Charles & Camilla Converting?

76. God rot the royals.

Posted at 4:39PM on Dec 14th 2007 by Buster

77. Well QE 11 / HRH Elizabeth does claim tro be descended from King Solomon

Posted at 4:41PM on Dec 14th 2007 by richard

78. '75. Well QE 11 / HRH Elizabeth does claim tro be descended from King Solomon

Posted at 4:41PM on Dec 14th 2007 by richard'

------------
That is true, and one generation back is King David. That makes the reigning House of Windsor actually Jewish as King David, his son Solomon and the rest of the descendants Jewish - being of the tribe of Judah.

Have you Googled the lineage? It's public record. Fascinating how Jeremiah and the princess Tea Tepi emigrated from Israel first to Ireland, then to Scotland, then to England fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

http://www.loveyah.com/stone.htm

http://www.thercg.org/books/aabibp.html (America & Britain in Prophecy)

http://www.kingdavid.org/genealogy.html

Posted at 8:38PM on Dec 16th 2007 by Yucko

79. "Thes too will burn in hell for killing Diana. "

Get over yourself. People won't 'burn in hell' just because you don't like someone.

If you knew just how much of a complete ignoramus you come across as, you'd never have posted your rantings for all the world to see. Are you going to change your nickname yet again? You're easy to pick out because of your spelling, syntax and over-use of capital letters.

And although you might think yourself better than they are (HA!!) the fact remains that Camilla is married to Charles, Diana is dead, Camilla might one day be Queen to King Charles and they are both descended of royal stock - something both you and Diana are NOT.

Diana was second choice, a head case, a media whore and a physical whore who slept around with pretty much everyone, including Muslims.

Charles has had only one true love in his life, Camilla, a royal in her own right.
Diana screwed around with dozens of nobody commoners.

Get over yourself.

Posted at 8:39PM on Dec 16th 2007 by Yucko

80. to #76, you better crawl into your cave bat!, how can you possible defend 2 adulterer who of royal don't have anything except being corrupted people living in castles at the expense of their people.

Camilla perhaps will be your Queen but not to the rest of the world. She will remain a homewrecker.

The rest of the world thought highly of Diana, admire her and loves her dearly still.. She was the people of the world princess. The royals didn't diserve a Lady like Diana but a whore like Camilla for their next queen.

Correction: Diana was the fairytale pricess, the fairytale wife with all the trimings, horse face Camilla was the wife by default, she will never be respected and loved like Diana, no body respects her. She should crawl under the queens armits and hide there. She still has a nerve to act like a royal when she is simply a whore! She destroyed Diana's marriage from the start!

Posted at 10:49PM on Dec 21st 2007 by Diana was beautiful Lady loved by the world! A PRINCESS.

81. Well I guess just because you say something then it must truly be so? I see that you've changed your nickname once more (LOL at you).

Fairy tales are precisely that: a work of fiction as is your depiction of a head case. Somehow your hypocrisy has no bounds. You accuse Charles of not being faithful, yet you have no trouble defending a slut who slept with any number of men and if you look at James Hewett and Prince Harry you can see a clear familial resemblance. Harry looks nothing like Charles. So what's worse? Dithering on marrying a true love (Camilla) or being stuck with a second choice slut who whored around and through an adulterous relationship brought a bastard child into the royal lineage. Where's your 'outrage' and 'indignation'?

Charles is actually the author of his own misfortune. If he had married Camilla instead of dawdling, you wouldn't be identifying with a sociopathic head case commoner, who, as I mentioned, whored around and brought the bastard child of an adulterous relationship into this world. Poor Charles has to see James in Harry's face every time he looks at him...and the two boys are as unruly as their late mother Diana.

Fairy tales are not real. They can never be real, they are fiction, a fantasy, a falsehood, a work of the imagination like Hans Christian Anderson or Walt Disney. YOU need to get a grip on reality: Charles and Camilla love each other dearly and there's zero you can do about that. You don't have to like it. That's reality.

So- are you going to change your nym once more and go on another rant? Not only is it fun, but it is also so easy to push your buttons. All I have to do really is to reiterate that Charles and Camilla really, truly love one another - and what must irk you to no end is that Charles can see past the vanity of 'beauty' that Diana supposedly had physically, and see clearly to the spiritual and emotional inward beauty of true love - a lover, a companion, a trusted sounding board, a FAITHFUL wife who is renown for her ready smile, a humble attitude and who looks to devoting herself to her true love Charles in a way that was totally absent from his farce of a marriage with the head case. He has with Camilla everything that was lacking with Diana, and he deserves that kind of devotion, honesty and love. And even Harry and William accept her! Oh that must infuriate you too. But in the long run your impression of Camilla is irrelevant - he and Camilla are devoted to one another and that is what counts.

LMAO at you (smirk)

Posted at 8:41PM on Dec 16th 2007 by Yucko

82. Question: is a 'the fairytale wife with all the trimings' kind of like a turkey dinner with all the trimmings? LOL!!

Posted at 8:41PM on Dec 16th 2007 by Yucko

83. Those of you who know, please clarify the following issues for me: Why would Diana be a Queen Consort and Camilla Queen? I thought they both had a common ancestor in Charles II. Also: Should Charles and Camilla ascend to the throne, by LAW she would become Queen, but would not, I do not believe, be obligated to assume the style of queen -- just as at present, she is, by law, the Princess of Wales, but chooses to use another title, out of deference to the people who are still sensitive about recent history regarding Diana. Also, with regard to Prince Harry's parentage: I see a striking resemblance between him and Prince Phillip in some photos. Any one else agree? Thanks!

Posted at 4:22PM on Dec 28th 2007 by Seattle Lady

84. No answer! Camilla is a whore and Charles an unfaithful creep!. human waste!

Posted at 5:54PM on Dec 20th 2007 by The truth.- no fools!

85. For Seattle Lady: The complicated rules and laws for ascending to the Throne is governed, in part, by Parliament, and by Acts that date back to Henry VIII because of his philandering, beheading and marriages and divorces.

Diana the former Princess of Wales was conferred a minor title solely because of marriage to Charles. It was part of a wedding present by the Queen. Upon Di's divorce, the title of Princess was actually revoked. Although she was no longer 'Princess Diana', she could, with the Queen's approval, use the honourariam Diana, Princess of Wales in a limited capacity even though she was no longer a Princess technically. This was 'at Her Majesty's pleasure'.

You can find an abbreviated overview here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_Throne

Read the links dealing with the various Acts and the history behind them.

Diana, being a commoner, would only have been able to be Queen Consort (for many similar reasons by Prince Philip could not be King Philip, but a Consort.) You'd find some of the answers through the Wikipedia links, and also by checking the Queen's web site. There is a lot of history there.

I took another look at Harry and Philip and I don't see any resemblance, sorry.

Camilla is not Princess of Wales, she is Princess of Cornwall
http://www.tmz.com/2007/12/13/charles-and-camilla-coverting/6#c9288675

As for Camilla when she becomes Queen, she would obligated to assume the style of queen, legally.

However much of this is in question before Parliament and Constitutional lawyers (Barristers & Solicitors) because Charles refuses to be known as 'The Keeper of the Faith' (Church of England) and renounce all other religions. If you were to do a google search on Charles and his for all things Islam, there seems to have been a quiet, behind the scenes conversion to Islam several years ago, and that is why he no longer is the guardian of the one faith.

If he were to renounce his ties to Islam and embrace the Church of England, renouncing all other faiths then he could ascend to the throne. There has been some discussion on skipping past Charles entirely and having his firstborn legal son, Prince William be crowned King.

Posted at 8:36PM on Dec 16th 2007 by Yucko

86. This is for the foul-mouthed idiot who insists on referring to Camilla as whore:

I noticed you did not reply to my original question to you: Since Charles wasted time and dithered on setting a wedding date with Camilla, he settled for Diana.

Charles only big screw-up was not marrying the love of his life 30+ years ago.

Diana slept with at least a dozen men and brought a bastard love child into this world, into the royal line. Why do you not have a problem with a whore who had the morals of an alley cat and who got pregnant outside her marriage.

This makes you a hypocrite.

One more question I'm sure you'll ignore: Why was it perfectly fine for your 'approval' for Diana to live in Buckingham Palace as a minor royal, living from taxpayer's money, but it's not okay in your little mind for a real blood royal (Camilla) to live on an Estate that belongs to the House of Windsor.

You are such a phony and your outrage is hypocritical. Answer my questions to you if you can - and if you dare.

Posted at 8:37PM on Dec 16th 2007 by Yucko

87. For Seattle Lady - I should have been a bit more clear regarding Camilla's title of Princess of Cornwall. She has never been given the title of Princess of Wales. The titles are not interchangeable between people. Example, Prince Andrew's Ex wife Sarah Ferguson's title is Duchess of York. Once a title has been bestowed, it remains with the person unless a Monarch recinds it as it was in the case of Diana. Otherwise the title passes down through families in perpetuity which is why you'll see references to someone as holding the hereditary title of (whatever the title might be.)

Hope this helps.

Posted at 8:48PM on Dec 16th 2007 by Yucko