"Oh I just can't WAIT to be Queen"

Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 10:33 AM
  #21  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Scarlett, so funny. But rather than Rex or Rover, I was thinking more like "Trigger" or "Buttermilk".

Another current line is that they can't call Camilla "Queen" as one queen in a marriage is enough. It would simply be too confusing.
Patrick is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 11:03 AM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,370
Received 79 Likes on 8 Posts
Yes it is HM the K/Q, HRH everyone else in the immediate Windsor Mishpocha. Highness, then Honourable, then...not Honourable or...whatever.
Gardyloo is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 11:24 AM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think she's actually going to be Princess Consort.

And Chookie isn't King Consort becuase Kings are higher in the hierarchy than Queens; which would never do.

Sometimes I shock myself with the amount of crap in my head.
sheila is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 11:28 AM
  #24  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I THOUGHT we'd see some funny responses...here's my feeble attempt---

With apologies to "Lion King" lyricist Tim Rice, Camilla's alternate lyrics are in [brackets]:

"It's easy to be royal
If you're already leonine [equine?]
It isn't just my right
Even my left will be divine
The monarchy is waiting to go zing [what rhymes with queen?]
Oh, I just can't wait to be king [queen]"
KidsToLondon is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 12:58 PM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks, USNR, but as usual I can't be much help. In this far corner of the Empire we're all a little royalled-out, in a mere two weeks having hosted visits by king-in-waiting Chas and the Danish royals-in-waiting. We also received the Swedish queen-in-waiting, who seemed to be here to promote Swedish kitchen appliances but seemed like a nice, level-headed girl, as you'd expect. The organs of the media that cater to the shallow end of the gene pool almost wet themselves with excitement (but only over the photogenic Fred 'n Mary). The rest yawned.

The news that Ms Parker-Bowles will, short of contrary legislation, become Queen of Australia is making local monarchists nervous and has given the Australian Republican Movement, normally the victim of public apathy, a much-needed shot in the arm.

I'm getting a bit sick of the remarks about poor old Camilla's looks, though. She can hardly make the Windsor gene pool any worse.
Neil_Oz is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 01:15 PM
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,015
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Not a fan of Camilla, but I think she looks a bit better recently. Maybe she had some work on her eyes or something.

Neil is quite right that in the highly unlikely event that Camilla and Charles reproduced it could only improve the Windsor gene pool.

Neil, I still think you Aussies should go with Fred and Mary!
Barbara is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 01:55 PM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh Gardyloo, "the Windsor mishpocha" -- too wonderful!

IMHO, it's cruel to criticize someone for their looks. It's not as if Camilla had any choice.

When all is said and done, this is a love story after all. Charles was pushed into marrying a beautiful young woman he did not love, and his bride ended up suffering the most for it. Poor Diana clearly had no idea what she was getting into. I have no idea what part Camilla played in the wreck of the royal marriage, other than the place she has obviously always occupied in Charles' affections.

But really, who cares?
Marilyn is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 02:25 PM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm reminded of a (probably apocryphal) story about the time a famous actress proposed to George Bernard Shaw that they get together to produce the perfect baby, a combination of her beauty and his brains. Shaw declined the offer with thanks on the grounds that there was an equal and awful possibility that the child would be born with his looks and her brains.

At least the Windsors are fairly harmless, which is more than you can say about certain democratically elected heads of state, I suppose.
Neil_Oz is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 02:59 PM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sheila is correct, Camilla cannot be Queen. She will be Princess Consort. Everything that I have read says that after HRH dies that Charles will step up as King, there will be no bypassing to William. I watched something last night on BBC where they stated that HRH is stating that there would be a security issue for her to attend the civil ceremony. I do not believe that they will be "married" again by the Anglican church, but rather they would have a blessing. That is the way the Episcopal church does 2nd marriages with divorce, but since Diana has passed maybe I am wrong.
dsm22 is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 03:08 PM
  #30  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 25,015
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Diana may have passed on, but Camilla's ex is still alive.

I have read today that Camilla will be queen if Charles accedes to the throne unless Parliament passes a new law prohibiting it. I'm sure Charles is perfectly well aware of that, but he knows that a lot of people aren't too hot about that idea, so he's willing to just let it slide for the moment.

Wherever the Queen goes there is a security issue and they seem to manage very well. She just doesn't want to go to the civil ceremony.
Barbara is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 03:22 PM
  #31  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
william has now said that he will restore the HRH title to his late mother diana as one of his first duties when he is king. seems he is not so happy with his father's forthcoming marriage and will not allow his own mother to continue to be sidelined. diana must be turning in her grave (laughing at the negative publicity the nuptials are receiving).
welovedonegal is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 04:59 PM
  #32  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Camilla Parker Bowles will automatically become queen of Britain, Australia and more than a dozen other countries when her future husband, Prince Charles, accedes to the throne, the British Government has admitted."
- "The Australian", 23/3/05
Neil_Oz is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 06:18 PM
  #33  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 12,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do not criticize poor Camilla for her looks. As one of you pointed out, she cannot help her genetic inheritance. However, I do ABHOR her HAIRSTYLE. Isn't there anyone in the royal family who can kindly take her aside and explain that the Farrah Fawcett look has been over for decades?

Interestly, P. Diana went through a F.F. stage in which her hairdo was quite similar to CP-B's. But, cruel but true, Diana was younger and prettier, and while it wasn't attractive it wasn't as hellish as it is on the current live bait.
kswl is offline  
Old Mar 22nd, 2005, 06:50 PM
  #34  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 45,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having read the articles, posting a question on the Australian Board and thinking about this situation something comes to mind.

Now perhaps what I am going to say is not correct, and if it is not I would be most appreicate of other opinions.

It seems to me that Queen Elizabeth, and her mother, the Queen Mum, brought the citizens closer together. In otherwords pride in their decorum, their sense of duty etc. Now I know of course there has been a lot of controversity over the wealth of the Queen and I believe the amount of taxes that she pays etc. But it seems that the English have pride in their Queen, generally speaking.

In regards to Prince Charles it seems to me these many years that he has brought basically nothing but hostility and shame to his country.

It does not appear to me that he is a person who when he eventually becomes King will do anything to bring pride or honor to his country.

Again, I am just throwing out thoughts that have gone through my mind. Being an American perhaps it is not even appropriate to make these comments.

But I would be interested in thoughts from others. Especially those in Great Britain.
LoveItaly is offline  
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 12:28 AM
  #35  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that once Charles is king, and once we will have necessarily had lots of grief and upset over the death of QE2, the public will rally round him. I think the very fact that he will occupy the throne will increase his stature. He does talk a lot about political matters, but I am sure he will not (or will not be allowed by his advisors) to do so once he is king. We Brits really like to whine about our royals, but if somebody said 'right, let's go republic' we would not accept it. Charles is not perfect, but that applies to everyone in the world. He is, however, thoughtful and genuinely concerned about many subjects, including the environment.
Nigello is offline  
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 02:44 AM
  #36  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is always interesting how rival queens find something to criticize in the person who is actually going to be a real one.
Intrepid1 is offline  
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 03:01 AM
  #37  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Please explain. A king had to abdicate to marry Wallis because she was a divorcee, how can Charles marry a divorcee and still be king later on ? Did a British law change or what ? I seem to recall that Princess Margaret could not marry a divorced man many years ago. thanks.
banares is offline  
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 03:45 AM
  #38  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
banares; I think the real issue with Wallis was that she was American. The divorcee reason was just an excuse.

I find it arrogant that Charles says that his marriage is a purely private matter; if he feels that it is no-ones business who he marries, then he should not be king. At least Edward was honest about this when he wanted to marry Wallis Simpson. He choose her over the throne.
Tulips is offline  
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 03:49 AM
  #39  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think it's they can't marry a divorcee in the Church of England, and as the Queen is sort of the head honcho in the C of E constitutionally, in days gone by it was kind of expected that they would marry in a C of E ceremony.

The world has changed, even in the UK, and they've gotten round it by marrying in a civil ceremony and having a C of E blessing.

I am miffed though because we don't get a national holiday. Other than that I couldn't care less and that probably matches the mood of many over here. Really they have no purpose (bending down to dodge the flames).
Glitterball is offline  
Old Mar 23rd, 2005, 04:25 AM
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Banares: quite simply, times have changed. Lots of things were 'not the done thing' back in the 30s. Divorce was seen as shocking for the ordinary man, let alone the King. We live in a different world now, and I do find all this chest beating about the fact they're both divorced quite ridiculous and often hypocritical given the world we now live in. Get over it people, who really cares?

And yes, Camilla we be Queen unless there's a change in the law, but given the Queen's long-living genes, I reckon parliament has a good 20 years to sort that one out. Camilla has said she doesn't want to be Queen. But who knows, in 20 years time all the fuss might have gone away and no onw will care. She might even be popular by then - let's face it, we haven't a clue what she's like yet. She might be the next Queen Mum for all we know.

LoveItaly, I think your comments are fairly valid given the current situation - the Queen is enormously well respected and will be sorely missed, and it's a popular sport to suggest we could have Wills instead of Charles (who has youth, good looks, his mother and his perceived decorum compared to his father and brother in his favour). However, realistically there's no good reason for Charles to abdicate and I can't see it ever happening, and I agree with Nigello that we'd probably rally round him. Charles isn't hated, we just think he's a bit of a bumbling idiot. But he's OUR idiot, and while it's fun for everyone to take pot shots at him now, I doubt we'd take kindly to others criticising our King.
Kate is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -