Charles to marry Camilla

[Hemel]

Though I do feel badly for William and Harry, as I would for any kids who found themselves with their father's mistress as a stepmom.

Happens to a lot of children. Anyway, I gather that William's attitude is the mature one that he'd rather have a happy Daddy with Camilla than a miserable one without her. Good for him.

Good for them too. They should have married right at the beginning. I think it's brilliant that they're finally marrying. Oh, and Charles isn't a remarrying divorcee. He's a widower.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by sun-star

If you don't care, why post?

I was taking a time out.

I guess I care a very small amount. I hope they're all happy anyway.

Okay I'm back to not caring now. I mean... it is their business.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

All I can say is I suppose they deserve each other!

Ha ha ha.

Though I've never met them so can't really comment.

But think of how it boosts the republican cause here. We don't get to vote on 'em, so why should they care what we think about their titles? She should be called Camilla Queen of Hearts. Then we'd have a revolution in no time and we can finally grow up and get a proper system of government. With Princess Di on all the coins, of course.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

All I can say is I suppose they deserve each other!

Why do you say that? (I assume you mean it negatively)

[Rían]

I don't particularly admire either one of them, based on their callous and repeated unfaithfulness to their spouses.

[The Gaffer]

In their defence, I think you have to take into account the fact that they come from a culture (the aristocracy) where marriage is traditionally undertaken for utilitarian material or social purposes, and where it has always been the custom of men in particular to have mistresses. Their values are not ours.

Having said that, they remain hypocrites and parasites IMO.

I liked the Daily Star headline the best: "Boring old gits to wed"

[sun-star]

I don't know about callous... I think there's probably more to it than gets reported in the newspapers.

(...even the Daily Star. Diana fans, are they? )

[Hemel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't particularly admire either one of them, based on their callous and repeated unfaithfulness to their spouses.

Which makes me wonder what you think about Diana then ....

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Hemel

Which makes me wonder what you think about Diana then ...

Here's the difference for me, and to me it's a big one.

Assuming the reports are true: Charles and Camilla were carrying on an affair before Charles married Diana and while Camilla was married. The affair might have slowed down/stopped during the courtship of Charles and Diana, but I doubt it. And here's the biggie - there seems to have been NO INTENT on the part of Charles and Camilla to stop the affair, even after the wedding of Charles and Diana. To me, that's HUGE.

Obviously, I think Diana's affairs were wrong, but I think they are FAR more excusable than Charles', as he didn't intend to give up Camilla even after he married, and Diana's were more in reaction to Charles' failing to keep his marriage vows right from the get-go, while Diana kept her vows for years.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In their defence, I think you have to take into account the fact that they come from a culture (the aristocracy) where marriage is traditionally undertaken for utilitarian material or social purposes, and where it has always been the custom of men in particular to have mistresses. Their values are not ours.

Yes, I see what you're saying, yet a vow is a vow, and one shouldn't make it if one does not intend to keep it ...

I liked the Daily Star headline the best: "Boring old gits to wed"

LOL!

[The Gaffer]

For sure. Do you think, though, that a centuries-long tradition of hypocrisy, combined with the number one cultural necessity of providing suitable heirs (i.e. not getting married was not an option), would make it less of an evil?

I remember a commentator at the time they got married marvelling at how Diana was a "perfect physical specimen". Beefing up the gene pool has always been a factor for the royals.

[Rían]

Yes, I think the tradition part makes it less of an evil, tho still more than Diana's. It seems that Diana was unaware of Charles' intent to carry on the affair. I think at least he could have told her that. I'm sure SOMEONE would have married him eventually if that made her turn him down! And if not, so what? So pick the next person in line! Heck, I even have a valid claim for the throne!

Ah, how well I remember my marriage vows *sentimenal sigh* - "to love, honor, and beef up the gene pool" ...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

you know, if charles hadn't gone off on the HMS Minerva, he probably would have married camilla about ten years before he even met diana

[Rían]

Life is funny (not humorous-funny, but odd-unusual-funny) (altho it's humorous funny, too!) ... I think it would have been better for c & c to marry, but IMHO that doesn't excuse his behavior - nor Diana's.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

camilla would have been 'eminently more suitable' as the wife to the royal heir is the phrasing 'they' (the establishment) use, IIRC, and to be fair to charles, at least he only had an affair with one person, whereas Diana had quite a few, I take issue with those that try to paint her as some kind of saint just because she's dead, sure she did immeasurable good, for AIDs victims, and War ravaged countries, and all her charity work etc, but privately she was just as bad as any other public figure, if not worse, although I quite like James Hewitt, and think he is quite funny, for one of those types.

[Rían]

I don't think she was a saint. I think she really needed some good, solid counseling and didn't get it until too late, if at all.

[Hemel]

The Gaffer:
I think you have to take into account the fact that they come from a culture (the aristocracy) where marriage is traditionally undertaken for utilitarian material or social purposes, and where it has always been the custom of men in particular to have mistresses. Their values are not ours.

Hmmm. I don't think it's just the aristocracy that has this view. And when you talk about 'our' values, to whom exactly are you referring?

Rian:
there seems to have been NO INTENT on the part of Charles and Camilla to stop the affair, even after the wedding of Charles and Diana.

Well, I don't know one way or the other, but I got the impression that Camilla did back off, certainly on the physical side, in the early years of the Charles and Diana marriage.

Rian:
I think Diana's affairs were wrong, but I think they are FAR more excusable than Charles', as he didn't intend to give up Camilla even after he married, and Diana's were more in reaction to Charles' failing to keep his marriage vows right from the get-go, while Diana kept her vows for years.

Ah, we'll differ there. If one thinks that adultery is wrong then adultery is wrong, no matter when it happened nor what other thoughts were in the adulterer's heart at the time.

The Gaffer:
the number one cultural necessity of providing suitable heirs (i.e. not getting married was not an option),

Queen Elizabeth I, anyone?

Rian:
I think she really needed some good, solid counseling and didn't get it until too late, if at all.

Indeed. It's my view that she was very disturbed and needed a considerable amount of help. I also believe that Charles was at his wits' end on how to cope with her.

My opinion is that Charles and Camilla should have married in the first place, and that a great deal of harm has been done because they did not. I believe also she would have been most suitable, both for Charles (which appears proven) and as a royal wife (which we now may see).

I understand that there was some objection to Camilla in the first place because advisers saw her as a little tarnished - she had had a boyfriend before. I don't know if that's the reason why they didn't marry - anyone know?

Thanks for the reply, Rian

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Hemel

My opinion is that Charles and Camilla should have married in the first place, and that a great deal of harm has been done because they did not. I believe also she would have been most suitable, both for Charles (which appears proven) and as a royal wife (which we now may see).

my view exactly apart from royal wife part, but thats purely political on my part

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Hemel

Ah, we'll differ there. If one thinks that adultery is wrong then adultery is wrong, no matter when it happened nor what other thoughts were in the adulterer's heart at the time.

I said that Diana WAS wrong, but her actions were more excusable. To me, adultery is ALWAYS wrong, but an affair (to make up an example) undertaken to wound the spouse on purpose is worse than an affair undertaken while of unstable mind. BOTH are wrong, but IMO, there are degrees of blame, depending upon the underlying heart attitude.

[Hemel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I said that Diana WAS wrong, but her actions were more excusable. To me, adultery is ALWAYS wrong, but an affair (to make up an example) undertaken to wound the spouse on purpose is worse than an affair undertaken while of unstable mind. BOTH are wrong, but IMO, there are degrees of blame, depending upon the underlying heart attitude.

Yes, I understood what you meant My thoughts are perhaps a little more hardline, and perhaps it would have been better if I'd said the word 'sin' rather than 'wrong' To me under this perspective it then becomes absolute - and if so, then I don't believe that blame or heart attitude are relevant factors

Having said that, then, if I follow my argument through, Charles and Camilla, who clearly have a physical relationship, are doing the right thing by getting married (albeit civil-with-blessing). It's interesting that difficulties over constitutional problems would have seemed almost to have suggested the opposite!