prince William insignia

[Evie]

He supposedly refused to let Charles marry the woman of his love

Well, considering that the woman Charles was in love with happened to be married to someone else at the time, IIRC, that's hardly surprising.    Also, even if Camilla had been willing to divorce her then-husband earlier in order to marry Charles, there might have been some popular objection at the time to the future head of the Church of England marrying a divorcee.  That was definitely an issue back in the day when Edward VIII abdicated in order to be able to marry Wallis Simpson, though it was probably becoming slightly less so by the 1980s.  Also, even as late as the 1980s, a royal bride with a "past" was highly frowned upon.  Sarah Ferguson raised a few eyebrows for having had a live-in boyfriend prior to her relationship with and marriage to Prince Andrew, and that was a few years after Charles married Diana.  Times and societal expectations have greatly changed between the era of Charles' courtship years and his son's. 

[tenworld]

I thought that when Charles wanter to marry Camilla originally she wasnt married, but after Philip said NO, they went theri ways and she married her second choice.  After about 10 years and two kids Charles and Diana diverged and charles went back to Camilla who was by then divorced.

[Alkari]

... I was under the impression he hasnt been around for a long time.  He supposedly refused to let Charles marry the woman of his love, in other words C&D was at least partly arranged (by default) and I thought Philip's was more of the same. 

I assure you the Duke is still very much "around" and in fact he accompanied the Queen on her recent visit here to Australia (November), where they both travelled long distances and had a busy round of duties.   Just because he's not making daily headlines doesn't mean he isn't doing things!!

All the information on Queen Elizabeth that I have ever read indicates that her marriage was very much a love match.   As for the Duke's supposed role in Charles not being able to marry Camilla at first, I'm afraid you will have to do your own trawling through all the gossip and general nastiness that has been written about it over the years.   

[Elkhound]

at least C&D produced what seems like two very classy princes, altho time will tell.

Wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party is not my idea of 'classy.'

[derynifanatic64]

It was Prince Harry who was photographed wearing a Nazi uniform.

[Alkari]

Harry was a young man at a private birthday party and had any other guest, from a wealthy family or not, turned up in the same costume, it would have been a complete non-event.   Yes, it was probably in poor taste - but who at his age hasn't done something in bad taste, or a lot worse?   But because it was Harry, the ever-present paparazzi and other people only too willing to make a big thing of it, ensured the pic went round the world.  Poor princes, like their mother now living their lives under the glare of flashbulbs and phone cameras, and knowing that the tiniest, slightest mistake or wrong move is going to be front page news. 

[Elkhound]

It was Prince Harry who was photographed wearing a Nazi uniform.

Your point being? 

[Elkhound]

Poor princes, like their mother now living their lives under the glare of flashbulbs and phone cameras, and knowing that the tiniest, slightest mistake or wrong move is going to be front page news.

To whom much has been given, from him much will be expected.  That's part of being royalty.  If they don't like it they can renounce their titles and go live as private citizens.

[Evie]

Yes, he's royalty, but at the time he was also only 20 years old.  At that age (mid-teens to young 20s), people--even Royals--are apt to do a lot of stupid, not very well thought out things that hopefully they wouldn't dream of doing in later life once they have reached their full maturity and brain development, which happens on average somewhere around the age of 25.  It's a scientific fact that the reason that adolescents are so impulsive, emotional, etc., is that in addition to the sudden influx of hormones at that stage of life, the brain has not reached full maturity and will continue to lag behind the body's maturation a few years longer.  Even Royal children are not somehow exempt from this simple fact of life.  Now, if Harry had been in his late 20s or older at the time, that would be a different matter, but for a 20 year old, "kids will occasionally be blithering idiots" applies no matter how highborn one is, or well-educated, well-mannered, etc.  I was far more of a "goody two shoes" sort of girl at that age than most, but even so, there are still things I said back then and actions I look back on now and wonder if adolescence is actually a temporary form of brain damage.  No, I'll take that back, I don't wonder.  Having two teens of my own now dispels all remaining doubt!   

[Alkari]

And when you were actually suffering that temporary insanity, you didn't have to cope with 24/7 scrutiny by the ordinary media, the feral paparazzi, and anyone else in the general population who happened to have a camera of some sort handy.  Or, in the case of those who didn't have a camera, people would be prepared to spill the beans in the form of juicy gossip for a nice little payment from some or other media outlet.

To whom much has been given, from him much will be expected.  That's part of being royalty.  If they don't like it they can renounce their titles and go live as private citizens.

Much indeed is indeed expected, Elkhound - but I somehow don't believe that "much" happens to mean 100% perfection and never making a mistake. 

And you don't have to go very far back into the history of British royalty to find royals whose behaviour was much worse and far less classy than Harry's, and at an age when they should have been 'mature'.  Dare I perhaps mention Edward VIII?   

[Elkhound]

And when you were actually suffering that temporary insanity, you didn't And you don't have to go very far back into the history of British royalty to find royals whose behaviour was much worse and far less classy than Harry's, and at an age when they should have been 'mature'.  Dare I perhaps mention Edward VIII?   

And that is why some two hundered years ago my ancestors pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to get rid of all that nonsense.  (I could be in Sons of the American Revolution if I wanted to; my grandmother and mother shredded their D.A.R. certificates over the Marian Anderson incident.)

[Alkari]

Be careful Elhound - if we are talking of "class", then in my lifetime I can think of a few elected US presidents who have shown themselves to lack any form of class, ethics, integrity and all the rest of it      They kinda put poor Harry's youthful little misdeameanour in the shade!

So you worry about your Presidents, and leave the Brits and the Commonwealth to worry about the Royals.  

[Evie]

Constitutional monarchies do have the definite advantage of having the person who represents the nation be completely separate from the person who just happens to be at the head of the current government.  It makes it a lot easier for other nations to show their respect for a monarch's nation and people during a monarch's State visits even when they might have pronounced differences when it comes to policy.

[Alkari]

Of course Elkhound, we Aussies should really be very greatful to your forebears.  

After all, if it wasn't for the American Revolution, the Brits wouldn't have needed to find another place to send their convicts, and the First Fleet would not have set sail.  Australia would then have been settled by the French - we'd probably have great food but undoubtedly more chaotic government!  (Mind you, we'd probably have got French convicts instead, of course, and perhaps eventually the French Foreign Legion.)  And based on other French colonial precedents, our path to nationhood may not have been nearly as smooth      

ETA:  And I am positive that the American Revolution was sparked by something a little more significant than a youthful misdemeanor of a younger prince attending a private party!   Hmmm - if prince was attending costume party in eighteenth century, wonder who he could have dresssed up as, in order to give offence?!  

[Elkhound]

<message deleted by a moderator>

This discussion has turned offensive.  I don't like to do this sort of thing, but I'm locking this topic to further discussion, since it has turned so acrimonious.

~~DesertRose