Sounds like Prince Charlie is getting hitched again in early April to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Yeah, we've all heard the jokes about her age, looks and bad teeth but I think this is great. You never know who will be attracted to who or for what reasons.
Personally I think he should have married her in the first place and not Diana but then they would have had real butt-ugly kids.
Being an ex-British citizen myself I say good for him.
Last edited by alphamale; 10th February 2005 at 8:45 AM..
Reason: ahh
being still over here, im sick of hearing it already........
its just before a general election
hes head of some church that dont believe in re-marrying
in a nation that is still thriving on the memory of diana, how will the nation react to queen camilla
Well, since Charles is a widow, technically he can remarry. That makes his wife the queen.
Now the problem is that Camilla not only is divorced but her hubby is alive and well . SO that's the catch, since the Anglian church had that issue ever since Henry the VIII.
I think that says a lot about the church: bunch a rules normal people live by - as in priests denying divorced women to mary in church, yet when it's royality we're talking about.... rules are being bent, just a little .
They are not regular folks. I don't think it would be proper to marry at church, but that's how I personally feel about the subject.
the status of the wife of the King...can only be altered by legislation..."
This would mean the only way for Camilla not to become Queen, in the event of Charles ascending to the Throne and marrying again, would be to change the law.
However, passing such an Act today would be difficult for Tony Blair, as he would probably need the consent of the Commonwealth monarchies.
The Royal Marriages Act was brought in because King George III was furious with his brothers wedding unsuitable partners. So he gave the monarch a veto over the marriage of anyone descended from George II.
Originally posted by _Saffy_
you are indeed right alpha. its unlikely that she will ever be a queen. more like she will become lady camilla. thats bad enough.
so SAFFY, Camilla cannot be offically a Queen? It that correct?
how are things in merry old england? i was born in london in '65 but moved to US in '72.
Originally posted by alphamale
so SAFFY, Camilla cannot be offically a Queen? It that correct?
how are things in merry old england? i was born in london in '65 but moved to US in '72.
i changed that bit, i thought it read that she cannot be queen but it seems that she can........the general consensus on the political talk shows this morning is that she will choose to turn down the "queen" status, but well i guess we will see.
im not in england, im in wales, where we have been fighting for independancy for years.
if you ever come back......come to the nicer part of the UK
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles will become HRH Duchess of Cornwall when she weds Prince Charles and will be known as the Princess Consort when he eventually becomes king, Buckingham Palace announced.
Sally Cartwright, publishing director of Hello! magazine, told CNN there was "historical precedent" for using the title of Princess Consort.
She said Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, was Prince Consort rather than king. Victoria ruled Britain from 1837 to 1901.
To give Parker Bowles the title of Duchess of Cornwall -- based on Charles' secondary title of Duke of Cornwall -- was "a clever way out of a potentially difficult situation," Cartwright said.
Originally posted by alphamale
yes, when my father was doing his medical training we live in Cardiff for a year. don't remember much though cause i was only 4 or 5.
shame, its a nicer area than england, and on the whole the people are friendlier. its just a shame that we get tarred with the same brush as our fellow countrymen.......as im sure you understand.
Its about time. Since meeting in 1970, their love and affection for each other has endured through decades, distance, marriages, births, deaths and divorce. Good for them, I say.
__________________ No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks. --Mary Wollstonecraft
Last edited by LucreziaBorgia; 10th February 2005 at 9:44 AM..
Originally posted by LucreziaBorgia
Its about time. Since meeting in 1970, their love and affection for each other has endured through decades, distance, marriages, births, deaths and divorce. Good for them, I say.
i agree LUCREAIABORGIA, their relationship gives me hope along with the "warm fuzzies", which i don't get often.
MAybe it's the excitement of breaking 2 mariages and 2 people's hearts on a side.
Always amazed me how married people couldn't stay married and how lovers could continue their affair ... wonder if marriage won't bore them to death. You know, no backstabbing and everything...
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
!!!
. SO that's the catch, since the Anglian church had that issue ever since Henry the VIII.
Linear Mode
