysis the Establishment (senior civil servants, senior churchmen, and senior members of the royal household) are going to do what they think will best protect the country and the institution of monarchy. They did it with Edward VIII, and I assume they'll do it with Charles, whether that involves puting obstacles in the way of his marriage, forcing a morganatic marriage like Edward had (even though he couldn't have it while he was king - it was still a morganatic marriage), or letting her become Princess of Wales and Queen. The only difference is that Charles is likely to be pretty old by the time he becomes king and he already has a popular young heir, so what happens to Mrs Parker Bowles really won't be that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. It's not as if she could have a child whose position in the succession would be relevant anyway, and that'd be the big deal in the longer term.

As it stands, though, it isn't clear that Charles would be able to marry her if it was shown that he was a factor in the breakup of her marriage. That's such a subjective thing, though, and not just in this particular case, that the CofE might be better off using more clear-cut guidelines. If the Establishment thought that a marriage and the subsequent difficulty about her status was going to be unpopular enough to put the monarchy at risk, they'd probably put pressure on senior clergy to not allow the marriage on those grounds. Whether the archbishop would be prepared to crown Charles while he was in an adulterous relationship is another matter, of course. Never stopped archbishops in the past, but things are different these days, what with everybody knowing details that even 50 years ago were only known by a select few but weren't mentioned to the rest of us.

I hope that these decisions are made with a view to the future and not held hostage to Diana's image. Diana is part of the past now; William is the future, Diana isn't.

 

[Julian]

I hope that these decisions are made with a view to the future and not held hostage to Diana's image. Diana is part of the past now; William is the future, Diana isn't.

This is false since obviously you cannot separate people and events into past/present/future so easily. No one does, no matter what their views. Why is Diana even appearing in a thread about Mrs PB's possible future title if she's only part of the past? Obviously because she was vocal in saying that she held this woman responsible for the breakup of her marriage. The Church cannot get around that, you can't get around that. She had evidence from the minute of her honeymoon about the facts of that assertion too.

William is the future? Future what? More like future bone of contention since he is the son of both these parties and both want to see him as the fulfillment of their side of an argument/vision/mindset/attitude about monarchy, the past and the future and who was in the right about what. Everyone looks to William for VINDICATION in the future.

 

[Elspeth]

Why is Diana even appearing in a thread about Mrs PB's possible future title if she's only part of the past? Obviously because she was vocal in saying that she held this woman responsible for the breakup of her marriage. The Church cannot get around that, you can't get around that.

Of course the church can get around that. Diana's dead; whether Mrs Parker Bowles played a part in the breakup of her marriage is irrelevant to whether Charles can marry her, because he doesn't have an ex-spouse living. He can marry anybody who's legally able to get married. If he and Camilla were both divorced with ex-spouses living, then Diana would be relevant. As far as Charles's remarriage situation is concerned now, legally at any rate, she isn't. The church-related obstacle to Charles and Camilla marrying would be whether Charles was a factor in the breakup of Camilla's marriage, not whether she was a factor in the breakup of his marriage. If her ex-husband died, there'd be no church-related obstacle for either of them. The breakup of Charles's marriage is irrelevant to the church because he doesn't have an ex-spouse living.

She had evidence from the minute of her honeymoon about the facts of that assertion too.

What happened before she got married has no legal or theological bearing on the state of her marriage. As long as Charles wasn't married to Camilla when he married Diana, any affair he had with her before his marriage to Diana wasn't relevant to his marriage. As far as who drove whom to adultery and who did it first, I don't suppose any of us will ever know - there are too many conflicting stories out there by too many authors with their own interests firmly at heart.

William is the future? Future what?

Future king, of course. Future British head of state.

More like future bone of contention since he is the son of both these parties and both want to see him as the fulfillment of their side of an argument/vision/mindset/attitude about monarchy, the past and the future and who was in the right about what.

He isn't the son of two parties, he's the son of two people. Both parties may be alive, but only one of the people is. And William seems to be making it fairly clear that he isn't interested in being used as a pawn by different groups of people wishing to rewrite the personal marital history of an incompatible couple in ways favourable to whichever group thinks it has his ear. It appears that he knows that his future as king has more to it than that, even if others can't see past the Charles-Diana affair and are insisting on limiting him to simply being a partisan in the matter of his parents' marriage. It's a shame if people think that's all he's good for; I hope he has the maturity to prove them wrong.

