PDA

View Full Version : Should Prince Charles marry Camilla??


Dave
4th August 2001, 06:06 PM
Charles and Camilla have been good friends for years. Princess Diana publically stated that their friendship was a contributory factor in the break-up of her marriage to Prince Charles. Should Prince Charles and Camilla now be free to marry??

Vote in the poll and share your views!!

Unregistered
23rd August 2001, 05:16 PM
I think if his kids accept her and she is good to them then he should do the right thing and marry her instead of dragging her name in the mud all this time. Too bad he could not love Dianna and she lost her life as she did, that really sucks cause she deserved a chance at life and being happy too. She was a good mother.

Unregistered
28th August 2001, 04:08 PM
I don't think they should marry. Reason being - after giving grief to Diana who was one of the loveliest and nicest human beings in this world, they do not deserve to be happy. He was in a relationship with Camilla prior to his wedding with Diana, and if he wasn't sure of his feelings then, he had no right to marry her and ruin her life along with her frame of mind. His sons know this and marrying Camilla would only make them unhappy.

I know that people in the UK close to her, today ruin her reputation which is in very bad taste calling her things like an attention seeker etc. Well, what i would like to ask these people is ' have u ever touched an AIDS affected patient or a leper??? It would take alot from us to do that and she used to do it without batting an eyelid and without her royal gloves.

songbird
3rd November 2001, 08:58 PM
what difference does it make what we think of here in public opinion land?

we all thought that diana was an absolutely wonderful woman.......

unfortuantely charlie boy didn't have the insight to get our view, and instead carried on behind his wifes back with a woman whom, in much of the public's opinion, is a much lesser person than diana was.......

if old horse face was to kick the proverbial bucket tomorrow, would we see the world in mourning the way it was when diana died? Not very likely ............... however , we would be very likely to see charlie boy weeping in public (a huge display of emotion for a chap like him).......... which he did not do at diana's funeral......

so basically, who cares if charlie marries horse face ? That is something for him to work out with his sons, which is possibly why he hasn't put the ring on her hoof yet!

Jani
28th December 2001, 01:13 AM
No I don't think he should marry her - not unless he intends to step back from being our next King. I cannot see that anyone would want her to be our new Queen, she just hasn't got what it takes - and if Edward VII (if my memory serves me well) had to abdicate to marry a divorcee, then why should he be allowed to do otherwise?
If they want to marry, let them do it in exile.

David Harris
7th April 2004, 06:53 PM
I have just joined this site and I have to admit that I am shocked at the most un-Christian views expressed by some of the people in this forum. Everyone is loved by God and we should not be abusive about a person because of his or her looks. If Charles and Camilla love each other they should be entitled to marry.

newlook
15th April 2004, 06:47 PM
I'm not sure that everyone here is necessarily a Christian...this site seems to be marriage generally rather than speciaically for Christians.

David, I fear that you have rather over-simplified things. I would wholeheartedly agree that we should not be abusive about anyone because of their looks. But even if I loved my sister/father/mother/etc in a romantic way, then we are not entitled to marry. The Bible (and also the law of the land) is quite clear that we cannot marry close blood-relatives. That's a slight aside anyway.

It says in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11
"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a hustmand must not divorce his wife."

Or Mark 10:11
"He [Jesus] answered "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.""

So as Jani said, it's not quite so simple for divorcees. Christians disagree over these things, but it's not quite so clear that Charles can actually marry Camilla, having not divorced Dianna for adultery.

David Harris
15th April 2004, 11:53 PM
By unChristian I meant uncharitable or unloving, and I apologize to non-Christians and to anyone I offended.

Thank you for the Bible quotes. I don't think we can still take everything there too literally today. Progressive revelation has enlightened us to the cruelty of sticking to the letter of the law in every circumstance. We recognise our frailties as human beings, which combined with Jesus's teachings against judging others nor casting the first stone, inclines me to think that Charles and Camilla are entitled to look into their own hearts and act accordingly.

Kate
16th April 2004, 05:47 PM
For those who are interested in up to date research and understanding of Jesus' teaching on Divorce and Remarriage I recommend David Instone-Brewer's book (http://www.2in21.co.uk/books/divrem/) on the subject.

Kate

noddy
1st May 2004, 08:17 AM
Hello Kate

Would you take a look at my problem it's called confused and hurt on the message thread...perhaps you can give some good advice...I'm feeling terribly low at the moment and just don't know what to think anymore...thanks

maeeye
20th May 2004, 02:32 AM
No way, Charles marry Camilla how can he, if he becomes King isnt he supposed to be the head of the Church of England Church,, well last time I looked Charles sister had to marry in Scotland because the CofE would not step down from its stance on divorce, last time I looked charles's Aunt was not allowed to marry the man she loved,,he being a divorced man, last time I looked didnt hiis Uncle have to abdicate the throne, No Charles for too long you have had your cake and eaten it too,,,you have lied and lied and lied, who did you spend the night before your wedding with, oh thats right it was to say goodbye, well hello goodbye shouldhave happened the moment you got engaged to the wonderful girl who gave you nothing but her love and trust,,,,to certainly bruised it didnt you. If you want to marry Camilla then step down,,or do what one of your ancestors did, marry her she be your common law wife but she does not share your royal status and does not attend any royal event,,yes you lot certainly twist things to suit yourselves...you reap what you sow Charles.....round and round and round the toilet it goes,,,,,

professor_penguin
22nd May 2004, 12:55 PM
Without a doubt, I believe HRH Prince of Wales should be allowed to marry Camilla - I do not believe any person has a right to deny a couple the opportunity to live in happiness (if law allows) as Husband and Wife if that is what they desire. I think if people step back and take raw emotion out of the equation and look at the good Prince Charles has done, promoting youth via the Prince's Trust etc, helping tolerance in religion then surely he deserves companionship in his private life

unknown
13th June 2004, 08:35 AM
I believe he should if he wants to - but I do not believe she wants to marry him now. I feel she is comfortable with the way things are and does not want to be picked apart anymore than she already has been. I do believe he should have to give up hope of being king - it was not allowed in the past for his family so why change the rules now for him.

Maxwell C.
21st August 2004, 01:51 AM
ABSOLUTELY NOT! If Her Majesty the Queen does not approve of their marriage, then nor do I. Besides, wouldn't he need the Queen's approval to marry her anyways? (she IS, after all, the head of the church of england ;)

let you heart win or your mind
11th September 2004, 11:38 PM
[Well well If Charles is happy he could marry then what about lies and cheating on Camillas part if he represents England he is stating that a woman can easily wreck a marriage and do this to the prince of England. I don't believe this is love but on her side a compassion to conquer a senstive man who is confused and desperatley needs to look elsewhere for she rather be in a game of hurt than a woman of true love and honor. No country could afford her heartache again and again. Throw her out opf the running now, befor it is too late.

smackie9
16th September 2004, 06:00 AM
What the hell. Why not. They have been through enough. Leave them alone!

Concerned reader
19th October 2004, 01:24 PM
There is nothing to stop Charles Windsor marrying Mrs Parker-Bowles; the minute he steps out of the line of succession to the throne he can do as he wishes.

However, he might have to give up the income from the Duchy of Cornwall as that is what currently finances the household of the Prince of Wales. For all the talk of wanting a simpler life, he seems very fond of what that money does. The question might not be 'should they be free to marry' but 'why should they bother?'

The reasons for not marrying are long and convincing. If you can't get a 'marry' vote on a pro-marriage website, it tells you it is a very dodgy idea, one which might undermine support for the crown. We are talking about a widower and a divorcee (whose own husband was not a model of fidelity) and children so grown up they could be bringing in grandchildren soon, so if the pro-marriage thinkers of this world are not in favour, who is?

Constitutionally, the Prince of Wales must have the permission of the Queen to marry. In his capacity as heir to the throne, he is not a private individual. He is the vessel in which the state is embodied (when Her Majesty dies) and the head of the Church of England.

Parliament gets a say, too, but it is less clear how binding their opinions are. I wonder what would have happened if King Edward VIII had gone ahead with his coronation then just popped out one day and ordered one of his vicars - or maybe a bishop - to marry him to Mrs Simpson. Would Parliament have raged round and tried to make the marriage null? Would they have claimed that Church of England rules on divorcees voided the wedding? A right old panto that would have been with the king saying 'I'm married' and Parliament chorusing 'Oh no you're not'. 'Oh yes I am'....

It's very difficult to get a crown off a king's head. You usually have to take the whole head off with it.

Because the Queen and the Prince of Wales want the monarchy and the Church of England as stable as possible (and the Church of England is looking sickly and scismatic at the moment) they are have nothing to gain and lot to lose by opening difficult theological questions which only antagonize the public who have already turned their noses up at this woman.

Monarchy functions under modified morality because it has to make practical stablity its main concern. It's no skin off our noses if the Prince has a live-in gilfriend, everything will chug along nicely so long as we don't have to curtsey to her. Wisely, she has kept out of public life on her own account. The palace publicists who think they can 'persuade' the public to accept her by identifying her with charity work are not really helping.

On the day that the public decide that they want Queen Camilla the constitutional , theological and moral issues will mysteriously vanish.

Dave
19th October 2004, 02:34 PM
Hi Concerned Reader,

We really value your input. Please could you drop us a line some time directly (dave@2-in-2-1.co.uk will reach us) - we'd like to chat off the air so to speak.

Thanks

Dave

You must be nuts
10th November 2004, 02:05 AM
Charles is as queer as a $3 bill.

Secondly, the royals claim they are royal based on their refinement in social graces. This is the crap they have handed the world for centuries and the basis of the whole silly class system. Remeber - they are better because they were born that way.

Charles is one sick puppy. He needs a mommy in a bad way. Why the hell else would you kick a biscuit out of bed?

He made his choice and now he has to live with it.

He need to be "royal" they all claim they are.

In reality, my family is much more "royal" then they will ever be.

Just because your mum has a boat load of money does not a high-class make!!

D

Ann Storey
10th February 2005, 10:51 AM
I strongly disagree that Prince Charles should marry Camilla and still be head of the Church of England when on the throne. It just makes the whole saga full of hyprocrisy from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Queen, who must of given her full support.

Why didn't Charles just marry Camilla the first time round when they were much younger, and then Diana would not of been put through such turmoil and heartache. Lets face it Charles did commit one of the ultimate sins in the bible, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'.

John
10th February 2005, 11:31 AM
They've announced today that they're going to get married:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252795.stm

Concerned Reader
10th February 2005, 11:41 AM
Seeing as Clarence House has just announced the intention of Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, it is all academic.

Interesting, though, that a pro-marriage website still doesn't yield a clear opinion in favour of a marriage between two people fifty-somethings with a long (and somewhat chequered) history together.

I wonder how this will play outside the Palace?

Me? I love a wedding and a big hat. I think that a lot of this may have been avoided if the Queen had accepted Camilla all those years ago. I have to pinch myself to remember now how it was thought that virginity was the indispensable quality in the consort of hier to the throne. Camilla may, or may not, have qualified on that count and anyway, it was an age of negotiations with foreign princesses. By the time Charles might have been ready to marry Camilla, she had decided to get on with her life and married Mr PB.

Perhaps a dose of common sense back then would have spared everybody - including Princess Diana - from a great deal of pain.

So, I vote for getting on with it now.

marrywhoyouwant
10th February 2005, 12:17 PM
I see no reason they can't marry and Charles go on to be King and Head of C of E, after all it was set up by Henry VIII and he was so saintly wasn't he?

Also all these people saying they should not get married or be King should look to their own homes and family first before throwing stones at other people.
Secondly while she was alive Diana was classed as a neurotic, manipulative troublemaker how come now she is dead she is somehow more pure than the Virgin Mary? She caused as much trouble in her own and other peoples marriages as Charles himself.

Karyn
10th February 2005, 12:59 PM
Marry her by all means, who really cares, BUT, she shouldn't have the title HRH, the one they took away from Diana...let them get married and emigrate, and...take Tony phony Blair with them..

My Opinion
10th February 2005, 02:50 PM
I realize that Charles, as the future king, must have approval (which he obviously has) but I have to think HOW ARCHIAC IS THAT? It isn't like the royal family has any power, anyway. As much as I admire Diana, she was not a saint. It didn't help that her husband was in love with another woman, I know, but her behavior was hardly above reproach either. If everyone had just butted out, eventually it would have worked out and he would have married the woman he loved instead of Diana. And she probably would still be alive today because without her marriage to Charles, she would have just been another semi-royal. People view her in terms that I think even SHE would be uncomfortable trying to live up to.

poor children
10th February 2005, 03:38 PM
I think they should marry instead of living in sin. That would be the right thing to do, but I don't think she should get a royal title.

My Opinion
10th February 2005, 03:42 PM
I think they should marry instead of living in sin. That would be the right thing to do, but I don't think she should get a royal title.

Well, she isn't going to get to be queen...it is best the way they are handling it.

Linda
10th February 2005, 04:02 PM
Well, as we are all aware from this morning's news. He is in fact going to marry Camilla. Good for them, I think. I really don't like the fact that he cheated on his wife with this woman. All I know is that everything we do in life, bad or good, it always comes back to us. Like they say, "what goes around, comes around." So let them get married and we will see then. To say the truth I dislike the woman for braking a marriage. I just live it up to God, to do his will.
Linda

I am disgusted with the royal family
10th February 2005, 04:28 PM
HELL NO !!!! That female dog has done everything to inch her way into the royal family. She is a marriage-wrecker and a hoe. It is disgusting how Prince Charles has thrown her into our view. She will never be accepted. I have now lost all remaining respect for the Prince. He is as low as Camilla. In fact, I no longer respect that ridiculous family. For the Queen to 'accept' this is the final blow to the royal heritage. I think the Queen was pressured into agreeing, and shame on her for doing it and not standing up for what is morally right. What a bunch of arragant selfish pigs. They spend the publics' money, have affairs, throw it in our faces, and expect us to 'be happy for them'...bah humbug on the whole royal mess. The Prince is responsible for Diana's death, even though he 'slowly' killed her every day they were married. He never should have married her. In honor of what he did to Diana, he should keep as far away from Camilla as possible. He should marry someone else...ANYONE but Camilla. Besides, she looks as if her mother was a hampster. I hope this union ends in divorce. What a bunch of grief these two people have caused to many people. Makes me sick. Addtionally, if he marries her, then how will that look with his adulterous bride at his side and he being the head of the Chruch of England? What a hypocritical system. He blew his chance years ago with that woman. He needed to 'leave her presence' when he married Diana. (heck, before that even.) This whole family is a sham and a shame. For the sake of preserving integrity, he should forgo his line to the throne. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO FIX THE MESS HE'S IN. But, alas, he's a spoiled little brat and gets whatever he wants. Shame on that family. Shame shame shame...

carolynfrench66@yahoo.co.uk
10th February 2005, 07:05 PM
No she shouldnt. She should stay in the background and will never be a popular queen. Camilla was happy to put her own needs infront of those of Diana and in effect destroyed her.

Belgian
10th February 2005, 07:11 PM
They shouldnt get married.
Camilla was Diana's biggest problem in her relationship with Charles.

Yeaup
11th February 2005, 12:19 AM
Dianna said on video tape that Charles had said, "Why should I be the only Prince Of Wales to never have a mistress?".

Sounds like a little boy who wants a lollie pop to me.

*Imo By the Queen approving this marriage she has approved his use of a mistress (slut) during his marriage to Dianna. If Charles were to leave Camilla and be monogamous with another woman then it would say more about his character than bringing out the old slut and making her a Princess.

Not answering such questions as why was Dianna's body embalmed before anyone could examine it and so on before marrying another woman says that he was involved and so was the rest of the royal family.

As for William and Harry's approval - one thing everyone should know by now and that is not to believe what the royal family say. William and Harry would have had no choice but to approve this marriage publicly. I am sure as they have said before that they do not like the whole affair with the slut Camilla and now there is a wedding after their mother was murdered is disgarceful.

This marriage is a sham and I want to know who Charlie's new mistress is now that Camilla is the wife.

frigate
11th February 2005, 12:26 AM
If he wants to marry her it's his choice. For some reason reason alot of people think the royal family should behave a certain way, but many of these people don't act this way themselves which is a bit hypocritical. The days of arranged royal marriages and draconian restrictions should be over. If he wants to marry this woman, which he clearly does. then let him. He's not going to affect me or any of you by doing it either negatively or otherwise.

In reality who cares? (I voted yes btw)

Cher
11th February 2005, 12:34 AM
As the monarchy continues to be the laughing stock of the world with their over the top antics, why should anyone be suprised with this latest news? Seems it's time for the royals to become unroyal and live life like the rest of us (albiet, with their ever present worse behavior) and lose their privilaged, respected, and regal status they so frequently take for granted at the expence of the British public.
And this is the future head of the Church of England? What a bloody mess!!!!

Sheesh
11th February 2005, 12:40 AM
Can everybody say:

Thou shalt not commit adultery?

or

Gold digger?

This whole "why the hell not" opinion fits a world where people can do what they want. If you want to live in a world where children grow up knowing there is no such thing as morales or virtues then go for it - just move to Mars. I would prefer people WHO ARE PAID A FORTUNE TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE do just that.

Why the hell not? Because it is setting a bad example for our children to start with. Saying a Prince can have a mistress, his Princess die in not properly investigated circumstances and then marry her - how about the Prince can deal drugs too? Why not?

pfff

Constipated
11th February 2005, 02:09 AM
Ms bowels, oops I mean Bowles, has been likened to a cow, a dog and on occasion a horse. I don't think England should sanction the marriage of the next King to an animal.

I think if Charley wants to have his adultress at his side permanently he should step down from becoming the next king and pass that on to Andy.

I don't care what he does as an ordinary citizen, but I think it is revolting to have the King of England packing around an adulteress. He probably deserves her, but let's get them both into the closet where they belong.

Those poor poor son's of Dianna's, what will they have to endure next?

Ric
11th February 2005, 02:09 AM
Prince Charles married Diana....using lies...she was just a con.to have a future king..she suffered and went through a lot while these two were carrying on..I believe they deserve eachother..both are deceitful human beings...but I also believe..his actions should have consequences...like his great uncle..Edward who married Wallis Simpson..he should abdicate...the throne...that should be his punishment at least back out and let his son be the future king...If I were the Queen I would not bestow upon her Duchess of Cornwall since that title was also THE late Princess Of Wales..upon their marriage they should be known as HRH Prince Charles Duke of Windsor..and Her Grace Duchess of Windsor...and 3 months later Prince William should be crowned the NEw Prince of Wales...

I think THE DEATH OF HRH DIANA Princess of Wales at least should mean something...I dont think Charles or Camila should be rewarded.. she is dead why should these two have a happily ever after...

Ricardo

Maryland

frigate
11th February 2005, 02:47 AM
Hmmm...

What I don't understand is why people care? The monarchy has been this way since day 1. Secret relationships, mistresses, murders, the infamous love child scenario (now the norm for the political elites), secret gays etc. In the past this type of scandal and corruption was well covered up and there were no witnesses (people were bumped off, paid off, deported, locked up in asylums or imprisoned), nowadays the monarchy, and the country, has changed. You can't tell the future king who to marry for the same reasons that he can't send the army to burn down your village because you've been fiddling your tax returns. Times have changed!

Gold digger!? They all are! And they're digging up millions of pounds of your gold and walking away with it to live the high life, and you let them! Also all the fuss about what this woman looks like?! What do you care? Are you going to marry her? If she was better looking would it be ok and acceptable? Worry about yourself or who you intend to marry!

This country needs to review it's policy on a paid aristocracy, it's about time people stopped paying for these parasites. What do they do for you? Nothing. To these people we're all "peasants" lets face the facts.

The last poster seems to be more interested in which of the grandiose "titles" is to be "bestowed". To be honest the vast majority couldn't give a flying #### what title is given to any of them, except a few people with nothing better to do, though the title I'd prefer for all of them is "unemployed parasite".

I am disgusted with the royal family
11th February 2005, 04:56 AM
Here come the pictures!! Already she's flashing her ring around...she has no class. It's like she's saying, "Look at the gold I just landed." I mean, come on, her fist is in the air showing off her ring for the whole world to see in her fushia colored gown at their reception Thursday night. She just might as well had a sign on her forehead that read, 'I'm a gold digger'. AND YOU THINK THE ROYAL FAMILY HAD P.R. PROBLEMS WITH FERGIE??? They are in for a mess of it now. If Charles would simply give up his right to the throne, then all would be accepted. That's the trade-off that needs to happen. He shouldn't be allowed to be king and be married to THAT woman. Well, Camilla...wonder who he's gonna get for a new mistress now....and you'll just have to grin and bare it baby... (AND Earl Spencer...where are you? What do you have to say about all of this? What would Diana be saying? I can't imagine what you must be thinking. I truly feel for your family.) And to William and Harry...watch out for your new evil step mother. Especially to William...please don't take a mistress when you marry. Just don't do it. Don't be a cad like your dad. Be a man. Diana would want it that way.

Think about it
11th February 2005, 11:06 AM
Diana was a lying hypocrite who had the affair with James Hewwitt long before Charles started up again with Camilla.
Obviously you lot would be reccommended to read your history books and actually swot up on the Church of England s foundations and the Royal family through the ages.

you might also find that Diana s family are not the pure white Knights you all proclaim.

You lot probably also believe that because Hitlers dead he is now Mr Niceguy.

Sadie
11th February 2005, 11:24 AM
Poor, poor England! What a farce! This is the first time in British history that a long-time royal mistress has been raised to the tile of HRH, isn't it? What next?

jeanjohns@hotmail.co.uk
11th February 2005, 12:27 PM
Charles and Camilla have been good friends for years. Princess Diana publically stated that their friendship was a contributory factor in the break-up of her marriage to Prince Charles. Should Prince Charles and Camilla now be free to marry??

Vote in the poll and share your views!!
no i certainly don't think they should marry. Charles was having an affair with Camilla even before and after he and Diana were married. Why didn't he behave like a man and marry her all those years ago. Once he was mmarried to Diana camilla should have backed right off., and made sure there was no contact between her and Charles.

Intelluctual Sarah
11th February 2005, 12:31 PM
Their marrige poses the question do the royal family have a duty to fulfil any longer, when we have the future king disobeying God and to say that kings once a upon a time lived their lives according to the word of god

from a devastated 18 yr old

Ps may Diana rest in peace, if not let her spirit hunt and bring HRH Prince Charles!

starlady
11th February 2005, 01:17 PM
Whether he marries her or not, who cares? ( I voted yes ) When he does marry her, he should abdicate the throne in favour of William. As the monarch is the head of the 'Church of England', which the monarchy invented, he must do what his Uncle did and renounce his throne for the ' woman he loves'. Do it Charles and show us, the British public, that you do still have SOME decency about you. You married Diana, knowing that you would carry on your relationship with Camilla, simply to acquire a male heir to the throne from a virgin. Let that male heir fulfil his role now, LET WILLIAM BE THE KING YOU COULD NEVER BE! One who is respected and loved by the public. It is time to draw a line and decide which is more important to you, your woman or your kingdom?
Julie Waller

A Narchist
11th February 2005, 01:30 PM
As a mature, adult couple Charles and Camilla can do as they please. The question which should be asked is, do we really want the disfunctional, arrogant, out-of-touch Windsor family to continue to be our unelected heads of state?
Hasn't the time come to rid ourselves of the hereditary monarchy and move to an elected, non-executive head of state?
Most public opinion is now apathetic regarding the monarchy and the nation no longer looks upon them with the respect and admiration which it once did. Let the Queen see out her reing and forget them!

A Narchist
11th February 2005, 01:34 PM
As a mature, adult couple Charles and Camilla can do as they please. The question which should be asked is, do we really want the disfunctional, arrogant, out-of-touch Windsor family to continue to be our unelected heads of state?
Hasn't the time come to rid ourselves of the hereditary monarchy and move to an elected, non-executive head of state?
Most public opinion is now apathetic regarding the monarchy and the nation no longer looks upon them with the respect and admiration which it once did. Let the Queen see out her reign and forget them!

Rod Stephens
11th February 2005, 02:46 PM
ABSOLUTELY NOT.

1. He was previously married to the most gorgeous person that I have ever had the honour and privelege of meeting , who represented our Country like no other in the House of Windsor - much to the chagrine of all of the other Windors. And behind Diana's back, this affair between Charles and Camilla was continuing- as Diana said there were three of them in that marriage - which undermined Diana and lead to the demise of the marriage. Hence she was with Dodi, looking for love and kindness that she never received with Charles, and her subsequent death. Daina was our PRINCESS OF WALES. We want no other.

2. So Charles is now a divorced person. As Defender of the faith he should not be marrying a divorced woman. And if he wants Camilla he should do the honourable thing like David, EDWARD VIII did, and step down and allow the throne to pass to the next in line - his son - The Windsors want their cake and eat it - so they bend our Constitution - he was brought up to uphold these principles and the precedent of Constitution - just because it is 2005 doesn't mean to say that he can ride rough shod over our Constitution. Charles MUST choose between the throne or his fancy woman. We should not have this woman forced upon us - we have no repect for her.

This is not the same situation as a commoner - it is rubbish saying that they are two people in love so let them get married and let byegones be byegones - they are Royals and should be setting the moral standards in our Country and and act os head of our Christian Church and Faith.

Charles has let us down - Diana was a shining light.

NO AND CORNWALL DOES NOT WANT THIS WOMAN AS THE DUCHESS OF CORNWALL THANK YOU.

I am disgusted with the royal family
11th February 2005, 02:53 PM
Camilla is just like a SHARK...she's always been in the background circling around and around and around...waiting....waiting...waiting...to catch a bite....chewing on Charles before, during and after his marriage. But the saddest thing, is that Charles enjoys swimming with her. Shows his true character. He should abdicate. Period.

John
11th February 2005, 04:24 PM
I'm glad we're all talking about this in a mature, gentle and loving way. Makes me wonder whether the people of England are really that much better than the royals that are being condemned... I'm sure that strong opinions can be expressed without descending to name-calling and bitchiness.

Although these events do raise some important question's about the validity of having Charles as 'head' of the Church of England (whatever that means), I think that this is the least of the problems that the Church of England faces...what about all those ministers that don't even believe in God, let alone Jesus' exclusive claims to be the only way to God!

As for fact that the royals are meant to be setting a good example: perhaps the heart of the problem is the lack of biblical leadership coming from within the Church of England. If they can't even agree on divorce and remarriage, how can we expect the royals to do any better! Besides, in a country that has basically forgotten God, how can we expect there to be any coherent moral framework? Taking God out of the picture plunges ethics and morals into a murky swamp of relativism and atheism and general confusion.

As a Christian I see that the only way of raising the moral standards of this country is through changing individual hearts to trust in and follow Jesus, not through changing laws. As we see in the Old Testament, laws are never enough to change human behaviour - it needs that personal, living relationship with God through Jesus. Laws may help a bit, and good role models are important, but it's relationship with God, lived out in gratitude to him that will bring major changes to the way people behave and think.

Without God and his revelation in the Bible, it is nearly impossible to justify why a divorcee should not be king/queen, indeed why we should even bother with monogamous marriage. Most of these things are thanks to the Christian heritage of this nation - but in an atheistic country, they are hard to justify. "Whatever makes you happy" is the way decisions are reached now, not "whatever makes you godly/pure/like Jesus".

Anyway, I've headed off on all sorts of tangents there. My main point was to ask whether we could hold this discussion in a more mature manner?

The truth of the matter is
11th February 2005, 05:03 PM
HELL NO!!!

If Charles had paid more attention to his wife instead of his horse (Camilla) then Diana would still be alive today.

