Prince Charles to marry his slag

ConstitutionalGirl wrote:

Tony Blair would make a great President for the UK.

And who would you want as Prime Minister then, Gordon Brown Laughing

0 Replies

I wonder if Charles had any idea that a roll in the hay with Camilla actually involved a barn?

0 Replies

A ROYAL PAIN
With those fun kids, Chuck and Cammy set to sit in Mummy's chair when she bites the ivy,
The United Kingdom of Great Brtain and Northern Ireland will have two known adulterers in ole Buckingham.

I understand Cammy is quite a talker.

Well, Chuck has ears big enough to hear a mime.

hear ye! hear ye! LET FREEDOM RING IN THE REALM, AT LAST!!!!

THE MONARCHY MUST BECOME PART OF HISTORY, AS IN THINGS PAST.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN --LIZ , THAT IS.

BUT ONCE MY LADY HAS left an empty royal seat,
and all Commoners jump to their feet,

That day may bring a tear, but yet one that is bitter yet sweet!!

CHUCK of Wales shall never BECOME KING, and

IN MERRY OLDE ENGLAND, freedom at last, shallRING!!!

LET US ALL IN JOY, NOW SING...

The English tabloids were on the verge of revealing a bombshell last year.

Someone, somewhere, somehow, issued a 'SHUT UP" ORDER---reportedly from the highest authority.

No, not God, good Queen Liz.

Since the rumor was nine months pregnant, speculation was intense as to the birth.

Unfortunately, .....

But word did rear its head that Chuck had an eye for, well, you know, --he did go to an all-male boarding school.

And someone, besides Cammy, had an eye, and more... for Chuck....
Throughout history, English Kings have dallied about with QUEENS

That was all over the news a couple years ago. That he had an affair with a male employee. No "verge" about it.

Very little stops the English press, I think,

THE STAKES WERE BIG
I thought it became a flash point once again,because Oprah, or Morey wanted to interview the two.

One of those, she knows, that he knows, that she knows, type of shows....

I think it's jolly good that Chuck is a Green.

--maybe, a rainbow???

He talks to the flowers in his royal garden bed.
And they listen to him..

Remember when Chuck was secretly phone recorded saying he wished he were Camillas tampon?

0 Replies

charles marries
a fictional "soap opera wedding" has had a better viewing audience than than real soap opera wedding of charles and camilla. the british show "coronation street" outperformed the royal wedding by quite a margin. " LET'S HEAR IT FOR "CORONATION STREET " !

0 Replies

Re: charles marries

hamburger wrote:

a fictional "soap opera wedding" has had a better viewing audience than than real soap opera wedding of charles and camilla. the british show "coronation street" outperformed the royal wedding by quite a margin.

It didn't have anything to do with Diana, it didn't have anything to do with Diana's sons, so nobody watched or cared.

More evidence for what most of us figured out already: In the eyes of the people, whatever legitimacy the monarchy has flows through Diana, not the House of Windsor.

Royalist traditionalists take heed.

0 Replies

Re: charles marries

kelticwizard wrote:

hamburger wrote:
a fictional "soap opera wedding" has had a better viewing audience than than real soap opera wedding of charles and camilla. the british show "coronation street" outperformed the royal wedding by quite a margin.

It didn't have anything to do with Diana, it didn't have anything to do with Diana's sons, so nobody watched or cared.

More evidence for what most of us figured out already: In the eyes of the people, whatever legitimacy the monarchy has flows through Diana, not the House of Windsor.

Royalist traditionalists take heed.

That's not how it is seen in merry old England, definitely not.

And you would be surprised by how many people "watched or cared". I was myself surprised.

My own opinion for what it is worth, and I am not an avid royalty-watcher, is that Camilla's arrival will strengthen the team- which was badly in need of a lift. They should make a few transfers, as well.

0 Replies

Not that I know anything, but yes, some transfers are needed; transfer Prince Charles to some backwater hole in the ground and let a real Prince take over.

0 Replies

Re: charles marries

kelticwizard wrote:

hamburger wrote:
a fictional "soap opera wedding" has had a better viewing audience than than real soap opera wedding of charles and camilla. the british show "coronation street" outperformed the royal wedding by quite a margin.

It didn't have anything to do with Diana, it didn't have anything to do with Diana's sons, so nobody watched or cared.

More evidence for what most of us figured out already: In the eyes of the people, whatever legitimacy the monarchy has flows through Diana, not the House of Windsor.

Royalist traditionalists take heed.

Even a spokesperson for the TV show said that the two could not be compared....
"Alison Sinclair, a spokeswoman for the soap TV show, told wire services: "I'm not going to sit here and crow about it. 'Coronation Street' has a very, very loyal following, and it was on at 7.30 pm on a Friday night. The Royal Wedding was on sporadically throughout Saturday, which is a very busy day for a lot of people who are out doing shopping. They were two very different sorts of events."

Second weddings never garner the attention that first weddings do. Whether they be royalty or not. Coronation Street is a case in point.

Given the fact that this was originally going to be a private affair (no pun intended) it got a lot of attention.

0 Replies

When the Archbishop of Canterbury tells the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England, that he will be attending the funeral of a Pope, so he better change his wedding day, the Monarchy is finished.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

When the Archbishop of Canterbury tells the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England, that he will be attending the funeral of a Pope, so he better change his wedding day, the Monarchy is finished.

Give me a break! The wedding was changed out of respect for the Pope not out of disrespect for the Monarchy.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Charles could have required Archbishop Williams to be at his wedding, and sent a delegate to the funeral.

