Royal News

A

Anonymous

Guest
It's pretty much near the British system as I understand it.

A King outranks a Queen, so a King by marriage cannot outrank the Real Queen, because it's just not the done thing, old bean. Victoria got quite arsey about it with Albert, apparently. Then, they didn't want a German prince being King of England (German Queen was okay apparently :roll: )

The Prince Consort sits below the Queen, walks behind the Queen, etc. Thereby re-enforcing the 'superiority' of the Queen. If he were King, then he would out-rank her, and then there'd be all hell let loose at Changing of the Guards...
 

punychicken

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 1, 2002
Messages
373
Reaction score
12
Points
49
...and if our prospective queen-to-be suddenly finds herself top of the heap because Charles dies? :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hmm...she'd be the Dowager Queen, wouldn't she? Still Queen Camilla.
 

fluffle9

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
673
Reaction score
24
Points
34
she'd be the queen mum i guess, and will would be king.
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
2,321
Points
189
Queen Camilla - sounds like it belongs in a fairy tale.

'Kin grim!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fluffle said:
she'd be the queen mum i guess, and will would be king.

Would she really be that? She's not the king's mother, after all... In Sweden, we have the title Widow-queen, is that the same as a Dowager Queen?
 

SniperK2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
427
Reaction score
22
Points
34
I think it means the same thing, yes.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
She couldn't be the Queen Mother because there wouldn't be a Queen. Also the Queen Mother was adopted as a title because otherwise there would have been two Queen Elizabeths. Queen Mary was still Queen Mary when King George and Queen Elizabeth ruled. She was the Dowager Queen.

So Surplus to Requirements would probably be the best description for her.

Why all these legal shennanigans? Why not just tell him, dump her and keep the throne, or marry her and relinquish the throne. But no way in hell, sonny boy, can you have both. Selfish little spoilt brat bastard.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ravenstone said:
Why all these legal shennanigans? Why not just tell him, dump her and keep the throne, or marry her and relinquish the throne. But no way in hell, sonny boy, can you have both. Selfish little spoilt brat bastard.


I think there's a whole universe of mind-sets and tradition that I'm missing here. WHY can't he both marry her AND get the throne?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
1) She's divorced

2) She's Catholic

It's against the law for a member of the Royal family to marry a Catholic and retain the succession. And against the law for the future monach to marry a divorced person, for reasons of a) being the Head of the Church of England and b) succession.

Anyway, his great uncle had to give up the throne. Look at all the brougha-ha that caused. Why should Charles get away with it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ravenstone said:
1) She's divorced

2) She's Catholic
She's certainly the former, but I'm pretty convinced that she isn't the latter.
 

again6

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
423
Reaction score
42
Points
34
LOL, Ravenstone ! Agree with everything you've said 100%.
 

again6

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
423
Reaction score
42
Points
34
And does anyone really buy this 'they waited and longed for each other for years' line? I'm remembering now Lady 'Kanga' Tryon ... and that odd malady that required her hospitalization and subsequent 'tragic' fall. Sounds to me like so many dominoes falling. Diana, Lady Tryon, a marriage to Camilla to usher in the predicted/planned dissolution of the Commonwealth and emergence of World Regions. Anyone expect Prince Harry to have a long life? Can't remember where I read it (could even have been in the Fortean Boards) that the Zionist agenda required the death of a prince. Hope the kid's enjoying himself to the full.

Ah, that's right; it's all just about a middle aged, unassuming Royal widower (we've decided it sounds nicer than divorcee) discovering to his humble delight that his simple subjects, after a bit of doubt, have decided he should go ahead and marry the woman who's loved and supported him through thick and thin; the woman he always loved in the same way the average Fred loves his faithful Gladys. His warm-hearted subjects bear him no ill; they understand we all make mistakes sometimes. Main thing is that he and the missus enjoy what time they have left. Rah, Rah and wave those little flags.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
again said:
"I'm remembering now Lady 'Kanga' Tryon ... and that odd malady that required her hospitalization and subsequent 'tragic' fall. Sounds to me like so many dominoes falling. Diana, Lady Tryon, a marriage to Camilla to usher in the predicted/planned dissolution of the Commonwealth and emergence of World Regions. Anyone expect Prince Harry to have a long life? Can't remember where I read it (could even have been in the Fortean Boards) that the Zionist agenda required the death of a prince. Hope the kid's enjoying himself to the full."

I haven't heard of this, could you elaborate the theory?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
again said:
... Can't remember where I read it (could even have been in the Fortean Boards) that the Zionist agenda required the death of a prince. Hope the kid's enjoying himself to the full. ...
You seem to be letting your apparent anti-semitism get mixed up with David Icke's claims about the dietary habits of the World's hidden, shape-changing, 8ft tall, Reptar Overlords, again. How our scaly Masters love to sacrifice and feast on the flesh of little blonde blue eyed boys!

Was it David Icke who said, "Beware! Take Care! Pull the string! Pull the string!" Or, was it a morphine addicted, Bela Lugosi, in an Ed Woods movie? I often get Ed Woods and David Icke confused. One made excruciatingly awful B-Movies and one makes up excruciatingly awful conspiracy theories.

But, I'd rather sit through an Ed Woods movie. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, I hope you're all aware that there's a book out about Charles and Camilla's long romance. I hope to God there's no bodice ripping and manhoods in it! <vomit>

Camilla is apparently a convert to Catholicism. Her ex-husband is a Catholic. Although I thought she was a 'born into it' kind of Catholic as well. Either way, she's a Catholic.*

Not that we're particularly pleased about that
 

again6

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
423
Reaction score
42
Points
34
Oh deary me Androman. Things must be tough in the IDL if you're forced to stoop to finding 'semetic stains' in my funny little post. And your kettle-calling petticoats are showing too.

Are you telling me you believe Jews are Zionists? Tut tut. Time to take that paranoia to where it belongs. Unless of course, you know something I don't.

There, now how's that for matching your lowest-form-of-wit attack -- in the gentlest possible way of course.

Oh -- maybe you can enlighten me and anyone who reads your post; why was your automatic response to a post that in no way impinged upon you, so needlessly aggressive? Do I know you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
again said:
Oh deary me Androman. Things must be tough in the IDL if you're forced to stoop to finding 'semetic stains' in my funny little post. And your kettle-calling petticoats are showing too.

Are you telling me you believe Jews are Zionists? ...
Perhaps, you could tell me what you think 'Zionists' are, then, again? Otherwise, I couldn't possibly reply to your post. Your 'Zionists' "required the death of a prince". Apparently, "Prince Harry".


Compact Oxford English Dictionary (Online) said:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ravenstone said:
Camilla is apparently a convert to Catholicism. Her ex-husband is a Catholic. Although I thought she was a 'born into it' kind of Catholic as well. Either way, she's a Catholic.*
How does that square with the following article in the National Catholic Register?
Addressing the Scottish Parliament last week, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of Edinburgh, demanded that the Act of Settlement be repealed, describing it as "an offensive reminder to the whole Catholic community of a mentality which has no place in modern Britain."

He said: "It’s a matter of regret surely that had Mrs. Parker Bowles been a Catholic, Prince Charles would have lost the right to succession to the throne and, similarly, if they had been going to have children they would have been excluded from the right of succession, and that’s hurtful."
http://www.ncregister.com/current/0306lead1.htm
I'm assuming that the Cardinal would have checked his facts before making this statement. :)

(By the way, if you're assuming that you have to convert to Catholicism to marry a Catholic, then that is also incorrect.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No, I'm not assuming that. I've just heard it said several times that she is a Catholic. I thought she was always a Catholic, but I was recently corrected, in that apparently she converted after her marriage.

Doesn't change anything. And obviously, the Act of Settlement is an outrage. But she's still divorced. I suppose it's quite handy that he's no longer a divorcee but a widower. But then, that's just me being cynical.

By the way, I am a Catholic, as are all my family. Some of them converts. But the whole Act of Settlement seemed, to me at least, to be a bloody good way to prevent any member of the Royal Family ever proposing to me ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ravenstone said:
I thought she was always a Catholic, but I was recently corrected, in that apparently she converted after her marriage.
Though that still wouldn't make sense in the context of what the cardinal said a couple of weeks ago.

Doesn't change anything. And obviously, the Act of Settlement is an outrage. But she's still divorced. I suppose it's quite handy that he's no longer a divorcee but a widower. But then, that's just me being cynical.
It's all a bit bonkers really. What they should do is dis-establish the CofE and then that would solve everything. (I still find it weird that we in the UK live in a constitutional theocracy. ;) )

By the way, I am a Catholic, as are all my family. Some of them converts. But the whole Act of Settlement seemed, to me at least, to be a bloody good way to prevent any member of the Royal Family ever proposing to me ;)
It's certainly one family that I'm happy not to be part of. :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's one of those things that I've heard over several years. When the affair first broke, I heard they couldn't marry before because she wasn't Princess material, because she was a Catholic. Then, after Diana's death, when it all became a bit more public, it was that she was a convert (which someone else on this thread pointed out earlier as well, I think). Then the whole Catholic thing got lost along the way.

It makes no difference, though. She's still a divorcee.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
AndroMan said:
again said:
Oh deary me Androman. Things must be tough in the IDL if you're forced to stoop to finding 'semetic stains' in my funny little post. And your kettle-calling petticoats are showing too.

