VIPS Chose Rome over Wedding So Plans Wetre Changes

[r***@yahoo.co.uk]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1555667_1,00.html

The Times

Account of yesterday's events. Makes it clear that yesterday morning
even though Charles at breadkfast in Klosters was already thinking
about changing the wedding day, "Clarence House was insisting that
there was no possibility of changing the date of the nuptials."
When Charles learnt that the Prime Minister and Archbishop of
Canterbury, if faced with a choice between the Pope's funeral and the
wedding, would both go to Rome not Windsor, the decision to change the
day was made.

[r***@yahoo.co.uk]

Sorry for typos in thread title - So Plans Were Changed

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 9:03, in article

Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19769-1555667_1,00.html
The Times
Account of yesterday's events. Makes it clear that yesterday morning
even though Charles at breadkfast in Klosters was already thinking
about changing the wedding day, "Clarence House was insisting that
there was no possibility of changing the date of the nuptials."
When Charles learnt that the Prime Minister and Archbishop of
Canterbury, if faced with a choice between the Pope's funeral and the
wedding, would both go to Rome not Windsor, the decision to change the
day was made.

And the Beeb account was that he had said from the get-go that he wished to
be accommodating and do whatever was necessary.

[e***@att.net]

It's sad that it took Blair, the Archbishop, and God knows who else, to
tell CH that they would be in Rome before CH took the decision to move
the wedding. And I think it is a sound bet that this is the way it
played out too b/c the day before yesterday CH was firmly saying that
the wedding was scheduled for Friday and that it was going forward on
Friday. I also saw on ITV last night that sources from Downing Street
(who refused to be named, of course), claimed that Blair basically had
to tell Charles, "Look, we are going to the Pope's funeral." before CH
realized they needed to change the date. In light of the official
commentary from CH on Sunday, I think it is pretty clear how this all
played out. What I find amusing though is that now we have James
Whittacker (sp?) and others congratulating Prince Charles for having
the "good judgment" to move the wedding to Saturday. Sorry? Does it
really qualify as "good judgment" these days to act in one's own
interests?--The reality is that it would be difficult for the
Archibishop of Canterbury to lead a prayer service at Windsor if he
were physically in Rome.-Not to put too fine a point on it. :-)

[Breton]

Post by e***@att.net
It's sad that it took Blair, the Archbishop, and God knows who else, to
tell CH that they would be in Rome before CH took the decision to move
the wedding. And I think it is a sound bet that this is the way it
played out too b/c the day before yesterday CH was firmly saying that
the wedding was scheduled for Friday and that it was going forward on
Friday. I also saw on ITV last night that sources from Downing Street
(who refused to be named, of course), claimed that Blair basically had
to tell Charles, "Look, we are going to the Pope's funeral." before CH
realized they needed to change the date. In light of the official
commentary from CH on Sunday, I think it is pretty clear how this all
played out. What I find amusing though is that now we have James
Whittacker (sp?) and others congratulating Prince Charles for having
the "good judgment" to move the wedding to Saturday. Sorry? Does it
really qualify as "good judgment" these days to act in one's own
interests?--The reality is that it would be difficult for the
Archibishop of Canterbury to lead a prayer service at Windsor if he
were physically in Rome.-Not to put too fine a point on it. :-)

You are missing the point. Charles is representing HM at the funeral.
How could he do that and be at his own wedding? It's plain that this
change is being done for State reasons, and has little to do with
anything else.

Breton

[e***@att.net]

"You are missing the point. Charles is representing HM at the funeral.
How could he do that and be at his own wedding? It's plain that this
change is being done for State reasons, and has little to do with
anything else. "

Breton

I fully understand that. --And I agree that the fact that he was asked
to represent HM at the wedding was an equal factor. But in light of
what CH was telling reporters on Sunday, it seems that at least
initially there was a good bit of resistance to rescheduling the
wedding. And in any event, I assume that you and I both agree that his
decision to move the wedding is hardly a case of exercising "good
judgment." Even if he weren't going to Rome, the prayer service would
be missing a key participant had it gone forward on Friday, namely the
Archbishop. To me, it seems like some in the media are desperate to
show in the run-up to the wedding that he REALLY DOES have good
judgment, notwithstanding his performance during that infamous press
call last week. But I just don't think that moving the wedding to
Saturday is an example of that. Like I said, it was entirely in his own
interests to do so. And his decision to attend the Pope's funeral was,
as you say, "a State reason." So agan, how any of this a function of
"good judgment"? --Even our President Bush is attending the
funeral.-And no one has ever accused him of having good judgment.-At
least not with a straight face. ;-)

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 14:01, in article

Post by e***@att.net
"You are missing the point. Charles is representing HM at the funeral.
How could he do that and be at his own wedding? It's plain that this
change is being done for State reasons, and has little to do with
anything else. "
Breton
I fully understand that. --And I agree that the fact that he was asked
to represent HM at the wedding was an equal factor. But in light of
what CH was telling reporters on Sunday, it seems that at least
initially there was a good bit of resistance to rescheduling the
wedding. And in any event, I assume that you and I both agree that his
decision to move the wedding is hardly a case of exercising "good
judgment." Even if he weren't going to Rome, the prayer service would
be missing a key participant had it gone forward on Friday, namely the
Archbishop. To me, it seems like some in the media are desperate to
show in the run-up to the wedding that he REALLY DOES have good
judgment, notwithstanding his performance during that infamous press
call last week. But I just don't think that moving the wedding to
Saturday is an example of that. Like I said, it was entirely in his own
interests to do so. And his decision to attend the Pope's funeral was,
as you say, "a State reason." So agan, how any of this a function of
"good judgment"? --Even our President Bush is attending the
funeral.-And no one has ever accused him of having good judgment.-At
least not with a straight face. ;-)

I think you and those of your opinion are missing the fact that the civil
wedding could indeed have gone ahead and the Blessing could have been
delayed until next week. I know of at least one French couple of my
acquaintance who had 24 hours between their civil and church weddings and
another that had 48 hours and I know of an English couple - myself and my
ex husband - who had two weeks between the civil ceremony and the Blessing.
Had the PoW been unattractively stubborn about this, he could have gone
right ahead.

[Breton]

Post by e***@att.net
"You are missing the point. Charles is representing HM at the

funeral.

Post by e***@att.net
How could he do that and be at his own wedding? It's plain that this
change is being done for State reasons, and has little to do with
anything else. "
Breton
I fully understand that. --And I agree that the fact that he was asked
to represent HM at the wedding was an equal factor. But in light of
what CH was telling reporters on Sunday, it seems that at least
initially there was a good bit of resistance to rescheduling the
wedding.

Although I have no firsthand knowledge, I am willing to bet that when
the press spoke to CH on the impending clash of dates, they probably
got some low level flak who hadn't at that point been briefed by
his/her superiors on what now seems to be the imeediate decision of the
Prince to postpone the wedding. This person probably also was not
briefed on the inevitability of the Prince having to attend the papal
funeral on behalf of HM.

Post by e***@att.net
And in any event, I assume that you and I both agree that his
decision to move the wedding is hardly a case of exercising "good
judgment." Even if he weren't going to Rome, the prayer service would
be missing a key participant had it gone forward on Friday, namely the
Archbishop. To me, it seems like some in the media are desperate to
show in the run-up to the wedding that he REALLY DOES have good
judgment, notwithstanding his performance during that infamous press
call last week.

Frankly, I don't place much credence one way or the other on what
happened at Klosters. There are plenty of previous instances where RF
members have dispayed open hostility to the press and anyone who thinks
(for whatever motive) that the Prince has to be as pure as the driven
snow on that is hopeless naive.

Post by e***@att.net
But I just don't think that moving the wedding to
Saturday is an example of that. Like I said, it was entirely in his own
interests to do so.

No, his best interests would have been to go ahead with the wedding,
and this would be consistent with the anti-Charles position that he is
self-centred, blah blah. As it is he has been unavoidably
inconvenienced, but that goes with the territory. State matters usually
trump personal wishes and Charles has been trained all his life to know
that.

Post by e***@att.net
And his decision to attend the Pope's funeral was,
as you say, "a State reason." So agan, how any of this a function of
"good judgment"? -

Again, it wouldn't have been his decision, it would have been the
Queen's decision.

Breton

[Q]

Post by e***@att.net

Post by e***@att.net
"You are missing the point. Charles is representing HM at the

funeral.

Post by e***@att.net
How could he do that and be at his own wedding? It's plain that this
change is being done for State reasons, and has little to do with
anything else. "
Breton
I fully understand that. --And I agree that the fact that he was

asked

Post by e***@att.net
to represent HM at the wedding was an equal factor. But in light of
what CH was telling reporters on Sunday, it seems that at least
initially there was a good bit of resistance to rescheduling the
wedding.

Although I have no firsthand knowledge, I am willing to bet that when
the press spoke to CH on the impending clash of dates, they probably
got some low level flak who hadn't at that point been briefed by
his/her superiors on what now seems to be the imeediate decision of the
Prince to postpone the wedding. This person probably also was not
briefed on the inevitability of the Prince having to attend the papal
funeral on behalf of HM.

Post by e***@att.net
And in any event, I assume that you and I both agree that his
decision to move the wedding is hardly a case of exercising "good
judgment." Even if he weren't going to Rome, the prayer service would
be missing a key participant had it gone forward on Friday, namely

the

Post by e***@att.net
Archbishop. To me, it seems like some in the media are desperate to
show in the run-up to the wedding that he REALLY DOES have good
judgment, notwithstanding his performance during that infamous press
call last week.

Frankly, I don't place much credence one way or the other on what
happened at Klosters. There are plenty of previous instances where RF
members have dispayed open hostility to the press and anyone who thinks
(for whatever motive) that the Prince has to be as pure as the driven
snow on that is hopeless naive.

Actually, Diana once made an awful scene in front of the press on the ski
slopes. -- Q

Post by e***@att.net

Post by e***@att.net
But I just don't think that moving the wedding to
Saturday is an example of that. Like I said, it was entirely in his

own

Post by e***@att.net
interests to do so.

No, his best interests would have been to go ahead with the wedding,
and this would be consistent with the anti-Charles position that he is
self-centred, blah blah. As it is he has been unavoidably
inconvenienced, but that goes with the territory. State matters usually
trump personal wishes and Charles has been trained all his life to know
that.

Post by e***@att.net
And his decision to attend the Pope's funeral was,
as you say, "a State reason." So agan, how any of this a function of
"good judgment"? -

Again, it wouldn't have been his decision, it would have been the
Queen's decision.
Breton

[Sacha]

Post by Q

Post by e***@att.net

Post by e***@att.net
"You are missing the point. Charles is representing HM at the

funeral.

Post by e***@att.net
How could he do that and be at his own wedding? It's plain that this
change is being done for State reasons, and has little to do with
anything else. "
Breton
I fully understand that. --And I agree that the fact that he was

asked

Post by e***@att.net
to represent HM at the wedding was an equal factor. But in light of
what CH was telling reporters on Sunday, it seems that at least
initially there was a good bit of resistance to rescheduling the
wedding.

Although I have no firsthand knowledge, I am willing to bet that when
the press spoke to CH on the impending clash of dates, they probably
got some low level flak who hadn't at that point been briefed by
his/her superiors on what now seems to be the imeediate decision of the
Prince to postpone the wedding. This person probably also was not
briefed on the inevitability of the Prince having to attend the papal
funeral on behalf of HM.

Post by e***@att.net
And in any event, I assume that you and I both agree that his
decision to move the wedding is hardly a case of exercising "good
judgment." Even if he weren't going to Rome, the prayer service would
be missing a key participant had it gone forward on Friday, namely

the

Post by e***@att.net
Archbishop. To me, it seems like some in the media are desperate to
show in the run-up to the wedding that he REALLY DOES have good
judgment, notwithstanding his performance during that infamous press
call last week.

Frankly, I don't place much credence one way or the other on what
happened at Klosters. There are plenty of previous instances where RF
members have dispayed open hostility to the press and anyone who thinks
(for whatever motive) that the Prince has to be as pure as the driven
snow on that is hopeless naive.

Actually, Diana once made an awful scene in front of the press on the ski
slopes. -- Q

Remember Prince Andrew and the red paint?

[Q]

Post by Sacha

Post by Q

Post by e***@att.net

Post by e***@att.net
"You are missing the point. Charles is representing HM at the

funeral.

Post by e***@att.net
How could he do that and be at his own wedding? It's plain that this
change is being done for State reasons, and has little to do with
anything else. "
Breton
I fully understand that. --And I agree that the fact that he was

asked

Post by e***@att.net
to represent HM at the wedding was an equal factor. But in light of
what CH was telling reporters on Sunday, it seems that at least
initially there was a good bit of resistance to rescheduling the
wedding.

Although I have no firsthand knowledge, I am willing to bet that when
the press spoke to CH on the impending clash of dates, they probably
got some low level flak who hadn't at that point been briefed by
his/her superiors on what now seems to be the imeediate decision of the
Prince to postpone the wedding. This person probably also was not
briefed on the inevitability of the Prince having to attend the papal
funeral on behalf of HM.

Post by e***@att.net
And in any event, I assume that you and I both agree that his
decision to move the wedding is hardly a case of exercising "good
judgment." Even if he weren't going to Rome, the prayer service would
be missing a key participant had it gone forward on Friday, namely

the

Post by e***@att.net
Archbishop. To me, it seems like some in the media are desperate to
show in the run-up to the wedding that he REALLY DOES have good
judgment, notwithstanding his performance during that infamous press
call last week.

Frankly, I don't place much credence one way or the other on what
happened at Klosters. There are plenty of previous instances where RF
members have dispayed open hostility to the press and anyone who thinks
(for whatever motive) that the Prince has to be as pure as the driven
snow on that is hopeless naive.

Actually, Diana once made an awful scene in front of the press on the ski
slopes. -- Q

Remember Prince Andrew and the red paint?

