alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Sounds like Prince Charlie is getting hitched again in early April to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Yeah, we've all heard the jokes about her age, looks and bad teeth but I think this is great. You never know who will be attracted to who or for what reasons. Personally I think he should have married her in the first place and not Diana but then they would have had real butt-ugly kids. Being an ex-British citizen myself I say good for him. Link to post Share on other sites
crisp Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I totally hate her. I have no idea why. Maybe because she butted in on the prince's marriage. I know each person makes his/her own decisions. I just have a HUGE dislike for her and I think that their marriage would throw the English church in a big crisis. Imagine Camilla as a queen !!! Link to post Share on other sites
_Saffy_ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 being still over here, im sick of hearing it already........ its just before a general election hes head of some church that dont believe in re-marrying in a nation that is still thriving on the memory of diana, how will the nation react to queen camilla who cares ! Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by crisp Imagine Camilla as a queen !!! I may be wrong CRISP but I think that she can never be called Queen for some technical reason. Don't know what it is tho. Link to post Share on other sites
crisp Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Well, since Charles is a widow, technically he can remarry. That makes his wife the queen. Now the problem is that Camilla not only is divorced but her hubby is alive and well . SO that's the catch, since the Anglian church had that issue ever since Henry the VIII. I think that says a lot about the church: bunch a rules normal people live by - as in priests denying divorced women to mary in church, yet when it's royality we're talking about.... rules are being bent, just a little . They are not regular folks. I don't think it would be proper to marry at church, but that's how I personally feel about the subject. Link to post Share on other sites
_Saffy_ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 the status of the wife of the King...can only be altered by legislation..." This would mean the only way for Camilla not to become Queen, in the event of Charles ascending to the Throne and marrying again, would be to change the law. However, passing such an Act today would be difficult for Tony Blair, as he would probably need the consent of the Commonwealth monarchies. The Royal Marriages Act was brought in because King George III was furious with his brothers wedding unsuitable partners. So he gave the monarch a veto over the marriage of anyone descended from George II. grooooooooan Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by crisp Well, since Charles is a widow, technically he can remarry. That makes his wife the queen. yes i guess you are right CRISP. It was when Diana was alive that he could not re-marry. I forgot, thanx. Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by _Saffy_ you are indeed right alpha. its unlikely that she will ever be a queen. more like she will become lady camilla. thats bad enough. so SAFFY, Camilla cannot be offically a Queen? It that correct? how are things in merry old england? i was born in london in '65 but moved to US in '72. Link to post Share on other sites
_Saffy_ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by alphamale so SAFFY, Camilla cannot be offically a Queen? It that correct? how are things in merry old england? i was born in london in '65 but moved to US in '72. i changed that bit, i thought it read that she cannot be queen but it seems that she can........the general consensus on the political talk shows this morning is that she will choose to turn down the "queen" status, but well i guess we will see. im not in england, im in wales, where we have been fighting for independancy for years. if you ever come back......come to the nicer part of the UK Link to post Share on other sites
_Saffy_ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 oh here we are, according to cnn.com..... LONDON, England (CNN) -- Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles will become HRH Duchess of Cornwall when she weds Prince Charles and will be known as the Princess Consort when he eventually becomes king, Buckingham Palace announced. Sally Cartwright, publishing director of Hello! magazine, told CNN there was "historical precedent" for using the title of Princess Consort. She said Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, was Prince Consort rather than king. Victoria ruled Britain from 1837 to 1901. To give Parker Bowles the title of Duchess of Cornwall -- based on Charles' secondary title of Duke of Cornwall -- was "a clever way out of a potentially difficult situation," Cartwright said. Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by _Saffy_ im not in england, im in wales, where we have been fighting for independancy for years. if you ever come back......come to the nicer part of the UK yes, when my father was doing his medical training we live in Cardiff for a year. don't remember much though cause i was only 4 or 5. Link to post Share on other sites
_Saffy_ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by alphamale yes, when my father was doing his medical training we live in Cardiff for a year. don't remember much though cause i was only 4 or 5. shame, its a nicer area than england, and on the whole the people are friendlier. its just a shame that we get tarred with the same brush as our fellow countrymen.......as im sure you understand. Link to post Share on other sites
LucreziaBorgia Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Its about time. Since meeting in 1970, their love and affection for each other has endured through decades, distance, marriages, births, deaths and divorce. Good for them, I say. Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by LucreziaBorgia Its about time. Since meeting in 1970, their love and affection for each other has endured through decades, distance, marriages, births, deaths and divorce. Good for them, I say. i agree LUCREAIABORGIA, their relationship gives me hope along with the "warm fuzzies", which i don't get often. Link to post Share on other sites
crisp Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 MAybe it's the excitement of breaking 2 mariages and 2 people's hearts on a side. Always amazed me how married people couldn't stay married and how lovers could continue their affair ... wonder if marriage won't bore them to death. You know, no backstabbing and everything... Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by crisp MAybe it's the excitement of breaking 2 mariages and 2 people's hearts on a side. Always amazed me how married people couldn't stay married and how lovers could continue their affair ... wonder if marriage won't bore them to death. You know, no backstabbing and everything... it is human nature to crave excitement and shun boredom. esp for females. Link to post Share on other sites
crisp Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 HAve we met before ? I was jut talking about that with a friend of mine. Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just bitter 'cause my relationship is about to fail. Link to post Share on other sites
LucreziaBorgia Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by crisp MAybe it's the excitement of breaking 2 mariages and 2 people's hearts on a side. Always amazed me how married people couldn't stay married and how lovers could continue their affair ... wonder if marriage won't bore them to death. You know, no backstabbing and everything... Were these two not caught up in the trappings and expectations of their society because of their positions, they could have married each other to begin with. In the cases of Charles and Camilla, it isn't a matter of breaking up each other's "happy, normal" marriages. Their marriages were anything but. Lots of factors there. Link to post Share on other sites
crisp Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Of course they could and still can. Only not at church, because their religion tells them differently. I've heard lots of Christian Anglican women who were refused by their priest to remarry because they were divorced. Well, those two are getting married in church anyway. I am talking church here. Civil marriage- yup, you're 100% right. Too bad he the king of that country. I remind you that George the V-th renounced the right to be a king in order to marry a beutifull American divorcee. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 They have loved each other forever but were prevented from marrying because of convention. Charles had to marry a virgin to ensure any births that ensued were 'pure' (yeah, like Harry's not the son of that guy she had the affair with). If these two people looked like Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, everybody would think this was the most romantic story ever; a love that endured despite obstacles including the nagging issue of being royalty. Unfortunately, God didn't bless those two with movie-star looks and therefore people don't like them. And that makes me sick. Diana had a lot of flaws. Even her biggest fans in the household said she was difficult to get along with. However, she was beautiful and therefore she's been sainted by the public. It was horrible that she died far before her time and that her poor sons were left without a mom, yes, but that the marriage took place at all was a huge mistake. I guess it was just real difficult to find a virgin of marriagable age. If Diana had had Camilla's face, three people would've been sad when she was killed. Sometimes the world really does stink. beutifull American divorcee Ever see her picture? She was no 'beautiful'. Far from it. But the media wasn't quite as filled with surgerized overly made-up faces and bodies in those days and so the fact of their story was what touched people's hearts. Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by moimeme If Diana had had Camilla's face, three people would've been sad when she was killed. MOIMEME, your sarcastic yet realistic sense of humour never ceases to amaze. Link to post Share on other sites
crisp Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I think she could have been Saint Marry Theresa and housemaids would have sais she was a pest. just people, you know. I think that no matter how intollerable one is, there's nothing that justifies Charles acts. It's plain ironic that she gets to be his wife. It's like the evil lady getting her way all the way through. I'm sad. I know it's very possible for Charles and her to have and feel real love for eachother. Unfortunately one cannot escape the shadows of their own deeds. Link to post Share on other sites
_Saffy_ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 oh Alpha, you have sooooooooo opened up a can of worms here.............the ironic thing is.....most of the UK, probably doesnt give a damn Link to post Share on other sites
Bronzepen Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Camilla will not have the title of Queen. "On their marriage, Parker Bowles will be given the title of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall. When Charles becomes king, Camilla will not be known as Queen Camilla but as the Princess Consort, according to Charles' office." - CNN Diana was no knock out but what made her stand out (at least for me) was her eyes. The stare. Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by _Saffy_ oh Alpha, you have sooooooooo opened up a can of worms here.............the ironic thing is.....most of the UK, probably doesnt give a damn Americans are much more into the royal family than the english are. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts