Church leaders strike deal to let Prince Charles re-marry

[CShine]

Church leaders have cleared the way for Britain's heir to the throne Prince Charles to marry his long-time companion and fellow divorcee Camillia Parker Bowles, although it could still be some time before wedding bells peal, The Times newspaper reported yesterday.

In a front page report, it said Rowan Williams, who as Archbishop of Canterbury is the worldwide leader of the Anglican Church, had given his personal blessing for the Prince of Wales, 55, to marry Parker Bowles, 56.

Charles was previously married to Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in Paris in August 1997 - a year after the couple divorced and two years after Parker Bowles divorced her own husband.

The issue of whether the royal heir can marry a divorcee has vexed constitutional experts for years, since the British monarch is the titular head of the Anglican Church and thus officially expected to be beyond moral reproach.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203567017.html

[PartyPooper]

1. NO! NO! NO!

He can't be allowed to marry this woman! Ever!

Camilla is a home-wrecker and an adulteress!

HRH is a heel to boot!

Such a marriage would be the end of the monarchy and civilization as we know it!

And, I want William to accede to the throne...not his father.


:cry:

[1monster]

8. And you know all this how?

Because Diana and her followers said so?

Whatever his faults (and they are probably many... remember this is the man who grew from the boy whose mother never hugged him -- she shook his hand!), I've always admired the fact that he did not trash Diana when she was always and forever trashing him and did her absolute best to destroy him.

As for William, why would he not come to the throne in his turn if his father is King before him?

But you could, of course, get your wish. The Queen Mom lived to be over 100 years old, didn't she. Elizabeth II could well emulate her mother. Charles would be a really old guy by the time he reached the throne.

[Lindacooks]

29. Are you kidding me?????????

Chuck and his followers did everything they could to trash Princess Diana. Try reading some of the books out there and you'll learn about it. Chuck's henchmen used Nazi tactics intimating that Diana was mentally unstable. With his approval. The 'Royal' family used Diana to breed heirs, even though Chuck was unfaithful to her from Day 1.

Try listening to the tape of Chuck and Camilla talking about how the resolution of a crippling strike was going to interfere with their fucking, and how Chuck wanted to come back as one of Camilla's tampons. This is a class act? Hardly.

[1monster]

34. Let's see... by her own admission, Diana was bulimic, into self mutilation

threw herself down a flight of stairs in a bid for attention, and many other activities that one would not expect from a mentally/emotionally stable person.

She was unstable and she didn't take responsibility for herself and her own actions.

Was she in a far less than tolerable situation? Yes, most likely. But my belief is that she helped to make her situation the way it was. She simply could not handle the job or the attention.

Could Charles have been more sympathetic? Perhaps. But you try living with someone who is, on top of all those other problems, a spoiled brat. Do it for several years running. Then see how sympathetic you are.

One runs dry even when there is a great deal of love involved. And there wasn't a great deal of love in that marriage.

I'm not an apologist for Charles, but Di's the one who started the nasty stuff and then she couldn't handle it when others in the know had a different veiwpoint from that of her and her friends.

[Lindacooks]

36. If anybody was the 'spoiled brat' in that marriage

It was Chuck. For God's sake, he's never even put toothpaste on his toothbrush, while Diana actually knew how to get down on her hands and knees and scrub the floor.

It would also behoove you to remember that she was 19 years old when they were engaged, and he was 32. If anything, his relationship toward her was one of child abuse.

And you're wrong - Diana is not the one who 'started the nasty stuff'. She was, quite rightly, very upset that Chuck was cheating on her from the very beginning.

And you certainly are an apologist for Chuck. Read some books on the matter and then you may understand the situation a bit.

[HereSince1628]

11. If only it would end the monarchy

I would be so grateful not to suffer repeated attempts by the media to graft British royalty onto my culture because my primary language is English.

[bleedingheart]

12. I blame Charles for the entire mess...

he dated Camilla when he was a young man....he could have married her then...but he knew as the heir to the throne he could score some more before settling down for good....and he used it to his advantage.

Then he gets to be an older man...realizes that now he needs a bride who wasn't soiled...and lo and behold he marries a 19 year old...and he and the world are suprised it didn't work out? I don't blame Diana for marrying him...hell what 19 year old would turn down the future king but he didn't love her and it was apparent early on.

[PurityOfEssence]

26. Why do people consider this airhead some kind of saint?

Why is it just perfectly fine for her to be a addle-headed gold digger, yet if he's confused about the true yearnings of his heart he's a thoroughgoing rotter? Diana was dating the son of an arms merchant while flouncing about being praised for her heart-wrenching fight against land mines.

The cult of beauty that's inculcated into mankind is just nauseating. This woman was self-absorbed, skittish and just plain trouble. Sure, she loved her children; I'm sure she had some very admirable qualities, but she doesn't deserve endless deification, and Charles is no villain.

The heart of her appeal was some misty-eyed childish princess fantasy, and this celebrity glorification based on title, money and looks is nothing short of shallow.

Don't take all this personally, bleedingheart, you just triggered one of my bugaboos.

She was not extraordinary; she wasn't even Jackie Bouvier, who was at least somewhat engaging.

[Lindacooks]

30. How on earth was she a gold-digger?

She was already titled, and became a multimillionaire when her father died. And he wasn't 'confused' about anything - he married Diana just to get heirs, while screwing Camilla on the side.

While she was the first public figure to shake hands with an AIDS victim, he was telling Camilla he wanted to come back as her tampon. While she highlighted the horrible cost of land mines and brought needed attention to bulimia and depression, he was blathering on about architecture.

Chuck and the rest of the royals are totally disgusting, self absorbed misogynists. And don't forget about the Queen not allowing Diana's name to be spoken IN CHURCH on THE DAY AFTER HER DEATH in front of her children, confusing them so they weren't sure if she had died or not.

[bleedingheart]

35. No offense taken..

personally I haven't got a high opinion of any royalty...and my post was more or less dealing with Charles decision to marry such a young gal..and in her defense, 19 year olds aren't exactly worldly about such matters.

I do want to say that when she died I found the gushing sainthood bestowed upon her to be over the top.

Like I said to my sister... the fact that she was wealthy and titled excused her behavior...however if she had been a divorced mother living in a trailer park and she had left the kids with her mom for a night of carousing with her wild boyfriend and got killed in an alcohol related accident ...everyone would have called her a bimbo...and a bad mother....

but when you are a divorced princess and your kids are in boarding school while you are partying/hanging out with a well known rich party boy and you get killed in a drunk driving accident ....then it's a world tragedy.

[Piperay]

41. Agree, Charles is a gutless

little weasle who was to chickenshit to go against his father and marry the woman he really wanted...Camilla. Instead he chooses to marry a naive young woman who he didn't love and ended up making all concerned miserable.

[0007]

23. Camilla and Charles will each go their own way after the front is in place

[crossroads]

2. Really, these two pecans *should* marry...

and put an *end* to all that bliss! They deserve each other!
:puke:

[LastDemocratInSC]

3. Just another of the problems of merging church and state

I'm sure that Charles and Camilla are revelling in this news beneath the sheets tonight. Oh, those haughty English do-gooders.

[TankLV]

4. It should come as the opposite of shock - after all, that is THE

FOUNDATION of that church.

Good 'ol murdering Henry started the church so he could divorce his many queens after he tired of them.

"Great" foundation for a "great" church! (NOT!)

Who gives a fuck what that "church" does or says.

At least no one had to be beheaded this time around!

We couldn't MAKE this stuff up!

[bleedingheart]

13. yeah really...

years ago...Charles could have had Diana locked up in a convent, beheaded or perhaps wore her out bearing one child after another...

[Kenneth ken]

39. that's what I was thinking too

"The issue of whether the royal heir can marry a divorcee has vexed constitutional experts for years, since the British monarch is the titular head of the Anglican Church and thus officially expected to be beyond moral reproach. "

this line at least explains why it was thought there might be a problem with a divorced royal remarrying. But of course, the "beyond moral reproach" aspect is wide open considering Henry's acts. If it's beyond moral reproach to have your wife beheaded, pretty much anything else would also be hunky dory.

[1monster]

5. Let them marry... if that's what they want.

"Conservative Anglicans have long expressed opposition to Charles and Parker Bowles marrying in a church, given their well-documented adultery with each other before the breakdown of their respective marriages."

Yeah, well that makes a whole lot of sense. It's like the Irish Priest who refused to marry a couple I know who already had a child because they had carnal knowledge of each other. :eyes:

"Their romance was rekindled in 1986 - prompting Diana at one point to publicly reveal: "There were three in the marriage, so it was a bit crowded"."

And Diana was a plaster saint? She had a several affaires de couer during her marriage to Charles, too. Aside from which, the woman had borderline personality disorders, was bulimic and probably a royal (sorry, couldn't resist) pain to live with. (Try living with someone who is self-obsessed who also has real psychological problems and seems to be unable to take responsibilites for his/her own actions. It was alwasys because someone/something drove her to it...

Frankly, I say if Charles and Camilla want to get married let them!

It has only been since Queen Elizabeth's parents sat on the thrones that the royal family has been such a pillar of rectitude (at least as the British people seem to want them portrayed, anyway. Prior to that, the royals were quite the scandal makers. Remember King George's brother, later Duke of Windsor, who was the darling of the Flapper set until he gave up his claim to the throne for the love of his Wallis Simpson... a woman whose past apparently included a time in the brothels of China.

There is a long history of scandalous behaviors on the part of British royals that goes back probably to King Arthur.

[Spentastic]

6. Good

The sooner the monarchy fucks up completely and pisses of Jo Public and I don't have to pay for them the better. A few more drunk Chauffeurs would be just the ticket. Fucking parasites.

[depakid]

7. And here I thought Henry the VIII settled all that

nasty divource/remarraige business centuries ago.

