General Chat

Joy I doubt for one moment Diana would have wanted William and Harry to hold a grudge against their father. They truly seem to love their father and have affection for Camilla. Many many marriages end because of affairs, If charles was that awful, he would have bedded more than the one person. It just so happened to be the woman who hed always loved, and to be together on and off for all those years must mean something. I dont blame anyone for the conclusion we now have The true blame lies with Protocol. Protocol dictated to the queen that certain mates were unsuitable for her son, It also dictated that the correct thing to do was leave your child and do your duty. As someone said, others pull the strings and the royals are puppets.

Felicity Ond day he is supposed to be the figure head of a church and possibly for various other faiths. If/when he is crowned, at his coronation, he will have to make vows before God. He did this once before when he married his first wife, it is clear he had no intention of respecting his vows then, yet he made them anyway, why then should we have any faith in any other vows he may take before God in the future ? Does that not say something about his moral fibre and trustworthiness as a future king? I am not doubting his qualifications, as the Queens' son he is technically entitled to be King. But as a weak man.........maybe he should step aside for his son.

Look at Chuck's CV Nanny Posh prep school Posh secondary Modern Cambridge (on a lot less A levels that everybody else) Navy (Hello Sailor) Polo Posh tarts Polo Child bride Heir and spare Affair Bulimic souse Widower Teenage kids Marry love of life Waiting for mum to croak Enyoying life The job's his Referees: The Three Degrees , Ozzy Osbourne, Camilla's husband

Ginny lol. You're right the qualifications are all there !!

There's nothing to say that William will honour vows to any greater extent. My point was that Charles is likely to be no better and no worse than a multitude of men who have made vows before God. He may, in fact, take his Defender of the Faith Vows more seriously than his wedding vows. He becomes Defender of the Faith(s) by rule of accession also. Frankly, if men were excluded from postions of power on the basis of their previous actions, we'd have few men in parliament and fewer who could even hold their heads up in the streets. I don't see why Charles has to be held to a higher standard than anyone else. Like I said before, royalty are just people like the rest of us. It was only the Romans who fooled the people into thinking they were Gods, and look what they got up to!! :-)

Defender of the Faith... Ok. So I am only an ignorant old lady so perhaps one of you more erudite subscribers would elucidate to me what entirely does the Defender of the Faith defend and what does it entail??? Can he alter the rules of the Faith (Church) to suit his or her own demands!!! Now lets have some knowledge please. Ty

Just a couple of points of information - Mrs Simpson was TWICE divorced, and not a Catholic. Although Charles and Diana were divorced, he was actually a widower when he married Camilla. The attitude of the Church of England towards divorce and remarriage has shifted greatly since 1936. Whether Charles will make a good King, we will have to wait and see. Jay

Defender of the Faith One of the titles of the English sovereign, conferred on Henry VIII in 1521 by Pope Leo X in recognition of the king's treatise against the Protestant Martin Luther. It appears on coins in the abbreviated form F.D. Given that this was something conferred on Henry VIII before he rejected the Catholic Church, I can't see that it means anything now, hence why I see it as a ceremonial title, vows or otherwise and don't care much whether Charles 'honours' those 'vows' or not.

Thanks for the clarification as to Wallace Simpson's faith, Janet. I'm not sure about Camilla herself, but I know that her ex-husband and children are catholics.

My opinion is that Camilla is a good egg and whether they get to sit on the throne or not I really wish them well. Let's face it folks, they live in a totally different world to the rest of us . BUT if they can show an example of love and affection (which I think that they do) What's wrong with that?. I have a cousin who is classed as a celebrity and has met them both on many ocassions (she is VERY down to earth) and says that thay adore eachother and Camilla is really down to earth and has been the making of Charles. Surely it has to count for something that William and Harry have accepted her and their father's union ?

well said Ginny I cant understand the venom directed against them by people who are complete strangers. God help me if I was a family member who upset them Let those without sin.....

Felicity I do agree that there is no evidence that William will honour his vows to a greater extent than Charles would, but unlike his Father he has yet to give us a reason to doubt him Men have been excluded from postions of power due to previous actions many many times. Taking a different slant on it though, would any one take Bill Clinton seriously as a head of state again in America after his behaviour. Charles' is not that much different. I don't disagree that he becomes defender of the faith by accession, I just question whether or not he is in a fit position morally to do so, considering that he has so far shown scant regard for his vows to god previously. Because he will be the head of the Church Of England should he succeed, I feel it only right that to be credible, he should live by the standards set out by said church. He may have been a widower when he married Camilla, but it does not change the fact the he was STILL a divorcee. Whether or not it is less frowned upon or not I believe that any vicar/priest would not condone the betrayal of vows before God that is the standard he should have lived up to. As to expecting him to be Godlike. No. Just faithful and true would have done

Just seems ironic that the Church of England came to be in order to get a king a divorce....

1, Have served for him in the Army but never met him so cannot cast assertion's about his character. 2. Yes

William and Harry I am sure are very well brought up boys. But like somebody said earlier you cannot be sure what goes on behind closed doors, how do we know that they really do approve of their father marrying a woman who's presence in his life put their mother through hell and blighted their childhoods. I hope they are happy and do approve. But no one knows for sure what is in their minds.

If we cannot be sure what goes on behind closed doors..... .....who are we to judge them ?

I do understand your points, Marie. However, some statistics tell us that more than 50% of husbands are unfaithful, so he didn't have much of a chance in that direction, particularly given the culture he lives in. (How often has the aristocracy having a mistress been seen as the norm?) As for Bill Clinton, most of that furore was politically motivated and he is taken seriously in lots of respects these days. The 'politicking' has been seen for what it really was - little to do with sexual impropriety and much to do with a smear campaign. President Bush has done far more to damage the moral fibre of the USA in the minds of many, but as he has done it in the name of preserving a distorted notion of 'safety' people are too scared to object. And again, if popes don't live by the standards of the church and they are supposedly chosen by God, what chance does Charles or any other 'ordinary' man have? Give Diana a break? I think Charles needs one too! :-)

Judge who? Charles and Camilla or William and Harry? Would not presume to judge William or Harry Charles and Camilla. Yes I can judge them. He may be the next King. I think as one of his possible future subjects I have every right to judge him

The C of E allows the divorce and remarriage ( whilst the ex partner is still living) of its vicars - we have had two examples of this in our parish in recent years. If it is acceptable for the church to support and maintain a divorced ministry, surely it would be hypocritical to refuse the same charity to its figurehead? Jay

Felicity Don't doubt that there are a lot of unfaithful men out there !!! Been involved with a few many times myself . lol. Don't care whether he is aristocracy or not. Doesn't make it right. Not in his position. He was arrogant to assume that he could marry and keep his mistress. All evidence points to that having been the case. As regards to the Clinton thing. I don't take offence by his alleged behaviour, he is only a president (with all due respect) this man aspires to be King big difference. (Doesn't at all surprise me that the Clinton issue was politically motivated though.)