h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Souvenirs had been printed with the date of 8 April and these were snapped up by those eager to make a killing on auction sites such as ." Might want to get this to the update forum! There was a different one near the top too, but I can't remember where, sorry!

Good entry, thanks for linking to my soap opera entry!

Yo Yo Yo

Just 2 say I thought Princess Diana was a stunning, beautiful + charming lady.............Camilla however is not.

I cannot see the World's press being impressed with her. Still Seabiscuit the horse had charm, so I guess anythig is possible.

Yeah.

Wattaray Bro

That's my editing, I must have broken the link.

The GuideML is currently

Souvenirs had been printed with the date of 8 April and these were snapped up by those eager to make a killing on auction sites such as eBay. These probably outsold new runs with the correct date. The Royal Mail didn't bother to alter their special wedding stamps saying it was 'too late'.

It should be eBay

I must have been having a bad day, I'm so sorry!!

Well done for getting this onto the front page

I had to check which of the articles was the editors pick as it wasn't immediately clear from the picture

I've reported this on Ed feedback, so it should get fixed.

*Wales' marriage*
Technically Diana wasn't Princess of Wales.

Also I was a bit confused, is Camilla going to be Queen or not? In addition to the confusion over the title there is a possibility the title of *King* could *skip* over Charles.

And what of the famous reference by Charles to feminine hygene products?

"Technically Diana wasn't Princess of Wales"

What do you mean? She was.

"The Queen, The Prince and The Princess of Wales agreed that the Princess was to be known after the divorce as Diana, Princess of Wales"

<>
You'll have to explain that remark, as I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Camilla is going to be Queen.
It'll take an Act of Parliament for her not to be crowned along with Charles.

"there is a possibility the title of *King* could *skip* over Charles"

Charles is heir to the throne. I write about the facts, not gossip.

<> same goes for personal, private conversations.

Although I realise now that your comment was referring to the time period between the wedding and divorce, in actual fact her title was not technically Princess of Wales after the divorce.
http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/princess.html
She may have been referred to as such but she was not.

Thank you for the clarification of Queen Camilla, I was confused.

I was not referencing gossip, merely stating a possibility.

Personal, private conversations are no longer personal nor private when widely disseminated and go a long way in explaining character.

Watta watta watta

I still think Camilla has all da charm of a cabbage.............

Who watts a queen like dat????????

Wattaray da Dog

"She may have been referred to as such but she was not."

The info I quoted came from the official Royals website. Personally I'd believe them, than some other website that anyone could have set up.

If you'll look at the website I provided it allowed that the Royal Family agreed to continue to call her Diana, Princess of Wales but in fact was not her *title*.

*Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, although correctly addressed as such, will not enjoy the TITLE of Princess of Wales.*

So you're arguing about one word? For goodness sake, it's pathetic!

I said *technically* and the only thing I find pathetic is the consideration given the members of the royal system for nothing other than those self-same *titles*.

We capitalize things like Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mr, Master or even Your Obedient Servant because they are TITLES. They are not just indications of respect but indications of a certain level of strata within an overall system of what is inherently the class system. Either you take the established yardstick of tradition or you make it up as you go along.

<>

The taping of the calls was unlawful and the contents deserve no place in this entry.

Wattaray here..........

I hear it costs us all 61p each to keep da Royals. Why have a Royal family I ask u...........since Diana, the Royal family has brought embarrasment........

I maybe wrong, but I think it's time for a big change.........they should be paying for us........not the other way round


Wattaray da Dog

Why should they be paying us, exactly? And 61 p each per year isn't exactly much. A President (assuming the same cost as US Presidents) costs the same.

"I must have been having a bad day, I'm so sorry!!"

Don't worry, it's no skin off my nose!

Wattaray Here

The US president has a serious job and is is politically responsible. The Royal family is an embarrasment, have no real political power........yet voice their opinions whenever they like.

With great power comes great responsibility.........a mismatch in the case of our most famous family.

Why shouldn't a wing of Buckingham palace be given to the homeless........yeah charity starts at home.

Wattaray out

You don't think being head of state of the UK and however many countries are in the Commonwealth is a serious job? The Queen takes away the responsibility of being head of state from the Prime Minister so he can concentrate on politics.

Besides which, why shouldn't they voice their opinions? They have as much right to as you do.