Discussion:
Can Tom Parker Bowles be our King?
(too old to reply)
Aggie
2006-06-06 11:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.


If he can get Prince Charles to announce on public television that he
had a marriage with Camilla that was maintained until December 18,
1974 (the day of Tom's birth), that it was conducted in a church (with
forgery), that it had received the support of the privacy council (more
forgery), how would England react?

Tom would have then met all of the requirements constitutionally to be
second-in-line. And most importantly, he'd have the support of a major
member of the Royal family and the heir to the throne.

Tom is older than Prince William; his so-called parents (Charles and
Camilla) were known to be courting at the time of his birth; he is
known to do irrational things.

His mother has the ear of her supposedly obedient husband; her husband
is a respectable public figure; her royal family has untold connections
to MI5. She was once a strumpet, but now a Duchess, and future Queen
Consort; who knows where her ambition will go next?


I say to you that England would acquiesce, just as it has with Camilla,
the Princess of Wales.

Aggie
Roy Stockdill
2006-06-06 12:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.
If he can get Prince Charles to announce on public television that he
had a marriage with Camilla that was maintained until December 18,
1974 (the day of Tom's birth), that it was conducted in a church (with
forgery), that it had received the support of the privacy council
(more forgery), how would England react?
Tom would have then met all of the requirements constitutionally to be
second-in-line. And most importantly, he'd have the support of a major
member of the Royal family and the heir to the throne.
Tom is older than Prince William; his so-called parents (Charles and
Camilla) were known to be courting at the time of his birth; he is
known to do irrational things.
His mother has the ear of her supposedly obedient husband; her husband
is a respectable public figure; her royal family has untold
connections to MI5. She was once a strumpet, but now a Duchess, and
future Queen Consort; who knows where her ambition will go next?
I say to you that England would acquiesce, just as it has with
Camilla, the Princess of Wales. >
Erm.....does anyone care ???

The nation is currently far more preoccupied with whether or not a young
man with toby jug ears, a damaged metatarsal and a brain like Monty
Python's dead parrot, called Wayne Rooney, will be fit to play for
England in the World Cup. If he does and scores a hat-trick in the final
they'll probably make him king!

To those of us to whom the subject of the monarchy is supremely
irrelevant, a King Tom would be little different to a King William, King
Cyril or King Wayne.

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

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
James Dempster
2006-06-06 17:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Aggie
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.
Erm.....does anyone care ???
Aggie does - obviously - but she's been doing the rounds of various
groups with various fairly delusional theories including this one. No
one so far - and the threads lasted for ages - could be sure if she
has several strange idees fixe or lives under a bridge. I tend to the
latter.

Don't feed her, please.

James
James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
JAPhilip
2006-06-06 13:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Hi Aggie,

You are obviously having lots of fun with this ;- )

But, why not!

As an Antipodean with the dreaded prospect of Chawles as our future Head of
State, I very much like the idea of young Tom PB instead.
Though if it means having the Strumpet (a lovely word) Camilla as King
Mother that definitely doesn't appeal at all!

Amanda Vanstone and Peter Costello - c'mon guys, stomp on your monarchist
boss John Howard and bring on the Republic :- )

Yes, genbrit and sgb guys, most of us here in Oz (polls show) would prefer
to have a republic rather than still having E2R as our Head of State (she
and her family must still be shaking their heads in wonderment about the
outcome of our prejudiced referendum).

Who will Australia's Head of State Liz (not to mention Phil, Charles & co)
be barracking for in the World Cup, eh ...

JAP ;- ) :- )
Liz
2006-06-06 17:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAPhilip
Yes, genbrit and sgb guys, most of us here in Oz (polls show) would prefer
to have a republic rather than still having E2R as our Head of State (she
and her family must still be shaking their heads in wonderment about the
outcome of our prejudiced referendum).
And most people here who bother to think about it are wondering what's
keeping you ......

Liz (Greenwich UK)
Aggie
2006-06-06 22:14:23 UTC
Permalink
A delusion is a not seeing reality for what it is. I see my analysis as
based purely on reality, not any preconceptions like:

"Prince William will be King"

"The monarchy can't be headed by an outsider, a former drug addict"

"Prince Charles will put the people, not his wife, first"

"Camilla won't be Princess of Wales" (remember that?) Camilla won't be
Queen" (remember that?)

"MI5 is an honest institution that would not participate in a cover-up
at the behest of Prince Charles"

"Church records are sacred, inviolable documents that have not and
cannot be forged"

"Privy Councillours are honourable gentleman, and would not lie, even
if it were in the interest or at the request of Prince Charles or the
Queen"

"The Queen, devoted to the livelihood of Princess Diana's memory, would
not consent to moving Prince William to the third-in-line for the
throne"

"Camilla, having great respect for Prince Charles' former marriage, and
having great respect for the nations traditions and public sentiment,
would not attempt to have her son placed on the throne".

I ask, where do the delusions lay?

Aggie
Kay Robinson
2006-06-06 23:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
A delusion is a not seeing reality for what it is. I see my analysis as
"Prince William will be King"
"The monarchy can't be headed by an outsider, a former drug addict"
"Prince Charles will put the people, not his wife, first"
"Camilla won't be Princess of Wales" (remember that?) Camilla won't be
Queen" (remember that?)
"MI5 is an honest institution that would not participate in a cover-up
at the behest of Prince Charles"
"Church records are sacred, inviolable documents that have not and
cannot be forged"
"Privy Councillours are honourable gentleman, and would not lie, even
if it were in the interest or at the request of Prince Charles or the
Queen"
"The Queen, devoted to the livelihood of Princess Diana's memory, would
not consent to moving Prince William to the third-in-line for the
throne"
"Camilla, having great respect for Prince Charles' former marriage, and
having great respect for the nations traditions and public sentiment,
would not attempt to have her son placed on the throne".
I ask, where do the delusions lay?
Aggie
The delusions are your's, that you think anybody on this group has the
slightest interest in your musings. For goodness sake, stop your
wittering, you're wasting good bandwidth...

Kay

-

All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.

William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need
l***@yahoo.com
2006-06-07 04:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
A delusion is a not seeing reality for what it is. I see my analysis as
"Prince William will be King"
"The monarchy can't be headed by an outsider, a former drug addict"
"Prince Charles will put the people, not his wife, first"
"Camilla won't be Princess of Wales" (remember that?) Camilla won't be
Queen" (remember that?)
"MI5 is an honest institution that would not participate in a cover-up
at the behest of Prince Charles"
"Church records are sacred, inviolable documents that have not and
cannot be forged"
"Privy Councillours are honourable gentleman, and would not lie, even
if it were in the interest or at the request of Prince Charles or the
Queen"
"The Queen, devoted to the livelihood of Princess Diana's memory, would
not consent to moving Prince William to the third-in-line for the
throne"
"Camilla, having great respect for Prince Charles' former marriage, and
having great respect for the nations traditions and public sentiment,
would not attempt to have her son placed on the throne".
I know I'm painting a big target on my chest when I do this but - our
"succession" may differ from Britain's but look at what some of us
chose to put on our "throne" (in the White House). Actors and con-men,
most recently a blithering idiot who cannot even speak American English
correctly. He still, for instance, cannot pronounce "nuclear" despite
energetic coaching by those around him. Goodness knows, anything can
happen in any succession whether hereditary or elective!
Crouching defensively, Bronwen
Carolyn
2006-06-07 05:22:19 UTC
Permalink
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes.
Can anyone tell me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas
Geddes (died 1969) their son?
thanks
Carolyn
Peter Goodey
2006-06-07 06:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carolyn
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes.
That certainly complicates the Parker Bowles succession.
Mary Lou McLaren
2006-06-07 07:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Hi Carolyn.....a look at his birth certificate will tell the tale:

March Qtr. 1903
ERIC DOUGLAS GEDDES
Registered at West Derby, Lancashire
8b 599

mary lou
Subject: Sir Eric Geddes
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:19:59 +1000
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes.
Can anyone tell me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas
Geddes (died 1969) their son?
thanks
Carolyn
==== GENBRIT Mailing List ====
http://www.genuki.org.uk/indexes/SurnamesLists.html
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Carolyn Campbell
2006-06-07 08:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
March Qtr. 1903
ERIC DOUGLAS GEDDES
Registered at West Derby, Lancashire
8b 599
mary lou
Post by Carolyn
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes.
Can anyone tell me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas
Geddes (died 1969) their son?
thanks
Carolyn
Thanks Mary Lou, but I was hoping there would be a bit more info in the
public domain as he was a politician. I don't want to buy certs at this
stage
Carolyn
Andrew Sellon
2006-06-07 09:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
March Qtr. 1903
ERIC DOUGLAS GEDDES
Registered at West Derby, Lancashire
Thanks Mary Lou, but I was hoping there would be a bit more info in
the public domain as he was a politician. I don't want to buy certs
at this stage
This would have been possible. Having married in India "He took home
leave in 1903 to seek employment with a British railway company; and on
his return to India he organized the transport of military forces on the
railway," (the DNB again).

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Graeme Wall
2006-06-07 09:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carolyn Campbell
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
March Qtr. 1903
ERIC DOUGLAS GEDDES
Registered at West Derby, Lancashire
8b 599
mary lou
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes. Can anyone
tell me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas Geddes
(died 1969) their son? thanks Carolyn
Thanks Mary Lou, but I was hoping there would be a bit more info in the
public domain as he was a politician. I don't want to buy certs at this
stage
The only son I can trace by name (there were 3) is the younger son, Magnus
MacKay Geddes b 1907
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Mary Lou McLaren
2006-06-08 02:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Hi Carolyn.......found this:

The 1923 edition of Debrett's has an entry for Sir Eric Campbell Geddes. His
three sons are given as:- Acland Mackay Geddes b.1907 Magnus Mackay Geddes
b.1908 Anthony Reay Mackay Geddes b.1912

mary lou
Subject: Re: Sir Eric Geddes
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:48:56 +1000
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
March Qtr. 1903
ERIC DOUGLAS GEDDES
Registered at West Derby, Lancashire
8b 599
mary lou
Post by Carolyn
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes.
Can anyone tell me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas
Geddes (died 1969) their son?
thanks
Carolyn
Thanks Mary Lou, but I was hoping there would be a bit more info in the
public domain as he was a politician. I don't want to buy certs at this
stage
Carolyn
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Andrew Sellon
2006-06-07 08:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carolyn
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes.
Can anyone tell me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric
Douglas Geddes (died 1969) their son?
thanks
DNB states that they had three sons, but names and DoBs not given.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
StephenP
2006-06-07 09:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carolyn
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes.
Can anyone tell me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas
Geddes (died 1969) their son?
thanks
Carolyn
The 1923 edition of Debrett's has an entry for Sir Eric Campbell
Geddes. His three sons are given as;

Acland Mackay b.1907
Magnus Mackay b.1908
Anthony Reay Mackay b.1912

Hope that this helps

Yours aye

Stephen
Carolyn
2006-06-07 10:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by StephenP
The 1923 edition of Debrett's has an entry for Sir Eric Campbell
Geddes. His three sons are given as;
Acland Mackay b.1907
Magnus Mackay b.1908
Anthony Reay Mackay b.1912
Hope that this helps
Yours aye
Stephen
Thanks Stephen, that is exactly what I want!

Charani, googling brings up reams and reams of his poitical life, as does
the Times index which I hoped might have included his sons' names in his
obituary.

Graeme..........where have you traced Magnus?

thanks everyone
Carolyn
Charani
2006-06-07 11:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carolyn
Charani, googling brings up reams and reams of his poitical life, as does
the Times index which I hoped might have included his sons' names in his
obituary.
Pity. I would have thought there would have been something
biographical there somewhere, but Steven's found them
Post by Carolyn
Graeme..........where have you traced Magnus?
Magnus is listed as being born in York RD Sept qtr 1908 in 1837online
and Anthony is in the June qtr of 1912 but couldn't find Acland
though. Maybe he was born in Scotland.

Given that 1837online has two of the births, ancestry's free access to
the GRO indices will also have them, as will FreeBMD which I wasn't
able to check since its busy atm.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Graeme Wall
2006-06-07 13:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carolyn
Post by StephenP
The 1923 edition of Debrett's has an entry for Sir Eric Campbell
Geddes. His three sons are given as;
Acland Mackay b.1907
Magnus Mackay b.1908
Anthony Reay Mackay b.1912
Hope that this helps
Yours aye
Stephen
Thanks Stephen, that is exactly what I want!
Charani, googling brings up reams and reams of his poitical life, as does
the Times index which I hoped might have included his sons' names in his
obituary.
Graeme..........where have you traced Magnus?
One of the google hits, buried in a long screed about the Anstruther Guest
Book: <http://www.zipworld.com.au/~lnbdds/home/agbk/ww2/renee.htm>. Scroll
down to the very bottom of the page.

If anyone has Burkes peerage handy that has a section on Lord Geddes
apparently, shopuld answer the questions.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Andrew Sellon
2006-06-07 16:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
One of the google hits, buried in a long screed about the Anstruther Guest
Book: <http://www.zipworld.com.au/~lnbdds/home/agbk/ww2/renee.htm>. Scroll
down to the very bottom of the page.
If anyone has Burkes peerage handy that has a section on Lord Geddes
apparently, shopuld answer the questions.
Graeme obviously has something more than just a pretty face.

Burke's Peerage says that Eric Campbell GEDDES was born 26 Sept. 1865.
On 2 Nov 1900 he married Alice Gwendoline STOKES, their children being:

Acland Mackay GEDDES, born 24 Aug 1907.
Magnus Mackay GEDDES, born 8 Aug 1908.
Anthony Rea Mackay GEDDES, born 7 May 1912.


Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Hugh Watkins
2006-06-07 19:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carolyn
Post by StephenP
The 1923 edition of Debrett's has an entry for Sir Eric Campbell
Geddes. His three sons are given as;
Acland Mackay b.1907
Magnus Mackay b.1908
Anthony Reay Mackay b.1912
Hope that this helps
Yours aye
Stephen
Thanks Stephen, that is exactly what I want!
Charani, googling brings up reams and reams of his poitical life, as
does the Times index which I hoped might have included his sons' names
in his obituary.
Graeme..........where have you traced Magnus?
thanks everyone
Carolyn
Alf. Baldwyn Raper - Benoist (Voir Geddes)
... Floragatan, Stockholm
421-424 Australia House London WC2
... Palace Court, London W2
... Knightsbridge, London EC4

Mrs Magnus Geddes (Renée Benoist) -> morte en 1978
... Sloane Street, London SW1
... Osborne Villas, Hove

http://www.zip.com.au/~lnbdds/home/agbk/ww2/renee.htm
Douglas Anstruther's annotations in the Guest Book were significant,
after all ... and a question pending an answer - was Magnus Geddes born
Magnus Mackay Geddes - in 1908, in Yorkshire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Campbell_Geddes

This British biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by
expanding it.

done and dusted

Hugh W
Aggie
2006-06-07 19:52:26 UTC
Permalink
I was looking forward to some reasoned debate.

The three messages below, however, ignore my earlier posting, that ANY
HEIR MUST HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE SOVEREIGN, as well as meeting the
other constitutional requirements (records from church and privy
council to match, etc).

Charani:

"Obviously the stupid troll thinks that marriage to the Prince of
Wales confers his title on his wife, but then trolls are well
known for their stupidity. Royal titles are for the Queen to
bestow. The Duchess of Cornwall was not given the title of
Princess of Wales. It's unlikely that she ever will be, given
the affection that Diana, Princess of Wales was held in by many
around the world. "

Lesley:

"And he couldn't.
Charles can't legally marry without the permission of the Monarch -
it's in
the Royal Marriage Act of somewhen or other. Any marriage without her
permission would be invalid, and any children couldn't inherit.
There are groups called alt.history.what-if and soc.history.what-if or
somesuch which might suit the OP better than this one where she simply
looks
foolish. "

Don:

"Of course these NuLabor wazzocks don't know anything about this stuff.

The law is perfectly clear. The sovereign has an undoubted prerogative
to determine the titles of members of the Royal Family. The title by
which the Queen describes Camilla, or authorises her to be described,
is ipso facto her correct and legal title, to the exclusion of any
other, and no question of her being "entitled" to anything else can
possibly arise, "Department of Constitutional Affairs"
notwithstanding. "


Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-07 19:55:47 UTC
Permalink
However, some of us are still interested in debating the merits and the
flaws of this theory of Tom Parker Bowles' accession. Some have even
Post by Roy Stockdill
Your command of the English language is obviously about as substantial
as your intellect.
My theory is:

Tom Parker Bowles would be second-in-line to
the throne if Charles announces convincingly that he was married to
Camilla at the time of his birth, received support from the Queen and
has records to match from the church and the privy council.


Perhaps Tom can announce, for the benefit of the deluded, that he will
not be known as King during his caretaker role on the throne; he can be

referred to as simply "Lord Cornwall" or what not. Or Lord
Protector.....

Any thoughts?

Aggie
Jeff
2006-06-07 20:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
I was looking forward to some reasoned debate.
That assertion would be marginally more creditable if you
hadn't posted it in a totally unrelated thread !
Aggie
2006-06-08 00:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Actually I created a new thread, which others have responded to by
going off-topic.

" nor am I interested in knowing anything about who becomes
king, queen, duchess, duke or whatever. It matters not one jot to the
population of this country. "

Great, yet one more person who would consent to Tom Parker Bowles being
King. I'm told that the masses aren't stupid enough to consent to this,
but you and I can agree that's not the case.


