Anybody hear about/see Camilla''s ring??

[AGBF]

Date: 2/13/2005 8:28:14 AM
Author: Bagpuss
.....................she should act more decently, especially in front of royalty.


Royalty never has, so why should she have?

Now, Bagpuss, that is a sweeping generalization. NEVER has? What about poor Queen Victoria? Wasn''t she what most people would consider "decent"?

 

[Bagpuss]

But neither was she quite so strict as many nowadays beleive. She was certainly “never a typical Victorian” Before her marriage she wrote to Prince Albert:

"I like Lady A-- very much, only she is a little too strict and particular, too severe towards others, which is not right; for I think one ought always to be indulgent towards other people ...... it is very dangerous to be too severe."

Good advice, I think.

 

[movie zombie]

great quote, bagpuss! good words to live by....ESPECIALLY in this day and age.....

peace, movie zombie

 

[Bagpuss]

I agree. She also had quite a lot of quite suprising things to say to her daughters on the subject of the trials of being a married woman and mother. She seemed to look back on being footloose and fancy free with some longing!

 

[Bagpuss]

Even Victoria''s background is hardly what we might regard as quite enviable - she was produced to order of the crown!

"Princess Alexandrina Victoria was not only born to be Queen of England: she was conceived to be Queen. Once Princess Charlotte, the only legitimate child of the Prince of Wales, the future George IV, died in childbirth late in 1817, her son stillborn, the nation was plunged into mourning and her unmarried uncles stirred into competition to sire an heir to the throne. With the Prince of Wales, Prince Regent for his insane father, George III, separated from the future (but uncrowned) Queen Caroline, no lawful successor would come that way. To solve the succession dilemma, the royal brothers, princes of the blood, most of them with mistresses and illegitimate progeny, were ordered to marry and beget, with their reward for success a promised cancellation of their heavy debts.
Although William IV, the Duke of Clarence (1830-37), duly married a minor German princess, no child of his survived early infancy. Next in line, Edward, Duke of Kent, would jettison his mistress of many years and marry the widowed Victoire, Duchess of Amorbach, who had proved her fertility during her first marriage. When she became pregnant, it became necessary, once she could travel, to leave her small German dukedom and give birth on English soil to establish unquestionable credentials for the child''s likely inheritance. But beset by debt unresolved by the Regent, the Duke encountered delays in raising the money to get his entourage across the Channel. On 28 March 1819, in her eighth month, the Duchess set off, arriving at Dover on 24 April, barely in time for the accouchement. At Kensington Palace, in apartments reluctantly granted by the Regent, who disliked his improvident brother, the future queen was born on 24 May. The new princess was christened a month later, with none of the usual royal names available to her parents because of the Regent''s refusal to permit another Charlotte or Elizabeth or Georgina. "

It''s a wonder that the Royal family isn''t more wierd than it already is.

 

[Sparkster]

Date: 2/11/2005 5:16:20 PM
Author: codex57
Could someone please explain why Charles had to marry Diana and not Camilla? What custom or rule required this? And why Diana. From what I understand, wasn''t she a commoner as well?

Charles would not have been allowed to marry Camilla because she ''had a past''. Protocol dictacted that any future bride of the King or heir had to be a virgin. Camilla was not.

Diana wasn''t a commoner, she was the daughter of an earl, hence her title of ''lady''.

It''s widely reported that Diana knew of Charles'' love for Camilla before the wedding and wanted out on the eve of their wedding but her sister famously said that her face was already on the tea towels and it was too late to pull out now.

 

[AGBF]

Ah, Bagpuss...a fellow history buff! Do you know Georgette Heyer? She wrote fluff, primarily about the Regency Period in England and mentioned the mad scramblings of the Royal Dukes to marry! I am afraid that they are not treated with much respect in her novels! I adore her. The Duke of York is the most frequently mentioned of the brothers.

 

[Bagpuss]

Diana wasn''t a commoner, she was the daughter of an earl, hence her title of ''lady''.

If you''d read one of my previous posts you''d know that this statement is wrong. She was a commoner.

 

[Bagpuss]

I find the history of the British royal family fascinating, AGBF. The modern day perception of them being the 'perfect and respectable ideal family' is just so much nonsense. A myth. They never were and they're not now. They're just a normal dysfunctional family with one heck of a lot of extra pressure on them that other families can't even imagine.

People are so unrealsitic in their expectations of them that I really feel sorry for them as a group. It's not a family that I'd want to belong to despite their wealth and privileges.

And I wish that people would get their facts straight about how the peerage works before they make statements about it.

 

[fire&ice]

Define "commoner"? Why would Camilla not be one?

 

[Bagpuss]

Date: 2/13/2005 5:58:33 PM
Author: fire&ice
Define 'commoner'? Why would Camilla not be one?

Camilla is a commoner as well. Many royals have married commoners mainly because there aren't all that many true royals around.

Most people think that if you have a title or are the son or daughter of a titled person that that makes you royal - it doesn't.

A commoner, in British law, is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a noble. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as HRH Prince William of Wales or HRH The Princess Royal, is a commoner, as is any member of a peer's family, including someone with a courtesy title, such as the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk) or Lady Victoria Hervey (a daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol).

Have a look here for more info on the term commoner
http://www.etoile.co.uk/Columns/RoyalScribe/040426.html

 

[Sparkster]

Date: 2/13/2005 5:35:48 PM
Author: Bagpuss
Diana wasn''t a commoner, she was the daughter of an earl, hence her title of ''lady''.

If you''d read one of my previous posts you''d know that this statement is wrong. She was a commoner.

Ooops, my mistake. I always knew that people with titles weren''t always ''royals'', but I thought that non commoners were those with titles.

 

[Bagpuss]

Date: 2/13/2005 9:52

8 PM
Author: Sparkster

Date: 2/13/2005 5:35:48 PM
Author: Bagpuss
Diana wasn''t a commoner, she was the daughter of an earl, hence her title of ''lady''.

If you''d read one of my previous posts you''d know that this statement is wrong. She was a commoner.

Ooops, my mistake. I always knew that people with titles weren''t always ''royals'', but I thought that non commoners were those with titles.

No problem Sparkster, it''s very complicated and often doesn''t seem to make any sense - even I got it wrong in my last post.

Actually, you can have a member of the Royal family who''s still a commoner because they''re not a Peer of the Realm. They have a courtesy title, like many others, but not one that makes them a Peer. That''s the deciding thing.

British monarchs have been marrying ''commoners'' for years (the Queen Mother was a commoner) but they often had titles and came from great families and that''s what confuses people. It''s not an easy system to understand - not many Brits do either!

 

[codex57]

Ok, so their both commoners. Was Diana so much more popular cuz she was pretty and Camilla not quite so?

 

[Bagpuss]

Partly. But I think it's mainly because people blame Camilla for the break-up of the Charles and Diana's marriage. Diana famously blamed Camilla publicly for being, at least in part, to blame for the break up when she said that there were three people in her marriage - the inference being that Camilla had been there in the background from the word go. She implied that Charles and Camilla's relationship, during the marriage, was more than just good friends.

Charles on the other hand, while admitting adultery, never said who it was with and said that he'd only strayed AFTER the break up of his relationship with Diana, although before they were actually divorced.

A lot of people liked Diana and of course her death and the manner of it, has increased the sympathy felt for her. Camilla has always had an uphill struggle with the British public because she's always been seen as 'the other woman' who wouldn't go away.

In fact, there's a row brewing with the Synod at this moment because Church of England rules say that a couple whose relationship was the reason for their marriage break-ups, shouldn't be encouraged to marry each other. They can marry in a civil ceremony, of course, but the marriage shouldn't be blessed by the Church. It appears that the church ceremony that will take place after the civil ceremony won't be a blessing as such. The Synod wanted to discuss how his marriage might affect Charles's future position as Head of the Church (when he becomes king). The Archbishop of Canterbury has blocked any discussion within the Synod, for the time being anyway.

