Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Windsors => Topic started by: grandduchessella on October 17, 2007, 09:32:03 PM

Title: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on October 17, 2007, 09:32:03 PM
New thread as the old one was way past the 20 page limit.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on October 17, 2007, 10:18:08 PM
I'm not sure why Tdora1 feels it's necessary to attack Diana's style in her approval of Camilla's country wear but in the early days, Diana wore pretty much the same as everyone else did in her 'off time'.  She didn't always wear 'look at me' clothes off duty either.
 
As for Laura Bush, her wardrobe may be uninspiring but she still looks okay as First Lady.  Not everyone is Jackie Kennedy or Diana, nor do they want to be.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on October 18, 2007, 06:54:11 AM
Prolly cos the DoC has been relentlessly - and often cruelly - compared to Diana every step of the way. And as a resident and native of the most beautiful place in the world (!) (Cornwall) I've always had an interest in the respective merits and otherwise of the Duchesses. Just sometimes wish the Duchess of Cornwall and York circa 1901 was here for us though  8)  Having said that though I agree I WAS a bit out of order and I won't do it again and so (sighs o noes) I'll spend the rest of the day with my usual AP punishment which is reading the copy of James Hewitt's 'memoirs' what I confiscated off my gran and keep hidden under the bed in the spare room  :'(
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kimberly on October 18, 2007, 06:57:48 AM
A cruel and unusual punishment indeed !!!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on October 18, 2007, 07:16:14 AM
Kimberly - quick - call me a waaaambulance!  I. Am. In. Hell Suh! In. hell! (Mel Gibson as Fletcher Christian that is) plskthnx aaaargh never doing it again    :-[
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on October 18, 2007, 07:18:58 AM
I can see a link - wasn't James Hewitt's mother's cottage (where many a tryst was enjoyed) in Cornwall?   Perhaps it was Devon, but close enough to make Tdora feel at home.

tsaria
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on October 18, 2007, 08:21:10 AM
If there was a special thread for posts relating to Camilla's hair, the pages would mount up much less quickly!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: emeraldeyes on October 18, 2007, 08:35:07 AM
If there was a special thread for posts relating to Camilla's hair, the pages would mount up much less quickly!

That's arguable. lol...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on October 18, 2007, 11:28:42 AM
Thank you Adagietto for bringing this thread back on to topic.

tsaria
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on October 18, 2007, 01:30:35 PM
The 'tryst' cottage was in Devon apparently...Meanwhile, I know they are comfortably ensconced at Highgrove but it would be nice to see C&C have a place down here too. After all, Charles has Birkhall for his 'constituents' Up There. Hoever, there is quite a shortage of even slightly grand houses about these parts, though. Still...I see in the local rag there's a 2-bed flat above the bakers in Fore Street, Newquay ("convenient for all tourist amenities and lively local attractions!") which may do for now...no, wait - there's no garden and it is quite a hike to the allotments. Maybe they could do an amiable swap of somewhere with the St Aubyns and take over their St Michaels (the little island and castle reached by a causeway at Penzance - the Cornish equivalent of Mont St Michel). Its a fairytale of a place. Will try to find a pic.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on October 19, 2007, 11:18:22 AM
The 'tryst' cottage was in Devon apparently...Meanwhile, I know they are comfortably ensconced at Highgrove but it would be nice to see C&C have a place down here too. After all, Charles has Birkhall for his 'constituents' Up There.

I should think that between Clarence House, Highgrove, Birkhall, the new holiday retreat in Wales, their annual weekly rental of the Castle of Mey, and periodic stays at Windsor, Sandringham and Hollyroodhouse, Charles and Camilla are not lacking sufficient residential accomodaton!


Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on October 19, 2007, 11:29:56 AM
Indeed, so I suggest they take over St Michael's Mount and let me look after it while they're away!  I'd be quite happy to oblige.

(http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r163/linschoten/mountpm3.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Mari on October 19, 2007, 03:37:31 PM
Yes, and while your there Adagietto please stroll down to the Old Hotel overlooking that view and eat in the Dining Room. Some of the best Food I've ever remembered fondly from trips!  :)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on October 20, 2007, 09:52:59 AM
Thanks for the pic Adagietto. The St Aubyn family keep a low profile, although Lisa St Aubyn de Teran is a notable author - the novels which made her the Next Big Thing in the 80's had South American themes - info based on her marriage to Chilean (?) chap which was a very minor scandal back then. I had intended the Wales' to give up one of their already-plentiful heaps too. I just think its appropriate for a Duke have at least a holiday place where he's Duke of...though its noticable that Charles does not seem to find Wales itself worth considering                                                                                                                                             
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on October 20, 2007, 09:58:24 AM
Duh! (slaps head) The hunting down here was never up to much (the North Cornwall hunt never seeming to get much farther than the crossroads 100m from the pub before wobbling off nowhere much) and there isn't much of a lobby to bring it back. Mostly, though, Camilla has lived in her Glos. area for years - certainly has quite a network of supportive and discreet friends to which her loyalty (and need for?) won't wain. In all the tumoil, to have an home area that feels a close to a refuge as one is gonna get must be priceless.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on October 20, 2007, 10:32:22 AM
Houses are like shoes and hanbags one can never have to many.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on October 21, 2007, 08:26:35 AM
Tampa Bay, we are told by our present Government that there is a 3 million housing shortfall due to the increase in the UK's population.  "Let them eat cake" springs to mind......
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on October 21, 2007, 07:12:39 PM
Joan.

I apologize!  I was being scarcastic!  It is hard to convey a sacastic message without our beloved smileys.

Please accept my apology.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 22, 2007, 01:17:04 AM
I still think that Camilla should copy the Queen in her groming. The queen won't be caught dead in that shaggy dog mane...Her hair was always in place or tied up in a scarf.  :o
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on October 22, 2007, 06:46:15 AM
We're back to our proper subject - Camilla's hair!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on October 22, 2007, 09:34:08 AM
Joan.

I apologize!  I was being scarcastic!  It is hard to convey a sacastic message without our beloved smileys.

Please accept my apology.

TampaBay

TB - an apology is not necessary here - we know what you mean!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 22, 2007, 10:31:56 PM
Indeed...Maybe Camilla can try to do an upswept hairdo like Princess Alexandra of Kent (who is known for her perfect groomiing).
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on October 23, 2007, 04:16:32 AM
Quite frankly, Dahling, I don' think she gives a dam(.).

tsaria
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 23, 2007, 09:30:46 PM
We do...and a lot others too unfortunately.  :(
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: dmitri on October 25, 2007, 08:44:53 AM
Quite frankly nobody gives a damn about Camilla apart from the odious situation of her being a member of the royal family.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on October 25, 2007, 08:49:12 AM
A rather harsh opinion but I am sure that you are not alone in thinking it......

Haven't we done with Camilla's hair?  We seem to have been discussing it for weeks.......it has probably grown out and changed colour in the time that we have been discussing it - on second thoughts, I hope not, otherwise the discussion will begin again.......(yawn)

Surely she must have done something of note, something worthy of discussion in all these weeks???
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on October 25, 2007, 08:54:47 AM
Is that a rhetorical question, Martyn.   Unless the press have allowed her completely off the leash, the only thing of note Camilla appears to have done is to visit her new granddaughter 'Lola'.   Perhaps the mop was for her grandchild's fascination - something to grasp and tug.

tsaria.

PS:  I'm with Martyn.   Camilla's hair has been discussed ad nauseum.   
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on October 25, 2007, 09:01:57 AM
Hard-working royals..........how I pity them........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on October 25, 2007, 12:07:12 PM
Quite frankly nobody gives a damn about Camilla apart from the odious situation of her being a member of the royal family.
Quite frankly nobody gives a damn about Diana either apart from a sad few.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 25, 2007, 12:22:07 PM
I would have to agree with you there ashdean. I think many would agree that she should be left in peace!!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on October 25, 2007, 04:23:07 PM
Ashdean, Camilla seems to have an increasing number of supporters as the years go by, but to say no one gives a 'damn' about Diana except a 'sad few' is branding quite a few around here, thank you very much.  My interest and affection for Diana doesn't always involve slating Camilla, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think many people still have affection (and always will) for the late Princess of Wales.   
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on October 25, 2007, 05:04:03 PM
That sounds to me to be just a riposte made in irritation at the nastiness of dmitri's constant sniping at Camilla!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on October 25, 2007, 06:39:02 PM
Unveiling a statue of Lloyd George (full of controversy--can Charles & Camilla ever avoid it?)

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/princcharles5MD_468x688.jpg)

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/princcharlesMD_468x392.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on October 26, 2007, 07:54:16 AM
Ashdean, Camilla seems to have an increasing number of supporters as the years go by, but to say no one gives a 'damn' about Diana except a 'sad few' is branding quite a few around here, thank you very much.  My interest and affection for Diana doesn't always involve slating Camilla, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think many people still have affection (and always will) for the late Princess of Wales.   

Well said Grace!

Can't quite make out that hat - anyone got a better picture of it?  At least it doesn't look like something that Johnny Depp might have rejected for his latest 'Pirates' sequel.............
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on October 26, 2007, 11:08:55 AM
That sounds to me to be just a riposte made in irritation at the nastiness of dmitri's constant sniping at Camilla!
Correct..Adagietto....and thankyou for having the good sense to realise the fact...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on October 26, 2007, 11:19:08 AM
I would have to agree with you there ashdean. I think many would agree that she should be left in peace!!!
IF ONLY Eddie if only ..she could lie in peace, her sons would be spared hearing sordid details of her life (fact & fiction) and the name fayed would be obliterated from the press....Ah to dream the impossible dream....
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on October 26, 2007, 06:27:03 PM
That sounds to me to be just a riposte made in irritation at the nastiness of dmitri's constant sniping at Camilla!
Correct..Adagietto....and thankyou for having the good sense to realise the fact...

I was answering Ashdean's post only.   
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 26, 2007, 10:57:18 PM
Yes Camilla hat is a bit strange... ???
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on October 27, 2007, 06:53:28 AM
Surely she must have done something of note, something worthy of discussion in all these weeks???

I doubt it - she hasn't done anything exceptional in the previous 60 years !!!!!  And that includes a four letter word - WORK !!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on October 27, 2007, 10:29:35 AM
She has been endeavouring to heighten awareness of the crippling disease, osteoporosis.   She lost her mother to this painful, wasting disease which, unfortunately, is diagnosed usually when an older person fractures a femur or vertebrae.   As I've mentioned before, Camilla exhibits many of the early signs of this horrible illness.   I imagine she will already been on treatment which can not only halt, but in some cases, reverse the progress.

If nothing else, I think this is something very worthwhile.   

She also appears to have helped fractures in a very disfunctional family and the Prince of Wales seems to have a much better relationship with his parents - even at this late stage.

tsaria
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on October 27, 2007, 11:16:13 AM
He also seems happier in himself and much more relaxed with everyone else, which can be no bad thing.

Incidentally, my mother did no "WORK" for most of her life, just (!) brought up a family; I suppose I ought to sneer at her for never having "done anything exceptional".
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on October 27, 2007, 02:58:44 PM
He also seems happier in himself and much more relaxed with everyone else, which can be no bad thing.

Incidentally, my mother did no "WORK" for most of her life, just (!) brought up a family; I suppose I ought to sneer at her for never having "done anything exceptional".
Actually ( as I think you know) being a homemaker/housewife/mother is a very important career and very hard work !!!! AND yr mother seems to have made a success of it with you !...As for Camilla why should she go to a job as well... if she had the means (from whatever source..family,husbands etc) not to !!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on October 27, 2007, 04:10:15 PM
As someone who is the same age as Camilla and who has worked for the last 43 years AND brought up a family, I do resent that my taxes go to support this woman.  I know I am not alone in my opinion.   The UK is a very different country from the one it was when QEII came to the Throne.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on October 27, 2007, 06:10:04 PM
As someone who is the same age as Camilla and who has worked for the last 43 years AND brought up a family, I do resent that my taxes go to support this woman.  I know I am not alone in my opinion.   The UK is a very different country from the one it was when QEII came to the Throne.

It is...but that can't be lain at the doorstep of Camilla...or the royal family for that matter...they've always been accused of not changing with the times, rather than changing the times...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on October 28, 2007, 05:04:36 AM
"As someone who is the same age as Camilla and who has worked for the last 43 years AND brought up a family, I do resent that my taxes go to support this woman. "

Actually none of your taxes (or my taxes for that that matter) go to support 'this woman', the income of the Prince of Wales and his wife does not come from the civil list but from the annula profits of the Duchy of Cornwall, on which, moreover, he pays income tax.

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/finances/income/

This is a totally meaningless criticism in any case. In her earlier life, Camilla was supported by her husband; and she now has royal duties to perform and must be about 60 in any case.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 28, 2007, 02:41:05 PM
Amazing then how so many were upset when Diana died. I doubt anybody would be apart from Charles and her children if she passed away.

What a startling thing to say. So unecessary.....
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on October 28, 2007, 04:08:03 PM
Absolutely, that's just malicious. In fact I get the impression that she's well liked among the people whom she mixes with. We all have our good and worse sides; it's as childish to regard Camilla as some sort of witch as it is to regard Diana as some sort of saint.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 28, 2007, 04:12:25 PM
Well said Adagietto, some people just aren't very nice. The Duchess clearly has a lot of loyal friends who speak highly of her.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on October 29, 2007, 01:07:23 PM
Amazing then how so many were upset when Diana died. I doubt anybody would be apart from Charles and her children if she passed away.
You might be surprised.....she is it seems much liked in certain circles and by her larger family....perhaps because she is earthy and certainly (unlike Diana) not neurotic !!!but IF that bitter attitude continues into your personal life ...how many folk would be bothered about you...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 29, 2007, 08:20:23 PM
Camilla knew how the play the game, while Diana did not want to conform...it was as simple as that.  :(
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: alixaannencova on October 30, 2007, 11:40:15 AM
Though I do wonder about the distinct 'fifties' echo of her 'fun' panoply at the Lloyd George statue unveiling, I have to say that I found it rather amusing in a way! That shade of brown, probably described in days past as 'Chocolate' trimmed with faux leopard was striking though I admit that the hat was a bit 'individual' but very much in HRH's preferred 'quirky' style!

Even so, I like the fact that HRH really does seem to be finding her own distinct style and silhouette! No one else within the Family comes near her for individual distinctiveness of personal style, bar Mama in law needless to say! I know that HM's style and interests in her own clothes etc has improved immensely over the last decade, but to be honest, I actually look forward to seeing what HRH will wear next with much more interest....and I am not really taken with 'fashion' as a rule to be honest! But where Sofie and Anne are concerned I feel, Camilla is 'Ballrooms' ahead!

I like the way HRH seems to be able to wear things that strike one, whether it be in a positive or negative way, but in which 'she' appears nevertheless comfortable and natural.

I imagine her hair will always be an issue.....no doubt the hair spray bill at Clarence House is quite substantial, but what else can she do with it really? I mean she can't possible go down the in-law route! A radical new hairstyle might work, but I tend to think that it isn't that bad in it's present incarnation and adds a softness and 'labrador/retriever' type friendliness to her overall appearance! I know it may not be the most coiffured of styles, but at least it is quite natural and engaging!

 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: emeraldeyes on October 30, 2007, 03:51:11 PM
And now for something competely different...Janet and Brent on the GREMB have just posted that the Duchess is wearing the Queen's family order at the state banquet.   I'm longing for pics...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on October 30, 2007, 06:10:21 PM
I guess she must have stolen it.

You do intend to insult,don't you.
She,if anyone of the whole Windsor lot,absolutely deserves the Order.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Alexander1917 on October 30, 2007, 07:49:37 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7070288.stm

Camilla wore a dark dress, family order and the Boucheron Tiara....
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on October 31, 2007, 06:48:38 AM
I guess she must have stolen it.
EVIL THINKERS ARE EVIL DOERS !!!!.You should remember that dimitri...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on October 31, 2007, 07:01:11 AM
almost as spooky as Camilla!!

How long does this,what,break?,from the asylum last?

Warn you,publicly,back off,and do not ever dare to send any hatefull pm's to any forum members that doesn't agree with you again.Ever.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on October 31, 2007, 08:22:38 AM
Dmitri: I disliked Diana and, a few pages back, indicated that into a post regarding Camilla's style and clothing. A comparision, if you like. It was not relevant, I regretted it even before it was pointed out and I allocated myself an afternoon of excrutiations by way of penance. Apart from a post regarding the annoucement of her death, that is the only mention I've ever made on her - and before the admin changes meant I had to start a new a/c. Point made. Now then. Your views on Camilla are well-known - you've been very busy haven't you?. So having got myou attentions, please find another way to up your status or relieve the bile other than this childish trolling.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Arleen on October 31, 2007, 08:41:11 AM
If someone could post the photo from the Daily Mail today.....Canilla's hair looks back to blond?  Hope its true and not a camera illusion.  I really disliked that WHITE hair.  What I noticed most tho was that she really looks the part of a ROYAL now....like she has grown into it at last.

A
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Forum Admin on October 31, 2007, 09:53:44 AM
It seems I must drop in to remind posters about the rules of the Forum.  Personal attacks on the living are forbidden, including HH Charles and Duchess Camilla.  A good rule of thumb is "would you say that to their face in person"? If not, then don't say it here.

Opinions are fine, personal attacks aren't. When in doubt, leave it out.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: BobAtchison on October 31, 2007, 10:33:41 AM
Charles has been a great supporter of the Alexander Palace and this forum is not a place where we allow negative discussions or postings about him or his wife.

Bob
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 31, 2007, 12:40:20 PM


Warn you,publicly,back off,and do not ever dare to send any hatefull pm's to any forum members that doesn't agree with you again.Ever.


Thank you ahdean and Lucien, glad to know I am not the only one to receieve hateful emails from Dmitri. Shame he doesn't have anything better to do, actually made me laugh!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 31, 2007, 02:12:24 PM
It seems I must drop in to remind posters about the rules of the Forum.  Personal attacks on the living are forbidden, including HH Charles and Duchess Camilla.  A good rule of thumb is "would you say that to their face in person"? If not, then don't say it here.

Opinions are fine, personal attacks aren't. When in doubt, leave it out.

Then why is Sarah exempt from this exclusion on personal attacks?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Arleen on October 31, 2007, 02:56:39 PM
I certainly don't mean this to be disrespectful....but does anyone know why Charles hands always look so swollen and red in all his photos?   That is one of the signs of heart disease.  I hope that they will have many good years together.....it took them so long to achieve it.

Just ignore dimitry he is always the same in every section he posts in.....he must be a terribly unhappy fellow.  Eddie has the right attitude....laugh a lot.     In the end Bob calls the shots.....thank goodness for Bob!!

Arleen
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: casey on October 31, 2007, 04:12:00 PM
I think H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall looked stunning.  I am quite pleased that she is sporting the family order.  I long for the day, when she received GCVO, and KG.

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Leuchtenberg on October 31, 2007, 04:46:45 PM
I am quite pleased that she is sporting the family order.  I long for the day, when she received GCVO, and KG.



I am not.  And I hope I am dead before she receives the GCVO or the KG.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on October 31, 2007, 05:29:09 PM
This is the problem.   It is impossible to make anyone like or respect the Duchess of Cornwall.

In the beginning I viewed her from a very negative standpoint.   To date I think she has performed her role quite immaculately.   She seems to me to be a warm woman, but truthfully, I will never really know.   Just as none of us know the true characters which lie behind the people we know as the Windsor Family.

What is much more serious is the perception of my fellow countrymen.   I live in the UK where there has been very a slight improvement in the publics' perception of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, but far from sufficient to permit them to begin to build a successful monarchy.   The history and the damage done over the last couple of decades, could rob us of a royal house which, in its various forms, has survived many centuries.   For Britain, for the Commonwealth and for the world at large, this would be a serious loss.   In the UK, the mass of the general public, and young people in particular, are not remotely interested in either Charles or Camilla.

Unfortunately, Princes William and Harry and their respective girlfriends are regarded in much the same way as many of the 'celebrities' who, in reality, are total nonenties.   Their faces and their lifestyles stare out at us from the same tabloids and rag mags.   School children are no longer taught the relevance of royalty in this country - much in the same way that they do not know that milk comes from cows - in fact most city kids have never even seen a cow - and certainly have never seen a lump of coal.

In this technological, multicultural,, secular society, there's not much room for what could be perceived as the anachronism of royalty.   This is why the disasters which have befallen the House of Windsor for almost thirty years, could yet have irreversible repercussions.   God forbid, but this is the world of UK 2007 as I see it.

tsaria

 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Leuchtenberg on October 31, 2007, 05:46:28 PM
This is the problem.   It is impossible to make anyone like or respect the Duchess of Cornwall.

In the beginning I viewed her from a very negative standpoint.   To date I think she has performed her role quite immaculately.   She seems to me to be a warm woman, but truthfully, I will never really know.   Just as none of us know the true characters which lie behind the people we know as the Windsor Family.

What is much more serious is the perception of my fellow countrymen.   I live in the UK where there has been very a slight improvement in the public's perception of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, but far from sufficient to permit them to begin to build a successful monarchy.   The history and the damage done over the last couple of decades, could rob us of a royal house which, in its various forms, has survived many centuries.   For Britain, for the Commonwealth and for the world at large, this would be a serious loss.   In the UK, the mass of the general public, and young people in particular, are not remotely interested in either Charles or Camilla.

Unfortunately, Princes William and Harry and their respective girlfriends are regarded in much the same way as many of the 'celebrities' who, in reality, are total nonenties.   Their faces and their lifestyles stare out at us from the same tabloids and rag mags.   School children are no longer taught the relevance of royalty in this country - much in the same way that they do not know that milk comes from cows - in fact most city kids have never even seen a cow - and certainly have never seen a lump of coal.

In this technological, multicultural,, secular society, there's not much room for what could be perceived as the anachronism of royalty.   This is why the disasters which have befallen the House of Windsor for almost thirty years, could yet have its irreversible repercussions.   God forbid, but this is the world of UK 2007 as I see it.

tsaria

 

Very well written/spoken tsaria!   
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: alixaannencova on October 31, 2007, 06:11:51 PM
Tsaria I could not have even tried to put it better!!!

Still I do think that all said and done, the Duchess' membership within the family since marriage has so far not done any long lasting damage! I may even go far as to say that IMO she is looking more the part of consort as the months pass by!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Alexander1917 on October 31, 2007, 06:32:48 PM
Is the family oder new made, or the Queen Mum hers? anybody knows?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on October 31, 2007, 08:08:05 PM
It seems I must drop in to remind posters about the rules of the Forum.  Personal attacks on the living are forbidden, including HH Charles and Duchess Camilla.  A good rule of thumb is "would you say that to their face in person"? If not, then don't say it here.

Opinions are fine, personal attacks aren't. When in doubt, leave it out.



 Then why is Sarah exempt from this exclusion on personal attacks?

Robert,

I love Sarah York and would love to take her to lunch (with me picking up the tab) and tell her exactly how  I think she has and is going wrong. LOL! LOL!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on October 31, 2007, 08:42:17 PM
Here's the photo from the Daily Mail:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/royaldinnerDM_468x1042.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 31, 2007, 09:04:36 PM
I really must say that large tiaras do not suit Camilla's big hair styles... :(
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: dmitri on October 31, 2007, 11:04:43 PM
Extremely well said Tsaria. Sadly the couple in question could very well be the reason why a number of The current Queen's Realms choose to become republics after the death of Elizabeth II. All the media spin will not change the perception of a couple many feel are unworthy. Basic respect does not exist for this couple in very large numbers. The lack of education in our schools is also a reason to fear for the long term survival of the monarchy. Elizabeth II and the long term survival of the monarchy should not be confused.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Mari on November 01, 2007, 01:53:00 AM

Quote
I am not.  And I hope I am dead before she receives the GCVO or the KG.
Quote

I don't see that earthiness and salty language improve the Royal Family's image...I'm sorry I just don't see it!

Quote
In this technological, multicultural,, secular society, there's not much room for what could be perceived as the anachronism of royalty
Quote

Yes, and that is the basic problem there is almost no room for mistakes..its all down to respect in the end! Isn't it?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Arleen on November 01, 2007, 03:16:05 PM
Here I am again, stupid to the end......but what is a GCVO and a KG??

Arleen
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Alexander1917 on November 01, 2007, 03:21:01 PM
Here I am again, stupid to the end......but what is a GCVO and a KG??

Arleen

GCVO means Grand Cross Victorian Order...Order given by the sovereign for support of the monachy

KG means Knight of the Garter (Most noble order of the Garter) only 24 living members, given by the soveriegn (WITHOUT parliament!!)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on November 01, 2007, 03:24:28 PM
Dmitri: Most of the "current Queen's realms" were granted independence during the 50's and 60's. Something known as WWII was the single most decisive factor in the breakdown of the British Empire - a concept which struggled to survive the upheavals during and following WWI which saw the other Eurpean empires fall. How this can possibly be attributed to Charles and Camilla quite frankly has me contemplating speed typing with my forehead.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on November 01, 2007, 03:32:29 PM
The difference IMO between the attitudes towards Fergie and Camilla is that the former has brought her troubles and resultant approbation upon herself by persistant and wilful public indiscretion. Camilla has maintain her silence and in the long run, her dignity. Furthermore, Camilla is married to the man who divorced a Princess - mother of the heir and spare - who was extremely popular, whose fragile psyche appealed to large segments of the population, who was ultimately unable to reconcile her conflicts and who died suddenly and tragically. In other words, a tough act to follow. Her love and support for Charles is as evident as is Fergie's love for money, publicity and opportunism.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: dmitri on November 01, 2007, 06:23:23 PM
Tdora1 the Queens Realms that are important apart from the United Kingdom are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They were all granted independence way before world war one. It is the lack of respect for Charles and Camilla which is undermining the monarchy. Elizabeth II still is very much respected. It is the future that is the problem after she is gone. Fergie is the past. She has not been royal for a very long time. She was also never wife of the heir to the throne and could only have ever been in that situation if a major tragedy had occurred bringing about the deaths of Charles, William and Henry. She is not part of the royal family. The UK Labor think tank is completely weird. Mind you multiculturalism has not worked anywhere particularly well. It undermines the dominant culture and supports all the immigrants. It has been a complete disaster. Let us all hope it doesn't end up in brutal civil war. The UK is nominally a Christian country. Mind you Christmas has largely now become a tasteless commercial exercise. It is a sorry state of affairs.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on November 01, 2007, 06:46:05 PM
Without massive changes in our Constitution, Charles will be Head of the Church of England and Camilla will be his Queen Consort.   Politicians now admit that it will take an Act of Parliament to make Camilla 'Princess Consort'.   When Charles accedes the throne, Camilla will be Queen - irrespective of what spin Clarence House put on the subject.

tsaria

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on November 01, 2007, 07:01:37 PM
This doesn't strike me as being a major problem, she can be addressed as the monarch wishes, and if parliamentary approval is required to cover any technical points, why should that present any difficulty? For if Camilla is not be called Queen, that will only because the public would not be sufficiently agreed in accepting her as such, and politicians are generally happy to follow the current on such matters. If the Queen lives for many more years, it may not come to that anyhow. I don't think the Prince of Wales' interest in Islam has anything whatever to do with courting popularity among the immigrant population; he is genuinely interested in the rich spiritual traditions and artistic culture of Islam. And it is surely essential for us all to seek common ground if the Islamists (who represent only one strain in Islam) are to be sidelined.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Leuchtenberg on November 01, 2007, 07:16:43 PM
Without massive changes in our Constitution, Charles will be Head of the Church of England and Camilla will be his Queen Consort.   Politicians now admit that it will take an Act of Parliament to make Camilla 'Princess Consort'.   When Charles accedes the throne, Camilla will be Queen - irrespective of what spin Clarence House put on the subject.

tsaria



That is right. She WILL be Queen Camilla.  Anyone who thought otherwise was either naive or stupid, or both.  Regardless of the fact that the woman repulses me, if she is entitled to be "Duchess of Cornwall", then she is certainly entitled to be "Princess of Wales" and subsequently "Queen".   Because her marriage to Charles was allowed it gave her all of that. The absurd title of "Princess Consort" is nothing more than pablum to make her more digestible to the public. 

The bottom line is that if you're good between the sheets with an affluent businessman, you'll get a car and maybe a house out of it.  And in this instance if you're good between the sheets with The Prince of Wales, you DO get to become Queen.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Belochka on November 01, 2007, 07:23:24 PM
Without massive changes in our Constitution, ...
tsaria

The United Kingdom does not have a written Constitution document.

Margarita
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on November 01, 2007, 08:50:20 PM
Without massive changes in our Constitution, ...
tsaria

The United Kingdom does not have a written Constitution document.

Margarita


Once QEII passes the UK must have one to protect the liberty of the individual citizens because QE II will no longer be there to to do it for them---which as or is sher job.

A job she has done very well IMO!!!



Tampabay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Belochka on November 01, 2007, 08:59:22 PM
Without massive changes in our Constitution, ...
tsaria

The United Kingdom does not have a written Constitution document.

Margarita


Once QEII passes the UK must have one to protect the liberty of the individual citizens because QE II will no longer be there to to do it for them---which as or is sher job.

A job she has done very well IMO!!!

Tampabay

Absolutely, Queen Elizabeth II is doing a splendid job and one can admire her diplomacy and determination to remain Queen as long as her health permits.

Margarita  
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 01, 2007, 09:33:53 PM
The Queen is "the safe pairs of hands" right now. Any change may spark contraversey. Long may she reign !  :)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 01, 2007, 11:44:15 PM
"protect the liberty of individual citizens"? Where do you get that? The sovereign's  function is to legitimitise her governments.  In turn, Parlaiment  ensures the legitimacy of the sovereign. If any liberties are ensured or curtailed, it is the government, not the sovereign to do it. The only words to come out of the mouth of the monarch are written by the government. Britain may not have a single written constitution, but it does have  one- in the form of laws passed by Parlaiment and ensured by the courts.
 The Queen has done an admirable job in her 55 years on the throne, and I certainly wish her more years, but I am not at all hopefull for a future reign by the repbrobates to come. Unless their is a massive show of mourning for the loss of a British icon, I think a collapse of support for the monarchy itself may come about.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Belochka on November 02, 2007, 12:42:38 AM
"....  but I am not at all hopefull for a future reign by the repbrobates to come. Unless their is a massive show of mourning for the loss of a British icon, I think a collapse of support for the monarchy itself may come about.

There will be a "massive show of mourning" all over the Commonwealth, from London to Sydney and Ottawa to name a few. However IMO that genuine sadness will also include the despair and uncertainty of what may follow.

Margarita
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on November 02, 2007, 05:19:06 AM
"The bottom line is that if you're good between the sheets with an affluent businessman, you'll get a car and maybe a house out of it.  And in this instance if you're good between the sheets with The Prince of Wales, you DO get to become Queen."

I find this distressingly vulgar. There is all the difference in the world between a sexual fling and an enduring love; and it must be obvious to anyone that Prince Charles loves Camilla very much.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on November 02, 2007, 05:37:55 AM
There is all the difference in the world between a sexual fling and an enduring love; and it must be obvious to anyone that Prince Charles loves Camilla very much.

I wouldn't say it's obvious necessarily that Prince Charles 'loves' Camilla very much.  I think he needs her very much on his own terms but I'm not sure if it's exactly 'love' the way I would think of love...

Adagietto, let's not get vulgar here but let's not tiptoe around it either - they might be married now but Camilla's hold over Charles for many years was said to be in the main of a sexual nature - have you forgotten a certain phone call?  Married men don't sneak off to another woman just to talk, you know...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on November 02, 2007, 12:33:42 PM
Sorry, perhaps I am not making myself clear here.   I am not criticising the Prince of Wales and his collection of Islamic art.   He can collect whatever he likes so far as I am concerned.

My standpoint is the relevance of the monarchy to the UK of today and tomorrow.   There is no doubt there is widespread, deep respect for the Queen.   However, when she is no longer with us, there appears little support, or desire, for a King Charles (George or whatever), or a Queen Consort Camilla.   The point I was trying to make is that if, or when, Charles becomes King, constitutionally, he also becomes Head of the Church of England.   I am sorry if nobody else can see the possibility of conflict in this.

To address multiculturism - please name one place on earth where this has proved successful?   It is a word used to paper over a mishmash and cloak intolerance.    Intolerance is intolerance.   Tolerance lies in education, not in being forced to adopt minority immigrant's mores.   I am sure the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prince of Wales have deep respect for the leaders of other faiths - as one would expect.    Mutual respect.   But does this mean one should sacrifice one's own beliefs.   The Policy Review Committee which has proposed the downgrading of Christmas and to categorise it with other faith festivals, cannot pass laws - only parliament can do so.   However, it is a government appointed body - appointed to advise on the adoption of political policy which almost certainly reflects the opinions of its appointees.

Am I the only one standing up for Christianity and a 1500 year legacy here?   I do so with pride. 

Empty 800 year old churches are all too common throughout the UK.   Here we close churches to re-open them as nightclubs, pubs or flats.   In Russia they are re-opening churches which for eighty years have been used as garages, swimming pools, dairies and factories.   However, I must add attendance at Church is not obligatory to be a Christian.

tsaria

I'd love to learn a bit more about those 'pagan Scots', Robert.   
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on November 02, 2007, 12:37:31 PM
This reply falls between the 'two stools' of 'Camilla.....' and 'Charles and multiculturism'.   Please accept it for what it is.

tsaria
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on November 02, 2007, 12:47:14 PM

Am I the only one standing up for Christianity and a 1500 year legacy here?   I do so with pride. 



No Tsaria dear, I am right behind you. When in Rome....
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 02, 2007, 01:07:35 PM
I dd not even know there was the other thread! I will post appropriately there now.
If plans work out, by the time Charles & Camilla become  King & Princess Consort [Queen], I shall be a British citizen and have to take an oath with his name in it.  In all practical terms, it matters not who is on the throne, the function remains the same. Personally, I do not care for the couple, but I bear them no ill-will, and  whether or not   they reign will make no diiference in my decisions. However, I can show not much affecttion for a woman who  wears big hair  and big tiaras and walks like she would rather be riding.  She seems a "country girl" out of her element.
 Pagan Scots, Tsaria...nothing like them!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on November 02, 2007, 03:04:08 PM
Indeed ! We may not find another as "good" as the present queen.  :(

Hmm, from our armchairs today so it would appear.  However, do not forget that the full extent of our memory is but a fraction of the 1000 years that the Crown has existed.  I can think of dozens of similar periods in history where I'm sure there were people wondering if the Crown would exist beyond the reign of the current Sovereign.

- Victoria to Edward VII
- George III to George IV
- Anne to George I
- In fact, the entire series of successions of the House of Stuart restored
- Henry VIII to Edward VI - and frankly, their series of successors
- Edward I to Edward II
and so on.

It is possible that the present Queen may outlive her eldest son.  And if she does not, there will be some people who will hate it, who will grumble, and yes, some will use it as a justifiable "reason" to try to end the monarchy. 

BUT, with each passing year, there will be fewer and fewer people with their fangs out for Charles and Camilla.  And - Charles' reign will be short given his likely age at succession, and there will be the beloved and popular William, The Prince of Wales, and his no doubt lovely wife The Princess and Wales and their brood of adorable little princes and princesses waiting in the wings to succeed.

It is all a cycle.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Arleen on November 02, 2007, 03:43:25 PM
You have said it Chris.....about the Queen outliving her eldest son!  It is very possible, she looks healthier to me than Prince Charles.  Remember her mother lived to over one hundred!

Arleen
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on November 02, 2007, 05:08:16 PM
One should remember how unpopular Edward VII sometimes was when Prince of Wales (even to the extent of being hissed in the streets), yet he proved to be a very successful kiing; this is something that one cannot tell about until it happens.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Leuchtenberg on November 02, 2007, 06:16:20 PM
One should remember how unpopular Edward VII sometimes was when Prince of Wales (even to the extent of being hissed in the streets), yet he proved to be a very successful kiing; this is something that one cannot tell about until it happens.

One should remember Edward VII had a great asset having Queen Alexandra as his consort.   That he was hissed in the streets when he was Prince of Wales was due in great part to his unfortunate treatment of his popular and beloved Princess of Wales.

As far as Charles' future worth as a King.....qui vivra verra.

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: dmitri on November 03, 2007, 05:02:45 AM
Well sadly the current Prince of Wales had a very popular Princess of Wales. Unfortunately she will never be Queen Diana. Instead we have a Duchess of Cornwall who is not universally popular. Edward VII no matter what he thought would never have divorced Alexandra. There really is no comparison. Also times have changed greatly. It is no longer possible for a member of the royal family to hide their foibles from the majority of the British people. The mass media has made sure of that.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on November 03, 2007, 10:24:36 AM
Oh indeed, I was just making a general point and citing an example, not attempting to draw a precise parallel between Prince Charles and Edward VII; one could point to any number of other differences too, for instance that Diana deliberately set out to turn public opinion against Charles and was strikingly successful in her aim, and that Charles is no amiable hedonist but an unsusually complex, cultivated and original character for a member of a royal family, which makes him awkward in his dealings with the public and an easy target for mockery in the cheap press.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on November 03, 2007, 01:02:09 PM

Am I the only one standing up for Christianity and a 1500 year legacy here?   I do so with pride. 



No Tsaria dear, I am right behind you. When in Rome....
ITS ABOUT TIME WE WHO THINK THIS....ARE LISTENED TO...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on November 03, 2007, 05:53:09 PM
You have my vote!

R.I.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on November 03, 2007, 07:12:58 PM
Oh indeed, I was just making a general point and citing an example, not attempting to draw a precise parallel between Prince Charles and Edward VII; one could point to any number of other differences too, for instance that Diana deliberately set out to turn public opinion against Charles and was strikingly successful in her aim, and that Charles is no amiable hedonist but an unsusually complex, cultivated and original character for a member of a royal family, which makes him awkward in his dealings with the public and an easy target for mockery in the cheap press.

He's had nearly 60 years to adapt to his role!  This is the trouble!  Charles expects the position to accommodate his particular quirks and ideas and, let's face it, some of those are either a little impractical (or not appropriate) to implement.  Diana didn't really do that much to discredit Charles with the public - he's done a pretty good job of that himself over the years. 

As for Bertie, with all his faults and foibles, as least he was prepared to fit into the role of Prince of Wales without trying to change the world in the process.  Get on with it, Charles, or get out of the royal family and go into politics.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: alixaannencova on November 04, 2007, 03:12:46 PM
IM(humble)O no one is a paragon....even one born to be as such (because the people expect!) Do the masses genuinely and honestly expect nothing less in this day and age! (Talk about taking a glance in one's own looking glass!). I do agree that the PoW is no paragon, but then again I for one accept it, as it makes him more real, more like the rest of us, doesn't it? At least with him as a head of state we would have a man who has lived life thoroughly! I feel sometimes that the PoW is pilloried because he is human....it seems to me an oblique debate. We all, blue blooded or salt of the earth have flaws! To reject an heir to the throne simply because he is flawed is surely a sign of social intolerance! None of us is perfect.....perhaps a genetically modified heir would be more tolerable to some! I for one abhor the continuous vicious attacks on a man who is trying to do his job. Yes, he may be a little self indulgent but my goodness....how many of us here can deny that we haven't/aren't on occasion (No doubt on a less conspicuous level I admit)!   
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on November 04, 2007, 03:27:35 PM
I agree, its time the man got a break.   

However, great privilege has a corollary - huge responsibility.   The Prince of Wales in his intense, eccentric, and I believe utterly genuinely, well intentioned character, has failed to get this message across to the general populace and perhaps that is why so few people are even remotely interested either in him or his activities - apart from in negative terms.   Inevitably this impacts on the public's perception of his wife.

tsaria   
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Greenowl on November 04, 2007, 05:09:21 PM
Let's hope The Queen does live as long as the late Queen Mother and that William V succeeds her. There is no place for a Monarch on the throne who has little respect from the majority of peoples in The Queen's Realms. 

My interpretation of the above quote is that the poster wishes the Prince of Wales to die. I think such a thought is evil, and to state it in public is deplorable and reveals a total lack of morality and feeling for one's fellow human beings. It is wrong to wish anyone dead. I am very shocked.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on November 05, 2007, 02:22:16 AM
Let's hope The Queen does live as long as the late Queen Mother and that William V succeeds her. There is no place for a Monarch on the throne who has little respect from the majority of peoples in The Queen's Realms. 

My interpretation of the above quote is that the poster wishes the Prince of Wales to die. I think such a thought is evil, and to state it in public is deplorable and reveals a total lack of morality and feeling for one's fellow human beings. It is wrong to wish anyone dead. I am very shocked.

That is my interpretation as well greenowl.But alas,this run down thread allows anything apparently.And the young man was already warned once I believe.Oh well,in an on-line asylum anything goes,even insulting/treatening the living members of the British RF even tho time and time again Bob has requested not to.And the constant brainless blabbering against the person of HRH Camilla,Duchess of Cornwall is just appalling and maybe comes as close as we can get here to the gutter press society this sandbank just of my coast really is.God,do they love to hear themselves,no matter if it makes sence or not,just pha pha pha away,oh prey do tell,how does dear Lillibet puts up with that lot is beside me.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on November 05, 2007, 04:32:27 AM
dmitri has made his feelings about the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall only too clear.   I am certain these do not extend to any desire that the Prince of Wales predeceases his mother.   That would be quite appalling as well as an indication of some instability.

There remains a considerable number of people who would - for their own reasons which include a tragic history - prefer to see Prince William succeed Queen Elizabeth II than his father.   I know respected professional individuals who feel this would be the best road forward for the British monarchy.

Like it or not, amongst those sufficiently interested, there are still strong anti-Camilla feelings and expressions in the UK.   As these slowly ameliorate, I am sure nobody has any desire to see the Prince of Wales die prematurely.   He has done a great deal of good for countless thousands of people in this country and around the world.   That is a fact.   Most of the are found in tabloid tales.   We should always bear in mind, we do not know these people any more than we know Robert Redford or Britney Spears.

dmitri, I think for your own sake, it would be better if you either ask to have that post removed or amend it yourself with a new post.   I am sure you did not mean it as it has been interpreted and you really ought to make that clear.   Please, in future be a bit more cautious in the manner in which you express your feelings.

tsaria   
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 05, 2007, 05:17:17 AM
Well Camilla did bring out the best (or worst) in people. A very contraversal person I think she will be to the last. I agree though some restraint must be made as I do believe people in the thread have already voiced their feeling either pro or against Camilla as Queen... ???
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Greenowl on November 05, 2007, 06:26:36 AM
I assume there must be a law against such behaviour. One that springs to mind is the Prohibition of incitement to hatred act (1989) of the Republic of Ireland. The following is taken from The Irish Statute Book, produced by the office of the Attorney General of the Republic of Ireland:

" 2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—

( a ) to publish or distribute written material,

( b ) to use words, behave or display written material—

(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or

(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,

or

( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred".

The full text of the Act can be found on line.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on November 05, 2007, 07:24:21 AM
This discussion is in serious danger of becoming ridiculous.

We have been reminded that whilst opinions are welcomed, it is the expression of them that counts. Having read some of the comment in this thread, I find it astonishing that a discussion can descend to such a level, with personal sniping between members taking hold of a discussion that is worth more.

The question of the future of the monarchy and the duchess's place therein is a serious one, with strong opinions invariably coming to the fore.

Out of consideration for Tsaria, who skillfully monitors the discussion whilst contributing interesting opinions and comment of her own, let's try to be a little more moderate in how we express ourselves, if only to make her job slightly easier........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on November 05, 2007, 08:45:51 AM
Thank you Martyn.

The content of some posts really ought to be removed.   If the posters involved in this childish debacle, do not ask one of the moderators to remove the offending posts, we will be forced to consider how best to act.   If posters cannot monitor themselves, unfortunately it will have to be done for them.

That done, we can return to discuss the subject in question - Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall - with civility.

Thanks.

tsaria
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Forum Admin on November 05, 2007, 09:11:30 AM
At Tsaria's request, I have reviewed the recent pages of the thread and have removed posts which violate our policy about HH the Prince of Wales, as Bob laid out clearly the other day.

I am, frankly, tired and annoyed at having to come in to the same thread over and over and over again, with the same problem, from essentially the same people.

Consider this as everyone's fair warning, and no further warnings forthcoming: Anyone who violates the policy about disrespect to the Prince of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall, or frankly any other of the Royal Family will be suspended for thirty days if I must again return to the thread to remove the offending material.

I urge you all to abide by Tsaria's moderation of the thread, and frankly listen to Martyn's plain good sense.  I think this is only fair and reasonable.

Thank you for your cooperation.
FA
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: dmitri on November 06, 2007, 02:17:37 PM
Tsaria is quite correct in her assumptions. I have never said I wished for the demise of the current Prince of Wales or his 2nd wife. I just believe, like many others, that he is not suitable to be King for the survival of the monarchy in the current Queen's Realms. 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on November 06, 2007, 03:34:03 PM
I don't think that the monarchy will last much longer in Australia and New Zealand whatever happens; perhaps longer in Canada as something that marks a difference from the over-dominant neighbour to the south. It doesn't seem to me that the monarchy is under any real threat in Britain, and certainly not sufficiently under threat for the accession (and probably relatively brief reign) of a not universally popular king to make any crucial difference. The percentage of people in Britain who actually want a republic has remained virtually unchanged since the war. Furthermore, it is wrong for people to talk as if Prince Charles is overwhelmingly unpopular. Many like and respect him, and he is no trivial figure; in his views on the environment, for instance, for which he has so often been mocked, he was well ahead of his time. If he comes to the throne in ten or fifteen years, say, and makes a good job of it (he has the intelligence to do that), I see no reason why he should not have a successful reign. Anyhow, let us judge when the time comes!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: dmitri on November 06, 2007, 05:19:58 PM
There is no sign from the people of Australia that they are in any hurry to change their system of government. If the current federal government is returned the issue will never be raised. The opposition Labor Party has it on their agenda. Time will tell. Results from the 1999 referendum showed no great interest in the issue with not one state voting in favour. Analysing the results further 72% of federal electorates voted against the idea of a republic. The Queen is respected. The heir is a different matter.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 06, 2007, 07:28:54 PM
The consencious is that the Queen will remain the head  of Commonwealth during her life time. After her all bets ??? are off...That is not to say that they dislike Prince Charles, but the automatic reference to his mother did not passed on to him due tio Camilla & Diana. I agree that there is no issue in UK itself.  ???
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on November 08, 2007, 04:48:19 AM
Tampa perhaps you could offer your services as a fashion and hair consultant and therapist.

This hair task will be require a licensed and certified professional-this is beyond even Martyn's scope of work; maybe Robert could sell her a wig.

With the regrads to the hats, as long as Charles continues to pay for them the crazy hats will show up.  Charles should open up an account with QEII's milliner

On a positive note, I do not think Camilla's clothes are thta bad.  At times they do not appear to fit properly but the clothes themselves are not bad.

TampaBay

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: dmitri on November 08, 2007, 08:43:45 AM
Tampa I think the late Queen Mum's hats were preferable and much smaller. There must be heaps of them in storage in the basement at Buckingham Palace. As for a wig from Robert would all that hair ever be able to fit under any wig? Maybe it might under a beehive wig like in Hairspray? The mind boggles at the very thought!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 08, 2007, 09:22:15 AM
She would need a wig cap to wear any wigs. I read somewhere that Chales LIKES the big hair and does not want her to change.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on November 08, 2007, 11:03:45 AM
She would need a wig cap to wear any wigs. I read somewhere that Chales LIKES the big hair and does not want her to change.


Nothinh wrong with BIG HAIR if it is maintained and styled correctly.  I wore it for years until I just got to lazy to fight the humidity in Florida.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Arleen on November 08, 2007, 03:55:55 PM
Prince Charles is just lost in the 60ties like a lot of people these days.....I feel for Camilla!

Arleen
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 08, 2007, 06:47:51 PM
Yes...Like Julie from Coronation Street !  :D
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on November 08, 2007, 07:48:49 PM
Prince Charles is just lost in the 60ties like a lot of people these days.....I feel for Camilla!

Arleen

So do I.  I would have lost my mind ages ago id I had to walk in Camilla's shoes!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on November 09, 2007, 06:44:28 AM
Aww, c'mon. When has Camilla done a Big Hair even half as bouffant as Diana's post-natal (post-Harry) edifice or - according to the rags, against specific advice from BP to not unveil a new look on a big state occasion - upstaged the Queen by making  herself a bagelesque tiara cushion for Parliament's cameras to savour? Or that homemade blow-dried I'm-so-helpless hedgerow for her Queen of Hearts interview ? Or as backcombed as Fergie's attempts to match her evening wear, not to mention the conspicuous non-effort to tame it by poking it through and weaving in it a Christmas tree's worth of baubled dreck? As for examples by other POW's consorts...Queen Alexandra must take responsibility for the single worst hairstyle in modern history (ok the mullet might be a contender) by making herself a fringe (bangs) of ironed finger curls - a style that not even her beautiful features could make flattering but one which was enthusiastically copied by her female relatives. I read that Vicky was an outspoken crtitic of this 'do' ands pleaded with her younger daughters not to adopt it. Although Queen Mary's false front did help prop up a few more diamonds. Then there's Margaret's helmets of the mid-60's and even the lovely Kate Kent had quite a beehive going on, exaggerated by its extraordinary rise straight up from her forehead! So, c'mon, Camilla's not exactly topping the  Royal Big Hair First Division (yet). Sorry - no pics though I'll see what I've got stashed (no scanner, which is a bore). Oh and even the merest slightest hinting mention of QETQM's hats? Waaaaaaaaaaaaauuugh.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on November 09, 2007, 07:48:25 AM
Aww, c'mon. When has Camilla done a Big Hair even half as bouffant as Diana's post-natal (post-Harry) edifice or - according to the rags, against specific advice from BP to not unveil a new look on a big state occasion - upstaged the Queen by making  herself a bagelesque tiara cushion for Parliament's cameras to savour? Or that homemade blow-dried I'm-so-helpless hedgerow for her Queen of Hearts interview ? Or as backcombed as Fergie's attempts to match her evening wear, not to mention the conspicuous non-effort to tame it by poking it through and weaving in it a Christmas tree's worth of baubled dreck? As for examples by other POW's consorts...Queen Alexandra must take responsibility for the single worst hairstyle in modern history (ok the mullet might be a contender) by making herself a fringe (bangs) of ironed finger curls - a style that not even her beautiful features could make flattering but one which was enthusiastically copied by her female relatives. I read that Vicky was an outspoken crtitic of this 'do' ands pleaded with her younger daughters not to adopt it. Although Queen Mary's false front did help prop up a few more diamonds. Then there's Margaret's helmets of the mid-60's and even the lovely Kate Kent had quite a beehive going on, exaggerated by its extraordinary rise straight up from her forehead! So, c'mon, Camilla's not exactly topping the  Royal Big Hair First Division (yet). Sorry - no pics though I'll see what I've got stashed (no scanner, which is a bore). Oh and even the merest slightest hinting mention of QETQM's hats? Waaaaaaaaaaaaauuugh.

Difference being, this is 2007, not 1987, nor even 1997.........during her life,  Diana's hairstyles  were copied endlessly by many women and I dare say that had she still been alive, she would be sporting something that was both flattering and fashionable.

As for your comments about Alix Wales hair - well again at that time it was considered to be a most elegant style and entirely becoming to Alix and personally I don't feel that the photos of her with this look are particularly unflattering.  I suspect that Vicky's gripe was more to do with the fact that less attractive members of their family were emulating this style, without having the looks or panache to pull it off.........

Still, Camilla's hair isn't a disaster and it is appropriate for a woman of her age and station.  No surprise that she continues to favour a style that she has had for years and which is agreeable to both her and her husband.  But, it is considered 'big' for this day and age..........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 09, 2007, 10:32:48 PM
Well said !  :)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on November 10, 2007, 06:10:18 AM
Camila is not a disaster by any means.  EE &  have been very harh on her with reagrds to her clothes but the woman needs advisemnt and our very own Martyn is just too busy with Princess Anne. 

Camilla always seems like she is dressed in clothes someone laid out for her to go to some event she really does not want to attend.  Camilla does not do "fussy" well...i.e. crazy hats.  Camilla would look divine in semi-casual clothes..i.e...The Ralph Lauren "Prarie look" of leather pants, suede skirts with simple blouses.  As for suits, she should wear tweed (again Ralph Lauren-See November Vogue and Bazaar) ot traditional Chanel.  As for jewelry, simple earrings and an elaborate brooch would be perfect.

NO MORE FEATHER HATS!!!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on November 10, 2007, 03:20:30 PM
The well-respected newspaper, Globe of the World, had blaring headlines on their recent issue (I had to read it in the checkout line so I could pass on the info.  ;D ) stating the imminent divorce of the couple. Camilla is apparently demanding $250 million or she'll spill all the dirty secrets. They used photos from the recent statue unveiling as 'proof' of her ultimatum. A photo of them whispering was Camilla dropping the bombshell, a similar one was Charles looking 'stunned', and one with him pointing his finger at her was his 'reaction'. Apparently, he screamed something like 'you can't tell me what to do' at her in the street. Surprisingly, this well-covered event didn't make the news in Britain. The same article reported that the Queen has decided to pass over Charles and 'leave' the crown to William but William has refused to even become King because Kate Middleton doesn't want to be Queen. The Queen is hoping that they'll both change their minds before she dies.  ::)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 10, 2007, 03:42:45 PM
What rubbish.  For one thing, The Queen cannot change the succession. Only Parlaiment can do that. Whatever amateur wroye that article should have at least checked the real facts.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on November 10, 2007, 07:44:15 PM
....leaving Charles free to marry Heather Mills....
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: dmitri on November 11, 2007, 06:02:57 AM
what an awful prospect ... I tend to think C&C are together until death do us part .. neither of them wants any further concerns
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on November 12, 2007, 08:29:04 AM
....leaving Charles free to marry Heather Mills....

ROLFLMAO!!!!!!!

That would be a fate worse than death!  I doubt though that he has enough money for her liking...........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on November 13, 2007, 05:07:56 AM
Lady Mill MacCartney might be more Prince Andrew's type... AND he's available.   His ex-wife, as part of her counselling of Heather, might even afford an introduction.

Rather more realistically, however, this thread is devoted to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and it will be much less confusing to get back on topic.

tsaria
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on November 24, 2007, 09:18:23 AM
The Duchess appears to be wearing all 5 rows of the Greville necklace. A very chunky but impressive peice....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7110402.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7110402.stm)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Arleen on November 24, 2007, 11:37:51 AM
Personally my heart goes out to Camilla......she looks really old and wrinkled!  Also I would think it very bad taste to wear MORE DIAMONDS than the Queen... when you are with her!!   The poor thing has really aged since she married Charles.  Her dress is dowdy too.

Arleen
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 24, 2007, 12:03:25 PM
How blatantly arrogant to display such tasteless oppulence in a  country rife with poverty, illness and war. Charles is not "Head of the Commonwealth" yet.  I feel sorry for Camilla as well. Decked out like a Christmas tree in Uganda, of all places.The Queen is an "old pro" at these things, seems like Camilla still, despite her age, has a lot to learn.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on November 24, 2007, 12:47:37 PM
How blatantly arrogant to display such tasteless oppulence in a  country rife with poverty, illness and war. Charles is not "Head of the Commonwealth" yet.  I feel sorry for Camilla as well. Decked out like a Christmas tree in Uganda, of all places.The Queen is an "old pro" at these things, seems like Camilla still, despite her age, has a lot to learn.
I have to agree its a bit TOO MUCH !!! for the place..nice to see the Queen lending her the Greville inheritance...which with their Queen mother association must please Charles v much..just wrong place...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Vecchiolarry on November 24, 2007, 02:05:13 PM
Hi,

Five rows of pearls is rather much in this day and age;  but 5 of diamonds is blatant 'one-upmanship'.......

