Posted on 02/10/2005 9:40:34 AM PST by nuconvert
Prince Charles to Marry Camilla Parker Bowles
Thursday, February 10, 2005
LONDON — Prince Charles announced Thursday that he will marry his lover Camilla Parker Bowles after more than 30 years of an on-again, off-again romance that was blamed for destroying the prince's marriage to Princess Diana.
The Prince of Wales and Parker Bowles will marry on Friday, April 8, at Windsor Castle, said Clarence House (search), Charles' residence and office.
They will be married in a largely private civil ceremony at the palace, not in a Church of England (search) service.
The April wedding which will not have the pomp and ceremony of the fairy-tale-like 1981 wedding of Diana and Charles, which was broadcast live on television worldwide.
"There will subsequently be a service of prayer and dedication in St. George's Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside," said Clarence House.
The decision on the type of service reflects the fact that both are divorcés, and that Parker Bowles' former husband is still living.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Charles just recently bestowed a few million to her kids, Tom and Laura. Do you think it as to keep them quiet? He became Camilla's lover in 1972 and they were born in 1975 and 1979. Hmmmm...?
"http://www.solace.mh.se/~alpha/Victoria/victoria.htm"
404 - Not Found
Requested url not found on this server Please look at the main site (www.solace.mh.se) If you are looking for the www.p-h-u-k-e-t.com disaster site click here www.p-h-u-k-e-t.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't see anything there to comment on! lol
Bingo.
Charles & Camilla are so sleazy they deserve each other. Diana called it correctly: Diana likened Camilla to a Rottweiler.
There are lots of pictures showing priests, nuns, bishops, and cardinals posing and smiling with Hitler ,too.
My advise to Camilla: Avoid riding in car's heading towards tunnels.
"Not before she got married, she didn't. Did she have those 'many lovers' prior to giving birth to Prince William? DOUBT IT!"
Correct. But technically it is ok to have a lover before you are married, if you aren't a true Christian. As to lovers before Prince William's birth (assuming after marriage), I agree she probably didn't have any. But if she had, the consequences would have been greater because Charles can't give birth to a bastard Prince. Had Diana cheated, she could have.
"Meanwhile her husband continued his adultery with Camilla."
That is not in dispute.
"Kind of reminds me of that Michael Schiavo that's been shacked up with some other women and been trying to kill his wife off for years."
I dispute that Charles tried to knock off Diana. In Michael's case, it's only human to want to move on if your spouse is incapacitated. It's human nature, not that it is right. Trying to kill her off, that's attempted murder. He should be investigated.
If Charles were to become King, would he be the ehad of the Anglican Church then?
As far as the Anglican Church is concerned the remarriage for Charles is not a problem because his first wife is no longer living. The problem is with Camilla, whose husband is alive.
Hope nothing happens to her ex in the upcoming months.
There are probably American officials posing with Hitler too. We have Rummy with Hussein, and many others who posed with Stalin. They didn't know these men would go beserk (I pray).
He's expressed interest in being head of all religions, which I guess includes all new age, which he seems to prefer, and islam
Did you come up with that yourself, or did you hear Mark Steyn mention it. Or did he get it from you?
LOL, I asked because I didn't recognize the upper picture, only knew it didn't look like Diana.
Hmmm indeed.
"We know she's an adultress who lacked the decency (and consideration for her country) to sabotage the marriage of her future king."
The "marriage" was sabotaged before "I do's" were said. Diana and Charles had nothing in common, at all. Diana knew, before her wedding, that he didn't love her, that he loved Camilla. She still married him. He was calculating (needed a brood mare) and she was utterly stupid. If I were a man, and she threw herself down the stairs (while pregnant) I would consider her CRIME (attempted murder of her child) worse than Charles' (sin) adultery. I would have a hard time loving a woman who acted in such a way. Insecurity is not attractive, nor will starving yourself make a man love you. It's pathetic. At least now he will be an honest man and hopefully repent for using Diana's stupidity to his advantage.
I don't understand this fixation with Diana. She had millions to buy those wardrobes with and take those trips to Africa for social causes. We knew very little about HER, but we "loved" her because she had nice clothes and was cute? I didn't think well of her because of the company she kept (boy-boinker Michael Jackson and fudge-packer and white-basher Elton John), but respected her stance on fox hunting, childhood aids and land mines. Diana's mystique was created by the media, just as Marilyn Monroe's was.
CPB was ugly 20 years ago, too. Happy now?
What constitutes "ugly?" Many think Condoleeza Rice is ugly too. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And what about Bay Buchanon? She isn't pretty, but she has inner beauty. We cannot see Camilla's inner beauty because we don't know her, but Charles does. I have respect for Charles for not being shallow. What happens when a beautiful woman you fell in love with gets older and not so beautiful? A shallow man divorces her or cheats on her. A man who understands true love stays with her because he sees her inner beauty.
IIRC it is NOT ok. I think they do tests to make sure she is a virgin and not pregnant. So obviously it isn't ok if she had lovers prior to marriage.
As for Shiavo/Charles they both were HINO (husband in name only) THAT was the connection. However, remember there are different types of spouse abuse. It's just that in Charles' case the scars he left Diana with weren't visible. But, that doesn't mean they weren't devastating. to her well being.
In fact, sometimes the emotional and psychological scars are worse as they can take longer to heal than a black eye.
She is NOT ugly, nor was she 20 years ago. "Not beautiful" doesn't spell ugly. Camilla was average 20 years ago. Why does her appearance even matter? Yes she was an adulteress, which is ugly, but she isn't any different than a large percentage of married people who cheated on their spouses.
"Yes. Chances are that Dianna might have married someone else, been happy and still be alive today."
Really? What man would stay with a woman so insecure as to throw her pregnant self down the stairs for attention and starve herself?
"Had to be rough knowing her husband was cheating on her with that horse."
She was sleeping with a "camel" when she died. Is that an appropriate thing to say about the deceased Dodi Fayed? Mean-spirited, isn't it? It's mean-spirited to call her a horse too. But I question your judgement re: horses. I think the ugliest horse is more attractive than the average human. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Why don't you use your own words here (above) to describe why you respect Charles who married someone he didn't love and cheated on Diana.
She was divorced and able to freely date. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.