NationStates Jolt Archive

Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles on April 6, according to the Press Association wires.


Queen Horse-face. :upyours:

Good for him. Poor guy is born into a system that dictates most of his life, now that he is older and having done his duty, let him retire in love.

Um…well yes she does have a horse face. Too bad you’re all fascinated by the Royals and have to see their pics in every paper.

If it hadn't been for her, Diana would most likely still be alive.

If it hadn't been for her, Diana would most likely still be alive.

Is this where you explain how the black helicopters and the men in black were involved? :rolleyes:

No, but the paparazzi were. Along with copious amounts of alcohol, of course, but still.

Prince Charles was backing up the royal driveway one day when he felt a large bump, getting out of the car he noticed he had run over one of the Queen's favourite corgis (wonderful dogs, both Welsh and Pembroke). "Shit!" he swore and kicked the hubcap of his car. Much to his astonishment a puff of smoke came from the car and a voice said "I am the genie of the hubcap! I will grant you one wish."
"Ok," says Chuck," bring this corgi back to life before mumsy finds out."
"No can do mate, sorry," says the genie. "Try again."
"OK, well can you make Carmilla beautiful?" He asks while showing the genie a photograph."
The genie takes one look at the picture and he says, "Let's just take another look at that dog, shall we Chuckie?":p

Hmmm. Queen Camilla!

Did'nt she know Snow White?

If it hadn't been for her, Diana would most likely still be alive.

This whole thread is based on an unfounded rumour. Could someone provide us with a real reference -- a link perhaps -- instead of a blind "the Press Association wires"?

In any case, the trouble with your theory about Diana's death is that the couple were already divorced, so Diana didn't stand in the way of anything that was or is likely to happen. Further, the Queen doesn't actually approve of horse-face any more than she approved of Diana -- maybe even less than Diana, since her son has never been able to control himself around horse-face (even when he was on his honeymoon). As recently as this past Christmas, the Queen made it clear that horse-face was not to arrive and leave together with her (hound-faced) son at formal royal events; at some other times horse-face has been refused invitations to official and family functions; does that sound like a family getting ready for a wedding? And then there is a little matter of the law here, which currently doesn't look kindly on him succeeding to the throne if he marries a divorced woman . As things stand, hound-face is likely to have to give up his claim to the throne if he marries horse-face. Remember Edward and Mrs Simpson? The law hasn't changed here.

Finally, who are you suggesting would kill Diana just to please horse-face? Charles has no power to do such a thing, officially or unofficially, and the royal family have shown no signs that they want to make the marriage of hound-face and horse-face any easier. All along, they've been obstructing the couple's relationship progressing past a certain point. Sure, the public opinion of Sun readers and watchers of "East Enders" may "fink it's a disgrace" that they haven't been allowed married and blah-blah, but they're the same lot that once inflicted a week's gormless mourning for Diana on the rest of us, and their ever-shifting opinions aren't what governs the UK. And even though that lot might manage one day to bully the royals into relenting and letting the hound and the horse breed (in exchange for slinking off somewhere and never being heard from again), as things stand now that pair will have to carry on skulking around in the shadows for quickies, and publicly being just good friends swimming in rumours. That being the case, how is Camilla going to be the reason Diana died?

Stuff and nonsense, all of it. Diana wasn't worth killing (except in her own unfortunately disordered mind) and horse-face had no way of having her killed.

Now, if you ever see a pub in a remote place called "The Horse-face and Hound-face", take a good look at the landlord and landlady ...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&ncid=721&e=6&u=/afp/20050210/wl_afp/britainroyals

It's not rumour it's true.

Good for Charles I say, she may be rough but he's no oil painting either. Let's hope they can be happy together, that's all that counts.

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

P.S. Diana would still be alive today if she a) wore a seatbelt, b) didn't hire a druggy driver and c) wasn't being chased by the paparazzi.

I hate conspiracy theorists!

Good for Charles I say, she may be rough but he's no oil painting either.


You sure about that? Ever watch Full Metal Jacket?

"You're so ugly you can be a modern art masterpeice!"

I say shoot them both and Parliment bloody oaths ruining the Kingdom

Stuff and nonsense, all of it. Diana wasn't worth killing (except in her own unfortunately disordered mind) and horse-face had no way of having her killed.Well... I bet he had ways available to him (even if it only been an unfortunate revamp of the whole Thomas A Beckett situation: i.e. "Who will free me from this turbulent priest?") because just about everyone has the means if they put their mind to it, but I still don't believe it happened that way...

Sure, history would have turned out different if Camilla hadn't been around, due to that Quantum Butterfly, but then it could have turned out differently if the driver had missed a train back in his college days and taken a different path through life, or if someone back in 18thC Paris had built a building a few feet closer to the Seine (subtley changing the eventual dyynamics of the tunnel) or whatever. Closer the time, what if a valve had gone on the car the day before and they'd used a slightly different model of car with different handling..? It all adds to the unpredictability, and unless there was a concious decision by a party to 'do something', the cause and effect is just so... diluted... by all the other things to suggest a link. Unless anyone can show a clear and conscious effort to do away with Diana (including by herself, because her public image rallied considerably upon her death) I suggest there's effectively no link and it was just an unfortunate accident. No-one deserves death and oblivion (some people possibly deserve to pay penalties of some kind while living) but everyone encounters it eventually anyway and the best you can hope for is the second occurs before too much painful precursor to the first, really.

There's an article on The Suns website, (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article....5062451,00.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005062451,00.html)).

good

should be allowed to marry whoever he wants

Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles on April 6, according to the Press Association wires.
I'd prefer to see both their heads on poles. Along with the rest of the Royal family except Prince Harry, coz he's just basically not a Royal.

Hmmm. Queen Camilla!

Did'nt she know Snow White?
actually she's not gonna be Queen, she's gonna be Princess consort and Dutchess of Cornwall

I'd prefer to see both their heads on poles. Along with the rest of the Royal family except Prince Harry, coz he's just basically not a Royal.
yea, because they had the choice to be born royal....:rolleyes:

it's not like Charles is really gonna be king for long anyway, you only have to put up with it for a bit then Wills will be King and you get to have me as your Queen/Princess consort

I know I am going to get slated for saying this but...

Diana was a vindicative little cow who went out of her way to ruin the reputation of Charles and the Royal Family in general. She was mentally unbalanced and the work she did for charity is meaningless when compared to vast workload of the Queen and Charles.

She published as many diaries and lies as possible in order to destroy the Royal Family in order to back them pay for throwing her out. Vindictive, spiteful and selfish, she almost brought a 1000 year old institution to its knees because of petty and malicious grudge she held.

The fact she was named of one of the top ten greatest Britons of all time is an absolute travesty when people like the Duke of Wellington, Gladstone and Marlborough didn't make the top ten even though they all did ten times as much for their country. The fact that Mother Teresa (who died a week after her) got next to no media attention when compared to Diana despite the fact that Mother Teresa has spent her entire life dedicated to others. The fact she got a state funeral is a travesty - you might as well give a state funeral to republican terrorist. There are men who serve their country far more and far harder and they never received one tenth of the admiration that Diana got for her publicity seeking, globe trotting antics. Charles has worked far, far harder than she ever did and he gets slated in the press just because he doesn't look as pretty as Diana.

I wish Charles the very best of luck with Camilla. Lets face it he couldn't do much worse than his last marriage to a mentally unstable traitor who happened to catch the media's eye because she had a pretty face.

It's not rumour it's true.

...

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

Thanks for the link. I worked through the breakfast news on BBC, and heard no reference to it. But there is a special broadcast on BBC news 24 just now, and they've announced it formally with a few details. The date is 8th April. She is to be made Duchess of Cornwall, not of Wales, and she'll be called "Princess Consort" Horse-face, not Queen Horse-face. So that's how they'll get past the legal problems.

The Queen and Duke have given the couple their "warmest wishes" (but not their blessing, yet). They say there are still difficulties with the legal situation. They're also saying that are problems over the ceremony -- it may have to be a civil ceremony.

I have to say I'm surprised the royal family is risking this, because of the problems with the law.

P.S. Diana would still be alive today if she a) wore a seatbelt, b) didn't hire a druggy driver and c) wasn't being chased by the paparazzi.

WHAT?!!? You mean you didn't know that Diana and her driver conspired together, with him as her suicide-murderer and her as -- er, um -- suicide-suicide? The paparazzi joined in the conspiracy to be paparazzi-accessories. It's true, you know.

I know I am going to get slated for saying this but...

Diana was a vindicative little cow who went out of her way to ruin the reputation of Charles and the Royal Family in general. She was mentally unbalanced and the work she did for charity is meaningless when compared to vast workload of the Queen and Charles.


What vast workload? As far as I can tell they are useless figure heads that do nothing but eat up taxpayer money. Couldn't that money go to a better use?

yea, because they had the choice to be born royal....:rolleyes:
What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

Now, if you ever see a pub in a remote place called "The Horse-face and Hound-face", take a good look at the landlord and landlady ...
I just thought of Robert Rankin and his alien camouflage-fox-hound-horse-human-hybrids. :D

Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles on April 6, according to the Press Association wires.


Queen Horse-face. :upyours:

Baring in mind the Queen seems to be immortal...I can't see Charles being King so we shall be spared having a monarch with a Sofa for a wife! I imagine Queeny will go straight to William when she chucks in the monarchal towel....if charles is made King I may move countries!

actually she's not gonna be Queen, she's gonna be Princess consort and Dutchess of Cornwall

Another schizo royal. :sniper:

Expect you'll tell me she's not really royal or schizo. :headbang:

I just thought of Robert Rankin and his alien camouflage-fox-hound-horse-human-hybrids. :D

Which book was that in?

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?
everything

you want their heads on spikes because theyre the royal family. which they ddint choose to be, it was an accident of birth, so you would be punishing them for how they were born

She published as many diaries and lies as possible in order to destroy the Royal Family in order to back them pay for throwing her out. Vindictive, spiteful and selfish, she almost brought a 1000 year old institution to its knees because of petty and malicious grudge she held.

.

1000 years old? Weren't they all German anyway?

1000 years old? Weren't they all German anyway?
yea, but the English/British monarchy is still over 1000 years old..

Can the thread title be changed to -

Bigears to Marry Horseface - Beastiality now Legal

thanking you

1000 years old? Weren't they all German anyway?

Sigh no matter how many times I repeat this it never sinks in:

GEORGE III WAS NOT GERMAN
GEORGE IV WAS NOT GERMAN
WILLIAM IV WAS NOT GERMAN
VICTORIA WAS NOT GERMAN
EDWARD VII WAS NOT GERMAN
GEORGE V WAS NOT GERMAN
EDWARD VIII WAS NOT GERMAN
GEORGE VI WAS NOT GERMAN
ELIZABETH II IS NOT GERMAN

All of those monarchs were born in Britain, spoke English, were raised as members of the Anglican church and participated in British traditions. Victoria may have married a German but the bloodline is taken from the sovereign not the consort.

In fact the only two German monarchs were:

GEORGE I
GEORGE II

All the rest were either English, Scottish, Welsh or French.

Oh and the monarchy is 939 years old streching from the line of the Norman Conquest of 1066. Its even longer if you take it back further but most historians use that as their starting point.

you want their heads on spikes because theyre the royal family. which they ddint choose to be, it was an accident of birth, so you would be punishing them for how they were born
Yes they did choose to be! How do you think royals come about? Divine intervention? No. They make babies and (in)breed more royals to leech off society.

meaningless when compared to vast workload of the Queen and Charles.
Specifics please.

They're people too, they deserve to be happy. I don't think it really matters who is married to whom, they're all pretty much the same anyway. Altough, I would prefer Lizzie's head on our coins to Bonny Prince Charlie's.

Seriously though guys...does it matter?

Yes they did choose to be! How do you think royals come about? Divine intervention? No. They make babies and (in)breed more royals to leech off society.
so...you think Charles chose to be born royal? or the Queen?

How could they? they have no say in the matter, all they can do is accept their circumstances

what youre saying is just like saying that poor people choose to be poor, because thats how they were born...the argument doesnt hold water

Seriously though guys...does it matter?

Sadly it does.

On the plus side it could lead to a debate in the House of Commons (I bet Skinner has been waiting for this chance for decades!) and in other countries it will require legislative changes not only at the National but also 'local' levels.

What vast workload? As far as I can tell they are useless figure heads that do nothing but eat up taxpayer money. Couldn't that money go to a better use?

Actually the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family do an immense (and I mean immense) load of charity work and diplomatic work. The Commonwealth is a far more functional method of international union than the UN and the Queen does a lot of diplomatic work on the behalf of the Commonwalth.

Also the cost to the taxpayer is miniscule - it has been estimated that the Royal Family cost the average householder (per year) the equivalent of a pint of milk and a loaf of bread.

Yes better use.... what like the millions that were spent on the Millenium Dome and the millions that continued to be wasted on it? Like the fact that billions of the taxpayers money goes into the NHS, the police and education only to see no visble improvement because all the money is eaten up by useless middle managers and burecracy? In comparison the Royal Family give us a lot higher value at a lot less the cost.

:mp5: I think (and this counts for a lot! hehe :D ) that people should marry who they wanna, as long as it doesn't screw up other peoples lives. I believe that charles should never have married poor princess Di, he was too old and quite obviously didn't want to marry her.

What is done is done and so it is pointless to keep harping on about it. let everyone move on baby! YEAH!!!!!

for some reason i don't like camilla. i don't know why. i think this could be dodgy.

well i live in cornwall. Hmpf, im may just say to all the cornish : Abandon ship!

Actually the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family do an immense (and I mean immense) load of charity work and diplomatic work. The Commonwealth is a far more functional method of international union than the UN and the Queen does a lot of diplomatic work on the behalf of the Commonwalth.

Also the cost to the taxpayer is miniscule - it has been estimated that the Royal Family cost the average householder (per year) the equivalent of a pint of milk and a loaf of bread.

Yes better use.... what like the millions that were spent on the Millenium Dome and the millions that continued to be wasted on it? Like the fact that billions of the taxpayers money goes into the NHS, the police and education only to see no visble improvement because all the money is eaten up by useless middle managers and burecracy? In comparison the Royal Family give us a lot higher value at a lot less the cost.
Did not mean to offend you. I just have a hard time justifying the need for a King or Queen. The only reason I could think of would be to preserve a tradition/history.

OK...my family pedigree (tree) goes by to Richard 1 and prior to that Henry then it goes to the Norman Conquest, I know my lineage and I know where the royal family came from...you have to remember that the majority offspring from the plantagenates were illigitamate or female, the line was diluted through marriage down the years to the point where the current royal family come from a German line - I personally don't care where they were born or who they marry, I pay my taxes, they take their cut and behave like idiots, that's their perogative.

...just to clarify, prior to 1066 the Kings were all of Saxon decent, after the invasion the Normans installed their own King and started a new Norman line.

Sadly it does.

On the plus side it could lead to a debate in the House of Commons (I bet Skinner has been waiting for this chance for decades!) and in other countries it will require legislative changes not only at the National but also 'local' levels.

Well...i'm a government person and the concensus here is "are we going to get a day off?" !!!!

Well...i'm a government person and the concensus here is "are we going to get a day off?" !!!!

HUZZAH!!! Glad to see the civil service has its priorities right! :)

Another schizo royal. :sniper:

Expect you'll tell me she's not really royal or schizo. :headbang:
well yeah, actually she will be royal cause they're letting her have HRH


and i don't really know her but if she's marrying Charles then she's gotta have a few mental problems

Henry VIII had 8 wives.

I don't see why Charles should be allowed a second and still take the throne.

I know I am going to get slated for saying this but...

Diana was a vindicative little cow who went out of her way to ruin the reputation of Charles and the Royal Family in general. She was mentally unbalanced and the work she did for charity is meaningless when compared to vast workload of the Queen and Charles.

She published as many diaries and lies as possible in order to destroy the Royal Family in order to back them pay for throwing her out. Vindictive, spiteful and selfish, she almost brought a 1000 year old institution to its knees because of petty and malicious grudge she held.

The fact she was named of one of the top ten greatest Britons of all time is an absolute travesty when people like the Duke of Wellington, Gladstone and Marlborough didn't make the top ten even though they all did ten times as much for their country. The fact that Mother Teresa (who died a week after her) got next to no media attention when compared to Diana despite the fact that Mother Teresa has spent her entire life dedicated to others. The fact she got a state funeral is a travesty - you might as well give a state funeral to republican terrorist. There are men who serve their country far more and far harder and they never received one tenth of the admiration that Diana got for her publicity seeking, globe trotting antics. Charles has worked far, far harder than she ever did and he gets slated in the press just because he doesn't look as pretty as Diana.

I wish Charles the very best of luck with Camilla. Lets face it he couldn't do much worse than his last marriage to a mentally unstable traitor who happened to catch the media's eye because she had a pretty face.

My god! I never thought this day would come...I agree with everything you've just said!!!!

But let's be honest, I don't really care what they do. If he wants to marry let him. As you say, he can't do any worse than Diana and at least he actually seems to like this one!

Henry VIII had 8 wives.

I don't see why Charles should be allowed a second and still take the throne.

....at least Charles doesn't go round loping their heads off!!!

yes but are we going to get a day off?

Yes they did choose to be! How do you think royals come about? Divine intervention? No. They make babies and (in)breed more royals to leech off society.

and even if charlie boy didn't choose to be the son of the queen, he does choose to be a prince. he could just be lil charlie boy and get a job like the rest of us.

I know I am going to get slated for saying this but...

Diana was a vindicative little cow ... yadda yadda ... unstable traitor who happened to catch the media's eye because she had a pretty face.

who cares?

who cares?

i care if we get a day off!

and even if charlie boy didn't choose to be the son of the queen, he does choose to be a prince. he could just be lil charlie boy and get a job like the rest of us.Ummm.. no. I don't think he could have.

Oh he physically could have, but do you really think that, in the atmosphere of the mid 60s when Charlie was coming of age, he could have said "Right Mom, I'm off to see the careers advisor" or "I'm leaving home to go backpacking and see the world, I'll send you postcards" or even "Some friends of mine have bought a VW camper and we're going to Glastonbury, then on to Wales where we know of a commune where we're going to grow our own vegetables..."

Wills and Hal have had unprecedented oportunities to 'break out' of the formal mold (the nearest previous equivalents are the tales where some king of yore or another wandered around his Kingdom dressed as a friar/monk to be incognito)... direct heirs to the throne may have been a 'bit' rebellious, but have always been expected to be either warmongers/warriors, or 'career soldiers' for the look of it. Some fell into the 'playboys/wastrel' category, but that's privilidge for you. Protocol has only really given way in the last decade or so (possibly so as not to be seen to be stifling "Di's boys"?), but it's really too late for Charles to take a job shelf-stacking at the local Waitrose. Can't see that happening. Not even his kids could do that.


Given that impediment from "getting a job like the rest of us", I think Charles has done quite a good job in getting involved in charities and trusts and being patron of things and championing things he thinks are important (he may not live on a commune in Wales, but he grows organic produce in Cornwall, etc... :)) and (IIRC) he doesn't take a penny from the civil list. The recent talk about how he/a flunky has tried some 'creative accounting' measures doesn't waver my opinion of him, 'cos if your accountants don't try to make more money for you/save you money on your tax bill then you're really using the wrong accountants. (It's every person's right to milk the system, if they so wish, balanced only with the system's right to make sure it isn't being abused. Getting the cut right is all part of the game.)

No. He's a Prince Of The Realm. There are some things that aren't open to him, and some of those things are "being normal". He can meet you half way by mixing with the public at official charity functions, but given he couldn't previously even marry who he wanted (and only now getting "a quiet civil wedding" because of the constitutional ramifications, and to the person he first loved but was unable to marry before now) I opine that his hands are tied like the rest of us. He gets silk rope and we get tatty nylon stuff, but it's still rope.

My opinion. I'm a 'royalist' only by inertia, but I tend to bite back at (to me) ridiculous statements as the above.