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

Skip to comments.

QUEEN WILL NOT ATTEND WEDDING
Sky News ^ | February 22, 2005 | Staff

Posted on 02/22/2005 1:14:52 PM PST by MadIvan

The Queen will not attend the wedding of Charles and Camilla, the couple have announced.

She will, however, attend the church blessing after the civil ceremony.

The couple are due to get married at the Guildhall in Windsor.

More Follows...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: camilla; charles; enjoytheshackles; humantyranny; monarchysucks; queen; royals; royalwedding; subjectsnotcitizens; turass
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-235 next last
To: Always Right
I think Ivan thinks it is a clear signal the Queen plans to bypass Charles as King.

I didn't realize the Queen had any say in this. I always thought there was a predetermined order of succession. Shows you how much I follow royalty!

21 posted on 02/22/2005 1:20:28 PM PST by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

Amen to that....


22 posted on 02/22/2005 1:20:29 PM PST by zoobee (A horse is a horse of course of course)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

My response is usually...


EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwww!!!!!!!!!


23 posted on 02/22/2005 1:20:32 PM PST by PeterFinn (Why is it that people who know the least know it the loudest?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

I was under the impression the wedding announcement caught everyone on the hop - Her Majesty, the Prime Minister, etc. I think this is indicative of Her Majesty's disapproval.

Regards, Ivan


24 posted on 02/22/2005 1:20:47 PM PST by MadIvan (One blog to bring them all...and in the Darkness bind them: http://www.theringwraith.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

I thought that there had been some parlimentery proceedings after William and Mary that defined the succession???


25 posted on 02/22/2005 1:21:38 PM PST by PatriotCJC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

I was always under the impression that Charles really wasn't interested in being King in the first place.


26 posted on 02/22/2005 1:21:40 PM PST by dfwgator (It's sad that the news media treats Michael Jackson better than our military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

What some people will do to get out of spending a few bucks on a present. I hear she was even offered a guarantee of catching the bouquet, but no deal.


27 posted on 02/22/2005 1:22:28 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Happy President's Day! Abraham Lincoln= our greatest president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

BTW... Cool home page Ivan!!!


28 posted on 02/22/2005 1:22:32 PM PST by PatriotCJC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PatriotCJC

Theoretically the succession is to go to the nearest Protestant heir. However, there is a precedent in which the heir can be designated in a will.

Regards, Ivan


29 posted on 02/22/2005 1:22:34 PM PST by MadIvan (One blog to bring them all...and in the Darkness bind them: http://www.theringwraith.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

I was rather hoping Charles would stand aside, eventually.

BTW, William could take the throne as King Arthur, if he so chose.


30 posted on 02/22/2005 1:23:01 PM PST by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
This?

Or this?

31 posted on 02/22/2005 1:23:01 PM PST by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I just realized I missed a golden opportunity from the headline, but I'll throw it out there now...

"Well, was Sir Elton even invited?" :)

32 posted on 02/22/2005 1:23:04 PM PST by TheBigB (Ask cyborg about the doughnuts. But you'll have to wake her up first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

WE are not amused

33 posted on 02/22/2005 1:23:13 PM PST by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatriotCJC

I'm sure it has to do with British Royalty Rules and all...but can you think of a worse mother-in-law?


34 posted on 02/22/2005 1:23:42 PM PST by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Thank you so much for the post Ivan. I read/heard that the "marriage" will not be "legal" as the Royals must be married in a Church according to the Marriage Act of 1832(36?) Have you heard anything about that? Best regards,


35 posted on 02/22/2005 1:23:48 PM PST by MacArthur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I'll hafta be honest and say neither one does anything for me. :)


36 posted on 02/22/2005 1:24:04 PM PST by TheBigB (Ask cyborg about the doughnuts. But you'll have to wake her up first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Charles and Camilla are registerad at Bed Bath and waaay BEYOND..


37 posted on 02/22/2005 1:24:15 PM PST by ken5050 (The Dem party is as dead as the NHL..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor

"I didn't realize the Queen had any say in this."

The Queen actually has one hell of a lot of power. It is just traditional that she does not exercise that power.

She is Commander in Chief of the military forces and the civil government answers to her. She has the power to dissolve the government and call for elections and she can simply fire the Prime Minister if she so desires.


38 posted on 02/22/2005 1:24:19 PM PST by PeterFinn (Why is it that people who know the least know it the loudest?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
BTW, William could take the throne as King Arthur, if he so chose.

THAT'D be cool!

39 posted on 02/22/2005 1:24:46 PM PST by TheBigB (Ask cyborg about the doughnuts. But you'll have to wake her up first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MacArthur

I think you mean the act of 1834. Theoretically it isn't legal if it isn't done in a church.

Regards, Ivan


40 posted on 02/22/2005 1:25:01 PM PST by MadIvan (One blog to bring them all...and in the Darkness bind them: http://www.theringwraith.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-235 next 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