April 5, 2005

  • It's been postponed for a day due to the pope's funeral, but it looks
    as if Prince Charles is finally going to marry the woman he apparently
    wanted to marry in the first place.

    [dubiously]  I'm sure she's very nice.

    At least I'm reasonably confidant this
    marriage shan't hit the skids as did his marriage to Diana
    Spencer.  Even now that's depressing to think about;  it was
    such a festive time for us English Royalty Watchers!  Got up at
    some ludicrously early hour of the morning to turn on the TV and watch
    Charles and Diana marry.

    Actually, I got up at ludicrously early hours to watch his sister,
    Anne, marry whatever his name was, and Andrew marry Sarah Ferguson.

    That's right.  The one thing all three marriages had in common was I got up and watched them.  Cause and effect?

    I don't recall whether Edward's wedding to, um, dang, what IS her name?
    was televised, but I didn't see it if so.  First because I have a
    hard enough time sleeping without deliberately waking up to watch the
    wedding of people I don't even know, and second because based upon past
    experience, if I tune in, that marriage is doomed.

    So I'll content myself with reading about Charles and Camilla's nuptials on the internet and in Time.

    This is interesting, though!  It's been said by Charles' office
    that upon his (finally) ascending the throne, Camilla will be known as
    the Princess Consort.  Turns out that is not what the law
    says....she'd be queen, period.  Queen Consort, maybe, but still
    queen.  For the Princess Consort business to work the law will
    have to be changed, and not only in England, but New Zealand,
    Australia, Canada, and whichever country is still part of the British
    Empire.

    Might be a problem with that, as those countries have fairly large
    segments of the population that would just as soon ditch the monarchy
    entirely, and putting that law on the table for amendment would provide
    an excellent opportunity for that to take place.

    Charles' marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles isn't wildly popular in any
    case . . . can you imagine the snit people in England would be in if
    they wind up "losing" Australia, for example, because of it?

Comments (9)

  • Edward and Sophie's marriage was much more low-key. I imagine it had quite a deal of pomp where it actually took place, but it wasn't a media event. Edward does seem to be a man who learns from example.

    You don't hear much about him, but from all I've heard, I admire his good sense. Then again, not hearing much about him is one of things that I admire about him.

    I imagine this marriage will last, if only due to inertia. I think (just my speculation) one of the problems with Charles and Diana is that Diana actually expected a marriage, and Charles just wanted an arrangement. I think that if Charles and Camilla do tire of one another -- which at their respective ages is perhaps less likely -- they will both be willing to "keep up appearances."

    Not that I recommend that as a way of having a marriage, of course, but it means the marriage is more likely to last than to break up.

  • SOPHIE!!!

    That's it.

    Did you know her name already or didja Google it?

  • I knew it. But I forget it half the time. It just happened to come to me today.

  • I don't think it matters whether she is Princess or Queen.  The point of all that is offspring: would her offspring with Charles be in line to the throne? I think we all know the answer to that question. ;>)  But if I were British, I guess the precedent might make me a bit nervous. But not too much, since all nervous energy would have been used up from throwing my hands into the air and huffing, "Well!  Really, what CAN one do??"

  • I think the answer to that question is, "Offspring? What offspring?"

    I daresay that discreet though everyone is being, this marriage would not have taken place at a much younger age for Mrs. Charles than the one at which it is occurring. Ahem.

    And if you were British, Eleanor dear, you wouldn't have thrown your hands up in the air. You would just have smiled slightly and said, "Well, isn't that nice. As least they aren't being TAWDRY about it all. Not like that other woman who WOULD go on about her "feelings" all the time."

  • Anne, I got up for the weddings, too, so perhaps I'm part of The Curse? (I got up for Diana's funeral, too, although as I remember it wasn't QUITE so early.)

    If he's going to sleep with her (and we all know he is) it's good that he marries her, but it's horrible that the monarchy has caved in to such an extent to allow it. (Yeah, yeah - there have been nasty examples all through the British monarchy, not least Henry VIII) But his great-uncle understood that his love (lust?)was at odds with his duty to the throne, at least!

    Is there a Windsor who's NOT messed up? I'd like to know. Actually, as Lois pointed out the other day, royals around the world seem to have absolutely NO morals, and these days, we all get to hear everything. Blech. There's something to be said for privacy and discretion!

    me<><

  • They're living together, in fact. Have been for a while, so yes, it's just as well they make some attempt to observe the proprieties.

    I think Edward's okay, isn't he? And Princess Anne is known to take her duties very seriously indeed.

    Not terribly up to snuff on the rest of the world's monarchies, unfortunately.

  • Queen Victoria saw to it that her children and grandchildren made good, mostly royal marriages so the cousins have been intermarrying for a couple of generations at least. Maybe that's the problem?

    ;)

    me<><

  • I didn't get up for THE wedding, but used the occasion to buy my first VCR @ $900 to tape it. Why? Because I was afraid the IRA would try and set off a bomb. When I woke up the morning after the wedding, I turned on the news, and since there was no bomb, I sat down with my pot of tea to watch the spectacle.

    I was in Italy when Anne got married in '73. The Italians were completely taken up with it. Every shop we went into that's all people talked about. In one shop, they invited us in their back room to watch it on the tv!

    I've been a Royal watcher ever since my sister-in-law bought me a magazine about the Beatles (back in about '65) and there was a photo of Prince Charles. "You mean there are REAL princes? Not just in fairy tales?" I know that he and Camilla were an item when they were young, but that he never got around to asking her to marry him, so she married someone else. When Diana first died I was angry at the thought of he and Camilla together. But if you think about it, they've been "together" for 34 years. I'm certainly not saying that what they did when they were married to others was right, but it's not like this is someone he just met. It's kind of obvious and sad that he married Diana because the family wanted it, and she was "suitable". So in a sense they were both trapped by the system...

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment