Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles

[Neil D]

LONDON (AP) — Prince Charles said Thursday he will marry his divorced lover Camilla Parker Bowles in April, putting an official seal on a long romance that Princess Diana blamed for the breakdown of her tempestuous marriage to the heir to the throne. The announcement ruled out the possibility that she would become queen.

One of Charles' titles is Duke of Cornwall, so Parker Bowles will use the title Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall after the marriage. When Charles becomes king, she will not be known as Queen Camilla but as the princess consort, Charles' office said.

That decision by the prince appeared to be a nod to public opinion, which has never warmed to Parker Bowles, the object of ridicule after tapes of her intimate conversations with Prince Charles emerged in 1992.

Prince Charles' sons, William and Harry, were "delighted" by the news and want the couple to be happy, a spokesman for Charles' office said Thursday.

Charles and his future wife will attend a dinner at Windsor Castle later Thursday, a spokeswoman said. Parker Bowles will wear her engagement ring, but the spokeswoman gave no details about it.

The marriage will be a civil service and not a Church of England service.

"There will subsequently be a service of prayer and dedication in St. George's Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside," Charles' office said.

The decision on the type of service reflects the fact that both are divorcees, and that Parker Bowles' ex-husband is still living. In general, the Church of England, the legally established faith of the nation, disapproves of the remarriage of divorced people in church.

As Britain's monarch, Prince Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England. Some Anglicans could oppose him holding this role as a divorcee who remarried outside the church.

The announcement received the blessing of Queen Elizabeth II, who said she was very happy that her son and Camilla Parker Bowles will marry.

Prime Minister Tony Blair also said he was "delighted."

A spokeswoman for Princess Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, said he would be making no comment on the announcement.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said the wedding service plans "have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage."

Neither Charles nor Camilla possesses the star power of the still-beloved Diana, but theirs has been a peculiarly deep love story — one that has endured time, scrutiny and such intense criticism that Parker Bowles was once regularly insulted in the street.

"It had to happen sooner or later," said Dina Pine, 73, a retired restaurant owner. "But I don't think she should be queen."

NON-Queen Camilla

[californiagirl]

Some Britons have been reported as saying Camilla was the one Charles should have married in the first place.

Why did he make such a terribly wrong choice?

Was it because Charles was

(1) too spineless to stand up to the Queen 25 years ago to marry a divorced woman against the Queen's -and the Church's- wishes;

(2) too egotistic, wanting his heirs to be much more handsome than those Camilla would ever be able to produce; or,

(3) merely exhibiting the same genetic traits (of wanting what he shouldn't have) as his uncle, the Duke of Windsor, who abdicated the throne in order to marry Wallis Simpson?

[aldona]

Probably mostly reason no. 1.

The royal family 25 or more years ago was very different to the way it is today. Princess Margaret gave up her hope of marrying the man she loved because he was divorced. King Edward gave up the throne so that he could marry the woman he loved, who was also divorced. (One pro-republic commentator today made the point that if Charles followed the letter of the law, he should do just as his great-uncle had done.)

According to an editorial in the news today: Back then, Camilla was not seen as a suitable bride for the future king because she had previous relationships. There was an "unwritten rule" that princes must marry virgins. When Charles married Diana, she had to undergo a medical examination to satisfy the royal family on that point. But it was also accepted that kings and princes may have mistresses - so to Charles it was perfectly normal to carry on his relationship with Camilla after his marriage. After all, that was what most of his ancestors did.

Things are changing now, but in the past, the whole idea of marriage and its purpose was very different among royalty than it was among the ordinary citizens.

aldona

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

According to an editorial in the news today: Back then, Camilla was not seen as a suitable bride for the future king because she had previous relationships. There was an "unwritten rule" that princes must marry virgins. When Charles married Diana, she had to undergo a medical examination to satisfy the royal family on that point. But it was also accepted that kings and princes may have mistresses - so to Charles it was perfectly normal to carry on his relationship with Camilla after his marriage. After all, that was what most of his ancestors did.

aldona

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Wow, what an unequal standard!

Too bad nobody told Diana about it, before she innocently assumed the role of the "breeder" spouse.