Charles want Camilla ivited to Big Bash
Sue T
CHARLES AND QUEEN FURY AS HE DEMANDS: MY CAMILLA MUST COME TO ROYAL BASH
--
Susan T a/k/a The Shrill Palace Shill
"All the News that's Printed Fits"
Blunde...@webtv.net
invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to invite
Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same room
with her.
Sue T
Blunde...@webtv.net says...
According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that are
being asked to draw up guests lists.
--
Susan T
"I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
brit
Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
write to Queenie and give her what for!
brit
--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sue T
In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> Blunde...@webtv.net says...
> I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
> invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to invite
> Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same room
> with her.
> ---------
> According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
are
> being asked to draw up guests lists.
> --
> Susan T
Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
write to Queenie and give her what for!
brit
--
should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William first.
I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice, but doesn't
the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants to meet with?
Inge Cubitt
sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
> Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe you
> should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
> first. I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice,
> but doesn't the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants
> to meet with?
> --
> Susan T
Well I'd ultimately defend her right to have the final say on who she
has to spend time with. I hope we all have that right. However, I
would suggest that she thinks carefully and logically about whether
she really needs to exercise that right as totally as she is currently
doing. We all waive a right occasionally in order to make someone
else happy.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Sue T
in...@drealm.nospam.uk says...
So it looks like a stand-off. Charles could make his mother happy by
not insisting on Camilla; The Queen could make her son happy by
including her.
Kind of reminds me of the argument "If you loved me, you'd let me" and
"If you loved me, you wouldn't insist."
Inge Cubitt
sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
> So it looks like a stand-off. Charles could make his mother happy
> by not insisting on Camilla; The Queen could make her son happy by
> including her.
Charles has given way on this issue loads of times already. It's
Mum's turn now.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
PPill
Sue T wrote:
> In article <8dv1mi$r3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, a_b...@my-deja.com says...
> In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > Blunde...@webtv.net says...
> > I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
> > invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to invite
> > Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same room
> > with her.
> > ---------
> > According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
> are
> > being asked to draw up guests lists.
> > --
> > Susan T
> > _______________________________________________
>
> Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
> to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
> for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
> They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
> write to Queenie and give her what for!
>
> brit
>
> --
> Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe you
> should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William first.
> I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice, but doesn't
> the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants to meet with?
> --
> Susan T
>
> "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
Absolutely, and to determine who is, and who is not, invited to her parties
in her home.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PPill
Inge Cubitt wrote:
> In article <MPG.136cd6d99...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
>
> > Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe you
> > should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
> > first. I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice,
> > but doesn't the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants
> > to meet with?
> > --
> > Susan T
>
> Well I'd ultimately defend her right to have the final say on who she
> has to spend time with. I hope we all have that right. However, I
> would suggest that she thinks carefully and logically about whether
> she really needs to exercise that right as totally as she is currently
> doing. We all waive a right occasionally in order to make someone
> else happy.
>
> --
>
> Inge
> (in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
The Queen is in a tough spot on this one. If she invites her, or allows
her to be invited, she will be subjected to criticism and second guessing,
probably by many churchmen, as well as others.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sue T
says...
if it wouldn't lead to criticism. Isn't just possible that she doesn't
LIKE Camilla? There are some people who post on this board who feel
that way, why not the Queen?
PPill
Sue T wrote:
I suspect, as a mother, she would put her personal feelings aside, Sue. Just a
guess, but an educated one from her past behaviors. She appears to be someone
who does not like to interfere in her grown children's lives, so I suspect she
would invite her if it were not an issue of her role as head of the Church of
England. If she were just plain old Elizabeth Windsor, country gentlewoman, I
believe she would allow Camilla to be invited, even though she may not like her
personally.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Sue T
says...
convictions that are stopping her from including Camilla? And, yes,
yes, Charles did it too, but people on AGR hold inconsistant positions
depending on WHO did it, as opposed to WHAT was done. Equal rights for
all. LOL
IIKidzMom
and the four of them doing the family thing at Balmoral makes my blood curdle a
bit. It's just a little too close to implying that she is taking Diana's place
in their affections. I think some kind of statement, leaked, implied, or
otherwise, that she has no intention of trying to replace their mother would go
a very long way.
PPill
Sue T wrote:
I still think she would put those things aside, nodding to the inevitability that
she couldn't dictate her children's relationships. She would make it clear to him
that she didn't approve, but I don't think she'd exclude Camilla if it weren't for
her position. Just my humble opinion, of course--have NO way of knowing. Unlike
some, I don't speak ex cathedra about what HM thinks! LOL
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sue T
mentioning she doesn't approve if she she can't act on her disapproval?
PPill
Sue T wrote:
Not much, but you know we mother's usually can't resist saying it, anyway! LOL
Actually, it could go under the heading of trying to provide guidance, even though she
would know it was not likely to work.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
brit
> should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
first.
> I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice, but doesn't
> the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants to meet with?
> --
> Susan T
>
Yes she has every right, but shes being an awkward stubbon old cuss,
and needs a shaking!!! (IMO) If it was anyone elses partner, Anne or
Andrew, Will or Harry, there partners would be automatically
included..Charles shouldna'y have
to beg and plead for basic rights!!!
PPill
brit wrote:
Ah, brit, but the other's partners would not have been, at least in HM's and
millions of others' eyes, the cause of the divorce in question, and, more
importantly, would not touch on her role as Head of the Church of England in
such a fundamental way. For better or worse, Charles gets the worst of it
because he is the heir.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
brit
Inge Cubitt wrote in message ...
>In article <MPG.136cdb707...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
>
>> So it looks like a stand-off. Charles could make his mother happy
>> by not insisting on Camilla; The Queen could make her son happy by
>> including her.
>
>Charles has given way on this issue loads of times already. It's
>Mum's turn now.
>
>--
>
>Inge
>(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Agreed Inge...Queens being a pain in the butt over this
brit
brit
Sue T wrote in message ...> > In article <MPG.136cd6d99...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
> >
> > > Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe you
> > > should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
> > > first. I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice,
> > > but doesn't the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants
> > > to meet with?
> > > --
> > > Susan T
> >
> > has to spend time with. I hope we all have that right. However, I
> > would suggest that she thinks carefully and logically about whether
> > she really needs to exercise that right as totally as she is currently
> > doing. We all waive a right occasionally in order to make someone
> > else happy.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Inge
> > (in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
>
> The Queen is in a tough spot on this one. If she invites her, or allows
> her to be invited, she will be subjected to criticism and second guessing,
> probably by many churchmen, as well as others.
>
> PPill
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>There's been a lot of speculating that the Queen would receive Camilla
>if it wouldn't lead to criticism. Isn't just possible that she doesn't
>LIKE Camilla? There are some people who post on this board who feel
>that way, why not the Queen?
>Susan T
>
>"I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
I'm sure alot of women don't like there daughter or son-in laws , girl
friends, fiancees, etc, however, most parents will bend a little for the
sake of their child.
This is a big party, they don't need to be in any contact whatsoever....
I am POSITIVE that Queenie is the obstacle in Camilla being excluded, any
brother or sister would automatically include their siblings partner..
The whole thing is stupid, this is a private affair, not public, she has no
excuse except for pig headedness...IMO
I've just written and told her so, so I am sure she will listen and
relent!!! :0)
brit
brit
PPill wrote in message <390315C5...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>Sue T wrote:
>
>> In article <8dv1mi$r3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, a_b...@my-deja.com says...
>> In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> > Blunde...@webtv.net says...
>> > I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
>> > invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to invite
>> > Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same room
>> > with her.
>> > ---------
>> > According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
>> are
>> > being asked to draw up guests lists.
>> > --
>> > Susan T
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
>> to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
>> for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
>> They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
>> write to Queenie and give her what for!
>>
>> brit
>>
>> --
>> should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William first.
>> I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice, but doesn't
>> the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants to meet with?
>> --
>> Susan T
>>
>
>in her home.
>
>PPill
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
give...
brit
PPill
Martha Tassi wrote:
> brit wrote:
>
> > In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > > Blunde...@webtv.net says...
> > > I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
> > > invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to invite
> > > Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same room
> > > with her.
> > > ---------
> > > According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
> > are
> > > being asked to draw up guests lists.
> > > --
> > > Susan T
> > >
> > > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
> > to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
> > for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
> > They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
> > write to Queenie and give her what for!
> >
> > brit
>
> ====================
> No. This isn't just any other family in town having a family party. Having
> Camilla over would indicate to many people that the Queen is endorsing a
> relationship that is notorious for it's adulterous undertones. I
> acknowledge the hypocrisy of this, considering that Anne's love letters
> written while still married to Capt. Phillips show that she had the hots for
> another man. And it cannot be forgotten that Diana had found someone to
> comfort her while Charles was with Camilla.
>
> But Charles and Anne are part of the family, and part of the Family, so they
> cannot be left off the list. Fergie is uninvited, despite being the mother
> of two of the Royal granddaughters and the good relationship she enjoys with
> Prince Andrew. It is consistent that Camilla, who represents to many the
> breakdown of the Wales' marriage, not be invited.
>
> As a side note, despite BP insisting to anyone who will listen that William
> and Harry accept Camilla and enjoy her company, it appears they aren't
> petitioning the Queen to invite Camilla.
>
> -Martha
> =======
I'd guess it is St. James Palace insisting to one and all that William and Harry
like Camilla, not BP.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PPill
Martha Tassi wrote:
> PPill wrote:
>
> > Sue T wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39031620...@ix.netcom.com>, pdeb...@ix.netcom.com
> > > says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Inge Cubitt wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <MPG.136cd6d99...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > > sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe you
> > > > > should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
> > > > > first. I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice,
> > > > > but doesn't the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants
> > > > > to meet with?
> > > > > --
> > > > > Susan T
> > > >
> > > > Well I'd ultimately defend her right to have the final say on who she
> > > > has to spend time with. I hope we all have that right. However, I
> > > > would suggest that she thinks carefully and logically about whether
> > > > she really needs to exercise that right as totally as she is currently
> > > > doing. We all waive a right occasionally in order to make someone
> > > > else happy.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Inge
> > > > (in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
> > >
> > > The Queen is in a tough spot on this one. If she invites her, or allows
> > > her to be invited, she will be subjected to criticism and second guessing,
> > > probably by many churchmen, as well as others.
> > >
> > > PPill
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > There's been a lot of speculating that the Queen would receive Camilla
> > > if it wouldn't lead to criticism. Isn't just possible that she doesn't
> > > LIKE Camilla? There are some people who post on this board who feel
> > > that way, why not the Queen?
> > > --
> > > Susan T
> > >
> > > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
> >
> > I suspect, as a mother, she would put her personal feelings aside, Sue. Just a
> > guess, but an educated one from her past behaviors. She appears to be someone
> > who does not like to interfere in her grown children's lives, so I suspect she
> > would invite her if it were not an issue of her role as head of the Church of
> > England. If she were just plain old Elizabeth Windsor, country gentlewoman, I
> > believe she would allow Camilla to be invited, even though she may not like her
> > personally.
> >
> > PPill
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>
> She takes her responsibilities very seriously. If "Defender of the Faith" is going
> out the window, it won't be on her watch.
>
> -Martha
> ==========
I agree, Martha. This is not something where HM is willing to forego her duty as she
sees it for family peace.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PPill
Martha Tassi wrote:
> Sue T wrote:
>
> > In article <39032736...@ix.netcom.com>, pdeb...@ix.netcom.com
> > says...
> > Okay, but for the sake of argument, suppose it is her religious
> > convictions that are stopping her from including Camilla? And, yes,
> > yes, Charles did it too, but people on AGR hold inconsistant positions
> > depending on WHO did it, as opposed to WHAT was done. Equal rights for
> > all. LOL
> > --
> > Susan T
> >
>
> ===========
> Perhaps the Queen knows something we don't know. She has forgiven Anne and Charles
> for their past indiscretions, and apparently Fergie. But Camilla is kept at
> scepter's length. ???
>
> -Martha
> =========
No, this doesn't have to do with what we think about it, Sue, it has to do with the
Queen's official position as Head of the Church of England. She can't not include her
own children, but she can fail to publicly receive the mistress of the heir when that
mistress was linked with the breakdown of the heir's marriage. If Charles were not the
heir, I suspect this dilemma wouldn't be the subject of discussion.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PPill
Martha Tassi wrote:
> =========
> It would go a long way with people who already like Camilla. Those who don't like
> her will see it as a crass attempt to manipulate the public. Seems to me if the
> boys really liked her all that much, they would want to be photographed with her to
> show how they consider her a part of their lives. Of course, then Charles would be
> accused of using his boys in an attempt to manipulate public opinion. What's a
> prince to do?
>
> Welcome to agr, please keep posting. By the way, is that "2" kids or "11"?
>
> -Martha
> ===========
I believe any such statement on Camilla's part would seem presumptuous. People would
respond with, "Who does she think she is? Who ever said she could possibly replace
their mother? Why is she presuming to speak about them? etc., etc." I'd say she's
better off keeping a low profile, and I think PC might be better instructing his staff
to slow down the image campaign for her. It seems to be backfiring with HM, and, the
people it has worked with are okay with her now anyway. It is just annoying everyone
else.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mary Higgins
>> by not insisting on Camilla; The Queen could make her son happy by
>> including her.
gad, your sense of history is so bad. this woman was queen only
because the king wanted to marry a divorced woman. geeze - even after
E&W were married, Wallis was never invited to anything except the
unveiling of Queen Mary's placard. Not even Elizabeth's wedding or
coronation. how hypocritical if the the old bat were to invite the
divorced Rotten
as the PoW's guest - especially given the "three in a marriagea"
business.
Mary Higgins
>and the four of them doing the family thing at Balmoral
I don't think they are doing a "family thing" at Balmoral. They
probably barely see each other. She is probably not even staying at
the main castle. she is probably at Birkhall or something. The boys
probably have their friends - and do their thing. Maybe everyone
comes together at dinner time. Balmoral is noted
for everyone being
on their own.
Martha Tassi
brit wrote:
> In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > Blunde...@webtv.net says...
> > I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
> > invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to invite
> > Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same room
> > with her.
> > ---------
> > According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
> are
> > being asked to draw up guests lists.
> > --
> > Susan T
> >
> > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
Martha Tassi
PPill wrote:
> > --
> > Susan T
> >
> > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
>
> I suspect, as a mother, she would put her personal feelings aside, Sue. Just a
> guess, but an educated one from her past behaviors. She appears to be someone
> who does not like to interfere in her grown children's lives, so I suspect she
> would invite her if it were not an issue of her role as head of the Church of
> England. If she were just plain old Elizabeth Windsor, country gentlewoman, I
> believe she would allow Camilla to be invited, even though she may not like her
> personally.
>
> PPill
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
She takes her responsibilities very seriously. If "Defender of the Faith" is going
Martha Tassi
Martha Tassi
IIKidzMom wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but the idea of "the boys growing quite close to Camilla"
Sue T
just about everything!
Martha Tassi
brit wrote:
> In article <MPG.136cd6d99...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > In article <8dv1mi$r3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, a_b...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > > Blunde...@webtv.net says...
> > > I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
> > > invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to
> invite
> > > Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same
> room
> > > with her.
> > > ---------
> > > According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
> > are
> > > being asked to draw up guests lists.
> > > --
> > > Susan T
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
> > to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
> > for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
> > They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
> > write to Queenie and give her what for!
> >
> > brit
> >
> > --
> > Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe you
> > should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
> first.
> > I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice, but doesn't
> > the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants to meet with?
> > --
> > Susan T
> >
> > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Yes she has every right, but shes being an awkward stubbon old cuss,
> and needs a shaking!!! (IMO) If it was anyone elses partner, Anne or
> Andrew, Will or Harry, there partners would be automatically
> included..Charles shouldna'y have
> to beg and plead for basic rights!!!
>
> brit
>
> ========
Having someone who is not welcome or liked invited to a family party isn't a
"right". It's the consequence of one's actions.
-Martha
===========
Martha Tassi
Sue T wrote:
> http://www.people.co.uk/shtml/NEWS/P6S4.shtml
> CHARLES AND QUEEN FURY AS HE DEMANDS: MY CAMILLA MUST COME TO ROYAL BASH
>
> --
> Susan T a/k/a The Shrill Palace Shill
>
> "All the News that's Printed Fits"
============
How many families do we know could put on a private family function with a
guest list of 700+?
-Martha
=============
Sue T
Martha Tassi
Sue T wrote:
> In article <3903ADC3...@home.com>, mta...@home.com says...
>
>
> Sue T wrote:
>
> > http://www.people.co.uk/shtml/NEWS/P6S4.shtml
> > CHARLES AND QUEEN FURY AS HE DEMANDS: MY CAMILLA MUST COME TO ROYAL BASH
> >
> > --
> > Susan T a/k/a The Shrill Palace Shill
> >
> > "All the News that's Printed Fits"
>
> ============
> How many families do we know could put on a private family function with a
> guest list of 700+?
>
> -Martha
> =============
> Well, let's see, there's the Grimaldi's...
>
> --
> Susan T
>
===============
And that's just Stephanie's ex-lovers. No, I mean non-royal families we
personally know.
-Martha
===============
Sue T
Sue T
says...
>> Susan T
>>
>> "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
>
>in her home.
>
>PPill
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Well Charles sounds rightly ticked off this time, so something better
give...
brit
If he wants Camilla to be "his Camilla" why doesn't he just ask
permission to marry her and be done with it?
Sue T
says...
Sue T wrote in message ...
> >
> > > Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe you
> > > should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
> > > first. I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice,
> > > but doesn't the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants
> > > to meet with?
> > > --
> > > Susan T
> >
> > has to spend time with. I hope we all have that right. However, I
> > would suggest that she thinks carefully and logically about whether
> > she really needs to exercise that right as totally as she is currently
> > doing. We all waive a right occasionally in order to make someone
> > else happy.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Inge
> > (in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
>
> The Queen is in a tough spot on this one. If she invites her, or allows
> her to be invited, she will be subjected to criticism and second guessing,
> probably by many churchmen, as well as others.
>
> PPill
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>There's been a lot of speculating that the Queen would receive Camilla
>if it wouldn't lead to criticism. Isn't just possible that she doesn't
>LIKE Camilla? There are some people who post on this board who feel
>that way, why not the Queen?
>Susan T
>
>"I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
I'm sure alot of women don't like there daughter or son-in laws , girl
friends, fiancees, etc, however, most parents will bend a little for the
sake of their child.
This is a big party, they don't need to be in any contact whatsoever....
I am POSITIVE that Queenie is the obstacle in Camilla being excluded, any
brother or sister would automatically include their siblings partner..
The whole thing is stupid, this is a private affair, not public, she has no
excuse except for pig headedness...IMO
I've just written and told her so, so I am sure she will listen and
relent!!! :0)
brit
Well, I've known brothers and sisters to exclude siblings partners. I
have to stand with Queenie on this one, I don't like it when someone
dictates to me who my guests will be. I had that happen this Christmas
(the guest forced upon me was not a relative, or a relative's partner,
BTW). For the sake of my husband, whose family pulled the fast one on
me, I went along. I went out of my way to be polite to this person, but
the whole bunch of them behaved unspeakably rude, and there will be snow
on my lawn down here in West Palm Beach County before they are invited
again.
His Jadedness
>guest list of 700+?
>
>-Martha
Hmm.... (checking address book)
The Bredersons
The Davidsons
The Dillards
The Dudleys
The Gilberts
The Robertsons
opps.. almost forgot
The Addingslys !!
That's about it.
His Jadedness, Andy; http://members.aol.com/agh3rd/index.htm
Nec petita nec cupita approbatio tua
Martha Tassi
> >Well Charles sounds rightly ticked off this time, so something better
> give...
>
> brit
=======
Or else what?
-Martha
=======
Martha Tassi
PPill wrote:
> Martha Tassi wrote:
>
> > brit wrote:
> >
> > > In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > > > Blunde...@webtv.net says...
> > > > I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
> > > > invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to invite
> > > > Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same room
> > > > with her.
> > > > ---------
> > > > According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
> > > are
> > > > being asked to draw up guests lists.
> > > > --
> > > > Susan T
> > > >
> > > > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
> > > to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
> > > for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
> > > They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
> > > write to Queenie and give her what for!
> > >
> > > brit
> >
> > ====================
> > No. This isn't just any other family in town having a family party. Having
> > Camilla over would indicate to many people that the Queen is endorsing a
> > relationship that is notorious for it's adulterous undertones. I
> > acknowledge the hypocrisy of this, considering that Anne's love letters
> > written while still married to Capt. Phillips show that she had the hots for
> > another man. And it cannot be forgotten that Diana had found someone to
> > comfort her while Charles was with Camilla.
> >
> > But Charles and Anne are part of the family, and part of the Family, so they
> > cannot be left off the list. Fergie is uninvited, despite being the mother
> > of two of the Royal granddaughters and the good relationship she enjoys with
> > Prince Andrew. It is consistent that Camilla, who represents to many the
> > breakdown of the Wales' marriage, not be invited.
> >
> > As a side note, despite BP insisting to anyone who will listen that William
> > and Harry accept Camilla and enjoy her company, it appears they aren't
> > petitioning the Queen to invite Camilla.
> >
> > -Martha
> > =======
>
> I'd guess it is St. James Palace insisting to one and all that William and Harry
> like Camilla, not BP.
>
> PPill
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oops - you're right. Got my palaces mixed.
-Martha
============
Inge Cubitt
(PPill) wrote:
> No, this doesn't have to do with what we think about it, Sue, it
> has to do with the
> Queen's official position as Head of the Church of England. She
> can't not include her
> own children, but she can fail to publicly receive the mistress of
> the heir when that
> mistress was linked with the breakdown of the heir's marriage. If
> Charles were not the
> heir, I suspect this dilemma wouldn't be the subject of discussion.
>
> PPill
Is this party a state, public, or private function? If the latter,
it wouldn't be "publicly" receiving Camilla. She'd be there merely as
the "plus friend" on Charles' invitation. Liz would also be free to
not invite any of her children, and Chas would be free to boycott it.
If it's a public or state function, then Camilla might have to sit it
out, but let's have the press in to televise it all, and we'll see if
the Queen Mum is as sprightly on the dance floor as I heard she was
recently on a radio chat show.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Inge Cubitt
(PPill) wrote:
> I agree, Martha. This is not something where HM is willing to
> forego her duty as she
> sees it for family peace.
>
> PPill
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
But but BUT!!!!! (not counting her own kids that everyone says can't
be rejected) why not reject those *partners* who have broken the rules
and been divorced or married divorcees?
Hmmm.... I've just thought of something completely different. What if
the Queen isn't rejecting Charles' and Camilla's partnership, but
merely the fact that they are openly "living in sin"? What if they
were to get married or engaged? Would Camilla be allowed to attend
then? After all, it's Thingy from the Church who is saying they
should hurry up and get married, so the Queen might agree with him?
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Inge Cubitt
link...@inreach.com (brit) wrote:
> I am POSITIVE that Queenie is the obstacle in Camilla being
> excluded, any
> brother or sister would automatically include their siblings
> partner..
What about Eddie's wedding?
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Inge Cubitt
sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
> If he wants Camilla to be "his Camilla" why doesn't he just ask
> permission to marry her and be done with it?
> --
> Susan T
>
I agree. The other day I saw a documentary about Camilla. I think it
was a repeat but I hadn't seen it before. For the first time ever, I
saw motion video of her - and do you know she actually has a very
*pretty* and animated face when she's not on still camera?
I'm left thinking that once she starts being seen on TV at proper
public events, and starts doing Princess-of-Walesy type things, people
will warm to her. I don't think she should be filmed doing things
with kids - that might be seen as trying to take Diana's place. I
think there is room for a patron who focusses primarily on the older
person. This would tie in very nicely with her existing charitable
work for osteoporosis. Charles sees to the teenager and younger
adult, and Andrew, Sarah and Anne are involved with the younger child.
Perhaps a timescale I'd suggest would be to get engaged just after the
Queen Mother's birthday, because it would be too soon and unpopular to
appear on the balcony in August - the Queen Mum's birthday is just
that bit *too* significant for the sentimentalist.
Then there should be at least a year, if not two, between engagement
and marriage. This allows Camilla to take on some public appearances
without actually having to do it full time, so they'd have time to
mull over where she should be and where not to minimise bad feelings.
The wedding should not be a really grand one like Diana's, nor in the
same place she was married or had her funeral; but of course it will
have to be semi-public, unlike Anne's. Camilla should not wear a long
dress, but a smart pastel or cream silk suit and flower-trimmed hat.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Inge Cubitt
Tassi) wrote:
>
> As a side note, despite BP insisting to anyone who will listen that
> William
> and Harry accept Camilla and enjoy her company, it appears they
> aren't petitioning the Queen to invite Camilla.
Would we know what they've said to her in private? Or is there an
assumption that if they'd asked, they'd have automatically have been
deferred to? I think not.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Sue T
I agree with you about the charity work, specializing in groups that
address the concerns of the elderly WOULD be good.
And waiting until after the Queen Mum's birthday is a MUST; don't want a
lot of bad publicity about trying to upstage the Queen Mum.
I disagree about a long engagement; Royals usually don't have long
"official" engagements, it would just give her detractors more time to
stage unpleasant incidents and fill the tabloids with daily stories that
the wedding might be cancelled. They can still ease her into the
routine gradually, not that many organization will be clamoring for her
services at first.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said he will perform a blessing
ceremony after they have been married civilly, but they can not have a
religious ceremony in the Church of England.
I think something along the lines of Anne's second marriage would be the
way to go, with a SLIGHTLY larger guest list. (It's not like they NEED
any gifts <g>) Keep tha actual marriage service to a minimum amount of
people and have a more elaborate party in honor of the happy couple
later on in the year. (And check with ME on the scheduling, they'll be
a LOT of links to post regarding thuis one LOL)
Sue T
he's there. You mean that wouldn't make you change YOUR mind, Martha?
Sue T
says...
What does all this have to do with Queen Elizabeth II, Charles's mother?
That WAS who I was talking about.
Sue T
in...@drealm.nospam.uk says...
Exactly, Inge, Carey has said (or other bishops have let it be known
that he has said) they can marry civilly and he will conduct a ceremony
of dedication, or blessing ceremony as some people call it. So now it
is time for whoever is holding up the works to please step forward. Is
it the Queen and/or the PM stopping the union or is it that Charles and
Camilla just want to play house?
Sue T
> > ====================
> > No. This isn't just any other family in town having a family party. Having
> > Camilla over would indicate to many people that the Queen is endorsing a
> > relationship that is notorious for it's adulterous undertones. I
> > acknowledge the hypocrisy of this, considering that Anne's love letters
> > written while still married to Capt. Phillips show that she had the hots for
> > another man. And it cannot be forgotten that Diana had found someone to
> > comfort her while Charles was with Camilla.
> >
> > But Charles and Anne are part of the family, and part of the Family, so they
> > cannot be left off the list. Fergie is uninvited, despite being the mother
> > of two of the Royal granddaughters and the good relationship she enjoys with
> > Prince Andrew. It is consistent that Camilla, who represents to many the
> > breakdown of the Wales' marriage, not be invited.
> >
> > and Harry accept Camilla and enjoy her company, it appears they aren't
> > petitioning the Queen to invite Camilla.
> >
> > =======
>
> I'd guess it is St. James Palace insisting to one and all that William and Harry
> like Camilla, not BP.
>
> PPill
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oops - you're right. Got my palaces mixed.
-Martha
============
Inge Cubitt
sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
> I disagree about a long engagement; Royals usually don't have long
> "official" engagements, it would just give her detractors more time
> to stage unpleasant incidents and fill the tabloids with daily
> stories that the wedding might be cancelled. They can still ease
> her into the routine gradually, not that many organization will be
> clamoring for her services at first.
I was just remembering Diana. She seemed to be plunged straight into
appearing everywhere. I suppose that was different, because she was a
young girl and hardly anyone knew much about her and they all wanted
to see more of her.
Mind you, Camilla has had years to think about what she would and
wouldn't do as PoWss (is that the right abbreviation?), and they're
not as young and inexperienced either.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
His Jadedness
> business.
>
"Love between two people is wonderful, but between three it's divine!" Charles
Pierce-1969
Blunde...@webtv.net
>put on a private family function with a
>guest list of 700+?
The Kennedys.
brit
PPill <pdeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39034695...@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Sue T wrote:
>
> > In article <39032736...@ix.netcom.com>, pdeb...@ix.netcom.com
> > says...
> >
> >
> > Sue T wrote:
> >
> > > says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Inge Cubitt wrote:
> > >
> > > Susan T
> > >
> > > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
> >
Just a
> > guess, but an educated one from her past behaviors. She appears to be
someone
suspect she
> > would invite her if it were not an issue of her role as head of the
Church of
> > England. If she were just plain old Elizabeth Windsor, country
gentlewoman, I
> > believe she would allow Camilla to be invited, even though she may not
like her
> > personally.
> >
> > PPill
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> > Okay, but for the sake of argument, suppose it is her religious
> > convictions that are stopping her from including Camilla? And, yes,
> > yes, Charles did it too, but people on AGR hold inconsistant positions
> > depending on WHO did it, as opposed to WHAT was done. Equal rights for
> > all. LOL
> > Susan T
> >
> > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
>
inevitability that
> she couldn't dictate her children's relationships. She would make it clear
to him
> that she didn't approve, but I don't think she'd exclude Camilla if it
weren't for
> her position. Just my humble opinion, of course--have NO way of knowing.
Unlike
> some, I don't speak ex cathedra about what HM thinks! LOL
>
> PPill
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would say ok to that if this wasn't a PRIVATE party...Even as head of the
church,she can invite anyone into her own abode she wants..or should be able
to anyway..
If its a PUBLIC do, thats a different story, but this isn't
brit
>
>
brit
Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.136d7673d...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <3903AAE2...@home.com>, mta...@home.com says...
> Perhaps the Queen knows something we don't know. She has forgiven Anne
and Charles
> for their past indiscretions, and apparently Fergie. But Camilla is kept
at
> scepter's length. ???
>
> -Martha
> =========
> What do you think the Queen know that we don't know? We hypothesized on
> just about everything!
>
> Susan T
>
> "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."**
*********************************************************
What could she possibly know that isn't already 'out there' for all to
see,and for some to add too??brit
brit
> > > In article <8dv1mi$r3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, a_b...@my-deja.com says...
> > > In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > > > Blunde...@webtv.net says...
> > > > I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
> > > > invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to
> > invite
> > > > Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same
> > room
> > > > with her.
> > > > ---------
> > > > According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
> > > are
> > > > being asked to draw up guests lists.
> > > > --
> > > > Susan T
> > >
> > > Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
> > > to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
> > > for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
> > > They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
> > > write to Queenie and give her what for!
> > >
> > > brit
> > >
> > > Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe you
> > > should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
> > first.
> > > I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice, but doesn't
> > > the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants to meet with?
> > > --
> > > Susan T
> > >
> >
> > Yes she has every right, but shes being an awkward stubbon old cuss,
> > and needs a shaking!!! (IMO) If it was anyone elses partner, Anne or
> > Andrew, Will or Harry, there partners would be automatically
> > included..Charles shouldna'y have
> > to beg and plead for basic rights!!!
> >
> > brit
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> Ah, brit, but the other's partners would not have been, at least in HM's
and
> millions of others' eyes, the cause of the divorce in question, and, more
> importantly, would not touch on her role as Head of the Church of England
in
> such a fundamental way. For better or worse, Charles gets the worst of it
> because he is the heir.
>
> PPill
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Again, this is a PRIVATE affair ....the same as Camilla can stay at
Balmoraland other Royal residences in a PRIVATE position, she ought tobe
able to go here too, if only for the sake of Charles..No one HAS to like
her!
brit
>
brit
Martha Tassi <mta...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3903ADC3...@home.com...
>
>
> Sue T wrote:
>
> > http://www.people.co.uk/shtml/NEWS/P6S4.shtml
> > CHARLES AND QUEEN FURY AS HE DEMANDS: MY CAMILLA MUST COME TO ROYAL BASH
> >
> > Susan T a/k/a The Shrill Palace Shill
> >
> > "All the News that's Printed Fits"
>
> How many families do we know could put on a private family function with a
> guest list of 700+?
>
> =============
> I know several actually..but they used to put up a huge marquee in the
garden for their parties, as the house wasn't big enough to accomodate so
many comfortably!
> brit
Michel Pelletier
brit a écrit:
> In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > Blunde...@webtv.net says...
> > I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
> > invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to invite
> > Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same room
> > with her.
> > ---------
> > According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
> are
> > being asked to draw up guests lists.
> > --
> > Susan T
> >
> > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
> > _______________________________________________
>
> Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
> to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
> for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
> They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
> write to Queenie and give her what for!
>
> brit
>
> --
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
A gesture for their brother or grandson? Why? He hasn't done anything for
them. He's made his feelings known about Sarah through his PR people and
didn't he decide to spend New Year's Eve with Camilla instead of his
grandmother? Besides it's their celebration, why should they feel
obligated to invite someone they don't like to their party just because
Charles is having another one of his temper tantrums?
Gisele
Michel Pelletier
Inge Cubitt a écrit:
> In article <MPG.136cdb707...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
>
> > So it looks like a stand-off. Charles could make his mother happy
> > by not insisting on Camilla; The Queen could make her son happy by
> > including her.
>
> Charles has given way on this issue loads of times already. It's
> Mum's turn now.
>
> --
>
> Inge
> (in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
-------------------------------------
Mum feels that Camilla has been of the biggest reasons (if not the
biggest) why the RF has had so many troubles for the past 20 years.
Besides, so long as Mum is Mum , she doesn't have to take turns.
Gisele
brit
Martha Tassi wrote in message <3903ED9A...@home.com>...
>
>
>> >Well Charles sounds rightly ticked off this time, so something better
>> give...
>>
>> brit
>
>=======
>Or else what?
>
>-Martha
>=======
breaking down..thats Charles and the Queens relationship I'm talking about!
If Queenie doesn't care about that, then thats up to her, but it would be a
great pity!
brit
>
brit
>> As a side note, despite BP insisting to anyone who will listen that
William
>> and Harry accept Camilla and enjoy her company, it appears they aren't
>> petitioning the Queen to invite Camilla.
>>
>> -Martha
>> =======
Maybe they are?
brit
Michel Pelletier
brit a écrit:
> In article <MPG.136cd6d99...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > In article <8dv1mi$r3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, a_b...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <MPG.136cc9881...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Sue T <sus...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > In article <1285-39...@storefull-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > > Blunde...@webtv.net says...
> > > I don't see why not. If Andrew, Anne, and most everyone is able to
> > > invite their own people, then I think it's right for Chucky to
> invite
> > > Camilla. The Queen doesn't have to talk to her or be in the same
> room
> > > with her.
> > > ---------
> > > According to another article, it's only the birthday honorees that
> > are
> > > being asked to draw up guests lists.
> > > --
> > > Susan T
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Well wouldn't you think 'one' of the "honourees" would make a gesture
> > to their Brother, Grandson..whatever??? ...and invite his girlfriend
> > for heavens sake...Its not such a drastic thing to ask is it??
> > They're getting on my nerves about this Camilla business I'm off to
> > write to Queenie and give her what for!
> >
> > brit
> >
> > --
> > Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe you
> > should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
> first.
> > I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his choice, but doesn't
> > the Queen have equal rights to determine who she wants to meet with?
> > --
> > Susan T
> >
> > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Yes she has every right, but shes being an awkward stubbon old cuss,
> and needs a shaking!!! (IMO) If it was anyone elses partner, Anne or
> Andrew, Will or Harry, there partners would be automatically
> included..Charles shouldna'y have
> to beg and plead for basic rights!!!
>
> brit
>
> --
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
---------------------------
But none of the other partners have caused the chaos that Camilla has.
Gisele
Inge Cubitt
michel.p...@sympatico.ca (Michel Pelletier) wrote:
> Mum feels that Camilla has been of the biggest reasons (if not the
> biggest) why the RF has had so many troubles for the past 20 years.
> Besides, so long as Mum is Mum , she doesn't have to take turns.
>
> Gisele
Perhaps Mum's a big part of the reason? She helped bring Charles up,
after all. Brought up differently, he might have said "I don't think
we should now that I'm married" or "No, I'm not going to marry Diana
because I love Camilla"
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Inge Cubitt
michel.p...@sympatico.ca (Michel Pelletier) wrote:
> But none of the other partners have caused the chaos that Camilla
> has.
>
> Gisele
Largely because none of the ex-partners made such a noise about it as
Diana did. They "went quietly".
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Mary Higgins
the party is partly for the old bat. i can't imagine that Anne would
want the Rotten invited - and certainly the DoY will toe the line. I
believe the GLODE story that William hates her (the Rotten) - now who
is the 5th celebrant? 4 out of 5 doesn't look good for the Rotten. Oh,
the fifth - HM herself.
Martha Tassi
Inge Cubitt wrote:
> In article <3903BBE6...@ix.netcom.com>, pdeb...@ix.netcom.com
> (PPill) wrote:
>
> > I agree, Martha. This is not something where HM is willing to
> > forego her duty as she
> > sees it for family peace.
> >
> > PPill
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> But but BUT!!!!! (not counting her own kids that everyone says can't
> be rejected) why not reject those *partners* who have broken the rules
> and been divorced or married divorcees?
>
> Hmmm.... I've just thought of something completely different. What if
> the Queen isn't rejecting Charles' and Camilla's partnership, but
> merely the fact that they are openly "living in sin"? What if they
> were to get married or engaged? Would Camilla be allowed to attend
> then? After all, it's Thingy from the Church who is saying they
> should hurry up and get married, so the Queen might agree with him?
