BS: Charles to marry Camilla

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 10:09 AM

Nice to know you read my posts, however to regard human rights as a non sequitur in the context of this thread, is to misunderstand the term 'human rights'
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 09:43 AM

And I didn't bring "human rights" into this idiotically like you did.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 09:34 AM

Neither was helping Saddam line his pockets via the UN 'Oil for Food' programme, whilst lining your own pockets at the same time!
Sorry about the thread creep but I didn't bring the UN into the thread;~)
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 09:30 AM

Last time I checked, a prince's right to marry his mistress and have everyone in the world wish them well, wasn't included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Fiolar
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 09:27 AM

Amazing what can be done when there is no written constitution. Camilla will not have the title "Queen" (apparently). Let's see what happens when she is married. Funny also how although Henry VIII broke with Rome, he still hung on the title "Defender of the Faith" which was given to him by Pope Leo X and the title is still in use.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the phone conversation between Charles and Camilla!!.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Tam the man
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 08:33 AM

As I said I'm happy that the couple are getting married and what happened in the past let it stay in the past.
Let bygones be bygones.

Tam

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 07:10 AM

"the hereditary seat of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall is Tintagel. Perhaps they might move there ... honeymoon? No, don't suppose they could get in the B and B."

What about that horrible fake castle on the hilltop - is it the Camelot Hotel? Surely they could manage a room or two?

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 07:07 AM

"Charles has said that he will be defender of faiths, rather than defender of THE faith, and I think if he is enthroned there will be disestablishment of the CofE."

HALLELUJAH!! (I'm not particularly for or against the Monarchy but an "established Church" is a contradiction in terms, IMNSHO.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 07:04 AM

This obsession with whether or not people think these individuals look ugly or not and so forth is pretty peculiar and unpleasant. Even if it was true, which it isn't particularly - just look around you in the street at any random selection of passers by - what's it got to do with anything?

This is playground stuff, from the nasty end of the playground. "She looks like the back of a bus...rear end of a horse...his ears stick out...he's a poof...she's a slut..."

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 07:00 AM

"but plenty of photos are available that show this fine building in a better light."

Some nice pics - does no. 2 really show a clock tower that leans to the left at about the same angle as the Tower of Pisa?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 06:54 AM

"Not liking a pair of arrogant, dull, unimaginative, largely stupid and ugly people who are filthy rich through inheritance is a violation of HUMAN RIGHTS????"

Do you know, I can't find anywhere that any one has suggested that.

The violation of human rights is not about liking or disliking but about denying them the right to do what anyone else is allowed to do. You seem to be suggesting that because they are ugly and rich they don't have the same rights as the rest of us. Some of us disagree.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 05:49 AM

In fact, apart from his sex life and his insistence on killing things in inefficent ways and for no very useful purpose, Charles seems quite a thoughtful and sensible fellow...

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 05:40 AM

Firstly there will be no abdications as long as EIIR is on the throne, the abdication of Eddie VIII pushed her shy and stuttering father on to a throne he didn't want, and as a consequence Eddie was hated by the Queen Mum till the day he died. Charles has said that he will be defender of faiths, rather than defender of THE faith, and I think if he is enthroned there will be disestablishment of the CofE.
Secondly, a good looking building looks good from any direction, and fits in with its environment. A good building does exactly what it's designed to do. An excellent building does both.
Thirdly, a 'Sloane ranger' is a generic description applicable to all who fit it. The name comes from Sloane Square at the fashionable end of the King's Road. Chucks lugs do not qualify him to join this little band of poseurs.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 04:09 AM

I hope the Queen has a long life and Charles dies young so that Prince William will be the next King of England.

In loving memory of our English Rose ~ Diana, Princess of Wales.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: harpgirl
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 01:41 AM

Those Sloane Rangers are an inbred lot! Take Charlie's ears, for instance. He looks just like those Malones from Man O'War in the Bahamas. Another inbred lot!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 11:49 PM

They don't have to do it, Sorch. And where's the justification for a whole extended family of them getting their snouts in the trough? There is at least one little thread o hope: Charles has said that if hunting is banned (as it inevitably will be) he might as well head off overseas and spend his time ski-ing.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 11:00 PM

Actually, I kind of feel sorry for all of them. By an accident of birth they must take on a 'job' they may not be suited for or want.   Diana was just a naive girl who got snookered for the publicity and money probably. Just this Yoos take on it. She was lovely to look at tho, if not terribly intelligent.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Kaleea
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 10:49 PM

I really love the idea of trading the USA bush family to the UK for the royal family. We yanks could use a new round of headlines in our yellow tabloids.
   Hey, man, (inhale) it was just their karma, man (really deep inhale) that they were born into the royal drama, man. (inhale all the rest)   Anybody got any leftover superbowl munchies, man?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 10:25 PM

Giok - nice to see someone else who does not worship at the shrine of Diana the Martyr.

However, I never thought Charles was stupid till now. He got screwed over his divorce from Diana (I believe it cost him over GBP 17 million) - and now he gets married again? Damn, that practically qualifies for the Darwin awards.

And the idea of the princes being "fine young men"? You jest! Too much of their mother's blood in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 09:45 PM

Why this obsession with substituting a president for the monarchy? It isn't like it's a prerequisite for a democratic republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:59 PM

If you're going to have a King, I think Charles is about as good as you're likely to come up with. A sense of the absurd is pretty unusual among people in that kind of position, and pretty essential too.

I can't actually think of anyone who might conceivably get elected president in Britain having even a touch of that self-aware quality - I think it gets drummed out of them in the process of climbing the greasy pole. (And if you look across the Atlantic - Good Grief!)

Ideally I think I'd have the job filled by a purely symbolic figure - a horse, maybe. With Prince Charles perhaps having the job of looking after it, riding it on ceremonial occasions, and acting as its spokesman when necessary, for example when monstrous carbuncles are proposed.

I've been hunting around for a picture of the building in question - here is the only one I could find. (Third picture down the page.) Not the clearest of pictures, but I think enough to suggest what the prince was getting at.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:49 PM

Well, it doesn't seem that Wills parties quite as hearty as Harry. I just think it's weird that we Yoosers are so damn fascinated with all of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:37 PM

I can't see the difference either except that William is still out partying and is in no apparent hurry to settle, whereas his father is determinedly settled, has some reasonably good ideas about how the country should be guided and is interested in many things that might endear him to his future subjects, if they would just get off his case and listen to him properly.

Of course there are some dodgy areas in his administration.. there are dodgy areas in everyone's admin... even the Sainted Walt Disney wasn't as rosy as he's painted.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Chris Green
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:37 PM

Yeah, but surely if they've got a problem with divorce and remarrying then the Church of England is rather buggered from the start, given Henry VIII and his merry wives of Windsor?! Think of it as carrying on a great English tradition!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:33 PM

Maybe some people think Charles has betrayed what he is meant to represent...esp re church and divorce and remarrying. Whereas William is a clean slate.

To be honest I can't be doing with them myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:31 PM

Ooh-Aah2, you may watch Mudcat every minute of the day, but I sometimes have other things to do. I'm glad you like the National Gallery extension. It does have some plus points, and you've mentioned one or two, but still it is a pale shadow of the imaginative concept that provoked Charlie's uninformed wrath.

Liz. if you said the water was wet, I'd agree. If you say the British Library is a bastard to supervise, I'd want to hear evidence from more than a former security guard - especially when the CEO describes the building as a pleasure to work in. (I should think very few public buildings are designed around the presonal needs of a security guard.) I take your point about the angle you're viewing from, but I assume relatively few people will ever see it from that same angle.

McGrath may not have gone out of his way to find a dull and dreary photo, but plenty of photos are available that show this fine building in a better light. The following pics are the result of a Google search - no picking and choosing, I've just linked to the first six returned by Google that give some impression of the building as opposed to close-ups of detail. If anyone wants to check out more images, just do a Google images search for "British Library."

Pic 1 Sorry - this one's a bit slow to load.

Pic 2

Pic 3

Pic 4

Pic 5

Pic 6

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Chris Green
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:28 PM

Oops! Crossposted LTS. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that I can't see that it makes any difference whether Charles or William succeeds (or should that be accedes?) to the throne. They are both at best figureheads and at worst an expensive irrelevance!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Chris Green
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:22 PM

PS - in case that sounded inflammatory, I didn't necessarily mean people here. I meant the opinion polls published in the papers recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:22 PM

You mean Abdicate. It's what his great uncle did, but there are some big differences with Charles.

CPB has only been divorced once, not as many times as Wallace Simpson had.. CPB is English rather than American. He's held on this long (and probably has a few more years to wait if grandma's longevity is anything to go by) and is determined to be King. Basically the longer there is until William is throned, the better.. There will be less pressure on the poor lad and he might get a chance of some life, and mature a bit before he's saddled with the crown.

Just my tupp'nyworth.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Chris Green
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:11 PM

Just to drag the conversation back to an earlier point - why are people suggesting that, just because of his impending nuptials, Charles should give up his right to the monarchy in favour of William? Surely the point of a hereditary monarchy is that it's hereditary? If you're going to dick around with picking the most suitable member of this bunch of insular, inbred embarrassments to represent the nation, shouldn't we just give them all the heave-ho and become a republic instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 07:27 PM

I agree, hypocritical in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peace
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 07:19 PM

Someone just did.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 07:17 PM

In which case no doubt someone would have posted saying:

It is interesting that the thread title is "Camilla to marry Charles". Why not, "Charles to marry Camilla"?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peace
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 05:01 PM

It is interesting that the thread title is "Charles to marry Camilla". Why not, "Camilla to marry Charles"?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 04:55 PM

Well she is certainly an improvement on the last one. I hope they are very happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: *Laura*
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 04:52 PM

well - it's another chance for the queen to wear her pretty blue dress. again.
or yellow. she wears yellow for variety occassionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 04:33 PM

I notice Peter K has gone all quiet since you posted the pictures of the British library and the carbuncle McGrath - point well made I think. Both stick out a mile, make one feel slightly nauseated and are a dangerous red colour. Charlie certainly has the knack of picking a good simile!

As for the extention to the National Gallery that Peter K doesn't like, I think he's mad. I spent a fair amount of my free time in there during my 3 1/2 years in London and it is absolutely splendid in every way - light, modern, well planned, and fitting into the existing structure with grace and wit - as one looks at it from outside you notice that the Greek (Corinthian?) relifs on the architrave continue into the new building and then become fainter and less detailed until they vanish into the modern structure - beautifully done. Inside the great scissor arch over the main staircase pays gentle tribute to English Perpendicular (Wells cathedral springs to mind) while being entirely modern. If Peter K thinks that ugly blocks of glass smashed into the middle of old and beautiful structures are 'modern' then he lacks maturity - in fact is ideal republican fodder.
   As for a republic here in Autralia - it is a salutary thought that if we had had one a few years back we would have had Pauline Hanson as president! (think of a female NF member with a screechy voice who considers herself attractive).

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 02:33 PM

Sounds like someone's not mentioned in anybody's will!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: ard mhacha
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 02:22 PM

I do hope they acknowledge the wonderful Wedding present from Ireland of a half million Northern Bank notes, this will pay for the breakfast.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 02:13 PM

PeterK - as I said, from *my office*, Kings Cross is behind the BL extension. It does not blend with anything else in eyesight there, because the St Pancras Hotel is at a different angle.

A good friend who used to be a security guard there assures me it is a bastard to supervise.

If I said the sea was wet would you disagree with me?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 02:10 PM

Actually, there have been far too many film scripts about these eejits, none of them good. That should tell you something right there.

Ahem!

Human rights?????

Human fucking rights?????

Not liking a pair of arrogant, dull, unimaginative, largely stupid and ugly people who are filthy rich through inheritance is a violation of HUMAN RIGHTS????

Man, are you people stupid!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Crane Driver
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 02:07 PM

Nobody says anything about Andrew Parker-Bowles in all this. How do you cope if you're a monarchist and the heir to the throne nicks your wife? At least after the marriage he'll stop having to hear his name being used in the coverage of Royal 'affairs'.

Andrew (no, not that one)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 01:41 PM

Didn't Charles marry Di because she was young and of good breeding stock? He always intended Mrs P-B but she was too old to breed. Get rid of the young wife, and marry his mistress when the kids are grown and about to fly the nest. There's got to be a really good film script here, surely!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Cats
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 12:57 PM

I really don't care if they marry or not, but it's fun to wind up the Cllr.. (love ya really...). I wasn't being selective, anyone who abuses power is wrong. We aren't sure if it was the royalists or the parliamentarians who made the holes in the bedroom wall, but we know this house signed up for the King at the start of the Civil War - we've seen the documents!
Here in Cornwall, where she will be the Duchess, there seems to be more people concerned with the title and those of us in the Duchy having to pay for her, which we're doing if they marry or not. The fact that she will be the second most important royal female after the Queen, and will take precedence over the Princess Royal, seems to be sticking in some people throats. A last quick thought... the hereditary seat of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall is Tintagel. Perhaps they might move there ... honeymoon? No, don't suppose they could get in the B and B.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 12:56 PM

Getting rid of the inheritocracy? Getting rid of the the royals might be a kind of topping-out flourish, if something like that were actually to happen. But in itself it does nothing whatsoever to bring it any nearer. If anything it might even make it worse - it might well give people the illusion something had been achieved when it hadn't.

Just look at the republics across the channel or across the ocean. Can you really see much sign of egalitarian democracy? You'd do rather better (not that much better, but some) to look in the direction of the Scandinavian monarchies.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 12:37 PM

I still dream of an end to the inheritocracy!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 11:51 AM

Well I'm with you Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 11:35 AM

None taken; still don't understand it though!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Dominie
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 10:44 AM

Giok,
Now, having read your latest posting, I am sure you're a shite Scot Nat.

Nae offence, mind, laddie. Doesn't make you a bad person.

Peace

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: nutty
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 09:34 AM

I'm just waiting to see the look on Princess Anne's face the first time we see her curtseying to Camilla.

I think her lack of congratulations speaks volumes.