This week while researching my article on Queen Mary, I was reminded of her aversion to the name Charles for her grandson, the heir to the throne. Queen Mary always possessed a thirst for knowledge along with the discipline and drive to quench it. One of her areas of interest was the genealogy of the royal houses of Europe. Her accomplishments in this area gained her the respect that Queen Elizabeth II’s knowledge of horse genealogy has earned her. Queen Mary said no good would come of a King named Charles sighting King Charles I who was responsible for the countries Civil War and was executed. His son, Charles II, was a closet Catholic who spent the first 11 years of his reign following his father’s execution in exile; he practiced subterfuge and ‘converted’ to Catholicism with his last breath. King Charles II asked Lord Rochester to write his epitaph and here’s what Lord Rochester came up with, "Here lies our sovereign Lord the King, Whose word no man relies on; Who never said a foolish thing, And never did a wise one." Queen Mary may have had a valid point.

For again this week, Prince Charles has completely riled me. He is a man who leads a double life, as did Charles II. Prince Charles wants to be Charles III, defender of all faiths rather than Defender of the Faith, the oath that he will be required to take during his coronation. Here we see a man who was ‘born’ into a position that he clearly, in good conscious, cannot uphold. How tragic it would be for the Monarchy to lose its role as Head of the Church of England due to the indifference of Charles III. Sadder still is that he has one of the greatest embodiments of the Head of the Church of England in his mother, Queen Elizabeth II who this year spoke to the Pope John Paul, head of the Roman Catholic Church. She said, "I am pleased to note the important progress that has been made in overcoming historic differences between Anglicans and Roman Catholics." Pope John Paul said, "For many years now and through times of great change you have reigned with a dignity and sense of duty which have edified millions of people around the world." This would not be possible without her being the Head of the Church of England for otherwise she would be just another ‘nice’ monarch.

This overlaps the issue of his paramour, Camilla Parker-Bowles. Here is a woman he has known for the better part of 30 years. She is said to be the only woman he has ever loved. Though Charles didn’t have the courage to marry her in the 1970’s, we are expected to believe that he didn’t marry her out of respect for what we wanted. Camilla Shand married in 1973 becoming Mrs. Andrew Parker-Bowles. Though Charles continued his intimate relationship with a married woman we are expected to believe that when he got married things changed, he gave her up – for a time. We are expected to believe he has a terribly hard life and that she was his only source of comfort through the rough parts of his marriage. We are expected to now think that, ‘well they’ve been together for thirty years so it’s okay’. We are expected to accept her as his ‘partner’. Who has set these expectations, Charles and his advisors.

Well… it isn’t what I believe. I believe there was a woman named Camilla Shand who had a fantasy about being the mistress to the Prince of Wales like her great-grandmother, Alice Keppel, was to his great-great-grandfather, Edward VII. I believe Ms. Shand took advantage of living out this fantasy upon meeting a very innocent Prince of Wales. She didn’t let her marriage interfere with her mistressing duties. She coached him on finding the perfect wife. In ‘Royal Blood Feud’ James Whitaker said this about the Camilla/Charles relationship. "He (Charles) told Camilla that their (Charles and Diana) intimate life had collapsed soon after his marriage, and that he found it difficult to view Diana as he should because she had become an icon; this had put him off." Had Camilla been a friend with his best interest in mind, she would have counseled him to work through these feelings and put his energy into his marriage - not into their liaison. Her feelings of wanting to be his savior thwarted any attempt Charles would have made to be more involved in his marriage.

Do I believe that it was a difficult marriage for both parties? Yes I do. Do I believe that Prince Charles is entirely to blame for the break up? No I do not. Do I believe that had some effort been put into overcoming the obstacles faced in the marriage by both parties a satisfactory resolution could have been reached? Yes I do. I also believe that a great deal of these issues stem from the fact that Prince Charles lacks what his mother has, what she has shared with us in her Christmas Broadcast of 2000. "For me the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life." He shows neither the faith in the teachings of Christ or personal accountability before anyone in this relationship that he continues to flaunt expecting that we will all grow used to seeing them together and accept it.

Last year he dragged his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, into it by arranging for Camilla to personally meet Her Majesty at a barbeque he held at his Highgrove Estate. The people went mad for the Queen being dragged into it. Now it is announced that the Queen has sanctioned Prince William attending the Press Complaints Commission outing with Charles and Camilla. Again, there is outrage as he not only drags his mother into it, but his son. What sort of example of humanity let alone leadership and loyalty to the crown is Charles showing? If Charles is to gain any credibility, he must gain the courage to make a stand. If Camilla Parker-Bowles is the only woman for him, if he refuses to live his life without her, then prove it. Marry her in the Church of Scotland as it was reported in the Sunday Times this summer he was ‘investigating’ doing. Show the people he made an error in judgment many years ago, that he has repented, that he is a widow and Camilla is divorced by the law of man. Show the world he has faith that his relationship is a valid one and that he will take accountability for it before God and man!

By making this bold move I strongly believe that people will be so excited that Charles has stopped playing victim and taken responsibility for his own life that there would be much compassion. I also think his mother will not relinquish the throne until her death. By that time Charles will probably be in his 80’s and his reign will be rather short lived. If he does what’s in his heart now, he’s practically guaranteed thirty years of happiness with the woman he loves ‘officially’ by his side – not in the background. I believe that not only will he earn respect from the people, he would most likely still get to rule as divorce may not be unacceptable in the Church then. He may be the catalyst for the decision to change that rule. In thirty years time, divorce may not hold the stigma it holds today. Look at how far we’ve come regarding divorce since the 30’s when his Uncle David was ruling. In the old days a divorced person wasn’t even allowed in court.

To paraphrase a very astute reader who wrote me after the ‘Cinderella Wallis’ article, the main reason people frown on divorce in a leader is because divorce shows a lack of judgment. It makes the people wonder if this lack of judgment is a one-time thing or a recurring theme. This is Charles’ opportunity to show once and for all that he believes it was a one-time error in judgment. Look at Princess Margaret, it was the 50’s and Queen Elizabeth II had already produced an heir and a spare who came ahead of Margaret in the line of succession and Prince Philip was a very capable regent for them. Her marriage to a divorcee was still taboo by the Church though in a poll taken by the Daily Mirror at the height of the crisis in 1953, 67,907 of the 70,142 people polled answered ‘Yes’ to the question, ‘Should Princess Margaret be allowed to wed Peter Townsend?’

Time heals all and his two relatives paid the price to ensure his happiness. This I do not mean in a bad way. The first person to bring an issue to the forefront or to set a precedent generally suffers. Charles would probably suffer for a while after the initial marriage, but I believe people would get over it much easier than they will accept Camilla as the mistress of the King. I believe they would rebel loudly if he waited to be crowned before marrying her, as it would seem as though he was living under the rules that cost his forefather his head. By taking this difficult step now, by being true to himself, I believe Prince Charles has the opportunity to end the curse of ‘King Charles’ that his great-grandmother, Queen Mary, was so wary of. Will he act boldly and deal with the natural consequences of his behavior or will he maintain his status and risk his epitaph reading, "Here lies the Prince of Wales, never King, In his life unable to commit; Was Camilla his everything, Or a woman he could not outwit."

-- Eileen Sullivan --