Correct: If Charles loved Camilla he would have made the

4g01o

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 3:07 pm

amother Blonde wrote:

Can someone who knows more than me please shed some light? If Charles abdicated BEFORE he had children, then Andrew would have been next in line. Would that still hold true once he had kids? Who would have been next had he abdicated after either Diana or Queen Elizabeth died?

Diana was never an heir, she married into the Royal family. Andrew would be next in line to be king, because if Charles gave it up, then as far as I know his kids can't be. I'm not sure

amother

Caramel

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 3:32 pm

amother Blonde wrote:

He wouldn't have abdicated technically, because you can't abdicate before you are on the throne. Presumably he could have "exited" sort of the way Harry has done, and then Andrew would have been next in line after their mother.
However, I don't believe it would have come to that. If he had really insisted on marrying Camilla when they first started their relationship (prior to her marrying) I think the queen would have relented and given her ok. Remember, she wasn't divorced at that point. Just not a virgin. There might have been a bit of a kerfluffle in the press but at the end of the day, it would have gotten smoothed over.

agreer

Sun, Sep 18 2022, 11:11 pm

amother Caramel wrote:

Wait, what?! That was the reason they hated her so much?

What a different time.

amother

Caramel

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 4:30 am

Yes, "experienced" is a better word. Remember Camilla is much closer to Charles' age than Diana was. I think she's a year or two older, vs the 12 year gap between Charles and Diana. She was older, too, when she met Charles. And I know the image of her is as a frumpy, not very good looking woman vs Diana the beauty, but actually Camilla was a very attractive girl when she was in her 20s and first met Charles. She dated quite a bit and had lots of male interest.

invisiblecircus

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 4:57 am

amother Caramel wrote:

Right. He could not have abdicated because he wasn't the king!

The question is whether by marrying Camilla he would have been removed from the line of succession. If he would have been, Andrew was next in line. If he had not been removed from the line of succession, his children would have been above Andrew. To the best of my understanding, this was never the choice he was given. Like you, I think that if he had insisted on marrying Camilla at the start, it would have been possible, but in those times heirs to the throne weren't expected to marry for love, but to marry the one who best fitted a certain set of criteria.

As someone else wrote, this question of marrying Camilla didn't last long because she was quickly married off to Andrew Parker Bowles which got both of them out of the picture, and Charles then married the girl his mother deemed the most suitable.. I believe he really tried to make it work, but it became clear that they were unsuited to each other.

Some posters are making comparisons with Edward VIII but that situation was entirely different. In his case, he was the king and could have done whatever he wanted, but the British establishment opposed the marriage and believed the people would not accept Simpson as consort. Relations between the US and the UK were also strained during that period. He did not enter a relationship with her knowing he would have to abdicate, it was much more complex. Various options were considered and the "rules" were not laid out in advance, but in the end, his decision was to abdicate.

amother Caramel wrote:

Presumably he could have "exited" sort of the way Harry has done, and then Andrew would have been next in line after their mother.

Harry has maintained his place in the line of succession.

invisiblecircus

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 5:20 am

amother Caramel wrote:

I know what they meant by "experienced" but doesn't it seem crazy that someone with a bit of life experience was deemed unsuitable while Diana, so young and naive was not?! Camilla would have known what she was getting into. She didn't crave the attention or spotlight but she would have been prepared.

Also, am I only one who thinks Camilla is not unattractive now? I also think she is very natural, straightforward and genuine. I like her!

imorethanamother

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 10:42 am

invisiblecircus wrote:

🙄🙄🙄

Nobody here would encourage their sons to marry the woman with the kind of experience you’re talking about. The Queen very much had religious values.

I find it amazing that we are so immersed in this culture that we’ve forgotten how we all live and the values we live by.

Alternative

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 10:58 am

imorethanamother wrote:

Of course I would encourage my son to marry an 'experienced' woman if he was secular, had had relationships, and was in love with her and she with him.

The values I live by don't include the double standard - encouraging a man to spend his thirties romancing whoever he pleases, and then making him settle down with a naive virgin who hasnt' seen a thing.

imorethanamother

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 11:07 am

Alternative wrote:

They weren’t secular. The Queen is the head of the church of England, and her official title is “Defender of the faith”. To that end, the church promoted virginity and discouraged divorce. She was a devout Christian and for Charles, also destined for these titles and roles, his actions had to be above board. He had to marry someone with yichus, so to speak, and marry someone who befit the title of queen.

Camilla got married when Charles wasn’t quite ready to settle down. Kate waited for William to be ready. That’s the difference.

Alternative

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 11:16 am

imorethanamother wrote:

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't insist on someone inexperienced for my son if he had all the experience in the world. I don't believe in double standards. (this in response to a previous post who insisted we would all refuse Camilla due to 'our' values).

A very strong value of mine is to refuse anything to do with a double standard.

Last edited by Alternative on Mon, Sep 19 2022, 11:17 am; edited 1 time in total

amother

Clover

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 11:19 am

imorethanamother wrote:

Actually, I would indeed encourage my sons to marry “experienced” women. Especially given the huge number of complaint posts on here in the intimacy forums. Many young men would appreciate an “experienced” woman to guide them and alleviate some of the expectations to go from Shomer Negia to bedroom stud overnight. 🙄 Hiding

imorethanamother

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 11:22 am

Alternative wrote:

I don’t know how to break this to you but there’s a lot of double standards in Judaism. Especially this very topic. So a higher authority disagrees? I know, it’s hard to swallow. But that’s the world.

amother

Caramel

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 11:25 am

imorethanamother wrote:

A lot of it had to do with his/Philip's mentor Prince Louis of Mountbatten. He specifically encouraged Charles to "sow his wild oats" and then when he was ready, to find a "suitable" wife. I don't think Elizabeth actually had that much to do with it, or that she was advising him romantically, though of course as heir she wanted and encouraged him to find someone and settle. Louis was killed shortly before he met Diana so there's no way to know how he would have advised Charles.

Louis btw was the "shadchan" for E&P, which by all accounts was a successful match. (He's also the name sake for W&K's son.)

Alternative

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 11:28 am

imorethanamother wrote:

I said I would be fine with it. I didn't say the Royal family was or all of traditional RW Judaism is.
Someone said we would all want to avoid an experienced woman as a wife for our son. And I said, no, I wouldn't, if my son was experienced himself and/or in love with her.

amother

Caramel

Mon, Sep 19 2022, 11:35 am

gamanit wrote:

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/07/traitor-king-edward-viii-interview

King Edward wasn't forced to abdicate because of the divorce. It was because of the German connection. He was terribly unsuited for the throne.

If you listen to his speech (it's on youtube) he clearly referenced the reason for abdication because of "the woman I love".
And it was prior to WW2, nobody knew what was coming. That in itself would not have forced him to step down.
Anyway, the whole BRF had German connections, and his brother King George had the connections, too, just not the pro Nazi views. (Although Philip's sisters actually were married to Nazis, which was one reason their match was a bit questionable at first though it was after the war ended.)