Royally Screwed: British Monarchy Revealed (16 page)

It could have been worse, the police could have opened fire into the crowd and someone could have died.  The Royal couple went home in a blacked out police van, so why couldn’t they have travelled there in the same vehicle??

Ultimately it was the wrong thing to do.  This couple lives with spin doctors and poll watchers and yet they couldn’t have gotten it more wrong.  They exist and live in another world, on another planet, and are clueless as to what is happening here on Earth.  Silly I know, but maybe it’s just me.

Would it be fair to assume that in the eyes of the GBP and possibly the world, this couple commands very little respect and has no relevance or value for their, now more than ever, hard earned tax revenue??  Is it the role of the people to support, spoilt, self indulgence on such a grand scale? Just wondering.

“Charles!!!... Charles!!!”

“Oh, for heaven’s sake, Camilla, do shut up!”.

Now that they are a boring old married couple and no longer an “exciting illicit affair”, Charles has “other” uses for her now un-necessary tampons.

The Royals at Christmas

Where did they get that hat?

Camilla and The Queen in their
REAL FUR

Christmas Hats

Queen and Camilla Slammed for Wearing Fur on Christmas

“Orf – with her hat!”

And the Queen was not amused that her daughter-in-law chose to wear exactly the same style of hat – a dead animal on their heads!

Queen Elizabeth
and her daughter-in-law, Camilla, have annoyed animal rights activists by wearing fur to attend church on Christmas Day.

Her Majesty wore a Cossack-style fox fur hat and a cream-colored wool coat with fur trim on the cuffs.  Camilla, the wife of Prince Charles whose title is the Duchess of Cornwall, wore a similar Russian-style hat by the milliner
Phillip Treacy.

Royal Tiaras:  Which One Will Kate Middleton Wear to Her Wedding?

Britain’s
Daily Mail reported
that the hat-maker used “vintage fur” which had previously belonghed to the duchess’s mother.  The paper quoted Andrew Tyler, director of the UK charity Animal Aid, saying” This strikes me as an ostentatious display of cruelty.  To parade fur in 2010 says something unpleasant about the person wearing it.”

Royal Engagement Rings

Britain’s royals have long been split on the acceptability of wearing fur.  The wife of Prince Edward the queen’s youngest son, apologized after being criticized for wearing a fur hat in 2000, calling it “an error of judgment.”

But the Queen herself has enjoyed many traditional pastimes of the aristocracy which seem cruel to modern sensibilities, including shooting weekends and fox hunting (which is now banned in Britain.)

Camilla attracted criticism for wearing fur twice last year during an official visit to Canada.  (However, for royal ostentation and fur, it’s hard to go past
this picture of Princess Anne standing on a polar bear skin on her wedding day.
)

And where does Britain’s lt-Royal, Kate Middleton, stand on fur? While she is not know for draping herself in animal skins, she did controversially wear a mink
fur hat to a horse racing event
in 2006.

Maybe she’ll tone it down on her
wedding day
and just pose for pictures standing on a
Pillow Pet
?

Don’t forget you can get your royal wedding new at RoyalWedding.aol.com

Morality/Shmorality –
Can we talk Legality??

I can only hope that in the previous 150 pages we have made our case that someone with the moral ethics of a house slug cannot be considered to be the right person to become Queen,

But if you buy into the great love story (which I’m afraid we don’t) and you don’t care about the moral values of our future King and Queen, then what about investigating a little further into the legality, or lack of it, of this liaison?

In 1772, King George 111, created a Royal Marriage Act, which made a law that only the Royal Sovereign could give permission for a Royal marriage, this was to protect the line of succession and to keep riff raff and the undesirables from getting near the throne. No comment.

In 1836, the civil marriage act was introduced into British law, allowing couples the right to a civil ceremony, but explicitly excluding Royalty from benefiting from the same rights in section 45 of the act, it stated that if you were Royal, you could only be married in consecrated ground, by a minister of the Anglican church.

In 1949, the act was amended but section 45 was left intact, so let’s make it plain here, the act of 1949, neither replaced or annulled the exemption pertaining to Royalty.

In 1955, Princess Margaret, the younger sister of the current Queen, wanted to marry a Captain Townsend, divorcee.  The Queen refused to give her permission, because Captain Townsend was divorced, but the Princess was told if she wanted a civil ceremony she had to give up her HRH, her line of succession and her access to the Privy Purse (her allowance). 

The government of the time, was ready to give the Princess what she wanted, the right to marry in a registry office and the right to keep her HRH, her line of succession, and access to the privy purse, as they were secretly trying to change the law.  How to sell it to the British public was their problem.  But their dilemma was unnecessary, because the Princess acquiesced and decided not to marry Capt. Townsend after all. 

Why are recent governments soo keen to roll over for the crown?  The relationship between Downing Street and Buckingham Palace is one that should cause the public concern, when it allows the crown to behave in contradiction to its own laws and maintains their allowance regardless.

In 2005, the government was keen to roll over again because of Prince Charles and his aging, divorced bride.  As both were over the age of 25, well over, the Queen’s permission was redundant, and there was no worry about them reproducing (thankfully) but there was the little problem of marrying a divorcee and a Catholic, which was also an issue.  Charles himself was also a divorcee, and of course a widower, so they both needed to marry in a civil ceremony, because it couldn’t be allowed in a church.

But Charles was a Royal and there was also the little problem of the unchanged section 45. There was always the European court of human rights, so Tony Blair’s government appealed on behalf of the Prince, that he was ‘yuumen’ (oh yeah, since when?) and he deserved the right of a ‘yuumen been’ to marry the women of his dreams.  As the European court only deals with human rights, they agreed that as a ‘yuumen’, he deserved the right to marry whoever he pleased.  The European court does not deal with laws concerning Royalty.  So he was granted his human rights, and the government made a statement that the law of 1949, section 45, was irrelevant and that people who dispute the law had not thought it through fully as far as Lord Falconer, current Lord Chancellor was concerned. The law was ‘over cautious’.

If Lord Falconer was so sure of his legal grounds, why has he covered them up?

Doesn’t the public have a right to know?

Legal advice taken on this matter has now been sealed and will only be made available after the Prince’s death. A freedom of information request was denied, and could not be revealed because it was against ‘the public’s interest’, and that the legality of the government’s decision could be challenged in court!

We have always known that laws were for the little people and were made to be broken by those who know far better than we do. The Justice department’s argument is that public interest in the matter does not outweigh the opposing public interest, is that true???

An article appeared in ‘The Daily Telegraph’, as recently as 2010, saying that the controversy was far from over, that the case was certainly not open and shut and if he were to take their advice, which of course he won’t, they suggest he not try to brazen it out, the public will not be open to it and they wouldn’t take the risk.

He won’t listen to anyone, he never does. He will attempt to fly in the face of public opinion and the law.  Their moral behaviour should be enough for the crown to elude them, but if the public no longer has a taste for morality, hopefully, they will demand to see a law that has been kept from them because its not in their best interest. Hhmmmmm.

Morality is not the hip happening word that it once was, and let’s face it in the 21
^st
Century people would much more prefer to be called ‘cool’, ‘hip’, ‘sexy’, ‘fierce’ than be called moral.

We chip, chip, chip away at moral standards and eventually what are we left with??