The Prince of Wales is to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, Clarence House has announced.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



KillTheLight
The Prince of Wales is to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, Clarence House has announced.
A full statement is to be released shortly.No date has been confirmed at this stage, but reports this morning suggested it would be April 6.

The move will end years of speculation on their relationship, which has spanned decades.Mrs Parker Bowles' current position meant her status was dogged with problems, including her seating at social functions away from the heir to the throne.

They first met at a Windsor polo match in 1970.Last June, Mrs Parker Bowles was mentioned in the Prince's accounts - moving into a new realm of acceptance.This week, there was further controversy over the cost of her lifestyle and how it was funded by the Prince.A key question to be resolved will be how she will be addressed.
Will it be as the Princess of Wales and then, when Charles becomes King, Queen Camilla?

dean7879
that S.O.B

KharmaDog
This definitley falls under my "Don't give a flying F*CK" category of personal worries or interests.

botankus
laughing out loud

naybean
I dont see why everyone hates the idea of Camilla being queen so much. Its not like she's particularly evil or anything. I guess its cos everyones got this perfect image of Diana.

Gundark

Jackie Malfoy
Ok?so why is this even posted?JM

naybean
why not?

botankus
Well, it goes along with other threads of little value, so Naybean, you may be on to something.

Gundark
Well Jackie this is the GDF - you can discuss (almost) anything.

naybean
It doesnt matter if its of little value to some people - different people are interested in different things - like if you dont live in the UK you probably wont give a shit, and half of the UK doesnt either - frankly I dont care that they are getting married but it pisses me off that they felt they couldnt and that she cant be queen because they, like the majority of the rest of us are divorced.

Gundark
I'm divorced too, Naybean - ya sure ain't alone there !

Maybe the monarchy needs to re-evaluate some of their stuffy old rules in that department, although I'm betting that kind of change wouldn't come until William is on the throne. Just speculation, of course.

smile

Clovie
i don't like them.

WindDancer
I understand people like to read news about monarchies and kingships. But for me this is utter nonsense with things like kings and queens and princess and all that junk. The queen is dead and royalty to the king means cracker jacks to me. For me these are only people with lots of money and full of hot air. thumb down

KharmaDog
Much like the Kennedy's

WindDancer
Ugh! I detest anything that has to do with the Kennedy family (Except John F. Kennedy)

finti
ha ha ha laughing out loud right on buddy

hayden's minx
Great Stuff.
I'm back in england and I still don't really care.

eleveninches
They've said thatr she wont be called queen.

But edward had to give up his throne to marry a divorcee, so i dont see why charles should be able to.

amity75
I bet Prince Harry has recommended Amsterdam for the stag weekend.

eleveninches
Edward was already King, and he had to choose to give up the throne to marry a divorcee. He made a choice, and chose the woman that he loved rather than the job of being king. Charles doesn't want to make that choice. He wants the best of both worlds.

Morning_Glory
but Charles wont be King... it is now passed on to William...right ? confused

lil bitchiness
Well like it or not, people here still have to pledge their allegiance to the Queen. She and the rest of the royal family still sucks around 8million pounds each year from us, and our taxes are paying for Camilla's ring and her expensive wedding, there are people who love Diana here still, so i think its pretty obvious why people are interested.
This people have an effect on the economy in our country, and this is hardly a nonsense to people here - maybe to you.

You know whats really a nonsense? When people obsess over celebrities around LA.

Morning_Glory
how much was her ring.. is it a big ring.,... just curious confused embarrasment

eleveninches
It should be. THat's what edward had to do to get married to a divorced woman, and he was already king. But carles won't make that decision. He wasnts to still be king. He wants to play the game, but isn't willing to play by the rules.

Morning_Glory
what do you mean.. I mean ... Charles still has the chance to be King?? I thought if he married Camille(sp?) then he couldnt have a chance to be king and then it is passed to William...

I dont know who King Edward is .. sorry confused dont know that story - was he the one married to Fergy??? confused

eleveninches
no
He was the king of the British empire just before WW2. He fell in love with an american divorced woman, but parlement and the rest of the royal family told him that if he were to marry her, he would have to abdicate his throne. He chose her instead of keeping on as king, and his kingship went to his brother, while edward went and got married to the woman he loved.

Morning_Glory
I like that story.. its romantic in_love

eleveninches
I think it's sad. He was the king of the entire British Empire!!! And he was forced to give up his throne no

Morning_Glory
so he shouldnt have married her.. ??? I mean... he loved her

eleveninches
My point is that he shouldn't have had to give up his throne to do it. But since he did, then Charles should have to do the same thing.

Morning_Glory
so you dont think Charles should get married? and just stay with the chance to be King later... when ever your Queen dies ...???sad

smoker4
Dont think charles will ever be king, william will probably jump the queue now especially with charlie marrying his horse

Morning_Glory
^ thanks thats what I wanted to know...smile

amity75
Do you think they're only getting married coz Camilla is pregnant?
One of my grandfathers friends claims to have had sex with Camilla in 1947.

WindDancer
I said it many times in other threads that the British should drop the monarchy and stop supporting them with their own money. How to drop them? I don't know. But as long as there is a way to cut down on their expenses is all good. Whether there is a king or not in Englad is really not that critical for me. I'm not affect in any way. But the one thing that would bug me is to go visit England and ask to bow down or kneel before someone that supposly is of blue blood or link to royalty. Uh-uh.....I don't think so.




No, what really is nonsense is the countless tourists that come from all the world looking to take some snapshots of celebreties. And all they find are liquor stores and Adult stores all over the town.

shaber
Given the shocking scale of overall waste of public funds the expenditure on the monarchy is a pack of chewing gum!

Ushgarak
If anyone thinks the UK would even vaguely benefit from the removal of the Monarchy they are fooling themselves.

shaber
Imagine if it had been done already... we'd have had a president Thatcher into the nineties!

WindDancer
Do the British people really have to paid separate taxes to the king? Is it affecting the commonwealth? I thought Oliver Cromwell fix all that centuries ago. confused

amity75
As someone who wants to protect the environment, I hate the fact that the Crown Estates, which pays for the whole thing, is destroying marine environments and causing erosion by the dredging for aggregate extraction. What they do is sort huge amounts the sand and gravel each day, put it onto huge ships and sell it to other countries who have decided that they don't want to damage their own coastlines. We dig up far more aggregate than we need for own needs. They are literally selling off Britain, ship load by ship load in the name of her majesty.

As someone who believes in equality, I believe that it is a bad thing that every British child is taught they cannot get to the top of society because they have not been born to the right family. I hate that the monarchy supports the class system and helps it to cling to life with all the pernicious effects it has on people.

Sometimes people (often foreigners) say that without Britain would not be Britain without the monarchy. Ignoring for a moment that 'Britain' itself is a slightly difficult term, one is primarily English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. It would be a different Britain but still be Britain. As John Major once said:

"Fifty years on from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist."

This will still be true without the monarchy. There is a good chance that some of the cricketers will be Muslims and the old lady coming back from church will go home and eat curry for Sunday lunch. We don't need the monarchy in modern Britain, the Island will not sink into the see if we don't have one, indeed it is more likely to sink with the Queen flogging off all the sand.

"There will always be an England and England shall be free". For this freedom we don't need the monarchy. On the contrary, out freedoms in Britain have come from opposing and restricting the monarchy, our first 'constitution' was to restrict the domination of the bad King John:

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

It is our freedoms that are enshrined in our culture and history which make Britain, not the monarchy.

Ushgarak
What people pay in taxes to support the Monarchy (and the taxes are not seperate) is but a fraction of the wealth the Royal Family generates for the country just by existing. The Civil List is a tiny fraction of public expenditure and, futher more, the Crown Estates pay for both Queen and Heir, and the other estates have surrendered their income- which would be in excess of the civil list- to Parliament. Fact is, there would be LESS public money if the Monarchy was dumped.

Cromwell tried to start a religious tyranny and his power grab was booted out and the Monarchy restored inside one generation. There's reason for that.

Morning_Glory
what is the purpose of the king and queen... if you have a prime minister...?

Ushgarak
What IS a Prime Minister if you don't have a Monarch???

shaber
I'd would definitely like to get rid of the Prime Minister before the monarchy!

WindDancer
Wait a minute Ush! This is new for me. If there is no Monarch the PM can't govern? Then who is Lord Protector of England? it can't be both. confused

Ushgarak
No, just that the term Prime Minister is meaningless unless there is someone he is Minister TO. Minister is a subsidiary of power for someone ELSE, the Prime Minister being literally that, the first amongst the Monarch's Ministers.

Lose the Monarchy and the term is meaningless. I was just mocking what MG said.

Literally speaking you are right though; no law can be passed without the Queen's assent. As, however, it is also illegal for the Queen to hold political views that differ from Parlaiment's, that is not an issue.

It is called Constitutional Monarchy. It might look a little weird, but ALL politics is weird and silly and unfair, in the US as much as the UK. Bottom line- it works rather well for us, and we would be diminished without it.

WindDancer
It doesn't look weird is just that here in the U.S. I been told that the monarchy is the image of power in England. But the real power is located in Parliament and in the PM. The royalty is no longer involved in the current politics of the nation.

Ushgarak
Nothing, The powers beloing to the Queen but she has to do what Parliament says- IF it comes to the crunch, which it never does, because no-one wants that. the Queen and the PM meet every week and the Queen acts as an amazingly experienced political operator and guru to any figure in power (previous few others in power can remember dining with the Kennedys), so in fact the whole situation is very co-operative.

The Monarchy is a huge and unique asset to this country that if gone can never return- we would be mad to lose it. Fact is, rules change, the Monarchy changes with the times. If Charles loves this woman, then go for it- we accept it of anyone else, we can accept it from him too.

WindDancer
Well that helps clear some of the issues. I guess that if the monarchy isn't costing tons of money and if Charles loves this woman so much is pretty okay. And I can see that times do change and the monarchy changes as well. Sounds good! thumb up

Imperial_Samura
All I can say is, its about time they got married. He should have bypassed the whole Diana saga and just married Camilla. They seem so suited. Its just bad about how people are going and and against it. And the whole thing of the vote to see whether he gets to be king if he marries just seems wrong, still I say congratulations.

eleveninches
Most of the european countries that got rid of their monarchy are now regretting it (france, italy etc...).
Even Russia now regrets getting rid of their monarchy

Julie
I've never heard of her....I barely know of the Prince of Wales

gerreeeeee
I don't see why any of our comments matter, especially to two people who are apparently very much in love with each other. I have seen many physically beautiful people marrying each other but still end up being divorced, separated or guilty of parricide. When it comes to true love and happiness, I guess physical appearance does not really matter. After all, a wedding is just a day, but marriage is a lifetime.

Lydia_J
In my opinion there is no point in having a monarch as they now do bugger all, but as long as we have one i dont see why camilla shouldnt be allowed to become Queen. And i wish people would get over Diana who was a psycho i dont get what made her so special

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.