Prince Charles to marry Camilla

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4252795.stm

Prince Charles is set to marry his long-term partner Camilla Parker-Bowles, Clarence House says.

No wedding date has been confirmed at this stage, but reports have suggested 6 April is one possible date.

...the fascist king and queen of the new world order.

be queen since she is a divorcee and her ex-husband is still living.

this should be interesting.

in sin with his longtime lover....

I say that good for them - they clearly have loved eachother a longtime and my hunch is that it won't be a big public deal - small, private family wedding....

disposable. The pain and humiliation deliberately inflicted on Andrew Parker Bowles as well as Princess Diana is a crime worse than murder. Their relationship was based on nothing but the callous disregard of others, including their own children. Andrew Parker Bowles carreer was ruined and he was turned into a laughing stock. Camilla met Charles before they were married. She was not interested in Charles until after her marriage.Thier interest in one another seems , by the tapped conversations of the British Secret Service that have surfaced , and are admitted by both sides to be true, on a sexual obsession. Big deal. They had no right to think that obsession was more important than the lives of the others they hurt. Camilla even used her own children as a ruse to see Charles. She had him stand godfather to a child Charles couldn't even be persuaded to send a birthday greeting to when reminded by Camilla. These are despicable people whose "love' has not been shared by anyone but themselves.

They're like this despicable administration. You keep waiting for them to get their just desserts, for the terrible things they've done, but it never seems to happen.:shrug:

maybe things will go to hell after they get married. They may find that wanting is much more desirable than HAVING.

On CNN they're asking viewers if she should be queen. It's already established that she won't be. She'll be duchess of one of the places he's duke of, sort of like the Duchess of Windsor, I guess. And they're saying that they can't get married in the church, since she's a "divorced woman." What about him? But the Archbishop of Canterbury is still going to perform some kind of "prayer service," in addition to the civil ceremony, so what's the bloody difference?!:shrug:

No doubt Camilla will be Duchess of Cornwall and Queen Consort. There's plenty of precedents - Prince Albert was Prince Consort. Princess Anne's marriage is similar.

Saying that they can't marry in the church, then managing to do it, anyway. And neither Queen Victoria, nor Prince Albert was divorced. I seem to have lost track of Princess Anne.:shrug:

That sarcastic newscaster on the CNN morning show was speculating on how many little ones they'll have.:-)

Never! }(

I was referring to Prince Albert in the sense of a spouse of the monarch who is not King - that's the kind of relationship the two will have, IIRC.

And why is this? Neither Philip nor Albert had been married before, and both must have had the right credentials to marry a future queen or they would have gone the way of Peter Townsend.:shrug:

Maybe payback for his dalliances.

Albert. (Saxe -Gotha)

AFter WW2, when QE2 married Philip, his German ancestry wouldn't have gone over well when so many British died in the war. I think the royal family tried covering up his real German heritage with the recent Greek(?) royal family. After WW! the royal family changed the house name to Windsor to get away from Albert's background, as I recall.

She will be the princess consort - not the queen consort. They knew the populace would not stand for it.

because her husband is still alive. Charles' ex is dead, so it's a moot point as far as the church is concerned.

And after what the two of them put poor Diana through, I hardly think this is a cause for celebration. She would have been home, with her family, and not racing through the streets of Paris, if they hadn't done what they did.:-(

but since his ex-wife is now dead, it doesn't matter. According to the church, he's now a widower.

He still divorced her, and put her through hell. This should count for something with the church, since it apparently does with the majority of the British people.:shrug:

:puke:


compared to


Then again look at


Thank God the kids look like Diana

knees and thanked Diana for the loan of her genes. She was more British than he was and also now his children do not look like horses.

If you think that screwing around is worse than killing someone then you have a strange set of morals.

herself.

that Charles had been tight with Camilla just before she married him. It was too late for her to duck out of the marriage.

Since Charles had no intent on ditching Camilla, even after getting married, Di looked for her own companionship.

just ignores, cause she is supposedly this saintly woman. Why only blame Camilla for having an affair with a married man? Diana did the same thing several times.

