- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Could This Be True? Camilla Banned from White House?
- Thread starter AGBF
- Start date
- Status
All I can say is "oh brother"
I thoroughly enjoyed the Camilla/Charles thread about the British rule. You all really do make it up as you go along.
And, look forward to hearing more scuttlebutt about the developing story.
Yeah, the Queen''s "snubbing" sells far more papers. But, in essence isn''t she turning a blind eye? Is she putting protocol above being at her son''s wedding? I guess her ultimate responsibility is to her subjects.
I thoroughly enjoyed the Camilla/Charles thread about the British rule. You all really do make it up as you go along.
Yeah, the Queen''s "snubbing" sells far more papers. But, in essence isn''t she turning a blind eye? Is she putting protocol above being at her son''s wedding? I guess her ultimate responsibility is to her subjects.
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
The scenario keeps changing. First the wedding was to be at Windsor Castle with the Queen in attendance and Princes William and Harry acting as their father''s supporters. Then Windsor castle was out and then the Queen was out. Now Princes William and Harry are out, too...and there is still, apparently, debate on whether the marriage requires an Act of Parliament! Tune in tomorrow for the next installment!
Harry and Wills Are Out, Too!
Harry and Wills Are Out, Too!
Goodness gracious.
If I recall correctly, one must actively *convert* to Catholism. By virtue of being married in a Catholic church does not make her a Catholic. Yes, if you do not have the first marriage annuled, she will be still married in the eyes of the Cath. church - BUT - she isn't Catholic. So, how can she be a bigamist?
What a bloody can of worms. I still vote "off with her head".
If I recall correctly, one must actively *convert* to Catholism. By virtue of being married in a Catholic church does not make her a Catholic. Yes, if you do not have the first marriage annuled, she will be still married in the eyes of the Cath. church - BUT - she isn't Catholic. So, how can she be a bigamist?
What a bloody can of worms. I still vote "off with her head".
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
I do not know what size this will turn out to be since I am working from a computer without the correct software to handle photographs. I thought it was amusing, as was some of the text. This is certainly not a reliable source of information, just amusing!
The Son King
Here is an excerpt:
"Surely though, a statesmen of President Bush's status wouldn't let such personal sentiments damage this important opportunity to build bridge's between our nation and the future King of England?
In Britain, it's been observed that this was meant to launch an American tour that would have been Camilla's first official function after her marriage to her life long love, Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales.Given the Bush family's deep affection for the British Royals (George's parents, the former President and First Lady, are, after all, Sir George and Lady Barbara Bush, the Queen having granted Bush41 an OBE some years back.) this very public humiliation seems both astonishing and troubling.
Imagine, to be told you're not good enough to dine at the White House at the end of a week when the whole world has learned how a pseudonymous gay hooker came and went for over two years.
My, my. That must sting.
Should we understand from this that, henceforth, the White House will no longer be open to divorcees? Is it "fare thee well, Rush" and "Sorry, Newt" from here on out? With the bar set that high there must be many Bush family members and friends who simply couldn't make the grade either.
The entire episode seems as bizarre as the new attack ad on the AARP. Are we beginning to witness the madness of our own King George?
Perhaps it's not that at all. Maybe Prince Charles simply bawked at signing one of those ubiquitous loyalty oaths, and this is just being feed to the press as a cover story?
Of course, it could be even crazier than that. I mean if this is the same George Bush whom his former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush, claimed was snorting coke at Camp David in the `90s, it seems a bit ludicrous to claim such a standard. Although Sharon's treachery might have made him a bit more wary of Divorcees (even Gay Divorcees, like in that Fred Astaire movie) it's not as if the President is either of the royal blood or the head of the Church of England, is it?
Although Bush himself likes the odd photo op where we see him all testosteroned-up, perhaps it is his more light-footed aristocratic mien that really tells us where his heart lies. Since his rule at least aspires to despotism, I draw note to some other oddities of behaviour that have been reported -
1) His feet may not touch the earth - Apparently, His Majesty's feet are not permitted to touch the earth. Seems pretty odd for a down-to-earth tough guy, but pretty par for the course for a Divinely anointed King. (as reported by Jimmy Breslin in Newsday on March 11, 2004)
2) Do not look directly at Him - Participants in last month's Inaugural Parade were warned NOT to look at Bush while passing him at the reviewing stand. Was this for fear of some terrorist evil eye or is it just in the long tradition forbidding mere mortals to look upon the divine person of the King?
Can it long before he claims to cure scrofula by the laying on of his hands?
Since Bush aims to revoke even the Magna Carta, we must ask does Bush consider himself an absolute Monarch? He and his supporters have certainly wasted no time lending his reign the aura of Divine Right. Does this represent a larger psychological plan to lend George the authority and mystique of the British Royal family? Circa Charles I? Knowing that Republics shy away from the pretensions of Empire, having a sacred kingship and the enshrined sense of divine mission that can be attached to it, are absolutely essential if you're trying to bamboozle the nation into giving you unprecedented and, frankly, despotic powers ."
The Son King
Here is an excerpt:
"Surely though, a statesmen of President Bush's status wouldn't let such personal sentiments damage this important opportunity to build bridge's between our nation and the future King of England?
In Britain, it's been observed that this was meant to launch an American tour that would have been Camilla's first official function after her marriage to her life long love, Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales.Given the Bush family's deep affection for the British Royals (George's parents, the former President and First Lady, are, after all, Sir George and Lady Barbara Bush, the Queen having granted Bush41 an OBE some years back.) this very public humiliation seems both astonishing and troubling.
Imagine, to be told you're not good enough to dine at the White House at the end of a week when the whole world has learned how a pseudonymous gay hooker came and went for over two years.
My, my. That must sting.
Should we understand from this that, henceforth, the White House will no longer be open to divorcees? Is it "fare thee well, Rush" and "Sorry, Newt" from here on out? With the bar set that high there must be many Bush family members and friends who simply couldn't make the grade either.
The entire episode seems as bizarre as the new attack ad on the AARP. Are we beginning to witness the madness of our own King George?
Perhaps it's not that at all. Maybe Prince Charles simply bawked at signing one of those ubiquitous loyalty oaths, and this is just being feed to the press as a cover story?
Of course, it could be even crazier than that. I mean if this is the same George Bush whom his former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush, claimed was snorting coke at Camp David in the `90s, it seems a bit ludicrous to claim such a standard. Although Sharon's treachery might have made him a bit more wary of Divorcees (even Gay Divorcees, like in that Fred Astaire movie) it's not as if the President is either of the royal blood or the head of the Church of England, is it?
Although Bush himself likes the odd photo op where we see him all testosteroned-up, perhaps it is his more light-footed aristocratic mien that really tells us where his heart lies. Since his rule at least aspires to despotism, I draw note to some other oddities of behaviour that have been reported -
1) His feet may not touch the earth - Apparently, His Majesty's feet are not permitted to touch the earth. Seems pretty odd for a down-to-earth tough guy, but pretty par for the course for a Divinely anointed King. (as reported by Jimmy Breslin in Newsday on March 11, 2004)
2) Do not look directly at Him - Participants in last month's Inaugural Parade were warned NOT to look at Bush while passing him at the reviewing stand. Was this for fear of some terrorist evil eye or is it just in the long tradition forbidding mere mortals to look upon the divine person of the King?
Can it long before he claims to cure scrofula by the laying on of his hands?
Since Bush aims to revoke even the Magna Carta, we must ask does Bush consider himself an absolute Monarch? He and his supporters have certainly wasted no time lending his reign the aura of Divine Right. Does this represent a larger psychological plan to lend George the authority and mystique of the British Royal family? Circa Charles I? Knowing that Republics shy away from the pretensions of Empire, having a sacred kingship and the enshrined sense of divine mission that can be attached to it, are absolutely essential if you're trying to bamboozle the nation into giving you unprecedented and, frankly, despotic powers ."
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
- Status
300x240.png)