Discussion:
CH-No change in wedding plans
(too old to reply)
Psyche's Knot
2005-04-04 20:49:43 UTC
Permalink
This is what they boasted:






Palestinians Decry Israeli Trash Dump Plan
9:31 pm
Correction: Schiavo-Legal-Legacy Story
9:31 pm

N.J., Conn. Conduct Anti-Terror Drills
9:31 pm

Group Asks U.S. to Boycott Canada Seafood
9:31 pm

Ohio Police Urged to Work With Monitor
9:31 pm

AP Poll: New Pope Should Push for Change
9:31 pm

L.A. Times, WSJ Win Two Pulitzers Apiece
9:31 pm

Security Tightens Ahead of Pope's Funeral
9:31 pm

11 Brazilian Police Arrested in Massacre
9:31 pm

Supreme Court: Creditors Can't Seize IRAs
9:31 pm
From the Associated Press
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope

Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles will go
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the funeral of Pope
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.

The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to change
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for Friday.

``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far as
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as planned on
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said. End of quote...
Straight from the Prince's office at CH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,00.html

The Queen intervened and ordered The Charlie to Rome ! CH is a JOKE !
Psyche's Knot
2005-04-04 21:09:49 UTC
Permalink
More:
Clarence House, already reeling from a series of embarrassing
constitutional hitches in its preparations for the wedding, was under
intense pressure to take the step of delaying the wedding, and finally
announced: "It [the funeral] must take priority. Diaries are being
rescheduled to fit the royal wedding in on Saturday."
Charles of course had no intention of doing so until 'Pressured'...this
sentence is mine.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20709-1554444,,00.html
Sacha
2005-04-04 21:13:43 UTC
Permalink
On 4/4/05 22:09, in article
***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "Psyche's Knot"
<***@e-garfield.com> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Psyche's Knot
Charles of course had no intention of doing so until 'Pressured'...this
sentence is mine.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20709-1554444,,00.html
So what is your reason for giving it - not as opinion but fact?
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Psyche's Knot
2005-04-04 21:40:19 UTC
Permalink
My legitimate reason is that Clarence House announced on HIS behalf
that come what may, the wedding plans were non-negotiable.
'Pressured' I N D I C T E S an unwillingness to acquiesce.
Sacha
2005-04-04 21:40:44 UTC
Permalink
On 4/4/05 22:40, in article
Post by Psyche's Knot
My legitimate reason is that Clarence House announced on HIS behalf
that come what may, the wedding plans were non-negotiable.
'Pressured' I N D I C T E S an unwillingness to acquiesce.
But another report says it was Buckingham Palace making announcements. What
you don't appear to understand is that the Prince of Wales doesn't go to
every single member of his staff individually and say "this is what I want
you to say".
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Psyche's Knot
2005-04-04 21:54:55 UTC
Permalink
You are confused Ethel.....The Prince of Wales directs his assistants
to Announce HIS intentions....this time he had to retract , under
pressure...
Buckingham Palace doesn't 'speak' for the PofW...he's a Big Boy now and
has his own staff.
I don't care what you say 'another paper' stated, I am going by what is
WRITTEN in the URL indicated...and not some vague comment.
What possessed You to say that a funeral attended by many
thousands...if not millions, should be pre-empted by a wedding with
circa 30 guests ???????

Sacha Apr 4, 5:43 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty
From: Sacha <***@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:43:47 +0100
Local: Mon, Apr 4 2005 5:43 am

I'm wondering why the suggestion is that the wedding is postponed and
not
that the funeral is brought forward, or put back, by one day?
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Sacha
2005-04-04 22:02:33 UTC
Permalink
On 4/4/05 22:54, in article
Post by Psyche's Knot
You are confused Ethel.....The Prince of Wales directs his assistants
to Announce HIS intentions....this time he had to retract , under
pressure...
Buckingham Palace doesn't 'speak' for the PofW...he's a Big Boy now and
has his own staff.
I don't care what you say 'another paper' stated, I am going by what is
WRITTEN in the URL indicated...and not some vague comment.
What possessed You to say that a funeral attended by many
thousands...if not millions, should be pre-empted by a wedding with
circa 30 guests ???????
Sacha Apr 4, 5:43 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty
author
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:43:47 +0100
Local: Mon, Apr 4 2005 5:43 am
I'm wondering why the suggestion is that the wedding is postponed and
not
that the funeral is brought forward, or put back, by one day?
Where have I said that the funeral should be pre-empted etc. etc.? I said
no such thing. I asked a question to which I received an answer from
Volcaran. Learn to read, Phyllis. And comprehend. And the 'vague comment'
to which you refer was on the BBC tv report which I watched in our drawing
room today. Where and what did you see reported on your tv scree, live from
the Beeb? Grow up, Phyllis. This isn't a competition between the Pope and
the PoW or the Vatican and CH. It's hundreds of people trying to do their
best to work around a hugely difficult situation involving two important
events that draw publicity. What is disgusting about this - and the only
thing that is - is your gloating and your attempts to turn the death of the
Pope and the delay in the wedding into the PoW's fault. You're like some
sort of dreadful ghoul.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
volcaran
2005-04-04 21:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
My legitimate reason is that Clarence House announced on HIS behalf
that come what may, the wedding plans were non-negotiable.
'Pressured' I N D I C T E S an unwillingness to acquiesce.
And why do you conclude that when their statement (which you yourself
have posted) simply says there were no plans to change and that it was
a hypothetical question because the funeral date hadn't been announced.
Perhaps you could provide a link where CH says that come what may, the
date was non-negotiable.
Psyche's Knot
2005-04-04 21:59:30 UTC
Permalink
And why do you conclude that when their statement (which you yourself
have posted) simply says there were no plans to change and that it was
a hypothetical question because the funeral date hadn't been announced.

Perhaps you could provide a link where CH says that come what may, the
date was non-negotiable.
Volcaran

I ahve already done so over and over...is it too difficult for you to
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope

Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles will go
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the funeral of Pope
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to change
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for Friday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html
volcaran
2005-04-04 22:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
And why do you conclude that when their statement (which you yourself
have posted) simply says there were no plans to change and that it was
a hypothetical question because the funeral date hadn't been
announced.
Post by volcaran
Perhaps you could provide a link where CH says that come what may, the
date was non-negotiable.
Volcaran
I ahve already done so over and over...is it too difficult for you to
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope
Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles will go
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the funeral of Pope
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to change
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html

And why is it too difficult for you to understand the CH statement:

The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to change
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for Friday.

