At the risk of starting all this off again…
They are having a finger buffet at the reception. That means vol-au-vents.
And the queen will be wearing a mad hat.
Does this mean that we will have to redesign the money again?
I’m sure all the kitsch manufacturers on at least two continents are just devastated that this isn’t going to be a state wedding, with coaches and horses and opportunities to unload millions of pounds worth of junk featuring the portraits of Charles & Camilla. All those poor plain teacups and plates and unpainted old Crowns sitting around lonely and dusty, just waiting breathlessly for Wills to pick a bride so they can unload on unsuspecting Brits and Anglophile Americans.
I’m sure all the kitsch manufacturers on at least two continents are just devastated that this isn’t going to be a state wedding, with coaches and horses and opportunities to unload millions of pounds worth of junk featuring the portraits of Charles & Camilla. All those poor plain teacups and plates and unpainted old Crowns sitting around lonely and dusty, just waiting breathlessly for Wills to pick a bride so they can unload on unsuspecting Brits and Anglophile Americans.
wonders where her Chuck and Di tea towel is
Aaaah, it’s a big tent, you say?
Must be one of those 1920s-style big tents.
If he could have had all those beautiful women, why hasn’t he had one yet? Really, is there anyone in the world (not counting CPB) who has shown the slightest romantic interest in him since before his first marriage? He hasn’t been an “eligible bachelor” in 25 years. There’s no long line of raving beauties, or butt-uglies for that matter, pining for him.
And seriously, all anti-souvenir-whoring kidding aside, C&C have been involved for a VERY long time, without official sanction or approval, against some serious official discouragement. The fact that they’re not only still involved, but willing to pull the whole thing out into the sunlight is kind of a good sign that it’s actually love.
When this came on up Yahoo! the other day, it said that the absence of the Queen shouldn’t be viewed as a snub, but that Charles and Camilla wanted a small, private ceremony. The precence of the Queen would bring on all sorts of security and paparazzi, therefore ending its status as small and private. Whether or not I buy this, I don’t know, as it seems there would still be a good amount of security and stuff the way it is, but that’s what I remember reading. There will probably be another doper come along in a few posts who found the article and say that I remembered it all wrong.
There still seems to be some question about this ( civil ) marriage being legal. When the Civil Marriage Act was passed in the 1830’s it specifically excluded members of the Royal Family, they can only be married in a church. In fact this very act was used in the 1950’s to dissuade Princess Margaret from marrying Group-Captain Peter Townsend. Now the Attorney General comes out yesterday with the statement that Charles and Camilla can get married in a civil ceremony. All very confusing.
I thought a marquee was the illuminated facade outside a moviehouse where the names of films were displayed such that a wiseguy could have them read: Erin Brockovich / Screwed / My Dog Skip.
Or are you talking about a Marquis, as in de Sade? 
Here we go again.
Among the titles listed is “Defender of the Faith”. The queen is the head of the Church of England; for her to attend a civil ceremony would be a bigtime Bozo no-no in the protocol department.
I don’t see that this necessarily follows. A church wedding is still also a civil one - they sign the same pieces of paper and everything. And the wedding is to be blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In any case, protocol is something set by precedent - in a completely new situation such as this, there is no fixed protocol to follow.
Personally, I think that the Queen should just suck it up and go, for goodness’ sake. Assuming she’s invited. Frankly, Camilla and Charles might well have decided they don’t want her there, since she hasn’t exactly been pleasant or welcoming towards Camilla.
If she *is * invited, however, and chooses not to attend out of spite or for political reasons, then it says a lot about her - none of it nice. Charles isn’t a wayward teen, he’s an adult, and he’s determined to marry a woman he’s been faithful to for longer than most marriages ever last.
Yes, he was a shitty husband to Diana but you can’t tell me, honestly, that Diana fell in love with him for his good lucks and winning personality? I think the term ‘loveless marriage’ would have applied in both directions there. At least it’s been proven over the years that he and Camilla really do love each other. They’ve had to endure criticism, snubs, and insults and condemnation at the hands of the media and general populace, and they’ve still stuck by each other. With any luck, this marriage will work out.
Everyone deserves the chance to live openly in a committed relationship with their partner of choice.
Well, if by “stuck by each other” you mean “voluntarily married other people and then screwed around on them”, yes. Yes, they have. The criticism, snubs, insults and condemnation spring from them, you know, voluntarily marrying other people and then continuing their affair. Being star-crossed lovers is one thing (not that I think they are, but I could understand the argument that they are), but dragging other people into your mess is just bad form.
As for the Queen not being especially welcoming to her, if you had an old girlfriend who married someone else while you were in the military, then carried on sleeping with you throughout her marriage, would you really expect your mother to think she was a fabulous addition to your family and treat her like another daughter? I think bare-bones civility is all you’d really be likely to get out of most moms in that sort of situation.
And yeah, Camilla looks like a couple miles of rough road, but Chuck’s no prize pig himself. None of that family is, frankly. I’ve always said that Diana was pretty average-looking and only seemed gorgeous compared to the rest of the royal family.
Hey, Britain? You seem to have left your royals in our news. If you could swing by and take care of that sometime soon, it’d be great. :rolleyes:
Yup, that’s pretty much what I mean. I’m not saying it’s moral - it’s actually rather reprehensible - but it is rather unusually committed.
Divorce among British royalty is a super big bad no-no, despite Henry VIII and his creative approach to multiple marriage. If they were a Hollywood couple they’d have had their ‘mistake’ marriages, divorced in short order, and taken up together years ago and it’d all be over with. Unfortunately, it wasn’t really an option. We’re in the year 2005 and you have the general public up in arms about Charles marrying Camilla as if it were any of their business. In the wake of the wedding announcement, the Australian media are declaring that the notion of ditching the monarchy and becoming a republic is increasingly popular, according to their polls. Royalists are crying for Charles to be removed from the line of succession because he has the temerity to marry again - and to a divorcee! (Double damned! Oh, the horror!) And that’s in 2005. Can you imagine the kind of brouhaha that would have occurred if they’d contemplated this in the 1970s? I shudder to think.
Maybe I have an unusually liberal family, but if I maintained any relationship for 30 years I’d think they’d had more than enough time to get to grips with it. 
Well, it’s not like she was all that fond of Diana. (Don’t blame her, either.) 
Mmm… yeah. She was nothing spectacular, but boy, the royal family definitely needed an injection of semi-attractive genes into it. Worked out okay for William. 
Oooh, horrible thought! Imagine if Charles and Camilla HAD got to marry in the 70’s! The children they might have had! :eek:
Wouldn’t dream of it. You keep them. We insist.