The cardinals picked the 8th April because it clashed nicely with the wedding imo.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Charles could have required Archbishop Williams to be at his wedding, and sent a delegate to the funeral.

The cardinals picked the 8th April because it clashed nicely with the wedding imo.

Well Steve, it seems that the Vatican and AP disagree with you.

"Under Vatican tradition, Friday is the latest the funeral could have been held. Up to 2 million pilgrims are expected to converge on Rome for the 10 a.m. (4 a.m. EDT) service. "

The Cardinals began meeting on Monday. The body had to "lie to state" and then the funeral. Thursday would have been too early and Saturday would have been too late according to the above.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The cardinals picked the 8th April because it clashed nicely with the wedding imo.

You mean the Catholic Church waited 470 years to avenge Thomas More?

Now that's patience. Very Happy

0 Replies

Re: charles marries

Intrepid wrote:

Even a spokesperson for the TV show said that the two could not be compared....
"Alison Sinclair, a spokeswoman for the soap TV show, told wire services: "I'm not going to sit here and crow about it. 'Coronation Street' has a very, very loyal following, and it was on at 7.30 pm on a Friday night. The Royal Wedding was on sporadically throughout Saturday, which is a very busy day for a lot of people who are out doing shopping. They were two very different sorts of events."

A little strategic diplomacy, don't you think?

Among Coronation Street's fans, I am sure, are many people who would take umbrage at the show's producers saying, "Yeah, we really kicked Charlie's butt in the ratings".

In a situation like this, where a figure of alleged national reverence has done badly, the smart thing to do is to be as gracious as possible and to down play it's significance.

I especially get a kick out of the following:

Coronation Street producers wrote:

The Royal Wedding was on sporadically throughout Saturday, which is a very busy day for a lot of people who are out doing shopping.

Oh, come on. What better day could he be scheduled for? Most events are purposely scheduled for Saturday so that people can attend or watch on TV.

Intrepid wrote:

Second weddings never garner the attention that first weddings do. Whether they be royalty or not. Coronation Street is a case in point.

I agree, that's true. But this wedding, announced but a few weeks ago and carried out in this way, is the absolute minimum that could be done in the way of a royal wedding that wouldn't carry an implication of official disapproval.

They didn't have to make it the month-by-month extravaganza the first wedding was, but this comparatively spare ceremony carried a clear message that they didn't want to stick out.

Quote:

Given the fact that this was originally going to be a private affair....

LOL, now why would that be? The royal family is exists to be visible. Here, they are doing their level best to be invisible.

Let's face it. The whole theme of this event is: Now That The Damage Is Done. After all the mess Charles has made, he might just as well marry the woman, (to show that he at least has some sense of responsibility somewhere), and some effort is made to put on some kind of celebration. A very muted celebration, for obvious reasons.

0 Replies

The death of a pope should not be allowed to interfere with a prince's wedding. The queen is supreme governor of the church of england not the pope.

More's noble words

"The King's good servant, but God's First."

shows he had a distorted sense of priorities

0 Replies

Steve:

As you can see, I'm critical of this wedding too, but I honestly don't see what choice they had but to postpone.

Pretty much the entire world was showing up that day to for the Pope's funeral. Even with a royal wedding underway, I think Britain would be sending a message to the rest of world that it is so involved in it's own affairs that it is willing to forego attendance at this worldwide occasion.

Papal funerals, especially of long-reigning Popes, are pretty momentous affairs. Not that I'm a big Papal fan. But that really is the case.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

More's noble words

"The King's good servant, but God's First."

shows he had a distorted sense of priorities

Well, I was raised an Episcopalian, (don't ask how that happened, the rest of the family on both sides is Catholic, lol), so I'm glad Henry broke away from Rome.

Frankly, I think he did England a big favor by doing so, though the circumstances were less than honorable.

Still, to many, Thomas More stands as a man who followed his conscience right to the point where the axe came down on his neck. For most, he is an inspirational figure, regardless of where they stand on the Pope.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The death of a pope should not be allowed to interfere with a prince's wedding. The queen is supreme governor of the church of england not the pope.

More's noble words

"The King's good servant, but God's First."

shows he had a distorted sense of priorities

Remember...Charles also attended the funeral. Part of the responsibilities and duties of the Royal Family is to represent England and in this case, the Church of England, at official funtions. The funeral of Pope John Paul II was an official function. It was announced immediately upon the death of the Pope that the wedding would be rescheduled. I am sure more than you would be critical if they had gone ahead as planned. It does show some maturity and sense of what is right on the Prince's part.

"Supreme Governor" ???? Oh, you mean the Head of the Church of England.

You seem to be against the wedding; against them changing the date of the wedding; against the inconvience that the Pope's funeral caused; against the Monarchy; against the choices of Thomas More and whatever else is happening at the time.

0 Replies

Steve, like me and Groucho Marx, is against everything. Laughing

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

When the Archbishop of Canterbury tells the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England, that he will be attending the funeral of a Pope, so he better change his wedding day, the Monarchy is finished.

I bet The Guardian made a lot out of this; The Spectator definitely did.

I wonder if it was not the angelic Mr Blair's office to blame.

"Okay, it's nearly election time guys, let's get over to Rome, schmooze with my mate George, press the flesh, make like caring international statesmen, and we can do the wedding Saturday."

Also don't forget Chas's stated wish to be known in future as "Defender of Faiths" and that means everybody.

No it doesn't; what about me?

0 Replies

Prince Charles to marry his slag

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know