The Herald Sun in Australia has a segement called Voteline in which they ask for the opinions of people about all kinds of subjects. A question was asked : Would you welcome Camilla Parker Bowles as Queen of Australia? Yes 15.3 percent, No 84.7 percent. Good thing Prince Charles has stepped in about the matter.
Leo
OT - Queen Camilla
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
CED
Re: OT - Queen Camilla
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
question was asked : Would you welcome Camilla Parker Bowles as Queen
of Australia? Yes 15.3 percent, No 84.7 percent. Good thing Prince
Charles has stepped in about the matter.
It might be asked whether it would be best to avoid her being queen by
passing over Charles upon his mother's death. Why have a third Charles
when the first two were so bad?
The Herald Sun in Australia has a segement called Voteline in which
they ask for the opinions of people about all kinds of subjects. A
question was asked : Would you welcome Camilla Parker Bowles as Queen
of Australia? Yes 15.3 percent, No 84.7 percent. Good thing Prince
Charles has stepped in about the matter.
Leo
It might be asked whether it would be best to avoid her being queen by
passing over Charles upon his mother's death. Why have a third Charles
when the first two were so bad?
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: OT - Queen Camilla
In message of 26 Mar, "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote:
You forget. An English sovereign has the choice of name on becoming
king. Geroge VI was in fact David before he became king.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
The Herald Sun in Australia has a segement called Voteline in which
they ask for the opinions of people about all kinds of subjects. A
question was asked : Would you welcome Camilla Parker Bowles as Queen
of Australia? Yes 15.3 percent, No 84.7 percent. Good thing Prince
Charles has stepped in about the matter.
Leo
It might be asked whether it would be best to avoid her being queen by
passing over Charles upon his mother's death. Why have a third Charles
when the first two were so bad?
You forget. An English sovereign has the choice of name on becoming
king. Geroge VI was in fact David before he became king.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: OT - Queen Camilla
The New York Times carried this AP story on March 22nd:
BRITAIN: A QUEEN FOR CHARLES She got her man. And if he becomes king, she
will be entitled to the title: Queen Camilla. Camilla Parker Bowles will
automatically become Charles's queen - with all the rights, status and
privileges - unless the governments of Britain and 15 nations of the
Commonwealth change the law, the constitutional affairs minister,
Christopher Leslie, acknowledged. Immediately after their April 8 wedding,
Mrs. Parker Bowles will be known as Her Royal Highness the Duchess of
Cornwall. In making the wedding announcement last month, Prince Charles said
"it is intended'" that she would use the title Princess Consort when he
becomes king. Some commentators said they believed Charles was seeking to
buy time to win over public acceptance of his wife as queen. (AP)
This was what I argued sometime ago on SGM.
I expect the polls will change, once people get used to the fact that
Camilla and Charles are man and wife, especially if she proves to be tactful
and gracious, which she gives every appearance of being.
As for previous Charleses on the British throne, it is hard to argue with
the notion that Charles I was a failure as king. After all, he ended up a
head shorter (and he was very short to begin with). But Charles II was a
different story. He was the only Stuart king with an ounce of political
sense, he died in bed (unlike his father) and on his throne (unlike his
brother). He was also a very considerable wit, which is a good deal more
than can be said for the other Stuart monarchs.
It was Edward VIII who was known in the family as David, not George VI, who
was known as Bertie. I believe they choose among their Christian names, not
just any name (George VI was Albert Frederick Arthur George). Charles,
therefore can choose among Charles Philip Arthur and George. Philip and
Arthur seem unlikely, and I bet he will choose Charles III over George VII,
but he might shed a lot of baggage by shedding his name.
JSG
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:a588e3514d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
BRITAIN: A QUEEN FOR CHARLES She got her man. And if he becomes king, she
will be entitled to the title: Queen Camilla. Camilla Parker Bowles will
automatically become Charles's queen - with all the rights, status and
privileges - unless the governments of Britain and 15 nations of the
Commonwealth change the law, the constitutional affairs minister,
Christopher Leslie, acknowledged. Immediately after their April 8 wedding,
Mrs. Parker Bowles will be known as Her Royal Highness the Duchess of
Cornwall. In making the wedding announcement last month, Prince Charles said
"it is intended'" that she would use the title Princess Consort when he
becomes king. Some commentators said they believed Charles was seeking to
buy time to win over public acceptance of his wife as queen. (AP)
This was what I argued sometime ago on SGM.
I expect the polls will change, once people get used to the fact that
Camilla and Charles are man and wife, especially if she proves to be tactful
and gracious, which she gives every appearance of being.
As for previous Charleses on the British throne, it is hard to argue with
the notion that Charles I was a failure as king. After all, he ended up a
head shorter (and he was very short to begin with). But Charles II was a
different story. He was the only Stuart king with an ounce of political
sense, he died in bed (unlike his father) and on his throne (unlike his
brother). He was also a very considerable wit, which is a good deal more
than can be said for the other Stuart monarchs.
It was Edward VIII who was known in the family as David, not George VI, who
was known as Bertie. I believe they choose among their Christian names, not
just any name (George VI was Albert Frederick Arthur George). Charles,
therefore can choose among Charles Philip Arthur and George. Philip and
Arthur seem unlikely, and I bet he will choose Charles III over George VII,
but he might shed a lot of baggage by shedding his name.
JSG
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:a588e3514d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 26 Mar, "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote:
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
The Herald Sun in Australia has a segement called Voteline in which
they ask for the opinions of people about all kinds of subjects. A
question was asked : Would you welcome Camilla Parker Bowles as Queen
of Australia? Yes 15.3 percent, No 84.7 percent. Good thing Prince
Charles has stepped in about the matter.
Leo
It might be asked whether it would be best to avoid her being queen by
passing over Charles upon his mother's death. Why have a third Charles
when the first two were so bad?
You forget. An English sovereign has the choice of name on becoming
king. Geroge VI was in fact David before he became king.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
CED
Re: OT - Queen Camilla
Forgot, no. But considering the mess they've already made of their
wedding plans (and the law), he might forget.
wedding plans (and the law), he might forget.
-
Gjest
Re: OT - Queen Camilla
George VI was Albert in fact. His brother Edward VIII was the David.