To reduce the amount of email in people's boxes, I've included all my
response in one reply.
Post by Pinku-SenseiNot as if the position of the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland is worth scheming for these days.
Sure it is. The privilege and splendour of the monarch as well as the
fame is alluring for many.
Post by Pinku-SenseiTom can be popular. Perhaps even more popular than Prince William.
At which point, a few people might seriously wonder about the
possibilities for his future and your wool-gathering might actually bear
on the real world. Until then, dream on.
Popularity is one of the most possible things to achieve in this
world. Unlike mountains, which almost certainly cannot be moved
(without new technology and industry), and stars, which almost
certainly cannot be grabbed (without the same), fame is as easy as
hiring the right PR consultant, choosing the right organizers, and
using enough mushy words to woo the public. William may be more
attractive as a Prince of Wales, but what has he done for the world?
Tom, on the other hand, could launch a national "fight the hunger"
campaign to bring food to starving countries. As his campaign grows in
popularity, more tv commercials will be made, more references given in
the evening news, and more awards will be received. Remember, Tom
Parker Bowles already travels the world, particularly to poorer
countries (where he admits to eating local dishes of unique
composition!). Also, a few weeks ago Tom came out in the press in his
support of one of his father's international initiatives, though I
forget which one (and I can find it for you if you'd like).
Post by Pinku-SenseiBTW, what about my question about pitching the entire institution of the
monarchy and turning Britain into a republic? That's more realistic
thanTom Parker Bowlesever becoming King.
This idea is more evident in the mainstream discussions of Britain,
but there is a stiff oppositon to it too. The advantage of having Tom
declared heir, as prescribed earlier, is that it would come as such a
surprise that opposition to it initially would be marginal. Since the
public loses focus on ideas within days, Tom or Charles' PR employees
would have to plan extra-hard to ensure that enough "experts" are made
available to the press, and otherwise manipulate the media coverage.
Unless there is a Diana-like uproar happening, which I don't forsee
unless Prince William and Harry (or someone else) publicly admonish
Tom and thus focus the opposition, the public will consent to the move
as they consent to almost everything reported on the evening news.
Post by Pinku-SenseiCertainly. Your idea makes for amusing idle speculation but has, as
you've acknowledged, little bearing on the real world.
I think you've misunderstood. Tom may not be thinking about becoming
King, but that doesn't change the realities of the world, and (what I
see as) the increased possibility of him being crowned. If Tom is
great like some other Kings have been, and not meager like many others
have been, he can achieve amazing things.
Post by Pinku-SenseiSuch places may be able to be reached by a researcher, with
the security clearance of the Queen's office. These places have
thousands of documents. Is it utterly impossible to add an entry into
one of these documents? "
Again, I think you're asking the readers of the wrong group. I think
people who know more about the British legal system would know better
than alt.gossip.celebrities.
Thanks. Can any of our new-found experts comment on this?
Post by Pinku-Sensei...may not be kooky enough, but the way she insists on being clue-resistant to how to respond to others
on USENET certainly might be. [uk.legal added.]
I use googlegroups... you know, from *this* century.
Post by Pinku-SenseiIt's not a bad troll, but she'd have to admit that she's trolling. Ten
quatloos says she won't.
Why would I? It would only disparage myself.
Post by Pinku-SenseiI'm going to see if anyone gives a damn on soc.history.what-if and
uk.legal.
Thanks.
Post by Pinku-SenseiEven when one of them is (making a show of) defending your honor? My, you
/are/ single-minded!
My honour would be best defended once somebody here actually comes out
and says my proposals are possible.
Post by Pinku-Senseito the possibility, as I see it, thatTom Parker> Bowlesmay be King.
Again, alternate history.
It's not quite alternate history as I'm not saying that Camilla did in
fact marry Charles in 1973; only that a lie could be made today
stating it. Also, since it hasn't happened, it's not history yet.
Post by Pinku-SenseiBookman, here I am trying to drive the discussion to something
productive,
Wild speculation about the line of succession is productive?
It is at least focused. By focusing on content rather than
personalities, we appeal to our intelligence rather than to animal-
like bullying.
Post by Pinku-Sensei1)Tom Parker Bowles' Catholic upbringing may be a non-issue.
Really? For the benefit of the readers on soc.history.what-if, please
repeat the support for this position.
As some have pointed out in the alt.gossip.celebrities and
alt.talk.royalty groups, Tom's Catholic upbringing could be ruled
irrelevant since the documents surrounding the Act of Settlement said
that a person needs to renounce Catholicism and be openly protestant
in order to be King. Since Tom has recently been married to a
protestant in a protestant church, it can be said that he has accepted
the Protestant church and detested the Catholic one.
Post by Pinku-Sensei2) A foreign country's marriage records can be doctored.
Duh.
Thank you for defending my honour! You are the first person to agree
with what are my simple, straightforward and realistic ideas.
Post by Pinku-Sensei3) The decisions of the Queen's Council are sometimes held in secret,
stored in locations accessible by those authorized by the Queen and
others.
Plausible, but what is your evidence?
The evidence is that the Queen's Council accepted the notice of a
marriage from the Prince of Wales, as mandate in the Act of
Settlement, which sets out what must be done to be King.
Post by Pinku-Sensei4) The monarch would need to support any such plot, or else it will
fail.
And why would she?
The monarch formally plays a minor role in the plot, choosing only the
appoint the 16, 20 or 22 (how much is it?) companions to the Queen.
She can use this role however to appoint Tom to the council, if he (or
better yet, the Public Records Office) releases information revealing
Tom's legitimacy. The monarch, more importantly, needs to support such
a release of information by, at least, not denying the information to
the media, for otherwise the claim will lose all credibility.
Informally, the monarch's consent may be necessary for any specialist
who seeks to alter confidential Queen's Council's decisions. As well,
the monarch's website and publications could lend much credibility to
Tom being a Prince of Wales, at least to the public, if they would
include such a royal title in his biography and note the 1973
marriage.
Post by Pinku-Sensei6) It is reasonable to argue that Camilla could have cheated on
Charles following their "marriage" and that that's why Tom looks the
way he does.
Which would illegitimate /him/, thus rendering your whole scheme as
completely beyond the realm of possibility.
As others have agreed, no provision is made in any constitutional
documents separating the concept of being born legitimate and being
born a biological son, with the exception of being an adopted son. It
is not relevant. However I am not suggesting that Camilla or Tom would
publicly state exactly why he doesn't look like his legitimate father,
Charles, only what the tabloids could explain to the eager and curious
royal-watchers.
Aggie
