Camilla Parker Bowles
Diana etc
Well, JTD! I don't want to start an edit war, so let's hold the debate here. What I wrote was correct. I assume you didn't see the recent documentary, but the sources for the statement that Charles and Camilla were...um...intimate throughout his engagement to Diana and right up to the last few days before the Royal Wedding are impeccable. So your statement about their relationship being "rekindled" is ambiguous. It was actually rekindled twice, once after Camilla got married but before Charles did, and again after Charles and Diana fell out. In the ten years or so between, they were "just good friends". As for Diana and Camilla ever having been on friendly terms, that's questionable. It's true that Charles introduced them, intending them to become friends, but it seems unlikely that they were more than social acquaintances, even before Diana found out what was going on. Nextel ringtones Deb/Deb 21:37, 4 Aug 2003
The claim about Chas and Cam in the immediate run-up to his wedding is dodgy. Their 'night together' before the wedding involved sitting in a room chatting with people walking in and out (friends, staff, etc) every couple of minutes. Unless they had the ultimate quickie they could ''not'' have done anything. One member of the Prince's staff, who entered the room constantly said the conversation was an 'end of an era', 'do you remember the time . . . ? type conversation that didn't remotely suggest an ongoing affair, merely two friends, one of whose lives was about to change for ever with his marriage. Other suggested liaisons are similarly unreliable. I have seen no credible sources, merely people who certainly don't meet encyclopædic standards of credibility. As for Di and Cam being friendly, apparently they were throughout the engagement and for a couple of months, perhaps as long as a year, into the marriage, with a suggestion from Diana's dressmaker that Diana may even had asked Camilla for advice on her wedding outfits. So that suggests more than social acquaintances.
The article reflected a belief in Diana's interpretation of events and failed to point out that Camilla and Andrew's marriage was effectively over by the 1980s as her husband had a longterm mistress whom he eventually married. The suggestion that the Chas and Cam affair broke up two healthy marriages is distinctly POV. Both were in unhappy marriages with difficult spouses. Both bitterly regretted not marrying when they had the chance. Camilla thought that Charles, by not asking her to marry him before going off for a long stint abroad with the navy meant that marriage was off the cards. He was hesitant because, as he said himself, he was conscious that he was also choosing the next queen. If it was just him personally marrying he would have asked her, but he decided to wait to make sure he felt the same way when he came back because, ironically in the circumstances, he felt he could not afford to get it wrong. When he came back Camilla was engaged to someone else, and realised almost as soon as she had married Andrew that it was a monstrous mistake, by which time it was too late. And their divorce when Charles talked of the affair wasn't because Andrew suddenly had found out; he had known all the time and wasn't put out about it, he had his own lady friends to entertain. It just gave them the chance to end the charade; she to be with the person she had always loved, he to marry the woman he had in reality been with for years.
I know someone who knew both Charles and Diana (he worked as a diplomat in London in the 1980s) and he found Diana difficult in the extreme. He'd get warnings if he was going to an engagement from a member of her staff he knew over the phone before he set off: 'madame is in a mood'. She fell out with every single person who worked for her; she sacked every one of her personal staff, her PR agent when asked by a journalist about her hissing "I never want to work with someone like that again." (It was off the record, but the journalist in question I went to college with and he told me the story recently. On the record comments would be of the ''poor Diana'' variety, off the record they would be off the ''bitch from hell'' type.) She fell out with Elton John, who had no idea why. By the time of her death she was not on speaking terms with her mother, brother and one of her sisters. At the time of her father's death she had not been on speaking terms with him. She fell out with John Major who tried to look after her interests, her lawyers in the divorce case, the doctor she was seeing after the marriage who accused her of trying to trick him into marriage by secretly visiting his family and telling them they were engaged, even some of the journalists who she had used to plant stories. Even the dim-witted James Hewitt couldn't cope with her, while she almost wrecked James Gilbey's marriage and got herself very nearly prosecuted for more incidents than are publicly known about.
