Another point: If Charles had given up the throne to marry Camilla first time round - His Majesty King Andrew.
There’s a thought
How funny.
I’m reading a book called Sex With Kings. It’s all about royal mistresses. Just last night, I started reading the chapter about kings who married their mistresses. From what I’ve read so far, it doesn’t usually end up well.
You mean, we may have had Queen Fergie??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Well, I was going to chime in with what Angua said, but s/he said it better. The societal rules that govern royalty (for God’s sake, Parliament has to approve a divorce, for crying out loud!) means he’s probably just now getting around to making a choice for himself, instead of for the Good of Queen and Country.
I don’t approve of the man’s adultery, but if he’d been allowed to marry his true love to begin with this may never have happened.
Does anyone think Diana was in love with Charles, or was she swept off her feet by an older gentleman who happened to be heir to the throne?
She. Last time I checked. 
For the second time today, in less than two hours, I feel the need to bleach my brain after reading something on The Dope. That’s why I live this place so much! 
Malacandra thanks for that interesting bit of English history. I now want a commerative crown and china mug. Especially if the mug has a picture of Charles and Camilla on it. It’d be worthy of a place of honor along with my porcelin salt and pepper shakers shaped like Graceland.
Don’t be silly - that would be plain daft. We would have had Queen Koo. Much more dignified.
I, as a colonist (and life-long royal-watcher), think it is damned spiffy that the man gets to marry the woman he loves. I don’t care about succession and titles, I just think it’s sweet.
Hold on - IF Charles had ceded his accession rights in order to marry Camilla 30 odd years ago because she fell foul of the virginity clause, leaving Andrew to be the heir apparent; then Andrew’s choice of wife would equally have been subject to the same scrutiny.
So, Sarah Ferguson and Koo Stark would have both been out of the frame, for starters.
Andrew, as the fictitious prospective King in this scenario, would possibly have married the lady who was the last-high born virgin in the land back in those days. What was her name again?
Oh yeah - Lady Diana Spencer.
Cue the music from the Twilight Zone
I think it’s pretty clear.
If you love someone, but your rich family threatens to disinherit you, then get a job and get married them. Be a man, not a greedy boy. (Bear in mind that Charles has a huge staff of servants, who, for example, run his bath for him.)
If you decide to commit adultery, that should at the minimum disqualify you from Head of the Church.
If you wish to inherit over £10 million a year, play by the rules.
If the concept of honour and representing your country means anything to you, show some decency.
Apparently Charles doesn’t understand “Royal Duty” - only the privileged part. Rich family, automatic inheritance, guaranteed education, posh wife’s viriginity carefully inspected for you (does that really happen? perhaps we could have it shown live on TV next time :rolleyes: ), wedding in cathedral, endless servants, bowing and scraping throughout.
His problem of course is that he is inadequate for the job.
Our problem is him.
Glee, I don’t deny that he has acted inappropriately, and should not be Head of Church.
However, do we know whether he was even given the option of becoming a private citizen? Of course you can argue that he always had a choice, no matter what, and that it was simply a matter of standing up to mummy and daddy, and in essence, telling them to sod off. Now, if you can find me someone, who’s been raised from birth, with a sense of duty, and having to respect and obey one’s parents, who can take a stand and tell their parents where to go, then fair enough. Personally I think you may be rather hard pressed.
Yes, it’s wonderful he gets to marry the woman he had loved for so long, but I agree with a few others that it’s a shame he didn’t just grow some balls and marry her oh so many years ago instead of just opting to be her tampon and left Diana to a life of relative obscurity.
I mean his mum is never going to give up the throne anyway and remember her mum lived to be over 100 years old. Charles will be too old or dead to be able to pry the crown from his mum’s cold dead fingers.
Well, at least it’s a good thing that Camilla and Charles won’t having any progeny. Can you imagine that? whinnies
I’m sorry, that was cruel of me, horses are quite pretty.
I doubt that, frankly. Prices were skyrocketing during the reign of Henry VIII–indeed, his reign is often known as “England’s first period of inflation.” Comparison of prices during the reign suggests that you needed a lot more than five shillings to live on: by Royal Proclamation a new Bible cost ten shillings unbound, and during Edward’s reign the price of cattle was fixed at around three shillings (can’t remember exactly…don’t have a copy of Tudor Royal Proclamations around).
One of the reasons prices were going up was the very crown you mention. Henry’s “administration” was debasing the coinage, substituting a copper center on some coins which had previously been solid silver. The crown coin in particular betrayed this–in typical wear the some of the silver on the coin would rub off, revealing the copper. Much to Henry’s disgust this tended to happen right on his portrait’s nose, leading many to dub the king “Old Copper-Nose.”
I’ll turn to my old supervisor Felicity Heal for the last word. Dr. Heal reported that many priests during the reign of Henry were trying to live benefices of two pounds or less annually, and that was not enough to pay for everything a priest needed. She reckoned that five pounds–or twenty times five shillings–was sufficient for a priest’s annual expenses.
You’re right, though, that the poor were grateful for the crowns distributed at royal weddings, as well as for the Maundy money (which, until surprisingly recently in British history, were specially-produced legal tender). I simply doubt that it made for a fortune in the reign of Good King Hal. About the only person who made serious money in his reign was the King himself, through his seizure of monastic lands.
Apart from this minor nitpick, your post was of great interest! 
I forgot to mention that April 8th is my mum*'s birthday. So they can’t get married then either.
I think I like saying mum. Mum, mum, mum!
Charles and Camilla are both pushing 60. I find it amazing that they have maintained their relationship for so long through so much.
Congrats to them both.
I don’t really give a toss about Charles and Camilla, but the meaningless titles sort of struck me. The Princess Consort, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Prince of Wales, The Duck of Death, etc…
It caused me to wonder what titles we might have in America if we had a monarchy.
HRH Captain Lance Murdoch, Prince of Kentucky, Duke of Deleware, Lord of North Texas, Protector of South Dakota, Earl of Denver, Baron of Milwaukee, Tenth Viscount of Provo, Count of Natchez and Holder of the Golden Scepter of Brooklyn.
That has a nice ring to it!
Congratulations to them both. I hope they are very happy.
Personally, given a choice between the late Princess Diana or Mrs. Parker- Bowles, I would have picked the late Princess to be my wife; howver, that’s based entirely on her appearance. I don’t happen to travel in such circles as to know either woman so I can’t speak to their personalities.
Seriously? Everyone is going to get a mug and a crown? That is so … quaint!
**
You** come across as a decent person!
But really - is Charles so brainwashed by his family that he can’t think for himself? Then why can’t he respect his marriage vows?!
No, he just wants to have all his titles, money and privileges and f*ck whoever he wants (including the British people).