Charles, Camilla and the Coronation That Never Was
The stars were not aligned for King Charles and Queen Camilla in May 2023. In fact, they have not been aligned for years.
So many years, in fact, that their marriage has been declared illegal by experts for over a decade. Unfortunately we won’t know the truth about the marriage, and thus their status as King Charles and Queen Camilla, until Charles III passes on.
Constitutional experts claim that the union was (and still is) unlawful under the 1949 Marriage Act. A member of the royal family cannot be married in a civil ceremony. The 1836 Marriage Act also prevented – and still prevents – any senior royal from marrying in a civil ceremony. Famously, the couple married in the town hall, with a registrant and our late Queen did not attend.
As we’ll see in this feature, Camilla and Charles may have got around these Marriage Acts, through what the Daily Telegraph are calling a ‘wedding’ which was quietly slipped in, during the coronation itself.
The astrology says, if so, – this ploy did not work. Through the lens of the horoscopes, crowns may have been placed on heads, but this is not King Charles and Queen Camilla we are seeing.
Astrologers Who Predicted Charles Will Not Rule
Leading astrologers since Charles Carter, President of the Astrological Lodge of London in the 1940s, have always predicted Charles III would never rule. Carter speculated about Charles abdicating, even when he was a baby.
The legendary Noel Tyl wrote, “Charles will not be king” in his 1996 book, Predictions For a New Millennium. Associate Professor Nicholas Campion in Born to Reign (1993) also cast doubts on King Charles III. And – with inside knowledge – Princess Diana’s astrologer Penny Thornton, writing in With Love From Diana, hinted at abdication.
Charles and Camilla Will Not Rule
Charles and Camilla Will Not RuleIn 2022 and 2023, I told the Daily Mail, The Express and ABC Radio Australia about similar outcomes.
Charles and Camilla will not rule. There was a risk of a cancelled coronation earlier in 2023. I said, repeatedly, Charles would not be King. Ahead of a Conscious Cafe event predicting July-December 2023, where I’ll talk about this – I thought I’d explain how the horoscopes are right and why when Charles dies, the coronation will be found invalid.
This may happen even sooner if the legal documents about Camilla and Charles that PM Tony Blair ordered to be sealed, all those years ago – are opened.
The best coverage of this episode in our living history is in the archived pages of the Daily Mail, to whom I spoke about Charles, stating that I did not believe the coronation would go ahead and/or he would never be king. When is a coronation not a coronation? When it’s a retrocoronation.
Mercury Retrograde is the notorious cycle that even non-astrologers know about. Mercury rules paperwork, signatures and contracts. When Mercury appears to go backwards, so does the paper trail. Cancellations are common. So are ‘null and void’ outcomes. Charles III managed to sign his Accession papers on one Mercury Retrograde cycle then, incredibly, set his coronation for another. Thus, my nickname for what we saw, because as we will find out when he is dead, it was never a constitutional and legal coronation at all. In fact – a Right Royal Retrocoronation.
The Retrocoronation, Cancellation and Eclipse Cover-Ups
When should you also expect a cover-up? On an eclipse.
Charles chose the day after an eclipse for his coronation and as we’ll see in this feature, Camilla also enjoyed a ‘symbolic wedding’ to him, according to the Daily Telegraph. For the second time, it seems. Was this because the couple knew perfectly well their town hall signatures years before, invalidated them as monarchs?
When Is A Queen Not A Queen?
When is a Queen not a Queen? When she gets her title on Mercury Retrograde.
On 2nd March 2020 Tatler among others reported, The Duchess of Cornwall would not become Queen. Clarence House confirmed that Camilla would be Princess Consort, instead.
So much for that. Perhaps understandably, given her huge Leo stellium, Camilla ended up as QUEEN CAMILLA in the Sunday Times magazine, complete with crown.
Yet, for how long? Camilla was promoted to Queen in the eyes of the media on on April 16th 2023 when she starred in the press. Yet… She is a Mercury Retroqueen on a Mercury Retrocoronation. Rather like every other dramatic announcement or verdict we see on these cycles, it will come to nothing, with the fullness of time. In fact, many legal minds would argue she isn’t even Queen now – any more than Charles is King. As we go into the South Node in Libra cycle from July 2023, it is important to talk about both the law, as it pertains to Kings – and the law, as it pertains to Roman Catholics, Anglicans and marriage.
The Illegal Civil Ceremony
On Sunday 20th February 2005, Andy McSmith in The Independent reported “Charles’s civil ceremony may not be legal.” The story would not go away and it persists today, which is why I believe the horoscopes are correct and the astrologers are right. On 11th April 2010, Simon Walters and Ian Gallagher for the Mail on Sunday reported “The wedding secret Charles must take to his grave: Legal advice on Camilla marriage sealed until after his death. The Government was accused of a cover-up last night after it was ruled that the legal advice that enabled Prince Charles to marry the Duchess of Cornwall must remain secret until after his death.”
Not To Be Seen Until Charles is Dead
Not To Be Seen Until Charles is DeadThe Queen Mother lived to 101. Her Majesty the Queen, lived to 96. Charles is 74 years old as I publish this in June 2023. We obviously hope he will live to a ripe old age as did his mother and grandmother.
His father, the Duke of Edinburgh was 99 so Charles has inherited spectacular genes. So, it may be as much as 20 years and counting before we are ever allowed to know the truth about the illegality of this ‘King’ and ‘Queen’ of England.
Camilla Parker Bowles and Charles, Prince of Wales, married on 9th April, 2005 in Windsor, Berkshire. A total solar eclipse occurred on April 8th 2005. The Deputy Registrar signed the Entry of Marriage certificate on 11th April 2005 (Image: BBC) and apparently the deed was done. Or was it?
Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh did not attend Charles and Camilla’s wedding, according to the Daily Telegraph, because her position in the Church of England forbade it.
Our late Queen did attend a star-studded Anglican blessing afterwards, though, wearing white (as Camilla had pointedly done when Charles had married her rival Diana).
The Queen also wore an Australian wattle brooch, sending a message to Charles about what Camilla would bring to the Commonwealth’s jewel in the crown. She was right.
In 2023, the monarch’s head has been taken off future Australian currency and PM Albanese is well on the road to ushering in a referendum on a republic. The Royal Mail public release of the crown-free Charles III (pictured) has gone viral on Twitter partly because this bare head does not even have a symbolic crown in the corner. And who oversaw this? Charles himself. These are English stamps, though. Not Australian.
Eleven Ignored Objections and the Man Who Would Be King
Eleven written objections to the marriage were lodged with Camilla and Charles’s respective local registry offices, all those years ago, as Mercury climbed backwards and an eclipse began to build.
Three objectors even turned up to an office in Windsor on the wedding day to state their case.
The wedding went ahead anyway, as we know, but it did so under bad stars and a distinct whiff of – The Magna Carta. Was this a future King who considered himself above the law?
True to Mercury Retrograde jinxing, Pope John Paul II died, plans had to be pulled and Charles delayed his wedding to Camilla by 24 hours. The location also changed. It turned into a town hall wedding with a registrar, with delighted souvenir shops nearby and a full McDonalds. Matt Cardy (Getty Images) photographed the wedding banns on February 21st 2005 at the register office, below, ahead of the planned April 8th event.
Consecrating an Old Infidelity?
Anglicans wondered, about adultery, divorce and remarriage, “Would permitting the new marriage be tantamount to consecrating an old infidelity?” Well, it seems the answer was yes when Charles sought Camilla’s hand – and many Church of England faithful still ask that question today.
Nostradamus, Mario Reading and Harry
Mario Reading, who correctly predicted Her Majesty the Queen would die in the year 2022, seven years before it happened (Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies for the Future, Watkins, London, 2015) wrote: “Princes Charles will be seventy-four years old in 2022, when he takes over the throne, but the resentments held against him by a certain proportion of the British population, following his divorce from Diana, Princess of Wales, still persist. The pressure on him is so great, and his age so much against him, that Charles agrees to abdicate in favour of his son. The question is, which son?”
Mario Reading dated his quatrain to 2022:
Because they disapproved of his divorce
A man, who, later, they considered unworthy
The people will force out the King of the islands
A man will replace him who never expected to be King.
Mario Reading’s use of ‘later’ is important, post-coronation, because the astrology suggests when Charles dies, the legal advice on Camilla is unsealed and we will see a Retrocoronation and full-blown constitutional crisis. If not before – it may be that Freedom of Information finally wins the day.
Mario Reading was right about 2022, as after Elizabeth II passed, the governments of Jamaica, the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda (the islands) did indeed announce referendums on republicanism. The Sydney Opera House cancelled a coronation celebration. (Image of Nostradamus: Wikimedia Commons).
The Invalidated Coronation of 2023
Royal author Anthony Holden, just six months ago, suggested King Charles’s coronation could be invalidated because of his 1994 affair confession (reported in the Daily Mail). He is correct, according to the many horoscopes we have for the United Kingdom. Again and again we see the Libra-Scorpio dance across time. It has always been about the law – and church law – and also the realities of financial and sexual relationships. Death, too. And death came with Diana.
On 1st January 2023, Anthony Holden claimed the coronation could spark a constitutional crisis.
He told The Guardian, “The Church of England has never crowned a divorced man as King, let alone one who has publicly confessed to adultery – with the relevant woman expecting to be crowned Queen Consort.” In fact, former Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie told Holden a revision of the coronation oath and a new statue of Parliament would be required, some years ago, to usher in King Charles. Well – it didn’t happen.
The Ill-Fated Accession and Camilla
The signed and witnessed Accession after our Queen’s passing, also took place on Mercury Retrograde.
At 10.00am on September 10th 2022 the stars aligned – in reverse – and we began to see King-Not-King, thanks to the town hall wedding which had set up the cycles of time, all those years before. Eclipses commonly hide the truth in plain sight. There is a distraction, or big diversion, but the core facts of the matter are never seen.
With Charles and Camilla, the red herring has been the Church of England. For all that the computer print-out on the day said Previous Marriage Dissolved for His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, The Prince of Wales – and Previous Marriage Dissolved for Camilla Rosemary Parker Bowles – these are not ordinary Britons. For all that Charles has tried to avoid religious doctrine in the constitution, it stands.
The real problem is the Roman Catholic church. We’ve never seen an annulment of the marriage between Andrew Parker Bowles and his first wife. Two decent authorities, mentioned in this feature, both deny it ever happened. One is a Roman Catholic writer and senior commentator; the other is a royal historian and author.
Charles, a self-confessed adulterer, had also lived in sin with Camilla. And more controversially, without the necessary annulment from the Catholic church, she was still Andrew’s wife in the eyes of the Vatican, even as her ex-husband watched the crown go on her head during the coronation.
On April 20th 2009 in The Times, Richard Owen reported from Rome, “The Pope’s Gift for Charles and Camilla – His View on Divorce.”
“When the Prince presents the Duchess of Cornwall to Benedict XVI as his wife for the first time, he will receive a gift that may strike an unwelcome chord: a “luxury facsimile” of the 1530 appeal by English peers to Pope Clement VII asking for the annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.” Owen continued, “The Vatican is said to be dismayed by reports that, when he becomes King, Charles wishes to be known as Defender of “Faith” or “Faiths” rather than “the Faith”, to reflect multicultural Britain.”
“I Don’t Think the Marriage Was Ever Annulled”
Father Francis Marsden, a priest for over 38 years with a wide readership online, claimed “I don’t think the marriage of Camilla and Andrew Parker-Bowles was ever annulled.”
Father Marsden has bylines in The Catholic Times and is a priest at the Archdiocese of Liverpool.
In academia, Professor Rebecca Probert is one of the authors of “When is a wedding not a marriage? Exploring non-legally binding ceremonies” at the School of Law, University of Warwick.
She writes, “The last 300 years of royal marriage law has resulted in a contradictory legislative and legal mess that potentially became 10 times worse when it was brought into shuddering contact with the Human Rights Act as a consequence of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles.”
It’s the kind of thing that even the writers of The Crown could not invent. The tale of Diana, Charles and Camilla never really goes away, even (and perhaps especially because of) a coronation.
Unpopular or Popular Queen Camilla?
Camilla’s increased popularity and ‘public acceptance’ has long been the argument for putting the crown on her head at Westminster Abbey.
A YouGov survey for the Daily Telegraph revealed just 7% of Britons thought she should have the title some years ago, but things are different now. In May 2022 YouGov reported 39% thought she should be Princess Consort. Only 20% thought she should become Queen. So here we are.
The peculiar nature of the coronation owed much to the Full Moon in Scorpio (Charles’s sign) opposite the Sun in Taurus, and of course, the eclipse. It caught Camilla’s solar Fifth House, which rules her stepsons Harry and William, their children – and her own, Catholic-raised children too.
The Grim Reaper AKA Father Benedictus
A hooded priest rushed through the Cloisters at one point and was quickly dubbed The Grim Reaper. This still from the BBC coverage on YouTube shows the ghostly figure moving swiftly in the background. It raised an internet storm.
This was actually Father Benedictus, easily Westminster Abbey’s most famous spirit person.
In fact, he was a Benedictine Catholic, just like the man who married Andrew Parker Bowles to Camilla Shand. Father Benedictus was last seen on the eve of the Queen Mother’s wedding to King George – some years before the Abdication that put both of them on the throne. He appears in two histories of London and full-named eyewitness accounts exist.
Religion, Neptune and Saturn in Pisces
Beyond the odd nature of the ceremony itself, which brought the ghostly, hooded Father Benedictus in front of the BBC television cameras, the over-arching astrology of that coronation was a rare cycle.
Not only Neptune but also stern Saturn in Pisces, the two fish of Christianity, dominated the skies over Westminster Abbey since March 2023, two months before the event unfolded.
The King is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, also known as the Protestant religion, which states relics are ‘repugnant to God.’
Repugnant to God
Yet Charles accepted relics of the cross of Christ , given by the Pope, at the coronation. The Bible used on the day also contained mistakes. It came (quite specifically chosen by the Archbishop of Canterbury) from the days of the He Bible/She Bible where the sex of one person is changed in the narrative.
Catherine Pepinster, author of Defenders of the Faith: the British Monarchy, Religion and the Coronation wrote, “Thirty years ago, the then Prince of Wales surprised bishops when he said that he would rather be known as Defender of Faith rather than the traditional Defender of the Faith. However, when the Queen died, he was given – and took – the ancient title.”
That has immediately set up a typical Saturn and Neptune in Pisces problem. Perhaps that is why Father Benedictus appeared. Newsweek contacted Westminster Abbey about the hooded man’s identity. They claimed he was a verger. He was oddly dressed, if so. And where was security?
“Andrew Parker Bowles Has Not Sought An Annulment”
Can divorced Charles III be Fidei Defensor, while married to the divorced Camilla? And if she did obtain an annulment from the Catholic Church, why has no biography or article about her or Andrew Parker Bowles ever mentioned it? Are we in fact looking at two people who don’t have a legal, religious and constitutional rock to stand on? Or even a stone of Scone?
Marlene A. Eilers Koenig is an internationally recognised royal historian of British and European royalty and author.
In 2009 she wrote, “In 1996, Andrew married Rosemary Pitman, with whom he had been involved for some years. They had a civil marriage, as Andrew and Rosemary are both divorced. Andrew Parker Bowles has not sought an annulment for his first marriage.”
The Scorpio Eclipse
If the historian and author David Starkey CBE is right and there never was a legal marriage for Charles and Camilla, because of the civil ceremony (and the weakness of the Human Rights act as a defence for the hopeful monarchs) then that Scorpio eclipse a day before the coronation may explain a momentous cover-up.
It is entirely possible that Charles and Camilla know what is in former PM Tony Blair’s sealed document envelope – and always did.
Perhaps Prince Harry is seeking verbatim evidence of something approaching this, as he opens up the question of newspaper phone hacking. We know about Tampongate. What other recorded telephone conversations have there been, over the years, that might add to an Uncoronation?
No Crown on Charles III’s Head – Hello, Goodbye?
No Crown on Charles III’s Head – Hello, Goodbye?There is no crown on Charles III’s head on UK stamps as we’ve seen.
In fact, he is the first monarch to ever have the crown taken off his head.
Why? The official explanation is – for the sake of simplicity. Well, perhaps that argument might hold – except the elaborate, expensive coronation cost the government and taxpayers about 100 million pounds, according to Time magazine.
Tradition has it that the King wears no crown on the coins, so Charles III now looks oddly like a subject, not a monarch, on both stamps and currency. We psychic astrologers never, ever did see Charles, crowned. And here he is, just as our clairvoyance delivered.
When Charles III does appear wearing a crown, before us, it is – strangely – one that no longer exists.
This is the Tudor crown, notorious for being linked to the execution of Charles I and end of the monarchy – and it was broken up and sold centuries ago.
Another odd note: ITV’s Chris Ship reported that Prince Harry was still referring to his father as “His Royal Highness” King Charles, not “His Majesty King Charles” as late as June 2023. Slip of the tongue?
Princess Anne and Princess Margaret
The Royal Family has form when it comes to divorce and Catholics.
Princess Anne stopped dating Andrew Parker Bowles himself, because he was a Roman Catholic (educated at Ampleforth) and under the Act of Settlement of 1801, no royal married to a Catholic could ever stay in the line of succession.
Princess Margaret was told she could not marry the divorcee Peter Townsend in the 1950s because civil marriages for royals were impossible. The Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, Geoffrey Fisher, said so.
Tony Blair and the Secret U-Turn
In 2005, Lord Falconer, Tony Blair’s Lord Chancellor, gave Camilla and Charles a powerful but secretive U-turn that is still dismissed by many experts today.
Problematically, we, the people, have no idea what arguments he based his U-turn about the validity of their marriage, on.
When a Freedom of Information application was made five years after Charles’s wedding to see Lord Falconer’s case, Tony Blair’s Justice Secretary Jack Straw blocked it. It has been blocked ever since.
The St. George’s Chapel blessing after Charles wed Camilla, with the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey and then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, present, changed nothing about an illegal registry office event in the eyes of constitutional experts. This was not Mr and Mrs Windsor. Or even Mr Windsor and Mrs Parker Bowles. It was our future King and Queen; defenders of the Church of England.
In astrology, the clock is ticking. The South Node in Libra, which commences in July 2023, right on time with the post-coronation realities of Charles and Camilla, is about the law as much as marriage itself. There is a perfect storm coming. Saturn and Neptune in Pisces with their heavy emphasis on religious rules – and the South Node in Libra, associated with fated romance as much as judge and jury.
Damaging the Church of England
The Queen let it be known that the reason she did not attend the wedding was because her duty as head of the Church of England came before her family. That decision will return to us all, in the next year or so, astrologically.
According to the Daily Telegraph at the time, “She has told a friend that she feels it incompatible with her role as Supreme Governor of the Church to attend a civil marriage ceremony, particularly one involving the heir to the throne. She does not want to set a precedent that could damage the Church of England.”
Beyond her worries about the Anglican faith and her role, our Queen also knew that Camilla had married Catholic Andrew Parker Bowles at Wellington Barracks chapel (Guards Chapel), Birdcage Walk, way back on 4th July 1973 with Father Jerome Lambert, a Benedictine monk and priest in attendance. And had two Catholic-raised children. It may be that information sealed by Her Majesty also becomes unsealed in the years ahead.
The Retrocoronation Realities of 2023
The coronation went ahead, as we saw, in May 2023, with typical Mercury Retrograde twists.
A horse involved in the coronation procession from Westminster Abbey lost control and reared backwards into the crowd.
Bad weather rescheduled the fly-past. Street parties were cancelled.
The Prince and Princess of Wales were five minutes late. Catherine, Princess of Wales, wore the late Princess Diana’s earrings the wrong way around, too, which may indicate she knows more about the Retrocoronation than most people realise. It was a piece of theatre told backwards. In fact, it was a performance that takes us all the way back to the year 2005.
Mrs Parker Bowles and the Scorpio Eclipse
Mrs Parker Bowles and the Scorpio EclipseThe Scorpio eclipse the day before the coronation had an answering call for Camilla, some 18 years prior if we go back through her horoscope.
In BBC Panorama on 13th February 2005, Dr Stephen Cretney, emeritus fellow of legal history at Oxford University, argued that a civil wedding ceremony could not produce a valid marriage between the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles.
This was why Edward VIII could not marry Mrs Simpson; Princess Margaret could not marry Peter Townsend and Princess Anne had to marry Timothy Laurence in a Scottish church.
Some of the finest legal minds in the kingdom agreed.
David Pannick QC chimed with Cretney. So did former attorney general Sir Nicholas Lyell QC.
Then, in September 2006, Dr. Cretney warned of legal challenges in the future preventing Camilla from becoming Queen or inheriting from the royal family. That last point is absolutely crucial, given the Scorpio eclipse the day before the crown appeared on her head. The scorpion has long ruled inheritance through marriage. And the astrology shows this ongoing Uncoronation saga is gathering over the years.
Legal Eagles, Charles and Camilla
Back in 2005, the senior family lawyer, Valentine Le Grice QC, also thought Lord Falconer was wrong to give Charles and Camilla the go-ahead to marry in a civil ceremony.
Robert Blackburn QC, Professor of Constitutional Law at Kings College, said Lord Falconer’s opinion ‘flew in the face of any conventional reading of the statute book and flew in the face of standard legal text books.” The Human Rights Act of 1998 was not enough, in their view.
