Discussion:
How closely related are Charles & Camilla?
(too old to reply)
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-11 22:00:56 UTC
Permalink
I posted this much earlier today but it does not seem to have
appeared on the list or in the news group. Perhaps Buck House has a
censor wielding his scissors! Anyway, I am posting it again and if it
appears twice, many apologies.

Original message.....

Now that Prince Charles has announced he is finally to make an honest
woman of Camilla, it seems reasonable to speculate on their family
blood relationship, which is possibly somewhat closer than many folks
imagine

It's well known that Camilla's great-grandmother, Mrs Alice Keppel,
was one of the mistresses of Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales.
However, some historians believe Alice's daughter, Sonia Rosemary
Keppel (1900-1986), Camilla's grandmother, was fathered by the Prince
and not by Alice's cuckolded husband, George Keppel, who was a younger
brother of Arnold Allan Cecil Keppel, 8th Earl of Albemarle.

I have a CD-ROM describing all the royal families of Europe and on the
entry for Sonia it says: "Believed by some to be the daughter of the
Prince of Wales."

I've just been working it out and if Sonia Keppel was indeed the
illegitimate daughter of Edward VII, this would make her a half-sister
to King George V. Sonia married Ronald Calvert Cubbit, 3rd Lord
Ashcombe, and their daughter was Camilla's mother, the Hon Rosalind
Maud Cubitt, who would thus be a first cousin to King George VI. This
would make Camilla herself a second cousin to the Queen. So she could
be Charles's second cousin once removed - rather closer than generally
thought. Camilla descends from a mistress of Charles II, just like
Diana, so they were related, too, but distantly.

BTW, has anyone noticed the remarkable resemblance of "Princess
Camilla" to Audrey Roberts, the battleaxe of Coronation Street? They
could be sisters! Perhaps they are, since the actress who plays
Audrey Roberts, Sue Nicholls, is also a member of the aristocracy,
her real name being the Hon Susan Harmar-Nicholls, daughter of a life
peer baron.

All in the family, eh?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Goonerak
2005-02-11 22:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
BTW, has anyone noticed the remarkable resemblance of "Princess
Camilla" to Audrey Roberts, the battleaxe of Coronation Street? They
could be sisters! Perhaps they are, since the actress who plays
Audrey Roberts, Sue Nicholls, is also a member of the aristocracy,
her real name being the Hon Susan Harmar-Nicholls, daughter of a life
peer baron.
And also Who Wants To Be A Millionaire winner Judith Keppel. But then that's
hardly surprising, is it?

;-)
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-11 22:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Goonerak
Post by Roy Stockdill
BTW, has anyone noticed the remarkable resemblance of "Princess
Camilla" to Audrey Roberts, the battleaxe of Coronation Street? They
could be sisters! Perhaps they are, since the actress who plays
Audrey Roberts, Sue Nicholls, is also a member of the aristocracy,
her real name being the Hon Susan Harmar-Nicholls, daughter of a life
peer baron.
And also Who Wants To Be A Millionaire winner Judith Keppel. But then that's
hardly surprising, is it?>
Indeed. She, too, is a member of the same clan and a cousin of some
sort of Camilla's.

I recall that when she became the first person to win 1 million
pounds she did so by getting right a question about Henry II. Hardly
surprising, since she is a direct descendant.

But, then, we ordinary folks mustn't be cynical or envious must we?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Jill.
2005-02-11 22:41:52 UTC
Permalink
"Roy Stockdill" wrote:
.
Post by Roy Stockdill
But, then, we ordinary folks mustn't be cynical or envious must we?
surely you jest ?

Who would aspire to be envious of "her" ?

shudder!

[the millionaire cousin is a different kettle of fish altogether - has
plenty of marbles and charisma to boot]


--

Regards
Jill Bowis

Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter
Sumner, Moss, Haughton, Hampson, Owen,
Sharon
2005-02-11 22:49:29 UTC
Permalink
The millionare won her million fair, and square, while
that other woman slept her way to the top, and clearly
has made considerably more. Does that mean she has no
marbles? (Not sure about the charisma)<g>

Sharon
Post by Jill.
surely you jest ?
Who would aspire to be envious of "her" ?
shudder!
[the millionaire cousin is a different kettle of
fish altogether - has
plenty of marbles and charisma to boot]
--
Regards
Jill Bowis
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Jill.
2005-02-11 23:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
The millionare won her million fair, and square, while
that other woman slept her way to the top, and clearly
has made considerably more. Does that mean she has no
marbles?
only if what she was up against required marbles to climb up ???

(Not sure about the charisma)<g>

glad to hear it
--
regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-11 23:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill.
.
Post by Roy Stockdill
But, then, we ordinary folks mustn't be cynical or envious must we?
surely you jest ?
Who would aspire to be envious of "her" ?>
Well, I can think of a couple of bull terriers in my road who
are almost as good looking.....

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"Relations are simply a tedious pack of people, who haven't got the remotest
knowledge of how to live, nor the remotest instinct about when to die."

Oscar Wilde
Jill.
2005-02-11 23:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Jill.
.
Post by Roy Stockdill
But, then, we ordinary folks mustn't be cynical or envious must we?
surely you jest ?
Who would aspire to be envious of "her" ?>
Well, I can think of a couple of bull terriers in my road who
are almost as good looking.....
aye
but then they will have character to compensate
--
Regards
Jill Bowis

Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter
Sumner, Moss, Haughton, Hampson, Owen,
Thingy
2005-02-12 08:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Well, I can think of a couple of bull terriers in my road who are
almost as good looking.....
Whilst chewing wasps, or otherwise?

{scuttles back to work before the OT police shout at her}
--
Thingy
I'm not short, I'm concentrated
Dave Mayall
2005-02-12 20:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Jill.
.
Post by Roy Stockdill
But, then, we ordinary folks mustn't be cynical or envious must we?
surely you jest ?
Who would aspire to be envious of "her" ?>
Well, I can think of a couple of bull terriers in my road who
are almost as good looking.....
I thought we had you down as a Yorkshire Terrier, rather than a Bull
Terrier.
--
Dave Mayall
Arcadia
2005-02-14 13:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Is it my imagination...or do old postings keep popping up.

I'm sure this one was posted a few days ago, and as far as I can see
with no further alteration.

This is not the only post that has done that.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Mayall [mailto:***@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: 12 February 2005 20:07
To: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: How closely related are Charles & Camilla?
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Jill.
.
Post by Roy Stockdill
But, then, we ordinary folks mustn't be cynical or envious must we?
surely you jest ?
Who would aspire to be envious of "her" ?>
Well, I can think of a couple of bull terriers in my road who
are almost as good looking.....
I thought we had you down as a Yorkshire Terrier, rather than a Bull
Terrier.
--
Dave Mayall

______________________________
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/2005
Hugh Watkins
2005-02-14 19:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arcadia
Is it my imagination...or do old postings keep popping up.
I'm sure this one was posted a few days ago, and as far as I can see
with no further alteration.
This is not the only post that has done that.
X-Resent-Message-ID: <***@lists2.rootsweb.com>
X-To: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com
X-Resent-From: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com
X-Mailing-List: <GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/131691
X-Loop: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com

whihc means as a list reader
you are suffering from the rootsweb mail server problems

Hugh W
Sharon
2005-02-12 01:58:55 UTC
Permalink
I'm curious about that ring he gave her. Its a royal
family heirloom, and supposedly belonged to Charles
grandmother. Is that the Queen Mum, because I thought
she was the one who was the major stumbling block on
the road to matrimony. I can't see how Charles would
give her a ring that had been his granny's, seeing how
she did not approve of his relationship with Camilla.
Hmmm.....

Sharon
Post by Roy Stockdill
But, then, we ordinary folks mustn't be cynical or
envious must we?
Roy Stockdill
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Charani
2005-02-12 09:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
I'm curious about that ring he gave her. Its a royal
family heirloom, and supposedly belonged to Charles
grandmother. Is that the Queen Mum, because I thought
she was the one who was the major stumbling block on
the road to matrimony. I can't see how Charles would
give her a ring that had been his granny's, seeing how
she did not approve of his relationship with Camilla.
Hmmm.....
Yes, the Queen Mum was Charles grandmother. I noticed that the ring
had a very old fashioned (to modern eyes) setting. It could be that
the Queen Mum inherited it from her mother or mother in law.

I'm sure someone will know the history of the ring though <G>
Sharon
2005-02-12 16:26:07 UTC
Permalink
The news report didn't exactly say which of Charles'
grandmothers it belonged to. We assume the Queen Mum,
but it could have been Philip's mothers, too.
Post by Charani
Yes, the Queen Mum was Charles grandmother. I
noticed that the ring
had a very old fashioned (to modern eyes) setting.
It could be that
the Queen Mum inherited it from her mother or mother
in law.
I'm sure someone will know the history of the ring
though <G>
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Charani
2005-02-12 17:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
The news report didn't exactly say which of Charles'
grandmothers it belonged to. We assume the Queen Mum,
but it could have been Philip's mothers, too.
True, depends on what Philip thought about Camilla. He's dead set
again Andrew getting back with Sarah, even though it seems to be
something they both want.
Sharon
2005-02-14 16:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Andrew, and Sarah are still living together under the
same roof with their daughters, aren't they? That's as
good as married, so why not make it legal, and proper?
Is what they're doing any different than what Charles,
and Camilla were doing? I'd never thought we'd see the
day when those two would ever marry, so I guess
there's hope for Andrew, and Sarah.

Sharon
Post by Charani
True, depends on what Philip thought about Camilla.
He's dead set
again Andrew getting back with Sarah, even though it
seems to be
something they both want.
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Charani
2005-02-14 19:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
Andrew, and Sarah are still living together under the
same roof with their daughters, aren't they? That's as
good as married, so why not make it legal, and proper?
Is what they're doing any different than what Charles,
and Camilla were doing? I'd never thought we'd see the
day when those two would ever marry, so I guess
there's hope for Andrew, and Sarah.
It's Philip who won't allow Andrew and Sarah remarry apparently. If
that's so, then I guess once Philip shuffles off, Andrew and Sarah
will remarry after a suitable period.

Sarah had been living with her daughters in a lodge on Andrew's
estate, although they all spent a great deal of time with him. The
daughters were going to a finishing school in Switzerland.

I'm afraid I've rather lost track of all the comings and goings.

The difference between Andrew and Sarah and Charles and Camilla is
that Andrew and Sarah were married to each other whereas Charles and
Camilla were married to other people.

There's always hope :))
Anne
2005-02-12 23:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
I'm curious about that ring he gave her. Its a royal
family heirloom, and supposedly belonged to Charles
grandmother. Is that the Queen Mum, because I thought
she was the one who was the major stumbling block on
the road to matrimony. I can't see how Charles would
give her a ring that had been his granny's, seeing how
she did not approve of his relationship with Camilla.
Hmmm.....
Sharon
She wasn't too much against the relationship, if at all, for she let them
use Birkhall, her home on the Balmoral estate, and also ensured that Camilla
had an invitation to her funeral.
Tids
2005-02-12 23:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne
Post by Sharon
I'm curious about that ring he gave her. Its a royal
family heirloom, and supposedly belonged to Charles
grandmother. Is that the Queen Mum, because I thought
she was the one who was the major stumbling block on
the road to matrimony. I can't see how Charles would
give her a ring that had been his granny's, seeing how
she did not approve of his relationship with Camilla.
Hmmm.....
Sharon
She wasn't too much against the relationship, if at all, for she let them
use Birkhall, her home on the Balmoral estate, and also ensured that Camilla
had an invitation to her funeral.
Wasn't it her that persuaded Charles to marry the concubine
to produce the heirs.......?
Gill W
2005-02-13 17:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
I'm curious about that ring he gave her. Its a royal
family heirloom, and supposedly belonged to Charles
grandmother. Is that the Queen Mum, because I thought
she was the one who was the major stumbling block on
the road to matrimony. I can't see how Charles would
give her a ring that had been his granny's, seeing how
she did not approve of his relationship with Camilla.
Hmmm.....
Sharon
That didn't seem to worry either of them (Ch or Cam) unduly when he moved
Camilla into Granny's former home, Clarence House.....
--
Gill W

Life is not a rehearsal.
Take time out to smell the flowers & enjoy the sunset.
Post by Sharon
Post by Roy Stockdill
But, then, we ordinary folks mustn't be cynical or
envious must we?
Roy Stockdill
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Tids
2005-02-11 22:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
BTW, has anyone noticed the remarkable resemblance of "Princess
Camilla" to Audrey Roberts, the battleaxe of Coronation Street?
Yes, both have a face like a dockers rucksack.
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-11 22:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Roy Stockdill wrote:

<snip>
Post by Roy Stockdill
Now that Prince Charles has announced he is finally to make an honest
woman of Camilla, it seems reasonable to speculate on their family
blood relationship, which is possibly somewhat closer than many folks
imagine
It's well known that Camilla's great-grandmother, Mrs Alice Keppel,
was one of the mistresses of Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales.
Anyone would like to have in their family someone who married the grand
daughter of their gr grandfather's mistress, or at least I would!
Post by Roy Stockdill
However, some historians believe Alice's daughter, Sonia Rosemary
Keppel (1900-1986), Camilla's grandmother, was fathered by the Prince
and not by Alice's cuckolded husband, George Keppel, who was a younger
brother of Arnold Allan Cecil Keppel, 8th Earl of Albemarle.
One would want slightly higher proof than the occasional historian and
royal watcher's speculations on the biological father. Can you cite some
references on this? I confess to thinking it a subject of no great interest.
Post by Roy Stockdill
I have a CD-ROM describing all the royal families of Europe and on the
entry for Sonia it says: "Believed by some to be the daughter of the
Prince of Wales."
"Believed by some" extremely woolly, not enough to base a hypothesis on.
Post by Roy Stockdill
I've just been working it out and if Sonia Keppel was indeed the
illegitimate daughter of Edward VII, this would make her a half-sister
to King George V. Sonia married Ronald Calvert Cubbit, 3rd Lord
Ashcombe, and their daughter was Camilla's mother, the Hon Rosalind
Maud Cubitt, who would thus be a first cousin to King George VI. This
would make Camilla herself a second cousin to the Queen. So she could
be Charles's second cousin once removed - rather closer than generally
thought.
Even if this is so, second cousinships are not all that close, in this
case there is the extra half! I have little doubt that many of us have
such associations in our trees.

Camilla descends from a mistress of Charles II, just like
Post by Roy Stockdill
Diana, so they were related, too, but distantly.
Many people seem to share this distinction.
Post by Roy Stockdill
BTW, has anyone noticed the remarkable resemblance of "Princess
Camilla" to Audrey Roberts, the battleaxe of Coronation Street? They
could be sisters! Perhaps they are, since the actress who plays
Audrey Roberts, Sue Nicholls, is also a member of the aristocracy,
her real name being the Hon Susan Harmar-Nicholls, daughter of a life
peer baron.
I can not believe that anyone would seriously claim that a Life Peer is
an aristocrat.
Post by Roy Stockdill
All in the family, eh?
Eh?

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Don Aitken
2005-02-12 01:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
I posted this much earlier today but it does not seem to have
appeared on the list or in the news group. Perhaps Buck House has a
censor wielding his scissors! Anyway, I am posting it again and if it
appears twice, many apologies.
Original message.....
Now that Prince Charles has announced he is finally to make an honest
woman of Camilla, it seems reasonable to speculate on their family
blood relationship, which is possibly somewhat closer than many folks
imagine
The indefatigable William Adams Reitwiesner has her known descendants
for twelve generations at
http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/camilla.html

If you don't know WAR's work, I would just say that he is caught out
in fewer errors than any genealogist I know.

The most recent common ancestor of Charles and Camilla seems to be the
2nd Duke of Newcastle (d.1691). Camilla is, in fact, more closely
related to Diana than to Charles.

I'm sure you will be deeply unimpressed to learn that Camilla is a
cousin of Celine Dion and Madonna, but ou might be happier to know
that she is descended from the Cromwells! Not the Protector himself,
but his fourth cousin, Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Ardglass.
Post by Roy Stockdill
It's well known that Camilla's great-grandmother, Mrs Alice Keppel,
was one of the mistresses of Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales.
However, some historians believe Alice's daughter, Sonia Rosemary
Keppel (1900-1986), Camilla's grandmother, was fathered by the Prince
and not by Alice's cuckolded husband, George Keppel, who was a younger
brother of Arnold Allan Cecil Keppel, 8th Earl of Albemarle.
I have a CD-ROM describing all the royal families of Europe and on the
entry for Sonia it says: "Believed by some to be the daughter of the
Prince of Wales."
The Edward VII connection is dealt with at the very end of that page -
it seems the only available anwer is "nobody knows", but the doubters
seem to outnumber the believers.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Paul C
2005-02-12 07:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Roy Stockdill
I posted this much earlier today but it does not seem to have
appeared on the list or in the news group. Perhaps Buck House has a
censor wielding his scissors! Anyway, I am posting it again and if it
appears twice, many apologies.
Original message.....
Now that Prince Charles has announced he is finally to make an honest
woman of Camilla, it seems reasonable to speculate on their family
blood relationship, which is possibly somewhat closer than many folks
imagine
The indefatigable William Adams Reitwiesner has her known descendants
for twelve generations at
She older than she looks, then.
--
Paul
S***@family-news.org
2005-02-12 12:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Roy Stockdill wrote in a message to All:

RS> From: ***@stockdill.com ("Roy Stockdill")

RS> I posted this much earlier today but it does not seem to have
RS> appeared on the list or in the news group. Perhaps Buck House has a
RS> censor wielding his scissors! Anyway, I am posting it again and if
RS> it appears twice, many apologies.

RS> Original message.....

RS> Now that Prince Charles has announced he is finally to make an
RS> honest woman of Camilla, it seems reasonable to speculate on their
RS> family blood relationship, which is possibly somewhat closer than
RS> many folks imagine

Since you have raised the topic, I wonder how the Royal Marriages Act affects
this?

Some of my wife's relatives claim that but for the Royal Marriages Act one of
their relatives would be on the British throne. A spurious claim, of course,
but it makes the topic of some interest.

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: ***@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)
Thingy
2005-02-12 08:15:26 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@fmlynet.org>, ***@family-news.org
writes
Post by S***@family-news.org
Some of my wife's relatives claim that but for the Royal Marriages Act
one of their relatives would be on the British throne. A spurious
claim, of course, but it makes the topic of some interest.
I didn't know your wife was related to Vera Duckworth
--
Thingy
I'm not short, I'm concentrated
Alan Bloor
2005-02-12 08:28:10 UTC
Permalink
I have to stand up for Audrey Roberts here.

She in my opinion is the most attractive of the older female
characters on Coronation Street.

Whereas Camillla - no comment <g>

Alan
S***@family-news.org
2005-02-13 02:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@family-news.org
Some of my wife's relatives claim that but for the Royal Marriages Act
one of their relatives would be on the British throne. A spurious
claim, of course, but it makes the topic of some interest.
T> I didn't know your wife was related to Vera Duckworth

Nor did I.

Who's Vera Duckworth?

Could it be a new addition to the family tree?

Sala kahle

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: ***@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)
Roger Lovegrove
2005-02-12 09:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Steve wrote

<<it makes the topic of some interest>>

Sorry, but I can't think of **anything** which would make this subject
interesting.

<YAWN>

Roger Lovegrove

Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times.
Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on
http://www.lovegrove.f9.co.uk/ons/index.html
Charani
2005-02-12 09:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@family-news.org
Since you have raised the topic, I wonder how the Royal Marriages Act affects
this?
I've wondered about that too. I was always led to believe that Edward
had to abdicate when he married Wallis Simpson because she was a
divorcee. If that is true, then Charles won't be able to take the
throne either but if the story is true that he never want the throne
anyway this could be his "get out".

No doubt all will be made clear in the fullness of time :))
Alan Bloor
2005-02-12 11:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charani
Post by S***@family-news.org
Since you have raised the topic, I wonder how the Royal Marriages Act affects
this?
I've wondered about that too. I was always led to believe that Edward
had to abdicate when he married Wallis Simpson because she was a
divorcee. If that is true, then Charles won't be able to take the
throne either but if the story is true that he never want the throne
anyway this could be his "get out".
It's true about Edward VIII but it was more down to public opinion
than the law. The argument is that public opinion towards divorce etc
has changed in the last 60 years so Charles is not precluded from
becoming King. Whether he ought to do so is another matter, and public
opinion at the moment seems evenly split. It will be interesting to
see what happens in the fullness of time. If the Queen lives as long
as her mother did then Charles will be nearly 80 and William 40. In
my opinion it would seem more sensible to pass the crown to William in
those circumstances. Let's hope that William can keep his nose clean
ie. marry someone he loves and respects and be the first Prince of
Wales NOT to have a mistress <g>

Alan
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-12 12:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Alan -

It would seem that it was because the P o W was a little slow off the
mark in proposing some thirty years ago that we have had the intervening
road show inflicted on us.

In any event, the royal mistress has always held a (fairly) honourable
place in history, why change matters now?

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon


Alan Bloor wrote:

<snip>
Post by Alan Bloor
Let's hope that William can keep his nose clean
ie. marry someone he loves and respects and be the first Prince of
Wales NOT to have a mistress <g>
Charani
2005-02-12 14:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
It would seem that it was because the P o W was a little slow off the
mark in proposing some thirty years ago that we have had the intervening
road show inflicted on us.
I was told many years ago by someone who moved in those circles that
Diana was chosen for Charles when she was very young, hence the long
wait until he did get married. That being so, he wasn't in a position
to propose to Camilla.
Post by Andrew Sellon
In any event, the royal mistress has always held a (fairly) honourable
place in history, why change matters now?
Don't Royal Mistresses come with the job?? ;))
Arcadia
2005-02-12 16:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Unfortunately history always repeats its self. Which is why Princess
Margaret got hitched to that idiot Snowdon, instead of that nice Peter
Townsend. I dare say there are plenty of other examples. I just hope
that Camilla isn't as mentally derranged as the last one, Di.



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Sellon [mailto:***@sellon.vispa.com]
Sent: 12 February 2005 12:06
To: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: How closely related are Charles & Camilla?

Alan -

It would seem that it was because the P o W was a little slow off the
mark in proposing some thirty years ago that we have had the intervening

road show inflicted on us.

In any event, the royal mistress has always held a (fairly) honourable
place in history, why change matters now?

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon


Alan Bloor wrote:

<snip>
Post by Alan Bloor
Let's hope that William can keep his nose clean
ie. marry someone he loves and respects and be the first Prince of
Wales NOT to have a mistress <g>
______________________________
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/2005
Thingy
2005-02-12 16:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arcadia
Unfortunately history always repeats its self. Which is why Princess
Margaret got hitched to that idiot Snowdon, instead of that nice Peter
Townsend. I dare say there are plenty of other examples. I just hope
that Camilla isn't as mentally derranged as the last one, Di.
Well, she certainly doesn't *look* as if she suffers from an eating
disorder ;)
--
Thingy
I'm not short, I'm concentrated
Charani
2005-02-12 14:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Bloor
It's true about Edward VIII but it was more down to public opinion
than the law. The argument is that public opinion towards divorce etc
has changed in the last 60 years so Charles is not precluded from
becoming King. Whether he ought to do so is another matter, and public
opinion at the moment seems evenly split. It will be interesting to
see what happens in the fullness of time. If the Queen lives as long
as her mother did then Charles will be nearly 80 and William 40. In
my opinion it would seem more sensible to pass the crown to William in
those circumstances. Let's hope that William can keep his nose clean
ie. marry someone he loves and respects and be the first Prince of
Wales NOT to have a mistress <g>
There's no publically known reason to expect the throne to change
hands (or should that be bottoms?) in the forseeable future. William
may yet be the next occupant.

Whether William will have a mistress or not will depend on who is
selected for him to marry and how much effort both parties put into
making the marriage work.
Sharon
2005-02-12 16:50:39 UTC
Permalink
And if its not William, just think, we'll all have to
swear allegiance to King Harry. ;-)

Sharon
Post by Charani
There's no publically known reason to expect the
throne to change
hands (or should that be bottoms?) in the forseeable
future. William
may yet be the next occupant.
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Charani
2005-02-12 17:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
And if its not William, just think, we'll all have to
swear allegiance to King Harry. ;-)
*No thank you*!! :(( I'd rather it were King Andrew, or Queen Anne
III (or should it be II?).
Sharon
2005-02-14 16:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Well, if it came down to Harry, why wouldn't he be a
good monarch?

Sharon
Post by Charani
*No thank you*!! :(( I'd rather it were King
Andrew, or Queen Anne
III (or should it be II?).
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Charani
2005-02-14 19:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
Well, if it came down to Harry, why wouldn't he be a
good monarch?
Personally, I think he's too irresponsible. He doesn't come across as
taking his position seriously. OK, I know he's only young but he's
still got a responsibility which has come with his parents being who
they were, esp his father. Harry is very like Diana.

Gill W
2005-02-13 18:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
And if its not William, just think, we'll all have to
swear allegiance to King Harry. ;-)
Sharon
...Henry.....(Charles, Albert, David).....
--
Gill W

Life is not a rehearsal.
Take time out to smell the flowers & enjoy the sunset.
Post by Sharon
Post by Charani
There's no publically known reason to expect the
throne to change
hands (or should that be bottoms?) in the forseeable
future. William
may yet be the next occupant.
______________________________________________________________
Post by Sharon
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Eve McLaughlin
2005-02-13 00:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
And if its not William, just think, we'll all have to
swear allegiance to King Harry. ;-)
only if the DNA test is unexpected.
--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Sharon
2005-02-12 16:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Wasn't Wallis Smpson a Catholic, too? As is Camilla.
The divorcee issue isn't the only strike against them.

Sharon
Post by Charani
I've wondered about that too. I was always led to
believe that Edward
had to abdicate when he married Wallis Simpson
because she was a
divorcee. If that is true, then Charles won't be
able to take the
throne either but if the story is true that he never
want the throne
anyway this could be his "get out".
No doubt all will be made clear in the fullness of
time :))
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Alan Bloor
2005-02-12 16:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
Wasn't Wallis Smpson a Catholic, too? As is Camilla.
The divorcee issue isn't the only strike against them.
Sharon
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think either lady was/is a
Catholic. According to the newspaper the other day, the original issue
with Camilla was that she had had boyfriends in the past. Charles
appears to have dithered about proposing because of this, so she
married Andrew Parker-Bowles instead.

Alan
Sharon
2005-02-14 16:08:40 UTC
Permalink
No, I'm sure I heard both of them were Catholic. No
one seems to talk about that, though.

Sharon
Post by Alan Bloor
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think either
lady was/is a
Catholic. According to the newspaper the other day,
the original issue
with Camilla was that she had had boyfriends in the
past. Charles
appears to have dithered about proposing because of
this, so she
married Andrew Parker-Bowles instead.
Alan
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Jeff
2005-02-14 16:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
No, I'm sure I heard both of them were Catholic. No
one seems to talk about that, though.
I don't know about Camilla but Simpson was not (and never
had been) RC

For anybody interested in that abdication there is an
excellent paper at:
http://www.chilit.org/HERMANN1.HTM
Brian Pears
2005-02-14 16:57:41 UTC
Permalink
No, I'm sure I heard both of them were Catholic. No one seems to talk
about that, though.
Sharon

Andrew Parker Bowles is Catholic but Camilla (nee Shand) is
and always has been C of E. If she were Catholic then it
would be illegal for Charles to marry her. (A law which should
have long-since been consigned to the dust-bin of history
along with slavery, public executions and transportation. The
Act of Settlement made sense in 1701 - today it is an
anachronism.)
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Dave Mayall
2005-02-14 17:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
No, I'm sure I heard both of them were Catholic. No one seems to talk
about that, though.
Sharon
Andrew Parker Bowles is Catholic but Camilla (nee Shand) is
and always has been C of E. If she were Catholic then it
would be illegal for Charles to marry her.
No it wouldn't.

It would simply mean that he was no longer entitled to become king in due
course.
Arcadia
2005-02-12 17:13:36 UTC
Permalink
I think that with Edward there was a lot more to it. After all it was
quite fashionable to marry a Yank back then. Edward had Nazi leanings
which didn't go down too well with politicians. He may also have been
bluffing when he threatened to abdicate.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon [mailto:***@yahoo.ca]
Sent: 12 February 2005 16:23
To: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: How closely related are Charles & Camilla?

Wasn't Wallis Smpson a Catholic, too? As is Camilla.
The divorcee issue isn't the only strike against them.

Sharon
Post by Charani
I've wondered about that too. I was always led to
believe that Edward
had to abdicate when he married Wallis Simpson
because she was a
divorcee. If that is true, then Charles won't be
able to take the
throne either but if the story is true that he never
want the throne
anyway this could be his "get out".
No doubt all will be made clear in the fullness of
time :))
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

______________________________
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/2005
Robert Burns
2005-02-12 17:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Edward and Wallace Simpson asked the then prime minister to change the law
which would allow her to be his consort. After taking legal advice it was
decided that this couldn't be done lawfully and therefore for him to marry
his love he had to abdicate. This apparently now is not in question and I
am sure mr Blair would bend over backwards to brown nose the queen and her
family.

I so hope that Charles will have the decency and abdicate his throne I sure
as hell don't want to see an idiot and his unfaithful wife to be anywhere
near the throne. Then again this could be the start of the removal of the
Royal Family so yes lets go with it

Rob
Post by Arcadia
I think that with Edward there was a lot more to it. After all it was
quite fashionable to marry a Yank back then. Edward had Nazi leanings
which didn't go down too well with politicians. He may also have been
bluffing when he threatened to abdicate.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 12 February 2005 16:23
Subject: Re: How closely related are Charles & Camilla?
Wasn't Wallis Smpson a Catholic, too? As is Camilla.
The divorcee issue isn't the only strike against them.
Sharon
Post by Charani
I've wondered about that too. I was always led to
believe that Edward
had to abdicate when he married Wallis Simpson
because she was a
divorcee. If that is true, then Charles won't be
able to take the
throne either but if the story is true that he never
want the throne
anyway this could be his "get out".
No doubt all will be made clear in the fullness of
time :))
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
______________________________
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/2005
Dave Mayall
2005-02-12 20:16:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:37 -0000, "Robert Burns"
Post by Robert Burns
Edward and Wallace Simpson asked the then prime minister to change the law
which would allow her to be his consort. After taking legal advice it was
decided that this couldn't be done lawfully and therefore for him to marry
his love he had to abdicate. This apparently now is not in question and I
am sure mr Blair would bend over backwards to brown nose the queen and her
family.
There was no legal reason why Edward could not have married Mrs
Simpson, and had her as his Queen.

However, Stanley Baldwin advised him that the public simply would not
accept such a situation.

The suggestion of a morganatic marriage came out of that, and would
have required primary legislation which parliament wasn't about to
pass.

In this case, we have a slightly different proposal. This is not a
morganatic marriage. Camilla does take rank from the marriage, BUT the
claim is that Queen Consort is merely a courtesy title which the wife
of a King may use.

It is, in any case unlikely to arise, because my money is on the Queen
outliving Charles.
--
Dave Mayall
Charani
2005-02-12 20:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Mayall
It is, in any case unlikely to arise, because my money is on the Queen
outliving Charles.
I don't think the Queen will outlive Charles but I do think he might
be passed over in favour of William.
Brian Pears
2005-02-13 01:15:43 UTC
Permalink
I don't think the Queen will outlive Charles but I do think he might be
passed over in favour of William.
That's just plain silly; there is no mechanism for Charles to be
"passed over". When the Queen dies the next in line becomes the
monarch and head of state automatically - nobody can change that
except by an Act of Parliament and that would, like all Acts of
Parliament, require the consent of the monarch. So if Charles
survives the Queen he will be King unless he himself decides
otherwise (or the Queen so decides before she dies), and that
ain't going to happen..

And why would we want to "pass over" Charles. He's doing a good
job as PofW and I'm sure he'll make a good king. Moreover Camilla
is considerably better suited to the job of "consort" than that
neurotic bimbo he was persuaded to marry in 1981. At least she
brings some brains and maturity to the task and we can be quite
certain that this one won't become a one-woman soap-opera.

And just think what you are wishing on William - becoming King is
a tremendous burden and the longer he can delay that unhappy hour
the better for him. Let the lad have a life.

Finally - Don't be conned by the media reports of public attitudes
to Charles and Camilla. The days when they reported news are long
gone - now most are merely vehicles for their owners' propaganda.
I've certainly not detected any animosity whatsoever towards Charles
among my friends and acquaintances, nor any desire that he shouldn't
be King, nor any widespread dislike of Camilla or desire that she
shouldn't be his partner in that enterprise when the time comes.

PS I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm fed
up with the comments about Camilla's looks. Personally I think
she is very attractive for her age and when she was younger she
was damn sight more attractive than Diana ever was.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Sharon
2005-02-13 02:01:10 UTC
Permalink
I believe alot of Diana's neurosis were brought on by
the establishment she married into, rather than her
being that way before she married Charles. Who's to
say Diana wouldn't have made a good queen.

Sharon
Post by Brian Pears
Moreover Camilla
is considerably better suited to the job of
"consort" than that
neurotic bimbo he was persuaded to marry in 1981. At
least she
brings some brains and maturity to the task and we
can be quite
certain that this one won't become a one-woman
soap-opera.
--
Brian Pears
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Tids
2005-02-13 11:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
I believe alot of Diana's neurosis were brought on by
the establishment she married into, rather than her
being that way before she married Charles. Who's to
say Diana wouldn't have made a good queen.
She would have made an excellent queen but I don't
think she was in their plans other than as a provider
of heirs. It was obvious from the word go that the love
of Charle's life was Camilla...............but she wasn't
constitutionally available so Diana was enrolled as
concubine to the future king......Charles knew that
once the heirs had been established he could drop
Diana and go back to Camilla. In fact, he didn't even
wait that long......Hope he doesn't get to be king, he's
a seedy little man.
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-13 11:35:14 UTC
Permalink
You are very free with your unpleasant judgments, both of list members
and people in the public eye.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon


Tids wrote:
<snip> he's
Post by Tids
a seedy little man.
Tids
2005-02-13 11:51:42 UTC
Permalink
You are very free with your unpleasant judgments, both of list members and
people in the public eye.
Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
<snip> he's
Post by Tids
a seedy little man.
List members?
Hugh Watkins
2005-02-13 12:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
I believe alot of Diana's neurosis were brought on by
the establishment she married into, rather than her
being that way before she married Charles. Who's to
say Diana wouldn't have made a good queen.
me - she was not up to the job

she married for romance not realistically assesing her position

Hugh W
Gill W
2005-02-13 18:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Watkins
Post by Sharon
I believe alot of Diana's neurosis were brought on by
the establishment she married into, rather than her
being that way before she married Charles. Who's to
say Diana wouldn't have made a good queen.
me - she was not up to the job
she married for romance not realistically assesing her position
Hugh W
And just how many [naive]19 year-old girls are able to maturely and
realistically assess theri position when proposed to by the man of their
dreams and the (supposed) catch of a lifetime? - especially almost 25 years
ago when the world was rather different from today.
--
Gill W

Life is not a rehearsal.
Take time out to smell the flowers & enjoy the sunset.
Thingy
2005-02-13 18:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Oh come on, they'd moved in the same social circles all her life. Mind
you she was apparently a bit thick ...
Post by Gill W
And just how many [naive]19 year-old girls are able to maturely and
realistically assess theri position when proposed to by the man of
their dreams and the (supposed) catch of a lifetime? - especially
almost 25 years ago when the world was rather different from today.
--
Thingy
I'm not short, I'm concentrated
Anne
2005-02-13 13:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
I believe alot of Diana's neurosis were brought on by
the establishment she married into, rather than her
being that way before she married Charles. Who's to
say Diana wouldn't have made a good queen.
I disagree. No doubt the establishment she married into had an effect, but
I believe she was a seriously damaged young woman when she married,
beginning with knowing all her life that she was not the son her parents
needed as an heir to the Spencer title, compounded by her parents divorce,
and her father taking the children away from their mother, etc, etc, etc.
One pre-wedding example is her expecting Charles to cancel the tour of
Australia and other places the month after their engagement, and stay in
Britain to keep her company. She needed a father figure who took care of
her, and catered to her needs; he needed a companion, intellectual as well
as physical. She was a needy young woman before she set her sights for the
Prince of Wales. She was in love with the title, not the man, and
unfortunately did not have a realistic understanding of what was expected of
her - other than an heir and a spare - as wife to the heir to the throne.
Liz
2005-02-13 15:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne
I believe alot of Diana's neurosis were brought on by the
establishment she married into, rather than her being that way
before she married Charles. Who's to say Diana wouldn't have made a
good queen.
I disagree. No doubt the establishment she married into had an
effect, but I believe she was a seriously damaged young woman when
she married, beginning with knowing all her life that she was not the
son her parents needed as an heir to the Spencer title, compounded by
her parents divorce, and her father taking the children away from
their mother, etc, etc, etc. One pre-wedding example is her expecting
Charles to cancel the tour of Australia and other places the month
after their engagement, and stay in Britain to keep her company. She
needed a father figure who took care of her, and catered to her
needs; he needed a companion, intellectual as well as physical. She
was a needy young woman before she set her sights for the Prince of
Wales. She was in love with the title, not the man, and
unfortunately did not have a realistic understanding of what was
expected of her - other than an heir and a spare - as wife to the
heir to the throne.
Out of curiosity can you explain how you *know* all this?

If you know the protagonists personally and have exceptional
mind-reading capabilities to boot, then I will accept that this is not
just another fantasy spun from a mish-mash of factoids and half-truths,
like all the other versions of the tale, whichever partisan position is
taken ......

Speculation is not the genealogist's friend unless clearly distinguished
as such from fact.

Liz (Greenwich UK)
Sharon
2005-02-14 16:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Could be she writes for the tabloids then, Liz.

Sharon
Post by Liz
Out of curiosity can you explain how you *know* all
this?
If you know the protagonists personally and have
exceptional
mind-reading capabilities to boot, then I will
accept that this is not
just another fantasy spun from a mish-mash of
factoids and half-truths,
like all the other versions of the tale, whichever
partisan position is
taken ......
Speculation is not the genealogist's friend unless
clearly distinguished
as such from fact.
Liz (Greenwich UK)
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Charani
2005-02-13 16:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne
I disagree. No doubt the establishment she married into had an effect, but
I believe she was a seriously damaged young woman when she married,
beginning with knowing all her life that she was not the son her parents
needed as an heir to the Spencer title, compounded by her parents divorce,
and her father taking the children away from their mother, etc, etc, etc.
One pre-wedding example is her expecting Charles to cancel the tour of
Australia and other places the month after their engagement, and stay in
Britain to keep her company. She needed a father figure who took care of
her, and catered to her needs; he needed a companion, intellectual as well
as physical. She was a needy young woman before she set her sights for the
Prince of Wales. She was in love with the title, not the man, and
unfortunately did not have a realistic understanding of what was expected of
her - other than an heir and a spare - as wife to the heir to the throne.
I'm with you on most of what you say.

I think when her family fell apart, she should have been taken out of
the equation, instead of left in. She was too young, had an overly
romantic idea of her role and suffered as a result when reality and
fantasy proved to be such a mismatch.
Liz
2005-02-13 07:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Finally - Don't be conned by the media reports of public attitudes
to Charles and Camilla. The days when they reported news are long
gone - now most are merely vehicles for their owners' propaganda.
I've certainly not detected any animosity whatsoever towards Charles
among my friends and acquaintances, nor any desire that he shouldn't
be King, nor any widespread dislike of Camilla or desire that she
shouldn't be his partner in that enterprise when the time comes.
Clearly we move in different circles <vbg> I'm with the chap who told
Channel 4 that he didn't give a toss whether they married as long as we
get a day off work.

Part of the problem is that Camilla is perceived (and this may be
unfair, how can one tell?) as a member of that horsy yahoo crowd
enjoying the accidental privileges of birth with zero track record of
any contribution to the public good .....
Post by Brian Pears
PS I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm fed
up with the comments about Camilla's looks. Personally I think
she is very attractive for her age and when she was younger she
was damn sight more attractive than Diana ever was.
Quite right. I shall severely reprimand my younger generation when they
call her Das Boot <vbg>

Liz (Greenwich UK)
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-13 10:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Liz -

In no way influenced by the more elderly members of the household?

In any event, her, C. P-B's, true worth can not be judged by the
sometimes unthinking and cruel comments of the young - who are more
concerned with keeping their 'street cred.' than impartial thought on
such subjects.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Post by Andrew Sellon
<snip>
Quite right. I shall severely reprimand my younger generation when they
call her Das Boot <vbg>
Liz
2005-02-13 11:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
Liz -
In no way influenced by the more elderly members of the household?
Well, it is, and has always been, a republican household <g>
Post by Andrew Sellon
In any event, her, C. P-B's, true worth can not be judged by the
sometimes unthinking and cruel comments of the young - who are more
concerned with keeping their 'street cred.' than impartial thought on
such subjects.
Shouldn't one avoid too many generalisations about the 'young'? They are
no more homogenous as a group than this other bunch I am now apparently
supposed to belong to .... the 'old', wrinklies, twirlies,OAPs, senior
citizens, silver surfers ....

As one who in youth could never decide if I was 'op,pop,mod, kinky,
kooky or camp' I find I am agin ageism whether directed at the old, the
young or any other birthdate related classificarion ..... <vbg>
Post by Andrew Sellon
Post by Andrew Sellon
<snip>
Quite right. I shall severely reprimand my younger generation when
they call her Das Boot <vbg>
Tids
2005-02-13 11:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
I don't think the Queen will outlive Charles but I do think he might be
passed over in favour of William.
That's just plain silly; there is no mechanism for Charles to be
"passed over". When the Queen dies the next in line becomes the
monarch and head of state automatically - nobody can change that
except by an Act of Parliament and that would, like all Acts of
Parliament, require the consent of the monarch. So if Charles
survives the Queen he will be King unless he himself decides
otherwise (or the Queen so decides before she dies), and that
ain't going to happen..
I think this is preparation for Charles to be king. I think
the queen wants to step down and leave him to get on with it.
Sharon
2005-02-14 05:40:55 UTC
Permalink
The Queen will never step down. She'll be there until
she dies.

Sharon
Post by Tids
I think this is preparation for Charles to be king.
I think
the queen wants to step down and leave him to get on
with it.
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Robert Burns
2005-02-14 10:13:33 UTC
Permalink
It was mentioned previously that the Church of England was created by Henry
VIII so he could marry Ann Boleyn. I can't argue that point but I ask a
question and one I would love to hear views on. It is also in a way
genealogically related. Would Henry VIII recognise what the Church of
England as become?

I ask and would have you consider the following. He was given by the Pope
the title of Defender of the Faith. Not because he left the Holy Roman
Church but because on all but the Divorce front he upheld the values of the
aforesaid church and the principles it held down. I would therefore
consider would the modern High Church be more to the original church of
England or not?

As for genealogical value. Well in times when the only accepted baptism or
marriage was one under the Church of England is it possible that any
Catholic ofrbears would have chosen a high Church over the low church?

Rob
Steve Hayes
2005-02-14 17:04:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:13:33 -0000, "Robert Burns"
Post by Robert Burns
It was mentioned previously that the Church of England was created by Henry
VIII so he could marry Ann Boleyn. I can't argue that point but I ask a
question and one I would love to hear views on. It is also in a way
genealogically related. Would Henry VIII recognise what the Church of
England as become?
I ask and would have you consider the following. He was given by the Pope
the title of Defender of the Faith. Not because he left the Holy Roman
Church but because on all but the Divorce front he upheld the values of the
aforesaid church and the principles it held down. I would therefore
consider would the modern High Church be more to the original church of
England or not?
As for genealogical value. Well in times when the only accepted baptism or
marriage was one under the Church of England is it possible that any
Catholic ofrbears would have chosen a high Church over the low church?
Henry VIII, after he privatised the church, did genealogists the enormous
favour of ordering the keeping of registers of baptisms, marriages and
burials.

Ther wasn't much change in the way the Church of England did things until
Edward VI came to the throne, He was a sickly infant, and so different parties
within the C of E tried to manipulate things in their own theological
directions. A Protestant group who wanted to emulate the Continental
Reformation got the bit between their teeth, and made many changes in a
Protestant direction.

When Queen Mary came to the throne she wasn't a kid who could be pushed
around, and tried to restore the status quo ante, but met with resistance from
those who had become powerful under Edward.

Then came queen Elizabeth, who looked for a compromise.

High Church and Low Church have meant different things at different periods,
and so the terms don't mean much unless you specify a period.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: ***@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Jill.
2005-02-13 10:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Finally - Don't be conned by the media reports of public attitudes
to Charles and Camilla. The days when they reported news are long
gone - now most are merely vehicles for their owners' propaganda.
I've certainly not detected any animosity whatsoever towards Charles
among my friends and acquaintances, nor any desire that he shouldn't
be King, nor any widespread dislike of Camilla or desire that she
shouldn't be his partner in that enterprise when the time comes.
Interesting -- my experience is diametrically the opposite - I don't know
anyone who thinks its a good idea - the marriage or that Charles should be
King.
Most folks feel that he has "lost" their respect on many planes but his
complete selfishness and self centredness is most damning.
A great proportion have no strong feelings about the matter but none are in
support of either the individuals nor the combination.
Post by Brian Pears
PS I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm fed
up with the comments about Camilla's looks. Personally I think
she is very attractive for her age and when she was younger she
was damn sight more attractive than Diana ever was.
Yup -- it is in the eye of the beholder -- and again I know of no-one from
30 - 80 years old who would concur with you. Its fascinating how we are all
so different around the country and around the world.

--

Regards
Jill Bowis

Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter
Sumner, Moss, Haughton, Hampson, Owen,
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-14 04:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Jill -

You must move in very tedious circles - everyone holding the same
opinions. How boring.

Outside your restricted area you will find a wide divergence of opinion,
some the same as yours, some being rampantly pro and seeing no problems,
and others taking a more moderate stance, some mildly anti and some
mildly pro.


Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Post by Jill.
Interesting -- my experience is diametrically the opposite - I don't know
anyone who thinks its a good idea - the marriage or that Charles should be
King.
<snip>
Jill.
2005-02-14 11:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
Jill -
You must move in very tedious circles - everyone holding the same
opinions. How boring.
Oh no -- they are a very eclectic crowd and include people many hundreds of
miles apart
They have many differing opinions on the pair of them - just none favourable
!
Most consider them to deserve each other ! but that they have not earnt and
do not deserve the respect of the nation nor to be in the position of power
and influence.
If Camilla had "really" loved him she could have either waited for him when
he went to sea [there are plenty of us who have done that and for a lot
longer than the odd month or two!] or left well alone once they were both
married [hard but others have done that too]. If they had wanted anyone's
respect they should have divorced before starting up their "relationship"
again when they "realised" they were the ones for each other. If they had
shown some honesty, discretion, loyality to their immediate and extended
family, and one iota of selflessness maybe they would not be getting the
reception around the country they are now.
Post by Andrew Sellon
Outside your restricted area you will find a wide divergence of
opinion, some the same as yours, some being rampantly pro and seeing
no problems, and others taking a more moderate stance, some mildly
anti and some mildly pro.
I have never yet come across anyone rampantly pro.
Just what percentage of the nation are ?? -- for a population that is as
soppy as we are, as romantic as we are and as royalist as we are ----- its
astonishingly low.

However it makes no odds- they will continue to do exactly as they wish as
they have all along, and hell mend anyone or thing that gets in their way. I
hope the Queen lives as long and active a life as her mother so William has
the time to mature and get his feet beneath him. That way Charles can do the
decent thing when the time comes and become a supporting father finally.
Nowt you, I or anyone else is going to change the way they think :~))

--

Regards
Jill Bowis

Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter
Sumner, Moss, Haughton, Hampson, Owen,
Arcadia
2005-02-14 03:55:59 UTC
Permalink
IT never ceases to amaze me, the way people are constantly speculating
about the royal family.

The Queen is not going to step down, she will die.

Charles will be King for a short time, then William will be King.

Why would this be any different.

Why do people think that they know what the Queen thinks, or Charles.

They don't. This is all just gossip mongering.

Maybe the country should stop watching so many soaps.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jill. [mailto:***@REMOVETHISkintaline.co.uk]
Sent: 13 February 2005 10:46
To: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: How closely related are Charles & Camilla?
Post by Brian Pears
Finally - Don't be conned by the media reports of public attitudes
to Charles and Camilla. The days when they reported news are long
gone - now most are merely vehicles for their owners' propaganda.
I've certainly not detected any animosity whatsoever towards Charles
among my friends and acquaintances, nor any desire that he shouldn't
be King, nor any widespread dislike of Camilla or desire that she
shouldn't be his partner in that enterprise when the time comes.
Interesting -- my experience is diametrically the opposite - I don't
know
anyone who thinks its a good idea - the marriage or that Charles should
be
King.
Most folks feel that he has "lost" their respect on many planes but his
complete selfishness and self centredness is most damning.
A great proportion have no strong feelings about the matter but none are
in
support of either the individuals nor the combination.
Post by Brian Pears
PS I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm fed
up with the comments about Camilla's looks. Personally I think
she is very attractive for her age and when she was younger she
was damn sight more attractive than Diana ever was.
Yup -- it is in the eye of the beholder -- and again I know of no-one
from
30 - 80 years old who would concur with you. Its fascinating how we are
all
so different around the country and around the world.

--

Regards
Jill Bowis

Surnames search
Senior, Ashworth, Pulman, Crossland, Ambler, Neutkens
Bowis, Lister, Vaughn, Palin, Stewart, Newlove, Yabbicom,
Stewart [Paisley], MacKinlay, Watt, Green, Smith
Mair, Brown, Lawrie, Sutherland, Rainey, Hunter
Sumner, Moss, Haughton, Hampson, Owen,

______________________________
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/2005
Charani
2005-02-13 16:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
That's just plain silly; there is no mechanism for Charles to be
"passed over". When the Queen dies the next in line becomes the
monarch and head of state automatically - nobody can change that
except by an Act of Parliament and that would, like all Acts of
Parliament, require the consent of the monarch. So if Charles
survives the Queen he will be King unless he himself decides
otherwise (or the Queen so decides before she dies), and that
ain't going to happen..
No, it's not. Just read what you've written and you'll answer your
own criticism.

"If Charles survives the Queen he wil be King *unless he himself
decides otherwise (or the Queen so decides before she dies)*

How do you know "that ain't going to happen"??

As you yourself point out, all it takes is an Act of Parliament. The
Queen could yet do that. For all anyone outside of Royal circles
knows, it might be condition of Royal Assent to the marriage of
Charles and Camilla that he agree to an Act of Parliament that puts
William on the throne as the next monarch.
Post by Brian Pears
And why would we want to "pass over" Charles. He's doing a good
job as PofW and I'm sure he'll make a good king. Moreover Camilla
is considerably better suited to the job of "consort" than that
neurotic bimbo he was persuaded to marry in 1981. At least she
brings some brains and maturity to the task and we can be quite
certain that this one won't become a one-woman soap-opera.
It isn't a case of what *we* want unless you're using the Royal "We"
of course. It's also a matter of opinion as to whether he's doing a
good job as Prince of Wales. Some would say that he wasn't given his
treatment of the late Princess of Wales.

I agree with you that Camilla is far better suited to the task than
Diana ever was. My view is that Charles should have been allowed to
marry Camilla in the first place. I doubt we'd be having this debate
now if he had. After all, despite the marriages to other people
through circumstances beyond their control, they've remained loyal to
one another ever since they first met. I know I shall annoy a lot of
people; but I found Diana very irritating with her simpering look and
the way she seemed to be saying "look at me, look at me" all the time,
then when people *did* look at her, she took the opposite stance.
That was the way she came across to me.
Post by Brian Pears
And just think what you are wishing on William - becoming King is
a tremendous burden and the longer he can delay that unhappy hour
the better for him. Let the lad have a life.
It's not what *I* wish on him. It's what he was born to be; and yes,
it is a tremendous burden and unenviable birthright. Nobody knows
what's around the corner. After all the Queen didn't expect to become
Queen but circumstances dictated otherwise. For all anyone knows,
William could become King tomorrow.
Post by Brian Pears
Finally - Don't be conned by the media reports of public attitudes
to Charles and Camilla. The days when they reported news are long
gone - now most are merely vehicles for their owners' propaganda.
I've certainly not detected any animosity whatsoever towards Charles
among my friends and acquaintances, nor any desire that he shouldn't
be King, nor any widespread dislike of Camilla or desire that she
shouldn't be his partner in that enterprise when the time comes.
The media is something that I'm *never* conned by :)) I spent too
long working in the media to believe nine tenths of what they say;
especially about public attitudes. I'm only too well aware that the
media is merely a propoganda machine.

I've heard mixed views towards Charles, Camilla, their marriage and
whether he should be king.

My personal view is good luck him and whether he, William, Andrew or
Anne take the throne next, I swear the Loyal Oath. If Edward does,
I'll think about it. If Harry does, I'll become a republican!! :))
Post by Brian Pears
PS I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm fed
up with the comments about Camilla's looks. Personally I think
she is very attractive for her age and when she was younger she
was damn sight more attractive than Diana ever was.
I'm with you on that one.
Jeff
2005-02-12 21:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Mayall
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:37 -0000, "Robert Burns"
In this case, we have a slightly different proposal. This
is not a
Post by Dave Mayall
morganatic marriage. Camilla does take rank from the
marriage, BUT the
Post by Dave Mayall
claim is that Queen Consort is merely a courtesy title
which the wife
Post by Dave Mayall
of a King may use.
Is consort merely a courtest title ?

I must admit to very little knowledge but I seem to recall
reading that Victoria gave the Consort title to Albert in
order that he should have the right to see state papers. I
also seem to recall hearing that Phillip was not given the
title specifically to exclude that right.

So, I wonder if Camilla's consort title gives her that right
?
Don Aitken
2005-02-12 21:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Mayall
Post by Dave Mayall
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:37 -0000, "Robert Burns"
In this case, we have a slightly different proposal. This
is not a
Post by Dave Mayall
morganatic marriage. Camilla does take rank from the
marriage, BUT the
Post by Dave Mayall
claim is that Queen Consort is merely a courtesy title
which the wife
Post by Dave Mayall
of a King may use.
Is consort merely a courtest title ?
I must admit to very little knowledge but I seem to recall
reading that Victoria gave the Consort title to Albert in
order that he should have the right to see state papers. I
also seem to recall hearing that Phillip was not given the
title specifically to exclude that right.
So, I wonder if Camilla's consort title gives her that right
?
Albert received the title in 1857, by which time he had been the
Queen's de facto private secretary, and effective deputy, for sixteen
years. It made no difference to his position at all.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Dave Mayall
2005-02-13 19:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Mayall
Post by Dave Mayall
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:37 -0000, "Robert Burns"
In this case, we have a slightly different proposal. This
is not a
Post by Dave Mayall
morganatic marriage. Camilla does take rank from the
marriage, BUT the
Post by Dave Mayall
claim is that Queen Consort is merely a courtesy title
which the wife
Post by Dave Mayall
of a King may use.
Is consort merely a courtest title ?
I must admit to very little knowledge but I seem to recall
reading that Victoria gave the Consort title to Albert in
order that he should have the right to see state papers. I
also seem to recall hearing that Phillip was not given the
title specifically to exclude that right.
Phillip *is* Prince Consort, because the husband of the reigning
monarch holds the rank of Prince/Princess.

In addition, where the consort is female, it has been convention to
*additionally* grant the courtesy title of "queen". Where the consort
is male, the reverse does NOT apply, thus Prince Albert was not
granted the courtesy title of "King".
--
Dave Mayall
Don Aitken
2005-02-13 21:36:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:43:14 +0000, Dave Mayall
Post by Dave Mayall
Post by Dave Mayall
Post by Dave Mayall
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:37 -0000, "Robert Burns"
In this case, we have a slightly different proposal. This
is not a
Post by Dave Mayall
morganatic marriage. Camilla does take rank from the
marriage, BUT the
Post by Dave Mayall
claim is that Queen Consort is merely a courtesy title
which the wife
Post by Dave Mayall
of a King may use.
Is consort merely a courtest title ?
I must admit to very little knowledge but I seem to recall
reading that Victoria gave the Consort title to Albert in
order that he should have the right to see state papers. I
also seem to recall hearing that Phillip was not given the
title specifically to exclude that right.
Phillip *is* Prince Consort, because the husband of the reigning
monarch holds the rank of Prince/Princess.
No he isn't. He is a Prince, because he was granted that title in
1957. He is the Queen's consort because he is married to her, although
it would more normal English today to call him her husband. It is not
a style or title, it is merely a description. He is not Prince
Consort, because that title has only ever been conferred once, on
Albert.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Arcadia
2005-02-14 13:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Bring back the axe....

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Mayall [mailto:***@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: 12 February 2005 20:16
To: GENBRIT-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: How closely related are Charles & Camilla?

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:37 -0000, "Robert Burns"
Post by Robert Burns
Edward and Wallace Simpson asked the then prime minister to change the law
which would allow her to be his consort. After taking legal advice it was
decided that this couldn't be done lawfully and therefore for him to marry
his love he had to abdicate. This apparently now is not in question and I
am sure mr Blair would bend over backwards to brown nose the queen and her
family.
There was no legal reason why Edward could not have married Mrs
Simpson, and had her as his Queen.

However, Stanley Baldwin advised him that the public simply would not
accept such a situation.

The suggestion of a morganatic marriage came out of that, and would
have required primary legislation which parliament wasn't about to
pass.

In this case, we have a slightly different proposal. This is not a
morganatic marriage. Camilla does take rank from the marriage, BUT the
claim is that Queen Consort is merely a courtesy title which the wife
of a King may use.

It is, in any case unlikely to arise, because my money is on the Queen
outliving Charles.
--
Dave Mayall

______________________________
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10/02/2005
Thingy
2005-02-14 17:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Come the revolution, Brother
Post by Arcadia
Bring back the axe....
--
Thingy
I'm not short, I'm concentrated
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-14 14:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Mayall
There was no legal reason why Edward could not have married Mrs
Simpson, and had her as his Queen.
However, Stanley Baldwin advised him that the public simply would not
accept such a situation.>
Not just the public but many powerful figures in parliament and
behind the scenes who were not simply opposed to Mrs Simpson because
she was a) twice divorced and b) an American, but because they were
also well aware of her pro-Nazi sympathies and friendship (and
possible sexual liaison, among others) with von Ribbentrop, the
German ambassador in London.

Many historians now have little doubt that Mrs Wallis Simpson was a
spy for Hitler's Germany and passing on information to Berlin, which
she had acquired from the somewhat naive Edward. This was virtually
confirmed when the couple made their infamous visit to Hitler in
1937, the year after Edward abdicated, and why Churchill packed them
off to the Bahamas out of harm's way after Hitler's plot to put them
on the throne as puppet monarchs was uncovered.

So when Baldwin told the king the public would never accept the
marriage, one imagines there was rather more to it than merely public
opinion, important as that was.

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Don Aitken
2005-02-12 16:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charani
Post by S***@family-news.org
Since you have raised the topic, I wonder how the Royal Marriages Act affects
this?
I've wondered about that too. I was always led to believe that Edward
had to abdicate when he married Wallis Simpson because she was a
divorcee. If that is true, then Charles won't be able to take the
throne either but if the story is true that he never want the throne
anyway this could be his "get out".
No doubt all will be made clear in the fullness of time :))
The provisions of the Royal Marriages Act are quite simple. If you are
a descendant of King George II (not George I or the Electress Sophia,
as sometimes said) and *not* "the issue of princesses who have
married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families", you cannot
legally marry without the Queen's consent, formally given before the
Privy Council. For this marriage, that consent has been given. End of
story. The Act does not affect the marriage of the sovereign, since it
makes no consent to require consent from oneself, and it has nothing
to do with what happened to Edward VIII.

The Act is online at lots of places (such as
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html ) most of which do not note
that s.3 has been repealed, so the penalties no longer apply. A
marriage contracted in disregard of the Act is still invalid in the
UK, though.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Charani
2005-02-12 17:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
The provisions of the Royal Marriages Act are quite simple. If you are
a descendant of King George II (not George I or the Electress Sophia,
as sometimes said) and *not* "the issue of princesses who have
married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families", you cannot
legally marry without the Queen's consent, formally given before the
Privy Council. For this marriage, that consent has been given. End of
story. The Act does not affect the marriage of the sovereign, since it
makes no consent to require consent from oneself, and it has nothing
to do with what happened to Edward VIII.
Thank you for that information.
Brian Austin
2005-02-13 00:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Given that the Act makes any children of the union illegitimate, it is
surprising how many such "marriages" actually took place, including Queen
Victoria's cousin, the Duke of Cambridge, Commander in Chief of the British
Army for 37 years, who married an actress and had 3 children, all of whom
were debarred from inheriting his title.


Brian Austin
Post by Don Aitken
The provisions of the Royal Marriages Act are quite simple. If you are
a descendant of King George II (not George I or the Electress Sophia,
as sometimes said) and *not* "the issue of princesses who have
married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families", you cannot
legally marry without the Queen's consent, formally given before the
Privy Council. For this marriage, that consent has been given. End of
story. The Act does not affect the marriage of the sovereign, since it
makes no consent to require consent from oneself, and it has nothing
to do with what happened to Edward VIII.
The Act is online at lots of places (such as
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html ) most of which do not note
that s.3 has been repealed, so the penalties no longer apply. A
marriage contracted in disregard of the Act is still invalid in the
UK, though.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Don Aitken
2005-02-13 01:53:45 UTC
Permalink
[rearranged]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:20:21 +0000 (UTC), "Brian Austin"
Post by Brian Austin
Post by Don Aitken
The provisions of the Royal Marriages Act are quite simple. If you are
a descendant of King George II (not George I or the Electress Sophia,
as sometimes said) and *not* "the issue of princesses who have
married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families", you cannot
legally marry without the Queen's consent, formally given before the
Privy Council. For this marriage, that consent has been given. End of
story. The Act does not affect the marriage of the sovereign, since it
makes no consent to require consent from oneself, and it has nothing
to do with what happened to Edward VIII.
Given that the Act makes any children of the union illegitimate, it is
surprising how many such "marriages" actually took place, including Queen
Victoria's cousin, the Duke of Cambridge, Commander in Chief of the British
Army for 37 years, who married an actress and had 3 children, all of whom
were debarred from inheriting his title.
The most striking case is that of George IV. If it had not been for
the Act, his first marriage, to Mrs Fitzherbert, would have been
legal, which means that, since she was a Catholic, he would have been
debarred from succeeding to the throne, and his marriage to Caroline
would have been bigamous.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-13 03:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@family-news.org
Since you have raised the topic, I wonder how the Royal Marriages Act affects
this?
Some of my wife's relatives claim that but for the Royal Marriages Act one of
their relatives would be on the British throne. A spurious claim, of course,
but it makes the topic of some interest.>
The Royal Marriages Act was passed in 1772, following the
unsanctioned marrage of Henry Duke of Cumberland, brother of
George III, making it illegal for any member of the royal family
below the age of 25 to marry without prior consent of the Crown; all
such marriages to be declared null and void. Ironically, George III
himself was thought to have secretly married the "fair Quakeress"
Hannah Lightfoot in 1759, the year before assuming the throne. And it
also created problems when the Prince Regent (later George IV)
married Mrs Fitzherbert in 1785 when 23.

The Act is still in force but clearly does not concern anyone in the
case of Charles and Camilla since.....

1) The Queen presumably gave her consent (indeed, she is said to have
encouraged it).

2) Neither Charles nor Camilla are under 25, so far as we know!

Do the rest of the family address your wife's relative as HRH? May we
be given a clue as to which line you are talking about?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Steve Hayes
2005-02-13 15:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by S***@family-news.org
Since you have raised the topic, I wonder how the Royal Marriages Act affects
this?
Some of my wife's relatives claim that but for the Royal Marriages Act one of
their relatives would be on the British throne. A spurious claim, of course,
but it makes the topic of some interest.>
The Royal Marriages Act was passed in 1772, following the
unsanctioned marrage of Henry Duke of Cumberland, brother of
George III, making it illegal for any member of the royal family
below the age of 25 to marry without prior consent of the Crown; all
such marriages to be declared null and void. Ironically, George III
himself was thought to have secretly married the "fair Quakeress"
Hannah Lightfoot in 1759, the year before assuming the throne. And it
also created problems when the Prince Regent (later George IV)
married Mrs Fitzherbert in 1785 when 23.
The Act is still in force but clearly does not concern anyone in the
case of Charles and Camilla since.....
1) The Queen presumably gave her consent (indeed, she is said to have
encouraged it).
2) Neither Charles nor Camilla are under 25, so far as we know!
Do the rest of the family address your wife's relative as HRH? May we
be given a clue as to which line you are talking about?
The alleged chilren of Edward, Duke of Kent (Queen Vic's father) and his
alleged wife, Madame Julie de St Laurent Barronne De Fortisson (and several
other words to similar effect, varying according to which branch of the family
tell the story0.

My wife's ggg-grandfather, the alleged offspring of this alleged union, was
born in 1790 in Quebec, and the baptism register records him as a natural son
of William Goodall and Eliza Green. But many do not let the facts get in the
way of a good family legend, and maintain that Victoria sent people to have
the revords altered. I believe that at the time of his conception the Duke was
in Gibraltar.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: ***@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Kate
2005-02-14 01:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Wasn't the forthcoming marriage all set in place ages ago - firstly by
Camilla (a member of the church of Rome) getting her marriage annulled
- doesn't this make her children b****ds? Or are they really the
children of her affair? Then putting in a new head Archbishop of
Canterbury - one they knew would sanction such a marriage? Also does
the law still have that clause 'a wife cannot be made to be testify
against her husband?' -and so is the marriage stopping a spilling of
the beans .... with the case coming up?
How can Charles expect respect as (if he gets that far) head of the
Church of England when he has broken so many of its rules - or ignored
them. He should let any thought of becoming King go.

Please do not malign the dogs - they are trained to act better than
Camilla!
Brian Pears
2005-02-14 03:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Wasn't the forthcoming marriage all set in place ages ago - firstly by Camilla (a
member of the church of Rome) getting her marriage annulled - doesn't this make her
children b****ds? Or are they really the children of her affair? Then putting in a
new head Archbishop of Canterbury - one they knew would sanction such a marriage? Also
does the law still have that clause 'a wife cannot be made to be testify against her
husband?' -and so is the marriage stopping a spilling of the beans .... with the case
coming up? How can Charles expect respect as (if he gets that far) head of the Church
of England when he has broken so many of its rules - or ignored them. He should let
any thought of becoming King go.
What a load of bitchy, vitriolic drivel.

1. What makes you think that Camilla is a member of the Church of
Rome? This will certainly be news to her!

2. Was Camilla's marriage annulled? Camilla and her husband were
divorced in 1995 and he married his long-time mistress in 96.

3. What has the Archbishop of Canterbury to do with anything? The
only sanction Charles requires to marry Camilla is the Queen's.

4. What case is coming up in which an unwed Camilla could spill
the beans? I think you are suffering from a serious reality
deficit here!

5. "Breaking so many of its rules" - who are we to judge? That's
a matter between Charles and his God or his conscience. And
don't forget that the C of E was created to enable Henry VIII
to divorce Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn, who was, I believe,
the sister of his mistress. So Charles could be said to be
living up to the ideals of the founder of the C of E - and
will therefore be a most worthy successor!

6. How can Charles expect respect? By doing the job he's expected
to do now and in the future, that's how. His personal life is
his - his public life is ours and we should judge him on that
alone.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Andrew Sellon
2005-02-14 11:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Brian -

While I am certain no one could have put together a better reply than
you on this, (you might gather I agree with you), I was working to the
advise of my old friend Sydney on this (see below).

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
The best way of answering a bad argument is to let it go on. Rev. Sydney
Smith 1771-1854, Canon of St. Paul's.
Post by Brian Pears
What a load of bitchy, vitriolic drivel.
<snip of an admirable reply>
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-14 12:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
6. How can Charles expect respect? By doing the job he's expected
to do now and in the future, that's how. His personal life is
his - his public life is ours and we should judge him on that
alone.>
Hypothetically accurate, but naive, Brian!

The plain fact is that the two lives, public and private, are
intertwined quite irrevocably, just as are those of politicians who
speak with one tongue when ruling the lives of we who elect them and
do in private quite the reverse of what they advocate publicly. This
is why the media, for all its warts-and-all failings, is the only
real safeguard we have against total corruption and dictatorship.

Who could ever possibly listen to Charles talking about the "sanctity
of family life" when he cuckolded another man who was supposed to be
a friend, having an affair with his wife for donkeys' years? Isn't he
supposed to be head of the Church of England?

Of course, it is no more nor less than we should expect from our
royals, since they have been at it for centuries! In one of the talks
I give entitled "Sex, Sin and Scandal in Newspapers" I use as one of
my illustrations a cartoon that appeared in 1785 showing the Prince
of Wales (later George IV) in bed with Mrs Fitzherbert, whom he had
just married illicitly, and his parents King George III and Queen
Charlotte rushing into the bedchamber with a copy of the Royal
Marriages Act. Are you seriously suggesting that this kind of thing
should have been kept secret for ever and never appeared in the
history books?

The lives of those who are constantly in the public eye can never
be private. It's the price they pay for the vast rewards and
privileges that go with fame and something they have to live with.
This applies just as much to over-indulged footballers and rock
stars, just as much as it does to politicians and royals. If we
cannot trust their judgement in their private lives, then how can
they ask us to trust them in public?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There are no credentials. They do not even need a medical certificate. They need not
be sound either in mind or body. They only require a certificate of birth - just to
prove they are first of a litter. You would not choose a spaniel on these principles."

David Lloyd George on the aristocracy
Brian Pears
2005-02-14 16:17:14 UTC
Permalink
The lives of those who are constantly in the public eye can never be
private. It's the price they pay for the vast rewards and privileges
that go with fame and something they have to live with. This applies
just as much to over-indulged footballers and rock stars, just as much
as it does to politicians and royals. If we cannot trust their
judgement in their private lives, then how can they ask us to trust
them in public?
Roy

I disagree fundamentally with everything you've written.
Footballers play football and I judge them on their football,
rock stars perform and I judge them on their performance,
politicians make laws, represent constituents and oversee
government departments and I judge them in those duties, royalty
take part in ceremonial and serve as impartial nominal holders
of various offices of state - head of the military, the courts
etc - thus ensuring that politicians don't get their slimy
corrupt hands on those important functions, and we should judge
them on their performance in those roles.

What on earth have the private lives of any of these people got
to do with their ability to undertake their professional roles.
Yes they have the privileges which come with status and wealth
but they are still human beings and should have the same right
to privacy as the rest of us.

I'm all in favour of the media exposing criminal activities and
lies, but their intrusion into the lives of royalty and
celebrities goes well beyond what could, by any stretch of the
imagination, be regarded as being 'in the public interest'. It
has long-since reached the level of voyeurism with the
publication of photographs of scantily-clad royals with their
boy-friends not to mention transcripts of their private phone
calls - such intrusion is intolerable and inexcusable and it
should be illegal.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Roy Stockdill
2005-02-14 18:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Footballers play football and I judge them on their football,>
Even when they gang rape young women in hotel rooms, get blind drunk
and smash up bars and clubs and commit offences of drink-driving etc?
Do you seriously suggest these incidents should be hushed up?
What on earth have the private lives of any of these people got
to do with their ability to undertake their professional roles.
Yes they have the privileges which come with status and wealth
but they are still human beings and should have the same right
to privacy as the rest of us.<

Ah, but the problem arises when they themselves invade their own
privacy, usually in order to promote some book, new film/TV
programme, etc. Not to mention those celebrities who flog exclusive
rights to their weddings, parties, etc to Hello! magazine for
large sums of money and then whinge when other media "invade their
privacy".

I wonder if you recall the infamous e-mail sent by the New Labour
spin doctor Jo Moore on 9/11, which suggested that it was a "good day
to bury bad news"? Fortunately, someone sent a copy of that to the
media and she was forced to quit, and rightly so. However, under your
proposals of making it illegal to publish private phone calls and
such like, she would almost certainly have got away with it and still
been in her job.

The trouble with the famous, which includes royals and politicians,
is that they love the spotlight and limelight when they are running
it and they can control everything. They're not so keen when the
publicity is less than favourable to them.

Hypocrisy rules OK?

Roy Stockdill
Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:- www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

One would be in less danger
From the wiles of the stranger
If one's own kin and kith
Were more fun to be with

Ogden Nash
Hugh Watkins
2005-02-14 19:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
The lives of those who are constantly in the public eye can never be
private. It's the price they pay for the vast rewards and privileges that
go with fame and something they have to live with. This applies just as
much to over-indulged footballers and rock stars, just as much as it does
to politicians and royals. If we cannot trust their judgement in their
private lives, then how can they ask us to trust them in public?
Roy
I disagree fundamentally with everything you've written.
snip

Brian you are as naive as Diana

fame or riches are a terrible burden
your life is no longer your own


Hugh W
Charani
2005-02-14 10:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kate
Wasn't the forthcoming marriage all set in place ages ago - firstly by
Camilla (a member of the church of Rome) getting her marriage annulled
- doesn't this make her children b****ds? Or are they really the
children of her affair? Then putting in a new head Archbishop of
Canterbury - one they knew would sanction such a marriage? Also does
the law still have that clause 'a wife cannot be made to be testify
against her husband?' -and so is the marriage stopping a spilling of
the beans .... with the case coming up?
How can Charles expect respect as (if he gets that far) head of the
Church of England when he has broken so many of its rules - or ignored
them. He should let any thought of becoming King go.
Please do not malign the dogs - they are trained to act better than
Camilla!
What on earth are you blithering on about??????

Someone has already shown that Camilla is not and never was a
Catholic.

The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't have to sanction any marriages
for anyone, even Charles. Haven't you ever heard of registry office
marriages??

What the heck case is that that supposed to be coming up?? Or are you
thinking of Diana's inquest?? Anyone can be called at an inquest
which is an inquiry into a death. I've not heard that Camilla had any
involvement in that.

Would you please detail all the CofE rules that Charles is supposed to
have broken??

Respect is something which is earned and has to be worked at to be
kept. Respect is not someone's due be it by rank or anything else.

Camilla has done nothing to bring either the Royal family or her own
into disrepute - unlike at least one Royal wife. All she's ever done
is stay loyal to the one man she's always loved, and he to her.
Gill W
2005-02-13 17:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@family-news.org
RS> I posted this much earlier today but it does not seem to have
RS> appeared on the list or in the news group. Perhaps Buck House has a
RS> censor wielding his scissors! Anyway, I am posting it again and if
RS> it appears twice, many apologies.
RS> Original message.....
RS> Now that Prince Charles has announced he is finally to make an
RS> honest woman of Camilla, it seems reasonable to speculate on their
RS> family blood relationship, which is possibly somewhat closer than
RS> many folks imagine
Since you have raised the topic, I wonder how the Royal Marriages Act affects
this?
Some of my wife's relatives claim that but for the Royal Marriages Act one of
their relatives would be on the British throne. A spurious claim, of course,
but it makes the topic of some interest.
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)
I once meet a chap on holiday who loved to talk about how his wife was "in
line for the throne".Seems she was a distant relative of the late Queen
Mother. He didn't like it when I pointed out that The Queen Mother's
relatives were not, in fact "in line for the throne" unless they were also
descendents of the Electress Sophie of Hanover (of whom he had never heard,
apparently)

I was avoided after that......it seemed to spoil his showing-off ploy.....
--
Gill W

Life is not a rehearsal.
Take time out to smell the flowers & enjoy the sunset.
Camilla von Massenbach
2005-02-12 17:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Roy Stockdill
Now that Prince Charles has announced he is finally to make an honest
woman of Camilla, it seems reasonable to speculate on their family
blood relationship, which is possibly somewhat closer than many folks
imagine
It's well known that Camilla's great-grandmother, Mrs Alice Keppel,
was one of the mistresses of Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales.
However, some historians believe Alice's daughter, Sonia Rosemary
Keppel (1900-1986), Camilla's grandmother, was fathered by the Prince
and not by Alice's cuckolded husband, George Keppel, who was a younger
brother of Arnold Allan Cecil Keppel, 8th Earl of Albemarle.
snip
Post by Roy Stockdill
I've just been working it out and if Sonia Keppel was indeed the
illegitimate daughter of Edward VII, this would make her a half-sister
to King George V. Sonia married Ronald Calvert Cubbit, 3rd Lord
Ashcombe, and their daughter was Camilla's mother, the Hon Rosalind
Maud Cubitt, who would thus be a first cousin to King George VI. This
would make Camilla herself a second cousin to the Queen. So she could
be Charles's second cousin once removed - rather closer than generally
thought. Camilla descends from a mistress of Charles II, just like
Diana, so they were related, too, but distantly.
Without this connection, I make it that they are 11th cousins and
13th cousins.

Common ancestors being Thomas Howard 1536-72 and Margaret Audley 1540-
64, and James I (VI of Scotland) and Anne (Oldenburg).

Regards

Camilla

--
Camilla Gemmingen von Massenbach
Email: ***@algroup.co.uk
FreeBMD co-founder http://www.FreeBMD.org.uk/
Personal site (very out of date): http://www.links.org/surnames.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...