General Chat

I am not a royalist by any stretch of the imagination but...I do think its sad when Joe public says that ''The establishment'' should be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st centuary and when they are,, they are seem to be wrong to do the same as the rest of us!

I hope Charles doesn't have dementia, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy

Miriam,

Ths is the second thread where you have made negative remarks , if you don't like the subjects, perhap you shouldn't bother to post ?

As Joan mentioned, this is a chat thread.

Susan

what has this rubbish got to do with family trees?

If a royal marries a divorcee and/or a catholic , he has to renounce his title to succession to the throne. Prince Michael of Kent had to.

Charles never was stopped proposing to Camilla, - he was sent off on a tour of at sea duty and she was married or getting married when he returned. However, Camilla had been (so it is said) a bit of a gadabout, so probably would not have passed the rigorous examinations which Diana had to endure a decade or more later.

Camilla became a catholic upon her first marriage so presumably she had renounced this faith prior to marrying Charles.

As for William 'living in sin' - this is not, as far as I am aware, frowned upon by the anglican church but is by the catholic church.

Times have changed - Princess Anne got around the marriage laws by marrying in Scotland in the kirk.

It was said that Camilla did not wish to marry - that she was happy being a mistress but Charles got fed up blurted out to the press and that was that. And yes she has very young gchildren and apparently Charles cannot abide the noise or the thought of his treasures being at risk.

Although our treasures are valuable to us (no one else) we went back some years when our first gchild began to toddle and reverted to our practises of then - they went up out of reach or were put away until they wsere old enough to know and learn.

As to dementia - as I have already said on an earlier posting, if it is true it is very sad for anyone irrespective of their position in life.

I didn't invite you to call me a fool, Sue! What I call myself is up to me!

Ah, thanks Rose, that settles the divorce bit.

But isn't she a Catholic? Can the king marry a Catholic?

~~~ to Aunty Sue! ~~~~ (who is so obviously attention-seeking!)

Jill

If Charles had been honest about his feelings from the start, Diana would have married someone else in all probability, and yes that might have worked out, or it may not.

Diana came from an unsettled family life her sister like herself suffered from anorexia, it is possible that she still would have had to battle that, but without the love of the people that came with publicity and being in the public eye maybe that was a battle she might have lost? Who knows.

Re divorce, why should it be different now to when Edward abdicated? well to me personally it is because times are different now, simple as that, divorce is no longer a stigma...a badge of failure, and certainly women are not seen as 'soiled goods' if they have been divorced...and think that was pretty much the case in the '30s? just as single mums were 'fallen women'.

You can argue that as defender of the faith Charles must adhere religiously ( lol no pun intended) to the tenets of the C of E...but the C of E recognises divorce

(In July 2002, the General Synod passed the following motion by 269 votes to 83:

“That this Synod

Affirm in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England as set out in Canon B30, that marriage should always be undertaken as a “solemn, public and life-long covenant between a man and a woman”;

Recognise –

That some marriages regrettably do fail and that the Church’s care for couples in that situation should be of paramount importance"

That Charles made mistakes in his life and marriage is not in dispute...that we all do is probably not in dispute...but should it mean he can't be a good king? I don't think so. ( and is it really going to make a huge difference to anyone WHO is king?, not like it would have centuries ago when the king actually had some clout politically.

That could be true Wend - I'm only replying because you and that Jill person invited comments:-))

Sue x

No fool, like an old fool, Sue :-)))

You're an old fool, Wend:-))

Sue x

Yes, probably, Mrs. G., but they're affection towards him always strikes me as genuine. (Maybe I'm a old fool, been called it before lol!)

You're a cynical old bat:-))

Sue x

Maybe it's because William and Harry were brought up by nannies and their private schools? Not exactly a hands on dad was he?

Oh, call my a cynical old bat!!

Jill

Mrs Grumpy sums it up as far as I'm concerned - Charles should have married Camilla, the only woman he has ever truly loved, but he wasn't allowed to. Diana would then, sad to say, probably be alive to-day and maybe married to someone who truly loves her.

Mind you, I read recently that Charles and Camilla now live quite separate lives - he at Highgrove and she at her old home, but who knows? Can't believe everything you read. Reports say that he's a very difficult, bad-tempered, fussy man and we've all heard those stories about him having his breakfast eggs boiled several times until they're *perfect* for his consumption and his valet having to squeeze his toothpaste for him, etc. etc.

Then again, William and Harry seem pretty well-balanced young men who love him very much, so who knows?

I know what you're saying Rose - and yes, she did make her own choices ...but I do wonder how things would have turned out if Charles had been honest from the beginning.

I saw the King's Speech the other evening - it was interesting seeing David and Mrs Simpson - and him having to abdicate because she was divorced. Why is it different now? Does it mean that they can behave exactly as they choose? I'm not sure I would agree with that - considering that i contribute to their incomes ...

Jill

Diana died in a car crash, it could have happened any time no matter what her marital state...you might as well say if I get hit by a bus tomorrow it was all the fault of my first fiance, if he'd married me i wouldn't have been in Shropshire this year and not in the path of the number 22....

She chose to be where she was, she was no longer an innocent 19 year old wrapped up in the romance of life ( sad but that's how it is) , she had 'moved on'...

One can't go through life blaming one person for everything bad that happens to you ever after. Diana may have been the 'victim' for a bit, but then she got on with her life, and that ultimately was what made her a bit special.

I'm a bit amazed tbh that Camilla being a divorced catholic should be considered to have any bearing at all, in this day and age, on whether Charles should be king?

Should William be, if religious 'morality' comes into it? after all he has been 'living in sin' for years.

Which is why I would much prefer William to be the heir and not him Jill.

...Annina...this has been a great thread...please don't feel you need to apologise x

Annina - don't worry - it's been an interesting thread!

Still feel though that if Charles had actually married Camilla the first time around then Diana would not have died as she did. I (me, myself and I - my view) blame him for Diana's death. I'm not a royalist by the way - I find them all really irritating around the edges - but when did the law change? When did the heir to the throne / king become able to marry a divorced woman? And a catholic? What's that about?

Jill

I've never minded Prince Charles to be honest. I thought Diana was ok but didn't like the Bashir interview she gave.

Just hope the press report isn't true.

Heavens,whatever have I started?

I only mentioned it because I hadn't seen it in our papers,and was interested because my "little" sister was diagnosed with this aweful disease when only 47.

I didn't realise that it would turn into a "do we or do we not like the monarchy" debate.

Sorry for any offense caused,not intentional.