Guest ranster627 Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 If you ask me -- it distasteful. Much of Britain is Catholic and they should pay due respect and put the wedding off for a couple weeks. I couldn't agree more ... gives new meaning to selfish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 As much as I've ever defended Charles and wanted to give him a second chance to be a man of royalty -- he's proving himself this time to be nothing more than a petulant child. They've waited this long -- why couldn't they wait a bit longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted April 3, 2005 Author Share Posted April 3, 2005 British Public Opinionated on Royal Titles By ROBERT BARR LONDON - Prince Charles' impending marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles has locked public opinion into a contradiction: people largely support the marriage but don't want her to be queen. That popular sentiment apparently pressed Charles to declare that if he is crowned, Parker Bowles will become princess consort. The British government says, however, that if Charles is king, she automatically becomes queen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salter-path Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 Charles to Wed on Friday Despite Pope's FuneralLONDON (Reuters) - The wedding of Britain's Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles, already hit by several glitches, will go ahead Friday even if it clashes with the funeral of Pope John Paul, a spokeswoman said Sunday. Clarence House said the date of April 8 had been set for some time and they had not considered postponing the wedding. "If the funeral falls Friday, the wedding will still go ahead," a spokeswoman said of the heir-to-the-throne's plans. The Pope's funeral was expected to be held between Wednesday and Friday. Buckingham Palace said they had not decided yet which royals would attend the Pope's funeral, if any, but royal biographer Robert Lacey said Queen Elizabeth would be unlikely to attend. "She goes to very few funerals," he told Reuters. "She tends to be represented by Prince Phillip or Prince Charles." The Queen had already said she would not attend Charles' second marriage but would instead go to a blessing given afterwards by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, west of London. Charles divorced his first wife, Princess Diana, in 1996. She died in a car crash in Paris a year later. Charles' sister and brothers, Princess Anne and Princes Andrew and Edward, are expected to attend the wedding. Lacey felt Charles would be very disappointed to miss the funeral. "I don't think they'll be thinking in terms of their wedding or the PR (public relations). I think it is exactly the type of thing he would like to go to and represent his mother." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Thanks salter-path ... you are phenomenal with current information! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XandraSkye Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 We Canadians compare her to the polo ponies she adores, but we are always careful not to offend the horses!She looks like she's been rode hard and hung up wet!I guess all of you are perfect 10s, huh? Are you all stunning beauties, because I'm not. I think she's a lovely looking lady, especially at her age. I don't think Charles is any better. He's a dweeb, in my book. And I'm glad that they are marrying. This world sucks enough as it is and being alone makes it even harder. So, if they have found happiness than I say "GOOD FOR THEM". I hope their marriage is full of love and happiness. It's more than some people get in this awful world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 It is official, the wedding of Charles and Camilla has been postponed 24 hours to Saturday, April 9th out of respect for the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 I heard that this morning. Thank goodness! Any word if any of the royals are planning to attend the funeral? I know it is a rare thing since the separation of the royals from the church, but it was mentioned that a couple of them may attend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 I heard that this morning. Thank goodness! Any word if any of the royals are planning to attend the funeral? I know it is a rare thing since the separation of the royals from the church, but it was mentioned that a couple of them may attend.The only ones I can confirm from the UK, are Prince Charles himself and the Prime Minister Tony Blair ... I am surprised the Queen has made no statement about the passing of the Pope, or have I missed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Oh I think you may have missed it. Her statement was made on Saturday hours after the pope's death. It was the usual -- with mention to the times she's actually met with him. (I don't recall ever hearing of a meeting between the two but then news can be missed and perhaps I didn't think it important enough to remember) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 This cub reporter needs to be fired! Thanks Spooky ... was that on CBC? I was watching CNN exclusively, but apparently not close enough :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Yes it was on CBC (the only station I watch :wink: for news)There were messages from several dignities and leaders from around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted April 4, 2005 Author Share Posted April 4, 2005 Pope's Funeral Delays Royal WeddingBy Sarah Hall Prince Charles has waited a long time to wed his true love, Camilla Parker Bowles. Now he'll have to wait one more day. The royal wedding has been postponed from Friday to Saturday, so as not to conflict with funeral services for Pope John Paul II, who died Saturday at age 84. "As a mark of respect, His Royal Highness and Mrs. Parker Bowles have decided to postpone their wedding until Saturday," said a spokeswoman at Clarence House in a statement. The prince will be the official representative of the British royal family at the funeral. Parker Bowles will not accompany him to Rome, Clarence House, the prince's office, said. Meanwhile, the prince's staff is apparently trying to keep things running as smoothly as possible for the next-day swapping of vows. "It is expected that the arrangements will be largely the same as previously planned and more details will be announced as soon as possible," the prince's spokesman said in a statement. Although the prince's office had hoped to simply delay the wedding by 24 hours, the Saturday service will have to be held in the morning instead of the afternoon as originally planned, because the town hall was already booked for three other weddings. The change in plans resolves conflicts for other British higher-ups, such as Prime Minister Tony Blair and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, both of whom were expected to attend both the wedding and the funeral. On Monday, Charles cut his skiing vacation in Switzerland short and flew back to London so that he and Parker Bowles could attend a memorial for the pope at London's Westminister Cathedral. The added delay in the royal wedding plans is just the latest in a series of snags that have marred Charles and Parker Bowles' impending nuptials. His mother, Queen Elizabeth II, declines to attend the wedding; the location of the ceremony had to be switched from Windsor Castle to the much less snazzy local town hall in Windsor after a mix-up over marriage licenses; and constitutional experts even questioned the legality of a civil ceremony. All the pressure is apparently weighing on Charles. Last week, he made headlines after sensitive media microphones present during a photo shoot picked up muttered remarks about his distaste for the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 ... and the drama continues ... like a very badly scripted soap opera! :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 That's really the whole point behind the royal family it seems -- to keep us all entertained! Its not really anything new either, is it? Isn't Camilla a decendent of another king's consort? ( I do like the word consort -- much nicer than what it really means huh?) Yes, there is a story that she said something like my ... was the mistress of your .... so what do you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Yes I've heard that -- and now she's a princess. My but she IS eager isn't she? I don't really mind. I'm still ticked that they couldn't wait at least a week. A day is nice -- but give me a break -- exactly what the heck is their hurry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Yes I've heard that -- and now she's a princess. My but she IS eager isn't she? I don't really mind. I'm still ticked that they couldn't wait at least a week. A day is nice -- but give me a break -- exactly what the heck is their hurry?To be fair, they are not catholic ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted April 4, 2005 Author Share Posted April 4, 2005 Maybe she is expecting and they want to marry before she shows. lol. :rofl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 No they are not Catholic and have not been for a few centuries now. Guess what -- I'm not Catholic either (nor am I Christian) but that doesn't mean I can't take the time to give homage to a good man. I believe someone else called it selfish. I tend to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 ooooooooooooooops ... wasn't defending them Spooky, meant it as a way of explaining their actions. I do agree though that they are notables and it seems in poor taste ...Personally I think they want the press distracted so their wedding will be a non-event ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Hey don't worry -- I'm not losing it here. lol I know I'm the one who did the flip-flop. lol I'm just really quite annoyed with them. C'mon - Charles is no child but this whole thing sounds pretty petulant now doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Ok now I have a question for all the eager internet researchers.In the normal order of things, assuming that Charles takes the thrown, Camilla would be given the title of queen. Upon Charles' death or sucession of the throne, his son, William will take the throne and gain the title of King. Again, in the normal order, this would then make Charles' queen "Queen Mother" but this is a title Camilla cannot take. So what happens? What title is she then given? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Ok now I have a question for all the eager internet researchers.In the normal order of things, assuming that Charles takes the thrown, Camilla would be given the title of queen. Upon Charles' death or sucession of the throne, his son, William will take the throne and gain the title of King. Again, in the normal order, this would then make Charles' queen "Queen Mother" but this is a title Camilla cannot take. So what happens? What title is she then given?I believe she would remain the Princess of Wales if she outlived Charles ... but she may just become a "lady" ... I do believe she keeps HRH though ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ranster627 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 This is somewhat unprecedented though isn't it? I am not sure of what you are referring to? I think you stay an HRH till you are removed from the list (Diana) or die ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Oh sorry -- I mean the whole question of the title -- its a new issue. I don't recall reading in any other history book about a divorced prince -- a divorced prince remarrying -- a divorced prince who remarries and takes the throne.Its all a new ball game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts