« Why I read John Lukacs | Main | What A Pair! »

February 26, 2005

Comments

G. Pair

1. No. She's a mistress.
2. Whatever the judgments of history, there may be virtue in making an honest woman of one's mistress; but not if she remains an adulterer.
3. Absolutely not, and I can't imagine what George Carey can have meant. All those years at Lambeth must have addled what there was of his brain.
4. I submit that it's "true love" entirely in the spirit of Chaucer's nun, whose "brooch of gold ful sheene, / On which ther was first write a crowned A, and after 'Amor vincit omnia.'"

frml

1. She was a mistress, then became a girlfriend on the death of his wife.
2. I don't know. But morals in Britain have changed so much in the past few decades that history may not apply in this case.
3. I don't see how it can be good for the C of E. At the very least, almost harmless.
4. True love. He is risking an awful lot marrying her. Admirable on his part in a way. Good luck to both of them.

Mrs. Peperium

These are very good and very helpful. I am very hard on the Prince for many reasons that are not all of his doing. He has been ill-served by the church, the times,(the sexual revolution took many eligable women out of the running) as well as his family. However that said, the Prince allowed himself to fall in love with another man's woman. Camilla not only had her husband's claim but she was the mother of two boys. The Prince is the Godfather of the youngest. The Prince obviously believed that no other woman in the world could provide the comfort and happiness that she does. He must have an odd opinion of life and of himself. Camilla helped the Prince pick out his bride. As Mr. P. said so well, "Well, if your pick out your own rival, you can't help but win." I don't think the Prince went into the marriage with an open heart. It was owned by Camilla. His marriage was doomed because of Diana's personality. She was young, unstable and not able to overcome the blow that he did not truly love her. Many women do, (like Queen Alexandra) but not her. It is not right to say that because of the background Diana came from she knew the score. That is too cynical. It was a profound disappointment that struck at what little core she had. A healthy respect for religion would have helped both Diana and Charles. I would term Camilla first a dependency, who falls in the mistress then girlfriend camp. More later.

Blimpish

Mrs. P: you touch upon the problem at the heart of all this - that Charles' marriage to Diana was an old-fashioned arrangement that couldn't survive in today's world. A hundred years back, Charles would've accepted the repression, and Diana would've accepted that he loved another. Marriage was accepted as going beyond our personal desires. But not since the 1960s (amongst the upper classes, not since the 1930s, probably - hence Great Uncle Bertie) has this been a sustainable state of affairs.

Mr. P:

1. A mistress, then a girlfriend.
2. Don't know either - but we're in uncharted territory here, given the significantly changed nature of the monarchy compared to even a century ago.
3. Indifferent to the CofE; some slight benefit in being reminded of its national role.
4. Triumph of true love; good luck from me too. Given our insistence today that love is the only basis of marriage, it is a positive thing that they be married rather than join the cohabiting many.

Monjo

Umm, I am opinionated.. not well-read or knowledgeable.

1 - huh?
2 - it is not wise for any man to marry (unless its J Lo and you get $5mil for a divorce), we do it for sex
3 - It is. If we can get married in God's eyes, we should be able to divorce and re-marry in his eyes too.
4 - umm, lust?

You are right my grey cells did get going, another few thousand of them just died from non-use.

Mrs. Peperium

Penquin Classics notes on Chaucer's nun:

161. The crowned A was an emblem for Anne of Bohemia, Queen to Richard II.

162. Amor vincit omnia The motto is of secular origin in Virgil. Usually taken as 'Love Conquers All', it can also mean 'Love binds all', with a religious sense. Like much about the Prioress, it is ambiguous.

Mrs. Peperium

frml, could you add a little more to the "almost harmless" for the C of E? My cynicism may be interpreting that remark in a way you may not have meant it. Thank you.

frml

Mrs P.,
I haven't been to England in a while, so all I know about the C. of E. is what I read in the press. My impression is that this institution has done so many untraditional things lately (gay bishops, for example), its leaders have said so many silly things lately (does a really a good God allow tsunamis?, as if disasters, even on this scale, have not happened many times before), that this impending marriage will not be extraordinarily strange, notwithstanding the fact that the groom is the heir to the throne. Add to this the indifference of the vast majority of Englishmen to religion nowadays, and you have an almost harmless event.
I hope I am not being unfair to this church or its leaders. It does seem to an outsider, though, excessively liberal.
Thanks for asking for my opinion.
frml

Mrs. Peperium

No, you're not being unfair at all. Everything you have said is true. I need to gather some thoughts together. More later.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

It Goes Without Saying

  • All original material published here is the property of the writer who penned it. Stealing is not only frowned upon but will be dealt with by strong-armed men trained in the art of legal jujitsu. The views put forth here are not the views of any employer we know which is most unfortunate.
Blog powered by Typepad