Question about Royal Wedding - Page 2

Doug · 09-04-2005, 22:08

No it's not really. We are all happy to throw stones purpleLass, but when their thrown at us we start calling foul, are they really any different from us. I don’t think so. I hope they find there happiness they are just as entitled as we are.

PurpleLass · 09-04-2005, 22:15

It does annoy me how people keep going on about Charles and Camilla and how opposed they are to the whole thing. Charles and Diana got divorced before she died. I know that Charles having an affair whilst being married to Diana wasn't good but then again she wasn't whiter than white either. I'm pretty sure that if she wasn't dead now people wouldn't be making quite the fuss that they are. Although ironically if he'd still been married when she died there wouldn't be that much fuss as it's ok for a widower to remarry.

garinda · 09-04-2005, 22:17

Not a Royalist but........

like anybody else l wish them well.

If it hadn't been such an antiquated system they would have been able to marry years ago, and thus not hurt the other people that got entangled.

Garinda's fashion comment's. She got it spot on with the lavender grey dress coat and hat she wore to the blessing at St. George's Chapel. Scrubs up well. It's amazing what our money can do!

PurpleLass · 09-04-2005, 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Garinda's fashion comment's. She got it spot on with the lavender grey dress coat and hat she wore to the blessing at St. George's Chapel. Scrubs up well. It's amazing what our money can do!

I loved that spikey thing in her hair.

garinda · 09-04-2005, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurpleLass

I loved that spikey thing in her hair.

Yeah it worked.

l think it was by Philip Treacy. l 'm more cutting edge and would have used a tam-pax theme for her headwear!

[Joking

]

WillowTheWhisp · 09-04-2005, 22:29

I loved that spikey thing too, it was gold plated feathers so I'm told.

Yes it is barmy that the C of E came into existence because Henry VIII wanted a divorce (or anullment) and the Pope wouldn't permit it.

I don't think as much fuss was made about Princess Anne's divorce and remarriage because she remarried on Scotland (where the church doesn't object to the situation) and because she isn't the heir to the throne and so there isn't all this rigmarole and red tape nonsense surrounding her.

I think technically because Charles's ex-wife is deceased he could be regarded as a widower by a church which doesn't recognise divorce but Camilla's husband is still alive so itheir marriage would still involve a divorced (ie in the church's eyes still technically married before God) person.

Busman747 · 10-04-2005, 04:01

Personally, I am all for the wedding and good luck to them both. There are a couple of things that niggle me though, the first being how the papers put Diana on a pedastal by saying how beautiful she was and compare her to todays "super models." which frankly is stretching fantasy a little far..........but then to compare Diana with Camilla and in doing so, criticise Camilla because she isn't so attractive is plain sick.

She is not the most glamorous woman in the world but for her age (is it 50 something?) is doing well! Charles is not a great catch if looks are the criteria but I feel that they love each other which is the most important thing.

After saying that, I have had this picture on my PC for a couple of months and it always makes me chuckle so I will add it to this post to get it out of my system......

-pixie · 10-04-2005, 08:10

For the people against Charles and Camilla getting hitched - pick up a copy of Take a Break/Thats Life or somesuch tat. Far worse goes on in those pages.

Who cares at the end of the day who he is married to? I wish them all the best.

cashman · 10-04-2005, 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by -pixie

For the people against Charles and Camilla getting hitched - pick up a copy of Take a Break/Thats Life or somesuch tat. Far worse goes on in those pages.

Who cares at the end of the day who he is married to? I wish them all the best.

got to say agree with pixie.who was it coined the phrase?(frankly i don't give a damn)

janet · 10-04-2005, 09:53

I watched the wedding and really enjoyed it, they are more suited to each other than Charles and Diana were.It must be true love, who else would put up with all the bad press if it wasn't.

pendy · 11-04-2005, 13:38

It wouldn't matter a d**n if he wasn't heir to the throne. This is an over-privileged, spoilt, brat, who had the chance to marry Camilla Shand when they were both single, but wouldn't make up his mind. Yes, it is a great love affair .... after all, it broke up two marriages and split two families. Now he wants it all. He should have been honest about it - his great uncle had to give up the throne because he married a divorcee. If he wanted to marry her that much, shouldn't he have done the same?

Not just a personal opinion, it could do tremendous damage to the monarchy - and everyone seems to forget the fact that she is supposed to be a Catholic - James Ogilvy had to give up his right to the throne (admittedly he was about 33 away from it!) when he married a Catholic.

The Queen has a tremedous sense of duty. Charles just seems to have a tremedous sense of privilege.

Bazf · 11-04-2005, 14:23

New studies show that 64% of all marriages in the UK end in divorce,

Catholics 62%
Anglicans 72%
Non Denominations 68%

91% Remarry

Catholics 89%
Anglicans 92%
Non Denominations 94%

So what are they doing any different to the rest of the UK, its not like he's going to have any power when he becomes King. The days of off with his head finished a few years back. So who is really opposed to the marriage, from a distance it seems mainly the Sun, Mirror, Times,etc but of course the British people arn't influenced by the newspaper or are they?

pendy · 11-04-2005, 16:11

Actually, Bazf, the Law Society's Gazette put it at 53%, not 64%, and I would hazard a guess that they are more likely to have the correct statistics.

It isn't really a question of being opposed to the marriage - who cares what two middle-aged people do? It is a question of the constitution, unwritten largely, but the bits that are written are firmly against such a marriage and clearly declare that it is unconstitutional. The Royal Marriages Act specifically states this.

So where does that leave us? - a future King (perhaps), a future Head of the Church of England (and despite the fact that you state that 92% of Anglicans remarry, they most definitely do not do so in the Church of England) who has put personal choice before the constitution.

Bazf · 11-04-2005, 17:18

The United Kingdom has no written constitution. Therefore in contrast with most other countries it is not possible to point to a text and say "this is our constitution", nor is there any doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution over other legislation, nor any constitutional court, nor any doctrine of the separation of powers So constitutionaly no opposition.The 1772 Royal Marriage Act Created in a time when the British government was more concerned with protecting the monarchy from so-called Papists, the Act of Settlement is today something of a white elephant in our more culturally diverse and tolerant day and age.
The Lord Chancellor Statement about the Royal Marriage Act
The Marriage Act 1949 re-enacted and re-stated the law on marriage in England and Wales. The Act covered both marriage by Church of England rite, and civil marriage. It did not repeat the language of section 45 of the 1836 Act. Instead, section 79(5) of the 1949 Act says that:

"Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family."

The change of wording is important, and the significance is not undermined by the fact that the 1949 Act is described as a consolidation Act. The interpretation of any Act of Parliament, even when it consolidates previous legislation, must be based on the words used in the Act itself, not different words used in the previous legislation. In our view, section 79(5) of the 1949 Act preserves ancient procedures applying to Royal marriages, for example the availability of customary forms of marriage and registration. It also preserves the effect of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which requires the Sovereign's consent for certain marriages. But it does not have the effect of excluding Royal marriages from the scope of Part III, which provides for civil ceremonies. As the heading to section 79 indicates ("Repeals and savings") it is a saving, not an exclusion.

We are aware that different views have been taken in the past; but we consider that these were over-cautious, and we are clear that the interpretation I have set out in this statement is correct. We also note that the Human Rights Act has since 2000 required legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry (article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (article 14). This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt.

West Ender · 11-04-2005, 20:26

"This is an over-privileged, spoilt, brat, who had the chance to marry Camilla Shand when they were both single, but wouldn't make up his mind. "

He hesitated because Camilla had a "past". Unlike his great-uncle, another spoilt brat who didn't want the responsibility that privilege entails and said, figuratively, "Sod that", Charles didn't dare to defy his family or risk his succession. She, miffed, went straight off and married Andrew P B who had been chasing her for some time, but always maintained her arrangement with Charles.

Her attitude to the situation, and his, is summed up in her well-known opening gambit to him when they first met, "Your great great grandfather and my great grandmother were lovers. How about it?" Throughout history, as both of them well knew, it had been customary for royal males to be serial philanderers and royal females to accept the situation. Camilla was complicit in Charles' wooing of Diana Spencer. Both thought that here was a young woman who would serve her purpose admirably and settle down to the life of compliant consort and mother of the future sovereign. Unfortunately for them, Diana would neither accept nor comply and the plan to carry on their affair away from public eyes was shattered.

Had Camilla, before her first marriage, been "unsullied" the situation might have been different. It is possible, however, that the role of Royal Mistress was a more inviting prospect to her than Royal Bride; most of the privilege with none of the responsibility.

Diana's resistance to the plot meant that the affair was thrust into the spotlight. It was impossible to carry on as before, the Press knew the "secret" and made the most of it. In the last 8 years Charles' staff have carried out a magnificent public relations excercise and have gradually persuaded a largely antipathetic Public into acceptance of Camilla as his one, great love, sweeping the intervening events neatly under the priceless Persian rug.

You are quite right, Pendy, if this were a common citizen it would not matter a damn. That he is the highly privileged heir to the throne, with all the responsibilities this should entail, alters the case. I am sure the marriage will work, this pair have acheived what they dared not, or cared not, to do 30 years ago. The Great British Public will accept the future Queen Camilla wholeheartedly. The Royal manipulation machinery has already seen to that.