BS: Charles to marry Camilla

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Maui Babe
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 10:52 AM

Eagle Wing

Mahalo for the history. 300 years ago and still not changed. Wow.

Aloha

MB

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 08:07 PM

Ah, good re the hunting ban, s'pose they won't even chance it in Balmoral then. I'm genetically modified not to be able to criticise Galway though. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Andrew Milner
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 08:05 PM

Heard Queen Liz has told her oldest son that cohabiting (for want of a better euphemism) with Mrs. Parker Bowles is out of bounds until after the marriage. Now that's what I call being out of touch. A bad case of closing the stable door ... Maybe a good woman can straighten Charles out and turn him into monarch material. But then again perhaps all he needs is a footman, good, bad or indifferent.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 07:59 PM

I think the first part of milk monitor's analysis is spot on.

As for "something unspeakable in Scotland" - hunting with dogs is already banned in Scotland, as also in the Isle of Man. It's still legal in Northern Ireland, but it's been indicated from both sides up there that they wouldn't really much like having English foxhunters turning up. Life is complicated enough already.

But in the Republic it might be a different story - it's still being promoted by Bord Failte, the Tourist Board, and I'm sure they'd love a Royal visit. Here's a site selling the idea of a foxhunting trip to Galway - "Foxhunting in Ireland."

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:52 PM

It should take about twelve months for Camilla to become the 'nations sweetheart'.

The Sun will urge Joe Public to love the little lady who has made Charlie's heart sing.

The glossy mags will be full of style makeovers with Camillaesque models.

The wedding will be celebrated with much flag waving at Windsor.

She reminds me of a cross between Vera Lynn and June Whitfield (in Ab Fab.)In looks only, I know next to nothing about how she thinks, apart from her hunting fervour, which will be contentious, but forgotten as she follows the ban. Until a long range snapper captures her doing something unspeakable in Scotland.

In another twelve months she will then be ripped apart and thrown to the hounds for being rude to a servant.

All good news for the print. Gawd bless 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:50 PM

Yes, but why should he want to risk another £17 million divorce? Why get married? Stupid?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:22 PM

I'd put a slightly different spin on it, Eagle Wing, (for example, I'd point out that James II's biggest "offence" was to extend religious toleration to Catholics and to Protestant Dissenters) but you've got the salient points in there.

I've always thought a neat way to go would be to repeal it, and for Charles to turn Catholic, and that'd mean that Ian Paisley and company would no longer want anything to do with Britain.   But marrying Camilla puts the kybosh on that, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:14 PM

Sorry - forgot to say who I was answering in my last post. It was, of course, Maui Babe and his question about why Catholics are excluded.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:11 PM

It's a matter of history. This is a very simplified version.

After Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Church, our next monarch was a protestant. He died young and there was an attempt to install his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, as Queen because she also was a protestant. Mary (Henry's first daughter) rightly claimed the crown so Jane only lasted 9 days as queen. Mary immediately tried to restore the Roman Church but so many protestants were put to death in her reign that she became known as Bloody Mary. Elizabeth took England back into protestantism (with quite a few more deaths [mainly Catholic but some protestant dissenters too]). Since Elizabeth had no heirs, the throne was offered to James I (James VI of Scotland) and we had the Stuart dynasty. James' son, Charles I, became so unpopular that there was civil war followed by a sort of republic or dictatorship. On the death of Cromwell, Charles II was made King. He promised parliament that he would reign as a protestant but was secretly a Catholic. His son, James II was also very unpopular (as well as being Catholic) so his son-in-law, William of Orange, was asked to take his place. William agreed and he and his wife Mary ruled jointly (the only time in English history as far as I know). By this time, rightly or wrongly, Catholicism had become so unpopular and was considered by many to be the cause of all England's ills. So the document quoted earlier (1701 Act of Settlement) was designed to prevent the sort of autocratic rule that the Stuarts had favoured. (I don't know about James I but the other Stuarts believed in "The Divine Right of Kings" which meant they could do just as they liked.)

I'm sure someone will deal with all my errors and omissions. This was just off the top of my head (and may be biased by my protestant upbringing).

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Com Seangan
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM

Yeah and i'm happy for them both too. And to think thatat last we'll have a Duchess of Cornwall !!. Can't wait for it to happen. Cornwall will be over the moon. God knows it is well out into the sea as it stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Camilla PB
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 10:08 AM

Yes its me. My friend told me about this.
Well I never knew you'd all be so interested...
Sorry if we've upset anyone. just getting hitched.
Thanks to you all especially the lower orders worrying about our human rights. Gave us a good giggle. If any want to apply for a job we have a vacancy in our Scottish Palace where you can iron my hubby-to-be's newspapers for him. Or hold his urine sample jar while he pees.
It is gratifying that our future subjects recognise their role in our lives.
This was fun, we both enjoy folk music after hunting but now that the bloody government are going to ban hunting we might never hear folk songs again. Unless in Scotland where hunting continues.
Yours,
CPB

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:38 AM

Sorry for the blank,
Mahalo Eagle Wing and Bunn...
We'd never had thought catholics excluded.

Why are they excluded?

Aloha from MB
(who loves your country from afar and would love to visit some day)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Maui Babe
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:33 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:42 PM

A jedi, that would be be good

it would rhyme nearly with stead-die, fred-die, head-die and shred-die

And I agree, stop attacking our little island, some of us are stung to the quick...... not many I'll grant you.

we have muslims, catholics, and jedi knights queuing up for this job; which I think says something about the quality of ethnic diversity, and freedom of opportunity in Britain under new labour. However none of these applicants thus far have the right shaped ears, or a girlfriend called camilla, whose name rhymes with virtually everything.

fear not though, for we have prime minister capable of finding just such a man. A man who will wear the crown with virtually no danger of it slipping over his ears. Its like he was born to be King.

three cheers for Tony!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 04:31 PM

There's no need to be a member of the Church of England in order to be its legal head. And there is nothing that says the monarch couldn't be a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Jedi.

However, Catholics, that's a different matter. Beyond the pale.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 04:21 PM

Just going back over the thread and came across:
"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'd just like to mention that the political leaders of this despicable little island with it's horrendous royal family are in the forefront of a campaign to lessen the debts of third world countries in order to improve the lot of "the rest of the world's citizens". This campaign, if I remember rightly, is not supported by a wonderful republic whose glorious leader bears the initials GWB.

Frank L.
(Fed up to the teeth with US citizens attacking my little country [with all its faults] on what is an international forum.)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:22 AM

Just a cut and paste job, but here are the key points of the 1701 Act of Settlement, that concerns the sucession of the monarch...


That all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities.

    * This makes the succession of Catholics, the illegitimate, or those who are adopted illegal.

    That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established

    * The sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must join in communion with the Church of England.

    ... that every King and Queen of this Realm, who shall come to and succeed in the imperial Crown of this Kingdom, by virtue of this act, shall have the coronation oath administered to him, her or them, at their respective coronations, according to the act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty

    * The sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must promise to uphold Protestant succession.

    ... this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the consent of Parliament

    * The sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must not involve the country in wars to defend the territories of foreign monarchs.

    ... judges commissions be made quamdiu se bene gesserint, and their salaries ascertained and established

    * The sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should appoint no judges and that judges should receive fixed salaries.

    That no pardon under the Great Seal of England be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in Parliament.

    * Impeachment by the House of Commons is not subject to pardon under the Great Seal of England2.

It should be noted that many other nations in which the British sovereign is head of state have similar laws and that it may take legislation in up to 15 independent commonwealth countries to remove the burdens imposed by this act from the British sovereign.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:21 AM

Sorry to join in from 2 oceans away but can I ask for some information on the English succession? Or British??
my friend is convinced that the monarch cannot be Christian but from the posts above it seems this cannot be true.
Is there some branch of Christianity therefore excluded e.g. Lutherans or Latter Day Saints?

Good question.

Officially the British monarch is the head of the Church of England (Anglican or Episcopalian). Therefore he/she must obviously be a member of that branch of the Church. That obviously excludes all other denomination or sect. Because of the problems encountered during the Stuart dynasty, the monarch must be Protestant. This will remain true unless (or until) the Church of England is disestablished (or the monarchy is abolished). What will happen in either of those cases in anybody's guess.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Maui Babe
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:09 AM

Sorry to join in from 2 oceans away but can I ask for some information on the English succession? Or British??

my friend is convinced that the monarch cannot be Christian but from the posts above it seems this cannot be true.

Is there some branch of Christianity therefore excluded e.g. Lutherans or Latter Day Saints?


Mahalo


MB

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 09:24 PM

The minesweepers serve up the dregs for breakfast, not eggs!

Chicken on a raft on a Monday morning...

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 06:13 PM

LOL, DougR!

McG, only the William and Mary part of the Stuart line died out. Hence th "pretenders," whose claims were pretty strong.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 03:18 PM

Sounds like a typical bit of made-up republican rubbish to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 02:35 PM

Is the cooking better on minesweepers or something?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: DougR
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 01:36 PM

Oh well.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 01:22 PM

The House of Orange is still going strong in the Netherlands. In England William and Mary were counted as Stuarts, but since they didn't have any descendants that line died out.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 01:18 PM

I know a man who was in destroyers, and apparently Charles got re-assigned to minesweepers after embarrassing everyone by throwing a childish tantrum because his boiled egg in the mess was not done to his exact specification.

Rather spoils my image of him...

Wonder what he did in the Kalahari with Van der Post.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 01:08 PM

Nope I think you're labouring under a misconception there Doug.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: DougR
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:56 PM

Any possibility they HAVE to get married? Women are conceiving much later in life now you know.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 11:08 AM

Tell that to Ian Paisley, he still thinks it's 1690 or thereabouts.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 10:56 AM

'With the possible exeption of "MY OLD DUTCH"'

The House of Orange died out with Queen Anne.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 09:27 AM

So disappointing! I was hoping to sift a good song out of this thread. With the possible exeption of "MY OLD DUTCH" and Wee Little Drummer's limmerick there's little contribution to that great ballad tradition. Of course, I have profited from a lot of excellent discussion, histerical footnotes (footprinces?), personal attacks and other diversions. But where's the song of the century?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Fiolar
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 09:22 AM

A couple of points just ot keep the pot boiling. When Henry VIII was given the title "Fidei Defensor", as far as Pope Leo was concerned, there was only one "Faith" and Henry got the award for his article attacking Martin Luther's teachings. So the use of the term "Defender of THE Faith" is strictly the correct one.
As for being the heir to the throne, that "privilege" only happened by sheer luck if you consider the murderous records of previous monarchs for example those who did away with Richard II and Edward II. Also if I remember correctly there was a programme on TV some time ago which proved that the real king is living in Australia.
Incidentally in a recent poll conducted by ITV 69% felt that Charles should not marry Camilla.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Barrie Roberts
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 09:07 AM

A few points:

1. Abusing people for being ugly and stupid is cruel and repulsive. Can we see unretouched pictures of the visual paragons who take this approach?

2. When the American colonies decided to break the ties that had hitherto bound them to King George, they offered the Crown of America to George Washington, who turned it down (3 times, I think) and to Charles Stuart, the Jacobite pretender to the English throne, who turned them down (twice, I think). Unable to find themselves a new King they were forced to put up with mad George or become a republic. One quite understands their choice;

3. The Church of England is not Henry VIII's Church. He cut off the English bit of the Catholic Church and declared himself the head of it. It was his daughter Elizabeth who established a Protestant English church;

You can carry on sniping now.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 08:35 AM

Why left Henry VIII with the English church the Roman Catholic church? Think of that with the bloody discussions about divorcees.
But nevertheless, I'm a proud citizen of a Republic, and Royal marriages concern me like a midget shit in the State Library.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 08:18 AM

Dave (the ancient mariner), there's nothing compulsory about kingship. If Charles wanted to retreat to private life, he need only renounce the the throne. If he happened to be 70-plus when the time came to succeed, the nation's understanding would go with him. Far better in that situation that we skip George VII and go straight to William V. (Except that the boy Wills seems to be taking no interest whatsoever in his destiny, and shows no sign of knuckling down to the constitutional studies he's been encouraged to undertake.)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 07:39 AM

Shouldn't that be 'deid', Giok?? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 07:35 AM

Does anyone here realy know them ? Have you met them? Socialised with them? Got drunk on a Saturday night with them?
NO Well but out.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:13 AM

Oh Diana, see my banner
No I forgot, ye're dead
Ye canna.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peace
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:49 PM

Who really cares?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 08:00 PM

Diana, Diana
Lady of the Manor
Watch me wave my banner
For Diana

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 07:46 PM

I thought of them, but they are a bit approximate. You could get away with various rhymes like banner and spanner and manor, but they don't have much flavour.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 07:01 PM

guyana

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 06:57 PM

Goanna
Pianna

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:57 PM

Atilla, killer, chiller...Endless, as you say.

Of course the same goes for Cilla.

Whereas Diana is decidedly limited in the rhyme department. As is only too appropriate. Even if it had been Dinah there'd have been whiner.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:49 PM

I think she should be Queen.

There are lots of words that rhyme with Camilla, and we will always have lots of songs and poems about her

there once was a babe called camilla
but no one could sexually fulfil her
the crew of a freighter
and not too long later
a bloke hung like guy the gorilla

also flotilla, thriller, distiller,Aston Villa.....
why the possibilities are endless!

well done Charles! your choice of woman will lead to the gaiety of nations being greatly improved. Another first for Britain.

And

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:34 PM

It could be expressed as "a duty to succeed" rather than "a right". Edward VIII had a much easier life, in practical terms, than his brother to whom he passed the job, and he lived a lot longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:23 PM

Fionn, there is a difference between voluntary membership of a church, and the legal right to succeed to the throne. I think legal eagle is therefore right.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:06 PM

Peter K, 'knowing about' architecture is not the same as having good taste, my poor old chap. I've got it and you haven't. What's more, I, like Prince Charles, have the people on my side in this issue. I hope you're not some kind of elitist, hmmmm? I thought you were on this thread because you don't like elites.
   Chin chin, Ooh-Aah.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 03:51 PM

All who post must care, otherwise they would ignore it.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: s6k
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 03:41 PM

who gives a rats bollocks about this crap