I guess it just goes to show that some customs die hard...:+

[radwriter0555]

9. There is a report she has cancer, which she then denied..

I believe she is ill.

[callous taoboy]

10. Hey-whatever benefits

the frigging royalty.

[TahitiNut]

14. The British should abolish the monarchy and confiscate their property.

It's appalling that people continue to ignore the abundant lessons of history and drool over mankind's most long-running obscenity of a Truman Show. We're looking at the shallowest, most polluted gene pool on the planet. Inbred arrogance and specious entitlement. Every shilling in the Windsor coffers was extracted from the blood and sweat of others and inherited by those who have rightfully earned far less than any of Britain's coal miners and laborers.

It's appalling that the 21st century still has monarchies and even more appalling that people ignore the lessons of history and continue to treat "aristocrats" with any kind of adulation. That these people are looked upon with an attitude any different than one would observe dung beetles or maggots in their natural habitats is ridiculous.

As a former Whig and current social liberal, I feel Royalists and Tories are obscene anachronisms who don't belong in a democratic society.

[HereSince1628]

15. Verily Verily

[bleedingheart]

16. that's why we colonists fought for independence...

"No Taxation without Representation"

Aside from the tourist dollars the "concept" of monarchy attracts...I think that it is rather ridiculous that there are Kings and Queens around still...

[TahitiNut]

17. Inherited power, inherited wealth, enTITLEments ...

... it's disgusting. It seems people have short-circuits in their fevered brains when it comes to these appalling parasites.

Yes, I've actually met Prince Phillip and the Queen once upon a time 40 years ago -- when the malaria-like infection of authoritarianism had me in its grip. I sometimes think back at my attitudes a bit like one who has awakened from a nightmare - a nightmare of seduction something like Rosemary supposedly experienced.

[bleedingheart]

18. it is rather silly that people are captivated by the idea

in fact I read in a magazine a long time ago that the Romanov family descendents were thinking they might be able to reclaim the Czarist throne when the USSR was breaking up...

[HereSince1628]

19. Wealth=Power, heritability of either threatens democracy

that isn't to say that concentrated capital CAN'T do good things. It can and has. Globalization is just a euphemism for a system in which capital has no allegiance to the nations.

[The White Rose]

21. Quite.

...

[pacifictiger]

28. the monarchy

is good for tourist dollars.

[TahitiNut]

33. So is DisneyWorld ...

... but I'd never want to live next door. I often think a lot of what some "tourists" (lotus-eaters?) like is something they can leave. :shrug:

That's not like the San Franciso Bay Area, though. When I lived there (sob!) I felt good about living where others came to visit and allowed me to bask in their envy. :silly: (I don't think anyone envies the neighbors of Disneyland.)

[Tight_rope]

40. Duyba thinks and behaves as though he is the US King!!!

"Poor men want to be rich and rich men want to be King."

Now that the thief is the King of the US, his behavior fellows such. The arrogance, the bulling, the war on Iraq, and the refusal to get his ass off the throne after fucking up so bad. It's all the making of a tyrant dictator. And just look who is best friend is, of course his British buddy. They all think alike. Bush, Chaney, Rummy, Rove, and the Wolf. All of them are "MADMAN" who stole the power and won't let go, at least not without killing many on the way out. :evilgrin:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. Let the Henry VIII jokes begin. n/t

[dryan]

24. Windsor House

They will probably have a morganistic marriage.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

27. OK, good one good one. Let's have another..........n/t

[yellowcanine]

32. Edward VIII is a better comparison - abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson

Whats makes Prince Charlie so special? When you get the good life handed to you on a silver platter you ought to play by the rules or give up the goodies. I have zero sympathy for Charlie after the way he treated Diana.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

38. Well yeah. But I was going for that whole wink wink nod nod

church "agreement".

[arwalden]

22. Wait Just A Darn Second... I Thought God's Word Wasn't Negotiable

Where do they get off making exceptions for some people and not for others?

-- Allen

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Makes sense; the institution was created to cheat "god's law"

so it's an operation borne of quibbling. Henry VIII would be proud.

[yellowcanine]

31. Does this mean he can marry Wallis Simpson? - right, that was Edward VIII

in 1936. What was good for Edward VIII should be good for Prince Charlie. Why don't they just skip old Charlie and go right to an untainted Prince William? Or do away with the monarchy bs altogether. The monarchy is soooo 18th century anyway.

[1monster]

37. Read the book KING OF FOOLS...

About the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson. The real reason that the Duke had to abdicate to marry Simpson was that she had a very shady background, not that she was divorced, although that was a contributor.

She and the Duke also played footsie with Hitler. Had Hitler managed to invade and take over England as he planned, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor had agreed to be put in place as King and Queen of the same.... Not nice people.

[CJCRANE]

42. After the Queen

no more monarchs please. They can't keep their mystique in the age of the internet, TV, tabloids etc.

Give them their money and palaces and let them go off a-huntin', shootin' and fishin' and whatever else they want to do.