In the eyes of many legal experts, it still isn’t. Thus, the astrology has been right all along: strangely, it may be that when Charles signed his accession papers, he was signing for no purpose at all, there being nothing in the law or in the constitution that supported it. Mercury Retrograde can be peculiar.
On February 14th 2005, Buckingham Palace issued a statement that read “Legal advice was taken from four different sources and all agreed that it is legal for a member of the Royal Family to marry in a civil ceremony in England.” Professor Blackburn noted, “Unfortunately these legal opinions were never published, nor any source or identity for them.”
On 20th February 2005, Simon Walters in the Mail On Sunday reported “The wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles descended into a full-scale constitutional crisis last night after fresh legal doubts were raised over whether their marriage can go ahead. Leading constitutional experts claimed British law does not allow Royals to marry in a civil ceremony, leaving open the extraordinary possibility of a legal challenge to the wedding.”
Dr. Stephen Cretney told the media in 2005, that astrologically charged year – that the Blair government had given the Royal Family “poor advice.”
“They did not check the law properly. If they had, they would have seen in three seconds that what is proposed is legal nonsense. This has all the hallmarks of a typical Tony Blair approach whereby Prince Charles was told by the Government, “You think marrying Camilla is going to be difficult, but it’s all very easy and we can help you do it.”
The Magna Carta of June 1215 put in writing the principle that the king was not above the law. There is a direct astrological link between 1215, 2005 and the Retrocoronation of 2023. It runs into 2024 and early 2025.
Queen Camilla’s Second Wedding?
Queen Camilla’s Second Wedding?Did you read that one newspaper believed a second wedding had taken place during the coronation?
On 5th May, the day before the Coronation, Gordon Rayner in the Daily Telegraph wrote, “Queen to go through ‘second wedding’ to King Charles during Coronation.”
Associate Editor Rayner wrote, “It will be the closest Their Majesties have come to a marriage in Westminster Abbey.” His story ran, “Before she is enthroned, Her Majesty will be presented with the Queen Consort’s Ring, first worn by Queen Adelaide in 1831 and following a tradition that dates back to the 11th-century. According to the Liturgy for the Coronation it “bears the same symbolism of a ring exchanged in marriage”.
Again, we are reminded that an eclipse is a cover-up. The truth is hidden in plain sight. We thought we were watching Charles III receive the crown. In fact, according to the Daily Telegraph, we were watching a symbolic wedding. To ‘make good’ the illegal registry office ceremony years before? Or just to compensate for the ordinariness of it all, with the computer print-out paper, pinned to a notice board?
A Right Royal Shambles
Back on October 2nd 2005, in its program A Right Royal Shambles, Panorama on BBC1 claimed Charles was denied his church wedding to Camilla on the order of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.
According to royal biographer Jonathan Dimbleby, interviewed for the programme, Dr. Rowan Williams said a church ceremony, even though he could have granted it, would be unacceptable to religious leaders.
It’s very likely he meant the Pope, if Camilla was still Mrs Parker Bowles and Andrew had never obtained an annulment before she wed Charles.
Royal Power and The Vicar Dismissed
Royal Power and The Vicar DismissedI’ve spoken a little about the big astrology cycles surrounding the invalid coronation.
Pluto in Capricorn also deserves to be mentioned because it describes the descent of those who try to dominate and overpower others or over-rule them – too long, too much.
In fact, as I publish this on Tuesday 13th June, we have just seen Pluto turn backwards into Capricorn, and Boris Johnson has left UK politics and Donald Trump is facing multiple charges.
This cycle is very much about come-uppance for those who dismiss ‘the little people’ further down the pecking order.
Camilla and Charles married at Windsor Town Hall, waved through by Len Cook, Registrar General for England and Wales, with all 11 objections from ordinary people dismissed, all sent to Cirencester and Chippenham, including that of a fearless London vicar named Paul Williamson.
Clair Williams, Windsor and Maidenhead’s superintendent registrar, conducted the ceremony assisted by Claire Paterson. There were three weddings booked straight afterwards after Camilla had signed the certificate, at the Guildhall, or town hall – and the bride after Camilla wore a plastic tiara, where she can still be seen in old news footage on YouTube.
Judy Wade, Royal Commentator, told AP at the time, “The press led us to believe it (the Guildhall) was dingy with stained carpets. There are a few very tiny stains, but nowhere near where the royal couple will sit.”
Astrology Tells the Truth
Astrology tells the truth if you read history along with the horoscopes. As the truth about Camilla and Charles is sealed until the latter dies, we (taxpayers and subjects all) have precious little to go on, except those misaligned stars.
Penny Thornton was Princess Diana’s astrologer in 1986 and Diana sought her out after reading Thornton’s book on synastry (compatibility). Her truth was a lifeline for the late Princess.
Penny, who is a friend of mine, was one of the very few astrologers to stick her neck out and claim there were difficulties for Diana and Charles in their marriage.
Remember, this was sold to us as a fairy tale for years, with the true story neatly covered up.
In 1981, Thornton remembers “Everywhere you were hearing astrologers say, “Oh, they’re a perfect match. She’s a Cancer. He’s a Scorpio.” A year after Diana’s marriage Penny defiantly published her book with its unpopular but spot-on opinion and Diana sought her out.
Astrology and Royalty
Ever since Dr. Dee chose a coronation date for Elizabeth I, astrologers have advised royalty.
It is also the case that people go to astrology when there is an information brick wall. That is the case with Charles and Camilla.
I believe all these leading astrologers I’ve mentioned, both past and present, are correct and once Charles has passed (perhaps before, with a legal challenge) we will realise that what we saw in May 2023 was just a performance. In this sense, the coronation is not unlike the Charles-Diana wedding itself. Hollow on the inside. Given the Libra South Node cycle, though, this coronation has legal implications. The scales of justice rock.
I believe Mario Reading, that brilliant interpreter of Nostradamus, is correct about the future of the Crown.
When Charles dies we will find out the truth, as former PM Tony Blair’s sealed documents are unsealed – and realise that from September 10th 2022 (the accession, complete with malfunctioning pen) to the coronation of May 6th 2023, we will realise – he was never King, she was never Queen, and they never ruled at all. None of it happened, in fact.
The coronation was not cancelled as I expected, along with other astrologers and psychics – but it was a Retrocoronation and will later be invalidated.
Perhaps that’s why the Princess of Wales wore Diana’s earrings back to front. This may be why clairvoyants saw Charles without a crown on the stamps and coins.
Nothing in any of this is unusual in the highly dramatic, compelling, history of the United Kingdom monarchy. Perhaps that is exactly why we keep going back. It’s unruly. 2022-2023 may also turn out to be truly unruled.
I will look at the peculiar case of the Camilla and Charles mystery at The Conscious Cafe on Sunday 18th June at an exclusive Zoom event about July-December 2023. It will cover the South Node in Libra, the impact on marriages, divorces, separations and partnerships everywhere, and cover your own horoscope. Tickets here.
69 Responses
Fascinating stuff Jessica, thank you.
Whilst I recall your piece in the Mail which was picked up by other newspapers, I felt sure he would step aside and let William become king. Charles is not held in high esteem by a good majority of the British public who would have preferred William. There have been rumours about Camillas health too which may be a catalyst to Charles abdicating. Interesting times….
Thank you. I actually spoke to the Daily Mail on Sarah Vine’s podcast, but was quoted in print in the Daily Express, and that has since been misquoted worldwide (as is the way on the internet) so I’ve written this very long post to correct the public record. Many people agree with you, that Charles might have abdicated in favour of King William, or remained as King but used any illness, to step back and instal William as Prince Regent. Rumours about Camilla’s health, I’ve not heard, but neither of them looked particularly well at the coronation and of course, both have been hit with COVID-19. Have to say, if The Firm is based on popularity, numbers and tourists – William and Catherine would be the choice. Diana has never gone away.
Jessica
As an American who has been quite confused about all of this and perplexed as to how so many could not see what was done to Diana, thanks for the details about Charles and Camilla. I had questions swirling in my head since your Subtrack post, for which you’ve provided detailed explanations. One thing I know, is that you had the best that you could have in the King and Queen Mother during the war years and Queen Elizabeth for seventy years more.
Now I will be watching an ex President go to court on espionage charges today, and pray the country holds. What turbulent times we live in.
Thank you. I agree that we had the best with King George and the Queen Mother, then Queen Elizabeth II. They had staunch values which saw the country through the war. They did the right thing by the Church of England and by the nation. They were admired and respected, and copied; people fought and died in their names. Different times. Donald Trump and Melania Trump (you have to take them as a pair, according to the astrology of 2023, 2024) also show up the drop in values which has taken place in the Twenties. Big plunge.
I found this fascinating! I was hooked reading it. I didn’t watch the coronation as I couldn’t, I truly believed it was a farce. thank you for writing about this- it’s really made me think. I honestly believe that time will tell with the royal family and there are a lot more secrets to be revealed.
Thank you. Yes, I think Prince Harry is on the case with the secrets in his family. He has opened up the phone hacking issues with British newspapers again. I do wonder if the reason for that is not so much action against the press, as a means to open up an avenue for new recordings to be put forward. It’s hard to believe that Tampongate was the only recording made of Charles and Camilla.
Wow Wow Wow. Did Camilla have to convert to Catholicism to marry Andrew Parker Bowles? If so…did she have to convert back to the Church of England in order to marry Charles? Maybe this also has something to do with it.., if there even IS a divorce from Andrew.
We’re told Camilla is Anglican and never converted to Roman Catholicism. Had she become a Catholic, Charles could not have married her on those grounds; royals are not allowed to troop up the aisle with Catholics, which is why Anne could never go further with Camilla’s husband. The greater problem from the point of view of all those eminent legal minds, is that there are two historic acts, which don’t let future Kings and Queens wed in a registry office. They head the Church of England and should be married there. This may even be why Camilla snuck in another ‘wedding’ according to The Daily Telegraph. Classic eclipse sleight-of-hand if so!
Hello Jessica, wonderful blog. This interests me greatly and I’ve read elsewhere that Charles has an astrologer and would have put a great deal of thought into the Coronation date. It’s fascinating and I look forward to seeing it unfold.
I was told by a royal insider that Charles III consults an astrologer who uses Jewish techniques. I find the chain of eclipses in his history very odd. Eclipses are rare events, but Charles manages to have married Diana between two (bad move) and Camilla on another (a further bad move, as so many legal authorities dispute its validity). The coronation is the third example. That does rather suggest he’s consulting horoscopes, though I don’t know anything about Jewish astrology and have no idea if that information is true.
One more thought- maybe Mario Reading meant that Prince William “never expected to be King” whilst Charles III was still alive???
Yes. That’s a really insightful comment, thank you. Mr. Reading would have been correct, if so.
Hi Jessica,
Thanks for another great article. The whole day of the coronation I was getting shivers which is not a usual experience for me! Then every time I saw ‘the verger’ pop up in a news article or this website I got shivers, I messaged you on Twitter at the time as was so freaked out by it. I haven’t thought about any of this in ages, and half way through your article I start getting shivers out of nowhere again.
Something was way way off that day. I don’t doubt for a moment we will go on to find out they were never king or queen, I already know you are right in all your predictions around this.
I am just adding that I’m in no way a royalist, a psychic or anything else! I just enjoy reading horoscopes but my entire body has a profound reaction every time I read about this coronation! It’s nothing I’ve ever experienced before so I am literally convinced a dark cover up of some description happened that day and for some reason my spirit guides are trying to warn me. I just don’t know what else to make of it, and I don’t know how I know but I just know I’m right – it’s weird
Thanks for your amazing work as always, you are incredible at what you do 🙂
All the best, Lesley
Thank you Lesley. I remember your Twitter message about Father Benedictus. Shivers is a sign your spirit guides want to communicate. They have stepped into your aura or energy field. The verger was no such thing. There is no costume anywhere, for Anglicans, which shows a full hood. It is, however, the very picture of a Benedictine from the era of King Henry VIII, which is exactly when Father Benedictus was murdered. It’s interesting you are having a full body reaction to the coronation. When Charles dies we will find out the full truth at last. Or, perhaps, an event will take place while he is still alive, which finally sees Freedom of Information do its job, having been blocked before.
(Mis)quoting the poet: “Such a parcel of rogues in a (coro)nation!”
Reading your post on Scotland now, the eye of the storm, I think.
Thank you for another excellent article, Jessica, I think the story goes way beyond legal or even constitutional, though. Just thinking of a few implications for the firm is giving me a headache. Lots of love. L.
Thank you so much. That’s a great quote. And you are right. Scotland is at the eye of the storm. The Scots have been put off voting for independence from Buckingham Palace by the worst kind of smears and allegations against two of its leaders. The horoscope says, a different leadership will deliver after Uranus changes signs, so in about two or three years. The implications for The Firm are likely to be financial, as the Eclipse was in Scorpio which rules our late Queen’s will and its terms (a mystery) and of course Camilla’s financial status regarding Charles. Let’s see.
Oh my Oh my Jessica – I too was so convinced last September and I told people that Charles would not be King until about 10 days before the Coronation when I realised it was going to take place. I also intuitively thought to myself that the Coronation was like a wedding for Camilla so it is extraordinary to read what you wrote. Pluto is back in Capricorn and bang on queue I find a bully taking over my work and passing it off as his own, and my own boss just passing on everything to me to do while he does very little and just takes my knowledge – does it really take another 6 months to sit this out?
Pluto in Capricorn will see you right and this bully who is stealing your work, as well as your weak boss, are part of the usual ‘Man down/system down’ fallout which takes place. You may not have to wait six months but you do need to remember the whole point of Pluto is to empower you. You are required to use self-control and iron willpower to strength-train so that you end up being a far stronger person. That is Pluto’s gift to you. So away you go. You are not alone in going through this and there are many excellent YouTube videos, self-help books and websites from professionals who can help.
Jessica,
I love your site and you have always been spot-on in your predictions. You gave me a prediction last year that confused me at first with the years about karma – until you recommended I go back another 18-19 years – not the most recent 18-19 years and again you were extremely accurate – I was floored and could not believe it. However I am very confused by the Charles prediction you and others have made. To say Charles would never be king – meant to me that he would never be crowned. However we saw him crowned – I guess saying the coronation is invalid 20 years after he rules and then dies confuses me – since he has already ruled. I have also seen where it is predicted that King Charles will die on March 26, 2026. Your thoughts on this? Thanks.
Elaine.
Thank you Elaine. The North Node and South Node cycle is accurate if you go back 18-19 years. Thank you for validating the prediction. I’ve said Charles would never be King because the crown went on his head, and words were said (and signed) but there is sealed legal opinion which denies him that role, and it’s been covered up for nigh on 13 years. You cannot be Defender of the Faith and at the top of the Church of England and have married in a registry office. I know this is a controversial opinion, but I believe all the leading astrologers since 1949 were right. It’s just taken place in a peculiar way. There may still, however, be an abdication. You can see why, if Camilla is found not to be Queen Camilla, legally or constitutionally, that Charles would step down.
Hello Jessica, thank you for another in-depth article. Off topic, I was wondering, have done a blog about the astrology and your psychic predictions re Artificial Intelligence? I would be very interested in your thoughts. Thank you again.
Thank you. Artificial Intelligence is one for 2024, as from May 2024, Jupiter (expansion) enters Gemini (computers) and later on, Uranus (the revolution) also enters Gemini, taking us way past 2030. For all the fears about AI, the astrology suggests it will be a good thing. Even, a great thing.
Dear Jessica, you’ve given a fascinating insight into the coronation and it’s fallout. As a student of history, I’ve always wondered about a Catholic becoming Queen in the UK – thanks for clarifying that point – Camilla was never Catholic.
The question I had was , UK’s monarchs never interfere in the working of the democratically elected House of Commons. Their role is more figurative- head of government but a discreet distance away from the elected rulers of the nation. Then I saw Harry’s criticism of the government
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/06/prince-harry-tells-court-britains-government-and-press-at-rock-bottom
Do you think this will be the final straw that will see the UK parliament remove his Prince title and his place in the succession to the throne? From what I’ve read, a member of the royal family sticking his/hers fingers into the working of the government is a huge deal. What in your opinion, does the astrology indicate? Thank you.
I was hoping readers with expertise would weigh in on this feature, so thank you. Prince Harry has criticised PM Rishi Sunak and the Conservative party and yes, if he is to lose his title, it will have to be a long parliamentary process to do so. There is no indication of this happening (Prince remains Prince) but there is a big question about ‘the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’ here, because of Meghan’s chart.
Thank you for your work, Jessica. I am in Tucson and I had awakened unexpectedly (in the middle of the night) at the time of the live Coronation ceremony, so I watched it. I never wake up and watch something on my iPad, but I did. This next part is odd and rather personal, but a strange coincidence: my beloved companion pup Spencer – a King Charles Spaniel – died during the Coronation ceremony. I still weep. Perhaps Diana is caring for him now.
I had to read that twice. Your King Charles spaniel Spencer died during the Coronation? Unbelievable. I am sorry for your loss.
Hi Jessica, another fascinating article, thank you! About the annullment of Camilla’s first marriage, please remember that Princess Caroline of Monaco had to wait many years and write numerous personal letters to the Pope to have her first marriage to French playboy Philippe Junot annulled, so her children from her second marriage could be brought up as Catholics. Camilla’s first marriage was never annulled (her civil marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles was, however), because the Roman Catholic church does not accept divorce. Civil marriages are null and void for members of the British Royal Family who wish to stay in the Line of Succession, they have to get married in the CoE. Oh dear…..Camilla is technically a bigamist, she and King Charles only have a civil marriage between them, which has no value for members of the Royal Family because of the Line of Succession…..So technically the British people currently have a King who lost his pace in the Line of Succession, because he entered a civil marriage to a bigamist! Sorry for my post being very long, my mind is again in overdrive. Also, I don’t wish to offend people, Charles and Camilla are human after all, and I wish them well.
Thank you. I didn’t know that about Princess Caroline of Monaco. How very interesting. There’s a precedent here. You’d have to suspect Andrew Parker-Bowles either did not ask for an annulment, or asked and was rejected. He also had to marry, second time round, in a registry office and not in a Catholic church. The line of succession is the key here. Princess Anne wisely secured her place by marrying in Scotland. There’s nothing offensive about discussing two people who are funded by taxpayers. It’s democratic. And it comes with the job!
Hi Jessica,
Thanks so much for this incredibly detailed article. I have been reading your blog’s and articles for years, and have never doubted that one day you will be vindicated in your predictions about this. I know its not a ‘hope’, maybe some people want to see Charles topple, but I understand that you are simply stating what the Astrology clearly shows you. And many others with similar expertise and knowledge.
It certainly will be interesting to watch, and as I say that, as an Australian, to a large degree, I will experience it too. It will change our relationship with our Monarch. Which in turn, will make changes to the business of Government in this country.
I admire the British Royal Family, I think the gutter-churning rags really distract and undermine the work and the role of so many hardworking Royals who truly work hard to use the role they have for the betterment of those in their realm. I would trust a good King or Queen over a Government any day. I’m not a Monarchist or Royal watcher, but just find the history and process of Monarchy fascinating. Our Laws are impossible to divide from their history, and their history comes from the Westminster system. I wish we were taught more about it at school (I studied Law, so perhaps my appreciation for it is different to others).
Thanks again for a fascinating read. I’m looking forward to the Zoom on the 18th – really can’t wait for those Nodes to change, I have to say!
Blessings
DinP xx
Thank you DinP. It’s unusual for a QC and an astrologer to say the same thing, but here we are. It’s also unusual for an historian to agree with astrologers, but it’s the case here. Our late Queen knew that the unconstitutional Camilla-Charles marriage would damage the monarchy in Australia which is why she wore her wattle brooch to the wedding reception. Jewellery code. I admired her, like you. The problem for Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth nations is the power any King or Queen has, even over democracy. If they are themselves not checked by the law or the constitution, then what? Sealed papers are an affront. Why were Freedom of Information requests turned down? They should be unsealed. The people deserve to know what’s what.
Hi Jessica
I have come across article which looks at constitutional issues of royal marriages and comments on the legality of the civil wedding https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03417/SN03417.pdf
Which may be of interest, although it is on the UK Parliament website so not would be likely to reflect the government’s vuew.
Julie xx
Hi Jessica
I have come across article which looks at constitutional issues of royal marriages and comments on the legality of the civil wedding https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03417/SN03417.pdf
Which may be of interest, although it is on the UK Parliament website so not would be likely to reflect the government’s view.
Julie xx
Thank you Julie, this is great. I am going to add links to this feature, not just for astrology readers, but for everyone who needs to see the saga of the Charles and Camilla sealed documents – and that wedding – with the relevant legal and constitutional experts, historians and – yes – the astrologers too.
Hi Jessica, in my earlier message I meant to say would be likely to reflect the government’s view not, not likely!!
Hi I Jessica.
Very interesting blog post. A little off topic but did you ever look at the Robert Kennedy Jr chart regarding presidency? I believe he is on the right side of women…..thank you
I’m looking for accurate data for Robert Kennedy Junior as he is tipped to become the next US President. It should be up in a day or two, in a feature on the Conscious Cafe event this Sunday June 18th. Thank you.
Jessica, in a post about the Coronation I wrote that I felt Penny Mordaunt was evoking the spirit of Anne Boleyn. That period in history produced several marital issues. Henry VIII was a multiple adulterer, including with Anne’s sister Mary even before Anne arrived at court. Learning lessons from Mary’s abandonment Anne played the long game by refusing Henry’s amorous advances. As we know Henry VIII appealed to the Pope in hope of an annulment on the grounds that he had married his brother’s widow & that the Pope of the time was incorrect in granting permission for it; when he was refused the break with the Church of Rome began. After he repudiated Katherine, Anne finally surrendered and they married in Jan 1533 BEFORE the official/’legal’ marriage annulment given by Archbishop Cranmer the following May under the canon law of Henry’s ‘new’ Church! (nb there is a suggestion in some quarters of a secret marriage in late 1532). So, under either Church the marriage was bigamous as we would understand it but as the official line was that Henry & Katherine were never truly married it was not bigamy. Katherine never accepted the annulment & in her eyes she was still Queen until she died. We all know that Anne was eventually executed on likely false charges on 19th May 1536; what’s less known is that Henry & Anne’s marriage was annulled by the same Archbishop Cranmer on the 17th May. Murky marital shenanigans!
Thank you. There was a lot of Henry VIII in that coronation, right down to Father Benedictus walking the Cloisters in the footage (he was murdered during the reign of Henry VIII). People keep citing Henry VIII as a reason for Charles and Camilla to get away with dual divorce and adultery, but that was the 16th century. The real issue is the Marriage Act which ended the 1940’s when Charles was a toddler. He grew up with that but ignored it. Peculiar.
Hi Jessica,
Thank you so much for all the hard work you put in , I and many others are grateful to have this space to discuss these issues. Regarding Magnolias comment re Harry, politics and the titles I feel these may be placed into abeyance for a period of time, firstly because I think a marital split between husband and wife is inevitable and has been on the cards for awhile and would be a neat solution in more than one way.
Getting back to the coronation I felt a sense of unease watching the proceedings almost as if a badly rehearsed costume drama was unfolding, it was all so strange where was the awe, majesty and history, I felt like I was being robbed especially as it was also my birthday, I hope there will be better to come in the future for all of us,
Blessings to you and your sweet doggie x
Thank you. Astrology is based on history, so I thought it was important to run these comments, as well as the comments on Prince Harry in another section of the website, for years. This may yet be the next abdication. What you felt about the coronation is echoed by lots of people on this thread. I’m sorry you felt robbed, as it was your birthday! I came away thinking about the message Camilla was sending to girls of Charlotte’s age. You can cheat on your husband, destroy your own family, destroy another family – and get away with it – even become Queen and consort of the Defender of the Anglican Faith and Head of the Church of England. They just have to forgive you a lot. Nope.
Amazing. Speechless. Thank you Jessica. Always felt it was all a mascarade. Will we know one day the truth about Diana life N’ death, and so much other things? Hope so
Diana was unlawfully killed near an eclipse so we will never know the full truth. The most we know is that she died because she was not wearing a seat belt, but she habitually wore a seat belt, as photographed multiple times by paparazzi. The three witnesses who could say more involve two dead men and a third who has lost his memory. I don’t think Diana will give up though. I don’t think Harry will give up.
Hello. The Princess of Wales wore those same earrings “backwards” at a state dinner for the President of SA in 2022. So, it was probably not intentional on the day of the Coronation. She might have been trying to have the earrings align with designs on each dress.
I’ll check, thank you.
I’m still baffled by the ongoing assertion that Charles will not or should not be be King. He was the legitimate heir and acceded to the throne instantly QE2 died. His marriage, valid or otherwise, is irrelevant. Nor is his accession to the throne dependant on his subsequent coronation. And as a (divorced) widower there was no religious or civil impediment to his being remarried. The issue of self-confessed adultery is completely irrelevant.
That said, it seems some people believe that there may be a legal issue with his marriage to Camilla, and a secret document is believed to prove this. If their marriage is invalid I expect that would make Camilla’s coronation as Queen invalid. It would upset the church a lot. Tabloids would have a field day. I can see it as quite likely that Charles would abdicate as a result. But it would not make one iota of difference to Charles’s legal inheritance of the Crown.
I think it’s also worth pointing out that most English/British kings were publicly adulterous. Moral judgement of adultery is irrelevant to legitimate inheritance of the Crown. George IV contracted an illegal marriage to the catholic Maria FitzHerbert, and made a second legitimate marriage before his accession, had many mistresses and reputedly 7 illegitimate children and 1 legitimate child. None of that was ever grounds to invalidate his accession. And let’s face it, the Church of England was founded specifically to enable HVIII to marry his mistress when his first wife and the Pope denied him a divorce/annulment. He and Anne were first married in 14 Nov 1532. Then again in January 1533 when she was already pregnant as the first marriage was deemed invalid. He was not yet formally divorced by then either. None of which made a whit of difference to his legitimacy as King.
I can see I’m going to have to add the two Marriage Acts to this feature. The 1500s are irrelevant to those acts, the most recent of which was 1949 and blocked Princess Margaret from succession. Monarchs have always been adulterous, as you say, but in 1949 when Charles was a toddler and our Queen was his new mother, the Marriage Act came in, and rulers were specifically blocked from going to a registry office, not the Church of England. Can you stay in the line of succession when you marry a divorcee, and not in church? Margaret couldn’t. Charles thought he could but fine legal minds still say he couldn’t. So a crown went on a head and papers were signed, but the astrology says – nope.
You wrote that Mario Reading said that Diana supporters would not accept Charles and Camilla. But that whole opposition and negativitiy, may be the whole Harry push. His book bringing up all the anger and describing Camilla as the evil stepmother. Maybe his global attack through his book and media appearances just represents the view Mario Reading alluded to.
And maybe, if Harry is dealing with the stress of marital breakup, dealing with his children in a foreign country, his life a mess, maybe his tornado just increases. If his father had just apologized, made nice, he would not lose Meghan and his children. And then the government has enough and makes him abdicate to make the drama go away.
Mario Reading is no longer here to comment on his interpretation of Nostradamus, but I don’t think he meant Spare. I’d say that there is more to unfold with the unlawful killing of Diana, the late Princess of Wales, for a start. The other elephant in the room is of course the ongoing criminal investigation which involves Charles III and the ‘cash for honours’ matter. There may be more. I think Reading is worth taking seriously, having named the year the Queen would pass.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there! I doubt that Camilla and Andrew Parker-Bowles got an annulment, which in the Catholic Church is very, very difficult to get.
There is no divorce in the Catholic Church, so for an annulment you have got to prove that the marriage was never valid in the first place. This can only happen if the priest didn’t conduct the wedding properly, one party was mentally unable to consent or forced into it, one party doesn’t actually want children…
After 20 years of marriage and 2 children it would basically be impossible to get an annulment.
In the eyes of the Catholic Church you really are married until one person dies, no divorce possible. But it doesn’t have any legal bearing, that’s just the church. Legally she is Camilla Windsor. What the Church of England considers her, they will have to decide, I suppose?
If this got them removed from the throne though, how could Harry, also married to a divorcée, succeed to the throne?
Anyhow, if Harry really were to succeed, that would be the end of the monarchy in my opinion. Of all of them he is by far the least capable of doing the job. Harry and Andrew should be removed from the succession, it is worrying that they are the next adults in line after William.