Diana did have her problems but they were mainly due to Charles' selfishness. She believed that she was ugly and not worthy of love. In the end she did not know which way or who to turn to. Dodi Fayed had shown her respect, love and attention, so she began the affair that would cost her her life.

Poor Diana is now dead in her grave, her sons have lost a mother, her charities have lost a great deal of support and money, the nation and the world has lost one its leading lights, while Camilla, a spiteful, hateful, dirty whore of the highest order, is showing off her engagement ring, like a Cheshire cat. Surely there is something wrong with that isn't there? Anyone that agrees to this union is without morals, principals and has no respect for marriage and commitment whether Christian or otherwise.

How happy Charles must be to have two well-adjusted handsome sons and heirs to his throne, and to finally be married to the so-called love of his life. His whining like a brat that could not marry the horse, is the least that he should have endured for the disrespect that he showed to a wonderful, charming young woman. Will he now decide to whine and throw another tantrum when the horse cannot be addressed as Queen Camilla after the marriage?

I think it is a very sad day when a woman like Diana can be simply cast aside once she has bred the future King's children in favour of a horse.

Charles should step down as King and go into exile if he loves the horse that much. Long live King William!!

I am disgusted with the royal family
11th February 2005, 05:46 PM
AMEN to what you just said....and I agree that once he becomes King, you can be SURE that he will FIX IT SO THAT HIS DISGUSTING WIFE IS CALLED QUEEN! WHO IS GOING TO REFUSE THE KING OF ENGLAND AT THAT TIME???? They just say she won't have the title now, to get on with the marriage...but if they can allow this marriage, then they can ALLOW ANYTHING.......QUEEN CAMILLA....oh I think I'm gonna get sick....

Cinnuint
11th February 2005, 05:49 PM
I honestly hope Charles' ears drop off the sides of his head...I am disgusted by him and the way he treated Princess Diana...he does not deserve to be happy...and I surely don't think that Camilla will make the boys happy...The Queen has gone bonkers for allowing this engagement to take place...and on top of it, Charles will be Prince of the Church of England??? OHHHH PUUUHHHLEASE!!! Yeah, a fine model he makes for the Church...ugh!!! I have become totally disgusted by the whole royal family excluding William and Harry...so, NO!!! I do not think they should marry, neither of them deserves to be happy...:p

Liz
11th February 2005, 05:52 PM
As Moderator on this site I would ask you to express your opinions graciously. If you want to descend to name calling and character assasination then please do it off line.

I don't feel happy about what is happening with the royal family but I don't think any of us are perfect. None of us know what really happened in Charles's first marriage or since then, so perhaps we should be open minded enough to recognise that.

Liz

**** uNREG ***
11th February 2005, 06:03 PM
C & C (remember his first wedding day cufflinks that Charles wore, a gift from Camilla - YUCK?) are guilty of the break-up of two marriages, and maybe worse than that. As the 'car crash' is still being investigated and could site Charles as an accessory to murder, how on earth can these two honestly get themselves all over the newspapers in this manner?

If love is seriously the issue, they should get themselves off to Gretna Green and retire gracefully, as a married couple, at Highgrove, chase foxes and talk to plants.....but please spare us the EMBARASSMENT to the world, of adulterers getting married in public and maybe, one day..........sitting on the throne of England. 'Defender of the Faith' - what a load of tosh!
Maybe this debacle should cite the end of the Briitish monarchy and all its pithy traditionalism.
'God save the Queen', and keep her on our throne iFOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE!
The Queen Mother, not to mention Princess Diana, must be turning in their graves!!

If the monarchy needs to continue, let the crown pass to 'The Princess Royal', and spare William the dubious 'honour' of running this country.

Blair should have taken a leaf out of Mr Chirac's book , and just said 'NON' to this embaRASSING marriage!
Weak government head, but doesn't this news story neatly get him off the front pages for the disastrous job he is doing of running this country?

***********UNIREG******
11th February 2005, 06:14 PM
WOW - COULD HAVE WRITEN THE LAST POST MYSELF!
The Queen has to stay on the throne - there is NO WAY, Camilla will be allowed to mount the British throne, unless the legislation gets 'modified' in the meantime, like everything else does when it suits the Government!

And you are so correct - Charles is being investigated for his possible part in his late ex-wife's 'murder', due to that hand=written letter.

Love is love, I guess, (Spare us the possibility of a royal birth in the future, PLEASE - William Hill are taking bets!) and I think they should be allowed to marry, in private - but NOT at the expense of the taxpayers - Lord, next they'll be giving us all a day of school and work to watch the event on the telly!
Has it crossed anyone's mind how to tell schoolchildren that it is OK to run off with someone else's spouse .....so much for the 'family' unit the Govt is so keen to promote when it suits them.

The throne has to be given up if Charles does make this move on April 8th..........
The UK is already the laughing stock of the religious world - don't make it any more fragile!

Concerned Reader
11th February 2005, 06:22 PM
My mother reminds me that history plays a part here.

Charles was already very attached to Camilla when he went in to the Navy as a young man. She either didn't wait for him, or he failed to ask for her hand, and so she got on with life and married someone else.

Part of the reason he didn't ask then was that, as a young man desperate to fulfil his duty to the Crown and the country, the Palace was determined to marry him off to a suitable princess, or failing that, a suitable commoner.

'Suitable' was narrowly defined and included the condition 'virgin with no awkward ex-boyfriends and from a suitable family and good looking'. The field was actually rather narrow and Camilla, already a colourful and popular young woman, didn't fit the bill.

The Prince could no more have insisted on marrying Camilla than he could have made his horse prime minister. He would have had to defy his mother and refuse to marry anyone if it couldn't be Camilla. He was young then, and so he found himself at sea and wondering what if....? (That's how it was in those days.)

The Silver Jubilee passed off nicely in 1977 and the country settled down for a recession, culminating in the Winter of Discontent, the Punk revolution and the election of the first Thatcher government. The first twenty five years of the New Elizabethan Age had juddered to a halt. The Coronation had been so optimistic and glossy, the 1960s had many high points as well as some crashing low ones, but by the fag-end of the 1970s, the monarchy was looking battered and out-of-date.

So much was riding on a good royal succession. It would be just what the Monarchy needed to keep up its place in the public eye. Afterall, the next jubilee was over 20 years away. Prince Charles had been linked to umpteen names and let's be fair, he was knocking on. When the cabal of Dale Tryon and Camilla Parker Bowles presented their candidate, Lady Diana Spencer, it was with a great sigh of relief that someone had turned up that they could all agree on.

The Palace liked her, she had no naughty history at all, impeccable family, good looking, good with children, even all her teachers said she was a nice girl, exactly the sort girl every mother hopes the boy will come home with. It wasn't as if the Prince was being asked to make a supreme sacrifice for his country. Marry a nice girl, have children, be happy, have some money - what's so unbearable about that? Even his girlfriends - Dale and Camilla were there all the time - liked her. They chose her, didn't they?

The rest of the story we all remember and I am not going to excuse any of the subsequent carry-on. It was wrong and the Prince has never properly apologised for putting his wife in the impossible position of being belittled by his mistress. If Diana wasn't bonkers to start with, she would have been by the end. Anyone would have been. A sneakier prince might have managed it by keeping the mistress far, far, in the background. A stronger Prince might have insisted on his own choice of bride, or managed to keep his promises.

But funnily enough, it is because of Diana that he has finally been able to marry Camilla. When Diana decided to come clean about her own spotty behaviour - while complaining about his - it really did get attitudes out in the open. It changed things subtly and unpredictably. It made it possible to say 'OK, I made mistakes'.

So I see it like this. He is serious about this woman and always had been. Maybe if people like me hadn't been so mad keen for a fairy-tale princess he would never have had to marry someone who didn't really suit him in the first place. They would both have been happier and she might never have died that way.

The Monarchy would have had to get public support on the basis of its own merits or demerits, but surely that ought to be the way it functions? There ought to be something of substance behind the photos, a sense that this lot represent solid virtues rather than feel-good celebrity. (Admittedly, this is undermined each time they wheel out CPB).

It would help me now (just in case the Queen is reading this) if there could be some kind of low-key acknowledgement that Prince Charles understands that if you want to be taken seriously as a future monarch, you have to show you understand about making and keeping promises, even when it is difficult and inconvenient to do so.

Then I can get on with my big hat and put up the Union Jack again (or maybe the Cross of St George, depending on how I feel about Gordon Brown on April 8) and annoy all the Republicans by coming over all Monarchist for a day or two.

mia
11th February 2005, 07:51 PM
I was like you gotta be ****ting me.What is he thinking?Poor Diana.That's really ****ed up.Camilla is ugly as hell.I wonder how Dianas' boys really feel about this.He shouldn't be a king.That's for sure.Well,I just realized that I am not even English.But still It really pisses me off.After all I love Diana.They really trie tarnish Diana's image.Trying to portray her as some sort of pshyco of some sort.This is absolutely sick.

DISSAGREA
11th February 2005, 08:24 PM
NO I DONT THINK THEY SHOULD MARRY !!!!!!
Charles is doing the wrong thing. He had the most beatiful woman going and then he turns to an old slag. Diana- was the most beautiful woman in the world she was the only person who could touch some1's heart. She was the only royal that would get off her butt and go and help people! All the others royals decided to sit on thier ass's all day ( accept from the queen). All Diana wanted was some1 to luv her and Charles wouldnt give her that. Every1 loved Di but i dont think any 1 will love Camilla.
I don't think William and Harry wants him to marry her but they havent got a choice. All thety want is thier mother back.
When they marry i wud like 2 spit at thier faces.
DIANA'S THE ONLY PRINCESS OF WALES AND NO 1 WILL EVER B ABLE 2 REPLACE HER AND NEVER WILL. WHO EVER HE MARRIES, ESPECIALLY THAT BIG HEADED COW.
THEY BOTH R DISGRACEFUL AS THEY'VE BIN HAVING AN AFFAIR 4 34 YEARS WHILE HE WAS WITH DIANA 2.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am disgusted with the royal family
11th February 2005, 08:54 PM
Oh Camilla, I'd hate to be you right now. The whole world can't stand you, and you stand for nothing but selfishness. You will never ever understand how selfish you really are. You may look at us 'common folks' as peasents or something. But we look at you as something even lower. It's sort of like, if you sat down with a pig, the damn pig would get up and walk away.

frigate
11th February 2005, 08:54 PM
Wow... so what? Why is it your problem? and get a new keyboard as your caps lock appears to have got stuck towards the end of your post. I can't believe people are posting this unintelligent cr@p. Like Concerned Reader said and Liz the moderator before that: Why do you have to be so insulting?! I thought the problem you had was that he was marrying again??

So I repeat my question: If he was marrying a more attractive woman that you all liked and wasn't divorced would that be ok? If not then forget the petty and anonymous insults.

This is the problem when you open a board to guests in my opinion, as a consequence you get hordes of anonymous ranting individuals that wouldn't dream of posting that kind of misinformed "god save the queen", "ooooh Diana wur wundaful! a proppa kween ov 'earts", Prince William Fanclub nonsense if they were registered. You know nothing of any of the royal family apart from what you read in the newspapers and watch on TV!

Why don't you worry about that lot of gangsters running your country at the moment instead of some overpaid symbolic figureheads?

Let's have the "Republic of Great Britain", doesn't that sound good? We can make Prince William the president if that's what you want!!! A nice "head of state" type figure for those of you that have no interest in real politics.

I am disgusted with the royal family
11th February 2005, 08:59 PM
She's fun to poke at because she isn't very attractive. BUT, that isn't why we all hate her. It's because of her BEHAVIOR!!! And Charles' too. Her behavior makes her look worse than she is. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and she offends all the beholders with her shark like attitude to capture the prince. She's dirty and 'used' if you know what I mean.

my view
11th February 2005, 11:18 PM
who really cares if they get married or not.
maybe william and harry should.after all prince charles and his old hag did cause her a lot of pain.i really dont get it charles...he had a rolls royce (IN DIANA) now he has settled for a ford cortina.
i would at the very least expect charles to do the decent thing and give up the throne.....but then i guess he does not know how to do the decent thing.
you cant blame him for getting married to diana....even though it would seem he only wanted her tp produce children for him.once she served his purpose he tossed her aside.
there is a lot i would like to say but i would be here all night.
i just hope that from the day they wed ...prince charles and his ford cortina have as much pain in there lives as they caused the princess of wales

heather on the hill, Brigadoon
11th February 2005, 11:41 PM
The royal family are murderers and are responsible for the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Charles and Camilla deserve eachother as they are both dogs. Diana's name for Camilla - The Rottweiller - was very fitting. Charles is not competent to be King, and Camilla Parker-Bowles should never be graced with the title of Princess of "anything". The royal family is just a farce. They're all useless prats. Long may your memory live on in the world's affection Diana.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diana's medium
11th February 2005, 11:45 PM
Camilla truly is a "female dog".

The only "queen" role she is fit to fill is the roll of "drag queen".

I am disgusted with the royal family
11th February 2005, 11:47 PM
If Diana was our Queen of Hearts, then Camilla will certainly be known as the Queen of Spades.

rab2005uk
11th February 2005, 11:48 PM
Charles and Camilla should not marry. What gives Camilla the right to become a senior member of the Royal family after what she done to wreck Charles marriage to Diana-.

William
11th February 2005, 11:50 PM
Who ya gonna call?

Me!!!

Make me your next King, not one of my mother's arch adversaries.

Say no to Daddio and his old banger mistress.

Camilla - Princess Consort? What an oxymoron!!!

karma
12th February 2005, 12:07 AM
perhaps Charles will become impotent...

justice
12th February 2005, 12:16 AM
wow - this poll was originally created in mid-2001!

in Diana's memory
12th February 2005, 12:20 AM
I hope the nation of Great Britain rises up against Charles and Camilla and protests.

I hope that Charles never becomes king.

I hope that people confront and challenge them when they're out in public, and never give them a moment's peace and drive them nuts, just as the media did to Diana.

I hope the Queen stays on until William is a bit older, and then abdicates in favour of him.

In memory of our English Rose ~ Diana, Princess of Wales.

HRH
12th February 2005, 10:15 AM
I'll never courtsey to Camilla.

NEVER!!!

My silence speaks volumes.

~Ann

Abby
13th February 2005, 03:05 AM
No, he is of lesser class than I had thought....Diane was correct from the get go........They all planned this........The very idea of those two marrying....Diane predicted this before her death.......I do hope all of England revolt or do something......I hope those two don't want to visit my White House.....Hope President Bush, boots them out....gees...

Can't take this...


this is awful.....

discussed in Alabama.......
and watching very closely..

I am disgusted with the royal family
13th February 2005, 06:50 PM
If Prince Charles were a decent man, he would abdicate. I firmly believe he 'loves' Camilla ('whatever love is'...as he said to Diana in their engadgement interview) but because of the history of the relationship, he's rather cornered himself into a pathetic situation. The only way to remain a decent and respectful human being, is simply to abdicate. If he really loves her that much, he would do it. If he doesn't abdicate, then the british throne has no backbone and is a waiste of money to the british public.

my view
14th February 2005, 12:46 AM
i think that all of us who dont want prince charles to marry camilla should send e-mails to tony blair.and tell him that if he does not do something about it and quick,then he is going to lose our votes and the next election......that would shake things up a bit.

camilla
14th February 2005, 06:27 AM
Charles will be the head of the church once he becomes king? What a joke. Doesn't morality enter the picture anywhere? Anyone? 30 years of lack of moral behavior and now he's going to make her an "honest woman"? Right. Royalty is so incestuous--and spoiled. They do whatever they want to, and create the rules around their particular wants and desires. They are like bratty 4-year olds...someone get Supernanny Jo here to spank them! I say, let Charles marry Camilla...and let them be "happy" together...maybe he can act as her personal tampon...oh yeah...she's MENOPAUSAL so no tampons needed. They are disgustingly amoral and let them be disgusting together. Unfortunantely, they serve as role models to the youth of England. Fortunantly, she is menopausal so there is no chance of any more ugly, inbred royalty. Thank God! You Brits are the laughingstock of the world right now.

Liz
14th February 2005, 08:37 AM
Please can we stop being so abusive of the royal family. If you don't like them, why not just say, "I don't like them." Calling them names and making rude comments about them is going too far.

Also I am British and I am beginning to get fed up with some of the abusive posts coming from across the pond. Yes we have a problem here with what is going on, but look to your own celebrities and politicians and your own country's problem too.

Let's have some sensible debate about the issues here not caricature and abuse.

Liz

cavendish
14th February 2005, 08:47 AM
I am a Catholic and ever since the emancipation of Catholics in 1801 ....I think it was..we have accepted that our monarch could never marry a catholic......it is a part of a Royal Marriage Acts.....brought in at the time of the hanoverians.....The prince regent went through a morganic marriage with Mrs FitzHerbert.....bujt she wasz never allowed to rujle and he had to marry a german protestant princess he had one daughter Charlotte.......who unfortunately died in childbirth.....

Not only is it an insult that Charles Prince of Wales goes against the rules of his own church but it is an insult to the Roman Catholic church......for this woman
Camilla Shand .....was converted to the Roman Catholic Church to marry Parker Bolwes her children are baptised Roman Catholics.....so she has made a mockery and a sham of her marriage to Parker Bolwes....and his religion......she has brought our future monarch down low and made a mockery of his religion....

So for her to marry Charles with out breaking the Royal Marriage Law she must first be be kicked out publicly by the Roman Catholic Church or convert to the Anglican Church.......why can she not marry him as just plain Charles Windsor......in a London Registry Office......and why if he loves her so much does he not give ujp the throne of Great Britain for the woman he lolves as did the Dujke of Windsor.....who was a far more honourable man.......He and Camilla coluld live quite comfortably in France or America and the name Duke and Duchess of Windsor is now vacant...........

His titles should be given up and his son William should now be created Prince of Wales.....Duke of Cornwall......etc and Heir to the throne of the Unikted Kingdom after his Grandmothers Reign......

Otherwise I think that she will be our last monarch .........

Charles is an insult to the Queen....her father......and all who have gone before who did there duty Charles and Camilla and all the.....hangers on ......

This should be put to a vote this is a democratic country and they are just a constitutional monarchy.......We the subjects should have a right to vote on this as they do in the scandanavian countrys


A Roman Catholic who iks insulted to think that peop.le will think that she is a true representitive of our church she used that to get one man and she is now doing the same with another....

Make your Mind up Charles King Or Camilla

interested observer
14th February 2005, 10:21 AM
Can I just express that some of the people who are replying should be ashamed of themselves, Princess Diana Prince Charles and Camilla were all born into the landed gentry or higher, now this means that people marry for money and or prestige Love does not come into it. Now everyone in there circle had open marriages, the wife having it off with the tennis coach the husband with the secretary.
The tragedy in this whole sorry deal was that one of the participants could not deal with that way of life even though she had herself seen it in every marriage around her, Perhaps Charles and Camilla should have been kinder to her but I honestly beleive that she knew what she was going into before she got married after all her sister nearly married Prince Charles and her brother in law was a memeber of the royal household.
Now as to Prince Charles abdicating in favour of Prince William, can I please point out that before you abdicate you have to be King and as far as I am aware if Prince Charles abdicated you would not get Prince William as King but Andrew as I beleive that when you abdicate you take yourself and your offspring out of the picture.
All I can say is best of luck to Charles and Camilla.
Also to all of you so against please remember that Charles being King is just a small blip on the way to William, Charles is afterall Over 50 his mother is over or nearly 80. If the Queen lives as long as the Queen Mother Charles will be nearly 75 himself when he inherits.

Prince William should be allowed a period of adjustment not made to step into shoes which do not yet fit him.

I am disgusted with the royal family
14th February 2005, 07:36 PM
AND I QUOTE: "serious doubts" over the couple's wedding plans, arguing that the 1836 Marriage Act barred the royal family from civil marriages.

hahahahahahahahahhah!!! Charles, you fool. The ONLY way to make a decent woman out of her (and a decent man out of yourself) is to abdicate. If you love her that much, (and I believe you do), just give up the throne.

I am disgusted with the royal family
14th February 2005, 07:43 PM
To 'interested observer': a small BLIP??? blip??? blip??? This is NO small BLIP. This is blasphamy to the Church of England. May God help you.

Liz
14th February 2005, 09:50 PM
Dear I am disgusted etc,

I'm sure you have some strong opinions - after all you've been banging on about them from over there in the US for a few days now.

However, let's get a couple of sane facts in here. First Charles can't abdicate since he isn't yet King. Were he to renounce his right to the throne (which I presume is what you are suggesting) then the right of succession would pass to Andrew not to William.

Secondly, your statement that this is blasphemy to the church is similar nonsense. Charles' role in the CofE (nb not the Anglican Comunion) is a constitutional one and is the principal route by which the Church is established as one of the three legs of our constitution (the other two being the Judiciary and Parliament). If he were to renounce his position in the church, or were they to reject him, this would have the effect of dis-establishing the church which is something most who understand our constitution do not want to consider at present.

Blasphemy in any case means that it is offensive to God, not the church. In agreeing that they will bless the union the Church is clearly stating that it is not blasphemous.

Liz

I am disgusted with the royal family
14th February 2005, 10:17 PM
I complety disagree with you...if THEY (as you put it) bless the marriage, then 'they' are being blasphemous...otherwise, the couple would simply get married in the church. But, since a marriage in the church is either not allowed, or not recommended because of the history of the relationship, they have to have civil ceremony. That alone is cause for them not to marry. You institution has been in place for hundreds of years. Why is now, that just because Charles wants his mistress and his title, you guys are allowing it? I have lost respect for your royal family for just this reason. Whatever Charles wants, Charles gets. That's the real point in all of this. That's why I'm against what's happening. He's going boldface against everything his position should stand for. Get it???

I am disgusted with the royal family
14th February 2005, 10:18 PM
And one more thing....he should still abdicate. I'm sorry if that benefits Andrew and not William. I adore William, but this is one more factor Charles has let happen. His 'sin' has hurt his entire family...and maybe even William will end up paying the bulk of the price.

I am disgusted with the royal family
14th February 2005, 10:20 PM
And Liz...blashphemy isn't a political thing...it's between the person and God. Being disrespectful to God and HIS church is indeed, blashphemous.

Dave
14th February 2005, 10:44 PM
Dear I am etc,

I do wish you would read what Liz wrote instead of shouting your incessant views!

He cant ABDICATE because he isn't king!

Disrespect to the church of the day isn't blashemy (if it were Jesus would be guilty from what He said about the Pharisees!). Blashemy is showing (or speaking) disrespect for God.

Whose view on blasphemy should I accept - yours, or the settled view of the Synod composing a wide variety of wise bishops etc from across the spectrum of theological thought??

The CofE was formed in large part out of a requirement for our monarch to have a way out with respect to divorce and the unwillingness of the Pope of the day to grant one. This is only history repeating itself, and the church seems to have survived quite well for the last 450 years with this!! If it is going to split it will be over the ordination of gay bishops, a practice that seems to be acceptable in the US but not here rather than over the marriage of a divorced prince.

I am disgusted with the royal family
14th February 2005, 11:21 PM
whoah..first and foremost...I am extremely AGAINST any sort of GAY anything...especially gay bishops! THAT DISGUSTS ME! I am not stupid...of course I have read all these posts, and also understand that he can not abdicate until he becomes king. (king of what? king of a church he can't get married in, and king of a system that is long since outdated??? You NEED a king for the tourism...let's face it.) But none the less, the point that remains is the obvious...he gets whatever he wants. That's the shame of it all. (if he can't have a civil ceremony, he'll go to Scottland, or have common marriage, or whatever else his staff comes up with to make him happy). He shouldn't be allowed to marry her considering the objections. And now it's questionable if it's even legal. When a marriage of this rank is under such scrutiny, why allow it? He ought to wait to be king, abdicate, then marry her. That's what's usually done in this matter. Why can't it still be that way? Why can't you stand for anything?

my view
15th February 2005, 02:13 AM
princess diana....was a young innocent woman when prince charles came along.
she would not have had any of the problems she had later on if she had not married charles.(fact)
charles has behaved and still is behaving like a spoilt child.it was very lucky for him and camilla that diana died.they would never have been allowed to marry if diana was still alive today(how convenient for them)
diana was everything that charles or camilla could never be.and that is popular with the whole world.
she took the limelight away from charles,and would knock sopts of camilla (even on a bad day)
i think that was her downfull.she was just to well liked and the royals did not like.
dont all you people who support this wedding think that charles and camilla have done anything wrong?
i am sure you would think so if they were just ordinary people living in your area.everyone would be gossiping about thier whole relationsip.and saying how terrible it all this.
should they marry???? who cares.!!!!!..........but if they do they sould go into the wilderness never to be heard of again.
diana is dead...........long live the princess of wales.there can be only one.

Sheesh
15th February 2005, 03:45 AM
Most people here who have gone with the yes vote seem to say the same thing:

Why not? or

Who cares?

Like I said before:
----------------------------------
This whole "why the hell not" opinion fits a world where people can do what they want. If you want to live in a world where children grow up knowing there is no such thing as morales or virtues then go for it - just move to Mars. I would prefer people WHO ARE PAID A FORTUNE TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE do just that.

Why the hell not? Because it is setting a bad example for our children to start with. Saying a Prince can have a mistress, his Princess die in not properly investigated circumstances and then marry her - how about the Prince can deal drugs too? Why not?
----------------------------------
If you enjoy a world where people can do what they want then get out of your house and live with the homeless because there won't be a high standard of living when the world works like that.

Doing the right thing matters - a lot. If you don't think it does or can excuse it because the royals have been doing the same thing for centuries then you are either lazy and have given up or have a problem with virutes and morales.

Reiterating: They are paid a fortune to lead by example. Marrying a mistress (there are a lot of other words for it - slut, whore, marriage destroyer, etc but I won't use them here...) is disgraceful. Prince Charles is a little boy who didn't want to be the only Prince of Wales who didn't have a mistress. Well now you have it all Charlie - now you have shown all the children how to act like a prince. Commit adultery, ignore the death of your wife and marry the adultress.

Do what you want - AFTER you have given up your title and wealth. Go and get a job like everyone else. Btw - that ring on her finger wasn't paid for by you so go to a pawn shop and buy one of your own lol.

history buff
16th February 2005, 10:01 AM
Should he marry her? That's rather a moot question. He has and always will do whatever he pleases. It goes with the title. By Charles actions, you'd think the universe revolved around him (and bloddy well damn anyone who dosen't believe it, also!)

The question should be: Why are the British people willing to pay the Prince of Wales (and ALL the Royals) money and entitlements that go along with their positions? If they want to ACT common, let them BE common.

Don't forget, once he becomes King, he is exempt from the law, so why should anyone doubt he'll try to make Camilla his queen? I mean really...he's marrying a divorced, Catholic woman--BIG no-no's for English monarchs for centuries. Whether he does or doesn't, she'll still be called, "Her Royal Highness." That's got to make Mrs. Simpson spin in her grave. Poor woman.

Maybe we should should turn our backs in protest to Camilla when she comes by? That's better than having spoiled veggies tossed at her as was done to Henry VIII's second wife.

History ALWAYS repeats.

cavendish
16th February 2005, 10:18 AM
Before William the Conqueror we had an Anglo Saxon Society.......with many young princelings.....around when the old monarch died.......and the great and wealthy of the land came together in a great meeting.......and voted for the...best man for the job......Personally I think .....Princess Anne's son is the best man folr the job......and we should vote him King........

I believe The Queen ....Prince Philip and the Late Queen Mum all thought very highly of him.......He could become a Prince Regent.........and He could train Prince William.....as he also very much a mentor of the young princes......

The Queen and Goverment could make this so by making an act of succession and haved it signed and past in both houses ..........

