Angela 1 Posted February 10, 2005 HRH Prince Charles is to marry Cmailla Parker Bowels, a divorcee, on April *th her title will be the Duchess of Cornwall upon her marriage, not Princess of wales as Charles's first wife was known. Upon Charles's ascesion to the throne she will become known as the Princess consort in a harkening back to Aueen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert, the Prince Consort. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TransporterMalfunction 1 Posted February 10, 2005 On one hand it is hard to try to deny anyone happiness, however that is not really the woman I would choose as a representative of Great Britain and the Commonwealth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeybear 0 Posted February 10, 2005 pissant, he is - first, off with her head for DI (and just because it's the time of the television, don't even doubt for a second that's what they did with their wayward princess...) and NOW we've got a hag in the house - i hope he's happy trying to figure out which wrinkle to fill... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KIMIMELA 1 Posted February 10, 2005 (edited) *shrugs* At the end of the day, I think as long as they are happy then .... But personally I don't know what to say .... congratz * * Edited February 10, 2005 by xXTrekkieCaraXx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRH The KING 0 Posted February 10, 2005 I offer my congratulations. I'm happy for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BakulaBabe 2 Posted February 10, 2005 pissant, he is - first, off with her head for DI (and just because it's the time of the television, don't even doubt for a second that's what they did with their wayward princess...) and NOW we've got a hag in the house - i hope he's happy trying to figure out which wrinkle to fill... 302280[/snapback] I'm happy for them! BTW, there's nothing wrong with being old and wrinkled - the older I get, the more grateful I am that I'm still around, no matter how wrinkled, baggy, and "haggy" I get! *rant mode off* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deagletime 1 Posted February 10, 2005 pissant, he is - first, off with her head for DI (and just because it's the time of the television, don't even doubt for a second that's what they did with their wayward princess...) and NOW we've got a hag in the house - i hope he's happy trying to figure out which wrinkle to fill... 302280[/snapback] its truly interesting to hear english from the UK as it is dramatically different than the local "dialect" so to speak in california reminds me of that scene in Austin Powers Goldmember when Austin and his father have a conversation in English that was dubbed for people not from the UK Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LoveMalePecs1 0 Posted February 10, 2005 Thats what my mom told me this Morning about Prince Charles Marrying Camilla Bowles well as long as he's happy that is the main thing but i think Princess Di was way better looking than herso no Congrats from me but it is what it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odie 0 Posted February 11, 2005 Life is short. I wish them all the happiness in the world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted February 11, 2005 Well he was legally divorced so getting re-married shouldn't be a big issue. From the little I know of him (which admittedly is very little) she is the women he was in love with all these years anyway. I just wonder how his children feel about it, though I guess they're adults by now aren't they? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRH The KING 0 Posted February 11, 2005 (edited) Well, they've been in love for a long time. Charles had to marry Diana because he needed a strong healthy young woman to bear an heir and a spare which she did. That was her whole purpose in getting married to Charles and she knew this fully well. He was never in love with Diana. Once he did his job and fathered the heirs, he could marry for love. A lot of people don't like Camilla simply because she's ugly, but it's a bit of a shallow reason not to like someone. Besides, she's not going to be Queen anyway. Edited February 11, 2005 by The King Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted February 11, 2005 Well, they've been in love for a long time. Charles had to marry Diana because he needed a strong healthy young woman to bear an heir and a spare which she did. That was her whole purpose in getting married to Charles and she knew this fully well. He was never in love with Diana. Once he did his job and fathered the heirs, he could marry for love. A lot of people don't like Camilla simply because she's ugly, but it's a bit of a shallow reason not to like someone. Besides, she's not going to be Queen anyway. 302417[/snapback] I've seen pictures of her and I never thought she was "ugly". She may not be a "super model" but very few people are. Again, I'm not up to date on the royal family but was she not able to have children? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRH The KING 0 Posted February 11, 2005 Again, I'm not up to date on the royal family but was she not able to have children? She had two children with Andrew Parker-Bowles. The only reason I can think of for why Diana was chosen instead of her is that Diana's family (The Spencers) are of a more noble bloodline than Camilla's (The Shands). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted February 11, 2005 Again, I'm not up to date on the royal family but was she not able to have children? She had two children with Andrew Parker-Bowles. The only reason I can think of for why Diana was chosen instead of her is that Diana's family (The Spencers) are of a more noble bloodline than Camilla's (The Shands). 302429[/snapback] Interesting. I think it's a shame that he just didn't marry for love to begin with. Diana might still be alive and Charles might have been happy all these years (if he wasn't already). Just goes to show that the people getting married know better then their families who they should be marrying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRH The KING 0 Posted February 11, 2005 Interesting. I think it's a shame that he just didn't marry for love to begin with. It is, but tradition was too powerful. From the moment he was born it never really mattered what he wanted, but rather what the Monarchy needed. Just goes to show that the people getting married know better then their families who they should be marrying. It's true, but in the case of Monarchy, marriages have always served a strategic or political purpose. Seldom do they get married for love, although exceptions can be found. Henry VIII for example only married repeatedly because he was desperate for a strong male heir and probably truly loved his third wife Queen Jane Seymour, who died two weeks after giving birth. When Henry died, he was laid to rest near her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrPsychic 1 Posted February 11, 2005 I just wonder how his children feel about it, though I guess they're adults by now aren't they? 302414[/snapback] I heard on a news program that both Harry and William are happy for their father and wish the two best of luck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRH The KING 0 Posted February 11, 2005 Yeah, I heard they support the marriage. If they approve, then I'm all for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted February 11, 2005 Again this is my ignorance speaking, but is the Monarchy anything other then a symbol? I'm not saying that England should "do away" with it but just for the sake of educating me (and anyone else that may be ignorant of the English political scene) what would happen if there was no King or Queen? For example, when the Queen passes away (whenever that may be) no new King or Queen is put in place. What would happen to the British political structure? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRH The KING 0 Posted February 11, 2005 (edited) Again this is my ignorance speaking, but is the Monarchy anything other then a symbol? Technically no. It's entirely nominal and ceremonial, though the Queen does have certain powers though they are never used. She can however ceremonially dissolve Parliament, call for elections, and fire Governor-Generals though these are always done in consultation with government advisors. She does however have a weekly talk with the PM about matters which concern her. I'm not saying that England should "do away" with it but just for the sake of educating me (and anyone else that may be ignorant of the English political scene) what would happen if there was no King or Queen? There would always be a King or Queen because the Royal Family would ensure this, or a Regent could be appointed to stand in for the Monarch if the line of succession was thin and a young Monarch wasn't old enough to take the throne. In the case of no Monarch, I personally favour a system similar to Japan where several Royal Houses are established of noble families so if one is wiped out, another can take it's place, so I would favour choosing another Royal House in the unlikely event of the Windsors all dying. Then again, they could go the Republic route, which I don't favour. The British governing structure definately could use reform but the leader IMO should always be a Prime Minister who would be Head Of Government and a Monarch who is Head Of State. Edited February 11, 2005 by The King Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeybear 0 Posted February 11, 2005 poor DI, she was an angel, and helped many, moi aussi - what happened to her was a crime... as for the rest o'them, i quote a famous comedienne: "Go out on the street and call their names, 'Queenie, Duke, and Prince' - see what shows up..." :biggrin: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Angela 1 Posted February 11, 2005 The thing I despise Camilla for is the way that she carried on with Charles before the marriage. Effectively breaking up her own and his marriage. (and at 19 I believe Diana was very naieve, because she didn't know charles wasn't in love with her) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy 12 Posted February 11, 2005 poor DI, she was an angel, and helped many, moi aussi - what happened to her was a crime... as for the rest o'them, i quote a famous comedienne: "Go out on the street and call their names, 'Queenie, Duke, and Prince' - see what shows up..." :biggrin: 302461[/snapback] Which one is Duke? I know Wueenie and Prince but I have no idea who the Duke would be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TransporterMalfunction 1 Posted February 11, 2005 Well, they've been in love for a long time. Charles had to marry Diana because he needed a strong healthy young woman to bear an heir and a spare which she did. That was her whole purpose in getting married to Charles and she knew this fully well. He was never in love with Diana. Once he did his job and fathered the heirs, he could marry for love. A lot of people don't like Camilla simply because she's ugly, but it's a bit of a shallow reason not to like someone. Besides, she's not going to be Queen anyway. 