No. But Diana was sulking and had to begged and coaxed by Charles into
posing for pictures. IIRC, there were other scenes on the slopes involving
Diana, but the one I'm talking about was during a scheduled photo op. -- Q

Post by Sacha
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

[Sacha]

Post by Q

Post by Sacha

Post by Q

Post by e***@att.net

Post by e***@att.net
"You are missing the point. Charles is representing HM at the

funeral.

Post by e***@att.net
How could he do that and be at his own wedding? It's plain that this
change is being done for State reasons, and has little to do with
anything else. "
Breton
I fully understand that. --And I agree that the fact that he was

asked

Post by e***@att.net
to represent HM at the wedding was an equal factor. But in light of
what CH was telling reporters on Sunday, it seems that at least
initially there was a good bit of resistance to rescheduling the
wedding.

Although I have no firsthand knowledge, I am willing to bet that when
the press spoke to CH on the impending clash of dates, they probably
got some low level flak who hadn't at that point been briefed by
his/her superiors on what now seems to be the imeediate decision of the
Prince to postpone the wedding. This person probably also was not
briefed on the inevitability of the Prince having to attend the papal
funeral on behalf of HM.

Post by e***@att.net
And in any event, I assume that you and I both agree that his
decision to move the wedding is hardly a case of exercising "good
judgment." Even if he weren't going to Rome, the prayer service would
be missing a key participant had it gone forward on Friday, namely

the

Post by e***@att.net
Archbishop. To me, it seems like some in the media are desperate to
show in the run-up to the wedding that he REALLY DOES have good
judgment, notwithstanding his performance during that infamous press
call last week.

Frankly, I don't place much credence one way or the other on what
happened at Klosters. There are plenty of previous instances where RF
members have dispayed open hostility to the press and anyone who thinks
(for whatever motive) that the Prince has to be as pure as the driven
snow on that is hopeless naive.

Actually, Diana once made an awful scene in front of the press on the

ski

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
slopes. -- Q

Remember Prince Andrew and the red paint?

No. But Diana was sulking and had to begged and coaxed by Charles into
posing for pictures. IIRC, there were other scenes on the slopes involving
Diana, but the one I'm talking about was during a scheduled photo op. -- Q

Post by Sacha
--

I remember that one but don't remember it being on the ski slopes. There
was an occasion on which he was overheard saying "Come on darling, please
darling" so perhaps it was that. I recall too that she arrived after the
Queen at the Remembrance Day service (?) having said she wouldn't go and
pleading illness. There was a bit of annoyance when she suddenly arrived
late and upstaged the Queen. So - "there is nothing new under the sun" even
in Klosters.....
And then there was Pss Anne and 'naff off' to journalists who she thought
would cause her and her horse to have an accident. I've always wondered if
she *actually* said 'naff'!

[Susan Cohen]

Post by Sacha

Post by Q

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
Actually, Diana once made an awful scene in front of the press on the

ski

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
slopes. -- Q

Remember Prince Andrew and the red paint?

I thought it was white?

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
No. But Diana was sulking and had to begged and coaxed by Charles into
posing for pictures. IIRC, there were other scenes on the slopes involving
Diana, but the one I'm talking about was during a scheduled photo op. -- Q

Post by Sacha
--

I remember that one but don't remember it being on the ski slopes.

I do - but I that it was Fergie & her clowning it up & refusing to stand
still - also providing more tabloid fodder. Of course, I didn't see where
what they did was all *that* bad, either.

There

Post by Sacha
was an occasion on which he was overheard saying "Come on darling, please
darling" so perhaps it was that. I recall too that she arrived after the
Queen at the Remembrance Day service (?) having said she wouldn't go and
pleading illness. There was a bit of annoyance when she suddenly arrived
late and upstaged the Queen. So - "there is nothing new under the sun" even
in Klosters.....
And then there was Pss Anne and 'naff off' to journalists who she thought
would cause her and her horse to have an accident. I've always wondered if
she *actually* said 'naff'!

Oh, is that actually a polite form of something worse?

SusanC

[Q]

Post by Susan Cohen

Post by Sacha

Post by Q

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
Actually, Diana once made an awful scene in front of the press on the

ski

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
slopes. -- Q

Remember Prince Andrew and the red paint?

I thought it was white?

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
No. But Diana was sulking and had to begged and coaxed by Charles into
posing for pictures. IIRC, there were other scenes on the slopes involving
Diana, but the one I'm talking about was during a scheduled photo

op. --

Post by Susan Cohen

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
Q

Post by Sacha
--

I remember that one but don't remember it being on the ski slopes.

It was on a ski trip to Lichtenstein in January 1983, and Diana simply
reneged on an agreement to pose for photographers. Charles was heard to say
to her, "Please, Diana, don't do that. Don't be stupid," and Please,
darling, just one picture." To which Diana responded by skiing away from
him.

Post by Susan Cohen
I do - but I that it was Fergie & her clowning it up & refusing to stand
still - also providing more tabloid fodder. Of course, I didn't see where
what they did was all *that* bad, either.

The horseplay with Fergie happened at Klosters a few years later. Charles
was annoyed, and he let it show. -- Q

Post by Susan Cohen
There

Post by Sacha
was an occasion on which he was overheard saying "Come on darling, please
darling" so perhaps it was that. I recall too that she arrived after the
Queen at the Remembrance Day service (?) having said she wouldn't go and
pleading illness. There was a bit of annoyance when she suddenly arrived
late and upstaged the Queen. So - "there is nothing new under the sun" even
in Klosters.....
And then there was Pss Anne and 'naff off' to journalists who she thought
would cause her and her horse to have an accident. I've always

wondered

Post by Susan Cohen

Post by Sacha
if
she *actually* said 'naff'!

Oh, is that actually a polite form of something worse?
SusanC

[Sacha]

Post by Q
"Q"

Post by Susan Cohen

Post by Sacha

Post by Q

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
Actually, Diana once made an awful scene in front of the press on the

ski

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
slopes. -- Q

Remember Prince Andrew and the red paint?

I thought it was white?

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
No. But Diana was sulking and had to begged and coaxed by Charles into
posing for pictures. IIRC, there were other scenes on the slopes involving
Diana, but the one I'm talking about was during a scheduled photo

op. --

Post by Susan Cohen

Post by Sacha

Post by Q
Q

Post by Sacha
--

I remember that one but don't remember it being on the ski slopes.

It was on a ski trip to Lichtenstein in January 1983, and Diana simply
reneged on an agreement to pose for photographers. Charles was heard to say
to her, "Please, Diana, don't do that. Don't be stupid," and Please,
darling, just one picture." To which Diana responded by skiing away from
him.

Thanks. I knew there had been something but had forgotten the where and
when.

Post by Q

Post by Susan Cohen
I do - but I that it was Fergie & her clowning it up & refusing to stand
still - also providing more tabloid fodder. Of course, I didn't see where
what they did was all *that* bad, either.

The horseplay with Fergie happened at Klosters a few years later. Charles
was annoyed, and he let it show. -- Q

I remember that one - and there was the time at Royal Ascot when Diana and
Fergie were photographed pretending to stick an umbrella into someone's
bottom. I seem to recall that annoyed a few royals and courtiers.

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net
It's sad that it took Blair, the Archbishop, and God knows who else, to
tell CH that they would be in Rome before CH took the decision to move
the wedding. And I think it is a sound bet that this is the way it
played out too b/c the day before yesterday CH was firmly saying that
the wedding was scheduled for Friday and that it was going forward on
Friday. I also saw on ITV last night that sources from Downing Street
(who refused to be named, of course), claimed that Blair basically had
to tell Charles, "Look, we are going to the Pope's funeral." before CH
realized they needed to change the date.

And of course those sources that are prepared to be named said
precisiely the opposite:

"Paddy Harverson, the Clarence House spokesman, said the couple knew as
soon as the Vatican announced the funeral arrangements that "it was
absolutely the right thing" to delay the wedding.

He denied that No 10 had put pressure on them.

"That is absolutely not the case," he said. "The decision was made by
the prince and Mrs Parker Bowles and by them alone. There was no
communication between No 10 before or after."

Mr Harverson said the prince, who had met the Pope, strongly wished to
attend the funeral and it was always planned that he would represent
the Queen. It was also felt that it would be "inappropriate" to be
celebrating a wedding on a day of great mourning worldwide.

The couple's decision solved a dilemma for the Archbishop of
Canterbury, due to officiate at a church blessing after the civil
wedding at the Windsor Guildhall. He would have been expected to attend
the funeral of a world religious leader.

It solved a similar dilemma for the Prime Minister who, with Michael
Howard, the Conservative leader, and Charles Kennedy, the leader of the
Liberal Democrats, will fly to Rome. All three will return for the
wedding."

and:

"Downing Street also denied that the Prime Minister's office had put
pressure on the prince to postpone the wedding.

Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "Clarence House were very well
aware of the significance of the Pope's funeral and therefore that was
part of their decision-making process. The decision was one for them
and them alone. The Prime Minister is very glad he is able to go to
both events."

Royal sources said that when the Vatican announced the funeral date,
the prince immediately telephoned Mrs Parker Bowles from Klosters and
the couple had decided "instantly" that postponement was probably the
appropriate action."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/05/nchar05.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/05/ixportaltop.html

Post by e***@att.net
In light of the official
commentary from CH on Sunday, I think it is pretty clear how this all
played out. What I find amusing though is that now we have James
Whittacker (sp?) and others congratulating Prince Charles for having
the "good judgment" to move the wedding to Saturday. Sorry? Does it
really qualify as "good judgment" these days to act in one's own
interests?--The reality is that it would be difficult for the
Archibishop of Canterbury to lead a prayer service at Windsor if he
were physically in Rome.-Not to put too fine a point on it. :-)

[e***@att.net]

"Royal sources said that when the Vatican announced the funeral date,
the prince immediately telephoned Mrs Parker Bowles from Klosters and
the couple had decided "instantly" that postponement was probably the
appropriate action." "-Volcaran

If it was so immediate, why was CH saying something entirely different
in their official statements on Sunday?

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net
"Royal sources said that when the Vatican announced the funeral date,
the prince immediately telephoned Mrs Parker Bowles from Klosters and
the couple had decided "instantly" that postponement was probably the
appropriate action." "-Volcaran
If it was so immediate, why was CH saying something entirely

different

Post by e***@att.net
in their official statements on Sunday?

On Sunday CH said it was a hypothetical question because no date had
been set for the funeral. The date of the funeral was decided on Monday
morning.

[e***@att.net]

"On Sunday CH said it was a hypothetical question because no date had
been set for the funeral. The date of the funeral was decided on Monday
morning."

Why is there an insistence to change what they said? On *Sunday* this
is the EXACT QUOTE from CH when asked about the impending conflict with
the funeral:

"The wedding will still take place on Friday. There are no changes
planned."

There was NOTHING in that statement to indicate that it was "all
hypothetical b/c the date hadn't been set." Certainly, they could have
said what you wrote. But they didn't. They made it clear that they were
not planning to change the date. Then on Monday, they changed their
mind. Now, I am willing to grant you that it might have been simply an
inartful wording on the part of the CH spokeswoman who issued the
statement on Sunday. But there is nothing in that statement that allows
for equivocation. And taken in the context of Downing Street's
suggestion that some arms had to be twisted, it is pretty clear why
people might draw conclusions about how it all played out.

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net
"On Sunday CH said it was a hypothetical question because no date had
been set for the funeral. The date of the funeral was decided on Monday
morning."
Why is there an insistence to change what they said? On *Sunday* this
is the EXACT QUOTE from CH when asked about the impending conflict with
"The wedding will still take place on Friday. There are no changes
planned."

According to AP the precise quote was:

"It is only a hypothetical question at the moment but as far as
Clarence House is concerned the wedding will go ahead as planned on
Friday," the spokeswoman said."

Post by e***@att.net
There was NOTHING in that statement to indicate that it was "all
hypothetical b/c the date hadn't been set." Certainly, they could have
said what you wrote. But they didn't.

Yes they did according to AP.

Post by e***@att.net
They made it clear that they were
not planning to change the date.

No they made it clear there were no plans to do so. The Pope died a few
hours before on Saturday night. Why would there be any plans in place
by Sunday when no-one knew what the funeral arrangements were?

Post by e***@att.net
Then on Monday, they changed their
mind. Now, I am willing to grant you that it might have been simply an
inartful wording on the part of the CH spokeswoman who issued the
statement on Sunday. But there is nothing in that statement that allows
for equivocation.

See above.

Post by e***@att.net
And taken in the context of Downing Street's
suggestion that some arms had to be twisted, it is pretty clear why
people might draw conclusions about how it all played out.

Downing Street said no arm's were twisted. Your unnamed sources said
so as you pointed out earlier.

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 13:42, in article

Post by e***@att.net
"Royal sources said that when the Vatican announced the funeral date,
the prince immediately telephoned Mrs Parker Bowles from Klosters and
the couple had decided "instantly" that postponement was probably the
appropriate action." "-Volcaran
If it was so immediate, why was CH saying something entirely different
in their official statements on Sunday?

Because whoever should have told a press secretary in an office somewhere,
hadn't done so. Easy - things like that happen all the time, in all
organisations, all over the world, especially when major events happen over
a week end and the principals aren't there. And they happen particularly,
when a large funeral, involving hundreds, thousands and millions, which is
not normally attended by protestant dignitaries is being planned by a lot of
other people in another office in another country, some hours away. In the
absence of instructions to the contrary and while consultation was taking
place between the Queen, the Vatican, the PoW, the Prime Minister, the
Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal O'connor Cormac Murphy, perhaps some
rather junior press secretary simply assumed the wedding would go ahead.
I find the naivety of these remarks - and not just yours BTW - absolutely
breathtaking. Anyone would think that this was just Joe Bloggs whose Uncle
Fred had died and so they rang the aunties and told them not to come on
Friday after all. I have never rung CH press office but I have rung BP
press office a couple of times and been answered by rather young women who
do not appear to carry the authority of e.g. Sir Michael Peat.

[e***@att.net]

"I have never rung CH press office but I have rung BP press office a
couple of times and been answered by rather young women who
do not appear to carry the authority of e.g. Sir Michael Peat."

So now you are suggesting that the person appointed to answer a rather
significant question such as a conflict between a funeral of the Pope
and the wedding of the heir to the throne would have been some silly
flunky without any actual knowledge of CH's official position? I hope
you're wrong. If they would put someone like that in the position of
fielding such important questions, it seems that CH needs to rethink
how it is being run. (BTW, I assume you don't compare you calling up
Buck House to ask a question with an official press inquiry? I can see
how you might have spoken to someone with less knowledge or authority.
I cannot however see how that could have possibly happened on the day
after the Pope's death vis-a-vis official press inquiries. That beggars
belief.)

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 14:15, in article

Post by e***@att.net
"I have never rung CH press office but I have rung BP press office a
couple of times and been answered by rather young women who
do not appear to carry the authority of e.g. Sir Michael Peat."
So now you are suggesting that the person appointed to answer a rather
significant question such as a conflict between a funeral of the Pope
and the wedding of the heir to the throne would have been some silly
flunky without any actual knowledge of CH's official position? I hope
you're wrong. If they would put someone like that in the position of
fielding such important questions, it seems that CH needs to rethink
how it is being run. (BTW, I assume you don't compare you calling up
Buck House to ask a question with an official press inquiry? I can see
how you might have spoken to someone with less knowledge or authority.
I cannot however see how that could have possibly happened on the day
after the Pope's death vis-a-vis official press inquiries. That beggars
belief.)

Please don't put words into my mouth and please don't snip my posts so as to
remove their essence, so that you can make a nonsensical and irrelevant
reply. We have one poster who does that as a career on here, we don't need
another. Read my post and perhaps you'll understand it next time.

[Q]

Post by e***@att.net
"I have never rung CH press office but I have rung BP press office a
couple of times and been answered by rather young women who
do not appear to carry the authority of e.g. Sir Michael Peat."
So now you are suggesting that the person appointed to answer a rather
significant question such as a conflict between a funeral of the Pope
and the wedding of the heir to the throne would have been some silly
flunky

Press officers are not "silly flunkys."

Post by e***@att.net
without any actual knowledge of CH's official position?

They would not be permitted to anticipate a change in schedule that has not
been announced. What generally happens is that if the press officer does
not immediately have an answer to a question -- and quite often they
don't -- he or she will call the reporter back. -- Q

Post by e***@att.net
I hope
you're wrong. If they would put someone like that in the position of
fielding such important questions, it seems that CH needs to rethink
how it is being run. (BTW, I assume you don't compare you calling up
Buck House to ask a question with an official press inquiry? I can see
how you might have spoken to someone with less knowledge or authority.
I cannot however see how that could have possibly happened on the day
after the Pope's death vis-a-vis official press inquiries. That beggars
belief.)

[GR]

Post by e***@att.net
"Royal sources said that when the Vatican announced the funeral date,
the prince immediately telephoned Mrs Parker Bowles from Klosters and
the couple had decided "instantly" that postponement was probably the
appropriate action." "-Volcaran
If it was so immediate, why was CH saying something entirely different
in their official statements on Sunday?

How is one expected make an immutable response to a hypothetical situation?
GR

[h.sanders]

Post by GR

Post by e***@att.net
"Royal sources said that when the Vatican announced the funeral date,
the prince immediately telephoned Mrs Parker Bowles from Klosters and
the couple had decided "instantly" that postponement was probably the
appropriate action." "-Volcaran
If it was so immediate, why was CH saying something entirely different
in their official statements on Sunday?

How is one expected make an immutable response to a hypothetical situation?
GR
------------------------------

You'd better explain that to her. Her comprension level leaves quite a bit
to be desired.

Hal S.

[e***@att.net]

Post by GR

Post by e***@att.net

Post by GR
How is one expected make an immutable response to a hypothetical

situation?

Post by e***@att.net
GR
------------------------------

You'd better explain that to her. Her comprension level leaves quite a bit
to be desired.
Hal S.

Yes please do explain how even for several hours AFTER the funeral
plans were announced, CH continued to insist that the wedding as
originally scheduled was going forward. It's not exactly a
"hypothetical" once the funeral plans are formally announced, now is
it? Having said that though, I must admit I am shocked that neither of
you can conceive a way in which to frame a press release that leaves
room for equivocation {which is itself rather different from an
"immutable response", by the way} in the event of a conflict. If there
was any "immutable response" issued, it was the response issued on
Sunday (and continuing through half of Monday) which said that the
plans were not to be changed.

Boy, for a group who tout themselves as such geniuses, (and take
pleasure in denigrating others in the process) all I can say is:
Where's the beef? (I exclude Volcaran from this, though. Whoever he/she
is, he/she is awfully bright even if we don't always see eye to eye.)

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net

Post by GR

Post by e***@att.net

Post by GR
How is one expected make an immutable response to a hypothetical

situation?

Post by e***@att.net
GR
------------------------------

You'd better explain that to her. Her comprension level leaves

quite

Post by e***@att.net
a bit

Post by GR
to be desired.
Hal S.

Yes please do explain how even for several hours AFTER the funeral
plans were announced, CH continued to insist that the wedding as
originally scheduled was going forward. It's not exactly a
"hypothetical" once the funeral plans are formally announced, now is
it? Having said that though, I must admit I am shocked that neither of
you can conceive a way in which to frame a press release that leaves
room for equivocation {which is itself rather different from an
"immutable response", by the way} in the event of a conflict. If there
was any "immutable response" issued, it was the response issued on
Sunday (and continuing through half of Monday) which said that the
plans were not to be changed.
Boy, for a group who tout themselves as such geniuses, (and take
Where's the beef? (I exclude Volcaran from this, though. Whoever he/she
is, he/she is awfully bright even if we don't always see eye to eye.)

Geez - don't tell PK.

As I have posted elsewhere in this thread the statement from CH Monday
morning after the date of the funeral was announced was:

A spokesman for Charles said the wedding was still formally scheduled
for Friday. "But we remain sensitive to events that are happening
elsewhere around the world and are continuing to assess the situation,"

he added.

This is quoted by a number of papers in the google news archives. Only
Richard Kay doesn't seem to have got it and been listening to someone
else.

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net

Post by GR

Post by e***@att.net

Post by GR
How is one expected make an immutable response to a hypothetical

situation?

Post by e***@att.net
GR
------------------------------

You'd better explain that to her. Her comprension level leaves

quite

Post by e***@att.net
a bit

Post by GR
to be desired.
Hal S.

Yes please do explain how even for several hours AFTER the funeral
plans were announced, CH continued to insist that the wedding as
originally scheduled was going forward. It's not exactly a
"hypothetical" once the funeral plans are formally announced, now is
it? Having said that though, I must admit I am shocked that neither of
you can conceive a way in which to frame a press release that leaves
room for equivocation {which is itself rather different from an
"immutable response", by the way} in the event of a conflict. If there
was any "immutable response" issued, it was the response issued on
Sunday (and continuing through half of Monday) which said that the
plans were not to be changed.
Boy, for a group who tout themselves as such geniuses, (and take
Where's the beef? (I exclude Volcaran from this, though. Whoever he/she
is, he/she is awfully bright even if we don't always see eye to eye.)

Geez - don't tell PK.

As I have posted elsewhere in this thread the statement from CH Monday
morning after the date of the funeral was announced was:

A spokesman for Charles said the wedding was still formally scheduled
for Friday. "But we remain sensitive to events that are happening
elsewhere around the world and are continuing to assess the situation,"

he added.

This is quoted by a number of papers in the google news archives. Only
Richard Kay doesn't seem to have got it and been listening to someone
else.

[GR]

Post by e***@att.net

Post by GR

Post by e***@att.net

Post by GR
How is one expected make an immutable response to a hypothetical

situation?

Post by e***@att.net
GR
------------------------------

You'd better explain that to her. Her comprension level leaves quite

a bit

Post by GR
to be desired.
Hal S.

Yes please do explain how even for several hours AFTER the funeral
plans were announced, CH continued to insist that the wedding as
originally scheduled was going forward. It's not exactly a
"hypothetical" once the funeral plans are formally announced, now is
it? Having said that though, I must admit I am shocked that neither of
you can conceive a way in which to frame a press release that leaves
room for equivocation {which is itself rather different from an
"immutable response", by the way} in the event of a conflict. If there
was any "immutable response" issued, it was the response issued on
Sunday (and continuing through half of Monday) which said that the
plans were not to be changed.
Boy, for a group who tout themselves as such geniuses, (and take
Where's the beef? (I exclude Volcaran from this, though. Whoever he/she
is, he/she is awfully bright even if we don't always see eye to eye.)

Madam, being a mere pen-plodder, how could I could ever compete with the
unending examples of your angel-point genius.
GR

[e***@att.net]

GR wrote:
even if we don't always see eye to eye.)

Post by GR
Madam, being a mere pen-plodder, how could I could ever compete with the
unending examples of your angel-point genius.
GR

LOL- I'm not the one holding myself out as the next Socrates around
here.
:-)

[GR]

Post by e***@att.net
even if we don't always see eye to eye.)

Post by GR
Madam, being a mere pen-plodder, how could I could ever compete with

the

Post by GR
unending examples of your angel-point genius.
GR

LOL- I'm not the one holding myself out as the next Socrates around
here.
:-)

Just as well. There are armful amounts of hemlock among the roses on this
site.

[e***@att.net]

"Just as well. There are armful amounts of hemlock among the roses on
this
site."

:-)

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 13:11, in article

Post by e***@att.net
It's sad that it took Blair, the Archbishop, and God knows who else, to
tell CH that they would be in Rome before CH took the decision to move
the wedding. And I think it is a sound bet that this is the way it
played out too b/c the day before yesterday CH was firmly saying that
the wedding was scheduled for Friday and that it was going forward on
Friday. I also saw on ITV last night that sources from Downing Street
(who refused to be named, of course), claimed that Blair basically had
to tell Charles, "Look, we are going to the Pope's funeral." before CH
realized they needed to change the date. In light of the official
commentary from CH on Sunday, I think it is pretty clear how this all
played out. What I find amusing though is that now we have James
Whittacker (sp?) and others congratulating Prince Charles for having
the "good judgment" to move the wedding to Saturday. Sorry? Does it
really qualify as "good judgment" these days to act in one's own
interests?--The reality is that it would be difficult for the
Archibishop of Canterbury to lead a prayer service at Windsor if he
were physically in Rome.-Not to put too fine a point on it. :-)

As you appear to be another of those who is determined to think the worst of
Prince Charles and the 'dog' he is marrying, as you call her - sorry, you
corrected that to 'bitch', didn't you - I have a feeling that there's not
much point in explaining the need for consultation to you. You appear to
think that Prince Charles can just do precisely as he wishes without talking
to all the dignitaries who were going to attend his wedding on Friday, let
alone the monarch, whom he is to represent. And then of course, when the
PoW moves his wedding date to show respect to the Pope, all British Roman
Catholics and attend the funeral, the PoW is acting in his own best
interests. *HIS OWN* best interests were to go ahead with the wedding as
scheduled, not incur major changes in security arrangements, not have people
chuntering about his being married on the same day as 3 other couples - how
pathetic *that* is - and have his guests, caterers, cars and every other
detail re-organised. As it is, he is NOT acting in his own best interests
at all, apart from the fact that he has said he wanted to attend the funeral
to pay his respects to the Pope.

[e***@att.net]

Sacha-How could he go ahead with the wedding on Friday if the
Archbishop of Canterbury was going to be in Rome? Seeing as how he
wants to Archbishop to lead the service of prayer, it would be rather
difficult for that to happen if the Archbishop were in another country
at the time. I am sure there is a degree of propriety that motivates
the decision to move the wedding to Saturday. But it doesn't rise to
the level of "good judgment". In the final analysis, he had no choice.

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net
Sacha-How could he go ahead with the wedding on Friday if the
Archbishop of Canterbury was going to be in Rome? Seeing as how he
wants to Archbishop to lead the service of prayer, it would be rather
difficult for that to happen if the Archbishop were in another

country

Post by e***@att.net
at the time. I am sure there is a degree of propriety that motivates
the decision to move the wedding to Saturday. But it doesn't rise to
the level of "good judgment". In the final analysis, he had no

choice.

The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today.

[e***@att.net]

"The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today."

Are you trying to imply or suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury
would have given a pass to Pope John Paul the Great's funeral if Prince
Charles had decided to go forward with his marriage on Friday?

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 14:10, in article

Post by e***@att.net
"The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today."
Are you trying to imply or suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury
would have given a pass to Pope John Paul the Great's funeral if Prince
Charles had decided to go forward with his marriage on Friday?

I don't see any implication. I see a statement of fact. How do we know what
led the Archbishop to delay his statement until today? Perhaps he wanted to
be sure the religious leader of Britain's Anglicans would be welcome. And
perhaps he wanted to be sure that one of the five spaces allotted to each
country would include one for him. If YOU are implying that he was waiting
on the PoW's decision to delay the Service of Blessing, he could have
announced his own decision yesterday. Earlier you were insisting that it was
the Archbishops decision which had *forced* the PoW's!

[e***@att.net]

Ok so now you are suggesting that he didn't make the decision to attend
until today? Did he give a statement (like CH did on Sunday) saying he
WASN'T attending, and then change his mind? Are you really this thick?
I would point out that his predecessors attended John Paul's
inauguration in 1978 and he was very gracious in his comments about the
Pope. Is anyone surprised that he is attending? Apparently so.

[e***@att.net]

This was to directed to Sacha, by the way, not to you Volcaran:

"Ok so now you are suggesting that he didn't make the decision to
attend
until today? Did he give a statement (like CH did on Sunday) saying he
WASN'T attending, and then change his mind? Are you really this thick?
I would point out that his predecessors attended John Paul's
inauguration in 1978 and he was very gracious in his comments about the

Pope. Is anyone surprised that he is attending? Apparently so."

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net
"Ok so now you are suggesting that he didn't make the decision to
attend
until today? Did he give a statement (like CH did on Sunday) saying he
WASN'T attending, and then change his mind? Are you really this thick?
I would point out that his predecessors attended John Paul's
inauguration in 1978 and he was very gracious in his comments about the
Pope. Is anyone surprised that he is attending? Apparently so."

I note your opening comment but here it is in black and white, the
press release from Lambeth Palace dated today:

Archbishop of Canterbury to attend Pope's funeral

Tuesday 5 April 2005

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has accepted an
official invitation to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II in Rome
on Friday. He will be the first serving Archbishop of Canterbury to
attend a Pope's funeral.

An invitation was received through the Papal Nuncio; Dr Williams said
he was 'pleased and honoured' to accept.

Dr Williams has confirmed that he will be wearing the ring presented to
his predecessor, Archbishop Michael Ramsey, by Pope Paul VI.

Dr Williams will travel to Rome on Thursday; he will be accompanied by
the Revd Andrew Norman, Archbishop's Secretary for International and
Ecumenical Affairs and by Mr Jeremy Harris, Archbishop's Secretary
for Public Affairs.

The Archbishop will return to the UK on Friday evening.

[e***@att.net]

Volcaran-

I understand that the decision was announced today. I am just
suggesting that simply b/c it was announced today does not mean it was
not made until today. Also, in terms of PR, when Archbishop Williams'
office spoke on the issue, they didn't have to go back and correct
themselves a day later. I hope we can agree that the CH words on Sunday
were at least poorly chosen b/c they left no room for equivocation and
left much room for criticism.

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net
Volcaran-
I understand that the decision was announced today. I am just
suggesting that simply b/c it was announced today does not mean it was
not made until today. Also, in terms of PR, when Archbishop

Williams'

Post by e***@att.net
office spoke on the issue, they didn't have to go back and correct
themselves a day later. I hope we can agree that the CH words on Sunday
were at least poorly chosen b/c they left no room for equivocation and
left much room for criticism.

The CH statement was a simple one of fact. Yes they could said
something different like "we will look at the position when we know
when the funeral is". But just step back for a moment and consider how
the press would have treated that one. "Prince dithers on wedding"
"Camilla's big day in doubt" "It's off" - take your pick. So CH stated
the position as it was at that time pointing out it was a hypothetical
question (since no-one knew the date of the funeral). As soon as the
funeral is set, Prince Charles makes a decision. Simple really, isn't
it.

[e***@att.net]

Volcaran-

You know what I think? I think you ought to be working at CH. Let us
craft a statement that would have been better: "Unless the Pope's
funeral is scheduled for Friday, the wedding plans will remain
unchanged. If the the two events conflict, then precedence will be
given to the funeral, and the wedding will be moved to the earliest
possible alternative date, possibly Saturday." Then on Monday, after
the announcement of the Pope's funeral: "In light of the funeral and
the POW's decision to attend, the wedding will take place on Saturday."

Sure, the press could have written "It's in doubt." But that would have
been stretch had CH already taken into account the possibility of
rescheduling *to the earliest available date* in its statement, and
said that barring a conflict the wedding would go forward as planned .
However today the press writes that CH had to be cajoled into to
rescheduling. And their best evidence of this is the statement from CH
on Sunday. -I think we both know that it could have been framed a
little differently and that would have avoided the problem altogether.

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net
Volcaran-
You know what I think? I think you ought to be working at CH. Let us
craft a statement that would have been better: "Unless the Pope's
funeral is scheduled for Friday, the wedding plans will remain
unchanged. If the the two events conflict, then precedence will be
given to the funeral, and the wedding will be moved to the earliest
possible alternative date, possibly Saturday." Then on Monday, after
the announcement of the Pope's funeral: "In light of the funeral and
the POW's decision to attend, the wedding will take place on

Saturday."

Post by e***@att.net
Sure, the press could have written "It's in doubt." But that would have
been stretch had CH already taken into account the possibility of
rescheduling *to the earliest available date* in its statement, and
said that barring a conflict the wedding would go forward as planned .
However today the press writes that CH had to be cajoled into to
rescheduling. And their best evidence of this is the statement from CH
on Sunday. -I think we both know that it could have been framed a
little differently and that would have avoided the problem

altogether.

And we both know it would have made damn all difference. The fact is
the press is looking to criticise come what may and it really makes
little difference on the form of words employed.

The "cajoling" is a prime example. There have been categorical and
unequivocal denials both from CH and Downing St and still they are
ignored.

As another example take the situation on titles for Mrs CPB. Spurred on
by a rogue MP we have CH castigated by the press for deviousness, being
underhand etc. The fact is when the wedding was announced back in
February it was stated quite clearly that Mrs CPB would be legally
Queen but use the title Princess Consort:

"Convention dictates that any wife of a king is entitled queen consort,
but senior aides have acknowledged that legislation may be required in
the future if she is not automatically to assume the title."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/11/nchar11.xml

and that she would be legally Princess of Wales:

"The palace was quick to clarify the thornier issues of the union, such
as Mrs Parker Bowles's title and the church's involvement in the
wedding.
Although legally she is entitled to use the title of HRH Princess of
Wales, she will instead adopt the title of HRH Duchess of Cornwall
after the marriage in England and Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland."

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=158232005

Both the above articles containing those statements appeared on 11
February, the day after the wedding was announced so the Palace/CH were
quite open about the legal position. Here we are 8 weeks later with CH
basically accused by the press of lying about it and misleading
everybody.

[e***@att.net]

Post by volcaran
The CH statement was a simple one of fact. Yes they could said
something different like "we will look at the position when we know
when the funeral is". But just step back for a moment and consider how
the press would have treated that one. "Prince dithers on wedding"
"Camilla's big day in doubt" "It's off" - take your pick. So CH stated
the position as it was at that time pointing out it was a

hypothetical

Post by volcaran
question (since no-one knew the date of the funeral). As soon as the
funeral is set, Prince Charles makes a decision. Simple really, isn't
it.

Also, I would point out that it's not as simple as it appears. The
Daily Mail today reports the following: "...the lateness of the
decision, announced shortly after 2pm, shocked many people. Charles's
aides had been insisting just a few hours earlier, *even after details
of the Pope's funeral were unveiled by the Vatican*, that his wedding
to Camilla Parker Bowles would go ahead as planned." When you take all
of the FACTS into account V, it seems to me that they simply had to be
forced to reschedule. Perhaps HM's decision to send Charles is what
finally forced his hand. -No pun intended.

[volcaran]

Post by volcaran

Post by volcaran
The CH statement was a simple one of fact. Yes they could said
something different like "we will look at the position when we know
when the funeral is". But just step back for a moment and consider

how

Post by volcaran
the press would have treated that one. "Prince dithers on wedding"
"Camilla's big day in doubt" "It's off" - take your pick. So CH

stated

Post by volcaran
the position as it was at that time pointing out it was a

hypothetical

Post by volcaran
question (since no-one knew the date of the funeral). As soon as the
funeral is set, Prince Charles makes a decision. Simple really, isn't
it.

Also, I would point out that it's not as simple as it appears. The
Daily Mail today reports the following: "...the lateness of the
decision, announced shortly after 2pm, shocked many people. Charles's
aides had been insisting just a few hours earlier, *even after

details

Post by volcaran
of the Pope's funeral were unveiled by the Vatican*, that his wedding
to Camilla Parker Bowles would go ahead as planned." When you take all
of the FACTS into account V, it seems to me that they simply had to be
forced to reschedule. Perhaps HM's decision to send Charles is what
finally forced his hand. -No pun intended.

Clearly Richard Kay heard different statements from CH Monday morning
than all the other papers I have googled. Where there are quotes they
refer to CH's statement on Monday morning as:

A spokesman for Charles said the wedding was still formally scheduled
for Friday. "But we remain sensitive to events that are happening
elsewhere around the world and are continuing to assess the situation,"
he added

Mind you Kay does have the courtesy to quote Haverson's denial of the
rest of his story.

[e***@att.net]

"Mind you Kay does have the courtesy to quote Haverson's denial of the
rest of his story. "

LOL True.

[r***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by e***@att.net
Also, I would point out that it's not as simple as it appears. The
Daily Mail today reports the following: "...the lateness of the
decision, announced shortly after 2pm, shocked many people. Charles's
aides had been insisting just a few hours earlier, *even after

details

Post by e***@att.net
of the Pope's funeral were unveiled by the Vatican*, that his wedding
to Camilla Parker Bowles would go ahead as planned."

Yep.

[e***@att.net]

I also want to clarify that my point in that last comment is that it
DOESN'T MATTER that he waited until today to say he was going. At least
he didn't contradict himself in the span of 48 hours. Cough.

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 14:36, in article

Post by e***@att.net
Ok so now you are suggesting that he didn't make the decision to attend
until today? Did he give a statement (like CH did on Sunday) saying he
WASN'T attending, and then change his mind? Are you really this thick?
I would point out that his predecessors attended John Paul's
inauguration in 1978 and he was very gracious in his comments about the
Pope. Is anyone surprised that he is attending? Apparently so.

Surely it is clear to you that what Volcaran is saying is that the
Archbishop of Canterbury made no statement of his intentions before today
and YOU do not know what led him to that decision because that has not been
announced. And you are persisting in putting words into the mouths of
others which give you the answers you want to hear so that you can rebut
them and then you call one of the better contributors to this group thick!
If you want to discuss this issue, why not discuss what your interlocutors
have written and not what you would like them to have written.

[volcaran]

Post by e***@att.net
"The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today."
Are you trying to imply or suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury
would have given a pass to Pope John Paul the Great's funeral if Prince
Charles had decided to go forward with his marriage on Friday?

We will never know since Prince Charles avoided putting him in that
position. All we do know is that Lambeth Palace studiously avoided
making any announcement (despite being asked) before the wedding was
postponed which suggests it might not have been a clear cut decision.

[Q]

Post by e***@att.net
"The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today."
Are you trying to imply or suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury
would have given a pass to Pope John Paul the Great's

As I understand it, the "The Great" epithet has been a recent tack-on
brought about by one or more of the obsequies of the past few days, but
whether it will stick is still very much up for grabs.

Post by e***@att.net
funeral if Prince
Charles had decided to go forward with his marriage on Friday?

I think he might have, yes.

Since when is it vital for Archbishops of Canterbury, or any senior members
of other religions to attend papal funerals? -- Q

[e***@att.net]

"As I understand it, the "The Great" epithet has been a recent tack-on
brought about by one or more of the obsequies of the past few days, but

whether it will stick is still very much up for grabs. "

It is recent and it will be discussed. I predict that within five years
or less it will be announced by the Church that it is official. They
have to go through all of his writings before officially embracing it.
But most people acknowledge he was a brilliant philosopher (even if
people didn't always agree with him). His compassion and moral
leadership is beyond anyone's in the last hundred years. For you to
call it an obsequie says a lot about your apparent lack of education as
to John Paul the Great's numerous accomplishments.

[Q]

Post by e***@att.net
"As I understand it, the "The Great" epithet has been a recent tack-on
brought about by one or more of the obsequies of the past few days, but
whether it will stick is still very much up for grabs. "
It is recent and it will be discussed. I predict that within five years
or less it will be announced by the Church that it is official. They
have to go through all of his writings before officially embracing it.

If it's not official, then why do you continue to use it as if it were?

Post by e***@att.net
But most people acknowledge he was a brilliant philosopher (even if
people didn't always agree with him). His compassion and moral
leadership is beyond anyone's in the last hundred years.

That's also up for grabs. Some people don't see it that way.

Post by e***@att.net
For you to
call it an obsequie

An "obsequy" is a synonym for eulogy. "Obsequies" is the plural of
"obsequy."

Are you too lazy and arrogant to look anything up before typing something
nasty -- and incorrect -- or do we need to chip in and buy you a
dictionary?

Post by e***@att.net
says a lot about your apparent lack of education as
to John Paul the Great's numerous accomplishments.

I think I'm fairly current with respect to John Paul's accomplishments --
both the actual accomplishments and the hype. -- Q

[e***@att.net]

Post by Q
An "obsequy" is a synonym for eulogy. "Obsequies" is the plural of
"obsequy."
Are you too lazy and arrogant to look anything up before typing something
nasty -- and incorrect -- or do we need to chip in and buy you a
dictionary?

It is actually you who are in need of a dictionary. First,the word
"obsequy" ("obsequies" in the plural form as you misused it) means a
funeral or burial rite. I rechecked this in four different
dictionaries, including a rather old one in my possession. Second, in
an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, (b/c I realize that
you are an insipid fool and don't know any better), I assumed you meant
the word in relation to its derivative: "obsequious" which means
"fawning".-Again, the definition of "obsequious" is also not up for
debate, and my assumption is really the only definition that would make
sense within the context of your idiotic statement, to wit:

"As I understand it, the "The Great" epithet has been a recent tack-on
brought about by one or more of the obsequies of the past few days, but
whether it will stick is still very much up for grabs."

If you had meant to use the term "eulogy" surely you would have simply
used the word "euology" and not a word that means something else. In
fact, it might interest you to know that it is a sign of a rather
shallow thinker to choose archaic words (even when they are correct)
instead of commonly used words. You are once again trying to present
yourself as a huge intellect, but sadly the facts belie your
presentation. Since the closest word that fits with your sentence was
"obsequious" I assumed, (quite rightly) that you meant the term as a
dig at those who revered the Pope.-How shocking that you would conduct
yourself in such a manner. And finally, BOTH obsequy and obsequious
come from the Latin "to comply". Again, not related to "eulogy". So put
that in your pipe and smoke it.

Post by Q
I think I'm fairly current with respect to John Paul's

accomplishments --

Post by Q
both the actual accomplishments and the hype. -- Q

No doubt your currency with respect to John Paul the Great's
accomplishments is on par with your currency with respect to the
English language.

[Q]

Post by e***@att.net

Post by Q
An "obsequy" is a synonym for eulogy. "Obsequies" is the plural of
"obsequy."
Are you too lazy and arrogant to look anything up before typing

something

Post by Q
nasty -- and incorrect -- or do we need to chip in and buy you a
dictionary?

It is actually you who are in need of a dictionary. First,the word
"obsequy" ("obsequies" in the plural form as you misused it) means a
funeral or burial rite.

That's right. And the various parts therof.

Post by e***@att.net
I rechecked this in four different
dictionaries, including a rather old one in my possession. Second, in
an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, (b/c I realize that
you are an insipid fool and don't know any better), I assumed you meant
the word in relation to its derivative: "obsequious" which means
"fawning".

You shouldn't have assumed that, because it wasn't my intent, except to the
extent that eulogies tend to be rich in hyperbole.

-Again, the definition of "obsequious" is also not up for

Post by e***@att.net
debate,

Maybe not.

But I didn't use that word. I used a different one.

Post by e***@att.net
and my assumption is really the only definition that would make
"As I understand it, the "The Great" epithet has been a recent tack-on
brought about by one or more of the obsequies of the past few days, but
whether it will stick is still very much up for grabs."
If you had meant to use the term "eulogy" surely you would have

I used exactly the word I meant to use. And it is extremely presumptuous of
you to attempt to tell me what I really mean, or how I should have said it.

Post by e***@att.net
In
fact, it might interest you to know that it is a sign of a rather
shallow thinker to choose archaic words (even when they are correct)

According to whom?

It is not an archaic word, even if you are unfamiliar with it.

Post by e***@att.net
instead of commonly used words.

... that Elizabeth King understands.

Post by e***@att.net
You are once again trying to present
yourself as a huge intellect,

Unlike yourself, where there's no danger of making that assumption.

Post by e***@att.net
but sadly the facts belie your
presentation. Since the closest word
that you meant the term as a
dig at those who revered the Pope.-How shocking that you would conduct
yourself in such a manner.

I don't give a hang whether you are shocked or not, but you are certainly
mistaking my intent.

Post by e***@att.net
And finally, BOTH obsequy and obsequious
come from the Latin "to comply". Again, not related to "eulogy". So put
that in your pipe and smoke it.

A eulogy is part of the funeral rite. And the word was used by me in the
funereal sense, regardless of how you wish to twist it.

Post by e***@att.net

Post by Q
I think I'm fairly current with respect to John Paul's

accomplishments --

Post by Q
both the actual accomplishments and the hype.

No doubt your currency with respect to John Paul the Great's
accomplishments is on par with your currency with respect to the
English language.

What you may regard as great accomplishments, might not be regarded as such
by non-Catholics.

As another poster put it, "the Profit and Loss account of his papal reign
has yet to be audited." -- Q

[newnomV2]

Post by e***@att.net

Post by Q
An "obsequy" is a synonym for eulogy. "Obsequies" is the plural of
"obsequy."
Are you too lazy and arrogant to look anything up before typing

something

Post by Q
nasty -- and incorrect -- or do we need to chip in and buy you a
dictionary?

It is actually you who are in need of a dictionary. First,the word
"obsequy" ("obsequies" in the plural form as you misused it) means a
funeral or burial rite. I rechecked this in four different
dictionaries, including a rather old one in my possession. Second, in
an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, (b/c I realize that
you are an insipid fool and don't know any better), I assumed you meant
the word in relation to its derivative: "obsequious" which means
"fawning".-Again, the definition of "obsequious" is also not up for
debate, and my assumption is really the only definition that would make
"As I understand it, the "The Great" epithet has been a recent tack-on
brought about by one or more of the obsequies of the past few days, but
whether it will stick is still very much up for grabs."
If you had meant to use the term "eulogy" surely you would have simply
used the word "euology" and not a word that means something else. In
fact, it might interest you to know that it is a sign of a rather
shallow thinker to choose archaic words (even when they are correct)
instead of commonly used words. You are once again trying to present
yourself as a huge intellect, but sadly the facts belie your
presentation. Since the closest word that fits with your sentence was
"obsequious" I assumed, (quite rightly) that you meant the term as a
dig at those who revered the Pope.-How shocking that you would conduct
yourself in such a manner. And finally, BOTH obsequy and obsequious
come from the Latin "to comply". Again, not related to "eulogy". So put
that in your pipe and smoke it.

Post by Q
I think I'm fairly current with respect to John Paul's

accomplishments --

Post by Q
both the actual accomplishments and the hype. -- Q

No doubt your currency with respect to John Paul the Great's
accomplishments is on par with your currency with respect to the
English language.

Then she must be an expert on them, because her command of the
English language is superb. Disagree with Q if you will, but when you
disparage her writing and her intelligence, you only make yourself look
foolish.

I read Q's comment, understood what she meant in using "obsequies," did not
get any sense of a dig at anyone. Further, Q has explained what she meant
(if explanation were needed). I don't understand why you cannot simply
accept it.

Peggy

[h.sanders]

Post by e***@att.net
"The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today."
Are you trying to imply or suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury
would have given a pass to Pope John Paul the Great's funeral if Prince
Charles had decided to go forward with his marriage on Friday?
---------------------------------------

Now where did the poster imply or suggest that? Infer what you want, but it
wasn't implied. Is your problem reading or comprehension? The archbishop
of Canterbury could not make an announcement of his intentions until he was
officially invited by Vartican officials. The same is true of President
Bush and others. Even today, there is speculation on whether the head of
the Orthodox church will attend or if he will be invited. He can't and
won't intend without an invitation.

Hal S.

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 14:01, in article

Post by e***@att.net

Post by e***@att.net
Sacha-How could he go ahead with the wedding on Friday if the
Archbishop of Canterbury was going to be in Rome? Seeing as how he
wants to Archbishop to lead the service of prayer, it would be rather
difficult for that to happen if the Archbishop were in another

country

Post by e***@att.net
at the time. I am sure there is a degree of propriety that motivates
the decision to move the wedding to Saturday. But it doesn't rise to
the level of "good judgment". In the final analysis, he had no

choice.
The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today.

Tut tut - how remiss of him! ;-) I think what so many here are missing is
the unprecedented attendance of a CoE Archbishop and royal at a Pope's
funeral and the need to be sure it was acceptable to the Vatican.

[e***@att.net]

Post by Sacha

Post by volcaran
The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today.

Tut tut - how remiss of him! ;-) I think what so many here are missing is
the unprecedented attendance of a CoE Archbishop and royal at a Pope's
funeral and the need to be sure it was acceptable to the Vatican.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Sacha- My God. He was INVITED BY THE VATICAN. I can only guess that
upon their invitation, he surmised he was "welcome." LOL

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 18:49, in article

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha

Post by volcaran
The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today.

Tut tut - how remiss of him! ;-) I think what so many here are

missing is

Post by Sacha
the unprecedented attendance of a CoE Archbishop and royal at a

Pope's

Post by Sacha
funeral and the need to be sure it was acceptable to the Vatican.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Sacha- My God. He was INVITED BY THE VATICAN. I can only guess that
upon their invitation, he surmised he was "welcome." LOL

MY GOD Elizabeth. He had to wait for the invitation, talk to the Prime
Minister, the Queen and the Prince of Wales and quite possibly some of our
senior churchmen. This is not a 'drop in for drinks' situation. This is a
unique situation wherein the Primate has never, ever before attended the
funeral of a Pope.
What is wrong with you that you cannot grasp all the people who had to be
consulted about what would happen or could happen. What do you think this
is? A manicure that has to be cancelled, or something?
You're an American writing for Etoile on British royalty. Why? You haven't
a clue, not a glimmer of what being royal involves. I know Americans who
could wipe the floor with you any day of the week, their knowledge of
British royalty is so great. Occasionally some of them post here but you'll
never know about it. Don't give up the day job, Elizabeth. I am horrified
to think that you write on Etoile as some 'expert' on British royalty and
you haven't the first idea of what goes on but treat it all as some kind of
farmer's market where that middle class housewife the Queen of England
reorganises her life, her son's life, her country's protocol and a Pope's
funeral at her convenience. You have come to this group shouting the odds
about what you know and all you have proved is that you know damn all.
Nobody else has to do another thing but watch you.

[e***@att.net]

Post by Sacha
On 5/4/05 18:49, in article

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha

Post by volcaran
The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today.

Tut tut - how remiss of him! ;-) I think what so many here are

missing is

Post by Sacha
the unprecedented attendance of a CoE Archbishop and royal at a

Pope's

Post by Sacha
funeral and the need to be sure it was acceptable to the Vatican.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Sacha- My God. He was INVITED BY THE VATICAN. I can only guess that
upon their invitation, he surmised he was "welcome." LOL

MY GOD Elizabeth. He had to wait for the invitation, talk to the Prime
Minister, the Queen and the Prince of Wales and quite possibly some of our
senior churchmen. This is not a 'drop in for drinks' situation. This is a
unique situation wherein the Primate has never, ever before attended the
funeral of a Pope.
What is wrong with you that you cannot grasp all the people who had to be
consulted about what would happen or could happen. What do you think this
is? A manicure that has to be cancelled, or something?
You're an American writing for Etoile on British royalty. Why? You haven't
a clue, not a glimmer of what being royal involves. I know Americans who
could wipe the floor with you any day of the week, their knowledge of
British royalty is so great. Occasionally some of them post here but you'll
never know about it. Don't give up the day job, Elizabeth. I am horrified
to think that you write on Etoile as some 'expert' on British royalty and
you haven't the first idea of what goes on but treat it all as some kind of
farmer's market where that middle class housewife the Queen of

England

Post by Sacha
reorganises her life, her son's life, her country's protocol and a Pope's
funeral at her convenience. You have come to this group shouting the odds
about what you know and all you have proved is that you know damn all.
Nobody else has to do another thing but watch you.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Well first off, I have NEVER touted myself as an expert on British
royalty, protocol, or genealogy. And if you can find one instance where
I have, I would like to see it. I do write opinion columns for Etoile,
and though I know it pains you to acknowledge it, they are rather
popular. The essence of my analyses for my column lie in common sense.
The one column I have ever written about the POW was largely positive.
But that did not stop me from observing the obvious in my last column.

And for the record, yours wasn't the only email I have received in
response to it. Upwards of 75% (if not more) of the responses to the
column have been positive.-I should add that since you seem to think
that the only opinions that matter are British, (and preferably 'to the
manor borne' at that) let me also assure you that I received many from
British citizens who live in the UK and elsewhere. On the other hand,
you fail to understand or read the mood of the public in the very
country you call home. You are too wrapped up in your aristocratic view
of the way things "should be" in your unrealistic view of the world to
ever have your fingers on the pulsepoint of how things really ARE.

I read one person on here pay hommage to you today simply by virtue of
your marriage to a baron, I believe. But your marriage has little to do
with your reasoning skills, I am sorry to say. In fact, it is just more
proof that many (though not all) of those in the titled classes
flounder hopelessly when forced to compete in a meritocratic world. And
the online world is nothing if not meritocratic,--because it is the
world of IDEAS. What, (other than sycophancy towards the POW), are YOUR
ideas, Sacha? At the end of the day, it's all very one dimensional.
You hurl insults and you chastise people who dare disagree with you.
You also repeat yourself over and over again. Your entire post above
did not respond to the fact that the Vatican invited Archbishop
Williams, probably many months ago as they did with all other
dignitaries. Moreover, several sources indicated that Archbishop
Williams took his decision to attend the funeral on Monday. It matters
not that he formally announced it today. -Again it is a point you seem
to struggle with.

I would also note that instead of keeping up with the discussion as it
is unfolding, you have an annoying tendency to change the topic of
what is being discussed from post to post. You are not interested in
intellectually honest discussion, only in repeating the themes that are
present in each of your messages and throwing in a few heavy-handed
insults for good measure. Only your first paragraph touches upon the
relevant points. But even there you keep missing the mark. The point
was that unlike the people who work at CH, Archbishop Williams' office
did not issue a series of contradictory statements to the media.
Instead they waited until they were ready to announce what tack they
were taking.--ANOTHER option (ie silence) that was open to CH, but CH
chose not to take. What ever happened to a simple "No comment"? Why is
it that CH is seemingly incapable of being circumspect even including
during a time when, as YOU yourself say, so much was left to be
clarified, discussed, and resolved?

[Jean Sue Libkind]

Post by e***@att.net
Well first off, I have NEVER touted myself as an expert on British
royalty, protocol, or genealogy. And if you can find one instance where
I have, I would like to see it. I do write opinion columns for Etoile,
and though I know it pains you to acknowledge it, they are rather
popular. The essence of my analyses for my column lie in common sense.
The one column I have ever written about the POW was largely positive.
But that did not stop me from observing the obvious in my last column.
And for the record, yours wasn't the only email I have received in
response to it. Upwards of 75% (if not more) of the responses to the
column have been positive.-I should add that since you seem to think
that the only opinions that matter are British, (and preferably 'to the
manor borne' at that) let me also assure you that I received many from
British citizens who live in the UK and elsewhere. On the other hand,
you fail to understand or read the mood of the public in the very
country you call home. You are too wrapped up in your aristocratic view
of the way things "should be" in your unrealistic view of the world to
ever have your fingers on the pulsepoint of how things really ARE.
I read one person on here pay hommage to you today simply by virtue of
your marriage to a baron, I believe. But your marriage has little to do
with your reasoning skills, I am sorry to say. In fact, it is just more
proof that many (though not all) of those in the titled classes
flounder hopelessly when forced to compete in a meritocratic world. And
the online world is nothing if not meritocratic,--because it is the
world of IDEAS. What, (other than sycophancy towards the POW), are YOUR
ideas, Sacha? At the end of the day, it's all very one dimensional.
You hurl insults and you chastise people who dare disagree with you.
You also repeat yourself over and over again. Your entire post above
did not respond to the fact that the Vatican invited Archbishop
Williams, probably many months ago as they did with all other
dignitaries. Moreover, several sources indicated that Archbishop
Williams took his decision to attend the funeral on Monday. It matters
not that he formally announced it today. -Again it is a point you seem
to struggle with.
I would also note that instead of keeping up with the discussion as it
is unfolding, you have an annoying tendency to change the topic of
what is being discussed from post to post. You are not interested in
intellectually honest discussion, only in repeating the themes that are
present in each of your messages and throwing in a few heavy-handed
insults for good measure. Only your first paragraph touches upon the
relevant points. But even there you keep missing the mark. The point
was that unlike the people who work at CH, Archbishop Williams' office
did not issue a series of contradictory statements to the media.
Instead they waited until they were ready to announce what tack they
were taking.--ANOTHER option (ie silence) that was open to CH, but CH
chose not to take. What ever happened to a simple "No comment"? Why is
it that CH is seemingly incapable of being circumspect even including
during a time when, as YOU yourself say, so much was left to be
clarified, discussed, and resolved?

Does your editor know you post such vitriol? I hope it isn't using the
company computer.

js

[Sacha]

On 6/4/05 1:06, in article

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
On 5/4/05 18:49, in article

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha

Post by volcaran
The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today.

Tut tut - how remiss of him! ;-) I think what so many here are

missing is

Post by Sacha
the unprecedented attendance of a CoE Archbishop and royal at a

Pope's

Post by Sacha
funeral and the need to be sure it was acceptable to the Vatican.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Sacha- My God. He was INVITED BY THE VATICAN. I can only guess that
upon their invitation, he surmised he was "welcome." LOL

MY GOD Elizabeth. He had to wait for the invitation, talk to the

Prime

Post by Sacha
Minister, the Queen and the Prince of Wales and quite possibly some

of our

Post by Sacha
senior churchmen. This is not a 'drop in for drinks' situation. This

is a

Post by Sacha
unique situation wherein the Primate has never, ever before attended

the

Post by Sacha
funeral of a Pope.
What is wrong with you that you cannot grasp all the people who had

to be

Post by Sacha
consulted about what would happen or could happen. What do you think

this

Post by Sacha
is? A manicure that has to be cancelled, or something?
You're an American writing for Etoile on British royalty. Why? You

haven't

Post by Sacha
a clue, not a glimmer of what being royal involves. I know Americans

who

Post by Sacha
could wipe the floor with you any day of the week, their knowledge of
British royalty is so great. Occasionally some of them post here but

you'll

Post by Sacha
never know about it. Don't give up the day job, Elizabeth. I am

horrified

Post by Sacha
to think that you write on Etoile as some 'expert' on British royalty

and

Post by Sacha
you haven't the first idea of what goes on but treat it all as some

kind of

Post by Sacha
farmer's market where that middle class housewife the Queen of

England

Post by Sacha
reorganises her life, her son's life, her country's protocol and a

Pope's

Post by Sacha
funeral at her convenience. You have come to this group shouting the

odds

Post by Sacha
about what you know and all you have proved is that you know damn

all.

Post by Sacha
Nobody else has to do another thing but watch you.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Well first off, I have NEVER touted myself as an expert on British
royalty, protocol, or genealogy. And if you can find one instance where
I have, I would like to see it. I do write opinion columns for Etoile,
and though I know it pains you to acknowledge it, they are rather
popular.

It neither pains me nor do I acknowledge it. I've read one and thought it
was appallingly badly written and insultingly ridiculous. And actually you
tout yourself as an expert every time you post here and try, patronisingly
to tell us how 'right' you are and how we can't use proper joined up
writing like what you wrote.

<snip>

Post by Sacha
You are too wrapped up in your aristocratic view
of the way things "should be" in your unrealistic view of the world to
ever have your fingers on the pulsepoint of how things really ARE.

I wondered how long it would take you to think that to call me an aristocrat
would be an insult. You are a very silly and trivial little woman. FYI, I
am not an aristocrat but I would not expect you to understand the
ramifications of that sort of thing.

Post by Sacha
I read one person on here pay hommage to you today simply by virtue of
your marriage to a baron, I believe.

I was not married to a Baron.

Post by Sacha
But your marriage has little to do
with your reasoning skills, I am sorry to say. In fact, it is just more
proof that many (though not all) of those in the titled classes
flounder hopelessly when forced to compete in a meritocratic world. And
the online world is nothing if not meritocratic,--because it is the
world of IDEAS. What, (other than sycophancy towards the POW), are YOUR
ideas, Sacha? At the end of the day, it's all very one dimensional.
You hurl insults and you chastise people who dare disagree with you.
You also repeat yourself over and over again.

<snip>

Are you - can you - possibly be as ignorant as this makes you look? You
don't know the first thing about me, my background, my past marriage or my
birth but having read a post which claims I was married to an Earl - which
I was not - you have decided that I am an aristocrat in my own right who
lives uncomfortably in a meritocratic world. You are indeed very, very
silly to put yourself in such a position of error and ignorance AND with
such relish, Elizabeth. I didn't raise the matter of my past rank but you
couldn't wait to use it as what you think is the big stick. You don't know
it but you've made a very big fool of yourself and have displayed the most
supreme ignorance of some very basic points. In that regard you are, yet
again, almost exactly akin to your new best friend who tried to do the same
a few years ago and came one helluva cropper over it. You would be well
advised to keep off the subject of my past marriage and my family.

Post by Sacha
I would also note that instead of keeping up with the discussion as it
is unfolding, you have an annoying tendency to change the topic of
what is being discussed from post to post. You are not interested in
intellectually honest discussion, only in repeating the themes that are
present in each of your messages and throwing in a few heavy-handed
insults for good measure. Only your first paragraph touches upon the
relevant points. But even there you keep missing the mark. The point
was that unlike the people who work at CH, Archbishop Williams' office
did not issue a series of contradictory statements to the media.
Instead they waited until they were ready to announce what tack they
were taking.--ANOTHER option (ie silence) that was open to CH, but CH
chose not to take. What ever happened to a simple "No comment"? Why is
it that CH is seemingly incapable of being circumspect even including
during a time when, as YOU yourself say, so much was left to be
clarified, discussed, and resolved?

Elizabeth, you couldn't hold a discussion if someone wrote it out for you on
a postage stamp. What you want to do is show off and impress us all with a
supposed intellect and education for which there is no evidence. You appear
to be quite literally incapable of understanding a newspaper report. You've
argued with Volcaran and Q - two of the most intelligent posters this group
has ever seen - and greatly to your own detriment. You have, as a result,
made yourself look very foolish, especially when you try to argue about the
meaning of words with Q! You prefer to yammer on and on and on until you
beat everyone into submission from sheer boredom. We had someone else like
that here at one time, long gone, thank heavens and probably because
everyone else stopped responding to their long-winded, tedious posts which
curiously enough, were rather like yours, rude, irrelevant, boastful and
dull. And with a curious lack of ability to grasp what others were saying -
something a lot of people who mistakenly think they're clever seem to do a
lot. Don't you?

[SaintV]

Post by Sacha
I didn't raise the matter of my past rank but you

couldn't wait to use it as what you think is the big stick. <

What? Were you in the military? Rank indeed. Says it all.

Post by Sacha
On 6/4/05 1:06, in article

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
On 5/4/05 18:49, in article

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha

Post by volcaran
The Archbishop didn't announce he was going to Rome until today.

Tut tut - how remiss of him! ;-) I think what so many here are

missing is

Post by Sacha
the unprecedented attendance of a CoE Archbishop and royal at a

Pope's

Post by Sacha
funeral and the need to be sure it was acceptable to the Vatican.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Sacha- My God. He was INVITED BY THE VATICAN. I can only guess that
upon their invitation, he surmised he was "welcome." LOL

MY GOD Elizabeth. He had to wait for the invitation, talk to the

Prime

Post by Sacha
Minister, the Queen and the Prince of Wales and quite possibly some

of our

Post by Sacha
senior churchmen. This is not a 'drop in for drinks' situation. This

is a

Post by Sacha
unique situation wherein the Primate has never, ever before attended

the

Post by Sacha
funeral of a Pope.
What is wrong with you that you cannot grasp all the people who had

to be

Post by Sacha
consulted about what would happen or could happen. What do you think

this

Post by Sacha
is? A manicure that has to be cancelled, or something?
You're an American writing for Etoile on British royalty. Why? You

haven't

Post by Sacha
a clue, not a glimmer of what being royal involves. I know Americans

who

Post by Sacha
could wipe the floor with you any day of the week, their knowledge of
British royalty is so great. Occasionally some of them post here but

you'll

Post by Sacha
never know about it. Don't give up the day job, Elizabeth. I am

horrified

Post by Sacha
to think that you write on Etoile as some 'expert' on British royalty

and

Post by Sacha
you haven't the first idea of what goes on but treat it all as some

kind of

Post by Sacha
farmer's market where that middle class housewife the Queen of

England

Post by Sacha
reorganises her life, her son's life, her country's protocol and a

Pope's

Post by Sacha
funeral at her convenience. You have come to this group shouting the

odds

Post by Sacha
about what you know and all you have proved is that you know damn

all.

Post by Sacha
Nobody else has to do another thing but watch you.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Well first off, I have NEVER touted myself as an expert on British
royalty, protocol, or genealogy. And if you can find one instance where
I have, I would like to see it. I do write opinion columns for Etoile,
and though I know it pains you to acknowledge it, they are rather
popular.

It neither pains me nor do I acknowledge it. I've read one and thought it
was appallingly badly written and insultingly ridiculous. And actually you
tout yourself as an expert every time you post here and try, patronisingly
to tell us how 'right' you are and how we can't use proper joined up
writing like what you wrote.
<snip>

Post by Sacha
You are too wrapped up in your aristocratic view
of the way things "should be" in your unrealistic view of the world to
ever have your fingers on the pulsepoint of how things really ARE.

I wondered how long it would take you to think that to call me an aristocrat
would be an insult. You are a very silly and trivial little woman. FYI, I
am not an aristocrat but I would not expect you to understand the
ramifications of that sort of thing.

Post by Sacha
I read one person on here pay hommage to you today simply by virtue of
your marriage to a baron, I believe.

I was not married to a Baron.

Post by Sacha
But your marriage has little to do
with your reasoning skills, I am sorry to say. In fact, it is just more
proof that many (though not all) of those in the titled classes
flounder hopelessly when forced to compete in a meritocratic world. And
the online world is nothing if not meritocratic,--because it is the
world of IDEAS. What, (other than sycophancy towards the POW), are YOUR
ideas, Sacha? At the end of the day, it's all very one dimensional.
You hurl insults and you chastise people who dare disagree with you.
You also repeat yourself over and over again.

<snip>
Are you - can you - possibly be as ignorant as this makes you look? You
don't know the first thing about me, my background, my past marriage or my
birth but having read a post which claims I was married to an Earl -
which
I was not - you have decided that I am an aristocrat in my own right who
lives uncomfortably in a meritocratic world. You are indeed very, very
silly to put yourself in such a position of error and ignorance AND with
such relish, Elizabeth. I didn't raise the matter of my past rank but you
couldn't wait to use it as what you think is the big stick. You don't know
it but you've made a very big fool of yourself and have displayed the most
supreme ignorance of some very basic points. In that regard you are, yet
again, almost exactly akin to your new best friend who tried to do the same
a few years ago and came one helluva cropper over it. You would be well
advised to keep off the subject of my past marriage and my family.

Post by Sacha
I would also note that instead of keeping up with the discussion as it
is unfolding, you have an annoying tendency to change the topic of
what is being discussed from post to post. You are not interested in
intellectually honest discussion, only in repeating the themes that are
present in each of your messages and throwing in a few heavy-handed
insults for good measure. Only your first paragraph touches upon the
relevant points. But even there you keep missing the mark. The point
was that unlike the people who work at CH, Archbishop Williams' office
did not issue a series of contradictory statements to the media.
Instead they waited until they were ready to announce what tack they
were taking.--ANOTHER option (ie silence) that was open to CH, but CH
chose not to take. What ever happened to a simple "No comment"? Why is
it that CH is seemingly incapable of being circumspect even including
during a time when, as YOU yourself say, so much was left to be
clarified, discussed, and resolved?

Elizabeth, you couldn't hold a discussion if someone wrote it out for you on
a postage stamp. What you want to do is show off and impress us all with a
supposed intellect and education for which there is no evidence. You appear
to be quite literally incapable of understanding a newspaper report.
You've
argued with Volcaran and Q - two of the most intelligent posters this group
has ever seen - and greatly to your own detriment. You have, as a result,
made yourself look very foolish, especially when you try to argue about the
meaning of words with Q! You prefer to yammer on and on and on until you
beat everyone into submission from sheer boredom. We had someone else like
that here at one time, long gone, thank heavens and probably because
everyone else stopped responding to their long-winded, tedious posts which
curiously enough, were rather like yours, rude, irrelevant, boastful and
dull. And with a curious lack of ability to grasp what others were saying -
something a lot of people who mistakenly think they're clever seem to do a
lot. Don't you?
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

[e***@att.net]

Sacha wrote:
I didn't raise the matter of my past rank


{{{{wipes coffee off screen}}}}

Your past "rank"--??? LOL!!! Thank you Sacha for illustrating the
point.

Post by Sacha
Elizabeth, you couldn't hold a discussion if someone wrote it out for you on
a postage stamp.

I like this metaphor b/c most of your substantive responses to debates
could actually fit on a postage stamp.

