moimeme Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Crisp, what is with this 'misdeeds'? Camilla and Charles met YEARS before he met Diana. They were in love all along. If anything was a 'misdeed' was him being forced to marry a virgin. Camilla was divorced by the time Charles married but he wasn't allowed to marry her. That's nobody's fault but the monarchy's. Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by moimeme Crisp, what is with this 'misdeeds'? Camilla and Charles met YEARS before he met Diana. They were in love all along. If anything was a 'misdeed' was him being forced to marry a virgin. Camilla was divorced by the time Charles married but he wasn't allowed to marry her. That's nobody's fault but the monarchy's. Camilla was not considered a suitable match for a man who was going to be king eventually. Hey, but at least Diana produced some heirs to the throne, if nothing else. Link to post Share on other sites
_Saffy_ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by alphamale Americans are much more into the royal family than the english are. you are SO right. i have american friends that tell me things that the royal family does that arent widespread knowledge over here. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 at least Diana produced some heirs to the throne, if nothing else. That's the unfortunate bit. They needed a virgin to produce 'an heir and a spare'. Essentially, she was breeding stock. But she had family and friends all affiliated with royalty so I can't imagine that nobody told her what she was getting herself into. Charles should've married someone more able to cope with the sort of life she'd be expected to lead, but again, virgins are in short supply these days. Link to post Share on other sites
crisp Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6945019/ 'Marriage breaker' Diana blamed the friendship for the failure of her marriage to the Prince of Wales. “There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded,” Diana said in a 1995 TV interview. HAd he told her what the deal was, maybe I would have said you were right. It's the fault of the monarchy alright. And Charles is at the head of it. So yup, I don't see a virgin saying: “My great-great-grandmother was your great-great-grandfather’s mistress, so how about it?” Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 And Charles is at the head of it Um. No. His mommy is. And at that time, his aunts were all alive as was his grandmommy. He still isn't the head of the monarchy and won't be until his mother dies. Link to post Share on other sites
tattoomytoe Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 i did not think Charles would ever be crowned King anyways.... i thought it was going directly to William? which would explain why Charles suddenly, after decades, is wedding his mistress. Link to post Share on other sites
_Saffy_ Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 my prediction for this is that after the wedding the queen will abdicate and charles will be crowned. seems the likely course of events, its been on the cards for a little while. Link to post Share on other sites
crisp Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 And Charles is at the head of it I meant the head of the problem. His mommy didn't marry Diana, nor did she put a gun to his head. The irony is that things are just like they were before Charles ever married Diana. Camilla could have divorced and then the situation would have been identical. But, no, Charles "had" to listen to mommy and bring home an Easter lamb. In the end, he had it his way, no matter who paid for it. And he didn't even have the guts to do it in his 20's. HAd to wait for the 50's to have the balls. Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by crisp The irony is that things are just like they were before Charles ever married Diana. Camilla could have divorced and then the situation would have been identical. But, no, Charles "had" to listen to mommy and bring home an Easter lamb. I dont' think he had any choice CRISP. He had to produce heirs to the throne no matter what. Now that he has done that, he can do as he pleases. Link to post Share on other sites
crisp Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Correct!!! Link to post Share on other sites
seera Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Not to take away from the subject at hand on who is going to be King next....but could someone please answer this question for me......... How can Charles ( or any person for that matter) be considered a "widow" if he was "divorced" BEFORE the ex-spouse died? The way I look at it, the divorce already happened before the death.....makes no sense to me. If that is the case I guess that means I was a "widow" before I married my second husband, since my first husband died a year after our divorce. Thanks for any response I receive. Be well, seera Link to post Share on other sites
Sweeper211 Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 My ferverent prayer every night is "Please God let the Rebublic come in my life time so that I don't have to worry about the antics of these inbred idiots" Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by seera How can Charles ( or any person for that matter) be considered a "widow" if he was "divorced" BEFORE the ex-spouse died? The way I look at it, the divorce already happened before the death.....makes no sense to me. Because Charles and Diana produced offspring. And those offspring no longer have their biological mother. Had they not procreated it may be different. Link to post Share on other sites
bluetuesday Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by Sweeper211 My ferverent prayer every night is "Please God let the Rebublic come in my life time so that I don't have to worry about the antics of these inbred idiots" me too. german swine one and all. i met prince andrew last week on a work assignment. what a miserable bastard. Link to post Share on other sites
bluechocolate Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by Sweeper211 My ferverent prayer every night is "Please God let the Rebublic come in my life time so that I don't have to worry about the antics of these inbred idiots" Me Three !! And to think I'm her "subject" in more than one country! (at least now, in most commonwealth countries, you can choose to omit allegiance to the Queen when you take your citizenship oath). Link to post Share on other sites
bluetuesday Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 bluechoc - your avatar that scene from roman holiday - is it gone forever?? Link to post Share on other sites
bluechocolate Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Originally posted by bluetuesday bluechoc - your avatar that scene from roman holiday - is it gone forever?? I 'reckon it'll be back one day (it is rather my fav) Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 How can Charles ( or any person for that matter) be considered a "widow" Well, technically, men are called 'widower'. i met prince andrew last week on a work assignment. what a miserable bastard. 1. You have an awesome job. 2. Darn. I always liked him. Link to post Share on other sites
brashgal Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Didn't Camilla and Charles know one another BEFORE Camilla was married? If so, why wasn't she considered suitable then? Please tell me it wasn't the virgin thing. And do they really 'test' for virginity? Link to post Share on other sites
Author alphamale Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by brashgal Didn't Camilla and Charles know one another BEFORE Camilla was married? If so, why wasn't she considered suitable then? Please tell me it wasn't the virgin thing. And do they really 'test' for virginity? I think it was cause Camille was older and not from the proper blood line. The king-to-be can only marry certain women. The fact the the queen did not like her prob did not help either. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 why wasn't she considered suitable then? Please tell me it wasn't the virgin thing. And do they really 'test' for virginity? It has nothing to do with bloodline. I believe Camilla is higher 'bred' than Diana was. Camilla was not a virgin when she and Charles first met. Yes, it was absolutely the virgin thing and yes they do test. Link to post Share on other sites
CurvyGurl Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I believe the post about Charles being a widower is incorrect. Having children makes no difference. In order to be a widower, your 'wife' has to have died. Since Charles divorced Diana and she was no longer his wife, his wife did not die. Charles cannot be considered widower because he was not married to Diana at the time of her death. Simply put, his ex wife died in a car accident. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Depends where you live: Widower n. A man whose wife passes away during their marriage and has not since remarried. http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/widower.htm 28.—(1) Section 100 (inserted by section 11 of the Act of 1994) of The Principal Act is hereby amended by— ( a ) the substitution for the definition of "spouse" of the following definition: "'spouse', in relation to a widow or widower who has been married more than once, refers only to the widow's or widower's last spouse and for this purpose that last spouse shall be construed as including a party to a marriage that has been dissolved, being a dissolution that is recognised as valid in the State;",'widower' means a widower or a man who would otherwise be a widower but for the fact that his marriage has been dissolved, being a dissolution that is recognised as valid in the State;". http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA7Y1996S28.html A widower - a man who was legally married to, or was in a marriage-like relationship with, an Australian female veteran immediately before her death and has not remarried. http://www.dva.gov.au/factsheets/documents/DP60%20War%20Widow%60s%20and%20Orphan%60s%20Pension.htm The implication from this and in the present case should be that a widow remains the widow of the deceased even if she has subsequently remarried. http://www.trustsdiscussionforum.co.uk/archive/msg03131.html How divorce affects survivors benefits: If your divorced spouse dies, you can receive benefits as a widow/widower if the marriage lasted 10 years or more. Benefits paid to a surviving divorced spouse who is 60 or older will not affect the benefit rates for other survivors receiving benefits. http://www.fairdivorce.com/div-faq.html That clears things up, eh? Link to post Share on other sites
bluetuesday Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Originally posted by brashgal Please tell me it wasn't the virgin thing. it was the virgin thing. it was also the catholic thing. she is catholic, therefore completely out of the running where producing a future head of the Church of England is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts