Discussion:
How I a pile of Dung can be King
(too old to reply)
Aggie
2006-02-28 18:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Hi everyone,

This is the topic I want to introduce. I don't have much time to write
now, but I will write in detail by the end of the day.

But my basic point is that given the right circumstances, a pile of
dung can be King. It can be seen as a spiritual force of the previous
King; the last known source of DNA; the last physical presence; also
seen as divine, for the expression "he thinks his shit don't stink"
will ring true since this will be a pile of dung that won't stink
(given the secret use of chemicals); etc.

Go to go.
Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-01 02:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Ok, so let's go over how a pile of dung can be King of England (so I
can prove that Tom Parker Bowles can be King someday).

1. A cataclysmic turn of events results in the death of all of the
Royal family. The only descendents that legally can obtain the crown
are people of distant relation. There remains but one hope for a child
of the most recent monarch to be King. You see, just before he died,
the King took a Royal shiate in his Royal toilet. Being of civilized
and noble extraction, he left the flushing of his poo to his servants,
who eagerly enjoy this time of the day. But hearing of his death, the
servants decide to keep the dung as a keepsake.

At present, DNA can be extracted from many organic materials, including
skin, blood and the muddy and manly remnants of Kings. Yet the
technology that creates a pregnancy merely from that DNA (without
semen) is in its infancy. This is a fact in the present day. I do
believe there is one or two cases where this has happened, but it's not
a technology that by any means has been mastered.

The King and his Royal Family had their bodies incinerated during the
accident/non-accident that cost them their lives. There remain no known
parts of their body to use for the extraction of DNA. The only DNA of
the King that is preserved is his shiat.

Would you support the next King of the United Kingdom to be of some
extremely distant relation? Or would you prefer a baby be made from the
DNA of the present King? I would suggest to you that many would support
the latter.

And so you may ask, how can a shiat as King?

Well a shiate must be Royal. You know the old insult, "he thinks his
shit don't stink!" Well that means that a Royal shiate must not stink,
in order for it to appear noble, civilized, polite and well-mannered.
How do you make a shiate not stink? That's not very difficult, I
understand. All the Royal Household would do (secretly) is add various
chemicals to the shiate for it not to decompose and not stink.

How can a shiate greet guests, as it may offend? On the contrary, a
shiate would make an ideal Royal. You'd never have to worry about any
gaffes or mistakes in etiquette; the shiate stays the same. Its cold
exterior never betrays a secret, makes insults or divides Royals. It
does not play favourites with courtiers; all are faced with the same
cold presentation. It dances only as swell as it is swayed by guests,
who would hold onto the shiate's beautiful case.

There won't be any wild expenditures on diamonds either; the shiate, we
can imagine, will be humble. There won't be any worries about it
sneaking out in the night to enjoy the town, or it sleeping with
another woman; unless the woman manages to get a hold of the shiate for
her own purposes.

There is a maxim that many rulers follow: Always say less than
necessary. Saying more than what's needed is never a problem for the
shiate.

The masses do not know the Queen personally, as Mrs. Windsor. They know
her by her face on the dollar bill and the coin, and books and
magazines. Sometimes they know her by the stern and constant
presentation she makes on TV. They know her as nothing more than an
object. A shit would not contradict that image - it can do its Royal
duties of appearing on money very well.

You may ask, what about Royal weddings, etc? Well aside from the fact
that the shiate can never get tired (though its servants can), a shiate
is best suited for long procedures, for it never betrays boredom. Its
presence will be that of beauty; it will be placed in a gold container
surrounded with stained glass, and only vaguely seen by the eager
onlooker. A Royal crown will sit atop of it, and jewels will adorn it
at its sides. It can even be outfitted with a rob at more formal
events. It will be a sight of magnifiscence.

And why again would people accept a shiate for a King? The produce an
heir to a throne. And how is that heir produced? With the impregnation
of a woman. Firstly though, the woman must get married to a shiate.
Sure, many Royals would not be thrilled at a prospect; but wouldn't
somebody volunteer to be the wife of a shiat if it will make her Queen
Consort of England? As least then you will have a human being, or
rather, a more whole human being, involved in Royal affairs, in
addition to the less-whole human being, his Majesty the King.

And so, for how long would a shiat be King for? For as long as it takes
to produce an heir.
-------------------------------------------------

Why do I bring this up? Because I believe that, given the right
circumstances, a tempered ambition and a skillful use of power, Thomas
Henry (Tom) Parker Bowles can be King.

Wake up and smell the roses!

Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-01 03:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Aggie wrote:

<HUGE snip of verbal vomit>

Aggie... your last batch from your dealer was either VERY good or VERY
bad- but difficult to tell which.

--
The Verminator
Aggie
2006-03-01 04:51:46 UTC
Permalink
I'd say its creative. But do you dispute that any of it can happen?

Aggie
Post by t***@comcast.net
<HUGE snip of verbal vomit>
Aggie... your last batch from your dealer was either VERY good or VERY
bad- but difficult to tell which.
--
The Verminator
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-01 06:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
I'd say its creative. But do you dispute that any of it can happen?
Aggie
No- it is NOT creative-it is dreck... and yes, I dispute that it can
happen.

Any event that killed all but the more distant members of the royal
family would tend to create an atmosphere whereby those in power would
try their damndest to maintain the status quo - i.e. keep things as
close to routine as possible ( Sept. 11 proved that!), and therefore
discourage any attempt to change the succession - including new-fangled
yet to be invented technology to produce a heir to displace the true
heir- i.e. one of those more distantly related members of the royal
family.

Now- I'm done with you..Take your crap elsewhere- say alt.troll.failed


--
The Verminator
Aggie
2006-03-02 00:52:40 UTC
Permalink
"Any event that killed all but the more distant members of the royal
family would tend to create an atmosphere whereby those in power would
try their damndest to maintain the status quo "

The status quo is the King and his son - and in the event of no son, a
son can be created from the DNA of the father.

"damndest to maintain the status quo - i.e. keep things as
close to routine as possible ( Sept. 11 proved that!), "

September 11th proved that the public can be swayed in any which
direction if they feel threatened. It's a great political tool, one Tom
Parker Bowles can utilize in a hypothetical defamatory campaign.

" i.e. keep things as
close to routine as possible ( Sept. 11 proved that!), and therefore
discourage any attempt to change the succession -"

I would suggest that appointing a distant relative... an actual distant
relative, somebody who's only relation is a King from 250 years ago,
would be changing the succession much more drastically than producing a
son or daughter of the recently deceased King.

" and therefore
discourage any attempt to change the succession - including new-fangled

yet to be invented technology to produce a heir to displace the true
heir-"

It has been invented. It has been done before. They have taken DNA from
mammals and produced an embryo, and a child. I believe it already has
been done with humans, but if it hasn't, it's only a matter of time.

In fact the technology exists or almost exists to even clone the
present King, and put his DNA into an embryo, and produce a child. So
the shiat of the King would be King until the King is born again. The
Church of England chaps may like the concept.

Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-04 08:34:07 UTC
Permalink
It would be interesting to know what is defined as "death" in the
Succession laws. Actually, death of a monarch does not come from his
death, but rather, when a group of nobles acknowledges or declares that
he is dead.

If the elitist group denies this declaration, and says that the King is
still alive, he is, according to law, still alive and thus a ruling
monarch.

How is this important? Well the shiate of the King would be the vestige
of the King, the representation of the King in the King's absence.

The new King, soon to be created out of impregnating a royal woman,
will either be a clone of the original King, or a mixture of the King's
genes with the mother's genes.

Cloning has already been done for a Dolly the Sheep and many other
mammals for many years now (at least 5 years). So crazy cult already
has claimed it has cloned a human being. I don't agree in cloning, but
the bottom line is that it is coming. And the technology for artificial
semination is also very advanced, and maybe at the point now, and
almost certainly will be in the near future, of impregnating a woman
with semen or some similiar entity that has been created from the DNA
of the shiate.

Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-04 08:34:08 UTC
Permalink
It would be interesting to know what is defined as "death" in the
Succession laws. Actually, death of a monarch does not come from his
death, but rather, when a group of nobles acknowledges or declares that
he is dead.

If the elitist group denies this declaration, and says that the King is
still alive, he is, according to law, still alive and thus a ruling
monarch.

How is this important? Well the shiate of the King would be the vestige
of the King, the representation of the King in the King's absence.

The new King, soon to be created out of impregnating a royal woman,
will either be a clone of the original King, or a mixture of the King's
genes with the mother's genes.

Cloning has already been done for a Dolly the Sheep and many other
mammals for many years now (at least 5 years). So crazy cult already
has claimed it has cloned a human being. I don't agree in cloning, but
the bottom line is that it is coming. And the technology for artificial
semination is also very advanced, and maybe at the point now, and
almost certainly will be in the near future, of impregnating a woman
with semen or some similiar entity that has been created from the DNA
of the shiate.

Aggie
Louis Epstein
2006-03-04 19:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Aggie <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: "Any event that killed all but the more distant members of the royal
: family would tend to create an atmosphere whereby those in power would
: try their damndest to maintain the status quo "
:
: The status quo is the King and his son - and in the event of no son, a
: son can be created from the DNA of the father.

The status quo is that sons of Kings CAN'T be created from paternal DNA,
so if their aren't any you go by prescribed rules to the nearest remaining
relative.

: "damndest to maintain the status quo - i.e. keep things as
: close to routine as possible ( Sept. 11 proved that!), "
:
: September 11th proved that the public can be swayed in any which
: direction if they feel threatened. It's a great political tool, one Tom
: Parker Bowles can utilize in a hypothetical defamatory campaign.

TPB would have an immeasurably weaker position than the Carnegies,
Ferners,Ramsays,and other distant royal relations.

: " i.e. keep things as
: close to routine as possible ( Sept. 11 proved that!), and therefore
: discourage any attempt to change the succession -"
:
: I would suggest that appointing a distant relative... an actual distant
: relative, somebody who's only relation is a King from 250 years ago,
: would be changing the succession much more drastically than producing a
: son or daughter of the recently deceased King.

I insist that only succession by the nearest available relative
by the traditional rules is not "changing the succession".

: " and therefore
: discourage any attempt to change the succession - including new-fangled
: yet to be invented technology to produce a heir to displace the true
: heir-"
:
: It has been invented. It has been done before. They have taken DNA from
: mammals and produced an embryo, and a child. I believe it already has
: been done with humans, but if it hasn't, it's only a matter of time.

They have certainly never taken their samples from a privy closet!

: In fact the technology exists or almost exists to even clone the
: present King, and put his DNA into an embryo, and produce a child. So
: the shiat of the King would be King until the King is born again. The
: Church of England chaps may like the concept.
:
: Aggie

No,only the aspiring trolls.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Aggie
2006-03-08 04:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
The status quo is that sons of Kings CAN'T be created from paternal DNA,
so if their aren't any you go by prescribed rules to the nearest remaining
relative.
The status quo? Where do such examples exist? That it has been
suggested that the DNA of a deceased King be used to create the new
King?

" TPB would have an immeasurably weaker position than the Carnegies,
Post by Louis Epstein
Ferners,Ramsays,and other distant royal relations."
If it's declared and "proven" that Tom Parker Bowles was borne of a
married couple by the names of the Prince of Wales and Ms. Camilla
Parker Bowles, then TPB becomes the heir to the throne, ahead of those
other families.

"I insist that only succession by the nearest available relative
Post by Louis Epstein
by the traditional rules is not "changing the succession".
Anytime a nation decides to move away from its present royal family to
a new one at quite a distance creates some large change, some upheaval.
TPB, being of the present family, and being supposedly the son of the
Prince of Wales, would have legitimate claim.

As well, the DNA of the former King can be used to either clone that
same King into a child, or inject that DNA into an egg to form a "new"
human being.
Post by Louis Epstein
They have certainly never taken their samples from a privy closet!
The Royals are probably the first to indulge in this new technology,
but forgive me for my speculation.
Post by Louis Epstein
: In fact the technology exists or almost exists to even clone the
: present King, and put his DNA into an embryo, and produce a child. So
: the shiat of the King would be King until the King is born again. The
: Church of England chaps may like the concept.
Spoken like a King.

Aggie
Louis Epstein
2006-03-09 21:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Aggie <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: To respond:
:
:>The status quo is that sons of Kings CAN'T be created from paternal DNA,
:> so if their aren't any you go by prescribed rules to the nearest remaining
:> relative.
:
: The status quo? Where do such examples exist? That it has been
: suggested that the DNA of a deceased King be used to create the new
: King?

You have suggested that this,which has never happened,could happen,
but that does not make this novelty part of the status quo.

:> " TPB would have an immeasurably weaker position than the Carnegies,
:> Ferners,Ramsays,and other distant royal relations."
:
: If it's declared and "proven" that Tom Parker Bowles was borne of a
: married couple by the names of the Prince of Wales and Ms. Camilla
: Parker Bowles, then TPB becomes the heir to the throne, ahead of those
: other families.

But he was the son of Andrew Parker Bowles.

: "I insist that only succession by the nearest available relative
:> by the traditional rules is not "changing the succession".
:
: Anytime a nation decides to move away from its present royal family to
: a new one at quite a distance creates some large change, some upheaval.
: TPB, being of the present family, and being supposedly the son of the
: Prince of Wales, would have legitimate claim.

No...a blood relative,however distant,is still a part of the same family,
while a stepson (who could not become something else thanks to some DNA
graft) is something else.

: As well, the DNA of the former King can be used to either clone that
: same King into a child, or inject that DNA into an egg to form a "new"
: human being.

No,it has never happened and can not be regarded as possible.

:> They have certainly never taken their samples from a privy closet!
:
: The Royals are probably the first to indulge in this new technology,
: but forgive me for my speculation.

Your motives don't seem very forgivable.

:> : In fact the technology exists or almost exists to even clone the
:> : present King, and put his DNA into an embryo, and produce a child. So
:> : the shiat of the King would be King until the King is born again. The
:> : Church of England chaps may like the concept.
:
: Spoken like

[edited out misleading superfluous words here]

: Aggie

...and therefore nonsense.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
m***@btinternet.com
2006-03-09 21:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
: If it's declared and "proven" that Tom Parker Bowles was borne of a
: married couple by the names of the Prince of Wales and Ms. Camilla
: Parker Bowles, then TPB becomes the heir to the throne, ahead of those
: other families.
But he was the son of Andrew Parker Bowles.
And even if it were "declared and proven" that TPB was the son of the
Prince of Wales by a purported marriage to Camilla Shand - ie before
her marriage to APB - he would still be illegitimate, as such a
marriage would be invalid under the Royal Marriage Act.
Aggie
2006-03-10 12:06:57 UTC
Permalink
"he would still be illegitimate, as such a
marriage would be invalid under the Royal Marriage Act"

Why??

Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-10 12:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Responses:

": As well, the DNA of the former King can be used to either clone that

: same King into a child, or inject that DNA into an egg to form a
"new"
: human being.

:No,it has never happened and can not be regarded as possible"

It's happened with animals. It's is therefore possible; for animals
resemble us to a great extent. Sure there are some hurdles, but I don't
see how science can surpass them within the next few years. Both
cloning and creating a male sperm-like strand to inject in a female egg
has happened many times for many animals within the last 8 years or so.


":then TPB becomes the heir to the throne, ahead of those
: other families.
:But he was the son of Andrew Parker Bowles."

He never was the actual son of Andrew Parker Bowles; APB was a
step-father, and assisted Prince Charles in the raising of the boy. Or
so it goes in this hypothetical scheme.

"No...a blood relative,however distant,is still a part of the same
family,
while a stepson (who could not become something else thanks to some DNA

graft) is something else. "

You don't understand; I am suggesting that Tom could claim, and be
recognized by the monarch, by his father Charles and by the authorities
as such, as the legitimate son of Charles and heir to the throne. So he
would be the eldest son and thus Thomas of Wales.

But, even if he was a step-son, let's not forget that the step-son
Lulach was King before, so there is a precedent.

Aggie
Louis Epstein
2006-03-10 19:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Aggie <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: Responses:
:
: ": As well, the DNA of the former King can be used to either clone that
: : same King into a child, or inject that DNA into an egg to form a
: : "new" human being.
:
: :No,it has never happened and can not be regarded as possible"
:
: It's happened with animals. It's is therefore possible; for animals
: resemble us to a great extent. Sure there are some hurdles, but I don't
: see how science can surpass them within the next few years. Both
: cloning and creating a male sperm-like strand to inject in a female egg
: has happened many times for many animals within the last 8 years or so.

It's certainly not reasonable to consider a possible future
technology to be part of the traditional status quo.

: ":then TPB becomes the heir to the throne, ahead of those
: : other families.
: :But he was the son of Andrew Parker Bowles."
:
: He never was the actual son of Andrew Parker Bowles; APB was a
: step-father, and assisted Prince Charles in the raising of the boy. Or
: so it goes in this hypothetical scheme.

A useless hypothesis.

: "No...a blood relative,however distant,is still a part of the same
: family,
: while a stepson (who could not become something else thanks to some DNA
: graft) is something else. "
:
: You don't understand; I am suggesting that Tom could claim, and be
: recognized by the monarch, by his father Charles and by the authorities
: as such, as the legitimate son of Charles and heir to the throne. So he
: would be the eldest son and thus Thomas of Wales.

How could he be recognized by people you are suggesting would
be killed in your convenient massacre?

: But, even if he was a step-son, let's not forget that the step-son
: Lulach was King before, so there is a precedent.

Lulach's claim derived not from his stepfather
but his mother,who represented an elder line of
the dynasty than her husband (whose claim came
through his own mother).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Aggie
2006-03-12 03:51:13 UTC
Permalink
To respond to Louis:

": He never was the actual son of Andrew Parker Bowles; APB was a
: step-father, and assisted Prince Charles in the raising of the boy.
Or
: so it goes in this hypothetical scheme.

A useless hypothesis"

Louis, it's not a useless hypothesis - for if Tom Parker Bowles is the
legitimate son of Prince Charles, that is, he was born of a marriage
between Charles and Camilla, which was sanctified by the Church, then
he is the heir to the throne.

"How could he be recognized by people you are suggesting would
be killed in your convenient massacre? "

Either beforehand, Charles and/or the ruling Monarch announces that TPB
is the legitimate and eldest son of Prince Charles. OR, it's written
into some kind of will, that the above statement is true.

"Lulach's claim derived not from his stepfather
but his mother,who represented an elder line of
the dynasty than her husband (whose claim came
through his own mother). "

Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles, to the best of my knowledge, are not
descended from Sophia, Electress of Hanover, however they are descended
from Royals of previous centuries, and in fact Charles and Camilla do
share some Royal relatives. Lulach, in any event, claimed the throne,
and explained and justified later; so can TPB. Throughout history,
incidents abound where the Crown is taken through virtue not
complacense

But either through inheritance, where Tom Parker Bowles would be
claimed to actually be the legitimate child of Charles, or through
virtue, where TPB would skillfully position himself on the throne, TPB
can be King.

Aggie


Aggie
Louis Epstein
2006-03-12 21:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Aggie <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: To respond to Louis:
:
: ": He never was the actual son of Andrew Parker Bowles; APB was a
: : step-father, and assisted Prince Charles in the raising of the boy.
: Or
: : so it goes in this hypothetical scheme.
:
: A useless hypothesis"
:
: Louis, it's not a useless hypothesis - for if Tom Parker Bowles is the
: legitimate son of Prince Charles, that is, he was born of a marriage
: between Charles and Camilla, which was sanctified by the Church, then
: he is the heir to the throne.

But he is known to have been born long before their marriage!!!

[remainder of nonsense snipped]

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Aggie
2006-03-13 11:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Louis, to repeat:

": Louis, it's not a useless hypothesis - for if Tom Parker Bowles is
the
: legitimate son of Prince Charles, that is, he was born of a marriage
: between Charles and Camilla, which was sanctified by the Church, then

: he is the heir to the throne. "

"But he is known to have been born long before their marriage!!! "

You mean the marriage from last year? That's not the marriage I'm
talking about. I'm talking about the marriage that was (supposedly)
conducted out of the public view in 1973 or 1974... when Charles
married Camilla, with the Church's sanction, and produced Tom Parker
Bowles. He then later decided that he doesn't want Camilla anymore, and
divorced her, and married Diana on July 29th, 1981. Then William and
Harry came. Then Diana died (or was killed!) and Charles re-married
Camilla.

Sounds good?

Aggie
Louis Epstein
2006-03-14 02:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Aggie <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: Louis, to repeat:
:
: ": Louis, it's not a useless hypothesis - for if Tom Parker Bowles is
: the
: : legitimate son of Prince Charles, that is, he was born of a marriage
: : between Charles and Camilla, which was sanctified by the Church, then
:
: : he is the heir to the throne. "
:
: "But he is known to have been born long before their marriage!!! "
:
: You mean the marriage from last year? That's not the marriage I'm
: talking about. I'm talking about the marriage that was (supposedly)
: conducted out of the public view in 1973 or 1974... when Charles
: married Camilla, with the Church's sanction, and produced Tom Parker
: Bowles. He then later decided that he doesn't want Camilla anymore, and
: divorced her, and married Diana on July 29th, 1981. Then William and
: Harry came. Then Diana died (or was killed!) and Charles re-married
: Camilla.
:
: Sounds good?

Sounds like a ridiculous figment of your imagination.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Aggie
2006-03-14 03:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Of course it's a figment of my imagination. And it may be a tad bit
amusing and entertaining.

But I'm just speaking to the logic of it.

Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-14 03:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Of course it's a figment of my imagination. And it may be a tad bit
amusing and entertaining.
But I'm just speaking to the logic of it.
Aggie
Oh come now, you idiotic twat!

On far too many previous occasions you have shown you know absolutely
nothing as to logic or its meaning - and are thus incapable of speaking
about it whatsoever.

--
The Verminator
Aggie
2006-03-14 06:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Logic has no meaning itself; it is merely the arbiter and conduit of
meaning.

If you have a keen sense of it, you would not use personal attacks.

Again to try to focus on the issue gentleman, here is the relevant
excerpt:


: ": Louis, it's not a useless hypothesis - for if Tom Parker Bowles is

: the
: : legitimate son of Prince Charles, that is, he was born of a
marriage
: : between Charles and Camilla, which was sanctified by the Church,
then
:
: : he is the heir to the throne. "
:
: "But he is known to have been born long before their marriage!!! "
:
: You mean the marriage from last year? That's not the marriage I'm
: talking about. I'm talking about the marriage that was (supposedly)
: conducted out of the public view in 1973 or 1974... when Charles
: married Camilla, with the Church's sanction, and produced Tom Parker
: Bowles. He then later decided that he doesn't want Camilla anymore,
and
: divorced her, and married Diana on July 29th, 1981. Then William and
: Harry came. Then Diana died (or was killed!) and Charles re-married
: Camilla.
:


Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-14 13:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Logic has no meaning itself; it is merely the arbiter and conduit of
meaning.
If you have a keen sense of it, you would not use personal attacks.
Again to try to focus on the issue gentleman, here is the relevant
: ": Louis, it's not a useless hypothesis - for if Tom Parker Bowles is
: the
: : legitimate son of Prince Charles, that is, he was born of a marriage
: : between Charles and Camilla, which was sanctified by the Church, then
: : he is the heir to the throne. "
: "But he is known to have been born long before their marriage!!! "
: You mean the marriage from last year? That's not the marriage I'm
: talking about. I'm talking about the marriage that was (supposedly)
: conducted out of the public view in 1973 or 1974... when Charles
: married Camilla, with the Church's sanction, and produced Tom Parker
: Bowles. He then later decided that he doesn't want Camilla anymore, and
: divorced her, and married Diana on July 29th, 1981. Then William and
: Harry came. Then Diana died (or was killed!) and Charles re-married
: Camilla.
Aggie
The flaw in you logic is this......

*IF* Charles and Camilla had been united in a Church sanctioned wedding
before he married Diana and Camilla married Andrew PB then Camilla and
Andrew could NOT have been married in a Church sanctioned wedding...
AND they WERE. That fact alone proves there was no marriage between
Charles and Camilla prior to Tom's birth.

Now take you hopelessly inane "imagination" elsewhere, someplace it
will be appreciated; may I suggest alt. die.die.Di.

--
The Verminator
Aggie
2006-03-14 23:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Excellent point, Vermin.

To review the facts: Andrew Parker Bowles married Camilla in 1973. Tom
Parker Bowles was born on December 18, 1974.

If it is posited that Camilla was already married at that point to
Charles of Wales, then it would follow that her subsequent marriage to
Andrew constitutes bigamy, and is therefore invalid.

So yes, the church's sanctioning of the 1973 Camilla and Andrew
marriage would have to be revoked or otherwise disqualified, if it is
advanced that Tom Parker Bowles is the eldest legitimate son of the
Prince of Wales.

This shouldn't be so difficult. Camilla would lie; Charles would lie;
Tom surely would lie. The question is, would Andrew Parker Bowles lie?
Would the clergy lie?

My understanding of Andrew is that he is a great servant to Charles and
the sovereign. It is said that he often offered a home for Charles and
Camilla to commit adultery in, and that he knew about the romantic
relationship that the both had. It's said that he may have even
encouraged it, etc. In any event, he proved to be loyal during the
whole time when his wife was sleeping with Charles, for he has never
gone to the press about it. Sure, he may have not known it was going
on, but I think that is very unlikely, for Camilla would be gone for
days with Charles.

My understanding of the clergy is that some of them are hypocritical.
Some may be corrupt, and willing to accept gifts, material or
otherwise, for their favour. Others are so loyal to the Crown that they
would do anything to persue it's interests, and would obey any
requests. Would it be hard for the crown for find an Archbishop who is
vulnerable in this way?

Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-15 00:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Excellent point, Vermin.
To review the facts: Andrew Parker Bowles married Camilla in 1973. Tom
Parker Bowles was born on December 18, 1974.
If it is posited that Camilla was already married at that point to
Charles of Wales, then it would follow that her subsequent marriage to
Andrew constitutes bigamy, and is therefore invalid.
You still don't get it!
Without proof it can NOT be posited that Camilla was already married to
Charles.

Do read up on the procedure for approving a marriage of the Royal
Family (approval in council, recording approval, etc.) It will become
clear that there is NO way to forge such approval-PERIOD.. and without
such approval ANY marriage of ANY member of the Royal Family is null
and void - except for those who are over 25 and make public declaration
to Parliament they intend to proceed and then wait a year and THEN may
marry unless Parlimant publicly disapproves the marriage.

Given the above it is impossible that Camilla and Charles were married
before Tom was born and therefore Tom can not EVER be legally
recognized as the eldest son of of the Prince of Wales and heir to the
throne.

Some things are possible... but Tom being recognized as the legitmate
eldest son of Camilla and Charles is NOT one of them- END OF STORY!

--
The Verminator
Aggie
2006-03-15 04:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
You still don't get it!
Without proof it can NOT be posited that Camilla was already married to
Charles.
Obviously! But the proof can be forged and made up by the Royal family.
Post by t***@comcast.net
Do read up on the procedure for approving a marriage of the Royal
Family (approval in council, recording approval, etc.) It will become
clear that there is NO way to forge such approval-PERIOD.. and without
such approval ANY marriage of ANY member of the Royal Family is null
and void - except for those who are over 25 and make public declaration
to Parliament they intend to proceed and then wait a year and THEN may
marry unless Parlimant publicly disapproves the marriage.
The Royal Marriages Act acknowledges that the sovereign must give her
consent to any marraige, or otherwise the groom (who must be at least
25 years of age) must wait a year before getting married.

What is the source or reference for your comment that the heir to the
throne must declare his marriage to parliament?

Certainly Charles never received any consent during this recent
marriage.
Post by t***@comcast.net
It will become
clear that there is NO way to forge such approval-PERIOD
Why not? Must that approval be in writing from the sovereign - or can
it be done orally? Surely it can be.

So tell me where it says that the marriages of the heir to the throne
must be announced to parliament.

Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-15 04:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
You still don't get it!
Without proof it can NOT be posited that Camilla was already married to
Charles.
Obviously! But the proof can be forged and made up by the Royal family.
Post by t***@comcast.net
Do read up on the procedure for approving a marriage of the Royal
Family (approval in council, recording approval, etc.) It will become
clear that there is NO way to forge such approval-PERIOD.. and without
such approval ANY marriage of ANY member of the Royal Family is null
and void - except for those who are over 25 and make public declaration
to Parliament they intend to proceed and then wait a year and THEN may
marry unless Parlimant publicly disapproves the marriage.
The Royal Marriages Act acknowledges that the sovereign must give her
consent to any marraige, or otherwise the groom (who must be at least
25 years of age) must wait a year before getting married.

What is the source or reference for your comment that the heir to the
throne must declare his marriage to parliament?

Certainly Charles never received any consent during this recent
marriage.
Post by t***@comcast.net
It will become
clear that there is NO way to forge such approval-PERIOD
Why not? Must that approval be in writing from the sovereign - or can
it be done orally? Surely it can be.

So tell me where it says that the marriages of the heir to the throne
must be announced to parliament.

Aggie
Daniel Gubler-Jones
2006-03-15 05:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Dear verminator--- you're letting Aggie push your buttons, from which I
believe she derives great pleasure. Obviously she is living in an
unpenetrable black hole of madness if she believes that anyone cares
about her hypotheses. I breathlessly await the moment when she
cheerfully informs us the earth is flat because King Tom has decreed it
so. She is delusional. No amount of truth will ever convince her that
there are actual rules to monarchal succession. As such, much as I or
you may be tempted to *try* to correct her, she will not change. It is
an exercise in futility. Move on and let her keep posting to this
ridiculous topic by herself. Eventually she will *hopefully* get the
point and move to the previously suggested alt.die.die.Di.
rickym
2006-03-15 20:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Gubler-Jones
Dear verminator--- you're letting Aggie push your buttons, from which I
believe she derives great pleasure. Obviously she is living in an
unpenetrable black hole of madness if she believes that anyone cares
about her hypotheses. I breathlessly await the moment when she
cheerfully informs us the earth is flat because King Tom has decreed it
so. She is delusional. No amount of truth will ever convince her that
there are actual rules to monarchal succession. As such, much as I or
you may be tempted to *try* to correct her, she will not change. It is
an exercise in futility. Move on and let her keep posting to this
ridiculous topic by herself. Eventually she will *hopefully* get the
point and move to the previously suggested alt.die.die.Di.
Thank you! --r
Aggie
2006-03-21 12:22:17 UTC
Permalink
I've finally gathered the patience to respond again to the latest
posts.

"Aside from the fact that no such notice was given to
the Privy Council and therefore no such marriage as you posit would be
legal"

The Queen chooses how she will notify the Privy Council, and the Privy
Council decides which books to fill with this new information. That
notification and recording is usually done in the public eye, but I can
imagine that the Queen can do so privately and secretly. I'm not saying
this actually happened; but in the process of explaining how Tom is the
legitimate heir to the throne, and how Charles legitimately married
Camilla in 1973 (thus making the Camilla/Andrew Parker Bowles marriage
void and null at least until they divorced in 1975), it can be useful.

Additionally, for such a cover-up to work would require the use/abuse
of loyal clergy. Surely some of them are willing to lie for the future
King Charles (and the present Queen Elizabeth). Yes there are books
recording the various entries and marriages; but give them to some
specialists and the appropriate markings can be made without any
physically noticeabe difference under a microscope.

You doubt the stupidity and gullibility of the masses; but if the
tabloids and later the evening news were to find some planted
information unveiling, much to the Royal Family's chagrin, that Tom is
indeed the legitimate son of Charles (if not the biological) it would
only be a matter of weeks before the masses call for Tom.

Yes, a cover-up would be exposed eventually; but Tom Parker Bowles only
needs a couple of months or so to solidify his position. Once the
masses cry "cover-up" at Charles horrible deed of covering up his
previous marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall, it would only appear
reformist and appeasing for Charles to announce, with angst and
trepidation, that Tom Parker Bowles is the legitimate heir. Prince
Thomas would then be invested with the various regalia of the heir
apparent of the heir to the throne, and that's all you need.

"Charles would still have needed for Parliament to
not disapprove of such an intended marriage. "

That's not true, Charles only needs the approval of the sovereign, the
Church and the Privy Council. All 3 of which are corruptable in one way
or another.

Finally, let me go over the events again:

Charles marries Camilla in 1973, before Andrew Parker Bowles "marries"
Camilla. Charles receives support from the Queen, the Clergy (which
presides over the ceremony) and the Privy Council, who agree to meet in
secret with the Queen Elizabeth II so that the Wallis Simpson fiasco is
not replicated. Charles marrying a commoner is a sensitive issue. This
explains why the marriage was kept secret.

Andrew and Camilla are illegally wed by a clergyman in 1973, who was
not told of Camilla's other marriage.

Tom Parker Bowles is born in December, 1974.

Prince Charles and Camilla agree to divorce one another in 1975. Andrew
Parker Bowles either becomes the defacto husband of Camilla through the
previous ceremony or do indeed conduct a legitimate ceremony after
Charles and Camilla divorce. Andrew, being supposedly very loyal to
Charles, may lie for him to this extent.

Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-21 13:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
I've finally gathered the patience to respond again to the latest
posts.
"Aside from the fact that no such notice was given to
the Privy Council and therefore no such marriage as you posit would be
legal"
The Queen chooses how she will notify the Privy Council, and the Privy
Council decides which books to fill with this new information. That
notification and recording is usually done in the public eye, but I can
imagine that the Queen can do so privately and secretly. I'm not saying
this actually happened; but in the process of explaining how Tom is the
legitimate heir to the throne, and how Charles legitimately married
Camilla in 1973 (thus making the Camilla/Andrew Parker Bowles marriage
void and null at least until they divorced in 1975), it can be useful.
Read the RMA again- it is VERY explicit as to where, how, and when the
approval of a Royal Marriage is documented.

Your use of "I can imagine" is unacceptable in proving your case... use
FACTS, not your imagination.
Post by Aggie
Additionally, for such a cover-up to work would require the use/abuse
of loyal clergy. Surely some of them are willing to lie for the future
King Charles (and the present Queen Elizabeth). Yes there are books
recording the various entries and marriages; but give them to some
specialists and the appropriate markings can be made without any
physically noticeabe difference under a microscope.
Since these books are in cronological order it would not only be "the
appropritate markings" that would have to be changed but an entirely
new book done - and a book couldn't be missing for that long before
someone noticed.
Post by Aggie
You doubt the stupidity and gullibility of the masses; but if the
tabloids and later the evening news were to find some planted
information unveiling, much to the Royal Family's chagrin, that Tom is
indeed the legitimate son of Charles (if not the biological) it would
only be a matter of weeks before the masses call for Tom.
DO get a clue.. to be the legitimate son of Charles he MUST ALSO be the
biological son in this case.
Post by Aggie
Yes, a cover-up would be exposed eventually; but Tom Parker Bowles only
needs a couple of months or so to solidify his position. Once the
masses cry "cover-up" at Charles horrible deed of covering up his
previous marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall, it would only appear
reformist and appeasing for Charles to announce, with angst and
trepidation, that Tom Parker Bowles is the legitimate heir. Prince
Thomas would then be invested with the various regalia of the heir
apparent of the heir to the throne, and that's all you need.
Dream on dear.... dream on !
Post by Aggie
"Charles would still have needed for Parliament to
not disapprove of such an intended marriage. "
That's not true, Charles only needs the approval of the sovereign, the
Church and the Privy Council. All 3 of which are corruptable in one way
or another.
Err.. if he has the Monarch's approval it doesn't matter what the
church OR the Privy Council thinks.
<large snip of redundant fantasy which just will NOT work- no matter
how hard Aggie
argues with factual info>
Post by Aggie
Aggie
m***@btinternet.com
2006-03-21 14:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Your use of "I can imagine" is unacceptable in proving your case... use
FACTS, not your imagination.
My dear chap, let it go; if 'Aggie' wants to spend its time postulating
about dung and being detached from reality, let it do so on its own.
There are much more entertaining trolls to play with here.

MAR
Hal S.
2006-03-21 20:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by t***@comcast.net
Your use of "I can imagine" is unacceptable in proving your case... use
FACTS, not your imagination.
My dear chap, let it go; if 'Aggie' wants to spend its time postulating
about dung and being detached from reality, let it do so on its own.
There are much more entertaining trolls to play with here.
MAR
-------------------------------

Amen.

The only sane part of her posting is the first words of her subject : "How I
a pile of Dung...." I can only assume she's referring to herself.

Hal S.
Aggie
2006-03-21 22:54:08 UTC
Permalink
To address the RMA points:

1. "Read the RMA again- it is VERY explicit as to where, how, and when
the
approval of a Royal Marriage is documented. "

The RMA (Royal Marriages Act) does give much detail as to this process
of documentation. Here is what is written.

"That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the
Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have
married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be
capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his
Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and
declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is
hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage,
and to be entered in the books of the privy council); "
Source: http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html

So what you need is a) Consent of his majesty and his heirs b)
signification under the great seal c) declaration in Council (Privy
Council) d) the memory thereof set out in the license and register of
marriage e) entered into the books of the privy council.

Here is how Charles/Tom/Queen can fabricate all of this:
a) Queen Elizabeth declares in May, after the media hoopla and outrage,
that she did indeed give consent to such a marriage.
b) The great seal is attached tomorrow by the Queen's specialists to a
document giving consent to the marriage, and dated October 31, 1973.
The document is then appropriately aged so that future testing of the
document and its decomposition will show that it's from the year 1973
or thereabouts.
c) Loyalists within the Privy Council are called tomorrow, and asked by
the Queen or by Charles to say that such a marriage was declared in
Council, but was kept secret in order to avoid another Wallis Simpson
affair (no pun intended). The Privy Council over the years has dealt
with many secret matters, and of course secret matters are not
published in public books.
d) I admittedly am not an expert in the area of the license and
register of marriage. Surely though the public books can be edited to
say, 'Prince Charles and Camilla Shand married Oct 31 1973' somewhere
in the margins or in some free space? Maybe in some book of some
obscure church that's gathering dust underneath some table? And if no
such editable books can be found, surely it can conjured that there is
indeed a secret registrar book of the local church, and such a book
fabricated for evidence? Again you would need a loyalist from within
the Church to back your story up.
e) As mentioned earlier, it's easy to be entered into the secret books
of the privy council; no proviso exists in the RMA that says the books
of the Privy Council must be public, only that they should exist.

Does this deal with your RMA points adequately?

Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-21 23:06:08 UTC
Permalink
"Err.. if he has the Monarch's approval it doesn't matter what the
church OR the Privy Council thinks. "

No, the RMA states specifically what must occur for an heir to the
throne to be married. See above.

Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-22 00:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
1. "Read the RMA again- it is VERY explicit as to where, how, and when
the
approval of a Royal Marriage is documented. "
The RMA (Royal Marriages Act) does give much detail as to this process
of documentation. Here is what is written.
"That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the
Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have
married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be
capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his
Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and
declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is
hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage,
and to be entered in the books of the privy council); "
Source: http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html
So what you need is a) Consent of his majesty and his heirs b)
signification under the great seal c) declaration in Council (Privy
Council) d) the memory thereof set out in the license and register of
marriage e) entered into the books of the privy council.
a) Queen Elizabeth declares in May, after the media hoopla and outrage,
that she did indeed give consent to such a marriage.
Do get serious!!!
Post by Aggie
b) The great seal is attached tomorrow by the Queen's specialists to a
document giving consent to the marriage, and dated October 31, 1973.
The document is then appropriately aged so that future testing of the
document and its decomposition will show that it's from the year 1973
or thereabouts.
Nope- won't work.. among other things, any competent lab would spot a
forgery due to the chemicals used to "age" the paper
Post by Aggie
c) Loyalists within the Privy Council are called tomorrow, and asked by
the Queen or by Charles to say that such a marriage was declared in
Council, but was kept secret in order to avoid another Wallis Simpson
affair (no pun intended). The Privy Council over the years has dealt
with many secret matters, and of course secret matters are not
published in public books.
True- but Royal Marriages, by virtue of the Royal Marriage Act are by
nature required to NOT be secret ( that is why the consent must be
recorded in the Privy Council book, the Marriage license itself, and
the marriage register of the church). Keeping such secret and NOT
following the RMA would in and of itself make any such secret wedding
null and void.
Post by Aggie
d) I admittedly am not an expert in the area of the license and
register of marriage. Surely though the public books can be edited to
say, 'Prince Charles and Camilla Shand married Oct 31 1973' somewhere
in the margins or in some free space? Maybe in some book of some
obscure church that's gathering dust underneath some table? And if no
such editable books can be found, surely it can conjured that there is
indeed a secret registrar book of the local church, and such a book
fabricated for evidence? Again you would need a loyalist from within
the Church to back your story up.
Nope- due to the way the books are kept there is NO way they could be
edited.
Post by Aggie
e) As mentioned earlier, it's easy to be entered into the secret books
of the privy council; no proviso exists in the RMA that says the books
of the Privy Council must be public, only that they should exist.
Does this deal with your RMA points adequately?
See above- once again you prove you know nothing of the actual process
and try to pass off what you think as possible fact when it is not and
never will be.
Post by Aggie
Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-22 02:21:06 UTC
Permalink
In reply:

1." Nope- won't work.. among other things, any competent lab would spot
a
forgery due to the chemicals used to "age" the paper"

That's true. But the media will just look at the appearance of the book
and judge for themselves, and you can trust that they won't wait for
the lab results before announcing that Charles and Camilla were indeed
wed in 1973. By the time the lab results come in, if they do at all (if
anybody bothers to check), Prince Thomas will have safely received his
rites as the eldest son of the heir to the throne.

2. "True- but Royal Marriages, by virtue of the Royal Marriage Act are
by
nature required to NOT be secret ( that is why the consent must be
recorded in the Privy Council book, the Marriage license itself, and
the marriage register of the church). Keeping such secret and NOT
following the RMA would in and of itself make any such secret wedding
null and void."

It doesn't explicitly say that the marriage must be public. The Privy
Council's book can, as discussed, be held in secret. No marriage
license is required, read the RMA. The church's recording of the event
must be included in the register, but that can be forged too. Or a
secret book can be found containing the entries (now that Charles and
Camilla are married, it's safe to release the information to the
public, for the Wallis Simpson fiasco will not likely repeat itself).

3. "Nope- due to the way the books are kept there is NO way they could
be
edited. "

How are the books kept so that they can't be edited? Please explain.


Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-22 04:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
1." Nope- won't work.. among other things, any competent lab would spot
a
forgery due to the chemicals used to "age" the paper"
That's true. But the media will just look at the appearance of the book
and judge for themselves, and you can trust that they won't wait for
the lab results before announcing that Charles and Camilla were indeed
wed in 1973. By the time the lab results come in, if they do at all (if
anybody bothers to check), Prince Thomas will have safely received his
rites as the eldest son of the heir to the throne.
HUH?? What "rites" are you talking about?? There ARE no special
"rites" the eldest son of the heri receives-NONE.
Post by Aggie
2. "True- but Royal Marriages, by virtue of the Royal Marriage Act are
by
nature required to NOT be secret ( that is why the consent must be
recorded in the Privy Council book, the Marriage license itself, and
the marriage register of the church). Keeping such secret and NOT
following the RMA would in and of itself make any such secret wedding
null and void."
It doesn't explicitly say that the marriage must be public. The Privy
Council's book can, as discussed, be held in secret. No marriage
license is required, read the RMA. The church's recording of the event
must be included in the register, but that can be forged too. Or a
secret book can be found containing the entries (now that Charles and
Camilla are married, it's safe to release the information to the
public, for the Wallis Simpson fiasco will not likely repeat itself).
But a marriage license IS required-AND must bear notification of the
monarch's assent to the marriage...

"That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the
Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have
married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be
capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his
Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and
declared in council, (WHICH CONSENT, TO PRESERVE THE MEMORY THEREOF IS
HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE SET OUT IN THE LICENSE AND REGISTER OF MARRIAGE,
AND TO BE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL); "
Source: http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html
Post by Aggie
3. "Nope- due to the way the books are kept there is NO way they could
be
edited. "
How are the books kept so that they can't be edited? Please explain.
All one has to do is look at any Parish Register !!

And with this post- having shown you for the absolute fool that you
are- I bid you farewell forever.

--
The Verminator
Post by Aggie
Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-21 23:04:33 UTC
Permalink
To address the point about the importance of Tom being a legitimate or
biological son:

"DO get a clue.. to be the legitimate son of Charles he MUST ALSO be
the
biological son in this case. "

Actually what's most important is that he is a legitimate son.

But IF it's most important that he is a biological son, then we have to
backtrack to the debate from about a month ago, where I said Tom could
have a decent chance at the throne if he sucessfully claims to be the
biological son of Charles. Then we just wouldn't have to bother with
the whole marriage fabrication.

However people raised the point that it's irrelevant if Tom is the
biological son; one must be the legitimate son of Charles. And no
precedent in the English aristocracy has yet to be set for a biological
or DNA-based analysis of a boy's paternity. In other words, if there is
no legitimate marriage, the son is a 'bastard' in oldespeak, no matter
who the biological father is.

IF we were to include the illegitimate progeny of Kings as Kingly, then
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall would surely be considered royal, for she
has 2 direct descendants who are said to be the offspring of previous
Kings. But again, the biological basis is truly irrelevant as far as
the aristocracy goes. But we don't.

A boy needn't be the biological son of a father to his legitimate son;
he merely has to born of a wedded couple. It is assumed that he is also
the biological son of the father, but no tests or acclamations exist to
confirm that or solidify that.

Therefore, Tom would have an amazing chance to be the heir to the
throne if it's merely confirmed that he is the legitimate son of King.

Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-15 06:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by t***@comcast.net
You still don't get it!
Without proof it can NOT be posited that Camilla was already married to
Charles.
Obviously! But the proof can be forged and made up by the Royal family.
Post by t***@comcast.net
Do read up on the procedure for approving a marriage of the Royal
Family (approval in council, recording approval, etc.) It will become
clear that there is NO way to forge such approval-PERIOD.. and without
such approval ANY marriage of ANY member of the Royal Family is null
and void - except for those who are over 25 and make public declaration
to Parliament they intend to proceed and then wait a year and THEN may
marry unless Parlimant publicly disapproves the marriage.
The Royal Marriages Act acknowledges that the sovereign must give her
consent to any marraige, or otherwise the groom (who must be at least
25 years of age) must wait a year before getting married.
What is the source or reference for your comment that the heir to the
throne must declare his marriage to parliament?
Certainly Charles never received any consent during this recent
marriage.
Post by t***@comcast.net
It will become
clear that there is NO way to forge such approval-PERIOD
Why not? Must that approval be in writing from the sovereign - or can
it be done orally? Surely it can be.
So tell me where it says that the marriages of the heir to the throne
must be announced to parliament.
Aggie
As I said- read up on the entire Royal Marriage Act and and the actual
law as to how an approval is actually processed.

And yes- Charles DID recieve permission- check the minutes of the Privy
Council, it is all right there.

--
The Verminator
Aggie
2006-03-15 11:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Daniel - I'm honestly trying to deal with the facts.

"No amount of truth will ever convince her that
there are actual rules to monarchal succession"

Yes there are rules. Rules are but a mere expression of the past.
Monarchs should obey by rules if they are to appear legitimate, so in
most of my hypotheses, Tom Parker Bowles would have to come to power
using the traditional, legal means. It is much more likely for him to
become King this way than say, through conquest.

Verminator- That's an excellent point. In fact for the moment you've
stumped me. For while things like church records and witnesses can be
forged, what can't be forged is hansard for too many copies were made,
and let's not forget about the witnesses. And the inevitable press
coverage.

So, I'll spend some of the day ruminating over the matter, and invite
other interested writers to respond.

Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-15 11:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Here are the minutes that you speak of, below.

I must say though that it may appear that the final decision rests with
the Queen with regards to whether she wants to withold approval (not
give approval) with the optional consultation of the privy council.
Again we'll have to do some research on that.

Link:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:9cI__rHgQ0wJ:www.privy-council.org.uk/files/word/Orders%2520in%2520Council%25202%2520March%25202005.doc+site:privy-council.org.uk/+%22parker+bowles%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-15 11:44:03 UTC
Permalink
This may be the nail in the coffin! The Royal Marriages Act says:

"That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the
Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have
married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be
capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his
Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and
declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is
hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage,
and to be entered in the books of the privy council); and that every
marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such
consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents
and purposes whatsoever. "

I'll have to try very hard... very very hard... to make a rabbit come
out of this hat. Again we'll do some more research.

Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-15 11:51:21 UTC
Permalink
I'm back in the race ladies and gentlemen!!! The paragraph right
underneath the paragraph that was included from the Royal Marriages Act
actually sets aside different rules for descendents who are over 25 and
have waited a year. So there is no need for the marriage to be
"declared in council" though notice would still have to be given to the
privy council, and such notice would have to be noted in their books.

Excerpt:

"Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in
case any such descendant of the body of his late majesty King George
the Second, being above the age of twenty-five years, shall persist in
his or her resolution to contract a marriage disapproved of or
dissented from, by the King, his heirs, or successors; that then such
descendant, upon giving notice to the King's privy council, which
notice is hereby directed to be entered in the books thereof, may, at
any time from the expiration of twelve calendar months after such
notice given to the privy council as aforesaid, contract such marriage;
and his or her marriage with the person before proposed, and rejected,
may be duly solemnized, without the previous consent of his Majesty,
his heirs, or successors; and such marriage shall be good, as if this
act had never been made, unless both houses of parliament shall, before
the expiration of the said twelve months, expressly declare their
disapprobation of such intended marriage"


Aggie
m***@btinternet.com
2006-03-15 12:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
I'm back in the race ladies and gentlemen!!! The paragraph right
underneath the paragraph that was included from the Royal Marriages Act
actually sets aside different rules for descendents who are over 25 and
have waited a year. So there is no need for the marriage to be
"declared in council" though notice would still have to be given to the
privy council, and such notice would have to be noted in their books.
No you are not. Aside from the fact that no such notice was given to
the Privy Council and therefore no such marriage as you posit would be
legal, Miss Shand married Mr Parker Bowles on 4 July 1973, at which
time the Prince of Wales was aged 24.

The Royal Marriages Act kills your fantasy.
t***@comcast.net
2006-03-15 15:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
I'm back in the race ladies and gentlemen!!! The paragraph right
underneath the paragraph that was included from the Royal Marriages Act
actually sets aside different rules for descendents who are over 25 and
have waited a year. So there is no need for the marriage to be
"declared in council" though notice would still have to be given to the
privy council, and such notice would have to be noted in their books.
"Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in
case any such descendant of the body of his late majesty King George
the Second, being above the age of twenty-five years, shall persist in
his or her resolution to contract a marriage disapproved of or
dissented from, by the King, his heirs, or successors; that then such
descendant, upon giving notice to the King's privy council, which
notice is hereby directed to be entered in the books thereof, may, at
any time from the expiration of twelve calendar months after such
notice given to the privy council as aforesaid, contract such marriage;
and his or her marriage with the person before proposed, and rejected,
may be duly solemnized, without the previous consent of his Majesty,
his heirs, or successors; and such marriage shall be good, as if this
act had never been made, unless both houses of parliament shall, before
the expiration of the said twelve months, expressly declare their
disapprobation of such intended marriage"
Aggie
Even if over 25- which Charles wasn't at the time of Andrew and
Camilla's marriage- Charles would still have needed for Parliament to
not disapprove of such an intended marriage.

As I said... there is NO way that Tom can EVER be recognized and the
eldest legitimate son of Charles and Camilla.

--
The Verminator
Aggie
2006-03-15 20:12:52 UTC
Permalink
I just wrote a detailed response, but it didn't go through! Err. ~Aggie
Aggie
2006-03-10 12:08:30 UTC
Permalink
"he would still be illegitimate, as such a
marriage would be invalid under the Royal Marriage Act"

Because the act requires the consent of the monarch, or, if the heir
wants to, waits until he's 25 or is it two years afterward? It's
something like that.

Is that what you mean?

Aggie
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...