OT:Royal Rumour?

For sure ... and it's sickening ...... and if Charles ever does get to the throne, how long will he last before William takes over ...... all that dawdling is not good for anyone .... I think they should not even consider Charles - William has been in training for the positon so I think the Queen should pass to him. And you know something else - I bet Charles and Camilla would be very happy about that.

Sharon (N.B.) ............................................................................ .....

We agree , Mrs PP , that things were different 2000 years ago , but i Don`t agree with your statement that ....

How do you know that ??? If you read carefully certain Biblical texts and talmudic texts , you will see that women were not always happy enough , [Read the Daugfhters of Zephahed , read Tamar Jehuda`s daughter In law , etc,,,,, there are glimpses of women who were not happy ,,, you really remind me of the many books where British people describe how Happy the people of all countries were to be servatns to the white people .

Wrong again ,,,, you don`t know they are content at all,,,, and you don`t know that they are less content only after they find out about progress ,,,, in all deprived groups, people know and feel they are deprived , but somehow lack the power or opportunity to change their lot. But you will find lot of underground structures that are working to make changes within this depriving situation that will easy it a bit , till they find a way to change a bit without being harmed . Your statement assumes that for example the Women in Pakistan were content to walk in their TENT Clothes until , somebody told them it isn`t modern ????

why don`t you wonder if it has made Humans more content or not ? mirjam But since you think that you preffer instictively { what is that ?? just a learned reaction] doctors to be men and nurses to be women , you have a long way to understand waht people want , or why they content or not with some part of their life ,,,, mirjam

And I have never understood that, either.

But David Bowie or Sting, they still make me sigh!

Cheryl

I was laughing last night as BBCAmerica plugged an upcoming show on "William's Women".

Cheryl

Harry Chapin, sitting on stool with guitar, with an audience of seven, oh lucky us! Lust wasn't it lol

Yep, and if the brother refused, she had the right to call him out before the elders (I think it was) slap hiim upside the face with her shoe and from then on his name wasn't what it was but became "no name". Frances

Well, the same holds good for your opinion, Mirjam - you don`t actually know that they weren`t! There are always going to be dissenters, naturally. And as for not knowing what people want - I just know what *I* want! What anyone else wants is up to them, naturally.

And last time I checked, women were humans, too, by the way! ;-))

When you come to think about, it an awful lot of history comes to us just from the personal opinions of those who wrote it, or relayed it. You can see the material results of things that actually HAPPENED by the physical remains left behind, but the characters of the participants and the rights and wrongs of their intentions is down to those who were ABLE to read and write and express their thoughts and ideas. That doesn`t mean that there weren`t opposing thoughts and ideas, just as strongly held, but not able to be expressed.

Just as today, with widely differering views on the Royal family, future readers will see very different versions of "History".

The same thing happened with Richard III who, according to some, was actually an excellent King during his short reign, although he acquired a very bad name, largely engineered by the Tudors and their supporters.

Shakespeare`s version could very likely have been written the way it was because Shakespeare knew what was good for him! After all, if he had built his "History" around the fact that Henry VI had no legitimate claim to the throne, he would, no doubt, have been beheaded!

Pat P

UfY5e.12514$ snipped-for-privacy@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca,

Now you`re talking!

Pat P

sticking my two cents in...

I've always felt religion is nothing but a business, closely akin to show business. Faith doesn't require a church or a ritual. I was raised Catholic, but I prefer to call myself a Christian Athiest now. I believe in Christ and I believe what he tried to teach are the most valuable lessons people can learn. Divinity, we can find in ourselves without a priest, or minister (male or female really doens't matter) to point the way.

Beautifully put, Maggie. We know that Christ existed, AND what he taught but as for the rest .....

Pat P