Hello! I think you will be as fascinated as I am by the insightful, humorous and indignant responses to the piece I recently wrote about Prince Charles’ relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles. In that column I tried my best to view the relationship with a ‘historic imagination’ - something that Winston Churchill was an expert at. Churchill’s belief is summed up in his quote, ‘The longer you look back, the farther you can look forward.’ Though I firmly believe this, I am a novice so I’d like to begin by sharing the views of the readers whose historic imagination may prove to be far superior to my own.

John C. wrote, ‘By marrying Camilla now he will have to remove himself from the line of succession or risk being driven from it. This would leave a young and surely insecure Prince William to face being crowned any time! That would be too much pressure for him and would be the height of selfishness for Charles. Charles won't do this because he would lose the right to the income of the POW*. He is selfish and would never give up this income to his son although he may well bow out once kingship becomes a burden. If Camilla removed herself which she should have done years ago something might be salvaged for Charles but she will not...’ He concludes his remarks with this statement, ‘It is too late for Charles to redeem himself by being honest for who on earth would ever believe him?’ Could Charles be holding out until Prince William finishes his time at University before committing himself publicly to this ‘non-negotiable’ relationship knowing that this is a possibility? As a rooter for truth, justice, and happy endings in general, I would like to think that though it would take many years to convince most of us, but he could eventually earn our respect and be well thought of in history.

Suzanne is a reader with a great interest in history as well. She writes, ‘I would also add that Charles is setting a terrible example for his sons, especially William. What is Charles teaching him -- that it is okay for a future monarch to flout the laws of the country, the canons of the church, the traditions of the monarchy? This notion that he seems to have that he can somehow make the nation "accept" his relationship to Camilla through a carefully constructed p.r. campaign is repugnant.’ In case Charles still hasn’t figured it out -- actions do speak louder than words.

Our reader Algea has more severe view of what Charles’ behavior ‘ought’ to be. ‘Under no conditions should he marry Camilla. Quite the contrary he should repent, leave her alone, and dedicate himself to good causes and teaching his sons how to avoid his mistakes. To marry Camilla is to signal to the world that heinous and morally unconventional behavior result in you getting the prize.’

Rachel has a practical ‘out of sight, out of mind’ opinion of the affair. She writes, ‘Perhaps the only difference of opinion I have is that I think that if Charles marries Camilla they should both go quietly into the sunset and leave public life. I don't want this corrupt and selfish couple as my King and Queen.’ This view seems to be shared by A.M.K. who writes, ‘I agree that if Mrs. Parker Bowels really loved Charles, she would not have had an affair with him. She should have dropped out of the Picture permanently on Feb. 24.1981**, which I believe was the day Charles and Diana were officially engaged. Charles, William and Harry, and Country should have been placed above her own needs. If she does marry Charles someday, the only title she deserves is Mrs. Windsor, no duchess, no princess etc.’

Jacquelyn writes quite livid by her perception of my attitude towards Catholics. ‘We are used to your anti-Charles diatribes. But, please spare us the Anti-Catholicism. If I lived in England, I, like Charles III, would be a "closet Catholic" in order to shield myself from the bigotry , if not hatred that, apparently, is still alive and well in adherents to "the faith". Well, the truth is, not only am I an American I was raised Catholic by my Irish grandparents (all four of them!) and their offspring, my parents. Hi! Mom, Dad and Nan.

Our dear reader Jennifer expressed concerned for my health, ‘thought you might need an antacid after reading your article on Charles.’ I only need antacids when I don’t speak my mind. It’s been awhile since I’ve had one. ;-)

Here’s a quote from a frequent reader, Lesley, who does her own royal writing. ‘Regarding Prince Charles and Camilla it is my personal opinion after visiting Highgrove and the Duchy Farm this past fall that if Charles and Camilla were allowed to be left as a normal couple they would most certainely enjoy their life together tucked away in this beautiful part of the country. It would appear that William and Harry have accepted this lady as their father's companion and it would be nice to think that was the way everone thought!’ Noami echoed this sentiment, ‘And, if William does appear with Camilla at some point in the future -- so what? I don't think such an appearance would necessarily have to be interpreted as "approval", just as acceptance of the situation.’ A surprised Valerie added, ‘At last you have written an article which I can agree with - of course Prince Charles should marry Camilla. How nice it will be to know that he and his wife are truly in love with each other. Love is not just for young people.’

Well, I’m not sure what will happen. I’ll be closely following the articles written on the subject like the one in early June 2000, quoting senior church official whom they say indicated Charles and Parker Bowles could marry in a Church of England ceremony within five years. It said the church was holding a grass-roots "referendum" over plans to drop its prohibition on second marriages where a former spouse was still living. For though Charles is considered a widower, Camilla is considered married in the eyes of the Church as her ex-husband, Andrew, is still living. The most recent thing I’ve read on the subject was in the Times as well. It was on Sunday, January 21^st and was written by Christopher Morgan, Religious Affairs Correspondent. The article was titled ‘Church divorce bar to be lifted’. In this article he notes, ‘The dioceses have been asked to vote on proposals to revoke the 1957 Act of Convocation that bars the use of the marriage service for divorced people with spouses still living.’ Changes are coming, giving us much to keep our interest fueled.

* POW (Prince of Wales) Charles Investiture as POW was July 1, 1969. Charles also holds the title ‘Duke of Cornwall’ and with it the properties and the income they produce known as the ‘Duchy of Cornwall’. (Born in November 1948, Prince Charles was only three years old when he began receiving this income.) From the ‘Official’ British Monarchy web page, ‘Prince Charles became the 24th Duke of Cornwall on The Queen's accession in 1952. He is in effect a trustee, so is not entitled to the proceeds of disposal of assets. The Prince must pass on the estate intact, so that it continues to provide an income from its assets for future dukes. The Duchy's net surplus for the year to 31 March 1998 was �5,955,000.’

** This is the date of the betrothal.

-- Eileen Sullivan --