CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 11:21:02

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 11:32:22

Hello 'Maytree', et al.

Just noted the following from the Times (Online), following on the
announcement:

==================================

Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles
By Richard Allen, Times Online


The Prince of Wales will marry his long-term partner Camilla
Parker-Bowles this spring, Clarence House announced today.


A full statement is expected shortly. No date has yet been set, but
reports this morning suggested that the ceremony might take place at
Windsor Castle on April 6.

Alastair Bruce, a royal commentator, said that there were no
constitutional impediments for the couple, both divorcees, to marry,
although it might provoke some soul-searching in the Church of England.


"As far as the constitution is concerned, it is completely acceptable,
perfectly all right," he said.

"The Church of England will obviously have its own internal debate
about Prince Charles's appointment as the Church's Supreme Governor in
the future if he becomes king."

He added: "It ends this long period of waiting and wondering, it will
allow Clarence House to move forwards and allow Prince Charles and his
fiancee to live a full and happy life."

===============================


By the bye, the ancestry (or much of it) for Camilla Parker-Bowles
(birth name Camilla Rosemary Shand) - including of course her royal
descents - can be found on Leo's great site:

http://www.genealogics.org


Cheers,

John






Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
> The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 10 feb 2005 11:39:26

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation yet. :-)

Renia

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 11:40:03

More update. . .

after the wedding, Camilla is to be known as the H.R.H. Duchess of Cornwall

Rose

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 10 feb 2005 11:46:14

Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as Queen
Consort, when Charles becomes King.

Renia

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 11:50:03

Renia,

I wouldn't buy you 'hat' too soon! I wonder if it will be a small private
affair like Princess Anne's or whether we will get the full pomp and ceremony?


Rose

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 11:50:03

Date just been announced - 8th April at Windsor Castle.

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 11:50:03

Just been announced - Camilla will NOT be queen but will be known as
Princess Consort when Charles inherits the throne.

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 10 feb 2005 11:50:21

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

Renia,

I wouldn't buy you 'hat' too soon! I wonder if it will be a small private
affair like Princess Anne's or whether we will get the full pomp and ceremony?


Doubt it will be the full pomp. Second marriage, nation still mourning
Diana and all that.

Renia

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 12:11:01

Apparently its going to be a civil marriage.

Rose

Thur

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Thur » 10 feb 2005 12:39:30

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cufe01$7gp$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as Queen
Consort, when Charles becomes King.

Renia

eventually, as Queen Consort,
As far as I can find, this is a description rather than a title.

"Wife of a reigning King"
If practice, she may be placed at the rear of official parties.
Present, but clearly not sufficiently Royal enough.
So depressing, all this stuff, for a society in the new millennium.
The very idea, that people can be something different or extra
due to who their parents are claimed to be.
I hoped that we had seen the last of all this with the defeat of the
"Master Race".
Thur

John Parsons

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av John Parsons » 10 feb 2005 12:51:05

Peter's reasoning here is spot on--precisely the same argument advanced in
1936 in regards to Edward VIII's hopes of marrying Wallis Simpson, who of
course had had TWO husbands, both of whom were still alive. (We often read
that she had two "previous" husbands in 1936, but she actually divorced
Ernest Simpson only in Oct. of that year--the event that finally
precipitated the Abdication crisis, which ended Edward's reign on 11
December 1936.)

Interestingly enough one of the potential titles London gossips discussed
for Mrs Simpson in 1936 was H.R.H. Duchess of Lancaster. Millie is now to
be H.R.H. Duchess of Cornwall.

How the times do change.

Regards

John P.


From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:21:56 GMT

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:001401c50f5f$b3931dc0$c3b4fea9@email...

How stupid, if they are to marry she should be Princess of Wales.

I'm sure we are going to be treated to every possible opinion on this, Leo
-
people are already clearly over-excited by the announcement & everything
about the marriage - but remember that however stupid it may seem there was
no possible alternative for the queen.

There is a sacral aspect to her role in addition to the civil, as discussed
in another thread recently: as well as being head of state (actually of
several states, that all will recognise the marriage fully) she is Supreme
Governor of the Church of England, which still in theory insists that every
canonical marriage is indissoluble. Mrs Parker-Bowles has a previous
husband
living. If he shouild die, there will be nothing to stop her becoming
princess of Wales and queen, but while he lives and Prince Charles may yet
have to take a coronation oath of his own, with the best will in the world
this cannot happen.

Things that seem stupid may have an inexorable logic to them, if only
certain premises are accepted that, however outmoded you think them, are
simply not subject to changing customs or whims of the time.