One thing I always do when reading a book is first of all check some fact I ''know'' for sure. If they have that fact right, I trust the book 60%. If they get that basic fact I know wrong, I bin the book unread. In the case of the Charles/Diana/Camilla mess, I know 5 people who knew all three pretty well; a diplomat, an academic and three journalists. All five reported the same experience. Two people who were madly in love, stuck in unhappy marriages and bitterly regretting not marrying when they got the chance; Charles and Camilla. And Diana, whom they found one of the most complex human beings they ever came across; genuinely nice, yet an absolute tempermental nightmare, a paranoid fantasist who destroyed almost every relationship she ever had with her mood swings, more often than not leaving the person she had broken off relations with completely puzzled as to the reason. All five said what amazed them was not that the marriage broke up but that Charles stuck it for so long. Most people with a spouse as difficult would have divorced in a year. Three incidents come to mind. Charles asked to play a cello at a public function (to his embarrassment), so Diana upstages him by getting the eye of a Sun photographer and raising her skirt high enough to ensure that the cameras focused on her rather than her husband. Charles again asked to play the cello, so again to upstage him she pushes past the organisers of the function and to Charles' embarrassment, the organisers' embarrassment, and even the embarrassment of the media there, beginning to play the piano ''very loudly'' to drown him out. And Diana, throwing a tantrum because he was going to play polo, demanding to be brought even though she hated the sport. He agreed, brought her, came back straight to ''directly'' after the game to find that she had been bored silly. Her response was to scrape his face and kick him in the shins so bad he needed an x-ray. But with blood on his face and hobbling he went over to astonished journalists who had witnessed the event and ''pleaded'' with them not to write about it, how Diana was stressed and how any coverage of the event would be traumatic for her, given that she devoted one hour every morning to reading every word written about her. They didn't for over a decade. All these incidents happened ''long'' before he and Camilla got together again. In the circumstances are you surprised he ended up with the quiet supportive funny Camilla rather than the shin-kicking, face-scraping tempermental Diana and her long list of ex-friends and even longer list of ex-employees? :-) Abbey Diaz Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN 23:42, 4 Aug 2003
:What a very ''very'' non-NPOV interpretation of the events. I'm surprised at you (actually, I'm not really, and I can see how you got there). Diana's character or the state of her marriage to Charles is quite irrelevant to the facts (but you should bear in mind that she was 19, and her character completely unformed, when she became engaged to him). It is now ''known'' that Camilla was the woman who boarded the royal train and spent the night there while the press were still speculating on the possibility of Charles and Diana becoming engaged. It is also known that, after the "final" meeting which you describe above, Camilla made a public show of saying goodnight to Charles, then they spent the night together elsewhere. Camilla and Andrew had an open marriage, and both of them had affairs. These facts are as indisputable as the fact that Diana had affairs with other men. I'm now going to go and render the article more NPOV. Mosquito ringtone Deb/Deb 18:19, 5 Aug 2003
Good rewrite. As you have may have guessed, I'm not a fan of the ''Diana as martyr, Charles as villan'' school of analysis. From what I have heard from people who knew them, both were genuinely good people with mucked up childhoods, both with low self-esteem who needed the companionship of someone who could be 100% supportive, and both were utterly and completely incompatible. Two 'normal' people in that sort of relationship would have had difficulty making a marriage work. But their marriage had no chance because of the incompatibility of their personalities and all the external pressures on them; large periods where their work would keep them away from each other, a rigidly organised life, media intrusion, surrounded by 'his' and 'hers' staff, well really 'hers' and 'hers' as Diana sacked all of Charles' staff one by one, then sacked her own; one poor man with 30 years service was supposedly sacked at 3am!, gotten up out of bed by a screaming Diana who imagined that he was 'one of the enemy' who didn't just want him sacking but for him and his family to move out of their grace and favour apartment ''immediately'', at 3am! Charles is supposed with the help of another staff member to have carried her back to their apartment, kicking and screaming. The next morning Charles consulted a psychiatrist and asked whether his wife needed his serious help. The story never got out and the sacked staff member has been offer blank cheques from the tabloids but won't tell his story. I only heard it from the diplomat who heard it from a friend who worked for C&D and who said simply "Madame is mad. She desparately needs help how can she get it with all the media watching?" Apparently the final breakdown in the marriage followed the birth of Prince Harry. Charles joked that the baby had the red hair of the Spencers and the chubby fingers of the Windsors, and said he wished he had had the hair of the Windsors and the fingers of the Spencers. (Charles hates his chubby fingers!) She took it as a personal slight and never forgave Charles, saying she knew them her marriage was over!!! Those staff who hadn't been sacked left, finding Diana now impossible. Charles turned to Camilla as the one person he felt emotionally on the same wavelength on, leaned on her for support and that led to a resumption of their sexual relationship.
The curious thing about Charles and Diana is that neither realised how good they were at their job. Diana, in a classic case of clinical depression, negatised everything around her, saw her own mistakes and magnified them out of all proportion, then imagined everyone was against her, hence the sacking of staff, the breakdown in the relationship with the Queen (who apparently did far more than was realised to try to get close to her but gave up in the end) and her paranoia about Charles' friends, not just Camilla. Charles continually thinks of himself negatively; on an official visit to Ireland some years ago he thought he performed "adequately". Not in the eyes of Irish politicians who met him; having read media reports and been prepared for a difficult, slightly loopy character we wowed them with his slick professionalism in the job. One senior minister at the time told me "god but that man is good." He charmed the Irish media, delivered a ''personally'' researched and written speech on anglo-Irish relations, rather than the Foreign Office draft, that highly impressed people, etc. When he left Irish leaders described him as one of the most impressive foreign visitors ever to visit Ireland, not least because they found him very well briefed and in contrast to most official visitors, not putting on an act but genuinely interested and clearly trying to do the right thing. In fact most felt sorry for him. The British press sent journalists to cover the visit not to report what he did or said, or the favourable impression he made, but simply to be there in case he was pelted with eggs or assassinated! They openly said it. It must be horrendous as a human being to find that people from your own country are watching you not to see you do a good job but to watch out for a mistake or to see will someone kill you! I know if I was in that position, I'd tell them to fuck off, quit the job and try to live a normal life somewhere else. But he feels that it is his duty to keep doing the job inspite of the 'assassination watch' around him. It is not a life I would like to have. As a result I don't blame him for a relationship with the one human being he found a bond with, someone already in a marriage over in all but name, the person whom he regards as his soulmate. Everyone deserves that at least. Here endeth the Lesson. :-) wikilove, Sabrina Martins Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN 20:02, 5 Aug 2003
:Wow! I have no fondness for the Royal family at all, I think it's a dozy institution and Nextel ringtones republicanism/we should grow up and scrap it. I avoid reading newspaper stories about the Royals. But, blimey, I'm glad I read that lot. Thanks for that extraordinary insight. Truly, horribly marvellous. Abbey Diaz Bodnotbod/bodnotbod 08:41, Feb 13, 2005
Parker Bowles is not Parker-Bowles, then?=
And references to "Parker Bowles" always refer to '''Mr''' Parker Bowles. The misuse gives an unintentional "gay" subtext, that's humorous but distracting. Affectations of familiarity do need to be correct. "Camilla" would do, if "Mrs Parker Bowles" just won't. ...I inserted a reference to Thomas Cubitt, who is not utterly unknown... Mosquito ringtone Wetman/Wetman 01:58, 16 Oct 2004
Scotland & legal matters
Her title will be HRH the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. In order for her ''not'' to become Sabrina Martins Princess of Wales doesn't the Queen need to issue new Letters Patent? And isn't an Act of Parliament needed to prevent her from becoming Queen-consort.
:An Act of Parliament would be needed for both. (Well, there's a slight chance that she could be '''styled''' ''HRH The Duchess of Cornwall'' with Letters Patent, but an Act of Parliament would definitely be needed to stop her actually '''being''' ''HRH The Princess of Wales''.) As to her style in Scotland, I'm not sure what it would be even without all this nonsense Clarence House is putting out. The Prince of Wales, of course, is ''HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay'', but ''HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Rothesay'' seems unlikely. Anyway, he's only really styled that because it was the style of the heir to the Throne of Scotland, and as the Princess of Wales (which she will be, short of Tony Blair taking Parliamentary time to pass a law to say otherwise) will not be heir to the Throne of Scotland normal rules should really apply (the Duke of York, for instance, isn't called "HRH The Earl of Inverness" in Scotland). Nextel ringtones Proteus/Proteus Abbey Diaz User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 18:43, 10 Feb 2005
::Unopposed Acts of Parliament don't take very long at all though (and I can't imagine this would be opposed in any significant way). It would surely just be a one-line Bill (something like "On her marriage to Prince Charles, Camilla Parker Bowles can not take the title 'Princess of Wales', or Queen Consort on his ascent to the throne), and they then have the Second Reading, no speakers beyond the actual reading, Speaker calls for a (verbal) vote, which takes less than a minute (they literally just shout "Aye" or "Nay" when prompted) the Ayes Have It, go to the Lords, same again (except it would be Contents and Non-Contents, not Ayes or Nays), and once more for the Third Reading, run round to Buckingham Palace, it could be an Act in three or four hours, taking up less than an hour total of Parliamentary time. Cingular Ringtones SoM/SoM 19:52, 10 Feb 2005
::The whole thing's really weird, but I've got a feeling that Camilla's title is just a question of what Buckingham Palace decides. I think the act of Parliament, if it had been needed at all, would have been needed to allow them to ''marry'', not to decide which title she takes. They seem to be considering legislation purely for reasons to do with the Civil List. desperately searching Deb/Deb 23:05, 11 Feb 2005
::The Prince of Wales's previous wife was known as the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland (I could hardly imagine using awkward forms such as "Their Royal Highnesses The Duke of Rothesay and The Princess of Wales"), so I presume that the same would apply to Parker Bowles. sabah surround Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 23:31, 11 Feb 2005
There is no need for an Act of Parliament to allow them to marry. Afterall Parliament would be pretty busy if they needed to pass legislation any time a person in the line of succession decided to marry. In any case, Charles is a citizen of the UK, and free to marry without Parliament meddling in his affairs. The UK government could have advised the Queen against giving permission under the Royal Marriage Act, but there is doubt over whether the Act can be enforced (eg against human rights legislation) or counterfeit Astrotrain/Astrotrain 15:14, Feb 12, 2005
:It's not about being in the line of succession. It's about being the heir to the throne and about being the future head of the Church of England. hours nursing Deb/Deb 15:56, 13 Feb 2005
the Commonwealth
Would she still become Queen of the gear to Commonwealth Realms? Do any of their governments need to give their consent? Didn't Canada's privy council assemble to approve Charles's marriage to Diana? (mass commitment Alphaboi867/Alphaboi867 19:12, 10 Feb 2005 )
* British royality do not need the permission of the Commonwealth realms to marry, because they are not citizens of those countries, therefore not subject to their laws and regulations. Camilla will automatically become Queen consort of the realms to which Charles becomes King upon his accession. They can of course pass laws preventing this, but I imagine that a unified Commonwealth position would be set. I would guess that the UK Parliament would pass the necessary legislation for Camilla to become a ''Princess Consort'', and that the other realms would give permission for the laws to be applicable in their own lands, under provisions in the society as Statute of Westminster 1931 character actress Astrotrain/Astrotrain 22:11, Feb 10, 2005
** I should have been more clear. Does the Queen act on the advice of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth Realms on whether or not to give her permission under the Royal Marriages Act. She does act on the British PMs adivce. And a Queen-consort's style make no mention of a realm ie ''Her Majesty, Queen May''. Prince Phillip is only a prince of the UK, not Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. There hasn't been a female royal consort since seperate styles for each realm were intrduced. Are Queens-consort ''of'' a specfic country or ''to'' their husband? The UK parliament does need to pass a law to preven her from becoming Queen, but I don't think the Commonwealth Realms' parliaments need to do anything unless the they decide to exclude any children that may result from the union from the line of succesion (I know how unlikely it sounds). The confusion over the others conspired Lady Louise Windsor's style won't compare to the one over Camilla's unless the British government introduces new laws. (seventh commandment Alphaboi867/Alphaboi867 23:34, 10 Feb 2005 )
***Both critic ward Mary of Teck/Queen Mary and way holding Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother/Queen Elizabeth were Queen consorts after the division of the crown. Both were styled Queen in the Commonwealth realms. Under the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Commonwealth realms would not pass individual laws on the line of succession. The only ever case when the line of succession has been changed since the Act of Settlement was colson says His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 which allowed the abdication of Edward VIII. That Act was passed by the UK Parliament, and the realms gave permission for the Act to be applicable in their lands (except Ireland, which passed its own law). I would imagine that the Queen informed the realms of Charles decision to marry Camilla, but would ask Tony Blair's advice on the Royal Marriages Act, as this is a UK law, and not related to the line of succession. the triadic Astrotrain/Astrotrain 15:09, Feb 12, 2005
Catholicism
a couple of interesting links:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/world/10869600.htm which says "Parker Bowles, a Roman Catholic, also is divorced."