The Queen has not been upstaged - - she is always a class act and star, wherever, whenever and with whomever!!!!!

Larry
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Taren on November 24, 2007, 05:08:41 PM
It's been established that Prince Charles prefers his wife's hair a certain way. Okay great, let him have that in their private life. But when they're out in public, particularly when she's wearing a tiara the size of a punch bowl, could she not do something to it? Anything? I realize I'm simply echoing other posters, but c'mon it just doesn't work all the time. I don't think her intention was to one-up the queen. Perhaps she was going for a Queen Mary look. However, the only person who could carry off the Queen Mary look was Queen Mary. Camilla, with all five rows of that necklace on, looks more like Mr. T. It's just too much. The color of the dress suits her very well, I think, but I feel as though the style or the cut (something about it I just can't place) would suit someone younger. As others have said, it also just wasn't the right place to wear those jewels. Really, Uganda?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: alixaannencova on November 25, 2007, 02:40:39 AM
Quite right! Far too ostentatious and 'de trop!!!' But I tend to think that the PoW has a great deal of influence in the area of what Camilla wears, jewels included! Perhaps in this case he 'liked' the concept of the 'five rows' necklace with the honeycomb tiara, because they combine to present an irrefutably spectacular statement about the wearer's rank and position. I have read that Cookie wore the necklace in 1950, does this mean it has slumbered in her jar since then? I must say I do not remember seeing it more frequently! In Camilla's defense, I can not think of any member of the present RF who could carry the necklace off with aplomb..... even the Queen is a little too vertically challenged for it, and it is just too barbarous! Indeed QM or even QA could have carried it off, but in todays' day and age, IMO such pieces should be reserved for 'State Openings' and other really important events at home, where such conspicuous symbols of wealth are acceptable as part of the panoply of the monarchy, of which we Brits are quietly but justly proud!

It is just an impression, but I feel that the PoW sees jewelry as an element that can only enhance and confirm his wife's stature (not status, that is already cencrete now!) and position in public. It may seem shallow, but David did a similar thing when he showered Wallis with prize pieces, perhaps in order to sooth insecurities and make a point to others. In the PoW and DoC's case, I tend to believe that it is a matter of the former wanting to have his wife adorned in 'family' pieces of significance, to reflect her significance, not just to himself, but to the country and Commonwealth. It is is only an idea! It is a shame that an alternative to the Durbar and Honeycomb tiaras hasn't come to light yet, which would ideally compliment the diamond serpent necklace. I think that particular necklace, one of the nicest and most classic items in the DoC's collection!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on November 25, 2007, 05:57:14 AM
It's been established that Prince Charles prefers his wife's hair a certain way. Okay great, let him have that in their private life. But when they're out in public, particularly when she's wearing a tiara the size of a punch bowl, could she not do something to it? Anything? I realize I'm simply echoing other posters, but c'mon it just doesn't work all the time. I don't think her intention was to one-up the queen. Perhaps she was going for a Queen Mary look. However, the only person who could carry off the Queen Mary look was Queen Mary. Camilla, with all five rows of that necklace on, looks more like Mr. T. It's just too much. The color of the dress suits her very well, I think, but I feel as though the style or the cut (something about it I just can't place) would suit someone younger. As others have said, it also just wasn't the right place to wear those jewels. Really, Uganda?

Really,Uganda?What do you mean woman!How dare you talk so degrading.

Uganda doesn't wish/want to be threated as a second rate country but as a stable African nation welcoming investors and therefore doesn't wish one bit to tone down all the pomp & circumstance,at all.You might think they all still live in huts and what not,but Africa is emerging from poverty faster then your brains are capable of catching up with.

And as far as the Duchess and the jewelry,more over HM The Queen lent the jewelry to Camilla,now,if that was HM wish,who are you to doubt her I dare say?Exactly.Some called it a display of ignorance and disregard of the many many nations of the Commonwealth>

Reality bite.

As to the "many countries of the Commonwealth",I dare say,most are so smelly of ignorance and disregard against their own,that the stench is unbearable.
It is just a very smelly bubble,a relic of days gone by.

The bashing really has no ending,has it.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: pandora on November 25, 2007, 09:00:05 AM
My curious side begs me to ask if Camilla has a personal dresser to consult with when she's preparing for these functions? The Queen always appears perfectly attired and in good taste at the same time. I can't imagine Camilla not having someone other than her husband who gives an opinion. Maybe the Queen did give her permission to wear these jewels but the combination was way too much in my opinion and as been pointed out in previous comments, only Queen Mary could carry off certain fashion statements such as wearing a large quantity of jewels - Camilla doesn't have that regal style to do so.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Tdora1 on November 25, 2007, 09:52:59 AM
"How dare you talk so degrading" storms Lucien. Having just addressed Taren as "woman." I broadly agree with the point you are trying to make, Lucien, but overcooking it amidst a swirl of propaganda - having just preceeded it with quite breathtaking hypocrisy - hasn't furthered the discussion. I would have thought the Ugandan people would expect royal representatives being given the red carpet treatment to appear all in ways worthy of such honours. In suh circumstances would be rather awkward in trying to sell such an occasion to the people, a humble figure in jeans, jacket and a single row of pearls.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on November 25, 2007, 11:13:05 AM
What an ostentatious, vulgar, totally inappropriate display !!   It further confirms the shallowness of the PoW.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Taren on November 25, 2007, 12:18:05 PM
It's been established that Prince Charles prefers his wife's hair a certain way. Okay great, let him have that in their private life. But when they're out in public, particularly when she's wearing a tiara the size of a punch bowl, could she not do something to it? Anything? I realize I'm simply echoing other posters, but c'mon it just doesn't work all the time. I don't think her intention was to one-up the queen. Perhaps she was going for a Queen Mary look. However, the only person who could carry off the Queen Mary look was Queen Mary. Camilla, with all five rows of that necklace on, looks more like Mr. T. It's just too much. The color of the dress suits her very well, I think, but I feel as though the style or the cut (something about it I just can't place) would suit someone younger. As others have said, it also just wasn't the right place to wear those jewels. Really, Uganda?

Really,Uganda?What do you mean woman!How dare you talk so degrading.

Uganda doesn't wish/want to be threated as a second rate country but as a stable African nation welcoming investors and therefore doesn't wish one bit to tone down all the pomp & circumstance,at all.You might think they all still live in huts and what not,but Africa is emerging from poverty faster then your brains are capable of catching up with.

And as far as the Duchess and the jewelry,more over HM The Queen lent the jewelry to Camilla,now,if that was HM wish,who are you to doubt her I dare say?Exactly.Some called it a display of ignorance and disregard of the many many nations of the Commonwealth>

Reality bite.

As to the "many countries of the Commonwealth",I dare say,most are so smelly of ignorance and disregard against their own,that the stench is unbearable.
It is just a very smelly bubble,a relic of days gone by.

The bashing really has no ending,has it.

Overreact much....man?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on November 25, 2007, 12:47:28 PM
I rather like the gown, for Camilla. It's a pretty color. I would've taken a few strands off the necklace, though.

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_03/camillaPA2411_228x630.jpg)

She's apparently doing some revamping according to the Daily Mail: "She has turned to the designers of her wedding dress, Robinson Valentine, and asked them to create an entirely new wardrobe in keeping with her position as Charles's wife. She has ordered 65 dresses to be worn over the next year, including 12 "special" dresses for the run-up to the Christmas period. Her specific requirements include evening gowns with "room at the neck for jewels". The designers have included a lot of "velvets with twists", day dresses and cocktail dresses cut to the knees or mid-calf – along with her bust, the Duchess considers her legs to be one of her best assets....Although she will make full use of her new wardrobe in private, each dress is normally to be worn only once in public. Once an obscure designer label, Robinson Valentine – now called Anna Valentine after the eponymous designer bought out her partner Antonia Robinson last year – has now become one of the world's most influential fashion houses, thanks to Camilla's patronage. In turn, Anna Valentine has become Camilla's most trusted fashion guru, refining her style and bestowing her with an elegance she never before possessed. " ...Her striking appearance at the Queen's banquet in Kampala on Friday evening was a sign of how much thought has gone on behind the scenes into "packaging" her. Ms Valentine has created a sophisticated palette of pale blues and forest greens that complement Camilla's colouring and work perfectly in the equatorial heat. Fashion expert Karen Kay says: "Camilla is learning to find a regal status that is not about fashion but about creating an iconic image as the King's consort. "The important thing is that she is obviously comfortable. It's very easy to make over a woman, particularly at that age, but all too often they don't look at ease with the changes. "With Camilla that's clearly not the case. She's very clearly wearing the clothes – they are not wearing her." Yet, for all her new-found confidence, the rebrand wasn't Camilla's idea. Like the Queen, she has never taken a great interest in fashion. She may have dug out the family pearls and donned the silk taffeta frock for the season's hunt balls but she is, at heart, an archetypal aristocrat who prefers a sensible wardrobe geared towards a rural lifestyle....."There were some pictures taken recently of her going to see her new grandchild. She was wearing cashmere and she was worried that she looked a bit like an old granny but on the whole she isn't too fussed. "Charles, though, takes a great deal of interest in how his wife looks and appreciates it when she looks her best. "It's partly personal and partly an image thing. Charles, in particular, is very concerned about the Diana comparison." According to Ms Kay, it is a comparison that is inevitable but also unfair. She says: "Diana would be 45 now but instead she's like Marilyn Monroe, eternally youthful in our memory. "She's never going to grow old, no matter how gracefully. She has taken on a myth-like status and that's impossible to compete with. "For Diana, fashion was something different....And before every public engagement, Camilla has her face attended to by Julia Biddlecombe, a professional make-up artist who charges £500 a session and likes to give her a dewy radiance – using a foundation with "light-reflecting particles" rather than a more severe matt look – which is completed by glossy brown eyeshadow and rose lipgloss."
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Alix of Wales had Panache on November 25, 2007, 02:17:46 PM
Just jumping in here but I don't think even Diana could carry off that ensemble the DoC has on*points up*.  Not talking 'bout the dress it's mega cool-needs a little tweeking around the shoulders.  It's that necklace--as the stones are just too big, just one strand please!  If she decided to throw that thing at somebody they will fall back with a gash wherever that thing hit.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ChristineM on November 25, 2007, 04:01:15 PM
Remove the tiara and hideous necklace (stitched onto gauze - is it Martyn?) from the above photograph and Camilla is the double of a 1970s Margaret Thatcher.

tsaria
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 25, 2007, 04:10:47 PM
The poor woman looks in pain from carrying that load of rocks.
 I see what you mean, Tsaria.  There is a bit of a likness of "the lady who is not for turning". I imagine Lady Thatcher to be more formodable though.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Alexander1917 on November 25, 2007, 04:53:00 PM
But very nice to see this "rocks"!!!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on November 25, 2007, 06:54:06 PM
I agree with Alexander1917, it's very good to see these jewels together again after so many years - a rare treat. However, I cannot help but think that the diamonds are wearing the Duchess, rather than the other way around - unlike the late owner. I believe the opportunity has been missed to re-configure the Boucheron tiara back to its original form, which would have been a more 'classic', less regal look for the Duchess. As for the Greville necklace, IMO three rows would have been better than five, on this occaision. Rather than these jewels being 'lent' by the Queen, I thought H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, had bequeathed them to H.R.H. The Prince of Wales, I suppose to be worn by his wife (whoever she was).
In regard to the dress, IMO it should have sported shoulder pads to balance the jewels; and where is the waist? Pity the Duchess hasn't been awarded an order with a sash, thus highlighting the bossom, culminating a waist. IMO if the Duchess continues to wear this extent of jewels, she should have 'work' done on her neck, as I believe it drew attention to that area, possibly not one of her best features.
Queen Mary she isn't, but then could anyone be in the modern age? Even considering her maturity, I think a more ftted, taylored look would have been more becoming to the Duchess. In regard to her hair, its already been stated that this is how H.R.H. The Prince of Wales likes his wifes' hair to look - so who are we to pass judgment? I suppose given the modern age, it does mark a stark contrast to H.M's. 'italian on a theme' hairstyle that she has worn since shortly after her Coronation.
There can be no question of a comparrison with H.M. in regard to jewels and dress. The Queen has SO many more years experiance in displaying a constantly regal 'Queen Mary' like bearing in these matters. I think the Duchess would be well advised never to try and match it, until she is consort.
Can't identify the Duchesses earrings, can anyone help me? 

R.I. 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 25, 2007, 08:43:45 PM
I think it was a bit heavy for Camilla to carry the big hair, big tiara and huge necklace. The dress was too slinky for the assemble. A ball gown (aka Sisi or Queen Mum) would have been more balanced. I think Camilla was given the Durbar tiara and the 5 strand diamond necklace (from Mrs. Ronnie Greville) to be worn during her life time. In short they are hers now (although technically she does not owns it).  ;)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on November 26, 2007, 11:56:15 AM
As much as I love jewellery, particularly historic pieces, I cannot but regret that so much is on display here, both for ethical reasons and sartorial ones.

The necklace is an impressive piece, in all its five strand glory, but perhaps in this format it is more suited to being worn without the Boucheron fender atop her very teased out locks.  As other posters have noted, three strands perhaps would have achieved a better effect.  However, it is encouraging that she now has the use of such a piece, as the serpent necklace was woefully inadequate to wear with such monumental tiaras.

I simply feel that these tiaras, the Delhi Durbar and the Greville Boucheron, are simply too big in scale for her.  It is strange, because this last tiara suited the QM very well and she was inordinately fond of this jewel, wearing it often throughout the years; perhaps the duchess's face is simply too delicate for the size of these tiaras........

I think that alixannencova made some interesting points about this jewellery making a point about the wearer's status, particularly in the eyes of her husband.  I don't doubt that is a factor; equally the fact that all these pieces have an association with his beloved grandmother is no doubt pertinent.  However, if indeed the Prince is influencing the choice of jewellery for these ensembles, then it may well be argued that his taste is a little faulty in that it is inclined to be rather heavy in its application.........

The impresssion created is unfortunate, as are the comparisons with the Queen.  The Queen has been accustomed to the wearing of such jewellery from a young age and always looks pretty perfect in her choice of jewels for any occasion.  The comparison between the two royal ladies invites the notion that whilst the one is perfectly comfortable with her splendour, the other is overloaded in a fashion that in times gone by could well have been considered 'parvenu'.

The dress, I feel, does not help.  Too pale and reflective, there are some rather unsightly lines in an area to which attention should not be drawn, and some may say that the neckline is too low for a lady of her years, although no doubt it had to accomodate the prodigious length of the Greville necklace.  Personally I do think that she has great legs, but would dispute that her bust is one of her 'best assests'; this dress seems to emphasise its heaviness......

I must add that it can be no easy job dressing as a royal after a lifetime of shabby genteel dressing.  The fact that she looks as good as she does must take some effort, not to mention the concentrated talents of couturiers, make-up artists and hairdressers.  I wish that she would simply take a leaf out of the Queen's book of style, that is to say, less is perhaps sometimes more royal............
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 26, 2007, 08:46:38 PM
Yes I agree with you...Less is more for Camilla. The dress reminded me of one Diana wore. But instead of a big tiara, she put on the diamond and emerald choker and matching earrings. I think Camilla should do with a less formidable jewel than the Durbar. I suggest she copy the style of Prince Charles Aunt Sophie (Princess George of Hanover), she looked elegant in the 50's and 60's with minumum of jewels.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Suzie on December 12, 2007, 09:17:24 AM
I love Camilla, always have. I liked her when she was first dating Charles pre-Diana and I was sad when they did not marry then. Diana was too young for him.
Camilla looks like a woman, Diana was a beautiful girl (who would have been about 49 now if she had lived!).
Of the three, Charles, Camilla and Diana, Camilla is the one who has behaved the best. No tell-all books, no television interviews. She is a lady and I think she would make a great Queen.
Suzie
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on December 12, 2007, 10:32:07 AM
I love Camilla, always have. I liked her when she was first dating Charles pre-Diana and I was sad when they did not marry then. Diana was too young for him.
Camilla looks like a woman, Diana was a beautiful girl (who would have been about 49 now if she had lived!).
Of the three, Charles, Camilla and Diana, Camilla is the one who has behaved the best. No tell-all books, no television interviews. She is a lady and I think she would make a great Queen.
Suzie

Well said Suzie and welcome to the forum!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on December 14, 2007, 07:24:44 AM
Let's not drag all this up again.  It is too boring and leads nowhere, except for trouble.

Welcome to the Forum Suzie, whether you are in the pro-Camilla camp or the Pro-Diana one.  All opinions are welcomed and respected here, as long as they are expressed acceptably, although one or two members occasionally seem forget this......... ;)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on December 17, 2007, 11:32:00 PM
Camilla out dining (sans Charles) with William at Scott's in Mayfair last night. Joining them were her children Tom and Laura.

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_02/william3BIG12412_468x632.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on December 18, 2007, 12:59:19 AM
Camilla out dining (sans Charles)...

Where was he, I wonder?  Maybe the food wasn't totally organic or was rinsed with tap water or something?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on December 18, 2007, 07:13:01 AM
Camilla out dining (sans Charles)...

Where was he, I wonder?  Maybe the food wasn't totally organic or was rinsed with tap water or something?

Love that........Grace, you are so dry, it's a wonder that you don't start bushfires with your humour..... ;)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 18, 2007, 02:20:57 PM
Considering everything else he puts into his mouth, I would doubt that it was the food that kept him away.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kimberly on December 18, 2007, 03:21:34 PM
That would be his foot then Robert????
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 19, 2007, 05:05:48 AM
Could be, Kimberly, but I was thinking more  of all the bizarre and exotic food and drink shoved down his gullet wherever he goes, all over the world as well as the UK.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 19, 2007, 10:24:06 PM
Indeed...Camilla is a nice role model to follow.  :D

I just looked at old photos of Princess Sophie of Hannover ("Tiny") and Infanta Beatriz of Borbon Orleans ("Baby Bee"), both looked very similar to Camilla in facial expressions...Quite uncanny. I now think that Camilla DID have the "look" to join the House of Windsor.  ???
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Alix of Wales had Panache on January 26, 2008, 12:58:13 PM
Camilla out dining (sans Charles) with William at Scott's in Mayfair last night. Joining them were her children Tom and Laura.

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_02/william3BIG12412_468x632.jpg)


Just came across this photo--YES!!!! 

Came out the Prince George & Princess Marina picture thread a while ago.  This is the fashion course the DoC should go.  Minimalist jewlery bring the brim of the hats in.  Sorry I brought this into the thread but seeing that pic *points up* was a big thrill.  Haven't been keeping up with the DoC lately.  Hope she's been adapting this style as of late.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on April 09, 2008, 04:53:26 AM
The Prince and Princess of Wales celebrate their 3rd wedding aniversary today! :)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on April 09, 2008, 07:05:29 AM
The Prince and Princess of Wales celebrate their 3rd wedding aniversary today! :)

Must put it in my diary........... ;)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: gleb on April 09, 2008, 07:35:04 AM
I just finished the book Camilla and Charles by Caroline Graham, can I believe what the author writes or I shouldn't. I mean, to me, it seems  a little bit against Lady D.
Even if I think that Camilla is an exceptional woman, deeply in love with her Prince, faithful and loyal to him and to the Crown.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on April 09, 2008, 10:39:53 AM
The Prince and Princess of Wales celebrate their 3rd wedding aniversary today! :)

Must put it in my diary........... ;)

Welcome back Martyn,missed you 'round!
 ;D
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on April 11, 2008, 04:53:17 AM
Perhaps Charles should have realized that wanting something for a long time and eventually getting it are two very different things!  Camilla too!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on April 11, 2008, 11:27:25 AM
Did they both REALLY want it??   The cynic in me says no - they would have been quite content for the status quo to continue but in the 21stC, Royalty has to be far more accountable (and SEEN to be far more accountable) than in days of yore.   Yes - I think Camilla would have much preferred to continue to be a "kept woman" courtesy of the revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on April 12, 2008, 12:17:18 PM
Did they both REALLY want it??   The cynic in me says no - they would have been quite content for the status quo to continue but in the 21stC, Royalty has to be far more accountable (and SEEN to be far more accountable) than in days of yore.   Yes - I think Camilla would have much preferred to continue to be a "kept woman" courtesy of the revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall.

Of course he really wanted it!  I imagine that there must have been some pretty tough talking when he announced that he wanted to marry her, by members of the RF and politicians alike.  I suspect that he would have been quite prepared to give everything up in order to marry her.

It must be added that he is a man who is accustomed to having his own way and he was quite clear that marrying her was absolutely and entirely what he wanted.  Quite what she wanted is less clear, although I suspect that perhaps she would have been content to live half in the shadows with a greater measure of personal freedom as maitresse-en-titre. Still, everything has its price......

The point is that it was so necessary for them to be married.  The stigma attached to Camilla as the mistress would have been unbearable to the POW so the chance to legintimise the situation must have seemed like a heaven-sent opportunity.  Since the wedding he has exerted himself considerably to ensure that she receives the deference that she is due as his wife and that the negative coverage in the media has been reduced in an attempt to boost their joint popularity and encourage the general population to forget what went before and accept her.  How successful he has been in this is open to discussion.

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on April 12, 2008, 03:05:06 PM
We could speculate on this situation ad nauseum, Martyn !   Being a resident of the UK, I would say that most people couldn't care less about C&C.   As for deference to this person, I think he is on a loser there.  There is too much history and we are now very aware of what has gone on.   Just too sordid for words - and that is only the bits we KNOW about.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on April 14, 2008, 12:01:50 PM
Well you might just be right about that Joan.  The coverage of the couple in the media is neutral to say the least, which keeps them from being too much of an issue with the public at large, who as we know tend to get fired up about the burning issues of the day.

I think that there are some who have great respect for the couple, choosing to focus on the positive benefits of their union, in the same way that I am sure that they have detractors.  I suspect that overall most people are not bothered about them at all.........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on July 17, 2008, 04:01:58 PM
I was checking out some of the pictures of Camilla on that link a few posts above, and it struck me how often at various engagements she wears the same pair of pearl earrings.   I also have noticed (and it has been mentioned here before) how often Camilla recycles her outfits and her jewelry.  Frankly, I find this refreshing when compared to many other European royals (British royals included!)  She is clearly not a fashion nor a jewelry slave, yet always manages to look both elegant and appropriate to the occasion. 

This particular skill quite reminds me of the Queen herself, who despite rarely being seen in the same outfit twice, always manages to look both elegant and appropriate without any hint that she is trying hard to do so.  Bravo. 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Windsor on July 18, 2008, 08:55:55 AM
I had not noticed this about Camilla.  However, it seems kind of ironic that the Queen also seems to wear the same pearl earrings 99% of the time to daytime functions.  I have often wondered if she has some special attachment to these particular earrings and where they came from.  Perhaps Camilla is following the Queens lead (you know, imitation is the purest form of flattery)!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on July 21, 2008, 11:40:00 AM
I had not noticed this about Camilla.  However, it seems kind of ironic that the Queen also seems to wear the same pearl earrings 99% of the time to daytime functions.  I have often wondered if she has some special attachment to these particular earrings and where they came from.  Perhaps Camilla is following the Queens lead (you know, imitation is the purest form of flattery)!

I'm sure that is a grat consolation to HM, especially when Camilla appears laden with more diamonds than the Queen herself!

The Queen's pearl earrings belonged to Queen Mary, and are secured with a diamond stud.  These earrings were popular with QM for daywear; the Queen must like them for the sentimental attachment and for the fact that they are discreet and perhaps comfortable to wear.

As for Camilla's wardrobe being tasteful and appropriate, opinion is divided over that.  Just how frugal she is with her clothing is also open to debate, as her clothing requirements must now be huge, compared to the days when she could tramp around the countryside in an old barbour covered in doghairs and a pair of muddy wellies.  These outfits won't come cheap, nor the oversized millinery.  There is no denying that she needs to dress to a certain standard and her clothing befits her status (after all, we don't need another 'Princess Parsimonious') but the expense must be considerable.  Still Charles pays for all of that, so really it is their business........

Her jewellery collection now rivals that of many queens, augmented by fine pieces from Cookie's collection and frequently enhanced by purchases made by Charles; all a far cry from her down-market country look of yesteryear..............

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on July 25, 2008, 10:38:09 AM
But still I think the British people do not want her as Queen. It will be intresting what happens when Charles ascends as to her position. If she is crowned I can see a great outcry from the British people over this. The POW casts a long shadow down the years.

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: mcdnab on July 25, 2008, 11:10:44 AM

I think a few years ago i might have been more upset at the idea of her being crowned - to be honest i am not that bothered about it now.  I've seen her on a couple of public occassions and she actually appears rather nice - not the high glamour of Diana - but i don't believe she deserves the appalling press she's had. 

We don't have morganatic marriages in the UK thank goodness - and if she's good enough to be his wife then in my view she's good enough to be Queen Consort.  Apart from the most passionate fans of the late Diana I don't think people will be that bothered either way.  I find the compromise the Palace and Charles invented rather silly - legally she is HRH The Princess of Wales and in time legally she will HM Queen Camilla.  The idea of a Princess Consort is daft - what rank does it give her - will she still be first lady of the land (in which case she might as well be Queen) would she outrank her future step daughter in law etc - what happens on a state visit or banquet when Foreign Royals arrive is she required to curtsey to Europe's future and present Queens Regnant and Consort.  Silly and confusing and a sop to those people who hold her responsible for Diana's misery when the only persons to blame for their marriage collapsing are Charles and Diana themselves. 

(there is of course the possibility that she or Charles might predecease the present Queen in any case when the point will be rather moot)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on July 25, 2008, 12:47:36 PM

(there is of course the possibility that she or Charles might predecease the present Queen in any case when the point will be rather moot)


I have always felt that the above is actually what will happen.  If King Charles does comes to the throne with Queen Camilla then his rein will no doubt be of a short duration.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on July 25, 2008, 12:48:34 PM

I think a few years ago i might have been more upset at the idea of her being crowned - to be honest i am not that bothered about it now.  I've seen her on a couple of public occassions and she actually appears rather nice - not the high glamour of Diana - but i don't believe she deserves the appalling press she's had. 

We don't have morganatic marriages in the UK thank goodness - and if she's good enough to be his wife then in my view she's good enough to be Queen Consort.  Apart from the most passionate fans of the late Diana I don't think people will be that bothered either way.  I find the compromise the Palace and Charles invented rather silly - legally she is HRH The Princess of Wales and in time legally she will HM Queen Camilla.  The idea of a Princess Consort is daft - what rank does it give her - will she still be first lady of the land (in which case she might as well be Queen) would she outrank her future step daughter in law etc - what happens on a state visit or banquet when Foreign Royals arrive is she required to curtsey to Europe's future and present Queens Regnant and Consort.  Silly and confusing and a sop to those people who hold her responsible for Diana's misery when the only persons to blame for their marriage collapsing are Charles and Diana themselves. 