Tourists come to see the magic of our royal house.......the continuity......the fine example set by George and Mary.......George and Elizabeth ........and Elizabeth and Philip......if we do not have this then we have nothing......we might as well just take a vote on being a Republic of Britain......our people will not accept the outlay for a Charles and Camilla........

They would have accepted a King Charles 3rd reigning alone.......and they would have accepted ...his common laws wife/ mistress..........The great british public ......will not accept in the long term......Charles thumbing his nose at them.....he is not as the last three long reigns who won the respect and love of there subjects.....

We don't want it to all end in tears......Be Graceful and Go quietly.....And Mr Blair........If you want to be re-elected get this right and advisse you monarch it won't do this marriage......it will cause trouble in the long run.....

Abby
21st February 2005, 01:37 AM
Well it's February 20th, 2005 here in the US OF A....and MSNBC has programed Princes Diane and Prince William and Prince Harry all day long...Seems to me that MSNBC is reminding the United States viewers of Charles' behavior toward Diana,,,I love it.....

MSNBC must be geering up for the so call "royal wedding" (notice no caps, here)..

Still discussed in Alabama....

Shasta
21st February 2005, 07:48 PM
They are in love forget everything and let them be in love. They've paid their dues already. It's their turn. I don't know about everyone else but I believe in love and I'd fight for it.

jenjen
23rd February 2005, 02:59 PM
No... I think Camilla just wanted in the royal family which is why she strung Charles on a string for so many years. She comes across in a bragging sort of way about her engagement ring and everything else. She has been dying for this sort of attention. I read somewhere that Charles is spending ALOT of money on her that they are questioning his spending, the only way to uplift a ban on his spending is marrying her. No one questions supporting your wife. SO she must be a high spender!!! Just what she always wanted. She will never be anything acceptable as Diana was, she is the reason Diana's marriage went downhill. This makes me question the morality of the Royals in the future. If Camilla will mess with a marriage and break it up??... how will she help run the royal family once the queen is gone? Boy you think this is a soap opera... just wait and see what is allowed in the future!!! I believe Royalty should uphold morals.. and when they let someone in that has no regard to morals.. makes you question their ability to rule.

cavendish
23rd February 2005, 07:14 PM
I have just read the Act of Settlement.........and every else should do.....enacted when the widower King William of Orange was on the throne......It was enacted in
about 1701.........

It actually knocked out 50 Stuart contenders to the throne..........all soert of other things.......

The Prince Regent in later times ......made a Morganic Marriage.......with Mrs Fitz Herbert a catholic......not only had he not got permission from the King......coverd by a different act .....but he had broke the rule that said no catholics.....

Coming down to the present day......a number of the Royal Family have been kicked out of the succesion for them selves and there Heirs....because they married a Catholic ......Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.......and a lagter olne than that too.....

The act of settlement says....not only can you not marry a catholic.....but yolu can not marry someone who has been married a catholic......it all so says that the act of settlement can not be over turned .....I think we would have noticed if someone had tried to repeal this act.......of succesion.......

In actual fact it looks as though Charles and his family have no right to rule......now according to the ........The Act of Settlement....after April 8th and The Lords Temporal and Spiritual and The House of Commons are the last word on this act......so if every one of the subjects......sent to there MP's Vicars Bishops Judges a demand to speak up ........and send letters to the registrar.....now the registrar must stop the wedding or Charles must do the honourable thing and .......give ujp the throne for him and his heirs.....the Duke of York and his Daughters would come next in line............if he refused it .....would then pass to the Wessex Family......

If Charles persists .........I think that when the Queen dies ........We will become "Republic Britannia"

Well one thing this wedding is not going to be and that is low profile.........The Guild Hall Registry Office Windsor.......is going to be standing room only and I am sure that the other royals had a lot of horse sens in staying away......because there could be rotton fruit tomatoes etc and the security men will have there wolrk cut out .......b ut the door can not be locked......it has to be opened to the general public and the papperatsi.....


Diana must be looking and thinking she who laughs last .........lasts long..........


Cavendish

moonwitch
23rd February 2005, 11:19 PM
I am disgusted with Prince Charles - he should take his tweedy, ugly, smug-looking battleaxe, marry her and disappear. William should be the next monarch. Can you imagine the awful life that Princess Diana must have had? Okay - so she was probably a bit naive when she married him, she was only 19 after all, but I honestly believe that she truly loved him. How terrible to find out on on your honeymoon that your husband has been in love all along, with someone else, and you have been selected as a brooding mare! Imagine the indignity of Parker Bowles moving in at Highgrove and taking over! Imagine the lonliness and isolation of being in Diana's position, all the time knowing that she was unloved and there was nothing she could do. Remember all the tales they started to spin abot her being 'unbalanced' - they tried to discredit her all along, my God who wouldn't have felt emotionally dispondent in her situation. I am truly appalled and as a taxpayer, I strenously object to Boot face being added to the civil list and having to fund her. She is an adulteress, the Princes's whore, and she should be thoroughly ashamed of herself. I hope there are hoards of people outside the town hall on April 8th holding aloft placards with picture's of Diana with messages like "Lets hope there will be 3 people in your marriage!!!!"
Diana was wronged, the British people will not forget. Charles should have been a man back in the 1970's and stood up to his parents and married boot-face and then Andrew P-Bowles and Diana's lives would not have been tarnished. What sort of a man is Charles anyway - I hear that he even needs someone to squeeze his toothpaste out for him!!!!!!!! Look at all the fuss they are going to to get Bootface married, she is even going to be an HRH!!! Remember how they could not wait to take Diana's HRH away from her? It is shameful! The Royal Family are full of double standards. It would seem that they have moved heaven and Earth AND changed the law, so that Bootface can join the Royal family (the Marriage Act says a member of the Royal Family is not permitted to have a civil wedding) - but that, it would seem, can be easily ignored. It seems they can dispense with protocol when it suits them but do you remember how long it took them to fly a flag at half mast when Diana died???? It makes my blood boil........!

Emiliano
25th February 2005, 05:44 PM
Concerning Charles as potential as king and future head of the Anglican Church perhaps it might be apposite to consider a little ( albeit scabrous )ditty of the Irish writer, Brendan Behan :

Of your eminent protestant prelates
May ye cease to prattle and prate
The foundation stones of their temple
Was the bollocks of Henry the eigth

Other than that all we really seem to know is that they have publicly avowed a strong attraction to each other and might reasonably assume that they may desire to sleep with each other. Charles, being a noble prince and Camilla a fair lady it would, of course, be unconscienablem of him to attempt to fulfiill this desire without giving the lady the courtesy, the security and the dignity of being legal wife to him.

I expect his lordship, Fawlsley ( lately Norman St John Stevens M. P), England's leading ( at least most self publicised) constitutional expert could only but endorse this opinion.

I, of course, like Danton ," long for the day when the last princeling is hanged by the intestines of the last bishop".

Marchand, Danton, et vive la republique !

emiliano
25th February 2005, 06:16 PM
Oh, for God's sake, grow up you lot. Diana was an innocent. Camilla a scheming slut. How the hell do you know any of this. Do you mix in the same circles? Are you part of the same church group or addiction support group or PTA group or swingers group? Have they all frequented your local pub? This is just as relevant as passionate news stories in the gutter press concerning the potential fate of fictitous characters in appalling soap operas.

Doesn't any one of you understand that you can either fawn blindly and loyally to a monarch and all his heirs and coterie or you don't. And if you don't and you find the whole idea offensive then you strive mightily to overthrow him and all his ilk. Get honest. Get brave. Get true.

Sierra
25th February 2005, 11:48 PM
Honestly, why do you care.

Frankly I don't understand why the Brits don't realize a sense of self-worth and run the monarchy off for good. I don't understand the brits that seem to actually believe that these people and their progeny are better than them.

The "royal" family got that way by centuries of murder and theft.

Elizabeth and her clan certainly are no better than the rest of you.

D

emiliano
26th February 2005, 08:40 AM
Now,now,Sierra, that ain't quite fair. Not all of the Britz are monarchist sluts. I've met one or two that have read Marx. I even met an Englishman once who kinda understood him. And I met an Englishwoman who had read him, understood him and practised his philosophy. So there's hope yet for the poor, miserable, benighted bastards. Maybe one day they might be ready to read old Matthew and the sermon on the mount and all that jazz. Well, maybe... hope springs eternal and all that.

Louise (Malaysia)
27th February 2005, 08:12 PM
ABSOLUTELY NOT.

1. He was previously married to the most gorgeous person that I have ever had the honour and privelege of meeting , who represented our Country like no other in the House of Windsor - much to the chagrine of all of the other Windors. And behind Diana's back, this affair between Charles and Camilla was continuing- as Diana said there were three of them in that marriage - which undermined Diana and lead to the demise of the marriage. Hence she was with Dodi, looking for love and kindness that she never received with Charles, and her subsequent death. Daina was our PRINCESS OF WALES. We want no other.

2. So Charles is now a divorced person. As Defender of the faith he should not be marrying a divorced woman. And if he wants Camilla he should do the honourable thing like David, EDWARD VIII did, and step down and allow the throne to pass to the next in line - his son - The Windsors want their cake and eat it - so they bend our Constitution - he was brought up to uphold these principles and the precedent of Constitution - just because it is 2005 doesn't mean to say that he can ride rough shod over our Constitution. Charles MUST choose between the throne or his fancy woman. We should not have this woman forced upon us - we have no repect for her.

