I'd say this wedding, and the "blessing" that followed, is probably the ultimate trigger for anyone whose WS went on to marry their affair partner. It was creepy and weird. These people want everyone to be happy for them at their pretty ceremony, while they themselves remain oblivious to the massive wreckage they are dragging in their wake.

I am sure I heard booing when C & C stepped out of the car together on their way to the civil ceremony.
Mulan

There was booing but how mean-spirited. It appears their families have accepted things. There were many smiling faces including those of their children. I can't help myself - I wish them well! TT

I wish them well, [sorta] but have to say I am also creeped out. It was especially creepy seeing Diana's kids there, forced to endorse his marriage to a woman who strived so long to break up their family. I guess you can put a white suit on a pig, but unfortunately, you still have a pig. Nor does a fancy wedding erase all the sleaziness of their affair.

TT Its teh English disease for us to forgive our royals anythng.

Charles has behaved like an utter unconscionable cad, and Camilla like a social climbing slut.

At least two families have been smashed as a result of their persistence in continuing their affair.

I cannot wish them well. Sorry.

honoring the dishonorable is so..............creepy and surreal.

Hey bob,

You're in the UK - can you give some of us Yanks a bit of insight?

I keep hearing that the crowds in the streets at the Guildhall were acutally a carefully screened "Rent-A-Crowd" to be sure they would look friendly. I don't know if that's true (or possible) - and I'm sure I heard booing when Camilla arrived - but I do wonder who the people were outside the chapel when C&C went on walkabout and starting shaking hands. Surely they were screened and placed - there weren't all that many of them, from what I could tell.

Yes, the ceremony was beautiful, but the wreckage that is chained to both of them kept getting in the way and catching on the pews as they walked down the aisle of the chapel.

And did you hear Penny Junor going on and on about how that awful Diana "broke" poor innocent Charles with her spoiled selfish ways and how it was dear wonderful Camilla who came to his rescue when he needed her most? *retch* Talk about changing history! Does anyone over there really believe that kind of stuff??

My favorite comment, though, came earlier in the week from Lady Colin Campbell, when asked about how Camilla says she does not want to be "queen" when Charles becomes king and would call herself "princess consort" instead. Said Lady Campbell: "Well, she can call herself a bar of soap if she wants, but she will *still* be queen when her husband is king!" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And so she will be queen. Much good may it do both of them.

thanks -
Mulan>British only by ancestry (I'm a Sloane), but liked Diana very much just the same . . . and she will always be HRH to me, for whatever that's worth. Maybe William will restore her title one day.

P.S. *snerk* The CNN anchorwoman just called Camilla "Camelia".

Gag! Choke! Where's the vomit icon???

Associated Press is running the wedding story with the following quotes:

"The wedding capped a decades-long love affair that endured the prince's first marriage to Princess Diana and constant tabloid scrutiny."

Get it? The beautiful affair ENDURED [caps added] a marriage. Give me a break!!

Also:
"Charles and Camilla confessed "manifold sins and wickedness" -- words from the Book of Common Prayer, as Archbishop Rowan Williams blessed their union. They pledged to be faithful to greet the huge crowd. . . ."

Manifold sins? You betcha!
FAITHFUL??? okey-dokey!

Also:
"The couple then set off for a honeymoon in a cozy Scottish hunting lodge that once belonged to the prince's grandmother."

May there be bountiful hairy spiders under the bed!

And, finally:
"Camilla now takes on Diana's previous status as princess of Wales . . . . When Charles takes the throne, Camilla legally will be queen."

God save the Queen. She'll need it.

I'm not justifying anybody but I don't think Americans know that Andrew Parker-Bowles was not faithful to Camilla from day 1 of their marriage.

Jen

No, I didn't have the pleasure, or should I say displeasure, of watching it. I am so sick of the media glorifying infidelity. I would love to know what Charles' boys really think of Cammilla. From anything I have heard teenage boys don't look favorably on the A partner. Granted at least Harry wasn't a teen when Dianna died, but they know this woman made their mother miserable. I am sure they have been groomed to be very polite and proper about the whole thing. What do you think Bob? I love the fact the queen wasn't there!

Kiwi, if Cammilla was cheated on it would have been nice if she realized the devestation that caused. JMO! CV

[color:"purple"]I'm happy for them.

They have had an enduring love for one another for 30 years.

They should have married one another way back then.

I don't think Princess Diana loved Charles any more
than he loved her.

WHAT A SHAME!

[b]But two wonderful sons were born because of their union.

P.S. I didn't know about Camilla's Husband being unfaithful to her; she hasn't had an easy life, especially with the negativity from a lot of people. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

(Which is really no one's business but theirs. )

The sons seem to accept her just fine.

Love, Julie [/color] [/b]

***I'm not justifying anybody but I don't think Americans know that Andrew Parker-Bowles was not faithful to Camilla from day 1 of their marriage.***

This American knew!

I have just always been struck by how very typical this MM and his OW have been. They played it right according to the script -- the endless lies and sneaking around, the blaming of the BS (Diana) and insisting she was "unstable," etc. etc. etc. -- it all sounds very, very familiar to anyone who's been reading here for any length of time.

I may be an American and am anything but a princess, but I did identify quite a lot with Diana as far as her marriage was concerned. I think a lot of women did, no matter where they lived.

Too bad this A didn't die like most of them do. Someone else died instead.

Well, I hope that at long last the very public adulterers can be happy. Diana's life was quite literally destroyed in the process and her sons are now burdened with the woman who made their mother's life a living hell.

I'd say keeping the Royal Wh -- uh, I mean the Royal Mistress, on the side is one thing if that makes him happy (now that he's divorced and that ex-wife is dead,) but setting her up to be queen? Yes, I know that most every prince/king has had something on the side -- George VI may be an exception -- but did they *marry* it?

Are y'all Brits really okay with this???

Mulan> just wonderin'

When I was a kid, my rugby team played another in a championship. The opposition were from a pay school, ours was a state school. They beat us well after eighty minutes of sneering, belittling and well-crafted foul play that spoiled what was fundamentally a great display of skilled rugby. They played better than us.

Losing wa sno big deal - we weren't that good ! But the treatment was very hurtful to fifteen year olds.

My Dad said " forgive them son, they're too posh to know any better". So true, old mate. So true.

Some people are too posh or famous to be able to adhere to any slightly difficult moral code like marital fidelity.

Celebs do not ever expect to spend a lifetime in monogamous marriage as a rule: marriage is just a temporary affirmation of the deep lust or great prize of their current beau.

The celeb partnering food chain seems to go :

Hidden ONS
open ONS
Muliple ONS "Boyfriend"
Living together "partner"
Married "spouse"
Married but shagging other people "troubled marriage"
ONS while married but seperated
ONS while divorced

Then it all starts again. They partner like dogs , not Swans.

Now thr terminally posh, like Britain's spavined Roylas are even worse because they do all teh above but ar eenormous hypocrites about it. Camilla her H, Charles and ID all shagged anyone, but the least posh one there - Diana - had to learn the hard way. I truly believe she thought she married for a fairytale romance. When Charles took Camilla in to shag her for the night while DI was pregnant with their first it must have been a shock.

Whiel some celebs are immoral, our royals and upper classes can be Amoral. Even worse IMO.

They can all shag each other until their noses bleed, a plague on both their houses.

harumph !

Yes, I did watch most of it. I tuned in a little bit before the Queen arrived for the blessing.

It must be a strange wedding day to be reminded over and over again that your relationship together, up until this point has been sinful. I thought the Archbishop really belabored that point. (Which was one of the loud and clear messages.) Then after that being an overt theme of the blessing, now to pledge your faithfulness to one another. (I choked, was there a little titter in the background of the chapel too?) Strange, weird and sort of sad. At one point I realized that I felt pity for them.

But:
1. Why does Camilla get all the blame for breaking up Charles marriage to Diana when we hear very little out cry over Charles being the OP for the Parker-Bowls marriage?

2. Why is this woman being vested with so much more sin and wickedness than her new husband? Aren't they both equally responsible? (Charles was an OM not just a WH)



3. Don't assume that Diana's sons were "forced" to endure it. Prince William and Camilla's son were the witnesses for the civil ceremony. Maybe they have gotten past it and moved on. Even Camilla's ex-husband was there for the blessing of their marriage.

4. Marrying an OW is part of Royal history. Look at King Henry VIII. Actually if you look through Royal history, they have been acting like Royals, it just more apparent now.

Additional:

1. Isn’t it a wonderful thing that after confessing their sins, and asking for forgiveness Almighty God can forgive them? They have done more than most in trying to ask forgiveness and make a amends than any other OP and WS do when they marry.

2. Why not pray that with this will be the final end to the Monarchy not allowing marriages between Royals and Commoners. If they had learned anything from the Wallace Simpson this whole charade, pain and destruction of two people and their families might have been avoided. (But then we wouldn't have Prince William and Prince Harry)

Back when the engagement between Diana and Charles was announced the girls I worked with were all a titter, about how much they envied Diana would like to trade places with her. There also happened a guy from London working with us and he asked "why?"

He further went on to explain that Charles really didn't love Diana (look at the difference in age for the first clue), that he was forced to marry someone (not the person he wanted) because she (Diana) was Royal and a virgin. All Diana was really there for was to produce heirs for Charles.

He further added that if Diana didn't understand that, she was incredibly naive. From then on I had a totally different view of the marriage between Charles and Diana. When the "tampon tapes" came out, it seemed to affirm all that my co-worker had said.
At the end of the ceremony I thought a few things:

1. I hope Prince Charles and Camilla do find happiness. There have been too many pawns in this game.

2. What must the Queen be thinking? Did she actively block this possibility long ago? For Charles to finally wed who he should have wed long ago is a bit a Yankee defiance He should have shown it along time ago, even abdicating like his Uncle did. This marriage may have been a type of “Bar Mitzvah” for Charles.

3. Isn't it sad that Diana didn't get to find happiness? But then maybe and hopefully she is in a far better and happier place.

4. Maybe Charles and Diana both got the last laugh out of this:

A. Charles wed Camilla
B. He raised a son who is his by name and fatherly love, but maybe not his by genes. I have always thought Prince Harry an OC, and James Hewitt natural son. (If that is the case, and Prince Harry looks more like Hewitt than he does Charles or Diana, than Charles deserves points for that love and support. Look at how hard it is here for BS’s to deal with an OC.)

***But why:
1. Does Camilla get all the blame for breaking up Charles marriage to Diana when we hear very little out cry over Charles being the OP for the Parker-Bowls marriage.***

***2. Why is this woman being vested with so much more sin and wickedness than her new husband? Aren't they both equally responsible? (Charles was an OM not just a WH)***

Both Charles and Camilla are equally responsible for choosing to cheat in their marriages. But in this particular situation, Andrew Parker-Bowles (Camilla's husband) was so busy with his own OWs that he cared not one whit about what his wife did -- in fact, by all accounts, he was rather flattered that the Prince fancied his wife. See Bob's post above. The P-Bs had one of those de facto open marriages that the very rich often have while keeping the *appearance* of a solid family.

Unfortunately, Charles expected Diana to quietly go along with this arrangement too. He didn't realize she thought she was in a REAL marriage and was not about to along with a sham. Andrew P-B cared not at all, but Diana was *devastated.*

***3. Don't assume that Diana's sons were "forced" to endure it. One of them as well as Camilla's son were the witnesses for the civil ceremony.***

They are "forced" in the sense of having to choose between loyalty to a dead mother or to a living father. That's a terrible place to put your children, even if they are nearly grown. But that's what Charles has done to his sons by choosing to marry his OW.

***Maybe they have gotten past it and moved on.***

Very, very doubtful -- not for more than anything but polite appearances in public. We'll see.

***Even Camilla's ex-husband was there for the blessing of their marriage.***

See above -- I don't think anyone here would want a marriage like the one Camilla and Andrew P-B had.

***4. Marrying an OW is part of Royal history. Look at King Henry VIII***

Well, yes, it is -- and this is a good thing because -- ?

***Isn't it sad that Diana didn't get to find happiness? But then maybe and hopefully she is in a far better and happier place.***

I'm sure she would have been much happier being with her sons.

***He raised a son who is his by name and fatherly love, but maybe not his by genes. I have always thought Prince Harry an OC, and James Hewitt natural son. (If that is the case, and Prince Harry looks more like Hewitt than he does Charles or Diana, than Charles deserves points for that love and support. Look at how hard it is here for BS’s to deal with an OC).***

This is an old rumor that has been put paid many times:

1.) Diana did not meet James Hewitt until at least a year or more after Harry's birth.
2.) The red hair and freckles is a Spencer family trait (Diana's family.) One of Diana's sisters has a son just a little older than Harry who looks just like him. At Diana's funeral, I kept spotting this boy and thinking he was Harry. I'll look forward to the day that a DNA test is done to quiet this once and for all.

This whole story is interesting because it just magnifies the same things that all BS go through. That's why I posted about it.
Mulan

If they truly have received God's forgiveness, why can't we? I don't care about them, don't like them, don't dislike them! But I could never look upon anyone's marriage and not wish them well. However, if my WH marries his OW, my opinion on this subject might change on a very permanent basis!! TT

Agreed.


You are assuming. There are a some young adults I know who's father married the ow he had while his wife was dying. They feel that they can't change the situation, this is what their parents chose to do. They love both their parents and feel no loyalty problem. Mum is mum, dad is dad and the mistress now wife is so and so(they call her by her first name).


As Bob said, they are poshes and live by another set of rules. Personally I think the lot of them compartmentalize their life, like Bill Cinton.


Never said it was. I was responsing to the question as to whether the royals have ever married their OPs, the answer is "yes"


Sort of shoots down the notion of "everything happeining for a reason," and Heaven being a better place than here doesn't it. Hey at least the paparazzi isn't there. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

so he says

I never went by those traits .. the shape of his face (especially when he was younger) and around his eyes. But there is a way to remove all doubt isn’t there. One of the reason’s it may not be done (among others more pressing) is “what do they do with that information?” if true it would shake the Windsor’s more than they already been shaken. It would put Prince Harry completely out of the blood line, and line for the crown.


Using all we’ve learned about WS take a look at King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon.

Catherine was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. who came to England to marry Arthur, Henry’s bother and first in line for the throne. She and Arthur were married on 11/14/1501. Arthur died around April 1502, but King Henry VII (Arthur and Henry’s father) still wanted to keep her dowry. So she and Henry were betrothed 14 months later. Henry was 6 years Catherine’s junior so they waited 6 years to marry.

They married in 1509 after Henry VII’s death. She gave birth to many children but only Mary, born in 1516 lived. Even though he had a few mistresses through their marriage, history describes him as devoted and loving husband. And that the love between them was obivious. That is until Anne Boleyn came into the picture in 1526.

Henry fell in FOG with Anne, and by all accounts she was what we might describe as the OW from hell. They had a 6 year affair as Henry began withdrawing from Catherine as WS’s do. He wanted to marry Anne and asked the Pope for an annulment based on a Bilbe verse in Leviticus 20:21 “And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.”

Mary doesn’t seem to count, nor do the dead children in Henry’s foggy eyes. He increasingly treats Catherine with distain. For her part she continues to say that she and Arthur never consummated the marriage. In her speech to the Papacy tribunal June 21, 1529 she gives this speech to Henry (he is 3 years into his affair with Anne)

[color:"purple"] “Sir, I beseech you for all the love that hath been between us, let me have justice and right, take of me some pity and compassion, for I am a poor woman, and a stranger, born out of your dominion. I have here no friend and much less indifferent counsel. I flee to you, as to the head of justice within this realm . . . I take God and all the world to witness that I have been to you a true, humble and obedient wife, ever comfortable to your will and pleasure . . . being always well pleased and contented with all things wherein you had any delight or dalliance . . . I loved all those whom ye loved, only for your sake, whether I had cause or no, and whether they were my friends or enemies. This 20 years or more I have been your true wife and by me ye have had divers children, although it hath pleased God to call them from this world, which hath been no default in me. . . And when ye had me at first, I take God to my judge, I was a true maid, without touch of man. And whether this be true or no, I put it to your conscience . . . Therefore, I humbly require you to spare me the extremity of this new court . . . And if ye will not, to God I commit my cause.” [/color]

He listens, unmoved, another WS trait. He can’t hear her he’s too fogged up.

Anne becomes pregnant in late in 1532. Henry severs ties with Rome early 1533 and Thomas Cranmer, the archbishop of Canterbury grants the annulment. (The Church of England formally begins in 1534) Catherine’s new title is Princess Dowager of Wales. Henry and Anne are married January 25, 1533.

Catherine is shunted off to a few far flung castles and refuses to accept or answer to her new title saying “I am Queen and Queen I will die.” She also refused to give the crown jewels and baptismal clothes to Henry and Anne for Elizabeth.

Catherine died of cancer in 1536. When Henry and Anne heard of Catherine’s death (Henry now hated Catherine) they held a banquet and a ball in celebration.

Jane Seymour was Henry’s mistress while married to Anne. She became his wife after Anne’s beheading.

I kind of hope and would like to believe that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were ever faithful to one another.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/sixwives/meet/ca_handbook_main.html
http://tudorhistory.org/
http://www.everreader.com/twelft2.htm
http://www.victorianstation.com/queen.html
http://www.etoile.co.uk/Royal.html

I saw the highlights today. It is soo hard to take them seriously. What a horrible display of selfish stupid behavior. I'm not impressed by any of them.

Did anyone see the new show with Fran Drescher dating some young stud and her kids objecting to it? It's some new comedy, but it's really disgusting if I consider my own bad experience. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

The marriage between Charles and Camilla disturbs me on too many levels to count. I think what bothers me the most not only the duplicity they displayed toward Diana all the years they were carrying on behind her back, but the carefulness in which they orchestrated their affair. Maybe they were not engaged physically, but they were emotionally, from the very start.

For instance, Camilla gave Charles a gold doo-dad with their initials inscribed for him to wear at his wedding to Diana. What nerve that took on the part of both cheaters! I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea of getting married to someone while wearing a very personal piece of jewelry given to me by a male lover. Even if I *were* that fallible, I would at least have enough respect for my future spouse not to do that. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Then over the years Camilla engaged with Diana over many times, pretending to be a "friend." If I were Camilla, I couldn't have looked her in the eye, much less see her on a regular, social basis. I would have at least had the decency to feel ashamed of myself. Camilla obviously has no shame at all. (Nor does Charles for putting these two women together.)

Seems like it was one big sniggering joke between the two adulters. A joke played on poor, young Lady Di, who truly believed she was marrying for love.

And now Charles and Camilla had the gall to have their wedding at Town Hall, which is a pretty public place, with media in attendance. IMHO, they should have just gone to the British equivalent of the JP with a couple of witnesses and married as quietly as possible without foisting any semblance of ceremony on the public. Was is just me, or did this pair seem just a little uncomfortable taking their vows?

In summary, I cannot think of two people who deserve each other more.

Thank the Lord it's not just me that's been upset by this. I've had a three day migraine, and a huge row with H over this whole pantomime. (I'm British too, BTW.)

On another, quite unrelated forum, someone posted that the wedding was 'romantic'. Amd I found myself writing a huge tirade about just how romantic it is to be cheated on. I'm really quite embarrassed about how impassioned I got.

The thing that really got to me was listening to all those TV commentators gushing about how Camilla is a nice, down-to-earth person, and how good she is for Charles. I don't doubt that this is so, but it's possible to look like a nice, down-to-earth person largely because you're turning a deaf ear to the pain your actions are causing. There seems to be a swell of media opinion that they 'deserve' to be happy.

I suspect that what's really happening is that, now that Camilla is in a position of power (do you know that she's now the second most senior female in the royal family ater the Queen?!!!), there is a sycophantic swing towards her. So people are quelling their consciences with rationalisations. It's an astonishing display of conscience re-alignment, that should be all to familiar to us on this board.

Sigh.

TogetherAlone

I find the "romantic" thing too, too much to take.

It would have been romantic if they had gone their separate ways, having littel to no contact and then came back together after all these years. It may even be more acceptable if Diana was still alive and married to someone with whom she loved and who really loved her.

But this way, isn't it (to borrow from the Bill Cosby Show), like presenting the future queen on a garbage can lid? You can also see why the Queen isn't giving the throne up to him. What a weak man.

He couldn't stand up to Mum and for Camilla before, demand marriage or accept abdication. He weakly and meekly went along with what the crown dictated. He willingly went along with a sham marriage and the distruction of another human being. A person that he vowed to protect. When he did decide to finally stand up and be a man, a marry the woman he should have married long ago, it was under the wrong circumstances. And then he further tried to assert himself, wrongly, by saying the wedding would still take place on Friday despite the Pope's funeral.

He has displayed for all these years a weakness, a selfishness (that his mother does not display) and ability to stab in the back those he promised fealty to. This man will be the head of the Church of England. He will be a very weak king.

What doe the Church of England now say? It is wrong to shag someone who is not your spouse. But keep shagging him/her long enough and he/she can eventually be your spouse.

We need a vomit icon.