BS: Charles to marry Camilla

Subject: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 04:58 AM

LONDON — Prince Charles (search) is to marry his partner Camilla Parker Bowles (search), the prince's office said Thursday.

Clarence House didn't immediately announce further details, but Sky News TV reported that the heir to the throne would marry on April 6.

Charles was previously married to Princess Diana (search), who died in a car crash in Paris in 1997. She was divorced from Charles when she died.

The marriage is a sensitive issue because Parker Bowles is divorced and her former husband is still alive. Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England if he took the throne, and some Anglicans remain opposed to the remarriage of divorcees.

The church urged the couple to marry.

Last year, a poll indicated that more Britons support Prince Charles marrying Camilla Parker Bowles than oppose it. Thirty-two percent of respondents to the Populus poll said they would support Charles if he remarried, while 29 percent were opposed. Thirty-eight percent said they didn't care and 2 percent had no opinion.

Subject: BS: Charles and Camilla
From: greg stephens
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 04:59 AM

About time too. And at least there's no chance of that dreadful Elton John warbling at the wedding.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles and Camilla
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 05:03 AM

What about getting Richard Thompson to do Nobody's Wedding?

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

I HOPE HE GETS HIS EYES TESTED FIRST

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 05:15 AM

About time too - at least this time he would be marrying the right person for the right reason - because they love each other - rather than the previous fiasco with that whining cow Diana who was just out for what she could squeeze out of the National Purse.
Quack!!!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Peace
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 05:16 AM

Hope they're happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Cats at Work
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 05:41 AM

Does this mean we will get a new Duchess of Cornwall? Will she become the official consort as she can't be queen. There again, do we need a royal family?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Stu
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 06:16 AM

Nice one.

That means more tax-payers money going to fund already-rich fuedal land-owners living a pampered lifestyle and make money hand-over fist from their private estates, all the time not paying tax on the profits.

Onanists, every one of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 06:20 AM

According to the BBC report, yes we do get a new Duchess of Cornwall, on the 8th of april.

About time too. It's been an ongoing silly situation to rival this place at it's worst...

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 06:52 AM

They have been living together for a long time now. I don't see a problem with them marrying, they obviously love each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 06:58 AM

It must be real love for him, cos Camilla is a bit of a dog, she must remind him of his mother.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Paranoid Android
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:05 AM

So where will Camilla Park her Rolls?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: CStrong
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:09 AM

So will Camilla's former husband have to be extra-careful when driving?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:33 AM

NO! We do not want a Royal family, a load of useless parasites!!

Who cares what they do!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:37 AM

I find it most instructive that more people say they don't give a rip than "support" the royal twit.

The 32% that do support him probably just can't wait to see what Harry will wear.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:38 AM

So two useless parastic foxhunting birdshooting philistines are going to dominate the news for weeks! God help this Ruritanian little island!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:39 AM

At least they don't send thousands of their subjects to kill and be killed in other people's countries. Unlike certain strictly-speaking-never-elected-in-the-first-place presidents.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:42 AM

I wonder how long it will be before he finds another mistress?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: MBSLynne
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:43 AM

GOOD!!! I hope they will be very happy. They have as much right to happiness and being with the one they love as all the rest of us do.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:47 AM

Don't really give a gnat's fart, but at least they take each other out of circulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:47 AM

Right. But do they have the right to spend taxpayers money being happy and in love?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:58 AM

They don't, as it turns out - Charles gets no stipend from public funds, relying on the income from the estate of the Duchy of Cornwall, which last year was about 12 million pounds, of which he paid 4.7 million in taxes (from last week's news stories on the investigation of the management of the estate, which is alleged to have included some jiggery-pokery).

One can start talking about how the Crown came to own the estate in the first place, but that would take us some 8 centuries back. The fact is, whether he gets married or not, in a registry office or a full blown state wedding etc, should not affect public funds.

I said "should..." - let's wait and see.

I'm no fan of Charlie's, but let's be fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 07:59 AM

Well, at least now they can start bearing legitimate offspring to carry on the dynasty.

...who, exactly, is the royal geriatric fertility specialist?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Cllr
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:10 AM

She will be known as HRH Duchess of Cornwall. God bless'em both.
Perhaps it will sort out those Heslop and Wallace charecters.
Cllr (monarchist and proud of it) Come on you roundheads, if you think you're hard enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:28 AM

Charles already produced his heir and spare, so there is no need of a geriatric fertility specialist.

As to whether or not the public's purse shall be raided to support these two: we'll see, won't we?

BTW. Are you suggesting there is something WRONG with Charles paying his taxes? And just how do you suppose his "estate" generates that huge of an income? Farming isn't all that lucrative, so I don't think that is what "earns" the 12 million pounds per annum, do you?

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

Will she be referred to as Her Royal Whoreness?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:34 AM

Well, I'll say this much for Camilla--at least she isn't as ugly as Charles. Almost as ugly, but not quite as ugly. Shouldn't that be good for something?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Bill the Collie
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:36 AM

Freda Underhill,
Right on the button, Fred.

Charles famously asked his first wife if she wanted him to be the first and only prince of Wales not to have a mistress. There will be a vacancy on 9 April.


Wonder what the Resume/ C V would look like?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: mooman
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:38 AM

I'm no fan at all of the royalty but if it makes them both happy, fair play and best wishes to them!

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 09:42 AM

Sure glad for the Treaty of Paris.

If she can't be Queen, I don't think he should become King. But it doesn't matter one whit to me, since I cut Chuckie out of my social register back in 1991 -- there I was, driving through Balmoral on a cold, rainy October night and he didn't even have the courtesy to invite me and my wife in for a cuppa! Rude little git....

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Kim C
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 09:57 AM

Well, she was the one he should have been with in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:25 AM

so why dosnt the old closet 'Queen' just quit the charade and 'come out' honestly in public...

or at least find a 'cover story' female partner for public engagements that looks less like like old bloke..

dont fool nobody

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:36 AM

I know. I was watching the news, and that's all they were talking about... they probably could have been talking about something relevatn, but hey...

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Bert
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:40 AM

It doesn't sound too smart a decision on Camilla's part, considering the fate of his first wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:51 AM

there have been only 2 news stories on uk tv this week

the round the world yacht celebate lesbo

and princess charles..

now if you conjoin both news trivialities.. might get an interestingly bizarre song

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:53 AM

The nastiest sniping about this is as usual coming from a GUEST. Talk about a nasty little git!

Those goofy British rules that regulate royal behavior have worked against these two from the very beginning. Charles' first choice was never Diana, and while I don't think their (his and Diana's) behavior was great it certainly also wasn't unique. Their lack of discretion is what I saw as most disheartening--you'd think they'd look out for their own reputations better for their own personal wellbeing. Despite the occasional nonsense, they came up with two fine children, and if they were like many of the divorced people I know, it was worth getting into the relationship for the children it produced. The press and paparazzi didn't aid Charles and Di in leading discrete lives when all is said and done. The fact that despite the public scrutiny Charles and Camilla have remained a couple speaks volumes regarding the appropriateness of their marriage.

What do looks or age have to do with being in love, git guest? Not a thing. But the same shallow sensibilities that lead you to taking anonymous pot shots shows us how unimportant your view of the topic is anyway. Go read your yellow rag for the next big scandal.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 11:08 AM

Guest - obviously you've sailed single-handed round the world so you are in a position to know what a childishly simple thing it is. Or are you just a twat?

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

Resume could include the description

"Not overly beautiful"

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 11:16 AM

I'm pleased for them both, and I hope they'll be happy. It's high time they made it official.
As for our stirring guest all I can say is that I'm a man of peace and non violence, but for you I could make an exception.You are a nasty little coward hiding behind anonymity.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 11:21 AM

absolutely correct..

and what an amazing deduction

I am "just a twat"

great life being a GUEST .. innit !!!?

but I'll never be a royalist
or stop being apalled at the dire priorities and presentation
of UK news services

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 11:42 AM

But just a twat you will always be..........

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 11:48 AM

I was a "shoot the buggers" republican until I considered the alternatives. Now, there's no way I'd swap Her Maj for a presidential pantomime. Royals are much, much cheaper, a massive tourist attraction, they fuel 10% of the world's entertainment industry all by themselves, and they exasperate thromboses in the riff-raff without even trying (bonus for the benefit of vitriolic GUESTs ;o).

As for Charles & Camilla, good luck. The prince has won the love of his life against all odds. There's a song there somewhere ...

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 11:50 AM

rather always be "just a twat"

than a pompous self rightious high & mighty prat

yep you guessed.. GUEST is best

and I can so often be an anonymous post by any one of you good people

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: harpgirl
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM

good, "princey" finally snatching back his balls from "queenie."
about time

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Tam the man
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:21 PM

Good for them it's about bloody time.

And to these ones that say that they shouldn't I mean what's it got to do with them anyway.

I mean they are two adults.

SO GOOD ON THEM

Tam frae Saltcoats Scotland

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:28 PM

...and they wonder why we in the colonies decided NOT to have royalty when we opted to go it alone....ah, well...with modern communications technology, we can share in the ongoing silliness as pundits gear up for hours of detailed analysis of gossip and possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:35 PM

Members of a nation whose former No. 1 Citizen's main claim to fame was a highly-publicised blow-job under the desk are hardly in any position to crow. We all have our crosses to bear, and I'd far rather hear about Chas & Camilla getting it together than endless droning on about fraudulent presidential elections and skulduggery in Iraq.
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:37 PM

I suspect I would truly hate to be that famous!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:47 PM

I've been mulling this thread over in my mind, and just had to come back again. Not only our Numpty guest but several other people have been very 'dog in the manger' about this. For fucks sake give them a break, he didn't choose to be who he is, any more than guest chose to be a wanker, it's an accident of birth. How anyone could begrudge someone a bit of happiness in the basis of their birth is curmudgeonly in the extreme. I as a Scot and a Scottish nationalist voter I obviously hold no brief for Charles or any of the royal family, but I wouldn't deny them or anybody else in this world a bit of happiness.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:49 PM

Strollin'Johnny, that's a fallacious argument (not to be confused with fellatious).

SRS

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."

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:29 AM

you're right, Fionn, here's what the syd morning herald says...

Republicans claim support surge
February 11, 2005 - 7:34PM

Australia's republican movement enjoyed a massive surge of support after the announcement that Prince Charles would marry Camilla Parker Bowles.... While prominent republicans were quick to congratulate the couple, closet republicans flocked to the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) website, citing the heir to the British throne's engagement to his long-term mistress as the "last straw". It was the biggest single catalyst for joining since Charles' son, Prince Harry, enjoyed a partially taxpayer-funded visit to Australia 18 months ago.
"We've obviously got the phone ringing off the hook," ARM director Allison (Allison) Henry told AAP.

"It's our biggest 12-hour increase in membership since news broke of Australian taxpayers footing the bill for security on Prince Harry's trip here 18 months ago." ...
The country towns of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory and Gunning in NSW, both of which are on his itinerary, are vying to throw the prince a buck's party.....

maybe it will be Camilla, Queen of the desert....





© 2005 AAP

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

Au contraire, Liz. The British Library does NOT stick out. A large part of the above-ground development has been given over to a vast patio area, so that the main building itself is set far back from the buildings around it, maybe 50 metres or more. King's Cross, by the way, is not behind it. The mock Gothic extravaganza of St Pancras is beside it, and King's Cross is on the other side of St Pancras. The extensive use of red brick was chosen to help harmonise with the immediate surroundings, not least St Pancras.

I'm not sure what the over-time and over-budget points have got to do with architectural design, but who says it's "a bastard to supervise"? I'm not sure what you mean by "supervise" anyway, but I've heard Lynne Brindley herself, no less, say the building is a pleasure to work in. As for being too small, it seems to have no difficulty in accommodating the world's biggest combined collection of books, including nearly all the books ever published in the UK (growing at a rate of 100,000 a year) and millions more from around the world - and retrieving them for researchers, usually within an hour or two.

I suspect you have not made much use of this facility. I use it frequently and would say that from the user's point of view too, it is a pleasure to work in. Overwhelmingly the researchers and students I see there (very many from overseas) regard both the building and its contents as a wonderful resource. In years to come it will be a fine example of what was created in the UK in our lifetimes, as will the Lloyds building. Rather that legacy than that we leave behind nothing but unimaginative rehashes of bygone styles.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:40 AM

You have been warned:

The British Library

Carbuncle

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
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

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 09:32 AM

"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"

that sort of comment is why i read mudcat. well said.

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.

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: 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: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 11:51 AM

Well I'm with you Giok.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: *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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:19 PM

Someone just did.

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: 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: 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 - 08:22 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:07 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:43 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 - 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 - 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.

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 - 10:47 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 - 11:42 AM

Ah you're American!!
Giok

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:38 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 - 02:43 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 - 02:48 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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 - 04:53 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: s6k
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 03:41 PM

who gives a rats bollocks about this crap

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:57 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: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 06:57 PM

Goanna
Pianna

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: 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 - 08:00 PM

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

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: 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: 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: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 14 Feb 05 - 07:39 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:08 PM

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

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: 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: 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 - 02:35 PM

Is the cooking better on minesweepers or something?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Maui Babe
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:33 AM

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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 12:08 PM

ho wow! theres a reason, we don't have a catholic queen. I thought we just didn't like them.

well if theres a reason, well we definitely won't have one.

is there a reason we can't have a Frrench queen, cos lets face it, we're not really keen on them.....?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: mindblaster
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:22 PM

I noticed that they've switched venue from Windsor Castle to The Guildhall. This was because it would have cost the tight fisted Charles money to get a special licence for The Castle premises £500 apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:41 PM

It's because if they licence it for wedding ceremonies the licence runs for 3 years, and anybody could demand to use the venue, don't want the hoi polloi coming in now do we?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 03:43 PM

If you had seen some of my neighbours (white ones, in case anyone misinterprets this) when I lived in Lewisham, you would see that this is quite reasonable. The hoi-polloi already have extensive access to the castle anyway.

Charlie too tight-fisted to pay 500 quid... SUCH bollocks. I'm convinced that these absurd things, which Royal haters so eagerly swap with a complete lack of the critical thinking they would apply to almost anything else, originate somewhere in the dirty underpants of the Murdoch owned press (ie, most of it). Rupert Murdoch... now there's a man whose republican fanaticism gives you an insight into the joys of a constituional Monarchy...

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 03:47 PM

President Murdoch - now there's a thought. After all, that fascist fellow traveller media magnate Berlusconi was able to con his way into the job of Prime Minister in Italy.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Royalist1
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 12:47 AM

Camilla would make a good President.

She is high-born but with the common touch.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 03:08 AM

It may only have been £500 for the license, but the alterations required by law to bring Windsor Castle up to DDA standards (Disability Discrimination Act - public buildings are required to be DDA compliant) with stairlifts, ramps, toilet facilities - in areas that are presently not accessible to the public (not on the tour) would have been considerably more expensive and not physically possible before April 8th. Add the fact that the castle is a Grade I Listed building and all sorts of laws and recommendations have to be followed before any alterations are done; and it would be a logistical nightmare.

The town hall is already DDA compliant and so is the next best venue.

I've never been to Windsor, but I suspect the bits that are open to the public normally are DDA compliant, with altnernative routes, ramps and lifts where necessary.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: mindblaster
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 12:04 PM

You're talking about a bloke who claimed money from lottery funds to do up one of his buildings (down in Devon or Cornwall) by using a loophole in the application criteria. The cost was £500 there were no DDA requirements. I've actully met this geezer several times. Did you know that most of his staff are on minimum wage. He even has special screwing devices to get the very lat bit of toothpaste out of the tube.Used to go on free holidays abroad under the guise of a director of the Commonwealth Development Corporation - itself an organisation that exploited child slave labour in the third world.

I have no time for this type of inbred decendant of murdering theives rubbish - The Guillotine I say

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 01:50 PM

Sounds like your mind has well and truly been blasted mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 02:02 PM

ho wow! theres a reason, we don't have a catholic queen. I thought we just didn't like them.
well if theres a reason, well we definitely won't have one.
is there a reason we can't have a Frrench queen, cos lets face it, we're not really keen on them.....?

If Edward had had his way we'd have had an American Queen.

Don't know if that's relevant. Just thought I'd mention it.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: EagleWing
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 02:06 PM

"If you had seen some of my neighbours (white ones, in case anyone misinterprets this) when I lived in Lewisham, you would see that this is quite reasonable. The hoi-polloi already have extensive access to the castle anyway."

I lived in Lewisham for the first 18 years of my life - mind you, that 40 odd years ago when almost all the neighbours were white - and we were a pretty good set of hoi polloi all told.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 04:21 PM

According to documents recently declassified, if Edward had his way, we'd've had a former lover of Von Ribbentrop as Queen....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Terry K
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 05:19 AM

I just think it's really ill mannered of everyone to make cheap jibes about Camilla's looks. She may not be a raving beauty, but then how many people are (there are even people who say I'm not!). And she's not exactly the elephant man either, so I say leave her alone. And him. Good luck to them I say, at least she doesn't seem to be just a silly young tart on the make.

cheers, Terry

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: nutty
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 06:08 AM

HERE'S ANOTHER FLY IN THE OINTMENT

Apparently Andrew Parker-Bowles is a Catholic and Camilla's children have been raised as Catholics.

As the Catholic Church does not recognise divorce, Camilla (in their eyes) is still a married woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 08:44 AM

If Charlie was king, and Camilla was queen.....and charlie died, would Camilla be able to carry on as queen or would it go to William?

Also do her kids have any claims to the throne in that case?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: jacqui.c
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 08:54 AM

No claim to the throne for Camilla's kids.

Camilla would, maybe, become the Dowager Queen, if she had been given the title of queen or the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall, possibly, but William would become king.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 09:07 AM

Thanks jacqui. So why wasn't Phillip called King? Or doesn't it work that way?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 01:18 PM

McGrath of Harlow, which James the II were you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 01:49 PM

Well Phil the Greek was made a Duck when they married, and worked his way up to being a Ponce. Incidentally to add to all the shock horror, mistresses and bonking on the side type rumours. A friend of mine who was in the Scots Guards reckoned it was common knowledge amongst the cognoscenti that Phil the Greek used to regularly bonk more than one of the stable girls at Windsor. Consecutively rather than concurrently I mean.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 03:36 PM

James II of England and VII of Scotland. He thought that, if there was going to be an end to discrimination against Catholics, which naturally, as a Catholic he wanted, it had to be accompanied by an end to the parallel discrimination against Protestant dissenters and others.

Hence the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, which

1. suspended all penal laws in matters ecclesiastical for not attending the established Church of England or not receiving communion according to its rites;
2. permitted people to worship other than in the established Church of England either in private houses or in chapels;
3. ended the requirement that people take various religious oaths before advancement to civil or military office.

The declaration applied to Catholics, Protestants, Unitarians, Jews, Muslims, and people of any or even no faith.

Of course this didn't go down with people who wanted discrimination to continue. Clearly this kind of madness could not be allowed to continue, and once King James had been driven out, it was brought back. Moe especially forcibly and ferociously, of course, in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 06:05 PM

Would Camilla even be Dowager Queen..? she's not related to the boys at all. My understanding of Dowager is widow holding property or title recieved from husband, so if she's never queen......

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 06:55 PM

Queen Step-mother? Like in Snow White.

Whether she's called Queen or not wouldn't make any difference - as consort any title is just a courtesy one, it doesn't carry any sort of authority.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 01:27 PM

Huh... try telling HER that!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 02:00 PM

This is to tell you Queen Camilla
that in matters of state - your hands not on the tiller
if your sphere was sport
you'd most often be thought
Of as something twixt Tranmere or Aston Villa

that sort of thing Liz?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Philip (not that one)
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 02:04 AM

Camilla is better than all of us because

1. She will be the second woman in the land.

2. She herself is upper class.

3. She will be royal when she marries.


The above doesn't apply to The Queen

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Georgie Mac
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 09:51 AM

"better" did you say BETTER?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Philip
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 07:00 PM

Yes its the natural order of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,ragdall
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:49 AM

Now that they've changed the wedding from Friday to Saturday, to allow Charles to attend the Pope's funeral, what is to become of all the Royal Wedding souvenirs which have already been produced with the original date on them? Will they all have the 8 crossed out and 9 printed above it?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: IanC
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:52 AM

Probably not. I've got ab Edward VIII Coronation biscuit tin (any offers?)

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,H
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:59 AM

"can't get away to marry you today..."

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: harpgirl
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:23 AM

Sure, IanC. I'll take 5 bucks to take it off your hands!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 12:18 PM

with the original biscuits??

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: IanC
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 12:19 PM

Possibly - I haven't looked recently.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 01:55 PM

The really important question is though- should Ken and Dierdre have postponed the wedding?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 03:32 PM

The souveniers with the wrong date will be worth more in the future.... the ones with the wrong date for whichever coronation got postponed for appendicitis are worth far more than the ones with the actual date on.

The King's appendix was a ground breaking operation carried out by Frederick Treves, who was the surgeon from the London Hospital who cared for 'The elephant man' Joseph Merrick.

Frederick Treves was born in the town 2 miles from where I was born.

Todays useless information.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Crane Driver
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 04:16 PM

I gather that, now they've moved the wedding, it clashes with the Grand National (horse race, in case any trans-ponders are reading this) on Saturday. Bet Charlie sometimes wishes he never bothered.

BTW, I loved the BBC's April Fool report. They invented an old "law" which said that, in any Royal marriage where there were children from previous marriages, the eldest child would take precedence. Since Camilla's are older than Charlie's, that would give us "King Tom" sometime in the future.

Who really cares these days?

Andrew

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST,Jas
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

My God / if they ever have children they will be awfully ugly weans

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 08:04 AM

Thankfully, short of test tube technology Camilla is too old now to get pregnant.

Mind you, if Charlie had had the courage of his convictions many years ago she would have been the Princess of Wales and produced the heir to the throne. Not a pretty thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 08:40 AM

I do hope the wedding is televised. I shall definitely watch it. At last he is marrying the right woman!
       Foxhunting, the true path

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: saulgoldie
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 04:00 PM

Frankly, I find it all a big bore. As royalty goes, at least in the colonies we MAKE our royalty pretend to earn their keep. And as entertainment, well maybe you have something there. But as entertainment goes, they produce small quantity and low quality compared to the pros who otherwise grace the tabloid pages and who cost far less. But I suspect that I a mmissing the point...

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:19 PM

Camilla is a fox?

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Nancy King
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 11:45 PM

This column provided me with several good giggles. And I love the picture....

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:04 AM

That just about says what has been on my mind off and on. Charles finally has the guts to marry the love of his life and almost instantly has the guts to voice his opinion of the press at the same time. I think Camilla is actually making a man out of Charles. I always hoped he would reveal himself but he has been harnassed by mom and dad for so long that we don't really know what he is about.

Mow that Camilla has made him a man, perhaps he will be a true king.

He might actually have the strength to something good with all his power and money. One can only hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:10 AM

Dangerously close to 300 here.......

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:11 AM

Whoo hooo!! 300!!!

Am I on a roll or what?!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:51 PM

Interesting article. I've always enjoyed Tina Brown's writing.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 09:11 PM

Let's face it, we need 'em. They have prettied up our tea towels and mugs for too long. They are part of the family. A cuppa for Gran, one for Billy and don't forget old Charley Lugs in the corner.

More power to their dainty little lily white elbows. Hail the King. If we don't get the Olympics, we couldn't half do with a coronation to buff up the tourist coffers. Wave those flags folk. Really smile as though you are having fun. Lots of fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: Richard Atkins
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 09:27 PM

Thank you Guest for the WALTER KIRN one 12 Feb 05. Printed and shown it to freinds in Pubs in the UK. The people this side of the Pond loved it. No punch on the nose from Royalists for me then! With reverance to the Pope before he died, I did say to friends it would be interesting if the funeral was on the same day as the wedding. 26 years of adultery versus 26 years of the Pope. Which would the media go for! Problem solved ,a day late and mothers favourite horce race starts later. Never known The Grand National to start late ,its a tradition. OK she is the Queen and the wedding will catch the Sunday papers. John Paul was a great man and the world knew today.

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: harpgirl
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 11:30 PM

...SO WHAT TIME IS THE WEDDING? i MISLAID MY INVITATION

Subject: RE: BS: Charles to marry Camilla
From: mg
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:50 AM

I think the world is learning lots of lessons these days and one from Charles and Camilla is that you have to marry your true love if you possibly can. They should have married in their 20s, had a bunch of kids and maybe or maybe not been king and queen. I'm glad they are finally getting married..it is a shame they had to involve other people in their situation. mg