Posted on 02/26/2005 7:35:11 PM PST by quidnunc
The Queen has "distanced" herself from the wedding of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker Bowles because she believes that her son is putting personal gratification before duty, royal courtiers have disclosed.
The courtiers also say privately that the Queen is "lukewarm" about the marriage and is worried that it could tarnish the monarchy.
Buckingham Palace announced last Tuesday that neither the Queen nor Prince Philip would be attending the civil marriage ceremony at Windsor Guildhall on April 8 because they wanted to keep the occasion "low key".
The announcement, however, was widely interpreted as a snub even though the Palace said that the Queen and other members of the Royal Family would attend the service of dedication afterwards at St George's Chapel. The Queen is also giving a wedding reception at Windsor Castle.
The courtiers said yesterday that Prince Charles's private office had been outmanoeuvred by Buckingham Palace and that Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen's private secretary, had tried to protect her from becoming involved in a "town hall marriage" which demeaned her own status. One said: "Robin is very clever. As soon as he sensed controversy, he did what he always does and wrapped the Queen in cotton wool to make sure that she didn't get damaged by events.
The courtier said that Sir Robin's intervention was symptomatic of the Queen's long-standing concern over Charles's relationship with Camilla.
"The problems of the past week go back many years. The Queen believes that the Prince of Wales has put his own gratification and interests before duty by pursuing his relationship with Camilla, and she can never forgive that."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
As he his hatred for all things British spirals into madness, I think we need a reminder of how it all started. Like the Zeta-Jones pics, on a Dowd thread.
You forget to mention her promiscuouity.
The royal bloodline was through the present Queen's father.
Yes, and the Iraqi Information Minister stated for the record that there were no American troops in Baghdad and Bill Clinton stated for the record that he had never sex with that woman. Right.
Two things to examine:
"Diana's Lovers" at http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/guide/themes/diana_lovers.html lists the "Ten Men That Shook The Throne."
For some interesting photos and commentary, visit http://princesshalfu.typepad.com/tokyo/2004/07/ and then scroll down until you see the section titled "Ra, ra, raaaah!" that reads: "Bumped into Major James Hewitt today - infamous philanderer, traitor to the throne and suspected father of Prince Harry" and then look at the comparison photos of the two and see what you think.
Personally, I hope Charles and Camilla are very happy together.
That was their role to play in WWII. But we should never forget that the former King Edward VIII was a good buddy of that ugly austrian with that funny mustache:
With Adolf Hitler on the Berghof 1937
Prince Harry just seems to keep up with some of the old family traditions...
And Di destroyed herself,whilst attempting to destroy the monarchy...like the spoiled brat she was.
Is your first name John, and did you live in Chicago once?
Bonne chance with Sideways, by the way.
Harry looks just like Di's idiot brother.
Diana was none of those things. She was a sweet girl. If she became neurotic, he drove her to it. How would you like to be married to someone who loved someone else and told that person he still loved her on YOUR WEDDING DAY??????.........Goodgirlinred
That is the tragedy that you get when, in this day and age, you treat the marriage of two human beings as if the marriage was analogous to the breeding of the Queen's pet corgis.
Prince Charles and Prince William are truly cursed by the accident of their birth.
Charles had the misfortune of falling in love with a woman that was not a virgin and therefore verbotten.
William may have the future misfortune of falling in love with a woman who is Catholic or Jewish or whose blood is not blue enough and therefore also verbotten.
Diana has been quoted at saying that, from an early age, she decided to stay "pure" as she was on the short list of possible marriage partners for Charles, a much older man.
"Love" had very little to do with the Charles-Diana marriage.
Charles and Diana were paired up like two of the Queen's corgi dogs and then expected to mate and breed and pop out an "heir and a spare". You shouldn't treat humans like that but Great Britain does.
If a British Prince is true to his heart and marries a verbotten woman, he is branded a traitor who has turned his back on his "duty".
If a British Prince is untrue to his heart and marries an "acceptable" woman, he is branded a scoundrel if he does not "love" the woman that was picked out for him.
Unless a British Prince is fortunate enough to truly fall in love with an "acceptable" woman, that Prince has the unfortunate choice of either living his life as a free human being branded as traitor to his "duty" or living his life in a loveless marriage.
Ideally, Charles should have renounced his rights to the throne to marry the woman he loved, regardless of her virginity status, and Diana should not have played the role of Royal breeding stock when she was informed on her wedding day that her future husband was in love with sombody else.
I got bored with awards shows a long time ago.
Oh. You guys are merciless!
Or, alternatively, they each could have played their roles while pursing their adulteries discretely without all the Grand Guignol drama.
Like her or not, Queen Elizabeth has lived up to her obligations and has been an exemplary royal. Can't think of anyone else -- with the possible exception of her late mother -- who has adhered to the standards she was trained to uphold. Doesn't matter (in a sense) if the monarchy is archaic or irrelevant. Fact is, the woman's done her job. Putting myself in her place, I can see why she might be less than enthusiastic about a great many of the stunts her family has pulled over the last decades. If she wants to sit out part of her son's somewhat compromised wedding, so be it. Never thought I'd be an apologist for the Queen. Seems my view has shifted a bit.
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.