# Charles to marry Camilla on 6th April. That's nice isn't it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 10, 2005, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377 "2005-02-10T10:28:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/61 "2005-02-10T15:50:45Z")
Thanks for the nitpickery, **Duke**. Of course, prices of Bibles were largely irrelevant. If you weren’t a priest in those days it was illegal to read one, and unless you could read Latin, Greek and/or Hebrew it would have been a waste of time trying. That said, most of the population weren’t even literate in English. As for investing in livestock, no-one who was trying to live on five bob a year would have considered it. Instead they would resort to many of the classical Brit foodstuffs referred to _passim_ on these boards, on which you could eat well for a farthing a day. AFAIK Maundy money still is legal tender… ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/62 "2005-02-10T15:51:11Z")
[QUOTE=glee No, he just wants to have all his titles, money and privileges and f\*ck whoever he wants (including the British people).[/QUOTE] **glee** Old chap. Have you got a Job Description where you work? Do you do pretty much what it says on it, whether you like it or not? Same thing. In fact some people would say that your sentence IS his job description. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/63 "2005-02-10T15:56:17Z")
> [@Captain Lance Murdoch](#): > > I don’t really give a toss about Charles and Camilla, but the meaningless titles sort of struck me. The Princess Consort, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Prince of Wales, The Duck of Death, etc… > > It caused me to wonder what titles we might have in America if we had a monarchy. > > HRH Captain Lance Murdoch, Prince of Kentucky, Duke of Deleware, Lord of North Texas, Protector of South Dakota, Earl of Denver, Baron of Milwaukee, Tenth Viscount of Provo, Count of Natchez and Holder of the Golden Scepter of Brooklyn. > > That has a nice ring to it! **SDMB Captain Lance Murdoch, Angel of Death, The Grim Reeper, Foreteller of Demises, Psychic of Misfortunte, Celebrity Death Pool Winner** would be more like it. ---
**Author:** ![Lissla\_Lissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lissla\_Lissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissla_Lissar)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/64 "2005-02-10T15:57:00Z")
In King Henry VIII’s time it was illegal to own a Bible? Are you sure? Anyone got a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/65 "2005-02-10T16:09:12Z")
Who the fuck is Lance bloody Murdoch? ---
**Author:** ![5que](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/3bc359/32.png) [@5que](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5que)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/66 "2005-02-10T16:22:04Z")
This gives hope to all of us ugly people… ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/67 "2005-02-10T16:32:49Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Thanks for the nitpickery, **Duke**. Of course, prices of Bibles were largely irrelevant. If you weren’t a priest in those days it was illegal to read one, and unless you could read Latin, Greek and/or Hebrew it would have been a waste of time trying. That said, most of the population weren’t even literate in English. Ah, you ought to read my doctoral dissertation then 😃 The fixed-price Bible I refer to was the Great Bible of 1535, which was in English, and the first “authorized” translation of the Church of England after the Great Schism with Rome. It was legal to read it up to the reign of Mary (and even to some extent after that…I’d explain the situation but it took an entire chapter of the dissertation to hash through). As for literacy rates during the reign of Henry VIII, it’s understandably a guessing game, but many historians think the proportion of literate could have been high. David Cressy thinks that in London as many as 25% of the laity could read. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/68 "2005-02-10T16:40:35Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > David Cressy thinks that in London as many as 25% of the laity could read. It’s about that again now. ---
**Author:** ![Wile\_E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c37758/32.png) [@Wile\_E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wile_E)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/69 "2005-02-10T16:45:22Z")
> [@Captain Lance Murdoch](#): > > I don’t really give a toss about Charles and Camilla, but the meaningless titles sort of struck me. The Princess Consort, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Prince of Wales, The Duck of Death, etc… > > It caused me to wonder what titles we might have in America if we had a monarchy. > > HRH Captain Lance Murdoch, Prince of Kentucky, Duke of Deleware, Lord of North Texas, Protector of South Dakota, Earl of Denver, Baron of Milwaukee, Tenth Viscount of Provo, Count of Natchez and Holder of the Golden Scepter of Brooklyn. > > That has a nice ring to it! Ooh, The Duck of Death has a really nice ring to it! I had a pet duck for a while, she was The Bringer of Horrendous Toe Pinchings, but The Duck of Death would have been much shorter. ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/70 "2005-02-10T16:54:54Z")
I woke up late this morning, owing to the Head Cold From Hell. My phone is awaiting with my daily ‘breaking news’ headlines, and not one, not two, but _three_ of them are about this Charles fellow. I felt as if I’d entered the twilight zone, and landed in a terrifying realm in which people actually care. Personally, I think that the Queen’s family has already used up their yearly allowance of headlines, with the ‘prince nazi’ brou-ha-ha last month… ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/71 "2005-02-10T17:17:07Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > It’s worth mentioning, in the spirit of informing our transatlantic cousins about quaint British customs, that by law not only is the day of the wedding a national holiday, but all our employers are obliged to give us a commemorative china mug and a crown. By “crown” I don’t mean a kind of metal hat thingy - that would be high treason, still a beheading offence according to a never-repealed law antedating Magna Carta - but a special coin worth five shillings in pre-Decimal reckoning. It’s one of the few coins that are technically legal tender but with a face value not marked in Decimal pounds or pence. Crowns are also issued for coronations. > > With the fluctuating exchange rate and price of precious metals it’s hard to put a current intrinsic value on it, but a crown weighs 4/5 of a Troy ounce and is made of 75% pure silver. Of course no-one would spend one these days, it’s like Maundy money - you’re privileged to receive one in the first place - but in some periods of history when we used to go through Kings in rapid succession, poorer families used to be very grateful for their crowns. It’s one reason why King Henry VIII encountered so little opposition to having _six_ wives in a row - the masses couldn’t resist the lure of six commemorative crowns. Ironically, most of these ended up in the hands of the local baron, squire or other landholder, who was able to offer ready cash in exchange for the inconveniently large crowns - you could live for a year on five shillings in those days - and typically raked in quite a lot of silver bullion that appreciated drastically over time. A fair few family fortunes got started that way. To further **Duke** ’s points, this is mostly bollocks. The statements highlighted in red are wrong and those highlighted in orange are highly debatable. You’re confusing several different things. Modern commemorative crowns, which have to be bought and which are no more than a money-making scheme for the Royal Mint, are not the same thing at all as the medals once distributed as largesse at royal ceremonies, which usually meant only coronations, which were never legal tender and which were mostly distributed among the VIPs inside the Abbey, not the plebs outside. Most of Henry VIII’s marriage ceremonies were very low-key, private events. Which may provide an interesting topical parallel. A rural labourer in sixteenth-century England would have struggled to live on five shillings a month, never mind a year. Anyone getting paid less than 2 pennies a day was a mug. But on to more important things… As for Charles and Camilla, good luck to them. The big problem those objecting to the marriage now face is that they’re almost bound to come across as mean-spirited killjoys. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/72 "2005-02-10T17:27:55Z")
[QUOTE=owlstretchingtime] > [@glee](#): > > No, he just wants to have all his titles, money and privileges and f\*ck whoever he wants (including the British people). > [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > **glee** Old chap. Have you got a Job Description where you work? Do you do pretty much what it says on it, whether you like it or not? Same thing. > > In fact some people would say that your sentence IS his job description. Come, come old bean. I certainly do have a job description. I wrote it (but that’s another story!). But my job, like almost every other, was open to all. I had the appropriate qualifications and motivation. I agreed to do the job, and can be sacked if I fail to do so. As a teacher, there are some sensible extra restrictions to make sure the children in my care are properly treated. **None of this applies to Charles.** Who are these ‘people’ who think that the future Head of the Church of England should f\*ck whoever he wants? Can you name one? In addition, I would not let any future wife of mine be subjected to a humiliating exam to see if she was a virgin. I appreciate that medieval Monarchs did behave how they wanted to. Why they could even have leading religious figures murdered and execute their wives to remarry! But we are not living in those times. ---
**Author:** ![Celyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9dc877/32.png) [@Celyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celyn)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/73 "2005-02-10T18:08:57Z")
> [@Wile E](#): > > Ooh, The Duck of Death has a really nice ring to it! I had a pet duck for a while, she was The Bringer of Horrendous Toe Pinchings, but The Duck of Death would have been much shorter. Ah, duck of Death. Now, if we could all jsut _pretend_ for a moment that these are corgis or something, or flowers for Charlie to chat with, then I can claim still to be on topic. Sinister Ducks! [http://pip.rubberfeet.org/stuff/ducks.html](http://pip.rubberfeet.org/stuff/ducks.html) Hmm, first I typed that as “dusk” - that’s quite cute too, I suppose. Back to the topic, I can tell you all that I am going to become VERY bored with media mutterings all about the church of England, some time soon. OK, some time a few hours ago, and things can only get worse. Oh boy, at least this one won’t be the media frenzy that the Diana Spencer wedding was. :rolleyes: Re. the crowns, yes it is nonsense that the whole population gets nice little crowns - I’m afraid I read that post as something of a deliberate joke, and was in a hurry and did not reply. (I thought it was merely meant as the traditional sport of confuse-a-foreigner)🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/74 "2005-02-10T18:21:48Z")
**glee** , I can’t believe you’re serious. Do you honestly think that there is _any_ king in the history of the C of E (possibly excluding Edward VI, who died quite young) who was _not_ an adulterer? Whether you approve or not, the fact is that marital fidelity has not ever been a criterion for heading the C of E or the nation, at least for a male. As for Charles staying in for the wealth, well, the Duke of Windsor certainly wasn’t hurting throughout his non-royal life. After a certain point, unless you’re making it and thus using it as a scorecard, how much difference does the extra money make? Fabulously wealthy is fabulously wealthy. Can’t you cut the man a break and allow for at least the possibility that he made the marital choice he made from a sense of duty rather than grasping desire for filthy lucre? He had that duty pounded into his head from the day he was born; it can’t be easy to just say ‘oh, to hell with it!’ It’s not just a matter of standing up to his parents - difficult though even that may be. If you’ve been raised to believe that the welfare of your nation depends at least in some small part on your actions, your willingness to sacrifice your own desires for your assigned roles, it can’t be a minor thing. When I was a child I used to envy the royal family. Now, no amount of wealth could tempt me to take the job. Had Charles married Camilla to begin with, he would have been excoriated by the public and the press to an intolerable degree; would have rightly been believed to have sacrificed his duty for his own wishes. Whether or not those customs are outdated isn’t relevant - the fact is, they were part of the job he was _born_ to, not chose. Are there compensations? Sure. It would be lovely to be that rich. But not lovely enough for most rational adults to choose it with the price it carries. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think Charles is flawless at all, and obviously he shouldn’t have been with Camilla while they were both married. But your statements about his worthiness seem inconsistent with the reality that has obtained for centuries, and I think you are overly harsh in your assessment of his motives. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/75 "2005-02-10T18:42:50Z")
> [@glee](#): > > \*\* > You\*\* come across as a decent person! Thank you! > [@](#): > > But really - is Charles so brainwashed by his family that he can’t think for himself? Then why can’t he respect his marriage vows?! Personally, I think that when he married Diana, he might have been trying to do the “decent” thing for Queen and Country, so to speak, particularly seeing as Camilla had already married. Fair enough. However, then, to disrespect his marriage vows the way he did, and not just the adultery bit, but the “respect” bit as well, is downright reprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/76 "2005-02-10T18:54:56Z")
So, if William has to marry a virgin, who is he going to marry? Does she still have to be royalty, now that everyone is marrying ordinary people? And she has to be CofE? Surely this does not leave him much of a range… I think the whole system is iniquitous anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/77 "2005-02-10T19:07:35Z")
The important question is will they have one of those huge tents for the reception? What are those things called? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Devil\_s\_Grandmother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@The\_Devil\_s\_Grandmother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Devil_s_Grandmother)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/78 "2005-02-10T19:17:08Z")
> [@Oy!](#): > > **glee** , I can’t believe you’re serious. Do you honestly think that there is _any_ king in the history of the C of E (possibly excluding Edward VI, who died quite young) who was _not_ an adulterer? Whether you approve or not, the fact is that marital fidelity has not ever been a criterion for heading the C of E or the nation, at least for a male. Whoever wrote the movie for \*The Madness of King George \* appeared to believe that he and his wife were faithful to each other. Anybody familiar with that period of English history want to make a guess? ---
**Author:** ![Abbie\_Carmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Abbie\_Carmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abbie_Carmichael)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/79 "2005-02-10T19:32:46Z")
Bout damn time. He shoulda done it decades ago and just went ahead and renounced his claim to the throne. The royals are such a trip. They’re kind of like Britain’s answer to Jerry Springer. I bet the Queen would be a kickass mud wrestler ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377/80 "2005-02-10T19:53:06Z")
> [@The Devil's Grandmother](#): > > Whoever wrote the movie for \*The Madness of King George \* appeared to believe that he and his wife were faithful to each other. > Anybody familiar with that period of English history want to make a guess? If he was, his son sure made up for it! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-to-marry-camilla-on-6th-april-thats-nice-isnt-it/289377.md?page=5)