Trefor Heywood

I long ago came to the conclusion that whatever TWI attacked they were bound to be wrong. We were taught to judge the fruit and by that alone Martindale stands condemned.

It would certainly look suspicious if Andrew Parker-Bowles suddenly departed this life! :P--> I am sure that nobody has deliberately died just to throw a spanner in the works but people are falling off their perches with an amazing frequency. The death of our former Prime Minister James Callaghan wasn't even mentioned on US TV news so I only heard about it when I got back home. And now Prince Rainier... The normal practice is to invite the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to a royal wedding and for them to say a prayer. I don't think that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor would have been attending this one as he could not possibly be seen to approve of it. In the circumstances he could not have attended now anyway as he will be in Rome for the Pope's funeral and the Conclave. It will be interesting to see how he will handle relations with Camilla once she is Charles' wife however.

Batman Forever Jim Carrey The Truman Show

There are many reasons why you get the crowds. Such a figure is bound to get people who wish to pay their last respects. It happened here with Diana and also the Queen Mother although they were laid in state in coffins and it has happened with some of your presidents. I went to Arlington to see JFK's grave and it was amazing how many other people were also there. Popes do not have publically accessible burial places, they usually end up in some vault in St Peters so this is basically the only chance people will have to make some kind of physical connection. I also went to Ground Zero but now it is a building site and inacessible. What hit me powerfully and emotionally was visiting St Phillips the church which actually had mementoes and the story of events and talked of the people, both those who died and those who helped. Also standing in front of one of the fire service stations and seeing the list of names who died that day. There is a human need to make a connection, it may vary from individual to individual, but I find the crowds in Rome understandable. Many of those doing it will have ignored some things the Pope taught, have disagreed with him on many issues, but they still think him deserving of their respect.

Maybe because they had spare time on their hands by side stepping issues which did lie in their jurisdiction!

Please elaborate Long Gone. Everything I saw on the media in the US stated this. Sure the testimony of doctors etc was involved regarding her status but the only person recorded as testifying to Terri having expressed her wishes was Michael that I know of.

I have no wish to diminish the contribution made by the Great Communicator Jonny but his was not the only one. John Paul came from a communist country, one where official atheism had never been able to extinguish religious fervour. He preached human rights consistently and inspired and encouraged movements which lead to the collapse of communist regimes producing a domino effect. He utilised the diplomatic resources available to him to a very large effect as the Pope is also a Head of State besides a religious leader. He had no weapons or armies to call upon, only words and moral authority. Even some of his most verbal critics have conceded his role in this area.

Having been to your National Constitution Center in Philadelphia which is dedicated to your written Constitution (highly recommended if you are visiting Philly) I can understand how there can be confusion about how other Constitutions work. The British Constitution is based upon traditional practices and existing laws of the land. It is not written as such and depends heavily upon interpretation on many points, usually by judges or legal experts or people who are considered to be experts upon what is and is not Constitutional. For example the current "recieved wisdom" regarding the Monarch is that they have "the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn." Monarchs are expected to act on the "advice" of their ministers and not to go against them. For example when Tony Blair went to see the Queen yesterday to ask for a dissolution of Parliament and for a General Election, theoretically she could have refused but would have been thought to be acting in an unconstitutional manner if she had done so. On the other hand if Tony's five years had been up and he had used his Parliamentary majority to vote for the life of the Parliament to be extended without an election she would have been constitutional in refusing this as the Law limits the life of a Parliament to a maximum of five years. The only time when this actually happened was during WW2 because of the national emergency and all parties had agreed to this. No laws passed by Parliament become legal until they recieve the Royal Assent. Theoretically the Queen could refuse it but no monarch since Queen Victoria actually has. There is no veto arrangement whereby the Monarch's refusal could be overturned. No laws have actually been changed since the Abdication crisis regarding royal marriages and the status of royal spouses. The interpretation of what is and what is not permissable has changed however. For a royal marriage the consent of the Monarch is required (Royal Marriages Act from the reign of George III). Nobody in line of succession to the throne may marry a Roman Catholic and remain in that line even today. The change in public attitudes to divorce is much different to that existing in the 1930s and the UK is now a much more secular society but because the Monarch is also Head of the Church of England, he or she is expected to marry according to that church's dictates. No way was Cosmo Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury going to marry Edward and Mrs Simpson, nor would he have crowned them. Rowan Williams is much more liberal, but he is still only able to give them a blessing which is the most the Church of England can officially offer where one or both partners have a previous spouse still living. As the Civil Marriages Act specifically excluded royalty from its provisions the legality of a registry office wedding is open to question. This is where interpretation has come in and the government of the day has decided that this is no bar and are prepared to overlook it. Hence the Queen has acted on their advice and given her consent, a consent which is clearly equivocal given that she will not attend the civil ceremony in person, only the blessing. Another word about status - rank is considered to be taken from the man. Hence a woman married to a King becomes a Queen Consort but a Queen regnant does not confer the rank of King consort on her husband. Where the husband is royal the children also become princes and princesses but where he is not they do not. The Monarch may confer a lesser rank upon them at her discretion. Examples would be Peter and Zara Phillips who take their rank from their father Peter (Anne's first husband) and Lord Lindley and Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones (Princess Margaret's children) whose husband was created Early of Snowden when he married her. Another interesting point - although we use the word citizen we are actually subjects. This goes back to the old days when Monarchs were held to rule by Divine Right. It's no doubt all quaint and confusing to Americans! :D-->

Hope it helped - we don't actually have a written Constitution which can complicate things a little. What is this "Heywood check your pt" bit? --> And yes the wedding has been postponed until Saturday now.

It's nothing to do with their humanity but their status. The Monarch is the earthly head of the Anglican Church which still frowns on divorce even now (even though it was founded to give Henry VIII one). Therefore the Monarch should not have a former spouse living nor their consort. Whereas Charles would now be considered to be widowed, Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive. Hence the Church of England is not marrying the couple, merely giving them a blessing afterwards (as they would to other divorced persons). The Civil Marriages Act which established registry office marriages specifically ruled out members of the Royal Family from marrying under such provisions. Previous divorced royals (such as Anne) have remarried in a Church of Scotland ceremony (this is the established church in Scotland). It will place Charles and Camilla in the strange position of being possibly living in sin civilly but married in the religious sense. Monarchists and legally minded people will care, it is understandable that those who live in a republic might not understand the full nuances.

Some of what you write above Jonny comes under the bad. But he sure as hell helped bring about the fall of Communism. I have no doubt about his personal holiness but he expected too much of others.

Not possible as it is not in their jurisdiction! Nor that of Renquist and co neither!

Not sure if that would be any better - have seen some of the style choices they make on similar programmes over here! -->

It's not murder when there is a written living will, it would be at worst assisted suicide. When it's on the testimony of one closely involved individual many people will see it as murder (albeit state sanctioned) and did.

Yes it's the Delaware even though the Amtrak guard didn't know the answer when I asked as we went over it! Didn't get any good views of Trenton from the train though!

Ben Affleck Shakespeare in Love Gwyneth Paltrow

The article has some other interesting links about a lesser title for Camilla and also the possibility of the marriage being postponed as it will now clash with the funeral of the Pope. Charles would normally be the Queen's representative at what is after all a State Funeral and also Rowan Williams, due to perform the blessing, would also normally go, as would Tony Blair, although there is no actual requirement that they do so. The UK media is reporting that the marriage will probably be postponed for 24 hours or more but no decision has yet been made. The article is correct about the morganatic side - this was an argument made by Stanley Baldwin at the time of the Abdication that special legislation would have been required to make Wallis Simpson not the Queen and that it also implied an acceptance that she was not suitable to have been so. Such legislation would also have to have been passed in all countries of the then Empire but would still apply to all those countries where the Monarch is Head of State.

Probably def. Having seen the programme and the "style" choices given I am really glad that I don't qualify! ;)-->

I came to see that all organised religion is man-made and that no group deserves unquestioned allegiance. Ultimately it's you and God.

I for one wish them happiness but the legal and constitutional minefield that existed when Edward VIII abdicated to marry the lady from Baltimore still exists - it's just being interpreted differently. There is doubt as to whether a civil ceremony for a member of the Royal Family is actually legal. A morganatic marriage is not known to British law so the usage of a lesser title does not mean that status is actually lower. If Charles becomes King then his wife automatically becomes Queen Consort whether crowned or uncrowned. Diana and Sarah Ferguson were "unroyaled" by their divorces but the children of the marriages were not. There is much feeling that Charles should renounce his rights to his throne in favour of William. I subscribe to this view as the best way of preserving the monarchy and making it modern and relevant. Charles would not have to live in exile like his great-uncle and aunt had to though.

John Paul was truly more international than VPW ever was amd he touched the lives of far more people. Not always for the good but the good outweighs the bad.

If only Calvin had spent more time in the pub Evan, we wouldn't be having this discussion! ;)--> Thanks for the comments on my post, yes men who were otherwise attractive and intelligent and deserving of respect could have their more barbaric blindspots. But these respected the difference between earthly and heavenly rule.

Deliverance Jon Voight Pearl Harbour

John Mills (Sir John) still at time of writing is . He is well into his nineties and is the last of his generation. Although probably most famous for British films he played the father in Swiss Family Robinson and I cannot believe nobody has seen him as Pip in David Lean's Great Expectations. Besides daughter Hayley, he also has a daughter named Juliet who is based in the US and did appear in US TV. Sorry for the derail, but the question was asked :D-->

OK - wasn't aware that the age of the movie was an issue or whether a brit film did well in the USA or not. Shall we try... Michael Caine Educating Rita Julie Walters It's amazing that you never saw that superb war movie "In which we serve." Coward could have been linked with John Mills etc etc :D-->