Author
|
Topic: The Charles & Camiller Wedding Thread
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 08 April 2005 04:22 AM
*sigh*Since some people seem to need a place to discuss this, here you go... (Fidel & Boom Boom!) First off... Charles and Camilla to 'repent their sins'
quote: Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles are to address criticism of their relationship tomorrow by paying penitence for previous "sins and wickedness."When their marriage is blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury at a hastily rescheduled wedding, the couple will go some way towards acknowledging concerns over the adultery which so angered Diana, Princess of Wales. During the service at the private St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle, Prince Charles will be asked directly by the Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams, whether he has "resolved to be faithful to your wife, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live?" The Prince will reply: "That is my resolve, with the help of God." Eschewing more recent updates, the couple will join the congregation in reciting the act of penitence from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The confessional prayer, written by King Henry VIII's Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, is considered to be the strongest act of penitence in the Church of England. The Prince and the new Duchess of Cornwall will join in, saying: "We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings." A spokesman for the Church of England played down the significance, saying it was said before communion services every Sunday. "Don't forget it will be said by everyone in the congregation and that includes the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition," he said.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 08 April 2005 04:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by lagatta: It is very uncool when our republican sentiments are a smokescreen for ageism and sexism.
It's also a matter of roles in the drama, I think. If Camilla had been the spouse, and Diana the mistress, I think there'd have been significantly less discussion of their relative attractiveness. FWIW, I'm not a republican. I like constitutional monarchy as a form of government. I'd just like to figure out a way to do it without having actual monarchs. I'd like to see all powers of the Crown vested in the GG, with the GG chosen by the PM and leader of the Opposition.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 08 April 2005 04:49 AM
quote: It's also a matter of roles in the drama, I think. If Camilla had been the spouse, and Diana the mistress, I think there'd have been significantly less discussion of their relative attractiveness.
I certainly don't support mocking persons appearance but you are right. Persons tend to be less than charitable to the person who is a mistress. Persons also imagine adultery as about sexual attraction so they expect that a mistress would have very observable signs of traditional beauty. In this situation Diana better represented traditional beauty. It was a puzzle piece for onlookers who see adultery in terms of lust what the decision making points were for behind Charles' choice of her over Diana. It's a regrettable way of examining people's worth and value but she was an adulteress so I can't see myself getting too ruffled about it. I did find it amusing that even in death the Pope managed to interfere with adultery. His wedding date even got bumped.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 08 April 2005 07:23 PM
quote: He was an adulterer too, and if the stories are to be believed, was devious to Diana about his longterm relationship with Camilla.
Yes, he was an adulterer. And, yes, the stories do show that. Evidently on his wedding day he wore cufflinks that were a gift from Camila and invited Ms. Camila to his nuptials. How lovely! quote: But Hailey, hey, they are making it legal now. I don't see the point in flagellating anyone for past "sins"...
It's a living reality.
quote: And why on earth are we speaking of "adultery" in the C21 anyway? To me, that word is in itself a sin against intelligence and humanity: it is a moral judgement passed on someone else's private life, which is a silly thing for any of us to be doing.
According to the dictionary it means "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse". It applies. The judgement comes from how you feel about it.
quote: Besides which, considering that Charles and Camilla were likely having sex long before his wedding to Diana, one could even say that in fact Charles was cheating on Camilla by marrying Diana!
They were certainly intimate for a very long period of time. They were intimate throughout her marriage. Diana was not cheating because she may have earnestly believed that that relationship was over. She made that judgement amongst much innocence. She was, what, 19? quote: I actually get quite a kick out of the fact that Charles has turned the midlife crisis thing on its ear. Seeking solace from an older, less attractive woman while he's married to a much younger, beautiful wife...it's a nice twist on the cliche, you know?
There is an amusing twist to it, true. It's far overshadowed by the negatives. quote: From what I understand, Charles has been smitten with Camilla (and she him) since they were young, but wasn't permitted to marry her -- she wasn't "suitable" for some reason.
I understood it was because she wasn't a virgin and they wanted a woman without a past. quote: You can't treat people like breeding stock and expect them to behave themselves, for heaven's sake.
Charles had the option of abdicating as another family member had done. He chose instead to live a life based on deceit. Everyone has choices. You are right though that the milieu that exists doesn't make good moral decisions easy. Persons are put in unenviable decisions.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 09 April 2005 04:01 AM
skdadl, you remind me of a long-favorite quote of mine on the subject of "bastards"... quote: There is no such thing as an illegitimate child; only illegitimate parents. — George Bernard Shaw
And btw, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that so many who are sniffy about poor ol' Camiller and her "tawdry" carrying on with Horseface are usually such ardent monarchists and/or happy devotees of "Cookie" (the Queen mum). Truth be told, Horseface only got married to Diana Spencer at the insistance of his family, most notably his domineering asshole of a father and the most meddlesome busybody going, "Cookie". Indeed, while he was prepared to dig in his heels with everyone else, the world's most overgrown dependant was apparently unable to resist the entreaties (read machinations and demands) of his doting grandmother. So, the second-most-adored member of the "royal" family set in motion the wheels that eventually led to the death of the first-most-adored member of that parasitic clan. Talk about "hubris", not to mention "poetic justice", no? Too bad a young girl's life got so screwed up by the whole thing. (And yes, as a small-r-republican, I do hate myself for knowing all this, thanks for asking.)
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 09 April 2005 05:35 AM
quote: Hailey, there are a great many words in the dictionary, including racist terms, eg, that no decent person would use to wound others. My judgement is not passed on Camilla's private life, about which I have little trustworthy knowledge and no right to agitate, but on a word that is intrinsically wicked, in my view, as wicked as a racist term, and on anyone who would consider herself to have licence to wield it against others.
Thanks for answering. You are correct that all of the details are things that is difficult to be 100% confident about. I believe it is confirmed, however, that they had a sexual relationship throughout his marriage to Diana. Beyond all of the reports it was acknowledged by both the Prince and Princess in separate television interviews. According to the Princess it was not an agreed upon relationship as part of an open marriage but a choice made between the two parties without consultation with herself. That meets the definition of adultery even if we don't know the context or the details. Persons comfort level with adultery probably fluctuates with whether or not they feel that there is any context that makes adultery acceptable. I have a very limited context where I believe that adultery could be argued as moral. If you think that a person would have to be wicked or not decent to use it that's absolutely fair for you to hold that view. quote: And btw, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that so many who are sniffy about poor ol' Camiller and her "tawdry" carrying on with Horseface are usually such ardent monarchists and/or happy devotees of "Cookie" (the Queen mum
Honestly what is more hypocritical is that many of the persons comparing Camilla with Diana and drawing negative conclusions would not fair well if they were compared to Diana either. quote: Truth be told, Horseface only got married to Diana Spencer at the insistance of his family, most notably his domineering asshole of a father and the most meddlesome busybody going, "Cookie". Indeed, while he was prepared to dig in his heels with everyone else, the world's most overgrown dependant was apparently unable to resist the entreaties (read machinations and demands) of his doting grandmother.
I didn't understand that he had any specific opposition to Diana but just resisted the whole idea that it was "time" to marry and found it difficult that so many girls were screened out because of their past. Regardless, a man with noteworthy courage abdicated the throne so that he could marry the woman he loved. That is admirable. Lying to a 19 year old girl? No, sorry I won't express admiration for that. You can be a grown man, a future leader of a Nation, and the future Head of the Church and you can't open your mouth to convey that you will not marry under duress? How terribly sad. quote: Better make it two, then, Michelle. I can't be negative about this after seeing the short stick-end that Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend got handed fifty years ago.
Meaning?
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 09 April 2005 06:46 AM
The ceremony was lovely; it really was. They chose some interesting pieces of music -- most striking of all was a gorgeous (in both senses) Russian contralto who sang part of the Russian Orthodox liturgy, backed up by the Windsor boy's choir -- stunning interlude. And all those cute li'l boy sopranos -- awwwww. The Philharmonia Orchestra was parked at the roodscreen and did some lovely amplifications of the organ during the hymns. But my God! The things women wear to weddings! Why do women do that to themselves? Pastel confections, most of them looking so uncomfortable -- horrifying. That was almost the first thing we saw, as the guests walked from lunch to the chapel, and it put me off rather. Camilla looked good, though. She had worn a cream dress and coat to the registry office, which I liked better than the long, trailing gown she wore to the chapel, but then I suppose the long gown looks better during the ceremony -- for the kneeling, y'know. There were a lot of Philip Treacy (sp?) crooked-mushroom hats. Camilla had one in the morning; to the chapel she wore a feathery headdress thingy. And I saw Mr Bean among the guests. [ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 09 April 2005 06:50 AM
quote: Regardless, a man with noteworthy courage abdicated the throne so that he could marry the woman he loved. That is admirable. Lying to a 19 year old girl? No, sorry I won't express admiration for that.You can be a grown man, a future leader of a Nation, and the future Head of the Church and you can't open your mouth to convey that you will not marry under duress? How terribly sad.
Hailey, you have just described a Nazi-sympathizer who abdicated in order to marry a Nazi spy as "admirable." And yet for a man who obviously struggled with his conscience for years and has at long last found adult love, you feel pity and condescension. Nice scale of values there.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 09 April 2005 06:58 AM
quote: Hailey, you have just described a Nazi-sympathizer who abdicated in order to marry a Nazi spy as "admirable." And yet for a man who obviously struggled with his conscience for years and has at long last found adult love, you feel pity and condescension.Nice scale of values there
I wasn't familiar with those pieces of history. You are right. Nothing about that is admirable. Thank you for drawing that to my attention. I stand corrected. I don't know if Charles struggled with his conscience. I'll agree he has found later in life love.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 09 April 2005 07:55 AM
Here is the poem that Andrew Motion, the poet laureate, produced. Not bad, given everything.
quote:
Spring Wedding I took your news outdoors, and strolled a while In silence on my square of garden-ground Where I could dim the roar of arguments, Ignore the scandal-flywheel whirring round, And hear instead the green fuse in the flower Ignite, the breeze stretch out a shadow-hand To ruffle blossom on its sticking points, The blackbirds sing, and singing take their stand. I took your news outdoors, and found the Spring Had honoured all its promises to start Disclosing how the principles of earth Can make a common purpose with the heart. The heart which slips and sidles like a stream Weighed down by winter-wreckage near its source - But given time, and come the clearing rain, Breaks loose to revel in its proper course.
Andrew Motion
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090
|
posted 09 April 2005 10:32 AM
The Vicar of Dibley. I kind of thought I had spelled that wrong. I know somebody whose last name is Dibblee and no doubt that's why it was in my mind.Dan wasn't here when that part of the wedding was playing. When I told him my Vicar of Dibley sighting, he said, "Well, maybe it *was* her." Wouldn't that be great if it were? You're right, skdadl -- it was funny and you could look at it on different levels. It was irreverent without being disrespectful. Sorry everyone. Back to the wedding now.
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 09 April 2005 12:07 PM
Although the service used today was from the BCP of 1662, the expression "man and wife" also appears in the 1928 BCP used in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church of the USA and the 1959/62 BCP of the Anglican Church in Canada, and the 1662, 1928, and 1959/62 BCP's are still used in some churches today, although each of these also have modern liturgies which use much more modern language, in the vernacular, as it were.From the 1928 edition of the ECUSA BCP: FORASMUCH as N. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth, each to the other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving a Ring, and by joining hands; I pronounce that they are Man and Wife, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 09 April 2005 12:10 PM
Well, and a wedding can do funny things to your head, too. Our minister was such a liberal (Dutch Reformed, but ok'd to do United, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc etc etc services) that I was tempted to start demanding more and more tradition. When he gave us the pasteurized texts for the service, I started quizzing him about more traditional texts. Finally he got up and went to his bookshelf, pulled down an ancient volume, and began to read to us from what I am sure was a C19 Presbyterian service -- doom, gloom, hellfire and brimstone, boy. So I gave up and stopped him and said that the pasteurized version would be ok. And it was, mainly because Fang, so cool during the run-up, sobbed his way through the whole thing. I, having practised so much because I was afraid I would fall apart, zipped through my part semi-bored.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 09 April 2005 12:57 PM
I gotta say, I caught a glimpse of the wedding on the news, and it was nice to see Camilla smile (genuinely, as far I could tell). Different from seeing her so stone-faced for so many years. I always kind of liked Camilla (as much as I cared), because she reminds me of those mannish but affable British actresses I like so much (Lynne Redgrave, Maggie Smith, Frances de la Tour...)I wonder if Camilla does camp? [ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
baba yaga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6781
|
posted 09 April 2005 12:58 PM
Good grief, it's like watching a pointless episode of Masterpiece Theatre (even had the musical intro in there), sumptuously and expensively costumed and artfully filmed. I like MT, but this is really happening - all the bowing, scraping and lining up to get a glimpse, even a handshake. This dysfunctional family is a Corporation and embodies all that the left rails against in terms of unearned privelege & wealth. I would never bow to another human being. In the US:
quote: Cathie Farrel of Women's Entertainment, which boasts a show called "Young, Sexy and Royal," said the channel's target audience of 25- to 54-year-old women were big royal watchers. "The royals are something that's interesting because it's like a soap opera."
I don't feel I need to qualify my comments with the usual drivel about them deserving happiness, blah-blah-blah. I just don't think that people's family lives are material for my entertainment.
From: urban forests | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 09 April 2005 06:36 PM
There are far nastier undercurrents indeed to a lot of the criticism I've heard leveled at Camilla (like the woman in the 7-11 this morning who said 'hey, now he's married the beauty and the beast'). It seems to me that the blessed sainted Diana of late lamented memory fits a lot of people's model of what a Princess should be (pretty, blonde and thin - and, being dead, she can't get fat, cranky and wrinkly), and Camilla does not (although, she is actually rather attractive for a woman in her fifties). A lot of the criticism I've heard is the sort of thing that, if you said that about my mother, I'd punch you. Frankly, I'd love to be rid of the royals, I'm as republican as anyone, but I feel no need to denigrate either Charles or Camilla - I'm glad they're marrying (as much as I care, which I isn't very much), and I would much rather they'd have been left to their own devices to be together years ago. Of course, I imagine the whole Charles-Diana union was forced upon that weak boy-man by his overbearing parents desperate to marry him off to a pretty virgin recepticle for the royal seed.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 09 April 2005 06:46 PM
quote: Redneck, it is not "safe" to insult women for ageing. I hate the ruling class a durned sight more than a lot of people on this board, but that is nothing but sexism.
Eh? I don't even get this. Lagatta, are you indulging, once more, in your usual "trial by fire" where you force newbies into a confrontation? Honestly, Lagatta...sometimes I really don't understand your hostility. (...God, I'm going to regret this...)
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 09 April 2005 07:01 PM
Oh, I am so sorry Lagatta. As much as I wanted to challenge you on...hostility....(eh?)... Redneck Leftie is a total liar.Hey, Redneck Leftie...your first post wasn't today. It was the 23rd of November, 2003. [ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 09 April 2005 07:07 PM
You know, I just re-read Redneck Leftie's post in this thread, and I remember (I remember everything, by the way) thinking "oh, this poor woman; she's old and deluded.It's awful how the fascists prey on our humanity, isn't it? [ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 11 April 2005 12:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by skdadl: Here is the poem that Andrew Motion, the poet laureate, produced. Not bad, given everything.
No, not bad. And it's appropriate that it should have a lot of garden imagery, because Charles is so fond of gardening. Charles doesn't strike me as a strong person, but I know plenty of people just in my workplace who aren't strong. People who none of them have the guts to, for instance, grieve when management's pulling something that they're clearly going to pull on a lot of other people and the longer they get away with it the worse it will get. But these people in my workplace aren't *bad* people, and neither I think is Charles. He's just this guy, moderately intelligent, shy, kind of homely but not unusually ugly, just uglier than the movie stars you normally see on TV, with unpopular interests (gardening, architecture, horsey stuff), and fairly good intentions but not a ton of courage. It often seems to me that at the same time as people are consciously egalitarian and bugged by the royals on that basis, they simultaneously feel somehow cheated that the royals aren't superbeings. Strip that away and I'd say, measured against the average guy at work, or maybe that you see browsing in the library, Charles is pretty normal.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|