babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » The Charles & Camiller Wedding Thread

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Charles & Camiller Wedding Thread
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 08 April 2005 04:22 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*sigh*

Since some people seem to need a place to discuss this, here you go... (Fidel & Boom Boom!)

First off...


Charles and Camilla to 'repent their sins'

quote:
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles are to address criticism of their relationship tomorrow by paying penitence for previous "sins and wickedness."

When their marriage is blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury at a hastily rescheduled wedding, the couple will go some way towards acknowledging concerns over the adultery which so angered Diana, Princess of Wales.

During the service at the private St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle, Prince Charles will be asked directly by the Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams, whether he has "resolved to be faithful to your wife, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live?" The Prince will reply: "That is my resolve, with the help of God."

Eschewing more recent updates, the couple will join the congregation in reciting the act of penitence from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

The confessional prayer, written by King Henry VIII's Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, is considered to be the strongest act of penitence in the Church of England.

The Prince and the new Duchess of Cornwall will join in, saying: "We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings."

A spokesman for the Church of England played down the significance, saying it was said before communion services every Sunday. "Don't forget it will be said by everyone in the congregation and that includes the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition," he said.



From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 April 2005 04:29 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That is funny, seeing as adultery has always been the "sport of kings" (along with polo).

By the way, no objection to calling Chuck, Anne or any of the rest of the crew "horse-faced", "inbred" or whatever. I do seethe about the comparisons of Camilla (who is 57) to Diana (who was 19 at the time of the big wedding, and depended on an extremely high-maintenance regimen to look the way she did when she was pushing 40). It is very uncool when our republican sentiments are a smokescreen for ageism and sexism. The only thing I like about the marriage of those silly, superfluous people is that they seem very enamoured of each other well into middle age. We aren't dead yet.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 April 2005 04:31 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let's not get huffy. I was simply responding to a comment I read on the Pope thread.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 08 April 2005 04:36 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So who is getting up early to watch the wedding?

Anyone?

Anyone?


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 April 2005 04:37 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sticking it to you or anyone else, Boom Boom, just standing up for my cohort!
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 April 2005 04:39 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
I'm not sticking it to you or anyone else, Boom Boom, just standing up for my cohort!

You _did_ mean co-horses, neigh?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 08 April 2005 04:40 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
It is very uncool when our republican sentiments are a smokescreen for ageism and sexism.

It's also a matter of roles in the drama, I think. If Camilla had been the spouse, and Diana the mistress, I think there'd have been significantly less discussion of their relative attractiveness.

FWIW, I'm not a republican. I like constitutional monarchy as a form of government. I'd just like to figure out a way to do it without having actual monarchs. I'd like to see all powers of the Crown vested in the GG, with the GG chosen by the PM and leader of the Opposition.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 April 2005 04:41 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
So who is getting up early to watch the wedding? Anyone? Anyone?

Is the wedding going to be televised? I thought it was closed to the public, with the great unwashed invited to the Prayers and Blessing afterward.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 April 2005 04:46 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sucker for ritual here, so I will watch whatever they let us watch.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 08 April 2005 04:49 AM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's also a matter of roles in the drama, I think. If Camilla had been the spouse, and Diana the mistress, I think there'd have been significantly less discussion of their relative attractiveness.


I certainly don't support mocking persons appearance but you are right. Persons tend to be less than charitable to the person who is a mistress. Persons also imagine adultery as about sexual attraction so they expect that a mistress would have very observable signs of traditional beauty. In this situation Diana better represented traditional beauty. It was a puzzle piece for onlookers who see adultery in terms of lust what the decision making points were for behind Charles' choice of her over Diana. It's a regrettable way of examining people's worth and value but she was an adulteress so I can't see myself getting too ruffled about it.

I did find it amusing that even in death the Pope managed to interfere with adultery. His wedding date even got bumped.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 April 2005 04:59 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He was an adulterer too, and if the stories are to be believed, was devious to Diana about his longterm relationship with Camilla. Camilla and her hubby, like many aristocratic types (don't know if she is actually titled or just landed gentry, but that class of people) seemed to have the type of marriage that was about property and inheritance in which both parties could pretty much do what they liked once a heir and a spare had been produced. Staying together officially not for the sake of the children, but of the properties... That is an old upper-class custom in many European cultures.

But Hailey, hey, they are making it legal now. I don't see the point in flagellating anyone for past "sins"...

I don't see the point of the bloody royals either, but that is a whole other topic. Put them to work!


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 April 2005 05:04 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why on earth does anyone believe that Charles was the only "adulterer" or even the first? You'd have to be a believer in the tabloids to think that we know the real history of that first marriage.

And why on earth are we speaking of "adultery" in the C21 anyway? To me, that word is in itself a sin against intelligence and humanity: it is a moral judgement passed on someone else's private life, which is a silly thing for any of us to be doing.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 April 2005 05:07 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I heartily agree skdadl. I'm just annoyed at all the "scarlet woman" stuff about Camilla, and the sexist / ageist crap "what did he see in her anyway".
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 April 2005 05:11 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Me too. I think we're agreeing. Well, you and I are, anyway.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 April 2005 05:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heh. Adulteress. Haven't heard that word in a while.

Anyhow, I agree with lagatta and skdadl, of course. Besides which, considering that Charles and Camilla were likely having sex long before his wedding to Diana, one could even say that in fact Charles was cheating on Camilla by marrying Diana! That is, if we're going to get all ruffled about adultery and labelling people.

I actually get quite a kick out of the fact that Charles has turned the midlife crisis thing on its ear. Seeking solace from an older, less attractive woman while he's married to a much younger, beautiful wife...it's a nice twist on the cliche, you know?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 April 2005 05:28 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes! Go, old grils!
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 08 April 2005 10:20 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
skdadl —

I b'lieve the modern vernacular term is "geezer babes"...


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 08 April 2005 11:03 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a "small r" republican, I would like to take this opportunity to wish long life for both Charles and Camilla.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 April 2005 11:06 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll go along with that. But I think there is increasingly dissatisfaction with the monarchy in general among the Brits. C & C have to be absolutely proper and careful to keep the monarchy from collapsing on itself. The monarchy is too important to UK tourism dollars for the Brits to ever give it up.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 08 April 2005 11:16 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They could just open up-
Windsey Land

From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 08 April 2005 01:46 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Instead of the more recent and moderate prayers of penitence written for divorcees, the Prince and the new Duchess of Cornwall will then join the congregation in reading what is regarded as the most severe act of penitence from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

The confession reads: "We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed."


Eep!


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 08 April 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From what I understand, Charles has been smitten with Camilla (and she him) since they were young, but wasn't permitted to marry her -- she wasn't "suitable" for some reason.

I'm glad they're getting married, finally, although all those years of pointless cruelty to Charles, Camilla and Diana should fall squarely at the feet of Elizabeth. She's the one who could have prevented it.

You can't treat people like breeding stock and expect them to behave themselves, for heaven's sake.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 April 2005 07:10 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think IIRC that Camilla was a commoner and also divorced.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 08 April 2005 07:11 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not when she and Charles first became involved -- but she wasn't a virgin, either. Hence, unsuitable. Like it really matters.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 April 2005 07:14 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The 'Prayer of General Confession' in the Anglican Church of Canada's 1959/62 Book of Common Prayer - the same prayer that will be used by Charles and Camilla - was used at every service of Morning and Evening Prayer, and also at the Service of Holy Communion.

The ACC now has a more recent book - The Book of Alternative Services of 1985, where the Celebrant can pick and chooose between like prayers, or has the option of omitting the General Confession altogether and using a shorter version in the Intercession.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 08 April 2005 07:23 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
He was an adulterer too, and if the stories are to be believed, was devious to Diana about his longterm relationship with Camilla.

Yes, he was an adulterer. And, yes, the stories do show that. Evidently on his wedding day he wore cufflinks that were a gift from Camila and invited Ms. Camila to his nuptials. How lovely!

quote:
But Hailey, hey, they are making it legal now. I don't see the point in flagellating anyone for past "sins"...

It's a living reality.


quote:
And why on earth are we speaking of "adultery" in the C21 anyway? To me, that word is in itself a sin against intelligence and humanity: it is a moral judgement passed on someone else's private life, which is a silly thing for any of us to be doing.


According to the dictionary it means "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse". It applies. The judgement comes from how you feel about it.


quote:
Besides which, considering that Charles and Camilla were likely having sex long before his wedding to Diana, one could even say that in fact Charles was cheating on Camilla by marrying Diana!

They were certainly intimate for a very long period of time. They were intimate throughout her marriage. Diana was not cheating because she may have earnestly believed that that relationship was over. She made that judgement amongst much innocence. She was, what, 19?

quote:
I actually get quite a kick out of the fact that Charles has turned the midlife crisis thing on its ear. Seeking solace from an older, less attractive woman while he's married to a much younger, beautiful wife...it's a nice twist on the cliche, you know?


There is an amusing twist to it, true. It's far overshadowed by the negatives.

quote:
From what I understand, Charles has been smitten with Camilla (and she him) since they were young, but wasn't permitted to marry her -- she wasn't "suitable" for some reason.

I understood it was because she wasn't a virgin and they wanted a woman without a past.

quote:
You can't treat people like breeding stock and expect them to behave themselves, for heaven's sake.

Charles had the option of abdicating as another family member had done. He chose instead to live a life based on deceit. Everyone has choices.

You are right though that the milieu that exists doesn't make good moral decisions easy. Persons are put in unenviable decisions.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 April 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"When Diana Spencer became engaged to Charles Windsor, Prince Philip said: 'At least she will breed some height into the line.'
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 April 2005 01:02 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Camilla and Chuck should have children after they're hitched. Because it's medically possible for older women to have children now.

What would their kids look like .... Think of the look on that famous Hollywood animal actor, Ed the talking horse. Now picture Ed with taxi cab doors for ears after he's licked a thicket of English stinging nettles. (naying)

Sorry lagatta. Yes, Camilla is still attractive in her own way. She's actually a handsome woman, and I say that in the way that only a male could understand. It's just that we hate them for being as filthy rich and privileged as they are.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 03:20 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
According to the dictionary it means "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse". It applies. The judgement comes from how you feel about it.

Hailey, there are a great many words in the dictionary, including racist terms, eg, that no decent person would use to wound others. My judgement is not passed on Camilla's private life, about which I have little trustworthy knowledge and no right to agitate, but on a word that is intrinsically wicked, in my view, as wicked as a racist term, and on anyone who would consider herself to have licence to wield it against others.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 April 2005 04:01 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
skdadl, you remind me of a long-favorite quote of mine on the subject of "bastards"...

quote:
There is no such thing as an illegitimate child; only illegitimate parents.
— George Bernard Shaw

And btw, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that so many who are sniffy about poor ol' Camiller and her "tawdry" carrying on with Horseface are usually such ardent monarchists and/or happy devotees of "Cookie" (the Queen mum). Truth be told, Horseface only got married to Diana Spencer at the insistance of his family, most notably his domineering asshole of a father and the most meddlesome busybody going, "Cookie". Indeed, while he was prepared to dig in his heels with everyone else, the world's most overgrown dependant was apparently unable to resist the entreaties (read machinations and demands) of his doting grandmother.

So, the second-most-adored member of the "royal" family set in motion the wheels that eventually led to the death of the first-most-adored member of that parasitic clan. Talk about "hubris", not to mention "poetic justice", no? Too bad a young girl's life got so screwed up by the whole thing.

(And yes, as a small-r-republican, I do hate myself for knowing all this, thanks for asking.)


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 04:16 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The happy couple are married!
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 04:17 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What? I thought coverage didn't start on TV till 9. Off to have a look.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 04:22 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's still Mr DressUp. Prayer service and blessing on TV at 9.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 April 2005 04:29 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think I prefer Mr. Dressup.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 09 April 2005 04:31 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh boy. The media has found something to cover even more inconsequential than the Pope's funeral.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 04:35 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heartless!
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 04:38 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
What? I thought coverage didn't start on TV till 9. Off to have a look.

They were married at 7 am our time. The Blessing/Prayer Service (in the company of HRH the Queen) starts at 9 am our time.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 04:39 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought it would be fun to see them at the registry office, standing in line with the other couples.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 April 2005 04:41 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Heartless!

Hee hee! Poor skdadl, alone in her romantic appreciation for the nuptials of the world's most overgrown dependent.

(That is one of the funniest descriptions of Chas. I've seen yet, btw. I'm going to be using that on a regular basis, I think!)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 09 April 2005 04:58 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Better make it two, then, Michelle. I can't be negative about this after seeing the short stick-end that Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend got handed fifty years ago. Anyone in the Royal Family that achieves happiness (indeed, anyone in the world that achieves it) without affecting my potential and future happiness is A-OK. Bit like SSM, really.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 April 2005 05:02 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I will admit that I'm kind of happy for them too.

But the temptation to use "world's most overgrown dependent" in a sentence was too great. And while I'm happy for them, I have no desire to see it become a media spectacle for the next week.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 April 2005 05:09 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, Fidel, I can out "les aristocrates à la lanterne" you any time. (Edith Piaf gave an especially stirring rendition, in her Parisian East-Ender voice...). I don't give a crap about the royals and thinks they should all have to get real jobs - but I do not like our justified resentment of these privileged, useless and filty rich people - who don't even pay taxes, remember - to become an excuse for a Charivari against a middle-aged woman who still has sexual thoughts and feelings. Some of the comments I hear on the radio and in the press - often by biddies older than Camilla - set women's rights in that regard back decades if not a century.

Edited to add the theme song, "La Carmagnole" ("Ça ira")

[ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 April 2005 05:26 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Biddies"???

Et tu, lagatta?


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 09 April 2005 05:35 AM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hailey, there are a great many words in the dictionary, including racist terms, eg, that no decent person would use to wound others. My judgement is not passed on Camilla's private life, about which I have little trustworthy knowledge and no right to agitate, but on a word that is intrinsically wicked, in my view, as wicked as a racist term, and on anyone who would consider herself to have licence to wield it against others.

Thanks for answering. You are correct that all of the details are things that is difficult to be 100% confident about. I believe it is confirmed, however, that they had a sexual relationship throughout his marriage to Diana. Beyond all of the reports it was acknowledged by both the Prince and Princess in separate television interviews. According to the Princess it was not an agreed upon relationship as part of an open marriage but a choice made between the two parties without consultation with herself. That meets the definition of adultery even if we don't know the context or the details.
Persons comfort level with adultery probably fluctuates with whether or not they feel that there is any context that makes adultery acceptable. I have a very limited context where I believe that adultery could be argued as moral.

If you think that a person would have to be wicked or not decent to use it that's absolutely fair for you to hold that view.

quote:
And btw, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that so many who are sniffy about poor ol' Camiller and her "tawdry" carrying on with Horseface are usually such ardent monarchists and/or happy devotees of "Cookie" (the Queen mum

Honestly what is more hypocritical is that many of the persons comparing Camilla with Diana and drawing negative conclusions would not fair well if they were compared to Diana either.

quote:
Truth be told, Horseface only got married to Diana Spencer at the insistance of his family, most notably his domineering asshole of a father and the most meddlesome busybody going, "Cookie". Indeed, while he was prepared to dig in his heels with everyone else, the world's most overgrown dependant was apparently unable to resist the entreaties (read machinations and demands) of his doting grandmother.

I didn't understand that he had any specific opposition to Diana but just resisted the whole idea that it was "time" to marry and found it difficult that so many girls were screened out because of their past.

Regardless, a man with noteworthy courage abdicated the throne so that he could marry the woman he loved. That is admirable. Lying to a 19 year old girl? No, sorry I won't express admiration for that.

You can be a grown man, a future leader of a Nation, and the future Head of the Church and you can't open your mouth to convey that you will not marry under duress? How terribly sad.

quote:
Better make it two, then, Michelle. I can't be negative about this after seeing the short stick-end that Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend got handed fifty years ago.

Meaning?


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 April 2005 05:35 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I guess like ironic racism, ironic ageism is verboten on babble. But hey, you started the "geezer babes".

Of course I'm talking about all those Middle Britain ladies interviewed about how old and homely Camilla is ...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 06:30 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I watched the service of Prayer and Blessing, and I'm thankful it's over and went without a hitch. I hope Charles and Camilla will happilly grow old together. All of the Royals have been through considerable angst and turmoil in their lives, as well as having been through microscopic overview of their lives by the public they are called to serve. I must add, that contrary to my previous remarks, Charles and Camilla look quite good together. I think they're aging rather well. I'm feeling considerable empathy for Charles today, realizing his mother will likely be Queen for another 20 years if not longer. He'll always be in her shadow. However, he does lead a very privileged life as do all the Royals, so my advice would be to just carry on.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 06:46 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The ceremony was lovely; it really was. They chose some interesting pieces of music -- most striking of all was a gorgeous (in both senses) Russian contralto who sang part of the Russian Orthodox liturgy, backed up by the Windsor boy's choir -- stunning interlude.

And all those cute li'l boy sopranos -- awwwww.

The Philharmonia Orchestra was parked at the roodscreen and did some lovely amplifications of the organ during the hymns.

But my God! The things women wear to weddings! Why do women do that to themselves? Pastel confections, most of them looking so uncomfortable -- horrifying. That was almost the first thing we saw, as the guests walked from lunch to the chapel, and it put me off rather.

Camilla looked good, though. She had worn a cream dress and coat to the registry office, which I liked better than the long, trailing gown she wore to the chapel, but then I suppose the long gown looks better during the ceremony -- for the kneeling, y'know.

There were a lot of Philip Treacy (sp?) crooked-mushroom hats. Camilla had one in the morning; to the chapel she wore a feathery headdress thingy.

And I saw Mr Bean among the guests.

[ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 06:50 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Regardless, a man with noteworthy courage abdicated the throne so that he could marry the woman he loved. That is admirable. Lying to a 19 year old girl? No, sorry I won't express admiration for that.

You can be a grown man, a future leader of a Nation, and the future Head of the Church and you can't open your mouth to convey that you will not marry under duress? How terribly sad.


Hailey, you have just described a Nazi-sympathizer who abdicated in order to marry a Nazi spy as "admirable."

And yet for a man who obviously struggled with his conscience for years and has at long last found adult love, you feel pity and condescension.

Nice scale of values there.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 April 2005 06:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know what you mean, skdadl, about the dresses. I enjoyed wearing my Cinderella wedding dress when I got married, but if I were to do it again, I think I'd wear red.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 09 April 2005 06:58 AM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hailey, you have just described a Nazi-sympathizer who abdicated in order to marry a Nazi spy as "admirable." And yet for a man who obviously struggled with his conscience for years and has at long last found adult love, you feel pity and condescension.Nice scale of values there

I wasn't familiar with those pieces of history. You are right. Nothing about that is admirable. Thank you for drawing that to my attention. I stand corrected.

I don't know if Charles struggled with his conscience.

I'll agree he has found later in life love.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 07:02 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, it was the guests who were dressed funny! Camilla and the royal ladies were mostly pretty toned-down and trim, except for some of the teens, but they can carry off flippier stuff. Princess Beatrice especially -- you should see the little eye-flutterer.

But all those English ladies in their pastels ... I couldn't get over it. Why?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 07:55 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is the poem that Andrew Motion, the poet laureate, produced. Not bad, given everything.


quote:

Spring Wedding


I took your news outdoors, and strolled a while
In silence on my square of garden-ground
Where I could dim the roar of arguments,
Ignore the scandal-flywheel whirring round,
And hear instead the green fuse in the flower
Ignite, the breeze stretch out a shadow-hand
To ruffle blossom on its sticking points,
The blackbirds sing, and singing take their stand.
I took your news outdoors, and found the Spring
Had honoured all its promises to start
Disclosing how the principles of earth
Can make a common purpose with the heart.
The heart which slips and sidles like a stream
Weighed down by winter-wreckage near its source -
But given time, and come the clearing rain,
Breaks loose to revel in its proper course.


Andrew Motion



From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 April 2005 08:03 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, it is hard to write "poems of circumstance" that aren't ghastly or embarrassing. I liked spring as an image of renewal and hope, and not of youth as it is usually used.

Oh yes, if I ever do get married (for practical purposes) I'd most definitely be in red - a deep cherry red, but not quite wine (though it would hide the spills from the wild party afterwards).


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 09 April 2005 09:31 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought the music was magnificent; skdadl, I agree with you about the contralto who sang the Creed from the Russian Orthodox liturgy. The procession up the aisle, singing the old Anglican hymn was also impressive. (One of the cross-bearers looked like The Vicar of Dibblee. )

Camilla's outfits were both lovely. I thought she looked better at the registry office, however, not because of how she was dressed but because she looked terribly nervous for the blessing.


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 09 April 2005 10:07 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

The outfits are indeed nice, but the WTF is up with that headgear? I've seen these types of hats in Jenners and other posh-ish department stores for hundred of pounds or more even! o_O Why? Why would anyone wear them? What is compelling these people?

/end rant


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 10:11 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought the osprey feather hat was quite fetching and elegant. What's wrong with it? There was one person wearing what looked like a bramble bush on her head. I though Camilla was very understated by comparsion to some of the women's hats. The Queen looked quietly elegant as well, with a white hat.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 09 April 2005 10:14 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
dokidoki, our commentators said that Camilla's headdress was fashioned after a brooch which had belonged to her much-beloved late mother.
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 10:21 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Boom Boom, Bramble Bush was Camilla's daughter, Laura. She's quite pretty, I thought, and the son is nice looking too.

Sharon: I missed the Vicar of Dibley? Drat. I love her.

That was the last television show that Fang could enjoy watching, I think because you can enjoy it without following the plot -- it's made up of little character-actor turns all the way through, and they are funny all in themselves, one after another.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 09 April 2005 10:31 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That was the only picture I could find of a silly hat, and yes, it's understated compared to some. But, I must insist that the whole lot of these hats are fugly in the extreme. IMHO. Not that the royals are alone in wearing items that are both hideous and hideously expensive.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 09 April 2005 10:32 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Vicar of Dibley. I kind of thought I had spelled that wrong. I know somebody whose last name is Dibblee and no doubt that's why it was in my mind.

Dan wasn't here when that part of the wedding was playing. When I told him my Vicar of Dibley sighting, he said, "Well, maybe it *was* her." Wouldn't that be great if it were?

You're right, skdadl -- it was funny and you could look at it on different levels. It was irreverent without being disrespectful.

Sorry everyone. Back to the wedding now.


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 11:15 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I love _The Vicar of Dibley_. I've got the book, and have seen some of the Vicar episodes on VHS - there's a hilarious wedding episode.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 11:17 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heph, would you mind changing "Camiller" in the thread title to "Camilla" - thanks!
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 11:19 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
[QB]Boom Boom, Bramble Bush was Camilla's daughter, Laura. She's quite pretty, I thought, and the son is nice looking too. QB]

Laura is _gorgeous_. But that bramble bush on her head was hilarious!


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 09 April 2005 11:23 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's with the "before God as *man* and *wife*" bit? Shouldn't it be "husband and wife", or does the women turn into something different (the wife) in order to join up with the "man" who doesn't lose his "mandom" but gains a wife?
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 11:37 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They're taking their time to update in the C of E, aren't they.

But No Yards, be thankful for small mercies. At least no one "gave" anyone else "away."

Actually, if my dad had been alive when we got married, I think I would still have wanted to include him in the stroll down the aisle (a very short aisle) just to include him. Our minister, though, was very much opposed to the giving-away part, and seemed almost relieved when I told him that my dad was no longer with us.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 April 2005 11:41 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Heph, would you mind changing "Camiller" in the thread title to "Camilla" - thanks!

Not until the bloody Limeys learn to speak English without adding a superfluous "r" onto the end of words that end in a vowel...

like "idear" and "Canader"...


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 09 April 2005 11:42 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My impression was that Charles and Camilla were doing their best to enjoy their day and feel happy while also appearing contrite and bowing to tradition. I think that's why "man and wife" showed up -- because I'm pretty sure even the Anglicans now mostly say "husband and wife."
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 12:07 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Although the service used today was from the BCP of 1662, the expression "man and wife" also appears in the 1928 BCP used in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church of the USA and the 1959/62 BCP of the Anglican Church in Canada, and the 1662, 1928, and 1959/62 BCP's are still used in some churches today, although each of these also have modern liturgies which use much more modern language, in the vernacular, as it were.

From the 1928 edition of the ECUSA BCP:
FORASMUCH as N. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth, each to the other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving a Ring, and by joining hands; I pronounce that they are Man and Wife, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 12:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, and a wedding can do funny things to your head, too.

Our minister was such a liberal (Dutch Reformed, but ok'd to do United, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc etc etc services) that I was tempted to start demanding more and more tradition. When he gave us the pasteurized texts for the service, I started quizzing him about more traditional texts. Finally he got up and went to his bookshelf, pulled down an ancient volume, and began to read to us from what I am sure was a C19 Presbyterian service -- doom, gloom, hellfire and brimstone, boy.

So I gave up and stopped him and said that the pasteurized version would be ok. And it was, mainly because Fang, so cool during the run-up, sobbed his way through the whole thing.

I, having practised so much because I was afraid I would fall apart, zipped through my part semi-bored.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 April 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good night, Boom Boom. That is quite the library you've got there.

Can you do C19 Presbyterian doom and gloom?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Many (not all) Prayer Books are on the Internet. The Presbyterians _probably_ as well. Google MIGHT dig it up for you.

[ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 09 April 2005 12:57 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I gotta say, I caught a glimpse of the wedding on the news, and it was nice to see Camilla smile (genuinely, as far I could tell). Different from seeing her so stone-faced for so many years. I always kind of liked Camilla (as much as I cared), because she reminds me of those mannish but affable British actresses I like so much (Lynne Redgrave, Maggie Smith, Frances de la Tour...)

I wonder if Camilla does camp?

[ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
baba yaga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6781

posted 09 April 2005 12:58 PM      Profile for baba yaga     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good grief, it's like watching a pointless episode of Masterpiece Theatre (even had the musical intro in there), sumptuously and expensively costumed and artfully filmed. I like MT, but this is really happening - all the bowing, scraping and lining up to get a glimpse, even a handshake. This dysfunctional family is a Corporation and embodies all that the left rails against in terms of unearned privelege & wealth. I would never bow to another human being.

In the US:


quote:
Cathie Farrel of Women's Entertainment, which boasts a show called "Young, Sexy and Royal," said the channel's target audience of 25- to 54-year-old women were big royal watchers.

"The royals are something that's interesting because it's like a soap opera."


I don't feel I need to qualify my comments with the usual drivel about them deserving happiness, blah-blah-blah. I just don't think that people's family lives are material for my entertainment.


From: urban forests | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by baba yaga:
[QB]Good grief, it's like watching a pointless episode of Masterpiece Theatre (even had the musical intro in there), sumptuously and expensively costumed and artfully filmed.

I love MT. We can be thankful the Royal Wedding isn't _Coronation Street_!!!


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 09 April 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
...it's like watching a pointless episode of Masterpiece Theatre (even had the musical intro in there), sumptuously and expensively costumed and artfully filmed. I like MT, but this is really happening - all the bowing, scraping and lining up to get a glimpse, even a handshake. This dysfunctional family is a Corporation and embodies all that the left rails against in terms of unearned privelege & wealth.

Where do you think the BBC gets its television concepts from? Wouldn't you have just died to be among the crowd and hear all the witty, catty, comically inane things being said by all of these glitterati? Wouldn't you have just died to be the disaffected cynic among them, all at once amused and appalled by the absurdity of it all? Wouldn't you have been floored by the elaborate open bars?

I'd have killed to have been there.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 April 2005 01:20 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Me, too, Hinterland (great minds think alike, no?).
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 April 2005 02:37 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gay marriage protest at Royal Wedding
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 April 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was talking with me old mum and mentioned the wedding to her. In a faint Yorkshire accent mum says, "They should bugger off and leave everyone alone. Damned leeches. They think they're shit doesn't stink." [She changes subject to, where's my Licorice Allsorts?].
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 April 2005 03:34 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
May the newlyweds live long and happy lives together, and have plenty of fat little babies.

There.

The rest of it is none of my business.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 09 April 2005 04:09 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does no one but me see the romance in this.

Charles, while quite wierd, is incredibly wealthy, famous and moderately powerful and could if he chose so sleep with all kinds of attractive sexy women (or men) but he has chosen to marry his wrinkled old lover of 30 years.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
redneck leftie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4681

posted 09 April 2005 04:40 PM      Profile for redneck leftie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is my first post on Babble, it seemed the safest place to try my typing skills. I am (don't know the present vernacular) an aging, post-menopausal hippie. So while I enjoyed reading these posts, I must say I am far too literal for this thread. To close a few gaps, Camilla actually helped Charles choose his bride. That's conspiracy. They kind of deserve each other, seeing how they both see the world from their bellies, while slithering on the ground and leaving trails. Also, Charles dying wish was to come back as Camilla's Tampon. Here's hoping that at least that comes true. Although she is for sure post-menopausal, so I believe his next dying wish is to come back as Camilla's estrogen vaginal lubricant. Gawd judging by how she 'appears' (even spas can't give your cheeks that glow) he'll need it.
From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 April 2005 04:42 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's all about keeping up appearances. They love inanimate things, money and security, but not people. They fuck but not love.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 09 April 2005 05:18 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
keeping up appearances.

Good program.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 April 2005 05:35 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Redneck, it is not "safe" to insult women for ageing. I hate the ruling class a durned sight more than a lot of people on this board, but that is nothing but sexism.

Make them work at real jobs, tax their income, expropriate their superfluous dwellings, but for god's sake none of this sexist and ageist crap! If it were only impinging on that silly woman, I wouldn't waste my time, but I think there are far nastier undercurrents at play.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
redneck leftie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4681

posted 09 April 2005 06:15 PM      Profile for redneck leftie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But Legatta I'm aging and I'm okay with it. As far as sexism is concerned, how was my post sexist at all? Come on, we will all need vaginal lubricant cream at some point. In fact, it's quite fun, cos it makes all of us so vulnerable. In fact, it's frigging hilarious at how vulnerable it makes us. I mean, those of us who still like sex and all.
From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 09 April 2005 06:36 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are far nastier undercurrents indeed to a lot of the criticism I've heard leveled at Camilla (like the woman in the 7-11 this morning who said 'hey, now he's married the beauty and the beast'). It seems to me that the blessed sainted Diana of late lamented memory fits a lot of people's model of what a Princess should be (pretty, blonde and thin - and, being dead, she can't get fat, cranky and wrinkly), and Camilla does not (although, she is actually rather attractive for a woman in her fifties). A lot of the criticism I've heard is the sort of thing that, if you said that about my mother, I'd punch you.
Frankly, I'd love to be rid of the royals, I'm as republican as anyone, but I feel no need to denigrate either Charles or Camilla - I'm glad they're marrying (as much as I care, which I isn't very much), and I would much rather they'd have been left to their own devices to be together years ago. Of course, I imagine the whole Charles-Diana union was forced upon that weak boy-man by his overbearing parents desperate to marry him off to a pretty virgin recepticle for the royal seed.

From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 09 April 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Redneck, it is not "safe" to insult women for ageing. I hate the ruling class a durned sight more than a lot of people on this board, but that is nothing but sexism.

Eh? I don't even get this. Lagatta, are you indulging, once more, in your usual "trial by fire" where you force newbies into a confrontation?

Honestly, Lagatta...sometimes I really don't understand your hostility.

(...God, I'm going to regret this...)


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 April 2005 06:48 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"An heir and a spare" - As for the post above yours, it is so utterly creepy as to raise a red flag - speculation about other people's body fluids and gloating in that.

I couldn't care less about the royals - except that their property and assets should be taxed and they should lose all their other silly privileges - but I care deeply about the hideous things being said about the worth and the sexuality of middle-aged women (the übercreepy post above is a telling example).


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 April 2005 06:53 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hinterland, read what the supposed newbie wrote (actually s/he posted at least once some time back, if you check the posting history). Creepy. You are no softer on people who write homophobic crap. It was a disgusting post.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 09 April 2005 07:01 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I am so sorry Lagatta. As much as I wanted to challenge you on...hostility....(eh?)... Redneck Leftie is a total liar.

Hey, Redneck Leftie...your first post wasn't today. It was the 23rd of November, 2003.

[ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 09 April 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know, I just re-read Redneck Leftie's post in this thread, and I remember (I remember everything, by the way) thinking "oh, this poor woman; she's old and deluded.

It's awful how the fascists prey on our humanity, isn't it?

[ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 11 April 2005 12:07 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Here is the poem that Andrew Motion, the poet laureate, produced. Not bad, given everything.

No, not bad. And it's appropriate that it should have a lot of garden imagery, because Charles is so fond of gardening.

Charles doesn't strike me as a strong person, but I know plenty of people just in my workplace who aren't strong. People who none of them have the guts to, for instance, grieve when management's pulling something that they're clearly going to pull on a lot of other people and the longer they get away with it the worse it will get. But these people in my workplace aren't *bad* people, and neither I think is Charles. He's just this guy, moderately intelligent, shy, kind of homely but not unusually ugly, just uglier than the movie stars you normally see on TV, with unpopular interests (gardening, architecture, horsey stuff), and fairly good intentions but not a ton of courage. It often seems to me that at the same time as people are consciously egalitarian and bugged by the royals on that basis, they simultaneously feel somehow cheated that the royals aren't superbeings. Strip that away and I'd say, measured against the average guy at work, or maybe that you see browsing in the library, Charles is pretty normal.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 April 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rufus: Yup.

And one thing more about the poem: Yeats and Chaucer both, I think. Quite well done. Wouldn't have occurred to me, eg, which is why I am not the Poet Laureate, I guess.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca