PDA

View Full Version : Charles and Camila



skydivvy
10-Feb-05, 11:40
So Charles and Camila are finally going to tie the knot! Not before time I say!

Fifi
10-Feb-05, 11:48
I agree, I think it's great news. They look right together and I hope that they manage to get through this without too much slagging off. They deserve a second chance and should have been allowed to marry 30 years ago!

All I hope is that the Diana fanatics don't start jumping up and putting in their twopence worth. All that is in the past.

katarina
10-Feb-05, 13:13
I do think Diana was badly treated, but that was more the fault of the whole royal set up which were trying to hold on to the old values where the future queen had to be scandal free, than that of Charles. they thought Diana would be a meek little mouse and allow herself to be moulded any way they chose, while Charles discretely carried on his affair with the woman he really loved.
But times have changed, and the royal family should have moved with them.
The queen did her duty, whether or not she was happy with the duke of Edinburgh. They can't expect commoners to have the same sense of duty - they were never brought up to it. My heart is still with Di, but Charles should be allowed to have some happiness.

Sandra
10-Feb-05, 13:25
So Charles and Camila are finally going to tie the knot!

Who cares!!!!!! I don't.

brandy
10-Feb-05, 13:50
im happy for them.. and i agree they should have married years ago.. and diana and charles should have never happened.. but at least william and harry came from that marrige!
what i dont understand is why could they have not done this years ago?
if they can make her princess consort now why not 30 years ago?

307
10-Feb-05, 15:17
Is there going to be a publlic holiday ?
if not then the majority of the population couldn't give a toss.

The cynical amongst us would say that there must be a tax dodge here given the date of the nuptials and Charlies well-published aversion to paying tax....... :D

Are any of you lot going to the stag party ? No ? then sod it, just another yahoos night out........ :lol:

Gives the media and especially the cartoonists a whole lot of fodder though...... we'll ge a good few laughs out of this.

...... and Good Luck to them both - they look like they deserve each other...... :cool:

concerned resident
10-Feb-05, 15:20
Prince Charles is a complete waste of the tax payers money, He did the dirty on Princess
Diana, Now we are going to have to pay to keep his new woman. (and he is to be the head of the Church) Its time Scotland realized, the Royalty are History, and not required in this day and age.

trinkie
10-Feb-05, 15:29
He's not head of the Church of Scotland - I think you'll find God is..

brandy
10-Feb-05, 15:50
did the dirty on diana? *grins* she did the dirty with several men *grins* so its like the pot calling teh kettle black! not that im condoning it.. two wrongs dont make a right.. they should have never married anyway

golach
10-Feb-05, 20:14
So Charles and Camila are finally going to tie the knot!

Who cares!!!!!! I don't.

Sandra you are so right.....Who cares.....not me......and Diana was only there to produce an heir and a spare

doreenhedgehog
10-Feb-05, 20:43
Congratulations to them both. I hope they keep up the tradition of coming to Caithness as well. The Royal Family and the Castle of Mey is one of the few things to bring tourists into Caithness, and some of us should remember that.

Brizer2k2
10-Feb-05, 22:50
The Royal Family are a big joke....................wont make much difference to me and millions of others in The UK.

Let them go to Gretna and save a fortune and many hours of all tv stations Royal grovelling for their MBE's etc.

~~Tides~~
11-Feb-05, 12:42
So Charles and Camila are finally going to tie the knot! Not before time I say!

Is it going to affect us one bit in any shape or form?

The Angel Of Death
11-Feb-05, 13:46
The russians had the best idea when it came to royals

Get rid of them all i say there all a joke and a waste of space and money would be better spending it on other things rather than tea parties

Buzz
11-Feb-05, 19:58
Why do so many pepole in caithness care about them!
I think it is all a bit sad really that so many pepole who call them self scots care for these two, He is the prince of another country not scotland and I would also like to add that I think we should not welcome them with open arms if they come up to caithness as if they were heros. :evil

doreenhedgehog
11-Feb-05, 20:09
Buzz, that is the most pathetic, thing I've heard for some time. Read some history books instead of listening to what your mate told you in the playground.

The Royal Family have very strong links with Caithness, whether you like it or not.I for one hope it continues.

Buzz
11-Feb-05, 20:35
Well doreenhedgehog i have read my history books and the last time i read them we as scots have our own crown that sits on no one's head plus us scots was sold down the river for english gold and the only scots to profit at the time was the noble's and the common that's me and you doreenhedgehog had no say in what happend plus the english tried to ban our whiskey and the kilt. Any way i am not anti english before you think so as i have a friend who is english and even he thinks the royal family is a joke .
[evil]

Rheghead
11-Feb-05, 20:40
I think it is all a bit sad really that so many pepole who call them self scots care for these two, He is the prince of another country not scotland and I would also like to add that I think we should not welcome them with open arms if they come up to caithness as if they were heros. :evil

Er, hum. Prince Charles is heir to the Scottish Head of Statedom.

Buzz
11-Feb-05, 20:44
Another thing about the royal family my tax money will be paying for there stay in cathiness instead of helping pepole that are dying from a lack of NHS funds so remember do not complain the next time that you think the goverment is not giving away enough money to services like the NHS and before you reply on how the royals create money through tourism it is nothing to what we as tax payers give them plus the tourist's dont come in the hundreds to cathiness to see the royals as they do this in London [mad]

Buzz
11-Feb-05, 20:45
I wonder how he got that title then! and you say that i dont read my history

Buzz
11-Feb-05, 20:47
as long as there is one hunderd of us scots left we will not submit to english rule did you ever get that in your history books [mad]

Rheghead
11-Feb-05, 20:48
He will get that title because Jame VI of Scotland became King James I of England but I expect you knew that? You read history...

Buzz
11-Feb-05, 20:51
did the cat catch your tonge,

Rheghead
11-Feb-05, 20:52
as long as there is one hunderd of us scots left we will not submit to english rule did you ever get that in your history books [mad]

You are implying that Charles will become King of Scotland because of English subjugation of the Scots, as you can see from my previous post, this is not the case. He will become King of Scotland by right of Accession.

Buzz
11-Feb-05, 20:58
That king of scots who became king of england, his blood line was killed of by the english the royal family has no connections to his blood line the last royal that did was called bonnie prince charlie well at least he got away!

Buzz
11-Feb-05, 21:00
there will never be a king of scotland again so there you go, any way im of now thank you for that chat !

Rheghead
11-Feb-05, 21:01
That king of scots who became king of england, his blood line was killed of by the english the royal family has no connections to his blood line the last royal that did was called bonnie prince charlie well at least he got away!

I beg to differ.

doreenhedgehog
11-Feb-05, 21:40
plus the tourist's dont come in the hundreds to cathiness to see the royals as they do this in London [mad]

Rubbish - there obviously won't be as many, we couldn't cope, but what else in Caithness attracts 25-30 busloads and 3-4 Cruise ships every year?

You go back to watching Braveheart Buzz [lol]


God Save Our Queen!

The Pepsi Challenge
11-Feb-05, 21:56
plus the tourist's dont come in the hundreds to cathiness to see the royals as they do this in London [mad]

Rubbish - there obviously won't be as many, we couldn't cope, but what else in Caithness attracts 25-30 busloads and 3-4 Cruise ships every year?

You go back to watching Braveheart Buzz [lol]


God Save Our Queen!

I think we should agree to disagree. However; supporting the Royals: everyone has the right to be stupid, even royalists.

katarina
11-Feb-05, 22:02
I think they were all interconnected Buzz. Mary Queen opf Scots was a first cousin to Queen Elizabeth of england, and Lizzie had her beheaded because she did have a claim to the throne of England since Lizzie was childless.
Remember if Charles Stuart had been sucsessful, we would have all been Catholics. And if the scots had rallied around Willie Wallace, instead off going off and getting pissed in their own individual clan get togethers, may be we would rule supreme now. And then the english could sound off against the Scottish. Remember Robert the bruce fought on the side of Edward of England against John Balliol king of scotland. Some of our history I would not be proud of!

Rheghead
11-Feb-05, 22:43
I would just like to point out here that Scotland is now the political powerhouse of the UK.

We have a Scots born Primeminister and Chancellor plus other prominent cabinet ministers. Scotland has its own parliament which operates unfettered by outside 'bodies'. While Scotland has this right to self determination, there are Scottish MPs in Westminster that have the privilege of voting on purely English domestic issues. I cannot accept that this anyway demonstrates that Charles will accede to the subjugated Scottish Nation!

golach
11-Feb-05, 22:47
Katarina......That is a very big IF!!!!!!!!......but no harm in dreaming [disgust]

Golach

Rheghead
11-Feb-05, 23:03
Bonnie Prince Charlie's claim to the throne is also hotly contested. James II was childless until very late on in his reign and to a 40+ year old Queen. It seemed just too convenient that a baby arrived to be an heir at the very right time! It is now believed that he adopted from a lady-in-waiting to prevent Mary, a protestant from acceding.

Anyway, we should not look through rose tinted glasses about our long lost Scottish Royal house that once ruled England. Charles I hardly ever ventured north of the border and I believe he thought of Scots as mere rough looking subjects, especially after they sold him out to the English Parliament!!! Cheap! and at half the price!

2little2late
11-Feb-05, 23:30
Abolish the royal family!!!!!!!

The Pepsi Challenge
11-Feb-05, 23:57
I think they were all interconnected Buzz. Mary Queen opf Scots was a first cousin to Queen Elizabeth of england, and Lizzie had her beheaded because she did have a claim to the throne of England since Lizzie was childless.
Remember if Charles Stuart had been sucsessful, we would have all been Catholics. And if the scots had rallied around Willie Wallace, instead off going off and getting pissed in their own individual clan get togethers, may be we would rule supreme now. And then the english could sound off against the Scottish. Remember Robert the bruce fought on the side of Edward of England against John Balliol king of scotland. Some of our history I would not be proud of!

To be more precise: "if Charles Stuart had been successful, we would all have been Catholics."

Some of us are Catholics, Katarina. Your tone is unappreciated.

EDDIE
12-Feb-05, 00:55
Congratulations to the both of them.As for the royals in general being a waste of time i would disagree with that the bring a lot of revenue to the uk by tourism.
Everyone goes on about how much money they take in each year for waving there hand at the public but one things for sure it aint enough considering there whole life is in the limelight they cant even a have a fart for it being reported in the frontpage of the newspapers what kind of life is that to have.

Buzz
12-Feb-05, 03:32
ok then u are all against what i say so i must be in the wrong. Well ask your self one more thing but do not do it in anger to what i am saying , us scots have the oil feilds , we also have fresh water and yes the english try to buy this of us as they now have a pipe line filled of fresh water going down to england to help them with there short water suply.
The english are also going to cover our hills with wind farms for them selfs and do not think that for one minute that it is for the good of scotland ! Just ask your self one question if someone was putting you out of pocket would you still look after them .
The way I see it the english take from us for if us scots were to put them out of pocket do you really think they would give a about us. The answere is no we make them a profit we must do why dont they then not let us go alone. I see Norway and Switzerland, Ireland and Portugal doing well why not us .

The Pepsi Challenge
12-Feb-05, 04:59
That's it, Buzz. Fight The Power! I'm with you. Next stop Englandshire - we're coming foe ya!

scotsboy
12-Feb-05, 05:04
Some of us are Catholics, Katarina. Your tone is unappreciated.


What tone is that :confused The fact that civil and religous liberties for all was allowed to prevail seems a good thing to me.

Rheghead
12-Feb-05, 09:59
ok then u are all against what i say so i must be in the wrong. Well ask your self one more thing but do not do it in anger to what i am saying , us scots have the oil feilds ,
Actually there have been oil found in the Morecambe Bay and areas around The Wash which are definitely in English waters.


we also have fresh water and yes the english try to buy this of us as they now have a pipe line filled of fresh water going down to england to help them with there short water suply.
So the English are not 'stealing' or plundering Scottish resources then? They are actually paying for it.

The english are also going to cover our hills with wind farms for them selfs and do not think that for one minute that it is for the good of scotland ! Just ask your self one question if someone was putting you out of pocket would you still look after them .
Actually, the world's fourth largest windfarm developer is Scottishpower.

The way I see it the english take from us for if us scots were to put them out of pocket do you really think they would give a *** Swearword removed by Auto Censor *** about us. The answere is no we make them a profit we must do why dont they then not let us go alone. I see Norway and Switzerland, Ireland and Portugal doing well why not us .
As I have pointed out, the only ones profiteering from your post that I can see is Scotland :eek:

EDDIE
12-Feb-05, 10:02
Well buz I would love to see scotland totaly independent but somehow cant see it happening.
The one thing i hate when the royals visit scotland community is the blasted roads are all closed if there visiting a townhall or church.They are such a nusience

katarina
12-Feb-05, 15:42
To be more precise: "if Charles Stuart had been successful, we would all have been Catholics."

Some of us are Catholics, Katarina. Your tone is unappreciated.[/quote]

Sorry. I meant no offence, only that britain is a protistant country - but probably more because Henry eight couldn't get a divorce from the church of rome than for any religious reason. Personally I think a man or woman's religion or political beliefs are their own business, and I don't adhere to any.

The Pepsi Challenge
12-Feb-05, 18:10
I'm not a Catholic. However a large % of people in Britain are. This is what I meant by "Some of us"...

Although I'm not particularly religious, I try to be a good Christian. The people I don't like are so-called Christians who go to chruch every Sunday just to punch their ticket into heaven. My grandfather never went to church, but he was the most catholic (open-minded, universal) man I ever knew.

Anyway, I'm going off the thread here. No offence taken, Katarina.

Best.

Rheghead
12-Feb-05, 18:20
Let me put things into perspective..

During those times of religious unrest in Europe, most countries were largely theocracies, especially in Roman Catholic Europe. Therefore, the protestant-catholic political divisions were much more polarised and bitter. Things have become more secular of late.

So I think we can chat in a historical sense about being anti-catholic or anti-protestant without apology, but not in present day sense when Christianity (in general) has a more universal message.

The Pepsi Challenge
12-Feb-05, 18:23
What do you mean exactly: Time = OK? There's some sort of cut off point; threshold? One day you can be anti-catholic/protestant, the next you can't?

Hmmm...

Rheghead
12-Feb-05, 18:31
My point being , now Religion and politics aren't mixed anymore then there is no point in being anti any religion. The moment religious nutters like Dr Neville Jones get to speak for all of of us is the moment when we should all start to worry. It is ironic that the US have brought Democracy to Iraq only to see the population vote in a theocratic political party, it just demonstrates that some cultures aren't ready for democracy, we may cry ' Bring back Saddam, all is forgiven'.

The Pepsi Challenge
12-Feb-05, 19:00
Still doesn't answer my question. As for politics not mixing with religion? Ahem, America: Christian zealouts, running the country, who believe in Armageddon? Get yourself some Bill Hicks tapes, Rheghead. Still, interested in your views. Keep 'em coming.

DrSzin
12-Feb-05, 19:01
My point being, now Religion and politics aren't mixed anymore ...
Try telling that to the people of Belfast!


It is ironic that the US have brought Democracy to Iraq only to see the population vote in a theocratic political party.
Why is it ironic? If the Iraqis have elected a theocracy this would merely reflect what happened in the USA last November. :D

Dubya should be honoured -- imitation is the highest form of flattery. :cool:

Rheghead
12-Feb-05, 19:06
Hey Doc, I forgot about that, good point!! :lol:

Anyway, here in Europe I would like to think things are different, N.I. not withstanding.

2little2late
12-Feb-05, 21:19
Exactly what have these recent posts got to do with Charles and Camilla marrying? Gone off the original post at quite a tangent haven't you?

Rheghead
12-Feb-05, 21:29
Hmmm....It is a complicated issue singapore. Charles will become the Head of the Church of England and in his own words ' Defender of Faith' rather than 'Defender of The Faith'. This has repercussions for religious groups both Christian and non Christian who still have problems with divorce of a marriage in the eyes of God.

How can he represent a defender of something when he clearly has broken all the rules?

katarina
13-Feb-05, 13:07
I do not believe Charles is particularly religious, he certainly broke the commandment 'thou shalt not commit adultery' didn't he? I do not think any member of the royal family should be set up as our religious leader. I do not proclaim to be religious, but do have certain values - and for those who truly believe surely would prefer a committed religious leader.
And going back in history, when Henry eight had the catholics killed and later his daughter, Bloody Mary had the protistans killed, it reminds me of how Sadam was running his country today - maybe Iraq should have been left to develop at their own pace.

DrSzin
13-Feb-05, 13:40
I do not believe Charles is particularly religious, he certainly broke the commandment 'thou shalt not commit adultery' didn't he?
Indeed he did. In today's Sunday Herald there is an interesting account of how Charles and Camilla got back together (http://www.sundayherald.com/47688) in the late eighties. If we are to believe everything in Lady Colin Campbell's account of events, then Devious Di had clearly won out over Dopey Di, and Charles and Camilla were "two victims of philandering spouses giving each other solace".

It all rings true to me. But then I am one of the few people who couldn't stand Diana from the very beginning, so I am hardly unbiased.

Perhaps we should get rid of the lot of them and crown Sir Gleeber as the First President of the Democratic Republic of Scotland (or of the UK if we want to rule Englandshire too). Then Caithness really would be the Centre of the Universe.

friendlymel
16-Feb-05, 11:34
u say pricess di had several men hey come on now, there was three in that marraige, and why shouldnt she?
can u think how she felt walking down that isle and there was charlies real love of his life would you have liked it?
charles and camilla would have married yrs ago but he went in the navy for three yrs she thought he didnt want her etc so when he came back she had married her x.
otherwise they would have married.
also charles wasnt getting any younger and the queen again stuck her orr in and told him that he isnt getting any younger older infact and that he had to get someone and settle down and so he could have children with him bbeing next inline.
this is where di came in she was younger yes but it had to be that way as the age of charles he had left it late, and she did love him do u remember his comment when asked about love?
huh!
so yes di turned to others wouldnt u?
how would u feel a third person in a marraige or if one of the partners was having an affair and u found out about it how would u feel.
we only know if it has happ0ened to us.