ForumGarden

Bez wrote: This is the 21st century. What was written 2000 + years ago is not always relevant now and my belief is that the scriptures were a guidance. I believe this is true to any religion. We are not living in the Dark Ages or though some would like it if we were.



Charles and Camilla get too much bad press. He is 57, she is 58. Their love has endured over many years. He committed adultery with her YES...Diana who I very much admired and who was young and naive therefore fell into an arranged marriage, had numerous lovers during and after her marriage.

We should leave the past alone and 'move on'. .... advice I have seen posted many times to others on FG...why should royalty or celebs. not be able to do the same !

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Sorry if this isn't entirely accurately worded.


You are absolutely correct in saying that He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

But those in authority, I believe, have an obligation to set the example to which others will followed. Don't do as I do, do as I say just doesn't cut it.

They (c & c) have set a very poor example. Yes, maybe Diana did stray too, but my heart supports her and I will generously allow her this mis-step because of the situation she was in. Bad c & c!!!!! I find it difficult to be charitible to "them".

I havn't been following this post, though I see its getting interesting. I echo Bothwell's point in that Charles will be the next King of England unless he dies before the current queen, as the laws of sucession don't change according to the vagaries of fashion. Camilla will become queen and on it will go. Thats what monarchies are all about, sucession through birthright. Countries that want more "populist" heads of state elect them and call them presidents.

There will be no problem regarding the divorce, in part because Prince Charles only married Camilla following the death of his ex-wife so there is no confusion there, and anyway being divorced is hardly an impediment to being the head of the Anglican faith seeing as it was orginally estabished in order that Henry VIII could divorce and remarry, which you may remember he did with some gusto.

As for the public opinion issue, it is of course important that you keep the public on-side in a constitutional monarchy, but unless there is a drastic, drastic shift in British public opinion about the monarchy I can't see it being changed or altered very radically in the future. Anyway more constitutionally minded people will know that any change to the present system, would have huge implications for the establishment of the church of England, the soverignty of parliament, the act of Union itself and the constitutional settlement between Scotland, England, and Wales (lets not even mention Northern Ireland). So in my opinion, it won't change unless something very dramatic happens.

Galbally

I would sure hate to see camilla Queen...........

Unjust rewards!

Excuse me, I'm not really sure but didn't I hear that technically, Camilla

won't be QUEEN but Queen's Consort? The wife of a reigning king? I

realize it's a small difference but nevertheless...



:-2

valerie wrote: Excuse me, I'm not really sure but didn't I hear that technically, Camilla

won't be QUEEN but Queen's Consort? The wife of a reigning king? I

realize it's a small difference but nevertheless...



:-2


I believe that she will have the same position as the late queen mother did when she was married to the reigning monarch of the time George VI or is it V, god monarchies are annoying. She won't be the head of state or have any consititutional role, but she will be married to the King and therefore I suppose.....Queen, call it what you like. Correct me if I'm wrong someone.

SOJOURNER wrote: You are absolutely correct in saying that He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.



But those in authority, I believe, have an obligation to set the example to which others will followed. Don't do as I do, do as I say just doesn't cut it.



They (c & c) have set a very poor example. Yes, maybe Diana did stray too, but my heart supports her and I will generously allow her this mis-step because of the situation she was in. Bad c & c!!!!! I find it difficult to be charitible to "them".


Following the heart is something many people have done with Diana...it's understandable as she was such a bright and vibrant person...much closer to us ordinary people than Charles...but spare a thought for the life that Charles has had...I don't think that we can appreciate how far removed his life was from our reality...Diana recognised this and made sure that her boys were bought up as close to normality as possible.



Are you saying that they should have lived the rest of their lives miserable... a sham marriage ....keeping up appearances ? The farcical marriage caused her to self harm and suffer from bulimia...I couldn't have wished that on anyone for ANY reason.

SOJOURNER wrote: Galbally



I would sure hate to see camilla Queen...........



Unjust rewards!


She won't be Queen Camilla.



Just out of interest, what it is that you SO dislike about her ?



In thier own words...William and Harry "love her to death".

Bez wrote: She won't be Queen Camilla.



Just out of interest, what it is that you SO dislike about her ?



In thier own words...William and Harry "love her to death".


Ackkkkkkkkkkkkkkk! How can they! ! ! !

Why do I dislike her so much: Because she was the "other woman" that came between husband and wife. To me this is just so wrong! and she didn't do it discretely, she was brazen about it..... Call me naive, but there are just certain lines you do not cross and this is a major one.

Good is suppose to triumph. She should not be allowed to obtain what she so coveted............, or maybe she should. Perhaps they deseve one another. Only time will tell -- but I do not have to like it.

I remember when Elizabeth became Queen. The magazine pictures of her coranation were awesome.

I remember when charles and Diana wed. A fairy tale in modern day.

Then the lurking lesion with the name of camilla slunk in and contaminated everything...............

You say the "boys" just love her -- could this not be just PR? Putting on a united front? Acting gracious.

camilla offends me. charles more than offends me.

Bez wrote: Following the heart is something many people have done with Diana...it's understandable as she was such a bright and vibrant person...much closer to us ordinary people than Charles...but spare a thought for the life that Charles has had...I don't think that we can appreciate how far removed his life was from our reality...Diana recognised this and made sure that her boys were bought up as close to normality as possible.



Are you saying that they should have lived the rest of their lives miserable... a sham marriage ....keeping up appearances ? The farcical marriage caused her to self harm and suffer from bulimia...I couldn't have wished that on anyone for ANY reason.


....... I pity the Lottery winners too........................

From an interview with Prince Harry on his 21st Birthday





Harry denied that Camilla was a "wicked stepmother", declaring that he and William "loved her to bits" and that it was good to have her around. "To be honest with you, she's always been very close to me and William... But no, she's not the wicked stepmother. I'll say that right now," he said.

"Everyone has to understand that it's very hard for her. Look at the position she's coming into. Don't always feel sorry for me and William, feel sorry for her."

He added later: "She's a wonderful woman and she's made our father very, very happy which is the most important thing. William and I love her to bits."

Bez wrote: From an interview with Prince Harry on his 21st Birthday





Harry denied that Camilla was a "wicked stepmother", declaring that he and William "loved her to bits" and that it was good to have her around. "To be honest with you, she's always been very close to me and William... But no, she's not the wicked stepmother. I'll say that right now," he said.

"Everyone has to understand that it's very hard for her. Look at the position she's coming into. Don't always feel sorry for me and William, feel sorry for her."

He added later: "She's a wonderful woman and she's made our father very, very happy which is the most important thing. William and I love her to bits."


and Lady Di rolled over in her grave and died................

Guess they have love in their heart.

Now if only I could open my heart, a bit.

My husband says I'm a harda$$. I am becoming more tolerent as I grow older, but old ways die hard.

CARLA-------How do you get that Chuck and his Nag are the most handsome couple on the planet., unless you have never seen anyother people in your life. I still say that they would make the perfect horse, with Camilla as the head and Chucky as the other end. They have to be one of the most unhandsom couple on earth. I am trying very hard to be polite in mixed company, for I don't want to tatally gross everyone out.

CARLA wrote: I agree LC Charles and Camilla have never looked happier. Granted they are the most handsome people on the planet.. But I must say Camilla has been looking a bit better these days... They are what they are... and they are laughing all the way to the bank..!!



I did get a good laugh at all the picture though the horse is priceless..:wah:i can pretty much assure you, and speak for my dear friend Carla, that that was a typo!

LADY COP------Thanks I hope it was a typo also.

Live and let live is what I feel.

WEBBIE,

Holly crap, that was a big TYPO.. :wah: :wah:

Charles and Camilla are BUTT UGLY..!! No two ways about it.. But they are butt ugly and happy.. !!

Not the most attractive no, but incredibly wealthy, the throne of England may not be quite what it used to be, but they won't exactly starve either. Anyway, anyone who is lamenting the Diana thing on moral grounds is missing the point. Despite her charm and warmth, Diana wouldn't have been a very good queen, the things that made her such a likeable person are exactly the wrong attributes for being a senior member of the Royal family. The moden monarchy was never intended to be a tabloid circus, its a constitutional arrangement meant to serve the British state, thats its job, all the fluff and galmour is fun, but at the end of the day its still just fluff. The present Queen knows that, I think her son does too. If they tried to be what many people seem to want them to be, Britain woud become a republic within 12 months.

Galbally wrote: I believe that she will have the same position as the late queen mother did when she was married to the reigning monarch of the time George VI or is it V, god monarchies are annoying. She won't be the head of state or have any consititutional role, but she will be married to the King and therefore I suppose.....Queen, call it what you like. Correct me if I'm wrong someone.


Camilla wouldn't have a role other than as head of various charities. As Valerie said, she would be King Consort as she would be married to the King. If he died she would be the Dowager King Consort and shuffled off to live out her days in some royal palace or other. She wont reign and she wont be Queen, purely because she has no royal blood and is only a member of the royal family through marriage.

Look at Prince Phillip...he is not King Phillip! He will never reign either. The current succession is Charlie, Wills, Harry, then Andrew (until Wills and Harry produce offspring) Camilla will lead the same rich and useless life that Princess Margaret led! At least Charles pays for her expenses from his Duchy of Cornwall income and shes not an added expense to the taxpayers!

I think a lot of people, me included, hope that Charlie will pop his clogs before the Queen steps down. I'd like Andrew to rule as Regent until Wills is older. I think Chas should, at the very least, abdicate from his place in the succession as I believe a monarch should be a role model for his/her subjects.....and he SO isn't!

and if the SUN were around over the centuries think of the scandals! actually there were publications around , but you could be hung, drawn and quartered for them....let's see, henry Vlll scandals, mary stuart who probably was complicit in darnley's murder, licentiousness and murder to secure the succession, and right up to the wallis simpson debacle and shame. now there was an ugly woman! clearly she knew how to wind up the weak-willed and spineless nazi-loving defector of a king. this bunch is pretty tame.

Rapunzel wrote: Camilla wouldn't have a role other than as head of various charities. As Valerie said, she would be King Consort as she would be married to the King. If he died she would be the Dowager King Consort and shuffled off to live out her days in some royal palace or other. She wont reign and she wont be Queen, purely because she has no royal blood and is only a member of the royal family through marriage.

Look at Prince Phillip...he is not King Phillip! He will never reign either. The current succession is Charlie, Wills, Harry, then Andrew (until Wills and Harry produce offspring) Camilla will lead the same rich and useless life that Princess Margaret led! At least Charles pays for her expenses from his Duchy of Cornwall income and shes not an added expense to the taxpayers!

I think a lot of people, me included, hope that Charlie will pop his clogs before the Queen steps down. I'd like Andrew to rule as Regent until Wills is older. I think Chas should, at the very least, abdicate from his place in the succession as I believe a monarch should be a role model for his/her subjects.....and he SO isn't!


I bow to your better knowledge on this subject, though I do find your last point interesting. I'm not sure how people who have lived in the kind of world that the royal family inhabit ever be "role models" for the majority of the population?. Its like kids who idolize pop stars, who although are (in a few cases) admirable have lived a life so unlike the norm how could they ever really relate to ordinary people? Its like when the beatles (who I think are great BTW) sang "All you need is love" well thats all you need when you are a multi-millionaire, can have anything you materially want, and don't answer to anyone. For the rest of us, its a bit more complicated.

Rapunzel wrote:

I think a lot of people, me included, hope that Charlie will pop his clogs before the Queen steps down. I'd like Andrew to rule as Regent until Wills is older. I think Chas should, at the very least, abdicate from his place in the succession as I believe a monarch should be a role model for his/her subjects.....and he SO isn't!


Very workable solution and said very well. If only we could sell it to the powers that be.............

Apart from Elizabeth 2nd and Queen Victoria, you would be hard pressed to find a so called 'role model' amongst queens and kings through history......anyway, how can royalty be role models....their lifestyles don't in any way relate to ours.....parents should be role models first and foremost.....also teachers , religious leaders and politicians (now there's a can of worms to open).....money and status doesn't buy good manners and morals, in fact it can cause accessibility to all things BAD.



How pretty or handsome a person is or isn't shouldn't come into play either...I think this train of thought a tad 'shallow' myself. These guys do a lot of work for good causes. Many out of the public eye.

Galbally wrote: Not the most attractive no, but incredibly wealthy, the throne of England may not be quite what it used to be, but they won't exactly starve either. Anyway, anyone who is lamenting the Diana thing on moral grounds is missing the point. Despite her charm and warmth, Diana wouldn't have been a very good queen, the things that made her such a likeable person are exactly the wrong attributes for being a senior member of the Royal family. The moden monarchy was never intended to be a tabloid circus, its a constitutional arrangement meant to serve the British state, thats its job, all the fluff and galmour is fun, but at the end of the day its still just fluff. The present Queen knows that, I think her son does too. If they tried to be what many people seem to want them to be, Britain woud become a republic within 12 months.


Well said...the Monarchy is a much loved tourist attraction....sad but true....

posted by scrat

A question for all British people here. What purpose do these people serve? The Prince of Wales , Diana, the royal family in general?

What do they do?

They seem to be like keepsakes to me. Pieces of artwork that you eventually get tired of looking at.


most of the time you will get an ambivalent answer.

Don't know how much you know about UK history, but after Charles 1st got his head chopped off we endd up with a military dictatorship and the country effectively being run by puritans,(christian fundamentalists of the more extreme kind, they banned christmas and plays etc as being ungodly, the penalties for not conforming were horrendous) the experience was so dreadful that charles 2nd was welcomed back with almost open arms but with his royal powers severely curtailed. The arguement was about whether kings had a divine right to rule or not and religon. I have seen it posited tha the experience is so burned into thee british psyche that it is the reason for our aversion to extremism of any kind.

Ultimate Power rested with parliamant and still does, as hopefully TB is about to be reminded.

long story short, the royal family is the head of state with no real power, with parliament supreme and the cabinet as the executive.

TB is not a president and does not have the same kind of power but is supposedly forst amongst equals along with the cabinet ministers-that's why TB approah and his croneyism (spelling) and using special advisers is so unbritish. Incidentally the royal family aren't British either.

So they have a symbolic importance and we put up with them but they are also anachronistic and if push came to shove it would be shove.

On the other hand a President Blair is a horrifying prospect. The House of lords is also an anachronism but none of the alternatives are very appealling nor is having a politically appointed supreme court. You can't trust politicians to behave honourably. It's a good pld british compromise that works for us and confuses everybody else.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_f ... lers.shtml

http://www.levellers.org.uk/Levellers-History.htm

Many of the protagonists ended up in america, -you can see the genesis of the American constitution in the debates of the English civil war (always annoys me slightly, charles was scots and we weren't exactly sitting about doing nothing.