BS: Charles to marry Camilla

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 03:25 PM

One point about that "defender of the faith" or "defender of faith" business, which always seems to be ignored when people get their knickers in a twist about it.

In fact the historical title is "Fidei Defensor", (still on most coins, as "F.D.", and on the £2 coin as "Fid.Def."). And, Latin being the kind of language it is, it can be just as well translated to give either "defender of the faith" or "defender of faith".

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 03:02 PM

about bloody time......mind you they say never marry the mistress, it creates a vacancy

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 01:39 PM

Peter K neither I nor the guest or guests I was debating with give a fuck about Charles's position as head of the CofE, he [guest] is an American and I am a Scot so it probably does not affect either of us, I know it means sod all to me. Charles was being criticised for being a rich over priveleged parasite, not for apostasy or anything like it. While your no doubt erudite exposition of the position vis-a-vis Charles and the church is correct, it was not the basis of the discussion. So whether under our unwritten constitution Charles could take up the tile of 'Defender of the Faith' or not, has no bearing on whether I think he has the right as a human being to marry CP-B.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 12:57 PM

divorce can be devastating

indeed it can be, but when one of the parties is having an affair both before and throughout the marriage, my sympathy wanes.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 12:49 PM

Charles may live long enough to be our future King; and i'm sure he will do his duty admirably. He had no choice in this matter, and would probably envy us our normal private lives. They both are human beings who deserve to be able to marry without having their lives publicly trashed by small minded people who have nothing more important to do in this world than have their opinions shaped by media driven drivel...Good luck to them both I say; divorce can be devastating, they deserve some happiness in this life, I sincerely wish and hope they find some together.

yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 12:40 PM

Giok and the guest or guests he's taken on are missing the point with the debate about human rights. The issue in the case of Charles is his position in a church that has traditionally been unaccommodating of divorcees and adulterers. Until very recent times one of the organisations within the Anglican church, the Mothers' Union, treated even the innocent parties in divorces and marital separations like scum. Their prerogative.

Under a strict application of human rights, Catholic priests are obviously as entitled to get married as anyone else. But they accept that they cannot do so while they remain in the priesthood. Some traditionalists have argued that when Charles marries Camilla he should relinquish his claim to the throne That is surely a reasonable argument for such people to advance. And Giok is way off the mark to think this is an infringement of human rights.

It's many years since Charles floated his "defender of faiths" idea, and I would not be surprised if it's quietly forgotten. In the case of his second marriage he has opted for a civil ceremony rather than provoke uproar from the traditional end of the C of E. Moreover he could not become "defender of faiths" without disestablishment of the C of E. That would cause a constitutional upheaval right when the monarchy is going to be at its weakest since pre-Victorian times - ie when QEII dies. Not a good idea, from his point of view.

I said way up the thread that the eschewing of the title "Queen Camilla" may be a shortlived gesture. It looks like this point will get a good airing tonight on BBC TV's flagship current affairs programme Panorama.


OohAah, I know about as much about architecture as his nibs. Since even from your own limited experience you know that not everyone is on mudcat 24/7, your gloating remark - "I notice Peter K has gone all quiet," - was presumably sheer stupidity?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 12:35 PM

They likely would be - but they'd have two elder brothers who would succeed before them. (That never stopped Richard III of course, but times have changed.)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Legal Eagle
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:56 AM

The human rights issue is this: Charles is the heir to the throne and is legally entitled to succeed to it. He is also legally free to marry CP-B, and it is a matter or "respect for the family" (Human Right) that he is able to do so.

But there seem to be many who threaten that if he wishes to exercise his human right he must forego his succession to the throne.

What a shame C P-B is past childbearing. I suspect her offspring would be vastly better future sovereigns than those of that vapid irrational unintelligent and manipulative deceased clotheshorse.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Giok looking out on the snow brrrrrrr
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 09:23 AM

Diana's late mother was Frances Shand Kydd,curiouser and curiouser, and I though Chuck preferred cherry brandy to shandy, hand or otherwise.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 08:45 AM

Her maiden name was Camilla Shand. Do you think she might have been a relative to Jimmy Shand?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,eric the red
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 06:08 AM

PTH are positively riveting compared to the Royal Wingnut and Carmilla Porker Bowels.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:09 AM

Not to mention some first class sniping.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:09 AM

But there are some positively stimulating pictures of carbuncles and other modern architecture in this thread, how can you say it's boring?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 04:58 AM

Oh dear Eric, are you sure? Don't forget those oh-so-rare Punch the Horse threads ;~)
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 04:28 AM

This thread wins ' Most Boring Thread ' award this century.

Probably most irrelavant also.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 03:56 AM

flagrant disregard for natural law — the law of the jungle, not the law of heaven — in spurning a very young, attractive woman for a plainer specimen:

I would beg to disagree.

Diana was a skinny person. She had no fat reserves and no inclination to acquire any fat reserves. In the jungle, she'd be dead in a fortnight.

Camilla, despite having dreadful skin and a jaw like an iron girder, has some meat on her bones. In the jungle, although not in her usual glowing health, after a fortnight, she'd at least still be alive.

Studies have shown that although men would 'go out with' (for this read shag) the model types, the person they ended up 'marrying/breeding with' was usually of more 'homely' construction. As in built like a brick privvy.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Melbourney
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 01:58 AM

And Lady Di Di Di said
Stick it in yer eye
The only man I'm gonna marry
Is prince charl - eye

Sorry cant remember any more

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Dominie
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 01:05 AM

Well, been having fun whilst I was away?

Those of us who believe they are irrelevant; if we ignore the lot of them will they go away?

I understand the Daily Star's headline was "Boring Old Gits To Wed"

Anyone for a garden party "not the royal wedding party"
maybe somewhere in view of Stirling Castle's own authentic but unfortunate paint job.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 12:24 AM

Stand up for himself? He is what--56 yrs old--and he still had to get his mum's permission to marry!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 11:10 PM

I don't think she's "ugly." She shows the signs of being a smoker, I think, but has great bone structure, and all in all she's doing okay for a post-menopausal woman who has been under this hellish limelight for decades.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 11:06 PM

Actually, I think more of Charles insistence on marrying his true love than I did when he married the naive Diana and ruined her life. Camilla might be ugly but she has a few brains and has waited a long time.

Lets hope Charles has learned his lesson and will stand up for himself in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 05:22 PM

Who is Walter Kirn? Some kind of trans-Atlantic comedian, perhaps? It would be nice to be enlightened.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 05:17 PM

While I'm flattered by your recent invitation to celebrate the April wedding...

I don't think Water Kirn has quite mastered the mode of irony has he? He'd have needed to talk in terms of "somehow my invite seems to have gone astray, but please don't bother" for it even to begin to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 04:53 PM

Why, greg stephens, do you attempt to equate one person speaking their mind, with trying to change another's?

I'm not proselytizing here. Clearly, that's the job of the royal worshippers here.

Just brings tears to my eyes to see how passionately some of you adore your royals dolts so.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM

GUESTS dont you just love them. so clever, so witty, so right. How would we make up our minds without them.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 04:33 PM

From the Time Magazine website:

W E B E X C L U S I V E
Regrets Only
Why Walter Kirn won't be attending the Charles-Camilla nuptials
By WALTER KIRN


Saturday, Feb. 12, 2005

Dear House of Windsor,

While I'm flattered by your recent invitation to celebrate the April wedding of His Royal Highness Charles, the Prince of Wales, and Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles, the future Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Consort (or whatever combination of flowery titles the Royal stationer deems necessary to lend her calling cards and thank-you notes that traditional noble oomph) I must regretfully inform you that I will be unable to attend. Even more regretfully, I feel it is my duty to be candid about my reasons for non-attendance, which have nothing to do with ill-health or prior engagements, but result from an assortment of annoyances with your peculiar family and its history that I believe are both just and widely shared.

I'm an American, so I'll speak plainly.
1. You Already Fooled Us Once.
Charles's first wedding to the lovely Diana spawned a small industry in souvenir teacups, commemorative medallions, and "limited edition" glass figurines that drove quite a few of my older female relatives into considerable credit card debt. Their expenditures seemed understandable at the time. The wedding of a future British monarch is a once-in-a-lifetime spectacle, traditionally, and stocking up on related collectibles is less like an indulgence than an investment. With the passage of time, such keepsakes can be expected to grow steadily in value, both monetary and sentimental. Or so my naïve great aunts assumed. But then came the extramarital affairs, the sordid taped phone calls, the bitter divorce, and the tragic automobile crash. These events not only broke my loved one's hearts, they rendered their costly collections of royal curios virtually worthless.

This must not happen again.

2. Your Son Has Violated Sacred Principles.
The fact that Charles and Camilla are proven adulterers is no concern of mine. I'm no moralist, and I'm also a realist. I fully accept and understand that chastity among top-rank British royals is rarer than literacy among American presidents. What troubles me, however, is Prince Charles' flagrant disregard for natural law — the law of the jungle, not the law of heaven — in spurning a very young, attractive woman for a plainer specimen one year his senior, to whom he's stayed faithful, by all appearances, until this very day. God may or may not approve of these decisions, but they go against everything Darwin ever stood for.