and http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050211brien.shtml which says "were [Camilla] Parker-Bowles a Catholic, the Prince of Wales would, by marrying her, automatically lose his right to accede to the throne"
so i figured i'd come here and find out whether she is or isn't, and the consequences for the inheritance of the throne, but i couldn't find any mention of her religion on this page. anyone know what the facts are? will the 1701 act of settlement be repealed?
additional: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/10/ureaction.xml says "Her previous husband was Catholic, but she was never Catholic." Is this where the confusion is coming from?
:Yes. She isn't Catholic; her former husband is. promotions from Proteus/Proteus aim more User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 11:06, 12 Feb 2005
:I just made an edit that could be controvercial - that she won't be called Queen because someone who has married a Catholic can't be on the throne. I'm not 100% on this. agents tony PhilHibbs/ — was legal User:PhilHibbs/PhilHibbs / suits standing User talk:PhilHibbs/talk 12:36, 14 Feb 2005
::She isn't covered because a consort is not the sovereign. She isn't in the line of succession, so she isn't covered by the Act of Settlement bit complicated Astrotrain/Astrotrain 19:33, Feb 15, 2005
The Catholicism issue is critical (no matter how abhorent) to Prince Charles' succession as the Act of Settlement 1701 is very clear on this matter and hence the question as to whether Camilla Parket-Bowles ne Shand is Catholic should be tested. So, is it possible to clarify where she was formerly married, what type of marriage ceremony was conducted, and whether she ever took Catholic communion?
Article title
After the 8th of April, what would the title of the article be? "Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall" seems ridiculously obscure, while "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" suggests that she has divorced her royal husband. "Camilla Parker Bowles" would, similarly, be incorrect, as she would no longer have the surname Parker Bowles. Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 19:52, 12 Feb 2005
* I guess a new article should be created with her offical full title/name and everything else (including this page) should forward to it. I dunno if the is wiki-precedent for this type of thing, I'm sure there must be. User:Adamjbc/Adam 19:56 GMT, 12 Feb 2005
It should be at "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" Jguk/jguk 20:30, 12 Feb 2005
:Indeed. We have Sophie, Countess of Wessex as a precedent. (And thanks to our helpful Royalty intro format, we can quite happily write "Her Royal Highness '''The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales''' (Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor, née Shand, formerly Parker Bowles) (born 17 July 1947), styled '''''HRH The Duchess of Cornwall''''', is..." :-) ) Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 20:44, 12 Feb 2005
::Let's just hope Charles never ascends the throne, otherwise we'll have to have that debate again. Precedent dictates that she will have to go back to either "Camilla Parker Bowles" or "Camilla Shand" once she becomes a consort. Deb/Deb 15:53, 13 Feb 2005
:::Naming conventions (names and titles) would seem to suggest that, as an existing Queen Consort, she should switch to Camilla of the United Kingdom, only going back to Camilla Parker Bowles after her death. Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 16:16, 13 Feb 2005
::::Camilla, Princess Consort would be more in line with her wishes - and consistent with Anne, Princess Royal. However, God willing, the Queen will continue to enjoy good health, so that this question does not arise for real for many years, Jguk/jguk 18:01, 13 Feb 2005
She won't be "The Princess Charles" any more than Diana was. Camilla, Princess of Wales known as the Duchess of Cornwall. AndyL/AndyL 04:26, 14 Feb 2005
:Since Diana ''was'' "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" during her marriage, I fail to see what you're getting at here. Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 08:15, 14 Feb 2005
We're really jumping the gun here. She is NOT the Duchess of Cornwall until they marry. I'm going to rever the title. When she becomes invested with the title, THEN move her here. RickK/RickUser talk:RickK/K 05:21, Feb 14, 2005
Jumping the gun!
Will people please stop moving this page to ''Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall'' and refering to her as ''Her Royal Highness'' in the opening paragraph! She isn't married yet. Untill April 8 she's just plain Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles. While it's true that barring some catastrophe she will marry, Wikipedia doesn't predict the future. Either Charles or her could die before the wedding, preventing her from ever holding the title. And she should not be list on the Royal familly template either. (Alphaboi867/Alphaboi867 05:28, 14 Feb 2005 )
Well, JTD! I don't want to start an edit war, so let's hold the debate here. What I wrote was correct. I assume you didn't see the recent documentary, but the sources for the statement that Charles and Camilla were...um...intimate throughout his engagement to Diana and right up to the last few days before the Royal Wedding are impeccable. So your statement about their relationship being "rekindled" is ambiguous. It was actually rekindled twice, once after Camilla got married but before Charles did, and again after Charles and Diana fell out. In the ten years or so between, they were "just good friends". As for Diana and Camilla ever having been on friendly terms, that's questionable. It's true that Charles introduced them, intending them to become friends, but it seems unlikely that they were more than social acquaintances, even before Diana found out what was going on. Nextel ringtones Deb/Deb 21:37, 4 Aug 2003
The claim about Chas and Cam in the immediate run-up to his wedding is dodgy. Their 'night together' before the wedding involved sitting in a room chatting with people walking in and out (friends, staff, etc) every couple of minutes. Unless they had the ultimate quickie they could ''not'' have done anything. One member of the Prince's staff, who entered the room constantly said the conversation was an 'end of an era', 'do you remember the time . . . ? type conversation that didn't remotely suggest an ongoing affair, merely two friends, one of whose lives was about to change for ever with his marriage. Other suggested liaisons are similarly unreliable. I have seen no credible sources, merely people who certainly don't meet encyclopædic standards of credibility. As for Di and Cam being friendly, apparently they were throughout the engagement and for a couple of months, perhaps as long as a year, into the marriage, with a suggestion from Diana's dressmaker that Diana may even had asked Camilla for advice on her wedding outfits. So that suggests more than social acquaintances.
The article reflected a belief in Diana's interpretation of events and failed to point out that Camilla and Andrew's marriage was effectively over by the 1980s as her husband had a longterm mistress whom he eventually married. The suggestion that the Chas and Cam affair broke up two healthy marriages is distinctly POV. Both were in unhappy marriages with difficult spouses. Both bitterly regretted not marrying when they had the chance. Camilla thought that Charles, by not asking her to marry him before going off for a long stint abroad with the navy meant that marriage was off the cards. He was hesitant because, as he said himself, he was conscious that he was also choosing the next queen. If it was just him personally marrying he would have asked her, but he decided to wait to make sure he felt the same way when he came back because, ironically in the circumstances, he felt he could not afford to get it wrong. When he came back Camilla was engaged to someone else, and realised almost as soon as she had married Andrew that it was a monstrous mistake, by which time it was too late. And their divorce when Charles talked of the affair wasn't because Andrew suddenly had found out; he had known all the time and wasn't put out about it, he had his own lady friends to entertain. It just gave them the chance to end the charade; she to be with the person she had always loved, he to marry the woman he had in reality been with for years.
I know someone who knew both Charles and Diana (he worked as a diplomat in London in the 1980s) and he found Diana difficult in the extreme. He'd get warnings if he was going to an engagement from a member of her staff he knew over the phone before he set off: 'madame is in a mood'. She fell out with every single person who worked for her; she sacked every one of her personal staff, her PR agent when asked by a journalist about her hissing "I never want to work with someone like that again." (It was off the record, but the journalist in question I went to college with and he told me the story recently. On the record comments would be of the ''poor Diana'' variety, off the record they would be off the ''bitch from hell'' type.) She fell out with Elton John, who had no idea why. By the time of her death she was not on speaking terms with her mother, brother and one of her sisters. At the time of her father's death she had not been on speaking terms with him. She fell out with John Major who tried to look after her interests, her lawyers in the divorce case, the doctor she was seeing after the marriage who accused her of trying to trick him into marriage by secretly visiting his family and telling them they were engaged, even some of the journalists who she had used to plant stories. Even the dim-witted James Hewitt couldn't cope with her, while she almost wrecked James Gilbey's marriage and got herself very nearly prosecuted for more incidents than are publicly known about.
One thing I always do when reading a book is first of all check some fact I ''know'' for sure. If they have that fact right, I trust the book 60%. If they get that basic fact I know wrong, I bin the book unread. In the case of the Charles/Diana/Camilla mess, I know 5 people who knew all three pretty well; a diplomat, an academic and three journalists. All five reported the same experience. Two people who were madly in love, stuck in unhappy marriages and bitterly regretting not marrying when they got the chance; Charles and Camilla. And Diana, whom they found one of the most complex human beings they ever came across; genuinely nice, yet an absolute tempermental nightmare, a paranoid fantasist who destroyed almost every relationship she ever had with her mood swings, more often than not leaving the person she had broken off relations with completely puzzled as to the reason. All five said what amazed them was not that the marriage broke up but that Charles stuck it for so long. Most people with a spouse as difficult would have divorced in a year. Three incidents come to mind. Charles asked to play a cello at a public function (to his embarrassment), so Diana upstages him by getting the eye of a Sun photographer and raising her skirt high enough to ensure that the cameras focused on her rather than her husband. Charles again asked to play the cello, so again to upstage him she pushes past the organisers of the function and to Charles' embarrassment, the organisers' embarrassment, and even the embarrassment of the media there, beginning to play the piano ''very loudly'' to drown him out. And Diana, throwing a tantrum because he was going to play polo, demanding to be brought even though she hated the sport. He agreed, brought her, came back straight to ''directly'' after the game to find that she had been bored silly. Her response was to scrape his face and kick him in the shins so bad he needed an x-ray. But with blood on his face and hobbling he went over to astonished journalists who had witnessed the event and ''pleaded'' with them not to write about it, how Diana was stressed and how any coverage of the event would be traumatic for her, given that she devoted one hour every morning to reading every word written about her. They didn't for over a decade. All these incidents happened ''long'' before he and Camilla got together again. In the circumstances are you surprised he ended up with the quiet supportive funny Camilla rather than the shin-kicking, face-scraping tempermental Diana and her long list of ex-friends and even longer list of ex-employees? :-) Abbey Diaz Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN 23:42, 4 Aug 2003
:What a very ''very'' non-NPOV interpretation of the events. I'm surprised at you (actually, I'm not really, and I can see how you got there). Diana's character or the state of her marriage to Charles is quite irrelevant to the facts (but you should bear in mind that she was 19, and her character completely unformed, when she became engaged to him). It is now ''known'' that Camilla was the woman who boarded the royal train and spent the night there while the press were still speculating on the possibility of Charles and Diana becoming engaged. It is also known that, after the "final" meeting which you describe above, Camilla made a public show of saying goodnight to Charles, then they spent the night together elsewhere. Camilla and Andrew had an open marriage, and both of them had affairs. These facts are as indisputable as the fact that Diana had affairs with other men. I'm now going to go and render the article more NPOV. Mosquito ringtone Deb/Deb 18:19, 5 Aug 2003
Good rewrite. As you have may have guessed, I'm not a fan of the ''Diana as martyr, Charles as villan'' school of analysis. From what I have heard from people who knew them, both were genuinely good people with mucked up childhoods, both with low self-esteem who needed the companionship of someone who could be 100% supportive, and both were utterly and completely incompatible. Two 'normal' people in that sort of relationship would have had difficulty making a marriage work. But their marriage had no chance because of the incompatibility of their personalities and all the external pressures on them; large periods where their work would keep them away from each other, a rigidly organised life, media intrusion, surrounded by 'his' and 'hers' staff, well really 'hers' and 'hers' as Diana sacked all of Charles' staff one by one, then sacked her own; one poor man with 30 years service was supposedly sacked at 3am!, gotten up out of bed by a screaming Diana who imagined that he was 'one of the enemy' who didn't just want him sacking but for him and his family to move out of their grace and favour apartment ''immediately'', at 3am! Charles is supposed with the help of another staff member to have carried her back to their apartment, kicking and screaming. The next morning Charles consulted a psychiatrist and asked whether his wife needed his serious help. The story never got out and the sacked staff member has been offer blank cheques from the tabloids but won't tell his story. I only heard it from the diplomat who heard it from a friend who worked for C&D and who said simply "Madame is mad. She desparately needs help how can she get it with all the media watching?" Apparently the final breakdown in the marriage followed the birth of Prince Harry. Charles joked that the baby had the red hair of the Spencers and the chubby fingers of the Windsors, and said he wished he had had the hair of the Windsors and the fingers of the Spencers. (Charles hates his chubby fingers!) She took it as a personal slight and never forgave Charles, saying she knew them her marriage was over!!! Those staff who hadn't been sacked left, finding Diana now impossible. Charles turned to Camilla as the one person he felt emotionally on the same wavelength on, leaned on her for support and that led to a resumption of their sexual relationship.
The curious thing about Charles and Diana is that neither realised how good they were at their job. Diana, in a classic case of clinical depression, negatised everything around her, saw her own mistakes and magnified them out of all proportion, then imagined everyone was against her, hence the sacking of staff, the breakdown in the relationship with the Queen (who apparently did far more than was realised to try to get close to her but gave up in the end) and her paranoia about Charles' friends, not just Camilla. Charles continually thinks of himself negatively; on an official visit to Ireland some years ago he thought he performed "adequately". Not in the eyes of Irish politicians who met him; having read media reports and been prepared for a difficult, slightly loopy character we wowed them with his slick professionalism in the job. One senior minister at the time told me "god but that man is good." He charmed the Irish media, delivered a ''personally'' researched and written speech on anglo-Irish relations, rather than the Foreign Office draft, that highly impressed people, etc. When he left Irish leaders described him as one of the most impressive foreign visitors ever to visit Ireland, not least because they found him very well briefed and in contrast to most official visitors, not putting on an act but genuinely interested and clearly trying to do the right thing. In fact most felt sorry for him. The British press sent journalists to cover the visit not to report what he did or said, or the favourable impression he made, but simply to be there in case he was pelted with eggs or assassinated! They openly said it. It must be horrendous as a human being to find that people from your own country are watching you not to see you do a good job but to watch out for a mistake or to see will someone kill you! I know if I was in that position, I'd tell them to fuck off, quit the job and try to live a normal life somewhere else. But he feels that it is his duty to keep doing the job inspite of the 'assassination watch' around him. It is not a life I would like to have. As a result I don't blame him for a relationship with the one human being he found a bond with, someone already in a marriage over in all but name, the person whom he regards as his soulmate. Everyone deserves that at least. Here endeth the Lesson. :-) wikilove, Sabrina Martins Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN 20:02, 5 Aug 2003
:Wow! I have no fondness for the Royal family at all, I think it's a dozy institution and Nextel ringtones republicanism/we should grow up and scrap it. I avoid reading newspaper stories about the Royals. But, blimey, I'm glad I read that lot. Thanks for that extraordinary insight. Truly, horribly marvellous. Abbey Diaz Bodnotbod/bodnotbod 08:41, Feb 13, 2005
Parker Bowles is not Parker-Bowles, then?=
And references to "Parker Bowles" always refer to '''Mr''' Parker Bowles. The misuse gives an unintentional "gay" subtext, that's humorous but distracting. Affectations of familiarity do need to be correct. "Camilla" would do, if "Mrs Parker Bowles" just won't. ...I inserted a reference to Thomas Cubitt, who is not utterly unknown... Mosquito ringtone Wetman/Wetman 01:58, 16 Oct 2004
Scotland & legal matters
Her title will be HRH the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. In order for her ''not'' to become Sabrina Martins Princess of Wales doesn't the Queen need to issue new Letters Patent? And isn't an Act of Parliament needed to prevent her from becoming Queen-consort.
:An Act of Parliament would be needed for both. (Well, there's a slight chance that she could be '''styled''' ''HRH The Duchess of Cornwall'' with Letters Patent, but an Act of Parliament would definitely be needed to stop her actually '''being''' ''HRH The Princess of Wales''.) As to her style in Scotland, I'm not sure what it would be even without all this nonsense Clarence House is putting out. The Prince of Wales, of course, is ''HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay'', but ''HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Rothesay'' seems unlikely. Anyway, he's only really styled that because it was the style of the heir to the Throne of Scotland, and as the Princess of Wales (which she will be, short of Tony Blair taking Parliamentary time to pass a law to say otherwise) will not be heir to the Throne of Scotland normal rules should really apply (the Duke of York, for instance, isn't called "HRH The Earl of Inverness" in Scotland). Nextel ringtones Proteus/Proteus Abbey Diaz User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 18:43, 10 Feb 2005
::Unopposed Acts of Parliament don't take very long at all though (and I can't imagine this would be opposed in any significant way). It would surely just be a one-line Bill (something like "On her marriage to Prince Charles, Camilla Parker Bowles can not take the title 'Princess of Wales', or Queen Consort on his ascent to the throne), and they then have the Second Reading, no speakers beyond the actual reading, Speaker calls for a (verbal) vote, which takes less than a minute (they literally just shout "Aye" or "Nay" when prompted) the Ayes Have It, go to the Lords, same again (except it would be Contents and Non-Contents, not Ayes or Nays), and once more for the Third Reading, run round to Buckingham Palace, it could be an Act in three or four hours, taking up less than an hour total of Parliamentary time. Cingular Ringtones SoM/SoM 19:52, 10 Feb 2005
::The whole thing's really weird, but I've got a feeling that Camilla's title is just a question of what Buckingham Palace decides. I think the act of Parliament, if it had been needed at all, would have been needed to allow them to ''marry'', not to decide which title she takes. They seem to be considering legislation purely for reasons to do with the Civil List. desperately searching Deb/Deb 23:05, 11 Feb 2005
::The Prince of Wales's previous wife was known as the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland (I could hardly imagine using awkward forms such as "Their Royal Highnesses The Duke of Rothesay and The Princess of Wales"), so I presume that the same would apply to Parker Bowles. sabah surround Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 23:31, 11 Feb 2005
There is no need for an Act of Parliament to allow them to marry. Afterall Parliament would be pretty busy if they needed to pass legislation any time a person in the line of succession decided to marry. In any case, Charles is a citizen of the UK, and free to marry without Parliament meddling in his affairs. The UK government could have advised the Queen against giving permission under the Royal Marriage Act, but there is doubt over whether the Act can be enforced (eg against human rights legislation) or counterfeit Astrotrain/Astrotrain 15:14, Feb 12, 2005
:It's not about being in the line of succession. It's about being the heir to the throne and about being the future head of the Church of England. hours nursing Deb/Deb 15:56, 13 Feb 2005
the Commonwealth
Would she still become Queen of the gear to Commonwealth Realms? Do any of their governments need to give their consent? Didn't Canada's privy council assemble to approve Charles's marriage to Diana? (mass commitment Alphaboi867/Alphaboi867 19:12, 10 Feb 2005 )
* British royality do not need the permission of the Commonwealth realms to marry, because they are not citizens of those countries, therefore not subject to their laws and regulations. Camilla will automatically become Queen consort of the realms to which Charles becomes King upon his accession. They can of course pass laws preventing this, but I imagine that a unified Commonwealth position would be set. I would guess that the UK Parliament would pass the necessary legislation for Camilla to become a ''Princess Consort'', and that the other realms would give permission for the laws to be applicable in their own lands, under provisions in the society as Statute of Westminster 1931 character actress Astrotrain/Astrotrain 22:11, Feb 10, 2005
** I should have been more clear. Does the Queen act on the advice of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth Realms on whether or not to give her permission under the Royal Marriages Act. She does act on the British PMs adivce. And a Queen-consort's style make no mention of a realm ie ''Her Majesty, Queen May''. Prince Phillip is only a prince of the UK, not Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. There hasn't been a female royal consort since seperate styles for each realm were intrduced. Are Queens-consort ''of'' a specfic country or ''to'' their husband? The UK parliament does need to pass a law to preven her from becoming Queen, but I don't think the Commonwealth Realms' parliaments need to do anything unless the they decide to exclude any children that may result from the union from the line of succesion (I know how unlikely it sounds). The confusion over the others conspired Lady Louise Windsor's style won't compare to the one over Camilla's unless the British government introduces new laws. (seventh commandment Alphaboi867/Alphaboi867 23:34, 10 Feb 2005 )
***Both critic ward Mary of Teck/Queen Mary and way holding Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother/Queen Elizabeth were Queen consorts after the division of the crown. Both were styled Queen in the Commonwealth realms. Under the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Commonwealth realms would not pass individual laws on the line of succession. The only ever case when the line of succession has been changed since the Act of Settlement was colson says His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 which allowed the abdication of Edward VIII. That Act was passed by the UK Parliament, and the realms gave permission for the Act to be applicable in their lands (except Ireland, which passed its own law). I would imagine that the Queen informed the realms of Charles decision to marry Camilla, but would ask Tony Blair's advice on the Royal Marriages Act, as this is a UK law, and not related to the line of succession. the triadic Astrotrain/Astrotrain 15:09, Feb 12, 2005
Catholicism
a couple of interesting links:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/world/10869600.htm which says "Parker Bowles, a Roman Catholic, also is divorced."
and http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050211brien.shtml which says "were [Camilla] Parker-Bowles a Catholic, the Prince of Wales would, by marrying her, automatically lose his right to accede to the throne"
so i figured i'd come here and find out whether she is or isn't, and the consequences for the inheritance of the throne, but i couldn't find any mention of her religion on this page. anyone know what the facts are? will the 1701 act of settlement be repealed?
additional: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/10/ureaction.xml says "Her previous husband was Catholic, but she was never Catholic." Is this where the confusion is coming from?
:Yes. She isn't Catholic; her former husband is. promotions from Proteus/Proteus aim more User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 11:06, 12 Feb 2005
:I just made an edit that could be controvercial - that she won't be called Queen because someone who has married a Catholic can't be on the throne. I'm not 100% on this. agents tony PhilHibbs/ — was legal User:PhilHibbs/PhilHibbs / suits standing User talk:PhilHibbs/talk 12:36, 14 Feb 2005
::She isn't covered because a consort is not the sovereign. She isn't in the line of succession, so she isn't covered by the Act of Settlement bit complicated Astrotrain/Astrotrain 19:33, Feb 15, 2005
The Catholicism issue is critical (no matter how abhorent) to Prince Charles' succession as the Act of Settlement 1701 is very clear on this matter and hence the question as to whether Camilla Parket-Bowles ne Shand is Catholic should be tested. So, is it possible to clarify where she was formerly married, what type of marriage ceremony was conducted, and whether she ever took Catholic communion?
Article title
After the 8th of April, what would the title of the article be? "Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall" seems ridiculously obscure, while "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" suggests that she has divorced her royal husband. "Camilla Parker Bowles" would, similarly, be incorrect, as she would no longer have the surname Parker Bowles. Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 19:52, 12 Feb 2005
* I guess a new article should be created with her offical full title/name and everything else (including this page) should forward to it. I dunno if the is wiki-precedent for this type of thing, I'm sure there must be. User:Adamjbc/Adam 19:56 GMT, 12 Feb 2005
It should be at "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" Jguk/jguk 20:30, 12 Feb 2005
:Indeed. We have Sophie, Countess of Wessex as a precedent. (And thanks to our helpful Royalty intro format, we can quite happily write "Her Royal Highness '''The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales''' (Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor, née Shand, formerly Parker Bowles) (born 17 July 1947), styled '''''HRH The Duchess of Cornwall''''', is..." :-) ) Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 20:44, 12 Feb 2005
::Let's just hope Charles never ascends the throne, otherwise we'll have to have that debate again. Precedent dictates that she will have to go back to either "Camilla Parker Bowles" or "Camilla Shand" once she becomes a consort. Deb/Deb 15:53, 13 Feb 2005
:::Naming conventions (names and titles) would seem to suggest that, as an existing Queen Consort, she should switch to Camilla of the United Kingdom, only going back to Camilla Parker Bowles after her death. Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 16:16, 13 Feb 2005
::::Camilla, Princess Consort would be more in line with her wishes - and consistent with Anne, Princess Royal. However, God willing, the Queen will continue to enjoy good health, so that this question does not arise for real for many years, Jguk/jguk 18:01, 13 Feb 2005
She won't be "The Princess Charles" any more than Diana was. Camilla, Princess of Wales known as the Duchess of Cornwall. AndyL/AndyL 04:26, 14 Feb 2005
:Since Diana ''was'' "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" during her marriage, I fail to see what you're getting at here. Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 08:15, 14 Feb 2005
We're really jumping the gun here. She is NOT the Duchess of Cornwall until they marry. I'm going to rever the title. When she becomes invested with the title, THEN move her here. RickK/RickUser talk:RickK/K 05:21, Feb 14, 2005
Jumping the gun!
Will people please stop moving this page to ''Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall'' and refering to her as ''Her Royal Highness'' in the opening paragraph! She isn't married yet. Untill April 8 she's just plain Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles. While it's true that barring some catastrophe she will marry, Wikipedia doesn't predict the future. Either Charles or her could die before the wedding, preventing her from ever holding the title. And she should not be list on the Royal familly template either. (Alphaboi867/Alphaboi867 05:28, 14 Feb 2005 )
posted at 6:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home