Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reuters: Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles to Marry
Reuters via CNBC Europe | February 10, 2004

Posted on 02/10/2005 1:13:48 AM PST by Dont Mention the War

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 last
To: Jemian
Sorry, the horse is beautiful. Camzilla is repulsive.
Well, Prince Charles obviously has a bit different opinion on the subject, and - to general happiness - it is his opinion that counts there, and not any of ours.
141 posted on 02/10/2005 5:03:38 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: PilloryHillary

I'm glad you brought that up first.
I thought I was the only one who would give a care.
This mean Camilla is higher ranked than Fergie even. Doesn't seem right somehow.

Anyway, glad to see Princess Margaret didn't live long enough to witness this - her life was destroyed when she couldn't marry that divorced horse instructor many decades ago - the Queen rightfully put the kibosh on that. I think she flaked on this, though.


142 posted on 02/10/2005 5:14:54 PM PST by mabelkitty (Blackwell for Governor in 2006!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: blu

I had hopes for the Princess of the Chrysanthemum Crown (Japan), but alas, if Diana thought she had is hard with the bureacracy of Windsor Palace, she's never seen the viciousness that drove one Queen and one Princess to mental breakdown.


143 posted on 02/10/2005 5:17:01 PM PST by mabelkitty (Blackwell for Governor in 2006!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Veto!
"C&C would have lived more proper, appropriate, dignified lives together than Diana could have even imagined."

Yeah, and just think -- none of us would have needed to hear Charles tell the world he wished he were Camille's tampon.

What a waste of "dignity."

144 posted on 02/10/2005 5:20:57 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter

The obsession with British royalty in this country is amazing to me.


145 posted on 02/10/2005 5:23:26 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

Membership into the EU will determine the fate of the monarchy.

It will sustain one more generation at the most.

Sadly.

I do, however, think Harry would be a better King than William - Nazi costume be damned. He seems best equipped to tell the press to shove it. The only other person who could do that was Fergie, and she sure landed on her feet okay. Anybody else withers.


146 posted on 02/10/2005 5:25:47 PM PST by mabelkitty (Blackwell for Governor in 2006!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
"The obsession with British royalty in this country is amazing to me."

Is it merely a by-product of mommies telling their little girls fairy tales?

Or are these the same folks with shallow, empty lives who fawn and fuss over the Kennedys?

There's MUCH too much hero worship these day -- especially of those who least deserve it.

147 posted on 02/10/2005 5:30:20 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
At least the Kennedy's get elected.

The British are far more socialist than we are, yet they hang onto the opposite of that in every respect with the royal family.

Who the heck really cares who Charles marries? He has the IQ of a turnip, and the politics of commie although nobody really thinks he understands anything at all. He's never held any job that I know of.

Nonetheless, he's a British national treasure and the source of some adoration here in the US.

148 posted on 02/10/2005 5:41:36 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite

I don't think Diana was a gold-digger. I think she married him thinking he loved her. I think he married HER just to create good-looking offspring.


149 posted on 02/10/2005 5:45:04 PM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: madison10

I remember reading that she found out somehow that he still loved Camilla and not her, but she went thru with the wedding anyway.

She was no saint, but I put most of the blame on Charles and the rest of the Royals. It was all politics and Diana was just a naive 19-year-old.


150 posted on 02/11/2005 12:08:02 AM PST by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Christopher Lincoln

Friend, I didn't know that. I am not surprised, however. Thanks for the lesson!


151 posted on 02/11/2005 5:31:51 AM PST by katieanna (Jesus, I love calling Your Name!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter; Dog Gone

Finding celebrity gossip interesting doesn't mean that I obsess over the people or want to be them. It's like a real-life soap opera. And perhaps soap operas aren't the highest form of human endeavor--but I could think of worse ways to spend the time or to use those few brain cells I devote to thinking about the royals.

Personally, I wonder about people who feel a strong need to put down people who show an interest in celebrity gossip. Get a life. ;)


152 posted on 02/11/2005 6:11:19 AM PST by HostileTerritory ((inviting a few hundred replies, no doubt))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite

I read something of the sort too... that Diana had second thoughts, but her family told her it was "too late," all the preparations were made. I think it is just a sad story all around. I have to admit, however, that I lost a lot of sympathy for Diana after reading that at one point she tried to get Charles' attention back by throwing herself down the stairs... while pregnant. She was in a horrible situation, but to jeopardize your unborn child... of course, the rest of the story is that Charles wasn't too concerned about it. Hard to know what to believe, except I think for the most part, they've all lived somewhat miserable lives. High price to pay for the money, celebrity, possessions, etc....


153 posted on 02/11/2005 6:12:17 AM PST by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

Outside of Hitlery & Buffoon Bubba, Charley & Parker Bowles have got to be the world's sleaziest human beings.


154 posted on 02/11/2005 1:32:27 PM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
Good call. Bummer there aren't any Plantagenets left...oh wait, they were French!

Actually, they weren't. They were hairy Danish thugs who only spoke French (of a sort), who had followed Rollie the Ganger down from Jutland to squat on the French in the ninth century.

They were invaders, squatters, and mountebanks twice over. Whereas the line of Harold Godwinson of England were only squatters once over, as were the Brythonic Celts Harold's ancestors had rudely displaced.

There wasn't anyone truly indigenous in the entire cast of players.

Except maybe a few dark-haired Pictish remnants in the craggier recesses and deeper bogs around Cape Wrath.

155 posted on 02/12/2005 7:05:47 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Charley & Parker Bowles have got to be the world's sleaziest human beings.

Oh, hell no. You forgot Bubba's close personal friends, Larry Flynt and Denise and Marc Rich.

Then there's the swarm of greenbottles around Kofi Annan.

Saddam.

Most of the princes of Araby......'cept Bandar, who is cool, and a few other quality people in Riyadh, and King Abdullah of Jordan, who is a straight arrow, fighter pilot, and direct descendant of Mohammed.

Anybody French.

Someone who knows more than I do about the Chinese Politburo will nominate a few of them. I'll nominate Kim Jong Il in the dark.

Plenty of folks, in other words, get to march in the sleaze parade ahead of the younger Mountbattens and their girl/boyfriends.

One of these days one of those prim genealogists who worship the royals is going to really rip one and point the finger at the Bad Seed who marked the demarcation between the dignified royals of the past and the scandalous younger generation. Although a case can be made that Edward VII was as bad as any of these -- he was a real rakehell. Upstairs, Downstairs didn't catch the half of it.

156 posted on 02/12/2005 7:15:37 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: highlandbreeze
Charles was the whore(first)

I never said he wasn't. But the truth is that his adultery in no way allows or alleviates hers.

157 posted on 02/12/2005 11:14:46 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: John O

They both were wrong.


158 posted on 02/12/2005 11:51:27 AM PST by highlandbreeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

Comment #159 Removed by Moderator

To: nightdriver

AMEN to your view! I say ABC... Anybody but Charles!


160 posted on 02/13/2005 10:44:58 AM PST by mstone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson