About those dates, etc.

Noticed that the new format has a calendar.Would it be inappropriate
to use it to mark off important dates from our timeline? BTW, I, too,
think the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla was marvelous, but
still love the deliciousness of "coincidences." Drives my husband
nutty.

--- In , "Rhonda" <metrlt@s...>
wrote:
>
> Noticed that the new format has a calendar.Would it be inappropriate
> to use it to mark off important dates from our timeline? BTW, I, too,
> think the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla was marvelous, but
> still love the deliciousness of "coincidences." Drives my husband
> nutty.

Totally agree. I though the wedding was lovely, Camilla looked superb
and they all (including the queen) looked very very happy about it.

I also love synchronicity. The wedding had been due to take place on my
daughter's birthday, which was fun because the registry office part was
in the same place my great-grandparents had one of their two weddings
(they also had church and registry office but in other order), and
their church wedding had been on my son's birthday, with the Windsor
registry office do on son's actual due date.
Then the poor Pope died and set the whole thing off course.

By the way, I've just got a copy of Crowland, with the Latin text, and
I've been struggling over that passage about Queen and and Elizabeth
and the changes of apparel. My Latin's very bad, and I would love
someone else to look at it for me, but so far as I can make out:-
"eisdem colore et forma" - the colour and shape bit - is in the
ablative ('eisdem' being plural, 'colore' & 'forma' singular), so must
refer to an ablative noun further up. The ladies are "Annae reginae
atque Dominae Elizabeth", so no luck there. To cut a long story short,
it seems to me the colour and form must belong
to "mutatoriis" 'changes' (of clothes), so this is not a comparison of
the women's physical characteristics. In fact, I'm sort of coming up
with a tranny of:
". . vain changes of clothes - both of colour and form - distributed to
Anne, the Queen, and even to the Lady Elizabeth, firstborn daughter of
the late king".
This doesn't even suggest they exchanged clothes or wore identical
clothes, only that they both had a lot of clothes changes, with new
styles and colours. If we have any Latin experts, I can post the whole
Latin passage as I'm probably totally wide of the mark. Anyway, this
interpretation makes more sense of Crowland's actual complaint that
these changes were vain (rather than scandalous).

Marie

I just wonder whether the Croyland Chronicler limited his criticism to
the females at the party? I suppose if he says dresses that does
rather indicate female, but the word "gown" was used by both sexes at
that time, whereas today I think we would only relate it to a woman.

For what it is worth, I noticed that the announcement of the royal
wedding came on the same day that the Commons committee which
scutinises royal expenditure called for details of the amount of money
spent on Camilla.

--- In , nikita2224
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "dixonian2004"
> <dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , nikita2224
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , nikita2224
> > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > > > That is more sensical. Whenever I read about that infamous
> > > > Christmas with the matching dresses, all I can think about
is
> > my
> > Re: the Chas:Camilla wedding can only reiterate that going by the
> wording of the Royal Marriages Act 1949-it is not worth the paper
it
> is written on,open to all sorts of challenges when/if time comes
for
> Charles to accede.

Sorry, what implication does this have for Charles' accession? As for
Camilla's, she is not planning to be Queen anyway.
Re another post, reminding us that Camilla's first marriage took
place in a Catholic church Catholic and so her divorce doesn't count,
it does of course does count in law.

As regards being head of the Church of England, it is well known
Charles never did like the idea of being Defender of the Faith, and
would prefer a more inclusive Defender of Faith.

I do find it odd that whilst half the western world is on its second
marriage, and not ostracised, the marriage of a middle-aged divorcee
and widower can arouse such feelings of intolerance in people who
have never met them and are not privy to the full record of past
events (we have surely been manipulated by the media, and it will be
a long time before it is all history and we have a chance to get
behind the media hype and study this dispassionately). Is there still
at root a misconceived belief that the couple were actively having an
affair from the start of Charles' marriage to Diana?

Perhaps if the protocol pedants hadn't been out in force when Charles
was single (as I well remember them to have been) he wouldn't have
been forced to choose an upper-class Protestant virgin in the first
place. They were very thin on the ground, by all accounts. Everyone
deserves a second chance and I think it is far better than he and
Camilla are now properly married (arcane restrictions in the last
Marriage Act don't bother me much, I'm afraid - I've not read the Act
personally so I wouldn't like to pass comment on its implications).

Sorry, this is off topic.

Marie

--- In , nikita2224
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> As to whether Charles and Camilla were actively having an affair
> from the early days of his marriage to Diana- in Andrew Mortons
> latest book he quotes Richard Parker Bowles-Andrews brother as
> saying they slept together not long after Charles' honeymoon and
met
> at her house while A.P.B was frequently away,her children at
> boarding school and "friends" opened their houses to them
to "tryst"
> in to put it delicately.Yes the affair continued before-during and
> after Charles marriage.


I guess I feel the same away about Charles and Camilla as I felt
about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky -- if they stay out of my
private life I will stay out of theirs.

Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , nikita2224
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "dixonian2004"
> > > <dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> > > > --- In , nikita2224
> > > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , nikita2224
> > > > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Megan
> Lerseth
> > > > > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > > > > > That is more sensical. Whenever I read about that
> infamous
> > > > > > Christmas with the matching dresses, all I can think
about
> > is
> > > > my
> > > > Re: the Chas:Camilla wedding can only reiterate that going by
> the
> > > wording of the Royal Marriages Act 1949-it is not worth the
> paper
> > it
> > > is written on,open to all sorts of challenges when/if time
comes
> > for
> > > Charles to accede.
> >
> > Sorry, what implication does this have for Charles' accession? As
> for
> > Camilla's, she is not planning to be Queen anyway.
> > Re another post, reminding us that Camilla's first marriage took
> > place in a Catholic church Catholic and so her divorce doesn't
> count,
> > it does of course does count in law.
> >
> > As regards being head of the Church of England, it is well known
> > Charles never did like the idea of being Defender of the Faith,
> and
> > would prefer a more inclusive Defender of Faith.
> >
> > I do find it odd that whilst half the western world is on its
> second
> > marriage, and not ostracised, the marriage of a middle-aged
> divorcee
> > and widower can arouse such feelings of intolerance in people who
> > have never met them and are not privy to the full record of past
> > events (we have surely been manipulated by the media, and it will
> be
> > a long time before it is all history and we have a chance to get
> > behind the media hype and study this dispassionately). Is there
> still
> > at root a misconceived belief that the couple were actively
having
> an
> > affair from the start of Charles' marriage to Diana?
> >
> > Perhaps if the protocol pedants hadn't been out in force when
> Charles
> > was single (as I well remember them to have been) he wouldn't
have
> > been forced to choose an upper-class Protestant virgin in the
> first
> > place. They were very thin on the ground, by all accounts.
> Everyone
> > deserves a second chance and I think it is far better than he and
> > Camilla are now properly married (arcane restrictions in the last
> > Marriage Act don't bother me much, I'm afraid - I've not read the
> Act
> > personally so I wouldn't like to pass comment on its
> implications).
> >
> > Sorry, this is off topic.
> >
> > Marie

Nikita, do I guess you live in USA? Perhaps I'm wrong.

And personally I wouldn't give tuppence for one of Andrew Morton's
books. And what do you think the royal family & the British aristocracy
have been doing for centuries?

Even my very Catholic old mother felt sorry for Princess Margaret when
she was forced to part with Townsend - and that was long before the
sexual revolution. She used to think that's what sent her off the
rails. Most people now feel sorry for Edward VIII as well, or did
before the fascist suggestions emerged.

I'm not sure what Catholic people are supposed to make of C of E
peoples' marriages anyway. My understanding is that Camilla was not a
Catholic herself, only her first husband. As far as the Catholic Church
is concerned she's still married to Parker-Bowles, unless they got an
annulment (pardon my ignorance - as I say i've avoided the media tittle-
tattle). But according to the Catholic Church of course no divorce is
valid, and possibly no marriage is valid unless performed by a Catholic
priest. Perhaps you'll set me right on that one. The whole point is
that this has nothing to do with real life. I personally suspect we're
at the end of the period of the monarch as head of the Church of
England, and this is maybe the first suggestion of it (much talked
about issue amongst anyone who cares at all about royal matters). I
would personally welcome that change.

Again, how does this decision on the marriage affect Charles'
accession? What is this Labour Government plot? I hate to say it, but
this sounds like ravings from some populist US mag. Is say US because
that sort of stuff about the British monarchy seems to go down well
abroad (I've read similar level of stuff in France) but, wrongly or
rightly, would get laughed at over here.

Sorry to be blunt, but I'm personally not interested in being gee-ed up
for a hate campaign against Prince Big-Ears. We have an election
tomorrow.

Please can we get back to the 15th century?

Marie

--- In , nikita2224
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> No Marie I'm English- actually born in upper Teesdale not far from
> Middleham.This thread only came about in reply to your praise of
> Charles &Camillas' wedding,you may not rate Andrew Morton but no
one
> has sued him for slander yet have they?There are other sources too
> beside him, and Richard P.B.New Labour encouraged Charles to go
> ahead with the wedding knowing the damage it would cause the
> Monarchy and to uncouple it-from the C OF E aswell, as you suggest,
> will marginalise it even further.However as you rightly point out
> this forum is about the 15th C: by all means let's get back on
> track.Thank you for your input nonetheless,I think we're all too
> aware there is an election today.

Nikita, can I make this brief. I replied only because I was so
shocked at the vitriol of your post. Can I be blunt and say I still
find your approach schocking? I do not feel it is proper either to
peddle one's politics or to indulge in hate campaigns against living
persons on this forum. To the extent that my replies have given any
(albeit lopsided) indication of my own political views, I regret them.

And, no, I'm not French.

Marie

>