The decree was that the Queen's non-royal descendents will be
"Mountbatten-Windsor". But none of them have been born yet, the extant
issue all being "Royal Highness".
At 04:26 PM 11/4/05 -0600, you wrote:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5E18E.D025B93B"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-346617
I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name
of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her
children take her husband's name.
Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over
Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at
the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his
new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the
distinguished guests were
Ms. Mary Cheney
Ms. Heather Poe (Guest)
According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question
is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there
is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a
"marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one
of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I
suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as
I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay
marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this
list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any
recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate
conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended
by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice,
Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such
luminaries, is a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion
of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol
such an invitatinomight be said to convey.
sandy
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/3/05
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
