Aaah! Two lovebirds tie the knot

[Mr Creosote]

Old cynic that I am, I can't help wondering if it is just coincidence that Charles and Charmilla are to finally marry just before the general election. Nothing like a bit of patriotic fervour to help the government of the day - who seem, for some unfathomable reason , to be running scared. If it is, then I think it might backfire as spectacularly as Wislon's decision to hold the election the morning after England's victory in the 1970 world cup semi final. Whoops! peter Bonetti has a lot to answer for.

[whistle]

1. two fascists coming together in an unholy alliance

[non sociopath skin]

2. Fascists? Hmm ...

No fan of royalty, me, but I must own to a bit of a soft spot for Bonnie Prince Charlie, who at least can string a sentence together, knows that "muslim" doesn't necessarily mean "blood-crazed terrorist fanatic," has learnt which way up a blueprint goes and, one suspects, has read at least one book with no pictures in it.

His "friend" seems a bit of an upper-class twit but so are most of them.

I share Creosote's suspicion that this might be a Feelgood ploy by the Bliar Brigade but what the heck. At least the bairns will get a day off school.

Chorus: Here's a health unto his majesty, &c &c.

The Skin

[Mr Creosote]

3. Charles and architecture

old Mr Creosote lives in Dorchester and uses a plumber who does a lot of work at Fordington. Charles thinks stink pipes are unsightly so they are inside the houses. They all honk, and the plumbers are constantly busy sorting it out.

[non sociopath skin]

5. I can see Bliar doing the eulogy now ...

(gulp) ... he was the PLUMBERS' prince ... O8)

The Skin

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I agree with you

I know that Charles has investigated the Mevlevi Order of Sufis, the mystical sect of Islam.

[WritersBlock]

8. If the bairns get a day off school, do the rest of us get a day off work?

Heck, I'd be willing to drink a toast to the deliriously-happy couple for that.

[non sociopath skin]

9. Not much point in having a monarchy if we don't.

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. A civil ceremony in Windsor Castle

I doubt there'll be days off for anyone - and I also doubt this is an election ploy. With under two months notice, they won't have big parades etc. I don't think many people will get excited by this - plenty don't care, or dislike her, and the rest just seem to be saying "oh, how nice for them".

[smedwed]

21. fascist?

You can't just randomly call people
fascists because perhaps they're rich or whatever
reason you've decided they're fascists for. It pollutes
the true meaning of the word and discredits your opinions.

[non sociopath skin]

6. I say, you chaps,

Those damn yanks are discussing OUR royal family over on THEIR newsboard.

Damned bad show, I call it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1226419

The Skin

[Mr Creosote]

7. Do you think

we could persuade them to take OUR royal family off our our hands? Just as long as we don't get Dubya in exchange.

[Mr Creosote]

11. On a football message board that I frequent

The question was posed - "Royals - who gives a fuck?" - and the answer given was "Royalists and Americans". More than a smigeon of truth in that.

[RogueTrooper]

12. We better invade the bounders again

wot?

[fedsron2us]

13. Lord have mercy upon us

The media will go on and on about this subject until we are all driven crazy with boredom. ITV have already run a show on the topic and Panorama have changed their scheduled program to cover the matter on Sunday. Time to retire to a darkened room and drink myself insensible until the madness has passed.

[non sociopath skin]

14. Just about to give up on BBC News 24 ...

... normally a haven of comparative sanity, which is currently beset by wall-to-wall self-proclaimed Royal Watchers discussing heatedly the "highly polarised" faxes and texts on the subject of whether Camilla will be called "ma'am."

Do these characters have lives of their own or what???

Time to tune in to RTE.

The Skin

[T_i_B]

15. It was all terrestrial channels last night bar BBC2

Enough to make anyone a republican I tell ya.

And considering that the most ardent royalists I come across tend quite often to be still very anti-Camilla for what she did to Diana I don't think the bunting is going to be out for this one.

[non sociopath skin]

16. Although at least one conservative message board in the UK loves Camilla .

... because, what with the fox-hunting and all, the Webmaster thinks that she'll be a good Conservative influence on Chazza.

The Skin

[mr blur]

17. Did anyone see the recent programme on this wedding?

It seems that the Church won't marry them because they've both been divorced and, anyway, she's a Catholic. But it's illegal for a royal to get married in a civil ceremony. What are they going to do, change the law overnight? Of course, if he abdicated all rights to royal status then they could have a civil marrige.

[Mr Creosote]

18. It's slightly more complicated than that

The Church of England will now marry divorced couples in Church, subject to a couple of provisos: that the marriage wouldn't cause (and I can't remember the exact wording) something like a public scandal; and that the new relationship wasn't a factor in the break-up of the old one(s). Well no further comment is necessary.
So the solutions are - are church marriage other than in the Church of England I suppose. Anne was married for the second time by the Church of Scotland - but I don't know how they would look at Charles and Charmilla. And anyway how would it be if the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England got married in another church? Whoops!
So then it has to be a civil marriage. Except that would be illegal. And there is absolutely no doubt about that.
So how to get around that? Well they can just ignore the law - which is what they are currently proposing. Hurrah! Just think how much fun and mischief we republicans will have with that when (if?)he comes to the throne. Or Mr Parker-Bowles could die, then they could have a church wedding. Or they could have a civil ceremony in Scotland (which seems the obvious answer to me - so I wonder if there's some problem of which I'm unaware that prevents that).
Or, as you say, they could get the law changed - not quite overnight, but in a hurry. Couple of problems with that: Bliar is in desperate election mode just now - and pushing something like that through would piss off a lot of labour supporters. And anyway, one of this government's many trademarks is bad law: they had 8 years and 700 hours of parliamentary time to ban fox-hunting and couldn't come up with effective legislation. There has to be a chance that something pushed through in 6 weeks wouldn't stand.

The whole thing is a classic example of the thinking that says "I'm royal so I can do what the fuck I like". Well no you can't. Being a royal gives you loads of perks, and loads of rights, but you can't have those without the responsibilities. And one of those is that you can't be royal and marry a divorcee. Edward VIII and Princess Margaret were given that choice - they took different decisions but they had the same options. Nothing has changed. Charles faces the same choice.
Then there is the business of the location. In theory anywhere can be licensed for civil marriageS - but not just for one. Hence the move to the town hall. How well did the dozens of highly-paid advisers think that one through?
And then there's the business of whether she would be Queen Charmilla. If they somehow do go through a form of legal marriage then she will. That's the way it is. Mrs Simpson would have become Queen Wallis. Again Charles wants to ignore the law becasue it suits him. Can't do it.

The whole thing is an almighty mess: and the government should have told Charles he can't do it the way he wants - regardless of how that might look in the press.

I love it! If this go through as planned we'll have the bastards out in my lifetime.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. What says a civil marriage is illegal?

"So then it has to be a civil marriage. Except that would be illegal. And there is absolutely no doubt about that."

Why is this so definite? It doesn't seem to have been widely reported. Any references on what act says it's illegal?

[Mr Creosote]

20. This will help

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4262963.stm

The Panorama programme itself went into a little more depth - but it was the 1949 Act that formed that basis of the advice given to Princess Margaret who said:

"I have been aware that, subject to my renouncing my rights of succession, it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage. But, mindful of the Church's teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have decided to put these considerations before any others".

Interesting that she mentions "duty". It was Edward VIII's "duty" not to marry a divorcee, but he shirked it. A few years later hundreds of thousands of young men didn't shirk their "duty" and died fighting for this country. It's Charles's "duty" not to marry a divorcee, but he's shirking it. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, the young servicemen dying in Iraq don't have the opportunity to shirk their duty. The Royal family are feckless scum, and the good thing about Charles and his tart is that they are hastening its demise.

[mr blur]

22. I've just seen this brought up on ITV News

No conclusions, but they did cover the points and, to me, the unspoken thread was that the royals didn't really have a clue what they were doing. No change there, then.

[Mr Creosote]

23. Can they really be that stupid?

How can they not have a clue? Margaret was Charles's Aunt for goodness' sake.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Lord Chancellor's statement

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4291337.stm

Lots there to look up if anyone has the inclination, but I haven't. They're people, they got divorces, they're getting married. I don't see that Charles has any particular 'duty' to country or commonwealth to not marry a divorcee; only possibly to the CofE, and that can withstand a little more ambiguity in its constitution. Disestablishment would be a good idea, but I don't lose sleep over it not happening.

[Nihil]

24. Has the word "hypocrisy" been removed from the dictionary?

> The Church of England will now marry divorced couples in Church ...

The whole reason why the Church of England (and its offshoots) came
into being was to marry a king who disagreed with the established
church about marriage and divorce.

We have divorced clergy, remarried clergy, celibate clergy (but don't
talk about gay clergy).

We have clergy who don't give a flying fuck for the wellbeing of their
congregation (and I'm not talking about pedophilic vicars here), an
assembly of Anglican leaders (called "Primates" hah!) who display
the least "Christian" views in the world and a "Church" who is more
concerned about selling off valuable land for development than for the
proper use of existing funds.

And now they have "bitter debates" about the marriage of a divorced
widower, showing a wilful ignorance of their own history combined
with the overblown egos of bigoted individuals.

What happened to "Love thy neighbour"?
What happened to "Do unto others"?

Why don't they STFU and concentrate on helping the poor, the helpless,
the unfortunates of this world (and there are ever more in that group
every day) instead of indulging themselves in this publicity fest?

[Mr Creosote]

25. Coupla things

Henry VIII's quarrel with the Pope wasn't about divorce, it was about annulment. Similarly, his marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled - it didn't end in divorce. Presumably there is a difference other than in semantics, but not being a christian, or a lawyer, I don't know what it is.
And of course the debate isn't about Charles's marital status, it's all about the tart. If only Mr Parker Bowles would drop dead all this unpleasantness could be avoided.
As to why they don't help the poor, helpless and unfortunates - well god helps those that help themselves is the motto isn't it?

[Nihil]

27. Annulment = sanctioned divorce

Similarly, divorce = unsanctioned annulment.
The primary method of achieving the "sanction" of the church was through
bribes and favours (monetary, land, privileges, etc., were all totally
acceptable currencies with the church then as now).

I take the point about the status of Parker-Bowles but the berk on the
radio that I'd heard on the way into work was only rabbiting on about
Charles - that was what got me so riled up (not you!).

> As to why they don't help the poor, helpless and unfortunates - well
> god helps those that help themselves is the motto isn't it?

"By their actions shall ye know them" ... I sometimes wonder if the
only people who believe the book they read are the poor and desperate,
simply because they *need* their faith to keep going while the rest
just use it as a badge.

[mr blur]

26. I see the Queen's not going now.

So that'll just leave the halfwit, the old tart, Harry in his Nazi armband, William who looks so like his mother that it would be like having a ghost at the wedding - oh, and the cops who come to break up this illegal ceremony. And, because it's in a public place from which they can't legally ban the rest of us, a bunch of commoners all shouting, "Yes! I do!" when the person doing the wedding asks if anyone knows of any reason why these two people can't be joined together in matrimony.

[T_i_B]

29. NOT a UK general election kick

but since they are getting hitched today I thought it best to kick this to the top in case you lot have an opinion one way or the other.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

30. I'll be NOT watching it n/t