Camilla to be crowned.

lemsip

the Title of Thread is Camilla to be Crowned!!

It was ticking along nicely with praise and accusations being hurled about the subject in question until
17/10/2022 16:49 Grany

I must admit I helped with the diversion into republicans, although I’ve noticed today that titling a post one thing to deliberately talk about another seems to be acceptable.

OK back to the post title.
So many people today divorce, acrimoniously or not.
IMO
Do I think the divorcees of either side should be denied future happiness?
No.

Should the past misdeeds of either party be constantly picked over by the public whose business it isn’t and wasn’t?
No.

If it involves giving your wife a name or title that goes with yours and does no harm to anyone else should it be allowed?
Yes.
Should and will I and everyone else have their own opinions on this?
Yes. That’s human nature.

Anniebach

It was coincidence that the Labour Party nominated their chairman to stand for president

Well, not coincidence. But he wasn't a Labour 'candidate'.

the Title of Thread is Camilla to be Crowned!!

Was it? That was lucky then.

?

It was coincidence that the Labour Party nominated their chairman to stand for president

I know. I just thought people might have thought that because he was nominated by the Labour party he was automatically 'their' candidate.

But every political party can nominate a candidate, and they can come from anywhere.

Vintagejazz

volver

Michael D Higgins had been a labour politician. Who had to resign his political allegiances when he became president.

He did not, as you wrongly asserted ^stand for president as a Labour Party candidate.^

He was nominated by the Labour Party the first time he ran for President. He had an automatic right to put his name forward for a second term, so didn't need a nomination from anyone.

Yes, I know. Those facts are true.

None of them mean he was the Labour candidate. ??

Jaberwok

No you're right, he shouldn't, but he was under enormous pressure to marry (think the abdication) and the late Queen Mother, and Diana's grandmother Lady Fermoy were extremely keen on this match. Unfortunately they certainly were not keen on a Camilla match. I'm certain that both parties tried to make a go of it, but lets face it, they didn't have one thing in common in any way whatsoever . Right from the start it was a struggle for both of them. Again easy enough to sseparate quietly if you are not in the public eye,but when you are as these two were, it becomes a nightmare. Thank goodness there wasn't social media at this time, the tabloids were bad enough, and the BBC loved it. It was a bad time for two very unhappy people, and they both fell in love with somebody else, Diana,several times, Charles just the once.

Charles was still in love with Camilla when he married Diana by all accounts.

Camilla chose to marry Andrew Parker Bowles. No one forced her. But when that didn't work out she wanted Charles. I think she behaved very badly and very selfishly.
But so do/did many of the Royal family. I doubt too many people look up to them anymore. They just enjoy the glamour and gossip.

volver

Michael D Higgins had been a labour politician. Who had to resign his political allegiances when he became president.

He did not, as you wrongly asserted ^stand for president as a Labour Party candidate.^

He was nominated by the Labour Party the first time he ran for President. He had an automatic right to put his name forward for a second term, so didn't need a nomination from anyone.

People running for president can be nominated by who ever obviously President Higgins has done a wonderful job as president of Ireland and in defending the constitution. People of Ireland respect him he has done a lot of good.

What’s wrong with that *grany, you have put Higgins forward
as an example for a long time, a president not involved in
politics but nominated by a political political party !

Anniebach

Yes, I said he resigned his chairmanship of the Labour Party
when he won the presidency but he was nominated by the
Labour Party

Good so what's wrong with that?

It doesn’t matter Anniebach. According to grany, whoever was be elected would have no political affiliation. I’m busy plaiting jelly as I write.

Yes, I said he resigned his chairmanship of the Labour Party
when he won the presidency but he was nominated by the
Labour Party

Anniebach

Check the facts

What, these facts?

www.irishtimes.com/news/higgins-vows-to-remain-neutral-if-elected-1.611900

Check the facts

Anniebach

He was a Labour Party candidate and resigned his chairmanship of the Labour Party when he was elected president

He was not the Labour Party candidate. He was not elected to represent the Labour Party. He was not elected on a Labour manifesto. He is no longer associated with the Labour party.

I don't know what else to say.

I don't mind, crowned or not crowned, we have worse things to deal with atm, hopefully they will keep the cost to a minimum!

He was a Labour Party candidate and resigned his chairmanship of the Labour Party when he was elected president

Michael D Higgins had been a labour politician. Who had to resign his political allegiances when he became president.

He did not, as you wrongly asserted stand for president as a Labour Party candidate.

Michael D Higgins

Higgins rose to national prominence in 2011 when he won an unexpected victory in the presidential election as the Labour Party candidate, but the Limerick-born President had a long and storied political career before that famous win.

A politician of any persuasion could run for president but once in office as a president there are laws written in a constitution he has to abide by and uphold. ??? not influenced at all by their political persuasion. Of course not!

A politician of any persuasion could run for president but once in office as a president there are laws written in a constitution he has to abide by and uphold.

Anniebach

He stood for president as a Labour Party candidate

He did not.

Think again.

He stood for president as a Labour Party candidate