Well, the Head of “The Churuch” thing is a bit silly anyway, isn’t it? Wasn’t the Church of England pretty much founded on a king’s liking for divorce?
Wouldn’t they be better off having their god as “head” of church?
oh, well, it will be amusing to see how it all spins. Glad I don’t watch telly much - I had to work really hard NOT to see his last wedding, but at least I suppose this one should attract less fuss and bother.
The first wedding was held on my birthday. Even over here in the US people were glued to the tv watching it. At 6 AM no less! The truly evil thing was that they dared to marry on my birthday! I share the spotlight with no one. You do not try to steal a gay man’s spotlight. It may take sixteen years to do something about it, but, by Og, take care of it I will and I did.
That’s right! I secretely plotted and planned for sixteen years. Revenge was mine! I got my day back!
April 6th means nothing to me, so they can have it.
YDNRC. He was 33. I don’t have much sympathy for him either, mind you. He appears to have regarded it as his right to have a mistress if he jolly well wants one…
Its April 8th. They can’t have the 6th, that’s my mum’s birthday. 
Being not at all up on royal customs and rules, could someone explain why it was not ok to marry Camilla then, but it is okay now?
Okay, this ignorant Yank needs something explained. Why was it that Edward had to abdicate in order to marry his divorced lady love (Wallis), but Charles (who is divorced himself) is being allowed to marry his divorced lady love, and also still ascend to the throne? And she gets a royal title?
Not that I really care, but I’m just wondering. Have the rules changed?
Hmm… Reuters says April 6th and the BBC Says April 8th. Well, Angua, if they do marry on the 6th and your mum doesn’t want to share her day, just let me know. I can help fix that. 
I suspect it was because Edward wanted to marry an American. I mean a *Colonist? Oh, the scandal!
I’ll have a go…
Firstly you have to remember that this ALL about Charles - Camilla is really not important constitutionally.
At first there was an impediment in that Charles was divorced, and divorced royals don’t remarry - not if they’re going to be king AND head of the CofE. With Diana’s death that obstacle passed. By any measure he was no longer married in any way (It also sorted out the slightly awkward thing about what to do with the mother of the future king)
After that it was mainly a matter of time and letting the people get used to the idea that Camilla was going to be by his side. They obviously feel that the level of acceptance/ennui is sufficient to allow them to go ahead. Also the boys are now of an age where there is no question of her being a “step-mother” figure.
If she was of child-bearing age things could be more complex - but she isn’t.
Time and changing morals in short. Divorce was a big deal in Britain in the 1930s and the monarchy more important than it is now.
The fact that Wallis Simpson was also an American with a very colourful past didn’t help.
Also Charles is no longer “divorced” as his wife is dead.
Another difference is that there is no possibility of Camilla bearing Charles a child.
Like Angua I can’t believe I’m doing this but… Charles could have married
Camilla before she went and married someone else. In the words of the BBC the relationship had cooled when Charles went into the navy but he was devastated when she married Andrew Parker Bowles (a man I’ve always felt sorry for). I also can’t believe I’ve sat through the whole news without any mention of this morning’s Ikea riot.
That and because Charles first wife is also dead. The BBC has already mentioned that since Camilla’s first husband is still alive and well, it may ruffle feathers since some harldiners of the church don’t like the idea of divorcees remarrying. (Charles is okay though becauses he’s more or less a widower, but Camilla…)
Trouble is, Camilla was down with the coming Archons, and when Diana refused to have sex with a 4 Dimensional Demon to produce the child who would be crowned King and bring about the time of Darkness under the Evil Archons, thats when she was killed.
Charles new. Oh yes, he knew.
If they’re on about April 8 this year, thats gravy, i’ll be in America.
Wasn’t Wallis Simpson also a Catholic?
Well, though I was very young at the time, I don’t recall him being forced to the altar at gunpoint. (Though I suppose one might have hidden a gun behind one of his impressively-large ears and no one have been the wiser.) Family pressure does NOT clear one of responsibility for the choices one has made. His family might have nagged, guilted, or threatened, but he’s the one who made the choice to go along with it all. His choice, his fucking fault if he’s not happy. End of story.
Good luck to them! It seems that they have been in love for a very long time.
You’re thinking like a commoner - ie a normal person.
You wouldn’t marry someone just to get your mum (and more importantly your Dad) off your back. However Charles is not a commoner, and (this is important) he never has been.
From his first breath Charles’ future has been mapped out for him. He was going to be entrusted with the Throne of Britain, Australia, Canada, Jamaica, Bermuda, New Zealand etc. It’s a bit more responsibility than taking over the family shop.
As part of that he has been indoctrinanted in the concept of “Royal Duty”, which means that as one of the richest, and possibly the most eligible, batchelors in the world he didn’t go around behaving like I might (ie Rod Stewart with a lifetimes’ supply of Viagra). He has understood the point of doing things the “proper” way.
That responsibilty was weighing heavily on his shoulders in his mid thirties, and the supplyof aristocratic virgins (yes it’s a requirement, yes they check) with healthy wombs (yes it’s a requirement yes they check) and unmblemished pasts (ditto) was running a bit thin.
As I have said earlier - his expectations from the marriage - ie securing the secession and some ceremonial stuff - were very different from Diana’s. That was the problem.
I think I read that they first met in 1970. After 35 years, it’s about damn time! May the second half of their lives be happier than the first.
Wallis Simpson was almost married 3 times before. None of them ended in death, IRC.
It’s worth mentioning, in the spirit of informing our transatlantic cousins about quaint British customs, that by law not only is the day of the wedding a national holiday, but all our employers are obliged to give us a commemorative china mug and a crown. By “crown” I don’t mean a kind of metal hat thingy - that would be high treason, still a beheading offence according to a never-repealed law antedating Magna Carta - but a special coin worth five shillings in pre-Decimal reckoning. It’s one of the few coins that are technically legal tender but with a face value not marked in Decimal pounds or pence. Crowns are also issued for coronations.
With the fluctuating exchange rate and price of precious metals it’s hard to put a current intrinsic value on it, but a crown weighs 4/5 of a Troy ounce and is made of 75% pure silver. Of course no-one would spend one these days, it’s like Maundy money - you’re privileged to receive one in the first place - but in some periods of history when we used to go through Kings in rapid succession, poorer families used to be very grateful for their crowns. It’s one reason why King Henry VIII encountered so little opposition to having six wives in a row - the masses couldn’t resist the lure of six commemorative crowns. Ironically, most of these ended up in the hands of the local baron, squire or other landholder, who was able to offer ready cash in exchange for the inconveniently large crowns - you could live for a year on five shillings in those days - and typically raked in quite a lot of silver bullion that appreciated drastically over time. A fair few family fortunes got started that way.