Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Okay, I admit I am an outsider looking in when it comes to the British royal family. They make good tabloid filler sometimes with their antics. I actually saw Fergie doing an American weight loss commercial, that's priceless.
Evertime I think of the British royal family I'm reminded of a stand up routine show put on by the British comedian Eddie Izzard called 'Dressed to Kill' it's hilarious and I recommend you check it out. Funny stuff.
I won't go into the details of what Eddie Izzard says about the Royal family because some Brits here may think I am making fun of them which I am not.
I just want to know why it seems that the Queen is so dead set against Camilla marrying Prince Charles.
The Queen comes off (again remember this point of view is from the outside looking in) as possibly the most ogre-ish mother in law in human history!
Camilla is no Diana in the looks department, I will grant you that. But I admire her nontheless for putting up with all the crap from everyone and still standing by Charles. And I am begining to admire Charles a little bit for (sort of) telling his mother to 'go to hell' and marrying Camilla anyway!
But the whole Diana/Charles marriage seemed more like a match made to please the Queen than it did one of actual love between the two.
Now here comes Camilla who actually seems to love Charles and vice versa and everytime I see a mention on the news (and we all know how skewed media coverage is anyway) the Queen actually seems to making every effort to 'F' this all up for her son.
Am I way off the mark? Do the average British citizens really hate this woman so much? Let's face it, the Queen is going to outlive Charles if it kills her! Hehe. So he may never be King. And can't she just name one of her grandsons King instead of Charles anyway (which will be her final deathbed slap in the face)? Or doesn't it work like that?
Last edited by Joker; March 29th, 2005 at 17:04. Reason: for misuse of the term 'queen mother'
to be honest with you, not an average normal person in the whole of Britian really cares. don't expect much from this conversation topic, for that reason and that reason solely. it's mostly the sort of thing the media likes to keep covered for the benefits for those who are obsessed with celebrities. you find very few of them on the site.
Yeah, this is excellent! TY Angel of Rust!
Graktoof the vile, victor of 1000 battles, partial credit to 1000 more, and sore loser about the other 8000...
You are probably right applebone. I don't expect 100 replies to this thread either. But I really wanted some Brits opinions because media coverage is too skewed to be near reality.
Is it possible that this topic is even more present in the media here in America than it is even in Britain? Or is it just so mundane (or over-saturated with coverage) in your country; since it's everyday life; that it's taken for granted as uninteresting?
If you Brits feel like your Royals are nothing more than celebrities, than why continue to give them deference as "Royals"? Why not ignore their titles and just call them 'rich people'?
Last edited by Joker; March 29th, 2005 at 14:16.
Well, I'm not a Brit, but it's my queen too. I'm a rarity in Australia in that I'm under 20 and actually like the monarchy. [/Into]
Well you might want to edit a little otherwise you'll get a few people repeating one another, correcting you on your use of 'queen mum'. Whenever you said the queen mum, you meant the queen. The queen mum is the queen's mum. [/Pointless comment]
What Charles is doing has never been done by an english monarch before, which is to remarry. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I personally agree with you Joker that I don't see any problem with Charles marrying Camila, and am actually delited that these two get to marry, as they're obviously in love. I don't think anyone will reply to this thread and say 'Charles should not marry Camila it is against tradition.' It's not a strong argument anyway, but probably noone here believes it also. You are off the mark Joker, no offence.
As to the part where why the english keep 'the royals', I'm guessing people will reply to this thread and say 'it is tradition.' It's not a strong argument anyway, but probably many english here believes it.
O gosh I really hope this doesn't sound political.
I hope it doesn't sound political either. I have no intention of steering this thread in that direction.
Thanks for correcting me psteve. I didn't know about the whole 'queen mum thing' and as to me being off the mark about peoples attitude towards her I'm very glad. She just doesn't seen like she deserves all the bad press (again, this is an outsider looking in and I have no personal knowledge of the woman, just the part she plays when she's on the media stage).
When you say Charles is doing something never done before , remarry, are you referring to 'in modern times'?
Because our history books here say that Kings like Henry the 8th actually made a career out of remarrying. I didn't know it was considered so wrong, but like I said I based that on the history of centuries ago.
I have a mother-in-law (and my own mom became one when I got married, hehe) so I know all about how they can mistreat their in-laws.
But the Queen's actions just seem overly petty, and meritless.
As to still maintaining a Royal air of relevancy based on tradition I find that to be a perfectly acceptable reason. It just struck me as odd when applebone referred to them as "celebrities". It never occurred to me that British citizens would dismiss the importance of the Royal family in their culture like that.
Last edited by Joker; March 29th, 2005 at 15:25.
Hi, I'm english, so thought I might as well answer. I'll explain the problem with it, but I don't agree wih it, I think they should not be opposed if they wish to wed, its modern times and that calls for an update to behaviour anyway.
Its not that charles is remarrying its that Camilla is. Camilla is a divorcee and this is, traditionally, a problem. A King or Queen is supposed to only ever marry a virgin of unquestionable virute and not someone elses cast offs (as it is seen to be with a divorcee) and that is the root of the problem. A monarch may not be married to someone who has been married before, therefore in theory Charles should not be allowed to rule because he is marrying Camilla, one monarch has maried a divorcee before, to do so he abdicated, his name was Edward and his brother King George V was Queen Elizabeth II father, his marriage to Mrs Simpson forced him to abdicate and his brother to take the throne.
The Queen Mother (and possibly the Queen) is supposed to have blamed him for several ailments of her late husband and ultimately for his death as George was never trained to rule whilst Edward was... don't know how true that was, but its supposed to be, so you see why the Queen would have a problem with him marrying a divorcee as her uncle marrying a divorcee may have indirectly led to the death of her father.
King Henry VIII Did indeed marry several times, in fact theres a rhyme to remember how he ended each marriage. Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived.
Now as I remember Catherine of Aragon was his first wife (Mother of Mary), Anne Boleyn his second (Mother of Elizabeth), Jane Seymour (his favourite wife, who died in childbirth after giving birth to Edward), Anne of Cleaves, Katherine Howard (Slept around, got executed for it) and Catherine Parr his last, who nursed him until his death.
Thanks karantalsis, that was very informative. The idea behind a monarch not being able to marry a previously married partner is interesting.
Was that put in place to prevent Kings and Queens from coveting other peoples spouses? Then having the spouse killed (or otherwise removed from the picture) in order to marry them for themselves?
It has an entirely new air of intrigue behind it when I look at it in that light!
It's really sad that such a uniquely intelligent woman as the Queen would be so superstitious. But she is 'old school' if ever someone was.
Although it has been said in this thread already, Camilla Parker Bowles is not very attractive. And, as karantalsis says, she does not "fit" the rosey picture of a royal wedding as she is a divorce (marrying a divorce). Edward VII's abdication and marriage to an American divorce was fairly scandalous (and maybe rightly). So there is the fundamental problem that threatens to undo (not that many people apparently care in these times) the idea that props up the monarchy: the romantic notion of Prince Charming and the Princess Bride who will live happy ever after. Princess Diana was very beautiful, photogenic, and the people loved her while Camilla unfortunately lacks all those qualities. Charles is old and its his son who is considered the hearthrob. So its not about any real tangible problem, only that reality does not sync with with the ideals that prop a monarchy up. Its just too bad that Camilla was the right girl for Charles all along and that he should have just married her all those years ago instead of allowing it to ruin his marriage with Diana. And I guess that's why Camilla will only be Princess Consort.
Last edited by Bawdymonkey; March 29th, 2005 at 16:20.
â€œCry â€˜Havocâ€™ and let slip the dogs of war!â€? - Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I
I agree with most people in saying the average British person cares very little for the antics of the monarchy. Maybe they would if they realised how much of their money is being spent on them.
I don't consider any of the royal family particularly intelligent. Prince Charles, for example, recieved one O level and had a degree specially 'put together' for him by Cambridge university. What they do have is intelligent people advising them.
I don't think anyone can explain definitively what the problem with Camilla is. The major problem, I'd suspect, is that she was portrayed very negatively by the very popular Diana. She was pretty much publically blamed for the breakdown of that marriage, and a lot of people still associate her with that.
Yes, you've probably worked it out, I don't like the monarchy. If they cost me as little as the Japanese monarchy costs its citizens, maybe I'd be more inclined to view them as an interesting curiosity. As it is, I fail to see what they do for this country which a president couldn't do cheaper and better.
Um, Henry VIII?Originally Posted by psteve