Healthwatch: Camilla Parker Bowles cancer claim dismissed
Michael Rhodes
Rumours that Camilla Parker Bowles is battling lung cancer were today
dismissed as "utterly untrue".
The New York Post reported that the partner of the Prince of Wales
appeared to have been diagnosed with the disease.
But sources close to Mrs Parker Bowles described the report as
nonsense, adding: "This is absolutely and utterly untrue."
Cindy Adams, a columnist, wrote in the gossip section of the paper
that "medical circles in London confirmed the diagnosis. "Camilla, a
longtime smoker, appears to be battling cancer."
Adams said that she had previously reported that Mrs Parker Bowles had
not been well but, unable to confirm the details, had listed it as
rumour.
Mrs Parker Bowles, 56, is said to have started smoking when she was a
15-year-old schoolgirl.
She is now reported to have given up the habit, following sinus
trouble and pressure from Prince Charles.
Ms Adams wrote in her piece of how she previously broke the story of
Jackie Onassis's "terminal diagnosis". Mrs Onassis died of cancer in
1994.
-- Michael Rhodes (please delete the x t e-mail me)
***************************************************
Michael Rhodes
> dans l'article 20040501014035...@mb-m12.aol.com, Kuisse0002 ą
> kuiss...@aol.com a écrit le 1/05/04 7:40 :
>
> > Of course its not true - she's as stong as an ox, cow, horse, bull
> > ....whatever... and her voice sounds like it too.
> "cuisse"?, histoire de cuisse?
The Express (May 2) reports that last week Camilla ventured to
Aberdeen for a night out. A fashion show and auction for the Brook
Hospital for animals, which raised £25,000 towards rescuing sick
donkeys. The organiser is quoted as saying: "It was a real surprise we
got her. Thanks to her presence we made the most ever from a single
event."
--
Michael Rhodes (please delete the x to e-mail me)
************************************************
Shirley
Michael Rhodes wrote:
Bowles suffers from *Cinderella Syndrome*.......no matter how hard she
squeezes her foot will never
fit that glass slipper.....
Thaddeus Lysaght
But still the future Queen.....
TL
Shirley
Thaddeus Lysaght wrote:
Unless Prince Charles abdicates?
Thaddeus Lysaght
Prince Charles cannot abdicate.
TL
Barbara Sherrill
"Thaddeus Lysaght" <thaddeus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a42e4ec2.04050...@posting.google.com...
Queen Elizabeth will give the throne to her dog before she allows Cameilla
to become Queen.
Sanford Manley
>
> Queen Elizabeth will give the throne to her dog before she allows Cameilla
> to become Queen.
WOOF!
I always call her: "Come Here I'll Pork Your Bowels."
(just a whimsical thought for the woman who made
Charles crave existence as a tampon)
--
Sanford M. Manley
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are
someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their
passions a quotation." - Oscar Wilde
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Thomas Rex Campbell
The Queen does not have the power to "give the throne" to anybody;
the succession is 'governed' by Parliament and thus by law.
Regards, Thomas
Michael Rhodes
> Barbara Sherrill said:
> >
> > Queen Elizabeth will give the throne to her dog before she allows Cameilla
> > to become Queen.
I do not think the queen has any problem - personally - with Camilla
becoming queen consort. It is however a political thing, and if the
Govt or the mass of the people oppose it then she will not sanction
it. Charles may wait until he is King before making a decision here.
--
Michael Rhodes (please delete the x to e-mail me)
*************************************************
Shirley
Thaddeus Lysaght wrote:
Why Not?
Hippie@yomama.com Happy Hippie
>
>
> > >
> > > Unless Prince Charles abdicates?
> >
> > Prince Charles cannot abdicate.
> >
> > TL
>
>
>
> Why Not?
>
Sacha
>
>
> Thaddeus Lysaght wrote:
<snip>
>> Prince Charles cannot abdicate.
>>
>> TL
>
>
>
> Why Not?
>
Because he has to become monarch before he can abdicate.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds to email me)
Shirley
Sacha wrote:
You don't think that Prince William is being *primed* to take his Dad's place
as King?
Sacha
Er, no. He is living as private and as normal a life as he can hope to lead
as the heir to the heir. And I'm sure he's being informed and trained as to
what will one day be his role as King. But to take over if Charles
abdicated? No. And there is no reason to think Charles will abdicate.
He's trained for the job all his life and barring death or some mental
disability, he will do it.
Brian Watson
"Sacha" <sa...@gardenweeds506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BCBECEF6.1ACF9%sa...@gardenweeds506.fsnet.co.uk...
>
> And there is no reason to think Charles will abdicate.
> He's trained for the job all his life and barring death or some mental
> disability, he will do it.
Ah, so we Brits are to become a republic. Cool.
--
Brian
"You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop
laughing."
Thaddeus Lysaght
'Primed' to become king but only after the death of his grandmother AND his Dad.
TL
Michael Rhodes
> The Queen does not have the power to "give the throne" to anybody;
> the succession is 'governed' by Parliament and thus by law.
>
> Regards, Thomas
And no legal impediment prevents the marriage of Charles & Camilla. Right?
--
Michael Rhodes
(Please delete the x to e-mail me)
*********************************
Brigid Nelson
> thom...@nyc.rr.com (Thomas Rex Campbell) wrote in message news:<f11e3208.04050...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>The Queen does not have the power to "give the throne" to anybody;
>>the succession is 'governed' by Parliament and thus by law.
>>
>>Regards, Thomas
>
>
>
> And no legal impediment prevents the marriage of Charles & Camilla. Right?
>
Speaking from the wrong side of the pond, I thought that there was a
legal impediment. Isn't marriage to a divorcee proscribed? Of course
she could remove all doubt as to her fitness by converting to catholicism.
brigid
Michael Rhodes
I think that with the Quen's permission under the Royal Marriages Act
the Prince can marry Camilla.
Sacha
ammigx73al...@yahoo.co.uk4e5e1d66.0405060136.188d8fe3@posting.google
.com
Given that he is over 25 he doesn't need the Queen's permission. But he
would have to notify Parliament of his intentions a year before such a
marriage could take place. From the official royal insight page:
"Royal marriages in Britain are regulated by two statutes: the Act of
Settlement (1701), and the Royal Marriages Act (1772). The 1701 Act of
Settlement laid down that neither a Catholic nor a person marrying a
Catholic could come to the throne. The Royal Marriages Act provides that the
marriage of any lineal descendant of George II is invalid unless royal
consent has first been obtained. However if the Sovereign does not give
consent, a member of the Royal Family may, at the age of 25, signify to the
Privy Council his or her intention to marry without the consent of the
Sovereign. The marriage can then lawfully take place unless both Houses of
Parliament expressly disapprove.
Beyond those acts, there are no requirements or regulations as to who a
member of the Royal Family can marry. "
Shirley
Sacha wrote:
What is the common people's poll on the possible union. Is this taken into
consideration also?
If it is true that when Diana died that freed Charles to remarry than isn't also
true until Mr. Bowles dies isn't she still considered a divorced woman like
(what's her name) Simpson (from America).....Can the future heir to the throne
marry a divorced person and have it sanctioned by the church?
Sacha
That's one of the knotty problems. Although the Church of England has
greatly relaxed its views on the marriage of divorced people, it's still a
step too far too soon for the heir to the throne, I'd say. I have no
personal problem with it but while there is *jusssstttt* a majority that is
happy for them to marry, that same majority don't want to see Camilla as
Queen consort. And that is what she would have to be unless we made changes
that allowed for a morganatic marriage. Again, speaking personally, I would
be very against that because I don't think we should tinker with our
constitution just to suit one person's circumstances, thus setting a
precedent. For me, it's Queen Camilla or nothing. What does not seem to be
explained to those polled is that we have no mechanism that allows for the
Pow's wife to be anything other than the Princess of Wales and then the
Queen consort, so in my view that renders these polls useless anyway.
April Cool
<bigd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> If it is true that when Diana died that freed Charles to remarry than
> isn't also true until Mr. Bowles dies isn't she still considered a
> divorced woman like (what's her name) Simpson (from America).....Can
> the future heir to the throne marry a divorced person and have it
> sanctioned by the church?
There's all sorts of commentary about this (with regard to Mrs.
Simpson, anyway) at
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Abdication-crisis-of-1936
They seem to have decided that Mrs. Simpson was a Nazi agent, after all.
TommyBoy
Proving once and for all that the Royal Tampon does not cause cancer.
Mike Dickson
> What is the common people's poll on the possible union.
The 'common people's poll on the possible union' is that they should
both die slowly, taking all possible heirs with them.
The Kentucky Wizard
Even though Charles and Diana were divorced from a legal point
of view, they were still married in the eyes of the church. Upon
the death of Diana, however, Charles was freed from the bonds of
his first marriage, and therefore it is both from a legal and
religious standpoint capable to remarry and thus become king if
it should fall his lot to do so.
From a religious standpoint, ccording to the bible, adultery is
the only cause for divorcement, but that does not free the
person who perpetuated the divorce to marry again, only that
they do not have to liv with the adulterer. Upon the death of
either of the two, at that point does the other have the right
to marry someone else. Of course, divorce decrees are passed
around as much as marriage licenses these days, and for much
less reasons, but again, I was referencing from a biblical point
of view, and not man's laws.
Also, this comes from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/208703.stm
Charles should marry Camilla - Bishop
One of the UK's most senior churchmen has called for Prince
Charles to marry his partner Camilla Parker Bowles. The Bishop
of Durham, the Right Reverend Michael Turnbull, said it would be
possible for Charles to remarry and still maintain the moral
authority to become head of the Church of England on his
accession to the throne. He said that marriage was "more
desirable morally" than the couple's current situation of
"flux".
When Charles becomes King, he will also adopt the role of
Supreme Governor of the Church - a position that would,
theoretically at least, be impossible should he choose to
remarry. Debate began even before Diana, Princess of Wales, was
killed in a car crash in Paris last year. In early 1997, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, controversially
warned that Charles's remarriage would throw the church into
crisis.
But a recent reports have indicated that opposition, voiced by
more than half of England's bishops in a poll two years ago, has
begun to soften. Responding to these reports, the Bishop of
Durham said: "Morally and ethically it would be more desirable
for them to marry than for the situation to remain as it is."
The prince and Mrs Parker Bowles have made several low-key
appearances together in public in recent months, but there has
been no suggestion from Buckingham Palace that their
relationship will be placed on a more formal footing.
The Bishop of Durham's comments follow an encouraging message
from the Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev Richard Harries, chair of
the Church of England's board of social responsibility. Speaking
to the BBC, Bishop Harries said: "The fact they can get some
support and mutual encouragement from one another, and clearly
have a very deep relationship, I think deserves understanding
and compassion." However, he added that no pressure should be
put on the couple. "Prince Charles has made it quite clear he
and Camilla have no short-term or medium-term plans and I don't
think - whether it's Prince Charles or anyone else - we should
push a couple into any kind of precipitate action."
--
*I'm The Wiz, and I approved this message*
© The Wiz ®
«¤»¥«¤»¥«¤»
Waterlou4
IMO if the Archbishop ever plops the Queen Consort's crown on her head, she
will walk out of the Abbey and into a republic.
Dave B
YES! You know I strongly agree with that Wiz.
----
Dave B
"Some nights are like nothing I've ever seen before or will
again."--Meatloaf
>
>
April Cool
<Kentuck...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Even though Charles and Diana were divorced from a legal point
> of view, they were still married in the eyes of the church. Upon
> the death of Diana, however, Charles was freed from the bonds of
> his first marriage, and therefore it is both from a legal and
> religious standpoint capable to remarry and thus become king if
> it should fall his lot to do so.
I've read that even though Diana is dead and this should leave Charles
free to marry, the fact that he did get a divorce still counts against
him. If Diana had died before the divorce, there would be no problem.
The Brits do go nuts over this kind of thing.
The Kentucky Wizard
Shirley's post didn't come through on my server for some reason,
but to answer her question, I was unaware that Camilla Bowles
had ever been married, but if she is divorced and her ex-husband
is still living, then IMHO, she is still not free to remarry. I
don't know how the church of England views things of that nature
however, but according to the bible, it's considered
unacceptable.
Waterlou4
Then you'd be better off staying out of any Charles/Camilla arguments. FYI in
older photographs, Andrew Parker-Bowles can often be seen in full military rig
riding a horse alongside the Queen's carriage. There are lots of loose ends
hanging around this entire subject.
Barbara Sherrill
"Waterlou4" <wate...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040507073028...@mb-m22.aol.com...
I did not know aout Bowles military service.
The royal family of England has always had an interest with me. What would
have the Queen Mother said if she was still alive about Charles marrying
again?
PirateJohn
Well Barbara ... I don't see you rushing to defend Dubya's record and the
perception that Americans under the Bush Regime have fewer freedoms than before
Bush came along. Especially after about 2 dozen people all said that you were
full of crap.
Let us guess. You are another typical two-faced RepuboNazi who is blind to the
negative things that your boy is doing to the rest of the country, and you just
won't admit it when you've soundly lost an argument. Reich?
~~~~~~~~~
Drug free, no-spin radio: http://www.airamericaradio.com/
Democracy in action: http://www.moveon.org
Like father, like son. One term.
The Kentucky Wizard
>>> I was unaware that Camilla Bowles
> had ever been married<< -- Wiz
>
> Then you'd be better off staying out of any Charles/Camilla
arguments.
Ok, when you agree to stay out of arguments you have absolutely
no knowledge of, which is most of them from my crows nest, then
so will I. ;-)~
Shirley
> Shirley's post didn't come through on my server for some reason,
> but to answer her question, I was unaware that Camilla Bowles
> had ever been married, but if she is divorced and her ex-husband
> is still living, then IMHO, she is still not free to remarry. I
> don't know how the church of England views things of that nature
> however, but according to the bible, it's considered
> unacceptable.
>
> --
> *I'm The Wiz, and I approved this message*
>
> © The Wiz ®
> «¤»¥«¤»¥«¤»
Maybe they will never marry?
The Kentucky Wizard
I think they deserve each other. ;-)~
Waterlou4
have the Queen Mother said if she was still alive about Charles marrying
You may think this an odd answer, Barbara, but the QM would probably have gone
up to the Castle of Mey (her home at the northernmost point in Scotland) and
stayed there until the fuss was over. The question is something for the Queen
and Prime Minister to consider (the Queen does consult with the Duke of
Edinburgh), so there would be no need for the QM to get involved anyway.
If you read enough about her you will discover a pattern of ducking
unpleasantness. For example, she was in bed with (IIRC) flu during the
Abdication Crisis.
Barbara Sherrill
Looks like I need to do some reading. Do you know of any reliable books?
Barb
(always looking for a great/good book to read)
Randy Batterydown
"Barbara Sherrill" <bshe...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:c7h9m7$2...@library1.airnews.net...
>
>
> Looks like I need to do some reading.
>
>Do you know of any reliable books?
>
Remedial English for Dummies
> Barb
> (always looking for a great/good book to read)
>
Well, if it keeps you off of Usenet...
"I am queen of the
bitches." - Barbara Sherrill, 12/17/03
Michael Rhodes
But she really did have 'flu in December, 1936.
Michael Rhodes
If Charles & Camilla could have married in her lifetime with public
support,no revolution or civil unrest, then she'd have gone out and
bought a new hat and loved every minute of it.
Barbara Sherrill
"Michael Rhodes" <migx73all...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e5e1d66.0405...@posting.google.com...
Did the Queen Mum wear as many hats as Elizabeth?
Brian Gleason
"Barbara Sherrill" wrote >
> Did the Queen Mum wear as many hats as Elizabeth?
Yes, exactly as many: 1.
Waterlou4
Barb
Just start reading and don't worry about whether they're reliable. If you
believe the first one you read, you'll find it contradicted by the second.
Then the third, then . . .but eventually you start getting a more
three-dimensional view of the subject. This applies to any subject, not just
the QM.
BTW for a cheap thrill, read
1. any biography of Stalin or Rasputin, AND
2. the biographies of these guys by their daughters
Waterlou4
I believed that for a long time, but after a while I started picking up bits
and pieces in other people's memoirs that made me wonder just a teeny tiny bit.
Right now I am only about 60% sure she had the flu.
Now Michael, please don't ask me to go back through everything I've read in the
past 40 years to find the little tidbits that started building up my doubts.
What I think about all this doesn't matter at all.
>>If Charles & Camilla could have married in her lifetime with public
support,no revolution or civil unrest, then she'd have gone out and
bought a new hat and loved every minute of it.<< -- Michael Rhodes
<gasp> I believe her milliner came to her.
>>Did the Queen Mum wear as many hats as Elizabeth?<< -- Barbara Sherrill
She's wearing a hat in about 99% of all photos of her. The real question is
whether she owned as many hats as her daughter, and the answer has to be about
10 times more, but they all looked the same except for color and fabric.
Harry Krause
>>>But she really did have 'flu in December, 1936.<< -- Michael Rhodes
>
>
> I believed that for a long time, but after a while I started picking up bits
> and pieces in other people's memoirs that made me wonder just a teeny tiny bit.
> Right now I am only about 60% sure she had the flu.
As if it frippin' matters.
Barbara Sherrill
I will start looking around. Just another excuse to hit Barnes and Noble.
For some reason hubby gets very nervous when I walk in to that place. :)
Waterlou4
Hit the secondhand bookstores first, or B&N's secondhand book department.
Randy Batterydown
Same way you and Barbara buy your clothes.
Michael Rhodes
> >>But she really did have 'flu in December, 1936.<< -- Michael Rhodes
>
> I believed that for a long time, but after a while I started picking up bits
> and pieces in other people's memoirs that made me wonder just a teeny tiny bit.
> Right now I am only about 60% sure she had the flu.
>
> Now Michael, please don't ask me to go back through everything I've read in the
> past 40 years to find the little tidbits that started building up my doubts.
> What I think about all this doesn't matter at all.
you may be right--------
I 've had a peek at HM's medical records - - - -
Dec 1936 - Abdication Crisis - - - influenza
Sep 1940 - Battle of Britain - - - nausea
June 1944 - Dunkirk- - - - - - - - tonsilitis
July 1945 - Churchill defeated -- heavy period
Aug 1945 - Hiroshima - - Toothache
June 1950 - Korean War- - - - - - sprained ankle
Feb 1952 - Death of George VI -- Grief
June 1953 - Coronation of daughter-- ingrowing toe-nail
1961 - Erection of Berlin Wall - headache
1962 - Bay of Pigs - - - - - - Swine Vesicular disease
Nov 1963 - Kennedy assasination - - "slight chill"
Oct 1966 - Abervan Disaster - - - - Kidney stones
May 1972 - Death of Duke of Windsor -pleurisy
1972 - Watergate - - - - - - - - waterworks
Sept 1976 - Death of Chairman Mao -- Yellow fever
July 1981 - Charles weds Diana - - - bunting fever
Apl 1982 - Falklands War - - - - - - pnuemogaltiericosis
1984 - Coalminers strike- - - - Bronchitis
Sept 1984 - Birth of Prince Harry - - Gingivitis
1989 - Fall of Berlin Wall - - - Fallen arches
Nov 1990 - Fall of Thatcher - - - - -tenacious mucus
Feb 1992 - Maastricht Treaty - - - - Dutch Elm Disease
Nov 1992 - Windsor Castle fire - - - blazing saddles
Dec 1992 - Charles & Di separate - --laughing death
May 1997 - Tony Blair forms Govt - - pnuemoblairicosis
Aug 1997 - Death of Diana- - - - - - fiatunoicosis
--
Barbara Sherrill
So what did the Queen Mom finally die of? I remember when she died, but I
for the life of me I can't remember the cause of her death.
Michael Rhodes
> migx73all...@yahoo.co.uk (Michael Rhodes) wrote in message news:<4e5e1d66.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > BY PA NEWS
> >
> > Rumours that Camilla Parker Bowles is battling lung cancer were today
> > dismissed as "utterly untrue".
> >
> > The New York Post reported that the partner of the Prince of Wales
> > appeared to have been diagnosed with the disease.
> >
> > But sources close to Mrs Parker Bowles described the report as
> > nonsense, adding: "This is absolutely and utterly untrue."
> >
> > Cindy Adams, a columnist, wrote in the gossip section of the paper
> > that "medical circles in London confirmed the diagnosis. "Camilla, a
> > longtime smoker, appears to be battling cancer."
> >
> > Adams said that she had previously reported that Mrs Parker Bowles had
> > not been well but, unable to confirm the details, had listed it as
> > rumour.
> >
> > Mrs Parker Bowles, 56, is said to have started smoking when she was a
> > 15-year-old schoolgirl.
> >
> > She is now reported to have given up the habit, following sinus
> > trouble and pressure from Prince Charles.
> >
> > Ms Adams wrote in her piece of how she previously broke the story of
> > Jackie Onassis's "terminal diagnosis". Mrs Onassis died of cancer in
> > 1994.
> >
> >
> > -- Michael Rhodes (please delete the x t e-mail me)
> > ***************************************************
>
> Proving once and for all that the Royal Tampon does not cause cancer.
Explain this to me.....very slowly
April Cool
<bshe...@pdq.net> wrote:
> So what did the Queen Mom finally die of? I remember when she died, but I
> for the life of me I can't remember the cause of her death.
Succumbed in childbirth whilst delivering young Prince Ichabod. Sad,
awfully.
Michael Rhodes
She just faded away. The loss of her daughter several weeks earlier
probably helped her on her way.
--
Alasdair Baxter
<sa...@gardenweeds506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>a morganatic marriage
What's one of them?
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"
Alasdair Baxter
wrote:
>Can the future heir to the throne
>marry a divorced person and have it sanctioned by the church?
Why does it have to be sanctioned by the church? Is that written in
statute or merely one of those "conventions"?
Waterlou4
Nah. That would have been alcohol intoxication.
Michael Rhodes
> go...@my-deja.com (TommyBoy) wrote in message news:<48890148.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > migx73all...@yahoo.co.uk (Michael Rhodes) wrote in message news:<4e5e1d66.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > > BY PA NEWS
> > >
> > > Rumours that Camilla Parker Bowles is battling lung cancer were today
> > > dismissed as "utterly untrue".
According to the Daily Express Camilla is back on the fags.
PirateJohn
Which you might want to rephrase ... for the sake of the 'merican readers ;)
~~~~~~~~~
Drug free, no-spin radio: http://www.airamericaradio.com/
Democracy in action: http://www.moveon.org
Like father, like son. One term.
The Kentucky Wizard
>> According to the Daily Express Camilla is back on the fags.
>
> Which you might want to rephrase ... for the sake of the
'merican readers ;)
>
So, it doesn't mean that she's back on Prince Charles? ;-)~
TommyBoy
Weren't there tapes of Charles talking over the phone with Camilla,
declaring his personal envy of her tampon? I know it's just a lovely
thought....
TommyBoy
Weren't there tapes of Charles talking over the phone with Camilla,
TommyBoy
Weren't there tapes of Charles talking over the phone with Camilla,