No matter what has happened, and what a poo he might have been to Diana, I am extremely happy for these two people. They have loved each other for such a long time, and if they had been born in the plebeian world, would have been married long ago.
I wish them the best.
Posted by ProverbialSunrise (Member # 7771) on :
I agree. I think it would be horrible to be a monarch and have huge numbers of people prying into your life all the time.
[ April 09, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: ProverbialSunrise ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
If I believed in reincarnation, I'd say that being reincarnated as a member of the British royal family would be one of the worst punishments possible.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Yes, they have such a terribly hard life.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I am happy for them, too. I realise that Charles has not been the best, but people make horrible mistakes and do silly things. I do not begrudge him finally marrying for love and love alone.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I also wish them well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm confused as to why he was denied a religious ceremony. Even if his church didn't recognize the divorce, that shouldn't be an issue now, right?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I would also like to have that explained, Dag.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm only guessing here, but if his mother doesn't approve of the marriage, well, she is Defender of the Faith, head of the church. Which sort of thing is one reason for the separation of church and state.
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
I believe it is because she is also divorced, and her ex-husband is still alive.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes. I'd forgotten about that. She IS divorced and her ex is alive. Vana is totally right. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Yes, I think that Vana may have got it. I think there were a number of complications that made this type of marriage desirable.
I think it's a reflection of the world, a royal marriage that is a second for both of the couples. Not a bad reflection, just a reflection.
[ April 09, 2005, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
quote:Vana is totally right. [Smile]
I need to get that printed and framed, and hang it on Dan's computer desk. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Has anyone else read Donna Tartt's The Secret History ? In it, Charles and Camilla were the name of a pair of fraternal twins who were... close.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm only guessing here, but if his mother doesn't approve of the marriage, well, she is Defender of the Faith, head of the church. Which sort of thing is one reason for the separation of church and state.
Actually, this would have nothing to do with church and state. It would be a reason for separation of church and mothers.
Posted by Jane_Lane (Member # 7665) on :
I'm glad to read some supportive views, for once. So many people have been slagging off the wedding, saying they hope it doesn't go to plan and all that. It must be horrible to know that so many people oppose your marraige. I do think they should have married a lot earlier - Before Charles married Diana. I realise that Camilla was still married but it would've saved a lot of heartache. I'm glad they've got married inspite of all the criticism - Everyone deserves to be with whoever they love. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Isn't ironic, though? Didn't Henry VIII break off from the Catholic Church so he could be divorced?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Why did he Marry Diana when he was in love with Camille? That has never made sense to me. Obviously she has some kind of Royal recognition or Charles would be abdicating his position.
Elizabeth, that was one of my questions.
[ April 09, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Jane_Lane (Member # 7665) on :
People say that Charles trying to live up to expectations in marrying a young, beautiful and virginal lady. Camilla was already married, (or divorced? I'm not sure but either way, she wasn't 'pure').
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I doubt he willl ever be king at this point.
Posted by Jane_Lane (Member # 7665) on :
Who'd want to be after that? I think even Charles realises that William would be the more popular choice. I mean everyone expects him to be King, he's by far more diplomatic than his brother or father, (for example the skiing incident), he seems more responsible than his brother, he seems more in touch with his people - less conservative and posh, he definitely comes across as more honourable and virtuous, and he'd have half the female population of the world behind him which is always a plus
[ April 09, 2005, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Jane_Lane ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Why not, though, Kwea? I just don't get it.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
OK< OK, I know it is the love of mythology in me, but I kind of think of William Arthur as the Once and Future King.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No one would want him as King at this point, not after his behavior. Not that other Kings didn't act this way, but we are a lot more aware of it these days, and the morals have changed.
On one who treats other people that way should be even a figurehead King, IMO.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
My prophecy is that Charles will become King for a year or two, then step aside for William. The entire royal family knows that William on the coins will do good for their image- and Charles, well Charles probably doesn't want the limelight now.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
As an American, it's hard for me to see a need for a royal family in the first place.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
As an American, you're supposed to say that. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
It would be decent of Charles to just abdicate his place in the succession at this point. But I guess it's a bit late to be asking that of him. My mother in-law and her mother, who retain a bit of pride in being british, think he's an "R_A_T" as grandmum put it.
Of course, when I was fourteen I was obsessed with the Royals, mostly Diana, and since the divorce have kind of disliked Charles.
Henry the VIII... it's a stupid double standard. I think it is based on the scripture that says if a woman is put away and marries again she is committing adultery. But it also says if a man puts his wife away (divorces her) he causes her to commit adultery. But I pondered this through back when I was first hearing about the other guy who married a divorced woman. Was it Elizabeth's brother?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Hey What is Charles’s last name? It’s always Prince and Queen and blah blah blah. I never hear a last name. Does Royalty dump their last names?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: As an American, you're supposed to say that
Well, then what's up with all the other Americans who are paying attention?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
When William and Harry attended school I'm fairly sure they went by Windsor, like the castle.
Storm Saxon, I think the Royal Family has a draw for many people, for sentimental, traditional and romantic reasons. Personally I like having the royal family because although it costs people a lot of money, I think there's something fabulous about holding something that's been around for thousands and thousands of years.
[ April 09, 2005, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Winsor. Their family had a German last name I cannot remember that was changed during WW1 or 2 according to a documentary I saw ages ago.
I wish they'd stop talking about the royal family's private life because I just don't care.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Syn, who's "they"?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Used to be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (I forget that last bit know it started with a G)
I used to be a royal family nut. Okay, I still sorta am.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Teshi, it just irritates me that they own so much land and have so much wealth and, plus, don't they get some kind of ridiculous stipend every year? Let them go out and work every year for their keep, set the castles and palaces, money and land aside for the people.
[ April 09, 2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
From what I understand (though I could be mistaken), they do a great deal of charity work. (?)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pffft. They show up at events and wave their hand or give a speech.
Posted by Jane_Lane (Member # 7665) on :
I'm not particularly a Monarchist but I'm not against them. I don't think they do a lot of harm - We don't actually need their land, yes they do take quite a large amount of tax money but they also generate a lot of tourism.
Many people are very proud of our monarchy and see them as part of our heritage and culture. They represent our history and traditions dating back to the beginning of Britain. If they were that much of a burden, I'm sure a lot of Brits wouldn't be content with the situation as it is but it seems that foreigners have more of a problem with our monarchy than we do.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
The Sex Pistols would have said otherwise Lame_Jane!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's true. It really is none of my business and I'm injecting a note of pessimism into an otherwise celebratory thread. Sorry. I would delete my posts, but there's too many other people that have responded to them.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Tabloids. I just don't care. The royals just aren't interesting...
Posted by Jane_Lane (Member # 7665) on :
Haha - That's true Jebus202. Like I said, I'm not a monarchist and I know a lot of people aren't keen on our royalty, but hey, they're still sitting up there on their thrones.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
In it, Charles and Camilla were the name of a pair of fraternal twins who were... close.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)