1. Are we not all 'royal observers'? Do we not all watch the Queen's reactions and speculate on what we think will happen next? The readers of this column certainly do as our Speakers Corner clearly shows.
2. This latest prank seems to me a very Clintonesque tactic - throw it out there and see how the public reacts. (With all the reported ambiguity surrounding the Golden Jubilee, it seems a rather selfish bit of timing.) Sadly for the PR machine, the reactions are exactly as they have been all along - people want to see Charles happy and married, they don't want to see Camilla queen. The ICM poll shows that while only 32% oppose the marriage a full 70% are against Camilla ever becoming Queen. (The paradox I mentioned in the last Charles and Camilla article, Charles, Camilla and the so-called Kiss.)
3. The Queen has always dedicated her life to the service of the people, she has longed lived by the oaths she made for to the people on the occasion of her 21st birthday. She also shared with us in the 2000 Christmas Broadcast that, "For me the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life." How can we believe that after 50 years and her recently sharing such a personal insight that she would suddenly go against the precepts of the Church of England, the foundation of her belief system. How can we believe that she has thrown all this away in order to sanction a marriage that would not be recognized by the Church over which she presides and her son is set to inherit.
4. Mr. Oborne reports another palace or royal observer stating that 'it's best' to get the wedding out of the way now so it won't dominate the media coverage during his coronation period. This is something I, a palace observer, said in an earlier column, Will Charles Prove Queen Mary Wrong?
   "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 widower 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." (Mr. Oborne claims that Charles cannot 'scuttle off' to Scotland to get married as his sister, the Princess Royal (Anne), did.)
5. Mr. Oborne further claims that Charles has no intention of giving up his role of 'Defender of the Faith' when he becomes king. He claims Charles' friends say he is highly religious and he is 'agonizingly aware' that he must account to God for the consequences of his actions. This I find completely implausible. If Charles were so religious and so concerned about his accountability before God, his behavior would reflect that. Mr. Oborne's statements regarding Charles opting for a civil ceremony because his religion won't recognize the union seem to contradict that observation as well.
6. Mr. Oborne reports, "…it is both cruel and absurd that the Prince and Mrs. Parker-Bowles should be forced to contemplate old age deprived of the benefits and comforts of marriage." No one is asking either of them to be deprived of this. The People are asking them to do what they see fit and live by the rules that would govern the union - no 'Defender of the Faith' oath, no Church of England wedding, no Queen Camilla.

-- Eileen Sullivan --