Post by Sacha
You have, as a result,
made yourself look very foolish, especially when you try to argue about the
meaning of words with Q!

Well I hate to confuse you with fact-based information, but Q used the
word incorrectly. If she is the wordsmith you claim her to be, she
would admit that she misused the term. Believe you me, if she could
find any dictionary or thesaurus to support her assertion that the word
is a synonym for "eulogy" she would have posted it chapter and verse.
She can't find any support for her untenable position b/c none exists.
And remember too, she was the one who offered to buy ME a dictionary.
Now that is ironic, no? :-)

[Sacha]

On 6/4/05 15:07, in article

Post by Sacha
I didn't raise the matter of my past rank
{{{{wipes coffee off screen}}}}
Your past "rank"--??? LOL!!! Thank you Sacha for illustrating the
point.

As you seem a bit befuddled by the situation I think we'll just pass on that
one.

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
Elizabeth, you couldn't hold a discussion if someone wrote it out for

you on

Post by Sacha
a postage stamp.

I like this metaphor b/c most of your substantive responses to debates
could actually fit on a postage stamp.

Oh *very* mature and witty.

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
You have, as a result,
made yourself look very foolish, especially when you try to argue

about the

Post by Sacha
meaning of words with Q!

Well I hate to confuse you with fact-based information, but Q used the
word incorrectly. If she is the wordsmith you claim her to be, she
would admit that she misused the term. Believe you me, if she could
find any dictionary or thesaurus to support her assertion that the word
is a synonym for "eulogy" she would have posted it chapter and verse.
She can't find any support for her untenable position b/c none exists.
And remember too, she was the one who offered to buy ME a dictionary.
Now that is ironic, no? :-)

No. Helpful. And possibly essential.

[e***@att.net]

Post by Sacha
On 6/4/05 15:07, in article

Post by Sacha
I didn't raise the matter of my past rank
{{{{wipes coffee off screen}}}}
Your past "rank"--??? LOL!!! Thank you Sacha for illustrating the
point.

As you seem a bit befuddled by the situation I think we'll just pass on that
one.

Yes, please do. I couldn't begin to understand your world, and likewise
I am sure. Still, we can coexist in cyberspace, even if not altogether
peacefully.

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
Elizabeth, you couldn't hold a discussion if someone wrote it out for

you on

Post by Sacha
a postage stamp.

I like this metaphor b/c most of your substantive responses to debates
could actually fit on a postage stamp.

Oh *very* mature and witty.

Thank you. I thought you would like that seeing as how you are the
embodiment of mature thought and conduct.

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
You have, as a result,
made yourself look very foolish, especially when you try to argue

about the

Post by Sacha
meaning of words with Q!

Well I hate to confuse you with fact-based information, but Q used the
word incorrectly. If she is the wordsmith you claim her to be, she
would admit that she misused the term. Believe you me, if she could
find any dictionary or thesaurus to support her assertion that the word
is a synonym for "eulogy" she would have posted it chapter and verse.
She can't find any support for her untenable position b/c none exists.
And remember too, she was the one who offered to buy ME a

dictionary.

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
Now that is ironic, no? :-)

No. Helpful. And possibly essential.

Actually, I don't disagree with you. Dictionaries are essential. One
needs to keep a dictionary handy when posting on AGR in order to slap
down false definitions offered to chastise the knowledge of someone
else. Under these circumstances, I think we all have an obligation to
let the offender know that they are in error. Fortunately, I have
several dictionaries on hand to help out those who are more proud of
their linguistic abilities than the circumstances warrant. If you or Q
ever want to borrow one, please let me know. :-)

Post by Sacha
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

[Sacha]

On 6/4/05 16:21, in article

Post by e***@att.net

Post by Sacha
On 6/4/05 15:07, in article

Post by Sacha
I didn't raise the matter of my past rank
{{{{wipes coffee off screen}}}}
Your past "rank"--??? LOL!!! Thank you Sacha for illustrating the
point.

As you seem a bit befuddled by the situation I think we'll just pass

on that

Post by Sacha
one.

Yes, please do. I couldn't begin to understand your world, and likewise
I am sure. Still, we can coexist in cyberspace, even if not altogether
peacefully.

But you don't know anything about my world. You are making assumptions
based on incorrect information posted here. My world is as the wife of a
nursery owner, living in Devonshire, in an old vicarage, with 6 children
between us and one grandchild and 3 dogs. You seem to think that all
aristocrats must live some kind of stereotyped life which has no time for a
meritocracy and somehow scorns the concept. So in fact, you don't know
anything about that world, either or the life I led in it at one time. You
are a set of responses without information.

Post by e***@att.net

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
Elizabeth, you couldn't hold a discussion if someone wrote it out

for

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
you on

Post by Sacha
a postage stamp.

I like this metaphor b/c most of your substantive responses to

debates

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
could actually fit on a postage stamp.

Oh *very* mature and witty.

Thank you. I thought you would like that seeing as how you are the
embodiment of mature thought and conduct.

Compared to you, yes. I don't make uninformed assumptions about the lives
others lead or have led, nor do I seize instantly upon those lives to beat
someone around the head with when it is handed to me by someone else.

Post by e***@att.net

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
You have, as a result,
made yourself look very foolish, especially when you try to argue

about the

Post by Sacha
meaning of words with Q!

Well I hate to confuse you with fact-based information, but Q used

the

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
word incorrectly. If she is the wordsmith you claim her to be, she
would admit that she misused the term. Believe you me, if she could
find any dictionary or thesaurus to support her assertion that the

word

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
is a synonym for "eulogy" she would have posted it chapter and

verse.

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
She can't find any support for her untenable position b/c none

exists.

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
And remember too, she was the one who offered to buy ME a

dictionary.

Post by Sacha

Post by Sacha
Now that is ironic, no? :-)

No. Helpful. And possibly essential.

Actually, I don't disagree with you. Dictionaries are essential. One
needs to keep a dictionary handy when posting on AGR in order to slap
down false definitions offered to chastise the knowledge of someone
else. Under these circumstances, I think we all have an obligation to
let the offender know that they are in error. Fortunately, I have
several dictionaries on hand to help out those who are more proud of
their linguistic abilities than the circumstances warrant. If you or Q
ever want to borrow one, please let me know. :-)

I can be quite sure that neither of us will need any dictionary you consider
to be an authority. You forget - both of us have read your 'work'.

[e***@att.net]

"I can be quite sure that neither of us will need any dictionary you
consider
to be an authority. You forget - both of us have read your 'work'. "

Well this explains a lot. Perhaps it is in the imaginary dictionary you
and Q have authored that we might find the word "obsequy" defined as
"eulogy."

BTW, I apologize for discussing your background. But your haughty
attitude coupled with the other poster's remarks about your marriage,
and then your comments about your "rank" (your words, not mine) caused
many of us to draw some obvious conclusions. But it would be wrong for
me to assume you think a certain way based on anything other than your
own writings.

[Jean Sue Libkind]

Post by Sacha
I didn't raise the matter of my past rank
{{{{wipes coffee off screen}}}}
Your past "rank"--??? LOL!!! Thank you Sacha for illustrating the
point.

If you knew anything about royalty, you would know that "rank" is the
correct word.

Now, mop up your chin, dear. You have frosted doughnut all over your
wattles.

js

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 13:54, in article

Post by e***@att.net
Sacha-How could he go ahead with the wedding on Friday if the
Archbishop of Canterbury was going to be in Rome? Seeing as how he
wants to Archbishop to lead the service of prayer, it would be rather
difficult for that to happen if the Archbishop were in another country
at the time. I am sure there is a degree of propriety that motivates
the decision to move the wedding to Saturday. But it doesn't rise to
the level of "good judgment". In the final analysis, he had no choice.

Do you *really* not see that sheer good manners and decent behaviour, let
alone the protocol between the heir to the throne and the Primate would
require that they consult with each other? And that it was good judgment
that brought the conclusion about - good judgment on everyone's part,
perhaps, including the PoW. So can you not imagine a civilised scenario
where the PoW, the Primate and the PM all consulted and *agreed together*,
using that good judgment, that yes, the wedding must be postponed -
something that we are told the Prince must have known when he flew home
early to talk to Mrs PB and to all others involved? I can barely believe
the pettiness of this sort of comment, given that what is generally accepted
as the 'correct thing to do' has been settled upon and honour should be
satisfied all around.

[e***@att.net]

"Do you *really* not see that sheer good manners and decent behaviour,
let
alone the protocol between the heir to the throne and the Primate would

require that they consult with each other? And that it was good
judgment
that brought the conclusion about - good judgment on everyone's part,
perhaps, including the PoW. So can you not imagine a civilised
scenario
where the PoW, the Primate and the PM all consulted and *agreed
together*,
using that good judgment, that yes, the wedding must be postponed -
something that we are told the Prince must have known when he flew home

early to talk to Mrs PB and to all others involved?"

Yes I do see that they could have all talked and could have all agreed
on a course of action. I also allow for a change of heart on the
Prince's part. But I just don't think that it rises to the level of
"Let's congratulate the Prince for his excellent judgment" to refrain
from doing something that would under the circumstances be crass and
disrespectful had it gone forward. It just seems very obvious to me
what had to be done. Can you imagine had he gone forward with the
wedding? And in light of the CH statement on Sunday, it seems to me
that he had to be at least mildly convinced to change course. --If
that impression is false, then it is CH's responsibility to speak to
the media only when they have their facts straight, and not beforehand.
Otherwise, I think it is fair for the public to draw their own
conclusions. PLUS, Charles shouldn't be expecting the media to cut him
any slack right now. After his stunt at the press call, they are
probably going to give him even more digs than usual as some sort of
"pay back."

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 14:23, in article

Post by e***@att.net
"Do you *really* not see that sheer good manners and decent behaviour,
let
alone the protocol between the heir to the throne and the Primate would
require that they consult with each other? And that it was good judgment
that brought the conclusion about - good judgment on everyone's part,
perhaps, including the PoW. So can you not imagine a civilised scenario
where the PoW, the Primate and the PM all consulted and *agreed together*,
using that good judgment, that yes, the wedding must be postponed -
something that we are told the Prince must have known when he flew home
early to talk to Mrs PB and to all others involved?"
Yes I do see that they could have all talked and could have all agreed
on a course of action. I also allow for a change of heart on the
Prince's part. But I just don't think that it rises to the level of
"Let's congratulate the Prince for his excellent judgment" to refrain
from doing something that would under the circumstances be crass and
disrespectful had it gone forward. It just seems very obvious to me
what had to be done. Can you imagine had he gone forward with the
wedding?<snip>

Oh come now, Elizabeth. You've just shot your own argument down in flames.
The fact that he is NOT going ahead with the wedding IS the good judgment.
If you insist on belabouring the point, seeing that it had to be done was
'good judgment' - talking to all others concerned was 'good judgment'. But
if it's that important to you never to have even the simplest of good words
to say about the man, have it your way. It's incredibly childish and
immature to nitpick like this when a Pope has died and a royal wedding is
cancelled but I can see it takes that to makes you happy and perhaps it's
what you need to retain your personal perspective on royal matters.

[sparkysfun2004]

Hi Elizabeth,

I totally agree with you about Charles and his way of thinking. World
leaders, Catholic or otherwise, will be at the pope's funeral to pay
respect to a good human being.
Charles is the most selfish, self-centered and immature man. As the
future King, he should have had the common sense to immediately
reschedule his wedding. The only concern of his is finally getting
married to Camilla. With Fate intervening with one reason or another,
perhaps Charles should step back and think that he is perhaps being
given warning signals about this marriage...Diana's boys have so much
more common sense on how to handle situations ( i.e. Klosters) that
their father even will.

Sparky

[e***@att.net]

"I totally agree with you about Charles and his way of thinking.
World
leaders, Catholic or otherwise, will be at the pope's funeral to pay
respect to a good human being."

Well according to Sacha, you shouldn't take what CH said at face value.
In fact, better to assume that the statement was issued by some vapid
blond who inadvertently answered the phones on Sunday. :-)

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 14:41, in article

Post by e***@att.net
"I totally agree with you about Charles and his way of thinking.
World
leaders, Catholic or otherwise, will be at the pope's funeral to pay
respect to a good human being."
Well according to Sacha, you shouldn't take what CH said at face value.
In fact, better to assume that the statement was issued by some vapid
blond who inadvertently answered the phones on Sunday. :-)

And that wasn't what I said either. Tell me. Are you and PK *very* closely
related?

[Psyche's Knot]

Your envy of Elizabeth's superior knowledge is showing, old thing.
It is true you that you are Tony Blair's Aunt ??? Or are you one of the
Booth's ???

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 17:04, in article

Post by Psyche's Knot
Your envy of Elizabeth's superior knowledge is showing, old thing.
It is true you that you are Tony Blair's Aunt ??? Or are you one of the
Booth's ???

Who are you talking to? Envy of Elizabeth's superior knowledge, eh? Well,
once she shows some I suppose somebody who believes her might get envious.
Stand by - cue PK.

[Q]

Post by Psyche's Knot
Your envy of Elizabeth's superior knowledge is showing, old thing.

Everybody is laughing at Elizabeth.

And you are certainly helping the process by forcing yourself on her as some
kind of ridiculous protegee.

She arrives in the newsgroup, hissing and spitting about how nasty everybody
is to poor little you -- taking valuable time out of her vaunted busy life
(apparently not busy enough -- I hope she's charging you by the hour for all
of this) to rescue you from us -- and then you go and put the lie to all of
her valuable fulmination by calling posters who simply disagree with you
ugly names, insulting what you think are their ages, and basically getting
saliva all over your computer screen.

What a pantomime the two of you are! -- Q

Post by Psyche's Knot
It is true you that you are Tony Blair's Aunt ??? Or are you one of the
Booth's ???

[e***@att.net]

Post by Q

Post by Psyche's Knot
Your envy of Elizabeth's superior knowledge is showing, old thing.

Everybody is laughing at Elizabeth.

Sweetheart, the only ones "laughing" at me are you, Sacha, and a few of
your other band of vicious idiots. You throw insults around like candy,
but you are too stupid to realize how specious most of your arguments
are.

Post by Q
What a pantomime the two of you are! -- Q

Q, you are honestly one of the most pretentious people I have ever come
across. It wouldn't be so nauseating if you said something that ever
made any sense. But all you do is toss insults around and put forward
your opinions as though they are factual, when usually they are simply
predicated upon speculation.

[Breton]

Well, this is exactly what you do.

Breton

[e***@att.net]

Post by Breton
Well, this is exactly what you do.
Breton

Whatever you say Mr. "day"/"dates" ;-)

[Q]

Post by e***@att.net

Post by Q

Post by Psyche's Knot
Your envy of Elizabeth's superior knowledge is showing, old thing.

Everybody is laughing at Elizabeth.

Sweetheart, the only ones "laughing" at me are you, Sacha, and a few of
your other band of vicious idiots. You throw insults around like candy,

Really? You have chosen to avoid the issue of PK's old age insults that
were the entire content of the post that my post was in answer to.

Post by e***@att.net
but you are too stupid to realize how specious most of your arguments
are.

What's "specious" about my arguments? Choose any example and discuss.

Post by e***@att.net

Post by Q
What a pantomime the two of you are! -- Q

Q, you are honestly one of the most pretentious people I have ever come
across. It wouldn't be so nauseating if you said something that ever
made any sense. But all you do is toss insults around

I give as good as I get, but every one of PK's posts that I've answered in
the past 24 hours were saturated with completely unprovoked name calling.

Post by e***@att.net
and put forward
your opinions as though they are factual, when usually they are simply
predicated upon speculation.

I bet you can't find a single example of that.-- Q

[Psyche's Knot]

Right Elizabeth, she has yet to tap dance her way out of yet another
fabrication with old Q defending the air-head with lame protestations
after her Mistress denounced the same phone asnwerer !
Q's should be trying to hide her lack of knowledge regarding the
relationship between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The SIMPLE FACT IS, that once the Vatican scheduled the Pope's funeral
for Friday, Charles HAD to change his wedding date...he was not going
ahead with two of the country's Top Officials out of the country...and
of course he COULD NOT HAVE MARRIED on FRIDAY even in the KKK's Wildest
dreams because the Queen would NOT have it....Charles was Pre-chosen to
represent the family in due time at Pope John Paul II's funeral.
The thickies are thick on the ground in this thread !!

[Q]

Post by Psyche's Knot
Right Elizabeth, she has yet to tap dance her way out of yet another
fabrication with old Q defending the air-head with lame protestations
after her Mistress denounced the same phone asnwerer !

Nobody denounced any of the press people except for Elizabeth.

Post by Psyche's Knot
Q's should be trying to hide her lack of knowledge regarding the
relationship between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

What kind of relationship do you mean? Friends? Acquaintances? Colleagues
in the church-running business? Gay couple? The A of C is not obligated to
attend popes' funerals. This funeral is the first one to be attended by an
Archbishop of Canterbury.

Post by Psyche's Knot
The SIMPLE FACT IS, that once the Vatican scheduled the Pope's funeral
for Friday, Charles HAD to change his wedding date...he was not going
ahead with two of the country's Top Officials out of the country...

Charles could have gotten married without Blair or the A of C or any other
"Top Officials" in attendance. It might be better if he had. But once the
Queen chose Charles to represent her at the funeral, the wedding plans had
to be shifted.

Post by Psyche's Knot
and
of course he COULD NOT HAVE MARRIED on FRIDAY even in the KKK's Wildest
dreams because the Queen would NOT have it....Charles was Pre-chosen

What do you mean by "pre-chosen?"

At what point is the Queen supposed to have chosen Charles? Has he recently
been appointed as the offical pope-funeral-attender or was this an ad hoc-y
sort of decision?

Post by Psyche's Knot
to
represent the family in due time at Pope John Paul II's funeral.
The thickies are thick on the ground in this thread !!

As long as we are back to calling people names like "thickie" and "KKK," I
think you're pretty thick, too, as well as desperate -- and I think your
mentor is a complete clown. -- Q

[Psyche's Knot]

Right Elizabeth, she has yet to tap dance her way out of yet another
fabrication with old Q defending the air-head with lame protestations
after her Mistress denounced the same phone asnwerer !
Q's should be trying to hide her lack of knowledge regarding the
relationship between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The SIMPLE FACT IS, that once the Vatican scheduled the Pope's funeral
for Friday, Charles HAD to change his wedding date...he was not going
ahead with two of the country's Top Officials out of the country...and
of course he COULD NOT HAVE MARRIED on FRIDAY even in the KKK's Wildest
dreams because the Queen would NOT have it....Charles was Pre-chosen to
represent the family in due time at Pope John Paul II's funeral.
The thickies are thick on the ground in this thread !!

[SaintV]

Amen. The circular reasoning being employed by Sacha & cohorts is
ridiculous. PK and Elizabeth are right on the money. Truth will out,
despite the royal "doublespeak" going on at the moment. Just watch,
someone is going to write a book about the run up to this wedding, and I'm
sure it will be very entertaining.

Post by Psyche's Knot
Right Elizabeth, she has yet to tap dance her way out of yet another
fabrication with old Q defending the air-head with lame protestations
after her Mistress denounced the same phone asnwerer !
Q's should be trying to hide her lack of knowledge regarding the
relationship between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The SIMPLE FACT IS, that once the Vatican scheduled the Pope's funeral
for Friday, Charles HAD to change his wedding date...he was not going
ahead with two of the country's Top Officials out of the country...and
of course he COULD NOT HAVE MARRIED on FRIDAY even in the KKK's Wildest
dreams because the Queen would NOT have it....Charles was Pre-chosen to
represent the family in due time at Pope John Paul II's funeral.
The thickies are thick on the ground in this thread !!

[Breton]

And since you, PK and Elizabeth are all Americans, presumably that
gives you the edge over Sacha who is not only English but a former
spouse of an earl. Right? So we should believe you over her, right?

Breton

[truebrit]

Post by Breton
And since you, PK and Elizabeth are all Americans, presumably that
gives you the edge over Sacha who is not only English but a former
spouse of an earl.

Interesting. This explains a great deal.

Post by Breton
Right? So we should believe you over her, right?
Breton

[r***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by truebrit

Post by Breton
And since you, PK and Elizabeth are all Americans, presumably that
gives you the edge over Sacha who is not only English but a former
spouse of an earl.

Interesting. This explains a great deal.

Post by Breton
Right? So we should believe you over her, right?
Breton

Is a former spouse of an Earl still entitled to be called a Countess?

[Jean Sue Libkind]

Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by truebrit

Post by Breton
And since you, PK and Elizabeth are all Americans, presumably that
gives you the edge over Sacha who is not only English but a former
spouse of an earl.

Interesting. This explains a great deal.

Post by Breton
Right? So we should believe you over her, right?
Breton

Is a former spouse of an Earl still entitled to be called a Countess?

Not if she's remarried.

js

[Sacha]

On 5/4/05 21:48, in article

Post by Breton
And since you, PK and Elizabeth are all Americans, presumably that
gives you the edge over Sacha who is not only English but a former
spouse of an earl. Right? So we should believe you over her, right?
Breton

Nick, I am not the former spouse of an Earl and as my former marriage has
nothing to do with this, I cannot imagine why you saw fit to raise it here.

[Breton]

Post by Sacha
On 5/4/05 21:48, in article

Post by Breton
And since you, PK and Elizabeth are all Americans, presumably that
gives you the edge over Sacha who is not only English but a former
spouse of an earl. Right? So we should believe you over her, right?
Breton

Nick, I am not the former spouse of an Earl and as my former marriage has
nothing to do with this, I cannot imagine why you saw fit to raise it here.

My mistake, I must be thinking of another Sacha. And my name is not
Nick.

Breton

[Sacha]

On 6/4/05 13:24, in article

Post by Breton

Post by Sacha
On 5/4/05 21:48, in article

Post by Breton
And since you, PK and Elizabeth are all Americans, presumably that
gives you the edge over Sacha who is not only English but a former
spouse of an earl. Right? So we should believe you over her, right?
Breton

Nick, I am not the former spouse of an Earl and as my former marriage

has

Post by Sacha
nothing to do with this, I cannot imagine why you saw fit to raise it

here.
My mistake, I must be thinking of another Sacha. And my name is not
Nick.
Breton

I don't care whether your name is Nick or anything else but I cannot for the
life of me imagine why you thought my former marriage, about which you are
inaccurate anyway, has anything to do with the funeral and the wedding of
people who are no relation of mine! But I do think that you have been
around here long enough to know the depth of ignorance there is on such
matters *and* how it triggers off the lunatic fringe. It was a totally
unnecessary piece of meddling.

[Q]

Post by sparkysfun2004
Hi Elizabeth,
I totally agree with you about Charles and his way of thinking. World
leaders, Catholic or otherwise, will be at the pope's funeral to pay
respect to a good human being.
Charles is the most selfish, self-centered and immature man. As the
future King, he should have had the common sense to immediately
reschedule his wedding. The only concern of his is finally getting
married to Camilla. With Fate intervening with one reason or another,
perhaps Charles should step back and think that he is perhaps being
given warning signals about this marriage...

Are you seriously suggesting that the Pope's death is a bad omen for
Charles?

Post by sparkysfun2004
Diana's boys

They're Charles's boys too. -- Q

Post by sparkysfun2004
have so much
more common sense on how to handle situations ( i.e. Klosters) that
their father even will.
Sparky

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by e***@att.net
It's sad that it took Blair, the Archbishop, and God knows who else, to
tell CH that they would be in Rome before CH took the decision to move
the wedding. And ...........

(internal section snipped.....)

Elizabeth, I also find it interesting and sad that the announcements
from CH that the wedding was to be postponed began with "As a mark of
respect..."

I can think of few individuals who have chosen to act with such an
utter lack of respect for the tenents of their own faith, let alone
that of another related faith, than the POW and CPB. And I can think
of few greater disrespects to any religion than to parade one's
mistress at a solemn event of mourning.

Just seeing the photos of CPB grinning and smoking outide of the
memorial service at Westminster was enough to make one question the
existence of any sense of decency at all. She might be his intended,
but she is yet his mistress.

So yes, I agree - it took the realization that his reception was going
to be sparsely attended to induce the POW to finally do the "right"
thing. Not matter how much the worshippers here of Camilla, Patron
Saint of the Old Broad, might want to argue otherwise, you have
appropriately pointed out that CH stated without equivocation that the
wedding would proceed - not "subject to" any hypothetical, but that the
circus would go on - right up until the guests lists began to be
announced for the Papal funeral. Then and only then did it appear that
the POW "got" it that state-level guests had a greater obligation than
to attend the feasting following the marriage of an old bawd to the man
who cuckolded her husband.
---------------
On a related vein, but off direct topic, the NYT had an article about
CPB in their Fashion section, kind of a sigh of "perhaps she's getting
it, but it's still a Sloaney pony." The photo of her inspired my
husband to ponder, saying "Well. I see that she gives a certain
demographic some hope in the world."

I'm guessing that demographic to be her largest (no pun intended, but
take it if you like) supporters.

[e***@att.net]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Elizabeth, I also find it interesting and sad that the announcements
from CH that the wedding was to be postponed began with "As a mark of
respect..."
I can think of few individuals who have chosen to act with such an
utter lack of respect for the tenents of their own faith, let alone
that of another related faith, than the POW and CPB. And I can think
of few greater disrespects to any religion than to parade one's
mistress at a solemn event of mourning.
Just seeing the photos of CPB grinning and smoking outide of the
memorial service at Westminster was enough to make one question the
existence of any sense of decency at all. She might be his intended,
but she is yet his mistress.
So yes, I agree - it took the realization that his reception was going
to be sparsely attended to induce the POW to finally do the "right"
thing. Not matter how much the worshippers here of Camilla, Patron
Saint of the Old Broad, might want to argue otherwise, you have
appropriately pointed out that CH stated without equivocation that the
wedding would proceed - not "subject to" any hypothetical, but that the
circus would go on - right up until the guests lists began to be
announced for the Papal funeral.

I completely agree with you. :-) The facts, the timing of the
announcment re: the rescheduling yesterday at 2:00 in the afternoon,
(several hours after the Vatican announced the day of the funeral), AND
after, (acc. to the Daily Mail), they continued to insist the wedding
would go forward as scheduled even following the Vatican's
announcement,... it all adds up that they changed the date b/c they had
to. Rowan Williams was not to be there. Tony Blair was not to be there.
The Queen probably finally had to tell Charles "You won't be there
either. You will be in Rome with everyone else." And this crap about
Archbishop Williams wanting to wait and see if the Vatican "approved
his attendance at the funeral" is LAUGHABLE ON ITS FACE. The Vatican
sent out invitations to people for the Pope's funeral months ago. I
have seen no less than three people interviewed who said they were
informed by the Vatican last year that their presence was requested at
the funeral for the Holy Father whenever the time should arise. The
way Sacha and her posse writes about it, you would think that
Archbishop Williams only received his invitation to attend this
morning. But they are desperate to justify the actions and decisions of
CH. Do not confuse them with the facts.

[Jean Sue Libkind]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Elizabeth, I also find it interesting and sad that the announcements
from CH that the wedding was to be postponed began with "As a mark of
respect..."
I can think of few individuals who have chosen to act with such an
utter lack of respect for the tenents of their own faith, let alone
that of another related faith, than the POW and CPB. And I can think
of few greater disrespects to any religion than to parade one's
mistress at a solemn event of mourning.

How do the purported sins of some Anglicans reflect respect or lack
thereof on all Anglicans?

js