web analytics

Nosemonkey's EUtopia

In search of a European identity

12 Comments

  1. I totally agree with you. They should have married ages ago. Had they done so, all these years of obsession with the Late Princess of Wales could have been avoided. Charles is just a wuss..

  2. Nosemonkey, I agree that they SHOULD have got married, the problem then was that Camilla is a Roman catholic and up until a couple of years ago, it was still illegal for the heir to the throne to be married to a Catholic.

    Which osrt of begs another question – what was more important to Charles, Camilla or the throne?

  3. Churl, from what I understand Camilla only converted to Catholicism because her first husband was Catholic. If Charles had married her first, no problem. The reason he didn't was because Andrew Parker-Bowles was a close friend.

    In other words, she can always convert back. No constitutional crisis need be provoked. After all, you make it OK for the heir to the throne to marry a Catholic (or be Catholic), Charlie may finally get his life-long love, but we also end up facing a challenge for the throne from the Duke of Bavaria – the current heir of James II – who has a far better blood claim to the monarchy than Her Majesty (much as I love her)…

  4. Nosemonkey, that then begs the question why didn't he marry her?

  5. From what I gather, primarily because both of them were going out with someone else at the time, and the scandal would have been too great. Not as great as them continuing to see each other after they'd both got married to other people, but still…

    By the way, is anyone else getting the new-style Blogger comments thing? It's finally sensible enough to show you the other comments you're replying to! An obvious and long-overdue upgrade – but very welcome nonetheless.

  6. Somewhere I read that the match wss nixed by the duke, who disapproved of Camilla.

  7. Robbie – if old Phil had that much influence Charles never would have married Diana either – the DofE was not much of a fan… Neither was I, for that matter. Nice to look at and did a lot of good work for charity and all, but a bit ditzy to say the least. Plus, although Charles having an affair while still married was undeniably appauling, for Diana to have affairs while she was still married was – technically – treason.

    But still, what's done is done, eh? And by some accounts it's illegal for members of the Royal family to have civil weddings, so even this latest turn of events may not come off as planned just yet…

  8. Well they didn't marry ages ago and what they are doing is evil. If he wants to marry his mistress then he needs to abdicate the throne.

  9. And who, precisely, are you to make such sweeping moral/legal judgements? Re-marriage after divorce is evil and discounts one from becoming King? Fine – tell that to Henry VIII.

  10. Anonymous who keeps posting crap – piss off, eh?

  11. This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

  12. This post has been removed by a blog administrator.