Peter Stewart


John Parsons

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av John Parsons » 10 feb 2005 13:01:02

From: "Thur" <no-personals@z.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:39:30 GMT

If practice, she may be placed at the rear of official parties.
Present, but clearly not sufficiently Royal enough.

Millie's official precedence can, & no doubt will be, settled by Royal
Warrant so that she may accompany her husband.

Although it is vaguely amusing to contemplate the prospect of Millie and
Princess Pushy disputing precedence at the tag end of the family, shoving
each other out of the way with diamond tiaras and ribands seriously askew.
As Dr Johnson once wrote, "Which comes first, a louse or a flea?"

Regards

John P.

allan connochie

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av allan connochie » 10 feb 2005 13:45:27

"Thur" <no-personals@z.com> wrote in message
news:SJHOd.63$SF4.3@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cufe01$7gp$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as Queen
Consort, when Charles becomes King.

Renia

eventually, as Queen Consort,
As far as I can find, this is a description rather than a title.
"Wife of a reigning King"
If practice, she may be placed at the rear of official parties.
Present, but clearly not sufficiently Royal enough.
So depressing, all this stuff, for a society in the new millennium.
The very idea, that people can be something different or extra
due to who their parents are claimed to be.
I hoped that we had seen the last of all this with the defeat of the
"Master Race".

Her future title, or lack of it, is nothing to do who her parents were or
weren't. It's due to it being a second marriage for both of them. Though I
agree with your sentiments.

Allan
Thur


Harvey Van Sickle

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Harvey Van Sickle » 10 feb 2005 15:08:33

On 10 Feb 2005, Renia wrote

Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation
yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as
Queen Consort, when Charles becomes King.

The report I read is that her post-succession title is to be "Princess
Consort", not Queen Consort.


--
Cheers,
Harvey

a.spencer3

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 10 feb 2005 15:38:39

"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95F98FDBE61BEwhhvans@62.253.162.203...
On 10 Feb 2005, Renia wrote

Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation
yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as
Queen Consort, when Charles becomes King.

The report I read is that her post-succession title is to be "Princess
Consort", not Queen Consort.


Yep - Princess Consort, the same status as Albert, Prince Consort.

Surreyman

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 10 feb 2005 15:45:51

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 10 Feb 2005, Renia wrote


Renia wrote:


Maytree4@aol.com wrote:


The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation
yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as
Queen Consort, when Charles becomes King.


The report I read is that her post-succession title is to be "Princess
Consort", not Queen Consort.

Yeah, but some wag-expert-person on Sky News (who broke the story in the
Evening Standard yesterday) declared that this will easily be converted
to Queen Consort.

renia

Betty Owen

it is true about Charles and Camilla

Legg inn av Betty Owen » 10 feb 2005 15:51:02

The post is correct....

Since they are going to marry outside the church she will become Duchess of
Cornwall and not Princess of Wales..

Later she will be known as Princess Consort not Queen Consort.

Betty



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005

Betty Owen

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Betty Owen » 10 feb 2005 16:31:02

Renia, If i understand it correctly I think the only way they would try to
give her title as Queen escort... is if her ex were to die and they
remarried within the church also I am sure they would look for public
oponion I noticed they did a survey on that before they annconced this
wedding. Besides whose to say if charles lives to be king or if she lives to
a consort of any kind so I think they will wait on before they cross that
one.

Betty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL


Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 10 Feb 2005, Renia wrote


Renia wrote:


Maytree4@aol.com wrote:


The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation
yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as
Queen Consort, when Charles becomes King.


The report I read is that her post-succession title is to be "Princess
Consort", not Queen Consort.

Yeah, but some wag-expert-person on Sky News (who broke the story in the
Evening Standard yesterday) declared that this will easily be converted to
Queen Consort.

renia



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

Denis Beauregard

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 10 feb 2005 16:57:02

Le Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:17:21 +0000 (UTC), Maytree4@aol.com écrivait
dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live

This newsgroup is about MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY. Please keep out this kind
of irrelevant debates. Discuss them in the relevant newsgroups, not
here...


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ http://www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo http://www.sgcf.com

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 17:51:02

Although I am a third cousin, sixteen times removed to Elizabeth II, I don't
expect an invitation. The rude wench didn't send me invitations when all of
her other brats married.

Long live James XXI


Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Gordon Banks

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 10 feb 2005 18:01:02

I've never understood, given the precedents of history of the British
monarchs and their various sexual assignations, what the problem seems
to be re marrying a divorced person. As for the Church of England,
wasn't it founded by someone who wanted to be divorced? (Although I
guess some of his divorces were accomplished via the axe.)