Are you telling me you believe Jews are Zionists? ...
Perhaps, you could tell me what you think 'Zionists' are, then, again? Otherwise, I couldn't possibly reply to your post. Your 'Zionists' "required the death of a prince". Apparently, "Prince Harry".


Compact Oxford English Dictionary (Online) said:
The useage in the context of "princes" does seem to be more "Elders of" rather than those advocating a Jewish state in Israel.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ravenstone said:
1) She's divorced

2) She's Catholic

It's against the law for a member of the Royal family to marry a Catholic and retain the succession. And against the law for the future monach to marry a divorced person, for reasons of a) being the Head of the Church of England and b) succession.

Anyway, his great uncle had to give up the throne. Look at all the brougha-ha that caused. Why should Charles get away with it?

Well, that makes sense. I'd forgotten the ruling monarch is also the head of the church.

No that the Queen seems to be dying off anytime soon, but IF he does give up the throne, ain't that like dumping a viper's nest into the lap of his son? He's way too young to become king.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Fortis said:
AndroMan said:
again said:
Oh deary me Androman. Things must be tough in the IDL if you're forced to stoop to finding 'semetic stains' in my funny little post. And your kettle-calling petticoats are showing too.

Are you telling me you believe Jews are Zionists? ...
Perhaps, you could tell me what you think 'Zionists' are, then, again? Otherwise, I couldn't possibly reply to your post. Your 'Zionists' "required the death of a prince". Apparently, "Prince Harry".


Compact Oxford English Dictionary (Online) said:
The useage in the context of "princes" does seem to be more "Elders of" rather than those advocating a Jewish state in Israel.
Really? How can you be sure? I wouldn't dream of trying to second guess what again meant by the reference to "Zionists". However, I was brought up to believe that a reference to "The Elders of Zion" was simply a veiled reference to the falacious and racist myth of the age old, "International Jewish Conspiracy", anyway. My use of the OED online definition of "Zionist" was simply to establish for again's benefit, that for most people (apart from again and David Icke, apparently), the word was usually used in connection with Jewish and particularily, Israeli causes.

I had to think about again's reference to "IDL" for a minute, or two. I'm second guessing again here, but I believe it was a reference to the Israeli Defence League (if it exists?), possibly an offshoot of the Jewish Defence League, but I really am guessing now. Isn't it strange, that apparently, again should know so much and yet so little?

:confused:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
AndroMan said:
....reference to the Israeli Defence League (if it exists?), possibly an offshoot of the Jewish Defence League, ...

Splitters!!!! :lol:

Sorry. Couldn't resist. As you were. :oops:

:D
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
2,321
Points
189
So, lemme get this straight...

If Prince Charles (CofE) was to marry Camilla(Catholic, moderate) then it'd mean the sacrifice (ritualistic yet disguised as perfectly natural) of his eldest and most idiot son, Harry, in order to further the aims of a jewish state in Israel.

er ...

*calls out in a desperate voice*

Waiter! Prozac! Table three, pronto!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
AndroMan said:
Fortis said:
Really? How can you be sure? I wouldn't dream of trying to second guess what again meant by the reference to "Zionists". However, I was brought up to believe that a reference to "The Elders of Zion" was simply a veiled reference to the falacious and racist myth of the age old, "International Jewish Conspiracy", anyway. My use of the OED online definition of "Zionist" was simply to establish for again's benefit, that for most people (apart from again and David Icke, apparently), the word was usually used in connection with Jewish and particularily, Israeli causes.
You're correct. It was perhaps a bit of a leap to go from the "death of prince" to the Protocols and other associated bits and pieces, though it did seem more in line with the more mystical conspiracy aspects of the Protocols and their Ickeian spin-offs (though he prefers the term "Illuminati") than the likely plans of a group advocating a Jewish nation. (Unfortunately my copy of Warrant For Genocide is elsewhere so I can't have a root through it to see if there is anything in there about the "death of a prince.")

Again, what did you mean by the term "Zionist"?

I had to think about again's reference to "IDL" for a minute, or two. I'm second guessing again here, but I believe it was a reference to the Israeli Defence League (if it exists?), possibly an offshoot of the Jewish Defence League, but I really am guessing now. Isn't it strange, that apparently, again should know so much and yet so little?
I was thinking more along the lines of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) who usually come in for a lot of stick on these sorts of issues.
 

Cavynaut

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
2,308
Reaction score
677
Points
144
Now that the marriage has been moved from Friday to Saturday, I feel sorry for the poor buggers who've had to have their own plans changed to fit Jug Lugs and Horse Arse Face in. Most Registry Offices are pretty well fully booked on a Saturday, so I imagine that everyone else getting married that day will have to race through their own ceremony.

Anyway, isn't it selfish of the Vatican to want to bury the Pope on a Friday when they should've known that the wedding was taking place that day. Some elderly heads of state heh? No consideration. :roll:
 
Top