OT:Royal Rumour?

I haven't heard anything on this evenings news and I do hope it's not true.

Lucille

Groan. I hope the rumor is untrue. Like you I had hoped she would outlive him. I suppose the rumor is an attempt to explain why He is finally marrying Barker_Bowles. Ruby

i wish for her and you , she is well , last time Many years ago , last time i heard she was unwell , she later was anounced to be pregnant with her last boy ,,, mirjam

Looking for a Mother figure? LOL! Apparently he still wouldn`t be marrying her had the Queen Mother still been alive. It is said that the Queen thinks that this marriage is demeaning the Crown. She`s dead right there. If he`d only had the guts to stand up and say he wanted to marry her when he was first "in love" with her (whatever love is - to quote him) before the whole sorry pantomime of marrying Diana, and the subsequent consequences, everyone would have only respected him.

Did you see that incredible gaffe he made last week at the news interview on the ski slopes? Talk about putting is foot in it - while Prince William spoke patiently and courteously and really showed him how it should be done!

Pat P

Thanks Mirjam - I do hope she`s OK. One thing, we know she`s not pregnant! She`ll be 80 this year!!!

Mind you, with the ridiculous lengths they`re going to to help older women (the last one was 66!) have babies, you never know!

I had heard that it was Prince Philip that was unwell...

I suppose it is out there partly to explain her not attending the wedding, I don't blame her for that, I read in Newsweek that though Camilla would be entitled to be called Queen she prefers "Princess Consort". The audacity amazes me. I think Charles should take himself out of the running to marry this woman like King Edward did to marry Wallace Simpson. William will bring back dignity to the throne.

I agree - William is bearing himself with far more dignity than his father does in public! He`s young, but doesn`t seem to have done anything TOO outrageous - so far!

I heard quite a while ago, that Prince Philip wasn`t well.

My husband was always a very committed Royalist until now - he remarked that Camilla will never be HIS Queen. I`d go even further and say I would never swear allegiance to EITHER of them and, to be honest, I haven`t come across anyone who feels any differently. At best they just aren`t interested.

Pat P

"Maggie" ( snipped-for-privacy@cox.net) writes: (snip)

I hope you are right, but I have my doubts. It seems to me that the whole of the British Royal family is quite unsuitable to be monarchs in the

-- Jim Cripwell. From Canada. Land of the Key Bird. This creature of doom flies over the frozen tundra in winter, shrieking its dreaded call; "Key, Key, Key, Key rist but it's cold!!"

I don`t mind it being hereditary as long as they have to be seen to be suitable as well! Hereditary does at least mean that they are brought up knowing the ins and outs of it. Suitable would mean that they actually behaved in an appropriate manner too. Surely that`s not much to ask for the money they get for the job.

Pat P

She can say whatever she likes at this point and so can he. She can become Queen if he becomes King. All he has to do is say so. It would take an act of parliament to deny her the title. The Queen was against his affair with Camilla, and his confession on TV re that affair. She knows what a pussy her son is and who pulls the strings. Ruby

Your logic escapes me, Pat. With the British system of choosing Head of State, there is only ever one choice, a la Hobson. As the old saying goes "The King is dead. Long live the King". The only person who can succeed the Queen when she dies is Charles, unless he abdicates, or your Parliament does something that hasn't been done since the time of Charles I (or was it James II?). Unless you get away from the Monarch being a heredity appointment, there is no way to judge the suitability of the next in line, and even if you could devise some method of "judging" the heir to the throne, trying to implement some sort of process to prevent an "unsuitable" candidate succeeding the throne, is, to me, impossible to imagine. No, here in Canada, lets have a Head of State who is somehow appointed by our elected officials.

-- Jim Cripwell. From Canada. Land of the Key Bird. This creature of doom flies over the frozen tundra in winter, shrieking its dreaded call; "Key, Key, Key, Key rist but it's cold!!"

"unsuitable"

Jim Cripwell

Not IMPOSSIBLE to imagine. If the immediate heir is a bastard (not in the literal sense of the word) in a family the size of the Royals there`s bound to be one who would take the job in the right way. Princess Anne takes the job seriously, for instance as Princess Alexandra would have done - and the Duke of Kent, or Prince and Princess Michael. Everyone sneered at Princess Michael, but she`s never really put a foot wrong.

Thank goodness Elizabeth was the heir and not Margaret, though! And thank goodness it`s William and not Harry.

It was Charles 1st - but perhaps (unfortunately!) we can`t resort to chopping their heads off!

To be honest I`d really rather have a republic in many ways, but I do like the stability of a lifetime reigning monarch (as long as they`re suitable) than and elected one that may change every few years.

As long as Charles and that old slapper of his don`t reign, I`ll be happy. Not that it`s likely to bother us, in any case! ;-)) He should be FORCED to abdicate, as Edward was.

Monaco has problems, too, now that poor old Rainier has gone, and the heir is what is politely termed "A confirmed bachelor".

It is difficult to predict suitability some times. Had Margaret been allowed to marry Townsend, who knows her life might have taken another tract altogether. and if Elizabeth had been a more hands on Mum instead of leaving the raising of her children to nannies and in Charles case to boarding schools that were supposed to toughen him up. who knows. ones life life is shaped for ill or good by ones experiences especially when one is young. Margaret did the right thing as I recall, the royal right thing and married a man all thought suitable but herself. In her early days she took her royal duties seriously and did them well and choose royal duty over "the man she loved" and what good did that sacrifice do her?? I am not a big fan of Queen Elizabeth, I think her cold and heartless with duty above all else even the welfare of her own children. She has done little to reform things and bring it into the 21st century. He son could not marry Parker Bowles in any case even if they had married when they first met. She was already a woman with a past as they say. And Dianna was possibly the only royal virgin over the age of 13 in the country. She was the only choice unless he were to actually take charge of his life . His mentor was Mountbatten who said at one time that he and his wife spent most of there marriage in other peoples beds. A mentor who taught Charles the way of life royal princes. That being to keep a married mistress. And he did. This is not 1811 anymore. It is old archaic laws and protocols surrounding the royal family . It was not expected for Charles to be faithful to Diana except possibly by Dianna. Camilla wedding present to Charles was cufflinks with C&C on them. She staked her claim and she would have him. He will do what he wants. As Camilla is quite capable of taking on MUMMY. Ruby

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:16:49 GMT, "Pat EAXStitch" wrote: If Charles becomes king, Camilla will be Queen whether you, I or anyone else wishes otherwise. I cannot really see a modern parliament in acting a law otherwise can you?? As to Williams suitability well who knows. If he is forced to adhere to these dark ages marriage laws he had better marry soon while there is a never divorce virgin close enough to his age. of course he can just be a play boy prince like Ranier of Monaco and never marry. He cannot choose a divorced woman, a non virgin , a woman who has a child from a previous relationship. His field is narrow and will get narrower the older he gets. Which is what happened to Charles. If he had waited any longer he would have had to send the gynecologist door to door with what a glass speculum to find virgin young enough to bear children but over the age of consent. Ruby

Someone from Groupaction, a plum for a friend ? You must mean that, it's what politicians always do when there is a nice giveaway.

I honestly think that public opinion will prevent Charles and Camilla reigning - or at least we`ll make a hell of a stink about it. I bet more people will watch football than the wedding, on Saturday! I just wish that there was a good Rugby match on, as I loathe football! LOLOL!

Pat P

The sad facts are he will reign if the Queen retires or dies and Camilla will be Queen. He probably won't be any worse than any of the others. I think the lot of them are redundant. William can get a real job or go about the business of many privileged sons and simply squander the family fortune. Whatever! Camilla and Charles are quite the modern couple and represent a large group of the population, those who have divorced spouse number 1 and married a second. It is the royal marriage act that is out of step. Changes to it could allow for William to escape the fate of his father of trying to find a virgin bride to produce him an heir.

Ruby

Oooo - chop off his head! Charles I (a Stuart) was executed for treason in 1649.

Cromwell took over during the "Republic" stage.

Charles I's son, Charles II was invited back from exile to be King.

After Charles II's death, his brother James II became King but fled England after ticking off the English. He ended up in France. James II and his son (and all Catholics) were disbarred from the succession.

Then William (of Orange) (who was William III of England) and Mary (Mary II of England) became joint PROTESTANT rulers of England. Mary was William's first cousin, niece of Charles II, and daughter of James II. No living children.

Her Protestant sister Anne ruled after. As Anne had no living children she was the "last of the Stuarts." She died in 1714 and the throne was passed to the German House of Hanover - who still has the throne today.

While it is hereditary, England has a history of not always following the blood line of succession (see War of the Roses, the Tudor Regime and the exclusion of Catholics after the whole Stuart mess). Laws, rules, and guidelines change depending on the current religious and political situation.

It can all be so very complicated - thankfully, at this point, they are more figureheads than leaders. At this point, Charles isn't hated enough either by the masses or the politicians to be passed over. He'd have to abdicate or commit treason (or become a Catholic or marry a Catholic!)

Then again, electing your leader doesn't always get you a *good* leader. :-)

Enough of the short history lesson. :-)

Tara

So leave the television off you old dingbat! I am staying away from all newscasts till they get past the pope for just that reason, more than getting on my nerves.

Who cares ?? Not I.