Royal Nuptial Feast
 

Mark 8 April on your calendar trendsetters. This is the day Prince
Charles of the House of Windsor marries his beloved Camilla. Colonial clods
like us Canadians still have a picture of his mother on our $20.00 note so
some day Charles will be King Of Canada. Royal weddings have historically
been time of huge banquets and much feasting. I feel inclined to participate
is come modest way. What would be ideal would be to try and duplicate the
royal banquet here in the Canadian wilderness. I need the menu. Also some
suggestions on the proper etiquette. Perhaps the English who read this ng
could enlighten me.

Farmer John

"Fudge" >, if that's their real name, wrote:

> Mark 8 April on your calendar trendsetters. This is the day Prince
>Charles of the House of Windsor marries his beloved Camilla.


<Damsel vomits and kills this thread>

Nancy Young wrote:

> Why?

Because the vomiter went on and on about Princess Di after her death.

It's about time the idiots stood up for themselves and
> said I'll marry who I want to. Honestly. The whole thing has
> been ridiculous from day one. Does Charles actually think
> being king really means a witches fart anymore?

One of the witty commentators on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me remarked it
was a marriage of mature people: She knows she'll never be a queen, and
he knows he'll never be a king.
ObFood: A tablespoon of peanut butter, sweetened if the unsweetened
kind, whipped up with cayenne, rice vinegar and some minced onion thrown
into tofu stirfry the last minute of cooking.

>
>

"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
...
> "Fudge" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
>> Mark 8 April on your calendar trendsetters. This is the day Prince
>>Charles of the House of Windsor marries his beloved Camilla.
>
>
> <Damsel vomits and kills this thread>

Why? It's about time the idiots stood up for themselves and
said I'll marry who I want to. Honestly. The whole thing has
been ridiculous from day one. Does Charles actually think
being king really means a witches fart anymore?

Marry the woman already.

nancy

Fudge wrote:
> Mark 8 April on your calendar trendsetters. This is the day Prince
> Charles of the House of Windsor marries his beloved Camilla. Colonial clods
> like us Canadians still have a picture of his mother on our $20.00 note so
> some day Charles will be King Of Canada. Royal weddings have historically
> been time of huge banquets and much feasting. I feel inclined to participate
> is come modest way. What would be ideal would be to try and duplicate the
> royal banquet here in the Canadian wilderness. I need the menu.



Dunno...what do Rotweilers eat?

I believe I would celebrate 8 April as a
day of mourning if I were British.

gloria p

"Fudge" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mark 8 April on your calendar trendsetters. This is the day Prince
> Charles of the House of Windsor marries his beloved Camilla. Colonial
clods
> like us Canadians still have a picture of his mother on our $20.00 note so
> some day Charles will be King Of Canada. Royal weddings have historically
> been time of huge banquets and much feasting. I feel inclined to
participate
> is come modest way. What would be ideal would be to try and duplicate the
> royal banquet here in the Canadian wilderness. I need the menu. Also some
> suggestions on the proper etiquette. Perhaps the English who read this ng
> could enlighten me.
>
> Farmer John
>
>

Pablum and milktoast to be sure. I just read an article the other day that
if Charles had been half the man he touted himself to be, he would have
stood up to his parents, the Parliment and the other naysayers and married
Camilla when he first 'fell in love', even if it meant doing what good ol'
great uncle Eddie did and renounce the crown. Diana may have actually then
been able to marry for love and not have been the sacrificial virgin the
crown demanded and she may still be alive today, Diana, Charles and ol
Rottie happy.

He lacked the ******** to do what was right. Why celebrate now. Maybe for
a present we can send him an order of mountain oysters....it appears he
might just need a good set of balls.
-Ginny

Puester wrote:

> Fudge wrote:
> > Mark 8 April on your calendar trendsetters. This is the day
> Prince
> > Charles of the House of Windsor marries his beloved Camilla.
> Colonial clods
> > like us Canadians still have a picture of his mother on our $20.00
> note so
> > some day Charles will be King Of Canada. Royal weddings have
> historically
> > been time of huge banquets and much feasting. I feel inclined to
> participate
> > is come modest way. What would be ideal would be to try and
> duplicate the
> > royal banquet here in the Canadian wilderness. I need the menu.
>
> Dunno...what do Rotweilers eat?
>
> I believe I would celebrate 8 April as a
> day of mourning if I were British.
>
> gloria p

The "Royals" are not even gourmets any more, i have a menu from one of
George IV's ordinary, every day 40 course meals that would cause the
present Sovereign to blanch and comment ruefully on the amount of garlic
involved.
---
Joseph Littleshoes

"Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote

> Pablum and milktoast to be sure. I just read an article the other day
> that
> if Charles had been half the man he touted himself to be, he would have
> stood up to his parents, the Parliment and the other naysayers and married
> Camilla when he first 'fell in love', even if it meant doing what good ol'
> great uncle Eddie did and renounce the crown. Diana may have actually
> then
> been able to marry for love and not have been the sacrificial virgin the
> crown demanded and she may still be alive today, Diana, Charles and ol
> Rottie happy.
>
> He lacked the ******** to do what was right. Why celebrate now. Maybe
> for
> a present we can send him an order of mountain oysters....it appears he
> might just need a good set of balls.

What she said! Grow a spine, you idiot.

nancy

"Fudge" > wrote in
:

> Royal weddings
> have historically been time of huge banquets and much feasting.

> . I need the menu. Also some suggestions on the proper
> etiquette. Perhaps the English who read this ng could enlighten me.
>

I'm not English, but as a fellow colonial (Australian), I seem to recall
reading in the paper that it was going to be "finger food". What
constitutes royal finger food I have no idea.

Good luck with it :)

K
--
nil illegitimi carborundum

On Tue 22 Mar 2005 08:55:02p, Amarantha wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> "Fudge" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Royal weddings
>> have historically been time of huge banquets and much feasting.
>
>> . I need the menu. Also some suggestions on the proper
>> etiquette. Perhaps the English who read this ng could enlighten me.
>>
>
> I'm not English, but as a fellow colonial (Australian), I seem to recall
> reading in the paper that it was going to be "finger food". What
> constitutes royal finger food I have no idea.
>
> Good luck with it :)

Guess it dependson the royal fingers.

--
Wayne Boatwright
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

Fudge wrote:

> Mark 8 April on your calendar trendsetters. This is the day Prince
> Charles of the House of Windsor marries his beloved Camilla. Colonial clods
> like us Canadians still have a picture of his mother on our $20.00 note so
> some day Charles will be King Of Canada. Royal weddings have historically
> been time of huge banquets and much feasting. I feel inclined to participate
> is come modest way. What would be ideal would be to try and duplicate the
> royal banquet here in the Canadian wilderness. I need the menu. Also some
> suggestions on the proper etiquette. Perhaps the English who read this ng
> could enlighten me.
>

Alpo
:-)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:44:05 -0500, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
> "Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Fudge" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>>
>>> Mark 8 April on your calendar trendsetters. This is the day Prince
>>>Charles of the House of Windsor marries his beloved Camilla.
>>
>>
>> <Damsel vomits and kills this thread>
>
> Why? It's about time the idiots stood up for themselves and
> said I'll marry who I want to. Honestly. The whole thing has
> been ridiculous from day one. Does Charles actually think
> being king really means a witches fart anymore?
>
> Marry the woman already.

I'd have to agree, Nancy. Considering what scandals previous English
royals got up to, anything that's happened in the last several decades (the
whole Charles/Camilla thing included) seems rather tame to me!

Besides, the OP's post is a perfectly legitimate and on-topic query. It
made me wonder what they eat too, I bet it's good. But I haven't heard
anything about the menu, unfortunately. A quick Google only revealed a vague
description of the reception:

"...formal, but low-key, with guests enjoying canapes at a catered buffet
likely prepared by the Queen's kitchen staff."

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty...agina_5_1.html

Maybe they'll include grape jelly/chili sauce meatballs. >;)

Ariane

P.S. To the OP, some semi-pertinent information, just for curiousity!

Another description of food from a royal wedding (Prince Edward to Miss
Sophie Rhys-Jones:

"The food for the evening was being prepared jointly by the Royal Kitchens
and London-based caterers Rhubarb Food Design. A selection of hot and cold
canapes was followed by a self-service buffet dinner, for which guests were
seated.

The menu was prepared by Royal Chef Lionel Mann and included coulibiac
(smoked haddock baked with rice and mushrooms in pastry), beef stroganoff,
and a selection of vegetables and salads, with fresh raspberries for
dessert."

http://www.etoile.co.uk/Events/ESWedding.html


And Princes Charles' own line of organic food products:
http://www.duchyoriginals.com/product_home.htm


Former royal chef to Queen and Princess Diana, w/link that has recipes
http://www.theroyalchef.com/

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message > >
> > I'm not English, but as a fellow colonial (Australian), I seem to recall
> > reading in the paper that it was going to be "finger food". What
> > constitutes royal finger food I have no idea.
> >
> > Good luck with it :)
>
> Guess it dependson the royal fingers.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright
>

And where they have been lately

David

Virginia Tadrzynski wrote:
> I just read an article the other day that
> if Charles had been half the man he touted himself to be, he would
have
> stood up to his parents, the Parliment and the other naysayers and
married
> Camilla when he first 'fell in love', even if it meant doing what
good ol'
> great uncle Eddie did and renounce the crown. Diana may have
actually then
> been able to marry for love and not have been the sacrificial virgin
the
> crown demanded and she may still be alive today, Diana, Charles and
ol
> Rottie happy.
>
> He lacked the ******** to do what was right. Why celebrate now.
Maybe for
> a present we can send him an order of mountain oysters....it appears
he
> might just need a good set of balls.
> -Ginny

Consider the circumstances. It's easy to criticize and judge him by
Ameican middle classed standards. We can say "Stand up and be a man",
but life as a royal man is slightly different from how the rest of the
us conduct our lives. Charles didn't stand up to his mother because he
wanted to be King (not too many people would turn that opportunity
down). His Aunt Margaret, Elizabeth's sister, didn't marry her "true
love" due to royal opposition either - and the only reason why Charles
has a snowball's chance in HELL to be king in the first place is
because his Uncle, Edward VIII, gave up his throne to marry a divorcee.


I have bad things to say about ole Ed, but giving up the throne isn't
one of them.

"Dog3" > wrote in message
1...
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in

>> Why? It's about time the idiots stood up for themselves and
>> said I'll marry who I want to. Honestly. The whole thing has
>> been ridiculous from day one. Does Charles actually think
>> being king really means a witches fart anymore?
>>
>> Marry the woman already.

> GAG... She looks so horsey. If that's what he wants, so be it. I
> personally
> don't care who he marries but his kids might. LOL... Nancy said witches
> fart...

(laugh) I probably offended someone, sorry. But, Michael, she's not a
raving beauty, but she's okay. Have you taken a look at the prince by
any chance? I don't think he's the next GQ model or anything. I just
think this has gone beyond ridiculous. I highly doubt you'd allow
public opinion or tradition dictate who you took up with.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
"Why? It's about time the idiots stood up for themselves and
said I'll marry who I want to. Honestly. The whole thing has
been ridiculous from day one. Does Charles actually think
being king really means a witches fart anymore?

Marry the woman already.

nancy "
------------------
Yes, emotionally I agree, but financially, I understand. If Charles
gave up being king, he would be destitute. His entire fabulous income
would disappear. His huge "holdings" of Cornwall, hid major (very
major! ) stream of income would be taken back by the country. He
couldn't live in any of the palaces--Windsor, St. James (where he is
now) or Windsor. He would have ownership of some of the country
estates, I think, but no income to support them. He would have no
bodyguards. Innumerable royal services (the free plane travel, car
transportation,etc.--all gone. )When Princess Margaret, years ago, gave
up marrying her divorced lover, it was because she would have no
income, no residence.
So, to quote Nancy: "Does being king really mean a witches f--t
anymore?", the answer is, yes, it means untold millions/billions. And
(smile) the saying isn't "witches f--t", -- it's "witches t--t".
(Now, why did I bother to type "f--t" -- guess my fingers are just
old-fashioned--they seem to refuse to type those kinds of words.
(:-).
Nancree

Nancy Young wrote:

> Why? It's about time the idiots stood up for themselves and
> said I'll marry who I want to. Honestly. The whole thing has
> been ridiculous from day one. Does Charles actually think
> being king really means a witches fart anymore?
>
> Marry the woman already.
>

That is one of the prices that one pays for being a member of the inbred
royal family. The monarch is head of the Church of England, which for
years had a problem with divorce. When Elizabeth dies Charles is next in
line for the crown, and then the head of the church that doesn't like
divorce will be a divorced male. His great uncle did the honourable thing
and abdicated, which was a pity because it was an opportunity to have a
pretty queen. This one is pretty rough looking.

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> "Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Fudge" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
> >
> >> Mark 8 April on your calendar trendsetters. This is the day Prince
> >>Charles of the House of Windsor marries his beloved Camilla.
> >
> >
> > <Damsel vomits and kills this thread>
>
> Why? It's about time the idiots stood up for themselves and
> said I'll marry who I want to.

But they didn't, did they? Her Maj gave the A-OK, although begrudgingly.

Priscilla

".His Aunt Margaret, Elizabeth's sister, didn't marry her "true
> love" due to royal opposition either - and the only reason why Charles
> has a snowball's chance in HELL to be king in the first place is
> because his Uncle, Edward VIII, gave up his throne to marry a divorcee.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


> actually Margaret did not marry her real love because of royal opposition , it was because she could not give up her "royal" life and all the frills that came with it. The latest in the news over here (uk.) is that the rottweiler will become queen. yuk. but that is only my opinion.

