Prince Charles Wants "Multi-Faith" Coronation Service

[Sound of Trumpet]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts


Charles wants multi-faith coronation service

Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2006 | Daily Mail


Posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:14 PM PDT by Eurotwit


Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

The Prince is said to have decided that the Christian service in
Westminster Abbey must be followed by a separate ceremony involving
religious leaders from other faiths.

Held in the ancient Westminster Hall inside the Palace of Westminster,
the service would attempt to give room to Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and
Sikh beliefs as well as other Christian denominations.

Prince Charles believes reforms to the coronation are vital to reflect
the changes in British society that have taken place since the Queen
was crowned in 1953, according to a report in this week's Spectator
magazine.

It also claims he has been appalled by the string of politicians
"sounding off" about multiculturalism, in particular the wearing of the
veil by Muslim women.

Clarence House refused to comment on the claims.

It has always declined to discuss Prince Charles's coronation plans
while the Queen is alive.

However, a senior source told the Daily Mail that the accession plans
had been reviewed last year, though he insisted this was "routine."

The prince, who will become Supreme Governor of the Church of England
when he becomes king, has already said that he wants to be Defender of
Faith - not Defender of the Faith - when he accedes to the throne.

He is close to Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who has
called for a multi-faith coronation.

That puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his successor, and with most
Anglican bishops, who oppose such a move.

The crowning of the sovereign has taken place for almost 1,000 years at
Westminster Abbey. The new king or queen takes the coronation oath
which includes a pledge to maintain the Church of England.

At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God
and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed
religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England."

The Spectator article quotes a courtier as saying the Queen recognises,
however, that she has no say over her son's coronation service.

"Her Majesty has carried out her duties to the letter throughout her
life and she knows that they extend to the very end of the final act,"
he says.

"She recognises, however, that she should not exert her influence one
second beyond the conclusion of her funeral. The coronation is a matter
solely for the PoW."

The report says Prince Charles is keen that his coronation should "bear
his imprimatur" and that it should be seen to mark the beginning of a
new era and a new kind of reign.

Although his mother permitted television cameras from the BBC into
Westminster Abbey to transmit live pictures of her coronation, they
were required to withdraw at certain points in the ceremony which she
felt to be too sacred.

But Prince Charles is said to believe that such deference is now
inappropriate.

He also wants the service truncated into a "less unwieldy' and more
'focused and telecentric" event, according to the report.

He also believes it should acknowledge the religious diversity of the
country that he will be ruling.

The report says that following the formal Christian ceremony in the
Abbey, the Prince wants here should be a separate interdenominational
ceremony in Westminster Hall to reflect his desire to represent the
peoples of all religions.

The separate gathering would be unlikely to take place immediately
after the formal Christian coronation, but at a later date.

While Labour politicians have attacked the failings of multiculturalism
in recent months, the idea of a separate coronation service to meet the
requirements of other faiths has recently been mooted by the
Evangelical Alliance, which represents a million evangelical Christians
in the UK.

"It is no secret that the PoW has long felt passionately about this
matter," the courtier added.

"His determination not to yield so much as an inch of this ground has
been strengthened a hundredfold by the events of recent weeks."

"It has dismayed him to see the people who will one day be his subjects
turn upon each other on the basis of their religious convictions." "As
sovereign, he will wish to demonstrate that he is apart from the
politicians who have been sounding off so much lately on, among other
things, the issue of veils and that he can set an example for the
entire country to follow."

[William Black]

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Clarence House refused to comment on the claims.
It has always declined to discuss Prince Charles's coronation plans
while the Queen is alive.
However, a senior source told the Daily Mail

That's journalese for 'we made it up'.


that the accession plans

Post by Sound of Trumpet
had been reviewed last year, though he insisted this was "routine."
He also believes it should acknowledge the religious diversity of the
country that he will be ruling.

Sounds reasonable to me so far.

[BAM]

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service

Excepting of course, the Catholic Church. "Enter Turk, Jew or Atheist; any
man except a Papist."

BAM

[Lucifer]

Post by BAM

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service

Excepting of course, the Catholic Church. "Enter Turk, Jew or Atheist; any
man except a Papist."
BAM

Well if you are representative of catholics, that's entirely
reasonable.

--

Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor

The Anti-Theist

"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"

[William Black]

Post by BAM

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service

Excepting of course, the Catholic Church. "Enter Turk, Jew or Atheist; any
man except a Papist."

No mention of excluding Catholics so far...

I imagine the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster will be sitting there
alongside the Chief Rabbi...

[BAM]

Post by William Black

Post by BAM

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service

Excepting of course, the Catholic Church. "Enter Turk, Jew or Atheist;
any man except a Papist."

No mention of excluding Catholics so far...
I imagine the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster will be sitting there
alongside the Chief Rabbi...

Of course a Catholic cannot take the throne of England - any atheist or
Moslem can though.

BAM

[William Black]

Post by BAM

Post by William Black

Post by BAM

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service

Excepting of course, the Catholic Church. "Enter Turk, Jew or Atheist;
any man except a Papist."

No mention of excluding Catholics so far...
I imagine the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster will be sitting there
alongside the Chief Rabbi...

Of course a Catholic cannot take the throne of England - any atheist or
Moslem can though.

In theory yes.

In practice there'd be a serious constitutional crisis as the monarch is the
head of the Church of England and appoints the bishops.

[Mark D J.]

Post by William Black

Post by BAM
Of course a Catholic cannot take the throne of England - any atheist or
Moslem can though.

In theory yes.
In practice there'd be a

... mysterious, fatal, Parisian car-crash...

M.

[Gary Holtzman]

Post by BAM
Of course a Catholic cannot take the throne of England - any atheist or
Moslem can though.

This is not correct. The monarch is required to be in communion with the Church
of England.

[Douglas Berry]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:49:32 +0100 "William Black"
<***@hotmail.co.uk> said the following in alt.atheism and I
was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...

Post by William Black

Post by BAM

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service

Excepting of course, the Catholic Church. "Enter Turk, Jew or Atheist; any
man except a Papist."

No mention of excluding Catholics so far...
I imagine the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster will be sitting there
alongside the Chief Rabbi...

Of course, in my opinion the best thing Charles could do at this point
is abdicate in favor of Prince William. Charles and his horse are the
dreary old Royals, stuffy, dodgy, and dull. William could
reinvigorate the monarchy as a young, vibrant King.

Next, we get Harry to follow in his uncle Andrew's footsteps, and
start screwing porn stars and being terribly dashing.

(Yes, Americans are utterly fascinated by the royal family. The
closest thing we have is the Kenndys.)
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[DarkAngel]

Post by Douglas Berry
Of course, in my opinion the best thing Charles could do at this point
is abdicate in favor of Prince William.

You seem to be under the delusion that power under monarchy is given
based on merit rather than a set of arcane, arbitrary and irrational
rules of birthright.

---
No Gods. No Masters.

[Sheila J]

what power? They are nothing more than a figurehead and for that reason,
they are useful....

Post by DarkAngel

Post by Douglas Berry
Of course, in my opinion the best thing Charles could do at this point
is abdicate in favor of Prince William.

You seem to be under the delusion that power under monarchy is given
based on merit rather than a set of arcane, arbitrary and irrational
rules of birthright.
---
No Gods. No Masters.

[Douglas Berry]

Post by DarkAngel

Post by Douglas Berry
Of course, in my opinion the best thing Charles could do at this point
is abdicate in favor of Prince William.

You seem to be under the delusion that power under monarchy is given
based on merit rather than a set of arcane, arbitrary and irrational
rules of birthright.

No, I am under no such delusion, which is why I suggest that Charles,
the Prince of Wales and 1st in line for the throne, abdicate in favor
of his eldest son for the good of the nation.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[Renia]

Post by DarkAngel

Post by Douglas Berry
Of course, in my opinion the best thing Charles could do at this point
is abdicate in favor of Prince William.

You seem to be under the delusion that power under monarchy is given
based on merit rather than a set of arcane, arbitrary and irrational
rules of birthright.

And you think Bush merits the power he has?

[Al Klein]

Post by Renia

Post by DarkAngel

Post by Douglas Berry
Of course, in my opinion the best thing Charles could do at this point
is abdicate in favor of Prince William.

You seem to be under the delusion that power under monarchy is given
based on merit rather than a set of arcane, arbitrary and irrational
rules of birthright.

And you think Bush merits the power he has?

Power he got through birthright.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

[CJ Buyers]

Post by DarkAngel

Post by Douglas Berry
Of course, in my opinion the best thing Charles could do at this point
is abdicate in favor of Prince William.

You seem to be under the delusion that power under monarchy is given
based on merit rather than a set of arcane, arbitrary and irrational
rules of birthright.

And in which particular society is power given based on merit? Did
George W Bush sit for exams when they "applied" for the job of
President?

[JPG]

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service
Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2006 | Daily Mail

If it's in the newpapers, especially the Daily Wail, it must be true.

I wouldn't be surprised knowing old Charlie boy, though. No bigger
waste of space has disgraced the Royal Family since George III lost us
the American colonies.

I am rapidly turning into a republican (with a small 'r') as well as an
atheist.

Unusually, I must thank old Trumpet-who-never-replies (real name Ray
Ambrosini) for this gem.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

In article <***@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Sound of
Trumpet says...

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service
Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2006 | Daily Mail
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:14 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How will the Moslem clerics participate when it is specifically against their
religious teachings to join in the religious ceremonies of another faith? Since
they are presently quite bitterly divided among Shiites, Sunnis, Ishmaelis and
Alawites, would these different strands all be represented?

What constitutes a religious belief system? There are apparently more praticing
Druids than Jews in the UK; will the Druids be invited? And will representation
of the Jews be by the Chief Rabbi? In which case, why should the Reform and
Liberal Jewish communities not have their own rep? Or the Hasidim?

And what about atheists, can they invite Prof Dawkins to represent them? Or
Scientologists - how about Tom Cruise coming along? Will the Mormons be coming?
Where exactly can the line be drawn between what might be defined as or
considered acceptable as a legitimate religion or belief system and what not?

And what about schismatic groups of the major Christian churches? Will the
Lefebvrists be sending along a Bishop? Or the Old Catholics? Or the Anglicans
who have struck out on their own in protest at women priests?

How about the Sikhs, who will represent them? or Buddhists? or the Moonies? or
Shintoists? Or Animists? Why not witches?

I can forsee mass protests by those whose particular groups are not invited and
battles between different factions of the same religions.

