Charles and Camilla to marry.

Remove all ads!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252795.stm

Good luck to them!

Shame Charles didn't marry Camilla originally. Perhaps then we (and he.) would have been spared some of the less-dignified hoo-har of the last few decades.

 

What is "a service of prayer and dedication"? Does it mean the Anglican church will pray for the happiness of the union without granting a normal church wedding?

Hmm... and I thought she was already married when they first met. Other than that, I don't know why he would choose Diana over her if he actually loved Camilla. Wait, no, someone quoted on the right says he wasn't allowed to marry her. It seems they didn't allow him to marry Camilla but did to marry Diana. Strange. I'd rather they had allowed him to choose his wife from the beginning, especially given there was still a problem with Diana not being a royal. Even though she was a major noble (an earl family, even if not among the oldest or most celebrated earl families) while Camilla wasn't, the different is not much if we're talking royals on the other side. So it seems they changed their mind on things and didn't simply judge Diana more worthy than Camilla.

[ February 12, 2005, 01:01: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Essentially, yes.

 

Ah well, the past is the past, and they're all moving on. It's all fine with me. I see that she will now be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. Where do they come up with these titles?

 

It goes like Wales (principality), York (dukedom), Gloucester (dukedom), Kent (dukedom) for the current king's offspring in this order, but it's lifetime, so it needs to be "freed" to be re-assigned (that's why prince Edward got Earldom of Wessex instead of becoming the Duke of Gloucester, which is still occupied). The Duchy of Cornwall is tied to the Principality of Wales and it's supposed to be the tree on which the Prince of Wales's money grows.

 

Why ever was the Anglican church founded?
Talk about misguided Christians

 

Charles and Camilla? Seriously, are you guys even remotely interested?

 

I don't know what the fuss is all about - let them marry and be happy. They have as much right as everyone else.

 

Or how about we do away with the money hogging Royal Family? seriously, so much money would be saved in the U.K if we did.

 

Noooo! Think of all the tourist money we'd lose from the Americans - our USP over, say, France, is that we haven't beheaded our royals (yet).

Well, that and we're not "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", at least according to The Simpsons*

*I think that's where it was derived from ... correct me if I'm wrong!

 

I would dispute this claim. What about Mary I of Scotland? I believe that Henry VIII also had at least one of her wives beheaded. I hope I did not scare away any potential American tourists with this though.

EDIT: Ah, I see I misunderstood your post then. You meant beheading as in beheading all of the royals (or atleast enough of them so none of them dares to proclaim him/herself as the king/queen.

[ February 16, 2005, 23:24: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Actually the Royal Family generates a lot of money for the economy aside from tourism. They money for their upkeep goes to the Royal Treasuary, which generates millions in interest - so you would be loosing much by loosing the Royal Family.

 

@Morgoroth:

I didn't really mean that people would be scared off by the thought of us having beheaded them - hell, it's the gory bits of history that are the most interesting (which was better to learn at school: WWII or the agricultural revolution? Exactly.) - just that we have some live monarchy left, not just waxworks and deserted castles.

As for Henry VIII, the Tudors were particularly bloodthirsty (Mary & Elizabeth stand out, burning Protestant & Catholic respectively as though they'd never heard of firewood), and he did away with a couple of his wives when he had trouble sorting divorces through the Church. The whole Charles & Camilla thing seems rather tame in comparison.

 

The idea that the Royal Family personally have some bearing on the tourism of the country has always seemed to me to be one enormous load of crock - interestingly, no-one can ever produce a shread of evidence to support this.

It is also an extraordinarily bad argument in favour of keepng any political institution. There are far better arguments in favour of the retention of the monarchy than it.

@Cesard - I'm curious about this. I'm not disputing or anythng, but I've never actually heard of this process before. What are the details?

 

Dranalis, Taluntain is right. You only have to wander around London for a day to see that the crowds of tourists are all outside Buckingham Palace and the Horse Guards. Then throw in all the people at the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Hampton Court Palace.

 

And you are suggesting these people would not come if Britain did not have a Royal Family? Are you suggesting that these buildings, whoever owned them under a hypothetical republic, would be suddenly cut off from the public view?

Nonsense. People come to London because it's a vibrant, world-class, cultural city of epic spelndour. They visit London's - and Britain's - historic buildings for the reason that they are inherently a part of all that, Monarchy or no. Paris and Versailles are often cited here.

Frankly, I'm a bit insulted by notion that tourists only visit because they know that Buckingham Palace is the Queen's residence, or whatever. That both horribly demeans the intelligence of tourists, and it demeans London.

As I said, this argument is crock. I support the Monarchy, but this argument has always seemed to me to be the purest form of nonsense in favour of it.

 

So I am demeaning my own intelligence? Buckingham Palace was one of the places that I visited within 1 hour of leaving the airport on my first day in London, followed by the Horse Guards, followed by Tower of London, followed by Westminster Abbey and Houses of Parliament. We also went on a tour that pointed out where Prince Charles lived.

For many us from other countries, a living, breathing monarchy is an enormous novelty and therefore something we would pay money to catch a glimpse of.

 

When I visited London I took the 'Royal Tour' and loved it. I am of above average intelligence (just can't spell) . I then did a B&B off the normal tourist path. It was all great fun.

I feel sorry for the Royal Family. Especially those who will never be the Ruler. They have to conform to some Royal Standard. No wonder some of them do dumb things.