Charles to marry Camilla, April 8, Windsor Castle [Archive] - Orlando Villas

Carla

10-02-2005, 16:41

Charles married Diana because he/the monarchy/government/establishment etc. etc. had to find someone with no sexual past who could give him heirs!!! It was hardly a marriage made in heaven or a meeting of minds. It looks as though Diana wanted the entire fairy tale but that was never going to happen.

He was in love with Camilla years before he married Diana, but he wasn't her first, so they were not allowed to marry each other. The Establishment should have learnt their lesson when they meddled with Margaret's love life but obviously they hadn't.

Let's hope that we have moved on enough now so that we don't force the same debacle onto William, when he wants to marry.

Ruth

10-02-2005, 16:57

As long as Charles does not become head of the Church of England........

floridadreamvilla.co.uk

10-02-2005, 16:58

What fantastic news - we're delighted [msnsmile2]

blott

10-02-2005, 17:01

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Carla
Charles married Diana because he/the monarchy/government/establishment etc. etc. had to find someone with no sexual past who could give him heirs!!! It was hardly a marriage made in heaven or a meeting of minds. It looks as though Diana wanted the entire fairy tale but that was never going to happen.

He was in love with Camilla years before he married Diana, but he wasn't her first, so they were not allowed to marry each other. The Establishment should have learnt their lesson when they meddled with Margaret's love life but obviously they hadn't.

Let's hope that we have moved on enough now so that we don't force the same debacle onto William, when he wants to marry.
[/quote]In that case then, someone should have made it perfectly clear to Diana that she was getting married just to be a baby/heir factory and just a token wife as she obviously thought of it rather differently. I'm glad I wasn't in her shoes when she found out!

Surely everyone who's been married can imagine themselves finding out that their husband was having an affair and was in love with someone else all the time - would that make you mad? It sure as hell would make me very mad and I think it's unforgiveable! [}:)] You'd sit idly by then Carla and wish Kevin well if it had happened to you?

Jill

10-02-2005, 17:08

No wonder Blair's office leaked the news. If there is an election in April/May this will take minds away from politics and he won't have to answer any more awkward questions to do with the war on Iraq, the economy, immigration et al.

Carla

10-02-2005, 17:11

Of course she was a baby factory Blott!! Why does that surprise you? The monarchy needed heirs and they had to trawl around for someone to give those heirs. She was hardly the first girl in that position either. Didn't she ever read any history books?? She must have been the only one who didn't realise why a man of his age was courting an 18 year old with minimal life experience. I was 26 when they married and it was obvious what she was there for, hence William and Harry arriving quite quickly.

Ann-Marie

10-02-2005, 17:15

Hear Hear Liesa - agree with you on this one!

Cruella DeVilla

10-02-2005, 17:16

We could debate this til the cows come home I suppose. The Princes are probably ok with it as are the families so maybe the public will just accept it.
Life is too short as Diana sadly found out.

Ann-Marie

10-02-2005, 17:22

If they do go ahead, I hope they opt for a private ceremony and its not plastered all over the tv and papers (which it probably will be!!)

Cruella DeVilla

10-02-2005, 17:46

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Ann-Marie
If they do go ahead, I hope they opt for a private ceremony and its not plastered all over the tv and papers (which it probably will be!!)
[/quote]

Its going to be a civil ceremony followed by a Blessing!
They are appearing before the media tonight at 2000hrs!

rosie

10-02-2005, 17:47

Must remember not to put the TV on tonight then [msnwink]

Cruella DeVilla

10-02-2005, 17:53

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by rosieuk
Must remember not to put the TV on tonight then [msnwink]
[/quote]

You will be too busy packing for your roadtrip this weekend...hopefully[sporty]

steph_goodrum

10-02-2005, 17:54

But what irritated me the most about Charles and Dianas' wedding was that, he knew full well what his intentions were, i.e. that he was going to carry on seeing Camilla once he was married, yet was prepared to stand in front of millions of people and declare that he would stay faithful to Diana.
This only proves that at the end of the day no matter how many promises he makes if he becomes King that he will do his best for the country, when it comes to the bottom line he will do what he wants, any trust I ever had that he would do otherwise went when the details came out about Cammilla.
If he is so devoted then he should be prepared to do as Edward did and abdicate and marry her - but he wants to have his cake and eat it.
It's purely because of the actions of Charles and Camilla that I certainly won't have much respect for them if they do get to the throne.

daxon

10-02-2005, 18:02

CONGRATULATIONS TO THEM! I say [clap] Diana was far from the fairy tale princess we were all lead to expect, I wish Charles & Camilla every happiness second time round!!

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 18:40

Havent times changed? I remember a country in uproar at a time when if such a marriage was ever even speculated, we'd go into seizures!
Well I dont care if they marry or dont, i dont like any of them. I've never been a royal lover i've always thought we'd make more money in the tourist industry by making them all move out of the palaces and renting them out or opening to the public.
The royalty isnt any good for tourism, coz tourists never see them just the palace. Gracelands makes loads of money and Elvis has been dead for years and years. Goes to show ya!
Wonder what his kids think of it. Selfish little man.

Cruella DeVilla

10-02-2005, 18:45

Graceland please! Elvis was the King and they make lots of money out him him![laugh]

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 18:50

If anyone thinks this man who now is known to have £1mil a month, has cheated, been selfish, not been that great a prince of wales or person and is marrying the woman he cheated on his wife with - if u think thats good news....I say we've hit moral lows.
Don't like him, didn't like Diana. Dunno why we even have a royal family. They're all useless. No doubt I'll get slaughtered for this. And before anyone says they do 'charity' work, i say thats what they're supposed to do and theres no work in cutting a ribbon to a new hospital wing.

Sharon G

10-02-2005, 18:56

If they want to get married thats fine but do hope that they do it "Low Key" if anything, in respect to William, Harry and Diana.

....and Diana's loyal and faithful followers[msnsmile][msnsmile]

Sharon

chrizzy100

10-02-2005, 19:00

I always said I'd leave the UK if he married that person....she well knew that the power a woman has over a man is stronger by being a mistress than a wife in the royal circle.....I disliked Diana to the end.....but I feel that Cammilla has always been the planner in the wings....and I could not live in a country that would think its OK to let an ex-mistress become the wife.....we should look up to the royals if we still have to keep them.....and the morals of both those people...the so called future King and his bit on the side are not something I'd want my kids to think are right.....

E. Cosgrove

10-02-2005, 19:15

oooooH I'm not getting involved in this one.[msneek]

Mo Green

10-02-2005, 19:25

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by hurricanesarah
If anyone thinks this man who now is known to have £1mil a month, has cheated, been selfish, not been that great a prince of wales or person and is marrying the woman he cheated on his wife with - if u think thats good news....I say we've hit moral lows.
Don't like him, didn't like Diana. Dunno why we even have a royal family. They're all useless. No doubt I'll get slaughtered for this. And before anyone says they do 'charity' work, i say thats what they're supposed to do and theres no work in cutting a ribbon to a new hospital wing.
[/quote]

I completely agree with your first paragraph. If Charles really loved Camilla why did n’t he marry her in the first place and give up his right to the throne like his Great Uncle?

As for the Royal Family they do bring a lot of money into the country and the Queen and Princess Anne work amazingly hard. You only have to look at the Queen’s last trip abroad – straight off the plane and a non-stop schedule of events involving lots of standing around, making small talk with people she has never met. Don’t forget she is a 77 year old Granny as well and it is not a 9-5 job either! I have never met her myself but understand from those that have that she does do her homework before all these events.

In all countries there is a Head of State. Consider the alternatives – President Tony and First Lady Cherie! Give me Royalty anytime.

Cruella DeVilla

10-02-2005, 19:38

[quote

In all countries there is a Head of State. Consider the alternatives – President Tony and First Lady Cherie! Give me Royalty anytime.

[/quote]

That's what it would be if Tony had his way! I am not a particular fan either of the Royal family although I met Anne once and she was really lovely and wears the same clothes twice!!! I saw her ten years later with the dress on she had when I met her!! Do think Diana would have done that, I think she auctioned her of didn't she?

I heard a quote from Churchill earlier talking about Wallis Simpson and it said something like eveyone wants to marry their Cutie but they don't want Queen cutie!!! Not sure Camila is a Cutie but she does have a Regal air about her.

esprit

10-02-2005, 20:24

Wonder if this will reach the US news and when?? Interesting to see what standpoint they take. If I hear anything, I will let you know.

Ray&Sarah

10-02-2005, 20:25

Good luck to them, if thats what they want.

Never been a big "Di" fan, thought there was more to her than we ever knew about. She admitted that she knew about Charles and Camilla on the day she wlaked doen the aisle so that makes me wonder.

Neither anti or pro royalty really.

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 20:28

I have never believed getting off a plane (and wait we're not talking about bargain bucket seats either here) we're talking 1st class all the way, not hunched up like sardines, and going to make small talk is hard work. Let's be fair, would you stop your daily grind and swap places? of course!

I don't believe if you offset the money we pay against what we get are they good value for money. We could earn as much renting out the palaces and opening them up to the public....I'm positive.

It's like Windsor Castle when it caught fire we were told as the public we owned them therefore we had to pay for the repair. We'll its repaired now, so as I am still a part owner (being 1/52 million other owners) I'd like to book the second week in July to stay there.....no I thought not.

Not good news, and I cannot believe how we are being bombarded by the news as if it was good news for this country. What hypocrites we are and such short short memories.

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 20:31

With regard to Ray & Sarah's comment, I agree Di was no angel. But credit her with being just a teenager and thinking like we all did, we could change the man we married! When you are that age you DO believe if you have youth and looks on your side, what COULD he possibly want with an old has been? Only experience in life after teaches you possibly there is more substance needed to a person.

Nostromo

10-02-2005, 20:36

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Carla
Why Nostromo?

If we abolished our Monarchy it would be a big kiss of death for our tourist trade. You have to keep what works for the Country.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Nostromo
I cannot imagine everyone accepting a "Queen Camilla" though. Could this be the beginning of the end for the Monarchy?
[/quote]
[/quote]

I disagree entirely. Maybe we would lose a few Japanese tourists but so what? You underestimate your own country Carla! There are a LOT of interesting things to see and do here and in my opinion Monarchy is not one of them. They are out of date and out of touch and with Charles and Camilla at the helm [msnscared][msnscared][msneek][msneek] will rapidly become a joke. Like a lot of people have been saying on the radio, it will be more appropriate for those two to get married on the 1st April rather than 8th.

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 20:37

But we ARE in the position to judge, such is the position we hold them in, right? If they want to live like commoners, then please be a commoner. They want their cake and eat it. I'm apalled quite frankly

chrizzy100

10-02-2005, 20:37

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by esprit
Wonder if this will reach the US news and when?? Interesting to see what standpoint they take. If I hear anything, I will let you know.
[/quote]

Its in yahoo....the Americans that post on the messages boards are having a field day.....all the Brits are very quiet....

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 20:40

Because Chrissy, in England we are very good at not kicking up a fuss. Could you see us ever kicking up a stink and actually DOING something about it? Look at when Di died, the country was in uproar over the queen doing nothing, and she made a terrible speech, long long over due and all was forgiven.

I feel if as a country we had any moral fibre or substance we'd all unite and say ENOUGH to this mockery of a Royal family. You can vote out presidents and prime ministers if you are not happy so why do we continually have to put up with this £$%^&!

Nostromo

10-02-2005, 20:41

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Cruella DeVilla
We could debate this til the cows come home.
[/quote]

In case you haven't noticed CDV, the cows have come home!

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 20:43

Moooo

steph_goodrum

10-02-2005, 20:45

"At the end of the day they are two people who want to be together - who are we to judge?"

Not quite just 2 people Jo but 2 people who hold a great deal of sway over how us "mere mortals" should live by the laws they oversee.
In my case it's not so much an anti royal thing because I feel exactly the same about those who have served prison sentences being allowed to sit in the House of Lords and decide what laws I should obey, when they have proven that they can't/won't abide by them themselves. And herditary peers, why should a person whose forefathers (maybe many generations ago) may have done something notable (or been friends with the right person) have an automatic right to the position when there are just as many worthy people who actually EARN respect and trust.

10-02-2005, 20:48

I am not going to get into this argument - all I will say is I have met some of the Royal family (and many heads of state and many many celebrities etc), Princess Anne and her husband, Prince Edward, Prince Andrew and Fergie, and I know several people who met Diana and many of the Royal household and the special protection officers, and I don't think you can really comment on what people are like unless you have met them. As for me I found Fergie positively charming and very likeable as were all the Royals I met, and Im not easily impressed!![msnwink]

chrizzy100

10-02-2005, 20:48

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by hurricanesarah
But we ARE in the position to judge, such is the position we hold them in, right? If they want to live like commoners, then please be a commoner. They want their cake and eat it. I'm apalled quite frankly
[/quote]

I have to agree with you sarah.....I have nothing against them living happy every after...just not as head of the church....or head of the country even if it is in name only....I'm just hoping he is holding out until his son is older and will then pass being King straight to him when the time comes.....I don't think in this day and age when marriage is looked on as a joke...that we can afford to be seen to think what they are doing is a good and happy thing for the country.....if they had stayed apart when he was married....I would be all for it.....live and let live....but he made a joke of his marriage....and being who he is....he is not paid to do that....he is paid to show the world strong family values...

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 20:51

Personally irregardless of how much time has passed for his sons since their mum died I cant help feeling all these reasons are why Harry is a bit of a handful. coz if it was my mum and my dad had put my mum through hell like that and then she died and THEN he married her, i think i'd have to kill him

MaggieAllan

10-02-2005, 20:52

I'm sick of it already and I haven't even watched the news..every message board I go on is discussing it - even rugby league ones, and I went out this afternoon and it came up in conversation.

I don't care what they do..they don't care what I do or what I think. The media will have a merry go round, the public will pay, and the world will have the same problems tomorrow as it did today.

chrizzy100

10-02-2005, 20:52

I don't really sound much like a tattoed pagan biker do I .......LOL!

Carla

10-02-2005, 21:00

I never underestimate my country Nostromo. It has many positive aspects of which I am very proud. One of my careers brought me into regular and daily contact for a number of years with visitors from all over the world, and they DO come here for our Royals and our history. I'm not talking about backpackers or the roving youngsters, but those who have money to spend when they come on vacation.

They certainly don't come for our weather! Neither do they come because the UK is easy to get around, nor for the scenery (with a few notable exceptions) nor for the shopping (cheaper and better in many other countries). Our Royal family gives us something which very few other countries have, and they fascinate many, and without them we would see a big slump in our tourist trade.

If what I am writing were not true, then Charles and Camilla marrying would not be such hot news in America and many other countries in the world, at the moment.

Nostromo

10-02-2005, 21:01

I agree with Chrizzy to some extent. I have nothing against Charles or Camilla as two people wanting to find happiness together...it is their business. But I think that time has really come for this country to stop hiding behind the royalty title and move into the 21st Century. A lot of people accept "Her Majesty's" this or that now because the Queen belongs to the old school and can carry the title off with some dignity. But this certainly did not apply to Charles even when he was married to Diana, let alone now. I cannot imagine today's youth singing "God Save the King" when the time comes and meaning it. Monarchy might have been GB's showpiece 200 years ago, but it certainly isn't now and it is better to lay it to rest with dignity rather than being eventually laughed out of existence.

chrizzy100

10-02-2005, 21:08

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Nostromo
I agree with Chrizzy to some extent. I have nothing against Charles or Camilla as two people wanting to find happiness together...it is their business. But I think that time has really come for this country to stop hiding behind the royalty title and move into the 21st Century. A lot of people accept "Her Majesty's" this or that now because the Queen belongs to the old school and can carry the title off with some dignity. But this certainly did not apply to Charles even when he was married to Diana, let alone now. I cannot imagine today's youth singing "God Save the King" when the time comes and meaning it. Monarchy might have been GB's showpiece 200 years ago, but it certainly isn't now and it is better to lay it to rest with dignity rather than being eventually laughed out of existence.
[/quote]

I think we are missing the Queen before she is even dead......a hard working lady.......with a hard job....one her son is not up to doing.....and one her grandson is to young to do....

search66

10-02-2005, 21:08

I heard something on the news this morning about this... and the poll taken in the UK was 2-1 AGAINST this... seems like most here are positive... odd

Nostromo

10-02-2005, 21:10

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Carla

If what I am writing were not true, then Charles and Camilla marrying would not be such hot news in America and many other countries in the world, at the moment.
[/quote]

How can you decide what's good for the country on the long run by what today's papers say? They'll just grab at any story that's handy. Not too long ago, I recall that there were headlines about David Beckham changing his hairstyle! How much has that affected our tourist trade either way?

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 21:11

Carla, all my life i've been hearing people say that tourists come to England because of the royal family. How can this be true, tourists never catch sight of the royal family. So maybe at best they come to catch sight of where the royal family lives. Like any other stately home or castle it will thrive just as well without a royal family.

Millions flock to Orlando but it has no history, no castles except Magic Kingdom and no royal family other than Cinderella - but it still does great in the tourist industry. England will still do as well.

I've never liked the royal family and I believe that for every person who claims to have met/known them and sings their praises - theres another one who will claim the same and not have a good word. Law of averages.

I've always had a problem with Charles. he's lived a sheltered life, yet goes around giving pearls of so called wisdom about architecture, plants and other peoples social structure. Who does he think he is?? This is a man we hear who cannot even run his own bath. Without the title and prestige of being the POW i have no doubt if he was a commoner he'd be a sad boring lonely old man. I believe this is part of his plan NOT to be King. I dont think he ever truly wanted to be and has done everything to prove that to the country.

chrizzy100

10-02-2005, 21:19

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by hurricanesarah
Carla, all my life i've been hearing people say that tourists come to England because of the royal family. How can this be true, tourists never catch sight of the royal family. So maybe at best they come to catch sight of where the royal family lives. Like any other stately home or castle it will thrive just as well without a castle.

Millions flock to Orlando but it has no history, no castles except Magic Kingdom and no royal family other than Cinderella - but it still does great in the tourist industry. England will still do as well.

I've never liked the royal family and I believe that for every person who claims to have met/known them and sings their praises - theres another one who will claim the same and not have a good word. Law of averages.

I've always had a problem with Charles. he's lived a sheltered life, yet goes around giving pearls of so called wisdom about architecture, plants and other peoples social structure. Who does he think he is?? This is a man we hear who cannot even run his own bath. Without the title and prestige of being the POW i have no doubt if he was a commoner he'd be a sad boring lonely old man. I believe this is part of his plan NOT to be King. I dont think he ever truly wanted to be and has done everything to prove that to the country.
[/quote]

He would go way up in my eyes if I found out he was just taking the heat off his son for a few more years......and that in the end Charles would stand down......

Ray&Sarah

10-02-2005, 21:22

I have a 15 year old and a 13 year old, they have no interest in the Royal family at all, when I told my oldest son todays news I could have been talking a foreign language and they're friends are the same, no interest at all.

Nostromo

10-02-2005, 21:29

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by hurricanesarah
I've never liked the royal family and I believe that for every person who claims to have met/known them and sings their praises - theres another one who will claim the same and not have a good word. Law of averages.

I've always had a problem with Charles. he's lived a sheltered life, yet goes around giving pearls of so called wisdom about architecture, plants and other peoples social structure. Who does he think he is?? This is a man we hear who cannot even run his own bath. Without the title and prestige of being the POW i have no doubt if he was a commoner he'd be a sad boring lonely old man. I believe this is part of his plan NOT to be King. I dont think he ever truly wanted to be and has done everything to prove that to the country.
[/quote]

Sarah, realistically your maths are a bit off here. I think for every one person who sings the Royal family's praises, there are three who think they should not be there in the first place.

I agree with your sentiments about Charles. He is sad and boring even without being a "commoner". I think there are lots of other things that he cannot do apart from running his own bath, but what else do you expect? None of them are very bright and yet use up a sizeable chunk of the Taxpayer's money....including over this wedding that's coming up.

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 21:44

Agreed Nostromo 100%. People never look to England anyway and think our Royal family are a joy to behold. If they do envy anything it might be our heritage but certainly most people think our Royal family are a laughing stock and even most of US agree too

hurricanesarah

10-02-2005, 21:50

on a slightly catty note, to the person who posted that Camilla looks 'regal' i'd say the only reason you might be led to believe that is that she dresses old and frumpy like the royal family, and has those horse features like the rest of them. I've always believed they are related to horses in some way. Even if she looks 'regal' shes certainly never acted it, being an unfaithful wife and helping to wreck a marriage. Di was no saint either dont get me wrong. And before anyone says well that's what royal families do, 1. dont make it right 2. i dont wanna pay for it.

Cruella DeVilla

10-02-2005, 21:54

Ruth

10-02-2005, 22:42

I have no objection to them getting married. I just dodn't think he should ever be the head of the Church of England when he has set such a bad example in the way he behaved while he was married to Diana.

Cruella DeVilla

10-02-2005, 22:47

Hey I have just had a though Camilla sounds like (Cruella) Devilla!;)[}:)]

ORLANDO_MAGIC

10-02-2005, 22:55

Damn,just my luck.
I will be in Orlando on the day they get married,so i will have to cancell my 10 days in the sunshine state so i can watch the weddinghttp://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/ORLANDO_MAGIC/200521018552_laughing.gifNOT

Ray&Sarah

10-02-2005, 23:05

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by ORLANDO_MAGIC
Damn,just my luck.
I will be in Orlando on the day they get married,so i will have to cancell my 10 days in the sunshine state so i can watch the weddinghttp://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/ORLANDO_MAGIC/200521018552_laughing.gifNOT
[/quote]

Can't imagine why you won't be cancelling you plans.[msnwink][msnsmile2]

Nostromo

10-02-2005, 23:18

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by hurricanesarah
on a slightly catty note, to the person who posted that Camilla looks 'regal' i'd say the only reason you might be led to believe that is that she dresses old and frumpy like the royal family, and has those horse features like the rest of them. I've always believed they are related to horses in some way. Even if she looks 'regal' shes certainly never acted it, being an unfaithful wife and helping to wreck a marriage. Di was no saint either dont get me wrong. And before anyone says well that's what royal families do, 1. dont make it right 2. i dont wanna pay for it.
[/quote]

There have been a few catty jokes about the Royal family's dress sense and I took a broadside at my sister-in-law once on that note. The 4 of us were going to City Walk and Bonnie (my SIL) was particularly frumpily dressed for some reason. But my wife was very well dressed for the occasion, so well in fact that I commented "You look like a Queen"; on hearing this Bonnie asked "And how do I look?". It was too good an invitation to miss and so I said "Oh, you look like the Queen!" [}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)]

Ray&Sarah

10-02-2005, 23:26

Very funny Nostromo.:D:D

Nostromo

10-02-2005, 23:29

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Ray&Sarah
Very funny Nostromo.:D:D
[/quote]
Bonnie did not think so, even though it took the airhead a couple of minutes to pick-up the joke.

trevlad

11-02-2005, 01:34

im with pooh on this one
let em be.im a royalist

poohbear

11-02-2005, 01:36

thanks trev they have removed my comments anyway.. no free speech on here only if you are anti royal!!!

roger

11-02-2005, 01:41

There's nothing wrong with free speech - let's just try not to offend others though [msnsmile]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by poohbear
thanks trev they have removed my comments anyway.. no free speech on here only if you are anti royal!!!
[/quote]

hurricanesarah

11-02-2005, 01:45

I wasn't offended, I'm sure no one else was either. Freedom of speech! Pooh's comments are as welcome as anyone else's right? Besides makes a great entertaining read

poohbear

11-02-2005, 01:46

what about others offending me? or does that not count?

Cruella DeVilla

11-02-2005, 01:48

All I can say is its a family forum and kids read the posts.....

chrizzy100

11-02-2005, 01:53

I best not print what my mother thinks about the idea then....LOL!

She was saying its not going down too well in her part of Wales....my mum has always been for the Royals.....never having a word said against them.....but now...well like I say her words are unprintable.....[msnscared]

roger

11-02-2005, 02:00

It's not your opinion that was the problem - it was the way it was worded that was offensive. There were probably a lot more offended people than you realise judging by the influx of complaints that arrived in my inbox shortly after you posted.

chrizzy100

11-02-2005, 02:02

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by poohbear
thanks trev they have removed my comments anyway.. no free speech on here only if you are anti royal!!!
[/quote]

I don't think that is fair to the people running the forum....

hurricanesarah

11-02-2005, 02:06

No pooh you don't count! ;) [just kidding] lol

sunseeker

11-02-2005, 02:15

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Jo
Didn't they know I was going to be in Florida?

We only live a few miles away , we would have gone to watch. I love all the pagentry - we do it so well in Britain. Tourists are so envious of our history and heritage.

At the end of the day they are two people who want to be together - who are we to judge?[msnsmile]
[/quote]

The people who keep THEM in a lifestyle full of riches, thats who.[msnmad] [msnmad]

Dave

hurricanesarah

11-02-2005, 02:20

and only in Britain to we congratulate ourselves on spending millions of pounds of public funds in paying for weddings for people who don't even want to be or even SHOULD be married to each other. But hey, the pomp makes it all worth while riiiiight???! lol

ctgirlscout

11-02-2005, 05:14

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by esprit
Wonder if this will reach the US news and when?? Interesting to see what standpoint they take. If I hear anything, I will let you know.
[/quote]

Julie, this was all over the news this morning on Good Morning America (ABC News). Plus its headlining the internet news site.

Nostromo

11-02-2005, 13:00

I have spoken to at least 25 people about it in and around Swindon since I heard the news yesterday. They were all bona-fide British people in all age groups and diffeternt walks of life for eg, a 58-year old female Practice Manager, our 61-year old male plumber, our 25-year old female receptionist, a couple of elderly patients and so on. In all but 3 cases, the reaction was one of snorting disdain at the entire scenario and the suggestion that the wedding should have been on 1st April. Surprisingly, the two elderly people (separate families) were among the most critical of Charles and even the concept of Monarchy. One of them, an 81-year old WWII veteran, felt that he could not see why "so much public money had to be spent on those w****less people while the likes of us have to scratch out an existence. I was in Alamein Doctor, and if you've been there you'd know what it was like for us". This was certainly a revelation and I suspect that there are more who feel that way.

jolliffee

11-02-2005, 13:43

Well I think the whole thing is a bit of a yawn![zzz] Good luck to them I hope they will have a happy life together. And I'd wish the same to anyone starting out again.[grouphug]

11-02-2005, 13:58

poohbear

11-02-2005, 14:15

agree totally!!! and why do you think the americans like the english so much.....because of tony blair ????[laugh][laugh][laugh][laugh]
i dont think so

hurricanesarah

11-02-2005, 14:19

People DO NOT come to Britain because of our Royal family because they NEVER see them! How can you come to a country claiming it is for something you will not see?

People don't only come to this country to visit London. Some never do! Are you telling me those heading to Brighton, up North, are coming coz of the Royals? It's a common misconception. They might come to see where they LIVE but they are not coming to see them right? So like I said before, people flock in their thousands to see Gracelands knowing Elvis wont be there, they'll flock to the palaces even if there are no Royals either. So kick em out.

I have no idea why PC even wants to get married at this age anyway. Its not like they're young and are going to start a family. He's always been controversial. I do love controversial pompous idiots who've never worked a day in their life and live off some kind of inheritance that really was just by luck.

I don't want him as a King. I dont want him as a POW either. I dont want any of them. We all know what he's been like and he's STILL marrying her AND says he wants to be King too. What a joke.

poohbear

11-02-2005, 14:23

why do they come here then?

poohbear

11-02-2005, 14:31

the whole country has royal connections.. and our royals from the past had most of the buildings that the tourists come to see built..
look at our history..thats what they come to see.and you do not see fresh air but we all want to breathe that.

Nostromo

11-02-2005, 14:50

I think all of us are right in a way. After reading Julie Burchill's wonderfully hilarious no-punches-pulled article in today's Times (Hurricanesarah, you should read it - it is on T2. Try not to explode with laughter!), I agree totally with Carla & Poohbear that the Japs, Americans and everyone else come to the UK to see the Royal family. Where else but in Britain can they have such a good laugh at a bunch of clowns who think they are the star-attraction of the whole country?

Nostromo

11-02-2005, 14:57

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by roger
There's nothing wrong with free speech - let's just try not to offend others though [msnsmile]
[/quote]

Roger (and other admins), this debate is about a very public bit of news and is not intended to personally offend anyone on this forum. Before you guys consider editing any 'anti-royal' posting, I respectfully suggest that you read Julie Burchill's article in the T2 section of today's Times newspaper. If a traditional paper can allow that to be published (hilariously true as it is), the we, Joe Public, should be allowed to express our own views in a more restrained fashion.

caroline

11-02-2005, 15:10

Nostromo the post that was edited was not done so because it was anti royal, pro royal or any other reason other than it was downright rude.

Just because somebody doesn't agree with what is said it doesn't give them the right to call people rude names.

Nostromo

11-02-2005, 15:16

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by caroline
Nostromo the post that was edited was not done so because it was anti royal, pro royal or any other reason other than it was downright rude.

Just because somebody doesn't agree with what is said it doesn't give them the right to call people rude names.
[/quote]

I agree. I must have missed it before the editing. But a lively debate without personal mud-slinging should be all right. After all, this is an 'off-tpoic' forum and we still live in a free country.

caroline

11-02-2005, 15:21

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Nostromo
I agree. I must have missed it before the editing. But a lively debate without personal mud-slinging should be all right. After all, this is an 'off-tpoic' forum and we still live in a free country.
[/quote]

I don't think anybody would disagree with that Nostromo:)

hurricanesarah

11-02-2005, 15:24

Pooh, they do NOT come to England because of the Royal Family. They might HOPE to catch a glimpse because most foreigners are so ignorant about what a royal family is, they actually think by going to Buckingham Palace they might catch a glimpse of the Queen coming out in her slippers picking up her bottle of milk off the doorstep.

The whole world now visits other countries for vacations. Only in Britain do we continue to convince ourselves its because of our 'envied' royal family. No one envies our royal family! They laugh at them and what we as joe public are willing to put up with. Could you honestly see Americans putting up with what we do from them whilst still paying them handsomely? Thought not.

We have never needed a royal family too help boost or sustain tourism. No other country does and most do alright too. Its 2005, no one cares anymore or are in awe of them. Those days are long gone and if anyone killed the awe over the years, they did.

Nostromo

11-02-2005, 15:33

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by hurricanesarah
Could you honestly see Americans putting up with what we do from them whilst still paying them handsomely? Thought not.
[/quote]

Excellent point and the answering is a resounding NO. The Americans might think it is "quaint" to come to the UK and take a gander at this funny antiquity that the Brits call the "Royal Family", but ask them to shell out millions of their taxpayers' money to entertain these clowns and boost their egos, and you'll have a riot in your hands.

hurricanesarah

11-02-2005, 15:42

Agreed Nostromo. And there's another misconception too. Its that if you are 'against' the royal family then you are almost like a traitor to your country or not proud to be English. I am extremely proud to be English. I love English people and I love my country but I cannot stand this family of poor structure and morals supposedly representing my country. As far as I am concerned they are no better than anyone else sitting on the dole on a council estate. Taking public money and expecting respect for doing nothing. Expressing opinions they have no right to express and half the time expressing them on things they know nothing about. I've always thought of them as a family on the dole living off huge amounts of it though. They certainly don't have the moral structure of anything remotely 'regal'

Nostromo

11-02-2005, 16:46

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by hurricanesarah
I cannot stand this family of poor structure and morals supposedly representing my country. As far as I am concerned they are no better than anyone else sitting on the dole on a council estate. Taking public money and expecting respect for doing nothing. Expressing opinions they have no right to express and half the time expressing them on things they know nothing about. I've always thought of them as a family on the dole living off huge amounts of it though. They certainly don't have the moral structure of anything remotely 'regal'
[/quote]

Sarah, it takes a certain amount of intelligence even to know that one knows nothing about a particular subject. You cannot expect that out of a bunch of i*****, b***-h*****, k*****-d******* like the W***** family. (You can fill-in the blanks from the fourth paragraph of Burchill's article. I don't think I'll be allowed to post those here, though I agree entirely with her views.

Kiddie001

11-02-2005, 17:14

I cannot believe such an insignificant event has spawned so much heated debate.[zzz]

Lets all try and focus on whats important, like getting a Tesco Value valentines card before they sell out.

11-02-2005, 17:16

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by poohbear
the whole country has royal connections.. and our royals from the past had most of the buildings that the tourists come to see built..
look at our history..thats what they come to see.and you do not see fresh air but we all want to breathe that.
[/quote]

Exactly!!!![clap][clap][clap][clap]

hurricanesarah

11-02-2005, 17:17

Why is it that people living on social security (aka our taxes) is classed as 'significant' debate yet you call this royal saga 'insignificant'. Both are kept from my taxes, and i find nothing insignificant about this.

11-02-2005, 17:22

The Royal Family cost each person in the UK 60p in 2004 when you consider how many tourists we get on the back of them thats quite good value for money[msnwink]

hurricanesarah

11-02-2005, 18:18

60p from millions of people. How is it value for money? I don't even get my 60p worth do i? I'd rather buy three loaves of tesco value bread for that.

hurricanesarah

11-02-2005, 18:19

Well do you think everyone in America would pay a $ towards Disney considering how much tourism they get off the back of that? Dont think so. It's the principle. Don't look at the 60p look at the whole picture, the MILLIONS per year going into one awful family with alley cat morals

esprit

11-02-2005, 20:00

Well it didnt rate more than two minutes on US news wheras when Diana was alive British royalty used to be all over US TV. Nothing was said on the pros and cons, though it was mentioned that it was weird timing with the UK elections coming up. Fact is, since Iraq, Tony Blair is a lot more newsworthy than Prince Charles.

chrizzy100

11-02-2005, 20:06

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by esprit
Well it didnt rate more than two minutes on US news wheras when Diana was alive British royalty used to be all over US TV. Nothing was said on the pros and cons, though it was mentioned that it was weird timing with the UK elections coming up. Fact is, since Iraq, Tony Blair is a lot more newsworthy than Prince Charles.
[/quote]

I never saw anything about it on the news.....I hope I can say the same thing when the wedding comes around......

Nostromo

11-02-2005, 20:08

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Kiddie001
I cannot believe such an insignificant event has spawned so much heated debate.[zzz]

Lets all try and focus on whats important, like getting a Tesco Value valentines card before they sell out.
[/quote]

Great idea Kiddie! At least one of us has an eye for more important things in life! I'm off to Tesco.

Ray&Sarah

11-02-2005, 20:10

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by chrizzy100
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by esprit
Well it didnt rate more than two minutes on US news wheras when Diana was alive British royalty used to be all over US TV. Nothing was said on the pros and cons, though it was mentioned that it was weird timing with the UK elections coming up. Fact is, since Iraq, Tony Blair is a lot more newsworthy than Prince Charles.
[/quote]

I never saw anything about it on the news.....I hope I can say the same thing when the wedding comes around......
[/quote]

The first part of your post I agree with, the second not so sure about, no telling Ray about these cheap cards.[msnwink]:D

chunkichik

11-02-2005, 20:45

I'm just bored with the whole thing now!!!![msntongue]

Carla

11-02-2005, 21:01

No idea what you've been watching but my American friends say that it is all over the news!!!

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by esprit
Well it didnt rate more than two minutes on US news wheras when Diana was alive British royalty used to be all over US TV. Nothing was said on the pros and cons, though it was mentioned that it was weird timing with the UK elections coming up. Fact is, since Iraq, Tony Blair is a lot more newsworthy than Prince Charles.
[/quote]

poohbear

11-02-2005, 21:13

thats what i have been told too carla..
also the polls show that people who object to the monarchy is only 19%...(a mere minority)

Lesley S

11-02-2005, 21:25

Don't know what all the fuss is about....not worth the heated debate..surely there is more important news in the world and across the country.

Nostromo

11-02-2005, 22:01

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Carla
No idea what you've been watching but my American friends say that it is all over the news!!!

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by esprit
Well it didnt rate more than two minutes on US news wheras when Diana was alive British royalty used to be all over US TV. Nothing was said on the pros and cons, though it was mentioned that it was weird timing with the UK elections coming up. Fact is, since Iraq, Tony Blair is a lot more newsworthy than Prince Charles.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Maybe this means that as far as the Americans are concerned 'it is all over' after 2 minutes of news. Fair enough.

LiesaAnna

11-02-2005, 22:18

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by chunkichik
I'm just bored with the whole thing now!!!![msntongue]
[/quote]

me too!!!!!

Fletch

11-02-2005, 22:48

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Jill
No wonder Blair's office leaked the news. If there is an election in April/May this will take minds away from politics and he won't have to answer any more awkward questions to do with the war on Iraq, the economy, immigration et al.
[/quote]

Spot on Jill - brilliant smoke screen!

E. Cosgrove

11-02-2005, 23:11

Fletch, why not give us something more exciting to read and continue your trip report.

Ray&Sarah

11-02-2005, 23:13

Oh yes brilliant idea Liz, is hte next part ready yet Fletch?[msnsmile]

Lyn

12-02-2005, 01:15

I have spent more than half a century being a devoted royalist, not any more. I did not like Diana I thought she was rather scheming, but I don't think she started out this way, I truly believe that Charles really hurt her. I would have no problem with him marrying again, I could even accept a divorcee but NOT this divorcee, she was on the scene before Diana and I find her totally unacceptable as a member of our royal family. Times have moved on a lot since the times of Henry VIII and I think they should have standards if they expect to remain in line for the throne of England. I object strongly to even 1p of my taxes being used to fund any event that they are involved with.

chrizzy100

12-02-2005, 01:57

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Nostromo
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Carla
No idea what you've been watching but my American friends say that it is all over the news!!!

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by esprit
Well it didnt rate more than two minutes on US news wheras when Diana was alive British royalty used to be all over US TV. Nothing was said on the pros and cons, though it was mentioned that it was weird timing with the UK elections coming up. Fact is, since Iraq, Tony Blair is a lot more newsworthy than Prince Charles.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Maybe this means that as far as the Americans are concerned 'it is all over' after 2 minutes of news. Fair enough.
[/quote]

Nothing much outside the USA gets more than a few mins of air time on the news over here......by the time I saw the news at 11 there was nothing on it about the marriage....

LiesaAnna

12-02-2005, 02:06

lucky you!!! and as for the daily papers calling it a romance that has gone on for 35 years, hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
having an affair ........... i hate him and that ruddy horse!!! hope they aint happy!! and i hope he dont get to be king!!!! that'll show im!!!

Robert5988

12-02-2005, 03:00

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:The Royal Family cost each person in the UK 60p in 2004 when you consider how many tourists we get on the back of them thats quite good value for money [/quote]

Without entering the pro/anti Royal Family debate I have had dealings with the English Tourist Board in a professional capacity.

Over many years they have conducted extensive surveys to find out why this country attracts so many foreign tourists. It is without doubt that the Monarchy with all its trappings is a high on most tourist's lists.

Would it satisfy both the pro and anti camps to point out that Micky Mouse and all the trappings attract most tourists to Disney?

chrizzy100

12-02-2005, 03:05

Well Mickey Mouse does not make me go to Disney..I can't stand him.......

ORLANDO_MAGIC

12-02-2005, 03:59

Personally i couldn't care less about the monarchy one way or another,so i say your only on this Planet but a few moments so if you can find love and happiness then go for it.

And as for my 60 pence a year going towards maintaining the Royal family,well if they were abolished tomorrow do you really think i would be 60p better off a year?...NO i dont think so it would only end up somewhere else,so who cares where it goes if not in my pocket.

As for the Royal family being good for tourism,well yes i do believe that is true to a degree,especially with our American cousins across the pond,but probably not as much as most people would imagine.

My very good American friend came to England a few years ago where we stayed in London,and apart from coming to visit me,the things she was most interested in seeing were the many museums,the West end theatres as well as famous landmarks such as Big Ben,the London eye,London bridge,Harrods,Oxford street (of course being a woman)etc...though she did enjoy London Tower which was really the only thing we went to see connected with the Royals although i suppose the Victoria and Albert museum might have been something to do with royalty now i think about it...lol.
But actually the number one tourist attraction by far is the British Museum.

http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/ORLANDO_MAGIC/2005211235753_DUNGEON.jpg
Here i am in London with Charles and Camilla a few years ago but of course they were in disguise, thats Charlie on your left for those of you unsure. :D

Robert5988

12-02-2005, 05:25

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote: But actually the number one tourist attraction by far is the British Museum.
[/quote]

The difficulty(according to my contact in the English Tourist Board) is in determining just how many visitors to the various attractions are foreign or domestic visitors. Alton Towers is(was?) the biggest paying attraction but I suspect that does not draw many visitors to UK.

Also how many foreign visitors simply stand outside Buckingham Palace every day to watch the Changing of the Guard.

It seems it is not a simple question of adding up the number of visitors to a particular attraction. Tourists visit UK for a variety of reasons, and according to those who should know, the Royal Family(and trappings) are a major factor.

There can be little doubt that GB Ltd makes a profit from having Royalty. However it is entirely another question if that is sufficient reason to retain the Monarchy.

hurricanesarah

12-02-2005, 06:36

It's the pomp and ceremony. We are not the only country in the world who has a royal family and people still travel to those countries too. Does anyone go to Spain for their royal family? Course not. You cannot say its because of the royals they come here. Go to Disney see Mickey...come to England you won't see Phil and Liz.

Nostromo

12-02-2005, 12:55

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by ORLANDO_MAGIC

http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/ORLANDO_MAGIC/2005211235753_DUNGEON.jpg
Here i am in London with Charles and Camilla a few years ago but of course they were in disguise, thats Charlie on your left for those of you unsure. :D
[/quote]

What disguise?[confused][confused]

LiesaAnna

12-02-2005, 13:16

nice likeness of camilla me thinks!![msnwink] and its not a disguise!!! it was just very early in the morning!!

Ray&Sarah

12-02-2005, 13:28

I am doubting the authenticity of these photos, the likeness may be uncanny but why would the "royals" be found by a cash machine, isn't cash too vulgar.[msnwink]:D

Calamity Jane

12-02-2005, 13:48

I cannot believe that adults can be so vehement about Charles and Camilla getting married or about the Royal Family, I am neither for the Royals or against them, but they are a major part of our heritage whether you like them or not and have been for hundreds and hundreds of years, its so easy to listen to the media and take sides, but unless you are a part of the whole set up, how can you possibly genuinely make constructive comments about anyone that you dont know first hand.