``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far as
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as planned on
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said.

taken from the same article. A simple statement of fact - "there are
no plans" and "It is only a hypothetical question". No where does it
state "come what may, the date is non-negotiable".
Sacha
2005-04-04 22:06:59 UTC
Permalink
On 4/4/05 23:06, in article
Post by volcaran
Post by volcaran
And why do you conclude that when their statement (which you yourself
have posted) simply says there were no plans to change and that it
was
Post by volcaran
a hypothetical question because the funeral date hadn't been
announced.
Post by volcaran
Perhaps you could provide a link where CH says that come what may,
the
Post by volcaran
date was non-negotiable.
Volcaran
I ahve already done so over and over...is it too difficult for you to
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope
Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles will
go
Post by volcaran
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the funeral of Pope
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to change
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to change
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for Friday.
``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far as
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as planned on
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said.
taken from the same article. A simple statement of fact - "there are
no plans" and "It is only a hypothetical question". No where does it
state "come what may, the date is non-negotiable".
Doesn't seem that difficult. IOW, there were no plans then, later and after
discussion, there were. I wonder how CH staff were supposed to announce
plans which had not then been made.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-04-04 23:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
I ahve already done so over and over...is it too difficult for you to
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope
Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles will
go
Post by Psyche's Knot
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the funeral of Pope
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to change
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html
Post by Psyche's Knot
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to change
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for Friday.
``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far as
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as planned on
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said.
taken from the same article. A simple statement of fact - "there are
no plans" and "It is only a hypothetical question". No where does it
state "come what may, the date is non-negotiable".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17687671

I have already posted this twice but volcaran seems to have some
objection to the fact that the first sentence does not have quote
marks. From the London Evening Standard 4 April
Headline "Wedding to go ahead even if it clashes with funeral"
"Prince Charles will go ahead with his wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles
despite a poosible clash with the funeral of the Pope, CLARENCE HOUSE
SAID TODAY".
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think the Evening
Standard made that up?
What you keep quoting comes from a later stage in the day's proceedings
and what happened is that first Clarence House insisted the wedding
would go ahead no matter what, then they started to hedge, then they
announced the wedding would be postponed a day.
That is what happened.
volcaran
2005-04-04 23:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
I ahve already done so over and over...is it too difficult for
you
Post by Psyche's Knot
to
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope
Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles will
go
Post by Psyche's Knot
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the funeral of
Pope
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to
change
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for
Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to change
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for Friday.
``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far as
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as planned on
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said.
taken from the same article. A simple statement of fact - "there are
no plans" and "It is only a hypothetical question". No where does it
state "come what may, the date is non-negotiable".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17687671
I have already posted this twice but volcaran seems to have some
objection to the fact that the first sentence does not have quote
marks. From the London Evening Standard 4 April
Headline "Wedding to go ahead even if it clashes with funeral"
"Prince Charles will go ahead with his wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles
despite a poosible clash with the funeral of the Pope, CLARENCE HOUSE
SAID TODAY".
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think the Evening
Standard made that up?
What you keep quoting comes from a later stage in the day's
proceedings
Post by Psyche's Knot
and what happened is that first Clarence House insisted the wedding
would go ahead no matter what, then they started to hedge, then they
announced the wedding would be postponed a day.
That is what happened.
The Guardian quotation is of an AP link quoting CH on Sunday. The
Evening Standard article you refer to was published on Monday. On what
basis do you claim the Sunday statement and direct quotation used by AP
post dates the Evening Standard comment?
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-04-04 23:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
I ahve already done so over and over...is it too difficult for
you
Post by Psyche's Knot
to
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope
Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles
will
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
go
Post by Psyche's Knot
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the funeral of
Pope
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to
change
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for
Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
And why is it too difficult for you to understand the CH
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to
change
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for
Friday.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far as
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as planned on
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said.
taken from the same article. A simple statement of fact - "there
are
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
no plans" and "It is only a hypothetical question". No where does
it
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
state "come what may, the date is non-negotiable".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17687671
I have already posted this twice but volcaran seems to have some
objection to the fact that the first sentence does not have quote
marks. From the London Evening Standard 4 April
Headline "Wedding to go ahead even if it clashes with funeral"
"Prince Charles will go ahead with his wedding to Camilla Parker
Bowles
Post by Psyche's Knot
despite a poosible clash with the funeral of the Pope, CLARENCE HOUSE
SAID TODAY".
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think the
Evening
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Standard made that up?
What you keep quoting comes from a later stage in the day's
proceedings
Post by Psyche's Knot
and what happened is that first Clarence House insisted the wedding
would go ahead no matter what, then they started to hedge, then they
announced the wedding would be postponed a day.
That is what happened.
The Guardian quotation is of an AP link quoting CH on Sunday. The
Evening Standard article you refer to was published on Monday. On what
basis do you claim the Sunday statement and direct quotation used by AP
post dates the Evening Standard comment?
Yes the Evening Standard quote is from this morning and it shows
plainly that this morning Clarence House was insisting that the wedding
would go ahead no matter what. If you choose to regard as tainted
evidence anything that just doesn't agree with what you want to think
there is nothing that can be done about it but you are WRONG.
volcaran
2005-04-04 23:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
I ahve already done so over and over...is it too difficult for
you
Post by Psyche's Knot
to
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope
Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles
will
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
go
Post by Psyche's Knot
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the funeral of
Pope
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to
change
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for
Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
And why is it too difficult for you to understand the CH
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to
change
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for
Friday.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far as
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as
planned
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
on
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said.
taken from the same article. A simple statement of fact - "there
are
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
no plans" and "It is only a hypothetical question". No where does
it
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
state "come what may, the date is non-negotiable".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17687671
I have already posted this twice but volcaran seems to have some
objection to the fact that the first sentence does not have quote
marks. From the London Evening Standard 4 April
Headline "Wedding to go ahead even if it clashes with funeral"
"Prince Charles will go ahead with his wedding to Camilla Parker
Bowles
Post by Psyche's Knot
despite a poosible clash with the funeral of the Pope, CLARENCE
HOUSE
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
SAID TODAY".
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think the
Evening
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Standard made that up?
What you keep quoting comes from a later stage in the day's
proceedings
Post by Psyche's Knot
and what happened is that first Clarence House insisted the wedding
would go ahead no matter what, then they started to hedge, then
they
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
announced the wedding would be postponed a day.
That is what happened.
The Guardian quotation is of an AP link quoting CH on Sunday. The
Evening Standard article you refer to was published on Monday. On
what
Post by Psyche's Knot
basis do you claim the Sunday statement and direct quotation used
by
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
AP
Post by Psyche's Knot
post dates the Evening Standard comment?
Yes the Evening Standard quote is from this morning and it shows
plainly that this morning Clarence House was insisting that the wedding
would go ahead no matter what. If you choose to regard as tainted
evidence anything that just doesn't agree with what you want to think
there is nothing that can be done about it but you are WRONG.
And you choose to ignore a direct quote which contradicts your "That is
what happened" because it doesn't agree with what you think.
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-04-05 00:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
I ahve already done so over and over...is it too difficult
for
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
you
Post by Psyche's Knot
to
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope
Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker
Bowles
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
will
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
go
Post by Psyche's Knot
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the
funeral
Post by Psyche's Knot
of
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Pope
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans
to
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
change
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for
Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
And why is it too difficult for you to understand the CH
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans to
change
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for
Friday.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far
as
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as
planned
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
on
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said.
taken from the same article. A simple statement of fact -
"there
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
are
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
no plans" and "It is only a hypothetical question". No where
does
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
it
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
state "come what may, the date is non-negotiable".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17687671
I have already posted this twice but volcaran seems to have some
objection to the fact that the first sentence does not have quote
marks. From the London Evening Standard 4 April
Headline "Wedding to go ahead even if it clashes with funeral"
"Prince Charles will go ahead with his wedding to Camilla Parker
Bowles
Post by Psyche's Knot
despite a poosible clash with the funeral of the Pope, CLARENCE
HOUSE
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
SAID TODAY".
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think the
Evening
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Standard made that up?
What you keep quoting comes from a later stage in the day's
proceedings
Post by Psyche's Knot
and what happened is that first Clarence House insisted the
wedding
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
would go ahead no matter what, then they started to hedge, then
they
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
announced the wedding would be postponed a day.
That is what happened.
The Guardian quotation is of an AP link quoting CH on Sunday. The
Evening Standard article you refer to was published on Monday. On
what
Post by Psyche's Knot
basis do you claim the Sunday statement and direct quotation used
by
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
AP
Post by Psyche's Knot
post dates the Evening Standard comment?
Yes the Evening Standard quote is from this morning and it shows
plainly that this morning Clarence House was insisting that the
wedding
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
would go ahead no matter what. If you choose to regard as tainted
evidence anything that just doesn't agree with what you want to think
there is nothing that can be done about it but you are WRONG.
And you choose to ignore a direct quote which contradicts your "That is
what happened" because it doesn't agree with what you think.
I would like you to offer an explanation for the Evening Standard's
article which I have posted three times now and clearly states that
Clarence House said this morning that the wedding would happen on
Friday, Pope's funeral or no.
volcaran
2005-04-05 00:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
I ahve already done so over and over...is it too
difficult
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
for
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
you
Post by Psyche's Knot
to
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope
Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker
Bowles
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
will
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
go
Post by Psyche's Knot
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the
funeral
Post by Psyche's Knot
of
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Pope
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans
to
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
change
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled
for
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
And why is it too difficult for you to understand the CH
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans
to
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
change
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled for
Friday.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far
as
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as
planned
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
on
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said.
taken from the same article. A simple statement of fact -
"there
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
are
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
no plans" and "It is only a hypothetical question". No where
does
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
it
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
state "come what may, the date is non-negotiable".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17687671
I have already posted this twice but volcaran seems to have
some
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
objection to the fact that the first sentence does not have
quote
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
marks. From the London Evening Standard 4 April
Headline "Wedding to go ahead even if it clashes with
funeral"
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
"Prince Charles will go ahead with his wedding to Camilla
Parker
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Bowles
Post by Psyche's Knot
despite a poosible clash with the funeral of the Pope,
CLARENCE
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
HOUSE
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
SAID TODAY".
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think the
Evening
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Standard made that up?
What you keep quoting comes from a later stage in the day's
proceedings
Post by Psyche's Knot
and what happened is that first Clarence House insisted the
wedding
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
would go ahead no matter what, then they started to hedge, then
they
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
announced the wedding would be postponed a day.
That is what happened.
The Guardian quotation is of an AP link quoting CH on Sunday. The
Evening Standard article you refer to was published on Monday. On
what
Post by Psyche's Knot
basis do you claim the Sunday statement and direct quotation used
by
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
AP
Post by Psyche's Knot
post dates the Evening Standard comment?
Yes the Evening Standard quote is from this morning and it shows
plainly that this morning Clarence House was insisting that the
wedding
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
would go ahead no matter what. If you choose to regard as tainted
evidence anything that just doesn't agree with what you want to
think
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
there is nothing that can be done about it but you are WRONG.
And you choose to ignore a direct quote which contradicts your
"That
Post by Psyche's Knot
is
Post by Psyche's Knot
what happened" because it doesn't agree with what you think.
I would like you to offer an explanation for the Evening Standard's
article which I have posted three times now and clearly states that
Clarence House said this morning that the wedding would happen on
Friday, Pope's funeral or no.
The Standard is renowned for its "shorthand". Oddly enough the print
version of the Mail today from which the Standard gets much of its feed
uses the same quote about timing not being good directly quoted by the
Standard.

The full quote is:

"The wedding will take place on Friday as planned but we have to admit
the timing is not particularly good"

It goes on later to quote the CH aide:

"We are used to to having to take things like this in our stride"

and the article continues:

One way or another the matter will be resolved today when the College
of Cardinals meets at the Vatican to set the date for the funeral.

So unless the Standard had a separate interview where precisely the
same words were used there is nothing in the CH statements either to
the Mail/Standard or AP where a dogmatic position has been taken or any
suggestion that the wedding will happen regardless of the funeral. It
is simply CH stating the position as it existed "no plans to change",
"hypothetical question" etc.
volcaran
2005-04-05 01:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
I ahve already done so over and over...is it too
difficult
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
for
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
you
Post by Psyche's Knot
to
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
grasp ? -
Royal Wedding to Go Ahead Despite Pope
Monday April 4, 2005 4:01 AM
LONDON (AP) - Prince Charles' wedding to Camilla Parker
Bowles
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
will
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
go
Post by Psyche's Knot
ahead Friday as planned, even if it clashes with the
funeral
Post by Psyche's Knot
of
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Pope
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
John Paul II, the prince's office said Sunday.
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no
plans
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
to
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
change
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was
scheduled
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
for
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl­dlatest/story/0,1280,-4911763,­00.html
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
And why is it too difficult for you to understand the CH
The prince's Clarence House office said there were no plans
to
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
change
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
the wedding date if the pope's funeral also was scheduled
for
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Friday.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
``It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as
far
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
as
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as
planned
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
on
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
Friday,'' the spokeswoman said.
taken from the same article. A simple statement of fact -
"there
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
are
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
no plans" and "It is only a hypothetical question". No
where
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
does
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
it
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by volcaran
state "come what may, the date is non-negotiable".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17687671
I have already posted this twice but volcaran seems to have
some
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
objection to the fact that the first sentence does not have
quote
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
marks. From the London Evening Standard 4 April
Headline "Wedding to go ahead even if it clashes with
funeral"
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
"Prince Charles will go ahead with his wedding to Camilla
Parker
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Bowles
Post by Psyche's Knot
despite a poosible clash with the funeral of the Pope,
CLARENCE
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
HOUSE
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
SAID TODAY".
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think the
Evening
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Standard made that up?
What you keep quoting comes from a later stage in the day's
proceedings
Post by Psyche's Knot
and what happened is that first Clarence House insisted the
wedding
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
would go ahead no matter what, then they started to hedge,
then
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
they
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
announced the wedding would be postponed a day.
That is what happened.
The Guardian quotation is of an AP link quoting CH on Sunday.
The
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Psyche's Knot
Evening Standard article you refer to was published on
Monday.
Post by Psyche's Knot
On
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
what
Post by Psyche's Knot
basis do you claim the Sunday statement and direct quotation
used
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
by
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
AP
Post by Psyche's Knot
post dates the Evening Standard comment?
Yes the Evening Standard quote is from this morning and it shows
plainly that this morning Clarence House was insisting that the
wedding
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
would go ahead no matter what. If you choose to regard as tainted
evidence anything that just doesn't agree with what you want to
think
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
there is nothing that can be done about it but you are WRONG.
And you choose to ignore a direct quote which contradicts your
"That
Post by Psyche's Knot
is
Post by Psyche's Knot
what happened" because it doesn't agree with what you think.
I would like you to offer an explanation for the Evening Standard's
article which I have posted three times now and clearly states that
Clarence House said this morning that the wedding would happen on
Friday, Pope's funeral or no.
The Standard is renowned for its "shorthand". Oddly enough the print
version of the Mail today from which the Standard gets much of its feed
uses the same quote about timing not being good directly quoted by the
Standard.
"The wedding will take place on Friday as planned but we have to admit
the timing is not particularly good"
"We are used to to having to take things like this in our stride"
One way or another the matter will be resolved today when the College
of Cardinals meets at the Vatican to set the date for the funeral.
So unless the Standard had a separate interview where precisely the
same words were used there is nothing in the CH statements either to
the Mail/Standard or AP where a dogmatic position has been taken or any
suggestion that the wedding will happen regardless of the funeral. It
is simply CH stating the position as it existed "no plans to change",
"hypothetical question" etc.
I should have added that the last bit of the Standard article about who
would reprsent the Queen and who wouldn't attend the wedding also
appears to be a summary of the Mail article.
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-04-05 07:55:07 UTC
Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1555667,00.html

The Times today April 5

"When the Prince of Wales rose for breakfast yesterday at the hotel
Walserhof in Klosters he was already preparing to change his wedding
plans, even though Clarence House was insisting that there was no
possiblity of changing the date of the nuptials.
The first indication of a change of plan came when the Prince flew home
early from his extended 'stag weekend' in Switzerland with his two sons
and closest friends to attend Vespers at Westminster.
Clarence House had maintained earlier that the prescence of the Prince
at yesterday's ceremony was a sufficient act of respect from the
Prince."
Article goes on to state that when the Prime Minister and Archbishop of
Canterbury made it clear that they would choose to attend the Pope's
funeral rather than the wedding, Charles had no choice but to change
his plans.
Sacha
2005-04-05 08:39:45 UTC
Permalink
On 5/4/05 8:55, in article
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1555667,00.html
The Times today April 5
"When the Prince of Wales rose for breakfast yesterday at the hotel
Walserhof in Klosters he was already preparing to change his wedding
plans, even though Clarence House was insisting that there was no
possiblity of changing the date of the nuptials.
The first indication of a change of plan came when the Prince flew home
early from his extended 'stag weekend' in Switzerland with his two sons
and closest friends to attend Vespers at Westminster.
Clarence House had maintained earlier that the prescence of the Prince
at yesterday's ceremony was a sufficient act of respect from the
Prince."
Article goes on to state that when the Prime Minister and Archbishop of
Canterbury made it clear that they would choose to attend the Pope's
funeral rather than the wedding, Charles had no choice but to change
his plans.
Huh. That's nothing. On the same page and in the same article, the Daily
Mail states both that the prince cancelled his holiday and that he stayed on
in Switzerland!
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
volcaran
2005-04-05 08:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1555667,00.html
The Times today April 5
"When the Prince of Wales rose for breakfast yesterday at the hotel
Walserhof in Klosters he was already preparing to change his wedding
plans, even though Clarence House was insisting that there was no
possiblity of changing the date of the nuptials.
The first indication of a change of plan came when the Prince flew home
early from his extended 'stag weekend' in Switzerland with his two sons
and closest friends to attend Vespers at Westminster.
Clarence House had maintained earlier that the prescence of the Prince
at yesterday's ceremony was a sufficient act of respect from the
Prince."
Article goes on to state that when the Prime Minister and Archbishop of
Canterbury made it clear that they would choose to attend the Pope's
funeral rather than the wedding, Charles had no choice but to change
his plans.
I see you are still determined to rely on newspaper comment rather than
what people are actually quoted as saying and this despite the
"distortion" of the actual words in the Standard which you quoted
yesterday. No doubt in your view the stories in several papers today
that are saying CH bowed to pressure from Downing St. are also correct.
Of course you are free to ignore the quotes from a spokesman for CH who
says that is not true and the spokesman for Downing St who says it is
not true and that the decision was wholly down to CH. Perhaps you
should engage your critical abilities a little more often when reading
the papers. Your slavish adherence to whatever commentary is written is
however commendable and exactly what newspaper editors rely upon to
make them the "movers and shakers".
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-04-05 19:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1555667,00.html
The Times today April 5
"When the Prince of Wales rose for breakfast yesterday at the hotel
Walserhof in Klosters he was already preparing to change his
wedding
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
plans, even though Clarence House was insisting that there was no
possiblity of changing the date of the nuptials.
The first indication of a change of plan came when the Prince flew
home
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
early from his extended 'stag weekend' in Switzerland with his two
sons
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
and closest friends to attend Vespers at Westminster.
Clarence House had maintained earlier that the prescence of the
Prince
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
at yesterday's ceremony was a sufficient act of respect from the
Prince."
Article goes on to state that when the Prime Minister and
Archbishop
Post by Psyche's Knot
of
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Canterbury made it clear that they would choose to attend the Pope's
funeral rather than the wedding, Charles had no choice but to change
his plans.
I see you are still determined to rely on newspaper comment rather than
what people are actually quoted as saying and this despite the
"distortion" of the actual words in the Standard which you quoted
yesterday.
Yesterday I watched with my own eyes as the press reports on Google
changed from "Clarence House says no change to wedding date even if it
clashes with the Pope's funeral" to "Wedding Date in Doubt" to to
"Wedding Postponed". These stories gave Clarence House as the source of
that information. I have quoted several of them for you and you still
refuse to accept them.
Post by Psyche's Knot
No doubt in your view the stories in several papers today
that are saying CH bowed to pressure from Downing St. are also
correct.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Of course you are free to ignore the quotes from a spokesman for CH who
says that is not true and the spokesman for Downing St who says it is
not true and that the decision was wholly down to CH.
Now you are just inventing something which you think I think. I have no
way of knowing whether that is true or not, but I do know that the
press reports yesterday morning quoted Clarence House as saying the
wedding would go ahead, Pope's funeral or no.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Perhaps you
should engage your critical abilities a little more often when
reading
Post by Psyche's Knot
the papers. Your slavish adherence to whatever commentary is written is
however commendable and exactly what newspaper editors rely upon to
make them the "movers and shakers".
Perhaps you are entirely justified in placing greater reliance on your
own knowledge, expertise and judgement than the professional
journalists for the Evening Standard and The Times who specialise in
royal stories. I don't know anything about you though so I cannot
necessarily be expected to share your views if they contradict other
evidence.
volcaran
2005-04-05 22:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1555667,00.html
The Times today April 5
"When the Prince of Wales rose for breakfast yesterday at the hotel
Walserhof in Klosters he was already preparing to change his
wedding
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
plans, even though Clarence House was insisting that there was no
possiblity of changing the date of the nuptials.
The first indication of a change of plan came when the Prince flew
home
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
early from his extended 'stag weekend' in Switzerland with his two
sons
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
and closest friends to attend Vespers at Westminster.
Clarence House had maintained earlier that the prescence of the
Prince
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
at yesterday's ceremony was a sufficient act of respect from the
Prince."
Article goes on to state that when the Prime Minister and
Archbishop
Post by Psyche's Knot
of
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Canterbury made it clear that they would choose to attend the
Pope's
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
funeral rather than the wedding, Charles had no choice but to
change
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
his plans.
I see you are still determined to rely on newspaper comment rather
than
Post by Psyche's Knot
what people are actually quoted as saying and this despite the
"distortion" of the actual words in the Standard which you quoted
yesterday.
Yesterday I watched with my own eyes as the press reports on Google
changed from "Clarence House says no change to wedding date even if it
clashes with the Pope's funeral"
Yes, all based on the "hypothetical question" quote as far as I can see
looking at the google archive and no doubt taking the same story from
the news feed.

to "Wedding Date in Doubt"

Yes, all based on the statement from CH on Monday morning:

"A spokesman for Charles said the wedding was still formally scheduled
for Friday. "But we remain sensitive to events that are happening
elsewhere around the world and are continuing to assess the situation,"
he added."
Post by Psyche's Knot
to to
"Wedding Postponed". These stories gave Clarence House as the source of
that information. I have quoted several of them for you and you still
refuse to accept them.
Where have I refused to accept the CH quotes? I quoted the Sunday
statement to you at the outset.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
No doubt in your view the stories in several papers today
that are saying CH bowed to pressure from Downing St. are also
correct.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Of course you are free to ignore the quotes from a spokesman for CH
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
says that is not true and the spokesman for Downing St who says it is
not true and that the decision was wholly down to CH.
Now you are just inventing something which you think I think. I have no
way of knowing whether that is true or not, but I do know that the
press reports yesterday morning quoted Clarence House as saying the
wedding would go ahead, Pope's funeral or no.
No they said it was scheduled for Friday and it was a hypothetical
question. Nowhere has CH been quoted as saying what you say they said.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Perhaps you
should engage your critical abilities a little more often when
reading
Post by Psyche's Knot
the papers. Your slavish adherence to whatever commentary is
written
Post by Psyche's Knot
is
Post by Psyche's Knot
however commendable and exactly what newspaper editors rely upon to
make them the "movers and shakers".
Perhaps you are entirely justified in placing greater reliance on your
own knowledge, expertise and judgement than the professional
journalists for the Evening Standard and The Times who specialise in
royal stories. I don't know anything about you though so I cannot
necessarily be expected to share your views if they contradict other
evidence.
The professional journalist at the Standard rewrote and summarised an
article from the Mail. The Times gives no quote just comment. The
evidence (as distinct from comment) are the statements from CH which
somehow you have difficulty accepting.
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-04-05 22:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1555667,00.html
The Times today April 5
"When the Prince of Wales rose for breakfast yesterday at the
hotel
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Walserhof in Klosters he was already preparing to change his
wedding
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
plans, even though Clarence House was insisting that there was no
possiblity of changing the date of the nuptials.
The first indication of a change of plan came when the Prince
flew
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
home
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
early from his extended 'stag weekend' in Switzerland with his
two
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
sons
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
and closest friends to attend Vespers at Westminster.
Clarence House had maintained earlier that the prescence of the
Prince
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
at yesterday's ceremony was a sufficient act of respect from the
Prince."
Article goes on to state that when the Prime Minister and
Archbishop
Post by Psyche's Knot
of
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Canterbury made it clear that they would choose to attend the
Pope's
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
funeral rather than the wedding, Charles had no choice but to
change
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
his plans.
I see you are still determined to rely on newspaper comment rather
than
Post by Psyche's Knot
what people are actually quoted as saying and this despite the
"distortion" of the actual words in the Standard which you quoted
yesterday.
Yesterday I watched with my own eyes as the press reports on Google
changed from "Clarence House says no change to wedding date even if
it
Post by Psyche's Knot
clashes with the Pope's funeral"
Yes, all based on the "hypothetical question" quote as far as I can see
looking at the google archive and no doubt taking the same story from
the news feed.
to "Wedding Date in Doubt"
"A spokesman for Charles said the wedding was still formally
scheduled
Post by volcaran
for Friday. "But we remain sensitive to events that are happening
elsewhere around the world and are continuing to assess the
situation,"
Post by volcaran
he added."
Post by Psyche's Knot
to to
"Wedding Postponed". These stories gave Clarence House as the
source
Post by volcaran
of
Post by Psyche's Knot
that information. I have quoted several of them for you and you still
refuse to accept them.
Where have I refused to accept the CH quotes? I quoted the Sunday
statement to you at the outset.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
No doubt in your view the stories in several papers today
that are saying CH bowed to pressure from Downing St. are also
correct.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Of course you are free to ignore the quotes from a spokesman for CH
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
says that is not true and the spokesman for Downing St who says
it
Post by volcaran
is
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
not true and that the decision was wholly down to CH.
Now you are just inventing something which you think I think. I
have
Post by volcaran
no
Post by Psyche's Knot
way of knowing whether that is true or not, but I do know that the
press reports yesterday morning quoted Clarence House as saying the
wedding would go ahead, Pope's funeral or no.
No they said it was scheduled for Friday and it was a hypothetical
question. Nowhere has CH been quoted as saying what you say they said.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Perhaps you
should engage your critical abilities a little more often when
reading
Post by Psyche's Knot
the papers. Your slavish adherence to whatever commentary is
written
Post by Psyche's Knot
is
Post by Psyche's Knot
however commendable and exactly what newspaper editors rely upon to
make them the "movers and shakers".
Perhaps you are entirely justified in placing greater reliance on
your
Post by Psyche's Knot
own knowledge, expertise and judgement than the professional
journalists for the Evening Standard and The Times who specialise in
royal stories. I don't know anything about you though so I cannot
necessarily be expected to share your views if they contradict other
evidence.
The professional journalist at the Standard rewrote and summarised an
article from the Mail. The Times gives no quote just comment. The
evidence (as distinct from comment) are the statements from CH which
somehow you have difficulty accepting.
Look at the top of this page and you see in The Times that they say on
Monday morning "Clarence House was insisting that there was no
possibility of changing the date of the nuptials"!!!! You call that
"comment" and discard it, I would say if that isn't true, the Times
reporters are either grossly incompetent or liars and if you think that
the fact I actually believe the report in the Times shows that I am a
slavish uncritical adherent of newspaper commentary, so be it. Yes, I
think The Times is right and you are wrong. I am sure you will reply to
this message and so I will let you have the last word as I think it is
silly to argue about it any more.
volcaran
2005-04-05 23:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1555667,00.html
The Times today April 5
"When the Prince of Wales rose for breakfast yesterday at the
hotel
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Walserhof in Klosters he was already preparing to change his
wedding
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
plans, even though Clarence House was insisting that there
was
Post by volcaran
no
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
possiblity of changing the date of the nuptials.
The first indication of a change of plan came when the Prince
flew
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
home
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
early from his extended 'stag weekend' in Switzerland with his
two
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
sons
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
and closest friends to attend Vespers at Westminster.
Clarence House had maintained earlier that the prescence of the
Prince
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
at yesterday's ceremony was a sufficient act of respect from
the
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Prince."
Article goes on to state that when the Prime Minister and
Archbishop
Post by Psyche's Knot
of
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Canterbury made it clear that they would choose to attend the
Pope's
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
funeral rather than the wedding, Charles had no choice but to
change
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
his plans.
I see you are still determined to rely on newspaper comment
rather
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
than
Post by Psyche's Knot
what people are actually quoted as saying and this despite the
"distortion" of the actual words in the Standard which you quoted
yesterday.
Yesterday I watched with my own eyes as the press reports on Google
changed from "Clarence House says no change to wedding date even if
it
Post by Psyche's Knot
clashes with the Pope's funeral"
Yes, all based on the "hypothetical question" quote as far as I can
see
Post by volcaran
looking at the google archive and no doubt taking the same story from
the news feed.
to "Wedding Date in Doubt"
"A spokesman for Charles said the wedding was still formally
scheduled
Post by volcaran
for Friday. "But we remain sensitive to events that are happening
elsewhere around the world and are continuing to assess the
situation,"
Post by volcaran
he added."
Post by Psyche's Knot
to to
"Wedding Postponed". These stories gave Clarence House as the
source
Post by volcaran
of
Post by Psyche's Knot
that information. I have quoted several of them for you and you
still
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
refuse to accept them.
Where have I refused to accept the CH quotes? I quoted the Sunday
statement to you at the outset.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
No doubt in your view the stories in several papers today
that are saying CH bowed to pressure from Downing St. are also
correct.
Post by Psyche's Knot
Of course you are free to ignore the quotes from a spokesman
for
Post by volcaran
CH
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
who
Post by Psyche's Knot
says that is not true and the spokesman for Downing St who says
it
Post by volcaran
is
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
not true and that the decision was wholly down to CH.
Now you are just inventing something which you think I think. I
have
Post by volcaran
no
Post by Psyche's Knot
way of knowing whether that is true or not, but I do know that the
press reports yesterday morning quoted Clarence House as saying the
wedding would go ahead, Pope's funeral or no.
No they said it was scheduled for Friday and it was a hypothetical
question. Nowhere has CH been quoted as saying what you say they
said.
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
Perhaps you
should engage your critical abilities a little more often when
reading
Post by Psyche's Knot
the papers. Your slavish adherence to whatever commentary is
written
Post by Psyche's Knot
is
Post by Psyche's Knot
however commendable and exactly what newspaper editors rely
upon
Post by volcaran
to
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
Post by Psyche's Knot
make them the "movers and shakers".
Perhaps you are entirely justified in placing greater reliance on
your
Post by Psyche's Knot
own knowledge, expertise and judgement than the professional
journalists for the Evening Standard and The Times who specialise
in
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
royal stories. I don't know anything about you though so I cannot
necessarily be expected to share your views if they contradict
other
Post by volcaran
Post by Psyche's Knot
evidence.
The professional journalist at the Standard rewrote and summarised an
article from the Mail. The Times gives no quote just comment. The
evidence (as distinct from comment) are the statements from CH which
somehow you have difficulty accepting.
Look at the top of this page and you see in The Times that they say on
Monday morning "Clarence House was insisting that there was no
possibility of changing the date of the nuptials"!!!! You call that
"comment" and discard it, I would say if that isn't true, the Times
reporters are either grossly incompetent or liars and if you think that
the fact I actually believe the report in the Times shows that I am a
slavish uncritical adherent of newspaper commentary, so be it. Yes, I
think The Times is right and you are wrong. I am sure you will reply to
this message and so I will let you have the last word as I think it is
silly to argue about it any more.
Only to point out that not a single newspaper within the google archive
that I have found has quoted CH stating the stark declaration you claim
whereas they have quoted what CH actually said and which has been
posted in this thread. I am sure if you had found one that supports
your argument you would have posted it by now so I guess we agree it
doesn't exist.

s***@webtv.net
2005-04-05 11:33:05 UTC
Permalink
And the Guardian stated, that the news came from Buck House (Buckingham
Palace), that the C&C wedding date had been changed, & that Charles
would be attending the Pope's funeral.

These were obviously orders from the Queen, & Not Charles' choice.

-----------------

Charles appears to be mentally ill, & to have less & less control over
himself.

What can the monarchy do with him? How will they handle him?

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
volcaran
2005-04-05 11:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@webtv.net
And the Guardian stated, that the news came from Buck House
(Buckingham
Post by s***@webtv.net
Palace), that the C&C wedding date had been changed, & that Charles
would be attending the Pope's funeral.
These were obviously orders from the Queen, & Not Charles' choice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1452386,00.html

"Even before the formal announcement by Clarence House, diplomatic
sources had made it clear that the prime minister would be attending
the funeral instead of the royal wedding. The decision by Downing
Street means that for the first time a serving prime minister, as well
as the Archbishop of Canterbury, will attend the funeral of a
pontiff." ........

"A statement from Clarence House said that the prince would attend
the funeral instead. "As a mark of respect, His Royal Highness and Mrs
Parker Bowles have decided to postpone their wedding until Saturday,"
it added.
Palace sources said the prince had made the decision immediately after
his early return from Klosters yesterday, after a brief consultation
with Mrs Parker Bowles. The wedding could neither be brought forward,
nor postponed beyond the weekend because Windsor Guildhall, where the
civil ceremony will take place, is licensed only on Fridays, Saturdays
and Sundays. " .................

"Palace sources said the prince had made the decision immediately
after his early return from Klosters yesterday, after a brief
consultation with Mrs Parker Bowles. The wedding could neither be
brought forward, nor postponed beyond the weekend because Windsor
Guildhall, where the civil ceremony will take place, is licensed only
on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays." ............
Post by s***@webtv.net
-----------------
Charles appears to be mentally ill, & to have less & less control over
himself.
What can the monarchy do with him? How will they handle him?
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Sacha
2005-04-05 12:26:36 UTC
Permalink
On 5/4/05 12:57, in article
Post by s***@webtv.net
Post by s***@webtv.net
And the Guardian stated, that the news came from Buck House
(Buckingham
Post by s***@webtv.net
Palace), that the C&C wedding date had been changed, & that Charles
would be attending the Pope's funeral.
These were obviously orders from the Queen, & Not Charles' choice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1452386,00.html
"Even before the formal announcement by Clarence House, diplomatic
sources had made it clear that the prime minister would be attending
the funeral instead of the royal wedding. The decision by Downing
Street means that for the first time a serving prime minister, as well
as the Archbishop of Canterbury, will attend the funeral of a
pontiff." ........
"A statement from Clarence House said that the prince would attend
the funeral instead. "As a mark of respect, His Royal Highness and Mrs
Parker Bowles have decided to postpone their wedding until Saturday,"
it added.
Palace sources said the prince had made the decision immediately after
his early return from Klosters yesterday, after a brief consultation
with Mrs Parker Bowles. The wedding could neither be brought forward,
nor postponed beyond the weekend because Windsor Guildhall, where the
civil ceremony will take place, is licensed only on Fridays, Saturdays
and Sundays. " .................
"Palace sources said the prince had made the decision immediately
after his early return from Klosters yesterday, after a brief
consultation with Mrs Parker Bowles. The wedding could neither be
brought forward, nor postponed beyond the weekend because Windsor
Guildhall, where the civil ceremony will take place, is licensed only
on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays." ............
<snip of utter nonsense>

A post on atr says that it is very rare if not unheard of for protestant
royalty to attend the funeral of a Pope. That alone must have led to a
great deal of consultation between the Vatican and many royal houses,
including our own. It says that the Queen of Norway is going because her
husband and father in law both met the Pope and I imagine that it's for this
reason and personal respect, that the PoW is going, too.
Another post on atr says that only 5 members of each country are able to go,
so I wonder if Mrs Blair will accompany the PM now, as she has no official
State role.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
s***@webtv.net
2005-04-05 14:24:09 UTC
Permalink
It doesn't matter what Clarence House (Charles) announces.

C&C refused to change the wedding date.

So, Buckingham Palace (the Queen) announced that the wedding date would
be changed, & that Charles would be going to the Pope's funeral.

Now Clarence House is back-peddling, trying to put positive spins on it,
the usual BS.

The Queen is going to have to do something about Charles. The sooner the
better.

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
volcaran
2005-04-05 14:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@webtv.net
It doesn't matter what Clarence House (Charles) announces.
To you obviuosly not.
Post by s***@webtv.net
C&C refused to change the wedding date.
They did? So its still on for Friday then?
Post by s***@webtv.net
So, Buckingham Palace (the Queen) announced that the wedding date would
be changed, & that Charles would be going to the Pope's funeral.
So when did they issue that press release? It seems to be missing from
RF website.
Post by s***@webtv.net
Now Clarence House is back-peddling, trying to put positive spins on it,
the usual BS.
Of course they are if you say so.
Post by s***@webtv.net
The Queen is going to have to do something about Charles. The sooner the
better.
Perhaps you should write to her and proffer your expert advice.
Post by s***@webtv.net
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
s***@webtv.net
2005-04-05 15:32:28 UTC
Permalink
From: ***@aol.com (volcaran)

< b*itchy ramblings snipped >

===============

Quote from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4410103.stm

"Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles had planned to marry in a civil
ceremony on Friday.

But on Monday, Buckingham Palace said the Pope's funeral "must take
priority"."

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
Sacha
2005-04-05 15:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@webtv.net
< b*itchy ramblings snipped >
===============
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4410103.stm
"Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles had planned to marry in a civil
ceremony on Friday.
But on Monday, Buckingham Palace said the Pope's funeral "must take
priority"."
Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
You are implying pressure from the Queen which was not applied and not
needed. You and PK need to make up your minds because one minute Charles is
stubborn and intransigent and won't shift from any position he has taken up,
and the next the Queen can overrule him effortlessly.
BTW, I don't think you understand that both CH and BP often put out press
announcements and/or that one or the other will be quoted, depending on
which the journalist involved has contacted.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-04-05 01:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
I would like you to offer an explanation for the Evening Standard's
article which I have posted three times now and clearly states that
Clarence House said this morning that the wedding would happen on
Friday, Pope's funeral or no.
The Standard is renowned for its "shorthand". Oddly enough the print
version of the Mail today from which the Standard gets much of its feed
uses the same quote about timing not being good directly quoted by the
Standard.
"The wedding will take place on Friday as planned but we have to admit
the timing is not particularly good"
"We are used to to having to take things like this in our stride"
One way or another the matter will be resolved today when the College
of Cardinals meets at the Vatican to set the date for the funeral.
So unless the Standard had a separate interview where precisely the
same words were used there is nothing in the CH statements either to
the Mail/Standard or AP where a dogmatic position has been taken or any
suggestion that the wedding will happen regardless of the funeral. It
is simply CH stating the position as it existed "no plans to change",
"hypothetical question" etc.
Thank you. That makes sense. I saw this same article earlier today and
it does say clearly "The wedding will take place on Friday as planned".
volcaran
2005-04-05 01:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by volcaran
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
I would like you to offer an explanation for the Evening
Standard's
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by volcaran
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
article which I have posted three times now and clearly states that
Clarence House said this morning that the wedding would happen on
Friday, Pope's funeral or no.
The Standard is renowned for its "shorthand". Oddly enough the print
version of the Mail today from which the Standard gets much of its
feed
Post by volcaran
uses the same quote about timing not being good directly quoted by
the
Post by volcaran
Standard.
"The wedding will take place on Friday as planned but we have to
admit
Post by volcaran
the timing is not particularly good"
"We are used to to having to take things like this in our stride"
One way or another the matter will be resolved today when the College
of Cardinals meets at the Vatican to set the date for the funeral.
So unless the Standard had a separate interview where precisely the
same words were used there is nothing in the CH statements either to
the Mail/Standard or AP where a dogmatic position has been taken or
any
Post by volcaran
suggestion that the wedding will happen regardless of the funeral. It
is simply CH stating the position as it existed "no plans to
change",
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by volcaran
"hypothetical question" etc.
Thank you. That makes sense. I saw this same article earlier today and
it does say clearly "The wedding will take place on Friday as
planned".

Indeed but not that it would happen regardless, the date is
non-negotiable or anything similar. A simple statement of the position
before the date of the funeral was known.
Psyche's Knot
2005-04-05 01:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Very true. Today, Monday, CH announced that no matter when the Pope's
funeral was held it would not alter their wedding plans....
End of story.
volcaran
2005-04-05 07:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Very true. Today, Monday, CH announced that no matter when the Pope's
funeral was held it would not alter their wedding plans....
End of story.
I am glad we agree but I would say fairy tale rather than story.
Michael James
2005-04-05 19:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
Very true. Today, Monday, CH announced that no matter when the Pope's
funeral was held it would not alter their wedding plans....
End of story.
Seems like all that skiing really helps one's agility, since the POW
puts his foot in his mouth on a regular basis.
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-04-05 03:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
I have already posted this twice but volcaran seems to have some
objection to the fact that the first sentence does not have quote
marks. From the London Evening Standard 4 April
Headline "Wedding to go ahead even if it clashes with funeral"
"Prince Charles will go ahead with his wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles
despite a poosible clash with the funeral of the Pope, CLARENCE HOUSE
SAID TODAY".
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you think the Evening
Standard made that up?
I see quotation marks that indicate you are quoting from the newspaper,
not that the actual wording issued by CH is being quoted.

What about this don't you understand?
Jean Sue Libkind
2005-04-05 03:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Psyche's Knot
My legitimate reason is that Clarence House announced on HIS behalf
that come what may, the wedding plans were non-negotiable.
'Pressured' I N D I C T E S an unwillingness to acquiesce.
In the direct quote from CH, the word "non-negotiable" does not appear.

And the "pressured" was in the part of the post which you, by your own
admission, added.

js
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...