BS: Charles to marry Camilla

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:50 PM

"... whose former No. 1 Citizen's main claim to fame..." no, that is just what the gossip mongers TALKED & JOKED about the longest.

It's hard to make jokes about balancing the budget and working on health care, etc...when was the last time Charles did anything besides be a 'topic'?

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

Architectural preservation, organic gardening, the Princes Trust giving a helping hand to deprived youngsters, the man's heart is in the right place, give him the benefit of the doubt.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:17 PM

Three cheers for Charlie and the former Royal Concubine. May they produce the ugliest heir to the throne yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:26 PM

If you were as well up in female reproductive abilities as you obviously are about the British royal family, you might not have made that last post. Or perhaps you think that post menopausal is something to do with letters and parcels.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Cats
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:30 PM

Cllr.... The only good thing about the royal family is that they stop us having a president.. Thatcher or Blair or anyone in between:-) And, to be fair, you know we think Oliver Cromwell went bad at the end. Just look what he did to the Diggers. All because it would be a good place to put a golf club...and..what's more.. just look what happened to my bedroon wall because of him!!!xx

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Megan L
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:30 PM

all the usuall hypocracy "Oh no Ann can't get married in church of england because she was divorced. What charles wants to marry his mistress of course you can get married in the church of england."

Subject: Lyr Add: MY OLD DUTCH (Albert Chevalier)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:33 PM

There's a song that comes to mind:

MY OLD DUTCH
(Albert Chevalier)

I've got a pal,
A reg'lar out-and-outer.
She's a dear old gal.
Now I'll tell you all about 'er.
It's many years since fust we met.
'Er 'air was then as black as jet.
It's whiter now, but she don't fret,
Not my old gal!

CHORUS: We've lived together now for forty years,
An' it don't seem a day too much.
There ain't a lady livin' in the land
As I'd swap for my dear old Dutch.
No, there ain't a lady livin' in the land
As I'd swap for my dear old Dutch.

I calls her Sal.
Her proper name is Sarah.
And you may find a gal
As you'd consider fairer.
She ain't an angel. She can start
A-jawing till it makes yer smart.
She's just a woman, bless her heart,
Is my old gal CHORUS:

I sees yer, Sal,
Yer pretty ribbons sportin.
It's many years, old gal,
Since them young days of courtin'.
I ain't a coward. Still I trust
When we've to part, as part we must,
That death may come and take me first,
To wait my gal. CHORUS:

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: ced2
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:34 PM

Do not be selective Cats... remember what a loyal Monarchy supporting establishment (and troops) did to to a crowd who had gathered in St Peter's Fields in Manchester. No bits of the "John Bull" establishment are worthy of any support.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:40 PM

ok, Giok, I'm glad to hear he does good works...(sad that we never hear much about them here)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Schantieman
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:55 PM

"remember what a loyal Monarchy supporting establishment (and troops) did to to a crowd who had gathered in St Peter's Fields in Manchester"

- of course, Prince Charles was in command - how stupid of me to forget.

And there is little or no evidence that Ellan McArthur is either celibate or a lesbian, since she has been reported as living with bloke - and whether she is or not, what the Hell is it to do with us?

She certainly has more guts than our anonymous 'guest'.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 01:57 PM

The poor sod didn't ask to be born into the Royal Family. He's lived in a fishbowl all his life, had a burden of impending responsibility thrust upon him, and had damned little chance to follow his natural inclinations and develop as a normal human being. Since he's next in line for the throne, he's pretty much stuck with the job whether he wants it or not (I suspect not). He can't even belch discretely without the tabloids making screaming headlines out of it.

He's also, as this thread amply demonstrates, a target for small-minded, mean-spirited twits.

Give the two of them a break. If they can find some happiness in the middle of this kind of harsh public scrutiny, more power to 'em, sez I!

Don Firth

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

OK - so what do we call her now she is no longer Porker-Bowels?

Parker-Windsor or Winsdor-Parker? or Slough for short?

Well that's emptied my small mind


PS I am much in favour of a monarchy that can (and in OZ did) provide OUR backstop on snivellling politicians. Give them all those weapons of mass destruction (where found)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 02:24 PM

Good On 'Um....As Aye Phil

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 02:24 PM

For a bunch of people who don't regard guest opinions as being worth much, you sure love to spend time discussing guest opinions you disagree with!

Actually, I don't buy that "oh poor Charles" routine. Charles could have walked away from it all for his true love, like another equally infamous royal did--no one held a gun to his head to stay in the public eye. That is his choice, and he receives MILLIONS of pounds, access to the best real estate in Britain, a royal yacht, etc etc Maybe that's why he puts up with all, eh? He loves being a rich, famous white guy with a highly publicized relationship with a mistress.

And as to his children being wonderful, well...how the hell would we know? It isn't like we know the truth of what these people are like. All we know is what we read in the tabloids, some of which will be accurate, some not.

All we have to judge them by is what their friends leak to the press anonymously. So for you royal watchers, maybe anonymous isn't so bad. After all, it allows you to follow these pathetic peoples' love lives, doesn't it? And tells you what their spoiled children wear to the latest fancy dress parties?

I mean, where would you be without important information like that, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 02:30 PM

It's always struck me that Camilla was much more the royal consort type, and Diana was much more the royal mistress, like her great-grandmother Alice Keppel (mistress to Charles's great-great grandfather Edward VII).

It also strikes me there's a peculiarly nasty tone about some of the posts in this thread. The lottery of royal birth is really no different from any other lottery, except the "winners" didn't have any say in whether to buy a ticket or not, and I can't really see any reason for getting hot under the collar and needlessly unpleasant about the one and not other.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 02:36 PM

Add to knowledge of female reproduction, lack of knowledge about the royal yacht. The British royal family no longer has a royal yacht, the last one Brittania is on display as a tourist attraction at docks near Edinburgh.
Any more sweeping statements you want to get wrong?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 02:41 PM

People love or hate the royals, McGrath. It is that simple. The tone isn't particularly nasty here at all. In fact, it's pretty damn mild, IMO.

It is true Charles didn't choose to be born a royal. But he has chosen to remain one. So enough with the "oh poor Charles" whinging, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 02:57 PM

I neither love nor hate the Royals.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Schantieman
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 03:01 PM

HMY Britannia was an undoubted asset to the country as it brought so much foreign exchange in. Foreign businessmen and politicians were invited on board when the Yacht visited their countries, were wined & dined and met their British counterparts and struck deals, contracts etc. that earned this country vast sums.

And it showed the flag in foreign climes.

And it provided a secure base for the Royal Family abroad without having to carry out all the preparations now needed for them to stay ashore.

And...


I was lucky enough to visit the Yacht with my Cadedts when she came to Liverpool as part of her farewell tour. Predictably the whole ship was immaculate. Then we were shown the engine room. (She was one of the last three steam-powered surface vessels in the Royal Navy). Blue and white paint, gleaming brass and copper, shining steel - the works. Apparently when Ronald Reagan was shown round he asked to see the 'real' engine room too!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 03:06 PM

Prince Charles is worth 20 anonymous guests. The old bollocks about him being insensitive and brainless should be instantly dispelled by his books about architecture and advocating organic farming - he shows an excellent intelligence, knowledge of history and environmental problems and the impact of insensitive planning on ordinary people. Even when he is wrong, as many people think he is on fox hunting, he has the guts to stick his neck out and cop the flak for what he believes in. This marriage is another instance of this.
I am a conditional constitutional monarchist, and if they get outrageous I will duly don my round tin helmet. In the meantime they are miles better than most alternatives and a useful focus for national unity. The jetting out of republican venom over a marriage is loathsome to behold.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 03:11 PM

Charles should never be allowed to marry the person he was adulterous with through out his married life to Diana.I can not see how anyone of you can give him the blessing to marry a divorced woman.
Sorry but i believe if he wants to marry Camilla then he should never take the Throne and pass it on to Prince William.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 04:38 PM

he has the guts to stick his neck out and cop the flak for what he believes in. This marriage is another instance of this.

Or then again it could be that we can't have a King with a mistress? And it took him twenty plus years to find his guts.Puhleease.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: PoppaGator
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 04:47 PM

I saw a brief report of this development on this morning's TV news (in the US) and told my wife:

"Those British Mudcat members are going to have LOTS to say today!"

I didn't get down here to BS-land until mid-afternoon, and ~ as I had suspected ~ there has been plenty of discussion.

What do I think? I think the monarchy is outdated, but hold no grudge against members of the royal family. I have long been aware of Charles' various charitable projects, and so have many other Americans.

These two should have gotten married many years ago, and while they share some of the blame for backing off from each other for whatever political reasons, I see them as basically pawns in someone else's game, or at least as having been at the mercy of forces larger than themselves as individuals. Homely or not, their mutual attraction and relationship speaks for itself after so many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 04:50 PM

mmmmm the great rubbing of royal parts sure gets those brits hot and bothered.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 05:26 PM

SRS - LOL! Fellatious or phallacious, sounds like fun to me! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 06:22 PM

I'm glad someone noted that intentional "slip of the tongue," so to speak. . . ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 06:31 PM

As my brother-inlaw put it,

if the Prince of Wales didn't take a mistress it would break a tradition going back to a time since "Llewellyn the last".

and even he had "a soul" mate,,,,,,,

as a couple of divorcees getting married whats the problem? As support to a future king whats the problem? and in the days of PC & equally gone mad the concept of treating a King's spouse like we did Queens Vic and Liz's spouses is hardly contentious. As for the creeping notion of Queen Camilla - NO THANKS
What the world holds for Camilla is acceptance. We loved Diana. And rationale has no place in such affection. Only feelings.

Monarchy is infinitely cheaper than a president and in the event of politicians getting too far above themselves, public opinion AND the law would enable a monarch to slap them down. Just the possibility is enough to restrain most of them.

SO tell me again - do presidents always remain faithful to their spouses? Name me a country & I will shame a president..........

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Chris Green
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 06:36 PM

Speaking as a Brit, the news has made no difference to my day whatsoever. I couldn't give a tuppenny fuck. If they cancel something I want to watch on the telly in favour of the wedding, though, that is an entirely different matter!

Actually, being as the whole thing on telly these days seems to be to make it as interactive as possible, couldn't we have an interactive Royal Wedding? "Does anyone know of any just and lawful impediment why these two may not be joined in holy matrimony? TEXT YOUR ANSWERS NOW to 15423!"

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Boab
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:36 PM

So??? Gumboots and kagouls? ---Yaaaaaaawn!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:36 PM

we can't have a King with a mistress

I don't think there has been more than at very most two kings without mistresses in the last 500 years. (Or in a couple of cases it wouldn't have been mistresses but been close boyfriends, but the principle is the same.)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:41 PM

According to Anthony Holden, who has written three biographies about Charles, his spending on his mistress is costing his British subjects approximately half a million US dollars a year.

The public discussions about royal funding is what is the much bigger controversy, and certainly one that is newsworthy in Britain. The majority of the British people believe this family is plenty wealthy already--one of the wealthiest in the world, in fact. In fact, I heard a Sky News poll (OK, not the country's best source for news, but still...) reports something like 70% of the British public are against the marriage.

While Diana was around and the boys were still young and adorable, the royals enjoyed something of a rebound. But since Diana died, Charles hasn't been very present in the public eye because he has never been popular, and Camilla has only made him more so.

Add to that the idiotic and shameful antics of Charles' offspring, and you hear more and more people saying out loud that perhaps it's time for Britian to grow up and become a real democratic republic, with an actual written constitution, rather than the "unwritten" constitution that gets "rewritten" and the rules of the game changed by every succeeding generation of royals, based upon whom the heir and spare are currently shagging.

After the House of Lords, there is but one hereditary peer target left to shoot at, eh? It doesn't bloody matter if we only call Camilla the princess consort. Unless, of course, the royal watchers would prefer she be addressed as the Princess of Wales? No, I thought not.

And Australia and Canada truly ought to be ashamed of themselves for still putting up with this monarchy crap. Really! Isn't it time you all cut the apron strings to Britain once and for all?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:32 PM

I don't care about the monarchy one way or the other. I think that Charles should have married Camilla years ago but, of course, he needed Diana because she was good breeding stock. I don't think his marriage to Diana was his idea, it was out of duty that he married her. It was his father that chose Diana to be the mother of Charle's children.

Why would he relinquish the throne? I don't know anyone who would give up all that money. Besides that, he was born into it - what else is he going to do? He also has a duty to William and, like his mother, he is what the public really wants.

I think its great that Charles is finally doing what he wanted to do all along - marry Camilla.

Love is truly blind!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:40 PM

I can still envision circumstances where Charles would abdicate. If the public and tabloid press really turn on him between now and the wedding for instance.

There are very few royal watchers who wouldn't much prefer he step aside for William. Of course he wouldn't give up his wealth to do that! He could still be a royal, still remain a beneficiary of the Civil List. Hell, they make the rules as they go along, then get Parliament to rubber stamp whatever they decide to do. They made up the "Princess Consort" title just for Camilla, after all.

And it's a good thing love is blind in their case. It's the rest of us who have to suffer looking at their seriously ugly faces all over the newspapers, TV shows, etc for the next several months.

Not only do I dislike Charles, I can't even stand looking at a photograph or video clip of him. The only other public figures I have that negative a reaction to is Dubya & Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:54 PM

To the folks in UK that don't like Royality:

Tell you what - send them over here (to US) and in return we'll give you the whole damn Bush tribe! Then you'd really have something to complain about.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 09:15 PM

And the saddest thing is there's another Diana being lined up for William, and another mistress will be waiting in the wings.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:15 PM

the news media in the US are happy...this is the major item on CNN and MSNBC tonight. It gives them something new since the tsunami is 'old' now, and Middle East news has no particularly gorey stories today.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peace
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 12:40 AM

Why do people think this is important?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 03:23 AM

There was a Prince Consort not so long ago... Victoria, being a queen in her own right, could not then marry and make Albert king, as he would have become superior (stupid mysoginistic rule that means the male is always first in line, even if there are older sisters). It's unlikely anyone would accept Camilla as queen, particularly with her divorced status, so consort is an acceptable alternative.

And as for making up titles, it's not a new thing. The Queen Mother was so horrified at the prospect of being the Queen Dowager (her correct title after the death of her husband), she made them come up with something she could live with.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 03:35 AM

Mr Red said earlier that 'we all loved Diana', and a lot of the vituperation here is because of a perceived wrong she suffered. Not everybody loved Diana, I for one thought she was a waste of space and a bit of a simpering ninny. She certainly earned her place in history by choosing the wimp James Hewitt, and the playboy Dodi al Fayed as lovers. However that really is nothing to do with me and doesn't affect my life, which is true for all of your lives, it is not our concern.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: fat B****rd
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 03:36 AM

Gumboots and kagouls ?? Green wellies and Barbours, puleeze.
I'm with Brucie in this. The marriage won't make the slightest diference to me whatsoever.
Any chance of a holiday ??

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 03:42 AM

Excellent news. They are both keen fox hunters which is even better!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 04:11 AM

Wear the fox hat?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 06:45 AM

Kim C, Diana may not have been his first choice, but neither was he Camilla's. Cats at work said Camilla could not be queen, but if my understanding of the (unwritten) UK constitution is right, she certainly can be, and in fact WILL be. The titles they've been dreaming up are just a smokescreen because her subjects-to-be are not yet ready to get their heads around "Queen Camilla."

Presumably, freda, this news will bring forward by at least a day or two, the Australian republic? Indeed if the Queen lives on for 10-20 years (easily possible) Charles could be well into his 70s by the time he gets the big job, and that would put a UK republic on the agenda too. I'm not sure how Big Pink Lad works out that presidents in constitutional democracies are more extravagant than the British royals. (Mary McAleese in Ireland, for instance?) And when monarchists sneer at the alternatives, why do they always cite the prospect of President Thatcher rather than (say) President Betty Boothroyd?

And I can't believe Giok is serious in commending Charles's ignorant opinions about architecture, which amount to a brainless tirade against progress. Thanks to his intervention the National Gallery is saddled with an extension that must be one of the crassest, blandest faux-tradition developments in Europe. We must go to the Louvre to see how excitingly old and new can work in harmony together - and to get an idea of what Charles rejected for London.

Charle's household, more so than the other royal households, is a den of iniquity, in which one of his most intimate aides has been sheltered from prosecution for males rape, alleged by one of the Royal footmen, and employee rights go out of the window. Remember how Charles whined recently when one of his staff complained about lack of career-development opportunities? He saw this as an example of modern schooling encouraging people to apply for jobs above their station, notwithstanding that the woman in question was perfectly well qualified for the opportunity she sought. (Just a woman in a man's world.) And notwithstanding that he gets his own job by birthright.

I cannot believe that there is people in this day and age willing to bow down before this nonsense and parrot like sycophants that there is no alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 07:01 AM

There was a Prince Consort not so long ago... Victoria, being a queen in her own right, could not then marry and make Albert king, as he would have become superior."

a) There's still a Prince Consort, Philip.
b) Whether the title was Prince Consort or King Consort wouldn't make any difference. Whatever you call him or her, the consort doesn't have any constitutional status, any more than the President's wife does in the States.
..........................

I got my mistresses in a tangle up the thread - it was Camilla whose great granny was one of Edward VII's many mistress; Diana had a great great something granny who was one of Charles II's numerous mistresses. Today's Prince Charles is pretty restrained by comparison, with just the one official mistress, whom he than marries. (Of course if Prince William takes after his mother in more than appearance, it'll soon be back to normal service...

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 07:04 AM

I presume you mean the ghastly pyramid Peter, or could it be the even ghastlier Pompidou Centre?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 07:39 AM

Architecture is like music, some like it, some don't. Charles at least tries to find designs that fit in with the surrounding environment. I have to look at the British Library extension from my office window and despite having Kings Cross station behind it, it sticks out like the monstrous carbuncle it is. It may be an award winning design but it was already too small for its purpose before it was finished, it was overtime and over budget, it's a bastard to supervise and it doesn't fulfil its specifications.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Dominie
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 07:46 AM

'Giok'

Nae offence but are you no something of a shite Scot Nat??


D

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:09 AM

That proposed National Gallery extension did look pretty, I felt. The reason it didn't get built wasn't that Prince Charles said he didn't like it, but that most people agreed with his "brainless tirade against progress" - including a lot of architects.

"Progress" in itself is a totally neutral concept. If you are facing the wrong way, going forward is not the best way of getting to where you want to get to.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:22 AM

"Why do people think this is important?"

Can ye not distinguish between news and gossip? Britain has no more artist bad boys and girls, no notorious celebs to rumor monger about. They've become so dull, that the royal gossip is all they've got.

Do you seriously think that people contributing here have any interest in this marriage beyond celebrity gossip? OK--the republicans might, and those who oppose the monarchy on principle might, but that's it.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:22 AM

I dropped a word there, which made quite a difference to the sense. My last post should have gone - "That proposed National Gallery did look pretty terrible, I felt."