Surely it is best to let things remain exactly as they are and simply invite to
Westminster Abbey such eminent citizens as may be found drawn from each of those
groups that can muster more than 0.5 % of the population. They could then be
chosen in numbers relating directly to the numbers of their co-religionists,
with someone insuring that major ethnic groups within each religious group are
properly represented. With a total of perhaps 5% of the population subscribing
to some faith other than Christianity or Atheism, some 100 or so out of the 2000
in the congregation could be from these minorities. If any of the invited
worthies have some scruples about participating in a Church of England service,
then they can decline and have the community send someone in their place.

The idea that the participation of eminent Moslems in any fashion is somehow
going to change the views or behaviour of disaffected Moslem youth, or give them
any greater sense of belonging than they have at present, is in any case a
foolish fantasy.

Perhaps the future king should instead consider dropping the title Defender of
the Faith, since it was given by a grateful Pope to a King who subsequently
proved himself singularly unworthy of the title, and not worry about this any
more.

[Turenne]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Trumpet says...

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service
Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2006 | Daily Mail
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:14 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How will the Moslem clerics participate when it is specifically against their
religious teachings to join in the religious ceremonies of another faith? Since
they are presently quite bitterly divided among Shiites, Sunnis, Ishmaelis and
Alawites, would these different strands all be represented?
What constitutes a religious belief system? There are apparently more praticing
Druids than Jews in the UK; will the Druids be invited? And will representation
of the Jews be by the Chief Rabbi? In which case, why should the Reform and
Liberal Jewish communities not have their own rep? Or the Hasidim?
And what about atheists, can they invite Prof Dawkins to represent them? Or
Scientologists - how about Tom Cruise coming along? Will the Mormons be coming?
Where exactly can the line be drawn between what might be defined as or
considered acceptable as a legitimate religion or belief system and what not?
And what about schismatic groups of the major Christian churches? Will the
Lefebvrists be sending along a Bishop? Or the Old Catholics? Or the Anglicans
who have struck out on their own in protest at women priests?
How about the Sikhs, who will represent them? or Buddhists? or the Moonies? or
Shintoists? Or Animists? Why not witches?
I can forsee mass protests by those whose particular groups are not invited and
battles between different factions of the same religions.
Surely it is best to let things remain exactly as they are and simply invite to
Westminster Abbey such eminent citizens as may be found drawn from each of those
groups that can muster more than 0.5 % of the population. They could then be
chosen in numbers relating directly to the numbers of their co-religionists,
with someone insuring that major ethnic groups within each religious group are
properly represented. With a total of perhaps 5% of the population subscribing
to some faith other than Christianity or Atheism, some 100 or so out of the 2000
in the congregation could be from these minorities. If any of the invited
worthies have some scruples about participating in a Church of England service,
then they can decline and have the community send someone in their place.
The idea that the participation of eminent Moslems in any fashion is somehow
going to change the views or behaviour of disaffected Moslem youth, or give them
any greater sense of belonging than they have at present, is in any case a
foolish fantasy.
Perhaps the future king should instead consider dropping the title Defender of
the Faith, since it was given by a grateful Pope to a King who subsequently
proved himself singularly unworthy of the title, and not worry about this any
more.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm

Of course Guy you are absolutely right, it's going to be an almighty
(if you'll forgive the pun) cock up. It has long been mooted in the UK
that Prince Charles wishes to be 'The Defender of Faiths' as opposed to
'The Defender of the Faith'. Not for the first time has he completely
misread the feelings of the people, and in an attempt to please/appease
a small minority will only succeed in infuriating the rest. His
arrogance is absolutely breathtaking.

Richard Lichten

[William Black]

Post by Turenne
in an attempt to please/appease
a small minority will only succeed in infuriating the rest. His
arrogance is absolutely breathtaking.

I don't have a problem with any of it.

Love the use of the word 'appease' here. Very clever...

Wrong of course, but very clever...

[Guy Stair Sainty]

In article <***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Turenne
says...

Post by Turenne
His
arrogance is absolutely breathtaking.

I do not think this is fair; he actually genuinely believes in reconciliation
and his motives are good, if misguided. I do not think this thinking reflects
arrogance. Nonetheless, it is equally clear that this proposal has been thought
through only very superficially.

[William Black]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
says...

Post by Turenne
His
arrogance is absolutely breathtaking.

I do not think this is fair; he actually genuinely believes in
reconciliation
and his motives are good, if misguided. I do not think this thinking reflects
arrogance. Nonetheless, it is equally clear that this proposal has been thought
through only very superficially.

That's a hell of a conclusion based on a Daily mail story.

I wouldn't put any faith in their accuracy at all.

This has actually been talked about for almost a decade now. I imagine that
it's just the Daily Mail trying to frighten its readership once again and
that plans for Prince Charles's coronation are finalised.

If they're not then it's a scandal, the queen is over eighty...

All the arrangements should laid out and set in stone by now so that when
she does die the whole process 'runs on rails' from start to finish.

I'd be prepared to be that some of the larger government agencies and
municipalities have already got the seating plans for their celebration
dinner laid out.

The coronation of the current Prince of Wales is going to be the best chance
for a country wide party that we've had for decades.

[Martin]

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service
Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2006 | Daily Mail
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:14 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.
The Prince is said to have decided that the Christian service in
Westminster Abbey must be followed by a separate ceremony involving
religious leaders from other faiths.
Held in the ancient Westminster Hall inside the Palace of Westminster,
the service would attempt to give room to Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and
Sikh beliefs as well as other Christian denominations.
Prince Charles believes reforms to the coronation are vital to reflect
the changes in British society that have taken place since the Queen
was crowned in 1953, according to a report in this week's Spectator
magazine.
It also claims he has been appalled by the string of politicians
"sounding off" about multiculturalism, in particular the wearing of the
veil by Muslim women.

British brides have been wearing them for centuries, with no complaints I am
aware of.
Even so, it says little for Muslim attitudes to men, as it looks as though they
are so untrustworthy and lacking in self-control, no woman is safe unless she is
covered from head to toe...

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Clarence House refused to comment on the claims.
It has always declined to discuss Prince Charles's coronation plans
while the Queen is alive.
However, a senior source told the Daily Mail that the accession plans
had been reviewed last year, though he insisted this was "routine."
The prince, who will become Supreme Governor of the Church of England
when he becomes king, has already said that he wants to be Defender of
Faith - not Defender of the Faith - when he accedes to the throne.
He is close to Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who has
called for a multi-faith coronation.
That puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his successor, and with most
Anglican bishops, who oppose such a move.
The crowning of the sovereign has taken place for almost 1,000 years at
Westminster Abbey. The new king or queen takes the coronation oath
which includes a pledge to maintain the Church of England.
At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God
and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed
religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England."
The Spectator article quotes a courtier as saying the Queen recognises,
however, that she has no say over her son's coronation service.
"Her Majesty has carried out her duties to the letter throughout her
life and she knows that they extend to the very end of the final act,"
he says.
"She recognises, however, that she should not exert her influence one
second beyond the conclusion of her funeral. The coronation is a matter
solely for the PoW."
The report says Prince Charles is keen that his coronation should "bear
his imprimatur" and that it should be seen to mark the beginning of a
new era and a new kind of reign.
Although his mother permitted television cameras from the BBC into
Westminster Abbey to transmit live pictures of her coronation, they
were required to withdraw at certain points in the ceremony which she
felt to be too sacred.
But Prince Charles is said to believe that such deference is now
inappropriate.
He also wants the service truncated into a "less unwieldy' and more
'focused and telecentric" event, according to the report.
He also believes it should acknowledge the religious diversity of the
country that he will be ruling.

Excellent idea. In fact, we could have a rolling series of text messages during
the ceremony, to see what the public think of it.

Even better, a massive phone poll could be arranged so the public can decide who
they want to be crowned, and in what fashion - how much more fair, democratic
and modern.
I'm in favour of cutting out religion altogether. Let's face it, there's sod all
to 'protect' or 'defend' anyway these days... far more important to defend the
rights of motorists I reckon!

A slimmed down, streamlined ceremony would please the public no end, as most of
us have little patience these days, find droning clergymen (of any faith) a
dismal bore, and want to get on with the celebrating ASAP.

Post by Sound of Trumpet
The report says that following the formal Christian ceremony in the
Abbey, the Prince wants here should be a separate interdenominational
ceremony in Westminster Hall to reflect his desire to represent the
peoples of all religions.
The separate gathering would be unlikely to take place immediately
after the formal Christian coronation, but at a later date.

Absolutely not! More time wasting... and there will be arguments about whose
religion got the most time, whose service came first etc.... disastrous! ... .

Post by Sound of Trumpet
While Labour politicians have attacked the failings of multiculturalism
in recent months, the idea of a separate coronation service to meet the
requirements of other faiths has recently been mooted by the
Evangelical Alliance, which represents a million evangelical Christians
in the UK.
"It is no secret that the PoW has long felt passionately about this
matter," the courtier added.
"His determination not to yield so much as an inch of this ground has
been strengthened a hundredfold by the events of recent weeks."
"It has dismayed him to see the people who will one day be his subjects
turn upon each other on the basis of their religious convictions." "As
sovereign, he will wish to demonstrate that he is apart from the
politicians who have been sounding off so much lately on, among other
things, the issue of veils and that he can set an example for the
entire country to follow."

That's the trouble with religion....

[William Black]

Post by Martin

Post by Sound of Trumpet
The separate gathering would be unlikely to take place immediately
after the formal Christian coronation, but at a later date.

Absolutely not! More time wasting... and there will be arguments about whose
religion got the most time, whose service came first etc.... disastrous! ... .

You missed it mate.

Two parties...

[Pastor Kutchie]

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service
Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2006 | Daily Mail
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:14 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.
The Prince is said to have decided that the Christian service in
Westminster Abbey must be followed by a separate ceremony involving
religious leaders from other faiths.

OK, Charlie. If all sectors of the community are to be represented, I
hereby volunteer to represent Britain's 24 million atheists annd 22
million agnostics.

[William Black]

Post by Pastor Kutchie
OK, Charlie. If all sectors of the community are to be represented, I
hereby volunteer to represent Britain's 24 million atheists annd 22
million agnostics.

Oh come on.

The Secular Society are already getting a spot on Radio 4's 'The Today
Programme' now and again.

They'll be bound to be there.

Complete with grey suit and superior smirk...

[Turenne]

Post by William Black

Post by Pastor Kutchie
OK, Charlie. If all sectors of the community are to be represented, I
hereby volunteer to represent Britain's 24 million atheists annd 22
million agnostics.

Oh come on.
The Secular Society are already getting a spot on Radio 4's 'The Today
Programme' now and again.
They'll be bound to be there.
Complete with grey suit and superior smirk...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

The Queen managed to swear to the following in 1953 without too much
soul searching, I wonder whether the same or a similar passage will be
heard when Charles is crowned king:-

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of
God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of
your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed
Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably
the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to
the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and
privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

Richard Lichten

[Verminator]

Post by Turenne
The Queen managed to swear to the following in 1953 without too much
soul searching, I wonder whether the same or a similar passage will be
heard when Charles is crowned king:-
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of
God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of
your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed
Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably
the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to
the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and
privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.

It is to be hoped that before the death of the present monarch that
Parliament will pass an Act disestablishing the Church of England that
shall become effective upon the present monarch's death.

Then this question should be stricken from the coronation service. Said
service should become a completely secular one and the monarch crowned
by the Prime Minister which would symbolize that the monarch reigns at
the pleasure of the people as expressed through an Act of Parliament.

The most senior cleric of each organized religion of each country of
which the monarch is head of state should be added to those
representitive Peers that swear homage to the monarch.

[William Black]

Post by Verminator
It is to be hoped that before the death of the present monarch that
Parliament will pass an Act disestablishing the Church of England that
shall become effective upon the present monarch's death.

Why?

Post by Verminator
The most senior cleric of each organized religion of each country of
which the monarch is head of state should be added to those
representitive Peers that swear homage to the monarch.

That should be entertaining.

I notice everyone is desperately avoiding talking about the Hindu community,
which is as big as the Muslim community in the UK.

They are ok with Jerws and Moslems, 'people of the book' and all that,
Sikhs are ok, they look so impressive in those turbans and mustaches that
nobody actually asks what they actually believe in, but Hindus are
undoubtedly pagan with a multiplicity of entertaining gods and spectacular
and, in the UK, popular festivals.

If the Hindus could be bothered with evangelism they could clean up here,
they've got everything going for them.

[Lucifer]

Post by William Black

Post by Verminator
It is to be hoped that before the death of the present monarch that
Parliament will pass an Act disestablishing the Church of England that
shall become effective upon the present monarch's death.

Why?

Post by Verminator
The most senior cleric of each organized religion of each country of
which the monarch is head of state should be added to those
representitive Peers that swear homage to the monarch.

That should be entertaining.
I notice everyone is desperately avoiding talking about the Hindu community,
which is as big as the Muslim community in the UK.
They are ok with Jerws and Moslems, 'people of the book' and all that,
Sikhs are ok, they look so impressive in those turbans and mustaches that
nobody actually asks what they actually believe in, but Hindus are
undoubtedly pagan with a multiplicity of entertaining gods and spectacular
and, in the UK, popular festivals.
If the Hindus could be bothered with evangelism they could clean up here,
they've got everything going for them.

A caste system? I doubt it...

--

Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor

The Anti-Theist

"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"

Post by William Black
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Lucifer]

Post by William Black

Post by Verminator
It is to be hoped that before the death of the present monarch that
Parliament will pass an Act disestablishing the Church of England that
shall become effective upon the present monarch's death.

Why?

Post by Verminator
The most senior cleric of each organized religion of each country of
which the monarch is head of state should be added to those
representitive Peers that swear homage to the monarch.

That should be entertaining.
I notice everyone is desperately avoiding talking about the Hindu community,
which is as big as the Muslim community in the UK.
They are ok with Jerws and Moslems, 'people of the book' and all that,
Sikhs are ok, they look so impressive in those turbans and mustaches that
nobody actually asks what they actually believe in, but Hindus are
undoubtedly pagan with a multiplicity of entertaining gods and spectacular
and, in the UK, popular festivals.
If the Hindus could be bothered with evangelism they could clean up here,
they've got everything going for them.

A caste system? I doubt it...

--

Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor

The Anti-Theist

"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"

Post by William Black
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black]

Post by Lucifer

Post by William Black

Post by Verminator
It is to be hoped that before the death of the present monarch that
Parliament will pass an Act disestablishing the Church of England that
shall become effective upon the present monarch's death.

Why?

Post by Verminator
The most senior cleric of each organized religion of each country of
which the monarch is head of state should be added to those
representitive Peers that swear homage to the monarch.

That should be entertaining.
I notice everyone is desperately avoiding talking about the Hindu community,
which is as big as the Muslim community in the UK.
They are ok with Jerws and Moslems, 'people of the book' and all that,
Sikhs are ok, they look so impressive in those turbans and mustaches that
nobody actually asks what they actually believe in, but Hindus are
undoubtedly pagan with a multiplicity of entertaining gods and spectacular
and, in the UK, popular festivals.
If the Hindus could be bothered with evangelism they could clean up here,
they've got everything going for them.

A caste system? I doubt it...

The caste system in India seems to run across religious boundries with Sikhs
and Christians and Muslims all having a caste.

It's obviously not as important to them as to the Hindu community but it IS
there.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Black's wife is probably Hindu.

DSH

Post by William Black
I notice everyone is desperately avoiding talking about the Hindu
community, which is as big as the Muslim community in the UK.
They are ok with Jerws [sic] and Moslems, 'people of the book' and all
that, Sikhs are ok, they look so impressive in those turbans and
mustaches that nobody actually asks what they actually believe in, but
Hindus are undoubtedly pagan with a multiplicity of entertaining gods and
spectacular and, in the UK, popular festivals.
If the Hindus could be bothered with evangelism they could clean up here,
they've got everything going for them.

[CJ Buyers]

Post by Verminator

Post by Turenne
The Queen managed to swear to the following in 1953 without too much
soul searching, I wonder whether the same or a similar passage will be
heard when Charles is crowned king:-
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of
God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of
your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed
Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably
the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to
the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and
privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.

It is to be hoped that before the death of the present monarch that
Parliament will pass an Act disestablishing the Church of England that
shall become effective upon the present monarch's death.

Will that be done by a Scot, son of the manse, with Scots MPs?

I wonder.

[Lucifer]

Post by William Black

Post by Pastor Kutchie
OK, Charlie. If all sectors of the community are to be represented, I
hereby volunteer to represent Britain's 24 million atheists annd 22
million agnostics.

Oh come on.
The Secular Society are already getting a spot on Radio 4's 'The Today
Programme' now and again.
They'll be bound to be there.
Complete with grey suit and superior smirk...

Grey suit?
More like duchesse satin shirt taken in to a 27" waist, skingtight
black leather trousers and cloak there dearheart.

--

Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor

The Anti-Theist

"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"

Post by William Black
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Douglas Berry]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:37:40 +0100 "William Black"
<***@hotmail.co.uk> said the following in alt.atheism and I
was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...

Post by William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[Bryn]

Post by Pastor Kutchie

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service
Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2006 | Daily Mail
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:14 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.
The Prince is said to have decided that the Christian service in
Westminster Abbey must be followed by a separate ceremony involving
religious leaders from other faiths.

OK, Charlie. If all sectors of the community are to be represented, I
hereby volunteer to represent Britain's 24 million atheists annd 22
million agnostics.

Don't forget the Jedi...

[Pastor Kutchie]

Post by Bryn

Post by Pastor Kutchie

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service
Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2006 | Daily Mail
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:14 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.
The Prince is said to have decided that the Christian service in
Westminster Abbey must be followed by a separate ceremony involving
religious leaders from other faiths.

OK, Charlie. If all sectors of the community are to be represented, I
hereby volunteer to represent Britain's 24 million atheists annd 22
million agnostics.

Don't forget the Jedi...

Course, of not.

[Turenne]

Post by Pastor Kutchie

Post by Bryn

Post by Pastor Kutchie

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726079/posts
Charles wants multi-faith coronation service
Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2006 | Daily Mail
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:14 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.
The Prince is said to have decided that the Christian service in
Westminster Abbey must be followed by a separate ceremony involving
religious leaders from other faiths.

OK, Charlie. If all sectors of the community are to be represented, I
hereby volunteer to represent Britain's 24 million atheists annd 22
million agnostics.

Don't forget the Jedi...

Course, of not.

I think that if the rumours are true, and I believe they are, that
Charles, not for the first time hasn't thought matters out properly.
Everyone is going to want to be represented - including Jedi's,
Atheists, Seventh Day Adventists and all the rest. One of the
advantages of an Established Church is that it is just
that..Established...and people of whatever denomination accept that.
This is just stirring up a hornets' nest for no reason whatsoever.Apart
from the fact that he is already unpopular, this will be the worst
start possible for the reign of Charles III (or whatever he decides to
call himself).

Richard Lichten

[raven1]

On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?
--

"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"

[Douglas Berry]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:25:21 -0400 raven1
<***@nevermore.com> said the following in alt.atheism and I
was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...

Post by raven1
On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?

Why? It's a great tradition, provides England some visibility, and I
like Constitutional Monarchies.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[William Black]

Post by raven1
On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?

I used to think that.

Then someone whispered two little words in my ear...

"President Thatcher"...

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by raven1
On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?

I used to think that.
Then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
"President Thatcher"...

Or even "President Blair" or, my God, "President Brown".

[William Black]

Post by Renia

Post by William Black

Post by raven1
On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?

I used to think that.
Then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
"President Thatcher"...

Or even "President Blair" or, my God, "President Brown".

Now you're getting the idea.

Think of who'd be elected as a non-executive president...

It makes Jug Lugs and his ghastly brood almost acceptable.

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by William Black

Post by raven1
On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?

I used to think that.
Then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
"President Thatcher"...

Or even "President Blair" or, my God, "President Brown".

Now you're getting the idea.
Think of who'd be elected as a non-executive president...

Vice-President Prescott.

Post by William Black
It makes Jug Lugs and his ghastly brood almost acceptable.

Well, at least you know what you are getting, they do contribute to the
tourism industry and they don't actually interfere with the political
process. She is a president who doesn't get involved, with a Prime
Minister who can be dumped as soon as he's past his sell-by-date. A much
better system.

[William Black]

"Renia" <***@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message news:ehst0n$t7f$***@mouse.otenet.gr...

know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.

Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government

In fact if we got rid of them and they went to live in one of their myriad
of country houses we'd make a shed load more cash opening the private
apartments of the Royal Palaces and giving people access to the private
gardens.

Imagine what someone would pay for a private wedding at Buckingham Palace
and a reception in the garden at the back...

[Sheila J]

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government
In fact if we got rid of them and they went to live in one of their myriad
of country houses we'd make a shed load more cash opening the private
apartments of the Royal Palaces and giving people access to the private
gardens.
Imagine what someone would pay for a private wedding at Buckingham Palace
and a reception in the garden at the back...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

I don't know about that....I think some of us colonialist still come for the
Queen...I wouldn't stand her up for tea...

[William Black]

Post by Sheila J

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government
In fact if we got rid of them and they went to live in one of their
myriad of country houses we'd make a shed load more cash opening the
private apartments of the Royal Palaces and giving people access to the
private gardens.
Imagine what someone would pay for a private wedding at Buckingham Palace
and a reception in the garden at the back...

I don't know about that....I think some of us colonialist still come for
the Queen...I wouldn't stand her up for tea...

Has she asked?

I mean, you're an officer of field rank holding her commission, a
published author and so a reasonably significant figure in your country's
place in the world.

I'd have expected at least an invitation to a garden party...

[Sheila J]

So would I.... wonder what is holding her back....?

Post by William Black

Post by Sheila J

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government
In fact if we got rid of them and they went to live in one of their
myriad of country houses we'd make a shed load more cash opening the
private apartments of the Royal Palaces and giving people access to the
private gardens.
Imagine what someone would pay for a private wedding at Buckingham
Palace and a reception in the garden at the back...

I don't know about that....I think some of us colonialist still come for
the Queen...I wouldn't stand her up for tea...

Has she asked?
I mean, you're an officer of field rank holding her commission, a
published author and so a reasonably significant figure in your country's
place in the world.
I'd have expected at least an invitation to a garden party...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black]

Post by Sheila J
So would I.... wonder what is holding her back....?

Please do not top post.

In answer to your question...

There'll be a royal laison officer somewhere in your military heirarchy.
Let them know you're be interested in going to a 'Royal Garden Party'.

[Sheila J]

Post by William Black

Post by Sheila J

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government
In fact if we got rid of them and they went to live in one of their
myriad of country houses we'd make a shed load more cash opening the
private apartments of the Royal Palaces and giving people access to the
private gardens.
Imagine what someone would pay for a private wedding at Buckingham
Palace and a reception in the garden at the back...

I don't know about that....I think some of us colonialist still come for
the Queen...I wouldn't stand her up for tea...

Has she asked?
I mean, you're an officer of field rank holding her commission, a
published author and so a reasonably significant figure in your country's
place in the world.
I'd have expected at least an invitation to a garden party...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

I heard it is bad form to ask...you can even be denied for that reason...

[William Black]

Post by Sheila J

Post by William Black

Post by Sheila J
I don't know about that....I think some of us colonialist still come for
the Queen...I wouldn't stand her up for tea...

Has she asked?
I mean, you're an officer of field rank holding her commission, a
published author and so a reasonably significant figure in your country's
place in the world.
I'd have expected at least an invitation to a garden party...

I heard it is bad form to ask...you can even be denied for that reason...

So get your boss to ask, which is how it's usually done here...

[Sheila J]

Post by William Black

Post by Sheila J

Post by William Black

Post by Sheila J
I don't know about that....I think some of us colonialist still come
for the Queen...I wouldn't stand her up for tea...

Has she asked?
I mean, you're an officer of field rank holding her commission, a
published author and so a reasonably significant figure in your
country's place in the world.
I'd have expected at least an invitation to a garden party...

I heard it is bad form to ask...you can even be denied for that reason...

So get your boss to ask, which is how it's usually done here...
--
William Black

...yes, but then Prince William would see me...fall in love..and then, being
both Danish and Canadian, I would doom any chance he has at the crown....

Just couldn't do that to the poor kid! No, it's best I stay
away....(wouldn't want to break Andrew's heart either.....)

[William Black]

Post by Sheila J
...yes, but then Prince William would see me...fall in love..and then,
being both Danish and Canadian, I would doom any chance he has at the
crown....

Erm...

Why?

As long as you're not a Catholic...

[Sheila J]

Post by William Black

Post by Sheila J
...yes, but then Prince William would see me...fall in love..and then,
being both Danish and Canadian, I would doom any chance he has at the
crown....

Erm...
Why?
As long as you're not a Catholic...

...I just don't see the fact that I'm married with 4 children going over too
well with the British public........

[William Black]

Post by Sheila J

Post by William Black

Post by Sheila J
...yes, but then Prince William would see me...fall in love..and then,
being both Danish and Canadian, I would doom any chance he has at the
crown....

Erm...
Why?
As long as you're not a Catholic...

...I just don't see the fact that I'm married with 4 children going over
too well with the British public........

We're very open minded these days.

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by Sheila J

Post by William Black

Post by Sheila J
I don't know about that....I think some of us colonialist still come
for the Queen...I wouldn't stand her up for tea...

Has she asked?
I mean, you're an officer of field rank holding her commission, a
published author and so a reasonably significant figure in your
country's place in the world.
I'd have expected at least an invitation to a garden party...

I heard it is bad form to ask...you can even be denied for that reason...

So get your boss to ask, which is how it's usually done here...
--
William Black

....yes, but then Prince William would see me...fall in love..and then, being
both Danish and Canadian, I would doom any chance he has at the crown....

What's wrong with being Danish? His grandad's Danish even though he
thoughtfully had himself born in Corfu.

[Renia]

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

Post by Renia
In fact if we got rid of them and they went to live in one of their myriad
of country houses we'd make a shed load more cash opening the private
apartments of the Royal Palaces and giving people access to the private
gardens.

Many of them are open. If you opened every room in every palace, it
would probably take 3 years to see round it all. Like most stately
homes, only the most interesting or relevant need open.

Post by Renia
Imagine what someone would pay for a private wedding at Buckingham Palace
and a reception in the garden at the back...

Yeah, but only if her queenliness was still a permanent resident.
Otherwise, it's just another big country house (in the city).

[William Black]

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

Nope.

They may come to see some of her many houses, but they don't care if she's
about or not.

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
In fact if we got rid of them and they went to live in one of their
myriad of country houses we'd make a shed load more cash opening the
private apartments of the Royal Palaces and giving people access to the
private gardens.

Many of them are open.

Nope.

Buckingham Palace was only opened to raise cash for the rebuilding of Winsor
castle.

Most of the art is stashed away in places where people like me aren't
allowed.

If you opened every room in every palace, it

Post by Renia
would probably take 3 years to see round it all. Like most stately homes,
only the most interesting or relevant need open.

Rubbish.

Going by the stately home owners I've met over the years, and it's more
than a few, they open as little as they can get away with. The major
exception to this being Castle Howard. Mainly because the guy who was head
of the family for many years was stark bonkers and couldn't be allowed into
the place because he'd break it.

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
Imagine what someone would pay for a private wedding at Buckingham Palace
and a reception in the garden at the back...

Yeah, but only if her queenliness was still a permanent resident.
Otherwise, it's just another big country house (in the city).

Oh rubbish, and what's more you know it.

Stop trying to pretend that an old lady and her incredibly disfunctional
family in any way enhance the places where they live and the contents
thereof.

They haven't even, despite their obscene wealth, managed to add to the art
collections in any significant way.

The Buckingham Palace back garden would be a pefect site for corporate
garden parties.

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

Nope.
They may come to see some of her many houses, but they don't care if she's
about or not.

I think it's the idea that she MIGHT be, or they MIGHT catch a glimpse
of her. For the many who don't realistically think they will see her, I
think they like to see where a queen now lives. I was in St Petersburg,
recently, and they are selling their old royal houses to tourists like
there is no tomorrow. And they are worth seeing. People like to know how
the other half lives, or how the upper 10 has or have lived.

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
In fact if we got rid of them and they went to live in one of their
myriad of country houses we'd make a shed load more cash opening the
private apartments of the Royal Palaces and giving people access to the
private gardens.

Many of them are open.

Nope.

Parts of Holyrood, Sandringham and Buckingham Palace are open. Why
should ALL the rooms be open.

Post by William Black
Buckingham Palace was only opened to raise cash for the rebuilding of Winsor
castle.

Doesn't matter why. It's still open. And if you're complaing that it's
only a few rooms for only a short while, then think, it's someones house
and many other people's office complex.

Post by William Black
Most of the art is stashed away in places where people like me aren't
allowed.

Most of what any museum possesses is stashed away where you and I aren't
allowed. Why should the Queen's property be any different? Museums,
certainly, change their displays or the details of their displays all
the time.

Post by William Black
If you opened every room in every palace, it

Post by Renia
would probably take 3 years to see round it all. Like most stately homes,
only the most interesting or relevant need open.

Rubbish.

Not rubbish. People still live in them.

Post by William Black
Going by the stately home owners I've met over the years, and it's more
than a few, they open as little as they can get away with. The major
exception to this being Castle Howard. Mainly because the guy who was head
of the family for many years was stark bonkers and couldn't be allowed into
the place because he'd break it.

We have no divine right to poke around other people's houses. Stateley
home owners have been letting people round their houses for centuries to
make a few extra bob. It is up to them, not us, how far and for how long
they open up their homes to the general public.

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
Imagine what someone would pay for a private wedding at Buckingham Palace
and a reception in the garden at the back...

Yeah, but only if her queenliness was still a permanent resident.
Otherwise, it's just another big country house (in the city).

Oh rubbish, and what's more you know it.

Difference of opinion. You think it's rubbish. I don't. There's extra
romance and cache in marrying in a living queen's house. If she didn't
live there, well of course people would like their weddings there, but
in the same way they like weddings at the Brighton Pavilion - because a
royal used to live there.

Post by William Black
Stop trying to pretend that an old lady and her incredibly disfunctional
family in any way enhance the places where they live and the contents
thereof.

She's more than just an old lady, William, and you know it. She is the
only bit of stability left in Britain.

Post by William Black
They haven't even, despite their obscene wealth, managed to add to the art
collections in any significant way.

If you think back to the 18th century, William, you will remember they
gave much of their wealth away to the nation, in return for a mention in
the civil list. Think how wealthy they would be if they had kept it all.
The civil list pales in comparison.

Post by William Black
The Buckingham Palace back garden would be a pefect site for corporate
garden parties.

Well, of course it would be. And it is used for corporate garden
parties, but only by Royal Appointment.

[William Black]

Post by William Black
Nope.
They may come to see some of her many houses, but they don't care if
she's about or not.

I think it's the idea that she MIGHT be, or they MIGHT catch a glimpse of
her.

Don't be silly.

She isn't there to be seen, and what's more she knows it.

For the many who don't realistically think they will see her, I

think they like to see where a queen now lives. I was in St Petersburg,
recently, and they are selling their old royal houses to tourists like
there is no tomorrow. And they are worth seeing. People like to know how
the other half lives, or how the upper 10 has or have lived.

We don't need anyone to live in these places to see what living there was/is
like.

Nobody has lived in a czarist palace in Russia since about 1917.

Post by William Black
Nope.

Parts of Holyrood, Sandringham and Buckingham Palace are open. Why should
ALL the rooms be open.

Because I pay for them and I want to see where my money has gone.

Post by William Black
Buckingham Palace was only opened to raise cash for the rebuilding of
Winsor castle.

