Should Prince Charles have to apologise?

[smudge]

I'm amazed to read that a senior Church of England bishop, is requesting for Prince Charles to apologise to Camilla Parker Bowles's ex-husband, for committing adultery with his then wife.

Do you think he should/shouldn't have to do this before the forthcoming marriage?

[netibiza]

I think its ridiculous - Camilla committed adultery against her husband and she should apologise to Andrew - Charles should apologise to Diana's memory. The two of them should have been allowed to marry in the 70's and all this mess would have been avoided.

[EssJay1]

I'm amazed that he has to be told to apologise because I would hope that he has already done so.

[Robinia]

Hi smudge.  Surely any forced apology from an adult (for any reason) isn't going to be very sincere?  And it's really a bit late to come up with this one as people have been committing adultery & remarrying in church or having church blessings for years.  I think it's really for show, trying to put accross a message that you can't just mess up one marriage and easily walk into another with no word to the injured party/parties.

I've been trying to imagine the scenario of my ex or the woman involved apologising to me before they married in church....To be honest I wouldn't have wanted one, (all I ever felt after the anger was total indifference), but my sons might have done.

I agree with netibiza, they should have been married from the start. Although I liked Diana, & was sorry that she was so hurt, I never thought it was the fairytale that everyone said it was at the time & Camilla is much better suited to him.

Hope you're feeling better.x

[brawburd]

they COULD have got married in the 1970s.  Charles made that decision himself, too much for him to give up.

Apology?  Worthless.

 

 

[netibiza]

but brawdburd what would he have given up in the 70's that he is not having to give up now? Was it because Camilla had a name for being too friendly to the opposite sex that he couldn't marry.

[kestrel]

charles should not have to apologise for anything. why cant people just let him get on with his life without nit picking.cammilas ex husband also had affairs and he has moved on.and thats all charles and cammila wish to do move on with their lives..its about time others also moved on and let them be happy.charles deserves to be happy after being cheated on several times by his ex wife and her scandals all over the newspapers for all to read and talk about.it hasnt allways been easy for him he married the wrong person .we all make mistakes and now he is trying to put it right..cammila has allways been discreet you wont find her daily business splashed all over the tabloids she is not an attention seeker ..and maybe they will be left to get on with life as they wish..as for the bishop i bet he has made many mistakes but its easier to point others out..i know what i would tell him and he wouldnt like it..

[libertie]

Hear hear kestrel!

[undercovers]

i can't believe anyone is taking this seriously, its the church - its not meant to make any sense, be rational or fair - and this pantomime of church blessings etc just makes a mockery of what should be a union of two people making promises to each other and demonstrating their committment and love to friends and family.

[jno]

Since Charles will in due course become the head of the church, I can't see why bishops shouldn't give him some instruction in Christian behaviour. Not taking a photo of your mistress with you on your honeymoon might be one good piece of advice.

[El D]

I think the church should apologise for sticking its unwanted beak into people's lives again. Message for useless feeble broken old medieval cult - you are irrelevant, **** off. . .

[QmunkE]

I really wish that we could forget all about these two individuals. What makes their lives any more news-worthy than any other members of the public who take it upon themselves to engage in a romantic relationship, adulterous or otherwise? If others choose to believe they are setting some sort of "bad example" or diminishing the reputation of our nation, then they really need to take a look at the more important features of modern day existence.

Apologise? Only he feels he wants to, and means it.

[jno]

the royals live off us (and the land and money they stole from our ancestors). Let's call them to account for it. Often. As for the church sticking its nose in - the royal family is the church. The queen is the church's head. So the bishops have a right to demand a proper moral lead from her and her family. If she were to retire from politics and religion, and stop taking public money via parliament, she'd be entitled to some privacy. Until then, she isn't.

[keen2learn]

While I agree with jno's anti-royalist stance, I can't see what would be achieved by an apology. What's with this recent craze for getting public figures to apologise for anything and everything? What does it achieve? It doesn't change anything that has happened, no damage is undone, no real or personal contrition is ever apparent, so why bother? Lots of couples split up and re-marry, and lots of people treat each other in ways that are less than perfect - so what? That's life. Get over it.

[petesgrayz]

I wouldn't have thought an apology is necessary, Mr Parker Bowles is probably doing sommersaults that he's rid of the ugly old bint!  Maybe he should send a letter of thanks.  

[secretspirit]

I don't see what it's got to do with this bishop. What about jedge not lest ye be judged and all that? We all make mistakes, some bigger than others, and I bet after all that's happened over the years Charles wishes he'd married Camilla in the first place despite all the problems.