Charles and Camilla

[LiverpoolLou]

Why didn't he just marry her all those years ago, they where carrying on when he married Diana, and from what I can gather, they knew each other years and years before that and where doing the same then. It would have saved a lot of heartache all round.

[sunflower68]

I know Lou.  I think what happened was they were trying to find the right moment, to look good in the public eye.  When Di died Camilla went and laid low for years after spending years becoming visible.  Now they have only given 6 weeks' notice we so won't have time to bitch about it before they are wed anyway.Don't get me started or I may rant.  I'm sure they are in love but they all make me so cross Lou.

[El D]

Presumable Diana knew nothing of this then?

[SGKelloe32]

Because he is a man!!

[andy hughes]

Times change - and with it, the acceptance (or not!) of royal behaviour. Even in this day and age, it is still considered acceptable (and oh so british!) for the heir to the throne to have a mistress, and for everyone to pretend that the relationship is not actually there. I for one think that the couple are entitled to marry if they wish - everyone seems tho have an opinion on this because they are in the public eye, but really, it's not actually anyone's business but theirs, and we all have our opinions based only on media spin, because we don't know the couple at all.

[Oneeyedvic]

Andy - can't say I agree that it is noones business - it is very relevant to a lot of people.

There are a lot of Religious questions that need to be naswered - the main one being the hypocracy of Charles being married to a divorced woman but potentially being the head of the Church.

It must also be pointed out that the COE was founded by Henry VIII as the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce from one of his wives (I forget which).

Personally, I am not religious, but do find this to be very amusing.

 

With regard marrying Diana, I think that this was because he was 'forced' into marrying a 'virgin' by the media at the time.

And regarding Diana - lets face it she died around 10 years ago - why can't people move on!

[Hgrove]

I have always wondered why they did not get married when they were 22 or 23; I can only think he chickened out of proposing, being young, and she wanted to make a "good" marriage, probably spurred on by her family.  In those times upper class girls "came out" and bagged a husband by the end of the "season".  If they were not married by the end of the second season at the latest, they were on the shelf.  So she must have been in a hurry to secure a suitably posh husband before the best ones were taken.

[Loosehead]

They met in 1970 and hit it off, clearly Charles mis read the signs, easily done with a woman.

I heard that Charles was devestated when she married in the early seventies. I think he may well have proposed but just did'nt get around to it and missed the boat. No other opportunity for them existed until now.

[RevShirls]

I am absolutely delighted for them both. I do think that Charles and Diana should never have married and I had a great deal of sympathy for Diana. She was young and impressionable when she got married and she was deprived of the love that she needed. The danger signs were there before the wedding and Diana did, by later admission, see them. She was puzzled by Charles' comments about love. I am a great believer in wedding preparation courses before marriage. I have run these for many years and a few people decided not to get married after them. They are more based on expectations, views on various things like problem solving, children, love, sex, sexuality etc. The couples answer questions and then share their answers with their partner (not with me) etc etc.

I don't think the time was right for Camilla and Charles to marry all these years ago. I really was so happy by the announcement yesterday. I do think they should be allowed to marry in church if they want to.

[woofgang]

If we are to believe the story "as told" then I don't think that they are any worse than any other 2 adulterers. I know that people do make mistakes when they marry and understand that pressure may have been involved here but IMHO when you marry, you make a committment and a promise before God that you will be faithful to the person that you are marrying. If you find that you have ben mistaken, then at very least, you remove yourself from that relationship before starting another. If the story "as told" is true, then Charles knowingly lied when he made that promise.

[RevShirls]

I agree, Woofgang, that this may have been the case - probably so - but a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. I just cannot understand the view that someone should be condemned for evermore for past actions. I get the feeling that many people just don't want or think that Charles should be allowed to have any happiness in his life.

I have seen many people who have made a real mess of their marriages the first (and even second) time round and I've seen many that I doubted their honesty and sincerity at the time too. I am always delighted when they eventually seem to be getting it right. I am not a royalist but I see 2 people who have made bad mistakes in the past but are in love - what better reason to get married?

[woofgang]

no I don't think that Its my right (or anyone elses) to condemn or to have a view on whether they should marry. I just don't feel particularly sorry for either of them or go along with a comment I heard on the radio this morning about "deserving happiness after their patience and discretion" grrrr!

[Ouisch]

From my research, I've gathered that Charles dated Camilla when they were in their 20s, but he waffled when it came to proposing marriage.  As he had mentioned many times, as the Prince of Wales, his choice of a wife was a situation in which he couldn't let his heart outrule his head.  Camilla wasn't willing to wait, though; she felt she wasn't getting any younger, so when Andrew Parker-Bowles proposed, she accepted.

[Oneeyedvic]

Just two little things......

woofgang - "but IMHO when you marry, you make a committment and a promise before God " - does this mean any civil marriages (where any references to Religion are banned) are just shams???? - or is it different because he will be Head of the Church of England?

At the end of the day we do not live in a democracy but in a Monarchy. If we don't like it, we can always leave the country. I believe that any British citizen can work in any EU country. At the end of the day, like it or not there is nothing we can do about it - Can't say I'm a Royalist, but I do respect the laws of the country......(well most of them anyway ;-))

[Hgrove]

I think In A Pickle has summed it up very well;  Oneeyedvic I have to quarrel where you say "we do not live in a democracy but in a Monarchy".  It is entirely possible for a Monarchy to be a democracy (as in this country).

[Oneeyedvic]

Hgrove - not sure how.....we can vote for any politician we want - but any law MUST have Royal Assent(sp?) to make it legal - discuss how this is a democracy.

(and to say well the Queen hasn't exercised those powers is irrelevant - she does have those powers - which makes us a Monarchy and not a Democracy)

[woofgang]

no I wasn't casting nasturniums at ant form of marriage, just point ing out what the future head of the church of England did