<p>Your thoughts?</p>
<p>Quite frankly, I don't like Camilla Parker-Bowles, but hey, to each their own.</p>
<p>And am I the only person who thinks that she was in the process of putting gel or some sort of mousse in her hair when a truck ran over it? Seriously, because that can be the only plausible explanation to such god-awful hair.</p>
<p>no... the new british fashion that's the explanation</p>
<p>either a feather in the hat, or a freakin sno job on the hair...</p>
<p>does it bother anyone else that the 2 princes seemed happy that their dad remarried even tho he cheated on their mom with camilla parker-bowles?</p>
<p>I think the royalty in England is SOOO stupid. If I were a prince or something, I would just move to America or live a normal life. Why throw yourself into such a spotlight when you don't have any power anyways? It really bothers me how the royalty is so pretentious and ceremonious.</p>
<p>Pfft. The new British fashion, my @$$. I went to London not yet three weeks ago, and in my opinion, they dress way better than Americans on the whole (but, then again, it's subjective). Camilla is in a category of her own, really. She's trying to blend old (like centuries ago) aristocracy with the modern lady's suit. Eh.</p>
<p>The two princes are <em>not</em> happy, from what I hear.</p>
<p>People don't seem to support it much, either. For example, at the Tower of London, I was speaking to a beefeater (or yeoman warder, whatever you prefer to call him), and he said that the EiiR stood for Elizabeth II, Regina. He said if the Queen dies: it will be "C" instead of "E," "C" for Charles, but <em>never</em> for Camilla.</p>
<p>So no support for Cammy from the protectors of the crown jewels.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't care. If the Queen dies, Charles wouldn't be king for long anyway (considering he's quite old already).</p>
<p>Yeah.they are a pair of drips who deserve each other</p>
<p>And Hoo, the monarchy is just a figurehead, and it knows it. However, it's traditional and allows the people of England to hold on to their history a bit more. Sure, they are ceremonious (and maybe pretentious), but it romanticizes England's culture. What's so bad--or wrong--about that?</p>
<p>I must say that I don't support cheating in marriages, but Charles' marriage with Diana wasn't normal. They were basically arranged into something, and neither were interested in each other. Just look at the 1981 wedding. Neither really seemed interested in the other, and they hardly touched each other. </p>
<p>In Charles' defense, he didn't really have much of a choice but to marry Diana, and it was a mistake. Everyone is misguided, and Charles was. He was in love with another woman, but he was pressured to marry someone he didn't truly care for. </p>
<p>I don't really respect him for cheating on Diana, but that's in the past now. The couple deserves to have a normal life. </p>
<p>I REALLY don't like the queen. She seems so fake and controlling. She is so obsessed with royal traditions that she can't even go to her son's own wedding.</p>
<p>"What's so bad--or wrong--about that?"</p>
<p>I don't think it's romantic at all. It's corrupt and nasty. Look at royalty in the past...King George, King Louis XIV and XVI...</p>
<p>I am happy that the U.S.'s only figureheads are people like Abe Lincoln, Washington, and democratic ideals.</p>
<p>hoo... are you forgetting taft who got stuck in his own bathtub? how's that for romantic lol...</p>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>I think the Bush's are enough of a monarchy for my taste.</p>
<p>The NYT had a really interesting editorial several weeks ago that supported the marriage. As they pointed out, Charles could have just about any young female on the planet given money and title, yet he chose a frumpy woman his age. True love. I'm touched by this. Charles did the typical thing and married the beautiful young Diana for all of the UK to enjoy. Instead of doing the wrong thing again he is standing up to a Country which is 70% against this marriage and marrying his true love. Go Charlie!!</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree...but he didn't have to treat Di like that.</p>
<p>He didnt treat her any worse then she treated him.</p>
<p>I think both Charles and Diana were both victims. She was young, from a traditional aristocratic family that promoted upward mobility (from there it was royalty) and wanted to be Queen as the fairy tale dream of her childhood said was possible. Charles was pressured to marry a young, fertile blue blood rather than a Camilla. They both did as expected and suffered. They grew up and got a grip. Can you imagine the burden of being a British royal?</p>
<p>"They both did as expected and suffered. They grew up and got a grip."</p>
<p>I completely agree.</p>
<p>You want corrupt, nasty, and unromantic? I once again refer you to the Princess Consort's hair.</p>
<p>In the meantime, I don't blame Queen Elizabeth II for being absent -- why shouldn't she be? She's like any other mother -- not attending the union she doesn't agree with -- can you, honestly, blame her?</p>
<p>RANDOM FACTOID: In the olden days, all kings and queens of England signed off with Rex Imperator, or the initials r.i. 'Course, they don't do that now -- India no longer belongs to Britain, and a * few * years have passed..</p>
<p>I don't like Camilla Parker-Bowles either. She was already doing stuff with Prince Charles when Princess Diana was still alive. It disgusts me that she's getting married to him now. Queen Elizabeth II was absent from the wedding. I don't see why she should've been there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I must say that I don't support cheating in marriages, but Charles' marriage with Diana wasn't normal. They were basically arranged into something, and neither were interested in each other. Just look at the 1981 wedding. Neither really seemed interested in the other, and they hardly touched each other. </p>
<p>In Charles' defense, he didn't really have much of a choice but to marry Diana, and it was a mistake. Everyone is misguided, and Charles was. He was in love with another woman, but he was pressured to marry someone he didn't truly care for. </p>
<p>I don't really respect him for cheating on Diana, but that's in the past now. The couple deserves to have a normal life. </p>
<p>I REALLY don't like the queen. She seems so fake and controlling. She is so obsessed with royal traditions that she can't even go to her son's own wedding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The NYT had a really interesting editorial several weeks ago that supported the marriage. As they pointed out, Charles could have just about any young female on the planet given money and title, yet he chose a frumpy woman his age. True love. I'm touched by this. Charles did the typical thing and married the beautiful young Diana for all of the UK to enjoy. Instead of doing the wrong thing again he is standing up to a Country which is 70% against this marriage and marrying his true love. Go Charlie!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I completely agree. This definitely shows true love over 30 years was it? </p>
<p>Charles deserves to be slapped for having cheated on Diana, even if the marriage was arranged and they had only met each other a few times before their wedding... but kudos to him for being true to himself now.</p>
<p>I hear they are hunting buddies.</p>
<p>As for the Queen not attending, she did nost a luncheon afterward.</p>
<p>I think the Bush's are enough of a monarchy for my taste</p>
<p>I totally agree.</p>
<p>I think the whole thing is a real hoot. Here we have the future King of England and head of the Church of England marrying his mistress who is from a line of mistresses. When they enter, the horns will blow and the crier will announce "His Royal Highness Charles, Prince of Wales, and the Royal Slut Camilla, Duchess of Cornhole."</p>
<p>I think Monty Python is together again!</p>