View Full Version : Should Charles & Camilla cancel their wedding?
neepnipper
04-Apr-05, 12:21
Please just let them get on with it so we can all gave a bit of peace.
I'm no great fan but it just seems like prolonging the agony if they have to cancel because of the Popes funeral. :confused
What wedding? Who cares?
Golach
neepnipper
04-Apr-05, 14:04
Pardon me for breathing! Thought there may be some interesting opinions! :eek:
Alexander Rowe
04-Apr-05, 14:42
Either way I dont think they can win, if they go ahead with it they'll get a hard time from the press, and if they dont, as you say, people will be telling them to get on with it.
Charlie has had a really hard time of it lately and I can understand why he said what he did under his breath last week. No matter what your views of the Royal Family are, nobody deserves his wife to be to be getting put through what she is just now from the press.
The Royal family as an institution are great and important for the country but there are a few wrong un's in there. I hate the thought of Queen Camilla *shudders* but I do think a King William would be good news for this country and hopefully he'd adopt the role of a lot of what Diana did.
KEEP_ON_TRUCKIN
04-Apr-05, 14:47
seriously, the title of this thread- should they cancel their wedding......
how stupid, no one but themselves can decide if it should be cancelled and in any hopes why on earth would it be, they are people after all if celebrities can marry 6 or 7 times with no intentions of fulfilling death do us part why cant this pair be allowed to try a second marriage that looks like it will work!!!
Charlie has had a really hard time of it lately
Awww the poor boy, imagine having to put up with all that press intrusion when he's trying to spent all his "hard earned" cash on a fancy wedding.
nobody deserves his wife to be to be getting put through what she is just now from the press.
why not? not as if she about to come into large sums of free money is it?
Alexander Rowe
04-Apr-05, 15:33
Zael I wish you would use more sarcasm in your posts :D
Just heard its been postponed until Saturday, Im sure there will be critics somewhere that will have a go. I can see the headlines now 'Selfish Royals make Wedding clash with Grand National'
Looking at the plans they have from what I've read its probably about as low key as a Royal wedding could get, and Camilla certainly wasnt struggling before they became a couple.
Yes, I have heard it has been put back till the Saturday
I think its all a shame for them really, I wouldn't have liked to postpone my wedding.
However, the guy doing the blessing will be at the Popes funeral, along with the PM, and Charles was expected to go, so I guess they didn't really have much choice in the matter.
I think we should all just let them get on with it and be happy, he should have married her in the first place, and after all we all make mistakes and there are loads of people out here who have second wifes either through a divorce or death, and I'm one of them.
I hope they find happiness at last
lassieinfife
04-Apr-05, 18:56
I agree with ktb50 time to leave them alone to get on with the rest of their lives and hopefully a long and happy one...almost everyone deserves a second chance all the faults in his first marrige werent all his no matter what the blinkered public think... it takes 2 to make a marrige and 2 to break it.....as a godly man once said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" trouble is they not been casting stones but bliddy great boulders.
Cant see the problem with Camilla being queen but with a bit of luck we wont have a future King or Queen so lets just live and let live, he is just human like the rest of us and like us at times bows to pressure as he did with his marrige to Di. So come on folks give them a break and wish them well. I certinally do :D
lassieinfife
04-Apr-05, 18:59
[lol] here fink i better change me signature heheheheheheh :p :Razz
I'm surprised anyone cares!!
©Amethyst
05-Apr-05, 01:13
Well, I don't particularily care as the 'Royal Family' don't affect me directly really - but I'd have liked it if they got bad press for moving the wedding to the next day. But unfortunately (yes, I enjoy a good laugh at the press getting at someone like Charles just 'cause it's fun - I kno I'll get stick for this, but I'm not bothered) the press seem to be supportive of them moving their wedding to the 9th. Ack.
As I said not really affecting me... so... bleh
champagnebaby
05-Apr-05, 01:37
I don't see the point in the royal family at all, i mean what do they do for the country??
Just a load of stuck up twatz if you ask me. :roll:
I think there should be a law against all blood sports - 'hunting the royal family' included.
Yes the wedding should be put off. they have done exactly the right thing.
greeneyes
05-Apr-05, 11:57
If they'd any sense they should have done what Princess Anne done and went to a quiet church and done it that way with no fuss apart from the press and any saddo's that are interested in what they do,at the end of day Who really cares.
Green eyes- I think you'll find that is what they were trying to do, however if they wanted to get married in Church they would have had to come to Scotland like Anne did.
Anyway, why should they have to have a small wedding.
I didn't have a small wedding and my husband had been married before.
Champagnebaby- I'm not a Royalist but I would rather have the Monarch representing the country, think what we could have instead......eck
Amethyst- your view are rather petty don't you think, you would actually wish BAD press on someone for their wedding day, thats pretty twisted, its their wedding day for goodness sake. I'm not sure if you are or ever have been married, but would you want someone bad mouthing you just casue you were getting married...I think not
They should just be left to get on with it, I don't really care whether they married or not, it doesn't put me up or down, or really effect me, but I do believe in "live and let live" if they are happy then I guess they don't really give a damn what anyone else thinks, and quite right.
Good luck to them both
champagnebaby
05-Apr-05, 13:14
Champagnebaby- I'm not a Royalist but I would rather have the Monarch representing the country, think what we could have instead......eck
Yeah i suppose we could have Lizzie Bardsleys family or something, lol :lol: But i don't think they truly represent a typical British family, they're royalty and why should they be anymore royal than the rest of Britain?? Be better if there was an election every so often and the public get to vote for who should represent us.
Be better if there was an election every so often and the public get to vote for who should represent us.
Maybe you missed it, and I hate to drop a bombshell on you, but this already happens. Next one is 5th May! ;)
Seriously though, would you want a republic instead? President Blair? Bleuch. :eek:
champagnebaby
05-Apr-05, 13:40
Nah that's what made me think it'd be better if we voted in a royal family, they've been royalty for long enough, what've they done to deserve it?
Give someone else a chance on the throne.
Vote in a Royal family? Oh my, I'm afraid, champagnebaby, that I find the very thought repulsive. Aside from it being impossible to have an elected Royal family, how would you propose that it worked? What would they be allowed to do with the royal wealth and assets? What would we do if Posh and Becks were elected?
champagnebaby
05-Apr-05, 14:15
Hmm i dunno, i ain't really given it much thought - i just know i don't really think there's much point in the one we've got, infact i don't think there's much point in one at all. :eyes
The only thing Charles is good for would be to stand in e lobby and use his ears as a coat hook and as for Mrs Parker Bowles------ anyone needing a picture above e fireplace till frighten e bairns away fae a fire!!!!!!! :D
Alexander Rowe
05-Apr-05, 14:57
The only thing Charles is good for would be to stand in e lobby and use his ears as a coat hook and as for Mrs Parker Bowles------ anyone needing a picture above e fireplace till frighten e bairns away fae a fire!!!!!!! :D
Honestly, that is hilarious............... :eyes :eyes
Alexander Rowe
05-Apr-05, 15:00
i ain't really given it much thought
Yeh I gathered that.
champagnebaby
05-Apr-05, 17:50
i ain't really given it much thought
Yeh I gathered that.
So??? All i'm saying is i don't see the point in the royal family
The Royal family as an institution are great and important for the country.
What's so great and important about them then??
What's so great and important about them then??
I'm not a Royalist, but someone would need to propose a very good republican system before I would wish to change from the status quo.
In recent years the Civil List has been cut back (minor royals are no longer funded by the Treasury). I think about £8 million is paid to the Queen and Prince Philip, and about 70% of this pays the salaries of the staff. It also pays for the official entertainment during state visits. The other royals are funded by the Queen.
About £23m is paid in grants to maintain the royal buildings (which would have to be paid whether there was a royal family or not - who wants to see Buckingham Palace fall into disrepair?). About £5m pays for the Royal train and Royal flight, and the latter tends to be used more by government ministers than the Queen.
The royal family cost us £36.8m last year, about 60p per UK resident. It could be argued that they draw in more revenue from tourism.
The status quo largely suits us. The Queen's role is basically symbolic. I genuinely prefer this system to the prospect of President Blair (the most appalling idea ever- I'd emigrate before that happened).
Compare the cost of the royal family with the shambles of the Scottish parliament building, supposed to cost about £50m, but ended up costing £431m, about £85 per Scottish resident.
Our entire political system has been built up over centuries. But it works. To remove the Queen as head of state would mean everything in our political system would have to be changed. And the legal system. The financial ramifications would be massive. For what purpose? All she does is sign legislation (give Royal Assent). She has no actual power as such.
and they are a great soap opera.......
The decision has been made. The wedding has been postponed. Sounds like a personal choice was made by the ones involved.
neepnipper
06-Apr-05, 07:35
[quote]'Selfish Royals make Wedding clash with Grand National'
Just heard National is to be put back a while so Queenie can watch it!!
lassieinfife
06-Apr-05, 09:04
Will the wedding be put of again since Prince Renier has died :( or will they fit it in between funerals? :~(
Don't know if it's true or not but I was told you can't have a Royal wedding within six weeks of a General Election..
:roll:
Don't know if it's true or not but I was told you can't have a Royal wedding within six weeks of a General Election.
I can't see that this can be true - the election date of May 5th has been expected for the last year or so.
greeneyes
06-Apr-05, 13:15
The only thing Charles is good for would be to stand in e lobby and use his ears as a coat hook and as for Mrs Parker Bowles------ anyone needing a picture above e fireplace till frighten e bairns away fae a fire!!!!!!! :D
Good one Alli. [lol]
greeneyes
06-Apr-05, 13:32
[quote="ktb50"]Green eyes- I think you'll find that is what they were trying to do, however if they wanted to get married in Church they would have had to come to Scotland like Anne did.
Anyway, why should they have to have a small wedding.
I didn't have a small wedding and my husband had been married before.
I'm not saying they should have a small wedding that is just my personal preference just hate fuss and center of attention,which i know they can't help.And i have nothing against re-marriage lifes to short.
Snow white, Tom thumb and quazimodo all met for a drink. 'I am the most beautiful woman in the world,' says Snow white. 'I am the smallest person in the world,' says Tom Thumb. 'I am the ugliest person in the world,' says quazimod. 'We should make our fame known,' they all agree. So decide they will register their claims with The Guinnes Book of Records.
Next time they meet up Snow White is smiling. 'I have been accepted as the most beautiful woman in the world,' she sings. Tom thumb is smiling - 'I have been accepted - I am the smallest person in the world.' he laughs.
Quazimodo is not smiling. 'What's wrong?' the others ask.
'Who in the name of the Almighty is this Camila Parker-Bowls?' he growls.
lassieinfife
07-Apr-05, 09:15
I really dont understand why everyone keeps making rude comments about Camilla's looks, she is no better or worse looking than the average female and if she makes Charles happy for the rest of his life so much the better. His son's have accepted that this is the way forward for thier father so shouldnt we as a Christian nation wish them good luck, I know that I do.
Dont get me wrong I am not a royalist but even Charlie deserves a bit of happiness so come on folks live and let live,let them enjoy their day
Alexander Rowe
07-Apr-05, 12:17
Yeh grow up all those making jokes.
PS Ive heard the real reason the Grand National has been put back is so they can get Camilla to Aintree in time to run in it.
Actually I agree with you lassie. I've met Camila and she looks a lot more attractive in real life than she does on TV. I wished them all the best. I just thought it was a good joke, even if a bit tasteless! And I still do!
I nearly feel off the chair laughing at your joke Katrina!! [lol]
and I do hope there's more jokes to follow, I didnae mind who am laughing at as long as am laughing!!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.