Queen Camilla

[Her Dotness]

I meant that Camilla was much more responsible for the breakup of her marriage than Charles was.

I still stand by my points which you quoted.

What's your reasoning to support your contention that she was more at fault than Andrew Parker Bowles?

 

[Cheburashka]

Camilla Parker Bowles babysits for Prince George.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Excuse my American ignorance but isn't it normal to call the King's wife "Queen"? Granted I get all my info from Philippa Gregory and Alison Weir novels but I figure they did their research.

I Philippa Gregory but she's no Diana Gabaldon,

 

[TLSnell1981]

He had to marry Diana? He/they used Diana. So I just can’t agree with that, because Diana didn’t know any better. Sure, maybe these things went on behind the scenes. But Diana was in the dark. She was just 19 and naive about what she was getting herself into. I’m sure he had his way of thinking. But they were definitely not on the same page about their relationship. She was in it for life, in her mind. And all in. He, simply put, was not, and never was. He was deceptive. And then treated Diana very poorly. All the while, seeing married Camilla.

Not sure how in the dark Diana was about he RF. Her grandmother was one of QEii's best friends and her family never put her off the marriage. I do agree she was too young. She was used by both families and too wrapped up in the fairytale to be realistic

 

[Karin1984]

Both Diana's grandmothers were lady in waiting, one to the Queen mother and was her confidante, and the other to Elizabeth herself. So Diana's family knew very well what she was in for about the life she was going marry into.

Also about producing an heir, Diana's parents knew a thing or two. Diana was the third girl, her mother had given birth to a boy, but he died in infancy. Some say, this issue was one for the reasons of her parents divorce. So also for this 'baby making machine' aspect, her mother knew what that was like.

Yes, she was young, and naive, and as she wasn't the smartest in school, maybe even an easy target.
I think her family knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[RedAngie]

I still stand by my points which you quoted.

What's your reasoning to support your contention that she was more at fault than Andrew Parker Bowles?

I said absolutely nothing about Andrew Parker Bowles.

My comment about Camilla arose from the report that most UKers place more blame on Charles rather than Camilla for the breakup of Diana’s marriage. I agreed that’s how it should be, since HE was the one married to Diana, not Camilla.

Likewise, I stated that Camilla, not Charles, is more responsible for the breakup of her marriage. If there were other factors (APB), I was unaware.

IMO, the married spouse that cheats has more responsibility, not the outsider.

I was very surprised to read that most in that poll blame Charles. Camilla was always considered the villain Even Diana herself seemed to hold her husband blameless and the “Rottweiler” liable.

Like someone mentioned above, most people, even women, blame the “other woman,” not the cheating husband. I never understood why.

 

[Karin1984]

Like someone mentioned above, most people, even women, blame the “other woman,” not the cheating husband. I never understood why.

Because ever since Eve, women are evil seductresses
It is similar to people who say that women who show a lot of skin are the ones to blame for a rape, assault, or even catcalling. She asked for it.

 

[Her Dotness]

My comment about Camilla arose from the report that most UKers place more blame on Charles rather than Camilla for the breakup of Diana’s marriage. I agreed that’s how it should be, since HE was the one married to Diana, not Camilla.

Okay, thanks for clarifying since I didn't find it clear whether you meant Charles and his marriage or Charles and Camilla's affair being the primary cause of her divorce.

Likewise, I stated that Camilla, not Charles, is more responsible for the breakup of her marriage. If there were other factors (APB), I was unaware.

Granted, given that you didn't know that Parker Bowles had been cheating on Camilla both before and after they married. He married his second wife, apparently his longterm mistress, a few months after the divorce.

Reportedly, he was bothered more by the realization that Camilla was in love with Charles. A bit of fun discreetly handled was one thing perhaps, his wife in love with someone else quite another--not an unusual occurrence, I think. Or, possibly something of a "fine for the gander, but the goose d**n well better not." Some men are like that.

Camilla was always considered the villain Even Diana herself seemed to hold her husband blameless and the “Rottweiler” liable.

I agree. A common reaction by the aggrieved wife.

I rather thought the Rottweiler label was a dig at the common view that Camilla had nowhere near the looks Diana did. Some book (I read far too much!) mentioned that Diana remarked she looked like a dog, I believe, in addition to the label referring to Camilla's unwillingness to let go of Charles once she'd "gotten her teeth in him" as the saying goes.

Again, sorry for my misunderstanding, RedAngie, and thanks for clarifying.

Eve-syndrome has a good deal to do with people blaming the woman, I agree with Karin1984 above.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

“By a huge factor, many more people blame Charles for the royal divorce than either Diana or Camilla.”

I don't blame him either. They were all victims of all of the other people that hand their hands and opinions in that marriage,

 

[Heffalump2761]

They need to have a tournament to see who takes the throne. There used to be a bit of...turnover...as to the family that held it, right? Jousting and everything. Open to whomever.

Not since anglo saxon times although it did get a bit lively in the middle ages but once the tudors got their feet under the table things settled down quite a bit apart from the odd jacobean plot

 

[Her Dotness]

Not since anglo saxon times although it did get a bit lively in the middle ages but once the tudors got their feet under the table things settled down quite a bit apart from the odd jacobean plot

Except for Charles I (17th c.) who ran into some terminal difficulties keeping his head where it belongs.

Henry Tudor's method of dispatching a couple of wives was clearly a bad example. Although, maybe he was just annoyed with that family since Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were cousins.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Not sure how in the dark Diana was about he RF. Her grandmother was one of QEii's best friends and her family never put her off the marriage. I do agree she was too young. She was used by both families and too wrapped up in the fairytale to be realistic

Both Diana's grandmothers were lady in waiting, one to the Queen mother and was her confidante, and the other to Elizabeth herself. So Diana's family knew very well what she was in for about the life she was going marry into.

Also about producing an heir, Diana's parents knew a thing or two. Diana was the third girl, her mother had given birth to a boy, but he died in infancy. Some say, this issue was one for the reasons of her parents divorce. So also for this 'baby making machine' aspect, her mother knew what that was like.

Yes, she was young, and naive, and as she wasn't the smartest in school, maybe even an easy target.
I think her family knew exactly what they were doing.

Of course Diana understood royal life.

The difference was that she believed the Prince of Wales was in love with her. That’s what I meant by “in the dark”.

 

[Babs Johnson]

WHY was it so vital for Charles to marry and produce heirs? After all, Liz already had three spares waiting in the wings.

Charles could have renounced his right to the throne, married Camilla, and spared everyone a lot of heartache. Or he could be the Bachelor King and have Camilla as his mistress.

Viola!!! Afterwards we'd get King Andrew!!! And even better Queen Fergie!!!

The Globe is up to its old tricks with the Andy situation. Playing it both ways.











Liz losing her front teeth and Dolly going bald sound more interesting.

 

[Babs Johnson]

In a way, I understand the pressure put on Charles to marry. I didn't get married until I was 34 and my mother and other female relatives always kept asking when I was going to tie the knot.

On the other hand, my uncles jokingly kept telling me to stay single. At family gatherings, when some story came about about one of the aunts, the uncle would turn to me and say, "See what happens when you get married? You're smart to stay single."

 

[Babs Johnson]

Can someone explain the "Constitutional Crisis" that occurred when Lizzie's uncle quit? What crisis? The line of succession was already set: Liz's father. Parliament wasn't going to collapse. It may have been bumpy and unseemly, but Britain wasn't going to fall apart over the situation.

I know it's not possible and it's never going to happen, but when the Queen dies the monarchy should pass on to her sister Margaret's descendants. Liz screwed up her sister's life too with her Victorian beliefs and practices. It's the least she can do to make amends.

Maggie's daughter Lady Sarah Chatto should make a good Queen.




Or if the monarchy MUST remain with Liz's family, give it to Anne's daughter Zara Tindall.

 

[EMom]

I don't blame him either. They were all victims of all of the other people that hand their hands and opinions in that marriage,

The reason I place the bulk of the guilt on Charles is that he was 32 compared to Diana’s 19 years. And she was, by all accounts, naive even by 19 year old standards. Yes, Charles was pressured to marry the”right sort” of woman and that must have been difficult. But even if he felt bullied and/or victimized, it was still incredibly cruel to then take advantage of a teenager who lacked his years of life experience and could not begin to fully grasp the reality of the situation. What teenage girl wouldn’t have been swept off her feet by the world’s most eligible bachelor courting her? There was an enormous imbalance in power and experience between the two. He was 32, she was 19. It was his responsibility as a decent human being to not take advantage of her youthful naivety. But he did.

 

[NotUrsula]

Can someone explain the "Constitutional Crisis" that occurred when Lizzie's uncle quit? What crisis? The line of succession was already set: Liz's father. Parliament wasn't going to collapse. It may have been bumpy and unseemly, but Britain wasn't going to fall apart over the situation.
[snip]

It wasn't about the existence of the monarchy, it was about the role of the Constitutional Monarch in Great Britain. Under the Constitution at the time, the Monarch had 3 defined rights: the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn. Beyond that, he was a figurehead with no power to make anyone in government do anything or accept any of his decisions. He was expected to do as Parliament directed him to do. The trouble was, the only absolute prohibition outlined in British law about the marriage of a monarch was that he/she could not marry a Roman Catholic. Wallis Simpson not being RC, Edward thought he was on solid ground to declare that he was going to marry her. The PM and the Cabinet, however, had been advised that Wallis had ties to the Nazis, and they believed that she was possibly a spy; they felt that allowing her to marry the King would also allow her to get access to a potentially large number of government secrets, which they considered an unacceptable risk.

The British Constitution, like the US Constitution, has a number of what we call "penumbral" implications, and one of the most widely accepted was that as a purely titular Head of State, that it was expected that if the Govenment and the Monarch had a clash of wills over any issue that was seen as having the potential to damage the nation, that the Monarch would yield to the will of Parliament on that issue. As the Cabinet were convinced that Mrs. Simpson's marriage to the King would be injurious to the Nation, the Government demanded he yield or get out, never imagining that he actually would choose to go. (It should be noted that Edward also did not think they would actually make him go.) So, the real issue was whether or not the Constitution actually gave the Parliamentary government the power to make the King obey them in matters that did not directly relate to the operation of the Government.

(This is a very simplistic view of the situation; it was, of course, more complex than can be explained in 2 paragraphs. Still, that was the root of it.)

 

[Babs Johnson]

It wasn't about the existence of the monarchy, it was about the role of the Constitutional Monarch in Great Britain. Under the Constitution at the time, the Monarch had 3 defined rights: the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn. Beyond that, he was a figurehead with no power to make anyone in government do anything or accept any of his decisions. He was expected to do as Parliament directed him to do. The trouble was, the only absolute prohibition outlined in British law about the marriage of a monarch was that he/she could not marry a Roman Catholic. Wallis Simpson not being RC, Edward thought he was on solid ground to declare that he was going to marry her. The PM and the Cabinet, however, had been advised that Wallis had ties to the Nazis, and they believed that she was possibly a spy; they felt that allowing her to marry the King would also allow her to get access to a potentially large number of government secrets, which they considered an unacceptable risk.

The British Constitution, like the US Constitution, has a number of what we call "penumbral" implications, and one of the most widely accepted was that as a purely titular Head of State, that it was expected that if the Govenment and the Monarch had a clash of wills over any issue that was seen as having the potential to damage the nation, that the Monarch would yield to the will of Parliament on that issue. As the Cabinet were convinced that Mrs. Simpson's marriage to the King would be injurious to the Nation, the Government demanded he yield or get out, never imagining that he actually would choose to go. (It should be noted that Edward also did not think they would actually make him go.) So, the real issue was whether or not the Constitution actually gave the Parliamentary government the power to make the King obey them in matters that did not directly relate to the operation of the Government.

(This is a very simplistic view of the situation; it was, of course, more complex than can be explained in 2 paragraphs. Still, that was the root of it.)

Thank you.

Even the short version seems that the whole situation was akin to making a mountain out of molehill. She was unsuitable, choose between her or the monarchy. He chose her.

I think Edward himself had Nazi sympathies. THAT should have more troubling than his choice of marriage partner.

 

[NotUrsula]

Thank you.

Even the short version seems that the whole situation was akin to making a mountain out of molehill. She was unsuitable, choose between her or the monarchy. He chose her.

I think Edward himself had Nazi sympathies. THAT should have more troubling than his choice of marriage partner.

Yes, but you have to remember that at the time, all of the Nazi-related information was top-secret, not to be given to the public as an explanation.

The King and Churchill were trying to use public sentiment to force Baldwin's government to concede and let the marriage go forward; Baldwin and the establishment used the Church of England's doctrinal arguments as a public reason for the refusal. Public sentiment about this was split along class lines, and there were worker's rallies in support of the King that basically were kind of covers for the idea of overthrowing the Government. As there were other indications at the time that Edward had a tendency to think that he actually had political power, the idea that he might try to raise support for a coup was seen as a definite threat, and not just in terms of whether he supported the Nazis.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

The reason I place the bulk of the guilt on Charles is that he was 32 compared to Diana’s 19 years. And she was, by all accounts, naive even by 19 year old standards. Yes, Charles was pressured to marry the”right sort” of woman and that must have been difficult. But even if he felt bullied and/or victimized, it was still incredibly cruel to then take advantage of a teenager who lacked his years of life experience and could not begin to fully grasp the reality of the situation. What teenage girl wouldn’t have been swept off her feet by the world’s most eligible bachelor courting her? There was an enormous imbalance in power and experience between the two. He was 32, she was 19. It was his responsibility as a decent human being to not take advantage of her youthful naivety. But he did.

I am with you on all of that except I can't judge him as a 32 year old man. I want to bash him as a woman and blame him, but I really think he was a victim as well. YES of course he is to blame for his actions, Camilla for her wrongs, Diana for hers as well obviously but the monarchy has not at all been kind to Charles and I find that the older I get the more sympathy I have for him as well. I ache for the upbringing he did not have that Diana did try to give her boys. I am thankful that Diana did at least come along. I think the way she raised the boys and the passage of time has opened up the royal family to more progressive lives and having a touch more freedom.