Prince Charles and King George IV (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Main] >> General Chat



Message

CalProf -> Prince Charles and King George IV (3 Mar. 2005 17:42:26 )

There is an interesting historical parallel between Charles-Camilla and an earlier Prince of Wales who eventually became George IV (1820-1830). George had spent many years as Prince of Wales during the long reign of his father George III. During that time the Prince of Wales married his cousin, Caroline of Brunswick. This marriage was a disaster. By her own report, the newlyweds spent only one night together, although that night was productive because a daughter was born 9 months later.

Rumors spread however that Caroline had also given birth to an illegitimate child; the House of Lords investigated the Princess of Wales. She was cleared of the charges, but the investigation discovered evidence of her "lurid way of life." In 1814, still not yet Queen, she moved to live on the Continent, winding up in Italy in the company of a handsome Italian, whose relatives became most of her royal court.

When her husband became King in 1820, however, she returned to England, despite being offered 50 thousand pounds to stay away. This caused great public uproar. She retaliated by spreading stories of her husband's infidelities. George IV had a bill introduced in the House of Lords to deprive his wife of her rank and to declare the marriage dissolved. A secret commission was sent to Italy to investigate her alleged infidelity; it concluded that if she were not actually an adultress, she must have taken great pains to appear as such!

The bill to remove her royal rank her narrowly failed in Parliament, and she was awarded 50 thousand pounds in damages. Caroline was excluded from her husband's coronation ceremony at the Abbey, however, in 1821, causing scandal when she tried to enter. Ending this strange marriage, she died the next month.

King George IV had acquired a mistress, a married lady. Her husband knew and approved of the affair. The king tried to appoint her husband as Lord Chamberlain, but Parliament blocked this reward to the "cuckold" husband.

What a story! Doesn't some of it sound like the Current Prince of Wales' bad marriage and his substitute affair with a married woman and her approving husband?



eatdrinkbehappy -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (3 Mar. 2005 20:19:50 )

This is an interesting story Calprof. If you study Royal life throughout the generations, you'll see marriages were nothing more than business arrangements.
The marriage of Charles and Diana was the same and apparantly planned by both of their scheming grandmothers in order to secure the correct breeding line.

All this carry on about Charles being King and head of the Church whilst marrying Camilla amazes me frankly. Especially as the Church has plenty of skeletons in it's own cupboards.
At least Charles hasn't been a womaniser, he's loved Camilla all his life so it is about the value of love and companionship in a relationship and for once, it isn't all about looks or appearances. It's a true love story.

Diana was a victim within the establishment and was obviously bullied but so was Charles. Most Royal offspring are forced into life long commitments not of their choosing. I think Charles has come out of the closet, stood up to his parents, advisors and critics and decided to live life his way at last.
Good for him. I'm pleased for them both. I don't care how ugly they look, they deserve to be happy before they pop off upstairs.

BTW, I know the game of chess started in China or India and was banned by King Louis of France but after that, it became the game of Kings. Strange how their lives mimic the game of chess.



maerydoll -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (3 Mar. 2005 21:00:32 )

Nadine, I disagree
If he was so in love with her in the 70's,(he was in his twenties,not a wee laddie) he had the choice to stick by his guns and refuse to give her up. He choose to let her go and let her marry someone else. According to history,he carried on a sorrdid affair which, after he married Diana , caused Diana a whole load of grieve This is not the behaviour of a head of church. To me 'he cannot have his cake and ieat it.

The Crown or Camilla but not both.

If he does become king and is married to Camilla, I among thousands will not stand for the National Anthem



Maerydoll



eatdrinkbehappy -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (3 Mar. 2005 21:45:23 )

Yep, I understand your point Mary and I know many people are fired up over this issue but all through history, Royals have been forced to marry people they don't love. Princess Margaret was one such example and look how unhappy she was.
Prince Charles would not have had a say when he was younger, he would have been 'advised' (ordered) to do what was best for the establishment, not himself.

I don't have a strong view either way to be honest. There are so many immoral issues in society today that badly need addressing, that I think the Charles/Camilla issue is almost benign compared to other things. How can the Church criticise or condemn the marriage when a lot of clergymen have been embroiled in far worse things? And what's worse, some of them are still employed within the Church?
Won't go into detail but you know what I mean.
This is not me debasing God or religion, that's a seperate issue but I do believe the Church is another matter. You know the saying about the first person to cast stones being without sin? Well, what happened to all that?



maerydoll -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (3 Mar. 2005 22:29:27 )

Nadine

When I married Dave nearly 34 years ago, my parents weren,t happy about it but I stood my ground and told them that "this was the man for me". Even approaching the church <my dad who was on the post office strike at that time offered me £100 to go away until the clamout had died down and not marry this scruff who was below me. I carried on to the church.Later that day, my parents said that now I was married to him, they would stand by my decision and now they had a son.My younger sister's engagement broke down and my elder sister's marriage ended in wife beating and so 4 years later my parents' admitted that I had got one of the best. My mum and dad doted on Dave and he couldn't do anything wrong in their eyes[:)]

If Charles was so in love with Camilla as we are lead to believe, he should have stood his ground and given up the throne for her if that was what was then being asked of him. I was prepared to give up the love and support of my family for love[p]

On reading this, it sounds so soppy but that's life.....[p][p]



eatdrinkbehappy -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (3 Mar. 2005 22:33:19 )

You're one tough little Scot Mary. Good on yer as the Aussies would say.[:)] I don't think Charles has ever had your spit and fire. I will admit he is a wimp but who knows what he'll surprise us with next.



dibingham -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (3 Mar. 2005 22:50:56 )

I have come out of the closet myself to add by two bob's worth - I don't think any of us can know what pressures Charles has had in his life so we can't even begin to understand why he didn't marry Camilla back then - I think part of it was she couldn't/didn't wait and married Parker Bowles while Charles was away in the Navy. Maybe she decided she couldn't stand the pressure of a "royal" life - even if you discount half the stories, Dianna had a load of trouble coping with what was asked of her.

Why can't Charles marry who he wants? And IMHO I think people should stop getting a kick ut of belittling Charles and think of all the good he's quietly done for Britain over the years: think of the 1000s of kids that have been helped thru the Prince's Trust, the changes he just about singlehandedly bought about to help Britain's agriculture and architecture. Even if he never gets to be king, he has surely done his bit for "his" country - as much if not more than Diana did for her charities and causes. He was just never followed around and photographed and publicised by the media the way Diana was, he just quietly has gone his own way for his whole adult life and tried to make the UK a better and more livable place for his countrymen.

So, sorry, but I think more power to him and Camilla and may they be very happy.

Cheers from Oz
Di



CalProf -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (4 Mar. 2005 1:49:27 )

A monarch nowadays should be a symbolic figure whom the people can admire and respect. If not, why have the monarchy? It is no longer a position where a selfish, ruthless, power-hungry individual is needed for the nation's good, as might have been the case with Henry VIII. The king or queen should be a symbol of stability and a representation of the people's values.

Charles has had a life of luxury, even if he feels stressed by it. He could relinquish the throne as did Edward VIII, or he could choose duty over love, as did Princess Margaret. Remember when Elizabeth warned Margaret about her affair with RAF war hero, pilot Peter Townshend?

Charles played around with another man's wife, even after he married Diana. He helped drive Diana to misery, bulimia, and suicide attempts. Is he aware of what he did? He is either clueless, lacking in understanding ("Why didn't Diana let me carry on my affair as did my ancestors?"), or conniving and cynical ("Diana is young and naive, a breeding partner but not worthy of my love and respect")



eatdrinkbehappy -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (4 Mar. 2005 4:20:13 )

Now you've done it Calprof. Calling Henry selfish, ruthless and power hungry will get into all kinds of trouble with Tudor.[;)]

I agree, a monarch should be have high morals but is that a realistic expectation of a mere mortal? Charles is human after all and Diana was far from being a saint by all accounts. I don't get drawn into what went on between them because unless we were there, how can we know?

What about the morals of world leaders like Bill Clinton? He was allegedly unfaithful before he became President. If you're going to suggest that monarchs should have morals and standards, which I agree with but think it unlikely, shouldn't all leaders be expected to do the same?

Hats off to Tony Blair in this case who appears to be the epitome of family man and devoted husband.



eatdrinkbehappy -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (4 Mar. 2005 4:32:06 )

Welcome back Di, no time long see.[:)]



CalProf -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (4 Mar. 2005 6:26:07 )

Presidents like Clinton can be kicked out of office. They are elected for a brief term, presumably because of their talents and promises. But royals are born into a guaranteed life role with public obligations and at public expense. The modern king or queen has no role except to be a respectable symbol of the people. The same is true of a religious leader, who represents the values of a church, as the monarch does for a nation. Would we respect an Archbishop or Pope who cheated on a loved one and exploited vulnerable young people?

Charles is only human, of course, but isn't it fair to expect him to be better than common people? Who wants an monarch that's no different than an average person?



eatdrinkbehappy -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (4 Mar. 2005 9:55:50 )

I think people do expect a certain code of conduct or at least some discretion from members of the Royal family and in fact that point was made this week here in Australia when comparisons were made between the Danish royal family and the British.
Newlyweds Danish Prince Frederik and Princess Mary (originally from Tasmania) are touring Australia. Charles is here too.
It was suggested that the Danish Royal family enjoy a much better press because the Danes love them for their ordinariness. The Danish Queen cycles around Copenhagen blending into the crowd so there is a very different relationship.
The words used were 'they don't lord it over the general public' so they get a much better response. Personally I think it's more of a culture difference. The British have always had a reserve, it's just the way we are.

I don't feel able to judge anyone based on what is written or said about them in the media. I just think that both Charles and Diana were victims in their own ways and the fact that they entered into what turned out to be a failed marriage isn't that surprising. I can remember British opinion being that the Queen was wrong to interefere in Princess Margaret's personal life and that she should have been allowed to marry for love.

I do agree though that most of us probably expect royals to behave in a certain way and again, this was mentioned this week when it was suggested that the Danish royals do not misbehave in public. I'm not sure if this means they misbehave behind the scenes or just don't get caught, but the general view was that the Danish royals are much more ordinary and are far more loved and adored in their own country because they are so much more grounded.

I do agree with what Di said and I get the feeling that many Australians think the same way and that is that the focus should now be on what Charles has achieved for his country rather than all the negatives. He does have strong morals, that's been very obvious many times over in his charities and work.
His morals may have been lacking insofar as his marriage to Diana was concerned but he's definitely not on his own as far as leaders having affairs go. I don't think being Royal makes that much of a difference. Not to me anyhow. Anyone who is so unhappy in a marriage is bound to seek affection elsewhere, that's a normal human reaction.

You mention the Archbishop and the exploitation of young people. Well there are frequently scandals surrounding certain actions and decisions made by him relating to other issues. This sometimes makes me feel very uncomfortable with the preachiness of the Church and the holier than thou attitude presented by Church leaders when in fact it's emerged that there have been some serious cover ups going back years.
Now this is where I have a high expectation that people in these ordained positions would live upto what I expect from them but the sad truth is that sometimes they don't. Does this mean the Archbishop should be sacked for failing to tackle these issues? Should he be in charge of moral standards relating to the Church when he is aware of issues that have been allowed to happen while he is in that position?
No I don't think so. In this case, I wonder why some Church leaders are contributing to the debate when they have failed to clean out their own cupboards.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with whether Charles should be King or not, I just find some of the other issues involved and people calling the pot black a little ironic.



Tudor Rose -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (4 Mar. 2005 11:36:39 )

If you back up the story to George IV to his earlier life, he was already married to Maria Fitzherbert! Unfortunately, she was a Catholic and we all know how the British Monarchy has to stay away from that religion. Maria, in a nutshell, was basically put-aside because of pressure from Parliament and George's father...and Prinney himself. His debts were SO high he needed funds and Parliament would only grant those if he got hitched...and to somebody they would recognize and was 'legal' under the Royal Marriage Act. So, Caroline came into the picture. Talk about a forced marriage!!! Maria was always respected by The Royals, tho...George was buried with a picture of her and his brothers/sisters, etc were always courteous to the first Mrs. George IV.

Definitely, Charles' personal life is no unseen thing in the annals of British History. For once in my life [:D] I find myself in total agreement with EDBH and Di. Diana has cast QUITE a long shadow over Charles' life....it's time people let it go, move on, and let Camilla and Charles marry.

As to the moral issue...far be it for me to get into that aspect. I was more than happy to see Clinton being impeached...but he didn't leave office!!! So what was the point? His speaking fees haven't gone down, he's still as popular as ever. Who knows? In Charles' case, perhaps he can bring the two opposing sides together, having seen both sides of the fence.

Di....WELCOME BACK !!!!!!! I have missed you, my friend [:D] Hope you are back to stay...your input is always fun to read.

Hal 8 ruthless, power-hungry, and selfish....he was that...to the nnth degree!!!! I just love him, don't you???



saki -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (4 Mar. 2005 13:07:02 )

You can respect a monarch who knows the length and breadth of their power as did Henry and his daughter and did their deeds in the light of day.I have no use for a weasel who sneaks around in the dark and has no bravery or chutzpah to do their deeds in the light of day monarch,prince or pauper..[sm=soapbox.gif]



eatdrinkbehappy -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (4 Mar. 2005 20:58:37 )

TR, re Clinton? The American public seem to have very high morals, much higher than some parts of the more liberal minded European countries, excluding Britain. I mention that because Britain is definately different to France, Denmark, Sweden and Germany in terms of what they deem acceptable.

I imagine the Clinton saga was a huge disappointment to many. But that was only one part of his overall personality. I liked him. He was a great statesman and ambassador for the US plus I thought he related to the rest of the world well too.



Tudor Rose -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (4 Mar. 2005 23:30:05 )

Sorry, but Clinton is not my favorite guy. He did what he did because he could...which is, I suppose, the way you can look at how Charles has behaved. For the life of me, though...why go thru the impeachment process if the president doesn't have to step down?



CalProf -> RE: Prince Charles and King George IV (5 Mar. 2005 4:40:38 )

Clinton was impeached, which merely means that Congress brought charges against him, but there was no impeachment trial. If he had been tried, with the U.S. Senate sitting as jury, and he had been convicted, he would have had to leave office.

President Andrew Johnson (who followed Lincoln) was impeached and tried; his trial came within one vote of removing him from office. Here's an interesting account, plus information on impeachment.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/impeachmt.htm



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.1
0.046875