Aggie
Mary Lou McLaren
2006-06-08 02:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Hi Carolyn....here is more on Magnus:

Magnus was born 1908, educated at Rugby and Caius College, Cambridge,
married in 1941 (they were divorced) Renée Angele Rosalie, widow of Alfred
Baldwin Raper MP, and daughter of Hector Benoist of Lille, France. He died
without issue, 20 Feb 1953.

mary lou
Subject: Re: Sir Eric Geddes
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:46:30 +1000
Post by StephenP
The 1923 edition of Debrett's has an entry for Sir Eric Campbell
Geddes. His three sons are given as;
Acland Mackay b.1907
Magnus Mackay b.1908
Anthony Reay Mackay b.1912
Hope that this helps
Yours aye
Stephen
Thanks Stephen, that is exactly what I want!
Charani, googling brings up reams and reams of his poitical life, as does
the Times index which I hoped might have included his sons' names in his
obituary.
Graeme..........where have you traced Magnus?
thanks everyone
Carolyn
==== GENBRIT Mailing List ====
http://www.genuki.org.uk/indexes/MailingLists.html
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Carolyn
2006-06-08 03:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Mary Lou, great info!
Carolyn
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
Magnus was born 1908, educated at Rugby and Caius College, Cambridge,
married in 1941 (they were divorced) Renée Angele Rosalie, widow of Alfred
Baldwin Raper MP, and daughter of Hector Benoist of Lille, France. He died
without issue, 20 Feb 1953.
mary lou
Mary Lou McLaren
2006-06-08 04:20:17 UTC
Permalink
And to see a picture of Renee....see this site and scroll down a bit:

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~lnbdds/home/agbk/ww2/agbww2p2.htm

mary lou
Subject: Re: Sir Eric Geddes
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:53:13 +1000
Thanks Mary Lou, great info!
Carolyn
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
Magnus was born 1908, educated at Rugby and Caius College, Cambridge,
married in 1941 (they were divorced) Renée Angele Rosalie, widow of Alfred
Baldwin Raper MP, and daughter of Hector Benoist of Lille, France. He died
without issue, 20 Feb 1953.
mary lou
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
Charles Ellson
2006-06-08 01:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by StephenP
Post by Carolyn
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes.
Can anyone tell me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas
Geddes (died 1969) their son?
thanks
Carolyn
The 1923 edition of Debrett's has an entry for Sir Eric Campbell
Geddes. His three sons are given as;
Acland Mackay b.1907
Magnus Mackay b.1908
Anthony Reay Mackay b.1912
The last one was still around for the 1988 Who's Who with a wife and
three sons, at that time being President of the Abbeyfield Society.

There is another whose father's name hints at being related :- Ford
Irvine GEDDES, b 17 Jan 1913, son of Irvine Campbell GEDDES and
Dorothy Jefford FOWLER, married with 1 son and four daughters.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Aggie
2006-06-08 02:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Charles, thanks for the point with regards to the sovereign's consent
of marriages undertaken by the Royal family.

Tell me though, if the sovereign lies today, and says that she gave the
consent to this marriage, could she not get away with it?

Aggie
Jeff
2006-06-08 02:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Charles, thanks for the point with regards to the
sovereign's consent
of marriages undertaken by the Royal family.
Tell me though, if the sovereign lies today, and says that
she gave the
consent to this marriage, could she not get away with it?
Aggie
You are STILL in the wrong thread
Charani
2006-06-08 06:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff
You are STILL in the wrong thread
It's doing it deliberately to cause disruption which is the typical
modus operandi of a troll, which, of course, it is.

Best course of action is to killfile it. Trolls hate to be ignored.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Charani
2006-06-07 09:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carolyn
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes.
Can anyone tell me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas
Geddes (died 1969) their son?
What does google have to say about him?
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Graeme Wall
2006-06-07 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charani
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes. Can anyone tell
me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas Geddes (died
1969) their son?
What does google have to say about him?
Surprisingly little, about 40 hits for "Eric Campbell Geddes". most of which
are repeats of the wikipedia entry. None go into any genealogically useful
detail. Even Who's Who (1937 ed) confines itself to stating he had 3 sons.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Charani
2006-06-07 15:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Surprisingly little, about 40 hits for "Eric Campbell Geddes". most of which
are repeats of the wikipedia entry. None go into any genealogically useful
detail. Even Who's Who (1937 ed) confines itself to stating he had 3 sons.
A reticent politician?? A rare beast.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Data Junkie
2006-06-07 16:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charani
In 1900, Sir Eric (1875 -1937) married Gwendolen Stokes. Can anyone tell
me if they had children please? Was the Rev. Eric Douglas Geddes (died
1969) their son?
What does google have to say about him?
Surprisingly little, about 40 hits for "Eric Campbell Geddes". most of which
are repeats of the wikipedia entry. None go into any genealogically useful
detail. Even Who's Who (1937 ed) confines itself to stating he had 3 sons.
Generally Who's Who only states the number of children of the subject.
It's also known for children to be omitted if they have predeceased the subject.
If a very near relation is also in Who's Who this is normally stated as a footnote - see also ....

BTW Eric Geddes was born in India and spent much of his early life in the southern states
of the US and Baltimore in lumber and on the railways - but as he isn't, apparently, the
object of the enquiry I won't elaborate :)

The Rev. Eric Douglas Geddes received part of his education at Bishop Wilson Theological
College on the Isle of Man, was ordained in the Diocese of Sodor and Man, and held
posts on the island 1929-31 and 1934-39 - could his family have a link with the Isle of Man?

Data Junkie
(All mail to my address is automatically deleted)
Charles Ellson
2006-06-08 01:33:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 17:07:19 +0100, "Data Junkie"
<***@gazeta.pl> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Data Junkie
BTW Eric Geddes was born in India and spent much of his early life in the southern states
of the US and Baltimore in lumber
I hope you mean he worked with wood. ;-)
<snip>
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Data Junkie
2006-06-08 11:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 17:07:19 +0100, "Data Junkie"
<snip>
Post by Data Junkie
BTW Eric Geddes was born in India and spent much of his early life in the southern states
of the US and Baltimore in lumber
I hope you mean he worked with wood. ;-)
<snip>
--
Who's Who in Sussex 1935 and Who Was Who gives ..

"Lumbering, etc, in Southern States of America; Baltimore and Ohio Railway; Rohilkund and
Kumaon Railway, India, and North Eastern Railway, England". It then goes on to his other
posts, Director-General Munitions Supply, etc. Somehow 'lumbering' didn't sound English
enough - that's why I rephrased it :)

He may have been bumming around the states - another not very English phrase.
If he got caught doing so on the trains he would have been in lumber.

Data Junkie
(All mail to my address is automatically deleted)
Andrew Sellon
2006-06-08 11:52:52 UTC
Permalink
<snip> He may have been bumming around the states - another not very
English phrase.
If he got caught doing so on the trains he would have been in lumber.
Data Junkie
(All mail to my address is automatically deleted)
DJ -

Any more like that and it will become quite obvious why you withhold
your e-address!

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Data Junkie
2006-06-08 15:33:16 UTC
Permalink
<snip> He may have been bumming around the states - another not very English phrase.
If he got caught doing so on the trains he would have been in lumber.
Data Junkie
(All mail to my address is automatically deleted)
DJ -
Any more like that and it will become quite obvious why you withhold your e-address!
Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Any more like what!
And I don't withhold my address - my address is valid - unlike some!

My sig says it all.

Data Junkie
(All mail to my address is automatically deleted)
Jeff
2006-06-08 15:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Data Junkie
Post by Andrew Sellon
<snip> He may have been bumming around the states -
another not very English phrase.
If he got caught doing so on the trains he would have
been in lumber.
Data Junkie
(All mail to my address is automatically deleted)
DJ -
Any more like that and it will become quite obvious why
you withhold your e-address!
Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Any more like what!
And I don't withhold my address - my address is valid -
unlike some!
My sig says it all.
Data Junkie
(All mail to my address is automatically deleted)
I think you'll find Andrew was gently pulling your leg over
your joke !
Aggie
2006-06-07 10:58:48 UTC
Permalink
"Goodness knows, anything can
happen in any succession whether hereditary or elective! "

Here here.

Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-07 11:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Charani writes:

">> I ask, where do the delusions lay?
Post by Charani
In your silly litle head!!
The Duchess of Cornwall isn't the Princess of Wales.
You'll find the exit down the corridor just past the gents loo, but
mind the step and the door as it tends to swing back quite hard.
Oops!! You didn't mind either. Oh well, never mind. "
The fact is that Camilla is Princess of Wales. See link below:
www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/09/royal.wedding/

Wit is amusing in itself, but is silly when it gets in the way of
reasoned, knowledged debate.

Really, you are proof that the masses can be deluded, even the more
informed ones, such as yourself.

Aggie
Sharon
2006-06-07 15:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Referencing the US news sites? Is that the best you
could do? They have been known to make some serious
blunders when it comes to reporting on the British
Royal Family.

Sharon
Post by Aggie
The fact is that Camilla is Princess of Wales. See
www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/09/royal.wedding/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Jeff
2006-06-07 15:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
Referencing the US news sites? Is that the best you
could do? They have been known to make some serious
blunders when it comes to reporting on the British
Royal Family.
Sharon
Post by Aggie
The fact is that Camilla is Princess of Wales. See
www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/09/royal.wedding/
but in this case they are correct (not that I care)

She has chosen to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall but,
technically, she is Princess of Wales.

Additionally, in Scotland she is known as The Duchess of
Rothesay
Sharon
2006-06-07 15:55:45 UTC
Permalink
One ocassion where they did get it right out of how many wrong.

Sharon

Jeff <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
but in this case they are correct (not that I care)


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Jeff
2006-06-07 15:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon
Referencing the US news sites? Is that the best you
could do? They have been known to make some serious
blunders when it comes to reporting on the British
Royal Family.
Sharon
Post by Aggie
The fact is that Camilla is Princess of Wales. See
www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/09/royal.wedding/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
around
http://mail.yahoo.com
The Sunday TimesApril 03, 2005


Official: Camilla to be Princess of Wales
David Cracknell and Christopher Morgan



CAMILLA Parker Bowles will be given the title Princess of
Wales when she marries Prince Charles on Friday, the
government will announce tomorrow.
The title will be confirmed in a parliamentary statement in
response to a question from Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour MP.
It is likely to anger supporters of the late Diana, Princess
of Wales.


The disclosure, four days before the wedding, is potentially
more embarrassing for Parker Bowles than the earlier
admission that she will one day become queen. The title
remains closely linked in the public mind to Diana,
especially among those who blame Parker Bowles for ruining
Diana's marriage to Charles.
Parker Bowles has made it known that she wants to be called
Duchess of Cornwall, taking another of Charles's titles,
after her marriage. It is planned that this will be changed
to Princess Consort on his succession.
However, Chris Leslie, the constitutional affairs minister,
will confirm tomorrow that she will be given all her husband's
titles. The list includes Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall,
Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Earl of
Chester, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland.
Senior government sources say that it would take an act of
parliament to change the law for Parker Bowles not to accept
the titles.
A spokesman for the constitutional affairs department said
yesterday: "There will be a statement in response to a
parliamentary written answer on Monday.
"It is simple: she automatically takes the title Princess of
Wales and all the other titles that go with her marriage to
the Prince of Wales."
Charani
2006-06-07 15:46:32 UTC
Permalink
"Sharon" <***@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:***@web60914.mail.yahoo.com...
| Referencing the US news sites? Is that the best you
| could do? They have been known to make some serious
| blunders when it comes to reporting on the British
| Royal Family.

Obviously the stupid troll thinks that marriage to the Prince of
Wales confers his title on his wife, but then trolls are well
known for their stupidity. Royal titles are for the Queen to
bestow. The Duchess of Cornwall was not given the title of
Princess of Wales. It's unlikely that she ever will be, given
the affection that Diana, Princess of Wales was held in by many
around the world.
Sharon
2006-06-07 15:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Not a chance. ;-)

Sharon

Charani <***@privacy.net> wrote:
Obviously the stupid troll thinks......

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Charani
2006-06-07 16:56:02 UTC
Permalink
But not by those of us who thought she was a couple of sandwiches
short of a picnic, scheming, manipulative, psychologically unstable and
principally the architect of her own final misfortune.
I didn't think much of her either. Sure she was only a couple of
sandwiches short?? ;))
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Verminator
2006-06-07 16:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charani
But not by those of us who thought she was a couple of sandwiches
short of a picnic, scheming, manipulative, psychologically unstable and
principally the architect of her own final misfortune.
I didn't think much of her either. Sure she was only a couple of
sandwiches short?? ;))
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
I've never been really clear on Diana... was she a hasbeen wannabe or a
wannabe hasbeen?

--
The Verminator
Jeff
2006-06-07 17:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charani
| Referencing the US news sites? Is that the best you
| could do? They have been known to make some serious
| blunders when it comes to reporting on the British
| Royal Family.
Obviously the stupid troll thinks that marriage to the
Prince of
Wales confers his title on his wife, but then trolls are
well
known for their stupidity. Royal titles are for the Queen
to
bestow. The Duchess of Cornwall was not given the title
of
Princess of Wales. It's unlikely that she ever will be,
given
the affection that Diana, Princess of Wales was held in by
many
around the world.
I'm afraid you are wrong. Actually it does! Her choice not
to use the title but she IS "Princess of Wales"

from Hansard April 4th 2005:

Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary,
Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer
of 17 March 2005, Official Report, column 462W, on the Royal
Marriage, whether the spouse of HRH the Prince of Wales will
be the Princess of Wales consequent on the marriage to be
held on 9 April; and if he will make a statement. [224110]

Mr. Leslie: Following her marriage, Camilla Parker Bowles
will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of
Rothesay in Scotland. As was made clear at the time of the
announcement of the marriage, she will be Princess of Wales
but will not use the title.
Don Aitken
2006-06-07 19:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff
Post by Charani
| Referencing the US news sites? Is that the best you
| could do? They have been known to make some serious
| blunders when it comes to reporting on the British
| Royal Family.
Obviously the stupid troll thinks that marriage to the
Prince of
Wales confers his title on his wife, but then trolls are
well
known for their stupidity. Royal titles are for the Queen
to
bestow. The Duchess of Cornwall was not given the title
of
Princess of Wales. It's unlikely that she ever will be,
given
the affection that Diana, Princess of Wales was held in by
many
around the world.
I'm afraid you are wrong. Actually it does! Her choice not
to use the title but she IS "Princess of Wales"
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary,
Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer
of 17 March 2005, Official Report, column 462W, on the Royal
Marriage, whether the spouse of HRH the Prince of Wales will
be the Princess of Wales consequent on the marriage to be
held on 9 April; and if he will make a statement. [224110]
Mr. Leslie: Following her marriage, Camilla Parker Bowles
will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of
Rothesay in Scotland. As was made clear at the time of the
announcement of the marriage, she will be Princess of Wales
but will not use the title.
Of course these NuLabor wazzocks don't know anything about this stuff.
The law is perfectly clear. The sovereign has an undoubted prerogative
to determine the titles of members of the Royal Family. The title by
which the Queen describes Camilla, or authorises her to be described,
is ipso facto her correct and legal title, to the exclusion of any
other, and no question of her being "entitled" to anything else can
possibly arise, "Department of Constitutional Affairs"
notwithstanding.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Roy Stockdill
2006-06-07 16:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charani
Obviously the stupid troll thinks that marriage to the Prince of
Wales confers his title on his wife, but then trolls are well
known for their stupidity. Royal titles are for the Queen to
bestow. The Duchess of Cornwall was not given the title of
Princess of Wales. It's unlikely that she ever will be, given
the affection that Diana, Princess of Wales was held in by many
around the world.>
But not by those of us who thought she was a couple of sandwiches
short of a picnic, scheming, manipulative, psychologically unstable and
principally the architect of her own final misfortune.

It is time the cult of Diana was laid to rest, for in years to come her
importance will diminish and she will be seen as no more than an
aberrant footnote in the annals of history. Those who still worship her
are deluded and sentimental fools.

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

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Kay Robinson
2006-06-07 20:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
">> I ask, where do the delusions lay?
Post by Charani
In your silly litle head!!
The Duchess of Cornwall isn't the Princess of Wales.
You'll find the exit down the corridor just past the gents loo, but
mind the step and the door as it tends to swing back quite hard.
Oops!! You didn't mind either. Oh well, never mind. "
www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/09/royal.wedding/
Wit is amusing in itself, but is silly when it gets in the way of
reasoned, knowledged debate.
Really, you are proof that the masses can be deluded, even the more
informed ones, such as yourself.
Aggie
However, there is no reasoned, knowledged debate, only between
yourself and yourself. Haven't you got the message Aggie, I don't give
a damn what Camilla is called, where she lives, what she has for
breakfast, nor am I interested in knowing anything about who becomes
king, queen, duchess, duke or whatever. It matters not one jot to the
population of this country. What the plonker Blair does affects us
all, what charlie and his darlin do doesn't.

Now if you have some pertinent point to make as to my genealogy, or
anyone elses on the newsgroup, please make it. We don't research what
our descendants may do, we research what our ancestors have done.

I don't know whether you're computer literate, or know much about the
Internet. You probably associated the word 'plonker' with Rodders on
TV, however, in Usenet convention a plonker is someone who goes 'click
click PLONK....

-

All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.

William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need
Aggie
2006-06-07 11:13:04 UTC
Permalink
"PS: Re a rude post directed at 'Aggie' by a poster named 'Charani'.
My
understanding is that, contrary to a statement in that post, both the
Lord
Chancellor and Clarence House - before the marriage of the Prince of
Wales
and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles - confirmed that after the marriage
Camilla
would legally/technically be the Princess of Wales (the courtesy title
given
to the wife of the Prince of Wales) but that she had *chosen* to be
referred
to as Duchess of Cornwall. A Google will find references. No doubt
somebody will be able to find the definitive pronouncement. "

That's right. And legally, Tom Parker Bowles would be second-in-line to
the throne if Charles announces convincingly that he was married to
Camilla at the time of his birth, received support from the Queen and
has records to match from the church and the privy council.

Perhaps Tom can announce, for the benefit of the deluded, that he will
not be known as King during his caretaker role on the throne; he can be
referred to as simply "Lord Cornwall" or what not. Or Lord
Protector.....

Aggie
Graeme Wall
2006-06-07 13:12:27 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
"Aggie" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Aggie
That's right. And legally, Tom Parker Bowles would be second-in-line to
the throne if Charles announces convincingly that he was married to
Camilla at the time of his birth, received support from the Queen and
has records to match from the church and the privy council.
He won't, She won't, they don't exist, no one cares, go away.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Lesley Robertson
2006-06-07 14:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
[snip]
Post by Aggie
That's right. And legally, Tom Parker Bowles would be second-in-line to
the throne if Charles announces convincingly that he was married to
Camilla at the time of his birth, received support from the Queen and
has records to match from the church and the privy council.
He won't, She won't, they don't exist, no one cares, go away.
And he couldn't.
Charles can't legally marry without the permission of the Monarch - it's in
the Royal Marriage Act of somewhen or other. Any marriage without her
permission would be invalid, and any children couldn't inherit.
There are groups called alt.history.what-if and soc.history.what-if or
somesuch which might suit the OP better than this one where she simply looks
foolish.
Lesley Robertson
Charani
2006-06-07 15:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
There are groups called alt.history.what-if and soc.history.what-if
or somesuch which might suit the OP better than this one where she
simply looks foolish.
You're being very polite there, Lesley :))
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
Lesley Robertson
2006-06-08 10:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charani
Post by Lesley Robertson
There are groups called alt.history.what-if and soc.history.what-if
or somesuch which might suit the OP better than this one where she
simply looks foolish.
You're being very polite there, Lesley :))
--
One aims to please...... Always be polite to strangers, and relax with your
friends!
Lesley Robertson
Andrew Sellon
2006-06-08 11:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
One aims to please...... Always be polite to strangers, and relax with your
friends!
Lesley -

By that statement you make it obvious that you were not educated on this
list, or were you a poor student and you have got it the wrong way round?

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Lesley Robertson
2006-06-08 11:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
Post by Lesley Robertson
One aims to please...... Always be polite to strangers, and relax with
your friends!
Lesley -
By that statement you make it obvious that you were not educated on this
list, or were you a poor student and you have got it the wrong way round?
I guess I'm a bit of a free thinker.
My students reckon they can always tell when I don't like someone or thing
someone's being a bit of an idiot, because I get more and more polite......
Apparently, by the time I start referring to people as "Mr" or "Ms" rather
than by their forenames, the tone of my voice could freeze lava....
Lesley Robertson
Charles Ellson
2006-06-08 01:22:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:06:57 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Aggie
[snip]
Post by Aggie
That's right. And legally, Tom Parker Bowles would be second-in-line to
the throne if Charles announces convincingly that he was married to
Camilla at the time of his birth, received support from the Queen and
has records to match from the church and the privy council.
He won't, She won't, they don't exist, no one cares, go away.
And he couldn't.
Charles can't legally marry without the permission of the Monarch - it's in
the Royal Marriage Act of somewhen or other. Any marriage without her
permission would be invalid, and any children couldn't inherit.
There are groups called alt.history.what-if and soc.history.what-if or
somesuch which might suit the OP better than this one where she simply looks
foolish.
Lesley Robertson
According to Wikipaedia (if it's in etc....) if the monarch doesn't
grant permission then any affected member of the Royal Family over 25y
old can, after giving notice to the Privy Council, wait a year and get
married anyway. OTOH ISTR some debate prior to his marriage to Camilla
that the Royal Marriages Act 1772 is incompatible with Scots Law (as
it breaches the Human Rights Act WRT to freedom to marry) and all that
any affected person has to do now is hop on the train to Scotland
which also seems to have been an option pre-HRA if I'm reading :-
http://www.dca.gov.uk/rights/dca/inforeleased/draftmemorandum_retype.pdf
["Draft Memorandum to the Cabinet by the Lord Chancellor" concerning
the intention of Princess Margaret to marry Gp Capt Townsend]
correctly.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Roy Stockdill
2006-06-07 11:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
"Goodness knows, anything can
happen in any succession whether hereditary or elective! "
Here here.
Aggie>
Your command of the English language is obviously about as substantial
as your intellect.

The well-known phrase you were seeking is actually HEAR, HEAR.

HERE is defined as referring to being in or at a place, i.e. "I am staying
here."

To HEAR is the act of hearing or listening to.

If you are going to continue to post absurdities, you might at least try
and spell them correctly.

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

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Charani
2006-06-07 06:53:15 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Jun 2006 15:14:23 -0700, a troll calling itself Aggie babbled
Post by Aggie
I ask, where do the delusions lay?
In your silly litle head!!

The Duchess of Cornwall isn't the Princess of Wales.

You'll find the exit down the corridor just past the gents loo, but
mind the step and the door as it tends to swing back quite hard.
Oops!! You didn't mind either. Oh well, never mind.
--
Genealogy: is it a thing of the past??
http://www.spiritisup.com/colors1.swf
T.J. & L.K. Dunster
2006-06-07 05:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Speak for yourself. "Most" people voted against the idea of a republic in
the referrendum. , and just think of the alternative President Johnny!!!
Dosn't bear thinking about.

Lindy in Tas
Post by JAPhilip
Hi Aggie,
You are obviously having lots of fun with this ;- )
But, why not!
As an Antipodean with the dreaded prospect of Chawles as our future Head of
State, I very much like the idea of young Tom PB instead.
Though if it means having the Strumpet (a lovely word) Camilla as King
Mother that definitely doesn't appeal at all!
Amanda Vanstone and Peter Costello - c'mon guys, stomp on your monarchist
boss John Howard and bring on the Republic :- )
Yes, genbrit and sgb guys, most of us here in Oz (polls show) would prefer
to have a republic rather than still having E2R as our Head of State (she
and her family must still be shaking their heads in wonderment about the
outcome of our prejudiced referendum).
Who will Australia's Head of State Liz (not to mention Phil, Charles & co)
be barracking for in the World Cup, eh ...
JAP ;- ) :- )
Peter Goodey
2006-06-07 06:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by T.J. & L.K. Dunster
think of the alternative President Johnny
I haven't the faintest idea who you're talking about (please don't tell me)
but that sort of thing is always the phony argument used against a republic
in Britain. You come up with a name that you think would be unacceptable to
most people and then claim that it's the only possible alternative.
Roy Stockdill
2006-06-07 11:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Goodey
Post by T.J. & L.K. Dunster
think of the alternative President Johnny
I haven't the faintest idea who you're talking about (please don't
tell me) but that sort of thing is always the phony argument used
against a republic in Britain. You come up with a name that you think
would be unacceptable to most people and then claim that it's the only
possible alternative.>
Quite so.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a presidential system, provided
you get the right candidate. If you occasionally elect a semi-literate
clown as president, as Americans sadly seem prone to do now and then,
then that is the fault of the electorate and not the system.

I've met many politicians in the course of my professional life, but only a
few who would in my opinion have made a splendid president. Way at
the head of my list would be Baroness Betty Boothroyd, the former
Speaker of the House of Commons, a lovely, warm lady with great
humanity and her head screwed on - and a great Yorkshireman, of
course!

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

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Brian Austin
2006-06-07 16:35:45 UTC
Permalink
I never took you for naive, Roy!

Brian Austin
Post by Roy Stockdill
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a presidential system, provided
you get the right candidate. If you occasionally elect a semi-literate
clown as president, as Americans sadly seem prone to do now and then,
then that is the fault of the electorate and not the system.
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Kay Robinson
2006-06-07 20:09:25 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 11:37:10 +0000 (UTC), ***@btinternet.com
("Roy Stockdill") sharpened a new qull and scratched:

---> bobbit
Post by Roy Stockdill
I've met many politicians in the course of my professional life, but only a
few who would in my opinion have made a splendid president. Way at
the head of my list would be Baroness Betty Boothroyd, the former
Speaker of the House of Commons, a lovely, warm lady with great
humanity and her head screwed on - and a great Yorkshireman, of
course!
Now if I had a pound for every time you've mentioned your admiration
or that lady... Is there something we ought to know? :-)

Kay

-

All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.

William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need
Mary Lou McLaren
2006-06-08 03:02:37 UTC
Permalink
If you occasionally elect a semi-literate
Post by Roy Stockdill
clown as president, as Americans sadly seem prone to do now and then,
then that is the fault of the electorate and not the system.
Unfortunately, this is true. However our "system" involves the Electoral
College, which usually negates the electorate. Have a google to see how it
works. Daft if you ask me!

mary lou sun valley, id usa

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Q
2006-06-08 05:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
If you occasionally elect a semi-literate
Post by Roy Stockdill
clown as president, as Americans sadly seem prone to do now and then,
then that is the fault of the electorate and not the system.
Unfortunately, this is true. However our "system" involves the Electoral
College, which usually negates the electorate.
Only on very rare occasions and under peculiar circumstances.

And that's because the Electoral College was designed to give the less
populated states that the United States depends upon for agriculture a
larger share of the vote than their populations warranted.

John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush
are the four presidents -- out of of forty two -- who didn't win the popular
vote.

The most recent pre-Bush instance of this happened more than a hundred years
ago. So it is inaccurate to say the Electoral College "usually negates" the
electorate. -- Q
Post by Roy Stockdill
Have a google to see how it
works. Daft if you ask me!
mary lou sun valley, id usa
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Mary Lou McLaren
2006-06-08 06:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
And that's because the Electoral College was designed to give the less
populated states that the United States depends upon for agriculture a
larger share of the vote than their populations warranted.
Then how did the distribution get to where it is today? Our least
populated state is Wyoming...they have three electoral votes, while
California has 54 and New York has 31.

The most recent pre-Bush instance of this happened more than a hundred years
ago. So it is inaccurate to say the Electoral College "usually negates" the
electorate. -- Q

Perhaps I exaggerated .....however I still believe that the Electoral
College depresses voter turnout- because each state is only entitled to so
many electoral votes regardless of voter turnout, there is no incentive for
states to encourage voter participation and I think that other elections
would have turned out differently had more people actually voted.

And it does not accurately reflect the national popular will because it does
not elect a candidate by a direct popular vote...a la Mr. Bush.

mary lou

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Q
2006-06-08 13:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
Post by Q
And that's because the Electoral College was designed to give the less
populated states that the United States depends upon for agriculture a
larger share of the vote than their populations warranted.
Then how did the distribution get to where it is today? Our least
populated state is Wyoming...they have three electoral votes, while
California has 54 and New York has 31.
The most recent pre-Bush instance of this happened more than a hundred years
ago. So it is inaccurate to say the Electoral College "usually negates" the
electorate. -- Q
Perhaps I exaggerated .....
Indeed you did. Your post was misleading.
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
however I still believe that the Electoral
College depresses voter turnout- because each state is only entitled to so
many electoral votes regardless of voter turnout, there is no incentive for
states to encourage voter participation and I think that other elections
would have turned out differently had more people actually voted.
But the respective electors are bound to cast their votes in unison
according to the popular vote in their states. That's why the vote count in
Florida was so important. Whoever won the popular vote there -- even if the
margin was only half a dozen votes -- got ALL Florida's electoral votes.

I think Florida was an object lesson for people who stay home because they
think their vote won't count. I hope people were paying close attention,
because it showed how the system operates. And if voters are so
misinformed that they think the electoral vote doesn't reflect the popular
vote, that is a very sorry situation that needs to be corrected. The
electoral vote is a winner-takes-all situation, but first there has to be a
winner, and the popular vote determines that.
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
And it does not accurately reflect the national popular will because it does
not elect a candidate by a direct popular vote...a la Mr. Bush.
If we abandoned our electoral college, our country would be even more driven
by its urban population than it already is. That would not be a good
thing, IMO. -- Q
Post by Mary Lou McLaren
mary lou
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Jeff
2006-06-08 13:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
But the respective electors are bound to cast their votes
in unison
according to the popular vote in their states. That's why
the vote count in
Florida was so important. Whoever won the popular vote
there -- even if the
margin was only half a dozen votes -- got ALL Florida's
electoral votes.
\
Are you sure that is correct?

I realise that this is usually what happens, but I
understood there have been instances where Electoral College
members have voted differently than the popular vote in
their state would dictate.
Q
2006-06-08 14:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff
Post by Q
But the respective electors are bound to cast their votes
in unison
according to the popular vote in their states. That's why
the vote count in
Florida was so important. Whoever won the popular vote
there -- even if the
margin was only half a dozen votes -- got ALL Florida's
electoral votes.
\
Are you sure that is correct?
I realise that this is usually what happens, but I
understood there have been instances where Electoral College
members have voted differently than the popular vote in
their state would dictate.
That almost never happens, although the laws on whether the electoral
college members are bound by the popular vote do vary from state to state.
Florida is a winner-take-all state, as is Ohio, which was the critical state
in our most recent presidential election. See:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#popular

Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors
to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some
States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the
popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by
State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound
by State Law and Pledges to find out.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that
electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political
parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees.
Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject
to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced
by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the
question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may
be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for
failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting
their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate.
Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen
to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as
a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.



-- Q
JAPhilip
2006-06-08 05:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charani
Post by Sharon
Referencing the US news sites? Is that the best you
could do? They have been known to make some serious
blunders when it comes to reporting on the British
Royal Family.
Obviously the stupid troll thinks that marriage to the Prince of
Wales confers his title on his wife, but then trolls are well
known for their stupidity. Royal titles are for the Queen to
bestow. The Duchess of Cornwall was not given the title of
Princess of Wales. It's unlikely that she ever will be, given
the affection that Diana, Princess of Wales was held in by many
around the world.
On 6 Jun 2006 15:14:23 -0700, a troll calling itself Aggie
Post by Sharon
I ask, where do the delusions lay?
In your silly litle head!!
The Duchess of Cornwall isn't the Princess of Wales.
You'll find the exit down the corridor just past the gents loo, but
mind the step and the door as it tends to swing back quite hard.
Oops!! You didn't mind either. Oh well, never mind.
Leaving aside her/his distasteful language (inappropriate anywhere and
certainly on a genealogical forum), 'Charani' has cited no sources for
her/his assertions. Citation of sources is always advisable and is standard
practice in genealogy. This is especially relevant given that 'Charani' was
responding to aspersions cast by another poster, 'Sharon', on the source
quoted by poster 'Aggie' (and noting that 'Charani' had ignored a post by
poster 'Jeff' quoting a different - English - source).

Unless 'Charani' is able to quote sources for her/his various assertions
they should be withdrawn.

I suspect (though I cannot guarantee) that there are no sources to be found
in Acts of Parliament (it would be very helpful if anyone could show
otherwise) but that we are probably talking about uncodified 'law' (written
and unwritten) sanctified by centuries of practice.

My understanding (I am open to sourced correction) is that the officially
recognized titles of Charles are His Royal Highness The Prince Charles
Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester,
Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles,
Prince and Great Steward of Scotland .

And that he styles himself HRH The Prince of Wales except when in Scotland
where he styles himself HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay.

My understanding is that, when Lady Diana Spencer married Charles, she
automatically received - by virtue of her marriage and with no intervention
by the Queen, Parliament or Government - the official courtesy titles of HRH
The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of Chester, Duchess of
Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Princess of Scotland.
And that she usually styled herself HRH The Princess of Wales except when in
Scotland where she styled herself HRH The Duchess of Rothesay (there is a
report that once, when carrying out an engagement in Chester, she styled
herself HRH The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester). This remained
the position until her divorce.

Similarly, my understanding is that, when Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles married
Charles, she automatically received - by virtue of her marriage and with no
intervention by the Queen, Parliament or Government - the official courtesy
titles of HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of
Chester, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew,
Princess of Scotland.
And that, although Camilla is legally/technically The Princess of Wales, she
currently styles herself HRH The Duchess of Cornwall except when in Scotland
where she styles herself HRH The Duchess of Rothesay.
My understanding is that, if the current wife of the Prince of Wales chose
to style herself HRH The Princess of Wales, she could do so tomorrow without
let or hindrance (though no doubt the spin doctors would not advise this)
and that it would probably take a formal Act of Parliament to stop her from
so doing if she insisted.

It is, of course, extremely difficult to find out the precise legal
situation (if indeed there is one) - partly, it seems, because the spin
doctors worked (and continue to work) so very hard to obscure it.

Wikipedia has some interesting articles but they cannot be taken as
authoritative.

The whole subject is boring and trivial in the extreme (though having much
more genealogical relevance than so many of the lengthy OT threads on this
list/newsgroup). Nevertheless, accuracy and sources are very important,
especially on a genealogical list/newsgroup.

It is heartening to see that 'Aggie' has remained courteous despite much
provocation - though it would have been preferable IMHO had s/he not started
the thread.

JAP
Andrew Sellon
2006-06-08 07:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
<snip>
Wikipedia has some interesting articles but they cannot be taken as
authoritative.
The whole subject is boring and trivial in the extreme (though having much
more genealogical relevance than so many of the lengthy OT threads on this
list/newsgroup). Nevertheless, accuracy and sources are very important,
especially on a genealogical list/newsgroup.
It is heartening to see that 'Aggie' has remained courteous despite much
provocation - though it would have been preferable IMHO had s/he not started
the thread.
In the past I have had the occasional little 'run in' with JAP, but on
this occasion I am mostly in agreement.

My understanding was that the erstwhile Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles has
elected not to adopt the style "Princess of Wales", which she was, and
probably still is, fully entitled to. However, the former holder of this
title had inveigled herself so deeply into the nation's psyche that I
believe this decision to have been a wise one.

I also agree that it is to Aggie's credit that she has not responded in
kind to some of the inflammatory comments thrown against her, although I
totally disagree with her premiss and do not believe it worthy of
discussion on this list.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Aggie
2006-06-08 09:50:31 UTC
Permalink
I agree with JAPhilip's points, particularly this important one:

"It is, of course, extremely difficult to find out the precise legal
situation (if indeed there is one) - partly, it seems, because the spin

doctors worked (and continue to work) so very hard to obscure it. "

We are living in an era of spin. Perhaps as we always have.

Spin is about having people believe what you want them to believe. And
when they believe strongly in something, it is just so hard to sway
them.

I honour those people who want to find the truth in areas that have
been spun. That's not to say that there is an absolute truth to be
found, but when there is spin, there is some truth that has been
obscured.

But if spin is used to cover-up something like a)Camilla is Princess of
Wales b)Camilla will be Queen, what are its limits, if any?

Remember how it was said that Camilla won't be Princess of Wales, to
honour the memory of Diana etc.... remember when Charles, in his
*written press statement*, said that "it's not intended" that Camilla
will be Queen?

If you do, that's great. But the public forgets, from week to another.

The only thing that truly runs against Tom Parker Bowles being King, it
appears to me, is strong-willed, stubborn, irrational, secluded common
folk. For many of the educated, who abide by logic alone, no morals or
sentimentality is binding; and the same goes for academics and
constitutional experts. The strongest arguments can be made for Parker
Bowles to be King - constitutional sections legitimizing his claim,
forged documents that experts agree are not forged, authorities such as
the Queen and Prince Charles offering their support. The media can be
spun, as easily as an author writes his chapters. What is the greatest
challenge is the loyalist undeterred.

Aggie
Roy Stockdill
2006-06-08 10:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
The only thing that truly runs against Tom Parker Bowles being King,
it appears to me, is strong-willed, stubborn, irrational, secluded
common folk. For many of the educated, who abide by logic alone, no
morals or sentimentality is binding; and the same goes for academics
and constitutional experts. The strongest arguments can be made for
Parker Bowles to be King - constitutional sections legitimizing his
claim, forged documents that experts agree are not forged, authorities
such as the Queen and Prince Charles offering their support. The media
can be spun, as easily as an author writes his chapters. What is the
greatest challenge is the loyalist undeterred. >
There's a rather significant point that appears to have escaped your
attention in the course of this absurd ramble through conspiracy theories
and historical Disneyland.

Both Tom Parker Bowles and his sister Laura were raised as Roman
Catholics, which would automatically debar him and any subsequent
issue from the throne unless he's renounced his Catholicism.

Moreover, he and his wife Sara are both journalists - well, if, that is, you
regard a food writer and a fashion editor as journalists, which I
personally have some difficulty in doing. Would the nation ever accept a
king and queen who were both hacks???

A quick trawl with Google will reveal Tom's recipe for Chilli Cottage Pie,
so perhaps he does have his uses after all!

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

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Aggie
2006-06-08 10:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for the points Roy; I'm glad it is not so absurd as to not be
understandable.
Post by Roy Stockdill
Both Tom Parker Bowles and his sister Laura were raised as Roman
Catholics, which would automatically debar him and any subsequent
issue from the throne unless he's renounced his Catholicism.
So he'll renounce his Catholicism, big deal. Or they'll spin it and
re-write history to say that he was actually raised a protestant.
Whichever.
Post by Roy Stockdill
Moreover, he and his wife Sara are both journalists - well, if, that is, you
regard a food writer and a fashion editor as journalists, which I
personally have some difficulty in doing. Would the nation ever accept a
king and queen who were both hacks???
What they "are" is relative - we can say he's a drug fiend, a Catholic,
a journalist, or a Prince, second-in-line to the throne, and soon-to-be
King.

Now he is known as a journalist; tomorrow he can be known as the leader
of some "feed the poor children in Africa" initiative. And his new
African Chili Pie recipe can catch on like wildfire, as the British
public races to re-invent itself and discover the world.

Whatever.

Spin is like writing a book. So many possibilities. The only limits are
the limits of imagination.

Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-08 10:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for the points Roy; I'm glad it is not so absurd as to not be
understandable.
Post by Roy Stockdill
Both Tom Parker Bowles and his sister Laura were raised as Roman
Catholics, which would automatically debar him and any subsequent
issue from the throne unless he's renounced his Catholicism.
So he'll renounce his Catholicism, big deal. Or they'll spin it and
re-write history to say that he was actually raised a protestant.
Whichever.
Post by Roy Stockdill
Moreover, he and his wife Sara are both journalists - well, if, that is, you
regard a food writer and a fashion editor as journalists, which I
personally have some difficulty in doing. Would the nation ever accept a
king and queen who were both hacks???
What they "are" is relative - we can say he's a drug fiend, a Catholic,
a journalist, or a Prince, second-in-line to the throne, and soon-to-be
King.

Now he is known as a journalist; tomorrow he can be known as the leader
of some "feed the poor children in Africa" initiative. And his new
African Chili Pie recipe can catch on like wildfire, as the British
public races to re-invent itself and discover the world.

Whatever.

Spin is like writing a book. So many possibilities. The only limits are
the limits of imagination.

Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-08 10:47:53 UTC
Permalink
And reality, or rather, what people believe reality is.
Aggie
Graeme Wall
2006-06-08 11:28:06 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@localhost>
***@btinternet.com ("Roy Stockdill") wrote:

[snip]
Post by Roy Stockdill
Moreover, he and his wife Sara are both journalists - well, if, that is,
you regard a food writer and a fashion editor as journalists, which I
personally have some difficulty in doing. Would the nation ever accept a
king and queen who were both hacks???
Now we know why you are a republican :-)
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Q
2006-06-08 13:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Aggie
The only thing that truly runs against Tom Parker Bowles being King,
it appears to me, is strong-willed, stubborn, irrational, secluded
common folk. For many of the educated, who abide by logic alone, no
morals or sentimentality is binding; and the same goes for academics
and constitutional experts. The strongest arguments can be made for
Parker Bowles to be King - constitutional sections legitimizing his
claim, forged documents that experts agree are not forged, authorities
such as the Queen and Prince Charles offering their support. The media
can be spun, as easily as an author writes his chapters. What is the
greatest challenge is the loyalist undeterred. >
There's a rather significant point that appears to have escaped your
attention in the course of this absurd ramble through conspiracy theories
and historical Disneyland.
Both Tom Parker Bowles and his sister Laura were raised as Roman
Catholics,
Were they?
Post by Roy Stockdill
which would automatically debar him and any subsequent
issue from the throne unless he's renounced his Catholicism.
Neither of the Parker Bowles children was married in the Catholic church,
FWIW.
Post by Roy Stockdill
Moreover, he and his wife Sara are both journalists - well, if, that is, you
regard a food writer and a fashion editor as journalists, which I
personally have some difficulty in doing. Would the nation ever accept a
king and queen who were both hacks???
Hacks? So tell us, Mr. Stockdill, what do *you* do for a living? -- Q
Post by Roy Stockdill
A quick trawl with Google will reveal Tom's recipe for Chilli Cottage Pie,
so perhaps he does have his uses after all!
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Roy Stockdill
2006-06-08 13:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Would the nation ever accept a > king and queen who were both hacks???>
Hacks? So tell us, Mr. Stockdill, what do *you* do for a living? -->
Oh dear. Humour is never quite the same when you have to explain it to
some dimwit, is it?

I thought it was widely known on this list that I used to be a Fleet Street
hack, hence my self deprecatory comments. It is called IRONY, you
see.

These days my only "hackish" activity is writing a weekly Opinion
column for my local paper. Otherwise, I am a professional - well, near-
professional in the sense that I don't undertake work for private clients -
genealogist, writing for the various magazines and lecturing. I write
principally for the magazine, Practical Family History, alternatively doing
a general article one month, interspersed with researching and writing
up the ancestry of a famous person every other month.

Is that OK for you?

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

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Q
2006-06-08 14:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Would the nation ever accept a > king and queen who were both hacks???>
Hacks? So tell us, Mr. Stockdill, what do *you* do for a living? -->
Oh dear. Humour is never quite the same when you have to explain it to
some dimwit, is it?
If so-called "humor" has to be explained, it has -- by that very fact --
laid an egg.
Post by Roy Stockdill
I thought it was widely known on this list that I used to be a Fleet Street
hack, hence my self deprecatory comments. It is called IRONY, you
see.
I am new to the list, and your fame had not yet reached me. Perhaps you are
less widely-known than you believe.

Which paper were you associated with? And how long ago was that?
Post by Roy Stockdill
These days my only "hackish" activity is writing a weekly Opinion
column for my local paper. Otherwise, I am a professional - well, near-
professional in the sense that I don't undertake work for private clients -
genealogist, writing for the various magazines and lecturing. I write
principally for the magazine, Practical Family History, alternatively doing
a general article one month, interspersed with researching and writing
up the ancestry of a famous person every other month.
Is that OK for you?
That you were a journalist is fine with me.

That you were associated with Fleet Street is possibly less fine --
depending on which paper you were with -- and possibly justifies your use
of the word "hack." The term certainly doesn't apply to all journalists.

What is *not* fine is that you called me -- a complete stranger-- a
"dimwit," solely because I am unfamiliar with your supposedly illustrious
career.

The need to insult strangers who request an explanation of something you
have written suggests to me that you have some kind of personality
problem. -- Q
Post by Roy Stockdill
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Chris Westmoreland
2006-06-08 14:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Sent: 08 June 2006 11:23
Subject: Re: Can Tom Parker Bowles be our King?
Both Tom Parker Bowles and his sister Laura were raised as Roman
Catholics, which would automatically debar him and any subsequent
issue from the throne unless he's renounced his Catholicism.
Moreover, he and his wife Sara are both journalists - well, if, that is, you
regard a food writer and a fashion editor as journalists, which I
personally have some difficulty in doing. Would the nation ever accept a
king and queen who were both hacks???
It's moved on since your Grub Street days Roy.

I wish I could remember who was involved, but only a month or so ago I
remember reading an article by an eminent journalist in which he stated that
so-and-so and their ilk weren't journalists at all, but merely feature
writers.

Let's face it; if all the feature writers, conjecture mongers, and froth
pedlars were kicked out of the fourth estate then we wouldn't have a problem
with vanishing rainforests etc.

Kushti Bok,

Chris Westmoreland
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/358 - Release Date: 07/06/2006
Brian Austin
2006-06-08 16:19:19 UTC
Permalink
As I understand it, the electoral college system was deliberately inserted
in the US Constitution by the founding fathers who, being in the main of the
landed class, were afraid that a demagogue would highjack some future
election by appealing to the "great unwashed". We tend to think of the USA
as being the first of the "real" democracies yet the landed upper class had
just as much a dislike of democracy as their British counterparts. "One man,
one vote" is o'k as long as you can trust the man who has it.

Brian Austin
Post by Roy Stockdill
If you occasionally elect a semi-literate
Post by Roy Stockdill
clown as president, as Americans sadly seem prone to do now and then,
then that is the fault of the electorate and not the system.
Unfortunately, this is true. However our "system" involves the Electoral
College, which usually negates the electorate. Have a google to see how
it works. Daft if you ask me!
mary lou sun valley, id usa
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Roy Stockdill
2006-06-07 11:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
I've met many politicians in the course of my professional life, but
only a few who would in my opinion have made a splendid president. Way
at the head of my list would be Baroness Betty Boothroyd, the former
Speaker of the House of Commons, a lovely, warm lady with great
humanity and her head screwed on - and a great Yorkshireman, of
course!<
Before some eagle-eyed sleuth nips in and points out that Betty
Boothroyd is a woman, I meant, of course, that she is a great
Yorkshirewoman.

However, in one sense the error is apposite, since she showed during
her long tenure as Speaker that she is probably tougher than most men
and if she was capable of controlling the unruly animal house called the
House of Commons so superbly, I'm sure she would have made an
equally strong president.

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

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Charles Ellson
2006-06-08 01:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Roy Stockdill
I've met many politicians in the course of my professional life, but
only a few who would in my opinion have made a splendid president. Way
at the head of my list would be Baroness Betty Boothroyd, the former
Speaker of the House of Commons, a lovely, warm lady with great
humanity and her head screwed on - and a great Yorkshireman, of
course!<
Before some eagle-eyed sleuth nips in and points out that Betty
Boothroyd is a woman, I meant, of course, that she is a great
Yorkshirewoman.
Thank heaven for that, I thought you'd blown another state secret. ;-)
<snip>
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: ***@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Anne Heafield
2006-06-07 06:32:40 UTC
Permalink
At least that would be better than President Kylie, as was mentioned at the
time. A number of the people (not all) voting against a republic wished to
nominate and choose the president, similar to the US system, not have one
appointed by a government or panel.

Anne, Melbourne
Post by T.J. & L.K. Dunster
Speak for yourself. "Most" people voted against the idea of a republic in
the referrendum. , and just think of the alternative President Johnny!!!
Dosn't bear thinking about.
Lindy in Tas
Post by JAPhilip
Hi Aggie,
You are obviously having lots of fun with this ;- )
But, why not!
As an Antipodean with the dreaded prospect of Chawles as our future Head
of
Post by JAPhilip
State, I very much like the idea of young Tom PB instead.
Though if it means having the Strumpet (a lovely word) Camilla as King
Mother that definitely doesn't appeal at all!
Amanda Vanstone and Peter Costello - c'mon guys, stomp on your monarchist
boss John Howard and bring on the Republic :- )
Yes, genbrit and sgb guys, most of us here in Oz (polls show) would prefer
to have a republic rather than still having E2R as our Head of State (she
and her family must still be shaking their heads in wonderment about the
outcome of our prejudiced referendum).
Who will Australia's Head of State Liz (not to mention Phil, Charles & co)
be barracking for in the World Cup, eh ...
JAP ;- ) :- )
JAPhilip
2006-06-07 08:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Lindy,
This is dreadfully OT (though not as far OT as some threads have been) ...
Re the post below from "T.J. & L.K. Dunster" <***@bigpond.net.au>. To
be serious for a moment, I believe that most of my fellow Australian voters
did not vote against the *idea* of a republic in the referendum. I believe
that many committed republicans voted no in the referendum because of the
biased nature of the question as posed (thank you Monarchist Johnny i.e. the
Australian Prime Minister John Howard), a clever scare campaign (unethical
in my view) by strident monarchists, and woeful dissension in the ranks of
the republicans concerning the particular *model*.
Polls consistently show a majority of Australians in favour of the *idea* of
an Australian Republic. The only way to prove this, of course, would be by
having a referendum which asked the simple question of "whether" - with an
undertaking that the "how" would be referred to a later referendum which
would follow if the result were a "yes" vote. But while Johnny is in power
there's no chance of that.
"President Johnny" doesn't really bear thinking about - but at least he's
Australian and would be our own disaster not a foreign one.
And, on second thoughts (though I have no time whatsoever for his politics
or his opportunism/expediency), honesty compels me to admit that John Howard
probably wouldn't do a bad job as an apolitical Head of State.
JAP
PS: Re a rude post directed at 'Aggie' by a poster named 'Charani'. My
understanding is that, contrary to a statement in that post, both the Lord
Chancellor and Clarence House - before the marriage of the Prince of Wales
and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles - confirmed that after the marriage Camilla
would legally/technically be the Princess of Wales (the courtesy title given
to the wife of the Prince of Wales) but that she had *chosen* to be referred
to as Duchess of Cornwall. A Google will find references. No doubt
somebody will be able to find the definitive pronouncement.
Post by T.J. & L.K. Dunster
Speak for yourself. "Most" people voted against the idea of a republic in
the referrendum. , and just think of the alternative President Johnny!!!
Dosn't bear thinking about.
Lindy in Tas
Post by JAPhilip
Hi Aggie,
You are obviously having lots of fun with this ;- )
But, why not!
As an Antipodean with the dreaded prospect of Chawles as our future Head
of
Post by JAPhilip
State, I very much like the idea of young Tom PB instead.
Though if it means having the Strumpet (a lovely word) Camilla as King
Mother that definitely doesn't appeal at all!
Amanda Vanstone and Peter Costello - c'mon guys, stomp on your monarchist
boss John Howard and bring on the Republic :- )
Yes, genbrit and sgb guys, most of us here in Oz (polls show) would prefer
to have a republic rather than still having E2R as our Head of State (she
and her family must still be shaking their heads in wonderment about the
outcome of our prejudiced referendum).
Who will Australia's Head of State Liz (not to mention Phil, Charles & co)
be barracking for in the World Cup, eh ...
JAP ;- ) :- )
Andrew Sellon
2006-06-06 13:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities. <snip>
Surely, even on this list, such a load of cod's wallop has not been
inflicted on us before. Can not think who this is meant to entertain.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
A. Gwilliam
2006-06-06 14:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.
[snip]
I see that you have had the gross miscourtesy to post this individually
to a number of different newsgroups. I cordially suggest that you
learn some manners!
--
AGw.
Halmyre
2006-06-06 15:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.
<snip load of old blather>
Post by Aggie
I say to you that England would acquiesce, just as it has with Camilla,
the Princess of Wales.
So what do you say to us that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would do?

I prefer the French approach myself...
--
Halmyre

ceci, n'est pas un signature
Graeme Wall
2006-06-06 17:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.
No it's not.

<snip drivel>
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Eve McLaughlin
2006-06-06 18:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.
If you think that, madam, then you do need to see a psychiatrist.
--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
Verminator
2006-06-07 02:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.
If he can get Prince Charles to announce on public television that he
had a marriage with Camilla that was maintained until December 18,
1974 (the day of Tom's birth), that it was conducted in a church (with
forgery), that it had received the support of the privacy council (more
forgery), how would England react?
Tom would have then met all of the requirements constitutionally to be
second-in-line. And most importantly, he'd have the support of a major
member of the Royal family and the heir to the throne.
Tom is older than Prince William; his so-called parents (Charles and
Camilla) were known to be courting at the time of his birth; he is
known to do irrational things.
His mother has the ear of her supposedly obedient husband; her husband
is a respectable public figure; her royal family has untold connections
to MI5. She was once a strumpet, but now a Duchess, and future Queen
Consort; who knows where her ambition will go next?
I say to you that England would acquiesce, just as it has with Camilla,
the Princess of Wales.
Aggie
Aggie! Get back in your cage where you belong and quit littering the
newsgroups with your garbage.

Note to others: Please don't feed the troll- let her starve.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...