Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 07:52 am
http://www.sky.com/skynews/home

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1170528,00.html


http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1274374.jpg

Quote:

Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles are to marry.

Clarence House has confirmed reports they will wed, with the rumoured date April 6 in Windsor.

The 56-year-old heir to the throne and his long-term partner will marry in St George's Chapel.

Charles divorced the late Diana, Princess of Wales in 1996. She died the following year.

The Prince has in recent years given Camilla a more prominent public role, frequently taking her to official engagements.

But she has no official royal position and at engagements they were sometimes seated apart.

They first met at a polo match in Windsor, Berkshire, in 1970.

Their marriage will raise the issue of how she will be addressed, the possible options Princess of Wales or even, when Charles becomes King, Queen Camilla.

Royal commentator Jennie Bond told Sky News: "It's brilliant news. I've long said they should get on with this."



Shows a bit more class than having a 55-year-old president porking teenage interns, doesn't it?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,247 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 11:48 am
Teenage?

And, of course it's just gossip but it's always been said that Charles and Camilla carried on their affair while both were married to others so, classy you say? Nah. Cheap and sordid like all the rest. Laughing
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 03:27 pm
eoe wrote:
Teenage?

And, of course it's just gossip but it's always been said that Charles and Camilla carried on their affair while both were married to others...



Like you say, that's just gossip.

In the case of Slick Clinton on the other hand, we had documented proof, didn't we?
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 03:40 pm
Monica Lewinsky was hardly a teenager.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 03:42 pm
Prince Charles has been in love with Camilla for 35 years. He should have married Camilla in the first place. Unfortunately, he needed a sweet little virgin wife with blue-blood to produce royal sons for the sake of the royal family. He used Diana as a brood mare and put her through HELL.

Oh well. So long as Prince Charles still has the woman he loves -- and two blue-blood sons (thanks to Diana) -- and Diana is DEAD (and no longer an impediment to the royal image) -- the HEIR to the crown is happy and all is well in England.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 11:53 pm
Except for that sticky part about an admitted adulterer being the head of the Church of England one day.....
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 11:59 pm
That's exactly right Debra. He used Diana to produce
his offspring, otherwise he made her life a living hell.

Eva, he won't be ever Kind of England. His son William
will, but not Charles.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:10 am
And justice will prevail.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:23 am
CalamityJane wrote:
Eva, he won't be ever Kind of England. His son William
will, but not Charles.


Let's hope.

I never thought he'd have the audacity to marry whatzerface after admitting he cheated on his wife with her. Nor did I believe the Queen would ever approve of it. But both HAVE happened, so now I'm wondering if it's that big a jump from here to making him King. <shaking head>
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 12:26 am
Frankly, I think the Queen made a deal with Charles.
He gets to marry Camilla and in turn gives up his right
to the thron.

Queen Elisabeth runs a tight shift and I don't think
Charles would have married Camilla against his Mother's
wishes.
0 Replies
 
Krysia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:20 pm
I don't know too much about the Royals. My Scottish best friend always complains about them, though. According to him, they are just media whores, and it's not like they have much real power, anyway, so he doesn't get why everyone cares so much. As for me, I think it's kind of weird that he'd marry the woman whom his first wife blamed in part for the destruction of their marriage. But if they loved each other all that time, even through 1st marriages, then bless 'em. At least they're happy. I'm also satisfied that she'll never be "Queen" of England, but just "Princess consort" (although "consort" is kind of an iffy word.. reminds me of "escort" and "concubine" mixed!) . I think there would have been much drama if she ever got the title "Queen".
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:24 pm
Prince Albert (Queen Victoria's husband) was Prince Consort, so there'a a precedent for this nomenclature. She will also have various other titles, based on Charles' titles, but the names all escape me.

Whatever. Despite the basis for this thread (an idiotic attempt to attack Clinton again), it's nice to see some recognition of the event here...
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 05:21 pm
Ditto. I can't deny my fascination with The Royals. I was just a toddler but vaguely remember seeing Queen Elizabeth during her tour of the States in the mid/late-50's. My mother was a big fan of all things royal so at least I got it honestly.
0 Replies
 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 05:34 pm
I could have a field day with that article and those two.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 05:40 pm
Whaddaya mean?
0 Replies
 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 05:42 pm
The Royal family have had quite a go of it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Royal Wedding
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 02:33:38