Anybody hear about/see Camilla''s ring??

[AGBF]

Date: 2/15/2005 1:21:57 AM
Author: movie zombie

edward I, conquerer of wales, was french and although king of england, owed allegiance to the king of france as a member of that court.

Edward I was neither the first nor the last King of England to have land in France! William the Conqueror was merely adding England to his holding in France when he successfully invaded England in 1066. The Plantagenet Kings (both Henry II AND his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine) and their sons (Richard the Lionheart and Geoffrey) also held land in France. Until Henry VII there was an essentially feudal system and national boundaries were not nearly as important as the local lord. If one held land in France and England, he defended it! Not only kings but other feudal barons held land on both the English island and the continent.

 

[AGBF]

On the decline of French and the rise of English in England:

As mentioned above, the Plantagenet Kings had holdings in France. Richard the Lionheart, although born in England, spoke little English. French (the language of the conquerors) remained the dominant language until the reign of Edward III.

One website says of him:

"Edward III (Windsor) (r. 1327-1377); his claim to French throne led to Hundred Years' War (1337-1453); eventual French victory; England lost all of its continental holdings; English hostility to French language and culture."

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 2/14/2005 5:30

5 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 2/14/2005 5:25:41 PM
Author: fire&ice
Or another beheading! I''d be quakin in my boots if I was the Arch. Bis. of Cant.

I don''t think the Archbishops of Canterbury are usually beheaded. Not that there is a protocol for that sort of thing, but when they annoy monarchs they tend to be burned (Henry VIII''s) or (as with ''the meddlesome priest'') set on by swordsmen.

Deb

There you go - spoiling my fun again! Off with Camilla''s head!

Really though, why would different laws apply to the Royals? Doesn''t British law supercede them?

Prince Charles does nothing for me. The Donald, on the other hand, has more than money. He has a certain power that is magnetic.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/15/2005 10

9:53 AM
Author: fire&ice
Really though, why would different laws apply to the Royals? Doesn't British law supercede them?

I think one might say that British law has been made so as to accomodate them and their changing status, rights, and privileges. They have, after all, in one form or another, been part of English history for a long time. English law has evolved as the Divine Right of Kings gave way to the Magna Carta, and as the absolute power of the monarch gave way to his constitional power and then to his total lack of power. It is still evolving as the law must in all flexible societies.

By the way, F&I...you're heading towards 5,000 postings on Pricescope! Congratulations!

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 2/15/2005 10:58:45 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 2/15/2005 10

9:53 AM
Author: fire&ice
Really though, why would different laws apply to the Royals? Doesn''t British law supercede them?

I think one might say that British law has been made so as to accomodate them and their changing status, rights, and privileges. They have, after all, in one form or another, been part of English history for a long time. English law has evolved as the Divine Right of Kings gave way to the Magna Carta, and as the absolute power of the monarch gave way to his constitional power and then to his total lack of power. It is still evolving as the law must in all flexible societies.

By the way, F&I...you''re heading towards 5,000 postings on Pricescope! Congratulations!

Hey - thanks for the heads up. My 5,000 will have to wait when I return!

Yeah, laws have to be flexible. But, what would be accomodating that they would have different marital laws? Why wouldn''t a civil ceremony be "legal" for them? Is only the Church ceremony honored? Wouldn''t the separation of church & state kick in? I''m completely baffled by why the Royals would be excluded from regular british law. If anything, I understand why the Church wouldn''t marry them.

Ah...the obsession over the British Royalty........just as popular this side of the pond.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/15/2005 11:22:54 AM
Author: fire&ice

Yeah, laws have to be flexible. But, what would be accomodating that they would have different marital laws? Why wouldn't a civil ceremony be 'legal' for them? Is only the Church ceremony honored? Wouldn't the separation of church & state kick in?

There is no separation of Church and State in Great Britain. I mean, how could there be when the head of State (the monarch) is also the head of the Church of England? The separation of Church and State was invented here in the United States.

As for why are there are different marital laws for royalty: it is to protect the country from Pretenders to the throne such as the (Catholic) Stuarts who kept raising armies in France and trying to take back the throne. A commoner may be Catholic or marry a Catholic in England; a Royal may not unless he relinquishes his right to succeed the monarch.

 

[fire&ice]

But, that''s just it - I didn''t think the monarchy was head of state? I thought they were figural. I could be wrong - but I don''t think they have much (if any) hand in running the country. Parliment makes the rules - correct?

Maybe this has nothing to do with logic & more to do with a history of generations. I really am confused and could be being ethnocentric as we don''t live with a Monarchy - hence - can''t relate.

 

[codex57]

Date: 2/15/2005 10

9:53 AM
Author: fire&ice

Prince Charles does nothing for me. The Donald, on the other hand, has more than money. He has a certain power that is magnetic.

His arrogance or shameless self promoting of his assets? He''s rich, but I really wonder how rich Prince Charles is. Trump claims to be a billionaire, but according to reports in the Wall Street Journal, those who have had business dealings with him estimate his worth to only be in the mid hundred of millions. He''s heavily leveraged and his casinos are hemorrhaging money.

 

[Bagpuss]

Date: 2/15/2005 1:16:32 PM
Author: fire&ice
But, that''s just it - I didn''t think the monarchy was head of state? I thought they were figural. I could be wrong - but I don''t think they have much (if any) hand in running the country. Parliment makes the rules - correct?

Maybe this has nothing to do with logic & more to do with a history of generations. I really am confused and could be being ethnocentric as we don''t live with a Monarchy - hence - can''t relate.

Just to put the record straight.......
The Queen is the head of state in Britain. The prime minister is simply the leader of the party in power. All Britons are subjects, not citizens. The Monarch’s function of signing into law Acts passed by Parliament is an integral part of the legislative process. The Monarch technically holds the right to veto any measure adopted by Parliament but this is a very rare occurrence and the last time it was used was in the eighteenth century by Queen Anne. The Monarch also receives newly appointed ambassadors to the United Kingdom who are accredited to her court rather than to the state. She is also the commander in chief of the Armed forces and new recruits have to swear allegiance to the Monarch rather than to Parliament or to the State. In this and many similar functions the Queen acts as a living personification of the British State, a type of shorthand by which people can swear allegiance to the state, which is a social construct, via a living person. Whilst the majority of the Monarch’s powers have been transferred to the Head of the Government for the Prime minister to use at her/his discretion; to suggest that the Monarch has no direct input into the decision making process in Britain would be inaccurate.

 

[movie zombie]

clarification re edward I: he was a Duke in the French court.

thank you for the info re edward III: it would appear that this would be the beginning of english as the language of the throne and the court.....however, it also appears that the german connection did override it for some time?

re donald trump: the way he treats people makes him ugly in my eyes....don''t care how much $$$ he has.

re the british are subjects, not citizens: i assume this is traced back through the monarcy to feudal times?

peace, movie zombie

 

[Bagpuss]

re the british are subjects, not citizens: i assume this is traced back through the monarcy to feudal times?

If you have a monarchy, you have subjects. The same applies to any country with a monarch.

On the other hand, republics have citizens.

I don't suppose it makes much difference one way or the other - we all pay taxes!

 

[mightyred]

A replica ring is now available for £19 (about $35) at ASDA in the UK Camilla Replica Ring

ASDA''s jewellery buyer said "The exclusive Camilla-inspired ring will give all budding Prince Charmings the chance to impress their princess this spring and still have change left over for the weekly shop"

I love it!

 

[movie zombie]

but isn''t being a subject AND having a monarch system a holdover from feudal times? thinking about it a little more i guess one could take it back even further: even the romans had citizens AND subjects.....and it didn''t matter which you were: just like for us, we all get to pay taxes!

capitalism at its finest! already a camilla ring being marketed for those budding princes! never ceases to amaze me how fast these things occur.

peace, movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 2/15/2005 3:11

3 PM
Author: Bagpuss

Date: 2/15/2005 1:16:32 PM
Author: fire&ice
But, that''s just it - I didn''t think the monarchy was head of state? I thought they were figural. I could be wrong - but I don''t think they have much (if any) hand in running the country. Parliment makes the rules - correct?

Maybe this has nothing to do with logic & more to do with a history of generations. I really am confused and could be being ethnocentric as we don''t live with a Monarchy - hence - can''t relate.

Just to put the record straight.......
The Queen is the head of state in Britain. The prime minister is simply the leader of the party in power. All Britons are subjects, not citizens. The Monarch’s function of signing into law Acts passed by Parliament is an integral part of the legislative process. The Monarch technically holds the right to veto any measure adopted by Parliament but this is a very rare occurrence and the last time it was used was in the eighteenth century by Queen Anne. The Monarch also receives newly appointed ambassadors to the United Kingdom who are accredited to her court rather than to the state. She is also the commander in chief of the Armed forces and new recruits have to swear allegiance to the Monarch rather than to Parliament or to the State. In this and many similar functions the Queen acts as a living personification of the British State, a type of shorthand by which people can swear allegiance to the state, which is a social construct, via a living person. Whilst the majority of the Monarch’s powers have been transferred to the Head of the Government for the Prime minister to use at her/his discretion; to suggest that the Monarch has no direct input into the decision making process in Britain would be inaccurate.

Yep, Hubby clarified that. I was under the assumption (wrong) that the monarch was *just* a figure w/o powers. Wouldn''t it take just one royal meglomanic to usurp *everyones* powers? Why doesn''t Britain take any steps to prevent this from happening? It would seem that Britain wouldn''t want to be under a monarchy again.

Geez, sorry still feeling the love for the Donald. I''m well aware that dynasties have several holdings. Some less profitable than others. And, gossip is just that.

 

[AGBF]

I think there is a difference between being a head of state and having real power. many countries with parliamentary democracies have a head of state other than the head of the party in power. In those countries it is the president, rather than a monarch, who represents and, indeed, at times, personifies the state. Political power, however, resides with the Prime Minister and his cabinet, not with the President.

If the monarch took up a cause-say against drunk driving-she might have some power because she commands attention, but not because she can order anything done.

I do not believe that the monarch in Great Britain has much real power. If she were to give an opinion on a political topic, which I believe is forbidden by law anyway, at most she would command a polite audience from the Prime Minister. I do not for a second think that her opinion would be taken seriously. Would someone like to look up the law on this? I believe that the monarch is not allowed to express opinions on political issues.

 

[mightyred]

Ahhhh Fire & Ice Those words are music to The British Republican Movements ears!!
Although there is a lot of (popular) support of the continuing existence of the monarchy, there is also a wide belief that this would change dramatically were the monarch to exercise power in opposition to a democratically elected government unless it was an emergency situation. So that should keep any megolamaniacs at bay!

It''s brought up for debate each election year but would be considered quite radical to get rid of them just yet although each time there is any kind of public scandal (think Prince Harry recently and now Chuck & Cam) a little more public support is chipped away.

The monarchy has the right to "advise and warn" the government of the day (the Prime Minister meets the monarch on a regular basis). However the details of the meetings are secret and the decisions would be based on the interests of the subjects and not politically based.

In practice the monarchy''s powers have reduced since 1688 and in general it is said that the Queen''s influence is greater than her official powers

 

[AGBF]

I am going to argue with myself a bit. I found a website which I think is invaluable in understanding what actually happens within the British government. (I will post the link.) I am going to cite a few passages from it:

First it says that "the Monarch reigns but does not rule". (That appears to be oft quoted!)

"The Monarch is head of state and in theory presides over the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. The legislature is "the Monarch, Lords and Commons in parliament assembled". The judges are 'Her Majesty's Judges', the executive is 'Her Majesty's Government'.

But by convention the Monarch may only exercise the very formidable powers formally vested in the Crown on the advice of the Ministers. Thus the Queen's speech to Parliament each session setting out the legislative programme of what the Queen refers to as 'My Government', is in fact written by the Prime Minister. The Queen's appointment of a judge or an army officer is but the formal act, the decision is taken by the ministry."

Second, the monarchy is above politics.

"This principle may be said to be the distinctive contribution of HRH Prince Albert, the consort of Queen Victoria, to the UK constitutional settlement and, indeed, towards the survival of the Monarchy as an institution. The ultimate supremacy of Parliament dates from 1688, the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' when the right of the nation to change a monarch it could no longer stomach was established. However, this did not prevent the Monarch from having a political point of view and successive Monarchs had little hesitation in expressing their views.

Queen Victoria commenced her reign as a partisan monarch. Under the benign influence of the Prince Consort she was persuaded to adopt today's convention which is that the Monarch does not publicly express partisan political views. The convention extends to members of the Monarch's immediate family. Occasionally, a speech on a social issue from the heir to the throne, or the consort will ruffle a few feathers in government, but on the whole, the convention has worked very well."

Third, "the Monarch has the right "to advise, to counsel and to warn".

"This aphorism is from Bageot and remains of validity. The Queen has many sources of information on public sentiment, she sees all despatches in foreign affairs and all important state papers in the domestic sphere. She receives daily reports of proceedings in Parliament and has a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. She has had such weekly audiences with every Prime Minister since her accession from Winston Churchill to Tony Blair. She is thus a great repository of information and experience on matters of state. Margaret Thatcher is quoted as saying that, 'if the Queen offered views on any subject, she would have them taken seriously' and although advice is offered subtly and in private, there is little doubt that it is listened to and commands respect. The last thing any prime minister needs is 'trouble with the Palace'."

And with Margaret Thatcher opposing my view about how the Monarch's voice would be heard, I close my argument. Or is Margaret Thatcher merely being polite?

Here is the link: British and UK Law

 

[mightyred]

Margaret Thatcher = Polite? Shudder....I lived through her premiership and she wasn''t called The Iron Lady for nothing!

I''d say Maggie most definately listened to the Queen but was being polite in how she dealt with it! And since the meetings were secret we will never know what they talked about!

One of the constant debates of the monarchy and their powers is that a lot of it is open to interpretation.

My interpretation of that is that yes on paper the Queen has power but in reality she respects the democratic process of her subjects and thus the government they elected. That doesn''t mean to say she doesn''t have a voice - she does by way of ''The Queen''s Speech'' each year on xmas Day. This past xmas she talked about religious and cultural tolerance and in recent years seems to tackle increasingly serious issues. She will have of course gone over her speech with the PM prior to the reading!

The Monarchy don''t want to push public opinion against themselves and neither the Government nor other parties have the stomach to abolish the monarchy and risk their public opinion in any election just yet. What is left ....status quo between the two and no one rocking the boat. Seems to suit them fine .

Great article in todays Guardian in the UK about the Chuck & Cam announcement in relation to a modern monarchy. It''s Time for a Middle Age Monarchy

 

[Bagpuss]

Date: 2/16/2005 4:17:18 AM
Author: movie zombie
but isn''t being a subject AND having a monarch system a holdover from feudal times? thinking about it a little more i guess one could take it back even further: even the romans had citizens AND subjects.....and it didn''t matter which you were: just like for us, we all get to pay taxes!

capitalism at its finest! already a camilla ring being marketed for those budding princes! never ceases to amaze me how fast these things occur.

peace, movie zombie

Not really, Britain had a monarch and subjects long before the feudal system kicked in with Edward the Conquerer. Back then though, it might suprise you to know, the nobility elected the king; the succession wasn''t from father to son.

 

[Bagpuss]

Date: 2/16/2005 12:40:53 PM
Author: mightyred
Margaret Thatcher = Polite? Shudder....I lived through her premiership and she wasn''t called The Iron Lady for nothing!

I''d say Maggie most definately listened to the Queen but was being polite in how she dealt with it! And since the meetings were secret we will never know what they talked about!

One of the constant debates of the monarchy and their powers is that a lot of it is open to interpretation.

My interpretation of that is that yes on paper the Queen has power but in reality she respects the democratic process of her subjects and thus the government they elected. That doesn''t mean to say she doesn''t have a voice - she does by way of ''The Queen''s Speech'' each year on xmas Day. This past xmas she talked about religious and cultural tolerance and in recent years seems to tackle increasingly serious issues. She will have of course gone over her speech with the PM prior to the reading!

The Monarchy don''t want to push public opinion against themselves and neither the Government nor other parties have the stomach to abolish the monarchy and risk their public opinion in any election just yet. What is left ....status quo between the two and no one rocking the boat. Seems to suit them fine .

Great article in todays Guardian in the UK about the Chuck & Cam announcement in relation to a modern monarchy. It''s Time for a Middle Age Monarchy

Nicely put.

 

[AGBF]

Is anyone else outside of the UK and the Commonwealth still following the proposed wedding of the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker-Bowles? Since I still am following it, I sometimes see an article that interests me. This one, which says what I have been thinking all along, took my fancy . It points out that the Church of England, which is now being held up as some sort of moral standard bearer, only exists because of Henry VIII's insistence on marrying whom he pleased! He set aside a *perfectly* lawful marriage to poor Catherine of Aragon and humiliated her by replacing her with Anne Boleyn during her lifetime, making her daughter a bastard! THAT is the holy relationship which started the church with which poor Prince Charles must live! If he could do as as Henry VIII did, none of this nonsense would be in the news at all. He'd be married to the woman to whom HE wants to be married, end of story!

Charles and Camilla, continued

 

[Bagpuss]

It''s all gone ominously quiet over here. Anyway, people are far too busy watching the Michael Jackson trial. The Royals'' story is pale stuff compared to that!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 3/2/2005 6:55:35 PM
Author: Bagpuss
It's all gone ominously quiet over here. Anyway, people are far too busy watching the Michael Jackson trial. The Royals' story is pale stuff compared to that!

Oh. Is it televised? I didn't watch any of the O.J. Simpson trial but I knew it was televised. Or do you just mean they are watching news reports about it?

 

[Bagpuss]

They''re doing recreations of the important bits with actors. It looks very realistic.

From what we''ve seen, so far, it looks like the boy''s mother has no credibility due to her previous attempts to extract money from celebs etc by litigation and her lawyer appears to have it in for MJ.

I don''t know if MJ has done anything wrong either in this case or in the past - I haven''t seen the evidence one way or the other - but based on the trial so far, he looks like he''s been set up in this instance.

 

[AGBF]

Here is an article on Camilla Parker-Bowles, which I found to be charming.

Camilla Parker-Bowles

Here are some excerpts:

"One of the nice things about Camilla Parker Bowles is that, even when she's done up radiantly in a raspberry Jean Muir gown, it always seems like there might be a bit of dog dirt on her shoe.
...

And she's got her own constituency. Improbable as it may seem, Camilla's equestrian chic -- complete with straining buttons and clomping shoes -- has been embraced on the catwalks of Europe. Don't take my word for it: Listen to her fellow Brit, Vogue editor Anna Wintour, who saw Burberry's new collection last week and bestowed her approval with the words, 'very Camilla Parker Bowles.'
...

Let's look at the dress Camilla wore on the night her engagement was announced, because it's instructive. Jean Muir is a fine London label, favoured by the type of lady who regards flashiness as the proper domain of footballers' wives.

...

She seemed like a woman who is making an effort at elegance, more for the sake of her man and her new public role than any inborn desire to shine. And if her hem came down, we knew she wouldn't cry like a Hollywood princess but pull a sewing kit from her evening bag and tack it back it up.
...

As depicted in Graham's 2001 book, Camilla: Her True Story, Camilla is raunchy, bawdy, fun-loving, discreet and loyal. In the classic manner of well-born Englishwomen (her mother was Lord Ashcombe's daughter and her father a decorated war hero), she would rather hunt than shop, and her tastes lean more to Barbour than Dior. There is a sensuous earthiness to Camilla common to many horse-loving girls. If anything, she is a fairy godmother to today's Sloane Rangers -- young, upper-crust socialites who prowl London's designer shops and It spots dressed in Wellingtons and eggy sweaters.

'She wasn't particularly clothes-conscious; nothing's changed there. But she always exuded a sexy confidence over men,' a friend of Camilla's recalls in Graham's book.

...

But she's still herself. Says Graham, 'She's not a glamourpuss. That's not Camilla. She probably doesn't even know what Botox is. She certainly doesn't go the gym. Her exercise is walking the dogs, riding. She enjoys eating, she likes a stiff drink. She enjoys her gin and tonic at the end of the day.'

She probably needs one now more than ever, as her wedding day is rapidly changing."

 

[Bagpuss]

Well, we''ll see. There have been nine seperate objections made to the civil ceremony so far which must be adressed before they can actually tie the knot legally.

So far they asked for no presents, no pictures, no flowers and, of course, there''ll be no Queen either. I wonder if they''ll bother to turn up themselves the way things are going!

 

[tanuki]

One of the problems they had so far was that if they had the Civil Ceremony at Windsor castle they would have to get some sort of permit that would then allow the general public to have their wedding at Windsor castle. And they didn''t want that.

I wonder why they don''t put out to sea and have it on the Queen''s yacht. They could be married by the captain of the ship in international waters.

These people objecting should just go leave them alone. For heavens sake. Mind your own business.

 

[Bagpuss]

They couldn''t even do that though, this is the problem. The objectors are saying that the civil marriage ceremony doesn''t apply to Royals according to British law. So any civil ceremony would be null and void. The Church won''t marry them. So what do they do? Pass a law to make the civil ceremony legal. That''s the final solution if the objections are upheld.

 

[movie zombie]

AGBF, thanks for the article link. i thoroughly enjoyed it. long live camilla!

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 3/5/2005 7:35

0 PM
Author: Bagpuss
They couldn't even do that though, this is the problem. The objectors are saying that the civil marriage ceremony doesn't apply to Royals according to British law. So any civil ceremony would be null and void. The Church won't marry them. So what do they do? Pass a law to make the civil ceremony legal. That's the final solution if the objections are upheld.

Well, the objections have *NOT* been upheld, but it is apparently still possible that the matter could go to court. Here is an excerpt.

"Eleven people submitted caveats, or objections, to the registrar general. Some argued that the Marriage Act of 1949, which authorized civil marriages, excluded the royals because it said 'nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the royal family.'

Registrar General Len Cook disagreed: 'A reading of the 1949 act which prevented the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker Bowles from contracting a civil marriage would interfere with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.'

The Lord Chancellor, the chief legal officer of England and Wales, took the same line in his earlier opinion.

The Office for National Statistics said objectors could try to take their case to court. A judge would then decide whether to hear the case."

The article in its entirety is available here:

Objections to Royal Wedding Rejected