[aabbcc]

Originally Posted by scooter

That maybe, however the only prescedent for the heir to the throne being allowed to marry his divorced mistress, was when Edward VII wanted to marry Wallis. For that to happen, Edward had to give up the throne. Let's also remember that Wallis was not allowed to be HRH and that she did not break up the PoW's marriage. Dont forget that the only reason Queen ElizabethII and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother ascended the throne was because the divorced mistress was absolutely unacceptable. Pretty ironic that Prince Tampax gets to marry the divorced mistress and keep the throne, in light of the fact that the only reason he's heir is Uncle was not allowed to marry his girlfriend in the same situation.

Note: It was Edward VIII who abdicated for Wallis, not Edward VII.

I tend to agree with you regarding Charles and the throne, but I thought you might be interested in this tidbit from Wikipedia:

Unlike the situation in 1936, however, the marriage did not lead to a constitutional crisis. In contrast to Mrs Simpson's first divorce, the Parker Bowles divorce is recognised by most members of the Church, on the grounds of her husband's adultery,[85] and is valid under English law.[86] The Church of England has moderated its stance on divorce, and now accepts that civil marriages after a divorce may be blessed in a religious service in a church.[87] Divorce is now both more common and more acceptable in the public mind than it was in 1936.[88] Polls taken shortly before the marriage of the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles showed widespread support.[89] Mrs Simpson had a reputation as an adventuress and was less socially acceptable as a bride than Mrs Parker Bowles.[90]

Edward VIII abdication crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia