YT2095 Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 hey, it wasn`t ME that said it or conceived his idea of "Romance", each to his own I guess. but I can certainly see how Diana might have been somewhat offended/upset upon learning this. kinda makes you wonder what kind of person camila is to accept this kind of talk though! I know if came out with that sort of thing to my own Wife, she`d call me all the dirty ba$t@rds under the sun!
coquina Posted February 14, 2005 Author Posted February 14, 2005 I had conveniently forgotten about Charles saying that. Lord, I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall to hear what his Mum had to say to him about it. God knows - with her sons' antics, she must feel like she's herding cat's at times --- tom cats at that.
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 well, they`re s`posed to have "Blue Blood", I`ll bet the language was just as "Blue" also )
Newtonian Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 kinda makes you wonder what kind of person camila is to accept this kind of talk though. I think he got confused which orifice YT2095,cos her face looks like an ass with piles.
Phi for All Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 With those ears, you wouldn't need a string. OMG! Did I say that???ROFLOL! Don't mean to take away from the royals, but you reminded me of a comedian I saw last night talking about new NASCAR sponsors now that women are becoming a larger part of the auto racing demographics: "How did you ever get tickets to the Tampax 500?" "Well, I had to pull a few strings...."
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 OooooKAY! and so from here (before we risk getting all filthy, and more importantly off topic), we should get back to the OP question, we can make an orgy of debauchery in another thread and yes, I`m Only kidding! that is NOT the way "Okay" is spelled!
Aardvark Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 Personally, i hope they are both happy. Two people love each other and want to marry. Good for them. Why do so many people feel entitled to pass judgement?
Coral Rhedd Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 Perhaps because they were first "happy" at other people's expense.
Aardvark Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 Perhaps because they were first "happy" at other people's expense. How do you, or anyone else know that? Charles and Diana were unhappy. Diana had affairs, Charles had an affair. Then they got divorced. How do you apportion blame? People seem to have the idea that Charles entered the marriage intending to be unfaithful. That seems very unlikely, is not supported by evidence and could only be confirmed by a mind reader. The sad fact is that a lot of marriages breakup, to place all the blame on one person is rarely fair or accurate. In this event the elevation of Diana to a sort of secular sainthood is quite over the top. It was an unhappy marriage, Diana went on the find love with someone else, Now Charles is doing the same thing. I find it extraordinary how judgemental and spiteful people, who really know nothing about the private circumstances of these people, are. Charles had one unhappy marriage, anyone with a mote of human consideration should hope that his second is happier.
Coral Rhedd Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 How do you' date=' or anyone else know that? Charles and Diana were unhappy. Diana had affairs, Charles had an affair. Then they got divorced. How do you apportion blame? People seem to have the idea that Charles entered the marriage intending to be unfaithful. That seems very unlikely, is not supported by evidence and could only be confirmed by a mind reader. [/quote'] When I was looking for some light reading, I read the book the butler wrote. It seemed believable. The sad fact is that a lot of marriages breakup, to place all the blame on one person is rarely fair or accurate. In this event the elevation of Diana to a sort of secular sainthood is quite over the top. It was an unhappy marriage, Diana went on the find love with someone else, Now Charles is doing the same thing. Actually, it seems he found it quite some time ago but had a little recognition problem. I have no great emotional investment in whether or not Charles finds happiness. As a American, I am much more concerned that George Bush does not find happiness at everyone else's expense. I find it extraordinary how judgemental and spiteful people, who really know nothing about the private circumstances of these people, are. It's called gossip Aardvark. Why is this thread even continuing? Others contributed to it. You contributed to it. Now I have contributed again. Charles had one unhappy marriage, anyone with a mote of human consideration should hope that his second is happier. I do indeed, but I hope there is not another devastating tsunami even more. However, what I hope will influence neither.
Aardvark Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 Actually, it seems he found it quite some time ago but had a little recognition problem. I have no great emotional investment in whether or not Charles finds happiness. As a American, I am much more concerned that George Bush does not find happiness at everyone else's expense. I don't have any particular emotional investment in Charles personal happiness. In the scheme of things it is not of great import. What does disturb me is the spiteful judgemental reaction of so many people. That is worrying and makes me think a little bit less of the human race.
Coral Rhedd Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 People's reactions have to do with how they perceive public figures and whether of not they "like" them. The press does play a role in this. I was hardly aware of Brad and Jen until The New York Times weighed in. It seems that at first the general press thought Jen was a self-interested fool who wasn't ready to have Brad's baby because she was overinvested in her acting career. Then suddenly it was Brad who was the villian because he had been attracted to Angelina Jolie. I tell you, it positively makes my head swim. If this goes on, I may have to start watching television just to know who the real movers and shakers in the world are.
