Charles to marry Camilla on 6th April. That's nice isn't it?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
81

I’m with Angua and others - good for them. That is a seriously long courtship!

glee and others: from what I’ve read, long before Diana was in the picture, Charles and Camilla broke up and she married someone else. Hence there wasn’t much question of him abdicating and marrying someone that he wasn’t with any more and who was married to someone else.

The Duchy of Cornwall is dependent upon him having the Duchy of Cornwall, nothing to do wit being heir to the throne. The bulk of Charles’ income is from this Duchy; he doesn’t get anything from the Civil list. If he had - what would the term be, abdicated in advance? whatever, said he wouldn’t become King - then he wouldn’t have lost much of his money at all.

When it was suggested that he marry Diana, it’s reasonable to presume that he had no plans to cheat on her. Maybe he did - I don’t know and neithe do you. It doesn’t sound like he loved her, but then, given their short engagement and lack of qualities in common, she probably loved his status more than him too.

Cheating (with one woman that we know of - there haven’t been any others come forward to claim Royal shagathons with him [except possibly that butler]) after your marriage has gone sour is hardly laudable, but understandable. (IIRC Diana alleged that Charles cheated on her very shortly after their marriage, but no-one else has said so, and while she seemed like a nice girl, she’s also the ex-wife).

Surely whether or not an adulterer is suitable to be the head of any church depends on whether or not he’s repented of his ‘sin.’ I haven’t a clue whether he has or not, and I don’t suppose anyone but a few archbishops and Royals would, and they won’t be posting here!

I’ve always thought that the Royals were intended to be a representative family, standing for all British subjects. We can’t all celebrate every wedding, so by celebrating the heir apparent’s wedding we symbollically celebrate everyone else’s too. So, with divorce and remarriage being so common in this country, it’s only appropriate that he does it too!

82

Well, actually, he is Duke of Cornwall because he is heir to the throne. Actually, unlike the title Prince of Wales, the heir-apparent is Duke of Cornwall automatically; the title Prince of Wales must be specially bestowed on him.

83

I’m sure I read that Charles wanted to marry Camilla but asked her to wait for him to come back from his stint in the Navy; she said she didn’t want to wait and so they parted ways. Is this not true? I hadn’t heard anything about him not being allowed to marry her.

Also, people often speculate that Prince Harry is James Hewitt’s child because of his red hair (conveniently ignoring the fact that his maternal uncle has red hair and that, by all reports, Diana didn’t meet Hewitt until after Harry was born), but has anyone ever speculated about the paternity of Camilla’s children? Is there any chance that any of them could actually be Charles’s rather than Parker-Bowles?

84

glee, why the hell do you think Edward VII was called “Edward the Caressor?”

(BTW, one of HIS mistresses was Camilla’s grandmother, Alice Keppel).

85

Back to the original point of the thread, my “Colonial opinion” is, as a Southerner might say, “That’s nice. That’s very nice”.

Prince Charles does not impress me. He caved in to whatever family pressure there may have been. If he really loved Camilla for all those years, he could have said way back then “I renounce the throne, I abdicate, I want her”. It would have shown some backbone.

Then he married Diana, who had been “selected” for him as if they were both nothing more than AKC show dog breeding stock. He treated her more like a piece of luggage than a wife. Meanshile he carried on with Camilla the homewrecker (who could have shown some class and backed away).
King Arthur he isn’t.

I understand the young princes have a streak of rebellion in them. If so, I would take that as a ray of hope. For whatever foibles the Royals may have, they are people, not museum pieces.

86

So you’re not up to speed on this whole “spin a tissue of lies about quaint British customs and see how long you can string the colonials along” thing, then? :dubious:

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted…

87

It was quite fun last night watching the various TV news programmes trying to get a story out of this. After saying “two middle aged people who have been going out with one another for yonks have decided that they want a nice day in a big tent with the birdie song” They were a bit stuffed.

They tried the vox-pop and got either “that’s nice” or “so what”

They tried the Church of England angle - and got Rowan Williams (who looks like he should be in Jethro Tull) saying it was no problem. In the end they were reduced to showing pictures of that daffy bint he married first time round batting her lashes at Martin Bashir.

The papers are quite good too . The Telegraph has a souvenir supplement and six pages of coverage in the main paper. The Star has the headline “Boring old gits to wed”.

88

Whereas The Independant points out that there are other things going on in the world. :wink:

89

For real?

90

Yep

91

“A tent”. :stuck_out_tongue:

But they get a marquis in as master of ceremonies.

92

:smiley: