← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · albion
Thread ID: 17681 | Posts: 31 | Started: 2005-04-08
2005-04-08 12:32 | User Profile
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/charles_and_camilla/default.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/charles_and_camilla/default.stm[/url]
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles will admit "sins and wickedness" at their wedding blessing. [img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40223000/jpg/_40223135_charlescamilla2_ap_203.jpg[/img] [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4421481.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4421481.stm[/url]
The prince will also pledge to be faithful to his new wife in the service at St George's Chapel, Windsor.
The pair will join the congregation in reciting the strongest act of penitence from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer at Saturday's service. Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who urged the couple to marry, will read at the wedding blessing.
Prince Charles and the new Duchess of Cornwall will read the act of penitence which is worded: **"We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, against thy Divine Majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us." **
2005-04-08 13:14 | User Profile
The Queen should skip this joke of a man and pass the crown instead to Prince William. At least he would be better looking and he couldn't do much worse than his father. What a laugh, "We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness". Boohoohoo! :crybaby:
2005-04-08 14:07 | User Profile
I wish them all the happiness in the world. :heart:
2005-04-08 16:29 | User Profile
If Charles became king, they wouldn't be able to fit his ears onto the back of a coin. We'd have to start using wingnuts as currency.
2005-04-08 17:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]If Charles became king, they wouldn't be able to fit his ears onto the back of a coin. We'd have to start using wingnuts as currency.[/QUOTE]
Don't be mean! Charles is a nice man.
2005-04-09 12:05 | User Profile
| 5 APRIL 2005 | [url="http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2005/04/05/camillainvite/#enviar"][/url] |
| A 73-year-old grandmother's dedication to [url="http://www.hellomagazine.com/profiles/camillaparkerbowles/"][color=#0000ff]Camilla Parker Bowles[/color][/url] has paid off with a royal gesture of thanks. The elderly New Zealander, who launched a "Be nice to Camilla" campaign nearly a decade ago, has received an invitation to the [url="http://www.hellomagazine.com/profiles/princecharles/"][color=#0000ff]Prince of Wales[/color][/url]' wedding blessing this Saturday, it has been reported. "I cried all day to think just because I'd tried to be ordinarily kind and caring I'd made Camilla Parker Bowles feel grateful enough to invite me," she said. Nine years ago, disheartened by negative media coverage of Prince Charles and his companion, the unidentified granny started collecting positive news stories and sending them to Mrs Parker Bowles. And now, invitation in hand, the septegenarian, who lives in the town of Greymouth, is considering taking her place at St George's Cathedral at Windsor this weekend. "I had said to everybody I wasn't going to travel anymore," she remarked. "I was never leaving Greymouth until I was in a box, but when you get an invitation like thatââ¬Â¦" Meanwhile, two lunchbox, or tiffin, carriers in Mumbai have also found themselves on the guest list. The pair met the Prince of Wales two years ago, and recently gathered funds to buy the wedding couple gifts, including a red headdress for the Prince and a sari for the royal bride. "It is a noble gesture on his part as we are poor, hard-working people and never ever imagined to be part of such a grand royal wedding," said invitee Raghunath Medge, president of the Bombay Tiffin Box Supply Charity Trust. Mr Medge also revealed that their travel and hotel costs were being paid for. |
2005-04-09 14:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Don't be mean! Charles is a nice man.[/QUOTE]
Why did you even bother with your War of Independence?
2005-04-09 16:33 | User Profile
As humans they are bound to make mistakes like you and I, may they be as happy as they would like to be.
2005-04-09 18:47 | User Profile
[img]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050409/050409_charles_wedd_hmed_6a.hmedium.jpg[/img] [font=Courier New]Prince Charles & Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla Parker Bowles depart the Guildhall following their civil service marriage, Saturday.[/font]
WINDSOR, England - Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles were married Saturday in a modest civil ceremony at the 17th century Guildhall, and the second marriage for each was blessed by the Church of England as the royals knelt before Archbishop of Canterbury in a majestic ceremony beneath the soaring arches of the Gothic St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle.
2005-04-09 22:25 | User Profile
Congratulations, and best wishes from friends in America!
[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050409/lthumb.sge.fmh05.090405204507.photo05.photo.default-269x379.jpg[/img]
[img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050409/s/r2443562331.jpg[/img]
[img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050409/i/r1549451348.jpg[/img]
[IMG]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050409/i/r197978154.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050409/i/r2543782831.jpg[/IMG]
2005-04-10 01:21 | User Profile
I hope Karl Battenberg and his new wife are happy together. He did defend his son. One can hope he might stand and defend England some day.
2005-04-11 09:11 | User Profile
Chuckles was once caught on tape telling that gorgeous lump of femininity that he wanted to be reincarnated as one of her tampons.
Happy insertion, jug-ears.
2005-04-11 10:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]Chuckles was once caught on tape telling that gorgeous lump of femininity that he wanted to be reincarnated as one of her tampons.
Happy insertion, jug-ears.[/QUOTE]
That has to be one of the funniest things I ever heard. Eric Idle really creamed him on that on Saturday Night Live way back when. I actually felt sorry for him. I can only think how I'd feel had somebody surreptitiously taped some of the bizarre sh*t I've said to chicks back before I repented and became a great saint of Holy Mother Church.
I have a question - is Camilla Parker Bowles a commoner?
2005-04-11 12:18 | User Profile
How can you not feel a little pity for Charles? The world no longer takes the royals seriously, but within their opulent fishbowl, they have [I]no choice [/I] but to continue the charade in deadly earnest.
If it were you or I, we could've married the woman we really wanted, when we wanted to. This guy, constrained by an insanely exacting propriety, never could. And now that it doesn't matter and he [I]can[/I], he has to endure the same sort of small-minded lampooning he's been getting all his life.
You kick him - I can't.
2005-04-11 13:17 | User Profile
[color=black]It's truly sickening to watch the spectacle of a thoroughly decadent public, in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />
[color=black]This is the same vulgar, debased public, mind you, that commits adultery at high rates, divorces at the drop of a hat, has increasing numbers of illegitimate children, is addicted to violence and porn, mates with Negroes and gooks in vast numbers, etc.
[color=black]As repellant as some of the antics of the royals may be, the monarchy as an institution is far preferable to the techno-managerial state that prevails in the West. I would gladly trade the current elite class for old-style royals and aristocrats.[/color]
[color=black]Down with "democracy" and down with the proles. :angry:
2005-04-11 13:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka][color=black]It's truly sickening to watch the spectacle of a thoroughly decadent public, in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />
[color=black]This is the same vulgar, debased public, mind you, that commits adultery at high rates, divorces at the drop of a hat, has increasing numbers of illegitimate children, is addicted to violence and porn, mates with Negroes and gooks in vast numbers, etc.
[color=black]As repellant as some of the antics of the royals may be, the monarchy as an institution is far preferable to the techno-managerial state that prevails in the West. I would gladly trade the current elite class for old-style royals and aristocrats.[/color]
[color=black]Down with "democracy" and down with the proles. :angry:
I like the way you think,Stuka... you are a very white guy. :)
2005-04-12 06:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That has to be one of the funniest things I ever heard. Eric Idle really creamed him on that on Saturday Night Live way back when. I actually felt sorry for him. I can only think how I'd feel had somebody surreptitiously taped some of the bizarre sh*t I've said to chicks back before I repented and became a great saint of Holy Mother Church.
I have a question - is Camilla Parker Bowles a commoner?[/QUOTE]
You will accept that America would welcome a monarchy - would you not?
Envy is an ugly concept. For example, the Southern Irish once hated the British Royal Family. They now welcome them. They want the British Queen to visit their land. The money generated would be immense.
But you will have to wait in line.
She came to Germany - my Land destroyed from the air by her people. Many did not want it - and I agree.
However, it was acknowledged in considered manner. And it was also noted.
Mentzer
2005-04-12 06:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]How can you not feel a little pity for Charles? The world no longer takes the royals seriously, but within their opulent fishbowl, they have [I]no choice [/I] but to continue the charade in deadly earnest.
If it were you or I, we could've married the woman we really wanted, when we wanted to. This guy, constrained by an insanely exacting propriety, never could. And now that it doesn't matter and he [I]can[/I], he has to endure the same sort of small-minded lampooning he's been getting all his life.
You kick him - I can't.[/QUOTE]
Yes--I always thought that Charles was treated unfairly.
However, if ONLY our situations were reversed...I'd take my share of ribbing with a smile.
Regardless, it's nice to see someone finally get what they want.
2005-04-12 08:21 | User Profile
Charles does have his good points: his views on architecture are spot-on. And yes, he was under tremendous pressure to marry the "suitable" Diana and produce the all-important heir 'n' spare. Still, my sympathy for his predicament is balanced by my sympathy for a naive young girl who discovered that her Prince Charming was in love with somebody else - and on her honeymoon, no less.
2005-04-12 09:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]Charles does have his good points: his views on architecture are spot-on. And yes, he was under tremendous pressure to marry the "suitable" Diana and produce the all-important heir 'n' spare. Still, my sympathy for his predicament is balanced by my sympathy for a naive young girl who discovered that her Prince Charming was in love with somebody else - and on her honeymoon, no less.[/QUOTE]
So why couldn't he have simply married Camilla in the first place?
What made her an unsuitable wife?
2005-04-12 10:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]For example, the Southern Irish once hated the British Royal Family. They now welcome them. They want the British Queen to visit their land. The money generated would be immense.[/QUOTE] Is the weather nice in your alternative reality?
2005-04-12 12:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]Charles does have his good points: his views on architecture are spot-on. And yes, he was under tremendous pressure to marry the "suitable" Diana and produce the all-important heir 'n' spare. Still, my sympathy for his predicament is balanced by my sympathy for a naive young girl who discovered that her Prince Charming was in love with somebody else - and on her honeymoon, no less.[/QUOTE]
Diana was no victim ... she was a fruit loop!
2005-04-13 00:15 | User Profile
I think Mrs. Parker Bowles was married when Charles starting diddling her. I not sure but I think she has a Roman Catholic background too. A no, no for the wife of the future leader of the Church of England.
2005-04-14 03:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Diana was no victim ... she was a fruit loop![/QUOTE]
Her froot loopiness ain't news to me, babe: she was a politically trendy nig-fag cuddler, a camel-humper humper, and a spotlight-craving, manipulative feather brain. The absurd, vulgar orgy of blubbering hundreds of millions of stoopid wimmin engaged in when she bought the farm was contemptible.
Still, Charles could've handled her with more sensitivity.
2005-04-14 04:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]The absurd, vulgar orgy of blubbering hundreds of millions of stoopid wimmin engaged in when she bought the farm was contemptible.[/QUOTE]Michael Savage put it best: "The world is crying because its Barbie doll got busted."
2005-04-14 04:24 | User Profile
Walter Yannis
[QUOTE]So why couldn't he have simply married Camilla in the first place?
What made her an unsuitable wife?[/QUOTE]
They dated for a few years when they were young but she was a member of the Romish Church so he was banned by law from marrying her. They both got married, but later restarted their relationship. I am pretty sure they were both unmarried when they first met.
2005-04-14 15:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]They dated for a few years when they were young but she was a member of the Romish Church so he was banned by law from marrying her.[/QUOTE] Charles is perfectly legally entitled to marry a Roman Catholic, as is any subject of Her Majesty, but doing so would remove him from the line of succession. Interestingly enough I don't believe this restriction applies to unions between crown prince and Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew. The sanitary towel wannabe could marry a towel head and still ascend to the throne.
2005-04-14 16:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]Charles is perfectly legally entitled to marry a Roman Catholic, as is any subject of Her Majesty, but doing so would remove him from the line of succession. Interestingly enough I don't believe this restriction applies to unions between crown prince and Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew. The sanitary towel wannabe could marry a towel head and still ascend to the throne.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, I didn't know that. I know for a fact that Governors-General in Australia and New Zealand (and I assume all other Commonwealth countries) cannot be Catholic. However I am unsure if they have to belong to the Church of England. I wonder if the same anomaly exists as for the ascension rule. It would be strange to think the I could never become Governor General but some f.o.b from the Third World could.
2005-04-14 16:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka] [color=black]As repellant as some of the antics of the royals may be, the monarchy as an institution is far preferable to the techno-managerial state that prevails in the West. I would gladly trade the current elite class for old-style royals and aristocrats.[/color]
[color=black]Down with "democracy" and down with the proles. :angry:
2005-04-14 18:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Walter Yannis
They dated for a few years when they were young but she was a member of the Romish Church so he was banned by law from marrying her. They both got married, but later restarted their relationship. I am pretty sure they were both unmarried when they first met.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so it's because she was a Catlick.
She was also born a commoner, btw. It appears that she acquired her current title Duchess of Cornwall upon marrying Chuckles.
2005-04-14 18:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Ah, so it's because she was a Catlick.
She was also born a commoner, btw. It appears that she acquired her current title Duchess of Cornwall upon marrying Chuckles.[/QUOTE] If he had been allowed to preserve his succession and marry her from the beginning, it would have prevented a lot of heartache and ultimately strengthened the institution of the British monarchy. Perhaps also it would have hastened the desirable goal of disestablishment of the Anglican church. Such foresight is near impossible though.