Should Prince Charles be able to marry Camilla?

Originally posted by steerpike
Charles can marry any woman he likes - or any man come that. Now that would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Queen of England".

And there is nothing you snivelling little monarchists can do about it. You just have to contine fawning over Charlie and whatever he chooses - you have absolutely no choice in the matter. He will be your King and Ca ...[text shortened]... poor confused Charlie and his crazed first wife, I think Camila is actually an improvement.

Actually no, he can't marry a catholic if he wants to be king.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
What I don't get is why isn't there a mass revolution by the citizens of England to throw this supposed "royality" (Charles, the boys, the Queen, etc) out on the street and to use all of that wasted money to keep them living in the lap ...[text shortened]... ing money that is not hers? I would be pissed if I was a citizen.

I'd like to see a formal business case that shows the net value of the royal family to/from society, including factors such as:

- Rightful inheritance
- Ongoing financial support
- Contribution to charity
- Goodwill like being entertaining and attracting tourism

As to who marries who, they're only important as long as you care.

Originally posted by Redmike
Actually no, he can't marry a catholic if he wants to be king.

At least in the UK. The 1701 Act of Settlement, which prohibits a Catholic from acceding to the throne, and which prevents the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic, is still on Britain's statute books.

Although if Charlie turns Catholic, he could still be King - as the situation is a little more confused in Commonwealth countries where the present Queen is Head of State.

Originally posted by STANG
I'd like to see a formal business case that show the net value of the royal family to/from society, including factors such as:

- Rightful inheritance
- Ongoing financial support
- Contribution to charity
- Goodwill like being entertaining and attracting tourism

As to who marries who, they're only important as long as you care.

The Americans ditched the English royalty and now George WMD Bush is their Head of State.

Best argument I can come up with to show the value of the Royals,..

Originally posted by steerpike
The Americans ditched the English royalty and now George WMD Bush is their Head of State.

Best argument I can come up with to show the value of the Royals,..

May god bless George WMD Bush because he's going to need all the blessing he can get in this life and soon thereafter !

Originally posted by STANG
May god bless George WMD Bush because he's going to need all the blessing he can get in this life and soon thereafter !

Actually Tony Bliar and John Lickspittle Howard are not great examples of leadership in a monarchy.

Originally posted by invigorate
Point 1. You can tell a lot about a British person by their voice. However you no require "received pronounciation" to advance yourself.

Do you mean you do require received pronunciation?
If so, I think that's a bit out of date.
Certainly 10+ years ago, and maybe Radio 4 until recently* but regional accents seem to have been popular for a while and there is nothing but a plummy accent that would get you discriminated against quite so much in some places.

*Actually I have just been reading how an edict from above has ordered Radio 4 recruiters to hire more "black and ethnic" sounding voices, so maybe regional accents are on the way out too.

Originally posted by STANG
I'd like to see a formal business case that shows the net value of the royal family to/from society, including factors such as:

- Rightful inheritance
- Ongoing financial support
- Contribution to charity
- Goodwill like being entertaining and attracting tourism

As to who marries who, they're only important as long as you care.

Actually there is one benefit I can see to having a royal family - many historic old buildings and estates are kept in good condition (at taxpayers expense of course).
Of course I'd much prefer it if they were signed over to the people of Great Britain so we had access to them and paid for the upkeep. But can you really imagine the government or a government body making a good job of this?
Chances are 10 years down the line they would sell them off for luxury housing or let them run to disrepair, or appoint some pocket-filling corrupt "trustee". Bah...

Originally posted by Varg
Do you mean you do require received pronunciation?
If so, I think that's a bit out of date.
Certainly 10+ years ago, and maybe Radio 4 until recently* but regional accents seem to have been popular for a while and there is nothing but a plummy accent that would get you discriminated against quite so much in some places.

*Actually I have just been r ...[text shortened]... ire more "black and ethnic" sounding voices, so maybe regional accents are on the way out too.

If you can pronounce words clearly, and your audience relates to you, you have very good chance of getting the job: whatever your background.

However Black and ethic voices are missing from many of the higher tables of the land, be it the media, government or the legal profession.

Originally posted by invigorate
If you can pronounce words clearly, and your audience relates to you, you have very good chance of getting the job: whatever your background.

However Black and ethic voices are missing from many of the higher tables of the land, be it the media, government or the legal profession.

But isn't it offensive to state that someone has a black voice?
I know off someone with a strong New York jewish accent who was mightily offended that someone suggested he had a jewish accent.
He claimed that there was no such thing as a jewish accent.

Originally posted by steerpike
The Americans ditched the English royalty and now George WMD Bush is their Head of State.

Best argument I can come up with to show the value of the Royals,..

Well you aint on no winning streak either then are you. lol