I see that Peter Philips (Princess Anne's son) will marry today - a certain Autumn Kelly (good thing he doesn't have a title otherwise we might end up with Princess Autumn !)

It also shows the level of integrity (NOT !) of these people when we hear that she (a Roman Catholic) has given up her religion so that HE can remain 11th in line to the throne.

Another interesting fact ... Prince William will NOT be there. It will come as a surprise to some who may remember that William "borrowed" a helicopter recently so that he could fly to the Isle of Wight - picking-up Harry on the way - so he could attend this very same Peter Philips stag do !!! (Seems he's keen on stag-do's but not so bothered about the wedding).
William, it seems, will be at another wedding in Kenya (I wonder whose plane he "borrowed" for that one?)

I'm sure the majority of people, whether royalist or not, will join me in wishing these two young people every happiness.

Catholic is probably just the church she was born into and not her own choice of denomination. Either way, it's (a) a loving gesture by her and (b) not going to make much difference concerning inheritance because someone that far down the line can only get further away from the throne as more children are born higher up, so it's not exactly done for profit.

Not all of my cousins were at my wedding, so why should William be at this one?

You come across as a very sad individual ITK.

Denise

(a) It's not a loving gesture - its a clear sign of someone who would sacrifice her own principles for something perceived to be better.

(b) If its not going to make any difference - then why bother? Why not keep her own religion and let HIM abandon his claim to the throne?

Perhaps William should be at this one because he caused so much fuss (and wasted so much money) by attending the stag-do for this one !

btw ... I just read that if Harry and William announce their engagements, when they marry the new wives will be called Princess William and Princess Harry (of Wales).

How utterly ridiculous !

I know from other threads that you keep arguments going for the heck of it, but I will make a couple of points.

How do we know she is sacrificing priniples. If she was merely christened into the Catholic Church and does not particularly follow that religion then she is sacrificing nothing. I know of "normal" people who do this, so it's not exactly new or unusual.

I'd be interested to know where you read about William's and Harry's wives being called Princess William and Princess Harry. It does sound very unlikely, and I suspect it's utter garbage.

BTW a local RAF pilot has admitted he used to land his Harrier in a field close to his house and pop in for dinner. This is apparently not an unusual practice. It's seen as good training for landing and take off and no different from using a company car.

That was in the Northern Echo newspaper in the last couple of weeks. Can't recall the exact date.

Denise wrote:
I know from other threads that you keep arguments going for the heck of it, but I will make a couple of points.
Only when the other person has not understood, or cannot comprehend what is being said. If someone says something that is completely wrong - should I just accept it because they cannot understand / see reason?

How do we know she is sacrificing priniples. If she was merely christened into the Catholic Church and does not particularly follow that religion then she is sacrificing nothing. I know of "normal" people who do this, so it's not exactly new or unusual.
I think most people - who hold serious religious principles would be deeply offended that something like this can be abandonned (for convenience). "Merely" christened? People in the RC Church are baptised - not christened (whatever that is !).

This woman has been a member of a Church - until it became inconvenient.

I'd be interested to know where you read about William's and Harry's wives being called Princess William and Princess Harry. It does sound very unlikely, and I suspect it's utter garbage.
Certainly - page 5 of today's Daily Expres. The story is headed "Clear signs that Harry and William are to marry". The article also points out that its not unusual (for them to be Princess "husband's name") in any way - even though you sneer at it - ever heard of Princess Michael of Kent, for example ???

BTW a local RAF pilot has admitted he used to land his Harrier in a field close to his house and pop in for dinner. This is apparently not an unusual practice. It's seen as good training for landing and take off and no different from using a company car.

That was in the Northern Echo newspaper in the last couple of weeks. Can't recall the exact date.
And your point is .... ?
William is not the only one who wastes tax-payers money ?

Denise

I don't know whether you have been watching ... but this subject has been a talking point on BBC 24 all morning.

The concensus seems to be that like B-Liar, who "prentended" to be CoE (because it was politically expedient to do so) whilest practising as an RC, you cannot really trust someone who will abandon (their own) principles (or use them / manipulate them) so easily.

ITK, it's possible that Denise is referring in the last part to your post on the old 'Is It A Bird' thread, where you complained about William landing his helicopter in a field for 20 seconds.

I quote you from that thread. "... and would anyone else have been allowed to do it?
NO !"

Like I said, I'm only guessing, but maybe that was Denise's point.

Speakng as a catholic, i'm offended that she pretty much abandoned her religion for the sake of her husband's future. But what is most offensive is that the Royal family do not accept catholisism. This cannot be the way the Royal family continues to behave. Unacceptable. Period.

Maybe she didn't like the religion chosen by her parents. But that aside, the protocols and practices of the British Monarchy are not simply the choices of the Royal family. Most of these things can only be changed by Parliament. There are discussions under way to change the right of succession, so that girls can inherit ahead of boys. I believe there are also changes being discussed regarding the religion side of things, but any change will be far from easy as the Monarch is the head of the anglican Church of England and defender of the Protestant faith. The Queen didn't just decide, "Oh, I don't like Catholics." She is bound by various long standing regulations. As a constitutional monarch she cannot change it all with a snap of her fingers, just as she cannot decide the level of tax or which party will form the government.

I'll join Denise in wishing the couple every happiness.

JC wrote:
I'll join Denise in wishing the couple every happiness.

I admire your optimism !

Clifford wrote:
Speakng as a catholic, i'm offended that she pretty much abandoned her religion for the sake of her husband's future. But what is most offensive is that the Royal family do not accept catholisism. This cannot be the way the Royal family continues to behave. Unacceptable. Period.

I'm with you Clifford. I'm not a religious person - but know people who are. Each to their own, but when someone abandons something so cynically, it cannot be good.

As Denise pointed out Philips is 11th in line - and now expected to get anywhere near the throne, and as each higher generation produces more children then he will fall even further away, so he is extremely unlikely ever to get near the throne it is even more cynical.

btw - Anyone else know - Prince Phillip is 480th in line to the throne (in his own right - as he is descended from Queen Victoria, as is his wife.

and ... when he dies the title Duke of Edinburgh will go to Prince Edward ?

PBS wrote:
ITK, it's possible that Denise is referring in the last part to your post on the old 'Is It A Bird' thread, where you complained about William landing his helicopter in a field for 20 seconds.

I quote you from that thread. "... and would anyone else have been allowed to do it?
NO !"

Like I said, I'm only guessing, but maybe that was Denise's point.

Thanks, PBS.

I think the point is that the MoD bent over backwards trying to defend William (who is never going to serve so his training is pointless anyway) whereas although others may do it, I think they would be in trouble if they were caught.

Further thought - I read yesterday that 10 servicemen have been dismissed after being found with drugs in their system. The article went to great pains to points out that ALL servicement are warned of the consequences, and if they take drugs will be dismissed.

Remind me ... wasn't a certain Royal (now - supposedly - in the forces) given a caution for drugs ?

People 'serve' in different ways. There are many servicemen/women who never see action but who have an important role. Prince William went through Sandhurst, which does nobody favours regardless of wealth or position, and he will be in a decision making role even if he does not see action. For this reason it's important that he gets first hand experience of various jobs within the services so that he can make those decisions. This is plain common sense.

As for his 20 sec touch down in a field. No, others would not get in trouble as this is a part of every pilot's training.

On the drugs issue. Prince Harry was given a caution before he was in the forces. This would not be held against him. Any serviceman/woman found to be taking drugs while serving would face dismissal, even a member of the monarchy. This is a different matter entirely from having taken drugs before joining.

Yes why wouldn't anyone wish them well and Princess Anne is pretty classy Mum who does a lot of charity work but I look forward to Peter Phillips donating his half million pounds fee from "Hello" to charity.

Commoner he may be but he's had all the privileges of a Royal which means the general taxpayer has paid for this lad's entire upbringing.

Francis D wrote:

On the drugs issue. Prince Harry was given a caution before he was in the forces. This would not be held against him. Any serviceman/woman found to be taking drugs while serving would face dismissal, even a member of the monarchy. This is a different matter entirely from having taken drugs before joining.

Is it?
We don't want our forces using drugs - but its OK if they had some before they joined?
A perverse kind of logic, don't you think ?
People who are known to have used drugs prior to joining are surely probably the ones that will continue to use drugs?

Yup, as I said before ITK - you are a bitter old fucker and you really should try and get out more.

We have to use a bit of common sense.

We are not talking about hard core addicts. I can't imagine any of them wanting to join the military anyway. If everyone who was guilty of the occasional, or even one off, use of drugs was banned from serving their country, we'd hardly have any military or politicians.

Pete Clarke wrote:
Yup, as I said before ITK - you are a bitter old fucker and you really should try and get out more.

Hello Pete

Haven't heard from you in awhile - I thought you had gone off me !

Francis D wrote:
We have to use a bit of common sense.

We are not talking about hard core addicts. I can't imagine any of them wanting to join the military anyway. If everyone who was guilty of the occasional, or even one off, use of drugs was banned from serving their country, we'd hardly have any military or politicians.

The Army is dismissing the equivalent of a battalion of soldiers every year for taking drugs.

Full report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7143600/7143679.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=7143679&bbcws=1