Charles & Camilla!!!

[Mr. T]

I've got an idea. "Buying" Austrailia is a bit much, but, we'll give the Aussies Tom Cruise if they give us Paul Hogan... In fact, we'll give them as many Hollywood types as they want. And we'll pay the shipping.

[Lakie]

That works, all the movie stars move here, the aussie movie scene increases 10 fold, all their money is injected into our economy. I can live with that. If it were up to me id even chuck in Steve Irwin free.

[Hellfighter]

will i think the queen hate the ID of them two getting marry too:

LONDON - Queen Elizabeth’s decision not to attend the wedding of her son and heir has heaped humiliation on Prince Charles and his long-time lover Camilla Parker Bowles, royal-watchers said on Wednesday.

The marriage plans of the two divorcees had already been verging toward the farcical, with the venue changed from Windsor Castle to a town hall register office and constitutional experts even questioning the legality of the civil ceremony.

But the Queen’s surprise announcement on Tuesday night that she would not be going to the town hall added a bizarre new twist.

Buckingham Palace insisted the monarch’s decision was not a snub and said she was trying to respect the couple’s desire for a low-key ceremony.

The Queen, who has in the past never shown approval of Charles’ affair with Camilla, will attend the church blessing ceremony afterwards at the historic castle west of London and is paying for the wedding reception.

'Humiliating and embarrassing'
But for the House of Windsor, tainted by scandals, divorce and tragedy, the debacle has been a bitter blow to their image as a 1,000-year-old monarchy adapting to the 21st century.

“It is humiliating and embarrassing for Charles,” said royal author Judy Wade.

“This is a PR disaster turning into a farce. Royal ceremonials always go like clockwork. Now they cannot even organize a wedding in a town hall,” she told Reuters.

Constitutional expert Harold Brooks-Baker, from the aristocratic bible Burke’s Peerage, was equally blunt.

Reflecting on reports that this is the first time for 142 years that a British monarch has missed the wedding of one of their children, he said: “It is a definite humiliation, it is an outrage.”

“The advisers at Buckingham Palace must sit down and work out what they are going to do. This has got to stop, otherwise they will ruin the whole fabric of the monarchy,” he told Reuters.

Tying the knot is proving a legal nightmare for Charles, already fearful that people will never warm to the woman widely viewed as the wrecker of his marriage to Princess Diana.

The matronly Parker Bowles has always faced an uphill struggle to escape the shadow of the glamorous Diana, killed in a 1997 Paris car crash a year after her divorce from Charles.

read more about it: "click-here"
Source: MSNBC News'

it ether the queen hate the whole ID of them two getting marry or getting marry in the City hall is what she not happy about, will not bliss it or have anything to do with it.

[LiMuBai]

I hear Kangaroo meat is quite good too
And Paul hogan is as wrinkled as his crocks, so they can keep him too hehe

[Fixxxer]

No, What I mean is him being a widower takes priority over him being divorced, making him a widower, not a divorcee.
And according to zza1pqx, Camilla is also clean, didnt know that.

[BADDOG]

I'm not to sure anyone can describe that woman as clean considering she was having an on-going affair with the royal idiot whilst he was just married to Diana.

Regards

[Hellfighter]

Originally posted by BADDOG
I'm not to sure anyone can describe that woman as clean considering she was having an on-going affair with the royal idiot whilst he was just married to Diana.

Regards

yea it was on the news' them so call Celphone calls they taped with them two talking how they like to do things to each other that was way out there and Diana was over seas doing what the she feel was right to do fight to get land-mines remove. the queen was totally mad as heck when they two become a joke liner. Diana had her fill of the B/s ask to get out of the marriage

[Lakie]

No, What I mean is him being a widower takes priority over him being divorced, making him a widower, not a divorcee.

Thats like the question posed in law courses here, goes along the line of:

The Supreme court, after finding joe bloggs guilty of murder sentence him to jail for the remainder of his natural life, when hearing this news Joe Bloggs has a heart attack in court and a doctor in the room feels for a pulse and goes "he's dead!" The paramedics arrive and manage to resusitate him and he goes on to lead a normal healthy life. Should Joe bloggs go to jail, since it could be argued that his natural life ended when the doctor said he was dead after his heart attack.

Which brings me to my point, How can charles be a widower if he wasnt legally married to the person who died? Not saying your right or wrong. Just making a point...

By the sounds of it it would be a miracle if the wedding goes ahead at all, cant have it where they wanted to (for lack of a license to host civil ceremonies - got to love government beurocracy), queen wont attend where they plan to have it....

[LiMuBai]

by the sounds of it, it seems incredible they managed to get together in the first place...

[BADDOG]

There's a lot more going on beneath the surface about this "marriage" and a lot of people are not to happy about what it might mean for the future of the monarchy.

Regards

[Hellfighter]

Originally posted by BB/Mike*MFA*
Thats like the question posed in law courses here, goes along the line of:

The Supreme court, after finding joe bloggs guilty of murder sentence him to jail for the remainder of his natural life, when hearing this news Joe Bloggs has a heart attack in court and a doctor in the room feels for a pulse and goes "he's dead!" The paramedics arrive and manage to resusitate him and he goes on to lead a normal healthy life. Should Joe bloggs go to jail, since it could be argued that his natural life ended when the doctor said he was dead after his heart attack.

Which brings me to my point, How can charles be a widower if he wasnt legally married to the person who died? Not saying your right or wrong. Just making a point...

By the sounds of it it would be a miracle if the wedding goes ahead at all, cant have it where they wanted to (for lack of a license to host civil ceremonies - got to love government beurocracy), queen wont attend where they plan to have it....

yes he still go to jail it means with all the bad & good thing in one natural life Span. he still have to pay the price for what he did. a doc says he dead and some Medic save his life he still have to pay with the rest of his life he has left.

it like a person who try to kill them self off not have to pay for something they did, later they ask the person who save them why did you save my life for? now i have to pay for it. i say too bad.

me i love to see them two break up be better and he get marry to a royal blood line then this so call worker he hire to be a nanny, it do sound funny you hire a whore to work for you and tell other shes your nanny? way to go no? will my hat off to him for pulling it off to bad he fall in love with her.

[zza1pqx]

I didn't say she was clean. I said there is no constitutional reason why she should not be Queen. No law, no rule, no royal decree, no precedent.
Just public opinion.
A public it has to be said that has the highest divorce rate on earth.
I share frustration with baddog about the state of this country.
Unlike him I lay the blame squarley at the feet of the population.
This ridiculous debate about whether two peoples relationship is right or wrong, coming from 65 million people who don't give a fudge about thier own or thier childrens behaviour is a joke.
Tony Blair is free to destroy this country because the British don't have the sense they were born with.

[BADDOG]

As I've said before, I don't think that Blair is any more guilty than Thatcher of destroying the country at least he has done some thing about improving the lot of those on low wages where as Thatcher just destroyed jobs, divided the kingdom so much so that her legacy is two parliaments where there was one and two regional assemblys where there were none!


I personally am glad the "royal" fool and his tart have started this debate because it may lead to a change in allowing us to choose our head of state instead of having someone thrust upon us who's only qualification is to be born into the "royal" family!

There have been questions asked as to why we need a "monarch" anymore after the present queen steps down or dies, this can only be good for the whole nation.

Regards

[Hellfighter]

will maybe it a start for the people to vote who they like to have running in that official seat and stop have people to make the country look like a fool state U.K. should be united and not look like a fool

[Lakie]

My plan for a british republic, and yes i am a british citizen and member of the commonwealth so i do have a vested interest...

if england becomes a republic, im 99% sure the queen/king would give up rights of head of state over all commonwealth countries (As the Monarch dosent hold the position as head of state in Australia as Queen of England, she holds it as queen of australia, a seperate office). There is no reason that the good things of the commonwealth couldnt stand.

I also think that England need to reform the Election and Qualification Provisions for the Lords, make them electible positions for double the duration of the commons with half rotating each election. Red houses that run like this are a brilliant check on the government in bicameral systems the world over.

If that happens, Id also segregate the Law Lords from the House of Lords, i dont think the idea of having the lords as the top judicial jurisdiction (unitl the EU anyway) is such a bad idea, but judges shoudnt be elected and hence making decisions for barrelling purposes. They should be adudicating on issues of law.

Id also codify all those things that are classified as Westminster Conventions, luckily it hasnt happened yet, but constitutional experts say that thee is no basis for most of them in law, and a savvy lawyer could bring down the system to its knees.

You could also knock up a general bill of rights and develop a constitution. Constitution should only be changed when the commons and lords have passed the bill, or just the commons if the lords block it, it should then be put to the people where a double majority is required of

1. A majority overall of all residing citizens voting as one electorate.
2. A majority of citizens in a majority of electorates of the commons (if that make sence - if there are 600 electorates -301 need to come back with a majority)

The consitution should also clearly state what powers the head of state has and what the head of government has. Necessary checks shouldbe put in place for significant moves including cross checks with from teh other arms of governemnt, checks should not be (as much as is reasonabely possible) obstructionist.

Presiding officers of the commons and lords should be seperately elected rather than chosen from the elected members. Terms for the presiding officers should be staggared from the elections of the commons, as to prevent over-politicizing of the office.

Id also consider reducing the terms of the commons to 4 years, and hence the lords to 8 years with my plan.

[Hellfighter]

what ever seem there is some thing need to be done, i don't have anything to do with the system in the UK i really like the People i been there about 4x it is a great country and all, i only feel that the people need smarter officials who have a stander to live by and that all so means the royal family too, if they can't stand up to the stander then step down let another take over the office.

to me with stander one has to keep it up, yea we had so call ex-pres clinton in office man what a fool will he dirty up the white house and he got his face kick-in by his wife for it and drag into the mud. i really like to see them put out totally when they do foolish things or goof up really bad.

[Fixxxer]

Would be dissapointing to get rid of the royal family, seeing as it's being going since records began in like 500BC or whatever. Plus it's the only thing left this lame country has over the rest of the world since world liberation took place and all in the British empire.
And so what if the monarch isn't elected...it's not like the position does much and requires qualities that need to be officially recognised via election.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN. GOD SAVE THE OFFICIALLY ELECTED HEAD OF STATE HARDLY HAS THE SAME RING TO IT. TY.

[Hellfighter]

will they could retire the royal family some place, sooner or later the line will die off there really less blood line left in the world, oh wait in the USA we have the royal family member who step down to move to the USA and live here. maybe they can do a search get a royal family who can pass the a test if they can fly really good let it stand as it is, on the other hand if they can't fly and crash and burn there no waste only mean they fail the test. j/k

[Lakie]

If england was to become a republic, all that the royals own at the moment will stay in their possession. Just because Buckingham palace is the residenc of the head of state does not mean that it belongs to the State per se.

[BADDOG]

We have had a republic of sorts in our past after the English civil war when Oliver Cromwell became the Sovreign Lod Protector but unfortuantely it didn't last.

Our "royal" family is a hodge podge of family members from now defunct european "royalty" such as philip who was part of the former Greek "royal" family and the greeks seem to have done quite well after the got rid of their "royals" and the military junta that once ruled their country.

The British Empire is long gone and the countries that were part of it have rightly gained full independence from that empire.

We wouldn't have to say "god save the queen" because we would have a democratically elected president but perhaps we could say "god protect the constitution", or borrow from our cousins and friends across the Atlantic and say "in god we trust".

I quite like the ideas you've put forward Mike and they are certainly food for thought and I also believe the commonwealth should continue after we became a republic as it's part of our global family and through it we can continue to work together for the common good.

Warm Regards