This is not the same situation as a commoner - it is rubbish saying that they are two people in love so let them get married and let byegones be byegones - they are Royals and should be setting the moral standards in our Country and and act os head of our Christian Church and Faith.

Charles has let us down - Diana was a shining light.

NO AND CORNWALL DOES NOT WANT THIS WOMAN AS THE DUCHESS OF CORNWALL THANK YOU.


Couldn't agree more. I would go so far as to say that the British Public has a vested interest in whom their future king is bringing to the side of the throne to represent Britain in official functions, etc. I would have preferred Diana but seeing as she was topped off for becoming a right royal embarrassment, my next choice would be to see Charles and his floozie bugger off to the country and live quietly ever after.

Please your majesty QE11 live long and reign long and decree that William become the next king because Camilla is simply unacceptable and so is the title HRH.

And as for the reports of the British public not showing compassion to Charles and Camilla, I imagine that was because it was all used up at Diana's funeral. Charles you've got the woman you want (at last) stop whining because none of us like her. Just knowing she's in the Royal Family now, by invitation, sadly reduces the worth of the whole clan. Abdicate man, and then you can have all the peace you want. And the British public will have the King they really want.

I am disgusted with the royal family
28th February 2005, 03:07 AM
The news states: Prince Charles accuses Britons of 'torturing' him over Camilla affair...

Well...ugh, Charles - what did you expect ??? How about the way you 'totured' Diana the years you were married to her, with her knowing you loved Camilla? You're a dog.

Sierra
28th February 2005, 06:55 AM
The UK is a pretty neat place. I like it. The history is cool and we share a common something that has led us to rule the world together. The ass-kicking you gave Argentina in the Falklands war is prroof you guys are cut from the same scrappy cloth we are.

Its so hard to take you guys seriously every time I hear about the "royal" family though. I think there is more "royalty" in a Brit that died in WWII or sailed the oceans in the colonial day than in the whole silly royal family.

If Charles is the best you've got (along with Camilla, Liz and the whole bunch) then maybe I am wrong and the best really did leave in the 1700s.

Charles is a wimp. I am not impressed.

I don't understand why they are tolerated. You guys deserve better.

Kate
28th February 2005, 10:20 AM
I've been shocked by the negative response to the Royal family on this thread and that has made me wonder what is going on here.

The thread has become a place to put the Royal family as a whole down rather than simply to discuss the pros and cons of the forthcoming royal marriage.



I don't like the idea of the marriage, but I'd rather they were married an committed to each other than cohabiting. However much some of us don't like Charles relationship with Camilla, we can't make it go away. How they get married and whether Charles becomes king ar important issues.



I'd like to put in a good word for the royals. They actually work very hard for charity and for the British nation. Charles has done amazing work for disadvantaged young people in this country. They have very little privacy and no right to reply. Their opinions and public statements are rarely reported accurately and fairly.



It sounds very easy to get rid of them, but the alternative would be a complete re-structuring of our constitution which is largely bound up in the monarchy and the commitments they make to serve (not rule) our country. To do away with the monarchy would cause a huge upheaval in our political and legal system, take years to sort out and we might find ourselves in a less free, less fair society. Written constitutions are horribly difficult to get right (See Europe's attempts)



Furthermore, I find the many posting@s which derive from America fascinating. The ability of many in USA to understand other cultures as different from their own is not renowned, and their own capacity to produce less than impressive rulers (Clinton and Lewinsky?) means I find some, but not all, comments from across the Atlantic sad!



My final issue is that we could all do with standing in Charles and Camilla's shoes. Oh no, I hear you say, I couldn't do that! Why not - because some of us might recognise our own faults, struggles and weaknesses in them and that would come too close to home.



I think it's very easy to criticise and demonise others because it gives us a neat opportunity to avoid facing up to our own faults, weaknesses and dark corners.



How many posting here, really know what Charles and Camilla are like or how they use their lives? How many of us really know what went on in Charles and Diana’s marriage and how many of us here are wise enough to pass judgment on them and their actions?

Kate

Sierra
28th February 2005, 05:31 PM
Kate-

First, anyone who gives a damn about the US also finds the Clinton/Lewinsky an apalling departure from what the worthless bastard was supposed to be doing in office. We tried to impeach him but his buddies saved him.

The problem I have with the monarchy is that these people hold themselves out to be better than the rest of you and you accept it. I see nothing to suggest that charles is "special" just because he can trace his bloodline a bit farther than others and his mom is rich.

It would be a cold day in hell before I would kneel or bow before a one of them.

We have the same problems in the US. One big difference is however that the White House is my house. I own it and given proper cause I will run the resident out of it. The monarchy however has their "ancestral lands and homes" which are to be separte from everyone else.

Charles does not want to marry Camilla at Windsor for the sole reason that doing so would mean that any British citizen could marry there. They want you to support them, fund them and perpetuate them, but they do not want you on the property.

Why do you accept it?

You talk about upheaval but what do these people do that keep you free and society fair? The British people seem to be doing a fine job of that on their own. I did not hear of them doing a lot during WWI & WWII to help (other than to change their name so everyone would forget that their relatives started it).

I would stand in Charles's shoes in an instant - and be considerably better behaved. There has NEVER been a divorce in my family. I would not have abused Diana as he did and frankly I would be a MAN. I have no faults that would not survive public scrutiny. My biggest problem would be learning to properly use all the extra silverware.

In conclusion these people built their fortune on the back of the British people. They hold themselves out at the pinacle of British society and "better" than everyone else. Their behavior does not reflect this.

If they want to live in seclusion off the public payroll then I say have at it. But while they live on the public payroll they need to earn their place.

If you hold yourself out to be the best swimmer in Britain, I think people should be able to expect that you can actually swim.

D

Kate
28th February 2005, 06:14 PM
Sorry Sierra, I don't have time to discuss this with you at the moment, but you don't actually know that much about the royal family nor how our constitution works from what you've said.

Kate

Sierra
28th February 2005, 06:40 PM
Thats probably true and I will concede that point.

In the US there is a general distaste for class systems and most people are uncomfortable with the idea that someone is "better bred". The idea of HRH just does not fly.

I'm sure they have their place based on your history.

Many people in the US have more money than I. None is in a higher class (despite what they will try and tell you).

I just don't think Charles should be entitled to Camilla at this point. If he wants her he should do as (whats his name) with Ms. Simpson.

D

I am disgusted with the royal family
28th February 2005, 08:13 PM
Kate: If Clinton wanted to marry Lewinsky, then you guys would have a field day with us, and we'd have a field day with it to...the bare reason you even brought it up is a perfect example of what is 'acceptable' and what is not...Clinton and Lewinsky is deplorable, just like Charles and Camilla. All countries have their problems...and public people get slammed. However, we in the states have the incredible ability to vote our voice, and believe me, if Clinton were allowed to run again (he couldn't because he'd used up his alotted terms), he never would have been re-elected. At least we have 'some say in the matter' because we are free. We left your oppressing ways 300 years ago, then a little over 200 years ago, we became our own legal entity. God Bless the USA! As for your prince and his mistress, LONG LIVE YOUR QUEEN...because Charles isn't fit for leadership. He was born into an unusual family, and with that, comes responsibility. Responsibility that he has abused and abused and abused...all behind the name of title., position and money. For a system to be funded by the public, I would think Charles would think twice before commencing on this marriage....the royal family and its' ways are surely to be in jeopardy. It has been said that Charles is tired of everyone telling him what to do...and for that, I really do sympathize with him. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. But, he has a DUTY to follow, BECAUSE OF WHO HE IS, and if he wants his lady, he needs to give up the DUTY. That's the way it's always been handled in the past, so why is today any different? Why can't the people and the other governing powers simply insist that he step aside? I understand he can't abdicate until he actually becomes King, but why can't he sign something now (as a truce offering) that he will simply give up the thone and give it to William? The problem with Charles is that he wants his cake, and wants to eat it too. In this situation, he has to give up something to gain the thing he wants, because the thing he wants is not acceptable. I want him to be happy, and if that means being with Camilla, then alright, but he can't have the title of King also. You can't have a man in that position with the baggage it will bring. It's such a slap in the face for all the history your country has been through over the ages. Why should ONE MAN be allowed the change everything? I think that's the basic outrage underlying everyone's dismay. I just shake my head in disbelief.

Sierra
28th February 2005, 09:07 PM
Look at it this way. There has to be something fundamentally flawed about a man who would kick a little biscuit like Diana out of bed in favor of that rotweiler Camilla.

Charles definately has some serious sexual hangups. There are rumors he is gay which I wouldn't doubt. Maybe thats why he likes Camilla. She looks like a man.

They should ALL step aside.

Dave
28th February 2005, 11:34 PM
Well, Kate has tried a couple of times to turn this into something other than a general attempt to slag off anyone and everyone asociated with the Royal family.

Thanks for all the input, especially Concerned Reader who as ever brought a touch of reason and sense to the whole thread. The one thing this thread has shown is how few of our readers have any real understanding of the constitutional role of the monarchy - and how the flexible structure of our constitution based on the royal vows, the church and our parliamentary system interact to have given the UK over 1000 years of democracy through all sorts of cultural and social change. I rather doubt that the current debate over Charles will be more than a blip along the road.

Thread closed

Dave