General Chat

I don't think 'his position' makes him any more or less accountable than any of us. He has no more duty to set an example than anyone, we all have that responsibility. What he did wasn't right, I know that, I just don't think that, given history, he deserves all the venom heaped on his head. The point about a divorced ministry is a very good one too. He was a widower when he married Camilla anyway. What do people want - for him to remain unmarried for the rest of his days even though Diana died?

Janet Isn't it only very very recently though? I wasn't saying that that wasn't the case, I am saying that if you were to ask ,Church leaders would prefer that vows before God were kept and that as a figurehead it would have been preferable for Charles to have done so because it would have made him a more credible figurehead ? I do wonder if the church relaxed their rules as people were turning their back on the church because of the growing numbers of divorces etc and were being denied access to church services come their second marriages as a result. I think it may have been more of a survival issue than a moral one. But that's possibly a debate for another day and from someone more religious than me.

To me it seems like real life , couple gets married , have some kids , they lose interest in each other , he puts it about , and so do'es she , problem is Diana is the peoples bird so Charles gets it in the neck as for the boys Marie says they were blighted by C&M methinks not the boys are doing well and show there strength by there antics in the real world . So is this post abour Royalty or just an anti Charles post ?? Carling Black Label waiting so gotta go hic :-))))))))))))

Surely Marie, a man aspires to be president and is born to be king? Presidents set themselves up and volunteer for the position and future kings are simply born into the family, like it or lump it. Apparently the Queen's father was horrified when his brother abdicated and dreaded the position thrust upon him. Anyway, this is/has been a fascinating discussion. Thank you to everyone. :-)

Felicity He can marry who he pleases in theory , but,. given the circumstances though, and for the future of the monarchy, I believe he should give up all rights to the throne as a result of his behaviour as it has seriously affected his credibility as a future King.

Saints alive This was always a Charles post, never just monarchy enjoy your carling xx

Considering Charles is a divorcee, then he should not become King. William should be next on the Throne. Plus he married a divorcee. As for Charles himself, he is human.

Thanks Marie I am :-))))))))))))))))))) hic , excuse me

As he was born to it , he knows the score better than anyone !!!!!!! Likewise. It's been an interesting debate. Thanks all xx

IF Camilla was a Roman Catholic,THEN Charles would have had a problem, but that would have been a constitutional problem, rather than a religious one. She is a protestant, who married a Roman Catholic, and in keeping with his religion, she agreed to her two children being brought up in the Catholic faith. Marie - you can't have it both ways. If the C of E have changed their ruling about divorce, however recently and for whatever reasons, then this needs to apply to everyone, not everyone APART from Charles and Camilla. I admired them for having a civil ceremony, followed by a church blessing, along with a high percentage of the rest of the population. Why should they be pilloried for this? Out of the two couples, who both divorced, the one who remarried first was Andrew Parker-Bowles, less than a year after his divorce from Camilla - I have heard no one casting stones at him. jay

As soon as Diana died, Charles became a widower and his divorce was irrelevant so far as the church is concerned. The reason why those who are divorced cannot marry in the church is because they have a spouse still living. If your spouse is dead there is no impediment to remarriage. Unless of course, the rules are different for Charles.

I know that it is possible to remarry in the eyes of the church. I have never once disputed that. My point remains that as the future head of the church of England, I believe that Charles through his actions has lost credibility and I think that that is ONE of the reasons why he is an unsuitable King. There are many other reasons, that I have stated throughout this thread. I STILL believe that if you can make worthless vows before God once you can do it again. I would not trust any coronation promise he may make on that basis

A valid viewpoint Marie. I suppose it only remains to be seen if his credibility is intact enough when it becomes time for him to take the throne. One way or another, this will be a topic of conversation in the future, either in relation to Charles or one of his descendants. Is he fit to be king? discussions have happened time and time again throughout history and have the makings of being a topic for generations to come - until the next revolution and beyond. :-)

I don't like what Charles and Camilla did.

I think Charles is a weak man and not fit to be King. As Godfather to one of Camilla's children he visited the home of a fellow officer (A.P.B. ) in the guise of a 'friend' and we all know what a friend he turned out to be!! I read he even arranged for A.P.B. to be posted for duty abroad leaving the way clear for him and his lady love. Bridget x

But it was a well used expression in Royal circles the APB laid down his wife for his King and he is said to have enjoyed the cudos

Yes Ginny, we have all heard that one, nevertheless that kind of deviousness does not sit well on the shoulders of a future King! However, I think they are well matched as Camilla was just as two-faced with Diana. Bridget x

I am sure none of us would like out 'Behind closed doors' conversations splashed all over the papers for the world to see. He who lives in glass houses and all that................ As for being king, YES. Give the poor bugga a go. Jean

England survived the Edwardian times with Edward and the Victorian time with Victoria but I feel with Charles we are all going to be right old Charlies!!!!!!!! Joke

The programme recently about Charles and Camilla's long relationship ( I know it was only a dramatisation) but that gave the impression that he didnt marry Camilla before as she was not a virgin. Surely she does not have to be examined before he can marry her? Was Diana examined? Not saying that she was not a virgin but in this day and age is that so important?