Doug McDonald

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 10 feb 2005 18:08:53

GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote:
Although I am a third cousin, sixteen times removed to Elizabeth II,

Are you sure? Are you sure you are human? Do you
mean sixteenth cousin three time removed? :)

Doug, who is slightly closer.

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 18:21:02

In a message dated 2/10/2005 12:09:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

Are you sure? Are you sure you are human? Do you
mean sixteenth cousin three time removed? :)

Doug, who is slightly closer.




Whatever. There is some connection but I have forgotten just what. The
message was in a sense of "fun" anyway. I wasn't serious. I wouldn't walk
across the street to see Charlie and his whore marry.


Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 feb 2005 19:11:02

Terribly sorry you missed out, Renia.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cufe01$7gp$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...

| Renia wrote:
|
| > Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
| >
| >> The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live
| >>
| >
| > They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation yet.
:-)
|
|
| She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as
Queen
| Consort, when Charles becomes King.
|
| Renia

allan connochie

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av allan connochie » 10 feb 2005 19:44:30

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cufs1a$8a9$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 10 Feb 2005, Renia wrote


Renia wrote:


Maytree4@aol.com wrote:


The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation
yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as
Queen Consort, when Charles becomes King.


The report I read is that her post-succession title is to be "Princess
Consort", not Queen Consort.

Yeah, but some wag-expert-person on Sky News (who broke the story in the
Evening Standard yesterday) declared that this will easily be converted
to Queen Consort.

It's been left fudged until a later date but I imagine they're hoping any
possible future change by them would be to Queen Camilla not Queen Consort.

Allan
renia

martin reboul

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av martin reboul » 10 feb 2005 20:05:13

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cufe01$7gp$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as Queen
Consort, when Charles becomes King.

I can hardly contain my excitement at the prospect of a Royal Wedding. Just what
we need to cheer us up in this blighted land at the moment, a bit of flag
waving, dusting off the buntings, having a day off and getting thoroughly
pissed... gawd bless ye ma'am, and lets hope you do better than the last one.
Cheers
Martin

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 feb 2005 20:05:20

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:57:02 -0500, Denis Beauregard <no@nospam.com.invalid>
wrote:

Le Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:17:21 +0000 (UTC), Maytree4@aol.com écrivait
dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live

This newsgroup is about MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY. Please keep out this kind
of irrelevant debates. Discuss them in the relevant newsgroups, not
here...

This is the relevant newsgroup.

See the charter at <http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~socgen/Medieval.htm>. Part
of the charter reads:

"The group is open to discussions of other related topics falling
outside the boundaries of the period, such as the genealogy of modern
nobility and genealogical links to antiquity."

The charter says that this is the newsgroup for discussion of the *genealogy* of
modern nobility, not for discussion of how you feel about a (future)
genealogical connection of a modern noble-person. His (and their) genealogical
connections, though, are on-topic here.

John Steele Gordon

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 10 feb 2005 20:16:34

<Maytree4@aol.com> wrote in message news:8d.2065e4d6.2f3c962c@aol.com...
Just been announced - Camilla will NOT be queen but will be known as
Princess Consort when Charles inherits the throne.

I seem to recall that at the height of the Mrs. Simpson crisis, Edward VIII
suggested a morganatic marriage. Walter Monckton then put the instant kibosh
on that idea as follows:

1) There is no precedent in English law for a morganatic marriage.

2) Therefore an act of Parliament would be required.

3) Acts of Parliament require "whereas clauses" (I forget the legal term),
stating the purpose of the legislation.

4) Therefore the act would have to read, "Whereas the wife of the King is
automatically queen; and whereas the woman the King wishes to marry is not
fit to be queen; therefore be it enacted . . . ."

So, my question: The Queen has undoubted power to determine by royal warrant
the "style" of Camilla once she marries Charles--denying her HRH if she
chose, just as Mrs. Simpson was denied it. Indeed, Diana, after the divorce,
was no longer HRH herself.

The Queen, by royal warrant, gave to Philip the style and title of a prince
of the United Kingdom in 1957, because men, of course, acquire no dignity by
right of marriage. But is not the wife of the Prince of Wales automatically
Princess of Wales, just as Mrs. Simpson automatically became Duchess of
Windsor upon her marriage to Edward? And, therefore, once Charles accedes to
the throne, won't she automatically be Queen?

Is legislation being contemplated to handle this awkward legal reality (in
which case the whereas clauses should make for interesting reading), or is
it just going to be a conspiracy not to call Camilla what, in legal fact,
she will become: Princess of Wales and, eventually, Queen?

JSG

Betty Owen

Morganiatic Marriage

Legg inn av Betty Owen » 10 feb 2005 20:31:02

morganatic

This is the first time I have noticed this group using the term Morganatic
Marriage.... can you please explain what it is and the orgins and
consequences of it.
Thanks

Betty



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

John Steele Gordon

Re: Morganatic Marriage

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 10 feb 2005 21:06:51

""Betty Owen"" <winteros@wt.net> wrote in message
news:001901c50fa6$8ced5900$a58877d8@owens...
morganatic

This is the first time I have noticed this group using the term
Morganatic Marriage.... can you please explain what it is and the orgins
and consequences of it.
Thanks

A morganatic marriage is one where, while valid in the eyes of the law and
the church, the woman does not accede to her husband's rank and the children
do not have any rights to inherit their father's titles or lands.

Such marriages between people of different rank in society were not uncommon
in Germany--where the rules about who could marry whom were much more
complex and strict--but unknown in England or France.

The most famous morganatic marriage--although famous for other reasons of
course--was that of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and Sophie, Countess
Chotek. Their assassination in 1914 touched off World War I.

JSG

Harvey Van Sickle

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Harvey Van Sickle » 10 feb 2005 23:44:41

On 10 Feb 2005, Michael W Cook wrote

A Princess Consort.

It sounds like something made at Dagenham.

Probably was; didn't know they'd stopped over in Dagenham, though...

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Michael W Cook

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Michael W Cook » 10 feb 2005 23:51:02

On 10/2/05 2:38 pm, in article PlKOd.227$SF4.54@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95F98FDBE61BEwhhvans@62.253.162.203...
On 10 Feb 2005, Renia wrote

Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation
yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as
Queen Consort, when Charles becomes King.

The report I read is that her post-succession title is to be "Princess
Consort", not Queen Consort.


Yep - Princess Consort, the same status as Albert, Prince Consort.

Surreyman

A Princess Consort.

It sounds like something made at Dagenham.

MWC

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 10 feb 2005 23:52:09

Michael W Cook wrote:

A Princess Consort.

It sounds like something made at Dagenham.

Or Debenhams.

Renia

Harvey Van Sickle

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Harvey Van Sickle » 11 feb 2005 00:02:55

On 10 Feb 2005, Renia wrote

Michael W Cook wrote:


A Princess Consort.

It sounds like something made at Dagenham.

Or Debenhams.

They have hotel rooms at Debenhams? Cool.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 11 feb 2005 00:03:43

John Steele Gordon wrote:
Maytree4@aol.com> wrote in message news:8d.2065e4d6.2f3c962c@aol.com...

Just been announced - Camilla will NOT be queen but will be known as
Princess Consort when Charles inherits the throne.


I seem to recall that at the height of the Mrs. Simpson crisis, Edward VIII
suggested a morganatic marriage. Walter Monckton then put the instant kibosh
on that idea as follows:

1) There is no precedent in English law for a morganatic marriage.

2) Therefore an act of Parliament would be required.

3) Acts of Parliament require "whereas clauses" (I forget the legal term),
stating the purpose of the legislation.

4) Therefore the act would have to read, "Whereas the wife of the King is
automatically queen; and whereas the woman the King wishes to marry is not
fit to be queen; therefore be it enacted . . . ."

So, my question: The Queen has undoubted power to determine by royal warrant
the "style" of Camilla once she marries Charles--denying her HRH if she
chose, just as Mrs. Simpson was denied it. Indeed, Diana, after the divorce,
was no longer HRH herself.

The Queen, by royal warrant, gave to Philip the style and title of a prince
of the United Kingdom in 1957, because men, of course, acquire no dignity by
right of marriage. But is not the wife of the Prince of Wales automatically
Princess of Wales, just as Mrs. Simpson automatically became Duchess of
Windsor upon her marriage to Edward? And, therefore, once Charles accedes to
the throne, won't she automatically be Queen?

Is legislation being contemplated to handle this awkward legal reality (in
which case the whereas clauses should make for interesting reading), or is
it just going to be a conspiracy not to call Camilla what, in legal fact,
she will become: Princess of Wales and, eventually, Queen?

I think the problem is because the marriage will be a civil one,
therefore they won't be married in the eyes of the church. As Charles's
mother is presently Head of the Church of England, as Charles will be
himself one day, this is the dilemma which has delayed this marriage. So
in the eyes of the Church, she won't be a queen, or an automatic
Princess of Wales.

Renia

Betty Owen

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Betty Owen » 11 feb 2005 00:31:03

Well they are not denying her HRH She will be when she marries HRH
Duchess of Cornwall
and when he assumes the throne,,,,, she would be HRH Princess Consort
however it is written....

That is per the news... and from Prince Charles Office...
the hang up is the title Queen apparently.

Betty



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

martin reboul

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av martin reboul » 11 feb 2005 00:53:49

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cugoh3$lct$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Michael W Cook wrote:


A Princess Consort.

It sounds like something made at Dagenham.

Or Debenhams.

Better than Harrods....

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 feb 2005 00:59:00

John Steele Gordon wrote:

<snip>

Is legislation being contemplated to handle this awkward legal
reality (in which case the whereas clauses should make for
interesting reading), or is it just going to be a conspiracy
not to call Camilla what, in legal fact, she will become:
Princess of Wales and, eventually, Queen?

Legislation shouldn't be needed for this in the United Kingdom - the
marriage is approved by the queen and evidently will comply with the
Royal Marriages Act. Apart from that, much of British custom regarding
titles is a matter of precedence rather than law.

The wives of English kings used to be called merely "domina" rather
than "regina", and even Matilda (who had been an empress) took the
title "lady of the English" rather than "queen".

The sovereign is the "fount of honour", and decides what titles may be
used at court & officially elsewhere. She doesn't have to "conspire"
with anybody: if she chose, the queen could make Mrs Parker-Bowles "Her
Majesty the Queen of Tarts" (although her fellow monarchs in Europe
wouldn't be too pleased), or she could refuse her any distinction
whatever despite being wife to her son & heir. Conceding "HRH" in the
cirsumstances is perhaps against the grain, but the last thing
Buckingham Palace would want is a repeat of the Wallis Simpson
brou-haha over this. The petty courts of Europe were all-but up in arms
when "HRH" was given to Albert on marrying Queen Victoria - times
change & some things can be allowed to change with them.

Prince Charles, when & if he should become the sovereign, could in
theory change such a decision merely by springing a leak of his own as
the new "fount". I imagine any prime minister would advise him against
this.

In some Commonwealth nations the matter might be more complicated. I
think, for instance, that Mrs Parker-Bowles would be at liberty to call
herself "queen of Australia" if her husband should accede as king. I
doubt that legislation will be introduced over this, as the lady is
most unlikely to be silly enough to cause a need.

Peter Stewart

Michael King

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Michael King » 11 feb 2005 01:51:02

At 11:08 AM -0600 10/2/05, Doug McDonald wrote:
GRHaleJr@aol.com wrote:
Although I am a third cousin, sixteen times removed to Elizabeth II,

Are you sure? Are you sure you are human? Do you
mean sixteenth cousin three time removed? :)

Doug, who is slightly closer.


If my wife indeed has Gorm den Gamle as a 28G grandfather then she is
possibly related to both Elizabeth (15C3R) and Philip (16C2R).
However, Buck house must not realise this because she didn't get any
invitations to any of the marriages, either.

She also didn't get an invitation, in 1999, to the marriage of her
17th cousin to Caroline of Monaco.

Cheers,

Mike King.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Michael King
255 McClellan Road, Ottawa ON K2H 8N7, Canada
( Phone (613) 828-3781 2 Fax (613) 728-1933
+ Email miking@sympatico.ca
The box said, Win2K or better required....so I bought a Mac

John Parsons

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av John Parsons » 11 feb 2005 02:11:01

In so far as Millie's marriage involves a member of the Royal Family OTHER
than the Sovereign, Peter is entirely correct in stating that the question
is one of precedence (i.e., entirely in the Sovereign's gift) rather than
law (i.e., subject to Parliamentary action). Elizabeth II is empowered by
the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 to approve or disapprove of the marriages of
those in the line of succession to the throne (except descendants of British
princesses who marry into foreign royal families).

Therefore the queen, merely by signifying her assent to the marriage in the
Privy Council, can give her son and heir permission to marry anybody he
pleases, the marriage will be valid & he won't lose his place in the line of
succession.

Bear in mind, however, that the Abdication Crisis of 1936--which John Steele
Gordon's original question involved--did not involve merely the heir to the
throne. It involved the Sovereign, who cannot act even in matters
pertaining to him/herself alone, including his/her marriage, without the
assent of the government of the day. (Lord Melbourne worried that Queen
Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert would encounter obstacles from any who
wanted her to marry a Hanoverian cousin.) In 1936 Edward VIII was King and
therefore could not take a wife without Parliamentary approval expressed
through the Cabinet. Legislation would have been absolutely necessary either
to approve a morganatic marriage or to get around the Church of England's
then-all-but-inflexible stance against the ecclesiastical remarriage of
divorced persons. The marriage of the heir to the throne is to be settled
by the Sovereign; the Abdication Crisis settled it that the Sovereign's
marriage comes under Parliamentary approval.

The queen could not, however, create Millie "Her Majesty the Queen of
Tarts." It is accepted in law as in Nature that one cannot create something
equal to oneself. The Queen can (or could) create Royal Highnesses,
princes or princesses, dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, barons, baronets
and knights, but she cannot create another queen. One Sovereign cannot
create another of Sovereign rank. It takes an Emperor or another Congress
of Vienna to do that.

Regards

John P.



From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL
Date: 10 Feb 2005 15:59:00 -0800

John Steele Gordon wrote:

snip

Is legislation being contemplated to handle this awkward legal
reality (in which case the whereas clauses should make for
interesting reading), or is it just going to be a conspiracy
not to call Camilla what, in legal fact, she will become:
Princess of Wales and, eventually, Queen?

Legislation shouldn't be needed for this in the United Kingdom - the
marriage is approved by the queen and evidently will comply with the
Royal Marriages Act. Apart from that, much of British custom regarding
titles is a matter of precedence rather than law.

The wives of English kings used to be called merely "domina" rather
than "regina", and even Matilda (who had been an empress) took the
title "lady of the English" rather than "queen".

The sovereign is the "fount of honour", and decides what titles may be
used at court & officially elsewhere. She doesn't have to "conspire"
with anybody: if she chose, the queen could make Mrs Parker-Bowles "Her
Majesty the Queen of Tarts" (although her fellow monarchs in Europe
wouldn't be too pleased), or she could refuse her any distinction
whatever despite being wife to her son & heir. Conceding "HRH" in the
cirsumstances is perhaps against the grain, but the last thing
Buckingham Palace would want is a repeat of the Wallis Simpson
brou-haha over this. The petty courts of Europe were all-but up in arms
when "HRH" was given to Albert on marrying Queen Victoria - times
change & some things can be allowed to change with them.

Prince Charles, when & if he should become the sovereign, could in
theory change such a decision merely by springing a leak of his own as
the new "fount". I imagine any prime minister would advise him against
this.

In some Commonwealth nations the matter might be more complicated. I
think, for instance, that Mrs Parker-Bowles would be at liberty to call
herself "queen of Australia" if her husband should accede as king. I
doubt that legislation will be introduced over this, as the lady is
most unlikely to be silly enough to cause a need.

Peter Stewart

starbuck95

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av starbuck95 » 11 feb 2005 02:42:35

Okay. Enough of these endless pomposities. Please?

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 feb 2005 02:52:43

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F2356DCD48BCBB22A44306B2770@phx.gbl...

<snip>

The queen could not, however, create Millie "Her Majesty the Queen of
Tarts." It is accepted in law as in Nature that one cannot create
something equal to oneself. The Queen can (or could) create Royal
Highnesses, princes or princesses, dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts,
barons, baronets and knights, but she cannot create another queen. One
Sovereign cannot create another of Sovereign rank. It takes an Emperor or
another Congress of Vienna to do that.

Remember, the queen's prerogatives are held in succession to those of the
"bretwaldas" in Britain, and despite appearances she is indeed quite able to
create tributary kings and queens if she chooses - this principle was the
basis for English claims to suzerainty over Scotland, with its allegedly
subordinate kings, and over the Isle of Man with its sovereigns.

Peter Stewart

joy mceldowney

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av joy mceldowney » 11 feb 2005 04:01:02

Renia wrote:

I think the problem is because the marriage will be a civil one,
therefore they won't be married in the eyes of the church. As Charles's
mother is presently Head of the Church of England, as Charles will be
himself one day, this is the dilemma which has delayed this marriage. So
in the eyes of the Church, she won't be a queen, or an automatic
Princess of Wales.
Renia...
I doubt that Charles is in the least bit interested in his title Defender of the Faith (or Faiths as he will have it).
The present Archbishop of Canterbury is more politician than churchman and he'll do anything that will get him on TV for five minutes so anything can happen. Yes, I CAN say that...I am a member of his Church, High Church of England, Anglo-Catholic, but I do not like him! He was, of course, Blair's choice...the monarchy is Old, Tony only likes New.
As a future Head of the Church of England, Charles is not supposed to be marrying (a) a Roman Catholic and (b) a woman who has been divorced....but as I said, Let's see what the Archbishop will do. If you want to know how the Cornish feel about 'Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall', read their List! 'Twill be worth it.
Mind you, as a Pommie member of 'Australians for Constitutional Monarchy' I can't help wondering how much damage this awful marriage will do to the ACM. We've had a Republican on ABC radio already this morning. I think Charles should take Camilla to his home in Glos., tell his Mum he doesn't want to be King he'd rather talk to his plants ..Or...Mum should tell him she doesn't want him to be king! If she doesn't do something, she may well be the last of the Monarchs of England. What a shame...all over a woman who only deserves one title, a title I can't print.
Joy
Tasmania, Australia






----- Original Message -----
From: Renia
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL


John Steele Gordon wrote:
Maytree4@aol.com> wrote in message news:8d.2065e4d6.2f3c962c@aol.com...

Just been announced - Camilla will NOT be queen but will be known as
Princess Consort when Charles inherits the throne.


I seem to recall that at the height of the Mrs. Simpson crisis, Edward VIII
suggested a morganatic marriage. Walter Monckton then put the instant kibosh
on that idea as follows:

1) There is no precedent in English law for a morganatic marriage.

2) Therefore an act of Parliament would be required.

3) Acts of Parliament require "whereas clauses" (I forget the legal term),
stating the purpose of the legislation.

4) Therefore the act would have to read, "Whereas the wife of the King is
automatically queen; and whereas the woman the King wishes to marry is not
fit to be queen; therefore be it enacted . . . ."

So, my question: The Queen has undoubted power to determine by royal warrant
the "style" of Camilla once she marries Charles--denying her HRH if she
chose, just as Mrs. Simpson was denied it. Indeed, Diana, after the divorce,
was no longer HRH herself.

The Queen, by royal warrant, gave to Philip the style and title of a prince
of the United Kingdom in 1957, because men, of course, acquire no dignity by
right of marriage. But is not the wife of the Prince of Wales automatically
Princess of Wales, just as Mrs. Simpson automatically became Duchess of
Windsor upon her marriage to Edward? And, therefore, once Charles accedes to
the throne, won't she automatically be Queen?

Is legislation being contemplated to handle this awkward legal reality (in
which case the whereas clauses should make for interesting reading), or is
it just going to be a conspiracy not to call Camilla what, in legal fact,
she will become: Princess of Wales and, eventually, Queen?

I think the problem is because the marriage will be a civil one,
therefore they won't be married in the eyes of the church. As Charles's
mother is presently Head of the Church of England, as Charles will be
himself one day, this is the dilemma which has delayed this marriage. So
in the eyes of the Church, she won't be a queen, or an automatic
Princess of Wales.

Renia

______________________________

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2005 04:25:31

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn't his father a "Prince Consort?"

btw Herr Doktor Kuettner has put a hex on you,
wants you jettisoned from the NG. What
brought this on? What have I missed?
He wants Inger and Hines to get the boot
as well.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2005 07:47:02

You'll have to excuse them. Someone puts something strange into the
water in Texas and Utah. Yee-haw!

allan connochie

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av allan connochie » 11 feb 2005 08:24:03

<dcholiman@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1108092331.649916.69680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn't his father a "Prince Consort?"

Yes, as was the husband of Queen Victoria.



Allan

Harvey Van Sickle

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Harvey Van Sickle » 11 feb 2005 10:16:08

On 11 Feb 2005, allan connochie wrote

dcholiman@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1108092331.649916.69680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn't his father a "Prince Consort?"

Yes, as was the husband of Queen Victoria.

The Duke of Edinburgh is "a" prince consort, but I don't think the
queen (unlike Victoria) has ever granted him the *title* of Prince
Consort.

(It's a granted title, of course, not an ex officio one.)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 feb 2005 10:19:07

"allan connochie" <allan@EASYNET.CO.UK> wrote in message
news:420c949e@news.greennet.net...
dcholiman@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1108092331.649916.69680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn't his father a "Prince Consort?"

Yes, as was the husband of Queen Victoria.

Not quite - the duke of Edinburgh is both a prince and a consort, but he
does not have the actual title of "Prince Consort" as did Victoria's husband
Albert.

There was much talk some decades ago about overhauling the styles &
especially the titles of the royal family, but nothing came of it. This was
just before the queen conferred the title of "Princess Royal" on her
daughter, according to custom. Various alternatives had been considered, in
line with political plans for devolution in the United Kingdom. A sensible
decision was taken that the monarchy survived through sticking to
qualities - or at least the show of them - that were mistakenly believed by
the public to fulfil traditional & even ancient purposes of the institution,
mainly as a great mirror of the British middle classes and the aspirational
values that they thought linked them with the "ruling" class.

You can fool some of the people all of the time....

Peter Stewart

a.spencer3

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 11 feb 2005 11:08:52

"Michael W Cook" <nuffspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BE319425.C537%nuffspam@hotmail.com...
On 10/2/05 2:38 pm, in article PlKOd.227$SF4.54@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95F98FDBE61BEwhhvans@62.253.162.203...
On 10 Feb 2005, Renia wrote

Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation
yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as
Queen Consort, when Charles becomes King.

