"Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles were married Saturday at the 17th century Guildhall, capping a decades-long love affair that lasted through the prince's first marriage to Princess Diana.
"The couple emerged from Guildhall to the cheers of onlookers and a jazz band playing, ``Congratulations.'' They drove to Windsor Castle in a Rolls-Royce for a blessing ceremony to be attended by Charles' mother, Queen Elizabeth II, and conducted by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams."
NYT 4/9/05
The hat looked wonderful. I suppose it protects the future queen from the fierce Windsor sun.
As a Yank, I don't understand all the rules of the monarchy, so I can't figure out why the heck they couldn't have gotten married in the first place, way back when, before Diana. Can any of you Brits please shed some light on the subject for me? It's all so confusing.....
radar (imported) wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:59 am
As a Yank, I don't understand all the rules of the monarchy, so I can't figure out why the heck they couldn't have gotten married in the first place, way back when, before Diana. Can any of you Brits please shed some light on the subject for me? It's all so confusing.....
I don't think that there was any particular "can't" about it. It would seem that Camilla was daunted by the implications of of marrying the heir to the throne. Even back then the "goldfish bowl factor" was a serious discouragement. And of course there was Prince Phillip.....
It was all a lot easier when the marriage of the heir boiled down to a matter of allliance building.
"Back when," Camilla was married to Mr. Bowles, who's still alive. Bigamy was, and still is, illegal. Also, remember that the British monarch holds the title Defender of the Faith, making him or her the head of the Church of England. The C of E doesn't do divorce, unless they've changed. Charles, as son of the monarch, and eventual monarch, was obviously expected to adhere to the beliefs of the Church. Back then, divorce was seen as vaguely scandalous, even though it was allowed under civil law, so it was especially abhorent to the royal family. (Anyone old enough remembers that this was also true in the U.S. Divorce, for example, was assumed to end the career of any American politician. Remember the smutty jokes and derision when Nelson Rockefeller divorced?) Britain experienced the same change in attitudes toward marriage over the last 20-30 years that the U.S. has. Even so, it took many years to win public acceptance of Camilla's divorce, and then to the possibility of Charles becoming king after wedding Camilla. (For years, it was assumed that Charles must abdicate the throne if he married Camilla, because she is a divorced woman and still married in the eyes of the C of E.) Now it's assumed that Camilla can never become queen, only the royal consort, as Prince Philip is. The British public may eventually be won over to the idea of Camilla as queen, but it's still too tender an issue to be discussed. Years of patient cultivation of goodwill must occur before the public consents. Not only are there obstacles of religion and propriety, but many in Britain cherish the memory of Diana and see Camilla, rightly or not, as the wrecker of Diana's marriage.
I suppose it would come in real handy if one were to do do a "HAT DANCE".
After all, Camilla must have had something Charles liked. She was not a virgin and she certainly was not as beautiful as Princess Diane...
...still, to each their own. Charles is a grown man. He knew what he wanted. Now he has it and a son to assume the throne someday. HE is free to follow his heart's desire...
Thanks Bobov, that explains much. So it's like the King Edward abdication to marry Wallis Simpson, except that Charles isn't abdicating anything.
What has me still puzzled, though, is that I'd always thought Henry VIII, who split the C of E away from Rome, did so in order to marry Anne Boleyn while Catherine of Aragon was still alive. Why would that have been OK for Henry, but not for Edward or Charles?
radar (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:55 pm
Thanks Bobov, that explains much. So it's like the King Edward abdication to marry Wallis Simpson, except that Charles isn't abdicating anything.
What has me still puzzled, though, is that I'd always thought Henry VIII, who split the C of E away from Rome, did so in order to marry Anne Boleyn while Catherine of Aragon was still alive. Why would that have been OK for Henry, but not for Edward or Charles?
The difference is, of course, that Henry got the "becoming King" bit out of the way first, and was also working to the 1066 version of the constitution, rather than the 1647 (Oliver Cromwell) revision, which drastically changed the rules regarding the use of the axe as an instrument of public policy.
