by user | April 11, 2005 5:11 pm
CHARLIE GETS HIS DARLING
by Helen Claxton
Saturday saw Prince Charles, son of Queen Elizabeth II and first in line to the British throne, marry Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Duchess of Cornwall.
Despite speculation that the Queen was deeply saddened by the couple’s intention to marry, as she appeared behind the couple as they left St. George’s Chapel, her smile was nothing less than radiant.
Crowds of well wishers waving flags and wearing the usual array of red, white, and blue paraphernalia, had gathered to cheer the couple as they entered into married life. However, some bore t-shirts sporting slogans of “Diana: We’ll Never Forget You”.
Nobody’s expecting anybody to forget the deceased princess so why wear a t-shirt emblazoned with her name and face to the wedding of her former husband and his new partner? Are these people really so naÃ¯ve that they believe the world needs reminding of Diana’s former existence, lest we should have forgotten? Or was it a disrespectful protest against the union of Charles and Camilla? I think the answer to that one’s quite obvious.
All of this begs the question: Why are so many against this union?
“They were unfaithful while they were married,” some are saying.
They’ve both admitted that they were indeed unfaithful to their partners during marriage so there’s no doubting the truth in that particular statement. They even went as far as to confess their “manifold sins and wickedness” during the blessing of their marriage by Archbishop Rowan Williams on Saturday.
I can’t help wondering just how many of those who are using the couple’s lack of fidelity as an excuse for their reservation toward our future king’s wife have actually been 100% faithful throughout their own relationships. According to Peggy Vaughan, author of “The Monogamy Myth”, “Conservative estimates are that 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair.” So what does that suggest? I doubt I need to spell it out.
So, what else might the problem be?
Just yesterday, whilst discussing this issue, I was told: “If it hadn’t been for her, Charles and Diana would never have split up.”
How presumptuous is that? Charles has admitted his affair but insists that his marriage to Diana had already irrevocably broken down.
Diana was just nineteen when she married the thirteen year older Charles. Understandably, the young princess wanted to go to pop concerts, bop around Highgrove House whilst listening to Depeche Mode and other popular 80s bands, shop until she dropped and dress in wild outfits to go clubbing with girlfriends. Charles, on the other hand, preferred a more relaxed existence enjoying country shoots, visits to the opera and an evening unwinding with a glass of good wine with Bach or Handel playing in the background. The two were poles apart.
Diana tried to enjoy country life and Charles accompanied his wife to several pop concerts; it just didn’t work. Both felt uncomfortable in the others’ world.
Although the princess did an excellent job as her own ambassador, she failed miserably in the position of Princess of Wales. The future king needed a strong woman at his side who could support him in his own work but Diana, unfortunately, simply wasn’t up to the job.
If their marriage had lasted it would almost certainly have been a paper marriage and not one based on love and mutual respect.
Perhaps she was simply “a brood mare”, as some say, chosen for the Prince in order to produce an heir to the throne. If that was the case, they have my commiseration.
“…And she looks like a horse!”
What? Hold on there a moment! Since when did a woman have to look a certain way in order to be loved?
Walk down any high street on a Saturday afternoon and you’ll see women who are far less attractive ‘on the surface’ than the Duchess. Somebody fell in love with and married most of those women so why not Camilla? What exactly are these people saying?
I’m blowed if I know!
Camilla’s infidelity towards her husband is never mentioned and the childish name-calling amongst so-called adults is far too ridiculous to be taken seriously. The one and only reason the nation is divided is because the die hard Diana fans just can’t accept that Charles actually preferred Camilla to his porcelain doll of a wife.
For reasons known only to Charles himself, even though he had a wife the nation idolised, he felt drawn towards his good friend Camilla. Right from the very start of their friendship the pair had enjoyed a close and it’s just a shame Camilla, believing there was no chance for her with Charles, married Andrew Parker Bowles instead. These things happen. How many of us haven’t made a mistake and regretted a marriage?
Charles and Diana were both played away. Who did it first is irrelevant. Excusing Diana’s behaviour by saying she was simply following her husband’s lead isn’t good enough. The behaviour of one person isn’t cancelled out by the behaviour or another, regardless of who did what first. It’s amazing what a good-looking woman with a coy smile can get away with!
Diana was no saint. She was a woman like many other women – fun-loving, emotionally needy and jealous of her husband’s friend. That she was exceptionally beautiful and dressed with impeccable taste was no doubt icing on the cake for the nation but looks and designer dresses do not a good queen make!
Let’s give Camilla a chance. There’s no doubt that this is a love match and if their relationship has lasted through the numerous storms that have raged around them, then they obviously have something going for them that Charles and Diana simply never did. Camilla isn’t going away.
The Princes William and Harry have accepted her, no doubt with their mother’s memory fresh in their minds, so why, as a nation, can’t we?
Source URL: http://www.newsinsider.org/72/charles-and-camilla-tie-more-than-one-knot/
Copyright ©2017 News Insider | World news events, and an inside look at business, politics, sports and entertainment news unless otherwise noted.