To think Camilla should not have been crowned Queen

[Viviennemary]

She should have been Princess Consort as we were told she would be. Instead the usual airbrushing of history to try and make her acceptable by clever spinning. And positive press. Bit sickening since Edward VIII had to abdicate over marrying a divorced woman.

Only Roman Catholic theology which is not relevant here. This country is a Church of England country which recognises divorce and second marriage.

Well, to an extent. Under Church of England law until 1999 a divorcee was not entitled to a church wedding if their ex-spouse was still alive.

The Church of Scotland was more liberal, hence why Princess Anne had her second wedding in Scotland.

That has now changed, and a divorcee can now have a church wedding in England too.

To be fair, seatbelts were not as widely worn in the 90s. It was normal to put 6 kids loose in the back seat etc. It wouldn't be seen as reckless like nowadays. Guessing you're too young to remember the 90s

@Inkpotlover Well in a personal sense, yes he has trained all his life and he wants it very badly….

But in a greater good sense, W&C are younger, vastly more popular and would stand a better chance at being able to increase support for the monarchy and maintain the Commonwealth. No nasty demons to trail out the closet.

Respect your opinion, enjoy the wkend celebrating 🥳

BlueAndGreen89
It's not about being fans or not.
Personally I'd get rid of the monarchy and think a lot of the issues in Charles and Diana's marriage probably stemmed from issues within the firm.They both committed adultery, but it's been more than 30 years since they separated.

Charles and Camilla have been married almost 20 years. There comes a point where Joe Blogs frothing about how they can't stand the woman, she shouldn't be there, but think about Diana, is a little over-invested.

Why do people expect the royals to be anything other than bog standard human beings like the rest of us?

Thank you, enjoy the Bank Holiday!

ok fair enough, in that case he's a widower. hadn't realised the change was so recent.

The whole Charles and Diana wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been stopped from marrying Camilla because she wasn't a virgin. How misogynistic is that? I for one am glad to see that put right now.

He wasn't stopped from marrying Camilla. Their relationship just wasn't that serious at the time.

We’ve been over this in another thread that Henry VIII set up the COE in order that he could divorce Catherine of Aragon to pursue marriage with Anne Boleyn and to stop money being diverted to Rome.

Yes, I know. And he was a blatant serial adulterer whose mistresses included married women, judicial murderer and all-round arsehole. The point is: being an adulterer, even a blatant one, is no impediment to being head of the COE and remarrying. It was literally invented so an adulterer could head it and remarry while his first wife still lived.

Besides, surely we can have better standards in 2023 than the 1500s.

What, in marriages and sexual and romantic relationships? We're not going to have that one ironed out even if we wait another 500 years. Besides, it wouldn't actually be a forward step to start punishing divorced people and those who have had affairs.

The nice thing about the c of e is its relatively easy going attitude that your sins are between you and god. we are all human, we do not need more judgement. as jesus said, let he who is without sin etc

I wonder what precipitated the change in Church of England law at the particular point 🤔 Very convenient.

presumably he couldn't marry a divorcee and become king (until after 1999)

Didn’t she decide to marry TPB and that was the nail in the coffin?

Er, the entire point is that it doesn't matter if you're a fan of hers or not; she's queen and she should be because we have a system in place and that's how it works.

A thread saying she shouldn't be queen is naturally going to draw people who understand why she should be (or rather, why she is) and can explain it.

I thought she looked vv smug but that’s by the by. Yes she should have been crowned. If we’re accepting him as king it’s only right.
I don’t think Harry should have been three rows back or whatever it was though.

I wonder what precipitated the change in Church of England law at the particular point 🤔 Very convenient.

Not for Charles. He and Camilla didn’t get married until a few years after the law change and they didn’t have a church wedding in any event. They got married in the Windsor Registry Office then had a blessing in St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle.

But C&C didn't marry in a church? They just had a blessing, I thought?

Although if that was the catalyst for change, fine. It was an outdated concept and if it took a high profile, significant case to get it changed so everyone could benefit, great.

I'm not a fan per se, I just don't understand the vitriol towards a couple who have now been lawfully and happily married for 18 years and some of the comments on MN today about her appearance are frankly disgusting.

I thought she looked vv smug but that’s by the by

How do you ride in a state coach and be crowned Queen with a priceless crown and not look smug?

@DarrellRiversCriminalBehaviourOrder

So we should all do it and say affairs are wonderful and getting divorced tremendous.

Like saying to kids don’t worry when you get married you don’t need to try to work at it, you can totally disrespect your spouse, and in fact go around shagging other people. Then you can put your marriage in the bin because let’s face it, you couldn’t be bothered anyway!

Sorry but that’s the example sitting on the throne right there.

More positively you could look at it like love finds a way, and you can totally cock up your life and be redeemed.

I do think people need to have more accountability for poor behaviour.

It really wasn't. We were using seatbelts for our children in the back of the car in the 1980s. The law requiring adults to wear seatbelts in the back of cars came in in 1991. In France, where Diana died, seatbelts had been compulsory since 1979.

Oh get over yourself. Neither were allowed to marry who they really wanted to. Affairs happen. They clearly love each other.

Or maybe just people who are baffled by the unconstitutional notion that the king's wife should not be queen.

So we should all do it and say affairs are wonderful and getting divorced tremendous.

And this is why you can't have an intelligent conversation about this with some people.

Nobody has said affairs are wonderful and getting divorced is tremendous. We are saying that having an affair isn't an impediment to being head of the C of E, as evidenced by the fact that a serial and open adulterer founded it. Most of us would also say it's better to get divorced if you're both absolutely miserable, as C & D were.

And while ideally C & C would not have had an affair, the fact remains that Charles and Diana were a terrible match, both unfaithful, both unhappy, and Camilla has now been married to him longer than Diana was. It's clearly the better relationship.

It's not condoning the affair to say that there's nothing to gain by attempting to rewrite the laws of marriage and monarchy in an attempt to punish them for it 40 years later. They were free to marry, they married, the rule is that a king's wife is queen. It's not personal, it's not a comment on their private lives, it's just the law.

That was from the Act of Settlement in 1701.

Prior to that Charles I, Charles II and James II all had catholic wives.

James I&VI's wife, Anne of Denmark, always refused to confirm whether she was or wasn't catholic, but I think sat out the coronation.