>
> Inge
>
==========
We don't know exactly what the Queen objects to in Camilla, we can only
guess. Anne's husband is accepted, although he was the object of the love
letters while Anne was married to Phillips. Were Anne and Phillips
unofficially separated at the time? He had fathered a child while married
to Anne. Perhaps that makes this husband look really good to HM.
No matter how badly you want Camilla invited, it ain't gonna happen. She
is synominous with adultery, she is not popular, and that will have to
change before she gets invited to any functions.
-Martha
==========
Martha Tassi
>
> > I am POSITIVE that Queenie is the obstacle in Camilla being
> > excluded, any brother or sister would automatically include their
> siblings
> > partner..
> What about Eddie's wedding?
> Inge
> ==============
Yeah, it looks like no one in the RF is supporting Charles and Camilla.
-Martha
==============
Sue T
says...
The party is for the Queen Mum, Andrew, Edward, Margaret, and William.
The first four are celebrating "decade" birthdays and William comes of
age (18). HM is not one of the honorees.
Martha Tassi
>
> > As a side note, despite BP insisting to anyone who will listen that
> > William and Harry accept Camilla and enjoy her company, it appears
> they
> > aren't petitioning the Queen to invite Camilla.
-Martha
==========
> Would we know what they've said to her in private? Or is there an
> assumption that if they'd asked, they'd have automatically have been
> deferred to? I think not.
>
> Inge
==========
I meant to say St. James, not BP. St. James Palace has made several
public statements that the young princes like Camilla, accept her as part
of their father's life and that they want their father to be happy. All
three elements have been in the statements each time I've read them.
Asfaras your post, who said what to who in private? Do you mean what the
young princes said to the Queen? William has tea with his grandmother
often. If HM was lobbied by the family to include Camilla, she might do
it with a united family behind her. But it does not seem to be the case.
-Martha
=========
>
>
Martha Tassi
Sue T wrote:
> In article <3903ED9A...@home.com>, mta...@home.com says...
>
>
> > >Well Charles sounds rightly ticked off this time, so something better
> > give...
> >
> > brit
>
> =======
> Or else what?
>
> -Martha
> =======
> Or else he show up with a big pout on his face and sulk the whole time
> he's there. You mean that wouldn't make you change YOUR mind, Martha?
> --
> Susan T
>
> =======
Heck no. I'd go just to watch him pout.
-Martha
========
Martha Tassi
Sue T wrote:
> In article <memo.20000424...@nospam.dibble.dobble.uk>,
> in...@drealm.nospam.uk says...
> In article <3903BBE6...@ix.netcom.com>, pdeb...@ix.netcom.com
> (PPill) wrote:
>
> > I agree, Martha. This is not something where HM is willing to
> > forego her duty as she
> > sees it for family peace.
> >
> > PPill
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> But but BUT!!!!! (not counting her own kids that everyone says can't
> be rejected) why not reject those *partners* who have broken the rules
> and been divorced or married divorcees?
>
> Hmmm.... I've just thought of something completely different. What if
> the Queen isn't rejecting Charles' and Camilla's partnership, but
> merely the fact that they are openly "living in sin"? What if they
> were to get married or engaged? Would Camilla be allowed to attend
> then? After all, it's Thingy from the Church who is saying they
> should hurry up and get married, so the Queen might agree with him?
>
> --
>
> Inge
> (in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
> -----------
> Exactly, Inge, Carey has said (or other bishops have let it be known
> that he has said) they can marry civilly and he will conduct a ceremony
> of dedication, or blessing ceremony as some people call it. So now it
> is time for whoever is holding up the works to please step forward. Is
> it the Queen and/or the PM stopping the union or is it that Charles and
> Camilla just want to play house?
> --
> Susan T
>
> =============
Charles needs permission to marry. Period. Edward & Wallis happened in
the Queen's lifetime, she will not allow a repeat of that.
-Martha
============
Inge Cubitt
Tassi) wrote:
> I meant to say St. James, not BP.
I realised
> Asfaras your post, who said what to who in private? Do you mean
> what the
> young princes said to the Queen? William has tea with his
> grandmother
> often. If HM was lobbied by the family to include Camilla, she
> might do
> it with a united family behind her. But it does not seem to be the
> case.
You seemed to be saying that William had not tried asking the Queen to
relent over Camilla. I was trying to point out that he may have tried
and failed to change her mind, and we wouldn't be in a position to
know that.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Martha Tassi
brit wrote:
> PPill <pdeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:39034695...@ix.netcom.com...
> >
> >
> > Sue T wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39032736...@ix.netcom.com>, pdeb...@ix.netcom.com
> > > says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Sue T wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <39031620...@ix.netcom.com>, pdeb...@ix.netcom.com
> > > > says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Inge Cubitt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <MPG.136cd6d99...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > > > sus...@worldnet.att.net (Sue T) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, since Queenie isn't one of the birthday celebrants, maybe
> you
> > > > > > should write to Anne, Queen Mumsie, Andy, Margaret, and William
> > > > > > first. I will defend Charles's right to the woman of his
> choice,
> > > > > > but doesn't the Queen have equal rights to determine who she
> wants
> > > > > > to meet with?
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Susan T
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Susan T
> > > >
> > > > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
> > >
> > > I suspect, as a mother, she would put her personal feelings aside, Sue.
> Just a
> > > guess, but an educated one from her past behaviors. She appears to be
> someone
> > > who does not like to interfere in her grown children's lives, so I
> suspect she
> > > would invite her if it were not an issue of her role as head of the
> Church of
> > > England. If she were just plain old Elizabeth Windsor, country
> gentlewoman, I
> > > believe she would allow Camilla to be invited, even though she may not
> like her
> > > personally.
> > >
> > > PPill
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> > > Okay, but for the sake of argument, suppose it is her religious
> > > convictions that are stopping her from including Camilla? And, yes,
> > > yes, Charles did it too, but people on AGR hold inconsistant positions
> > > depending on WHO did it, as opposed to WHAT was done. Equal rights for
> > > all. LOL
> > > --
> > > Susan T
> > >
> > > "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
> >
> > I still think she would put those things aside, nodding to the
> inevitability that
> > she couldn't dictate her children's relationships. She would make it clear
> to him
> > that she didn't approve, but I don't think she'd exclude Camilla if it
> weren't for
> > her position. Just my humble opinion, of course--have NO way of knowing.
> Unlike
> > some, I don't speak ex cathedra about what HM thinks! LOL
> >
> > PPill
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I would say ok to that if this wasn't a PRIVATE party...Even as head of the
> church,she can invite anyone into her own abode she wants..or should be able
> to anyway..
> If its a PUBLIC do, thats a different story, but this isn't
>
> brit
>
======
At a private party in her home, she maintains the right to veto anyone off the
guest list.
-Martha
======
Martha Tassi
brit wrote:
> Martha Tassi wrote in message <3903ED9A...@home.com>...
> >
> >
> >> >Well Charles sounds rightly ticked off this time, so something better
> >> give...
> >>
> >> brit
> >
> >=======
> >Or else what?
> >
> >-Martha
> >=======
> >Or else their relationship sounds like it is on the verge of irretrivably
> breaking down..thats Charles and the Queens relationship I'm talking about!
> If Queenie doesn't care about that, then thats up to her, but it would be a
> great pity!
> brit
> >
=============
No, it's a great pity that Charles insists on pushing someone who is not
welcome into a family party. He is living with the consequences of his bad
decisions.
-Martha
=============
Martha Tassi
brit wrote:
> >> As a side note, despite BP insisting to anyone who will listen that
> William
> >> and Harry accept Camilla and enjoy her company, it appears they aren't
> >> petitioning the Queen to invite Camilla.
> >>
> >> -Martha
> >> =======
> >Well actually, we don't know hat is going on behind the scenes do we??
> Maybe they are?
>
> brit
==========
Camilla hasn't been invited to anything, so I'd have to say she and Charles
are alone in their Quest for Camilla.
-Martha
=========
Inge Cubitt
Tassi) wrote:
> Charles needs permission to marry. Period. Edward & Wallis
> happened in
> the Queen's lifetime, she will not allow a repeat of that.
>
> -Martha
> ============
Why would there need to be a repeat? If the church says it's ok for
them to marry, then this time there need be no abdication. Edward and
Wallis happened in a time when divorce was a dirty word. Nowadays the
majority of us (well almost!) have been divorced and remarried.
Nothing will happen if Camilla is crowned. There'll be a few heated
phone-ins and some cartoons in Private Eye and that'll be the end of
the matter.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Inge Cubitt
Tassi) wrote:
> At a private party in her home, she maintains the right to veto
> anyone off the guest list.
>
> -Martha
> ======
I think we've all agreed she has the *right* to do so. What seems to
be under discussion is whether she's being fair.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Inge Cubitt
michel.p...@sympatico.ca (Michel Pelletier) wrote:
> A gesture for their brother or grandson? Why? He hasn't done
> anything for
> them. He's made his feelings known about Sarah through his PR
> people
Yes, glasshouses & all that...
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Sue T
the Queen's lifetime, she will not allow a repeat of that.
-Martha
============
permission, that's waht my reference to the Queen and/or PM was all
about. Are they denying him permission or is it that they just haven't
asked?
Martha Tassi
Inge Cubitt wrote:
> In article <390479C5...@sympatico.ca>,
> michel.p...@sympatico.ca (Michel Pelletier) wrote:
>
> > Mum feels that Camilla has been of the biggest reasons (if not the
> > biggest) why the RF has had so many troubles for the past 20 years.
> > Besides, so long as Mum is Mum , she doesn't have to take turns.
> >
> > Gisele
>
> Perhaps Mum's a big part of the reason? She helped bring Charles up,
> after all. Brought up differently, he might have said "I don't think
> we should now that I'm married" or "No, I'm not going to marry Diana
> because I love Camilla"
>
>
> Inge
===========
Charles didn't know adultery was wrong? He didn't know Diana wouldn't
put up with it?
-Martha
===========
Martha Tassi
Inge Cubitt wrote:
> In article <39048209...@home.com>, mta...@home.com (Martha
> Tassi) wrote:
>
> > I meant to say St. James, not BP.
>
> I realised
>
> > Asfaras your post, who said what to who in private? Do you mean
> > what the
> > young princes said to the Queen? William has tea with his
> > grandmother
> > often. If HM was lobbied by the family to include Camilla, she
> > might do
> > it with a united family behind her. But it does not seem to be the
> > case.
>
> You seemed to be saying that William had not tried asking the Queen to
> relent over Camilla. I was trying to point out that he may have tried
> and failed to change her mind, and we wouldn't be in a position to
> know that.
>
> Inge
>
==========
Agree we weren't under the tea table eavesdropping (darn), I am saying it
doens't appear to me anyone besides Charles has pressed the issue.
-Martha
===========
Martha Tassi
Inge Cubitt wrote:
> In article <39048353...@home.com>, mta...@home.com (Martha
> Tassi) wrote:
>
> > Charles needs permission to marry. Period. Edward & Wallis
> > happened in
> > the Queen's lifetime, she will not allow a repeat of that.
> >
> > -Martha
> > ============
>
> Why would there need to be a repeat? If the church says it's ok for
> them to marry, then this time there need be no abdication. Edward and
> Wallis happened in a time when divorce was a dirty word. Nowadays the
> majority of us (well almost!) have been divorced and remarried.
>
> Nothing will happen if Camilla is crowned. There'll be a few heated
> phone-ins and some cartoons in Private Eye and that'll be the end of
> the matter.
>
> Inge
>
============
The majority of people don't want Camilla as their Queen. If she marries
Charles, she becomes Princess of Wales (a no-win for all involved), then
Queen Consort when Charles becomes King. No matter if she marries Charles
and stays Mrs. Windsor, takes no style or title, and stays out of the
limelight, she will be the QC. Which is what the people don't want.
Perhaps you underestimate how offensive many people find adultery.
-Martha
=============
Martha Tassi
Inge Cubitt wrote:
> In article <390483AF...@home.com>, mta...@home.com (Martha
> Tassi) wrote:
>
> > At a private party in her home, she maintains the right to veto
> > anyone off the guest list.
> >
> > -Martha
> > ======
>
> I think we've all agreed she has the *right* to do so. What seems to
> be under discussion is whether she's being fair.
>
>
> Inge
>
==========
Fair is in the eye of the beholder.
-Martha
==========
Martha Tassi
Sue T wrote:
> Charles needs permission to marry. Period. Edward & Wallis happened in
> the Queen's lifetime, she will not allow a repeat of that.
>
> -Martha
> ============
> Uh, you must have me confused with someone else. I know he needs
> permission, that's waht my reference to the Queen and/or PM was all
> about. Are they denying him permission or is it that they just haven't
> asked?
> --
> Susan T
>
> ==========
Sorry, Sue. I don't think he (or rather the Queen) has asked the PM. Charles
may have asked the Queen and she said no and we didn't hear about it. If the
Queen went to Blair about this we would have read about it. The people have
stated clearly they don't want Camilla as Queen. The Queen isn't going to
ignore that.
-Martha
===========
brit
Inge Cubitt wrote in message ...
>In article <3903BC85...@ix.netcom.com>, pdeb...@ix.netcom.com
>(PPill) wrote:
>
>> No, this doesn't have to do with what we think about it, Sue, it
>> has to do with the
>> Queen's official position as Head of the Church of England. She
>> can't not include her
>> own children, but she can fail to publicly receive the mistress of
>> the heir when that
>> mistress was linked with the breakdown of the heir's marriage. If
>> Charles were not the
>> heir, I suspect this dilemma wouldn't be the subject of discussion.
>>
>> PPill
>
>Is this party a state, public, or private function? If the latter,
>it wouldn't be "publicly" receiving Camilla. She'd be there merely as
>the "plus friend" on Charles' invitation. Liz would also be free to
>not invite any of her children, and Chas would be free to boycott it.
>
>If it's a public or state function, then Camilla might have to sit it
>out, but let's have the press in to televise it all, and we'll see if
>the Queen Mum is as sprightly on the dance floor as I heard she was
>recently on a radio chat show.
>
>--
>
>Inge
>(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Charles states in the article that it is a PRIVATE affair, he said had it
been a public one he could understand it, but PRIVATE should be just that!
brit
brit
Inge Cubitt wrote in message ...
>link...@inreach.com (brit) wrote:
>
>> I am POSITIVE that Queenie is the obstacle in Camilla being
>> excluded, any
>> brother or sister would automatically include their siblings
>> partner..
>
>
>
>Inge
>(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
Yes thats what I mean, if it were up to Edward I betcha he would have
invited Camilla, its Queenie sticking her foot in the way all the
time....(Eds wedding was a PUBLIC affair anyway, a little different to a
family party!)
brit
Martha Tassi
brit wrote:
> Inge Cubitt wrote in message ...
=======
Then he should stop putting private business in the public.
-Martha
========
LostNgl
> Susan T
>
> "I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
I suspect, as a mother, she would put her personal feelings aside, Sue. Just a
guess, but an educated one from her past behaviors. She appears to be someone
who does not like to interfere in her grown children's lives, so I suspect she
would invite her if it were not an issue of her role as head of the Church of
England. If she were just plain old Elizabeth Windsor, country gentlewoman, I
believe she would allow Camilla to be invited, even though she may not like her
personally.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
I suspect she is looking back at Great-uncle David escapades and......
A) cursing his genes for having surfaced in her son.
B) Doing the best thing for the stability of the Monarchy.* She* has always put
the monarchy and the country first, and I suspect as long at the MORI polls put
most of the UK not wanting the parker-bowles as Queen, she will not change her
position.
t
Sue T
gets registered by the Privy Council. If the Queen approves, her
approval is registered and that's that. Theoretically, she doesn't have
to ask the PM (I doubt she bothered him when Ernst asked permission to
marry Caroline, but that's only a guess), but in reality, I can't
imagine she would grant permission to Charles without the PM's approval.
If the Queen withholds approval, Charles can register a request for
permission with the privy council, and after one year's wait, they can
marry without the Queen's approval, "unless both houses of parliament
shall, before the expiration of the said twelve months, expressly
declare their disapprobation of such intended marriage."
I can't see things getting to that stage. In order to save embarassment
to all involved, and not have the issue debated in the press, my opinion
is that the Queen would discuss it with the PM, and if he said that
Parliament would be sure to approve such as marriage over her wishes,
she would just give her approval. Likewise, if the PM said he couldn't
give assurances that the the marriage wouldn't become a topic of debate
in Parliament, with ministers speaking out against it, I think Charles
would be informed. The whole thing would be kept as off the record and
quiet as possible.
LostNgl
>
> brit
=======
Then he should stop putting private business in the public.
-Martha
========
Oh hear hear Martha!!!!! Still spilling the beans to the tabs isnt he?
Gee, I thought[according to some in this ng] it was *only* the wicked Diana who
stopped to such actions......perhas she is manuevering this one from her cloud
in heaven.....
it cant be <gasp!> the Princes's party doing something like....L E A K I N G?
LostNgl
> anyone off the guest list.
>
> -Martha
> ======
I think we've all agreed she has the *right* to do so. What seems to
be under discussion is whether she's being fair.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
HM appears to be following policy, her mother implimented about the late Duke
and Duchess of Windsor.
t
Old evils cast long shadows..........
LostNgl
> happened in
> the Queen's lifetime, she will not allow a repeat of that.
>
> -Martha
> ============
Why would there need to be a repeat? If the church says it's ok for
them to marry, then this time there need be no abdication. Edward and
Wallis happened in a time when divorce was a dirty word. Nowadays the
majority of us (well almost!) have been divorced and remarried.
Nothing will happen if Camilla is crowned. There'll be a few heated
phone-ins and some cartoons in Private Eye and that'll be the end of
the matter.
--
Inge
(in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
This is your assumption, and you may be correct.
But as of now, the polls say most people in the UK do not want to see the
mistress of the PoW crowned as Queen.
Martha makes a very good point when she says "It will not happen on her
watch"....be it losing Defender of the Faith, or losing the entire kit and
kaboodle.........
LostNgl
The whole thing is stupid, this is a private affair, not public, she has no
excuse except for pig headedness...IMO
I've just written and told her so, so I am sure she will listen and
relent!!! :0)
brit
-------------
Well, I've known brothers and sisters to exclude siblings partners. I
have to stand with Queenie on this one, I don't like it when someone
dictates to me who my guests will be. I had that happen this Christmas
(the guest forced upon me was not a relative, or a relative's partner,
BTW). For the sake of my husband, whose family pulled the fast one on
me, I went along. I went out of my way to be polite to this person, but
the whole bunch of them behaved unspeakably rude, and there will be snow
on my lawn down here in West Palm Beach County before they are invited
again.
--
Susan T
I agree Sue!!! At my second wedding, the local equivelant of the CPB showed up
uninvited!!
My best friend, the maid of honor, who has no compunctions about "polite
nonsense" promptly marched up to her and stated "you were not invited!".....
t
"
LostNgl
>> give...
>>
>> brit
>
>=======
>Or else what?
>
>-Martha
>=======
>Or else their relationship sounds like it is on the verge of irretrivably
breaking down..thats Charles and the Queens relationship I'm talking about!
If Queenie doesn't care about that, then thats up to her, but it would be a
great pity!
brit
Why? She is his Queen, and his mother.
his loss.
He does seem bent on repeating Edwards royal history though, doesnt he?
t
LostNgl
and needs a shaking!!! (IMO) If it was anyone elses partner, Anne or
Andrew, Will or Harry, there partners would be automatically
included..Charles shouldna'y have
to beg and plead for basic rights!!!
brit
This whole question begs iyself to the adultery thing.
It is not a persons basic right to committ adultery.
brit
Sue T wrote in message ...
>
> > If he wants Camilla to be "his Camilla" why doesn't he just ask
> > permission to marry her and be done with it?
> > --
> > Susan T
> >
>
> I agree. The other day I saw a documentary about Camilla. I think it
> was a repeat but I hadn't seen it before. For the first time ever, I
> saw motion video of her - and do you know she actually has a very
> *pretty* and animated face when she's not on still camera?
>
> I'm left thinking that once she starts being seen on TV at proper
> public events, and starts doing Princess-of-Walesy type things, people
> will warm to her. I don't think she should be filmed doing things
> with kids - that might be seen as trying to take Diana's place. I
> think there is room for a patron who focusses primarily on the older
> person. This would tie in very nicely with her existing charitable
> work for osteoporosis. Charles sees to the teenager and younger
> adult, and Andrew, Sarah and Anne are involved with the younger child.
>
> Perhaps a timescale I'd suggest would be to get engaged just after the
> Queen Mother's birthday, because it would be too soon and unpopular to
> appear on the balcony in August - the Queen Mum's birthday is just
> that bit *too* significant for the sentimentalist.
>
> Then there should be at least a year, if not two, between engagement
> and marriage. This allows Camilla to take on some public appearances
> without actually having to do it full time, so they'd have time to
> mull over where she should be and where not to minimise bad feelings.
> The wedding should not be a really grand one like Diana's, nor in the
> same place she was married or had her funeral; but of course it will
> have to be semi-public, unlike Anne's. Camilla should not wear a long
> dress, but a smart pastel or cream silk suit and flower-trimmed hat.
>
> --
>
> Inge
> (in...@drealm.clara.co.uk)
>-----------
>I agree with you about the charity work, specializing in groups that
>address the concerns of the elderly WOULD be good.
>
>And waiting until after the Queen Mum's birthday is a MUST; don't want a
>lot of bad publicity about trying to upstage the Queen Mum.
>
>I disagree about a long engagement; Royals usually don't have long
>"official" engagements, it would just give her detractors more time to
>stage unpleasant incidents and fill the tabloids with daily stories that
>the wedding might be cancelled. They can still ease her into the
>routine gradually, not that many organization will be clamoring for her
>services at first.
>
>The Archbishop of Canterbury has said he will perform a blessing
>ceremony after they have been married civilly, but they can not have a
>religious ceremony in the Church of England.
>
>I think something along the lines of Anne's second marriage would be the
>way to go, with a SLIGHTLY larger guest list. (It's not like they NEED
>any gifts <g>) Keep tha actual marriage service to a minimum amount of
>people and have a more elaborate party in honor of the happy couple
>later on in the year. (And check with ME on the scheduling, they'll be
>a LOT of links to post regarding thuis one LOL)
>--
>Susan T
>
>"I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
*********************************
That is a satisfactory plan for me, shall we draft a list for the palace
now, or wait a bit??
brit
LostNgl
because he is the heir.
PPill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles does sometimes want all the perks and none of the responsibilites.
This looks like one of those times.
t