Category: Let's talk
well at last it has been Announced that Prince Charles is to marry Camilla Parker-bowles. and that no constitutional changes are required for this to take place. Therefore, when Charles becomes king, Camilla will become queen. But does anyone really care?
na not really.
comilla won't be known as queen camilla. She will be known at first as hrh the duchess of cornwall, then, when when charles becomes king, Camilla will be known as the princes consort. so she'll have no real power, though the marriage does throw up questions re the church of england and charles role as defender of the faith, as the wedding will be a civil cerimony.
I care mainly because of the 2 boys, william and harry. haven't they been through enough with their mum and everyting? now they're about to have a new stepmother. charles has put those 2 boys through hell.
well ok she won't be queen so that makes it easier for the majority of the public to bear, but .. why those poor boys? they're not children any more, they're both adults, and after all Dianna was no saint, contrary to popular belief, they've been through a lot it's true, but lots of people have step parents and cope very well with it
And now, a word from an interested American. Don't know, I never quight liked camilla. But I'm no sure who to blame for wrecking the prince's first marriage. I think the boys are old enough to handle it. And I'm kind of glad she won't technically be queen.
well the truth is that the prince's first marriage should never have happened in the first place. He did not love Diana, he married her because he was told to. Camilla just was not marriage material - and dianna was photogenic. The royals needed a proper princess, a beauty, someone who could steal the hearts of the nation, and they got it. Sadly though the fairytail image did not last and .. the rest is history.
good on the pair of them! Grin its about time Thearlich
I hope he finds the happiness sadly missing from his time with that manipulative superficial barbie doll
For once goblin I agree with you although I would have put it less bluntly. I'm happy for Prince Charles. All right, he may have been at fault during his first marriage, but who can claim to have had a faultless marriage? AS far as I'm concerned Prince Charles is a highly intelligent man, who does a huge amount of work for young people who have been disadvantaged, and when he becomes king I'll be happy to know that we have a king with similar qualities to his grandfather, King George VI. As for Camilla, her historical equivalent in terms of public perception is of course Anne Boleyn. I don't think it does any harm to have her as the sovereign's consort.
I agree. I'm quite happy for the two of them, really. I mean, these two people have been in love with each other for more than *thirty years*. Prince Charles has fulfilled what was required of him in terms of mating, so it's about time he was free to be with the person he loved--loves. Can you imagine how much pain this situation has caused everyone? As for the 'boys'... again, I think Charles has fulfilled his responsibilities. He did nothing dishonorable while their mother was alive (well, at least nothing worse than she did), and she has been dead for 7 1/2 years. For all we know, they might be happy for their father--and so they should be.
LL.Your right pal Thearlich {Charles in Gaelic} Is the only royal I have any time for he seems to genuinely care which is more than can be said for his granny...I just wish the press would stop giving him such a rough ride on enviromental issues...
..............
Susanne his lads are said to be chuffed to bits at the news maybe Camilla will bring some stability to their lives.
Indeed. And I do wish people would stop referring to William and Harry as 'boys' they are grown men now, and have the potential to be fine princes.
All be it with a few good hard kicks up the backside, for young Henry,I can see Camillia landing a few quite soon...
smile.
She's another anne Boleyn, that one.
You think so hmm from what ive heard she stands no nonsense that il be interesting in the royal boudior....
Apparently Anne Boleyn was exceptionally brave on the night before losing her heid...I'd have been trying to get the executioner pissed.
I don't think everyone should give Diana such a hard time I mean she had to put up with Charlie carrying on his affair with Camilla right from the start of their marriage. No wonder she went a little bonkers...so to speak.
Unfortunate choice of words there! Anne Boleyn was a nasty piece of work, she really was. and she got what she deserved for committing treason as she did.
In all honesty I have never been impressed with Prince Charles. I have done a lot of research since the princess of Wales has passed. Of course, it has been only a couple of years since I've learned of their private life. I was fairly yung when she died, and when I saw the funeral, it stuck with me. I won't rambble on how I dislike Charles, but le't say he was very verbally abusive, and well, she was very emotionally disturbed to the point of slitting her wrists. As for the boys, they are grown now, and time has passed since their muther's death. I'm sure they'll cope.
Diana was a manipulator. she manipulated the media tremendously so that she was shown in the best light possible. Victim of charles, loved by the people ... i think not. And there are a lot of conspiracy theorists that say Prince HArry is in actual fact the child of James Hewitt - well in actual fact he looks nothing like Prince charles. Diana was not an innocent victim in all this.
Hear hear as they say in the House of Lords. i notice that ladiminura said she'd done lots of research and then didn't disclose the fruits of it to us. Anyway, your research would doubtless have revealed to you that both parties were at fault as far as the marriage was concerned, and Diana was unfaithful before Charles was for what it's worth. More importantly, you will also have learnt from your claimed extensive research the existence of the prince's trust amongst the charities that Charles himself has set up for disadvantaged youngsters. Of course he isn't immune from criticism, but I know of no monarch who has been except perhaps for King George VI and the circumstances of his reign were not conducive to criticism even if we'd wanted to dish it out.
LL.Wasn't the treason charge falsefied to allow Henry to divorce and marry his supposed true love.....being a catholic he was denied a divorce...a ridiculous law if there ever was 1.
Man! King and queen do sound so old-fashioned and fairy tale like. I don't claim to know everything or even a good deal about this, but I do agree that her sons are old enough to cope and a lot of people have had to cope with divorce and hardship, especially families of celebrities and all that.
Goblin you are a little confused. He didn't divorce anne Boleyn, she had her head whipped off instead and quite right too. Sleeping with a noble from a rival family was at the time treason whoever did it. There were good reasons for this: remember that fifty years earlier, the wars of the roses had just ended and the Tudor dynasty triumphed. But the rival families, such as the rapacious Howards and the ambitious Percies of Northumberland, still existed. Anne Boleyn was foolish enough to boast of her adultery to the lieutenant of the tower and hence the trial was a foregone conclusion. aS for the denial of a divorce, you do have a tendency goblin to critically evaluate events of the sixteenth century through the spectacles of 2005. In other words, when you criticise sixteenth century monarchs and laws, try to do so from the point of view that would have existed at that time. Don't try to impose twenty-first century social mors on that period because that makes your criticism absolutely pointless.
Ok well was the 1who caused the Catholic reformation when your man was denied a divorce was that Katherine...bloody Tudor history give me the Black Death any day...smile.
Why must you deliberately and maliciously pick up on everyone's mistakes hmm,we are NOT in grammar school pal...many of us are not interested in being insulted because of our lack of knowledge...English and Music were my best subjects and we studied the Plague much more my style .
Ok well was the 1who caused the Catholic reformation when your man was denied a divorce was that Katherine...bloody Tudor history give me the Black Death any day...smile.
Why must you deliberately and maliciously pick up on everyone's mistakes hmm,we are NOT in grammar school pal...many of us are not interested in being insulted because of our lack of knowledge...English and Music were my best subjects and we studied the Plague much more my style .
I would agree that the plague is much more your style, Goblin, your rather strange topics have been plaguing the boards recently! Only joking, he hastily adds before the Goblinian volcano erupts. It was the protestant reformation that Henry VIII orchestrated and that was ultimately caused by his failure to get a divorce yes, but I think you'll find that the seeds were sewn long before then, and the reformaiton would have happened anyway. The divorce just brought it forward by a small number of years. Henry did win some glorious victories over the Scots though. Flodden field in 1513 springs to mind, where King James IV of scotland was killed, and also the battle of Solway Moss 30 years later.
The Goblinian Volcano? Hehehehe. Well I must say you lot do confuse me a good deal, but hey, I'm learning here right? Lucky for me I do know a lot about the Plague. But I seem to have not connected this Anne person with the issue at hand, except that you lot are comparing the two. Oh well. I'll stop trying to get to understand this discussion perhaps. What I want to knwo is, when is Charles supposed to become King, and why should there be a trial?
Of course, law lord, they were both guilty! That doesn't take rocket science to figure that one out. Don't twist what I say just because your English. I was talking about private life. I agree sith a lot of things you say, but some times you can be very annoying. Although, I have a feeling that you are aware of it and enjoy it. Now, with that being said, I argue with you no longer.
Dear me, I only tried to prompt you to reveal the fruits of your research! And correct me if I'm wrong, but you do seem to implicate Charles rather more than diana in your post above. I'm very sorry if you find my contributions annoying but I assure you that it's not just because I'm English, it's because I believe these points need to be made. My being English has nothing to do with the matter whatsoever. But I'm afraid I still want to know what happened to all this extensive research you purport to have done.
Goblinian hmm I love the sound of that word it's beautiful...ahh yes the Black Death was right up my alley
.....but do you know the story of Eym in Derbyshire the disease that struck the unfortunate villagers was not thought to be the plague, as it was spread systematically from family to family and the plague was more random, but EBOLA! 1 of the most lethal viruses on earth I wonder if any traces still remain lurking and waiting for an opportunity after all the virus itself is ancient....I should have beena virologist maybe...there is still time ..grin.
I do indeed know the story of Eam in Derbyshire, but the way I heard it the disease was definitely the plague. A craftsman had ordered some cloth from London and when he opened it he found that fleas had tot into it, and of course the fleas spread the plague. You could be right though, Goblin, as I'm not too sure about it.
Not to be rude but I really could care less on who's engaged and who's not regardless if it's a celeb, royal, or publuic figure. Not our business, everyone's intitled to a little privacy so why should we get all ga ga on something like this?
I think Blindvi that the reason people care is twofold, which effectively means that there are two reasons which in turn renders this sentence rather clumsily formed. I'll start again. There are two reasons: first, everyone is relieved for this has been going on a fair while, and secondly, there are constitutional difficulties that may well have to be overcome in the future due to this marriage.
the plage was present but another disease showed itself at while the plague was ravaging the village...it was spread through close family contact, and not through the more familiar but very hit and miss fleas,the symptoms of this disease were frightening simliar to Ebola...
the plage was present but another disease showed itself at while the plague was ravaging the village...it was spread through close family contact, and not through the more familiar but very hit and miss fleas,the symptoms of this disease were frightening simliar to Ebola...
BlindVI does make a fair point, and LL did come up with two very passable reason, in spite of that sentence which he deemed awkward. Just thought I'd say taht. But aside from first reading thsi discussion and getting kind of interested, i must say that I did, after reading Jess' post, stop and wonder: What would they think if they came on ehre and saw us discussing them? Nto liek they would, but you know. And it's not liek they don't get this spotlight rubbish all the time. So thansk BV, you put an interesting twist to the discussion ehh.
the fact that they are royals though make them public property to a large extent. let's not forget that it is the brittish taxpayer who pays to keep them in the manner to which they have now very much become accustomed.
Indeed, an excellent point Sugarbaby. But the reciprocal point that anti-royalists often tend to forget is that the british taxpayer would also have to pay for a president, his family and both his and his family's security, and the security of his outer circle of relatives. Couple this with the considerable depreciation in income due to the loss of the royal family and the consequent loss of tourism and pagentry that this would inevitably entail, and factor in the loss to the treasury consequent on the queen and Prince of wales no longer paying the 50 percent income tax rate that they do, and I think we'd find a net loss to our finances. You're right in that the royals are considered public property somewhat, but it goes beyond that. The monarch still holds a highly important constitutional position ind is a vital player in the system. If a fascist regime ever threatened to come to power in Britain, it is perfectly possible to imagine that the only person who could stop them would be the sovereign. Republicans should ponder these matters most carefully.
oh i dunnow? just think of all those additional tourist attractions ... they could open up all the palaces and the foreigners would be flocking here in their millions to take a look around!
That ignores three quarters of the economic arguments I set out above and I'm afraid that any tourism would only be a short-term depreciated benefit. There would be no more changing of the guard to see and the tradition would gradually lose its appeal. It's one of the things about britain and we should be proud of it. it seems that only in this country do we feel the need to destroy everything that remotely identifies us.
well it seems that whether camilla wants to be queen or not it's going to happen! apparently only an act of parliament will prevent her from becoming queen, even if she does not accept the title of queen and takes the title Princess Consorte, as has been said previously, she will still be queen.
This comes as no surprise. To put it very bluntly, and not to criticise you at all Sugarbaby by so doing, any lawyer with more than a couple of brain cells knew that this was the case. I knew it was, my friends knew it was, most lawyers writing in the papers knew it was, but the government lawyers didn't. Extraordinary, isn't it? Mind you, government lawyers have overlooked things before, haven't they? Like the illegality of control orders, perhaps? But that's another topic. Sugarbaby why do you say it will happen? You rightly say that it will take an act of parliament to prevent her from being queen, but then you seem to suggest that this act won't ever be a reality. On the contrary, it would be a perfectly simple piece of legislation that could be passed through both houses in a matter of hours. So, if there is the political will, Camilla won't be queen. If there is not the will for the act to be passed, then Camilla will be queen, and arguably should be queen if the people's representatives do not take action to prevent it.