Happy at last

[Argos]

It was about time (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/10/charles.camilla/index.html) =D>

[mid]

Aaah...

April is a lovely month to get married in. But then, I would say that.

[Bawheid]

Aaah...

April is a lovely month to get married in. But then, I would say that.

You're Camilla Parker-Bowles? :o

[Richard of Chelmsford]

Who the hell cares? [-(

[kucharek]

Who the hell cares? [-(

The Yellow Press?

[Argos]

Who the hell cares? [-(

A penny for the Queen´s thoughts...

[mid]

You're Camilla Parker-Bowles? :o

heh. No, it's just the month I'll be celebrating our anniversary.

[A Thousand Pardons]

From the Queen: "The Duke of Edinburgh and I are very happy that The Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker Bowles are to marry."

But, what about this statement: "However, it was revealed that most Britons -- 38 percent -- did not care whether Charles and Parker Bowles married." I guess they meant, "the opinion with the most supporters among the three choices"

[Bawheid]

A selection (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1170525,00.html) of what the public, or at least those pleased or outraged enough to express an opinion, think.

Me? I don't care either way.

[Candy]

:o

So, Prince William is upgraded to 'next in line'? I get so confused on how 'kingdomships' work. 8-[

[ToSeek]

:o

So, Prince William is upgraded to 'next in line'? I get so confused on how 'kingdomships' work. 8-[

I don't think that's a change. Charles is first in the queue, followed by William, followed by Harry. Here's the top 10:

1. HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales (1948)
2. HRH Prince William of Wales, eldest son of The Prince Charles (1982)
3. HRH Prince Henry of Wales, younger son of The Prince Charles (1984)
4. HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York, second son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1960)
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York, elder daughter of The Prince Andrew (1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York, younger daughter of The Prince Andrew (1990)
7. HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex, youngest son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1964)
8. Lady Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten Windsor, daughter of HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex (2003)
9. HRH The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, only daughter of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1950)
10. Peter Phillips, son of The Princess Anne (1977)

- http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html

[A Thousand Pardons]

So, Prince William is upgraded to 'next in line'?
I don't remember anyone being in front of him, in line. Surely, they're civil about such progression, nowadays.

PS: maybe you're thinking he jumped in front of Andrew? I think that happened at his birth though.

Just look at where Anne fits in. :)

[Bawheid]

Marraige will make no difference, C P-B's children will not become heirs to the throne.

[Candy]

So, Prince William is upgraded to 'next in line'?
I don't remember anyone being in front of him, in line. Surely, they're civil about such progression, nowadays.

PS: maybe you're thinking he jumped in front of Andrew? I think that happened at his birth though.

Just look at where Anne fits in. :)
You're silly.

Seriously, I thought as long as Chuck didn't remarry, he would be the next King. I don't know where I got that idea. :oops:

[Bawheid]

The Church of England used to take a hard line on divorcees remarrying, the monarch of England is also the head of the Church of England so it was thought there might be problems. The present Archbishop of Canterbury is a happy clappy liberal so there will be no problems. Chuck is helping downplay this (and the fact the UK is fairly multicultural) by getting married in a civil ceremony rather than in a church.

[kucharek]

The Church of England used to take a hard line on divorcees remarrying...

I don't get this. Wasn't the CoE made by King Henry VIII because he needed an easier handling of divorces?

[A Thousand Pardons]

Seriously, I thought as long as Chuck didn't remarry, he would be the next King.
Ah, you were meaning that William would be next in line, and ahead of Charles. Sorry.

What about Elton John? Shouldn't there be a place in there for him?

[papageno]

The Church of England used to take a hard line on divorcees remarrying...

I don't get this. Wasn't the CoE made by King Henry VIII because he needed an easier handling of divorces?

I thought he did it because the Pope was not very cooperative about his divorce (for political reasons, I suppose).

[Bawheid]

Kucharek: The prohibition is on divorcees whose ex-spouses are still alive remarrying in chuch. Doesn't apply to Charles but does to C P-B.

Henry VIII tended to annul marriages or execute wives rather than divorce them, but the split with Rome was over his marriages.

[Candy]

What about Elton John? Shouldn't there be a place in there for him?
Elton John will always be the Queen of England. :wink:

[Bawheid]

What about Elton John? Shouldn't there be a place in there for him?
Elton John will always be the Queen of England. :wink:

Just England? :-? How about us up here?

Don't get me started on how Betty isn't Elizabeth the Second, but doesn't need a number. :evil:

[Candy]

Don't get me started...
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aktion/action-smiley-054.gif

[Andrew]

Why can't we just get rid of the royal family (should that be capitalized? I don't care) and make the entire thing a non-issue? I'm tired of all of this celebrity gossip masquerading as proper news.

[AGN Fuel]

Who the hell cares? [-(

Come now Richard! Knowing your interests, I would have thought that you would have been keenly waiting to see whether Andrew immediately books 2 rooms at the Tower if he happens to hear that Charlie had stepped in front of a bus..... :wink:

Now that would certainly liven things up! :lol:

[zebo-the-fat]

I don't remember any great fuss when I got married after a divorce, I am much more important than Charlie Boy! (and Mrs zebo is better looking than C-PB :D )

[Disinfo Agent]

Why can't we just get rid of the royal family (should that be capitalized? I don't care) and make the entire thing a non-issue? I'm tired of all of this celebrity gossip masquerading as proper news.
Getting rid of the former wouldn't necessarily end the latter. :)

[Gillianren]

The Church of England used to take a hard line on divorcees remarrying...

I don't get this. Wasn't the CoE made by King Henry VIII because he needed an easier handling of divorces?

I thought he did it because the Pope was not very cooperative about his divorce (for political reasons, I suppose).

mostly because Katherine of Aragon's cousin had an army in Rome at the time. does that count as a political reason?

Henry VIII claimed his marriage to Katherine was illegal by Church law because Katherine had previously been married to his older brother, Arthur, though it was generally accepted (and in fact Katherine insisted) that the marriage had never been consummated, and therefore never completed, and therefore, there was no bar to her marrying Henry.

but Henry was all hot and heavy for Anne Boleyn at this point, who was pregnant besides, and he was hoping for a legitimate male heir. (he already had one illegitimate but acknowledged son.) the Pope, for reasons already mentioned (the army) wouldn't give him the annullment, so he founded the CoE to do it for him.

Anne, in turn, agreed to an annulment, but he beheaded her anyway. Jane Seymour died of childbed fever. Anne of Cleves agreed to an annulment. Katherine Howard was executed for high treason (adultery). Katherine Parr outlived him by a few years before succumbing to childbed fever following the birth of her daughter by Thomas Seymour.

Elizabeth I was, in fact, Elizabeth I by official standards--not only did she rule England for longer than many people's lifetimes, but she was crowned by a bishop.

see, I do know about some things--just not physics.

[Disinfo Agent]

Katherine Howard was executed for high treason (adultery).
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ain't it great to be a king?

[Andrew]

Why can't we just get rid of the royal family (should that be capitalized? I don't care) and make the entire thing a non-issue? I'm tired of all of this celebrity gossip masquerading as proper news.
Getting rid of the former wouldn't necessarily end the latter. :)
No, but this news would be relegated to the pages of the likes of OK! instead of dominating the headlines of (supposedly) more serious news outlets.

[frogesque]

As I said on the other thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19589) [-(

(but I might see youse all over on FWIS if you really want to know what I think)

[Maksutov]

Who the hell cares? [-(
Same here. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/schlafen/sleeping-smiley-012.gif

[Bawheid]

Elizabeth I was, in fact, Elizabeth I by official standards--not only did she rule England for longer than many people's lifetimes, but she was crowned by a bishop.


Elizabeth I of England, the current queen is Elizabeth II of England, First of Scotland and Great Britain, which is the title she should use. I know nobody cares but Candy did ask. Even I don't really care, I'm just a pedant. :oops:

[Fram]

Who the hell cares? [-(
Same here. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/schlafen/sleeping-smiley-012.gif

It just bothers me that this is the most important news in the world yesterday, according to the Flemish public TV. I don't mind it being mentioned somewhere near the end, but starting the news with it and then just going on and on about it ... sheesh!

[Gillianren]

just imagine how much worse it would've been during the days of Henry VIII!

[Richard of Chelmsford]

Who the hell cares? [-(

Come now Richard! Knowing your interests, I would have thought that you would have been keenly waiting to see whether Andrew immediately books 2 rooms at the Tower if he happens to hear that Charlie had stepped in front of a bus..... :wink:

Now that would certainly liven things up! :lol:

Never mind a bus.

Drive the whole lot of them onto a busy motorway.

[Gillianren]

Elizabeth I of England, the current queen is Elizabeth II of England, First of Scotland and Great Britain, which is the title she should use. I know nobody cares but Candy did ask. Even I don't really care, I'm just a pedant. :oops:

the exact title has changed a dozen times or more since 1066. the British don't care; why should we? (Victoria, for example, was Empress of India, and I believe Elizabeth I was the last to call herself queen of England and France.)