« Bring Back the Commies! | Main | Carly Fiorina »

February 10, 2005

Prince Charles to Marry Camilla Parker Bowles

News from the New York Times:

LONDON (AP) -- Prince Charles is to marry his partner Camilla Parker Bowles, the prince's office said Thursday.
Clarence House didn't immediately announce further details, but Sky News TV reported that the heir to the throne would marry on April 6.
Charles was previously married to Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in Paris in 1997. She was divorced from Charles when she died.
The marriage is a sensitive issue because Parker Bowles is divorced and her former husband is still alive. Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England if he took the throne, and some Anglicans remain opposed to the remarriage of divorcees.
The church is officially neutral on the issue, but former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey recently urged the couple to marry.
Last year, a poll indicated that more Britons support Prince Charles marrying Camilla Parker Bowles than oppose it. Thirty-two percent of respondents to the Populus poll said they would support Charles if he remarried, while 29 percent were opposed. Thirty-eight percent said they didn't care and 2 percent had no opinion.

So, Queen Camilla anyone?

February 10, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prince Charles to Marry Camilla Parker Bowles:


The word on the street is that she would be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall.

Posted by: Mark Holland | Feb 10, 2005 10:40:25 AM

I've always found it funny that the Church of England was founded precisely so people could get divorced and remarry. Yet people are in such a furore over Prince Charles marrying Camilla.

Posted by: Monjo | Feb 10, 2005 1:47:29 PM

All I can say, is isn't he lucky taht Diana died so he was free to marry? Coincidence, I don't think so!

Posted by: Sam | Feb 10, 2005 2:34:30 PM

i think he is happy with her because she is a "mother" figure to him.he is very devoted to his own mother and wants someone like her.Camilla even looks old enough too. I don't think she should ever be "queen" Camilla and the only other thing i have to say is,she has got just what she wanted by fiar means or foul.

Posted by: barbara | Feb 10, 2005 3:00:59 PM

fair not fiar.

Posted by: barbara | Feb 10, 2005 3:02:08 PM

I wonder how Henry V111 would have fared in this day & age; given that he created the Church of England & himself head of it, in order that he could divorce & re-marry.

I can't see why Charles should be denied happiness & made to pay for a bad marriage for the rest of his life. Did Edward & Mrs Simpson or Princesss Margaret & Peter Townsend make any difference to the state of the nation; one way or the other?

Posted by: Fiona | Feb 10, 2005 3:05:02 PM

Charles may be the weakest of the Royals but
the caniving Camilla new exactly what she was
doing and has now achieved her ultimate goal.
And do'nt forget, She's a Roman Catholic which
is forbidden by the Church of England to marry
into the Royal Family. She has canived
and persued Charles right from the start
knowing full well he was a married man. No I do
not and will not condone their adultry for
either of them. Any respect and regard I once
had for Prince Charles is now as dead as his
Wonderful Princess Diana - Remember also that
the Queen took away Diana's HRH status and now
seem to be willing to grant such status to the
Adultress Camilla - I wonder why ?? Is this the
official repayment for ruining the long standing
regard and Respect we all once had for the Royal
Family ?? - They deserve each other and should be
banished to some distant shore

Posted by: Jaybee | Feb 10, 2005 3:05:19 PM

What if Camilla converts to Islam: will it suddenly all be PC?

Posted by: dearieme | Feb 10, 2005 3:16:27 PM


Posted by: ann | Feb 10, 2005 3:36:15 PM

Yawn yawn yawn.

We should care?

Posted by: Andrew Duffin | Feb 10, 2005 3:37:20 PM

Why am I so uncomfortable with the timing of a Royal Wedding just a month before the general election? Or am I just being paranoid? Does Tony Blair get any say in the timing?

Posted by: Bishop Hill | Feb 10, 2005 3:45:32 PM

They deserve each other, ha ha. Charles never even gave poor Diana a chance.

Posted by: Celia | Feb 10, 2005 3:48:36 PM

Charles was a cheating ****** and if he wants to marry Cammilla Past her - best then get on with it, but he should not hold out any hope of becoming King of England and neither should we taxpayers expect to fund her high life from the public purse - let her and him fund it - knowing of course that he has just trebled some rents from his tenant farms in Gloucester and Cornwall and made millions out of the Duchy of Cornwall and pays no taxes himself - he really does get his cake and eat it!

Tim adds: A little unkind. He pays 50% income tax on what he takes out of the Duchy.

Posted by: Annette | Feb 10, 2005 3:51:46 PM

Funny - that Duchess of Cornwall compromise title was exactly the same plan floated for Mrs. Simpson and Edward VIII, but it didn't fly in 1936. Times have changed, I guess.

Posted by: Irene Adler | Feb 10, 2005 4:34:33 PM

Is thios the right thing to do ? I don't think so, not for his people or family really. Of course he should be able to re marry, why not ? but they should be stripped of any title as I feel Camilla has not earned it from the people or the family.

Posted by: Paul | Feb 10, 2005 4:47:21 PM

I am sorry, I think the man is a farce, and under no means should lizze give up the throne to let that man and his devious succubus anywhere near the throne, we will be the laughing stock of the world.

As for the HRH title i do not see shy she shoule be given any title, other than maybe consort, since she has broken ever rule she could to get here today, and now looks the biggest fool of them all, as for the poll, i'd like to see where it was taken ans 90 percent of the people i know work or socialize with don't want either of them in the public eye, never mind married.

No respect what so ever for him and well i'm sorry but in bygone times she would have been branded a good few and fitting names for her conduct.

Posted by: kaz | Feb 10, 2005 5:16:55 PM

If they want to get married, let them get on withit, but in private and at their own expennse. It should not become some big state event paid for by the tax payer, with all the usual pomp and ceremony associated to royal weddings.

Do the decent thing for once Charles, marry her if you must, but don't ram it down our throats and those of your sons. Have some respect.

Posted by: Wendy | Feb 10, 2005 5:26:20 PM

If Charles does remarry then I feel he should follow the same path as previous members of his family have - abdicate from the throne. If he did that, however, who would take his place as his brother has done the same - would then be Queen Anne? Or would one of his sons take the throne? Maybe somebody a bit younger would be a good move anyway.

Posted by: Richard | Feb 10, 2005 5:30:05 PM

Personally I think they should change the rules of succession, bring in the female factor and let Princess Anne rule-------at least she has dignity and respect

Posted by: Steve Mac | Feb 10, 2005 5:35:47 PM

Annette: he's in no danger of being King of England - that was given up in 1707. If you're unclear on which realm he would be King of, might it not be wise to put a sock in it?

Qualification: there are also other realms - no business of mine. And if ever the Scots leave, and the Ulstermen get incorporated into the Republic, and the Welsh vote to disband their dismal assembly, then he might be King of England. Odds against.

Posted by: dearieme | Feb 10, 2005 5:46:39 PM

Chearles and Camilla are PEOPLE. Does everyone forget this. Same as Jill the waitress and fred from down the chippy. An accident of birth does not mean they should never be happy like others.
Enough people stay in bad marriages and suffer for it the rest of their lives or are ostracised for divorcing. Are we living in the dark ages? AND why do people think Diana was such a perfect angel anyway? I have never understood how big soulful eyes meant you could get away with anything when a man who talked honestly and straightforwardly was disliked.

Posted by: Sue. Harper | Feb 10, 2005 5:55:57 PM

Oh, the shame! I just want to add my voice to all those who have already posted here:

NO the taxpaying public should absolutely NOT pay a penny. Not for the wedding or their upkeep.

YES Charles and Camilla should be able to get married, but please have some discretion and spare us and their children/families the disgrace and embarassment of a public event.

NO absolutely neither should have a title once married. Furthermore, all Charles' current rights under the Crown should be passed to remaining members of the Royal family.

Posted by: maonarchist | Feb 10, 2005 6:24:32 PM

horses for courses i say. the royals have always had a preference for horsey-looking mates, and camilla fits the bill perfectly.

Posted by: hope | Feb 10, 2005 6:37:30 PM

At least she will never be called "Queen"!! That's the only comfort in this business.
They probably deserve each other, but there will be no respect for either.
I will not be going to the wedding!!

Posted by: linda | Feb 10, 2005 7:12:18 PM

I think its a shame people get all silly over little things and are so anti-Charles.

To Fiona: It is VIII not V111, basic Roman numerals. As for how Henry VIII would have handled it... hmm he would have had a few people executed, if ever we had another civil war Parliament vs Monarchy, the Monarchy has my support.

To those who think Charles cheated: NewsFlash! Diana cheated too. Being blonde, stupid and posing in front of a field of landmines and suddenly she's a national treasure? Yet she cheated on Charles with about three men. Sue Harper is right, if she had been 5'2, fat, brunette and ugly and had beady eyes and done the same stuff no-one would have liked her.

Posted by: Monjo | Feb 11, 2005 10:11:25 AM