to think that Camilla is a bit of a national treasure

[GitAwfMayLend]

Yes another wedding based thread.

I think she seems a good egg. And looked lovely today.

Plus there were a few moments where she looked very emotional in the abbey, was very touching.

Thanks, flippinada.

edam - that's really interesting, thanks for that. I knew about the catholics being barred from succession/marrying royalty but didn't know why.

As an aside, I realise it was a different time but...Charles II and James II were appalling shaggers - put Chas'n'Camilla pretty much into the shade.

You're welcome :)

Nothing says national treasure like a cheating couple who denied it than get married after his well loved wife is out of the picture, Jeremy Kyle makes me prouder of britain. sorry but YABU

She should have been allowed to marry Charles at the start, then we wouldn't have this mess! I think she is fab and Charles does seem much happier with her. YANBU!!!!

mateys the bit of a pain/ Catholic leanings phrases that I used were obviously euphemisms. No-one here needs a poster to start out with a long diatribe on British history, it would be so patronising (and lots of people may well know much more, so a bit silly as well).

Whenever a monarch is given the boot the situation isn't going to be simple. Nevertheless Charles I, James II and Louis XVI across the way were all given the boot. It's not so much that kings are appointed according to a popularity poll, it's more that they get the chop or get kicked out (or hopefully just despatched up to Tetbury) if public opinion (same thing in essence) turns against them with sufficient purpose and strength.

I expect you'd find some historians who'd say there was some dodgy legal footwork in the case of James II anyhow. Certainly all the Stuart supporters who rallied to the cause thought the new lot were usurpers and shouldn't be there. Still, it's pretty much done and dusted now I suppose.

Edward VIII is obviously a much more relevant case.

Deeper reasons? Does it need to be deeper than requiring a modern 21st century king (especially one who's also head of the Church) to show decent moral compass? I thought we'd got rid of the idea of the divine right of kings when James II was kicked out....

But how much of an effect does public opinion really have Yellowstone.

When a royal is 'got rid of' or however you want to phrase it, isn't it really down to political machinations behind the scenes?

Lets not forget how adept this lot are at manipulating their own public image too.

I suppose it also raises the question of what you (general you, not aimed personally) think the monarchy should stand for?

Yellow Sorry if you thought that I was starting a diatribe (or not sure if you meant you didn' t wish to), it was a couple of sentences in response to a topic you raised. Moi patronising!
However, as someone with a degree in history from Oxford, specialising in the Stuart period, I do feel qualified to comment. Clearly you are also knowledgeable, so let's call it quits.
And yes, even now I do think it needs to be more than a moral compass issue. I don't approve of what went on, but it's not good enough grounds to disbarr Charles from the throne imho.

I assume she must be pretty cool for William and Harry to like her when their mum had the whole 'three people in this relationship' thing. National treasure might be a bit much but she seems fine to me!

No matey I just meant that I try to avoid diatribing because someone else will get annoyed or know more, that's all!