Everyone looks to William for VINDICATION in the future.

He's unlikely to be able to help them, then. He has no more idea when his parents started being unfaithful than you or I do, and it isn't going to be relevant anyway. It's going to be really sad if Diana and Charles partisans are still looking at him as the vindication of their side of events after both his parents are dead and he's king. It isn't that important.

 

[hillary_nugent]

PRINCESS OF WHALES ^___^

 

[Georgia]

Julian, I was not blaming the Princess of Wales for the current state of affairs. I do howver find your personal attack on CPB degrading and insulting. Camilla as supported and been there for Charles for nearly 30 years. During the Camillagate tapes, once you got past the crude references, you had a women completly devoted to this man, listening to him as well as being interested in what he had to say.
In addition Charles has long since hinted that he does not want to be Governor of The Church of England but defender of all faiths.
Tiarapin, doesn't Charles deserve happiness and a women to stand beside him? Many Royal watchers comment on the fact that the Queen has had quite a lonley life and that the only person she can truly trust is Philip. Does her son not derseve this also?
Finnally, no one will ever forget Diana and neither they should. She was an inspirational women but those left behind can not live in her shadow.

 

[Julian]

I was not blaming the Princess of Wales for the current state of affairs.

Then you are a liar because you most certainly were.

I do howver find your personal attack on CPB degrading and insulting.

I really don't give a fig what people of your type think, Georgia. I find your personal attack on the dead to be degrading and insulting. You sound as though you spend the weekend sneaking off to Althorp to go and spit on Diana's grave. .

Camilla as supported and been there for Charles for nearly 30 years.

ROFLMAO! How touching. Yes, she's been there for 30 years, interfering in his marriage and life when it was convenient for her. She already has a title she's earned for her efforts at having her legs high in the air on call for him for 30 years--but you already know what that only title she ever deserves is so I don't need to repeat it to you, do I?

During the Camillagate tapes, once you got past the crude references,

The crude references summarize what your two Idols are all about and always will embody to most people outside of the wackier confines of the internet--two deceitful, lurid and disgusting individuals who without their money and privilege would be nothing but a worthless nobody on the dole and his whore.

In addition Charles has long since hinted that he does not want to be Governor of The Church of England but defender of all faiths.

What Prince Charles "wants" or doesn't want is neither here nor there. He was raised in the full awareness of what his responsibilities and duties to the royal house and the future of the monarchy were. Being the failure he is however he wants to get out of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England because he knows it will cast his own moral deceits into further highlight. I sincerely doubt whether most Anglicans much less people of other faiths want him as their "supreme defender" in any case. The only thing Prince Charles ever has or ever will defend consistently is his own selfish, dishonest life.

 

[Julian]

The breakup of Charles's marriage is irrelevant to the church because he doesn't have an ex-spouse living.

Completely untrue.

The breakup of his marriage and the circumstances and parties involved continue to be relevant no matter who's living or dead. If John Q. and Jim Q. rob Fred J.'s house and make off with Fred's possessions, then Fred dies and the law only catches up with John and Jim after Fred's death, does that mean that John and Jim are any less criminal just because Fred is dead? Obivously not, and the Church considers moral responsibility and the partners in adultery in the same light, especially when the two are asking for (a) the Church to sanction their cohabitation through marriage, (B) validate those past acts even further in the public perception through making one of the two parties the civil head of the church.

As to William, he's not just the son of any two individuals. He's the son of two very different individuals with quite radically different views on life and the world, or obviously there wouldn't be such vehement differences frome each side six years on about that. And it's not going to change either, not even in 30 or 40 years from now. I do think it's interesting however that you inadvertently admit that Prince Charles has never had an honest discussion with his grown sons to this day about the facts of his marriage. That says a lot not only about him but about the true state of his relationship with them. So if you want to focus on what's truly "sad", I suggest you start right there in the present.

 

[Paulina]

Just curious . . . Wasn't the Church of England founded upon the concept of divorce when Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon. He split with Rome and the Pope and wound up beheading and divorcing some more wives, until one outlived him. The dichotemy confuses me, the founding of the English church and the insistence that there is no divorce allowed for the head of the monarchy or remarriage. Is that true for other English couples? They can't remarry in the English Church if they divorced?

 

[Elspeth]

The breakup of his marriage and the circumstances and parties involved continue to be relevant no matter who's living or dead.

Would you like to back that up with a statement from the Church about it? Because the CofE site says:

1.8 Entitlement to marry. Any person of British Nationality who normally resides in England is entitled to marry in his or her Church of England parish church, provided that (1) the other partner is also of British Nationality and also normally resides in England, (2) that there are no legal impediments of the kind described below [Section 6], and (3) that neither of the couple is a divorcee whose previous partner is still living (the Church of England's regulation on this matter is recognised in law [Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, s.8] - see below, section 10.1). This entitlement applies irrespective of whether either of the couple normally attends church and irrespective of whether either of them has been baptised. It also applies irrespective of whether either partner is a member of the Church of England, or of another denomination (or of none) [but see paragraph 10.4 regarding the marriage in church of persons of non-Christian Faiths]. However, the entitlement only applies to the parish church of the person concerned, and does not extend to any other Church of England churches (for which additional requirements must be fulfilled - see Sections 3 & 4). [emphasis added]

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifechanges/index.html
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/papers/mcad.htm

As I said in a previous post, I think that Charles ought to be held to a higher standard by the church because of his position as head of the church when he becomes king. I think the Archbishop would have every right to refuse to crown him if he continues in his present situation, although the present Archbishop probably wouldn't force the issue.

I do think it's interesting however that you inadvertently admit that Prince Charles has never had an honest discussion with his grown sons to this day about the facts of his marriage. That says a lot not only about him but about the true state of his relationship with them.

I'm not just saying that. I'm saying that neither son was around before the marriage and during the honeymoon, neither son was capable of understanding what was going on for several years after their birth, and neither son was an eyewitness of every single thing that happened even when they were old enough to understand. Therefore, most of what they know was told to them by their parents or other partisans on both sides. There's no way for us to know if Charles, Diana, or both had discussed things with their sons honestly or just tried to present their own sides of the problem in order to get the children to side with them against the other parent.

Prince William is going to become the British head of state. He's being trained for it by the Queen, and he's going to have to pay attention to the senior members of the royal household and the government; he isn't going to be able to do anything he wants. The fact that his parents were two very different people is irrelevant. He isn't going to be able to indulge his own feelings - even assuming he has them, which he very well may not - and turn the monarchy into some sort of tribute to Diana.

 

[Elspeth]

Originally posted by Paulina@May 30th, 2004 - 11:23 am
Just curious . . . Wasn't the Church of England founded upon the concept of divorce when Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon. He split with Rome and the Pope and wound up beheading and divorcing some more wives, until one outlived him. The dichotemy confuses me, the founding of the English church and the insistence that there is no divorce allowed for the head of the monarchy or remarriage. Is that true for other English couples? They can't remarry in the English Church if they divorced?

It's been true until recently, and it also applies to the monarch and family. That's why Princess Anne's second marriage was in Scotland, not England.

However, if you look at the second link in my previous post, you'll see that the church is getting a bit less strict about it.

 

[Georgia]

Julian, I find your reply most disturbing. I believe in your haste to embroil yourself in an argument you have completely ignored what I said. I stated clearly that I believe it took two people to destroy their marriage. And no I do not mean Charles and Camilla, I mean Charles and Diana - just to be clear - Julian!
I am amazed that you, like so many other people, believe you knew the real Princess of Wales. The way you speak of her and her personal life are you sure you were not a close friend?!
I did not and do not believe everything the tabloid press write and would never assume to know anyone in the public eye.
Do you not concede that the marriage would have ended without the presence of Camilla or James Hewitt as at the end of the day Charles and Diana were simply not suited to one another?
And as for your unsubstantiated attack on Prince Charles. He does just as much charity work as Diana did and I am sure if he could wear an Armani slip dress he would recieve some credit as well.
Lastly, Julian, if Charles has no say in his own future and he just has to get on with it because of his position look forward to an unhappy King and unstable monarchy. If you wish Charles to lie, cheat and decieve the British public in order to shield the feelings of a woman who is no longer with us then I challenge that you are in fact a very naive boy!

 

[Julian]

Elspeth, how funny you are in your self-refuting arguments that have so far proven not a single thing.

You quote some church passage and then before that admit that the Church won't necessarily follow them IF there is pressure on the Church. But why would there be pressure on the Church if there is no grounds for pressure on the Church? The Church doesn't have to accede to any pressure whatsoever if its rules are clear cut which by your own admission they are not.

I am still waiting a response to my initial point as to why this duo hasn't married if in fact there is no impediment to doing so either in Church law, the opinions of their families or the opinion of the governments concerned?

Nor does obfuscating about what their parents said or didn't say to them TEN YEARS AGO WHEN THEY WERE CHILDREN address the point of why their father has not made a single mention of it in the past six years. They are adults and can handle a truth said to their faces considering all the vileness that their father has connived to spread anyway through his friends/associates/media contacts during this period.

 

[Julian]

I believe in your haste to embroil yourself in an argument you have completely ignored what I said.

Clearly untrue since you posted in haste to me first, I only answered you

I stated clearly that I believe it took two people to destroy their marriage. And no I do not mean Charles and Camilla, I mean Charles and Diana - just to be clear - Julian!

Again you go back to that marriage when it's the possibility of a future marriage that's being discussed. So in fact you continue to lay the problems facing Prince Charles and his mistress at the door of a dead woman. No one is discussing Charles and Diana directly except you, you're obsessed with it.

I am amazed that you, like so many other people, believe you knew the real Princess of Wales. The way you speak of her and her personal life are you sure you were not a close friend?!

Exactly where did I state that? Name the paragraph.

You, on the other hand, have spoken extensively of her private life and motives. All of which clearly is the usual claptrap that women like you pick up from the tabloids.

I did not and do not believe everything the tabloid press write and would never assume to know anyone in the public eye.

You certainly sound as though you do considering evey snide comment you make is just warmed-up tripe that's almost verbatim from tabloid commentary.

Do you not concede that the marriage would have ended without the presence of Camilla or James Hewitt as at the end of the day Charles and Diana were simply not suited to one another?

No, I don't concede any such thing because I'm the one who freely admits I don't know their private lives, only the outward events. You on the other hand are so deluded you not only channel their inner thoughts but also have crystal ball abilities to know about events that never had a chance even to happen.

And as for your unsubstantiated attack on Prince Charles. He does just as much charity work as Diana did and I am sure if he could wear an Armani slip dress he would recieve some credit as well.

There you go again, spitting hatred at the dead in your own self-internalized misogyny. Hope someone doesn't do it to your daughter/sister/mother because that would be a karmic thing you brought on.

Lastly, Julian, if Charles has no say in his own future and he just has to get on with it because of his position look forward to an unhappy King and unstable monarchy. If you wish Charles to lie, cheat and decieve the British public in order to shield the feelings of a woman who is no longer with us then I challenge that you are in fact a very naive boy!

He has to get on with it because supposedly that was what he was trained to do. Unless the public is on Mars they clearly already long since know what Prince Charles and his Whore are all about although you clearly still live on some other planet.

 

[Elspeth]

You quote some church passage and then before that admit that the Church won't necessarily follow them IF there is pressure on the Church. But why would there be pressure on the Church if there is no grounds for pressure on the Church? The Church doesn't have to accede to any pressure whatsoever if its rules are clear cut which by your own admission they are not.

There'd be pressure for the same reason there was in Edward VIII's time. The senior members of the household, civil service, and church will be looking at the longer term than just the particular situation of the current heir. Charles'ss personal happiness might be paramount to him, but it won't count for much as far as the various archbishops and private secretaries are concerned. At present, the only impediment to their marriage as far as the church is concerned is the possibility that Charles was instrumental in the breakup of Camilla's marriage, since she has an ex-spouse living. That would be enough for the church to refuse to marry them, if I'm reading that extract correctly. The issue of whether Camilla was a factor in the breakup of Charles's marriage is not relevant because he doesn't have a spouse living. Your stuff about whether a person committing a crime is still liable after the victim dies is irrelevant to the issue of remarriage after the death of an ex-spouse, as shown quite clearly in the statement from the church.

When the Queen dies, assuming Charles survives her, there'll be another issue as far as the church is concerned, because of his position as head of the church and the fact that the monarch is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The point I was making there is that the Archbishop would be within his rights to refuse to crown Charles even if he doesn't marry Camilla, since he'd be acting in a way disapproved of by the church (living in an adulterous relationship with a divorced woman whose ex-husband is still very much alive). That's where the higher standards come in. If he can't marry Camilla because he contributed to her divorce and her ex-husband is still alive, then he's in the same position that any commoner would be in with a dead ex-wife and a divorced lover.

I am still waiting a response to my initial point as to why this duo hasn't married if in fact there is no impediment to doing so either in Church law, the opinions of their families or the opinion of the governments concerned?

You've just been criticising other people for appearing to know what the royal family is thinking, so I'm not sure why you're asking, since the actual reason why Charles and Camilla haven't married is probably only really known to them. However, there are several possible reasons. One, which I've already mentioned, is that they might not be able to get married in the CofE during Andrew Parker Bowles's lifetime. One is that they might want to avoid the very problems that are the topic of this thread, i.e., that of the titles and duties she would have and the adverse public opinion and divisions that would be caused if she were seen to be trying to take Diana's place or if a morganatic marriage were allowed to King Charles when it was refused to King Edward within living memory. One is that the Queen might have told them that she wouldn't give permission. One is that Charles knows or believes that the Queen Mother would have disapproved and wouldn't have wanted to see him repeat what Edward VIII did. One is that the Establishment might be making difficulties about finances and titles in much the same way that they did with Princess Margaret when she wanted to marry Peter Townsend. One is that Charles really prefers not to be married - it was said by several people when he married that he really preferred his bachelor life and his lady friends but needed to get married to project the correct image and get an heir, neither of which is so necessary now. I suppose it's always possible after all these decades that he's decided he doesn't really love her after all, but I think that possibility would by quite a long way down the list.

Nor does obfuscating about what their parents said or didn't say to them TEN YEARS AGO WHEN THEY WERE CHILDREN address the point of why their father has not made a single mention of it in the past six years.  They are adults and can handle a truth said to their faces considering all the vileness that their father has connived to spread anyway through his friends/associates/media contacts during this period.

How do you know this? Has Prince William said in public that his father's never discussed Diana and their relationship in the last six years? Or where are you getting it from?

 

[tiaraprin]

Originally posted by Georgia@May 30th, 2004 - 8:16 am
Tiarapin, doesn't Charles deserve happiness and a women to stand beside him? Many Royal watchers comment on the fact that the Queen has had quite a lonley life and that the only person she can truly trust is Philip. Does her son not derseve this also?
Finnally, no one will ever forget Diana and neither they should. She was an inspirational women but those left behind can not live in her shadow.

No, he doesn't deserve it--He is a liar and a hypocrite. Defender of all faiths?? Yeah right, he cannot even follow the ten commandments!!

I must agree with Julian that Camilla already has a title--she inherited it from her great-grandmother Alice Keppel--although it must be said in Mrs. Keppel's defense, she had a lot more class!!

And so touching your reference to Diana. Well, at this time, whether the principal parties like it or not, they are forced to live in Diana's shadow because the people won't forget her and will give their love and support to William and Harry--2 more innocent victims of this mess. Look at how Harry is living now--Diana would be horrified if she were here!! The kid has used drugs and he smokes--Diana would be livid!!

 

[tiaraprin]

Julian, I am most impressed with your self-defense!!! BRAVO and very well said!!

Bien fait!! Bien Dicho!!

 

[wymanda]

One is that Charles really prefers not to be married - it was said by several people when he married that he really preferred his bachelor life and his lady friends but needed to get married to project the correct image and get an heir, neither of which is so necessary now.

They do say that when a man marries his mistress he creates a job opportunity!

 

[Julian]

tiaraprin, thank you for your kind words.

 

[Julian]

tiaraprin, thank you for your kind words.

Regarding the Keppels, the present Mrs. PB is descended from a long line of royal prostitutes that began in the Netherlands with William III and his "favourite" who was the original Keppel to migrate to Britain with the court when Dutch Billy usurped his pa-in-law's throne. Interestingly, this particular Keppel was also one who schemed his way into royal favour at the expense of one who genuinely cared for the welfare of the King. This was the Earl of Portland who was an eminent statesman and probably King William's most brilliant advisor. Lord Portland eventually died, some say still devastated at the way he had been displaced. According to some accounts, there was more than a professional relationship between the King and Keppel which you might say had other "pro" aspects to it. No wonder the present PoW might have thought his paramour might look the other way if he also fooled around with the staff...oh well. That original Keppel also received an earldom for his deceitful talents, an earldom which survives to this day although interestingly enough the immediate family have never allowed themselves to be used by St. James palace in the Camilla p.r. campaign, something Charles' staff would no doubt love to be able to use as part of their ongoing spin and give her the "noble" burnish she otherwise lacks.

 

[Elspeth]

No, he doesn't deserve it--He is a liar and a hypocrite.  Defender of all faiths??  Yeah right, he cannot even follow the ten commandments!!

Not many people can. It remains to be seen what the church will decide to do if it comes to the point of a coronation. As far as what he deserves, he'll get what the establishment thinks is the best thing for the establishment, whatever he may or may not prefer.

And so touching your reference to Diana.  Well, at this time, whether the principal parties like it or not, they are forced to live in Diana's shadow because the people won't forget her and will give their love and support to William and Harry--2 more innocent victims of this mess.

I don't think "the people" are so monolithic. Yes, people are sympathetic to the princes for growing up in a broken home, but for a lot of people the sympathy is because the boys were being used as pawns by both parents in their fight with each other. However, speaking as one of "the people," I'm a bit fed up with the whole Saint Diana business. There was fault everywhere in that relationship, and she wasn't without her own share.

Look at how Harry is living now--Diana would be horrified if she were here!! The kid has used drugs and he smokes--Diana would be livid!!

It doesn't sound as though Charles is exactly thrilled about it. In terms of emotional stability, the princes don't have the greatest genes on the Spencer side, for that matter. We have no idea if he'd have gone off the rails if Diana had lived; it depends on a lot of factors.

 

[USCtrojan]

Either way - if she does marry Charles, she will use his title, or will have the right to!

 

[sara1981]

Originally posted by chanel@May 30th, 2004 - 11:22 pm
Either way - if she does marry Charles, she will use his title, or will have the right to!

i would disagree!

if Prince Charles have right or not! if Camilla have right or DONT! following HM Queen's permission!

Sara Boyce

 

[USCtrojan]

Sara I don't think that the Queen will say no!

 

[sara1981]

Originally posted by chanel@May 30th, 2004 - 11:31 pm
Sara I don't think that the Queen will say no!

I AGREE!!!!!!!!!

Sara Boyce

 

[wymanda]

No, he doesn't deserve it--He is a liar and a hypocrite.   Defender of all faiths??   Yeah right, he cannot even follow the ten commandments!

Most people couldnt even tell you what they are let alone follow them!

However, speaking as one of "the people," I'm a bit fed up with the whole Saint Diana business. There was fault everywhere in that relationship, and she wasn't without her own share.

I couldn't agree more! Anyone would think she was the Virgin Mary reincarnated the way these people carry on.

In terms of emotional stability, the princes don't have the greatest genes on the Spencer side, for that matter.

I agree with you there. Diana's grandmother, Countess Spencer was bullied by her husband. Diana's parents marriage failed and "Physical & Emotional Cruelty were sited by Lady Althorp in her claim. The current Earl Spencers first marriage failed and the same grounds were claimed by his wife.

At least, until the present generation, marriages have been made to work in the Royal family. Probably because the parties have been "prepared to make them work" and didn't have to put up with the intrusive scrutiny of the middle classes.

I also fail to see why the British Monarchy should have to hold itself up for the approval of "Middle America" and the inhabitants of the "Bible Belt"!

 

[Julian]

I'm saying that neither son was around before the marriage and during the honeymoon, neither son was capable of understanding what was going on for several years after their birth, and neither son was an eyewitness of every single thing that happened even when they were old enough to understand.

How dishonest can you get. Even though you try to be clever about it.

Your post just shows what most people are aware of: that William was certainly an eyewitness on at least one if not more occasion (judging at least from his own note to his mother), while Harry has certainly formed an opinion much as it may chagrin his control freak father.

Therefore, most of what they know was told to them by their parents or other partisans on both sides. There's no way for us to know if Charles, Diana, or both had discussed things with their sons honestly or just tried to present their own sides of the problem in order to get the children to side with them against the other parent.

That's a self-contradictory statement. Either they know--which seems fairly obvious, through being around first-hand--or they don't. And of course it still obfuscates because it refuses to place primary blame.

Prince William is going to become the British head of state. He's being trained for it by the Queen, and he's going to have to pay attention to the senior members of the royal household and the government; he isn't going to be able to do anything he wants.

LOL!

Why would that be?

His father does anything he wants right now. Always has, always will. No one cares about grey men and courtiers, they're there to implement the perceived desires and personal whims of those they serve (when they're of royal blood -- married-ins get lectured and berated and have their reputations destroyed in society when they turn out to be too uncooperative, e.g., Sarah Ferguson).

The fact that his parents were two very different people is irrelevant.

Really? Well considering the sheer number of times it's probably been written by people of a wide variety of viewpoints that his parents were two very different people (aren't you one of the psychics hereabouts who is always going on about how their marriage was "doomed"?) then it's rather strange you're only now suddenly starting to say it's irrelevant.

He isn't going to be able to indulge his own feelings - even assuming he has them, which he very well may not - and turn the monarchy into some sort of tribute to Diana.

You truly are strange. Who on earth would want him to "turn the monarchy into some sort of tribute to Diana"? He has no need to do that. Her blood runs in his veins. As Mary Queen of Scots said at her death: "In my end is my beginning".

 

[wymanda]

that William was certainly an eyewitness on at least one if not more occasion (judging at least from his own note to his mother)

This situation has always said to me that what I thought was correct. Diana was a very poor mother! Children should be sheltered from any conflict in their parents lives not used like an emotional football. Charles was always careful that while they were children the boys recieved no inkling of his relationship with Camilla from him, anything they knew was told to them by their "loving" mother.

while Harry has certainly formed an opinion much as it may chagrin his control freak father.

Control Freak??
Surely you jest! If Charles was as you suggest then Gap years certainly wouldn't happen and William would be engaged to marry as soon as he left university!

married-ins get lectured and berated and have their reputations destroyed in society when they turn out to be too uncooperative, e.g., Sarah Ferguson).

Sarah Ferguson ruined her own reputation. Getting caught with your foot in you financial advisers mouth with your children present will do that for you! Fortunately Sarah has redeemed herself and turned her life around.

 

[hrhcp]

Isn't her title, "Squidgy" ... like, Charles called her that when he was married to 'her who can not be named' ?

 

[Julian]

You've just been criticising other people for appearing to know what the royal family is thinking, so I'm not sure why you're asking, since the actual reason why Charles and Camilla haven't married is probably only really known to them.

Then you don't understand the difference between some pretending to know what the royal family is thinking, being told (as I was) that I know what a dead woman was thinking (by the very person who was "knew" all about her personal motives) and being asked to speculate about what the royal family might be thinkng. My sentence you put in quotes above in fact allows for the very possibility that they may approve them marrying--so what's to prevent them doing so on that score?.

However, there are several possible reasons. One, which I've already mentioned, is that they might not be able to get married in the CofE during Andrew Parker Bowles's lifetime. One is that they might want to avoid the very problems that are the topic of this thread, i.e., that of the titles and duties she would have and the adverse public opinion and divisions that would be caused if she were seen to be trying to take Diana's place or if a morganatic marriage were allowed to King Charles when it was refused to King Edward within living memory. One is that the Queen might have told them that she wouldn't give permission. One is that Charles knows or believes that the Queen Mother would have disapproved and wouldn't have wanted to see him repeat what Edward VIII did. One is that the Establishment might be making difficulties about finances and titles in much the same way that they did with Princess Margaret when she wanted to marry Peter Townsend.

I don't think any of those are valid reasons. The Establishment has stood behind Prince Charles every inch of the way over the past 15-20 years. Charles in turn does not care what his grandmother would have thought in the least. His mother's permission isn't needed either afaik as he's over 25. We've all been told a million times over by the St. Charles worshippers that his mistress's appearance at the Jubilee events and other public official events since then signify she has been "accepted". Accepted at that level means marriage is certainly not off the table either in the world of royalty. To the contrary, being in the royal presence and in royal boxes and enclosures and seen talking to royals is part of the usual "royalization" process for commoners about to marry royalty. As to Princess Margaret, how interesting you mention her because all of a sudden the story conveniently also "emerged" in the Charles-loyal broadsheets last year that Margaret could have married even 50 years ago had she wanted to, no matter the Church's teachings then either. And who does that sudden revelation inure to the benefit of except...Charles and Camilla?