by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 13, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

nnouncing his engagement to Camilla Parker Bowles, Prince Charles remained a true baby boomer, thinking outside the box but, more importantly, following his heart. When Charles married Lady Diana Spencer in a Cinderella fairytale at London's legendary St. Paul's Cathedral in 1981, he kept a stiff upper lip, a perfunctory duty for the glorious House of Windsor. Charles, heir to British thrown when his mother Queen Elizabeth completes her earthly reign, fulfilled every Britons' fantasy marrying a young, beautiful princess—except his own. He was forced to betray himself and his true love Camilla, during, by anyone's standards, a tumultuous marriage, mercifully ending in 1996. Charles met and fell in love with Parker Bowles in 1971 at a polo match at Windsor Castle, yet was forced by protocol to follow a different script, a slave to the monarchy and paparazzi.

      When Diana was killed in a mysterious Paris car crash with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed in 1997, Charles was forced to keep his relationship with Camilla even more clandestine. For years the British public—indeed all House of Windsor-watchers—held sympathies for Diana, fueling wild stories about her breakdowns and endless speculation about Charles' affair with Camilla. Camera-friendly, sweet and approachable, Diana engendered far more sympathy than the detached and often crusty Prince. Before her death, Diana blamed Parker Bowles for her failed marriage. “There were three of us in this marriage, it was a bit crowded,” Diana said in a TV interview, creating antipathy toward her “scoundrel” husband. Yet it was Charles who was forced to paste on a phony smile to satisfy Diana and the British press. No one imagined what it must have been like to be Charles.

      Satisfying the British press didn't change the basic fact that Charles was forced to live with an arranged marriage. Was it any surprise that he waited until he was 35 to wed? It wasn't, as widely reported, that the Prince was obsessed with polo or fox hunting. Since 1971, Charles was involved in a deeply satisfying relationship regarded unacceptable by the House of Windsor. “The Duke of Edinburgh and I are very pleased that the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker Bowles are to marry. We have given them our warmest good wishes for their future together,” said Queen Elizabeth, in a stunning reversal from the days when she agonized over approving Charles' separation and divorce. While she's pleased now, she wasn't happy about the endless embarrassment to the royal family. Where were the queen's sympathies when she pushed her son into a bad marriage?

      Charles still lives within the pretence of official approbation. Even the skeptical Times of London finally lent its qualified approval, “After 30 Years, Charles Puts His Affair in Order,” obliquely disparaging Charles' 34-year love affair. Prime Minister Tony Blair wished the couple “every happiness” on behalf of 10 Downing Street. Sprinkling holy water on the engagement, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Church, stamped his seal of approval. “I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step,” something once thought unthinkable by the Church and Buckingham Palace. Now that there's some distance from Diana's death, Charles finally gets the support that eluded him in his official capacity. It's no accident that Camilla divorced her husband Andrew Parker Bowles one year before Charles in 1995.

      When Prince Charles office announced Feb. 10, “It is with great pleasure that the marriage of HHR the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles is announced. It will take place on 8th April 2005 at Windsor Palace,” concerns were already raised about disrespecting the memory Princes Diana. To allay concerns, 57-year-old Parker Bowles will carry the title, “Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall.” When and if Charles becomes king, she will be called “Her Royal Highness the Princess Consort,” said the Prince's office, assuring the public that Diana's memory won't be tainted. Sympathy for Diana's legacy, including her charitable work for children, landmines and AIDS, remains deep. “Mrs. Parker Bowles and I are absolutely delighted. It will be a very special day for us and our families,” said Charles, walking a fine line between expressing joy and honoring Diana's memory.

      Charles' marriage to Diana made great photo-ops but led to little happiness for the royal couple. Diana's tragic death sealed for eternity the sadness of a bad marriage. Unwilling to give up his true love, Charles mirrored the unique challenge of baby boomers, unwilling to compromise and forever seeking lofty ideals, whether in love or careers. Pointing the finger at Charles ignores the courage needed to balance protocol against the implacable reality of true feelings. You can't blame Charles for keeping the faith and maintaining affection for his true love. “I don't think the public is hostile to the remarriage,” Sarah Richardson, a constitutional historian at Warwick University, concerned that Camilla's new title might offend Brits still loyal to Diana. Like reclaiming the Falklands from Argentina, Charles rescued his love and can finally celebrate in public.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of Onlinecolumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.