Farmer
Roast beef, Yorkshire pudding and spotted dick. Yummy

(* _ *)

Camillia will never be Queen nor Chrles be king. The crown will pass to
William

(* _ *)

Dave Smith wrote:
> That is one of the prices that one pays for being a member of the inbred
> royal family. The monarch is head of the Church of England, which for
> years had a problem with divorce. When Elizabeth dies Charles is next in
> line for the crown, and then the head of the church that doesn't like
> divorce will be a divorced male. His great uncle did the honourable thing
> and abdicated, which was a pity because it was an opportunity to have a
> pretty queen. This one is pretty rough looking.

Wasn't the Catholic church vilified and the CoE started by Henry VIII in
revolt for not being able to get shed of a wife?

I don't believe the Church of England really has a problem with divorce. I
believe the royals had a problem with female social climbing divorced
American commoner insisting that she WILL be called "Queen."

<and Wallace Simpson would have been "a pretty queen"????>

Ol Prince Charly will make her queen so he can have another mistress

villa deauville wrote:
> Camillia will never be Queen nor Chrles be king. The crown will pass to
> William
>
> (* _ *)
>
>

No Way. Charles has always desperately wanted to inherit the throne.
And he will.

Nancree

Dave Smith wrote:
"When Elizabeth dies Charles is next in
line for the crown, and then the head of the church that doesn't like
divorce will be a divorced male. His great uncle did the honourable
thing
and abdicated,"

Nothing honorable about it. Edward was forced to abdicate--not only
because of his choice of wives, but for strong political reasons. He
had close ties with Hitler. Much has been written about his "deal" with
Hitler to have himself (Edward) installed on the throne of England when
Germany supposedly won the war. Edward and Wallis were forced into a 5
year exile in the Bahamas during the war,--as far from England and in
the most controlled isolation that the Crown could come up with. No,
not honorable.
Nancree

"Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote in message
...
> Pablum and milktoast to be sure. I just read an article the other day
> that
> if Charles had been half the man he touted himself to be, he would have
> stood up to his parents, the Parliment and the other naysayers and married
> Camilla when he first 'fell in love', even if it meant doing what good ol'
> great uncle Eddie did and renounce the crown.

He wouldn't even have had to renounce the crown, they were both single when
they first dated. He wasn't ready to get hitched then, I guess.

Gabby

nancree wrote:

>
> Nothing honorable about it. Edward was forced to abdicate--not only
> because of his choice of wives, but for strong political reasons. He
> had close ties with Hitler. Much has been written about his "deal" with
> Hitler to have himself (Edward) installed on the throne of England when
> Germany supposedly won the war. Edward and Wallis were forced into a 5
> year exile in the Bahamas during the war,--as far from England and in
> the most controlled isolation that the Crown could come up with. No,
> not honorable.

Forced into a 5 year exile? He was governor of Bermuda. That's not a bad
deal.

Perhaps this is the wake up call the Brits need to do away with the
monarchy once and for all.

Long live the queen, but then be done with it already.

Dean G.

wrote:
> Perhaps this is the wake up call the Brits need to do away with the
> monarchy once and for all.
>
> Long live the queen, but then be done with it already.
>
That's like asking Americans to do away with celebrity sex and murders,
don't you think? The royals cost British taxpayers hundreds of
millions of pounds per year, but the entertainment value seems to be
worth it to them. -aem

wrote:
>
> Perhaps this is the wake up call the Brits need to do away with the
> monarchy once and for all.
>
> Long live the queen, but then be done with it already.
>
> Dean G.

ROTFL! In the past, when the British have wanted to do away with the
monarchy, or a particular monarch, they did. When they want to in future
they will.

The modern monarchy and its trappings are huge money spinners for the
UK. No point in killing the cash cow. Bear in mind that the Queen does
pay income taxes and that the Crown Estates in Central London and
elsewhere provide valuable office and living space.

Dog3 wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Marry the woman already.
> >
> > nancy
>
> GAG... She looks so horsey. If that's what he wants, so be it. I
personally
> don't care who he marries but his kids might.
>
> Michael
>
Hasn't you stopped to think that Charles was forced into that marriage
as much as Diana was? He and Camilla had a relationship long before
Diana but I forget the complete story because I wasn't paying attention
at the time, however it was one of those heart breakers like the
"Princess Margaret and her True Love" story.

BTW: My personal opinion is that he's marrying her after all this time
because the boys are finally open to it. In fact. I'd like to think
he's as involved in parenting them as anyone who is both aristocratic
and royal can be.

sf