?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Happy ending

Just caught the tail end of the wedding that came about 30 years later than it should have done, and it seems to have gone alright. I liked Camilla's dress, dove-grey and gold, and the twigs; although I still think she looks like a horse, but then, he's no oil painting either -- but what struck me was how comfortable they looked together. He was never like that with Diana. So, I hope they'll be very happy together.

But it's sincerely to be hoped that the Queen will live at least as long as her mother, because queen Camilla? She waved with her bouquet, for chrissakes!

Comments

( 20 Speak Like A Child — Shout To The Top )
meko00
Apr. 9th, 2005 03:46 pm (UTC)
I missed it, but I'm happy for them, too. :-)

But it's sincerely to be hoped that the Queen will live at least as long as her mother, because queen Camilla? She waved with her bouquet, for chrissakes!
Eep. But she might learn not to, right?
gamiila
Apr. 9th, 2005 04:07 pm (UTC)
But she might learn not to, right?

Can she? And what about all this Princess-Consort claptrap? A rose by any other name...The wife of a King is a queen, plain and simple.
meko00
Apr. 9th, 2005 04:22 pm (UTC)
:-)

Well, the husband of a Queen is a Prince-Consort, and maybe this 2nd marriage civil union stuff prevents it somehow. All those convoluted rules... *sighs*
gamiila
Apr. 9th, 2005 04:53 pm (UTC)
Well, the husband of a Queen (regnant) is only a Prince-Consort because there is no other neutral term that can be used. The word 'king' automatically implies someone with the right to rule (e.g. William & Mary). The word 'queen' is more ambiguous -- it can either mean someone with a right to the throne, or someone who just happens to be married to a man with that right(i.e. a king). Hence the difference between queens regnant (as Elizabeth, or Beatrix are), and queens consort (your Sylvia), also expressed in the use of capitals (Queen Margrethe) and lower case (queen Sofia).

And btw, there is still some doubt as to the validity of Charles 2nd, civil marriage -- under the Marriage Act of 194-something, British royals are expressly forbidden to enter into civil marriages in England; a point that was raised by several eminent lawyers a few times in the run-up to today's wedding, but which the government has chosen to ignore this time round.
meko00
Apr. 9th, 2005 06:01 pm (UTC)
Oh, I know. I just think it's weird. Also, it's Silvia. Queen Margrethe is just so cool.

Ah. Our own rules are very, very confusing, with lots of formerly Royal Princes being/having been Counts of Wisborg for marrying commoners or for other reasons, e.g Sigvard Bernadotte, and others who got to keep their royal titles despite marrying commoners.
gamiila
Apr. 9th, 2005 06:21 pm (UTC)
All our princes have now married (or are about tomarry, there's 2 more getting hitched this summer) commoners, but that was never a problem just as long as Parliament approved. But recently, the Cabinet have decided that all the children born to these princes, and even to the two Princes (but not the Crown Prince's) are to be dubbed counts and countesses; because it would be confusing to have too many princes/princesses. And so the House of Orange, that have been Princes since 1533, have suddenly been transformed into a house of counts, except for that branch of the family that carries the title Prince of Orange -- btw, that's a male title; so will be defunct in the next generation since the current Prince's eldest child is a daughter, Amalia.

There's also some debate as to what Máxima's title should be when Willem-Alexander becomes King; some of our MPs are worried that if we call her queen, people will be confused as to her precise role -- they're thinking Princess will do nicely for her instead.
meko00
Apr. 10th, 2005 10:35 am (UTC)
...because having countless (heh) counts and countesses won't be confusing either, oh no. *shakes head in befuddlement* That's just sad.

Oh dear. Ok, that assumption makes me mad.
db2305
Apr. 9th, 2005 03:54 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I think this is much more romantic, these people who've loved each other for forty years, than the dimwitted, badly dressed, emotionally unstable ex-nursery attendant he married, just because she was the only blue-blooded virgin over sixteen left.
This is the real thing, even if I don't find either of them particularly likeable....
gamiila
Apr. 9th, 2005 04:03 pm (UTC)
Hey! I happened to like the dimwitted, badly dressed, emotionally unstable ex-nursery attendant, who after she found out the truth about her marriage proved neither to be dimwitted nor badly dressed...At least with Diana, there was never a dull moment.

The thing with Charles is, he's a ditherer. Lucky for him, he's got Camilla to make up his mind for him. But even if I have to give her credit for putting up with all his crap over the years, I can't find it in my heart to like either her nor him. Though I doubt that'll make them lose any sleep. ;-)
sanda56
Apr. 9th, 2005 04:16 pm (UTC)
Aw I thought it was lovely! *sniff* No, of course I don't have a romantic bone in my body! ;)

I think she's quite elegant. Loved all the posh people getting off the bus. :D
gamiila
Apr. 9th, 2005 04:55 pm (UTC)
Our royals and their guests have been bussing it for decades, so I don't get what all the fuss was about there. Although I do think it's tragic that your lot haven't even got their own bus, but had to make do with hired coaches.
sanda56
Apr. 9th, 2005 05:00 pm (UTC)
Although I do think it's tragic that your lot haven't even got their own bus, but had to make do with hired coaches.

I know, it's comical isn't it? ;)
gamiila
Apr. 9th, 2005 05:06 pm (UTC)
It certainly is; all those royals piled onto a bus with ads on the back! There's one very happy coach company in England today -- you can't buy that kind of publicity!
calove
Apr. 9th, 2005 04:33 pm (UTC)
Come the revolution... *muttergrumble*

Yeah, fine - sure they'll be happy together, yada yada, but I just wish they'd go do it somewhere that doesn't involve either of them getting into my newspaper/ onto my radio/ TV. Inbred, spoilt, ungrateful, stupid... *grouse*

Cass, determindely anti-romantic today it seems.
gamiila
Apr. 9th, 2005 05:02 pm (UTC)
somewhere that doesn't involve either of them getting into my newspaper/ onto my radio/ TV.

To be fair, I think the hype is something that the media have created, under the pretext of 'the people have the right to know'. It's a sad fact of life that royalty (or gossip) sells newspapers, which is why there are so many paparazzi about. If more people shared your attitude, they'd die of starvation, and the phenomenon would die out.

Inbred, spoilt, ungrateful, stupid...

And ugly, you forgot to mention ugly. I caught a glimpse of one of Fergie's daughters -- poor girl, looks just like her dad, all teeth.
calove
Apr. 9th, 2005 06:37 pm (UTC)
Ach, they can't help being ugly.

But it was bloody Radio 4! I would expect it of the red tops, but RADIO 4! For God's sake.

Other country's Royals seem to get it right - yours do OK. The vast majority of ours are an expensive waste of space.
gamiila
Apr. 9th, 2005 07:38 pm (UTC)
Ours are boring -- they go to work, ride their bicycles, pay their taxes; who wants to read/watch that?
calove
Apr. 9th, 2005 07:59 pm (UTC)
Precisely. Way it should be for certain of them.
curiouswombat
Apr. 9th, 2005 08:07 pm (UTC)
I was so pleased for them that they finally got around to it. I cannot understand all the complaints from the Church of England about her being a divorcee - wasn't the CofE set up to allow royal divorces/remarriages etc.? It's not as if her first husband had any objections - he was at the wedding with his wife!

I think it's a great shame that Camilla didn't fancy the job when she was younger, it would have been so much better for Dead Di if she'd married another minor aristocrat and lived out her life happily in Harvey Nichs instead of trying to become a fashion icon, and then getting upset when people took her picture.

I think Camilla's two outfits today were lovely - she seems to have very good dress sense - or better advisors than Di did for her wedding. I actually saw Di's dress - it went on tour after the wedding!! It looked just as crumpled and messy in real life as it did in pictures.

I think you're absolutely right about her technically becoming queen - but she can choose to use any of her titles that come with the job - and as Camilla is just not a very queenly name going with Princess Consort might be better! Mind you 'queen Diana' always sounded as if it would be rather naff to me!

If the marriage was for any reason not legal it really wouldn't matter - it's not as if she's expecting to produce another heir anyway!
gamiila
Apr. 9th, 2005 10:01 pm (UTC)
I cannot understand all the complaints from the Church of England about her being a divorcee - wasn't the CofE set up to allow royal divorces/remarriages etc.?

Exactly! I never got that, either. When Henry VIII couldn't get a papal dispensation to get a divorce, didn't he wake up one morning and say "I know, I'll just break away from the Church, start my own, and then I can get married to my wife's lady-in-waiting who is already carrying my heir! -- plus I'll be a little richer, because I'll make all Church property fall to me." So the CofE worthies saying "They can't get married because they're adulterers and it would be like sanctioning adultery" seemed to be denying their own church's founding reason for existing to me.

If the marriage was for any reason not legal it really wouldn't matter

I think it's an interesting point for family law students to debate over cheese and port of an evening; but since Tony Blair's government has given it the green light early on, and everyone has accepted it as valid, it matters not a whit whether or not the Royal Marriage Act provides for it. It's done, they're married, now let them be.
( 20 Speak Like A Child — Shout To The Top )

Profile

gamiila sig #2
gamiila
Gamiila

Latest Month

May 2019
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow