Queen Camilla

[Pea-n-Me]

Charles was in love with Camilla way before Diana. But he couldn’t marry Camilla and he had to marry Diana. I’m sure they said, just be discreet and you can have Camilla on the side. It’s just the way it was back then. So I don’t see his relationship with Camilla as a mistake. I think it was more of a compromise for him back then. Maybe he thought he would eventually grow to love Diana. But his love for Camilla just grew stronger.

He had to marry Diana? He/they used Diana. So I just can’t agree with that, because Diana didn’t know any better. Sure, maybe these things went on behind the scenes. But Diana was in the dark. She was just 19 and naive about what she was getting herself into. I’m sure he had his way of thinking. But they were definitely not on the same page about their relationship. She was in it for life, in her mind. And all in. He, simply put, was not, and never was. He was deceptive. And then treated Diana very poorly. All the while, seeing married Camilla.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

It was the marriage to Diana that was a mistake.

I can agree with that!

 

[mamamia2005]

I think had Diana lived, she would have made quite a nuisance of herself with various causes and issues. Some may have been seen to be successful, and there would have been others people would say she never should have got involved with. Either way, it would have raised the profile of those causes / issues. Perhaps if she had remarried, and that marriage had been a success, then Charles and Camilla would have gone on to marry anyway, maybe even sooner than they did.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Admittedly, I don't care that much about the royals, nor am I fascinated by them.

I simply find history intriguing, both American and British.

Also, how much humankind seems to value pomp and pageantry. The British monarchy certainly know how to do spectacle.

I'm curious to a fault, I suppose, always the four-year-old going, "Why? Why? WHY?"

This is exactly what was meant by fascinated.

 

[Her Dotness]

This is exactly what was meant by fascinated.

Perhaps as you define fascination.

I regard fascination as somewhat of a compulsion.

The time I'm spending on this thread is more out of boredom and avoidance of chores than compelling interest in the British Royals per se.

 

[Disneylover99]

He had to marry Diana? He/they used Diana. So I just can’t agree with that, because Diana didn’t know any better. Sure, maybe these things went on behind the scenes. But Diana was in the dark. She was just 19 and naive about what she was getting herself into. I’m sure he had his way of thinking. But they were definitely not on the same page about their relationship. She was in it for life, in her mind. And all in. He, simply put, was not, and never was. He was deceptive. And then treated Diana very poorly. All the while, seeing married Camilla.

He had to marry somebody. He was in his 30's and being pressured to find a suitable bride. There are some reports the Queen wanted him to marry a Spencer. Diana fit the bill.

 

[Her Dotness]

I think had Diana lived, she would have made quite a nuisance of herself with various causes and issues.

Christopher Hitchens had some spot on views on Diana's devotion to various causes.

He pointed out that she seemed to gravitate to the splashy ones that would gather publicity whereas Princess Anne quietly did an enormous amount of charitable work and never sought out the spotlight for it. Actively avoided press coverage of herself oftentimes, in fact.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

He had to marry somebody. He was in his 30's and being pressured to find a suitable bride. There are some reports the Queen wanted him to marry a Spencer. Diana fit the bill.

Yes, of course. But she was a person, with feelings and hopes, dreams, desires, etc., not just a name. That seems to have been overlooked in their quest to find Charles a suitable baby maker.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Perhaps as you define fascination.

I regard fascination as somewhat of a compulsion.

The time I'm spending on this thread is more out of boredom and avoidance of chores than compelling interest in the British Royals per se.

No, it’s the actual definition of fascination. The correct term meaning compulsion, would be obsession.

 

[Her Dotness]

There are some reports the Queen wanted him to marry a Spencer. Diana fit the bill.

Interestingly, Diana's family are far more solidly British and aristocratic than the Windsors.

Making the Windsors less German/Prussian was said to have been a factor back then in the enthusiasm for Diana as consort.

 

[CdnCarrie]

My view is they are humans. He will be our Head of State. There are lots of elected heads of states from around the world that have had well known affairs, been divorced sometimes more than once, etc.

C and C seem well suited to each other with a good marriage.

 

[Disneylover99]

Yes, of course. But she was a person, with feelings and hopes, dreams, desires, etc., not just a name. That seems to have been overlooked in their quest to find Charles a suitable baby maker.

Charles was in love with Camilla anyways. I don't think it would have mattered who they chose. He was just being a dutiful son.
Diana knew about Camilla when she married him. Maybe she thought she could make him fall in love with her.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Every summer at the local National Park I see the huge floral ERII and wonder how easy it will be to change it to CRIII. Assuming that’s the name he choses to use. Probably not too hard - change the E to C and sod around it.
Also wonder if the school will take down the picture of ERII and not bother replacing it.

 

[Her Dotness]

Diana knew about Camilla when she married him. Maybe she thought she could make him fall in love with her.

Comparing the Charles-Diana marriage with that of Diana's parents may be illuminating. Some pretty sad parallels in terms of happily-ever-after.

I've often wondered if Diana wasn't more realistic about marrying into the royal family out of duty than popular accounts led people to think. It's not as if her upbringing shielded her from that sort of thing.

The press built her up as the naive virgin with no idea what she was getting into, a far too romanticized image, imo. Watch some videos of how skillfully she manipulated the press who supposedly hounded her during the courtship and engagement. I perceive a knowing smile on her face often and believe she knew precisely how to garner publicity and public support even then.

Marrying someone suitable was expected in both her family and the Royal Family. Sometimes, love developed eventually if not already present. In more such cases, I suspect, people simply muddled through what duty required.

 

[nicolita3]

Every summer at the local National Park I see the huge floral ERII and wonder how easy it will be to change it to CRIII. Assuming that’s the name he choses to use. Probably not too hard - change the E to C and sod around it.
Also wonder if the school will take down the picture of ERII and not bother replacing it.

I also wonder about those types of changes although I'm American. I heard there's usually new money printed with the new royals image will Charles be on the currency?

 

[mamamia2005]

I would imagine so. Our post boxes, postage stamps, royal coat of arms on products supplied to the Queen and whole host of things I can't think of will need to be changed. Although, there are still some George VI post boxes around.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I also wonder about those types of changes although I'm American. I heard there's usually new money printed with the new royals image will Charles be on the currency?

Queen is on less of our currency than before and not on all stamps anymore.
Yes I wonder if they will let the ones with her image on stay in circulation or not. At least here. Britain would be different for sure.

 

[fla4fun]

My view is they are humans. He will be our Head of State. There are lots of elected heads of states from around the world that have had well known affairs, been divorced sometimes more than once, etc.

C and C seem well suited to each other with a good marriage.

The issue for me in this comparison, not that it matters, is that Charles will also be considered head of the church, a church based on scriptures that say to remarry after divorce is adultery. A lot was said at the time that it was OK for them to marry because Diana was dead. However, unless this has changed recently, Andrew Parker Bowles is still living. So basically, according to the church, they have been adulterers since the first time they reconnected after she was married (she married first) and are still committing adultery to this day.

Many people don’t agree with the scriptures on this, I know. Perhaps C and C don’t agree either. However, most people who disagree are not claiming to be the leader of the church either. In my eyes, being the head of the church makes it hypocritical, and places both of them in a ”do as I say, not as I do” position. Most heads of state are not considered leaders or heads of a particular religion, and while I may find their morality lacking on occasion, I don’t get the hypocrisy vibe I get in this case, and I lose respect for them both as a result.

Perhaps it is time to consider separating the monarch from that particular responsibility. After all, religion is a very personal thing, and at some point, a monarch may choose to practice a different religion than the CoE. I don’t know how that might change the coronation though, if the incoming monarch happened to be an atheist unwilling to be anointed by the church. People should be free to practice the belief system that resonates with them personally, even monarchs.

As to whether Camilla should be called Queen Consort, in reality, she would have had that among her many titles by right, even if they chose to refer to her as one of the others, just as she is entitled to be called Princess of Wales now, but is not usually referred to that way. I always figured she would be called Queen Camilla, so I am not surprised.

 

[Skywalker]

Comparing the Charles-Diana marriage with that of Diana's parents may be illuminating. Some pretty sad parallels in terms of happily-ever-after.

I've often wondered if Diana wasn't more realistic about marrying into the royal family out of duty than popular accounts led people to think. It's not as if her upbringing shielded her from that sort of thing.

The press built her up as the naive virgin with no idea what she was getting into, a far too romanticized image, imo. Watch some videos of how skillfully she manipulated the press who supposedly hounded her during the courtship and engagement. I perceive a knowing smile on her face often and believe she knew precisely how to garner publicity and public support even then.

Marrying someone suitable was expected in both her family and the Royal Family. Sometimes, love developed eventually if not already present. In more such cases, I suspect, people simply muddled through what duty required.

I have to agree about just how innocent Diana could have been, to the marriage of convenience thing. The Spencers are high up in the nosebleed section of the aristocracy lol - she had to know how these things worked? I am sure she hoped it would work out of course. Charles seemed more realistic to the fact, it would always be a sham.

This is also where I give credit to Charles, as a father, and The Queen, as a grandmother - that perhaps lessons were learned. Because it seems that both William and Harry have been allowed to marry exactly who they wished.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Charles was in love with Camilla anyways. I don't think it would have mattered who they chose. He was just being a dutiful son.
Diana knew about Camilla when she married him. Maybe she thought she could make him fall in love with her.

She did, but she was already deeply in, and didn’t know how to respond, react, what have you. Nor did she have any support. She was on an island by herself, in effect. She also believed he was in love with her, at least initially. It was all a charade, though.