'Prince' Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles

[banana]

*He will never be 'king'.*

To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?

And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?

Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

The following is from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=7591523


***BEGIN ARTICLE***

By Paul Majendie

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's heir to the throne Prince Charles revealed
on Thursday he will marry Camilla Parker Bowles, sparking intense debate
about whether his divorced, longtime lover should become queen.

A top aide confirmed the shock news to Reuters. Charles' office promised
to announce more details of the wedding soon, which is expected to take
place at Windsor Castle, west of London, on April 6.

Parker Bowles is the great love of Charles' life -- the pair met in
their 20s at a polo match -- but the 58-year-old mother of two has faced
an uphill struggle to rival his former wife, the late Princess Diana, in
the public's affection.

Charles, 56, was divorced in 1996 from Diana, who blamed "rottweiler"
Parker Bowles and the prying media for the break-up. Diana died in a
Paris car crash in 1997.

Since then, and after years of choreographed appearances, Parker Bowles
has been accepted as Charles' partner.

Charles is due to assume the throne after his mother Queen Elizabeth. As
monarch, he would also assume a titular role as head of the Church of
England, which is divided over the propriety of marrying divorcees.

Charles' sons William and Harry, in line to assume the throne after
their father, have now accepted Parker Bowles, who shares official rooms
with him at his London residence.

QUEEN CAMILLA?

"The issue is whether she will take the full style and title of Princess
of Wales and whether any children would have any place in the
succession," Dr David Starkey, historian and constitutional expert, told
Reuters.

"She would have to take the status of Prince Charles and ultimately that
of queen unless there is legislation passed to the contrary," he said.

Charles and Camilla had a two-year love affair after first meeting in
1971 but Camilla then married cavalry officer Andrew Parker Bowles,
divorcing him in 1995.

[...]

***END ARTICLE***

[Joe Hutcheon]

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

[Robin Carmody]

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

Erm ... there are a decent number of us who are gruesomely interested in the
royal elite's manipulation of the public.

RC

[Joe Hutcheon]

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

Erm ... there are a decent number of us who are gruesomely interested in the
royal elite's manipulation of the public.

I think most of the GBP are heartily bored by the whole sorry charade.
Probably by now most would prefer if Charles abdicated and/or if the
monarchy itself was abolished. But compared to such crucial issues as a new
Ikea store opening, no-one really *cares* (apart from you and banana)

[Karen Sexton]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:14:20 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon"

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

Erm ... there are a decent number of us who are gruesomely interested in

the

Post by Robin Carmody
royal elite's manipulation of the public.

I think most of the GBP are heartily bored by the whole sorry charade.
Probably by now most would prefer if Charles abdicated and/or if the
monarchy itself was abolished. But compared to such crucial issues as a new
Ikea store opening, no-one really *cares* (apart from you and banana)

Joe Hutcheon! Fancy meeting you in these groups. I thought you were
above all this tripe. I actually enjoy a bit of tripe now & then. I
rear my ugly head here about once a year or so. I had to see what the
buzz was.

KS

[j***@jisc.ac.uk]

Post by Karen Sexton
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:14:20 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon"

Post by Joe Hutcheon
I think most of the GBP are heartily bored by the whole sorry

charade.

Post by Karen Sexton

Post by Joe Hutcheon
Probably by now most would prefer if Charles abdicated and/or if the
monarchy itself was abolished. But compared to such crucial issues as a new
Ikea store opening, no-one really *cares* (apart from you and

banana)

Post by Karen Sexton
Joe Hutcheon! Fancy meeting you in these groups. I thought you were
above all this tripe. I actually enjoy a bit of tripe now & then. I
rear my ugly head here about once a year or so. I had to see what the
buzz was.

Personally I have long been of the view that the entire Royal Family
and all its hangers-on should be lined up against a wall and shot. But
why all this hoo-hah over two middle-aged people getting married?

[Mabon Dane]

That is what they did in Russia. Under Blair we have yet to reach this
stage yet.

MD

[Karen Sexton]

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by Karen Sexton
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:14:20 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon"

Post by Joe Hutcheon
I think most of the GBP are heartily bored by the whole sorry

charade.

Post by Karen Sexton

Post by Joe Hutcheon
Probably by now most would prefer if Charles abdicated and/or if the
monarchy itself was abolished. But compared to such crucial issues

as a new

Post by Karen Sexton

Post by Joe Hutcheon
Ikea store opening, no-one really *cares* (apart from you and

banana)

Post by Karen Sexton
Joe Hutcheon! Fancy meeting you in these groups. I thought you were
above all this tripe. I actually enjoy a bit of tripe now & then. I
rear my ugly head here about once a year or so. I had to see what

the

Post by Karen Sexton
buzz was.

Personally I have long been of the view that the entire Royal Family
and all its hangers-on should be lined up against a wall and shot. But
why all this hoo-hah over two middle-aged people getting married?

Do I get a choice between firing squad, lethal injection, or the
electric chair?

I don't know if I would be considered a "hanger-on", I was never
interested in them until Diana came along. Both the Charles Camp and
Diana Camp would have to admit that interest in the family was at an
all-time low before Charles married Diana.

I can't begrudge Charles for getting married to The Love of His Life,
but geez- the whole thing would have been alot less complicated if
they had married back in the 70's. And an added bonus would have been
that nobody would have followed them around hounding them for
pictures- Cams is not photogenic. But IIRC, Camilla wasn't a virgin,
so was unsuitable (I wonder if that's why she married her ex-husband,
knowing she wasn't in the running?) or if it was because Lord
Mountbatten said she would make better mistress material than wife
material? Whatever the reason, it seems like Diana was just used to
produce an heir and a spare because she was suitable as far as
qualifications were concerned.

One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older women
some hope now.


KS

[banana]

Post by Karen Sexton

Post by Karen Sexton
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:14:20 -0000, "Joe Hutcheon"

<snip>

Post by Karen Sexton
One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older women
some hope now.

Older women, just like everyone else, should derive hope from elsewhere
than watching the high and mighty lords and ladies ostentatiously
enjoying themselves.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Karen Sexton
I can't begrudge Charles for getting married to The Love of His Life,
but geez- the whole thing would have been alot less complicated if
they had married back in the 70's. And an added bonus would have been
that nobody would have followed them around hounding them for
pictures- Cams is not photogenic. But IIRC, Camilla wasn't a virgin,
so was unsuitable (I wonder if that's why she married her ex-husband,
knowing she wasn't in the running?) or if it was because Lord
Mountbatten said she would make better mistress material than wife
material? Whatever the reason, it seems like Diana was just used to
produce an heir and a spare because she was suitable as far as
qualifications were concerned.
One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older women
some hope now.

Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.

Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first ever
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress. When he marries Cammy of course
that position becomes vacant. As an equal opportunities employer (he
has shown no discrimination whatsoever in appointing previous
incumbents), older women will obviously be eligible to apply when the
post is advertised.