302417[/snapback] I think you are slightly mistaken in your views. The reason that Camilla is held by so many people as unacceptable is because the Prince of Wales' marriage to her would be in breach of constitutional practice. Every married King previously has had a Queen and one of the former requirements is that she has not been divorced. A divorce causes lots of problems as Prince Charles will one day ascend to the throne and part of his duty will be to uphold and be head of the Church of England, and in a wider sense, Christianity. Now while the fact that her former husband is still alive and that they divorced does not bother me, it does bother a percentage of the country and a larger percentage within the C of E. A further role of the monarch is to create a greater unity of the people, and his marriage will clearly kick off a few debates and fuel the republicanists who wish to disguard the great British history and traditions we continue to have. Don't get me wrong, I can be happy for him on a human rights level, however there may be serious repercussions for the monarchy and his future position. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRH The KING 0 Posted February 11, 2005 (edited) Click For Spoiler poor DI, she was an angel, and helped many, moi aussi - what happened to her was a crime... No, what happened to her was a tragic accident caused by the actions of Mohammed Al Fayed (Dodi's father) and Dodi and Diana themselves themselves. They turned down MI6 protection, failed to organise well planned transportation and allowed Henri Paul who was neither a professional driver or security expert to drive their car at high speeds while he was drunk. She did help many people, but so has Princess Anne for much longer than Diana and she never got as much publicity. (and at 19 I believe Diana was very naieve, because she didn't know charles wasn't in love with her) I don't think so. Diana was always a troubled person. She was raised in a family which actually is more noble than the Windsor family itself so she would have known clearly she was marrying to bear the heir and spare. I don't buy the "she was naive" argument. Which one is Duke? I know Wueenie and Prince but I have no idea who the Duke would be. Prince Phillip is the Duke Of Edinburgh. Prince Andrew is the Duke Of York. Prince Charles is the Prince Of Wales and also the Duke Of Cornwall. The reason that Camilla is held by so many people as unacceptable is because the Prince of Wales' marriage to her would be in breach of constitutional practice. It is, but since we don't have a written constitution, the possibility exists for practice to be changed to fit the times. The Monarchy is constantly accused of being out of touch with the modern world, so by allowing the future King to marry a divorcee it shows they are capable of adapting. The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to support the marriage and the Queen is head of the CofE, so if she says it's OK, then fair enough. A further role of the monarch is to create a greater unity of the people, and his marriage will clearly kick off a few debates and fuel the republicanists who wish to disguard the great British history and traditions we continue to have. I personally think the last thing we need is another politician as President. Besides, "President Of Britain" just doesn't sound right to me. Debate is good because it keeps our country healthy and people should be interested in how it's governed. But you can have the best of both worlds where you have an "unofficial republic" with a Monarchy. In that the nation would pretty much be a republic, we just wouldn't CALL it a republic. We'd also have a Monarchy for traditional and tourism purposes. It wouldn't please the hardline republicans, but that's something they'll have to accept. Don't get me wrong, I can be happy for him on a human rights level, however there may be serious repercussions for the monarchy and his future position. I'm pretty sure they'll be alright. It still could be many many years before Charles becomes Monarch. Edited February 11, 2005 by The King Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted February 13, 2005 Congrats for them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gotabite 0 Posted February 14, 2005 Thank you for the information. This may be important to some.......But for me, there are so many other world priorities to consider than who Prince Charles marries Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeybear 0 Posted February 16, 2005 dear lord me, WHY did i have to click??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRH The KING 0 Posted February 16, 2005 A spasm in your finger perhaps? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Angela 1 Posted February 16, 2005 I despise and hate Camilla and Charlie, neither had the decency to leave each other the hell alone and thus wrecked their marriages. They didn't keep to their vows and yet the seem to think I shoul (upon my meeting them, if I do) show them respect due. I am sorry I would rather spit on them than curtsey. I have zero respect for the adultering jerks who couldn't even be honest enough to say I don't love you either enough or ever, noew I will cheat, but did it from the outset. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRH The KING 0 Posted February 16, 2005 (edited) Well, the marriage between Diana and Charles was a functional one that was put together for one and eventually two purposes, William and Harry. Once they had been born, there was no further need for them to remain married. Charles knew this and so did Diana. If she didn't, then she was a fool. Staying married when the two of them were clearly not in love would have been pointless. A future King gets married for only one reason, to get his wife pregnant. That's his main role in the marriage. His wife gives birth and that's her purpose. Nothing more. Now Charles has his heirs, he can marry for love. Edited February 16, 2005 by The King Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
