I read that jk might release bk 7 on 07/07/07. yay! i also think that ron might die. Firstly, because the best friend of the hero usually dies, and second because of this article I found: "Why Ron is probably gonna get the axe before it's all over. Let's start with killing off one myth: the Ollivander's anagram. Sure, it spells out "Ronald lives" if rearranged. It also spells out "Ronald's evil" though, so I don't think that's any guarantee our little redhead is going to make it through There are two main reasons (and a bunch of smaller ones) to why I think that Ron will die. Of course, I don't want him to - it would be completely horrible - but I didn't want Sirius to die either and he did, so I figure, better be prepared for the worst, eh? Reason 1: The Stupid Joke Those of you who frequent the HP Sleuth page are familiar with the theory that when Ron makes a joke, it usually turns out to come true. I know that Galadriel Waters writes about this in her books too, but since I haven't read them, I can't make any parallels. I could repeat all the HP Sleuth arguments regarding Ron, jokes and fortune telling, but since it's already online, I'll just refer you to the HP Sleuth page instead. To the point. In OotP, Ron makes a very stupid joke indeed: "And from now on, I don't care if my tea-leaves spell die, Ron, die - I'm just chucking them in the bin where they belong" (p. 633). What bothers me here is not only that it's one of Ron's jokes, but that the "die, Ron, die" is emphasised by being put in italics. JKR could have not done this. She could have used quotation marks instead, or nothing at all for that matter. Also, the word "die" is duplicated and put around the word "Ron", surrounding it. It doesn't look too good Reason 2: McGonagall's Chess game This is a theory that I received quite some time ago from Dora and Gally. Clumsy in general as I am, I lost their e-mail address, so I couldn't write them back about it. I'll just hope that they don't mind me using it. :-) Everything in italics is part of the message they sent me. (The passage is PS p. 204-206 UK paperback edition by the way.) "Rowling always had a good sense of humour ;-). She described the Second Wizard War in the McGonagall's chess game. The chessmen (chessmen, figures...how strangely she describes them, like real people, not like pieces of stone) are black (Aurors) and white (Death Eaters). The white figures are scary, cus they are "faceless" (white terrible masks of Death Eaters) "Harry, Ron and Hermione shivered slightly -- the towering white chessmen had no faces." Then let's take a look at this: "Well, Harry, you take the place of that bishop, and Hermione, you are next to him instead of that castle." "What about you?" "I'm going to be a knight," said Ron." That's a very strange choice, isn't it? Ron is very good at chess, he must knew, that it's better to be a king, because kings can stay until the end of...

When a written work is produced for stage or movie/TV, plot changes and casting decisions almost always disappoint some readers. I think it's inevitable. Connelly sold the rights to the Bosch character some years ago but the holder (Paramount) had decided to not do anything with them. At the two book signings of his I've been to, several years ago and separated by a few years, Connelly was questioned about this and at the time he responded (at both) that he was trying to see what could be done to get a dramatic production done. He ultimately had to pay $3 million to Paramount to reacquire the rights. Info from Connelly's website When the pilot shoot for Amazon was announced in 2013, Connelly said that he was working full time on the production, including having approval for the casting of Welliver as Bosch. I guess my thinking is that if Welliver is ok with Connelly, he's ok with me too. I really enjoyed the pilot when first released last year, and I'm a few episodes into the "full season". I think the casting is great. Several of the actors from the original pilot were replaced, so Episode 1 was re-shot in spots to include the new cast members where their characters appear.

Thank, chase! You are correct about all of this. Diana was called "Princess DI" by the press. Her correct title was HRH the Princess of Wales. After the divorce, she became just Diana, Princess of Wales. She lost her HRH title which bothered her and her brother enormously. Camilla could be called HRH the Princess of Wales, but is not called such due to potential bad feelings in the public about her "replacing" Diana as Charles' wife. But in reality,, that is one of her titles. One is BORN a Princess. One does not become one with the title in front of their baptized name, through marriage. All this info is readily available on the internet - one need not be born into British aristocracy in order to know the proper titles. Why the press insists on remaining ignorant (and yes, I am including the British press!), is beyond me. And there constant talk about the Queen bypassing Charles and making William the next king is on the level of every single celebrity pregnancy having an "It's Twins" headline on the papers at the grocery store check-out. It is not Constitutionally possible for this to happen. Charles would have to abdicate which might well bring down the monarchy. Monarchs are ordained by God at birth, not by the popular press.