None of this is likely to affect their plans. The marriage will go ahead - Charles has the Queen's permission which was all he needed so it's quite legal, but it's how it will affect his future position as Head of the Church that's the sticking point among some of the more conservative church members.

Other than that, there seems to be little real opposition to the marriage. I think that, given time, she'll come to be accepted as his wife, if never loved.

 

[Bagpuss]

NEWSFLASH

There's a suggestion on the news tonight that the civil marriage ceremony doesn't apply to Royalty. It seems that no-one knows if that's true or not. If it is then there may have to be an Act of Parliament to allow Charles to marry in a civil ceremony.

The plot thickens.............

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 2/14/2005 3:12:20 PM
Author: Bagpuss
NEWSFLASH

There''s a suggestion on the news tonight that the civil marriage ceremony doesn''t apply to Royalty. It seems that no-one knows if that''s true or not. If it is then there may have to be an Act of Parliament to allow Charles to marry in a civil ceremony.

The plot thickens.............

Or another beheading! I''d be quakin in my boots if I was the Arch. Bis. of Cant.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/14/2005 5:25:41 PM
Author: fire&ice
Or another beheading! I'd be quakin in my boots if I was the Arch. Bis. of Cant.

I don't think the Archbishops of Canterbury are usually beheaded. Not that there is a protocol for that sort of thing, but when they annoy monarchs they tend to be burned (Henry VIII's) or (as with "the meddlesome priest") set on by swordsmen.

Deb

 

[Bagpuss]

No no. The Archbishop is the one churchman who's actually supporting them! He blocked the discussion because some of the Synod are the ones who are trying to cause trouble. The Synod are also having a go at the Archbishop because he's offered to do a church service with Charles and Camilla after the civil ceremony because they think it makes it look as though he's giving them the Church's blessing and seal of approval.

The problem with the legality of the civil ceremony seems to be a much bigger problem, if it's true. That would need an Act of Parliament to ratify a change to the law. We'll just have to wait and see what happens...........

 

[codex57]

Date: 2/14/2005 3:12:20 PM
Author: Bagpuss
There''s a suggestion on the news tonight that the civil marriage ceremony doesn''t apply to Royalty. It seems that no-one knows if that''s true or not. If it is then there may have to be an Act of Parliament to allow Charles to marry in a civil ceremony.


The plot thickens.............

So you''re saying he might have problems marrying her in a civil ceremony in addition to his religious one not being that real cuz it''s not blessed?

 

[pqcollectibles]

QE is one smart cookie. I would think her attorneys woulda been all over it considering every contingency before she ever gave her blessing for the marriage to begin with. Hummmmmmmm........... The plot does thicken!!

 

[Bagpuss]

Not exactly. Because they''re divorced they can''t marry in Church. So they opted for a civil ceremony instead. The church service afterwards has nothing to do with the wedding - it''s just optional.

Unfortunatley, there may be a legal hitch to him getting married in a civil ceremony. It''s been suggested today that the civil ceremony may not apply to Royalty. If that''s the case, they''d have to pass an act of parliament to allow him to get married in a civil ceremony.

It''s the first time it has happened, so all bets are off at the moment.

The other civil ceremonies (like Princess Anne''s) appeared to be legal, but then as I explained before, legally, she''s a commoner, so she was in a different position legally to her brother, who''s a peer of the realm and the heir apparent which may throw up all sorts of legal problems that no-one has even considered yet.

It must be a nightmare for them.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/14/2005 5:57:59 PM
Author: Bagpuss

The other civil ceremonies (like Princess Anne''s) appeared to be legal, but then as I explained before, legally, she''s a commoner, so she was in a different position

I believe you are wrong here, Bagpuss. The Princess Royal (i.e. Anne) was married in the Church of Scotland and it was legal, although she is a Royal, because it was not in England.

Deb

 

[Bagpuss]

Could be, could be. Like I said, no-one seems to know one way or the other at the moment.

If this was a soap opera people would be saying "how ridiculous - that couldn't happen in real life!"

As the old adage goes 'Truth is often stranger than fiction.'

 

[movie zombie]

i cannot begin to tell you how much i am enjoying this thread and all the historical references. it really is fascinating to think that despite all the years of english monarchy, a situation has come about that may have no precident and may be precident setting.
by the way, can anyone tell me when ''english'' became the ''first'' language of the throne? it is my understanding that george III was a hanover and therefore spoke german.

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/14/2005 7:18:29 PM
Author: movie zombie

by the way, can anyone tell me when 'english' became the 'first' language of the throne? it is my understanding that george III was a hanover and therefore spoke german.

I cannot do so without doing some research. In the beginning, of course, England was Saxon. The Romans had successfully invaded in 55 BC and, as they did everywhere, officially brought Latin to the island. The people, of course, did not speak it. In 1066 with the Norman invasion, French was added to the mix. The new English language melded the Saxon and the French (which derived from Latin). I am sure that the Saxon in England had now, also, been affected by Latin.

That is why, in English, there are often words from both the Saxon and the French for many common farm animals and meats.

Long before Farmer George, however, the Kings of England were speaking English!

 

[codex57]

Wasn''t there talk a while back of just skipping Charles and going straight to Prince William? Maybe this non-legal ceremony thing was just a sneaky plot by the Queen to skip Charles in the line of succession?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/14/2005 7:54

4 PM
Author: codex57
Wasn''t there talk a while back of just skipping Charles and going straight to Prince William? Maybe this non-legal ceremony thing was just a sneaky plot by the Queen to skip Charles in the line of succession?

Prince Charles cannot lose his place in the line of succession based on his being married or unmarried to Mrs. Parker-Bowles. He can only lose it if he abdicates; marries a Catholic; or converts to Catholicism.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/14/2005 1:23:22 PM
Author: codex57
Ok, so their both commoners. Was Diana so much more popular cuz she was pretty and Camilla not quite so?

I think your question was already answered. Diana was the young, beautiful WIFE. She got married thinking she could actually *BE* Cinderella, be both a Princess and the love of her Prince's life. Camilla was "the other woman".

I thought that this article in "The New York Times" made some fascinating points, though. Charles could have gotten any young beauty he wanted as someone with enormous wealth as well as the entrée into Royal circles. (Look at Donald Trump, who has *only* the money!) That he did not go for someone younger and lovelier than his wife makes it more interesting from a human point of view.

"In a world of expendable relationships, where middle-aged men trade in middle-aged women for younger, firmer models as easily as they might dispose of a creaky toaster or last year's car, the enduring relationship of Charles and Camilla, as the British newspapers call them, carries a sweet poignancy for many.

Although in recent years she has had something of an image makeover, appearing more in couture dresses and less in frumpy countrywoman garb, Mrs. Parker Bowles can hardly be called glamorous and does not appear to care. She once called herself "your devoted old bag" in a love letter to Prince Charles.

Even those unable to forgive Charles for cheating on the late Princess of Wales can take a certain comfort in knowing that if he had to do it, at least he took the counter-intuitive route, choosing someone older, wrinklier and less svelte than his wife, rather than the other way around."

The entire article

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/15/2005 1:21:57 AM
Author: movie zombie

i'm beginning to think we in the modern age are less tolerant than our victorian sisters and brothers.....

Well, the thought that Henry VIII would not have had any problem changing wives cannot but hit one between the eyes! Here everyone is pontificating about the Church of England and the enormous responsibility of being its head when one is King.

The Church of England only exists because Henry VIII wanted to get rid of his old wife (Catherine of Aragon) and marry a new one (Anne Boleyn). In the eyes of THE Church at that time (for there was only one, the Roman Catholic) Henry wanted to commit adultery with Anne Boleyn.

Rather than apologize and try to appease anyone, Henry just did away with the Roman Catholic Church! What an irony that Charles, with his desire only to wed a second time, should be hampered by constrictions put on him by that old reprobate Henry VIII!!! It is LUDICROUS!!!

Henry VIII would just have cheerfully killed Catherine of Aragon (as he did Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, two of his next wives). His only problem was that Catherine of Aragon's brother was the King of Spain!!!