Royalist's vote for Queen Camilla

[StrBrite]

I for one think that she should never become Queen.
It is an insult to Lady Di's memory.
But more importantly have the English lowered the standards of their Royal Family?
Mistress Camilla is not morally right for the Queens title.



Royalist's vote for Queen Camilla

Mar 22 2005




By Samantha Clarke

An ardent Royalist from Coventry today backed Camilla Parker Bowles to become the next Queen.

The government admitted last night that Camilla would be Queen Consort if and when Charles is crowned King. Last month, courtiers had insisted she would never become Queen.

Royal fan Margaret Parkinson, a widow, of Villiers Street, Stoke, said she believed Camilla Parker Bowles should be allowed to be the next Queen - if that was what she and Prince Charles wanted.

Mrs Parkinson is hoping to get tickets to the couple’s blessing, when they tie the knot in April.

Mrs Parkinson said she believed the couple should have been allowed to marry when they first met three decades ago and nothing should stop Camilla from calling herself Queen.

She was speaking out after the government confirmed Camilla Parker Bowles would automatically become Queen when the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne, unless there was a change in the law.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs admitted legislation would be needed no matter what Camilla wished to call herself when Charles becomes King to prevent this happening.

It is believed to be the first time the government has acknowledged this on the record.

Mrs Parkinson, a former foster carer, said: “This couple should not be marrying now.

“But because of the way things worked out Diana and Dodi and other lost their lives and a lot of people got hurt as they went on to marry others.

“Camilla does not seem like a bad person at all. All she has done is fall in love with our future king, but why should that stop her becoming queen.

“Twenty years ago I may have thought differently to how I think now but Prince Charles is now a widower - he is a divorcee whose ex-wife died almost eight years ago.

“If this were Joe Public and someone else wanted to re-marry eight years after their husband or wife died, no-one would say anything.

“It doesn’t affect his boys as they are old and mature enough to handle it. I think if he wants her to be Queen and she wants to be then she should be.

“It’s only a relative few people who don’t seem in favour of it.”

Mrs Parkinson wrote to the Queen Mother on several occasions. l The Rev Keith Sinclair, vicar of Holy Trinity Church in Broadgate, Coventry city centre, backed calls made by the Dean of Coventry last month for some repentance from the couple.

The Dean, the Very Rev John Irvine, said he would be glad to hear of repentance ahead of their wedding in April.

“I think the solution they have come up with about the Princess Consort seems to be the ideal one.

“I think some repentance by both Charles and Camilla would probably help the public be more accepting of them.”

[Betty Boop]

Since we don't have an American royal soap opera to watch and enjoy ...

Probably if Prince Charles hadn't been quite so "slow," there would never have been a Princess Diana in the first place because "Fred" would have proposed and married "Gladys" in 1972/1973 before Andrew Parker Bowles ever had the opportunity to propose to Camilla Shand later that year. Probably, it should have been Her Royal Highness, Princess Camilla and in eventuality Queen Camilla all along.

As far as anything meaningful, unless one is British or part of the Commonwealth, do many others take them as anything more than a great marketing/tourist ploy for the U.K.? (Yes, that is a serious question)

[Woodmonkey]

I'm sure glad that this is their problem and not ours and that they are supporting them and not us. I thought that there was a provision that they could not marry and him still be king, or at the least that she could not be queen because of her divorce.

They are only symbols now with no real power. Maybe that is why they have suddenly decided that she can be queen?

[JohnRN]

Bloody parasites anyways...

Sorry to any Brits we have on board but I honestly don't like Royalty much.

Y'all can keep 'em

[Betty Boop]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

I'm sure glad that this is their problem and not ours and that they are supporting them and not us. I thought that there was a provision that they could not marry and him still be king, or at the least that she could not be queen because of her divorce.

They are only symbols now with no real power. Maybe that is why they have suddenly decided that she can be queen?

He is "Defender of the Faith" just as Henry VIII declared himself when the Church of England reformed apart from Roman Catholicism because the Pope would neither annul nor grant a divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon. It was problematic but never ruled out that Camilla could be his queen even if they had married while both were divorced even if Princess Diana had not met such a tragic death. With Princess Diana deceased, Prince Charles is more kindly viewed as a widower rather than a divorced man. Keep in mind that the reason for Camilla Parker Bowles divorce many years ago was stated as her husband's adultery - grounds recognized by the Church of England for divorce.

Queen Victoria would not give Edward permission to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson unless he abdicated and so he did "for the woman I love." The King or Queen (not the king's consort such as Queen Mary, the Queen Mother, had been) must give permission for royal union. So long as Queen Mary lived, this was problematic as she and King George came to the throne because of such failure of blessing for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and precedent had been set with Princess Margaret unable to marry the man she loved because he was divorced and unacceptable in those terms to the monarch. Princess Anne was allowed to remarry several years ago and is probably the most active "behind the scenes" royal in the family and thus has been granted the title "Princess Royal."

I think it is much easier to vote someone in for four years, give them a test run, and then either vote them in for another four or be gone with them. Anone who thinks the British have no sense of humor, need only look to the tabloid exploits of the royal family to know that the British sense of humor is probably one of the best, at least that's what I think. But what do I know? I'm American and I rather prefer our system!

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

I'm sure glad that this is their problem and not ours and that they are supporting them and not us. I thought that there was a provision that they could not marry and him still be king, or at the least that she could not be queen because of her divorce.

They are only symbols now with no real power. Maybe that is why they have suddenly decided that she can be queen?

I'm glad we don't have to deal with it too, Katie. The reason the King of England couldn't be divorced and marry or marry a divorcée was because that king was named "Protector of the Faith" by the Pope - whichever one it was - who gave that title to Henry VIII. I guess that's why so many of his brides lost their heads over him. He was the Roman Catholic Protector of the Roman Catholic faith.

When the Anglican Church became the Church of England, they also would not allow remarriage after divorce except in cases of adultery. That changed after Bob and I were married. Since the laws of the church changed at that time, allowing remarriage after divorce, what difference could it possibly make whether or not Charles marries the woman he really loves and has loved all along? I don't think it is anybody's business what he does now. An ordinary Englishman could marry with no fuss or bother. The question of a title is moot. The royalty is a passel of figureheads with no power or real importance, as Katie indicates. The pomp and ceremony is fun for tourists - and as a tourist attraction, it's a winner.

Anyway, the title of king may never be one he claims; he may let his son become king when his mother finally dies. He'll probably be too old to want it.

(Isn't it a marvelous joke that Henry VIII was named "Protector of the Faith?" History is so much fun.)

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

The reason the King of England couldn't be divorced and marry or marry a divorcée was because that king was named "Protector of the Faith" by the Pope - whichever one it was - who gave that title to Henry VIII. I guess that's why so many of his brides lost their heads over him. He was the Roman Catholic Protector of the Roman Catholic faith.

That was in 1521 that the Catholic Pope declared Henry the "Protector of the Faith." Was that Leo X or Adrian VI?

When the Anglican Church became the Church of England, they also would not allow remarriage after divorce except in cases of adultery. That changed after Bob and I were married. Since the laws of the church changed at that time, allowing remarriage after divorce, what difference could it possibly make whether or not Charles marries the woman he really loves and has loved all along? I don't think it is anybody's business what he does now. An ordinary Englishman could marry with no fuss or bother. The question of a title is moot. The royalty is a passel of figureheads with no power or real importance, as Katie indicates. The pomp and ceremony is fun for tourists - and as a tourist attraction, it's a winner.

If I recall correctly, the Queen had some objection to Camilla - is she a commoner? At any rate, she wound up marrying someone else. The Queen did that to her daughter Margaret too. The Queen made a mess out of her involvement in her kids lives.

Anyway, the title of king may never be one he claims; he may let his son become king when his mother finally dies. He'll probably be too old to want it.

You think so? He was raised to be King and I wonder if he will give that chance up, especially if his Camilla can be queen.

(Isn't it a marvelous joke that Henry VIII was named "Protector of the Faith?" History is so much fun.)

That is a good way of putting it ~ a marvelous joke. What a protector he turned out to be!