Doesn't matter why. It's still open. And if you're complaing that it's
only a few rooms for only a short while, then think, it's someones house
and many other people's office complex.

So what?

I pay for it and I want to see inside.

If people are allowed in some of the rooms then there's no reasonable reason
why people shouldn't be allowed in all the rooms.

Post by William Black
Most of the art is stashed away in places where people like me aren't
allowed.

Most of what any museum possesses is stashed away where you and I aren't
allowed.

But I can, and have, arranged to see stuff not on public display in
museums.

Why should the Queen's property be any different?

The queen does not maintain a study collection and certainly does not allow
access to legitimate scholars.

Not rubbish. People still live in them.

People still live in HM Tower.

All the rooms except a few private houses are open to the public.

Post by William Black
Going by the stately home owners I've met over the years, and it's more
than a few, they open as little as they can get away with. The major
exception to this being Castle Howard. Mainly because the guy who was
head of the family for many years was stark bonkers and couldn't be
allowed into the place because he'd break it.

We have no divine right to poke around other people's houses.

We have if we pay for them.

Post by William Black
Stop trying to pretend that an old lady and her incredibly disfunctional
family in any way enhance the places where they live and the contents
thereof.

She's more than just an old lady, William, and you know it. She is the
only bit of stability left in Britain.

She and her brood are a fair bit less stable than the most of the people I
know.

I have pairs of shoes that last longer than most royal mariages.

Post by William Black
They haven't even, despite their obscene wealth, managed to add to the
art collections in any significant way.

If you think back to the 18th century, William, you will remember they
gave much of their wealth away to the nation, in return for a mention in
the civil list. Think how wealthy they would be if they had kept it all.
The civil list pales in comparison.

They'd have had their heads on pikes about the time George IV became regent
if they hadn't, and they know it...

Post by William Black
The Buckingham Palace back garden would be a pefect site for corporate
garden parties.

Well, of course it would be. And it is used for corporate garden parties,
but only by Royal Appointment.

No.

Royal whim.

I don't want to abolish them. I want them to be as open in their dealings
with the people of this island as any other department of state.

What I don't like is the way they 'give' to the exchequer what they say is
owed in tax, but they don't let anyone see the books.

If I had my way the monarchy would be a Civil Service department, the
houses would be open to the public and the royal family would either work in
that department or go and get jobs, just like the rest of us.

The sight of this handful of rather dull people living in vast palaces and
spending vast amounts of public money on trying to hold together the
remnants of the lifestyle of a German prince of two hundred years ago is
more than a little ludicrous.

Nobody needs their copy of the newspaper ironing, what is more, nobody
needs to employ someone to iron it.

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Parts of Holyrood, Sandringham and Buckingham Palace are open. Why should
ALL the rooms be open.

Because I pay for them and I want to see where my money has gone.

Right. So you would like to wander around the offices of MI5 or
everywhere in the Palace of Westminster, because "you pay for them"?

[William Black]

Post by William Black

Parts of Holyrood, Sandringham and Buckingham Palace are open. Why should
ALL the rooms be open.

Because I pay for them and I want to see where my money has gone.

Right. So you would like to wander around the offices of MI5 or everywhere
in the Palace of Westminster, because "you pay for them"?

If some rooms are open then there's obviously no bar to opening all the
rooms on security grounds.

MI-5 and the other bits of the secret state have reasonable reasons for not
allowing me in.

She doesn't...

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by William Black

Parts of Holyrood, Sandringham and Buckingham Palace are open. Why should
ALL the rooms be open.

Because I pay for them and I want to see where my money has gone.

Right. So you would like to wander around the offices of MI5 or everywhere
in the Palace of Westminster, because "you pay for them"?

If some rooms are open then there's obviously no bar to opening all the
rooms on security grounds.
MI-5 and the other bits of the secret state have reasonable reasons for not
allowing me in.
She doesn't...

You don't see her residences/offices as government buildings
not-for-public-view?

Perhaps you should go and live in Russia where they disposed of their
monarchy and prance around in their palaces almost at will.

[William Black]

Post by Renia
Perhaps you should go and live in Russia

Not heard that one since the wall went down...

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by Renia
Perhaps you should go and live in Russia

Not heard that one since the wall went down...

Ah, but you know what I'm getting at. :-)

[William Black]

Post by Renia

Post by William Black

Post by Renia
Perhaps you should go and live in Russia

Not heard that one since the wall went down...

Ah, but you know what I'm getting at. :-)

Oh yes.

Once I read a copy of The Daily Mail right through.

But I recovered...

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by William Black

Post by Renia
Perhaps you should go and live in Russia

Not heard that one since the wall went down...

Ah, but you know what I'm getting at. :-)

Oh yes.
Once I read a copy of The Daily Mail right through.
But I recovered...

That's not what I mean, and you know it.

[William Black]

Post by Renia

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by William Black

Post by Renia
Perhaps you should go and live in Russia

Not heard that one since the wall went down...

Ah, but you know what I'm getting at. :-)

Oh yes.
Once I read a copy of The Daily Mail right through.
But I recovered...

That's not what I mean, and you know it.

I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone who gives a shit.

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by Renia
That's not what I mean, and you know it.

I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone who gives a shit.

I'm referring to something you once told me in a private email many
years ago.

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by William Black
Nope.
They may come to see some of her many houses, but they don't care if
she's about or not.

I think it's the idea that she MIGHT be, or they MIGHT catch a glimpse of
her.

Don't be silly.
She isn't there to be seen, and what's more she knows it.

She knows it, you know it and I know it. But there are tourists who just
hope they will be the lucky ones.

Post by William Black
For the many who don't realistically think they will see her, I

think they like to see where a queen now lives. I was in St Petersburg,
recently, and they are selling their old royal houses to tourists like
there is no tomorrow. And they are worth seeing. People like to know how
the other half lives, or how the upper 10 has or have lived.

We don't need anyone to live in these places to see what living there was/is
like.
Nobody has lived in a czarist palace in Russia since about 1917.

I know, but my point was that Royalty sells, even in post-communist Russia.

Post by William Black

Post by William Black
Nope.

Parts of Holyrood, Sandringham and Buckingham Palace are open. Why should
ALL the rooms be open.

Because I pay for them and I want to see where my money has gone.

Post by William Black
Buckingham Palace was only opened to raise cash for the rebuilding of
Winsor castle.

Doesn't matter why. It's still open. And if you're complaing that it's
only a few rooms for only a short while, then think, it's someones house
and many other people's office complex.

So what?
I pay for it and I want to see inside.
If people are allowed in some of the rooms then there's no reasonable reason
why people shouldn't be allowed in all the rooms.

Post by William Black
Most of the art is stashed away in places where people like me aren't
allowed.

Most of what any museum possesses is stashed away where you and I aren't
allowed.

But I can, and have, arranged to see stuff not on public display in
museums.

Why should the Queen's property be any different?

Because not all over her stuff is state-owned.

Post by William Black
The queen does not maintain a study collection and certainly does not allow
access to legitimate scholars.

Legitimate scholars can make requests for material in their archives. I
know I have. Otherwise, in special circumstances, some of the material
can be examined. Not all, I grant you, but would you let all and sundry
read through YOUR diaries?

Post by William Black

Not rubbish. People still live in them.

People still live in HM Tower.
All the rooms except a few private houses are open to the public.

Post by William Black
Going by the stately home owners I've met over the years, and it's more
than a few, they open as little as they can get away with. The major
exception to this being Castle Howard. Mainly because the guy who was
head of the family for many years was stark bonkers and couldn't be
allowed into the place because he'd break it.

We have no divine right to poke around other people's houses.

We have if we pay for them.

So you think we should be able to happily wander around the nation's
council houses at will?

[William Black]

Post by Renia

Post by William Black
But I can, and have, arranged to see stuff not on public display in
museums.

Post by Renia
Why should the Queen's property be any different?

Because not all over her stuff is state-owned.

I know.

The problem is that she doesn't seem to...

Post by Renia

Post by William Black
The queen does not maintain a study collection and certainly does not
allow access to legitimate scholars.

Legitimate scholars can make requests for material in their archives.

And can be denied on the whim of an apointed official not accountable to
antone but royalty.

Post by Renia

Post by William Black

Post by Renia
We have no divine right to poke around other people's houses.

We have if we pay for them.

So you think we should be able to happily wander around the nation's
council houses at will?

Stop being silly.

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by William Black
But I can, and have, arranged to see stuff not on public display in
museums.

Post by Renia
Why should the Queen's property be any different?

Because not all over her stuff is state-owned.

I know.
The problem is that she doesn't seem to...

Post by Renia

Post by William Black
The queen does not maintain a study collection and certainly does not
allow access to legitimate scholars.

Legitimate scholars can make requests for material in their archives.

And can be denied on the whim of an apointed official not accountable to
antone but royalty.

Post by Renia

Post by William Black

Post by Renia
We have no divine right to poke around other people's houses.

We have if we pay for them.

So you think we should be able to happily wander around the nation's
council houses at will?

Stop being silly.

What's silly about it? The Queen lives in a council house.

[William Black]

Post by Renia
What's silly about it? The Queen lives in a council house.

Nope.

Who do you think you're talking to?

Someone who doesn't know the difference.

Technically she lives in a 'grace and favour' house.

She pays no rent, has armed guards, she is not answerable to anyone if her
garden's in a mess.

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by Renia
What's silly about it? The Queen lives in a council house.

Nope.
Who do you think you're talking to?
Someone who doesn't know the difference.
Technically she lives in a 'grace and favour' house.
She pays no rent, has armed guards, she is not answerable to anyone if her
garden's in a mess.

It's still a state-owned house. And a state-owned house is generally
called a council house. A "grace-and-favour" house is still a
state-owned house. As a member of the government, she is entitled to
armed guards.

I don't know anyone from a council house who is answerable to anybody if
their garden's in a mess. Years ago, a friend of mine had prettified her
council house garden. Then the yobs set to and destroyed it, so she
never bothered again. But the council didn't complain.

[William Black]

Post by Renia

Post by William Black
She pays no rent, has armed guards, she is not answerable to anyone if
her garden's in a mess.

It's still a state-owned house. And a state-owned house is generally
called a council house.

Most 'council houses' these days are not owned by the state.

A "grace-and-favour" house is still a

Post by Renia
state-owned house.

You must learn to diferentiate between the state and 'the crown'.

Post by Renia
As a member of the government, she is entitled to armed guards.

She most certainly isn't.

Post by Renia
I don't know anyone from a council house who is answerable to anybody if
their garden's in a mess. Years ago, a friend of mine had prettified her
council house garden. Then the yobs set to and destroyed it, so she never
bothered again. But the council didn't complain.

The singular of proof is not 'anecdote'.

[CJ Buyers]

Post by Renia

Post by William Black

Post by William Black
Nope.
They may come to see some of her many houses, but they don't care if
she's about or not.

I think it's the idea that she MIGHT be, or they MIGHT catch a glimpse of
her.

Don't be silly.
She isn't there to be seen, and what's more she knows it.

She knows it, you know it and I know it. But there are tourists who just
hope they will be the lucky ones.

Post by William Black
For the many who don't realistically think they will see her, I

think they like to see where a queen now lives. I was in St Petersburg,
recently, and they are selling their old royal houses to tourists like
there is no tomorrow. And they are worth seeing. People like to know how
the other half lives, or how the upper 10 has or have lived.

We don't need anyone to live in these places to see what living there was/is
like.
Nobody has lived in a czarist palace in Russia since about 1917.

I know, but my point was that Royalty sells, even in post-communist Russia.

Post by William Black

Post by William Black
Nope.

Parts of Holyrood, Sandringham and Buckingham Palace are open. Why should
ALL the rooms be open.

Because I pay for them and I want to see where my money has gone.

Post by William Black
Buckingham Palace was only opened to raise cash for the rebuilding of
Winsor castle.

Doesn't matter why. It's still open. And if you're complaing that it's
only a few rooms for only a short while, then think, it's someones house
and many other people's office complex.

So what?
I pay for it and I want to see inside.
If people are allowed in some of the rooms then there's no reasonable reason
why people shouldn't be allowed in all the rooms.

Post by William Black
Most of the art is stashed away in places where people like me aren't
allowed.

Most of what any museum possesses is stashed away where you and I aren't
allowed.

But I can, and have, arranged to see stuff not on public display in
museums.

Why should the Queen's property be any different?

Because not all over her stuff is state-owned.

Post by William Black
The queen does not maintain a study collection and certainly does not allow
access to legitimate scholars.

Legitimate scholars can make requests for material in their archives. I
know I have. Otherwise, in special circumstances, some of the material
can be examined. Not all, I grant you, but would you let all and sundry
read through YOUR diaries?

Post by William Black

Not rubbish. People still live in them.

People still live in HM Tower.
All the rooms except a few private houses are open to the public.

Post by William Black
Going by the stately home owners I've met over the years, and it's more
than a few, they open as little as they can get away with. The major
exception to this being Castle Howard. Mainly because the guy who was
head of the family for many years was stark bonkers and couldn't be
allowed into the place because he'd break it.

We have no divine right to poke around other people's houses.

We have if we pay for them.

So you think we should be able to happily wander around the nation's
council houses at will?

Well if "we" are paying for the council houses lived in by our
governing masters the PM, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the
Speaker, the Home Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Northern
Ireland Secretary, etc, etc., etc., we should have a right to see them
too. The country piles on whose lawns they play croquet, and the town
palaces that they use to entertain their party officials, such as
Lancaster House, should be open to us too.

Are any of them open? Yes indeed, Lancater House is open to th public
for precisely one week-end per year.

[michael james]

Post by William Black

Post by William Black
Nope.
They may come to see some of her many houses, but they don't care if
she's about or not.

I think it's the idea that she MIGHT be, or they MIGHT catch a glimpse of
her.

Don't be silly.
She isn't there to be seen, and what's more she knows it.
For the many who don't realistically think they will see her, I

think they like to see where a queen now lives. I was in St Petersburg,
recently, and they are selling their old royal houses to tourists like
there is no tomorrow. And they are worth seeing. People like to know how
the other half lives, or how the upper 10 has or have lived.

We don't need anyone to live in these places to see what living there was/is
like.
Nobody has lived in a czarist palace in Russia since about 1917.

Post by William Black
Nope.

Parts of Holyrood, Sandringham and Buckingham Palace are open. Why should
ALL the rooms be open.

Because I pay for them and I want to see where my money has gone.

Post by William Black
Buckingham Palace was only opened to raise cash for the rebuilding of
Winsor castle.

Doesn't matter why. It's still open. And if you're complaing that it's
only a few rooms for only a short while, then think, it's someones house
and many other people's office complex.

So what?
I pay for it and I want to see inside.
If people are allowed in some of the rooms then there's no reasonable reason
why people shouldn't be allowed in all the rooms.

Post by William Black
Most of the art is stashed away in places where people like me aren't
allowed.

Most of what any museum possesses is stashed away where you and I aren't
allowed.

But I can, and have, arranged to see stuff not on public display in
museums.

Why should the Queen's property be any different?

The queen does not maintain a study collection and certainly does not allow
access to legitimate scholars.

Not rubbish. People still live in them.

People still live in HM Tower.
All the rooms except a few private houses are open to the public.

Post by William Black
Going by the stately home owners I've met over the years, and it's more
than a few, they open as little as they can get away with. The major
exception to this being Castle Howard. Mainly because the guy who was
head of the family for many years was stark bonkers and couldn't be
allowed into the place because he'd break it.

We have no divine right to poke around other people's houses.

We have if we pay for them.

Post by William Black
Stop trying to pretend that an old lady and her incredibly disfunctional
family in any way enhance the places where they live and the contents
thereof.

She's more than just an old lady, William, and you know it. She is the
only bit of stability left in Britain.

She and her brood are a fair bit less stable than the most of the people I
know.
I have pairs of shoes that last longer than most royal mariages.

Post by William Black
They haven't even, despite their obscene wealth, managed to add to the
art collections in any significant way.

If you think back to the 18th century, William, you will remember they
gave much of their wealth away to the nation, in return for a mention in
the civil list. Think how wealthy they would be if they had kept it all.
The civil list pales in comparison.

They'd have had their heads on pikes about the time George IV became regent
if they hadn't, and they know it...

Post by William Black
The Buckingham Palace back garden would be a pefect site for corporate
garden parties.

Well, of course it would be. And it is used for corporate garden parties,
but only by Royal Appointment.

No.
Royal whim.
I don't want to abolish them. I want them to be as open in their dealings
with the people of this island as any other department of state.
What I don't like is the way they 'give' to the exchequer what they say is
owed in tax, but they don't let anyone see the books.
If I had my way the monarchy would be a Civil Service department, the
houses would be open to the public and the royal family would either work in
that department or go and get jobs, just like the rest of us.
The sight of this handful of rather dull people living in vast palaces and
spending vast amounts of public money on trying to hold together the
remnants of the lifestyle of a German prince of two hundred years ago is
more than a little ludicrous.
Nobody needs their copy of the newspaper ironing, what is more, nobody
needs to employ someone to iron it.

After reading through this thread and noticed you whining about what you
have access to, I decided to give you a reference to the White House,
where the Prez lives ...WHICH IS PAID FOR by the people of the USA as
is Buckingham Palace.

You will find that people can visit the White House..but NOT all of
it.You won't find visiting romping throught the president's bedroom.

So what's the deal. You think that replacing the Queen with a President
will give you access to BP which would become the Presidential
residence. Keep dreaminng.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/

[sionevar]

Post by Renia
If you think back to the 18th century, William, you will remember they
gave much of their wealth away to the nation, in return for a mention in
the civil list. Think how wealthy they would be if they had kept it all.
The civil list pales in comparison.

This deal was not just about swapping the Crown Estate income for Civil List
payments. In return for the former, the government of the time apparently
agreed to also take on the cost of maintaining various civil servants and
bureaucrats who were until then funded entirely by the King.

The Civil List might pale in comparison to the income from the Crown
Estates, but how does the Crown Estate income compare to the cost of running
a modern political bureaucracy?

[allan connochie]

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

People still go to France to see Versailles despite there being no French
monarch. People would still visit Royal sites in the UK. Let's face it the
Queen could still even be styled Queen even of the monarchy lost its power.
How many tourists would care or even know about the change? There are
various arguments for and against the monarchy. In my opinion the tourist
trap argument is a red herring though!

Allan

[Renia]

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

People still go to France to see Versailles despite there being no French
monarch. People would still visit Royal sites in the UK. Let's face it the
Queen could still even be styled Queen even of the monarchy lost its power.
How many tourists would care or even know about the change? There are
various arguments for and against the monarchy. In my opinion the tourist
trap argument is a red herring though!

Indeed, but there are other arguments.

The British monarchy has a long, long history which contributes to the
general stability of the country. It's the spine of the nation, the
thing which binds us all together and gives us a link with the past and
the future and with each other. If that link is broken, the spine goes
out of the nation. Indeed, that is already happening. The more people
talk about ridding themselves of what they see as an outdated and
expensive institution, the more they talk themselves out of the essence
of Britishness.

The Queen, while a figurehead, retains the power to have the final say
in government but she chooses to stay out of politics. She is probably
wise, but it must sadden her to watch the country going to the dogs.
Britain is out of control and it is sad to watch.

[allan connochie]

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here because
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

People still go to France to see Versailles despite there being no French
monarch. People would still visit Royal sites in the UK. Let's face it the
Queen could still even be styled Queen even of the monarchy lost its power.
How many tourists would care or even know about the change? There are
various arguments for and against the monarchy. In my opinion the tourist
trap argument is a red herring though!

Indeed, but there are other arguments.
The British monarchy has a long, long history which contributes to the
general stability of the country. It's the spine of the nation, the
thing which binds us all together and gives us a link with the past and
the future and with each other. If that link is broken, the spine goes
out of the nation. Indeed, that is already happening. The more people
talk about ridding themselves of what they see as an outdated and
expensive institution, the more they talk themselves out of the essence
of Britishness.

It is a valid argument but I'm not so sure about it myslelf. The union could
survive a republic and the monarchy could survive the breaking up of the
union. Even within Scotland the only confirmed anti-monarchy party lies in
only 5th place, way behind even the Tories. I'd imagine that if Scotland
went independent then there would be the likelyhood of a referendum on the
monarchy as there is a republican wing within the Nats. I don't think that
the existence of the monarchy particularly bolsters the argument for the
union to any great overriding extent in Scotland though. They are in essence
two seperate issues.

Post by Renia
The Queen, while a figurehead, retains the power to have the final say
in government but she chooses to stay out of politics. She is probably
wise,

Well yes she'd be mental to try anything which was in the least
controversial. That'd be the most likely way to end the monarchy. Folk can
live with an unelected figurehead.

Allan

[Renia]

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here

because

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

People still go to France to see Versailles despite there being no

French

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
monarch. People would still visit Royal sites in the UK. Let's face it

the

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
Queen could still even be styled Queen even of the monarchy lost its

power.

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
How many tourists would care or even know about the change? There are
various arguments for and against the monarchy. In my opinion the

tourist

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
trap argument is a red herring though!

Indeed, but there are other arguments.
The British monarchy has a long, long history which contributes to the
general stability of the country. It's the spine of the nation, the
thing which binds us all together and gives us a link with the past and
the future and with each other. If that link is broken, the spine goes
out of the nation. Indeed, that is already happening. The more people
talk about ridding themselves of what they see as an outdated and
expensive institution, the more they talk themselves out of the essence
of Britishness.

It is a valid argument but I'm not so sure about it myslelf. The union could
survive a republic and the monarchy could survive the breaking up of the
union. Even within Scotland the only confirmed anti-monarchy party lies in
only 5th place, way behind even the Tories. I'd imagine that if Scotland
went independent then there would be the likelyhood of a referendum on the
monarchy as there is a republican wing within the Nats. I don't think that
the existence of the monarchy particularly bolsters the argument for the
union to any great overriding extent in Scotland though. They are in essence
two seperate issues.

I wasn't really talking about the union but about the nation as a whole,
or, but probably England, more specifically, because Scotland has its
own issues.

I'm out of touch, over here, but I'm getting the drift that fewer Scots
want the union to break up. It's so easy to say that if Scotland wants
independence, then she should take her politicians with her and get them
out of England's parliament!

I think the nation (i.e. England) could tolerate the fall of the
monarchy, but only because the make-up of the country has changed so
much during the past half-century. More and more people are leaving the
country (100,000 of them have moved to France alone) and more and more
people are moving in from other countries. And this is on top of the
immigration which has been increasing in pace during the past century to
such a point where the genetic makeup of the country is less and less
English. Many of these people originate from countries without
monarchies, and they don't see the point of them, so dismiss that of the
country they and their parents have moved to.

Almost 10% of the population of England wasn't born there, according to
the 2001 census, and that's just the ones who filled in the census form.
13% do not count themselves as "white British". My father was born in
Poland, but in that census, I classed myself as "white British" and born
there, but I'm a second-generation immigrant. So are my brothers, my
cousins, and many of my best friends. I wonder just how much
"Britishness" really exists there any more.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Bingo!

DSH

I think the nation (i.e. England) could tolerate the fall of the monarchy,
but only because the make-up of the country has changed so much during the
past half-century. More and more people are leaving the country (100,000
of them have moved to France alone) and more and more people are moving in
from other countries. And this is on top of the immigration which has been
increasing in pace during the past century to such a point where the
genetic makeup of the country is less and less English. Many of these
people originate from countries without monarchies, and they don't see the
point of them, so dismiss that of the country they and their parents have
moved to.
Almost 10% of the population of England wasn't born there, according to
the 2001 census, and that's just the ones who filled in the census form.
13% do not count themselves as "white British". My father was born in
Poland, but in that census, I classed myself as "white British" and born
there, but I'm a second-generation immigrant. So are my brothers, my
cousins, and many of my best friends. I wonder just how much "Britishness"
really exists there any more.

[allan connochie]

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia
The British monarchy has a long, long history which contributes to the
general stability of the country. It's the spine of the nation, the
thing which binds us all together and gives us a link with the past and
the future and with each other. If that link is broken, the spine goes
out of the nation. Indeed, that is already happening. The more people
talk about ridding themselves of what they see as an outdated and
expensive institution, the more they talk themselves out of the essence
of Britishness.

It is a valid argument but I'm not so sure about it myslelf. The union could
survive a republic and the monarchy could survive the breaking up of the
union. Even within Scotland the only confirmed anti-monarchy party lies in
only 5th place, way behind even the Tories. I'd imagine that if Scotland
went independent then there would be the likelyhood of a referendum on the
monarchy as there is a republican wing within the Nats. I don't think that
the existence of the monarchy particularly bolsters the argument for the
union to any great overriding extent in Scotland though. They are in essence
two seperate issues.

I wasn't really talking about the union but about the nation as a whole,
or, but probably England, more specifically, because Scotland has its
own issues.

You said that the British monarchy is the thing that binds us all together.
That perhaps makes sense when talking about the UK or Britain as a whole but
not if you are talking about only England. England existed long before the
regal union with Scotland and would no doubt sstill exist if the regal
union, or monarchy itself, ended in some way!

Post by Renia
I'm out of touch, over here, but I'm getting the drift that fewer Scots
want the union to break up. It's so easy to say that if Scotland wants
independence, then she should take her politicians with her and get them
out of England's parliament!

Well of course you are completely out of touch. In polls over the past year
or so the support for independence has been consistently high, the Nats are
even ahead of Labour in some of the party opinion polls. The topic is hotter
than it has been for a good decade or so. The second part of the paragraph
makes no sense. The Westminster parliament is in England but is not an
English parlaiment as such. If Scotland went independent then of course
there would be no MPs from Scottish constituencies at Westminster.

Post by Renia
I think the nation (i.e. England) could tolerate the fall of the
monarchy, but only because the make-up of the country has changed so
much during the past half-century. More and more people are leaving the
country (100,000 of them have moved to France alone) and more and more
people are moving in from other countries. And this is on top of the
immigration which has been increasing in pace during the past century to
such a point where the genetic makeup of the country is less and less
English. Many of these people originate from countries without
monarchies, and they don't see the point of them, so dismiss that of the
country they and their parents have moved to.

I think you are underestimating the change in perception towards the
monarchy from the indiginous (for want of a better word) British themselves
and shifting the discussion on somewhere else. Just go to 40 years ago and
people were almost in awe of the monarchy almost seeing them as something
other worldly. They are not held in such esteem nowadys. The monarchy has to
justify itself again and has done pretty poorly in some areas of self
promotion.

Post by Renia
Almost 10% of the population of England wasn't born there, according to
the 2001 census, and that's just the ones who filled in the census form.
13% do not count themselves as "white British".

Which means that the vast majority, ie 87% probably do consider themselves
as white British. Supposedly many of the non-white community consider
themselves as British too, so according to 'your own figures' the vast
majority of people in England regard themselves as British.

Post by Renia
My father was born in
Poland, but in that census, I classed myself as "white British" and born
there, but I'm a second-generation immigrant. So are my brothers, my
cousins, and many of my best friends. I wonder just how much
"Britishness" really exists there any more.

Well as you were white, and presumably born and living in Britian, then I
can't understand why you wouldn't class yourself as white British! It
depends on what questions are being asked. For instance if folk (let's say
folk in England) are asked "are you British or not?" then no doubt the vast
majority would say British. If you add in are you "English, British or
neither of these?" then fewer people may say British as their first choice.
You could further mix it up by saying "are you English; British; English and
British; or none of these?"


Allan

[Sheila J]

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here

because

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

People still go to France to see Versailles despite there being no

French

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
monarch. People would still visit Royal sites in the UK. Let's face it

the

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
Queen could still even be styled Queen even of the monarchy lost its

power.

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
How many tourists would care or even know about the change? There are
various arguments for and against the monarchy. In my opinion the

tourist

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
trap argument is a red herring though!

Indeed, but there are other arguments.
The British monarchy has a long, long history which contributes to the
general stability of the country. It's the spine of the nation, the
thing which binds us all together and gives us a link with the past and
the future and with each other. If that link is broken, the spine goes
out of the nation. Indeed, that is already happening. The more people
talk about ridding themselves of what they see as an outdated and
expensive institution, the more they talk themselves out of the essence
of Britishness.

It is a valid argument but I'm not so sure about it myslelf. The union could
survive a republic and the monarchy could survive the breaking up of the
union. Even within Scotland the only confirmed anti-monarchy party lies in
only 5th place, way behind even the Tories. I'd imagine that if Scotland
went independent then there would be the likelyhood of a referendum on the
monarchy as there is a republican wing within the Nats. I don't think that
the existence of the monarchy particularly bolsters the argument for the
union to any great overriding extent in Scotland though. They are in essence
two seperate issues.

Post by Renia
The Queen, while a figurehead, retains the power to have the final say
in government but she chooses to stay out of politics. She is probably
wise,

Well yes she'd be mental to try anything which was in the least
controversial. That'd be the most likely way to end the monarchy. Folk can
live with an unelected figurehead.
Allan

Having just been with a bunch of Aussies and NZealand types, the talk seemed
to be that once the Queen goes, so does their allegiance to the monarchy.
Not quite sure how it will play out here in Canada, but I don't think we
will ever dump the crown. I do think, however, that if Charles takes the
crown, there really might be a constitutional crisis. The respect that
Canada has for Liz is what has made the monarchy so popular to date....

Me, I would rue the day we dumped the crown. It is yet another thing that
makes us more interesting than our southern neighbours! :-D

[michael james]

Post by Sheila J

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here

because

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

People still go to France to see Versailles despite there being no

French

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
monarch. People would still visit Royal sites in the UK. Let's face it

the

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
Queen could still even be styled Queen even of the monarchy lost its

power.

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
How many tourists would care or even know about the change? There are
various arguments for and against the monarchy. In my opinion the

tourist

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
trap argument is a red herring though!

Indeed, but there are other arguments.
The British monarchy has a long, long history which contributes to the
general stability of the country. It's the spine of the nation, the
thing which binds us all together and gives us a link with the past and
the future and with each other. If that link is broken, the spine goes
out of the nation. Indeed, that is already happening. The more people
talk about ridding themselves of what they see as an outdated and
expensive institution, the more they talk themselves out of the essence
of Britishness.

It is a valid argument but I'm not so sure about it myslelf. The union could
survive a republic and the monarchy could survive the breaking up of the
union. Even within Scotland the only confirmed anti-monarchy party lies in
only 5th place, way behind even the Tories. I'd imagine that if Scotland
went independent then there would be the likelyhood of a referendum on the
monarchy as there is a republican wing within the Nats. I don't think that
the existence of the monarchy particularly bolsters the argument for the
union to any great overriding extent in Scotland though. They are in essence
two seperate issues.

Post by Renia
The Queen, while a figurehead, retains the power to have the final say
in government but she chooses to stay out of politics. She is probably
wise,

Well yes she'd be mental to try anything which was in the least
controversial. That'd be the most likely way to end the monarchy. Folk can
live with an unelected figurehead.
Allan

Having just been with a bunch of Aussies and NZealand types, the talk seemed
to be that once the Queen goes, so does their allegiance to the monarchy.
Not quite sure how it will play out here in Canada, but I don't think we
will ever dump the crown. I do think, however, that if Charles takes the
crown, there really might be a constitutional crisis. The respect that
Canada has for Liz is what has made the monarchy so popular to date....
Me, I would rue the day we dumped the crown. It is yet another thing that
makes us more interesting than our southern neighbours! :-D

Canada’s constitutional amendment formula:

Fourth, in cases of amendments relating, among other things, to the
Queen or her Canadian representatives, the composition of the Supreme
Court of Canada, or changes to the amending formula itself, then the
unanimity rule applies: resolutions must be passed by both houses of
Parliament and by every provincial legislature.


And how much chance is there of that? :)

[Sheila J]

Post by Sheila J

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here

because

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

People still go to France to see Versailles despite there being no

French

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
monarch. People would still visit Royal sites in the UK. Let's face it

the

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
Queen could still even be styled Queen even of the monarchy lost its

power.

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
How many tourists would care or even know about the change? There are
various arguments for and against the monarchy. In my opinion the

tourist

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
trap argument is a red herring though!

Indeed, but there are other arguments.
The British monarchy has a long, long history which contributes to the
general stability of the country. It's the spine of the nation, the
thing which binds us all together and gives us a link with the past and
the future and with each other. If that link is broken, the spine goes
out of the nation. Indeed, that is already happening. The more people
talk about ridding themselves of what they see as an outdated and
expensive institution, the more they talk themselves out of the essence
of Britishness.

It is a valid argument but I'm not so sure about it myslelf. The union could
survive a republic and the monarchy could survive the breaking up of the
union. Even within Scotland the only confirmed anti-monarchy party lies in
only 5th place, way behind even the Tories. I'd imagine that if Scotland
went independent then there would be the likelyhood of a referendum on the
monarchy as there is a republican wing within the Nats. I don't think that
the existence of the monarchy particularly bolsters the argument for the
union to any great overriding extent in Scotland though. They are in essence
two seperate issues.

Post by Renia
The Queen, while a figurehead, retains the power to have the final say
in government but she chooses to stay out of politics. She is probably
wise,

Well yes she'd be mental to try anything which was in the least
controversial. That'd be the most likely way to end the monarchy. Folk can
live with an unelected figurehead.
Allan

Having just been with a bunch of Aussies and NZealand types, the talk
seemed to be that once the Queen goes, so does their allegiance to the
monarchy. Not quite sure how it will play out here in Canada, but I don't
think we will ever dump the crown. I do think, however, that if Charles
takes the crown, there really might be a constitutional crisis. The
respect that Canada has for Liz is what has made the monarchy so popular
to date....
Me, I would rue the day we dumped the crown. It is yet another thing that
makes us more interesting than our southern neighbours! :-D

Fourth, in cases of amendments relating, among other things, to the Queen
or her Canadian representatives, the composition of the Supreme Court of
Canada, or changes to the amending formula itself, then the unanimity rule
applies: resolutions must be passed by both houses of Parliament and by
every provincial legislature.
And how much chance is there of that? :)

yes, that would be a bit of a problem, wouldn't it!! :-D

[Renia]

Post by Sheila J

Post by William Black

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
know what you are getting, they do contribute to the

Post by Renia
tourism industry

They don't.
Nobody comes to the UK to see the queen. Nobody ever comes here

because

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie

Post by Renia

Post by Renia
they like our system of government

I think people do come to see the queen, or at least, the effects of her
presence in England and Scotland.

People still go to France to see Versailles despite there being no

French

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
monarch. People would still visit Royal sites in the UK. Let's face it

the

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
Queen could still even be styled Queen even of the monarchy lost its

power.

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
How many tourists would care or even know about the change? There are
various arguments for and against the monarchy. In my opinion the

tourist

Post by Renia

Post by allan connochie
trap argument is a red herring though!

Indeed, but there are other arguments.
The British monarchy has a long, long history which contributes to the
general stability of the country. It's the spine of the nation, the
thing which binds us all together and gives us a link with the past and
the future and with each other. If that link is broken, the spine goes
out of the nation. Indeed, that is already happening. The more people
talk about ridding themselves of what they see as an outdated and
expensive institution, the more they talk themselves out of the essence
of Britishness.

It is a valid argument but I'm not so sure about it myslelf. The union could
survive a republic and the monarchy could survive the breaking up of the
union. Even within Scotland the only confirmed anti-monarchy party lies in
only 5th place, way behind even the Tories. I'd imagine that if Scotland
went independent then there would be the likelyhood of a referendum on the
monarchy as there is a republican wing within the Nats. I don't think that
the existence of the monarchy particularly bolsters the argument for the
union to any great overriding extent in Scotland though. They are in essence
two seperate issues.

Post by Renia
The Queen, while a figurehead, retains the power to have the final say
in government but she chooses to stay out of politics. She is probably
wise,

Well yes she'd be mental to try anything which was in the least
controversial. That'd be the most likely way to end the monarchy. Folk can
live with an unelected figurehead.
Allan

Having just been with a bunch of Aussies and NZealand types, the talk seemed
to be that once the Queen goes, so does their allegiance to the monarchy.
Not quite sure how it will play out here in Canada, but I don't think we
will ever dump the crown. I do think, however, that if Charles takes the
crown, there really might be a constitutional crisis. The respect that
Canada has for Liz is what has made the monarchy so popular to date....
Me, I would rue the day we dumped the crown. It is yet another thing that
makes us more interesting than our southern neighbours! :-D

Written lightheartedly, but absolutely true.

[allan connochie]

Post by Sheila J
Having just been with a bunch of Aussies and NZealand types, the talk seemed
to be that once the Queen goes, so does their allegiance to the monarchy.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is not scientific in any way
so is just personal opinion and relates obviously to people I come into
contact with. I think only a small minority in Scotland are either 'fierce'
supporters of a monarchy or republic with 'fierce' supporters of the
monarchy being thinner on the groun than republicans. Most others have an
opinion on the subject but don't regard it as a hot potato. Many of these
people, like myself, were born and brought up with the Queen on the throne.
They don't even think about it because she has always been there. The death
of the monarch is likely to bring a reassesment. There will either be a
popular wave of support (maybe a tad unlikely considering the incumbment) or
people will seriously ask questions about the whole idea.

As for the Aussies etc. I have problems with the idea of hereditary monarchy
itself but I just can't get my head around other countries wanting a
foreigner as their Head of State, so yes, I agree with you Charles will have
a rockier ride than his mother.


Allan

[D. Spencer Hines]

All Quite True...

Leading To A Steadily Decreasing Number Of Real Brits.

You've Imported -- And Home Grown -- Far Too Many Socialists -- Who Just
Want A Governmental Handout & Who Thrive On Corrosive Class Hatred.

You're Not Integrating Your Immigrants Either & Expecting Them To Become
British -- That's A Ticking Time Bomb For Your Society -- As It Is For The
French.

DSH

Veritas Vos Liberabit

Post by Renia
The British monarchy has a long, long history which contributes to the
general stability of the country. It's the spine of the nation, the thing
which binds us all together and gives us a link with the past and the
future and with each other. If that link is broken, the spine goes out of
the nation. Indeed, that is already happening. The more people talk about
ridding themselves of what they see as an outdated and expensive
institution, the more they talk themselves out of the essence of
Britishness.
The Queen, while a figurehead, retains the power to have the final say in
government but she chooses to stay out of politics. She is probably wise,
but it must sadden her to watch the country going to the dogs. Britain is
out of control and it is sad to watch.

[Julian Richards]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:07:21 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"

Post by D. Spencer Hines
You've Imported -- And Home Grown -- Far Too Many Socialists -- Who Just
Want A Governmental Handout & Who Thrive On Corrosive Class Hatred.

You are about 30 years behind with the times.
--

Julian Richards

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

[Renia]

Post by Julian Richards
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:07:21 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"

Post by D. Spencer Hines
You've Imported -- And Home Grown -- Far Too Many Socialists -- Who Just
Want A Governmental Handout & Who Thrive On Corrosive Class Hatred.

You are about 30 years behind with the times.

Isn't he just.

[William Black]

Post by Julian Richards
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:07:21 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"

Post by D. Spencer Hines
You've Imported -- And Home Grown -- Far Too Many Socialists -- Who Just
Want A Governmental Handout & Who Thrive On Corrosive Class Hatred.

You are about 30 years behind with the times.

Only thirty?

"In Place of Strife" was 1969.

[Lucifer]

Post by William Black

Post by raven1
On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?

I used to think that.
Then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
"President Thatcher"...

Please don't...you're scaring me...

*cowers*

--

Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor

The Anti-Theist

"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"

Post by William Black
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[DarkAngel]

Post by William Black

Post by raven1
On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?

I used to think that.
Then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
"President Thatcher"...

Well if you Brits would stop *electing* inbred leeches... :)

---
No Gods. No Masters.
"How does it feel to be the mother of a thousand deaths?"
- Crass

[Renia]

Post by DarkAngel

Post by William Black

Post by raven1
On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?

I used to think that.
Then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
"President Thatcher"...

Well if you Brits would stop *electing* inbred leeches... :)

Thatcher was inbred? She was a grocer's daughter and far removed from
the "inbred leeches" you may be referring to. John Major was a trapeze
artist's son (grandson?) who made garden gnomes for a living. Who are
these inbred leeches you refer to?

[Lucifer]

Post by DarkAngel

Post by William Black

Post by raven1
On 26 Oct 2006 04:13:53 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

How about an even greater break with tradition: abolish the monarchy,
and let those inbred leeches fend for themselves?

I used to think that.
Then someone whispered two little words in my ear...
"President Thatcher"...

Well if you Brits would stop *electing* inbred leeches... :)

What about Bush then?

Post by DarkAngel
---
No Gods. No Masters.
"How does it feel to be the mother of a thousand deaths?"
- Crass

[Al Klein]

Post by Lucifer

Post by DarkAngel
Well if you Brits would stop *electing* inbred leeches... :)

What about Bush then?

He was bred?

[Donald4564]

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Prince Charles wants to be crowned King in a multi-faith coronation
service in a dramatic break with tradition, it is claimed.

Firstly one hopes and prays that the current reign may continue for a
long time yet.

As HRH The Prince of Wales has oftimes mooted that he wishes to be
known as "Defender of Faiths", then perhaps the Government of the day
at the beginning of the new reign might attempt to legislate to
disestablish the Church of England. (I would presume then that the
Archbishop of Canterbury would be considered the Supreme Governor and
would appoint Bishops - who latter, would no longer sit in the House of
Lords.) At the Coronation Service which would follow such legislation
being passed, I could see no problem with all religious leaders
becoming involved in it - although they may have to toss up as to who
actually places the crown on the head of the new monarch.

I would hope too that suggestions the ceremony might be 'adapted for
television' are not taken seriously. I don't think such a ceremony as a
Coronation can be put in the same light as the opening ceremony for say
an Olympic Games or some such. It ought not be so trivialised.

In the last century the Royal Family has moved with the times so much
so that the monarchy bears little relationship with its past styles. I
am sure also that the Coronation Service has itself altered over its
1,000 year history and that if need be it can be altered again.

Regards
Donald Binks