The report I read is that her post-succession title is to be "Princess
Consort", not Queen Consort.


Yep - Princess Consort, the same status as Albert, Prince Consort.

Surreyman

A Princess Consort.

It sounds like something made at Dagenham.


Maybe she was! :-))

Surreyman

a.spencer3

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 11 feb 2005 11:10:03

"martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:420bf3f4_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cugoh3$lct$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Michael W Cook wrote:


A Princess Consort.

It sounds like something made at Dagenham.

Or Debenhams.

Better than Harrods....

Probably realised she'd eventually need a passport.


Surreyman

a.spencer3

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 11 feb 2005 11:12:48

"martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:420bb038_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cufe01$7gp$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as Queen
Consort, when Charles becomes King.

I can hardly contain my excitement at the prospect of a Royal Wedding.
Just what
we need to cheer us up in this blighted land at the moment, a bit of flag
waving, dusting off the buntings, having a day off and getting thoroughly
pissed... gawd bless ye ma'am, and lets hope you do better than the last
one.


You're going to miss out. All the excitement is down here by Windsor. Must
pop into the neighbours p.m. and pick up my invite ...........

Surreyman

allan connochie

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av allan connochie » 11 feb 2005 11:19:05

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fM_Od.156337$K7.84389@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"allan connochie" <allan@EASYNET.CO.UK> wrote in message
news:420c949e@news.greennet.net...

dcholiman@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1108092331.649916.69680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn't his father a "Prince Consort?"

Yes, as was the husband of Queen Victoria.

Not quite - the duke of Edinburgh is both a prince and a consort, but he
does not have the actual title of "Prince Consort" as did Victoria's
husband
Albert.


Thanks Peter. I stand corrected.

Allan

Mabon Dane

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Mabon Dane » 11 feb 2005 12:12:00

Has a date been set for the marriage?

Mabon Dane

Harvey Van Sickle

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Harvey Van Sickle » 11 feb 2005 12:20:59

On 11 Feb 2005, Mabon Dane wrote

Has a date been set for the marriage?

8th of April.


--
Cheers,
Harvey

martin reboul

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av martin reboul » 11 feb 2005 16:39:10

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ay%Od.567$cX3.407@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:420bb038_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cufe01$7gp$2@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Renia wrote:

Maytree4@aol.com wrote:

The announcement is expected shortly. TV covering it now Live


They're to marry on April 8. I haven't received my invitation yet. :-)


She is to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, and eventually, as Queen
Consort, when Charles becomes King.

I can hardly contain my excitement at the prospect of a Royal Wedding.
Just what
we need to cheer us up in this blighted land at the moment, a bit of flag
waving, dusting off the buntings, having a day off and getting thoroughly
pissed... gawd bless ye ma'am, and lets hope you do better than the last
one.

You're going to miss out. All the excitement is down here by Windsor. Must
pop into the neighbours p.m. and pick up my invite ...........

Mine must be lost in the post... again...

William Black

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av William Black » 11 feb 2005 18:53:20

"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95FA73A8E6261whhvans@194.168.222.123...
On 11 Feb 2005, Mabon Dane wrote

Has a date been set for the marriage?

8th of April.

About a month before the election, they'll be out of the newspapers before
the honeymoon jet has left the ground...

The whole thing shows a sense of timing and a sophistication in PR that has
been rare in royal events in recent times...

I wonder who's doing the serious thinking on this one...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

Harvey Van Sickle

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Harvey Van Sickle » 11 feb 2005 19:18:33

On 11 Feb 2005, William Black wrote

"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95FA73A8E6261whhvans@194.168.222.123...
On 11 Feb 2005, Mabon Dane wrote

Has a date been set for the marriage?

8th of April.

About a month before the election, they'll be out of the
newspapers before the honeymoon jet has left the ground...

The whole thing shows a sense of timing and a sophistication in PR
that has been rare in royal events in recent times...

I wonder who's doing the serious thinking on this one...

The Prince's current private secretary has a pretty sharp intellect.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

JF Blanc

RE: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av JF Blanc » 15 feb 2005 15:01:02

It sounds to me very impolite to post about living people, even
in their fifties, on a list dedicated to the middle ages.

Or did I miss anything?

Jean-François BLANC - Genealogia
genealogia@jfblanc.pp.ru
http://blanc.mfoudi.online.fr et
http://gw.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=bln

Frank Bullen

Was re PRINCE CHARLES's forthcoming marriage

Legg inn av Frank Bullen » 15 feb 2005 21:31:02

Could anyone enlighten me as to the reason for the enormous volume of messages on this subject emanating from the USA? I'n English, and my reaction to the whole subject is, "Ho Hum!"

Frank

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»