Aardvark Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 People's reactions have to do with how they perceive public figures and whether of not they "like" them. The press does play a role in this. I was hardly aware of Brad and Jen until The New York Times weighed in. It seems that at first the general press thought Jen was a self-interested fool who wasn't ready to have Brad's baby because she was overinvested in her acting career. Then suddenly it was Brad who was the villian because he had been attracted to Angelina Jolie. I tell you, it positively makes my head swim. If this goes on, I may have to start watching television just to know who the real movers and shakers in the world are. True, what concerns me is that people imbibe these opinions from the media without any apparent use of intelligent consideration. The media portrays someone in a certain light and people swallow it whole. They accept those opinions completely uncritically and will then attempt to vehemently propogate them. This does make me thing that humans are a herd animal who will think what they are told to think. Perhaps democracy is therefore overrated. Perhaps some form of government by an elite would be preferable? That may seem radical, but my opinion of human judgement just keeps on going down.
Ophiolite Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 Charles, the Prince of Wales, is the proxy head of the Church of England. I can't see the Archbishop of Canterbury having any say in the matter. A senior bishop (I don't recall which one) was asked in an interview if it was right that Charles, a divorced person, and destined to be head of the church, should remarry. Th bishop politely pointed out, "Prince Charles when he becomes King will be governor of the Church of England. God is the head of the Church of England."
Guest kaaatherine Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 What are your thoughts - I suppose the Brits among us have more opinion that the rest' date=' since they do have a "dog in this fight" (no pun intended). You can comment on Royalty in general if you choose to do so.[/quote'] i think they are two middle-aged very non-remarkable people who are engaged. The Sun headline the other day; 'boring old farts to wed'
syntax252 Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 I guess I have never understood this King and Queen business, but then I don't have to understand it, I am an American and Americans are too smart to worship a King or a Queen. We save our worshipping for baseball players and movie stars. Anyway, just out of curiosity, what exactly does the King or Queen of England actually do for England? I thought Tony Blair was the PM, which seems to be a lot like our President, and the Parliment looks and acts a lot like our congress, so outside of showing up for ceremonies, what is their job? Now please, I am not poking fun at the royal family, Hell we had our Kennedys too, I'm just askin' is all.
Newtonian Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 If your going to correct someone Ophiolite,be correct! The reigning monarch is the 'Supreme Governor of the C of E' The symbolic head is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Jesus Christ is the head of the church.He is the only Mediator, High Priest & Head of the Church. The interjection of anyone else between God & man has no biblical basis. " For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus-." (1 Timothy 2:5) I think thats correct:-)
Aardvark Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 Anyway' date=' just out of curiosity, what exactly does the King or Queen of England actually [i']do[/i] for England? I thought Tony Blair was the PM, which seems to be a lot like our President, and the Parliment looks and acts a lot like our congress, so outside of showing up for ceremonies, what is their job? Basically, the job is ceremonial. To act as a non-partisan figurehead. With a democratically elected head of state you are getting someone who by definition is opposed by a large chunk of the voters. A herditary head of state who does not get involved in politics at all can be seen as a less divisive figure. It's not rational, logical or fair, but in its own way it seems to work.
Ophiolite Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 If your going to correct someone Ophiolite' date='be correct![/quote'] Newtonian, I was correcting no one. I was reporting verbatim what a Bishop of the Church of England said. If he was in error please take it up with the Archbishop or Prince Charles.. Edit: Or one of the Trinity
Coral Rhedd Posted February 22, 2005 Posted February 22, 2005 I have no doubt that Newtonian will appeal directly to God.
Newtonian Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Yes,i have had a word and report directly to the flock verbatim.He said and i quote 'Ophiolite had quoted Tiny,and thus preceded to quote his mystery source(which the lord knows is fictitious,he misses nothing)and correct Tiny's statement'. Hey his words not mine!.He went on to say i should not have mentioned Ophiolite and instead just used a quote box.Also to tell Coral that dabbling in the occult to foresee future events is a sin.
Coral Rhedd Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Also to tell Coral that dabbling in the occult to foresee future events is a sin. If He/She did not want me to use this gift, why was I given it?
Newtonian Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 He said HE didn't give you it, Worse he checked the books and your down for kissing the bloke with the goats head's ass:-).
Coral Rhedd Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 I'll take my powers anywhere I can get them.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now