[banana]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
I can't begrudge Charles for getting married to The Love of His Life,
but geez- the whole thing would have been alot less complicated if
they had married back in the 70's. And an added bonus would have been
that nobody would have followed them around hounding them for
pictures- Cams is not photogenic. But IIRC, Camilla wasn't a virgin,
so was unsuitable (I wonder if that's why she married her ex-husband,
knowing she wasn't in the running?) or if it was because Lord
Mountbatten said she would make better mistress material than wife
material? Whatever the reason, it seems like Diana was just used to
produce an heir and a spare because she was suitable as far as
qualifications were concerned.
One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older women
some hope now.

Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.
Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first ever
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress. When he marries Cammy of course
that position becomes vacant.

Is there a word for a male gay version of a mistress, that might be used
to describe 'Prince' Charles's lover M*chael F*wcett?

[oO °]

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
I can't begrudge Charles for getting married to The Love of His Life,
but geez- the whole thing would have been alot less complicated if
they had married back in the 70's. And an added bonus would have been
that nobody would have followed them around hounding them for
pictures- Cams is not photogenic. But IIRC, Camilla wasn't a virgin,
so was unsuitable (I wonder if that's why she married her ex-husband,
knowing she wasn't in the running?) or if it was because Lord
Mountbatten said she would make better mistress material than wife
material? Whatever the reason, it seems like Diana was just used to
produce an heir and a spare because she was suitable as far as
qualifications were concerned.
One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older women
some hope now.

Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.
Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first ever
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress. When he marries Cammy of course
that position becomes vacant.

Is there a word for a male gay version of a mistress, that might be used
to describe 'Prince' Charles's lover M*chael F*wcett?

Hmm...not sure...what could we call him? A 'kept man'? His 'fancy-man'?
Paramour? Inamorato? Gay-lover? His tart?
Tough one....

[Susan Cohen]

oO

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
I can't begrudge Charles for getting married to The Love of His Life,
but geez- the whole thing would have been alot less complicated if
they had married back in the 70's. And an added bonus would have been
that nobody would have followed them around hounding them for
pictures- Cams is not photogenic. But IIRC, Camilla wasn't a virgin,
so was unsuitable (I wonder if that's why she married her

ex-husband,

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
knowing she wasn't in the running?) or if it was because Lord
Mountbatten said she would make better mistress material than wife
material? Whatever the reason, it seems like Diana was just used to
produce an heir and a spare because she was suitable as far as
qualifications were concerned.
One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older women
some hope now.

Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.
Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first ever
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress. When he marries Cammy of course
that position becomes vacant.

Is there a word for a male gay version of a mistress, that might be used
to describe 'Prince' Charles's lover M*chael F*wcett?

Hmm...not sure...what could we call him? A 'kept man'? His

'fancy-man'?

Post by oO °
Paramour? Inamorato? Gay-lover? His tart?
Tough one....

How about *his banana*?

Susan

[Moral Conscience]

oO
Sexton

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
I can't begrudge Charles for getting married to The Love of His

Life,

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
but geez- the whole thing would have been alot less complicated if
they had married back in the 70's. And an added bonus would have

been

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
that nobody would have followed them around hounding them for
pictures- Cams is not photogenic. But IIRC, Camilla wasn't a

virgin,

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
so was unsuitable (I wonder if that's why she married her

ex-husband,

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
knowing she wasn't in the running?) or if it was because Lord
Mountbatten said she would make better mistress material than wife
material? Whatever the reason, it seems like Diana was just used

to

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
produce an heir and a spare because she was suitable as far as
qualifications were concerned.
One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older

women

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
some hope now.

Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.
Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first

ever

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress. When he marries Cammy of

course

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells
that position becomes vacant.

Is there a word for a male gay version of a mistress, that might be

used

Post by oO °

Post by banana
to describe 'Prince' Charles's lover M*chael F*wcett?

Hmm...not sure...what could we call him? A 'kept man'? His

'fancy-man'?

Post by oO °
Paramour? Inamorato? Gay-lover? His tart?
Tough one....

How about *his banana*?
Susan

You are sick! Keep your lesbian nose out of a.p.b and uk.p.m.

[Susan Cohen]

Post by Moral Conscience

oO
Sexton

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
I can't begrudge Charles for getting married to The Love of His

Life,

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
but geez- the whole thing would have been alot less complicated if
they had married back in the 70's. And an added bonus would have

been

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
that nobody would have followed them around hounding them for
pictures- Cams is not photogenic. But IIRC, Camilla wasn't a

virgin,

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
so was unsuitable (I wonder if that's why she married her

ex-husband,

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
knowing she wasn't in the running?) or if it was because Lord
Mountbatten said she would make better mistress material than wife
material? Whatever the reason, it seems like Diana was just used

to

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
produce an heir and a spare because she was suitable as far as
qualifications were concerned.
One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older

women

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
some hope now.

Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.
Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first

ever

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress. When he marries Cammy of

course

Post by oO °

Post by banana

Post by Norman Wells
that position becomes vacant.

Is there a word for a male gay version of a mistress, that might be

used

Post by oO °

Post by banana
to describe 'Prince' Charles's lover M*chael F*wcett?

Hmm...not sure...what could we call him? A 'kept man'? His

'fancy-man'?

Post by oO °
Paramour? Inamorato? Gay-lover? His tart?
Tough one....

How about *his banana*?
Susan

You are sick! Keep your lesbian nose out of a.p.b and uk.p.m.

KooK!

Susan

[Susan Cohen]

Post by Moral Conscience

Post by Susan Cohen
How about *his banana*?
Susan

You are sick! Keep your lesbian nose out of a.p.b and uk.p.m.

Thank for proving what your bias is, & for pretending that every foul word
from the phony rev's mouth is mine. Playing ball with bigots puts you in
their camp, you know.

Susan

[Susan Cohen]

[snip most of crap]

Post by oO °

Post by banana
Is there a word for a male gay version of a mistress, that might be used
to describe 'Prince' Charles's lover M*chael F*wcett?

Hmm...not sure...what could we call him? A 'kept man'? His 'fancy-man'?
Paramour? Inamorato? Gay-lover? His tart?
Tough one....

How about a figment of sick & or jealous imaginations?
Sticking w/the truth is always best.

SusanC

[Joe Hutcheon]

Post by Susan Cohen
[snip most of crap]

Post by oO °

Post by banana
Is there a word for a male gay version of a mistress, that might be used
to describe 'Prince' Charles's lover M*chael F*wcett?

Hmm...not sure...what could we call him? A 'kept man'? His 'fancy-man'?
Paramour? Inamorato? Gay-lover? His tart?

His 'banana'?

Post by Susan Cohen

Post by oO °
Tough one....

How about a figment of sick & or jealous imaginations?

His 'fig leaf'?

[Noel Leon]

On , , Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:35:17 +0000, Re: 'Prince' Charles to
marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, banana

Post by banana
Is there a word for a male gay version of a mistress, that might be used
to describe 'Prince' Charles's lover M*chael F*wcett?

He would be known as a banana.

[Michael Rhodes]

Post by Norman Wells
Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.
Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first ever
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress.

(deletion....)

Post by Norman Wells
Norman Wells

Who was George V's mistress?

[banana]

Post by Michael Rhodes

Post by Norman Wells
Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.
Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first ever
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress.

<snip>

Post by Michael Rhodes
Who was George V's mistress?

I don't know, but his wife used to be the girlfriend of Jack the Ripper.

[Karen Sexton]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
I can't begrudge Charles for getting married to The Love of His Life,
but geez- the whole thing would have been alot less complicated if
they had married back in the 70's. And an added bonus would have been
that nobody would have followed them around hounding them for
pictures- Cams is not photogenic. But IIRC, Camilla wasn't a virgin,
so was unsuitable (I wonder if that's why she married her ex-husband,
knowing she wasn't in the running?) or if it was because Lord
Mountbatten said she would make better mistress material than wife
material? Whatever the reason, it seems like Diana was just used to
produce an heir and a spare because she was suitable as far as
qualifications were concerned.
One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older women
some hope now.

Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.
Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first ever
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress.

He may have said that defensively, to Diana, because he couldn't get
over Camilla, but then again, you may be right.

Post by Norman Wells
When he marries Cammy of course
that position becomes vacant. As an equal opportunities employer (he
has shown no discrimination whatsoever in appointing previous
incumbents), older women will obviously be eligible to apply when the
post is advertised.

I wonder <shutter> who else is in the running?

KS

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

Post by Karen Sexton

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Karen Sexton
I can't begrudge Charles for getting married to The Love of His Life,
but geez- the whole thing would have been alot less complicated if
they had married back in the 70's. And an added bonus would have been
that nobody would have followed them around hounding them for
pictures- Cams is not photogenic. But IIRC, Camilla wasn't a virgin,
so was unsuitable (I wonder if that's why she married her ex-husband,
knowing she wasn't in the running?) or if it was because Lord
Mountbatten said she would make better mistress material than wife
material? Whatever the reason, it seems like Diana was just used to
produce an heir and a spare because she was suitable as far as
qualifications were concerned.
One positive in this whole thing is that maybe this gives older women
some hope now.

Indeed so, but perhaps not quite for the reasons you suspect.
Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first ever
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress.

He may have said that defensively, to Diana, because he couldn't get
over Camilla, but then again, you may be right.

Post by Norman Wells
When he marries Cammy of course
that position becomes vacant. As an equal opportunities employer (he
has shown no discrimination whatsoever in appointing previous
incumbents), older women will obviously be eligible to apply when the
post is advertised.

I wonder <shutter> who else is in the running?
KS

Well, not that she's 'old', but what happened to Tiggy, the nannie?

Pamela
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887

"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" airs on the SPEED cable channel. Here is a link to the
schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/ More at www.jfk100x.com.
"The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night", a new essay on "the SBT" is at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372.
Scroll down the main Ed Forum page to"Assassination of JFK", click on "JFK Online Seminars", and you will find my essay, plus many others.
Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and a backup of www.jfk100x.com please join jfk100x at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org

[a***@hotmail.com]

"Chaz said a long time ago that he didn't intend to be the first ever
Prince of Wales not to have a mistress."

That's pretty witty, actually.

I believe the FIRST English Prince of Wales not to have a mistress was
the future Edward II, who was the first Prince of Wales. Edward III
(king at 15) ditto. Henry VI (king at age 1) ditto. Edward V (king at
13, dead soon thereafter) ditto. The sons of Henry VII did not have
mistresses while P of W; nor did Edward VI (dead at 15). Charles I was
a virgin when he married, as king. Ditto George III. George IV, of
course, was married when he married his wife, and betrayed both of them
with mistresses while still Prince. George V never took a mistress
after he married, which was well before he became Prince of Wales.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

[Karen Sexton]

Post by j***@jisc.ac.uk
Personally I have long been of the view that the entire Royal Family
and all its hangers-on should be lined up against a wall and shot. But
why all this hoo-hah over two middle-aged people getting married?

I forgot to ask-So why are you here? Or are you here because of
another group that is cross-posted?

KS

[Joseph Hutcheon]

Post by Karen Sexton

Post by j***@jisc.ac.uk
Personally I have long been of the view that the entire Royal Family
and all its hangers-on should be lined up against a wall and shot. But
why all this hoo-hah over two middle-aged people getting married?

I forgot to ask-So why are you here? Or are you here because of
another group that is cross-posted?

You mean tis isn't afba?

Seriusly though I'm on a cross-post from ukpm.

[Karen Sexton]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:57:03 GMT, "Joseph Hutcheon"

Post by Joseph Hutcheon

Post by Karen Sexton

Post by j***@jisc.ac.uk
Personally I have long been of the view that the entire Royal Family
and all its hangers-on should be lined up against a wall and shot. But
why all this hoo-hah over two middle-aged people getting married?

I forgot to ask-So why are you here? Or are you here because of
another group that is cross-posted?

You mean tis isn't afba?

Sorry, no.

KS

[ivan]

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

Erm ... there are a decent number of us who are gruesomely interested in the
royal elite's manipulation of the public.

'Gruesome' being the operative word!

Post by Robin Carmody
RC

[howard]

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

Erm ... there are a decent number of us who are gruesomely interested in the
royal elite's manipulation of the public.

General election soon after the wedding me thinks. For
that 'feel good' factor.

[Susan Cohen]

Post by howard

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

Erm ... there are a decent number of us who are gruesomely

interested in

Post by howard
the

Post by Robin Carmody
royal elite's manipulation of the public.

General election soon after the wedding me thinks. For
that 'feel good' factor.

When's the next one due?

Susan

[Peter Tilman]

Post by banana

Post by howard

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public,

any time

Post by howard

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using

'royal'

Post by howard

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

Erm ... there are a decent number of us who are gruesomely

interested in

Post by howard
the

Post by Robin Carmody
royal elite's manipulation of the public.

General election soon after the wedding me thinks. For
that 'feel good' factor.

When's the next one due?

Before 30th June 2006, but it'll most likely be some time this year (the
precise timing is up to the Prime Minister). The current "favourite" is 5th
May, I believe.

[Susan Cohen]

Post by Peter Tilman

Post by banana

Post by howard

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in

public,

Post by Peter Tilman

Post by banana
any time

Post by howard

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using

'royal'

Post by howard

Post by Robin Carmody

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

Erm ... there are a decent number of us who are gruesomely

interested in

Post by howard
the

Post by Robin Carmody
royal elite's manipulation of the public.

General election soon after the wedding me thinks. For
that 'feel good' factor.

When's the next one due?

Before 30th June 2006, but it'll most likely be some time this year (the
precise timing is up to the Prime Minister). The current "favourite" is 5th
May, I believe.

Cutting it a year short seems a bit much. Why don't they have fixed
ones like we do?

Susan

[a***@hotmail.com]

Because they have a fixed Chief of State, and only the government
changes. They DO have it fixed as before five years are up.

Fixed elections in the American style are the exception, not the rule.
They are necessary to keep a Chief of State from making himself
permanent. If the CoS IS permanent (barring death), which is the case
in monarchies, fixed electoral dates and terms are counterproductive,
as they allow elected officials to give up work for a year or three
while loafing, and then oblige them to give up work to run for
re-election. In the U.S., the entire year before a presidential
election is almost legislation-free -- everyone's too busy running. In
Britain, everyone attends to legislation until the moment the election
is announced. Instead of being a 12-18 month process of paralyzing
tedium, the election is a one- or two-month intermission in
legislation, during which actual issues are sometimes discussed.

This is also one reason a monarchy is an improvement on a republci, and
far more democratic.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

[banana]

Post by a***@hotmail.com
Because they have a fixed Chief of State, and only the government
changes. They DO have it fixed as before five years are up.
Fixed elections in the American style are the exception, not the rule.
They are necessary to keep a Chief of State from making himself
permanent.

Maximum periods between elections achieve this too.

Post by a***@hotmail.com
If the CoS IS permanent (barring death), which is the case
in monarchies, fixed electoral dates and terms are counterproductive,
as they allow elected officials to give up work for a year or three
while loafing, and then oblige them to give up work to run for
re-election. In the U.S., the entire year before a presidential
election is almost legislation-free -- everyone's too busy running. In
Britain, everyone attends to legislation until the moment the election
is announced.

It isn't quite like that. Normal nowadays is considered to be four years
(1983, 1987, 2001, 2005). And as the five-year deadline approaches, the
slot in which it has to be held gets smaller (e.g. 1979, 1992).

Post by a***@hotmail.com
Instead of being a 12-18 month process of paralyzing
tedium, the election is a one- or two-month intermission in
legislation, during which actual issues are sometimes discussed.
This is also one reason a monarchy is an improvement on a republci, and
far more democratic.

Don't be such a fucking idiot.

Post by a***@hotmail.com
Jean Coeur de Lapin

[Susan Cohen]

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

My husband prefers Simon Sharma or chickenhead, as he calls him
on account of his head wobbling while talking.

Susan

[Joe Hutcheon]

Post by banana

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any

time

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using

'royal'

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

My husband prefers Simon Sharma or chickenhead, as he calls him
on account of his head wobbling while talking.

I like the female one who talks about the Dark Ages, her name escapes me for
the moment.

[bigboard]

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any

time

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using

'royal'

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

My husband prefers Simon Sharma or chickenhead, as he calls him
on account of his head wobbling while talking.

I like the female one who talks about the Dark Ages, her name escapes me
for the moment.

Vera Lynn.

[Susan Cohen]

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any

time

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using

'royal'

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

My husband prefers Simon Sharma or chickenhead, as he calls him
on account of his head wobbling while talking.

I like the female one who talks about the Dark Ages, her name escapes me for
the moment.

I'm not familiar with her. What was the name of her program/series?

Susan

[j***@jisc.ac.uk]

Her name was Bettany Hughes. The programme I'm thinking of was called
'Breaking the Seal'.

http://www.womenspeakers.co.uk/speakerdetail.asp?speakerid=62

[bigboard]

Post by j***@jisc.ac.uk
Her name was Bettany Hughes. The programme I'm thinking of was called
'Breaking the Seal'.

I usually call it 'Blowing my plug', but each to his own.

[Rachel Spencer]

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

I think this is big news. Thanks for posting Banana. Hopefully
Charles will just fall off the earth and go away with his ugly bride
after the wedding. I hope its a private affair. Do you think the
queen would attend?

[abelard]

Post by banana

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any

time

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using

'royal'

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

I think this is big news. Thanks for posting Banana. Hopefully
Charles will just fall off the earth and go away with his ugly bride
after the wedding. I hope its a private affair.

it used to be...

[banana]

Post by banana

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any

time

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using

'royal'

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

I think this is big news. Thanks for posting Banana. Hopefully
Charles will just fall off the earth and go away with his ugly bride
after the wedding. I hope its a private affair. Do you think the
queen would attend?

Yes. But goodness knows what will happen between now and 8 April. I
think they have a dilemma as to whether to get CPB to speak publicly
(for broadcast) or not. There is nothing she can say that will change
most people's opinion. On the other hand, it looks bad if she keeps
quiet.

[yD]

Another Panorama/Dimbleby interview? Naw, I don't see it. I think CPB
will keep her head down and I doubt that Charles will speak on his or
her, or their, behalf beyond the minimum. There's nothing to gain by
it, is there. And I think that any such thing by her, or on her
behalf, will be seen as 'pushing her' (sometimes known as "spin"). No,
I don't any dilemma -- she won't address the public. What could she
say and why would she have to say it?
yD

[banana]

Post by yD
Another Panorama/Dimbleby interview? Naw, I don't see it. I think CPB
will keep her head down and I doubt that Charles will speak on his or
her, or their, behalf beyond the minimum. There's nothing to gain by
it, is there. And I think that any such thing by her, or on her
behalf, will be seen as 'pushing her' (sometimes known as "spin"). No,
I don't any dilemma -- she won't address the public. What could she
say and why would she have to say it?

Agreed with what you say, but a dilemma is a choice between two evils,
and my point was that if she does it, it will be the worse for her, and
if she doesn't, that will look bad too.

They have been promoting her for years but it hasn't worked.

[abelard]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:45:30 +0000, banana

Post by banana

Post by yD
Another Panorama/Dimbleby interview? Naw, I don't see it. I think CPB
will keep her head down and I doubt that Charles will speak on his or
her, or their, behalf beyond the minimum. There's nothing to gain by
it, is there. And I think that any such thing by her, or on her
behalf, will be seen as 'pushing her' (sometimes known as "spin"). No,
I don't any dilemma -- she won't address the public. What could she
say and why would she have to say it?

Agreed with what you say, but a dilemma is a choice between two evils,
and my point was that if she does it, it will be the worse for her, and
if she doesn't, that will look bad too.
They have been promoting her for years but it hasn't worked.

they could always make a disc for 'charity'.....
with a catchy title like 'well bring love to the universe' and
considerable quantities of background noise...

regards....

[j***@jisc.ac.uk]

... the latter supplied by yourself?

[abelard]

Post by j***@jisc.ac.uk
... the latter supplied by yourself?

good to see you removing caps.....

regards.....

[banana]

Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:45:30 +0000, banana

Post by banana

Post by yD
Another Panorama/Dimbleby interview? Naw, I don't see it. I think CPB
will keep her head down and I doubt that Charles will speak on his or
her, or their, behalf beyond the minimum. There's nothing to gain by
it, is there. And I think that any such thing by her, or on her
behalf, will be seen as 'pushing her' (sometimes known as "spin"). No,
I don't any dilemma -- she won't address the public. What could she
say and why would she have to say it?

Agreed with what you say, but a dilemma is a choice between two evils,
and my point was that if she does it, it will be the worse for her, and
if she doesn't, that will look bad too.
They have been promoting her for years but it hasn't worked.

they could always make a disc for 'charity'.....
with a catchy title like 'well bring love to the universe' and
considerable quantities of background noise...

You cynic, you! :-)

When I heard that the Pope had leaned out of his hospital window and
uttered four words to his admirers, my brain immediately came up with
'I LOVE YOU ALL', Saturday Night at the Palladium style.

Unfortunately it was 'father, son, holy ghost' in Latin.

[banana]

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

You're wrong. Go into your local newsagent's shop and have a look at the
banner headlines on the front pages tomorrow. If you were a Fleet Street
editor, you'd lead on something different, would you, so as not to bore
people and lose readers?

A question is, how does someone get to a point where they post something
as clearly untrue as what you just posted? Do you actually believe it,
when you think about it? Or is it that *you* don't give a toss, but you
feel as if you're in a minority of one, so you turn that completely on
its head and imagine you're in a majority of 'everybody minus one'?
Crazy, because you must know what gets talked about a lot as much as I
do or anyone else does.

[Stephen Glynn]

Post by banana

Post by Joe Hutcheon

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

You're wrong. Go into your local newsagent's shop and have a look at the
banner headlines on the front pages tomorrow. If you were a Fleet Street
editor, you'd lead on something different, would you, so as not to bore
people and lose readers?
A question is, how does someone get to a point where they post something
as clearly untrue as what you just posted? Do you actually believe it,
when you think about it? Or is it that *you* don't give a toss, but you
feel as if you're in a minority of one, so you turn that completely on
its head and imagine you're in a majority of 'everybody minus one'?
Crazy, because you must know what gets talked about a lot as much as I
do or anyone else does.

Possibly people are interested in the sense they're interested in the
latest about any celeb or soap star. Yes, doubtless the marriage will
dominate the red-tops tomorrow, as will shenanigans in the Big Brother
House the next time that's on and as will the more bizarre bits of the
Michael Jackson trial as it unfolds.

That doesn't mean many people particularly give a toss about it in the
sense of thinking it's at all important. While many people were
doubtless moved to buy the Sun when it revealed 'Freddie Starr Ate My
Hamster' I doubt many of them thought this event was quite as important
as the one headlined 'Gotcha!' by the same paper.

Steve

[banana]

<snip>

Post by Stephen Glynn
Possibly people are interested in the sense they're interested in the
latest about any celeb or soap star. Yes, doubtless the marriage will
dominate the red-tops tomorrow,

And all the other UK newspapers too! For example, the 'Guardian' devoted
most of the front page and several inside pages.

The Sunday newspaper I buy is the 'Sunday Times', and I've noticed that
they run an article about the 'royal' family on the front page
remarkably often.

Post by Stephen Glynn
as will shenanigans in the Big Brother
House the next time that's on and as will the more bizarre bits of the
Michael Jackson trial as it unfolds.
That doesn't mean many people particularly give a toss about it in the
sense of thinking it's at all important.

I've never heard 'give a toss' used to mean 'think it's all important'
before.

[B.B.]

"banana" <***@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> schreef in bericht news:***@borve.demon.co.uk...

[snip]

Post by banana
A question is, how does someone get to a point where they post something
as clearly untrue as what you just posted? Do you actually believe it,
when you think about it? Or is it that *you* don't give a toss, but you
feel as if you're in a minority of one, so you turn that completely on
its head and imagine you're in a majority of 'everybody minus one'?
Crazy, because you must know what gets talked about a lot as much as I
do or anyone else does.

For some time now I have asked Neil ("banana") why he hasn't retracted all
his remarks about the opening and adjournment of the inquests into the
deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and A. Fayed. He claimed that they had
been opened and adjourned in 1997, which turned out to be false. He attacked
all posters who dared to disagree with him. Of course he went into silent
mode in January 2004 when he found out that he had been wrong all the time.

Indirectly he answered my question by posting the above. Many thanks!

B. B.

[walter sharpe]

<Don't you believe, that no one cares a toss ?>

Wouldn't it be nice, if every one of these Royal parasites emigrated to the
great Yankee paradise where they are reputed to be held in *high esteem*.

I would be nice to get them off the backs of the people here, who have
bankrolled their useless parasitic life style long enough at their expense
as tax-payers.

Or, they may be welcomed back in Germany where they originated from. The
older Windsors soon changed their German name to Windsor when their
relatives in Germany attempted to destroy England during the First World War
but, it never stopped them from once again admiring the other German Hitler
who repeated the attempt during the 1939/45 war.

Most of the Windsors were Nazi sympathisers !

[Maria]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:40:03 -0000, "walter sharpe"

Post by walter sharpe
<Don't you believe, that no one cares a toss ?>
Wouldn't it be nice, if every one of these Royal parasites emigrated to the
great Yankee paradise where they are reputed to be held in *high esteem*.

Fox News seemed to think it was a sniggering matter this morning. I
think it's the adultery and divorcee bit that set them off.

[Karen Sexton]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:40:03 -0000, "walter sharpe"

Post by walter sharpe
<Don't you believe, that no one cares a toss ?>
Wouldn't it be nice, if every one of these Royal parasites emigrated to the
great Yankee paradise where they are reputed to be held in *high esteem*.

I think we Americans are just fascinated by such an antiquated system.

Post by walter sharpe
I would be nice to get them off the backs of the people here, who have
bankrolled their useless parasitic life style long enough at their expense
as tax-payers.

We don't necessarily want them *here*, we already bankroll some
useless parasites. They are called Congressmen.

KS

[mick]

Post by Joe Hutcheon
Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

Funny how I'm always hearing that from royal boot-lickers they've become
indifferent to a royal story all of a sudden, I wonder why?

[Susan Cohen]

Post by Joe Hutcheon

*He will never be king.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

He's too uninformed to actually care - every one his posts confirm this -
especially this one - an error in every statement.

SusanC

[banana]

Post by Susan Cohen

Post by Joe Hutcheon

*He will never be king.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
Are they going to try to hold the public relations fort using 'royal'
arse-licker 'historians' like David Starkey? Fat chance!

Nobody (apart from you) gives a toss.

He's too uninformed to actually care - every one his posts confirm this -
especially this one - an error in every statement.

Oh? There were only two statements in it: one was 'he will never be
king', which was obviously a statement of opinion, and the other was
'fat chance!', which was a comment on the feasibility of relying on
plonkers like David Starkey to hold the PR fort, again obviously a
statement of opinion.

You're so well informed that you know he will become king, and that
relying on plonkers like David Starkey would be jolly successful, right?
Because you must think you are, if what you say is true.

[Wolseley 6-80]

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*

Yes he will!

Post by banana
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=7591523
And I wish them all the best.

[Michael Rhodes]

Post by Wolseley 6-80

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*

Yes he will!

Post by banana
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=7591523

Post by Wolseley 6-80
And I wish them all the best.

Very good news. But April 8? wasn't that the day that another Prince of
Wales married Caroline of Brunswick? Oh dear!

[abelard]

On 10 Feb 2005 06:31:39 -0800, "Michael Rhodes"

Post by banana

Post by Wolseley 6-80

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*

Yes he will!

Post by banana
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any

time

Post by Wolseley 6-80

Post by banana
soon?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=7591523

Post by Wolseley 6-80
And I wish them all the best.

Very good news. But April 8?

a week late...

[banana]

Post by abelard
On 10 Feb 2005 06:31:39 -0800, "Michael Rhodes"

Post by Wolseley 6-80

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*

Yes he will!

But April 8?
a week late...

:-) Not if they want the ritual in the Garter chapel (or possibly
elsewhere in the castle) to be conducted at the very moment that the
Moon opposes Jupiter.

A civil wedding, apparently. Which, without the spin, means that there
will be no Church of England wedding.

[HorseyPrince]

Thursday, February 10, 2005 Posted: 12:06 PM EST (1706 GMT)


LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Prince Charles has announced he will
marry his longtime steed, Camilla, the horse partly blamed by Princess
Diana for the breakdown of her marriage to the heir to the throne.

The wedding will be a civil ceremony in Windsor Castle Stables on April
8, followed by a service of prayer, dedication, oats, and alfalfa in
St. George's Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, and Principal Quintin McKellar of the Royal Veterinary
College will preside.

Charles said he and his wife-to-be were "absolutely delighted" at their
engagement. Camilla said "Weeeeeeeheheheh. Neeeeeeeee.
Pfbfbfbfbfbfbfbfbbbbb.".

[abelard]

how many of them?

[john browne]

Post by HorseyPrince
Thursday, February 10, 2005 Posted: 12:06 PM EST (1706 GMT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Prince Charles has announced he will
marry his longtime steed, Camilla, the horse partly blamed by Princess
Diana for the breakdown of her marriage to the heir to the throne.
The wedding will be a civil ceremony in Windsor Castle Stables on April
8, followed by a service of prayer, dedication, oats, and alfalfa in
St. George's Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, and Principal Quintin McKellar of the Royal Veterinary
College will preside.
Charles said he and his wife-to-be were "absolutely delighted" at their
engagement. Camilla said "Weeeeeeeheheheh. Neeeeeeeee.
Pfbfbfbfbfbfbfbfbbbbb.".

LOL!

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

On 10 Feb 2005 10:05:30 -0800, "HorseyPrince"

Post by HorseyPrince
Thursday, February 10, 2005 Posted: 12:06 PM EST (1706 GMT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Prince Charles has announced he will
marry his longtime steed, Camilla, the horse partly blamed by Princess
Diana for the breakdown of her marriage to the heir to the throne.
The wedding will be a civil ceremony in Windsor Castle Stables on April
8, followed by a service of prayer, dedication, oats, and alfalfa in
St. George's Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, and Principal Quintin McKellar of the Royal Veterinary
College will preside.
Charles said he and his wife-to-be were "absolutely delighted" at their
engagement. Camilla said "Weeeeeeeheheheh. Neeeeeeeee.
Pfbfbfbfbfbfbfbfbbbbb.".

Hilarious. Don't suppose you have another article for Rottweilers.<g>

Pamela
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887

"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" airs on the SPEED cable channel. Here is a link to the
schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/ More at www.jfk100x.com.
"The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night", a new essay on "the SBT" is at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372.
Scroll down the main Ed Forum page to"Assassination of JFK", click on "JFK Online Seminars", and you will find my essay, plus many others.
Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and a backup of www.jfk100x.com please join jfk100x at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org

[banana]

Post by HorseyPrince
Thursday, February 10, 2005 Posted: 12:06 PM EST (1706 GMT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Prince Charles has announced he will
marry his longtime steed, Camilla, the horse partly blamed by Princess
Diana for the breakdown of her marriage to the heir to the throne.
The wedding will be a civil ceremony in Windsor Castle Stables on April
8, followed by a service of prayer, dedication, oats, and alfalfa in
St. George's Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, and Principal Quintin McKellar of the Royal Veterinary
College will preside.
Charles said he and his wife-to-be were "absolutely delighted" at their
engagement. Camilla said "Weeeeeeeheheheh. Neeeeeeeee.
Pfbfbfbfbfbfbfbfbbbbb.".

Even Caligula didn't want to be The Grand Architect of the Universe's
Official Defender of All Faiths!

[abelard]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:44:57 +0000, banana

Post by banana
QUEEN CAMILLA?
"The issue is whether she will take the full style and title of Princess
of Wales and whether any children would have any place in the
succession," Dr David Starkey, historian and constitutional expert, told
Reuters.

mister and mister bowels would look good on a visiting card....

i beseech you, in the bowels of charles will no one rid me of this
turbulent noise?

how is the mother-in-law elect going to start having poo bags?
adopt some angolan victims of mines?
i'm sure she would pass for 43 in the dark with the light behind her!


with various assist from henry 2, 1170, cromwell 1650 and gilbert 1855

regards...

[banana]

Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:44:57 +0000, banana

Post by banana
QUEEN CAMILLA?
"The issue is whether she will take the full style and title of Princess
of Wales and whether any children would have any place in the
succession," Dr David Starkey, historian and constitutional expert, told
Reuters.

mister and mister bowels would look good on a visiting card....

No, no, ab, he's marrying *Camilla Parker-Bowles*, not *M*chael
F*wcett*!

[abelard]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:42:10 +0000, banana

Post by banana

Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:44:57 +0000, banana

Post by banana
QUEEN CAMILLA?
"The issue is whether she will take the full style and title of Princess
of Wales and whether any children would have any place in the
succession," Dr David Starkey, historian and constitutional expert, told
Reuters.

mister and mister bowels would look good on a visiting card....

No, no, ab, he's marrying *Camilla Parker-Bowles*, not *M*chael
F*wcett*!

i couldn't quite fit in a tampon!

regards...

[bigboard]

Post by banana

Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:44:57 +0000, banana

Post by banana
QUEEN CAMILLA?
"The issue is whether she will take the full style and title of Princess
of Wales and whether any children would have any place in the
succession," Dr David Starkey, historian and constitutional expert, told
Reuters.

mister and mister bowels would look good on a visiting card....

No, no, ab, he's marrying *Camilla Parker-Bowles*, not *M*chael
F*wcett*!

A stirring of the bowels? Sorry, I mean Bowles.

[oO °]

Probe into cost of Camilla
By Robert Jobson Royal Correspondent, Evening Standard
4 February 2005
Prince Charles faces a parliamentary grilling over the cost of Camilla
Parker Bowles in the first public inquiry into his finances.

MPs will question two of Charles's top aides about his income from the Duchy
of Cornwall.

It has emerged that he has received a 300per cent pay rise over the past
decade, and a salary jump of £2 million last year, while his tenants' rents
have increased.



Other stories:




Charles' engagement joy

Chaos at Ikea opening

Sinn Fein 'sanctioned bank robbery'

Bank freezes interest rates

BBC woman shot dead in Somalia

Reform on way to stop 'dirty tricks'

Woman who ripped off ex-lover's testicle jailed

Teenager guilty of assaulting boys

'Super-smog' warning

Parents 'right to worry about schools'





MPs want to ensure that taxpayers are getting value for money and that Mrs
Parker Bowles, who has no official role, is being funded solely by Charles
personally from taxed income.

One senior Public Accounts Committee source said: "The Duchy is a very
profitable organisation established with the main purpose of covering the
cost of the heir apparent's public and private life.

"That, as far as I am aware, does not include his live-in partner. It is
something worthy of scrutiny."

Insiders say the Camilla question will be part of a wide-ranging inquiry
into the prince's business interests by the 16 crossparty MPs on the
committee.

On Monday, two of Charles's top financial aides - Duchy of Cornwall
secretary Bertie Ross and chief executive Paul Clarke - will be questioned.

Last summer, Charles took the unprecedented step of revealing his financial
commitment to Mrs Parker Bowles in his first annual review. But it fell
short of detailing the exact amount he spends on running her office and
living expenses.

Charles pays out of his own pocket for two part-time secretaries, a gardener
and a driver to help her. But it is known he also lets her share the
services of 28 palace staff, including the press office, who now act for her
too.

The prince is also believed to fund her bodyguards, grooming, travel and
personal needs. The total cost has never been revealed, but it is estimated
to be nearly £250,000 a year.

Charles's aides have been keen to avoid any criticism, insisting any private
expenditure on Mrs Parker Bowles comes from "taxed income".

His private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, has stressed she is not being
subsidised by the taxpayer. Speaking last year, Sir Michael said: "Mrs
Parker Bowles doesn't want anyone to suggest she is benefiting from public
money."

A key issue the MPs want to resolve is how much tax Charles, the 24th Duke
of Cornwall, should pay.

His records suggest he paid £4.4 million in tax. But he only pays tax on the
amount left after deducting millions in "business expenditure" which
includes staff - from secretaries to valets - working at Clarence House,
Highgrove and Birkhall.

The MPs are expected to scrutinise detailed records kept to determine the
split between public and private spending, particularly as many of these
staff act for Camilla too.

Clarence House insists Charles is required to run the Duchy on a commercial
basis, and uses most of his after-tax income to support his charitable work.
Analysis of Duchy accounts reveals that his income soared from £3million in
1993 to almost £12million last year, plus a further £4.1 million from public
funds to cover official duties.

Another key area will be the £6.5 million cost to the taxpayer for the
refurbishment of his London home and office Clarence House which he now
shares with Mrs Parker Bowles. Funds for the refurbishment came from Duchy
income and taxpayers. MPs are also expected to examine any Duchy contracts
with a firm run by Michael Fawcett, Charles's former aide, who resigned
after it was revealed gifts given to Charles were then sold by his staff. Mr
Fawcett remains vital to Charles, organising events and overseeing
renovation of his properties.

The Duchy, created in 1337, covers about 57,000 hectares. It is now worth
£460million yet pays none of the normal business taxes.

Charles has the equivalent of 111 full-time staff, earning £3.2 million a
year. Almost 30 work for him personally as chefs, valets and gardeners. The
rest run his office and charities


begin 666 pixel.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/_______R'Y! 44````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

[banana]

Post by oO °
Probe into cost of Camilla
By Robert Jobson Royal Correspondent, Evening Standard
4 February 2005
Prince Charles faces a parliamentary grilling over the cost of Camilla
Parker Bowles in the first public inquiry into his finances.
MPs will question two of Charles's top aides about his income from the Duchy
of Cornwall.
It has emerged that he has received a 300per cent pay rise over the past
decade, and a salary jump of £2 million last year, while his tenants' rents
have increased.

Very interesting that this story is coming up at this time. The amount
of money the 'royal' family pockets from EU 'farming' subsidies is still
a secret.

The Elaine Day sex-discrimination case is also set for another court
hearing soon.

Post by oO °
MPs want to ensure that taxpayers are getting value for money and that Mrs
Parker Bowles, who has no official role, is being funded solely by Charles
personally from taxed income.
One senior Public Accounts Committee source said: "The Duchy is a very
profitable organisation established with the main purpose of covering the
cost of the heir apparent's public and private life.

[yD]

Very interesting that this story is coming up at this time. The amount
of money the 'royal' family pockets from EU 'farming' subsidies is
still
a secret.

I was told this morning that the Duchy is "one of the highest"
recipients of EU subsidies. Hmmmm I wonder if the amount will be
revealed.
yD

[Psyche's Knot]

I was told this morning that the Duchy is "one of the highest"
recipients of EU subsidies. Hmmmm I wonder if the amount will be
revealed.
yD

Right and it's all plowed into Prinny's crops which the Serf Tenants
tend for him...he reaps the rewards and they get the chaff. The farmers
utilize those subsidies to improve Duchy farming facilities and crop
management...and it swells the Duke's coffers...he is the OWNER until
he becomes King. They are his source of income and any improvements are
majorly his....with the trickle down scraps for his employees.

[volcaran]

Post by banana

Post by oO °
Probe into cost of Camilla
By Robert Jobson Royal Correspondent, Evening Standard
4 February 2005
Prince Charles faces a parliamentary grilling over the cost of Camilla
Parker Bowles in the first public inquiry into his finances.
MPs will question two of Charles's top aides about his income from the Duchy
of Cornwall.
It has emerged that he has received a 300per cent pay rise over the past
decade, and a salary jump of £2 million last year, while his

tenants' rents

Post by banana

Post by oO °
have increased.

Very interesting that this story is coming up at this time. The amount
of money the 'royal' family pockets from EU 'farming' subsidies is still
a secret.

And why is that? The Guardian requested information under the FOI Act
over a month ago. I may have missed it but have they reported the
information they received or that the information was refused? Or have
they simply let the story drop hoping no-one will notice?

Are you saying the representatives of the Duchy of Lancaster and of
Cornwall lied to the PAC when they said that since neither Duchy (as
distinct from the tenants who rented the farms) was in business as
farmers and they received no subsidies.

Post by banana
The Elaine Day sex-discrimination case is also set for another court
hearing soon.

Post by oO °
MPs want to ensure that taxpayers are getting value for money and that Mrs
Parker Bowles, who has no official role, is being funded solely by Charles
personally from taxed income.
One senior Public Accounts Committee source said: "The Duchy is a very
profitable organisation established with the main purpose of

covering the

Post by banana

Post by oO °
cost of the heir apparent's public and private life.

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)

[s***@example.com]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:33:28 -0000, "oO

Post by oO °
MPs will question two of Charles's top aides about his income from the Duchy
of Cornwall.

For the unedited text of what *actually* happened, see

http://tinyurl.com/6g76a
or
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc313-i/uc31302.htm

[billy404]

Dont worry give it a few years and he will have Camilla bumped off like he
did his last wife.

[Psyche's Knot]

Dont worry give it a few years and he will have Camilla bumped off like
he
did his last wife.

It's quite indecent to hold a wedding in the midst of an Inquest ! But
then Charles has never been decent.

[banana]

Post by billy404
Dont worry give it a few years and he will have Camilla bumped off like
he did his last wife.

Yes, it may well not last.

Post by billy404
It's quite indecent to hold a wedding in the midst of an Inquest ! But
then Charles has never been decent.

True. I wonder if the newspapers have been told not to mention the
inquest for a while.

[Noel Leon]

On , , 10 Feb 2005 21:06:25 -0800, Re: 'Prince' Charles to marry

Post by billy404
Dont worry give it a few years and he will have Camilla bumped off like
he did his last wife.

Nonsense, we all know the gyppo killed her.

Post by billy404
It's quite indecent to hold a wedding in the midst of an Inquest ! But
then Charles has never been decent.

If his silly little father didn't keep seeing ghosts under the
bed the inquest could be over and done with.

[oO °]

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*

No but he would make a 'good' queen. With same-sex marriage being legalised
soon, why didn't he just marry his lover? MF?

[banana]

Post by oO °

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*

No but he would make a 'good' queen. With same-sex marriage being legalised
soon, why didn't he just marry his lover? MF?

OK so he showed his face at that gay pub that was bombed in Soho, but he
still tried to suppress the story of the gay relationship he is in...

I doubt we'll see Peter Tatchell on the case though.

[Arnold Esterhazy]

I've always found Camilla Parker-Bowles to be an extremely attractive
woman. I simply don't undertand how Charles could ever have been attracted
to the little wisp-of-a-woman, Diana.

Look at the heavy thighs and ample rear-end that Camilla sports! Heaven!!

Arnold

Post by banana
*He will never be 'king'.*
To marry at Windsor Castle, eh? St George's Chapel?
And is Camilla Parker-Bowles going to say anything in public, any time
soon?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=7591523
***BEGIN ARTICLE***

[oO °]

Note: The writer Gail Walker is 'right-wing' to say the least.

/begin

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/features/story.jsp?story=610194

The Wedding Di-lemma

Charles and Camilla have set the date for April 8 but Gail Walker says the
happy couple had better brace themselves for one uninvited guest at their
Windsor Castle wedding.

By Gail Walker
***@belfasttelegraph.co.uk

12 February 2005
She won't be invited but she'll be the most prominent guest at Charles and
Camilla's wedding. As the Prince of Wales slips the ring on to his new
bride's finger at Windsor Castle, Diana, Princess of Wales, will be there,
looking over his shoulder. As the happy couple pose for official photographs
she'll be there, too.

In fact, at every public step they take in their marriage, Diana will be the
ghostly figure at their sides. Every move they make will be measured against
She Who Is Dead.

Because - and with what supreme irony! - to borrow Diana's infamous phrase
from that Panorama interview, there are three people in this marriage. And
there always will be.

Just as Parker Bowles haunted Diana's desperate, loveless years with Charles
so, too, will Diana gaze on, doe-eyed and iconic, on the new Mr and Mrs
Windsor.

Of course, the line peddled by the royal spindoctors is that here is a
couple, ill-starred in love, who are finally getting a well-earned chance at
a fairytale ending. After three decades of wanting to be together, they are
at last getting their wish. They deserve some happiness. They have suffered
enough. Exhausted tongues wag on about the change in public mood.

But is there really?

Okay, no-one's going to spit at them in the street.

But it's not going to be that easy to re-write history.

The timing of their announcement? Rather than a love story for Valentine's
weekend, it's as if they've vomited all over it.

The plain truth is that Charles (56) and Camilla, (57) were unhappy in love
because they played dirty pool with other people's lives.

In an act stunning in its callousness Charles, then 32, married a naive
20-year-old former nursery assistant in St Paul's Cathedral under completely
false pretences. He duped Diana and conned the millions watching across the
nation and around the world.

He got a brood mare and once he had his heir and spare he dumped her.

Even before Diana walked up the aisle she had well-founded dark suspicions
about Charles' relationship with Camilla, the woman she was to later dub the
Rottweiler. On their honeymoon Charles tactlessly sported cufflinks given to
him by his married mistress.

"Boy did we have a row ... I remember crying my heart out on my honeymoon,"
recalled Diana years later.

Yes, Diana wasn't an easy woman, but so much of her fragile personality was
shaped by the wretched marriage she found herself in.

Damningly, too, in the years since her death, when Diana's reputation has
been viciously shredded, Charles has not once spoken up to defend the memory
of the mother of his sons, William and Harry. On the contrary, on more than
one occasion, there's been a strong suspicion that he's been behind some of
the character assassination.

And, still, for all the claims of Diana's extra-marital liaisons and
flakiness, she persists as a popular figure in the public's imagination; a
wronged woman who continued to do good works.

But Charles' treatment of his wife is only a symptom of his rather feudal
attitudes. He lectures us on what is good in architecture, art, organic
farming and morality. From his earliest dabblings with the writings of
Laurens van der Post to his expressed desire to be Protector of Faiths, he
has implied he has a greater spiritual sensitivity than most of us.

Protector of faiths? Yes, Charlie, why drag down only Anglicanism when you
can take a few others with you?

Greater sensitivity? His vile treatment of Diana set off a chain of events
that would lead to his wife's tragic death, at just 36, in a Paris
underpass.

This is now the subject of a police investigation and, incredible as it may
seem, Charles is to be questioned.

But, then again, Charles, by his words and actions, has blown all rights to
popular deference. No wonder there are now angry questions in Parliament
about his personal finances.

Ultimately it's his arrogance and self-serving nature that people dislike so
much.

There'd be warmer feeling towards his forthcoming nuptials if he'd done the
decent thing and given up his right to the throne. Not doing so allows him
to grab it all but raises huge and potentially fatal constitutional issues.

After all, Edward VIII gave up his throne for the love of his life. But
Charles is determined to hang on to both.

Wedding number two is a civil job, so just how is he going to square this
with becoming head of the Church of England? The devil could yet be in the
detail.

And how can he be head of the Church that he can't get married in? It's like
a businessman not having the keys to his own premises.

Has there been a single year - yep, just one year - since this man came of
age, when he hasn't been at the centre of some embarrassment or other? He
has single-handedly brought more discredit to the Royal family and the
institution of monarchy than any other individual since Edward VIII. There's
been The Railway Siding Incident, the pre-Diana wedding "whatever love
means" television interview, taped lewd calls to Camilla, the big TV
adultery confession, his awkwardness as he turned out for his ex-wife's
funeral, Harry's boozing ...

But somehow not even his most spectacular eccentricities have holed him
beneath the waterline. Yet.

Whether he wins the PR war over his wedding to Camilla remains to be seen.
But it's a tough call, and I can only imagine that as the April 8 date draws
closer, so too will the spectre of Diana loom ever larger. The uninvited
guest, slipping into the background of every occasion.

For most people, the bottom line remains that Diana was dealt a lousy hand.
And HRH Camilla is hard to stomach. If he's ever crowned King and she
becomes Princess Consort? Well, that title just sounds like a souped up
1970s car.

Public sentiment towards Charles and Camilla may not be as strong as
contempt.

But even if it's just indifference, that's dangerous enough.

Will that change as the weeks turn to months and months to years?

Well, like I say, there will be three people in this marriage. For better or
worse ...

[Joseph Hutcheon]

Post by oO °
Note: The writer Gail Walker is 'right-wing' to say the least.

And a bit of a loony too!

Post by oO °
/begin
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/features/story.jsp?story=610194
The Wedding Di-lemma
Charles and Camilla have set the date for April 8 but Gail Walker says the
happy couple had better brace themselves for one uninvited guest at their
Windsor Castle wedding.
By Gail Walker
12 February 2005
She won't be invited but she'll be the most prominent guest at Charles and
Camilla's wedding. As the Prince of Wales slips the ring on to his new
bride's finger at Windsor Castle, Diana, Princess of Wales, will be there,
looking over his shoulder. As the happy couple pose for official photographs
she'll be there, too.

Well, no she won't, because she's deader than vaudeville.