FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av John Parsons » 10 feb 2005 17:11:02

There were only ever 2 people who could have told us the absolute truth
about what happened to the Wales marriage. One of them is dead and, as of
this morning, the other has made it clear that he is now ready to put it all
behind him. Perhaps that's not a bad idea, but given Diana's immense
popularity, her beauty, and the unspeakable tragedy of her early death, it
probably won't happen.

It is clear that Diana was traumatized by her parents' divorce and that she
never managed to evolve any intellectual or emotional resources to deal with
that or similar situations. She remained an emotionally needy young woman
and, as she flunked out of high school (in American terminology) and never
attended university, she was a naive 20 year old with virtually no
experience of the world when she married Charles. She knew, like most
Britons of her class, that he had been involved with Camilla in the past.
It was unfortunate that the two of them carelessly gave her reason to
suspect that the affair was ongoing even while she was engaged to Charles.
Diana had stars in her eyes, as any young woman of her naivete would have
had in her situation. Her disappointment with what she then discovered to
be reality was very real, complicated by her inability to address the
realities of her marriage in the mature manner that a more sophisticated
woman might have managed.

Charles grew up with what he describes as a remote mother and a hectoring
martinet father. In part the queen's distance from her children was the
result of her office and dignity, but one cannot help reflecting on the
difference between the intimate family circle she had known as a child and
what appear to have been emotionally remote relationships with her own
children. As he matured into public life he came to receive an inordinate
amount of positive publicity, which may well have compensated him for an
emotionally sterile early life and given him a self-confidence many thought
he lacked in his 'teens and 'twenties. (It undoubtedly did him no good
later on to see so much of that media approval transferred to Diana.) As a
result, Charles had his own needs but Diana was no more the woman to fulfill
them than he was the man to fulfill hers. The direct consequences were
disaster and tragedy.

Regardless of how we choose to regard or criticise the methods either of
them adopted to deal with their crisis--sulking, crying to the media,
pursuing extramarital affairs--the above is my view of the personal
relationships involved. It's charitable if nothing else. Two essentially
very well-meaning young people who were simply wrong for each other.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all was that they were forced to go through
all of it under relentless and often pitiless public scrutiny. Any other
couple could have faced facts and ended the ordeal in a humane and dignified
manner, as Prince and Princess Joachim of Denmark are now doing.

Regards

John P.


From: Guy Etchells <guy.etchells@virgin.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Fw: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:26:44 +0000

My views on her have not changed since the early days of her marriage and
her whining that the Queen kept interfering and telling her what to do
(someone needed to remind her of protocol and who better).

Di knew from the start the situation with Charles and Camellia (it had been
going on for some years and they had no intention of stopping) and she
accepted it but after marriage tired to change this situation. She knew why
she had been chosen and what her role would be, but tried to force her hand
when she considered she had leverage, history shows how she failed.
She was manipulative and scheming using the press to best advantage, it is
just a pity that Charles took so long in realising just how to manipulate
the press to advantage.
Cheers
Guy

I'll give Millie this (love this new name for her: haven't come across it
before), she has been quiet in her activities, some might say discreet.
While Di was alive, she was everyone's favourite, bar a few, who thought
her a nutter. Since she died, everyone has joined on the bandwagon of
Di-bashing. It's fashionable, but I don't know how much truth there is in
any of what you say. Besides, why should she try to destroy the Royal
Family when her son will be king one day? Why would she destroy her
descendants' futures.

Renia


--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts
not promises!
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums ... ferrerid=7
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... church.htm
Churches & MIs. in the Wakefield Area


Betty Owen

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Betty Owen » 10 feb 2005 17:30:03

Well put and very objective... John
agreed Denis it should not be a debate...

Only the ignorant would not understand that they were simply real people
with real problems and we should not pass judgement.....

So anyway I want to know What is Camilla talking about?

Which one of her anscestors had an affair with Charles?
back to genealogy of a sorts anyway
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

Douglas Richardson royala

OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 10 feb 2005 17:35:29

I recall Diana's famous statement made on national television:

"There were three of us in the marriage, so it was a bit crowded."

I don't think you can talk about Charles and Diana, and not talk about
Camilla.
To dismiss Camilla Parker-Bowles simply an extramarital affair is to
miss the big picture. Camilla was and is a permanent fixture in
Charles's life.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


"John Parsons" wrote:
There were only ever 2 people who could have told us the absolute
truth
about what happened to the Wales marriage. One of them is dead and,
as of
this morning, the other has made it clear that he is now ready to put
it all
behind him. Perhaps that's not a bad idea, but given Diana's immense

popularity, her beauty, and the unspeakable tragedy of her early
death, it
probably won't happen.

It is clear that Diana was traumatized by her parents' divorce and
that she
never managed to evolve any intellectual or emotional resources to
deal with
that or similar situations. She remained an emotionally needy young
woman
and, as she flunked out of high school (in American terminology) and
never
attended university, she was a naive 20 year old with virtually no
experience of the world when she married Charles. She knew, like
most
Britons of her class, that he had been involved with Camilla in the
past.
It was unfortunate that the two of them carelessly gave her reason to

suspect that the affair was ongoing even while she was engaged to
Charles.
Diana had stars in her eyes, as any young woman of her naivete would
have
had in her situation. Her disappointment with what she then
discovered to
be reality was very real, complicated by her inability to address the

realities of her marriage in the mature manner that a more
sophisticated
woman might have managed.

Charles grew up with what he describes as a remote mother and a
hectoring
martinet father. In part the queen's distance from her children was
the
result of her office and dignity, but one cannot help reflecting on
the
difference between the intimate family circle she had known as a
child and
what appear to have been emotionally remote relationships with her
own
children. As he matured into public life he came to receive an
inordinate
amount of positive publicity, which may well have compensated him for
an
emotionally sterile early life and given him a self-confidence many
thought
he lacked in his 'teens and 'twenties. (It undoubtedly did him no
good
later on to see so much of that media approval transferred to Diana.)
As a
result, Charles had his own needs but Diana was no more the woman to
fulfill
them than he was the man to fulfill hers. The direct consequences
were
disaster and tragedy.

Regardless of how we choose to regard or criticise the methods either
of
them adopted to deal with their crisis--sulking, crying to the media,

pursuing extramarital affairs--the above is my view of the personal
relationships involved. It's charitable if nothing else. Two
essentially
very well-meaning young people who were simply wrong for each other.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all was that they were forced to go
through
all of it under relentless and often pitiless public scrutiny. Any
other
couple could have faced facts and ended the ordeal in a humane and
dignified
manner, as Prince and Princess Joachim of Denmark are now doing.

Regards

John P.


From: Guy Etchells <guy.etchells@virgin.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Fw: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:26:44 +0000

My views on her have not changed since the early days of her
marriage and
her whining that the Queen kept interfering and telling her what to
do
(someone needed to remind her of protocol and who better).

Di knew from the start the situation with Charles and Camellia (it
had been
going on for some years and they had no intention of stopping) and
she
accepted it but after marriage tired to change this situation. She
knew why
she had been chosen and what her role would be, but tried to force
her hand
when she considered she had leverage, history shows how she failed.
She was manipulative and scheming using the press to best advantage,
it is
just a pity that Charles took so long in realising just how to
manipulate
the press to advantage.
Cheers
Guy

I'll give Millie this (love this new name for her: haven't come
across it
before), she has been quiet in her activities, some might say
discreet.
While Di was alive, she was everyone's favourite, bar a few, who
thought
her a nutter. Since she died, everyone has joined on the bandwagon
of
Di-bashing. It's fashionable, but I don't know how much truth there
is in
any of what you say. Besides, why should she try to destroy the
Royal
Family when her son will be king one day? Why would she destroy her

descendants' futures.

Renia


--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you
facts
not promises!
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums ... ferrerid=7
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... church.htm
Churches & MIs. in the Wakefield Area


Rick Eaton

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Rick Eaton » 10 feb 2005 18:01:04

While I consider this subject to be completely OT (and wish there was a lot
less OT matter on the list these days), I have an overarching reaction to
this posting: It is the most sensitive and intelligent analysis of the
relationship of Charles and Diana I have ever read/heard and of the tragies
arising from their marriage.

Good for you, John.

Rick Eaton

Stan Brown

Re: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Stan Brown » 10 feb 2005 22:58:15

"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" wrote in
alt.talk.royalty:
To dismiss Camilla Parker-Bowles simply an extramarital affair is to
miss the big picture. Camilla was and is a permanent fixture in
Charles's life.

Mrs Keppel was a permanent fixture in Edward VII's life, but he and
she (and Queen Alexandra) behaved rather better.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Matt

Re: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Matt » 10 feb 2005 23:37:24

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
I recall Diana's famous statement made on national television:

"There were three of us in the marriage, so it was a bit crowded."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah




.... let's be realistic ... while I adored Diana, Princess of Wales and
mourn her early death ... she used that statement as spin ... she was
also involved in her own affairs ...

.... everyone makes mistakes ...

.... while I expected more and better from both of them ... the time has
come to move on ... I wish HRH, The Prince of Wales much happiness in
the future ...

.... i think it is great ... i am glad that HRH and Mrs Parker-Bowles
have found a way to work things out ... good for them !!!

Hip-hip Horray !!!

-Matt

a.spencer3

Re: OT Re: FW: CHARLES & CAMILLA - ITS OFFICIAL

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 11 feb 2005 11:34:48

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3723nlF548a8eU4@individual.net...
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" wrote in
alt.talk.royalty:
To dismiss Camilla Parker-Bowles simply an extramarital affair is to
miss the big picture. Camilla was and is a permanent fixture in
Charles's life.

Mrs Keppel was a permanent fixture in Edward VII's life, but he and
she (and Queen Alexandra) behaved rather better.


And, of course, isn't Camilla a descendent of Mrs. K?


Surreyman

D. Spencer Hines

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2005 19:41:02

Yes, Camilla is Alice Keppel's great-granddaughter.

Edward VII, Alice's lover, is Prince Charles's Great-Great-Grandfather.

Camilla is slightly older than Charles -- over a year.

Fascinating story.

Can you imagine the story if, say, President George Walker Bush were to
marry the great-granddaughter of the mistress of Warren G. Harding?

Great British Theatre -- It's The BEST Thing They Do.

They FUND The Royal Family -- Pay The Freight -- But We ALL Get The
ENTERTAINMENT.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:cT%Od.708$cX3.276@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
|
| "Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
| news:3723nlF548a8eU4@individual.net...

| > "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" wrote in
| > alt.talk.royalty:

| > >To dismiss Camilla Parker-Bowles simply an extramarital affair is
to
| > >miss the big picture. Camilla was and is a permanent fixture in
| > >Charles's life.
| >
| > Mrs Keppel was a permanent fixture in Edward VII's life, but he and
| > she (and Queen Alexandra) behaved rather better.
| >
| >
| And, of course, isn't Camilla a descendent of Mrs. K?
|
| Surreyman

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2005 20:20:39

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:
Can you imagine the story if, say, President George Walker Bush were to
marry the great-granddaughter of the mistress of Warren G. Harding?

I think most married men in the US are probably married to a great-granddaughter
of a mistress of Warren Harding... :)

--
Gary Holtzman

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------

Mr Asmodeus

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Mr Asmodeus » 12 feb 2005 09:51:07

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Yes, Camilla is Alice Keppel's great-granddaughter.

Edward VII, Alice's lover, is Prince Charles's Great-Great-Grandfather.

Camilla is slightly older than Charles -- over a year.

Fascinating story.

Can you imagine the story if, say, President George Walker Bush were to
marry the great-granddaughter of the mistress of Warren G. Harding?

Great British Theatre -- It's The BEST Thing They Do.

They FUND The Royal Family -- Pay The Freight -- But We ALL Get The
ENTERTAINMENT.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:cT%Od.708$cX3.276@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
|
| "Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
| news:3723nlF548a8eU4@individual.net...

| > "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" wrote in
| > alt.talk.royalty:

| > >To dismiss Camilla Parker-Bowles simply an extramarital affair is
to
| > >miss the big picture. Camilla was and is a permanent fixture in
| > >Charles's life.
|
| > Mrs Keppel was a permanent fixture in Edward VII's life, but he and
| > she (and Queen Alexandra) behaved rather better.
|
|
| And, of course, isn't Camilla a descendent of Mrs. K?
|
| Surreyman


Camilla - yet another parasite to support. A nation yawns.

As you Americans seem to like them so much, and find them so endlessly
fascinating, there's no chance you'd take them all as a job lot I
suppose? We could throw in a few palaces too.

Mr A

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 feb 2005 10:29:11

"Mr Asmodeus" <me@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_6KdnRg1y6szXpDfRVnyrQ@pipex.net...

Camilla - yet another parasite to support. A nation yawns.

As you Americans seem to like them so much, and find them so endlessly
fascinating, there's no chance you'd take them all as a job lot I
suppose? We could throw in a few palaces too.

Americans have a head of state in waiting - that is, a new president elect -
only for a few months in any four or eight year period. They contrive to
treat him (and soon maybe her) as a prominent but otherwise normal citizen.
His (or in futire her) spouse has no special role or importance. Since you
have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle, you have these
creatures and their partners as a burden on the system for life. What's more
you choose to fawn over them, and indeed even their siblings and relatives,
in utterly unbecoming ways, showering them with illustrious styles and
titles, bowing & scraping before them. Serve you (and us Australians) right:
the remedy is obvious, and it is very simple. Republicanism.

Peter Stewart

John Cartmell

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 12 feb 2005 10:51:01

In article <H%jPd.157896$K7.107644@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Peter
Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Since you have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle,
you have these creatures and their partners as a burden on the system
for life.
There was a growing Republican movement. then someone whispered "President

Thatcher".

What's more you choose to fawn over them

That's the left-pond lot.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 feb 2005 10:58:11

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d3bfe82dfjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <H%jPd.157896$K7.107644@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Peter
Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Since you have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle,
you have these creatures and their partners as a burden on the system
for life.
There was a growing Republican movement. then someone whispered "President
Thatcher".

She would have come & gone by now. Charles, Camilla, Andrew, Edward, Sophie
and the rest of this Disneyland mob are still very much with us.

So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to merit her
title and (much besmirched) honour.

Peter Stewart

M. J. Powell

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av M. J. Powell » 12 feb 2005 13:28:33

In message <H%jPd.157896$K7.107644@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Peter
Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> writes
snip

Americans have a head of state in waiting - that is, a new president elect -
only for a few months in any four or eight year period. They contrive to
treat him (and soon maybe her) as a prominent but otherwise normal citizen.
His (or in futire her) spouse has no special role or importance. Since you
have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle, you have these
creatures and their partners as a burden on the system for life. What's more
you choose to fawn over them,

Odd. During the last week the dozen or so villagers here that I've met
haven't even mentioned them.

I must have missed something.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

William Black

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av William Black » 12 feb 2005 14:43:17

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to merit
her
title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.

--
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

Thur

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Thur » 12 feb 2005 16:21:22

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to merit
her
title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.

--
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


'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'
As I remember, it was Our Lady of the Dole Queue.

Thur

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2005 16:36:40

i have used their milia treatment for milia seed on my eye brown area
and below cheek. after three applications, i noticed a reduction in the
milia size, quite impressed as i thought only laser surgery can solve
my problem.
--------------------------------
zest_f...@yahoo.com
i keep seeing reviews and raves about this
http://www.naturalisproducts.com and http://www.organiconline.com.sg .
many people are discussing in beauty forums and magazines have positive
reviews on this . but this thing ain't new, its been around for many
years! anyone tried can feedback to me on exactly how good it is?

----------------------------------------
can anyone help me please, am looking for the local distributor or any
shop selling the naturalis range of skin and body care products, from
this company http://www.naturalisproducts.com . looking for this
urgently. for those who have not come across it, its some foodbased
anti-aging products. i googled for this and received result showing its
available at http://www.organiconline.com.sg. i need this
urgently but shipping from singapore will take some time, if anyone is
distributing this please contact me at g...@raterenterprise.com
urgently. i have a group of us looking to buy this. thanks!

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 feb 2005 23:16:56

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to merit
her
title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.

She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher" in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

"Lady Whatever" is the usual way of referring to "Baroness Whatever". The
same custom applies for informal usage to all peerage titles up to &
including marquess, e.g. "Anthony, Lord Snowdon" etc.

La Thatcher is no doubt still hoping to become countess of Grantham, in
which case she will be correctly called Margaret, Lady Grantham.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 feb 2005 23:22:46

"M. J. Powell" <mike@DeLeTe.pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9Sn0NyCxZfDCFw9+@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
In message <H%jPd.157896$K7.107644@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Peter
Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> writes

snip

Americans have a head of state in waiting - that is, a new president
elect -
only for a few months in any four or eight year period. They contrive to
treat him (and soon maybe her) as a prominent but otherwise normal
citizen.
His (or in futire her) spouse has no special role or importance. Since you
have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle, you have these
creatures and their partners as a burden on the system for life. What's
more
you choose to fawn over them,

Odd. During the last week the dozen or so villagers here that I've met
haven't even mentioned them.

I must have missed something.

Yes, you missed that I was referring to the British as a whole by "you", as
to Australians as a whole by "us" in the same message - obviously I'm one of
"us" who live under (& indulge the beneficiaries of) a monarchical system,
and yet equally obviously I'm not a monarchist. I'm glad to hear your
village isn't bristling with them.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 feb 2005 23:31:02

Hmmmmm...

So, some of Camilla's American ancestors are Loyalists who fled to
Canada during the American Revolution?

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

M. J. Powell

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av M. J. Powell » 13 feb 2005 00:31:44

In message <WkvPd.158511$K7.69387@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Peter
Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> writes
"M. J. Powell" <mike@DeLeTe.pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9Sn0NyCxZfDCFw9+@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
In message <H%jPd.157896$K7.107644@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Peter
Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> writes

snip

Americans have a head of state in waiting - that is, a new president
elect -
only for a few months in any four or eight year period. They contrive to
treat him (and soon maybe her) as a prominent but otherwise normal
citizen.
His (or in futire her) spouse has no special role or importance. Since you
have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle, you have these
creatures and their partners as a burden on the system for life. What's
more
you choose to fawn over them,

Odd. During the last week the dozen or so villagers here that I've met
haven't even mentioned them.

I must have missed something.

Yes, you missed that I was referring to the British as a whole by "you", as
to Australians as a whole by "us" in the same message - obviously I'm one of
"us" who live under (& indulge the beneficiaries of) a monarchical system,
and yet equally obviously I'm not a monarchist. I'm glad to hear your
village isn't bristling with them.

My comment followed your comment on 'fawning'.

Mike

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 13 feb 2005 01:52:22

Peter Stewart wrote:

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...


So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to merit

her

title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.


She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher"

No, she is not. She is Baroness Thatcher and addressed as Lady Thatcher.


in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

No, he is not. His is the Prince of Wales, commonly called Prince
Charles. His first wife was the Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana,
though that is how she was popularly known. After their divorce, she was
known as Diana, Princess of Wales, which is a lower-status title.
(Technically, she was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her
status as an Earl's daughter and a divorced wife, but she was never
known as such.)

"Lady Whatever" is the usual way of referring to "Baroness Whatever". The
same custom applies for informal usage to all peerage titles up to &
including marquess, e.g. "Anthony, Lord Snowdon" etc.

No, he is Lord Snowdon. But in his commercial life, of course, he is
Anthony Armstrong-Jones.

La Thatcher is no doubt still hoping to become countess of Grantham, in
which case she will be correctly called Margaret, Lady Grantham.

No, she would be the Countess of Grantham, and addressed as Lady Grantham.

Peers are never styled to include their Christian name. They are Lord
Whatever or Lady Whatever, or the Earl/Duke (etc) of Whatever. Courtesy
titles, however, do include a Christian name, so the wife or divorcee of
a peer without a title of her own, would be Mary, Countess Whatever.

Renia

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 feb 2005 02:12:39

I'm not talking about correct formal styles, Renia, but about equally
unexceptionable common usage. That's what I mean by "called" whatever rather
than "styled" so. The formal style might be the Right Honourable Anthony
Armstrong-Jones, earl of Snowdon, but no-one in right mind would actually
call him that from day to day.

Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cum8ac$nue$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...


So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to merit

her

title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.


She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher"

No, she is not. She is Baroness Thatcher and addressed as Lady Thatcher.


in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

No, he is not. His is the Prince of Wales, commonly called Prince Charles.
His first wife was the Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana, though that
is how she was popularly known. After their divorce, she was known as
Diana, Princess of Wales, which is a lower-status title. (Technically, she
was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her status as an Earl's
daughter and a divorced wife, but she was never known as such.)

"Lady Whatever" is the usual way of referring to "Baroness Whatever". The
same custom applies for informal usage to all peerage titles up to &
including marquess, e.g. "Anthony, Lord Snowdon" etc.

No, he is Lord Snowdon. But in his commercial life, of course, he is
Anthony Armstrong-Jones.

La Thatcher is no doubt still hoping to become countess of Grantham, in
which case she will be correctly called Margaret, Lady Grantham.

No, she would be the Countess of Grantham, and addressed as Lady Grantham.

Peers are never styled to include their Christian name. They are Lord
Whatever or Lady Whatever, or the Earl/Duke (etc) of Whatever. Courtesy
titles, however, do include a Christian name, so the wife or divorcee of a
peer without a title of her own, would be Mary, Countess Whatever.

Renia

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 13 feb 2005 02:43:54

His correct style is the Right Honourable, Earl of Snowdon. He is never
called what you call him, below. He is generally known as Lord Snowdon.

You weren't talking about "equally unexceptionable common usage". You
were referring to people incorrectly. You might now change the goalposts
to try and imply such common usage, but that is not the point you were
making at the time. If however, these people are known by these strange
appellations in Australia, then perhaps you had better specify that.

Renia

Peter Stewart wrote:

I'm not talking about correct formal styles, Renia, but about equally
unexceptionable common usage. That's what I mean by "called" whatever rather
than "styled" so. The formal style might be the Right Honourable Anthony
Armstrong-Jones, earl of Snowdon, but no-one in right mind would actually
call him that from day to day.

Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cum8ac$nue$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...

Peter Stewart wrote:


"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...



So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to merit

her


title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.


She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher"

No, she is not. She is Baroness Thatcher and addressed as Lady Thatcher.



in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

No, he is not. His is the Prince of Wales, commonly called Prince Charles.
His first wife was the Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana, though that
is how she was popularly known. After their divorce, she was known as
Diana, Princess of Wales, which is a lower-status title. (Technically, she
was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her status as an Earl's
daughter and a divorced wife, but she was never known as such.)


"Lady Whatever" is the usual way of referring to "Baroness Whatever". The
same custom applies for informal usage to all peerage titles up to &
including marquess, e.g. "Anthony, Lord Snowdon" etc.

No, he is Lord Snowdon. But in his commercial life, of course, he is
Anthony Armstrong-Jones.


La Thatcher is no doubt still hoping to become countess of Grantham, in
which case she will be correctly called Margaret, Lady Grantham.

No, she would be the Countess of Grantham, and addressed as Lady Grantham.

Peers are never styled to include their Christian name. They are Lord
Whatever or Lady Whatever, or the Earl/Duke (etc) of Whatever. Courtesy
titles, however, do include a Christian name, so the wife or divorcee of a
peer without a title of her own, would be Mary, Countess Whatever.

Renia



Stan Brown

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Stan Brown » 13 feb 2005 02:59:54

"Peter Stewart" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to merit
her title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.

She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher" in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

And in the same way that I am "Stan, Mr. Brown" -- i.e.,
incorrectly. :-)

Look again at what William is trying to tell you. "Margaret, Lady
Thatcher" has a very specific meaning and never means a peeress in
her own right.


--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 feb 2005 03:11:48

You are getting carried away - the original question that came up was over
my referring to "Margaret, Lady Thatcher". She is named Margaret and called
Lady Thatcher, simple as that. She can't be called "Lady Margaret Thatcher"
because she isn't the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl, but she can be
called "Margaret, Lady Thatcher" apart from anything else to distinguish her
from another Lady Thatcher (as it happens, her daughter-in-law).

If you insist on being absolutely correct, then exception could indeed be
taken against this on the grounds that she isn't just the widow of a
baronet, as William Black remarked. However, as I said before, people don't
go about calling her "Baroness Thatcher", and the usage I described is
common. No shifting of goal-posts, people with titles are styled one thing
and called another.

Peter Stewart



"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cumbb0$m8b$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
His correct style is the Right Honourable, Earl of Snowdon. He is never
called what you call him, below. He is generally known as Lord Snowdon.

You weren't talking about "equally unexceptionable common usage". You were
referring to people incorrectly. You might now change the goalposts to try
and imply such common usage, but that is not the point you were making at
the time. If however, these people are known by these strange appellations
in Australia, then perhaps you had better specify that.

Renia

Peter Stewart wrote:

I'm not talking about correct formal styles, Renia, but about equally
unexceptionable common usage. That's what I mean by "called" whatever
rather than "styled" so. The formal style might be the Right Honourable
Anthony Armstrong-Jones, earl of Snowdon, but no-one in right mind would
actually call him that from day to day.

Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cum8ac$nue$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...

Peter Stewart wrote:


"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...



So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher.
Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to
merit

her


title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of
where-ever'.


She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher"

No, she is not. She is Baroness Thatcher and addressed as Lady Thatcher.



in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

No, he is not. His is the Prince of Wales, commonly called Prince
Charles. His first wife was the Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana,
though that is how she was popularly known. After their divorce, she was
known as Diana, Princess of Wales, which is a lower-status title.
(Technically, she was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her
status as an Earl's daughter and a divorced wife, but she was never known
as such.)


"Lady Whatever" is the usual way of referring to "Baroness Whatever".
The same custom applies for informal usage to all peerage titles up to &
including marquess, e.g. "Anthony, Lord Snowdon" etc.

No, he is Lord Snowdon. But in his commercial life, of course, he is
Anthony Armstrong-Jones.


La Thatcher is no doubt still hoping to become countess of Grantham, in
which case she will be correctly called Margaret, Lady Grantham.

No, she would be the Countess of Grantham, and addressed as Lady
Grantham.

Peers are never styled to include their Christian name. They are Lord
Whatever or Lady Whatever, or the Earl/Duke (etc) of Whatever. Courtesy
titles, however, do include a Christian name, so the wife or divorcee of
a peer without a title of her own, would be Mary, Countess Whatever.

Renia


Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 feb 2005 03:26:35

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:377qkpF574erdU3@individual.net...
"Peter Stewart" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to
merit
her title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.

She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher" in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

And in the same way that I am "Stan, Mr. Brown" -- i.e.,
incorrectly. :-)

Not the same at all - you are "Mr Stan Brown", but she is not "Lady Margaret
Thatcher". Please read the above again: I am not saying that William Black
was wrong, or that Renia is wrong. I am just applying the license that is
used in everyday situations, where for instance someone might be introducing
two Lady Thatchers to other guests.

Peter Stewart

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 13 feb 2005 03:27:38

Peter Stewart wrote:

You are getting carried away - the original question that came up was over
my referring to "Margaret, Lady Thatcher". She is named Margaret and called
Lady Thatcher, simple as that. She can't be called "Lady Margaret Thatcher"
because she isn't the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl, but she can be
called "Margaret, Lady Thatcher" apart from anything else to distinguish her
from another Lady Thatcher (as it happens, her daughter-in-law).

No, she can't, and that is my point. She is Baroness Thatcher or the Rt
Hon, Lady Thatcher, but usually, Baroness Thatcher. Her daughter-in-law
is plain Lady Thatcher.

If you insist on being absolutely correct, then exception could indeed be
taken against this on the grounds that she isn't just the widow of a
baronet, as William Black remarked. However, as I said before, people don't
go about calling her "Baroness Thatcher",

Yes, they do.

and the usage I described is
common.

No, it isn't, unless it is in Australia.

No shifting of goal-posts, people with titles are styled one thing
and called another.

No, they're not, at least not in the UK, where UK titles are concerned.
Occasionally the Press makes mistakes which continue on into popular
usage, for example, Princess Diana, or for Sarah Ferguson still calling
herself THE Duchess of York, which she isn't. She is Sarah, Duchess of
York. Similary, Heather Mills is now Lady McCartney, not Lady
Mills-Mccartney, although that's what she calls herself, incorrectly.

Renia

Peter Stewart



"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cumbb0$m8b$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...

His correct style is the Right Honourable, Earl of Snowdon. He is never
called what you call him, below. He is generally known as Lord Snowdon.

You weren't talking about "equally unexceptionable common usage". You were
referring to people incorrectly. You might now change the goalposts to try
and imply such common usage, but that is not the point you were making at
the time. If however, these people are known by these strange appellations
in Australia, then perhaps you had better specify that.

Renia

Peter Stewart wrote:


I'm not talking about correct formal styles, Renia, but about equally
unexceptionable common usage. That's what I mean by "called" whatever
rather than "styled" so. The formal style might be the Right Honourable
Anthony Armstrong-Jones, earl of Snowdon, but no-one in right mind would
actually call him that from day to day.

Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cum8ac$nue$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...


Peter Stewart wrote:



"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...



"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...




So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher.
Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to
merit

her



title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of
where-ever'.


She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher"

No, she is not. She is Baroness Thatcher and addressed as Lady Thatcher.




in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

No, he is not. His is the Prince of Wales, commonly called Prince
Charles. His first wife was the Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana,
though that is how she was popularly known. After their divorce, she was
known as Diana, Princess of Wales, which is a lower-status title.
(Technically, she was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her
status as an Earl's daughter and a divorced wife, but she was never known
as such.)



"Lady Whatever" is the usual way of referring to "Baroness Whatever".
The same custom applies for informal usage to all peerage titles up to &
including marquess, e.g. "Anthony, Lord Snowdon" etc.

No, he is Lord Snowdon. But in his commercial life, of course, he is
Anthony Armstrong-Jones.



La Thatcher is no doubt still hoping to become countess of Grantham, in
which case she will be correctly called Margaret, Lady Grantham.

No, she would be the Countess of Grantham, and addressed as Lady
Grantham.

Peers are never styled to include their Christian name. They are Lord
Whatever or Lady Whatever, or the Earl/Duke (etc) of Whatever. Courtesy
titles, however, do include a Christian name, so the wife or divorcee of
a peer without a title of her own, would be Mary, Countess Whatever.

Renia



Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 feb 2005 03:40:09

Goodness Renia, get a grip - have you never heard of "Alfred, Lord
Tennyson"? IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME USAGE for EXACTLY THE SAME RANK as
"Margaret, Lady Thatcher".

Commonsense needs to be applied as well as the style manual.

Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cumdt0$oha$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:

You are getting carried away - the original question that came up was
over my referring to "Margaret, Lady Thatcher". She is named Margaret and
called Lady Thatcher, simple as that. She can't be called "Lady Margaret
Thatcher" because she isn't the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl, but
she can be called "Margaret, Lady Thatcher" apart from anything else to
distinguish her from another Lady Thatcher (as it happens, her
daughter-in-law).

No, she can't, and that is my point. She is Baroness Thatcher or the Rt
Hon, Lady Thatcher, but usually, Baroness Thatcher. Her daughter-in-law is
plain Lady Thatcher.

If you insist on being absolutely correct, then exception could indeed be
taken against this on the grounds that she isn't just the widow of a
baronet, as William Black remarked. However, as I said before, people
don't go about calling her "Baroness Thatcher",

Yes, they do.

and the usage I described is
common.

No, it isn't, unless it is in Australia.

No shifting of goal-posts, people with titles are styled one thing
and called another.

No, they're not, at least not in the UK, where UK titles are concerned.
Occasionally the Press makes mistakes which continue on into popular
usage, for example, Princess Diana, or for Sarah Ferguson still calling
herself THE Duchess of York, which she isn't. She is Sarah, Duchess of
York. Similary, Heather Mills is now Lady McCartney, not Lady
Mills-Mccartney, although that's what she calls herself, incorrectly.

Renia

Peter Stewart



"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cumbb0$m8b$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...

His correct style is the Right Honourable, Earl of Snowdon. He is never
called what you call him, below. He is generally known as Lord Snowdon.

You weren't talking about "equally unexceptionable common usage". You
were referring to people incorrectly. You might now change the goalposts
to try and imply such common usage, but that is not the point you were
making at the time. If however, these people are known by these strange
appellations in Australia, then perhaps you had better specify that.

Renia

Peter Stewart wrote:


I'm not talking about correct formal styles, Renia, but about equally
unexceptionable common usage. That's what I mean by "called" whatever
rather than "styled" so. The formal style might be the Right Honourable
Anthony Armstrong-Jones, earl of Snowdon, but no-one in right mind would
actually call him that from day to day.

Peter Stewart


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cum8ac$nue$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...


Peter Stewart wrote:



"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...



"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...




So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher.
Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to
merit

her



title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of
where-ever'.


She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher"

No, she is not. She is Baroness Thatcher and addressed as Lady
Thatcher.




in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

No, he is not. His is the Prince of Wales, commonly called Prince
Charles. His first wife was the Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana,
though that is how she was popularly known. After their divorce, she
was known as Diana, Princess of Wales, which is a lower-status title.
(Technically, she was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her
status as an Earl's daughter and a divorced wife, but she was never
known as such.)



"Lady Whatever" is the usual way of referring to "Baroness Whatever".
The same custom applies for informal usage to all peerage titles up to
& including marquess, e.g. "Anthony, Lord Snowdon" etc.

No, he is Lord Snowdon. But in his commercial life, of course, he is
Anthony Armstrong-Jones.



La Thatcher is no doubt still hoping to become countess of Grantham,
in which case she will be correctly called Margaret, Lady Grantham.

No, she would be the Countess of Grantham, and addressed as Lady
Grantham.

Peers are never styled to include their Christian name. They are Lord
Whatever or Lady Whatever, or the Earl/Duke (etc) of Whatever. Courtesy
titles, however, do include a Christian name, so the wife or divorcee
of a peer without a title of her own, would be Mary, Countess Whatever.

Renia



Keith Keen

RE: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Keith Keen » 13 feb 2005 04:01:02

There is only one reason why there is a Queen of Australia, United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms
and Territories and Head of the Commonwealth.

This is because the majority of the people want it that way.


Regards,

Keith Keen

Bordertown South Australia



-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, 12 February 2005 7:59 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL


"Mr Asmodeus" <me@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_6KdnRg1y6szXpDfRVnyrQ@pipex.net...

Camilla - yet another parasite to support. A nation yawns.

As you Americans seem to like them so much, and find them so endlessly
fascinating, there's no chance you'd take them all as a job lot I
suppose? We could throw in a few palaces too.

Americans have a head of state in waiting - that is, a new president
elect -
only for a few months in any four or eight year period. They contrive to

treat him (and soon maybe her) as a prominent but otherwise normal
citizen.
His (or in futire her) spouse has no special role or importance. Since
you
have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle, you have
these
creatures and their partners as a burden on the system for life. What's
more
you choose to fawn over them, and indeed even their siblings and
relatives,
in utterly unbecoming ways, showering them with illustrious styles and
titles, bowing & scraping before them. Serve you (and us Australians)
right:
the remedy is obvious, and it is very simple. Republicanism.

Peter Stewart

Peter A. Kincaid

RE: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 13 feb 2005 05:31:01

I can't speak for other countries but I believe that most
Canadians would love to chuck the royals as head of
state. However, thanks to the Quebec situation, everyone
is too afraid to play with the Constitution. Furthermore,
the alternative is not that appealing. It feels un-Canadian
to have a President. That sounds too American. With the
world's superpower next door it is nice to appear different.

Best wishes!



At 10:57 PM 12/02/2005, you wrote:

There is only one reason why there is a Queen of Australia, United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms
and Territories and Head of the Commonwealth.

This is because the majority of the people want it that way.


Regards,

Keith Keen

Bordertown South Australia



-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, 12 February 2005 7:59 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL


"Mr Asmodeus" <me@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_6KdnRg1y6szXpDfRVnyrQ@pipex.net...

Camilla - yet another parasite to support. A nation yawns.

As you Americans seem to like them so much, and find them so endlessly
fascinating, there's no chance you'd take them all as a job lot I
suppose? We could throw in a few palaces too.

Americans have a head of state in waiting - that is, a new president
elect -
only for a few months in any four or eight year period. They contrive to

treat him (and soon maybe her) as a prominent but otherwise normal
citizen.
His (or in futire her) spouse has no special role or importance. Since
you
have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle, you have
these
creatures and their partners as a burden on the system for life. What's
more
you choose to fawn over them, and indeed even their siblings and
relatives,
in utterly unbecoming ways, showering them with illustrious styles and
titles, bowing & scraping before them. Serve you (and us Australians)
right:
the remedy is obvious, and it is very simple. Republicanism.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 feb 2005 06:52:50

We have plenty of parasites of our own. Just look how many people are
busily tracing the genealogies of our governmental and corporate bunch.
Anyhow, it appears that Thatcher & Big Bush were joined at the hip.

Stan Brown

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Stan Brown » 13 feb 2005 08:21:11

"Peter Stewart" wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
You are getting carried away - the original question that came up was over
my referring to "Margaret, Lady Thatcher". She is named Margaret and called
Lady Thatcher, simple as that. She can't be called "Lady Margaret Thatcher"

No one said she should be "Lady Margaret Thatcher", sine she is not
the daughter of an Earl, Marquess, or Duke.

She is equally not "Margaret Lady Thatcher" (with or without comma)
because she _is_ a peeress in her own right. Peer(esse)s are not
referred to by their first names, only by their titles.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

William Black

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av William Black » 13 feb 2005 10:57:05

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:vVyPd.158905$K7.3305@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Not the same at all - you are "Mr Stan Brown", but she is not "Lady
Margaret
Thatcher". Please read the above again: I am not saying that William Black
was wrong, or that Renia is wrong. I am just applying the license that is
used in everyday situations, where for instance someone might be
introducing
two Lady Thatchers to other guests.

Nice example.

Mark Thatcher's wife is 'Lady Thatcher'

Margaret Thatcher is 'Baroness Thatcher of Wherever'

The correct form of address is 'Lady Thatcher' for the first, and probably
'My lady' or 'Baroness Wherever' for the other, depending on how well you
know them.

--
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

John Cartmell

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 13 feb 2005 11:41:01

In article <vVyPd.158905$K7.3305@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Peter
Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Not the same at all - you are "Mr Stan Brown", but she is not "Lady
Margaret Thatcher". Please read the above again: I am not saying that
William Black was wrong, or that Renia is wrong. I am just applying the
license that is used in everyday situations, where for instance someone
might be introducing two Lady Thatchers to other guests.

In common parlance she is called lots of things that are correct but mostly
actionable. Though not actionable Margaret, Lady Thatcher is incorrect.
Whilst the names that I might give her have the quality of identifying the
correct person yours just makes everyone wonder which poor soul has
happened upon a name like that.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

a.spencer3

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 13 feb 2005 12:43:26

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cum8ac$nue$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
Peter Stewart wrote:

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...


So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to
merit

her

title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.


She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher"

No, she is not. She is Baroness Thatcher and addressed as Lady Thatcher.


in exactly the same way as Prince
Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

No, he is not. His is the Prince of Wales, commonly called Prince
Charles. His first wife was the Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana,
though that is how she was popularly known. After their divorce, she was
known as Diana, Princess of Wales, which is a lower-status title.
(Technically, she was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her
status as an Earl's daughter and a divorced wife, but she was never
known as such.)

"Lady Whatever" is the usual way of referring to "Baroness Whatever".
The
same custom applies for informal usage to all peerage titles up to &
including marquess, e.g. "Anthony, Lord Snowdon" etc.

No, he is Lord Snowdon. But in his commercial life, of course, he is
Anthony Armstrong-Jones.

La Thatcher is no doubt still hoping to become countess of Grantham, in
which case she will be correctly called Margaret, Lady Grantham.

No, she would be the Countess of Grantham, and addressed as Lady Grantham.

Peers are never styled to include their Christian name. They are Lord
Whatever or Lady Whatever, or the Earl/Duke (etc) of Whatever. Courtesy
titles, however, do include a Christian name, so the wife or divorcee of
a peer without a title of her own, would be Mary, Countess Whatever.


I never understood how 'Princess Michael' came about. What's the logic
there?

Surreyman

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 13 feb 2005 13:10:00

a.spencer3 wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:cum8ac$nue$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...

Peter Stewart wrote:


"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cul118$pfj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:TqkPd.157928$K7.144435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...



So, happily in a private capacity, is Margaret, Lady Thatcher. Whatever
anyone thinks of her, she did make some efforts over many years to

merit

her


title and (much besmirched) honour.

'Margaret, Lady Thatcher, implies she takes her title from her late
husband who was a baronet.

She is a baron in her own right and so is 'Lady Thatcher of where-ever'.


She is also "Margaret, Lady Thatcher"

No, she is not. She is Baroness Thatcher and addressed as Lady Thatcher.


in exactly the same way as Prince

Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales".

No, he is not. His is the Prince of Wales, commonly called Prince
Charles. His first wife was the Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana,
though that is how she was popularly known. After their divorce, she was
known as Diana, Princess of Wales, which is a lower-status title.
(Technically, she was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, referring to her
status as an Earl's daughter and a divorced wife, but she was never
known as such.)


"Lady Whatever" is the usual way of referring to "Baroness Whatever".

The

same custom applies for informal usage to all peerage titles up to &
including marquess, e.g. "Anthony, Lord Snowdon" etc.

No, he is Lord Snowdon. But in his commercial life, of course, he is
Anthony Armstrong-Jones.


La Thatcher is no doubt still hoping to become countess of Grantham, in
which case she will be correctly called Margaret, Lady Grantham.

No, she would be the Countess of Grantham, and addressed as Lady Grantham.

Peers are never styled to include their Christian name. They are Lord
Whatever or Lady Whatever, or the Earl/Duke (etc) of Whatever. Courtesy
titles, however, do include a Christian name, so the wife or divorcee of
a peer without a title of her own, would be Mary, Countess Whatever.



I never understood how 'Princess Michael' came about. What's the logic
there?

Her husband, Prince Michael of Kent, is a Prince without any other
title. Other Princes are often Dukes, so their wives are Duchesses.
Wives take their husband's style and status, unless their own is higher.
Marie-Christine von Reibnitz was a foreign baroness, thus of lower
status than her husband who is a Prince, so she takes her husband's
style of Prince(ess). It's the same with married women in the UK.
Madonna is Mrs Guy Ritchie, not Mrs Madonna Ritchie, though the latter
style is more commonly used throughout the land in these modern times.

Renia (Mrs Peter Simmonds)

a.spencer3

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 13 feb 2005 13:10:30

<lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108273970.541286.110560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
We have plenty of parasites of our own. Just look how many people are
busily tracing the genealogies of our governmental and corporate bunch.
Anyhow, it appears that Thatcher & Big Bush were joined at the hip.


Sorry - not a reply to this site. Having re-entered, I cannot find the
question re 2nd. cousins etc.

The answer appears to be:

First cousins are the people in your family who have two of the same
grandparents as you.
Second cousins have the same great-grandparents as you, but not the same
grandparents.
Third cousins have in common two great-great-grandparents and their
ancestors.

When cousins descend from common ancestors by a different number of
generations they are called "removed."
Once removed means there is a difference of one generation. Your mother's
first cousin would be your first cousin, once removed. She is one generation
younger than your grandparents and you are two generations younger than your
grandparents.
Twice removed means that there is a two-generation difference. Your
grandmother's first cousin would be your first cousin, twice removed because
you are separated by two generations.

Surreyman

erilar

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av erilar » 13 feb 2005 18:27:44

This may be on topic in your groups, but not in the one I read. Ever
thought of trimming irrelevant cross posting?

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

John Steele Gordon

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 13 feb 2005 21:10:31

And Australia recently proved it, with a referendum on the subject.

Calling the royal family "parasites," is, of course, more than a little
tendentious. Most of them work hard at a very boring job, in whatever
splendor they live. The Queen cannot decide for herself what clothes to
wear, what food to eat, what guests to invite, etc. etc. etc. all is decided
for her by the fact that she is Queen. What a miserable life.

Look at it this way:

1) Every country must have a head of state (or at least every country has
one).

2) There are two choices for Britain (and Canada, Australia, etc.). They can
keep the monarchy or get a president instead.

3) But while presidencies can be made, monarchies cannot. The most recent
one in Europe is Belgium's, now 175 years old. Britain's is the oldest in
the western world, and 1500 years of British history flows in the veins of
Elizabeth II. She is in a very real sense the living embodiment of the
nation.

4) More practically, she is, ex officio, the most famous head of state in
the world, capable of commanding instant global attention at the drop of a
word. Her visits to other countries are always major happenings, with elites
fighting over invitations and the ordinary people lining the roads by the
millions just to see her pass. This is not because she is the head of state
of a middling great power. It is because she is Queen of England. Who'd
stand on the side of the road to watch the President of Germany pass? Quick,
who IS the president of Germany? I bet more Germans could name the Queen of
England than the president of Germany.

5) There is a vast atavistic feeling among people about royalty.
Intellectuals may deplore its existence, but there it is, like it or not.
Britain would be awfully brainless to throw away such an enormous advantage
in international relations for something so unBritish as "logic" in
politics. Abolishing the monarchy is, in Churchill's words, "an idea so
stupid only an intellectual could have conceived it." Let the French exhibit
such stupidity--they have a genius for it anyway. That's why they have gone
through three kingdoms, two empires, and five republics in the last 216
years.

6) The monarchy is cheap. Yes, cheap. Figures are hard to come by, of
course, but if it costs £60 million a year, that's less than two pence a
week per Briton (Canada, etc. get it for free). Britain spends more than
that every year on lost puppy dogs. Besides, most of the expenses would go
on anyway. Where would the President of Britain live? Buckingham Palace, of
course. The royal art collection and archives would go on being cared for,
etc. etc. Britain would be lucky to save £5 million pounds by abolishing the
monarchy. Further, the abolition would take years to effectuate in
legislation, so deeply embedded is the monarchy in British law. That would
cost a fortune.

7) King Farouk once said that in a hundred years there will be only five
kings left in the world: clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades, and England. I
wish Britain's intellectuals would be at least as smart as that benighted
monarch. But they won't of course, they are too busy being contemptuous of
non intellectuals.

JSG



""Keith Keen"" <keencon@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:000f01c51177$cde84960$0100a8c0@keen...
There is only one reason why there is a Queen of Australia, United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms
and Territories and Head of the Commonwealth.

This is because the majority of the people want it that way.


Regards,

Keith Keen

Bordertown South Australia

D. Spencer Hines

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 feb 2005 22:31:02

I agree with the central thrust of what you say below.

However, it was George Orwell [Eric Arthur Blair], not Sir Winston
Churchill, who said:
---------------------------

"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."

George Orwell ---- _Notes on Nationalism_, May, 1945

IN CONTEXT:

"It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more
wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that
they were more swayed by partisan feelings.

The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the
war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in
1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had
conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no
impression on Germany.

He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling
class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed.

There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under
the influence of feelings of this kind.

I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American
troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush
an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to
believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

George Orwell ---- _Notes on Nationalism_, May, 1945
---------------------------------------------

That ought to be carved into a wall at a Memorial to George Orwell,
close to the Houses of Parliament in London and somewhere near the
Capitol in Washington, D.C. -- for all to see and remember.

We are hearing the same sorry bleatings, thumbsuckings and whinings from
the Leftover Left today, with respect to the War On Terrorism. Orwell
saw right through them 60 years ago.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:nyOPd.2530$%T4.712@fe11.lga...

| And Australia recently proved it, with a referendum on the subject.
|
| Calling the royal family "parasites," is, of course, more than a
little
| tendentious. Most of them work hard at a very boring job, in whatever
| splendor they live. The Queen cannot decide for herself what clothes
to
| wear, what food to eat, what guests to invite, etc. etc. etc. all is
decided
| for her by the fact that she is Queen. What a miserable life.
|
| Look at it this way:
|
| 1) Every country must have a head of state (or at least every country
has
| one).
|
| 2) There are two choices for Britain (and Canada, Australia, etc.).
They can
| keep the monarchy or get a president instead.
|
| 3) But while presidencies can be made, monarchies cannot. The most
recent
| one in Europe is Belgium's, now 175 years old. Britain's is the oldest
in
| the western world, and 1500 years of British history flows in the
veins of
| Elizabeth II. She is in a very real sense the living embodiment of the
| nation.
|
| 4) More practically, she is, ex officio, the most famous head of state
in
| the world, capable of commanding instant global attention at the drop
of a
| word. Her visits to other countries are always major happenings, with
elites
| fighting over invitations and the ordinary people lining the roads by
the
| millions just to see her pass. This is not because she is the head of
state
| of a middling great power. It is because she is Queen of England.
Who'd
| stand on the side of the road to watch the President of Germany pass?
Quick,
| who IS the president of Germany? I bet more Germans could name the
Queen of
| England than the president of Germany.
|
| 5) There is a vast atavistic feeling among people about royalty.
| Intellectuals may deplore its existence, but there it is, like it or
not.
| Britain would be awfully brainless to throw away such an enormous
advantage
| in international relations for something so unBritish as "logic" in
| politics. Abolishing the monarchy is, in Churchill's words, "an idea
so
| stupid only an intellectual could have conceived it." Let the French
exhibit
| such stupidity--they have a genius for it anyway. That's why they have
gone
| through three kingdoms, two empires, and five republics in the last
216
| years.
|
| 6) The monarchy is cheap. Yes, cheap. Figures are hard to come by, of
| course, but if it costs $B!W(B60 million a year, that's less than two
pence a
| week per Briton (Canada, etc. get it for free). Britain spends more
than
| that every year on lost puppy dogs. Besides, most of the expenses
would go
| on anyway. Where would the President of Britain live? Buckingham
Palace, of
| course. The royal art collection and archives would go on being cared
for,
| etc. etc. Britain would be lucky to save $B!W(B5 million pounds by
abolishing the
| monarchy. Further, the abolition would take years to effectuate in
| legislation, so deeply embedded is the monarchy in British law. That
would
| cost a fortune.
|
| 7) King Farouk once said that in a hundred years there will be only
five
| kings left in the world: clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades, and England.
I
| wish Britain's intellectuals would be at least as smart as that
benighted
| monarch. But they won't of course, they are too busy being
contemptuous of
| non intellectuals.
|
| JSG
|
| ""Keith Keen"" <keencon@bigpond.com> wrote in message
| news:000f01c51177$cde84960$0100a8c0@keen...
| >
| > There is only one reason why there is a Queen of Australia, United
| > Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other
Realms
| > and Territories and Head of the Commonwealth.
| >
| > This is because the majority of the people want it that way.
| >
| >
| > Regards,
| >
| > Keith Keen
| >
| > Bordertown South Australia

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 feb 2005 05:01:33

William Black wrote:

The correct form of address is 'Lady Thatcher' for the first,
and probably 'My lady' or 'Baroness Wherever' for the other,
depending on how well you know them.

In the fine words of Leo, I agree and disagree.

There are some misguided fuddy-duddies (and by that I don't mean anyone
here) who devote themselves to promulgating rigid rules about forms of
address, but in official circles where these are actually used
face-to-face there is invariably a higher consideration: practical good
manners.

Some people choose to go through life as nature's sub-editors, getting
worked up about such matters as styles & titles from their
interpretation of "correctness", that is fundamentally flawed for daily
use through being theoretical rather than pragmatic. Even the strictest
protocol has developed over time, and ni a living monarchy it goes on
changing to meet the needs of real people. Those needs in social life
extend far beyond what they may be called in the caption of a newspaper
photo.

I was ordered to learn about this stuff as a young subaltern, and it
later became part of my duties as an ADC. The primary rule to be
observed was, as far as possible, always to ascertain the personal
preference of the individuals concerned, and as long as this didn't
involve claiming a rank to which they were not entitled, or some other
outright solecism, to defer to their wishes. (One example I can recall
was a long-widowed marchioness who chose to retain this title after
remarrying a commoner - since she had legitimately possessed the rank,
her curious choice, that most husbands would have considered an insult,
was accepted.) Where there could be any difficulty and consulting the
person first wasn't possible, we had to plump for a sensible
alternative that allowed everyone in the room to be treated
respectfully while being called by a unique appellation. In other
words, if there were two Lady Thatchers present, we had to distinguish
them from each other for people who were not familiar enough to call
either of them by forenames alone. There were frequent disagreements as
to how this should be done, but no-one ever died in a ditch over it.

The reference work I was given to study (and still have, worn &
dog-eared) is _Titles and Forms of Address: A Guide to Correct Use_
published in many editions by A & C Black of London. This states: "A
peeress in her own right is addressed exactly as though the rank were
obtained through marriage", and "Widows (including Dowagers when they
so wish) or former wives use their forename before the title".
Consequently Margaret Thatcher, a widow, can be unexceptionably called
"Margaret, Lady Thatcher" in any context. However, William, Renia and
others are right in saying this is not the strictly correct form, even
for informal occasions.

The mere fact that this style is more usual for women in different
circumstances doesn't preclude its use for her. The same formulation
exacly could apply to anyone from a widowed marchioness to the divorced
wife of a knight bachelor, so that no particular rank is claimed. By
the way, a peeress in her own right gets to choose whether to be known
formally as "Baroness" or "Lady" so that there can be no general rule
that "Baroness Thatcher" is somehow more correct for this one. I have
seen her introduced at a speaking engagement as "Lady Margaret
Thatcher" without demur, so she clearly isn't fussy about correctness.

Peter Stewart

Michael King

RE: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Michael King » 14 feb 2005 05:16:06

At 12:21 AM -0400 13/2/05, Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
I can't speak for other countries but I believe that most
Canadians would love to chuck the royals as head of
state. However, thanks to the Quebec situation, everyone
is too afraid to play with the Constitution. Furthermore,

In my view 50% or more of the population outside Québec couldn't give
a toss one way or another. It all depends on how you frame the
question.

Anyhow, hesitation regarding amending the constitution isn't about
fear of what Québec might do. An amendment takes (as a first step)
agreement from 7 out of 10 provincial legislatures comprising at
least 50% of the population. I see hell freezing over before an
amendment like that gets past the first hurdle.

If it ever did pass I could see the next generation (or two) being
absorbed by arcane constitutional wrangles in the supreme court over
any and every piece of legislation passed under the present
constitutional arrangement.

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

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 feb 2005 06:01:46

John Steele Gordon wrote:

And Australia recently proved it, with a referendum on the
subject.

The referendum result can only be held to prove that the Australian
electorate rejected the particular model for a republic that was put to
them, not that they somehow rejected "republicanism" much less that
they, directly or indirectly, endorsed "monarchism" as their preference
for the furture.

And why is the only alternative to hereditary monarchy supposed to be a
president? Why not an elective monarchy, for a start? Or if the
processes of candidature & selection are felt to be invidious, why not
a randomly chosen college of nominators - or in a federal system like
ours even a rotating panel of state governors serving terms as
president, governor-general, king or queen (a bit like the practice in
Malaysia)? There are plenty of possibilities that could combine the
advantages claimed for monarchy, apart from selection by the privilege
of birth if that takes your fancy, with the moral & egalitarian
benefits of your great republic.

Australians love equality too, but our head of state isn't one of us,
or remotely like any of us. And if ever a crunch should come where she
received conflicting advice from her Australian and British prime
ministers, the monarchical principle would not save us from a
constitutional implosion, so it isn't even a safety measure worth its
weight in entertainment terms.

Peter Stewart

Leo van de Pas

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 14 feb 2005 06:31:03

Perhaps we should add to JSG's remarks.
Never mind the cheap, think of it in another way. We have now one family
continually for centuries have been in the lime light. At least only one
family has their lives wrecked by the press.

Theoretically, every four years a new family is pushed into the limelight
where there are presidents, suddenly brothers and sisters, uncles and
aunties get notoriety because they are related to the president. Uncles who
have been in prison or are alcoholics, and so on. If they exist in a royal
family it is old news. Members of a royal family have learned how to cope
with the press, as they have been doing it all their lives. But what if my
brother suddenly became president, I'd become haunted by the press and make
a mess of it.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"


And Australia recently proved it, with a referendum on the subject.

Calling the royal family "parasites," is, of course, more than a little
tendentious. Most of them work hard at a very boring job, in whatever
splendor they live. The Queen cannot decide for herself what clothes to
wear, what food to eat, what guests to invite, etc. etc. etc. all is
decided
for her by the fact that she is Queen. What a miserable life.

Look at it this way:

1) Every country must have a head of state (or at least every country has
one).

2) There are two choices for Britain (and Canada, Australia, etc.). They
can
keep the monarchy or get a president instead.

3) But while presidencies can be made, monarchies cannot. The most recent
one in Europe is Belgium's, now 175 years old. Britain's is the oldest in
the western world, and 1500 years of British history flows in the veins of
Elizabeth II. She is in a very real sense the living embodiment of the
nation.

4) More practically, she is, ex officio, the most famous head of state in
the world, capable of commanding instant global attention at the drop of a
word. Her visits to other countries are always major happenings, with
elites
fighting over invitations and the ordinary people lining the roads by the
millions just to see her pass. This is not because she is the head of
state
of a middling great power. It is because she is Queen of England. Who'd
stand on the side of the road to watch the President of Germany pass?
Quick,
who IS the president of Germany? I bet more Germans could name the Queen
of
England than the president of Germany.

5) There is a vast atavistic feeling among people about royalty.
Intellectuals may deplore its existence, but there it is, like it or not.
Britain would be awfully brainless to throw away such an enormous
advantage
in international relations for something so unBritish as "logic" in
politics. Abolishing the monarchy is, in Churchill's words, "an idea so
stupid only an intellectual could have conceived it." Let the French
exhibit
such stupidity--they have a genius for it anyway. That's why they have
gone
through three kingdoms, two empires, and five republics in the last 216
years.

6) The monarchy is cheap. Yes, cheap. Figures are hard to come by, of
course, but if it costs £60 million a year, that's less than two pence a
week per Briton (Canada, etc. get it for free). Britain spends more than
that every year on lost puppy dogs. Besides, most of the expenses would go
on anyway. Where would the President of Britain live? Buckingham Palace,
of
course. The royal art collection and archives would go on being cared for,
etc. etc. Britain would be lucky to save £5 million pounds by abolishing
the
monarchy. Further, the abolition would take years to effectuate in
legislation, so deeply embedded is the monarchy in British law. That would
cost a fortune.

7) King Farouk once said that in a hundred years there will be only five
kings left in the world: clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades, and England. I
wish Britain's intellectuals would be at least as smart as that benighted
monarch. But they won't of course, they are too busy being contemptuous of
non intellectuals.

JSG



""Keith Keen"" <keencon@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:000f01c51177$cde84960$0100a8c0@keen...

There is only one reason why there is a Queen of Australia, United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms
and Territories and Head of the Commonwealth.

This is because the majority of the people want it that way.


Regards,

Keith Keen

Bordertown South Australia



Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 feb 2005 07:28:02

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:y3HPd.151$Wo2.112@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

I never understood how 'Princess Michael' came about. What's the logic
there?

Nothing out of the ordinary - if her husbnad were Mr Michael Windsor she
would be called Mrs Michael Windsor for the same reasons. Since he has the
royal style and doesn't use a surname, he is simply Prince and she is
Princess Michael. She can't be called Princess Marie-Christine (unless the
queen decides to approve this, for which there are precedents), since she
doesn't hold that rank in her own right - she was born a baroness, but this
wasn't a British title and even that would need the queen's permission to be
used in the UK.

I'm not sure if anyone else answered your question - apologies if this is
duplicating.

Peter Stewart

Peter A. Kincaid

RE: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 14 feb 2005 14:01:02

At 12:53 PM 13/02/2005, you wrote:
At 12:21 AM -0400 13/2/05, Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
I can't speak for other countries but I believe that most
Canadians would love to chuck the royals as head of
state. However, thanks to the Quebec situation, everyone
is too afraid to play with the Constitution. Furthermore,

In my view 50% or more of the population outside Québec couldn't give a
toss one way or another. It all depends on how you frame the question.


A point to be made is that a good chunk of the population is in Québec.



Anyhow, hesitation regarding amending the constitution isn't about fear of
what Québec might do. An amendment takes (as a first step) agreement from
7 out of 10 provincial legislatures comprising at least 50% of the
population. I see hell freezing over before an amendment like that gets
past the first hurdle.


As you are living in a political town it is understandable that you
focus on the political angle. The average Canadian just remembers
the referendum mess that evolved out of the Meech Lake failure.
Are you not watching the news lately? The current mess in Ottawa
(the sponsorship scandal) also flows from this. I don't think any
federal politician wants to consider playing with the Québec situation.



If it ever did pass I could see the next generation (or two) being
absorbed by arcane constitutional wrangles in the supreme court over any
and every piece of legislation passed under the present constitutional
arrangement.

You have an excellent point here.





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

Peter A. Kincaid

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 14 feb 2005 14:01:03

At 04:10 PM 13/02/2005, you wrote:
And Australia recently proved it, with a referendum on the subject.
[snip]



6) The monarchy is cheap. Yes, cheap. Figures are hard to come by, of
course, but if it costs £60 million a year, that's less than two pence a
week per Briton (Canada, etc. get it for free). Britain spends more than
that every year on lost puppy dogs. Besides, most of the expenses would go
on anyway. Where would the President of Britain live? Buckingham Palace, of
course. The royal art collection and archives would go on being cared for,
etc. etc. Britain would be lucky to save £5 million pounds by abolishing the
monarchy. Further, the abolition would take years to effectuate in
legislation, so deeply embedded is the monarchy in British law. That would
cost a fortune.

Actually Canada does not get it for free. We have to pay for
the Queen's representatives on the federal and provincial level. In
Canada, our Governor-General seems to think she is a Queen and
is racking up some huge bills for Canadians ($41 million in 2003).
Add to that the 10 Lieutenant-Governors in the Provinces. The Queen
likely costs the Brits less than the rest of us.

Best wishes!

John Steele Gordon

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 14 feb 2005 15:59:09

This argument, of course, just goes to prove my point that appointed heads
of state are no cheaper than hereditary ones. They all like to put on the
dog. But $41 million for a Governor General?! Paul Martin should yank that
chain.

JSG

""Peter A. Kincaid"" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6.2.0.14.1.20050214084319.01cee4a8@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca...
At 04:10 PM 13/02/2005, you wrote:
And Australia recently proved it, with a referendum on the subject.
[snip]



6) The monarchy is cheap. Yes, cheap. Figures are hard to come by, of
course, but if it costs £60 million a year, that's less than two pence a
week per Briton (Canada, etc. get it for free). Britain spends more than
that every year on lost puppy dogs. Besides, most of the expenses would go
on anyway. Where would the President of Britain live? Buckingham Palace,
of
course. The royal art collection and archives would go on being cared for,
etc. etc. Britain would be lucky to save £5 million pounds by abolishing
the
monarchy. Further, the abolition would take years to effectuate in
legislation, so deeply embedded is the monarchy in British law. That would
cost a fortune.

Actually Canada does not get it for free. We have to pay for
the Queen's representatives on the federal and provincial level. In
Canada, our Governor-General seems to think she is a Queen and
is racking up some huge bills for Canadians ($41 million in 2003).
Add to that the 10 Lieutenant-Governors in the Provinces. The Queen
likely costs the Brits less than the rest of us.

Best wishes!

John Steele Gordon

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 14 feb 2005 16:10:36

1) You still have only two choices: a head of state who is somebody (the
Queen) known throughout the world, or a nobody, regardless of what you call
him or her. Call the President of Germany der Kaiser instead, and, still,
nobody would turn out to see him because he'd still just be a nobody who was
kicked upstairs. Monarchs are born, not made.

2) It is hard to imagine a scenario in which she receives conflicting advice
from her various prime ministers that would be a serious matter or couldn't
be squared by doing things one way in, say, Australia, and another way in
Britain or Canada. I suppose it's technically possible for Queen Elizabeth
II to find herself at war with Queen Elizabeth II. But it's also technically
possible for all the oxygen molecules in a room to end up in one corner,
leaving the people in the room flopping around on the floor like so many
beached fish. It's possible, but it ain't going to happen.
JSG

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108357306.427900.50140@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
John Steele Gordon wrote:

And why is the only alternative to hereditary monarchy supposed to be a
president? Why not an elective monarchy, for a start? Or if the
processes of candidature & selection are felt to be invidious, why not
a randomly chosen college of nominators - or in a federal system like
ours even a rotating panel of state governors serving terms as
president, governor-general, king or queen (a bit like the practice in
Malaysia)? There are plenty of possibilities that could combine the
advantages claimed for monarchy, apart from selection by the privilege
of birth if that takes your fancy, with the moral & egalitarian
benefits of your great republic.

Australians love equality too, but our head of state isn't one of us,
or remotely like any of us. And if ever a crunch should come where she
received conflicting advice from her Australian and British prime
ministers, the monarchical principle would not save us from a
constitutional implosion, so it isn't even a safety measure worth its
weight in entertainment terms.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 feb 2005 03:28:55

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hf3Qd.3032$6%.1112@fe11.lga...
1) You still have only two choices: a head of state who is somebody (the
Queen) known throughout the world, or a nobody, regardless of what you
call him or her. Call the President of Germany der Kaiser instead, and,
still, nobody would turn out to see him because he'd still just be a
nobody who was kicked upstairs. Monarchs are born, not made.

I'm not clear what their being gawped at or not has to do with the
principles at issue. The present queen doesn't notably attempt to use the
pruruient interest in her family, or even popular admiration for herself, to
win advantages for her realm of Australia, elsewhere in the world or here.
On her last visit only small crowds turned out to look at her, mostly
passers-by who had made little or no effort to be there.

2) It is hard to imagine a scenario in which she receives conflicting
advice from her various prime ministers that would be a serious matter or
couldn't be squared by doing things one way in, say, Australia, and
another way in Britain or Canada. I suppose it's technically possible for
Queen Elizabeth II to find herself at war with Queen Elizabeth II. But
it's also technically possible for all the oxygen molecules in a room to
end up in one corner, leaving the people in the room flopping around on
the floor like so many beached fish. It's possible, but it ain't going to
happen.

You are not a keen student of Australian history - it very nearly DID happen
in 1975, when an Australian prime minister, if he had not been thwarted, was
prepared to advise the queen to withdraw the commission of the
governor-general that he had previously advised her to appoint. Her
immediate advisers have since resolved that they would probably have
counselled her to "play for time", by asking the Australian prime minister
to make further efforts to sort this out at home, and that Downing Street
would have been notified to be ready to provide guidance if requested.
Anyone who knows him (Gough Whitlam) can work out what the response to this
would have been: he had already worked it out to his own satisfaction, and
that's all that could legitimately have mattered to his constitutional head
of state. Her prerogatives in such a case are to be informed, to advise and
to warn, but NOT to procrastinate or to second-guess. Consulting Downing
Street could only have made this worse. Not consulting Downing Street could
well have led to a different kind of international crisis.

And if you think that she or her successors could never find Australia on
the opposite side of a war from the United Kingdom, you appear to have a
boldly optimistic - not to say rather simplistic - view that the future
political dispositions of mankind will always look much like the past &
present. I don't know what basis you can have for this better than personal
intuition.

Peter Stewart

martin reboul

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av martin reboul » 15 feb 2005 05:11:39

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cun855$cgt$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:vVyPd.158905$K7.3305@news-server.bigpond.net.au...


Not the same at all - you are "Mr Stan Brown", but she is not "Lady
Margaret
Thatcher". Please read the above again: I am not saying that William Black
was wrong, or that Renia is wrong. I am just applying the license that is
used in everyday situations, where for instance someone might be
introducing
two Lady Thatchers to other guests.

Nice example.

Mark Thatcher's wife is 'Lady Thatcher'

Margaret Thatcher is 'Baroness Thatcher of Wherever'

The correct form of address is 'Lady Thatcher' for the first, and probably
'My lady' or 'Baroness Wherever' for the other, depending on how well you
know them.

Are we still supposed to tug our forelocks, or has that been abandoned? I'd like
to know, just in case...

Peter A. Kincaid

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 15 feb 2005 05:16:01

At 10:28 PM 14/02/2005, you wrote:
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hf3Qd.3032$6%.1112@fe11.lga...
1) You still have only two choices: a head of state who is somebody (the
Queen) known throughout the world, or a nobody, regardless of what you
call him or her. Call the President of Germany der Kaiser instead, and,
still, nobody would turn out to see him because he'd still just be a
nobody who was kicked upstairs. Monarchs are born, not made.

I'm not clear what their being gawped at or not has to do with the
principles at issue. The present queen doesn't notably attempt to use the
pruruient interest in her family, or even popular admiration for herself, to
win advantages for her realm of Australia, elsewhere in the world or here.
On her last visit only small crowds turned out to look at her, mostly
passers-by who had made little or no effort to be there.


You make a decent point here. Objectively speaking, Queen Elizabeth
I (as patriotic Scots would note - and not a typo) will likely go down as one
of worst monarchs the country ever had. She doesn't draw the crowds
like the royals used to. The real problem is not so much her disfunctional
offspring but her ability or lack thereof.

Best wishes!

Peter

John Steele Gordon

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 15 feb 2005 15:07:10

1) Being "gawped at" is what the Queen is paid for. British sovereigns no
longer exercise political power, except, perhaps, in most extraordinary
circumstances when they would be called upon to function as the last
guardian of the constitution. But the importance of being gawped at should
not be underestimated. Intellectuals always make the mistake of thinking
that politics is conducted in faculty lounges, men's clubs, tête-à-têtes
between people like themselves, and appearances on Sunday-morning talk
shows. In fact, in democratic states, politics is largely conducted around
water coolers, at bars, over back fences, and, yes, in the street.
Democracies are run by the demos, a fact that the elites find obnoxious.
Just look at the reaction of mainstream journalists to the rise of the blogs
in American politics in the last year. They are acting like ancien regime
aristocrats who have discovered peasants crashing the party.

2) No, I am not a keen student of Australian history; I'm a very casual one
indeed. What a surprise, seeing as I live on the opposite side of the globe
in a country which has quite a bit going on both internally and externally
and specialize in that country's economic and business history. I would
(honesty forcing me to set aside my characteristic modesty) place myself in
the 99th percentile of the well informed, but political dust-ups 12,000
miles away and thirty years ago sometimes escape my ken. All I know is that
Gough Whitlam wanted the governor general fired and the governor general
fired him instead. The last time I checked, the federal government of
Australia lives. Nor do I remember in reading Walter Bagehot that the Queen
lacks the power to procrastinate. Elizabeth I, after all, raised
procrastination to a high art and did pretty well with it.

As for the future of international politics, while my crystal ball is quite
as clouded as everyone else's, it is a subject to which I have, in fact,
given a fair amount of thought. I am, after all, now writing a book on the
history of the world economy. It will have to end, inescapably, with a look
to the future. What I see is the slow decay of the nation-state as the
organizing principle of humankind. It will be a bumpy ride, to be sure, but
not likely a war-driven one. I certainly do not see first-world states
getting into wars with each other. No democracy has ever fought another in
the past and I do not see it happening in the future. The people, unlike the
elites, are too sensible. That's why I agree with Bill Buckley when he said
that, "I would rather be governed by the first two thousand people in the
Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard." The faculty of Harvard
may be smarter, but the people, collectively, are a lot wiser.

JSG

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:H7dQd.161341$K7.106702@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hf3Qd.3032$6%.1112@fe11.lga...
1) You still have only two choices: a head of state who is somebody (the
Queen) known throughout the world, or a nobody, regardless of what you
call him or her. Call the President of Germany der Kaiser instead, and,
still, nobody would turn out to see him because he'd still just be a
nobody who was kicked upstairs. Monarchs are born, not made.

I'm not clear what their being gawped at or not has to do with the
principles at issue. The present queen doesn't notably attempt to use the
pruruient interest in her family, or even popular admiration for herself,
to win advantages for her realm of Australia, elsewhere in the world or
here. On her last visit only small crowds turned out to look at her,
mostly passers-by who had made little or no effort to be there.

2) It is hard to imagine a scenario in which she receives conflicting
advice from her various prime ministers that would be a serious matter or
couldn't be squared by doing things one way in, say, Australia, and
another way in Britain or Canada. I suppose it's technically possible for
Queen Elizabeth II to find herself at war with Queen Elizabeth II. But
it's also technically possible for all the oxygen molecules in a room to
end up in one corner, leaving the people in the room flopping around on
the floor like so many beached fish. It's possible, but it ain't going to
happen.

You are not a keen student of Australian history - it very nearly DID
happen in 1975, when an Australian prime minister, if he had not been
thwarted, was prepared to advise the queen to withdraw the commission of
the governor-general that he had previously advised her to appoint. Her
immediate advisers have since resolved that they would probably have
counselled her to "play for time", by asking the Australian prime minister
to make further efforts to sort this out at home, and that Downing Street
would have been notified to be ready to provide guidance if requested.
Anyone who knows him (Gough Whitlam) can work out what the response to
this would have been: he had already worked it out to his own
satisfaction, and that's all that could legitimately have mattered to his
constitutional head of state. Her prerogatives in such a case are to be
informed, to advise and to warn, but NOT to procrastinate or to
second-guess. Consulting Downing Street could only have made this worse.
Not consulting Downing Street could well have led to a different kind of
international crisis.

And if you think that she or her successors could never find Australia on
the opposite side of a war from the United Kingdom, you appear to have a
boldly optimistic - not to say rather simplistic - view that the future
political dispositions of mankind will always look much like the past &
present. I don't know what basis you can have for this better than
personal intuition.

Peter Stewart

Phylis Stager

RE: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Phylis Stager » 15 feb 2005 16:02:02

This is my favorite part of your post, it is really quite wonderful:

"No democracy has ever fought another in the past and I do not see it
happening in the future. The people, unlike the elites, are too sensible.
That's why I agree with Bill Buckley when he said that, "I would rather be
governed by the first two thousand people in the Boston phone book than by
the faculty of Harvard." The faculty of Harvard may be smarter, but the
people, collectively, are a lot wiser."

Cheers, phs.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Steele Gordon [mailto:ancestry@optonline.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 8:07 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

1) Being "gawped at" is what the Queen is paid for. British sovereigns no
longer exercise political power, except, perhaps, in most extraordinary
circumstances when they would be called upon to function as the last
guardian of the constitution. But the importance of being gawped at should
not be underestimated. Intellectuals always make the mistake of thinking
that politics is conducted in faculty lounges, men's clubs, tête-à-têtes
between people like themselves, and appearances on Sunday-morning talk
shows. In fact, in democratic states, politics is largely conducted around
water coolers, at bars, over back fences, and, yes, in the street.
Democracies are run by the demos, a fact that the elites find obnoxious.
Just look at the reaction of mainstream journalists to the rise of the blogs
in American politics in the last year. They are acting like ancien regime
aristocrats who have discovered peasants crashing the party.

2) No, I am not a keen student of Australian history; I'm a very casual one
indeed. What a surprise, seeing as I live on the opposite side of the globe
in a country which has quite a bit going on both internally and externally
and specialize in that country's economic and business history. I would
(honesty forcing me to set aside my characteristic modesty) place myself in
the 99th percentile of the well informed, but political dust-ups 12,000
miles away and thirty years ago sometimes escape my ken. All I know is that
Gough Whitlam wanted the governor general fired and the governor general
fired him instead. The last time I checked, the federal government of
Australia lives. Nor do I remember in reading Walter Bagehot that the Queen
lacks the power to procrastinate. Elizabeth I, after all, raised
procrastination to a high art and did pretty well with it.

As for the future of international politics, while my crystal ball is quite
as clouded as everyone else's, it is a subject to which I have, in fact,
given a fair amount of thought. I am, after all, now writing a book on the
history of the world economy. It will have to end, inescapably, with a look
to the future. What I see is the slow decay of the nation-state as the
organizing principle of humankind. It will be a bumpy ride, to be sure, but
not likely a war-driven one. I certainly do not see first-world states
getting into wars with each other. No democracy has ever fought another in
the past and I do not see it happening in the future. The people, unlike the
elites, are too sensible. That's why I agree with Bill Buckley when he said
that, "I would rather be governed by the first two thousand people in the
Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard." The faculty of Harvard
may be smarter, but the people, collectively, are a lot wiser.

JSG

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:H7dQd.161341$K7.106702@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hf3Qd.3032$6%.1112@fe11.lga...
1) You still have only two choices: a head of state who is somebody
(the
Queen) known throughout the world, or a nobody, regardless of what
you call him or her. Call the President of Germany der Kaiser
instead, and, still, nobody would turn out to see him because he'd
still just be a nobody who was kicked upstairs. Monarchs are born, not
made.

I'm not clear what their being gawped at or not has to do with the
principles at issue. The present queen doesn't notably attempt to use
the pruruient interest in her family, or even popular admiration for
herself, to win advantages for her realm of Australia, elsewhere in
the world or here. On her last visit only small crowds turned out to
look at her, mostly passers-by who had made little or no effort to be
there.

2) It is hard to imagine a scenario in which she receives conflicting
advice from her various prime ministers that would be a serious
matter or couldn't be squared by doing things one way in, say,
Australia, and another way in Britain or Canada. I suppose it's
technically possible for Queen Elizabeth II to find herself at war
with Queen Elizabeth II. But it's also technically possible for all
the oxygen molecules in a room to end up in one corner, leaving the
people in the room flopping around on the floor like so many beached
fish. It's possible, but it ain't going to happen.

You are not a keen student of Australian history - it very nearly DID
happen in 1975, when an Australian prime minister, if he had not been
thwarted, was prepared to advise the queen to withdraw the commission
of the governor-general that he had previously advised her to appoint.
Her immediate advisers have since resolved that they would probably
have counselled her to "play for time", by asking the Australian prime
minister to make further efforts to sort this out at home, and that
Downing Street would have been notified to be ready to provide guidance if
requested.
Anyone who knows him (Gough Whitlam) can work out what the response to
this would have been: he had already worked it out to his own
satisfaction, and that's all that could legitimately have mattered to
his constitutional head of state. Her prerogatives in such a case are
to be informed, to advise and to warn, but NOT to procrastinate or to
second-guess. Consulting Downing Street could only have made this worse.
Not consulting Downing Street could well have led to a different kind
of international crisis.

And if you think that she or her successors could never find Australia
on the opposite side of a war from the United Kingdom, you appear to
have a boldly optimistic - not to say rather simplistic - view that
the future political dispositions of mankind will always look much
like the past & present. I don't know what basis you can have for this
better than personal intuition.

Peter Stewart

William Black

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av William Black » 15 feb 2005 18:48:01

"martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42117642_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cun855$cgt$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

The correct form of address is 'Lady Thatcher' for the first, and
probably
'My lady' or 'Baroness Wherever' for the other, depending on how well
you
know them.

Are we still supposed to tug our forelocks, or has that been abandoned?
I'd like
to know, just in case...

I run into the aristocracy now and again.


As a general rule they're happy to be know as 'Fred' or whatever.

'Lord Whatever' is the formal way of address these days and 'My Lord' only
if they pay your wages.

My mother worked at the Halifax estate during the war. When she addressed
the Earl as 'Lord Halifax' the menials she was with almost fainted. When he
addressed her as 'Miss xxx' rather than just by her given name they were
even more appalled.

It was OK for some townie girl to be cheeky, but certainly not OK for a
belted earl to reciprocate.

--
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 feb 2005 19:11:02

What did she think of Lord Halifax?

Did she want him to become PM?

DSH

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cutcg1$2h5$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

| > Are we still supposed to tug our forelocks, or has that been
| >abandoned? I'd like to know, just in case...
| >
| I run into the aristocracy now and again.
|
| As a general rule they're happy to be know as 'Fred' or whatever.
|
| 'Lord Whatever' is the formal way of address these days and 'My Lord'
| only if they pay your wages.
|
| My mother worked at the Halifax estate during the war. When she
| addressed the Earl as 'Lord Halifax' the menials she was with almost
| fainted. When he addressed her as 'Miss xxx' rather than just by her
| given name they were even more appalled.
|
| It was OK for some townie girl to be cheeky, but certainly not OK for
| a belted earl to reciprocate.
|
| --
| 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

William Black

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av William Black » 15 feb 2005 19:30:02

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9RqQd.8$vc5.474@eagle.america.net...
What did she think of Lord Halifax?

She got on very well with his daughter, the late Lady Feversham.

Halifax wasn't at the estate very often, he was British ambasador in
Washington at the time.

Did she want him to become PM?

Nope, she wanted Atlee...

--
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

Renia

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Renia » 15 feb 2005 19:39:52

William Black wrote:

"martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42117642_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cun855$cgt$1@news.freedom2surf.net...


The correct form of address is 'Lady Thatcher' for the first, and

probably

'My lady' or 'Baroness Wherever' for the other, depending on how well

you

know them.

Are we still supposed to tug our forelocks, or has that been abandoned?

I'd like

to know, just in case...


I run into the aristocracy now and again.

As a general rule they're happy to be know as 'Fred' or whatever.

'Lord Whatever' is the formal way of address these days and 'My Lord' only
if they pay your wages.

My mother worked at the Halifax estate during the war. When she addressed
the Earl as 'Lord Halifax' the menials she was with almost fainted. When he
addressed her as 'Miss xxx' rather than just by her given name they were
even more appalled.

It was OK for some townie girl to be cheeky, but certainly not OK for a
belted earl to reciprocate.


I know the earl's daughter. We call her Lady Caroline.

Renia

D. Spencer Hines

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 feb 2005 19:51:02

Yes, I realize he was sent to Washington.

He was, of course, one of the greatest of the Appeasers before the
War -- and made no secret of it.

He was a regular at Cliveden before the War, was he not?

How did she feel about that? During the War -- and then After, with New
Perspective, on the Appeasers.

DSH

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cutevm$382$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:9RqQd.8$vc5.474@eagle.america.net...

| > What did she think of Lord Halifax?
|
| She got on very well with his daughter, the late Lady Feversham.
|
| Halifax wasn't at the estate very often, he was British ambasador in
| Washington at the time.
|
| > Did she want him to become PM?
|
| Nope, she wanted Atlee...
|
| --
| 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

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 feb 2005 02:56:32

"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:0qnQd.4102$Nc.45@fe11.lga...
1) Being "gawped at" is what the Queen is paid for. British sovereigns no
longer exercise political power, except, perhaps, in most extraordinary
circumstances when they would be called upon to function as the last
guardian of the constitution. But the importance of being gawped at should
not be underestimated. Intellectuals always make the mistake of thinking
that politics is conducted in faculty lounges, men's clubs, tête-à-têtes
between people like themselves, and appearances on Sunday-morning talk
shows. In fact, in democratic states, politics is largely conducted around
water coolers, at bars, over back fences, and, yes, in the street.
Democracies are run by the demos, a fact that the elites find obnoxious.
Just look at the reaction of mainstream journalists to the rise of the
blogs in American politics in the last year. They are acting like ancien
regime aristocrats who have discovered peasants crashing the party.

The point I weas making is that the queen isn't as much gawped at in
Australia as she once was - and by your won definition that this "what she
is paid for" she is clearly returning less value than previously: I would
say far less than required from a head-of-state. What this may have to do
with intellectual ivory towers, blogs or pre-Revolutionary aristocracy still
escapes me after reading your post. The point is that the "demos" in
Australia declines to remain engaged with the Windsor dynasty as being in
any respect their own.

2) No, I am not a keen student of Australian history; I'm a very casual
one indeed. What a surprise, seeing as I live on the opposite side of the
globe in a country which has quite a bit going on both internally and
externally and specialize in that country's economic and business history.
I would (honesty forcing me to set aside my characteristic modesty) place
myself in the 99th percentile of the well informed, but political dust-ups
12,000 miles away and thirty years ago sometimes escape my ken. All I know
is that Gough Whitlam wanted the governor general fired and the governor
general fired him instead. The last time I checked, the federal government
of Australia lives. Nor do I remember in reading Walter Bagehot that the
Queen lacks the power to procrastinate. Elizabeth I, after all, raised
procrastination to a high art and did pretty well with it.

And the monarchy has moved on by several centuries of turmoil & precedent
since her time - moreover she was never queen of Australia, and yet we are
as subjects in an allegedly independent nation are obliged to call our
present head of state "Elizabeth II". Since you acknowledge that you have
better things to do than study Australian history, why prognosticate about
it as you did? Whitlam was thwarted by some very shoddy process (that he
still describes as a "coup d'état"), on the part of the governor-general,
from carrying out what many others would describe as a "coup d'état" of his
own in continuing to govern without supply granted by the parliament. Either
way, the queen would have become directly involved if not for the distinctly
unbecoming activities of her representative in dismissing a prime minister.
I happen to think he did the right thing, in quite a wrong way, as I agree
with you about democracy and think it can never be wrong to consult the
people, even in mid-term if a government can't get along smoothly with the
parliament. The people wisely got rid of Whitlam, but they had every right
to do so, openly and honestly. Kerr, the governor-general, spent the rest of
his miserable term covered in obloquy, and sometimes spit.

As for the future of international politics, while my crystal ball is
quite as clouded as everyone else's, it is a subject to which I have, in
fact, given a fair amount of thought. I am, after all, now writing a book
on the history of the world economy. It will have to end, inescapably,
with a look to the future. What I see is the slow decay of the
nation-state as the organizing principle of humankind. It will be a bumpy
ride, to be sure, but not likely a war-driven one. I certainly do not see
first-world states getting into wars with each other. No democracy has
ever fought another in the past and I do not see it happening in the
future. The people, unlike the elites, are too sensible. That's why I
agree with Bill Buckley when he said that, "I would rather be governed by
the first two thousand people in the Boston phone book than by the faculty
of Harvard." The faculty of Harvard may be smarter, but the people,
collectively, are a lot wiser.

I didn't suggest that Britain and Australia might go to war directly with
each other - that's why I wrote "if you think that she or her successors
could never find Australia on the opposite side of a war from the United
Kingdom..." You are perhaps also not a keen student of south-east Asia, and
the economic interests of these nations in that part of the world, if you
blandly rule out such a possibility.

Peter Stewart

Noel Leon

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Noel Leon » 16 feb 2005 06:08:48

On , , Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:29:11 GMT, Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA -
IT'S OFFICIAL, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Mr Asmodeus" <me@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_6KdnRg1y6szXpDfRVnyrQ@pipex.net...

Camilla - yet another parasite to support. A nation yawns.

As you Americans seem to like them so much, and find them so endlessly
fascinating, there's no chance you'd take them all as a job lot I
suppose? We could throw in a few palaces too.

Americans have a head of state in waiting - that is, a new president elect -
only for a few months in any four or eight year period. They contrive to
treat him (and soon maybe her) as a prominent but otherwise normal citizen.
His (or in futire her) spouse has no special role or importance. Since you
have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle, you have these
creatures and their partners as a burden on the system for life. What's more
you choose to fawn over them, and indeed even their siblings and relatives,
in utterly unbecoming ways, showering them with illustrious styles and
titles, bowing & scraping before them. Serve you (and us Australians) right:
the remedy is obvious, and it is very simple. Republicanism.

But where would you have to troll then?

Peter Stewart

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 feb 2005 07:33:24

"Noel Leon" <noel@leon.noel.le.on> wrote in message
news:ks351156kkd6o2jhlsmff78uhki9emo5sn@4ax.com...
On , , Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:29:11 GMT, Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA -
IT'S OFFICIAL, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Mr Asmodeus" <me@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_6KdnRg1y6szXpDfRVnyrQ@pipex.net...

Camilla - yet another parasite to support. A nation yawns.

As you Americans seem to like them so much, and find them so endlessly
fascinating, there's no chance you'd take them all as a job lot I
suppose? We could throw in a few palaces too.

Americans have a head of state in waiting - that is, a new president
elect -
only for a few months in any four or eight year period. They contrive to
treat him (and soon maybe her) as a prominent but otherwise normal
citizen.
His (or in futire her) spouse has no special role or importance. Since you
have chosen in Britain to retain the hereditary principle, you have these
creatures and their partners as a burden on the system for life. What's
more
you choose to fawn over them, and indeed even their siblings and
relatives,
in utterly unbecoming ways, showering them with illustrious styles and
titles, bowing & scraping before them. Serve you (and us Australians)
right:
the remedy is obvious, and it is very simple. Republicanism.

But where would you have to troll then?

I don't have the faintest idea what this means - even allowing for the
unwarrnated characterisation of my activities, do you suppose an Australian
republic would be cut off from the Internet?

According to http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/troll a troll is
"An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic)
communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly
controversial...or the act of sending such a message". That is practically
the opposite in every respect of my approach as a newsgroup contributor.

If you are going to make successful wisecracks, you first need to be
accurate, then sensible.

Peter Stewart

William Black

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av William Black » 16 feb 2005 18:50:01

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lxrQd.11$vc5.474@eagle.america.net...
Yes, I realize he was sent to Washington.

He was, of course, one of the greatest of the Appeasers before the
War -- and made no secret of it.

He was a regular at Cliveden before the War, was he not?

How did she feel about that? During the War -- and then After, with New
Perspective, on the Appeasers.

She was a schoolgirl before, and during the first half of, the war.

Girls at English public schools before WWII weren't encouraged to take an
active part in politics.

She isn't keen on appeasers, and getting bombed for 81 nights without a
break tends to focus the mind somewhat on matters of that nature...

--
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 16 feb 2005 19:01:01

Good for her!

There will always be an England.

DSH

"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cv011j$ovk$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:lxrQd.11$vc5.474@eagle.america.net...

| > Yes, I realize he was sent to Washington.
| >
| > He was, of course, one of the greatest of the Appeasers before the
| > War -- and made no secret of it.
| >
| > He was a regular at Cliveden before the War, was he not?
| >
| > How did she feel about that? During the War -- and then After, with
New
| > Perspective, on the Appeasers.
|
| She was a schoolgirl before, and during the first half of, the war.
|
| Girls at English public schools before WWII weren't encouraged to take
an
| active part in politics.
|
| She isn't keen on appeasers, and getting bombed for 81 nights without
a
| break tends to focus the mind somewhat on matters of that nature...
|
| --
| 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

John Cartmell

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 16 feb 2005 19:41:03

In article <IPLQd.8$Zp5.467@eagle.america.net>,
D. Spencer Hines <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:
Good for her!

There will always be an England.

There will always be a North Pole; unless some bloody idiot goes and melts
it!

(apologies to Flanders & Swann for the increasingly relevant reference...)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

Frank Bullen

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av Frank Bullen » 16 feb 2005 21:41:02

Sorry, but what on earth has this got to do with Charles and Camilla? Might we not change the subject line when appropriate? It isn't difficult. Please? Otherwise it gets tediously confusing.

Regards

Frank

a.spencer3

Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 17 feb 2005 11:31:59

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IPLQd.8$Zp5.467@eagle.america.net...
Good for her!

There will always be an England.


Even with lots of holes in it!

(Sorry!)

Surreyman

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»