royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

falkor · 2005-02-10 13:22:52

Friends 'delighted' by Charles wedding plans

10/02/2005 - 09:51:35

Friends of Britain's Prince of Wales today welcomed news of his impending marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles.

Conservative MP Nicholas Soames said he was “absolutely delighted” that the couple had announced they are to wed, on a date thought to be April 6.

“I’m very, very happy for both the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles. I think it’s wonderful,” he said.

He refused to comment on how long the couple had been considering the step, and whether it would cause constitutional difficulties.
----------------
LONDON - Prince Charles said Thursday he will marry his divorced lover Camilla Parker Bowles in April, putting an official seal on a long romance that Princess Diana blamed for the breakdown of her tempestuous marriage to the heir to the throne. The announcement ruled out the possibility that she would become queen.

The Prince of Wales and Parker Bowles will marry on Friday, April 8, at Windsor Castle, said Clarence House, Charles' residence and office.

During a visit to London's financial district Thursday, Charles accepted congratulations on his pending nuptials.

"Thank you very much, you're so kind." he said. "I am very excited."

Parker Bowles will use the title Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall after the marriage. When Charles becomes king, she will not be known as Queen Camilla but as the princess consort, Charles' office said.

That decision by the prince appeared to be a nod to public opinion, which has never warmed to Camilla.

The marriage will be a civil service and not a Church of England service.

"There will subsequently be a service of prayer and dedication in St. George's Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside," Charles' office said.

http://www.joanandstevesjubilantukjournal.co.uk/links/diana1b.htm] Lady Diana Frances Spencer was 20 when she married Prince Charles.

Following Diana's sudden death in Paris, August 31, 1997 many doubts have surrounded the official story of the paparazzi chasing a drunk driver at speed toward an inevitable and tragic accident.

What can one say about the continuing black comedy that our royal family is?

Palomar · 2005-02-10 13:56:53

*Hi Falkor.

I'm an American, but do want to comment. And I don't mean any disrespect to the British public; I'm reading "mixed reviews" about their reaction. And of course it is more their right to opine than mine. But here goes anyway:

I followed Charles' courtship of Diana as a teenager. I remember the first time we saw her on TV, and noticed "something about" her; I hoped he'd marry her. And he did. I got up at 4:30 a.m. to catch the wedding festivities live (from where I then lived, in the Midwest of the U.S.).

Watched the boys coming along, the changes through her life (although I stopped following royal events as avidly when I moved into my mid-20s...too many of my own life concerns and trials taking more attention naturally). Saw the interview she gave unannounced in 1995 with a TV reporter (can't remember his name)...and the divorce.

When I was a teenager I had my hair cut like hers, sewed clothing from patterns which resembled hers (from 1982 - 1984), even bought hats and gloves, wanting to emulate my idol and beloved Goddess, Diana. :up:

I was dashed when she died. In fact, I was on vacation from work that entire week and spent days mourning by the television. I couldn't believe it.

I was angry when she was stripped of her "HRH" title, and was only allowed to be called "Diana, Princess of Wales" (ironically, one of my first photo books devoted to her, published in 1982, bore that exact title...sort of like a premonition) as part of the divorce. I cheered when her brother, Earl Spencer, said at her funeral (a deliberate jibe at the royal family) that she "didn't need a royal title to continue working her particular brand of magic." Right on!

As for Charles and Camilla: Well...why not? Diana (rest in peace) has been departed from us for years now. A respectable amount of time has passed. William and Harry are adults.

Charles, if he were not a divorcee, would be considered a widower. I'm no fan of Camilla, by the way.

I do believe they are genuinely in love.

The only thing which bothers me is that Camilla will have an "HRH" title...whereas the mother of the future King was stripped of hers.

I'd likely view the matter differently if Diana were still alive and she and Charles merely divorced (knowing Camilla played an active role in that disunion). But Diana is gone now, for years.

So I wish the soon-to-be newlyweds best wishes.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2005-02-10 15:13:51

Nice of you, Cindy.

Euler · 2005-02-10 17:43:28

Why do people care so much about the personal lives of the royal family? It seems unlikely that this marriage will have any noticeable affect on anyone here.

Dook · 2005-02-10 18:06:35

I just don't get the whole Royal family thing. Maybe it's because I'm an American, I don't know. Diana interested me because she was 'hot' but other than that I don't really care.

I've always wondered how even Brits can care about them after the cruel ways their Kings and Queens ruled over them and their world. Commoners were peasants and worth nothing for hundreds of years.

dicktice · 2005-02-14 21:36:38

My impression is that Americans in the United States are all a bunch of frustrated Royalists, substituting the "stars" of the entertainment world, for the Royals we know will always be there to entertain us. Eat your hearts out, and God Save the President--about as close to a King as makes no never mind.

Palomar · 2005-02-14 21:50:39

*Actually, I'm not a "royal watcher." The English royals didn't interest me much -- if at all -- prior to Diana; but then I was only 15-1/2 when we were "introduced" to her.

I don't keep tabs on other European royal families, for instance (nor royalty anywhere else on the globe).

There was "something about" Diana, and I mean from the very beginning -- and in that context, it could have been ala Hollywood fame as an actress. Elvis Presley didn't marry into royalty, yet he achieved levels of fame, fortune and affection from fans which -- except for Diana -- may still be unrivaled.

After Diana's death I've kept occasional tabs on her sons. Once in a blue moon I might check a headline about Prince Charles.

Basically that's about it.

Yes, I understand lots of men found Diana "hot." But I'm a heterosexual female and when I was a teenager she was my idol. Again, this could have been in the context of a superstar Hollywood actress. ::shrugs::

Besides her being "hot", I hope certain folks here (I don't know everyone's ages, some Profiles aren't filled out) are aware that she did a lot of humanitarian work such as calling for compassion towards AIDS victims, including being photographed touching and embracing AIDS victims (whether in Great Britain or Africa) -- even in the late 80s and early 90s, when people were still afraid to even touch an AIDS victim. She brought attention to landmines, i.e. still buried and still "live" in previous war zones -- where everyday people were having to walk and often inadvertently stepping on one, thereby getting a limb or two blown off, or getting outright killed.

She did a lot of humanitarian work even after discharged from royal duties, first as an estranged wife in legal separation. In other words, she volunteered. She was wealthy, famous, admired; she could have sat around in a luxurious apartment 24/7 eating bon-bons and having manicures, boozing it up and giving a damn about the world. But she didn't. She met with Mother Theresa, worked to draw attention to hungry people, orphans, etc.

That's another reason she's loved; she had a big heart and genuinely cared. Unlike most people with her money, status and privileges...

--Cindy

::EDIT::

Dicktice: My impression is that Americans in the United States are all a bunch of frustrated Royalists, substituting the "stars" of the entertainment world, for the Royals we know will always be there to entertain us.

Hmmmm...I'm not so sure that's entirely fair. Generally speaking, most humans -- throughout history and wherever found -- seem to have this need to uplift someone (whether a physical person or some mystical entity) and put it/he/she on a pedestal of sorts. The epic hero of old is another form of this. (And besides...at least here in the U.S. if someone screws up spectacularly enough they CAN be "tossed off stage," so to speak; the Brits can't do that with their royals -- they're stuck with them, like it or not).

Dook: Yes, most royals in days of old could have cared less about the peasants. Just like Ken Lay, his pals at Enron and Martha Stewart (regardless of THEIR humble origins) could give a flying rat's rump about the poor and unfortunate.

Dook · 2005-02-17 19:06:18

Dook: Yes, most royals in days of old could have cared less about the peasants. Just like Ken Lay, his pals at Enron and Martha Stewart (regardless of THEIR humble origins) could give a flying rat's rump about the poor and unfortunate.

I don't worship the Royals and I don't worship Ken Lay or Martha. I do agree that the Brits Royals are akin to American movie stars but the movie stars have earned their place.

Who invented the whole royalty thing anyway? Royals everywhere are people just the same as the commoners and American movie stars are really no better than common Americans.

I'm sure Princess Diana performed a lot of good humanitarian work, but she was really, really, hot!

Palomar · 2005-02-17 19:59:14

I don't worship the Royals and I don't worship Ken Lay or Martha.

*That's great, and neither do I. No one is worth worshipping. I didn't imply you were worshipping anyone, I was merely pointing out that folks of humble origins who obtain $ and power can become just as abusive and corrupt as any royal ever could.

Who invented the whole royalty thing anyway?

*Well...royalty's been around since the days of ancient Egypt and likely beforehand. Thousands of years before you or I took a breath of air, so...your guess is as good as mine.

I'm sure Princess Diana performed a lot of good humanitarian work, but she was really, really, hot!

*That's nice. I prefer that people be remembered, though, for their character. To me, Diana and Mother Theresa were both beautiful.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-10 13:22:52

Re: royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

#2 2005-02-10 13:56:53

Re: royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

#3 2005-02-10 15:13:51

Re: royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

#4 2005-02-10 17:43:28

Re: royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

#5 2005-02-10 18:06:35

Re: royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

#6 2005-02-14 21:36:38

Re: royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

#7 2005-02-14 21:50:39

Re: royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

#8 2005-02-17 19:06:18

Re: royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

#9 2005-02-17 19:59:14

Re: royal marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles: April 8 - WILL YOU BE THERE?

Board footer