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.

Since when has the behaviour of the Royals been something which is advocated as the moral compass for the lives of the nation? The monarchy has always been surrounded in scandal, corrupt and divisive.

Because if you do not recognise the validity of divorce, you do not recognise anyone as a divorcee. Once they are married they are married, until their spouse dies and they become a widow/er.

Of course, if you do recognise divorce as ending a marriage, then you recognise such a thing as a divorcee - who is free to remarry.

IF you believe that once married you cannot divorce, Diana's hypothetical new 'husband' would not have been her husband as she was still married to Charles. Her 'marriage' to the hypothetical new husband would not have been a marriage, but an adulterous relationship. She was still married to Charles.

IF, on the other hand, you believe marriage can be ended by divorce, then as soon as Charles and Diana were divorced they were both single again, and free to marry again.

I don't think it matters who was unfaithful first. It was a miserable mismatch that should never have happened. They both made mistakes and they both deserved a chance of happiness after the inevitable divorce. If Diana were alive, she wouldn't deserve to be punished forever either.

Precisely-the royal family are not catholic but Church of England (Protestant Anglican)which was formed by Henry VIII to allow him divorce his first wife. This kicked it all off really. The Catholic Church would not allow him to divorce Catherine of Aragon without been excommunicated).

Once divorced he married his mistress Anne Boleyn to produce Elizabeth I, before moving into wife no 3 (not bothering with divorce but chopping Anne’s head off instead).

I think he did get his marriage to Anne Boleyn annulled, begging the question of how she could commit adultery if she'd never been married, but hey ho.

MN is a strange beast. An OW is villified on here. In Camilla's case MN mostly gives her a pass because she's rich, upper class, and shagged a King-to-be. That both she and Charles made their partners unhappy us nothing but a blip. Serfdom and starry eyed over the upper class is ingrained here. I'm not a Royalist but if I had to think on it I'd say the monarchy has had its day. It's like a badly written soap opera. I don't think monarchy will ever be abolished tho, because Britain - England, in the main - thinks it's special by way of having a monarchy. It's here to stay.

Lots of countries have monarchies. It’s not special. Each monarchy is unique in its own way. Here it’s separate from government. It has a role as a constitutional monarchy but it doesn’t rule. If saves Uzbek trying to find a president. We would never agree on a suitable person!

The huge issue with Charles was that he should have stayed with Camilla when he first met her. At Cambridge I think. He was a wimp and was bullied into marrying Diana. At the time I remember thinking she was too young and inexperienced in life. She was starry eyes and what else could she do but marry him, At his age, he should have known better. You cannot make someone happy if they don’t want you!

Or maybe because, after a period of time, she has gone from being an OW to being wife and long term partner?

Human beings aren't perfect. Marriages break down. Sadly. But there comes a point, surely, when the mistakes of the past (purely personal mistakes, we're not talking about genocide) are in the past?

There’s been threads here before where the Op was the OW, but been married to the man for 20 years. Much longer than the first marriage, but still vilified and treated as OW and they have got lots of support from posters. The general concerns us being that it was a shitty thing to do, but people really needed to move on. So it’s not something, that only the upper class get a pass for.

Cheating is shit. It’s really shit. But do people really deserve to be judged by it forever? I don’t think so. We all do shitty things, we all make mistakes. Imagine being judged, forever, because of something you did wrong 30 odd years ago.

Charles and Diana got married 40 odd years ago (is it 42 years) and separated 30 odd years ago. Yes what happened was shitty and all sides behaved poorly. But it’s really time to move on. If someone was still severally impacted by being cheated on 39 years ago I would be suggesting therapy because it’s not healthy to have not moved on. But to still be upset that 30 - 40 years ago someone you don’t know was the OW to a man you don’t know and hurt his wife, who you don’t know, and also cheated is really odd imo.

@Effieswig I completely agree. Also for all those saying he should have been allowed to marry Camilla originally, did she not have any say in it? It is well known that she was in love with Andrew Parker Bowles who was a known philanderer. He cheated on her during their courtship (and during their marriage so I can't understand a previous poster feeling sorry for him). She went out with Charles originally to make Andrew jealousy She was in love with Andrew and had no desire to be the Princess of Wales. She wanted a quiet family life in the country rather than all the attention and pressure of Royal life. This is all well known yet people keep saying he should have married her originally as though Charles was Henry VIII at court who would choose a new bride and she would have no say in it.

As someone who wasn't around at the time, I have to say that recollections may vary about why Charles and Camilla didn't marry initially. People say that it was because he didn't ask her, or he wasn't allowed because she wasn't considered posh, pure or pretty enough, or she didn't want to, or she did but then married Parker-Bowles on the rebound and so on.

This shows Penny Junor's version rather The Crown's reinterpretation https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a29698265/camilla-shand-andrew-parker-bowles-the-crown/

@LondonJax Whereas Meghan (another divorcee) and Harry got married in church in Windsor in 2018.

Times change. If they didn't we'd have watch Harry and Meghan having a blessing instead of a wedding in Windsor.

The difference with H+M, is that Meghan had never been married in a CoE service. She had not been married before in the eyes of the church (and thus God). As she had not been married in the eyes of the church (and God), they didn't recognise her divorce as dissolution of a marriage.

The others (Anne and Charles) had been married in a CoE service, so couldn't get a second one after divorce. That is why the CofE could only offer to bestow a blessing. Although Anne did get a wedding via Church of Scotland. And, C+C's had to do registry before availing of the blessing. although Charlie's blessing had the feeling of a church wedding

Henry viii's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was ended through annullment, rather than divorce. That is why he liked Cranmer, as Cranmer willing to do what Henry wanted. This is important and it means the church stated his first marriage was never valid. So Henry boy free to marry again 'for the first time' with Anne Boleyn.
Ecclestiastical political machinations. Duck and dive, slight of hand.

sleight, rather than slight.

I don’t think she should be Queen either tbh.

Yes, Henry VIII, despite any rhymes you may have learned in primary school, was never divorced. His first, second and fourth marriages were annulled so in the eyes of the C of E he was only married three times. Slightly surprising that the marriage to Catherine Howard wasn't annulled.

I can't believe you actually believe that. Ridiculous.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

CofE does allow second marriages in church for the past 2 decades... Since 2002. It's at the discretion of the vicar - some may not want to, or may allow it if satisfied that the couple are a long term prospect.

It makes no difference whether the first wedding was a church wedding or not.

I know how you all feel. I don’t think Rishi Sunak should be called “Prime Minister” after Boris who was the last true, democratically voted actual Prime Minister.

Did you know Diana personally?

She did a lot for AIDS victims and landmine victims. I think she would have been really interesting to talk to.

I don't know much about Camilla - but you don't have to choose one or the other. Also...never speak ill of the dead.

Don’t have a problem with it. Or are you saying the partners of all second marriages and blended families should not be treated equally?

What power has she really got anyway. You can just not listen and job done. 🤷‍♀️

Erm of course they are not worthy of being on a pedestal. No one is and the whole lot should be got rid of in my view.

But that's nothing got do with them having step children.