They are going to get married whether you agree or not and your comments dont make a blind bit of difference, nor will them getting married affect your lives other than having to read about them ( which you dont have to if you dont want)

Opinons are great if they are well founded but it seems a lot of people are being Diana's saviour when she was no better than Charles when it came to straying, I think both Charles and Diana do and did a great deal for others in their different ways but for goodness sakes let himm get on with his life now, makes you wonder what the response would have been if Diana had married Dodi Fayed, how many for and against would she have had.?

poohbear

12-02-2005, 16:22

well said

Steve and Dawn

12-02-2005, 19:54

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Carla
Of course she was a baby factory Blott!! Why does that surprise you? The monarchy needed heirs and they had to trawl around for someone to give those heirs. She was hardly the first girl in that position either. Didn't she ever read any history books?? She must have been the only one who didn't realise why a man of his age was courting an 18 year old with minimal life experience. I was 26 when they married and it was obvious what she was there for, hence William and Harry arriving quite quickly.
[/quote]

That's a bit of a callous way of looking at it Carla. He/They (the Royals) decieved not only her but the Nation too. I doubt many people in the world believed that it was a marriage of convenience at the time. Also she did more to advance the popularity of the Royal Family Worldwide than anyone else in decades. The Americans loved her, when visiting the US shortly after her death I had no end of people saying how sorry they were to hear of her death.

Finally, If Charles & Camilla want to marry then good luck to them, I for one hope they never become King & Consort.

Steve & Dawn

LiesaAnna

12-02-2005, 20:11

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Steve and Dawn
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Carla
Of course she was a baby factory Blott!! Why does that surprise you? The monarchy needed heirs and they had to trawl around for someone to give those heirs. She was hardly the first girl in that position either. Didn't she ever read any history books?? She must have been the only one who didn't realise why a man of his age was courting an 18 year old with minimal life experience. I was 26 when they married and it was obvious what she was there for, hence William and Harry arriving quite quickly.
[/quote]

That's a bit of a callous way of looking at it Carla. He/They (the Royals) decieved not only her but the Nation too. I doubt many people in the world believed that it was a marriage of convenience at the time. Also she did more to advance the popularity of the Royal Family Worldwide than anyone else in decades. The Americans loved her, when visiting the US shortly after her death I had no end of people saying how sorry they were to hear of her death.

Finally, If Charles & Camilla want to marry then good luck to them, I for one hope they never become King & Consort.

Steve & Dawn
[/quote]

Hear Hear!!! wish i couldve put it like that!!

the earlier posting was me having a cross moment!!

Steve and Dawn

12-02-2005, 20:26

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Carla
I never underestimate my country Nostromo. It has many positive aspects of which I am very proud. One of my careers brought me into regular and daily contact for a number of years with visitors from all over the world, and they DO come here for our Royals and our history. I'm not talking about backpackers or the roving youngsters, but those who have money to spend when they come on vacation.

They certainly don't come for our weather! Neither do they come because the UK is easy to get around, nor for the scenery (with a few notable exceptions) nor for the shopping (cheaper and better in many other countries). Our Royal family gives us something which very few other countries have, and they fascinate many, and without them we would see a big slump in our tourist trade.

If what I am writing were not true, then Charles and Camilla marrying would not be such hot news in America and many other countries in the world, at the moment.
[/quote]

I think the demise of the royals would have a resonably small impact on our tourist trade, As you so rightly point out we do have a lot of history and I think that that is our main foriegn tourist attraction. That and the fact that a lot of the Americans that visit decended from people in the UK and want to see where their folks came from. Plymouth gets a lot of US visitors to see where the pilgrims left for the new world. If the royals were to remain I would like to see them take a far more low profile position such as the Dutch Monarchy, where they are more like one of the common people. Lets face it, it is only recently the queen has agreed to pay tax on her massive investments. Why should they be allowed to make millions tax free? If you add up all what we pay out on the civil list, all that they should pay in taxes. We would not be much worse off by not having them. Then there was Edward & Sophie, seems she was lining her pockets because of her position. Edward a failed, Royal Marine, couldn't stand someone shouting at him....ahhhhhh. He must be a great disapointment to his Mum & Dad. Still we will keep paying him.

Sorry for rambling better stop now..[msnwink]

Steve & Dawn

chrizzy100

12-02-2005, 20:30

Well it looks like people have no worries about the marriage...but do not want them to be King and Consort..seems fair enough to me.....[msnsmile2]

Steve and Dawn

12-02-2005, 20:43

Americans and Japanese etc all going to Buckingham Palace, Oxford, Edinburgh, York, Windsor Bath, and the Lake District etc[/b][msnsmile2]

With respect Lucy,
Most of those places you mention are nothing to do with Royalty. Bath = Romans, York = Vikings, Oxford = Seats of learning etc...
All these things would still be there with or without the royals.

Steve & Dawn

Carla

12-02-2005, 20:50

I'm absolutely amazed that you believe now, and at the time, that a 32 year old, who was the most eligible bachelor in the world, at the time, would seek out a shy, naive and gauche 18 year old for his bride who shared none of his interests, if he had a completely free choice. Remember this was the early 80s when they married and finding a "suitable" girl without any sexual past, was not an easy task, in any circle!! He had a very limited choice, so Diana rose to the top of the list. Perhaps everyone did hope that this would be the romantic Fairy Tale of the century, and that they would fall in love, but they didn't - tough, such is life. It's not his fault and not her fault. If he'd left finding a wife for another 10 years he would still have had to end up marrying a chaste 18 year old girl with no previous relationships - would that have made him a dirty old man too?

He needed a wife to give him heirs and that wife had to be pure or her past would have been dragged through the newspapers for all to view and comment on. So the main fault lies with the hypocrisy and double standards surrounding Royalty, and a Nation that expected and still expects them all to be above, and beyond, any kind of reproach, even when that Nation's morals have well and truly gone down the pan.

Steve and Dawn

12-02-2005, 20:53

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by poohbear
thats what i have been told too carla..
also the polls show that people who object to the monarchy is only 19%...(a mere minority)
[/quote]

Which poll is that poohbear?

Steve & Dawn

ORLANDO_MAGIC

12-02-2005, 21:55

The poll below,taken by CNN shows what the vast majority of people think.

<span style="color:blue">How do you feel about Prince Charles marrying Camilla Parker Bowles?

Approve... 13% 35715 votes

Disapprove... 16% 44650 votes

Don't care... 71% 197301 votes

Total: 277666 votes</span id="blue">

jolliffee

12-02-2005, 22:16

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:
With respect Lucy,
Most of those places you mention are nothing to do with Royalty. Bath = Romans, York = Vikings, Oxford = Seats of learning etc...
All these things would still be there with or without the royals.

Steve & Dawn
[/quote]

If you track back through history you will find that royalty was part of life every where.

lets take Oxford: Alfred the Great's Oxford!
Alfred the Great was king of Wessex, and he led the Saxon resistance to the onslaught of Danish Viking invaders. Legends persist that Alfred was personally responsible for founding Oxford University. Given Alfred's unusual (for his time) interest in scholarship, this legend is not as unlikely as it may seem.

ANGLO-SAXON YORK
Over 300 years of Roman occupation of York ended about AD400 when Roman legions were withdrawn to serve in Gaul. In the 5th century, the Germanic tribes of the Anglo Saxons invaded the country. Despite the legendary recapture of York from the invaders by King Arthur, York became "Eoforwic", the centre of the independent kingdom of Northumbria, ruled by mighty Anglo-Saxon warlords.
One such warlord was Edwin, who reintroduced Christianity to Northumbria. He married a Christian princess from the South, who brought a priest called Paulinus to York. Paulinus babtised Edwin and many of his subjects on Easter Day 627 in a timber church. This was the first cathedral of the present York Minster, and Paulinus later became the first bishop of York.
By the eighth century "Eoforwic" dominated this part of Britain. But Northumbria was in decline, and in 866 was overrun by "Ivar the Boneless" and his hordes of Danish Vikings.

Bath: ever since the legendary Prince Bladud was restored to health around BC860 by the mysterious waters, people have journeyed there.

I think it most important that we don't leave throw away comments, that are without fact, unchallenged because therefore it would be assumed they are correct. A bit like watching Fox News!

I am not disapproving of your view (though I don't agree with it), currently this is a free country where mostly there is free speech but we do need to be factual at times.

poohbear

12-02-2005, 22:56

it was a poll that was stated on the television sorry i do not take all in as most of it is not worth knowing ..if you ask channel 3 perhaps they can explain a bit more than me.. sorry for my ignorance..

Steve and Dawn

12-02-2005, 23:35

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:

If you track back through history you will find that royalty was part of life every where.

lets take Oxford: Alfred the Great's Oxford!
Alfred the Great was king of Wessex, and he led the Saxon resistance to the onslaught of Danish Viking invaders. Legends persist that Alfred was personally responsible for founding Oxford University. Given Alfred's unusual (for his time) interest in scholarship, this legend is not as unlikely as it may seem.

ANGLO-SAXON YORK
Over 300 years of Roman occupation of York ended about AD400 when Roman legions were withdrawn to serve in Gaul. In the 5th century, the Germanic tribes of the Anglo Saxons invaded the country. Despite the legendary recapture of York from the invaders by King Arthur, York became "Eoforwic", the centre of the independent kingdom of Northumbria, ruled by mighty Anglo-Saxon warlords.
One such warlord was Edwin, who reintroduced Christianity to Northumbria. He married a Christian princess from the South, who brought a priest called Paulinus to York. Paulinus babtised Edwin and many of his subjects on Easter Day 627 in a timber church. This was the first cathedral of the present York Minster, and Paulinus later became the first bishop of York.
By the eighth century "Eoforwic" dominated this part of Britain. But Northumbria was in decline, and in 866 was overrun by "Ivar the Boneless" and his hordes of Danish Vikings.

Bath: ever since the legendary Prince Bladud was restored to health around BC860 by the mysterious waters, people have journeyed there.

I think it most important that we don't leave throw away comments, that are without fact, unchallenged because therefore it would be assumed they are correct. A bit like watching Fox News!

I am not disapproving of your view (though I don't agree with it), currently this is a free country where mostly there is free speech but we do need to be factual at times.

[/quote]

Are you saying that Foriegn Tourists flock to this country to see the Royal connections mentioned above? If you are then we have to agree to disagree, I am saying that France is also steeped in history, many places in comparison with those you mentioned. They do not have a Royal Family but tourists from around the globe visit France just the same. Although I do not say we should dispose of our Royalty the same way.:)

Steve & Dawn

Steve and Dawn

12-02-2005, 23:41

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by ORLANDO_MAGIC
The poll below,taken by CNN shows what the vast majority of people think.

<span style="color:blue">How do you feel about Prince Charles marrying Camilla Parker Bowles?

Approve... 13% 35715 votes

Disapprove... 16% 44650 votes

Don't care... 71% 197301 votes

Total: 277666 votes</span id="blue">

[/quote]

I would say by this poll the minority is people who approve.

Steve & Dawn

poohbear

12-02-2005, 23:55

polls show that people who object to the monarchy is only 19%...(a mere minority)
as above i was not talking about charles marrying camilla it clearly says people who object to the monarchy.

LiesaAnna

13-02-2005, 02:05

cant we find something else to chat about !!! we all going around in circles with this one!!!
ok so not all like the royal family, ok so some dont think they should marry! who cares!
some of us find it hard to forgive what he did to Diana, so what i have had enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![msntongue]

and who really cares??????????????

Nostromo

13-02-2005, 14:06

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Steve and Dawna resonably small impact [/b] on our tourist trade.
Steve & Dawn
[/quote]

I think it will be smaller than what some people believe, if at all. OK, so we claim that the Americans, Japanese et al come to the UK becuase of the Royals? But how many of those tourists actually get to see any Royal? Maybe 1 in 1000 would get a momentary glimpse of Charles being driven past or, if they are very "lucky", the queen waving from the palace balcony. Would they be spending thousands of dollars just for that? I doubt it. Almost all the visitors to the UK come here for its rich history which, while it includes Royalty, has very little to do with [i]this royal family. If this marriage leads to the demise of the Royal Family in the UK, they will simply become a part of the country's history and the visitors will look upon them as they now do on Edward the Confessor or Henry VIII. Places like Buckingham Palace can remain as relics of history and the fact that 'common' people like us can now pay and visit them properly may even increase both the tourist trade and tourist income.

chrizzy100

13-02-2005, 22:12

Most of the Americans I know love ....Stratford upon avon......its the place to go that tops London....so lets hope Shakespeare..never dies....[msnwink]

CarolAnn

13-02-2005, 23:12

Just to say my piece on this "Good Luck Charles & Camilla", life is too short, well it certainly was for your ex wife anyway.

Calamity Jane

14-02-2005, 00:31

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by CarolAnn
Just to say my piece on this "Good Luck Charles & Camilla", life is too short, well it certainly was for your ex wife anyway.
[/quote]

CarolAnn, I agree totally, a month ago yesterday I should have been meeting my maker, but got a second chance, I am sooooo looking at things very differently since then, and I truly do mean that. Life is too short and whilst you are on this earth you have to make the very best of everything.

Negativity never got anyone anywhere, so why doesn't everyone move forwards, you are all entitled to your own opinions of course but the outcome of this marriage wont change the way you live your own lives.

Smile and be happy with your lot in life and stop worrying about someone elses

Here endeth todays lesson :D:D

E. Cosgrove

14-02-2005, 01:41

you were certainly very lucky Karen and I'm sure it puts a whole different perspective on life.
I agree, live for today, life is not a dress rehearsal, you only get one chance so don't have any regrets.

trevlad

14-02-2005, 02:48

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by roger
There's nothing wrong with free speech - let's just try not to offend others though [msnsmile]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by poohbear
thanks trev they have removed my comments anyway.. no free speech on here only if you are anti royal!!!
[/quote]
[/quote]

thats good i thought i was losing it the other day. i saw poohs comment then replied and when i checked my comment was left on its own. i thought i'd made it up or put too much wine in my 'no point' vegetable diet soup!![msnsmile2]

poohbear

14-02-2005, 03:47

hehehe [laugh][laugh]

CarolAnn

14-02-2005, 17:32

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Calamity Jane
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by CarolAnn
Just to say my piece on this "Good Luck Charles & Camilla", life is too short, well it certainly was for your ex wife anyway.
[/quote]

CarolAnn, I agree totally, a month ago yesterday I should have been meeting my maker, but got a second chance, I am sooooo looking at things very differently since then, and I truly do mean that. Life is too short and whilst you are on this earth you have to make the very best of everything.

Negativity never got anyone anywhere, so why doesn't everyone move forwards, you are all entitled to your own opinions of course but the outcome of this marriage wont change the way you live your own lives.

Smile and be happy with your lot in life and stop worrying about someone elses

Here endeth todays lesson :D:D
[/quote]

:)Hi Karen, Hope you are fullly recovered now?
Above all wanted to say " Happy Anniversary today " See you joined the forum 3 years ago today?:)[clap][clap][clap][beer]