jmm, I had commented "When Andrew requested an HRH for his future children, they were given both the title and security protection from birth. I doubt Harry would feel slighted if his children received the HRH from Charles, but security protection was taken away when they were adults, as it was taken away from his cousins at that point also." You responded "Andrew's daughters were entitled to the HRH status as grandchildren of the reigning monarch, just as Harry is entitled to the same status for the same reason. Andrew didn't have to request it any more than Charles had to request it for Harry." Thank you, 'requested' was the wrong word, as Andrew didn't 'request' an HRH for future children, he merely accepted usage of it, whereas his brother Prince Edward declined usage of it, although his children still have the HRH. He and Sophie felt it better to raise them without the title in their name, although they can use their HRH when they turn 18, if they choose. We know that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie had HRH titles (as the Queen's grandchildren) and accompanying security until their young 20's, when it was taken away in 2011, due to budget cuts. I think maybe Harry wouldn't feel slighted if Charles offered any security for his grandchildren, out of his considerable personal funds, even if he issues new Letters Patent to exclude them from an HRH, along with all the distant relatives. You commented "I'm not sure what you mean about Harry's other cousins having security taken away as adults: if you mean the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward, they never had security in the first place because their parents never requested it." To clarify, when saying 'cousins' I've only ever referred to Andrew's daughters, re having their security taken away as adults, knowing Princess Anne's and Prince Edward's children never had nor requested security protection. I've always been comparing Harry's kids as grandchildren of the King (when Charles reigns) to Andrew's daughters, as grandchildren of the Queen, only to illustrate how entitlement will change so drastically, from the Queen's reign to Charles.' But Harry has never once compared what Archie won't get, to what Beatrice and Eugenie received. They supposedly have a close relationship, so I'm sure Harry doesn't begrudge his cousins anything. I believe he just wishes his children would get the same, as grandchildren of the King. Like Beatrice and Eugenie, his children will most certainly will never be 'working royals' so that's never been a factor. jmm, I agree, the security threat is not likely from any typical Englishman as I feel the vast majority of people have no racist feelings about Harry's wife or children. But I guess they felt that by leaving, they could escape the constant UK press coverage of Meghan, (several which are clearly racist) and live less stressfully abroad. You said "...I don't think a racist cartoon or two reflects the actual reaction of the British public to Archie's birth." Me either. But it contributed to the mindset of those who ARE racists, and among them, there could be crazies out there. There are crazies in Canada and the U.S. as well, of course, but we have far less tabloid newspapers churning out anti-Meghan hype, than the UK. I too, thought it strange that as a patron of Mental Health organizations, Harry would not be able get Meghan some treatment for her mental health. Maybe he could have, if Meghan hadn't gone to 'someone' to discuss it. But once she had, and felt they brushed her off with 'lots of us have stresses' perhaps H&M felt they couldn't then go behind the Royal Family's back and seek outside help themselves. I believe that they truly felt abandoned by the Royal Family, from what they've told us they experienced. But, just like everything else said in that interview, we'll never know the pure truth, because the Royals are unlikely to ever say or publish anything to confirm or deny, as is their protocol. So either the Royal Family was falsely portrayed as being unsupportive and turning a blind eye to things, or H&M were telling the truth, but got no support by asking privately, so they took their last shot at being heard, hoping that going public would force communication, rather than continued estrangement. But wow, I don't know. olychick, I could see that both Harry and Megan seemed struggling to hold back tears at certain times, and I personally didn't doubt what they said. But at the time, I felt her delivery had a touch of affectation, which would push those sitting on the fence of believing what she said, to the dubious side. However you made very good points, so maybe what seemed like being a bit coy to me, was only pausing to make darn sure of exactly what she wanted to say, rather than for dramatic effect. Thanks for that input. Anyway, I plan to bid this thread Adieu, as even being keenly interested in the Royals, I'm sure I've dissected Oprah's entire interview, ad nauseam, lol! I enjoyed this thread and reading everyone's viewpoints, and jmm, I think if all of us were enjoying a buffet meal, talking about this, you and I would have had to pay the tab, because we'd have eaten the most and been the last ones to leave! ;)