nuptialsPosted by JudyS on 2/10/05 at 12:21 (168840)
Hi all.........I was just wondering - do you think we'll get invited to the BIG (or not-so-big) wedding on April 8?
Well maybe at least Julie will.........
Re: nuptialsJulie on 2/10/05 at 14:29 (168846)
I doubt it, Judy, and if I was invited, I couldn't go: I shall be far away in Crete. And if I was invited but not far away in Crete, I wouldn't go. They're a totally uninteresting pair of people. My only feeling about them is that if they were going to get married they should have done it 30 years ago and spared poor Diana that tragic farce of a miserable non-marriage. It was stupid, callous, and destructive of the Family to push Charles into an heir-producing marriage of convenience, and it was pathetic of him to go along with it when he 'loved' someone else.
So there. I won't be going.
Re: nuptialsKathy G on 2/10/05 at 16:14 (168850)
I quite agree with you, Julie. I have no respect for the royal family whatsoever. Diana was an innocent and the family and Charles, in particular, treated her so cruely. I don't care if only a quarter of what one reads is true; it was morally wrong to do that to another person.
But on a lighter note, Judy, it seems a bit unlikely that they'll invite me given that Eric Clapton never let me know he was the one playing on 'While my guitar gently Weeps.' That was on a thread long past, in case you wonder what I'm talking about. I mean, if a British rock star doesn't keep in touch with me, what are the odds that the Royal Family will?
I wonder why he's suddenly decided to make their arrangement legal. It might say on the news but I haven't read or heard any of the particulars.
Julie, how nice that you're going to Crete again!
Re: nuptialsDorothy on 2/10/05 at 16:39 (168852)
Very quick interjection here: (IMO) the bigger point is the existence of a parasitic uber-class that provides unsavory soap operas in exchange for living very high on a very fat hog.
Re: nuptialsSuzanne D. on 2/10/05 at 17:10 (168855)
I agree, too, Kathy. I didn't watch the first BIG wedding on t.v., and I won't be watching this one, either. I always felt sorry for Diana; I figured she would have been better off to have stayed with teaching kindergarten.
Re: nuptialsJudyS on 2/10/05 at 22:38 (168872)
Julie - those are nearly exactly the words I said to my husband earlier...right after I described Charles as a ........well, you don't want to know......
Re: nuptialsJulie on 2/11/05 at 02:01 (168875)
They're getting married because (a) they apparently want to and (b) Charles will soon be king and it wouldn't look nice for the king to be living in sin - excuse me, cohabiting. Endless hoops have been jumped through to ensure that the arrangement is acceptable to the Public - for example, although Camilla on marriage to Charles automatically becomes Princess of Wales, she will not use that title because - in the public consciousness - it belongs to Diana. So she will be Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall. And when Charles ascends the throne, she will be Princess Consort.
Do you find all or any of this interesting? I don't. Dorothy is quite right, but I won't address that subject because I haven't got time to put all the republican arguments. Be assured, though, that there are many people in this country who believe the monarchy is obsolescent, irrelevant, and a waste of taxpayers' money.
Caveat: the Queen herself does work very hard for her dosh: always has done, and still does, at 78. A conscientious woman of substance. If a bit dysfunctional.
Re: nuptialsJulie on 2/11/05 at 08:26 (168882)
For anyone interested a republican (i.e. 'down with the monarchy' view of this intriguing topic, you could have a look at this article in today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1410588,00.html
But if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, here's how it begins:
A royal wedding ... oh, that deep sinking of the heart
This tripe, trivia and tosh poisons British politics and belittles us all
Friday February 11, 2005
What is the good republican to make of this impending royal nuptial? Oh, that deep sinking of the heart. We are in for an avalanche of monarchalia. Tripe, tosh and trivia will dominate the press, rising to a climax as the deed is done: if only they'd quietly eloped to Gretna Green.
I rest my case. ;)
Re: nuptials - more onJulie on 2/11/05 at 09:51 (168884)
And you'll probably enjoy this one too. Dorothy, please note.
Re: nuptials - more onKathy G on 2/11/05 at 10:27 (168889)
Personally, I like the title of 'Princess Consort.' She's been consorting with him for years, even while he was married! :)
Re: Kathywendyn on 2/13/05 at 12:20 (168974)
Very funny! :) :)