News and commentary about the reigning royal houses of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Spain, Monaco -- and the former European monarchies as well.
What's the true story about Camilla and Charles? Is she really a raving drunk and is she trying to divorce Charles? Is the Queen trying to "bypass" Charles and "give" the crown to William?The tabs here in the US are writing all that about the monarchy at the moment. I doubt if it's true. What do you think?
only the sensational supermarket rags have such utter nonsense. The "writers" receive very high salaries (seriously) to write such crap. Charles and Camilla are very happy together. This is so obvious in their body language. It is also important to see how the Queen includes Camilla now. Last year during the procession back to the palace for the final event of the Diamond Jubilee, when Philip was in the hospital, the queen had Camilla sit next to her. Camilla and Charles were to have been in a separate carriage, but instead went with the queen. In the recent time mag interview, Charles described his wife as wonderful. They complement each other. The writers of these articles also have no clue about how the monarchy works. The Queen cannot hand the throne to her grandson and bypass Charles. Only an Act of Parliament can change the succession, and Parliament is not going to muck with the succession. Edward VIII could not abdicate until Parliament passed an act of abdication.
As a woman of a certain age in another long-standing marriage, it is easy to recognize couples as comfortable with each other - well, my brother not so flatteringly calls us two old shoes. But that's how they look too, Charles and Camilla. The prince has far too much of an ego to try and step aside for his son. He has a keen sense of history and understanding that his role is one of teaching and leading his people. I remember he once wrote an introduction to a biography of George III, and the spirit was one of filial devotion about a maligned long-term ruler. I think he'll probably shake things up a bit himself. Not enough credit is given to the fact that he is of that 60's generation which saw things anew (in sometimes an old-fashioned way). I think that like our generation, he consciously rejects some of the modernity thrust upon us. I remember what he did to influence the building around St. Paul's in London - human scale architecture. I think he'll probably continue with such initiatives, and with organic gardening and all that sort of slow food thing. There are always going to be contradictions, but I think in general he will lead by example, and unlike Jimmy Carter, he will not be voted out of office before he has his say.
Thanks for the note, Marlene, and I had thought the same things you point out about Camilla and the Queen. But I was wondering why no main-stream publication points out these obviously wrong articles?
Phoebes, unless it is the National Inquirer, which has actually broken a few real stories, no one takes these supermarket rags seriously.Musings, Charles cannot stand aside for his son. Period. Only Parliament can change the succession.
Post a Comment