Discussion:
Camilla will be Queen - minister
(too old to reply)
Michael Rhodes
2005-03-21 15:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Camilla Parker Bowles will automatically become Queen when Prince
Charles succeeds to the throne, the government has confirmed.
Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie confirmed the status
of the marriage in a Commons reply to Labour backbencher Andrew
Mackinlay. Didn't all know this already?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm

Mrs Parker Bowles will be known as the Duchess of Cornwall after the
marriage.

When Charles becomes king, she will be known as Princess Consort rather
than as the Queen.

Thurrock MP Mr Mackinlay asked if next month's marriage was
"morganatic", which would mean that Mrs Parker Bowles would not
inherent the title of queen.

Mr Leslie said that it was not a morganatic marriage.

Government sources have said that legislation would be needed to
"comply with her wishes not to become queen".

Mr Mackinlay said such a legislation change "shouldn't be done for one
man and one man alone".
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-21 15:16:46 UTC
Permalink
We all knew she would. There was never any doubt...except for those who
believed the Princess Consort Wheeze...she will be Princess of Wales as
well, of course!
Michael Rhodes
2005-03-21 16:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
We all knew she would. There was never any doubt...except for those who
believed the Princess Consort Wheeze...she will be Princess of Wales as
well, of course!
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would be
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.

--
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-21 16:40:43 UTC
Permalink
But as the article points out, the Queen is frightened of any
legislation.....and Camilla has called herself The Queen for decades.
No one in their right mind fell for the scam put about by Chas' PR
minions.
They were desperate for acceptance...of the Promise 'em anything sort.
volcaran
2005-03-21 18:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
But as the article points out, the Queen is frightened of any
legislation.
Where does it say this?
Post by Psyche's Knot
....and Camilla has called herself The Queen for decades.
No one in their right mind fell for the scam put about by Chas' PR
minions.
What scam? They simply stated how she would be termed. There was never
a statment that she would not be de facto "POW" or "Queen".
Post by Psyche's Knot
They were desperate for acceptance...of the Promise 'em anything sort.
What promise? They simply stated how she would be styled.
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-21 18:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
But as the article points out, the Queen is frightened of any
legislation.
Volcaran bullied:
Where does it say this?

In another article this morning and HERE:
Queen opposes Bill for wedding
By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor
06 March 2005
The Queen is resisting pressure for an emergency Bill that would clear
the legal obstacle to the Prince of Wales's wedding because she fears
it would provide an opportunity for "republican mischief".
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=617272&host=3&dir=60

No one can be as ignorant as you play at Volcaran...or IF you are, keep
it to yourself.
volcaran
2005-03-21 23:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
But as the article points out, the Queen is frightened of any
legislation.
Where does it say this?
Queen opposes Bill for wedding
By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor
06 March 2005
The Queen is resisting pressure for an emergency Bill that would clear
the legal obstacle to the Prince of Wales's wedding because she fears
it would provide an opportunity for "republican mischief".
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=617272&host=3&dir=60
Post by volcaran
No one can be as ignorant as you play at Volcaran...or IF you are, keep
it to yourself.
So the article didn't say it then. Since you have now shown you can go
and dig up other references perhaps you could do the same for those
missing ones - you know the dodgy legal advice the audits etc.

PS Even the article you did quote doesn't say she is "frightened" of
any legislation.
George Knighton
2005-03-22 15:54:45 UTC
Permalink
That was two weeks ago. The horse might've talked since then. :P

I knew when the Prince of Wales first said that she would only be the
"Princess Consort" [sic] that this would be a problem.

Unless there is intervening legislation that receives Royal Assent
before the Queen's death, then the wife of the Prince of Wales is
automatically, instantly the Queen Consort on the death of the Queen
just as the Prince of Wales is instantly, automatically the King.

However, I believe that the minister is incorrect when he speculated
that legislation would be required by all realms of the Commonwealth in
this particular case, because the legislation could be passed before
the Queen's death.

A Queen Consort, although her title is a constitutional one embodied in
ancient law, does not form a part of the succession to the Crown.

The government of the United Kingdom is required to seek the counsel of
the other realms of the Commonwealth only on issues that affect the
actual succession to the Crown, the single body of the sovereign
himself/herself.

So the British Parliament could very well pass a law changing the style
and title of the consorts of the sovereigns, without actually altering
the succession, style and title of the Crown, and thereby averting the
need to take the counsel of and obtain the consent of the other realms
of the Commonwealth.

An alternative, of course, would be for the Court of St James to simply
ignore the legal reality and establish the precedent of calling the
wife of the soverign the Princess Consort. If that's what the King
wants to call his wife, then I doubt even the most offensively
republican media would offend him by ignoring his wishes.

She would still legally be the Queen, but to no harm since nobody would
call her that.

:shrug:

It's an idea.

They've already made tentative headway by publicising and gaining
acceptance for the wife of the Prince of Wales to style herself, Her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall even though centuries of
precedent and a couple of statutes seem to indicate that the wife of
the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales and nobody could actually
deny her that title.

The public, however, are already evidently accepting that the reality
of life and the reality of the law must not necessarily coincide to
gain their acceptance and, as we have proved for a thousand years in
Britain, (1)the voice of the people is the voice of God, and
(2)tradition and acceptance sometimes make the law.
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 16:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Knighton
That was two weeks ago. The horse might've talked since then. :P
I knew when the Prince of Wales first said that she would only be the
"Princess Consort" [sic] that this would be a problem.
Unless there is intervening legislation that receives Royal Assent
before the Queen's death, then the wife of the Prince of Wales is
automatically, instantly the Queen Consort on the death of the Queen
just as the Prince of Wales is instantly, automatically the King.
However, I believe that the minister is incorrect when he speculated
that legislation would be required by all realms of the Commonwealth in
this particular case, because the legislation could be passed before
the Queen's death.
A Queen Consort, although her title is a constitutional one embodied in
ancient law, does not form a part of the succession to the Crown.
The government of the United Kingdom is required to seek the counsel of
the other realms of the Commonwealth only on issues that affect the
actual succession to the Crown, the single body of the sovereign
himself/herself.
So the British Parliament could very well pass a law changing the style
and title of the consorts of the sovereigns, without actually altering
the succession, style and title of the Crown, and thereby averting the
need to take the counsel of and obtain the consent of the other realms
of the Commonwealth.
An alternative, of course, would be for the Court of St James to simply
ignore the legal reality and establish the precedent of calling the
wife of the soverign the Princess Consort. If that's what the King
wants to call his wife, then I doubt even the most offensively
republican media would offend him by ignoring his wishes.
She would still legally be the Queen, but to no harm since nobody would
call her that.
It's an idea.
They've already made tentative headway by publicising and gaining
acceptance for the wife of the Prince of Wales to style herself, Her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall even though centuries of
precedent and a couple of statutes seem to indicate that the wife of
the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales and nobody could actually
deny her that title.
The public, however, are already evidently accepting that the reality
of life and the reality of the law must not necessarily coincide to
gain their acceptance and, as we have proved for a thousand years in
Britain, (1)the voice of the people is the voice of God, and
(2)tradition and acceptance sometimes make the law.
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for Charles to
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.

KQ
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 16:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
That was two weeks ago. The horse might've talked since then. :P
I knew when the Prince of Wales first said that she would only be the
"Princess Consort" [sic] that this would be a problem.
Unless there is intervening legislation that receives Royal Assent
before the Queen's death, then the wife of the Prince of Wales is
automatically, instantly the Queen Consort on the death of the Queen
just as the Prince of Wales is instantly, automatically the King.
However, I believe that the minister is incorrect when he speculated
that legislation would be required by all realms of the Commonwealth in
this particular case, because the legislation could be passed before
the Queen's death.
A Queen Consort, although her title is a constitutional one embodied in
ancient law, does not form a part of the succession to the Crown.
The government of the United Kingdom is required to seek the counsel of
the other realms of the Commonwealth only on issues that affect the
actual succession to the Crown, the single body of the sovereign
himself/herself.
So the British Parliament could very well pass a law changing the style
and title of the consorts of the sovereigns, without actually altering
the succession, style and title of the Crown, and thereby averting the
need to take the counsel of and obtain the consent of the other realms
of the Commonwealth.
An alternative, of course, would be for the Court of St James to simply
ignore the legal reality and establish the precedent of calling the
wife of the soverign the Princess Consort. If that's what the King
wants to call his wife, then I doubt even the most offensively
republican media would offend him by ignoring his wishes.
She would still legally be the Queen, but to no harm since nobody would
call her that.
It's an idea.
They've already made tentative headway by publicising and gaining
acceptance for the wife of the Prince of Wales to style herself, Her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall even though centuries of
precedent and a couple of statutes seem to indicate that the wife of
the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales and nobody could actually
deny her that title.
The public, however, are already evidently accepting that the reality
of life and the reality of the law must not necessarily coincide to
gain their acceptance and, as we have proved for a thousand years in
Britain, (1)the voice of the people is the voice of God, and
(2)tradition and acceptance sometimes make the law.
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for Charles to
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
Sorry: one more thing. These lyrics from Pirates of Penzance come to mind
in re Charles' "she'll never be Queen" story:


"He's telling a terrible story,
But it doesn't diminish his glory,
For it's not in the same category
As telling a *regular* terrible story."

lol
KQ
Q
2005-03-22 17:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
That was two weeks ago. The horse might've talked since then. :P
I knew when the Prince of Wales first said that she would only be the
"Princess Consort" [sic] that this would be a problem.
Unless there is intervening legislation that receives Royal Assent
before the Queen's death, then the wife of the Prince of Wales is
automatically, instantly the Queen Consort on the death of the Queen
just as the Prince of Wales is instantly, automatically the King.
However, I believe that the minister is incorrect when he speculated
that legislation would be required by all realms of the Commonwealth in
this particular case, because the legislation could be passed before
the Queen's death.
A Queen Consort, although her title is a constitutional one embodied in
ancient law, does not form a part of the succession to the Crown.
The government of the United Kingdom is required to seek the counsel of
the other realms of the Commonwealth only on issues that affect the
actual succession to the Crown, the single body of the sovereign
himself/herself.
So the British Parliament could very well pass a law changing the style
and title of the consorts of the sovereigns, without actually altering
the succession, style and title of the Crown, and thereby averting the
need to take the counsel of and obtain the consent of the other realms
of the Commonwealth.
An alternative, of course, would be for the Court of St James to simply
ignore the legal reality and establish the precedent of calling the
wife of the soverign the Princess Consort. If that's what the King
wants to call his wife, then I doubt even the most offensively
republican media would offend him by ignoring his wishes.
She would still legally be the Queen, but to no harm since nobody would
call her that.
It's an idea.
They've already made tentative headway by publicising and gaining
acceptance for the wife of the Prince of Wales to style herself, Her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall even though centuries of
precedent and a couple of statutes seem to indicate that the wife of
the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales and nobody could actually
deny her that title.
The public, however, are already evidently accepting that the reality
of life and the reality of the law must not necessarily coincide to
gain their acceptance and, as we have proved for a thousand years in
Britain, (1)the voice of the people is the voice of God, and
(2)tradition and acceptance sometimes make the law.
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for
Charles
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
Sorry: one more thing. These lyrics from Pirates of Penzance come to mind
"He's telling a terrible story,
But it doesn't diminish his glory,
For they would have taken his daughters
Over the billowy waters
Post by KarenQuinlan
For it's not in the same category
As telling a *regular* terrible story."
The words you omitted make quite a bit of difference. In the one case,
somebody falsely pretended to be an orphan in order to protect his children,
and in the other, somebody has merely chosen to be known by one of her
lesser titles. I don't see that this is a lie in any sense of the word. --
Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
lol
KQ
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 17:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
That was two weeks ago. The horse might've talked since then. :P
I knew when the Prince of Wales first said that she would only be the
"Princess Consort" [sic] that this would be a problem.
Unless there is intervening legislation that receives Royal Assent
before the Queen's death, then the wife of the Prince of Wales is
automatically, instantly the Queen Consort on the death of the Queen
just as the Prince of Wales is instantly, automatically the King.
However, I believe that the minister is incorrect when he speculated
that legislation would be required by all realms of the Commonwealth
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
this particular case, because the legislation could be passed before
the Queen's death.
A Queen Consort, although her title is a constitutional one embodied
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
ancient law, does not form a part of the succession to the Crown.
The government of the United Kingdom is required to seek the counsel
of
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
the other realms of the Commonwealth only on issues that affect the
actual succession to the Crown, the single body of the sovereign
himself/herself.
So the British Parliament could very well pass a law changing the
style
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
and title of the consorts of the sovereigns, without actually altering
the succession, style and title of the Crown, and thereby averting the
need to take the counsel of and obtain the consent of the other realms
of the Commonwealth.
An alternative, of course, would be for the Court of St James to
simply
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
ignore the legal reality and establish the precedent of calling the
wife of the soverign the Princess Consort. If that's what the King
wants to call his wife, then I doubt even the most offensively
republican media would offend him by ignoring his wishes.
She would still legally be the Queen, but to no harm since nobody
would
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
call her that.
It's an idea.
They've already made tentative headway by publicising and gaining
acceptance for the wife of the Prince of Wales to style herself, Her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall even though centuries of
precedent and a couple of statutes seem to indicate that the wife of
the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales and nobody could actually
deny her that title.
The public, however, are already evidently accepting that the reality
of life and the reality of the law must not necessarily coincide to
gain their acceptance and, as we have proved for a thousand years in
Britain, (1)the voice of the people is the voice of God, and
(2)tradition and acceptance sometimes make the law.
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for
Charles
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in
the
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish
to
Post by volcaran
do
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
Sorry: one more thing. These lyrics from Pirates of Penzance come to
mind
Post by KarenQuinlan
"He's telling a terrible story,
But it doesn't diminish his glory,
For they would have taken his daughters
Over the billowy waters
Post by KarenQuinlan
For it's not in the same category
As telling a *regular* terrible story."
The words you omitted make quite a bit of difference. In the one case,
somebody falsely pretended to be an orphan in order to protect his children,
and in the other, somebody has merely chosen to be known by one of her
lesser titles. I don't see that this is a lie in any sense of the word. --
Q
I'm sure Charles (who falsely pretended to be a committed husband in order
to protect his crown) appreciates your slavish devotion. Did you get an
invite to the bash? What did they ask you to bring? I'm a dessert. I'm
bringing Rice Crispies bars, I think they'll reflect the elegance of the
occasion. I'm going to put some of those multi-colored baby marshmallows on
the top.

Good naturedly,
KQ
Q
2005-03-22 18:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Knighton
Post by volcaran
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
That was two weeks ago. The horse might've talked since then. :P
I knew when the Prince of Wales first said that she would only be
the
Post by volcaran
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
"Princess Consort" [sic] that this would be a problem.
Unless there is intervening legislation that receives Royal Assent
before the Queen's death, then the wife of the Prince of Wales is
automatically, instantly the Queen Consort on the death of the Queen
just as the Prince of Wales is instantly, automatically the King.
However, I believe that the minister is incorrect when he speculated
that legislation would be required by all realms of the Commonwealth
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
this particular case, because the legislation could be passed before
the Queen's death.
A Queen Consort, although her title is a constitutional one embodied
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
ancient law, does not form a part of the succession to the Crown.
The government of the United Kingdom is required to seek the counsel
of
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
the other realms of the Commonwealth only on issues that affect the
actual succession to the Crown, the single body of the sovereign
himself/herself.
So the British Parliament could very well pass a law changing the
style
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
and title of the consorts of the sovereigns, without actually
altering
Post by volcaran
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
the succession, style and title of the Crown, and thereby averting
the
Post by volcaran
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
need to take the counsel of and obtain the consent of the other
realms
Post by volcaran
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
of the Commonwealth.
An alternative, of course, would be for the Court of St James to
simply
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
ignore the legal reality and establish the precedent of calling the
wife of the soverign the Princess Consort. If that's what the King
wants to call his wife, then I doubt even the most offensively
republican media would offend him by ignoring his wishes.
She would still legally be the Queen, but to no harm since nobody
would
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
call her that.
It's an idea.
They've already made tentative headway by publicising and gaining
acceptance for the wife of the Prince of Wales to style herself, Her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall even though centuries of
precedent and a couple of statutes seem to indicate that the wife of
the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales and nobody could
actually
Post by volcaran
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
deny her that title.
The public, however, are already evidently accepting that the
reality
Post by volcaran
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
of life and the reality of the law must not necessarily coincide to
gain their acceptance and, as we have proved for a thousand years in
Britain, (1)the voice of the people is the voice of God, and
(2)tradition and acceptance sometimes make the law.
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for
Charles
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in
the
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish
to
Post by volcaran
do
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
Sorry: one more thing. These lyrics from Pirates of Penzance come to
mind
Post by KarenQuinlan
"He's telling a terrible story,
But it doesn't diminish his glory,
For they would have taken his daughters
Over the billowy waters
Post by KarenQuinlan
For it's not in the same category
As telling a *regular* terrible story."
The words you omitted make quite a bit of difference. In the one case,
somebody falsely pretended to be an orphan in order to protect his
children,
Post by volcaran
and in the other, somebody has merely chosen to be known by one of her
lesser titles. I don't see that this is a lie in any sense of the
word. --
Post by volcaran
Q
I'm sure Charles (who falsely pretended to be a committed husband in order
to protect his crown) appreciates your slavish devotion.
Do you think that husbands who wish to stray, or who actually do stray
should flaunt the fact before the entire world? Are you entirely sure that
once Diana had lovers of her own that she -- for reasons of her own
self-interest -- was in a big hurry to leave the marriage.
Post by George Knighton
Did you get an
invite to the bash? What did they ask you to bring?
A person doesn't have to like Charles (I certainly don't) to think that your
spiteful and exaggerated sense of "morality" is way over the top and is an
insult to most people -- not just Charles.
Post by George Knighton
I'm a dessert. I'm
bringing Rice Crispies bars,
"Krispies" -- with a K.

I think they'll reflect the elegance of the
Post by George Knighton
occasion. I'm going to put some of those multi-colored baby marshmallows on
the top.
Good naturedly,
-- but inaccurately -- Q
Post by George Knighton
KQ
Sacha
2005-03-22 17:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
That was two weeks ago. The horse might've talked since then. :P
I knew when the Prince of Wales first said that she would only be the
"Princess Consort" [sic] that this would be a problem.
Unless there is intervening legislation that receives Royal Assent
before the Queen's death, then the wife of the Prince of Wales is
automatically, instantly the Queen Consort on the death of the Queen
just as the Prince of Wales is instantly, automatically the King.
However, I believe that the minister is incorrect when he speculated
that legislation would be required by all realms of the Commonwealth in
this particular case, because the legislation could be passed before
the Queen's death.
A Queen Consort, although her title is a constitutional one embodied in
ancient law, does not form a part of the succession to the Crown.
The government of the United Kingdom is required to seek the counsel of
the other realms of the Commonwealth only on issues that affect the
actual succession to the Crown, the single body of the sovereign
himself/herself.
So the British Parliament could very well pass a law changing the style
and title of the consorts of the sovereigns, without actually altering
the succession, style and title of the Crown, and thereby averting the
need to take the counsel of and obtain the consent of the other realms
of the Commonwealth.
An alternative, of course, would be for the Court of St James to simply
ignore the legal reality and establish the precedent of calling the
wife of the soverign the Princess Consort. If that's what the King
wants to call his wife, then I doubt even the most offensively
republican media would offend him by ignoring his wishes.
She would still legally be the Queen, but to no harm since nobody would
call her that.
It's an idea.
They've already made tentative headway by publicising and gaining
acceptance for the wife of the Prince of Wales to style herself, Her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall even though centuries of
precedent and a couple of statutes seem to indicate that the wife of
the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales and nobody could actually
deny her that title.
The public, however, are already evidently accepting that the reality
of life and the reality of the law must not necessarily coincide to
gain their acceptance and, as we have proved for a thousand years in
Britain, (1)the voice of the people is the voice of God, and
(2)tradition and acceptance sometimes make the law.
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for Charles to
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
All she to do was say 'no thanks' when he proposed. And I think all these
predictions and huffing and puffing about what she will or won't be known
as, are rather premature and a bit of a waste of time, really. For many
years everyone (including me) was adamant that they wouldn't marry. Not
because everyone didn't want them to marry - though some didn't - but
because we were told it would never be accepted, the heir to the throne
couldn't re-marry etc. etc. Now we see that they are to be married, that
many people do accept it and that the heir to the throne can re-marry. In
other words, over a period of years, things change, attitudes either soften
or change altogether. And as the people get to know Camilla and more about
her, my guess is that they will find her a great deal more acceptable than
they had ever thought when she was being demonised.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Susan Cohen
2005-03-23 00:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for Charles to
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
All she to do was say 'no thanks' when he proposed.
I always thought that she never wanted to be Queen, & that*she* was behind
the reason they never married.
Mind you, it's all just a feeling.

SusanC
Sacha
2005-03-23 09:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for Charles to
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
All she to do was say 'no thanks' when he proposed.
I always thought that she never wanted to be Queen, & that*she* was behind
the reason they never married.
Mind you, it's all just a feeling.
SusanC
She's said she doesn't want to Queen but in fact, she will be. As you know,
that's what all the furore is about now. I think the whole thing has been
handled very clumsily and must say that greatly though I admire her, I do
blame the Queen for some of this. I think *she* should have taken a firm
hand in the planning of this wedding, Camilla's future titles etc. and told
the country herself, what exactly was the case, what the legalities are and
how Camilla would be titled. The divorce from Diana was unprecedented, the
death of Diana was unprecedented and the re-marriage of the PoW is
unprecedented. In such cases, I think the monarch should be *seen* to be
leading from the front, not just sitting quietly in the background.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-23 14:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for
Charles
Post by Sacha
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish
to
Post by Sacha
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
All she to do was say 'no thanks' when he proposed.
I always thought that she never wanted to be Queen, & that*she* was behind
the reason they never married.
Mind you, it's all just a feeling.
SusanC
She's said she doesn't want to Queen but in fact, she will be. As you know,
that's what all the furore is about now. I think the whole thing has been
handled very clumsily and must say that greatly though I admire her, I do
blame the Queen for some of this. I think *she* should have taken a firm
hand in the planning of this wedding, Camilla's future titles etc. and told
the country herself, what exactly was the case, what the legalities are and
how Camilla would be titled. The divorce from Diana was unprecedented, the
death of Diana was unprecedented and the re-marriage of the PoW is
unprecedented. In such cases, I think the monarch should be *seen* to be
leading from the front, not just sitting quietly in the background.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Sadly, maybe we are seeing that she's not as young as she used to be. Maybe
she just doesn't have the energy. Depression doesn't respect titles.
Remember how she was after the fire?

KQ
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-03-23 15:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Sadly, maybe we are seeing that she's not as young as she used to be. Maybe
she just doesn't have the energy. Depression doesn't respect titles.
Remember how she was after the fire?
KQ
diagnosing the Queen as "depressed" is one giant leap for the imagination.

js
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-23 15:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by KarenQuinlan
Sadly, maybe we are seeing that she's not as young as she used to be.
Maybe
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by KarenQuinlan
she just doesn't have the energy. Depression doesn't respect titles.
Remember how she was after the fire?
KQ
diagnosing the Queen as "depressed" is one giant leap for the imagination.
js
I didn't diagnose. How could I? But it's not so giant a leap, js.
Sacha
2005-03-23 17:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Sacha
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for
Charles
Post by Sacha
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish
to
Post by Sacha
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
All she to do was say 'no thanks' when he proposed.
I always thought that she never wanted to be Queen, & that*she* was
behind
Post by Sacha
Post by Susan Cohen
the reason they never married.
Mind you, it's all just a feeling.
SusanC
She's said she doesn't want to Queen but in fact, she will be. As you
know,
Post by Sacha
that's what all the furore is about now. I think the whole thing has been
handled very clumsily and must say that greatly though I admire her, I do
blame the Queen for some of this. I think *she* should have taken a firm
hand in the planning of this wedding, Camilla's future titles etc. and
told
Post by Sacha
the country herself, what exactly was the case, what the legalities are
and
Post by Sacha
how Camilla would be titled. The divorce from Diana was unprecedented,
the
Post by Sacha
death of Diana was unprecedented and the re-marriage of the PoW is
unprecedented. In such cases, I think the monarch should be *seen* to be
leading from the front, not just sitting quietly in the background.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Sadly, maybe we are seeing that she's not as young as she used to be. Maybe
she just doesn't have the energy. Depression doesn't respect titles.
Remember how she was after the fire?
KQ
I don't think this is depression. She was very sad after the Windsor fire
because they think of Windsor as 'home' and BP as 'the office'. But she's
not a person given to much introspection and is much more of the "pull
yourself together" brigade. That generation that went through the war tend
to be more like that, IME.
I think it's HM's well-known tendency to sit back and let family matters
sort themselves out. The problem with this is that it's not just a family
matter, of course. But the Pss Margaret/Townsend business was a
constitution rocker and I've read in one of the biographies that the QM
pretty much took to her bed and the Queen waited for it all to be sorted out
in its own good time and refused to make much out of it with her sister, so
as to avoid a family row. She's in a very difficult position, of course as
a mother and a sovereign but I do think this is where she needs to be seen
to be leading from the front. I think part of the reason for her reticence
is that - reportedly - she lets Prince Philip deal with family concerns,
disciplines, issues etc. and that may be the case here. Or perhaps she is
wanting Prince Charles to realise that there is more to this marriage than
just popping off to the register office, as several here have advocated in
their time. Who knows?
But we've had various reports that she wants them to be married so that the
entire situation is tidied up, as it's obviously not going to go away. IF
that is so, then I think a clear lead from her would help everybody.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-03-23 15:18:01 UTC
Permalink
She[Camilla]'s said she doesn't want to Queen but in fact, she will be. As you know,
that's what all the furore is about now. I think the whole thing has been
blame the Queen for some of this. I think *she* should have taken a firm
hand in the planning of this wedding, Camilla's future titles etc. and told
the country herself, what exactly was the case, what the legalities are and
how Camilla would be titled. The divorce from Diana was unprecedented, the
death of Diana was unprecedented and the re-marriage of the PoW is
unprecedented. In such cases, I think the monarch should be *seen* to be
leading from the front, not just sitting quietly in the background.
Although that is not the style of Elizabeth Windsor-Mountbatten, it
should have been the style of Queen Elizabeth II. I quite agree. Had she
done announcement or even issued a longer note than the usual "My
husband and I are delighted...." it would have made a great deal of
difference.

In her defense, once children pass 50 and are marrying for a second
time, it does seem a little silly for Mother to handle the engagement
details!

This is the conundrum of the royals; they are expected to be above the
people and also part of them.

js
Sacha
2005-03-23 17:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
She[Camilla]'s said she doesn't want to Queen but in fact, she will be. As you know,
that's what all the furore is about now. I think the whole thing has been
blame the Queen for some of this. I think *she* should have taken a firm
hand in the planning of this wedding, Camilla's future titles etc. and told
the country herself, what exactly was the case, what the legalities are and
how Camilla would be titled. The divorce from Diana was unprecedented, the
death of Diana was unprecedented and the re-marriage of the PoW is
unprecedented. In such cases, I think the monarch should be *seen* to be
leading from the front, not just sitting quietly in the background.
Although that is not the style of Elizabeth Windsor-Mountbatten, it
should have been the style of Queen Elizabeth II. I quite agree. Had she
done announcement or even issued a longer note than the usual "My
husband and I are delighted...." it would have made a great deal of
difference.
In her defense, once children pass 50 and are marrying for a second
time, it does seem a little silly for Mother to handle the engagement
details!
This is the conundrum of the royals; they are expected to be above the
people and also part of them.
js
It's quite interesting to see all this going on. On the one hand you have
plenty of people who, in more humdrum times say that the royals should be
just like us, down to earth, do as they please, be in touch with modernity
etc. but when it comes to precedents, there seems to be a strong faction
that disagrees with that altogether! One of the problems with being part of
a royal family that is not despotic (and I'm sure they must wish at times
that they were!) is that fine line that has to be trodden between 'being
just like everyone else' and actually, being the royal family that they are
and that we (here) want them to be.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-03-23 19:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
One of the problems with being part of
a royal family that is not despotic (and I'm sure they must wish at times
that they were!) is that ...
Don't we all? I know whose head would roll first.

js
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-23 19:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Sacha
One of the problems with being part of
a royal family that is not despotic (and I'm sure they must wish at times
that they were!) is that ...
Don't we all? I know whose head would roll first.
js
Whose? Whom do you want to see killed? (And... yuck.)

KQ
Q
2005-03-22 17:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by George Knighton
That was two weeks ago. The horse might've talked since then. :P
I knew when the Prince of Wales first said that she would only be the
"Princess Consort" [sic] that this would be a problem.
Unless there is intervening legislation that receives Royal Assent
before the Queen's death, then the wife of the Prince of Wales is
automatically, instantly the Queen Consort on the death of the Queen
just as the Prince of Wales is instantly, automatically the King.
However, I believe that the minister is incorrect when he speculated
that legislation would be required by all realms of the Commonwealth in
this particular case, because the legislation could be passed before
the Queen's death.
A Queen Consort, although her title is a constitutional one embodied in
ancient law, does not form a part of the succession to the Crown.
The government of the United Kingdom is required to seek the counsel of
the other realms of the Commonwealth only on issues that affect the
actual succession to the Crown, the single body of the sovereign
himself/herself.
So the British Parliament could very well pass a law changing the style
and title of the consorts of the sovereigns, without actually altering
the succession, style and title of the Crown, and thereby averting the
need to take the counsel of and obtain the consent of the other realms
of the Commonwealth.
An alternative, of course, would be for the Court of St James to simply
ignore the legal reality and establish the precedent of calling the
wife of the soverign the Princess Consort. If that's what the King
wants to call his wife, then I doubt even the most offensively
republican media would offend him by ignoring his wishes.
She would still legally be the Queen, but to no harm since nobody would
call her that.
It's an idea.
They've already made tentative headway by publicising and gaining
acceptance for the wife of the Prince of Wales to style herself, Her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall even though centuries of
precedent and a couple of statutes seem to indicate that the wife of
the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales and nobody could actually
deny her that title.
The public, however, are already evidently accepting that the reality
of life and the reality of the law must not necessarily coincide to
gain their acceptance and, as we have proved for a thousand years in
Britain, (1)the voice of the people is the voice of God, and
(2)tradition and acceptance sometimes make the law.
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for Charles to
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen.
I think that Charles & Co. have made it clear that the decision was
Camilla's to be known by a title other than "Queen." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
yD
2005-03-23 17:10:53 UTC
Permalink
KarenQuinlan wrote:
... snipped to point and for space ...
Post by KarenQuinlan
It's slowly sinking in what a massive insult it is to Camilla for Charles to
publicly guarantee that she won't ever claim to be Queen. It's not in the
same league with "... to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do
without the help and support of the woman I love." Small and sad all
around.
KQ
It is, rather, isn't it? Even if you believe neither Charles nor
statements from CH, it is indeed "small and sad" to stand by while your
future husband assures the world that you will never be or have what
you are legally entitled to be. OTOH I don't think there's anything
small or sad about Mrs. Parker Bowles herself.
yD
Susan Cohen
2005-03-22 00:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
But as the article points out, the Queen is frightened of any
legislation.....and Camilla has called herself The Queen for decades.
Oh really? And how many decades would that be exactly?
Post by Psyche's Knot
No one in their right mind fell for the scam put about by Chas' PR
minions.
You are not in your right mind, PK.

Susan
yD
2005-03-21 16:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Psyche's Knot
We all knew she would. There was never any doubt...except for those
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
believed the Princess Consort Wheeze...she will be Princess of
Wales
Post by Michael Rhodes
as
Post by Psyche's Knot
well, of course!
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would be
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
I can understand her choosing not to use "The Princess of Wales," but I
firmly believe that when and if Charles is crowned, regardless of what
is said now, she will be 'known' and will be called Queen Camilla
rather than Princess Consort.
yD -- opinions are not facts
Post by Michael Rhodes
--
Michael Rhodes
2005-03-21 17:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Psyche's Knot
We all knew she would. There was never any doubt...except for those
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
believed the Princess Consort Wheeze...she will be Princess of
Wales
Post by Michael Rhodes
as
Post by Psyche's Knot
well, of course!
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would
be
Post by Michael Rhodes
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
I can understand her choosing not to use "The Princess of Wales," but I
firmly believe that when and if Charles is crowned, regardless of what
is said now, she will be 'known' and will be called Queen Camilla
rather than Princess Consort.
yD -- opinions are not facts
Post by Michael Rhodes
--
I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-21 18:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Michael Rhodes Mar 21, 9:56 am

Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty, alt.talk.royalty
From: "Michael Rhodes" <***@yahoo.co.uk

I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.

So do I. She will be Princess of Wales...why not call her that ?
Will Harding
2005-03-23 11:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Michael Rhodes Mar 21, 9:56 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty, alt.talk.royalty
I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.
So do I. She will be Princess of Wales...why not call her that ?
I couldn't agree more. I mean, every institution has rules and
traditions, and while those most affected by them may wish otherwise,
they really should just get on with it. The PR offensive is just too
blatant. Aren't those who proclaim themselves "devoted to the memory
of Diana" now entering that weird phase, like those people who stand
outside whatever courtroom Michael Jackson happens to be appearing in?

She will be the Pss of Wales, and should be called that, and she will
be queen, and should be called that.

WH
Sacha
2005-03-23 12:05:08 UTC
Permalink
On 23/3/05 11:25, in article
Post by Will Harding
Post by Psyche's Knot
Michael Rhodes Mar 21, 9:56 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty, alt.talk.royalty
I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.
So do I. She will be Princess of Wales...why not call her that ?
I couldn't agree more. I mean, every institution has rules and
traditions, and while those most affected by them may wish otherwise,
they really should just get on with it. The PR offensive is just too
blatant. Aren't those who proclaim themselves "devoted to the memory
of Diana" now entering that weird phase, like those people who stand
outside whatever courtroom Michael Jackson happens to be appearing in?
She will be the Pss of Wales, and should be called that, and she will
be queen, and should be called that.
WH
I do agree with this. All this fandangling around is unnecessary and a bit
silly, IMO.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Susan Cohen
2005-03-23 17:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
On 23/3/05 11:25, in article
Post by Will Harding
She will be the Pss of Wales, and should be called that, and she will
be queen, and should be called that.
I do agree with this. All this fandangling around is unnecessary and a bit
silly, IMO.
If an outsider's opinion counts for anything, I think it's worse than that -
it's setting a dangerous, damaging precedent; telling the world that the
title "Princess of Wales" belongs to one person.

SusanC
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-03-23 21:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
On 23/3/05 11:25, in article
Harding"
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
Post by Will Harding
She will be the Pss of Wales, and should be called that, and she will
be queen, and should be called that.
I do agree with this. All this fandangling around is unnecessary
and a
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
bit
silly, IMO.
If an outsider's opinion counts for anything, I think it's worse than that -
it's setting a dangerous, damaging precedent; telling the world that the
title "Princess of Wales" belongs to one person.
SusanC
No one seems ever to consider the possibility that Diana's sons do not
want their stepmother to be to have their late mother's title. Of
course I have no evidence that that is the case, but I feel it is
possible.Most people have at least a slight problem with one of their
parent's re-marrying and presenting them with a "new" mother or father
in place of the real one but in this case the whole world knows the sad
story of their father preferring Camilla to their mother. To have their
stepmother bearing their mother's title, which of course is practically
the same as their dead mother's name as she was referred to as The
Princess of Wales, could well be more than they could deal with. I feel
it is at least possible that the decision not to refer to Camilla after
her marriage as The Princess of Wales may be at least as much out of
deference to their wishes and sensitivity to their feelings as to any
perception that the public would not like it.
Breton
2005-03-23 21:55:51 UTC
Permalink
The title "The Princess of Wales" did not belong to Diana, and was held
by others before Diana, and will doubtless be held by others after
Camilla. So Prince William and Prince Harry don't have a say in who
holds that title. It's entirely possible that the Queen decided that
Camilla would be Duchess of Cornwall because of their sensitivity but I
doubt it. After all, one day there could be a future Princess of Wales
as William's spouse. Should that person be denied it too? How long do
we weep and wail for Diana?

Breton

yD
2005-03-23 16:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Harding
Post by Psyche's Knot
Michael Rhodes Mar 21, 9:56 am
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty, alt.talk.royalty
I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.
So do I. She will be Princess of Wales...why not call her that ?
I couldn't agree more. I mean, every institution has rules and
traditions, and while those most affected by them may wish otherwise,
they really should just get on with it. The PR offensive is just too
blatant. Aren't those who proclaim themselves "devoted to the memory
of Diana" now entering that weird phase, like those people who stand
outside whatever courtroom Michael Jackson happens to be appearing in?
She will be the Pss of Wales, and should be called that, and she will
be queen, and should be called that.
I think she's far too sensible to take the title of the woman whose
husband she took, it's a question of taste; as for "Queen," she will be
and will be called and referred to as Her Majesty Queen Camilla, when
and if Charles takes the throne!
yD
Post by Will Harding
WH
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-23 18:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Of course you're right, she must be called by her appropiate
title....but Camilla's followers are far more like those of
Jacko's....no matter how sandoulous and riff raffy she is...they
'uphold' her in their grubby little minds.....
As Princess of Wales, Camilla will finally be challenged to become a
Lady rather than a tart.
yD
2005-03-21 18:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by yD
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Psyche's Knot
We all knew she would. There was never any doubt...except for
those
Post by yD
Post by Michael Rhodes
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
believed the Princess Consort Wheeze...she will be Princess of
Wales
Post by Michael Rhodes
as
Post by Psyche's Knot
well, of course!
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would
be
Post by Michael Rhodes
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
I can understand her choosing not to use "The Princess of Wales,"
but
Post by Michael Rhodes
I
Post by yD
firmly believe that when and if Charles is crowned, regardless of
what
Post by yD
is said now, she will be 'known' and will be called Queen Camilla
rather than Princess Consort.
yD -- opinions are not facts
Post by Michael Rhodes
--
I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.
I don't think she has the balls to announce herself, or have someone
announce it on her behalf, that she will be known as Camilla, The
Princess of Wales. Nope. No sir, no way.
yD
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-03-21 20:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
I don't think she has the balls to announce herself, or have someone
announce it on her behalf, that she will be known as Camilla, The
Princess of Wales. Nope. No sir, no way.
yD
I sincerely hope she is never Camilla, The Princess of Wales since that
would mean Charles was dead or they were divorced.

As his wife, she is The Princess of Wales.

js
Sacha
2005-03-21 21:14:15 UTC
Permalink
On 21/3/05 5:56 pm, in article
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by yD
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Psyche's Knot
We all knew she would. There was never any doubt...except for
those
Post by yD
Post by Michael Rhodes
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
believed the Princess Consort Wheeze...she will be Princess of
Wales
Post by Michael Rhodes
as
Post by Psyche's Knot
well, of course!
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would
be
Post by Michael Rhodes
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
I can understand her choosing not to use "The Princess of Wales," but
I
Post by yD
firmly believe that when and if Charles is crowned, regardless of
what
Post by yD
is said now, she will be 'known' and will be called Queen Camilla
rather than Princess Consort.
yD -- opinions are not facts
Post by Michael Rhodes
--
I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.
I agree but I do understand why that isn't the chosen course.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Susan Cohen
2005-03-21 21:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
On 21/3/05 5:56 pm, in article
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.
I agree but I do understand why that isn't the chosen course.
How major a breach of etiquette would it be to refer to her as Princess of
Wales after their marriage? It is (among other things) extremely strange to
have it that calling someone by her proper title is wrong!!

SusanC
Sacha
2005-03-21 22:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
On 21/3/05 5:56 pm, in article
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.
I agree but I do understand why that isn't the chosen course.
How major a breach of etiquette would it be to refer to her as Princess of
Wales after their marriage? It is (among other things) extremely strange to
have it that calling someone by her proper title is wrong!!
SusanC
As to breach of etiquette, I have no idea. But I can only say/imagine that
people are entitled to be called as they wish to be know. And as it has
been stated that Mrs PB will be the Duchess of Cornwall, I suspect (don't
know) that it would be an insult to the Queen to call her The Princess of
Wales.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Candide
2005-03-22 11:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
Post by Susan Cohen
Post by Sacha
On 21/3/05 5:56 pm, in article
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think she should be known as Princess of Wales from Apl 8 and then
eventually Queen.
I agree but I do understand why that isn't the chosen course.
How major a breach of etiquette would it be to refer to her as Princess of
Wales after their marriage? It is (among other things) extremely strange to
have it that calling someone by her proper title is wrong!!
SusanC
As to breach of etiquette, I have no idea. But I can only say/imagine that
people are entitled to be called as they wish to be know. And as it has
been stated that Mrs PB will be the Duchess of Cornwall, I suspect (don't
know) that it would be an insult to the Queen to call her The Princess of
Wales.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
What one chooses to be called is one thing, what one's legal name and
titles is another. Legally Camilla will be Princess of Wales and see no
"offence" given by anyone referring to her in that manner. Especially
those who are doing so because the are from the "old school" in ways of
thinking in terms of etiquette or diplomatic core.

Personally would LOVE for some one in the media to refer to Camilla as
Pss of W after her marriage. Would send the Diana-maniacs howling up a
tree. Camilla has more rights to be called Pss of Wales than the late
Diana, Princess of Wales to be called "Princess Diana".

Candide
--
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent Texas."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
General William T. Sherman
Candide
2005-03-22 11:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Psyche's Knot
We all knew she would. There was never any doubt...except for those
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
believed the Princess Consort Wheeze...she will be Princess of
Wales
Post by Michael Rhodes
as
Post by Psyche's Knot
well, of course!
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would
be
Post by Michael Rhodes
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
I can understand her choosing not to use "The Princess of Wales," but I
firmly believe that when and if Charles is crowned, regardless of what
is said now, she will be 'known' and will be called Queen Camilla
rather than Princess Consort.
yD -- opinions are not facts
If the daughter of an earl can be turned into a princess not "princess
consort" by the media and public, Camilla will surely be known as
"queen" regardless.

Candide
--
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent Texas."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
General William T. Sherman
Sacha
2005-03-21 21:13:20 UTC
Permalink
On 21/3/05 4:13 pm, in article
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Psyche's Knot
We all knew she would. There was never any doubt...except for those
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
believed the Princess Consort Wheeze...she will be Princess of Wales
as
Post by Psyche's Knot
well, of course!
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would be
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
--
But of course. This is like the Earl of Kilmorey choosing to be Mr Richard
Needham, surely? Or at the very least, similar? The reasons may differ but
the effect is the same.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Peter Tilman
2005-03-21 21:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
On 21/3/05 4:13 pm, in article
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Psyche's Knot
We all knew she would. There was never any doubt...except for those
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
believed the Princess Consort Wheeze...she will be Princess of Wales
as
Post by Psyche's Knot
well, of course!
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would be
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
--
But of course. This is like the Earl of Kilmorey choosing to be Mr Richard
Needham, surely? Or at the very least, similar? The reasons may differ but
the effect is the same.
It would be more like the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry suddenly
deciding that "Duke" is far too grand a title and announcing that henceforth
he is to be called the Marquess of Dumfriesshire. Not using any titles at
all is one thing, but refusing to use the most senior one whilst being
perfectly happy to use the others is rather strange, in my opinion.
Susan Cohen
2005-03-22 00:48:39 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Sacha
Post by Sacha
But of course. This is like the Earl of Kilmorey choosing to be Mr
Richard
Post by Sacha
Needham, surely? Or at the very least, similar? The reasons may
differ
Post by Sacha
but
Post by Sacha
the effect is the same.
It would be more like the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry suddenly
deciding that "Duke" is far too grand a title and announcing that henceforth
he is to be called the Marquess of Dumfriesshire. Not using any titles at
all is one thing, but refusing to use the most senior one whilst being
perfectly happy to use the others is rather strange, in my opinion.
I would find using all the titles you are entitled to as strange.

Susan
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-22 05:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Of course it is Peter, and is merely an attempt to Dupe, knowing the
people don't want her as Queen. So they improvise...to no purpose.
t***@nyc.rr.com
2005-03-22 02:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
On 21/3/05 4:13 pm, in article
Rhodes"
Post by Sacha
Post by Michael Rhodes
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would be
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
--> But of course. This is like the Earl of Kilmorey choosing to
be Mr Richard
Post by Sacha
Needham, surely? Or at the very least, similar? The reasons may differ but
the effect is the same.
It isnot that uncommon in the UK (or the US for that matter) for women
TO CHOOSE how they wish to be known. I recall seeing a notice in The
Times (The Marchioness of ....wishes it to be known..) years ago to
that effect. One even went back to a previous (I believe dead)
husband's title (Maureen M of Dufferin & Ava)....and if her late
Majesty Queen Elizabeth called her that...
It's like little Lady What-not- as much of a stickler for proper form
(out of politeness and courtesy) as I am, for the same reasons I honor
the wishes of those who wish to be called something other.
The enemies of the Monarchy are using all this to score points. The
idea that this Labour backbencher really cares about this is laughable.
If he's so concerned about the other two points he mentioned
(primogeniture and the no RC rule), I presume this latest Bill has a
chance?

Thomas

Thomas
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 02:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Sacha
On 21/3/05 4:13 pm, in article
Rhodes"
Post by Sacha
Post by Michael Rhodes
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would
be
Post by Sacha
Post by Michael Rhodes
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
...
Post by Psyche's Knot
It isnot that uncommon in the UK (or the US for that matter) for women
TO CHOOSE how they wish to be known. ...> Thomas
Thomas
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.

KQ
Gary Holtzman
2005-03-22 03:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 03:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?

KQ
Tom
2005-03-22 03:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
Only one thing is for sure, and that is Diana is looking down and
laughing out loud at all of this nonsense. She must be very happy that
eight years on she continues to be the little s**t disturber she always
was. : )

Tom
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-22 04:55:17 UTC
Permalink
And always without even trying, Tom, just like now....not even here and
yet........
Lovely to Cya ! =)
yD
2005-03-22 15:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
Only one thing is for sure, and that is Diana is looking down and
laughing out loud at all of this nonsense. She must be very happy that
eight years on she continues to be the little s**t disturber she always
was. : )
Tom
Well, I think she was considered to be a s**t disturber but I'm not at
all sure that she was. There were those at the time who considered
cPB, not Diana, to be the ruin of the monarchy, or bringing the
monarchy into disrepute, I don't know how many, if any, have changed
their minds. I do like the idea of her looking down and laughing,
though. That's what I'm planning to do :)
yD
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
t***@nyc.rr.com
2005-03-22 16:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Looking down? Are you SURE?? If she is laughing, that just shows how
changeable she is (was)... in her last interview a few weeks before
her death she expressed a wish her ex-husband make an 'honest woman'
out of Mrs PB.
And I don't think it's proper to refer to a dead person as a slut.

Thomas
yD
2005-03-22 15:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 15:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and her
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed away in
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an airing,
as you see.

Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That fact --
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill -- my
interest in British royalty. And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such morals-bereft
individuals. Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and then to observe them in this pickle, bowing
to such ... cruds. It makes me sad.

KQ
Q
2005-03-22 17:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and her
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed away in
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an airing,
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That fact --
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill -- my
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such morals-bereft
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of "morals"
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who reared
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher conferences -- and
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the affair to
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little about as
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 17:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and her
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed away in
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an airing,
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill -- my
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such morals-bereft
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of "morals"
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who reared
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher conferences -- and
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the affair to
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little about as
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place to use
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to decide
that time and place.

"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when they
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.

KQ
Sacha
2005-03-22 17:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and her
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed away
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill --
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such morals-bereft
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of "morals"
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who reared
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher conferences --
and
Post by KarenQuinlan
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the affair
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little about
as
Post by KarenQuinlan
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place to use
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to decide
that time and place.
And the reader gets to decide when they're rudely unnecessary.
Post by KarenQuinlan
"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when they
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.
Like Diana with Will Carling and Oliver Hoare, you mean?
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 17:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and her
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed away
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill --
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such morals-bereft
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of "morals"
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who reared
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher
conferences --
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
and
Post by KarenQuinlan
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the affair
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little about
as
Post by KarenQuinlan
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place to use
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to decide
that time and place.
And the reader gets to decide when they're rudely unnecessary.
Post by KarenQuinlan
"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when they
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.
Like Diana with Will Carling and Oliver Hoare, you mean?
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
I don't believe it was Diana who broke that marriage. And I don't think you
do either.

KQ
Sacha
2005-03-22 18:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and
her
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill --
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such morals-bereft
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of "morals"
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who
reared
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher
conferences --
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
and
Post by KarenQuinlan
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the
affair
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little
about
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
as
Post by KarenQuinlan
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place to
use
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to
decide
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
that time and place.
And the reader gets to decide when they're rudely unnecessary.
Post by KarenQuinlan
"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when
they
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.
Like Diana with Will Carling and Oliver Hoare, you mean?
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
I don't believe it was Diana who broke that marriage. And I don't think you
do either.
KQ
You mean you don't *want* to think I believe that but you are wrong. I
think it quite possible she had as much to do with the breaking of that
marriage as Mrs PB did with Diana's. And Julia Carling blamed her for a
great deal of it, too - just as Diana did with Mrs PB. I am one of those
who thinks that whatever happened in any of these marriages we will, most
truly, never really know. I don't think whatever words are written by those
involved most closely, or whatever comments their friends make, are of any
serious, down to the nitty-gritty, consequence. Very few people are going
to put their hand up and admit they were impossible to live with, unkind,
nasty, sarcastic, critical and determined to be unfaithful from the start
and I don't think any of those involved in the deterioration and end of the
royal marriage and those on its periphery are any different.
In the end, peoples' marriages break up for many different reasons and 'the
other woman/man' is often a symptom not the disease. Of course, in some
cases, infidelity is the disease because some think it of no consequence at
all - utterly unimportant but happen to have married a partner who sees
things in a different light! IOW, while we all gossip and chitter on about
it, no one of us actually knows what caused those marriages to break down
and the partners to them to look elsewhere.
And, Karen, what you *really* wanted to say was that *you* don't want to
believe it was Diana who broke that marriage. *I* think that's the
business of all those involved and as I've said, an imponderable in any
case. And BTW, I think too that all this is 8 years ago and it's time to
let go of it. I am very suspicious of the motives and personal apparent
angst of people clinging to the wreckage of others' marriages, so far down
the line. Diana is dead, Charles isn't, his sons have moved on and have
even asked everyone else to leave their mother's memory alone. I can speak
only for myself but I would loathe to think that when I die I become the
energy source for so much hatred.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 18:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and
her
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill --
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such
morals-bereft
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of "morals"
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who
reared
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher
conferences --
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
and
Post by KarenQuinlan
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the
affair
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little
about
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
as
Post by KarenQuinlan
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place to
use
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to
decide
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
that time and place.
And the reader gets to decide when they're rudely unnecessary.
Post by KarenQuinlan
"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when
they
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.
Like Diana with Will Carling and Oliver Hoare, you mean?
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
I don't believe it was Diana who broke that marriage. And I don't think you
do either.
KQ
You mean you don't *want* to think I believe that but you are wrong. I
think it quite possible she had as much to do with the breaking of that
marriage as Mrs PB did with Diana's. And Julia Carling blamed her for a
great deal of it, too - just as Diana did with Mrs PB. I am one of those
who thinks that whatever happened in any of these marriages we will, most
truly, never really know. I don't think whatever words are written by those
involved most closely, or whatever comments their friends make, are of any
serious, down to the nitty-gritty, consequence. Very few people are going
to put their hand up and admit they were impossible to live with, unkind,
nasty, sarcastic, critical and determined to be unfaithful from the start
and I don't think any of those involved in the deterioration and end of the
royal marriage and those on its periphery are any different.
In the end, peoples' marriages break up for many different reasons and 'the
other woman/man' is often a symptom not the disease. Of course, in some
cases, infidelity is the disease because some think it of no consequence at
all - utterly unimportant but happen to have married a partner who sees
things in a different light! IOW, while we all gossip and chitter on about
it, no one of us actually knows what caused those marriages to break down
and the partners to them to look elsewhere.
And, Karen, what you *really* wanted to say was that *you* don't want to
believe it was Diana who broke that marriage. *I* think that's the
business of all those involved and as I've said, an imponderable in any
case. And BTW, I think too that all this is 8 years ago and it's time to
let go of it. I am very suspicious of the motives and personal apparent
angst of people clinging to the wreckage of others' marriages, so far down
the line. Diana is dead, Charles isn't, his sons have moved on and have
even asked everyone else to leave their mother's memory alone. I can speak
only for myself but I would loathe to think that when I die I become the
energy source for so much hatred.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I wasn't careful when I said "that
marriage." I was thinking of the marriage between Charles and Diana. I

Events happen over time in sequence, influenced or not by previous events.
All we can do to understand, sometimes, is parse things as best we can: what
happened first, and did that event contribute to the following events?
We'll never know what Diana would have done had Charles honestly entered
into a marriage with an intent to be faithful to it. We'll never know who
would have done what if he had signified his intent to end the marriage and
left it before he dabbled elsewhere. We only know that Charles did not do
those things. Cause, response and effect are pure speculation, of course.

Q
Sacha
2005-03-22 22:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and
her
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe
kill --
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such
morals-bereft
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of
"morals"
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who
reared
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher
conferences --
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
and
Post by KarenQuinlan
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the
affair
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little
about
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
as
Post by KarenQuinlan
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place
to
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
use
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to
decide
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
that time and place.
And the reader gets to decide when they're rudely unnecessary.
Post by KarenQuinlan
"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when
they
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.
Like Diana with Will Carling and Oliver Hoare, you mean?
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
I don't believe it was Diana who broke that marriage. And I don't think
you
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
do either.
KQ
You mean you don't *want* to think I believe that but you are wrong. I
think it quite possible she had as much to do with the breaking of that
marriage as Mrs PB did with Diana's. And Julia Carling blamed her for a
great deal of it, too - just as Diana did with Mrs PB. I am one of those
who thinks that whatever happened in any of these marriages we will, most
truly, never really know. I don't think whatever words are written by
those
Post by Sacha
involved most closely, or whatever comments their friends make, are of any
serious, down to the nitty-gritty, consequence. Very few people are going
to put their hand up and admit they were impossible to live with, unkind,
nasty, sarcastic, critical and determined to be unfaithful from the start
and I don't think any of those involved in the deterioration and end of
the
Post by Sacha
royal marriage and those on its periphery are any different.
In the end, peoples' marriages break up for many different reasons and
'the
Post by Sacha
other woman/man' is often a symptom not the disease. Of course, in some
cases, infidelity is the disease because some think it of no consequence
at
Post by Sacha
all - utterly unimportant but happen to have married a partner who sees
things in a different light! IOW, while we all gossip and chitter on
about
Post by Sacha
it, no one of us actually knows what caused those marriages to break down
and the partners to them to look elsewhere.
And, Karen, what you *really* wanted to say was that *you* don't want to
believe it was Diana who broke that marriage. *I* think that's the
business of all those involved and as I've said, an imponderable in any
case. And BTW, I think too that all this is 8 years ago and it's time to
let go of it. I am very suspicious of the motives and personal apparent
angst of people clinging to the wreckage of others' marriages, so far down
the line. Diana is dead, Charles isn't, his sons have moved on and have
even asked everyone else to leave their mother's memory alone. I can
speak
Post by Sacha
only for myself but I would loathe to think that when I die I become the
energy source for so much hatred.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I wasn't careful when I said "that
marriage." I was thinking of the marriage between Charles and Diana.
And there I'm afraid we part. I think both were enormously to blame for the
failure of their marriage and I think Diana and Charles were both very
difficult to be married to because, quite simply, each was married to the
wrong person. I think they saw something in each other before marriage that
just didn't exist and Diana's words - if they are to be believed, I know! -
are that they were alone together 13 times before they got engaged. The
entire thing was utterly ridiculous and ALL of us - the whole of Her
Majesty's Realms and Dominions - should learn from that and hang tabloid
editors from the nearest lamp post. Or at least cut off their drinking
allowances! ;-)
Post by KarenQuinlan
Events happen over time in sequence, influenced or not by previous events.
All we can do to understand, sometimes, is parse things as best we can: what
happened first, and did that event contribute to the following events?
We'll never know what Diana would have done had Charles honestly entered
into a marriage with an intent to be faithful to it. We'll never know who
would have done what if he had signified his intent to end the marriage and
left it before he dabbled elsewhere. We only know that Charles did not do
those things. Cause, response and effect are pure speculation, of course.
Q
"Q"? - have you now changed IDs?!! ;-)
Well, I believe Charles entered the marriage with every intention of it
being a real marriage. I think both of them did. Charles is dutiful and
honest and sometimes his honesty is to his own detriment and the press go
for him over GM crops or architecture or education or sewage or whatever but
he does stick to his guns. Because he does that in the face of real
ridicule at times and has so often been proved right, I'm inclined to trust
him as as an honest broker. And please do remember that we see and read a
good deal more over here than you do in USA, which is *very* Diana
orientated.
He appears not to be a 'change with the wind' sort of person. So I see no
reason why he'd have lied over his intentions to be properly married.
Letters of his showing his pride in Diana and his love for their children
and family life show that, IMO. Diana herself said they were in love. I
think they were but had thought themselves into it because it was expedient.
He wanted a wife, she - perhaps - wanted to succeed where her sister had
failed and to please her family. I do think that, while it's desirable for
the heir to the throne to wed and produce children, sometimes we lose sight
of the fact that there was no actual urgency. Fate has seen to it that the
male animal can engender young up until the last breath, almost and
sometimes right along with it...... And of course, the PoW has 3 siblings
and umpteen cousins. We are unlikely ever to be without a Sovereign, after
all. Now - we should look at the Grimaldis and see where they stand in
this particular field.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 23:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and
her
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla."
That
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe
kill --
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such
morals-bereft
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of
"morals"
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who
reared
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher
conferences --
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
and
Post by KarenQuinlan
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the
affair
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little
about
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
as
Post by KarenQuinlan
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place
to
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
use
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to
decide
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
that time and place.
And the reader gets to decide when they're rudely unnecessary.
Post by KarenQuinlan
"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when
they
Post by Sacha
Post by KarenQuinlan
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.
Like Diana with Will Carling and Oliver Hoare, you mean?
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
I don't believe it was Diana who broke that marriage. And I don't think
you
Post by Sacha
Post by Q
do either.
KQ
You mean you don't *want* to think I believe that but you are wrong. I
think it quite possible she had as much to do with the breaking of that
marriage as Mrs PB did with Diana's. And Julia Carling blamed her for a
great deal of it, too - just as Diana did with Mrs PB. I am one of those
who thinks that whatever happened in any of these marriages we will, most
truly, never really know. I don't think whatever words are written by
those
Post by Sacha
involved most closely, or whatever comments their friends make, are of any
serious, down to the nitty-gritty, consequence. Very few people are going
to put their hand up and admit they were impossible to live with, unkind,
nasty, sarcastic, critical and determined to be unfaithful from the start
and I don't think any of those involved in the deterioration and end of
the
Post by Sacha
royal marriage and those on its periphery are any different.
In the end, peoples' marriages break up for many different reasons and
'the
Post by Sacha
other woman/man' is often a symptom not the disease. Of course, in some
cases, infidelity is the disease because some think it of no consequence
at
Post by Sacha
all - utterly unimportant but happen to have married a partner who sees
things in a different light! IOW, while we all gossip and chitter on
about
Post by Sacha
it, no one of us actually knows what caused those marriages to break down
and the partners to them to look elsewhere.
And, Karen, what you *really* wanted to say was that *you* don't want to
believe it was Diana who broke that marriage. *I* think that's the
business of all those involved and as I've said, an imponderable in any
case. And BTW, I think too that all this is 8 years ago and it's time to
let go of it. I am very suspicious of the motives and personal apparent
angst of people clinging to the wreckage of others' marriages, so far down
the line. Diana is dead, Charles isn't, his sons have moved on and have
even asked everyone else to leave their mother's memory alone. I can
speak
Post by Sacha
only for myself but I would loathe to think that when I die I become the
energy source for so much hatred.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I wasn't careful when I said "that
marriage." I was thinking of the marriage between Charles and Diana.
And there I'm afraid we part. I think both were enormously to blame for the
failure of their marriage and I think Diana and Charles were both very
difficult to be married to because, quite simply, each was married to the
wrong person. I think they saw something in each other before marriage that
just didn't exist and Diana's words - if they are to be believed, I know! -
are that they were alone together 13 times before they got engaged. The
entire thing was utterly ridiculous and ALL of us - the whole of Her
Majesty's Realms and Dominions - should learn from that and hang tabloid
editors from the nearest lamp post. Or at least cut off their drinking
allowances! ;-)
Post by KarenQuinlan
Events happen over time in sequence, influenced or not by previous events.
All we can do to understand, sometimes, is parse things as best we can: what
happened first, and did that event contribute to the following events?
We'll never know what Diana would have done had Charles honestly entered
into a marriage with an intent to be faithful to it. We'll never know who
would have done what if he had signified his intent to end the marriage and
left it before he dabbled elsewhere. We only know that Charles did not do
those things. Cause, response and effect are pure speculation, of course.
Q
"Q"? - have you now changed IDs?!! ;-)
Well, I believe Charles entered the marriage with every intention of it
being a real marriage. I think both of them did. Charles is dutiful and
honest and sometimes his honesty is to his own detriment and the press go
for him over GM crops or architecture or education or sewage or whatever but
he does stick to his guns. Because he does that in the face of real
ridicule at times and has so often been proved right, I'm inclined to trust
him as as an honest broker. And please do remember that we see and read a
good deal more over here than you do in USA, which is *very* Diana
orientated.
He appears not to be a 'change with the wind' sort of person. So I see no
reason why he'd have lied over his intentions to be properly married.
Letters of his showing his pride in Diana and his love for their children
and family life show that, IMO. Diana herself said they were in love. I
think they were but had thought themselves into it because it was expedient.
He wanted a wife, she - perhaps - wanted to succeed where her sister had
failed and to please her family. I do think that, while it's desirable for
the heir to the throne to wed and produce children, sometimes we lose sight
of the fact that there was no actual urgency. Fate has seen to it that the
male animal can engender young up until the last breath, almost and
sometimes right along with it...... And of course, the PoW has 3 siblings
and umpteen cousins. We are unlikely ever to be without a Sovereign, after
all. Now - we should look at the Grimaldis and see where they stand in
this particular field.
--
Sacha
Very persuasive, across the board. I remember when they returned from their
honeymoon they seemed very taken with each other. And for a few appearances
after that. I seem to remember a newswriter observing that Charles seemed
"obviously besotted" with his wife. And there was some occasion in Wales
where he worried aloud whether she'd get rained on... again, press observing
how caring he seemed to be toward her. Then, so soon... poof. (And I don't
mean "poof" the way Brits use it!)

Thanks again for another thoughtful reply.

Regards,
KQ (certainly not "Q," perhaps I typo'ed.)
Q
2005-03-22 18:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and her
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill --
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such morals-bereft
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of "morals"
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who reared
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher conferences --
and
Post by KarenQuinlan
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the affair
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little
about
Post by KarenQuinlan
as
Post by KarenQuinlan
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place to use
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to decide
that time and place.
That's true. And the readers get to decided how to respond.
Post by KarenQuinlan
"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when they
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.
Oh, "innocent children?" I guess in KarenWorld, "children" are always
"innocent" How about "innocent children" whose implied "rights" override
everything else in the universe?

Again, you are pretending to insult Charles and Camilla, but you are really
insulting every divorced parent who reads the self-righteous tripe you
post. -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 18:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and
her
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill --
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such
morals-bereft
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of "morals"
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who
reared
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher
conferences --
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
and
Post by KarenQuinlan
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the affair
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little
about
Post by KarenQuinlan
as
Post by KarenQuinlan
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place to
use
Post by KarenQuinlan
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to decide
that time and place.
That's true. And the readers get to decided how to respond.
Post by KarenQuinlan
"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when
they
Post by KarenQuinlan
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.
Oh, "innocent children?" I guess in KarenWorld, "children" are always
"innocent" How about "innocent children" whose implied "rights" override
everything else in the universe?
Again, you are pretending to insult Charles and Camilla, but you are really
insulting every divorced parent who reads the self-righteous tripe you
post. -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Q, But stifle your hysterics. I've never said other than people who are
currently in marriage agreements have an obligation to keep them. I walk my
talk. You seem to want a license up front and a blessing after the fact to
trash your marriage(s). Go for it. Hurt anyone in your path. Mow them
down.

Yes, I think little children are "innocent" in the sense that they don't
break their parents' marriages and they have a reasonable right to hope for
a home with a father and a mother in it. This is not a novel idea among
civilized folk.

KQ
Q
2005-03-22 19:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she
isn't
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Queen,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
LOL
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Gary Holtzman
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
Kingdom?
KQ
Commonwealth -- but it's still funny!
yD
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and
her
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla."
That
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe
kill --
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Post by KarenQuinlan
And I can't entirely explain why-- maybe it
becomes personally embarassing to be interested in such
morals-bereft
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
individuals.
Why do you think they are morals-bereft? What is your idea of
"morals"
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
anyway? Don't you think of Mrs. PB as a housewife and mother, who
reared
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
two children, cooked their meals, attended parent-teacher
conferences --
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
and
Post by KarenQuinlan
happened to be having an affair? Is she entirely defined by the
affair
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
to
Post by KarenQuinlan
you, or does the rest of her life count also?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Maybe it's because I have always loved England and been biased
toward the English people... and
What makes me sad is that somebody who claims she teaches English to
American schoolchildren would refer to people she knows very little
about
Post by KarenQuinlan
as
Post by KarenQuinlan
"cruds." -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Not schoolchildren. And fear no art, Q. There's a time and a place to
use
Post by KarenQuinlan
thudding, incongruous words like "cruds." And the writer gets to
decide
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
that time and place.
That's true. And the readers get to decided how to respond.
Post by KarenQuinlan
"Morals-bereft" in my opinion includes people who don't step back when
they
Post by KarenQuinlan
see that a marriage has been formed and innocent children are in the
equation.
Oh, "innocent children?" I guess in KarenWorld, "children" are always
"innocent" How about "innocent children" whose implied "rights" override
everything else in the universe?
Again, you are pretending to insult Charles and Camilla, but you are
really
Post by Q
insulting every divorced parent who reads the self-righteous tripe you
post. -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Q, But stifle your hysterics. I've never said other than people who are
currently in marriage agreements have an obligation to keep them. I walk my
talk. You seem to want a license up front and a blessing after the fact to
trash your marriage(s). Go for it. Hurt anyone in your path. Mow them
down.
Is your position that you are blindly against all divorces?
Post by KarenQuinlan
Yes, I think little children are "innocent"
I see that "innocent children" have now morphed into "little children."
Kitchy-coo. You do deal in cliches quite a lot.
Post by KarenQuinlan
in the sense that they don't
break their parents' marriages and they have a reasonable right to hope for
a home with a father and a mother in it. This is not a novel idea among
civilized folk.
And especially, people who call themselves "civilized" but are in reality
pompous, spiteful and punishing. -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 19:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
Is your position that you are blindly against all divorces?
How ridiculous. I do think that divorce -- or at least separation -- should
precede setting up housekeeping with another woman. (Or man.)

KQ
Q
2005-03-22 20:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Q
Is your position that you are blindly against all divorces?
How ridiculous. I do think that divorce -- or at least separation -- should
precede setting up housekeeping with another woman. (Or man.)
CPB did not share a residence with Charles until after the divorce. She
maintained a separate home until fairly recently.

If you're saying that married people should not shack up with others, I
agree with that. But how dire does the punishment have to be in the event
that they do so, particularly in an instance such as this, where all parties
to both marriages were behaving in more or less the same way and also, that
all of these parties have forgiven each other.

And if divorce and separation are permissible, then what becomes of the
previously-mentioned "innocent little childre?" Regardless of the time
when the separate households are set up, they will still experience
unimaginable suffering because Mummy and Daddy are not glaring at each other
over the dinner table. -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-23 19:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Sadly, Karen, these people are devoid of scruples themselves....and
only rush to pledge their allegiance to Royals because they are
desperate to be Defenders of the Filth Charles is composed of......
They are Charliacs....no moral compass....contriving to be seen as a
remnant of his entourage, failing to see the degradation they wallow in.
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 17:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and her
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed away in
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an airing,
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill -- my
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Q
Why don't you want me to post here? What would I have to think and say in
order to be acceptable to you? What's "quondam" about you? What did you
used to be that you aren't now?

KQ
Q
2005-03-22 18:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and her
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill --
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Q
Why don't you want me to post here?
I don't care if you post here or not. I thought it was comical -- and kind
of overreaching -- of you to assume that Charles and Camilla would care
whether a person such as yourself retained her interest in royalty.
Post by KarenQuinlan
What would I have to think and say in
order to be acceptable to you?
You would have to be less judgmental of other people's lives and you would
have to abandon your notion that lack of moral perfection -- as you define
it -- needs to be punished.
Post by KarenQuinlan
What's "quondam" about you?
It is just an abstract word -- a preposition -- that has no spare baggage
attached to it, unlike your pseudonym which suggests gender and ethnicity.
Post by KarenQuinlan
What did you
used to be that you aren't now?
A child. -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 19:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and
her
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla." That
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe kill --
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Q
Why don't you want me to post here?
I don't care if you post here or not. I thought it was comical -- and kind
of overreaching -- of you to assume that Charles and Camilla would care
whether a person such as yourself retained her interest in royalty.
Post by KarenQuinlan
What would I have to think and say in
order to be acceptable to you?
You would have to be less judgmental of other people's lives and you would
have to abandon your notion that lack of moral perfection -- as you define
it -- needs to be punished.
Post by KarenQuinlan
What's "quondam" about you?
It is just an abstract word -- a preposition -- that has no spare baggage
attached to it, unlike your pseudonym which suggests gender and ethnicity.
Post by KarenQuinlan
What did you
used to be that you aren't now?
A child. -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
I chose a female name because I am female and would feel strange posting
under a male name. Ethnicity is not the point of my pseudonym. Perhaps you
are too young to catch the allusion. Google it.


As for "quondam," it's not a preposition, of course. You MUST be punished
for making that mistake. lol

(I don't know why you would think I think people need to be punished. Lack
of reward does not, it seems to me, equal punishment.)
KQ
Q
2005-03-22 20:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Whatever happened to the term "empire?" (As it relates Britain and
her
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
nebulous multi-national 'gonnections'.) Was it just quietly filed
away
Post by KarenQuinlan
in
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
embarassment? I still like it and bring it out occasionaly for an
airing,
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
as you see.
Thinking today as I read more headlines about "Queen Camilla."
That
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
fact --
Post by KarenQuinlan
her becoming Queen -- will really subdue my interest -- maybe
kill --
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
my
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by KarenQuinlan
interest in British royalty.
Does that mean you'll stop posting here?
Q
Why don't you want me to post here?
I don't care if you post here or not. I thought it was comical -- and
kind
Post by Q
of overreaching -- of you to assume that Charles and Camilla would care
whether a person such as yourself retained her interest in royalty.
Post by KarenQuinlan
What would I have to think and say in
order to be acceptable to you?
You would have to be less judgmental of other people's lives and you would
have to abandon your notion that lack of moral perfection -- as you define
it -- needs to be punished.
Post by KarenQuinlan
What's "quondam" about you?
It is just an abstract word -- a preposition -- that has no spare baggage
attached to it, unlike your pseudonym which suggests gender and ethnicity.
Post by KarenQuinlan
What did you
used to be that you aren't now?
A child. -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
I chose a female name because I am female and would feel strange posting
under a male name. Ethnicity is not the point of my pseudonym. Perhaps you
are too young to catch the allusion. Google it.
I did not say that that was why you chose your pseudonym. I have no idea
why you chose it. My point is only that yours carries more spare baggage
suggesting an identity than mine does.

I'm familiar with the allusion: brain-dead woman being kept alive by
artificial means.
Post by KarenQuinlan
As for "quondam," it's not a preposition, of course. You MUST be punished
for making that mistake. lol
Indeed I must. Note, however, that it has a broader range of usage in Latin
than it has in English.
Post by KarenQuinlan
(I don't know why you would think I think people need to be punished.
Lack
Post by KarenQuinlan
of reward does not, it seems to me, equal punishment.)
For people who love each other to be forced to remain unmarried forever
because of some long-past -- and also long-forgiven -- behavior is a
punishment. - Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 20:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
What's "quondam" about you?
It is just an abstract word -- a preposition -- that has no spare
baggage
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Q
attached to it, unlike your pseudonym which suggests gender and
ethnicity.
Post by KarenQuinlan
As for "quondam," it's not a preposition, of course. You MUST be punished
for making that mistake. lol
Indeed I must. Note, however, that it has a broader range of usage in Latin
than it has in English.
It's not a preposition in Latin.
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
(I don't know why you would think I think people need to be punished.
Lack
Post by KarenQuinlan
of reward does not, it seems to me, equal punishment.)
For people who love each other to be forced to remain unmarried forever
because of some long-past -- and also long-forgiven -- behavior is a
punishment. - Q
Q: I think they should be married. I have never said otherwise. You have
me confused with some other Karen Quinlan.

KQ
Q
2005-03-23 15:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
What's "quondam" about you?
It is just an abstract word -- a preposition -- that has no spare
baggage
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Q
attached to it, unlike your pseudonym which suggests gender and
ethnicity.
Post by KarenQuinlan
As for "quondam," it's not a preposition, of course. You MUST be
punished
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
for making that mistake. lol
Indeed I must. Note, however, that it has a broader range of usage in
Latin
Post by Q
than it has in English.
It's not a preposition in Latin.
Did the Romans have parts of speech, as such, or are they a merely modern
tool for teaching language?

The word "quondam" certainly has a more limited use in English than it had
in Latin.
Post by Q
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
(I don't know why you would think I think people need to be punished.
Lack
Post by KarenQuinlan
of reward does not, it seems to me, equal punishment.)
For people who love each other to be forced to remain unmarried forever
because of some long-past -- and also long-forgiven -- behavior is a
punishment. - Q
Q: I think they should be married. I have never said otherwise. You have
me confused with some other Karen Quinlan.
You wrote about not rewarding adulterers, which suggests you wish to see
Charles and Camilla be punished in some way. And you repeatedly suggested
that the Catholic church might object to the marriage -- as if it mattered.
Those are the things that cause one to believe either that you'd like this
marriage to be scuttled, or else that Charles be forced to give up the
throne.

I don't know any other Karen Quinlans that I might confuse you with. But
I'm glad to hear that you think Charles and Camilla should be married. -- Q
Post by Q
KQ
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-23 15:52:04 UTC
Permalink
You wrote .......... which suggests you wish ........
......
......... And you repeatedly suggested......things that cause one to
believe........
Q, my little "preposition,"

that sort of thing is generally trasyjournalistically, sleazy in terms of
debate technique and sloppy communication in general.

In written argumentation, what people write is what you see. If you think
that their writing raises questions about what they think or believe or wish
or... anything, then ask them. And proceed accordingly. Your repeated
technique of "You wrote X but you think Y so I'm trashing you" is either
ignorant or stupidly abusive. In either case, I don't want to play.

KQ
Q
2005-03-23 17:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
You wrote .......... which suggests you wish ........
......
......... And you repeatedly suggested......things that cause one to
believe........
Q, my little "preposition,"
that sort of thing is generally trasyjournalistically, sleazy in terms of
debate technique and sloppy communication in general.
No it isn't. You are what you write. You carried on about "decency", you
called Charles and Camilla "cruds," you've sought loopholes whereby the
marriage might be fraudulant.

I think you've provided an adequate roadmap of your opinions and your
agenda.
Post by KarenQuinlan
In written argumentation, what people write is what you see. If you think
that their writing raises questions about what they think or believe or wish
or... anything, then ask them. And proceed accordingly. Your repeated
technique of "You wrote X but you think Y so I'm trashing you" is either
ignorant or stupidly abusive. In either case, I don't want to play.
You don't have that choice. -- Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
yD
2005-03-23 17:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
You wrote .......... which suggests you wish ........
......
......... And you repeatedly suggested......things that cause one to
believe........
Q, my little "preposition,"
that sort of thing is generally trasyjournalistically, sleazy in terms of
debate technique and sloppy communication in general.
No it isn't. You are what you write. You carried on about
"decency", you
Post by Q
called Charles and Camilla "cruds," you've sought loopholes whereby the
marriage might be fraudulant.
She's giving her opinion.
Post by Q
I think you've provided an adequate roadmap of your opinions and your
agenda.
Your phrasing says you don't agree with her opinion, but you have not
shown that she has an agenda -- just because you say she has doesn't
mean she does have. In any event, you don't say what that agenda, if
there is one, might be.
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
In written argumentation, what people write is what you see. If you think
that their writing raises questions about what they think or
believe or
Post by Q
wish
Post by KarenQuinlan
or... anything, then ask them. And proceed accordingly. Your repeated
technique of "You wrote X but you think Y so I'm trashing you" is either
ignorant or stupidly abusive. In either case, I don't want to play.
You don't have that choice. -- Q
Yes, she does.
yD
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Q
2005-03-23 17:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
You wrote .......... which suggests you wish ........
......
......... And you repeatedly suggested......things that cause one
to
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
believe........
Q, my little "preposition,"
that sort of thing is generally trasyjournalistically, sleazy in
terms of
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
debate technique and sloppy communication in general.
No it isn't. You are what you write. You carried on about
"decency", you
Post by Q
called Charles and Camilla "cruds," you've sought loopholes whereby
the
Post by Q
marriage might be fraudulant.
She's giving her opinion.
Yes.....and? This board is also about opinions, no? But she's saying these
are *not* her opinions. So what are we to believe?
Post by Candide
Post by Q
I think you've provided an adequate roadmap of your opinions and
your
Post by Q
agenda.
Your phrasing says you don't agree with her opinion, but you have not
shown that she has an agenda -- just because you say she has doesn't
mean she does have. In any event, you don't say what that agenda, if
there is one, might be.
Perhaps we have different notions of the use of "agenda." What I am
talking about is a "wish list." I don't suppose that she expects that she
can cause something to happen by posting here.
Post by Candide
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
In written argumentation, what people write is what you see. If
you think
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
that their writing raises questions about what they think or
believe or
Post by Q
wish
Post by KarenQuinlan
or... anything, then ask them. And proceed accordingly. Your
repeated
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
technique of "You wrote X but you think Y so I'm trashing you" is
either
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
ignorant or stupidly abusive. In either case, I don't want to
play.
Post by Q
You don't have that choice. ->
Yes, she does.
She need not read my responses to her posts, and she doesn't have to engage
in a dialogue with me. Those are the choices she does have.

She doesn't have the choice of causing me to stop responding to what she
posts, whether her posts are directed to me or not, or whether she reads
what I write or not.

In other words, if she doesn't respond, that won't stop me from posting if I
have something I wish to say. -- Q
Post by Candide
yD
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
KQ
Sacha
2005-03-23 17:53:42 UTC
Permalink
On 23/3/05 17:14, in article
Post by Candide
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
You wrote .......... which suggests you wish ........
......
......... And you repeatedly suggested......things that cause one
to
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
believe........
Q, my little "preposition,"
that sort of thing is generally trasyjournalistically, sleazy in
terms of
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
debate technique and sloppy communication in general.
No it isn't. You are what you write. You carried on about
"decency", you
Post by Q
called Charles and Camilla "cruds," you've sought loopholes whereby
the
Post by Q
marriage might be fraudulant.
She's giving her opinion.
Post by Q
I think you've provided an adequate roadmap of your opinions and
your
Post by Q
agenda.
Your phrasing says you don't agree with her opinion, but you have not
shown that she has an agenda -- just because you say she has doesn't
mean she does have. In any event, you don't say what that agenda, if
there is one, might be.
By anyone's standards, this is a very convoluted sentence! Not only has
Karen Q made it very clear what her attitude and position is, Q is quite
right about it, IMO. Naturally, she's entitled to her opinion and on the
whole and with few lapses, she's expressed herself politely and well, IMO.
But I think her attitude to the British royal family is extremely clear,
Annie.
Post by Candide
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
In written argumentation, what people write is what you see. If
you think
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
that their writing raises questions about what they think or
believe or
Post by Q
wish
Post by KarenQuinlan
or... anything, then ask them. And proceed accordingly. Your
repeated
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
technique of "You wrote X but you think Y so I'm trashing you" is
either
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
ignorant or stupidly abusive. In either case, I don't want to
play.
Post by Q
You don't have that choice. -- Q
Yes, she does.
yD
Actually no, she doesn't. If she continues posting here, others have every
right to post rebuttals. Whether she chooses to acknowledge their posts or
not is her only choice.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-03-23 01:17:54 UTC
Permalink
<<SNIP"
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
What's "quondam" about you?
It is just an abstract word -- a preposition -- that has no spare baggage
attached to it, unlike your pseudonym IPwhich suggests gender and ethnicity.
I think I sent this to you and kate earlier; any ideas?
I've often wondered why someone would choose the name of Karen (Ann)
Quinlan for an email name?

js
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-23 01:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
<<SNIP"
Post by Q
Post by KarenQuinlan
What's "quondam" about you?
It is just an abstract word -- a preposition -- that has no spare baggage
attached to it, unlike your pseudonym IPwhich suggests gender and ethnicity.
I think I sent this to you and kate earlier; any ideas?
I've often wondered why someone would choose the name of Karen (Ann)
Quinlan for an email name?
js
Because "Jean Sue Libkind" was taken?

KQ
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-03-23 15:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
I've often wondered why someone would choose the name of Karen (Ann)
Quinlan for an email name?
js
Because "Jean Sue Libkind" was taken?
KQ
Touche <LOL>

js
Morgana
2005-03-22 20:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
Empire?
--
Gary Holtzman
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Must be a Star Wars fan.
Sacha
2005-03-22 09:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Sacha
On 21/3/05 4:13 pm, in article
Rhodes"
Post by Sacha
Post by Michael Rhodes
But they did say from the outset that without legislation she would
be
Post by Sacha
Post by Michael Rhodes
Princess of Wales and then Queen....but not known by either title.
...
Post by Psyche's Knot
It isnot that uncommon in the UK (or the US for that matter) for women
TO CHOOSE how they wish to be known. ...> Thomas
Thomas
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
KQ
I don't think anyone is asking people to play "let's pretend". What is
being proposed is something that is suppose to soothe the lacerated feelings
of those who think only Diana could have been either Princess of Wales, or
Queen. I have no sympathy with the latter notion but I do understand that
t&d is required.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-03-22 16:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
KQ
I think you are confusing a reigning Queen with a Queen Consort.

Many Queen Consorts have been relatively obscure; if C&C had decided
that she will be Princess Consort, that is their right to do so.

js
KarenQuinlan
2005-03-22 16:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
KQ
I think you are confusing a reigning Queen with a Queen Consort.
Many Queen Consorts have been relatively obscure; if C&C had decided
that she will be Princess Consort, that is their right to do so.
js
js, simply reading and responding to the news as reported by the Associated
Press:

" On Monday, Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said in a
written statement responding to a lawmaker's question that the royal
marriage would not be "morganatic" - in which the spouse of inferior status
has no claim to the status of the other.

'This is absolutely unequivocal that she automatically becomes queen when he
becomes king,' said Andrew Mackinlay, the lawmaker who raised the question.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that interpretation,
saying legislation would be required to deny Parker Bowles the title of
queen.

'I'm perfectly happy for the Prince of Wales to marry whoever he likes, but
altering the constitution is parliament's business and this does require an
alteration to the constitution," Mackinlay said.' "

Don't shoot the messenger.

KQ
Sacha
2005-03-22 17:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by KarenQuinlan
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by KarenQuinlan
Well , but asking a whole empire to play "Let's pretend she isn't Queen,
though we all know she really is," is a bit much.
KQ
I think you are confusing a reigning Queen with a Queen Consort.
Many Queen Consorts have been relatively obscure; if C&C had decided
that she will be Princess Consort, that is their right to do so.
js
js, simply reading and responding to the news as reported by the Associated
" On Monday, Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said in a
written statement responding to a lawmaker's question that the royal
marriage would not be "morganatic" - in which the spouse of inferior status
has no claim to the status of the other.
'This is absolutely unequivocal that she automatically becomes queen when he
becomes king,' said Andrew Mackinlay, the lawmaker who raised the question.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that interpretation,
saying legislation would be required to deny Parker Bowles the title of
queen.
'I'm perfectly happy for the Prince of Wales to marry whoever he likes, but
altering the constitution is parliament's business and this does require an
alteration to the constitution," Mackinlay said.' "
Don't shoot the messenger.
KQ
But we all know this. Or anyone who knows anything about the matter, does.
What is being proposed is that she is not *styled* as Queen Consort but as
Princess Consort because it is thought, at the moment that public opinion is
against that. And as she will have absolutely no regnant powers or opinion
to be honest, what she is known as really doesn't alter the country or its
affairs in any way!
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-23 19:08:55 UTC
Permalink
JS knows nothing else, shooting the messenger is the only pleasure she
has in life given her never-ending slings and arrows.
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-22 04:59:08 UTC
Permalink
The Queen doesn't want any legislation...that's been made clear. Blair
goes along with it.
Katharine likes to drop her Duchess of Kent title...but she is still
the Duchess, that's The Point.
Camilla could call herself the Sheriff of HodgePodge but she would
still be the Queen.
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-22 04:59:09 UTC
Permalink
The Queen doesn't want any legislation...that's been made clear. Blair
goes along with it.
Katharine likes to drop her Duchess of Kent title...but she is still
the Duchess, that's The Point.
Camilla could call herself the Sheriff of HodgePodge but she would
still be the Queen.
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-03-22 16:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Camilla could call herself the Sheriff of HodgePodge but she would
still be the Queen.
Oh, are you resigning?

js
cloud nine
2005-03-22 07:17:44 UTC
Permalink
The claim that legislative change would be required in Australia is false.
I suspect that it is probably false in the cases of all of the "17
parliaments around the world, where the British monarch is head of state".

There is no legislation in Australia that refers to the spouse of the
monarch, therefore there is nothing to change. The Australian Constitution
refers to the monarch (specifically, the Queen, meaning Victoria and her
heirs and successors) and specifies his/her powers. The other members of
the family are not mentioned and are not relevant. The titles and respect
accorded to them are a matter of convention only.

Why do these pommy politicians want to blame us for this mess?

http://www.statusquo.org/constitution/Constitution.html
ITSO - SB
2005-03-22 11:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud nine
There is no legislation in Australia that refers to the spouse of the
monarch, therefore there is nothing to change. The Australian Constitution
refers to the monarch (specifically, the Queen, meaning Victoria and her
heirs and successors) and specifies his/her powers. The other members of
the family are not mentioned and are not relevant. The titles and respect
accorded to them are a matter of convention only.
Precisely - and the convention is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
Psyche's Knot
2005-03-23 19:10:24 UTC
Permalink
But Charles ad Camilla DENY it...OVER and OVER and OVER and Over and
Over.........
Savvy??????????????????????
Dr J.C. Horton
2005-03-23 20:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
But Charles ad Camilla DENY it...OVER and OVER and OVER and Over and
Over.........
Deny that the wife of the King is the Queen?

What has been announced is that the future wife of the Prince of Wales
will be known as "Princess Consort". Being Queen and being known as
"Princess Consort" are not mutually exclusive.
Breton
2005-03-23 20:00:39 UTC
Permalink
You wrote: "Camilla Parker Bowles will automatically become Queen when
Prince
Charles succeeds to the throne, the government has confirmed.
Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie confirmed the status

of the marriage in a Commons reply to Labour backbencher Andrew
Mackinlay. Didn't all know this already? "

Yes. I for one posted this exact point in 2001 when the Dianamaniacs
were wittering on about how Camilla and Charles would never marry.

Breton
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...