3. You Have Trampled on Tradition.
The crowned heads of Europe, according to the history books, were generally lofty, unfeeling, pragmatic types who married not for sentimental reasons but to forge diplomatic alliances, consolidate material fortunes, and produce legitimate heirs. Prince Charles, by fathering children with Diana while carrying on with someone else, showed just such cold-bloodedness once, but then went soft. Now, like some pathetic commoner cruising the member profiles on Match.com for a soul-mate who enjoys bird-watching and Scrabble, he wants fulfillment, compatibility, partnership. The next thing we know, he'll be on Dr. Phil discussing the Seven Secrets of Lasting Intimacy.

Dr. Phil: "As happy middle-aged monogamists, how do you and Camilla keep the flame alive? Honest and open communication? Erotic experimentation? Romantic dinners?"

His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales: "During the day, we watch polo. At night we spoon."

Henry the VIII would be appalled.

4. You Bore Me Stiff.
Chronologically, they're both in their late fifties, but spiritually and psychologically, Charles and Camilla appear to be somewhere in their early nineties. They were born this way, one senses, which may be why they fell in love originally and why their affair has been able to survive so much noisy public disapproval and so many years of relentless tabloid controversy. Slowly, steadily, and relentlessly, their plodding, undemonstrative tortoise love has numbed the public and put the critics to sleep, neutralizing scandal through sheer boredom and reminding us that marriage is not the only way to turn passion into monotony. As the best-behaved misbehavers in history, it's hard to remember that they ever did anything wrong or even possessed the capacity for wrongdoing.

As the colorless civil ceremony that will formalize their relationship approaches, one thing feels absolutely certain: there will be no more excitement from these two. They'll never stray or break another's heart. They'll never again be recorded while having phone sex — or if they are the transcript will not be published . They'll never mortify their parents again, embarrass their children, or shock their friends. And, of course, they'll never, ever divorce.

For me, that takes all the fun out of a wedding, which is why I'm afraid I won't be there on April 8th, rain or shine.

Sincerely,
Almost Everybody

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 04:15 PM

"One thing that is always confusing to me is when people seem to view rights and duties solely in legal terms rather than ethical terms. It seems to me that we all have a nexus of rights and duties which could never be properly enforced in a law court, but which should nevertheless govern the way we behave to each other."

Right. So it is absolutely despicable that the wealthy elite are so brazen, arrogant, and presumptuous in their horrendous behaviour towards one another, and towards the rest of the world's citizens, isn't it?

I suppose you all are dead serious when you suggest we all "play nice" when it comes to these royal parasites? Are you all suggesting that these are people who are deserving of our respect because of the exemplary behaviour they have exhibited?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 04:00 PM

Oh dear! There I was complimenting you on reading my posts guest, obviously you missed this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 09:12 AM

Dominie I don't understand your gnomic utterance. If you mean that as a Scottish nationalist I should not be defending the rights of a member of the royal family then you are wrong. Denying a person his human rights just because you disagree with his background, politics, religion, or colour is one of the biggest problems in this world. I don't hold with prejudice, and will defend anyone I see as being unfairly treated, no matter what faults they may or may not have.
For the record I find this Anglo-German-Greek royal family to be an irrelevance, but they do me no harm, and I can't think of a better alternative.
Giok

Read the last paragraph guest!!!
giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 03:39 PM

I too am sick and tired of this playground bullshit that 'they look ugly' - especially tedious from women's magazines - they look fine, they're both in their 50s after all, and it shouldn't matter if they they are ugly as sin.
I have three main problems with the Monarchy - 1. Women must have the same right to the throne as men (and most of our really great monarchs have been and are women). 2 In a multi-cultural society the monarchy should not be associated with only one religion - sounds like Charles is going to fix that. 3 I would like to lose a lot of the raggle-taggle of minor royals - actually not execute them or anything - but make sure that the taxpayer doesn't pay a penny for them. Otherwise I think the institution is a lot of fun and works well compared to the rest of the world. Republicans are fond of saying that it's 'outdated', 'archaic' etc, but this is not a convincing argument.
Peter k - I log on to the internet for about an hour, max in the early mornings, hope that's OK with you. I am obliged to McGrath for posting a picture of the MONSTROSITY that was going to be the National Gallery extension, including the symbolic phallus that most modern architects seem incapable of doing without - never seen it before - thank the gods for Prince Charles if he helped to get the present harmonious and graceful building preferred. You're not a frustrated architect are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 03:14 PM

"high tide of feeling" - I rather suspect that's over-estimating the significance most people actually place on this stuff.

As for the relative merits of Diana and Camilla, I think that Julie Bindell, founder of Justice for Women, writing in the Guardian today has it about right:

"Next time my friends tell me what a worthy cover girl Diana was, I'll remind them she left all her millions to members of the royal family, not to charity, and you can see any number of women like her in Tatler. Camilla, though, if stripped of her class privilege, could be imagined working as a farm hand, mucking out the pigs."

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Cats
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 02:51 PM

Forget the fake Camelot castle Hotel (well not completeley as they did pay me extortionate amounts of money to sing and tell stories to our friends from USA last Oct 31), the resal castle is the hereditary seat.. perhaps they could borrow a tent if the national Trust will allow them to camp there!

There is now a petition going around Cornwall, I read in the paper today, to ask the palace not to make her Duchess of Cornwall and give her another title - such is the high tide of feeling in the Duchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 02:49 PM

One thing that is always confusing to me is when people seem to view rights and duties solely in legal terms rather than ethical terms. It seems to me that we all have a nexus of rights and duties which could never be properly enforced in a law court, but which should nevertheless govern the way we behave to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 02:48 PM

No, this guest doesn't give a shit about their happiness. But that doesn't violate Charles and Camilla's human rights, either.

Is that the best you can come up with for a violation of human rights for your pet royal darlings there, Giok?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 02:43 PM

None, but some guest appears to be questioning their right to be happy, based on their social status.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 02:38 PM

What British authority and/or what British law is denying Charles and Camilla anything?

Specifics, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 02:34 PM

By denying them the same right to happines that we all enjoy.
We hold this right to be self evident, that all men were created equal!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 02:10 PM

Everyone is "covered" under articles 16 & 17. Are you suggesting that gossip mongering is the same thing as having laws that prevent/force people to marry, or having public debates about public funds being used to financially support the wealth and privlege of monarchies, is the equivalent of a individual right to own property?

Just how are Charles and Camilla's human rights being violated here, according to those making that claim?

Explain, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 01:49 PM

Aren't Charles and Camilla covered under articles 16 & 17?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 01:10 PM

Yes I agree Kevin, but there was a sort of 'fingerprint' to this particular guest, whereas the 12:55 guest has a different ring. Didn't sound so 'single issue' either, but of course I can't prove that hunch.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:55 PM

And one more thing on the "human rights" issue. No one is attempting to deny Charles or Camilla the right to marry whomever they please, nor force them to marry against their will. That would be a violation of their human right to choose to marry or not marry. That isn't what is being discussed here, even remotely.

This thread, and the public discussions being carried out in the media, is gossip mongering, pure and simple. Not an attempt to deprive Charles or Camilla of their legal and human right to marry.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:54 PM

"Ah you're American!!"

Surely a remark like that's assumes the continuing reality of the person addressed? And that cannot apply in the case of an essentially evanescent presence like that of whoever might have made a oarticular post as a nameless GUEST.

I know that sometimes it is easy to assume that the same person is making these posts, but there are no real grounds for that. That's why it's perhaps better to limit replies to posts with some kind of name attached.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Tannywheeler
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:46 PM

Duellingbouzoukis, Henry VIII's list:
1 divorce
+ 1 beheading
+ 1 annulment
+ 1 death-in-childbirth(puerperal fever?)
+ 1 beheading
+ 1 widow
Looks like 6. (I may have the ann. and death-i-cb in wrong order.)The CofE was started to give him the divorce, so he was made head of it. As (an American) choir member I can say that the participation of that monarch (Elizabeth II) has been a good thing. She has commissioned large wads of church music which is not too difficult for musically UNtrained folks to learn, even easy enough for congregations to participate in. Some of it really good, exciting stuff to do.                   Tw

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:23 PM

Perhaps actually reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (if you can be bothered with it) will help you better understand how horrific some of us find your claim that a wealthy prince's desire to marry his mistress is the moral equivalent of a human right in the context referred to internationally in the fight for human equality and dignity.

It's easy to throw around the term 'human rights' but it is a different story altogether for some of you here apparently, to understand what the term actually means beyond your superficial application of it to the world's ruling elites.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:18 PM

You have very distorted views of what a human right is in the UK, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:17 PM

"To compare the so-called "right of the rich to be happy like everyone else" to the suffering of people without homes, health care, education, safety and security, is appalling. Absolutely appalling."

Appalling it may be, but it still remains the right of EVERY PERSON to be happy, express their opinion, pick their noses etc... regardless of income, expenditure, health, security or education. You can not tell people who earn more than you do, that they are not allowed to attempt happiness. Human rights works both ways.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 11:54 AM

Nice try Giok, but trying to use the term "American" divisively and derisively as a not-so-subtle knee jerk pejorative ain't gonna save you in this conversation either.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 11:42 AM

Ah you're American!!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 10:47 AM

Your sort of pretzel logic for the priveleged is very frightening. And not just for Scots nationalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 10:28 AM

Nope, I never delineated anybody, just said everybody deserves an even break. That means everybody; you can't apply different rules to different classes, we all merit the same consideration. Even you ;~)
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 10:23 AM

It certainly is idiotic to bring in human rights into the context of this thread, but it's too late for you to think of that now.

To compare the so-called "right of the rich to be happy like everyone else" to the suffering of people without homes, health care, education, safety and security, is appalling. Absolutely appalling.