Thank you. With all the millions of words written about Andrew Parker-Bowles alone, you’d assume an author or journalist would have found out if his marriage to Camilla was annulled. There is a glaring absence of evidence. Yet, two respected experts, one a long-serving Roman Catholic who lived in Rome, claim the opposite. You are quite right about the strict conditions of the church on declaring a marriage null and void. This would be particularly true if the marriage produced two Roman Catholic children, which it of course did. I expect this is one of the reasons the Anglican church refused to marry Camilla and Charles at the time; they knew perfectly well she was still Mrs Parker Bowles. What was worse, she had committed adultery with Charles, who had confessed same. This went against the two Marriage Acts which is why Charles had to resort to Tony Blair’s suggestion of a human rights act. The fact that our Queen also rejected that as head of the Anglican church tells you everything you need to know. I have no idea how Harry could ever succeed the throne. Mario Reading and Nostradamus, if both are correct, are keeping that a mystery for us!
Very interesting comment about the marriage with Camilla but surely Charles is still the legal heir and therefore, King (with or without a coronation).
Charles III signed the Accession papers on Mercury Retrograde and may never have been the legal heir to the throne, as it necessitates being head of the Church of England as well as Defender of the Faith. His mother certainly was. She ticked all the boxes for the Anglican church and the constitution of monarchy. Charles did not, when he wed Camilla, which is why our Queen failed to attend the registry office service. The service only went ahead because of anonymous legal advice to Tony Blair, sealed until Charles’s death. So we can assume it was hardly a unanimous round of approval. It’s one of the more bizarre episodes in the history of the monarchy and unless the Freedom of Information appeals finally succeed (they keep hitting brick walls – wonder why!) we won’t know just how unconstitutional the accession was until Charles is no longer with us. The astrologers will be proven right.
Hello Jessica- thanks for your insightful article about the Charles, Camilla and the Coronation. I personally find it sad that we are still worried about Protestants marrying Catholics, divorces, annulments, etc, in 2023. It seems time for a change….
Change to the constitution and the law regarding the monarchy seems unavoidable with Pluto in Aquarius slowly opposing the Leo factors of so many royal charts. Nothing was ever done to sort out the pain of Mrs Simpson or Princess Margaret so it will be Camilla and Charles who end up carrying the issue. Pluto in Aquarius over the next 20 years could easily see questions about a trans Queen or trans King. A lesbian or gay Queen or King.
Wow…excellent and highly comprehensive article!…Very well done, Jessica…The Marriage Act was given extensive coverage in The Crown, with respect to Margaret, but didn’t get into the Charles–Camilla business..As an American, I find it all fascinating…
I’ve not watched The Crown so I’ll buy the box set today. I’ve only ever seen random episodes. The Marriage Acts and Wallis Simpson, Princess Margaret are the core of the issue. How was Mrs Parker-Bowles able to get away with what Wallis and Margaret could not? The answer is, she didn’t. Otherwise why seal a legal document until Charles has gone?
It’s very interesting that Charles and Camilla -two adulterers are now “King and Queen”. Makes a mockery of all the people in this county who died and were tortured for being catholic when Henry the 8th created the reformation act and the Church of England . Does the astrology from this impact on King Charles chart ?
Both the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans here have been unhappy with the adultery and divorce in the story. The Charles III chart shows the clear choice of abdication or Regency.
Wow Jessica, so much information as always, thank you for this. My grandmother always said the truth reveals itself in the end. Did you ever wonder will Prince Harry have potential to be back in the Royal Family with more significance or do you feel he will have left Royal life forever? Nothing would surprise me with this saga. I am petrified with pluto back in capricorn, I started my new job on Tuesday and you were 150% correct as always, you psychically predicted it is more of a tutors chart I have and the job is more tutoring/mentoring! amazing….!!!! i asked Tarot what pluto in capricorn means for me for the next 6 months and I got the king of cups….im single….what do you interpret for me Jessica? See you on Sunday morning! thank you x
Thank you. Yes, it is morbid, but we have to wait for Charles III to pass, before we know the truth about the marriage to Camilla. Congratulations on the new job. I appreciate you confirming the prediction for you was accurate. The King of Cups is your boss or senior. He is out of touch with reality and hard to reach. Consider how much time and effort you want to put into that. He’s very hard work.
Oh yay!!! I can’t wait to read your RFK Jr. feature! Thank you so much!
I hope he has more reliable birth data than the other contenders for 2024 Presidency. The astrology on voting day suggests abortion and trans will have a huge impact (Libra and Scorpio patterns) and we’re in that historic cycle when you have to be on the right side of women, in the War On Women. So far RFK has spoken out against men in women’s sport, so he has one foot over the right side of the rope. Let’s see.
There were hardly any differences between the Anglican and Catholic churches in doctrine or otherwise, at least initially..The main point of the split was to seize the wealthy monasteries and their lands…Like all Monarchs, Henry VIII had wasted a lot of money on stupid wars…
Hi Jessica, in your first article on Meghan Markle on this website you stated that she had a lot in common with Princess Margaret, that their respective horoscopes showed similarities. Princess Margaret was in love with a divorced man whom she couldn’t marry without losing her place in the Line of Succession. Meghan Markle was a divorced woman who married Prince Harry in a CoE ceremony on May 19th 2018, yet stated in the Oprah interview that she and Harry were secretly married three days before the Church ceremony, forcing Archbishop Justin Welby to publicly deny that the ‘secret wedding’ ever took place…this is mind boggling! Did anyone ever pose questions about the legitimacy of this marriage and the consequences for Prince Harry’s place in the Line of Succession? I also believe that Prince Harry is currently finishing Karma that was started by Princess Diana. Princess Diana, for all her human qualities, her kindness and big heart, unfortunately fell into the trap of a celebrity lifestyle and was hounded by paparazzi as a result. Prince Harry is currently taking on the same paparazzi that made his mother’s life a living hell. Whether he will win or lose the court case is not the point, it the symbolism of it that counts in my view.
Yes, Princess Margaret and Meghan do have horoscope strikes. Margaret gave up the man she loved to stay Princess. Meghan has never done that and will never have to. That’s not the commonality; it’s really both women going up against religion. Meghan was first married in a Jewish ceremomy. Both had to deal with God, or mens’ interpretation of God. I’m curious about Prince Harry’s pursuit of the press; I think the real prize will be missing audio recordings of his father and stepmother, or his real mother. There must be more out there.
Hi Jessica,
Was there another Grim Reaper moment at Trooping of the Color on the balcony? Right after the fly over.
Take a look. Would love your thoughts!
THanks
GV
Really? I must re-watch the BBC footage. Thanks GV.
Yes I do hope it is more reliable. I read that he . “believes strongly in the principle of bodily autonomy, whether the issue is abortion or medical mandates.”
“He will keep government away from women’s childbearing choices. The moral issues are best left to the woman, her family, and her religious community,”
That is according to this Newsweek article:
https://www.newsweek.com/how-marianne-williamson-rfk-jr-compare-biden-6-key-issues-1800139?amp=1
We are headed for a very, very complex election year with abortion and trans being deliberately pushed in swing electorates. Data mining has shown both sides where the women voters are, but also where the families are. Thank you for the link to the Newsweek article.