I speculate had Charles had remained faithful to Di, she wouldn't have been looking for love in all the wrong places...

thirties and should have known better.

they think their little teenage "romance" takes precedence over every responsibility, over their family, over their children, over the wreckage of their marriages. Two pieces of human garbage. I wish them all the misery they have visited upon so many people.

Worse than murder? Give me a break! These were two ARRANGED marriages-and yes, I think they were properly "in love" before either marriage took place. Would you condemn an Islamic woman for leaving her husband if she had been "given away" in an arranged marriage? The whole practice is outdated and barbaric! Charles had told Elizabeth that he loved Camilla before he wed Diana-and she said no-you'll do your duty. It wasn't fair to anyone, but no one was gutsy enough to stand up for their true feelings.

My parents were forced into marriage because my mom got pregnant with me when abortion was illegal. My dad eventually left my mom for another woman.So he should go to death row? Considering that he's a Buddhist, and she's a born again Baptist, I don't see how a long term marriage would have served either of them well. I sure as hell am grateful that I didn't grow up in a home with screaming and physical violence, like the homes of some kids I knew who had badly mismatched parents who would prefer live with resentment and hatred rather than divorce.

is all the news reports say they "rekindled" their relationship later - what a crock - Charles NEVER stopped in his relationship with Camilla - when Camilla was pretending to be Diana's friend she was really just a brood mare helper for Charles. Sick.

Poor Diana. I guess this kind of behavior does pay if you wait long enough.

relationship over the years, is pretty clear that they have genuine feelings for one another and sadly, much pain could have been avoided had they both followed their hearts early on instead of him following the orders of his Mother and Father and marrying the virgin Diana and she her husband.

Then again, we would never have had the children from Diana and the contributions she made in the role as Princess of Wales.

I say good for them....I feel anyone who "loves" one another and wants to marry, good for them...and who are we to determine if that "love" fits our definition of love or whether its healthy, dysfunctional, genuine, etc. :shrug:

his legal wife and chose to marry Parker-Bowles, it was not an arranged marriage. She just plain ran away from the onerus responsibility she did not want. Namely raising the heirs to the throne and all those appearances she would have had to endure.

longer young. He has no reason to be with her or marry her but love.

I think Charles has been looking for a mother-substitute all his life. I've read accounts about how "Mom" Queen Elizabeth, was really cold and distant with her 5 kids. When Charles was a little boy, the Queen was gone for 9 months. Charles ran up to her because he wanted to hug her. She pushed him away. There was a photo and an article in Life? magazine.

A psychiatrist would be able to give a better diagnosis, but it seems like he never had the mothering that he needed, and so he went out looking for someone to fill in that gap.

It's been rumoured that Charles is gay, or has gay tendencies. There was something about a "secret" tape recording given to her butler, and there was a big scandal involving the queen about 1 year ago.

Sheesh - I thought Americans were dysfunctional.

God only gives right to Presidents now.

Will they end up throwing dishes at each other--or will they become closer a la Wally Simpson/King Edward ??? (was it?)

wallis. He felt very lonely and useless in the years in exile. She loved to go to parties and shop.

:puke:

upper class twits generates 100 responses?

:boring:

going to reward themselves.I have no respect for people who purchase their own happiness at the expense of others tears. Well, Charles claimed he wanted to 'live in her Knickers and be her tampax" . I guess now is his chance. I hope he is never king.

how is their marrying or being together hurtful to others ?

Daddy's marrying the lady he dumped mommy for.

Way to go, dad.

I'm no fan of the monarchy, but I do think Diana got something of a raw deal, and I doubt Will and Harry are overjoyed about this upcoming marriage.

WTF cares what they think? It's not like Camilla is going to be raising them.

Deliberately inflicted pain on others should not be rewarded with happiness.

this will finish off our monarchy. I hope. Will she get married in white?

then Charles marrying Camilla is a very good thing .

Her title will be Her Royal Highness, Duchess of Cornwall.:-(

Queen Elizabeth (later Queen Mother) hated her so much she was denied the title, even though she was officially entitled to it. She was never received by his family until the Duke's death. She'd wait in the car while her husband visited his mother, Queen Mary.

But I didn't know that she was entitled to it.:shrug:

Actually, you can't really blame the Duke's mother. Would you want your son marrying a thrice married woman who had cost him his job?:evilgrin:

And I didn't know that she was forced to wait in the car. Why didn't she just stay home?:shrug:

The point of my reply was that particular monarchy-disapproving poster also happens to be from Cornwall.:-(

marriage

the tampax alone shows this guy should not be king. He tries to act dignified in an arrogant sort of way but he has no natural dignity. None, zero, nada, etc.

And his running around with another woman while married, an example of his no class morals.

A very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad move on Charles' part (if he actually does propose today). I think he might just have laid the foundation for the annulment of the British Royal family. Also, won't his divorce (a big no-no in the Catholic world as I understand it), make it very impractical to function as the head of the Church of England? I'd say that unless the Queen decides to skip the rank & give her throne directly to Prince William (I doubt Harry will ever get near it, after his little nazi stunt), she's going to have boatloads of problems.

"I think he might just have laid the foundation for the annulment of the British Royal family."

.. they consider her the primary reason for the break up of the marriage between Charles & Diana. As long as they were together as a couple, they didn't mind, but as soon as they talk about marriage, it's moved up to an entirely different level. A bit like the whole gay marriage issue in the US.

The British republicans are going to have a field day.

my point is that if the monarchy comes to an end why is that a bad thing ? i think it's a good thing if Charles marrying Camilla means the end of the monarchy.

.. I just think that the decision he made, might come back & bit him in the end.

I am not sure why public thinks they can pick him a new wife. After all, he is the one who has to live with his wife, not them. Who cares if they don't like her? Again, they don't have to live with her, he is. And he seems very happy when he is with her.

After all, it was founded specifically to allow the king to divorce and remarry. But getting back to modern times, his divorce is now actually irrelevant, since Diana is dead. But the Church of England had already decidied that divoced people could be remarried in a church, if the minister was happy with it.

They have already announced that she will not be the Princess of Wales, but 'HRH the Duchess of Cornwall'; and when he becomes king, she will be 'Princess Consort'. So they've obviously dcided to go for the fine gradations of titles to not push it too far (eg not taking Diana's title over), but give her something to look official and a little bit royal.

The public would never accept Princess of Wales and later Queen, but as Prince Charles is also Duke of Cornwall this makes sense as a reasonable compromise.

I suspect that this will mean very little in the long run.

After all, it was founded specifically to allow the king to divorce and remarry.

The Church of England was not "founded" by anyone but the Apostles. It was part and parcel of Roman Catholicism. The controversy over Henry VIII's attempts at an annulment caused the British bishops to declare that the Vatican had no jurisdiction in English ecclesiastical court matters. After Henry's death, his daughter Mary brought about a reconciliation with Rome, and the final split between England and the Papacy only took place after Mary's death, when Elizabeth came to the throne and halted the persecution of Protestants carried out under her predecessor (who wasn't known as "Bloody" Mary for nothing). Even so, the final break was initiated by Rome (who excommunicated Elizabeth, along with any English subjects who didn't immediately act to overthrow her) and only many years after she became Queen -- long after Hank the Eighth was dead and buried. Moreover, there was no "new church" founded -- merely Rome deciding to no longer recognize the bishops and clergy they themselves had previously installed there. To this day, Anglicans consider themselves part and parcel of Catholicism, even if the Vatican still won't recognize them.

and this is the first time I ever heard that "Anglicans consider themselves part and parcel of Catholicism."
You were either Catholic, or Protestant. And Protestant mostly meant Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, or Baptist.

they're CofE, which is protestant. Legally, he isn't allowed to marry a Catholic and remain heir.

the whole Diana marriage was an arranged affair because Parker-Bowles wasn't "proper" enough to be queen in the first place

I'm a strident anti-monarchist, and I want rid of them at the first opportunity, but lets stay off of the character assassinations.

she didn't want to get caught up in the circus, so she married Parker-Bowles instead and they continued the affair. So he married poor Diana and was so full of himself that he just couldn't understand why Diana was all upset when he was chatting it up on the phone with Camilla while on their honeymoon. And Camilla gave him cufflinks for his wedding that had their initials intertwined and he was wearing them on his honeymoon. Poor Diana never stood a chance with them because he never had feelings for her. I hope that he never becomes king.

this years before the story broke from people who know. The entire source of the bad marriage with Diana and her unhappiness is the basic fact that Charles is a poove and always has been and always will be. Diana served her purpose as breeding stock and that's that.

conversations with Charles and Camillia discussing their sex life. Charles wanted to be Camilla's tampax. Every gay guy's dream . Sure.

and knows for a fact that Charles is, at least, bisexual. More like he is gay and there is a price to pay for having a freind pretend that you are an item. Especially for British Secret service is "taping" his conversations for what purpose? For cover, everything is for plausable deniability. Believe what you want. This is true and who, by the way, fucking cares? Stodgey conservative royalists that's who!

line is a bit old! Who cares? Even Charles valet , who WAS gay, said Charles slept with Camilla the night before his wedding to Diana. Sooo? He might be bi or not. But not EVERYONE has to be gay. I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone insisted that someone who wasn't was gay. As David Cassidy , who most decidedly wasn't said, quoting someone, "You haven't really made it until people start saying you are gay"! I don't think Charles is anything but slime!

Why do you find in so unbelievable? If he were gay, do you think a man from his era is just gonna come out? Diana was treated miserably, because Charles interests lay elsewhere. Camilla always was his cover.

stories that circulate about celebs. I think it would be despicable either way . But there is no evidence that Charles is gay and a great deal to prove the opposite viewpoint. But either way he is still slime.

That palace servant tellall book. I don't even remember the specifics, but it was all over the place. And the person was not sued for libel, which in Britain is very easy for the prince to bring suit and he didn't. Because he can't. Look I don't believe in outing people unless they are utterly scummy, and I'm telling you Charles is gay. Charles doesn't sue for libel because its true and to go into court would expose him the same position as Oscar Wilde.

Several English kings have been gay and it was scandalous every time. Edward II was killed because of it. George IV was very probably. And now Prince Charles. History will prove me right; its just a fact.

You're picking strange examples. Charles has given himself huge hassle by continuing to sleep with Parker Bowles - if he were just gay, he'd never do that (nor would he have slept around so extensively before his marriage). George IV had a secret marriage, in addition to his official one, and at least one other mistress overlapping those two. Theose aren't the actions of men who aren't interested in sleeping with women.

of family christian values for the nation. They are forced to pro-create for the very survival of the nation. I believe they paired Charles and Diana the same way horses were bred to avoid a crisis in the monarchy.

Yes, Bisexual. Of course. Who isn't after all.

that their preferences aren't exclusively for men.

I once had someone trying to convince me that Paul Newman was gay. Seems hae had a friend of a friend who etc, and I pointed out that seven children and two marriages was a bit much for a beard but what can you say. There are so many famous people who are gay. Why can't it be left at that?

caught by Diana screwing one of the people from the palace (a male). SO I think he could have been bisexual, which is neither here nor there. What bothers me is you don't lie and philander when you're married OR screw somebody where your swpouse can walk in on you by opening a door. Like go do it somewhere else. Charles has less than zero class.

actually, I just finished writing an article on Maria Fitzherbert (George IV's secret wife.) He had lots of other mistresses, before and after, but spent two stretches of 6-10 years in something close to domestic bliss with Maria. (I say "something close" because they never actually moved in together. Their secret had to be protected, but they had adjoining houses, etc.) And the secret marriage caused George much trouble politically, even though it was only "rumored" till documents proved it a century later. The only thing way it makes sense is that the man was passionately in love.

Rott(weiler) and they really sounded lovey-dovey or very sexually-involved. Hey, he wanted to be her tampon...gimme a break; no way Chucky is gay

My reaction to this is "it's about time." Nothing but true love could have survived what these two have endured. If he had told his family to pound sand back when he fell in love with this woman - before either one of them were married - everyone involved would have been a lot happier.

Frankly, I don't see any victims in this scenario, just a bunch of people who ended up on the wrong side of circumstance. Could everybody have acted differently? Sure. But people don't always act in their own long term best interest.

Not that I think it's relevant here, but as for the statement that true love doesn't cause people to treat others as disposable... Oh please. Pick up a Shakespeare, or any writings of some other astute observer of human behavior.

The interest that the British monarchy provokes in Americans.

Why ?

There are othe monarchies still in existance, would the heir to the Swedish throne provoke such interest on an American discussion forum ? Who could even name him/her without the use of Google ?

Who in America has an opinion on the merits of a certain Dutch prince ?

America is proud to be a republic, yet there is this strange lingering attachment to a monarchy America fought to be free from.

....Police state is more like it!!

two Cold War Soviet implants:

"Raine Spencer" - sister of "Margaret Thatcher"

"George Bush Sr"


"Camilla"

"Jilly Cooper" - her sister

Give the whole charade a few more days before the troops take over.

...just so he'd have nice looking children. (or, so that's my theory anyway - that this is why his family wanted him to marry her rather than the rather rough-looking bowles)

:evilgrin:

They're adults who have obviously been in love for years. It is unfortunate that people got hurt, but that happens in life and it's not like the Royals are a normal bunch anyway. His first marriage was arranged - that would suck, especially when you found out your new bride was unbalanced. He's 54. Why shouldn't he have a few happy years?

He and Camilla probably are way better suited.

>>...especially when you found out your new bride was unbalanced.<<

I can't imagine a worse choice for Charles than Diana: a young, emotionally needy, neurotic woman who had no understanding of the role she was supposed to play. The marriage was for matters of state -- it always is at that level -- but Diana expected love and romance. Sadly naive, and a dreadful mistake to accept a marriage proposal from England rather than some nice young man who would dote on her.

The biggest mistake Charles made was not marrying Camilla when they first met (she was willing but he wasn't ready to settle down yet). Camilla, unlike Diana, works within the system of her class and she has never splattered her emotional tantrums on the public.

ignoring her pain when she started waking up to the reality she married into.... and then labelling her as "unbalanced".

Nothing like blaming the victim and exonerating the perpertrator.

Let us do cartwheels over a couple of moronic muttonheads declaring their marriage! Let all of us get gold stars for wasting our time focusing on two insignificant people who just happen to be blue-blooded berks!

Hell, let's salivate over the upcoming Romber wedding (Rob and Amber from Survivor)!!! We won't be any worse off for doing so than for obsessing over more retarded royal drama!

So, I'm all for it.

I think that he will pass it on to his son.

An archaic sham.

national is legally entitle to before the dust settles on an unresolved death?

Maybe Charles thinks he can get away without one. This may make any new marriage illegal/unconstitutional.

UK's acceptance of the Human Rights Act means that ALL UK nationals have an unalienable right to the legal hearing that has been denied so far to the hapless Diana.

Two highest profile deaths under Blair. Neither had a proper coroner's inquest.

A position becomes available.

Of course, she could have always been the right one for him. Too bad he was advised to hold out for a virgin. Too bad for the virgin, as well.

Fact is this bunch of feudal robber barons no more care about what we think than the Islamic militants. The so called royal family have so often shown their complete distain for democracy and on numerous occasions have told the British people just what they think of us. This latest chapter in the life’s of this bunch just shows how much they care about the feelings and desires of their subjects (I am not one of them having long ago accepted my place as a loyal British European Citizen). Time for us British to grow up and embrace that which we give ourselves credit for and introduce real democracy in our land. The Queen is dead long live the republic, Oh how I long to hear those words.

Something the royals have always loved to do.

Enough with this cult of Saint Diana.

In case you don't recall, she and her BOYFRIEND died together. What if she was the one to get married, some say she was planning to marry Dody?
She was also having numerous affairs while married, so she is hardly a SAINT.

I said nothing of being a saint or a cult.

You know what they say about assuming don't you both?

presume means you hold her in very high regard. If not a SAINT, then probably very close? No?
That marriage ended up in divorce. Do you think that every divorced men who remarried is being disrespectful to his ex-wives memory? Should a divorced man ever be able to re-marry?

For the record, I don't think she was a saint. And yes, of course divorcees should be able to remarry - I myself am remarried. However, I am not next in line to be the next King of England, who endured the scandal of the century involving this woman.

Given the way events transpired, and the way we know Diana was treated by this royal family, it is incredibly disrespectful for Camilla to be given title of HRH and/or Princess....let alone to have tax payers foot the bill for the rest of her lavish life. Both of these individuals behaved dispicably for a long time, and if there are consequences to actions, he should abdicate & live happily ever after with his new wife...NOT force her down the public's throat as their monarchy.

Both of these people are despicable individuals with their lies and adultery. Congratulating them seems very wrong. I recognize their right to be married, but what they did to their spouses and children over a long period of time should not be forgotten. These are not good people. They shouldn't be rewarded, given money, given titles, etc. Tony Blair shouldn't have given them a pat on the back since he's the official rep of the British government. Chuck and Cammie are garbage.

But still, I don't want Charles to be King and if he does not abdicate then all the Commonwealth realms (including Britain) will head towards republicanism.

A lot of people here like the monarchy because it makes us different from the US. Pretty lame reason, really.

actually doing in terms of ruling the country? Aren't they only for show and tell?

and save whatever is left of his sad reputation.

Monarchs=leeches in the public trough. Throw 'em all out!

Who cares about Chuck and Cammy? He should have married her when she gave him the ultimatum before she got married the first time (he wasn't ready, he told her, so she married someone else). If Chuck and Cam HAD wanted to marry back then, she probably wouldn't have passed the Happy Hymen test, but I think they could have gotten around that disgusting bit of misogyny if the Queen had put her imprimatur on the whole business -- and Diana would have become a kindergarden teacher and married some nice horsey fella and lived happily in low-level peerage somewhere.

And Chuck and Cam would have produced a couple of heirs to the throne with horsey teeth and big ears, and everyone would live happily ever after.

It's been well documented that Camilla and her gal-pals helped pick Diana as the sacrificial virgin princess for Chuck. Then, Cam continued to boink him in secret, ruining everyone's life.

Therefore, they're all just too low for me to give two royal s***s about.

Check their "bloodlines." Enjoyed your analysis! One nitpick, Cam didn't "ruin" anything, those two are the only friend either of them has ever had. I wish them all the best. :toast:

instead it's charles-camila, another couple who's cheated on their spouses.

I'm not very pro-marriage because I see it as temporary in at least half of all cases. Even for the ones who had a long relationship before hand, even if it did out live a spouse..

I vote it won't work.

Usually, I turn in for a bit of sane news before checking out the weather (& trying to avoid propaganda) on a local channel. However, today, the BBC news was ALL CHUCK & CAMILLA!

The political analyst said the political results of the match will be: None. Nothing. Nada. (He seemed amused at everybody else's excitement.)

one week she'll be a saint, next week she'll be a sinner, the next week she'll be a saint again etc.

There will be great financial reward in mag sales to keep people interested as they tear down that marriage.

and freshly kindled camila hatred. They'll find endless reasons.

Good luck chuck, england hates the bride. And if they don't, there will be plently of muck raking to make that happen.

They can't actually be married in the Church of England. Well, according to recent rules, they probably could.

But the Archbishop of Canterbury will drop by for a blessing afterwards.

Marriage has always been at least as much about community law as religion.

away from Diana, though she requested to keep it as the mother of the boys, and they also denied it to Wallis Simpson out of spite. So Camilla must be popular with someone. I don't see why the Royol Whore needs to be rewarded with respectability, and before someone flames me about being sexist, let me say that Charles shouls also be stripped of his title for the pain he caused others. Major Bowles , Diana , and their children were put through hell because of these two selfish people. This isn't even about sex. It is about vicious nasty emotional manipulation being rewarded. Ugh! The Royals need to go.

Camilla when he was with Diana.

He essentially has stayed true to the woman he has
loved all of his life.

Good for them. I'm glad they figured out a way so
they could be together and make it official.

:eyes:

He used another human being to have his kids and he wanted nothing to do with her?

:eyes:

that we British REALLY love and respect our Royal Family:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/
See?

Says it all!

if he had stood up to his old man in the first place he wouldn't have ruined so many lives and he could have been with Camilla all this time. Camilla is just as bad she should have said 'you either marry me or you never see me again' instead she allows a backstreet relationship. I have no respect for someone who is such a sniveling coward and marries someone he doesn't love because his Daddy told him to. Camilla and Charles deserve each other they are both spineless jellyfish. :puke:

This is almost as exciting as the fact that Brittany Spears is pregnant.

I posted it there because all but one British newspaper led on it this morning. Its the only story in town here... which I quite agree is exceedingly sad.

:boring:

Both were married to fairly attractive women, and they both committed adultery in front of their wives with significantly less attractive women. (I call Camilla Parker-Bowles "Ol' Pruneface").

Charles sure looks very happy standing next to Camilla.
He has got to love her, there simply is no other reason for them to be together.

They are both masochistic? and sadistic?

each other. It's been years and years since Charles and Diana divorced. They were never happy together.
They were both cheating on each other. So, it's perfectly normal for Charles to marry again, and hopefully this marriage will be better than the last one.

to justify their rank and all their privileges, royalty should be
a bit better than your average folk and in this case, they're not.
Neither Charles nor Camilla have done the right thing by their
original partners, or their children - okay, these things happen,
but people are supposed to look up to them as something special.
They're not, they're incredibly ordinary, and in my opinion, send
them off to live quietly in the country, and if there has to be
a monarchy, let the crown pass straight to William and hope he can
organise his love life a bit better.

pretty much impossible. The heck with the lot of them. I say if people want something special to look up to, it requires more than just how gracefully a person deals with being among the most privileged people on the face of the planet. :)

(edited for grammar)

I think it stinks that they are able to get on with their lives while the people thye have hurt are forever damaged. Charles , Diana , and Camilla weren't the only people invoved in this mess. People never even consider Andrew Parker Bowles and his humiliation or Camilla's four children, and what about everyone's respective families? Some of whom are now dead? Normal? For whom?

i think that guy she died with in the car had been engaged with another woman and she still became involved with him.

But she didn't start this mess. She was a young girl that was thrown into this mess involving these absolutely corrupt people. In time, she reacted to her circumstances.She was already divorced and Dodi was single when they were involved.She did have her share of extramarital dalliances while married. It was her response to that which already existed. Dodi had a broken enggement , which isn't as signifigant as the sickness pervading the Charles Camilla and their families.

They can't procreate without a helluva lot of medical intervention!

that he was suppose to have had with one of his male servants.
Remember the one that Diana was to have caught him with in bed.

What bothers me is his infidelity and lying. And in this case, he didn't have enough class to screw his buddy outside of his and Diana's own home. You know, if you're gonna screw somebody, don't do it where your wife can walk in and catch you

But it's not as if they were raised to be decent people themselves.

I, certainly NOT. May they live together in peace. We leave them to their own devices, and they leave the front pages sparing us their "royal drama."

be quietly banished; he should step down as heir to the throne but I think he is too damned arrogant to do that.

Geez! What the F*** difference does it make? I don't understand why people give a flying f*** about the "Royals" anyway. :eyes:

at last count about 165 of us

Now, this makes 168 of us.....:pals:

Think Gene Hackman in drag, last dancing scene = Camilla PB.