(there is of course the possibility that she or Charles might predecease the present Queen in any case when the point will be rather moot)

I don't want to start up all the old arguments again but I have to disagree on a couple of points here:  of course Camilla holds some responsibility for the collapse of the marriage of Charles and Diana - she was the "other woman" for years!  Also, the notion that die-hard Diana 'fans' are the only ones who oppose the crowning of Camilla as Queen of England is simply wrong.  It's the way in which she eventually came to be Charles' wife - which we all know about - that upsets many traditionalists. 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 25, 2008, 12:58:59 PM
Quite right, Grace. There is no such title "Queen of England"
 
 Also, Charles  is not "king" until he is proclaimed, he does not inherit the throne as  king. And, it is King of the  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [for now]
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on July 25, 2008, 01:57:53 PM
There is no such title "Queen of England"
 
Also, Charles  is not "king" until he is proclaimed, he does not inherit the throne as  king. And, it is King of the  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [for now]
Yes, of course you're right.  Bearing the title of queen as the consort of her husband once he accedes the throne and is proclaimed king is what I meant.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on July 26, 2008, 01:15:05 PM
Alas I can forsee problems with Charles as king. A defender of "faiths"...maybe he will invite the Dali Lama to his coronation and swear on ALL the holy books. Camilla can come out in a sari laden with jewels...I hope the Queen would reign for a long long time. She was the last "safe pair of hands". I am not saying Charles would be a bad king, but I oppose to change at this point.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on July 26, 2008, 01:18:09 PM
nilI have to agree with this. The thought of Queen Camilla is not something most of British people want. Charles would also need the consent of the British people, the Commonwealth, the Church and so on. I am not at all sure he will get that. The Queen may live as long as her dear Mother and in fact could out live Charles. William is perhaps the best hope for the future?

Alas I can forsee problems with Charles as king. A defender of "faiths"...maybe he will invite the Dali Lama to his coronation and swear on ALL the holy books. Camilla can come out in a sari laden with jewels...I hope the Queen would reign for a long long time. She was the last "safe pair of hands". I am not saying Charles would be a bad king, but I oppose to change at this point.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on July 26, 2008, 02:26:15 PM
I think he will get his coronation more easily if Camilla is not crowned but by proclaimed "Princess Consort" (Like Countess Danner was the morganic wife of King Frederick VII of Dernmark). That is not difficult since Queen Marie Antoinette, Queen Henrietta Maria or Catherine of Braganza wasn't crowned with her husband as well.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 26, 2008, 03:52:49 PM
Camilla does not appear particularly excited at the thought of being a consort any more than any of my British friends want her to. Personally, I do not care one way or the other.  Who knows ? There may not even be a coronation for Charles. Like everyone else here, I hope the present  monarch reigns for a long, long time.  I would not be surprised if I read that Camilla feels the same way.
 Grace, I knew what you meant, I was just teasing the discussion along.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: mcdnab on July 27, 2008, 12:48:12 PM
Well most polling (however much you can rely on it) suggests that opinion is shifting slightly in her favour - around the time of the marriage less than 10% favoured her being Queen - i think from memory that has now pushed up to around 25 to 30 %.   ANother five or ten years will probably see an even bigger shift.

My main objection to the idea of a Princess Consort is not out of any great fondness for either of them but I do not like the idea that the wife of the future King is to be the only woman in the UK not entitled to bear her husbands style and titles based largely on the fact that she's divorced and had an affair.   Arguably it smacks of the ultimate hypocracy that we're happy (and most are still happy) to crown Charles (a man who is also divorced and has also confessed to having had an affair) but not crown his wife or allow her to be called Queen on those grounds.

I don't believe it sets good precedent does that mean for the rest of time if the Press decides that a Royal Bride isn't up to the mark it the Palace will be forced to back down and we get yet another Princess Consort? 

Its consistantly stated that it was her wish for this to be her style and title on his accession however i am a bit of an old fashioned traditionalist when it comes to these things - and i don't like it....i could understand it more if the Queen Consort had any official constitutional role that Camilla wanted to avoid but in the British system she doesn't

Incidentaly - Charles automatically inherits on his mother's death unless he was removed from the succession before her death.  You can't have a death in the crown - the business of tying it up legally is done at the accession council where the monarch would make the oath regarding the church or Scotland (usually the oath regarding preserving the protestant succession is done at the first opening of parliament following the accession)

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on July 27, 2008, 01:05:05 PM
There will be a coronation and HRH has indicated that he will style himself King George VII. I know many US citizens are very keen on the romance of Diana Spencer but most British subjects have recognised in this modern world things must change. I don't believe that Camilla will become Queen as they publicly declared that she would be "Princess Consort". A silly idea, he will be King and we would prefer to see his wife crowned beside him in Westminster Abbey  as is her right.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: halen on July 27, 2008, 01:19:01 PM
Hi Norbert. Where did you get the information that Charles will style himself George VII. I've never heard that before and would be very interested in reading information regarding that.

Louise
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on July 27, 2008, 02:33:20 PM
I don't believe that Camilla will become Queen as they publicly declared that she would be "Princess Consort". A silly idea, he will be King and we would prefer to see his wife crowned beside him in Westminster Abbey  as is her right.

Just who are "we", please, Norbert?  You seem to speak for a lot of people here!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on July 27, 2008, 05:40:01 PM
WE who must be obayed ;-)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on July 27, 2008, 05:42:30 PM
....and can't spell for toffee, groan
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: mcdnab on July 28, 2008, 07:03:02 AM
Its long been rumoured and considered that in tribute to his grandparents he would opt to be George VII rather than Charles III - i don't think it will make a great deal of difference in the great scheme of things.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on July 28, 2008, 07:15:03 AM
George VII is much more agreeable than Charles III bearing in mind the history of the Stuarts. Over the years I have heard this more than once that he would use the style in respect of his Grandfather.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on July 28, 2008, 08:09:41 AM
You are right the last coronation in Europe was in Roumania in 1920's. Althought most monarchies have an inauguration or swearing in. Only Westminster has the full glory of a ceremony that is over a thousand years old.

What about QEII's in 1952?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on July 28, 2008, 09:06:18 AM
Only in Britian...Even Juan Carlos of Spain wasn't crowned...I think if Camilla was proclaimed "Princess Consort", there will be lessof an issue. She wasn't a traditional consort after all...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on July 28, 2008, 11:00:05 AM
You are right the last coronation in Europe was in Roumania in 1920's. Althought most monarchies have an inauguration or swearing in. Only Westminster has the full glory of a ceremony that is over a thousand years old.

What about QEII's in 1952?

TampaBayYes, it was suggested that HM might take the style Mary III but she declined. Certainly Clarence wanted to be Henry IX until it was tactfully shown that it was the style of Cardinal Stuart
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on July 28, 2008, 10:05:15 PM
It would be a great spectecle to see Charles crowned...George ?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 28, 2008, 10:41:59 PM
It has already been announced that the ceremony is being "streamlined" and brought  in line with the modern times. It might not be quite the spectacle it has been in the past.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on July 29, 2008, 11:18:49 AM
Indeed...However Charles was a sticker to tradition. However Camillla may not be crowned. I don't think she personally cared about that.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on July 30, 2008, 02:05:07 AM
Indeed...However Charles was a sticker to tradition. However Camillla may not be crowned. I don't think she personally cared about that.

I think it would be very strange if she didn't have a firm idea when she married Charles about whether or not she should be crowned alongside her husband when the time comes.  After all, that's his destiny. 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on July 30, 2008, 03:11:19 AM
But still I think the British people do not want her as Queen. It will be intresting what happens when Charles ascends as to her position. If she is crowned I can see a great outcry from the British people over this. The POW casts a long shadow down the years.

You see all that?You must be clairvoyant Michael,I don´t see that at all.All I see is a country that should stop nagging over a Lady that has done absolutely nothing wrong,not one step,since she became the Princess of Wales,never mind she doesn´t use that title,all previous ones are dead,vamos,gone,no use for false sentiments and this is what´s been the case for the past nearly 11 years now.Stop that nonsense!Get real!I think the British have to/can worry on a lot more issues then the if and what of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall in the near or distant future,depending on when dear HM QE II decides to leave us all,may that day be far away still,no mistake about that,but this constant nagging and fingerpointing towards HRH,in a country where 1 in 3 marriages break-up,people should absolutely stop projecting their own dirt/trash on her.

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on July 30, 2008, 11:27:29 AM
True...unfortunately George VI and Elizabeth II upped the scale for family tradition that was unfortunately not attainable by the next generation. The Queen had "vowed"herself to serve the country her entire life (She took her vows quite seriously). The coronation in 1953 was a continuation of a long tradition which stressed the religious, spirtual element with nationalism (aspecially after George V, who put patroitism to one's country above family and dynasty). The idea of a divorced sovereign or wife of a sovereign is quite innovating to Royal Families. We have actually only one (the Spanish one. Mette Merrit wasn't married to the father of her child) apart from Camilla. However she was the ONLY mistress to wife situation (Felipe and even the Duke of Windsor wasn't married before). Her coronation would rehash a lot of resentment from Pro-Diana groups to those who are jealousy of her rise in stature. A proclaimation would remove any opprtunity for that to happen.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 30, 2008, 12:15:05 PM
Mette Marit is crown princess of Norway, not Spain.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on July 30, 2008, 01:32:44 PM
Hi Robert,

That would be a great shame. Of course if Tony Blair was still PM we might have had him placing the Crown on the Sovereigns head...

I hope they do not cut down the coronation and use the form used at the Queen's and thus a link with 1000 years of history although a lot of the modern day form was I recall invented for Edward VIII's but I may be wrong.

It has already been announced that the ceremony is being "streamlined" and brought  in line with the modern times. It might not be quite the spectacle it has been in the past.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 30, 2008, 01:41:40 PM
I'm sure it won't be any less of a grand spectacle than it has been in the past. The high tide of 'modernization' is now receding, and even Blair didn't see much point in interfering with royal ritual. There will naturally be alterations, paricularly with regard to the composition of the audience (less centerd on the nobility), and representatives of other churches and faiths will have to be involved in some way.  But I suspect it won't be for some considerable time yet!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on July 30, 2008, 01:44:53 PM
It was reported in the British press at the time of the death of the Queen Mother that Blair wanted to play a part in the funeral service but was refused by the Queen as I recall.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 30, 2008, 02:03:59 PM
The coronation ceremony is a constantly evolving process. It changes with every  new sovereign.  See Roy Strong's CORONATION. It is not sacrilege to change things around. Eliminate arcane, superflulous and irrelevent language, rites and rituals.  What might have meant something in 1953 may not in the 21st century. Charles has said this several times in his interviews.  In any case, it is premature to talk about it now.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on July 31, 2008, 03:43:18 AM
I imagine it will be many years before we have to think about the matter as the Queen is in good health. If she takes after her Mother we will all be very old at the next coronation.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on July 31, 2008, 05:36:56 AM
Charles has suggested that Westminster Hall would be used for the newly crowned monarch to greet and be acclaimed by the different faiths within his Kingdom
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on July 31, 2008, 07:14:17 AM
We've discussed this before.  Most (including me) are of the opinion that he can acknowledge different faiths within his kingdom, but not represent them.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: mcdnab on July 31, 2008, 08:04:03 AM
As has been pointed out the Coronation service has evolved over many years - its been changed numerous times - George VI's was different to his fathers because changes had to be made to reflect the feelings of Ireland (he was still King of the free state in 1937), Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa (all of who's status had changed since 1911).  So he only swore to maintain the Protestant Faith in the UK for example.  Changes again were made for Elizabeth II's and no doubt more changes will be made for that of Charles III or George VII. 

And i'm with Grace i don't think as head of the established church and as a parliamentary monarch (who is required by Parliament on accession to guarantee and maintain the protestant succession) he can "represent" any other religion.  The Queen has trod a very careful path - maintaining her own clearly devout faith and Anglicanism whilst showing respect to other faiths. 

Its also worth pointing out that the majority of people in the UK still identify themselves as Christian (and the majority of those would belong to the various Protestant faiths - although Roman Catholics form a signficant and sizeable group) - in the 2001 census for example the figures for the UK - suggest that all the other faiths (islam, sikh, buddist, judaeism, hindu etc) account for only around 5% of the population in fact after Christianity the biggest group say they have no identification with any religion.
 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on July 31, 2008, 08:35:45 AM
So if the Coronation ritual is something that is variable for each successive monarch and able to be adapted for changing times, then presumably the notion that Camilla does not have to be crowned is equally admissible?

Interestingly Channel 4 showed a repeat of the programme the other day about Camilla and its contention that she may actually be 'the saviour of the British Monarchy' - their words - as opposed, one imagines, to the notion that she has actually contributed to the loss of respect and interest in that institution.  This programme was no less patronising or obtuse the second time round in that its intent is quite clearly to enhance public perception of the couple by simply distorting what we know to be fact.

I'm quite prepared to accept that Camilla as a person is a good laugh, and that she is well liked amongst her circle, and I suppose that we should all avoid being too judgemental about the fact that both she and Charles quite cynically maintained a relationship over many years, double adultery in fact.

But, and this is a big but for me, there is a smugness about this couple that I simply find a major source of irritation.  I really feel that they consider themselves to be home and dry and that they imagine that nobody really has too much of an opinion about what has gone before and how it reflects upon them.  I suspect that some people still do care and do have an opinion about this, whether it is positive or negative, but we have simply been swamped by spin intended to boost both their profiles, not to mention that of other members of the RF, both living and dead.  I strongly suspect that this is just plain revisionism, which personally I find offensive.

I can't help feeling that Camilla does not deserve her place amongst the Queen Consorts of recent memory - worthy women who did their jobs to the best of their ability.  It's all just too 'in your face' for my liking, but then I'm not thrilled about the idea of Charles being King either.  As others have said, it's all hypothetical at the moment, as the Queen is in good health and will continue presumably until the grave claims her, but I don't love the idea of what may come after...........and I wouldn't be surprised if when this day does come, the concept of 'Princess Consort' and all the other fob-off nonsense is very swiftly dumped by the wayside..........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on July 31, 2008, 09:19:34 AM
Since I'm not the Queen's subject, I probably have no real right to comment on this particular topic; I don't know how I'd feel about it were I British (or Canadian, or Australian).  I certainly can understand Martyn's irritation about what he referred to as smugness on C&C's part.

But to play Devil's advocate for a moment, what alternative do they have?  They know full well their past actions, and they know full well that WE know their past actions.  They acknowledged their past sins during their marriage ceremony, and have since tried to move past them. Isn't that what we all would do?

One may argue that - given their past actions - they should, or shouldn't, have been allowed to marry.  One may argue that they are, or are not, suitable to succeed the Crown.  All reasonable.  But I can't bring myself to hold it against them for letting the past go and focusing on the present and future in their daily lives. 

God knows I've done some things in my life I'm not really proud of, and I'm grateful to have been able to acknowledge and apologize for them, and then put them in the past and move on.  Aren't we all entitled to that?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on July 31, 2008, 09:38:37 AM
I do sort of agree with Chris but the British public are not going to forget Diana and the way she was treated. Charles has time and time again shown how self centrered he can be and it unsettles the British when his Mother has always put duty first. We shall have to see what happens in the future I suppose with regard to Charles. 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on July 31, 2008, 09:46:35 AM
I would agree with that Chris.  I think that we have to be pragmatic and put the past behind us where possible.

By the same token, it doesn't just wipe the slate clean and it doesn't make us like or respect this couple.  I'm sure that I'm not alone in thinking this and that perhaps the majority verdict on this couple over here is perhaps more one of indifference as opposed to any particular positive or negative sentiment.  

The smugness is a problem, as is the attitude that people in general are idiots and can be fed any old b/shit by the media in order to rewrite history and manipulate opinion.  I suspect that this Channel 4 repeat programme does more to invite controversy by its inveterate bias.........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on July 31, 2008, 09:50:04 AM
I do sort of agree with Chris but the British public are not going to forget Diana and the way she was treated. Charles has time and time again shown how self centrered he can be and it unsettles the British when his Mother has always put duty first. We shall have to see what happens in the future I suppose with regard to Charles. 

Maybe they will and maybe they won't.  I don't know that any good is really done by harking back to that.

The question is more to do with the suitability of this couple for their projected roles.  Personally I don't feel comfortable with the idea of her in that role.  She has only one quality that I can find to admire and that is her tenacity.........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on July 31, 2008, 09:54:48 AM
Agreed
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on July 31, 2008, 11:46:26 AM
God knows I've done some things in my life I'm not really proud of, and I'm grateful to have been able to acknowledge and apologize for them, and then put them in the past and move on.  Aren't we all entitled to that?

You, Chris (with respect) are not going to be crowned King of England.  With the priviledges, come certain responsibilities.  I am with Martyn on this one .   As a UK citizen, I really resent how they are trying to spin this situation so that it is acceptable.

Having lived in Australia, I would suggest that once the Queen is dead, they will once again have a Referendum regarding becoming a Republic and this time, Charles III will be known (as George III was for "losing" America) for "losing" Australia.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Mari on July 31, 2008, 01:57:17 PM
Quote
the British public are not going to forget Diana and the way she was treated. Charles has time and time again shown how self centered he can be and it unsettles the British when his Mother has always put duty first. We shall have to see what happens in the future I suppose with regard to Charles.

Well, this about sums up how I feel also. It hasn't been that long...despite the fact the Media Spin people want to make it "the past." People are People and they don't forget that easily. I too find this Couple smug and I do think they've gotten away with it in their eyes. But not in a large part of the Public's.

Quote
You, Chris (with respect) are not going to be crowned King of England.  With the priviledges, come certain responsibilities.  I am with Martyn on this one .   As a UK citizen, I really resent how they are trying to spin this situation so that it is acceptable.
Quote

So do I! And its worth remembering that with the privileges come the responsibilities...thank you Joan for pointing this out.


Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on July 31, 2008, 02:56:04 PM
Anyway with the Queen still healthy. We don't have to think about this at least for a while.  ;)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on August 01, 2008, 02:14:49 AM
Anyway with the Queen still healthy. We don't have to think about this at least for a while.  ;)

One never knows - Charles and Camilla are but a heartbeat away from the throne !!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on August 01, 2008, 05:14:15 AM
Obviously it's up to various nations to decide their future and good luck to the republics of Australia and New Zealand. However the monarchy is the blood in our cultural identity in the Uk and George VII will make a good King
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on August 01, 2008, 07:01:29 AM
I really hope so or all the work of George VI and Elizibeth II will be lost.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on August 01, 2008, 07:16:20 AM
I'm amazed how ones words can be mis-read . The British monarch can only represent the Church of England, as She and hopefully He is it's Head. However I believe like the Pr of Wales that British subjects of other faiths can be included and have a role in the coronaton rite from Jews to Buddhists.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on August 01, 2008, 07:54:08 AM

But, and this is a big but for me, there is a smugness about this couple that I simply find a major source of irritation.  I really feel that they consider themselves to be home and dry and that they imagine that nobody really has too much of an opinion about what has gone before and how it reflects upon them.  I suspect that some people still do care and do have an opinion about this, whether it is positive or negative, but we have simply been swamped by spin intended to boost both their profiles, not to mention that of other members of the RF, both living and dead.  I strongly suspect that this is just plain revisionism, which personally I find offensive.


IMO the smugness so well described by Martyn is due almost 100% to Charles. 

I think Camilla very well understands,  "that some people still do care and do have an opinion about this, whether it is positive or negative, but we have simply been swamped by spin intended to boost both their profiles".  I do not think, as I have stated many times on this forum, that she wanted to marry Charles, that she wanted to be Queen or have any type of public role.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on August 01, 2008, 09:49:31 AM
. However the monarchy is the blood in our cultural identity in the Uk and George VII will make a good King

Is that the case?  Most of the people that I know (middle class, educated professional, 30 and upwards) don't really give a toss about the monarchy and I'm not sure that I do any more.

Just because we've had it for so long does not necessarily mean that we still need it.  Let's not forget as well that we also have a history of booting them out when they're not up to it, and even separating their heads from their bodies when circumstances require........

The whole idea that the accident of birth brings with it automatic wealth, privilege and status is such an idiotic notion and I can't believe that in this day and age we still subscribe to it.......
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 01, 2008, 11:08:37 AM
. However the monarchy is the blood in our cultural identity in the Uk and George VII will make a good King
The whole idea that the accident of birth brings with it automatic wealth, privilege and status is such an idiotic notion and I can't believe that in this day and age we still subscribe to it.......

That topic probably deserves its own thread!  But before a moderator zaps us back onto the topic of Camilla in this thread, I'll throw in my 2 cents!!! 

As much as I am fascinated by monarchy and royalty as an institution (with all its associated glamour and trappings), I have often found myself wondering "But is it right that someone obtains their rank and position by hereditary accident?  But then I look at the bigger picture.

Throughout history, In any society one small group always rises to become leaders - depending on the needs of the particular society.  Among cavemen, those with the greatest physical strength became leaders.  Later, those who proved to be the best warriors.  Then, the ones able to lead armies.  Later, those who were educated enough to be able to read and write.  Then those who controlled the pillars of economy (first landowners, then industrial owners).  Throughout all this, leaders of religions and churches also held sway.

Today, we have leaders in a variety of areas.  Our elected politicans control our governments.  Our chosen celebrities control our cultures.  Our leaders of industry control our economies.  And in that context, I believe monarchy serves its own role too.  Royals no longer govern, they no longer control economies.  But they do provide the personalification of a country's history and identity - to their own people and to the rest of the world.  They are a cultural institution that continues with the generations.

In the United States we have always lacked that personification of our nation.  Sure, we have a President - but his actions as Head of Government always overshadow his role as Head of State.  When our President attend an event, it is always tinged with politics that overshadow the real purpose of the event.  The job of the Vice President used to be pretty much ceremonial, going to funerals and inaugurations abroad, and attending other functions that the President wasn't available for.  But how many people remember who the US VP was in, say, 1928?  How about 1954?  Nobody is very impressed with them. 

In contrast, when Queen Elizabeth II, or the PoW, or the Crown Prince of Japan, attends an event, people sits up and notice - they pay attention and it brings a level of prestige and grandeur to the event.  I recently read a story of when George VI and Queen Elizabeth openeded a war memorial during their 1938 tour of Canada and the US.  Witnesses wrote that the old soliders from World War I respectfully parted to form lanes for the King and Queen to walk through, many with tears in their eyes at being so close to the royal couple.  It meant so much to them.

Is that subjective and emotive reasoning for monarchy worth the cost?  Well, that's for the people of the monarchies of the world to decide.  In the end,  tend to think it is.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on August 01, 2008, 11:13:02 AM
. However the monarchy is the blood in our cultural identity in the Uk and George VII will make a good King

Is that the case?  Most of the people that I know (middle class, educated professional, 30 and upwards) don't really give a toss about the monarchy and I'm not sure that I do any more.

Just because we've had it for so long does not necessarily mean that we still need it.  Let's not forget as well that we also have a history of booting them out when they're not up to it, and even separating their heads from their bodies when circumstances require........

The whole idea that the accident of birth brings with it automatic wealth, privilege and status is such an idiotic notion and I can't believe that in this day and age we still subscribe to it.......






Thats your personal opinion...it's a free monarchy. Certainly , most people i know are very fond of our monarchy and would not wish to flush it away .
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 01, 2008, 11:40:05 AM
I tend to agree with Martyn.  Most, if not all of my British friends are apathetic at best about the monarchy. Downright republicans at the other end. And, over the past 30 years, I know a LOT of British folks. Not one would dream of getting rid of the present Queen, but when the C&C show comes on stage, a big yawn from most.   I do not blame Camilla though. I get the impression that Charles forced the limelight on her, just to get his way. She  most likely would have been happy being the country mistress, with her horsey friends.  She really looks uncomfortable and out-of-place in these public appearances. Her clothes have improved a bit, but that hair went out decades ago.
 Whatever Charles calls himself, I think he sees himself as a reincarnation of the past 2 Edwards.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 01, 2008, 11:55:44 AM
Yes...I think Camilla went out in the limelight because of Charles. She would have been happier being a country wife...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on August 01, 2008, 12:01:17 PM
. However the monarchy is the blood in our cultural identity in the Uk and George VII will make a good King
The whole idea that the accident of birth brings with it automatic wealth, privilege and status is such an idiotic notion and I can't believe that in this day and age we still subscribe to it.......

That topic probably deserves its own thread! 

It has one:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=6834.0
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on August 01, 2008, 12:23:31 PM
What a wonderful set of republicans you are eh? bully for you
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 01, 2008, 02:10:26 PM
I tend to agree with Martyn.  Most, if not all of my British friends are apathetic at best about the monarchy. Downright republicans at the other end. And, over the past 30 years, I know a LOT of British folks. Not one would dream of getting rid of the present Queen, but when the C&C show comes on stage, a big yawn from most.   I do not blame Camilla though. I get the impression that Charles forced the limelight on her, just to get his way. She  most likely would have been happy being the country mistress, with her horsey friends.  She really looks uncomfortable and out-of-place in these public appearances. Her clothes have improved a bit, but that hair went out decades ago.
 Whatever Charles calls himself, I think he sees himself as a reincarnation of the past 2 Edwards.

So Robert, would you say that it is monarchy as an institution which brings about that apathy, or Charles in particular?

Because the latter would suggest this the apathy is but another blip on the radar screen - that following the probably short reign of C&C they could be a chance for the popularity of the monarchy to surge again.

But if its the former, well, wouldn't matter who is on the throne...it's just doomed.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 01, 2008, 02:31:19 PM
In my opinion, the apathy is due to Charles.  There is genuine interest in a younger set- namely William.
 However, the constitutional role , unlessl it is changed or evolved, will ultimately lead to it's demise.
 Monarchy also needs popularity.  C&C just do not have it, except from forelock pulling obsequious idol worshiping royalists.
 Personally, I would like to see it evole with the times, like the  other monarchies of Europe have. But, it is not the reason I  come to England so often, not the reason I plan to move there.
 Again, I have nothing against Camilla.  I just think she preferrred being the country mistress, not the wife of a future king. I actually like the fact that she  has kept her  own home, to get away on her own, although I resent the tax money paid to "protect" it. [and I DO pay UK taxes]
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on August 01, 2008, 04:53:38 PM
Certainly you will never hear a Brit praising anything, especially his country . Attacking institutions and especially the Monarch or the government is a national past time. For example, British people are profoundly shocked to see Americans pledging themselves to their flag. I presume thats why the Monarchy has survived so strongly just because we could not respect anyone to take the Sovereigns place. Sorry, Martyn, Robert and fellow republicans, the British Monarchy is alive and well, and we are looking forward to the royal wedding next year.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on August 01, 2008, 05:10:25 PM
What royal wedding next year?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 01, 2008, 09:57:07 PM
Norbert, what makes you classify me as a republican?  I have not given my position at all, just relating those of the friends I have in Britain.   And who are "we"?  I spend a lot of time in Britain and am a close observer and listener. I would say your  views are a distinct minority. Most people  just are trying to get by and could give less than a fig for royal fro-fro.
 I imagine Camilla feels the same.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on August 02, 2008, 02:23:02 AM
Norbert, what makes you classify me as a republican?  I have not given my position at all, just relating those of the friends I have in Britain.   And who are "we"?  I spend a lot of time in Britain and am a close observer and listener. I would say your  views are a distinct minority. Most people  just are trying to get by and could give less than a fig for royal fro-fro.
 I imagine Camilla feels the same.

Yeah ...right
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on August 02, 2008, 03:03:59 AM
I spend a lot of time in Britain and am a close observer and listener.

perhaps you should widen your circle of friends. I  don't know anyone who would wish to establish a Republic here...certainly it's not on the agenda of any political party. Even the Scots Independent Party advocate retaining the Monarchy in Scotland
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on August 02, 2008, 03:07:29 AM
I spend a lot of time in Britain and am a close observer and listener.

Sorry ,I forgot to quote you Robert. Where did you say you came from?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on August 02, 2008, 06:43:29 AM
And we Brits have lots to complain about at the present time. But the Queen in not one of the them or the Crown. We do not want it to go but would like it to evolve probably with William rather than Charles. He, Charles, may not outlive his Mother and even if he did his reign would be short due to his age. A Republic is out of the question. The thought of President Blair or Brown makes my blood run cold!

 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 02, 2008, 11:12:35 AM
It is  so hard to discuss things with a closed mind.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on August 02, 2008, 11:18:48 AM
Robert,

I hope you do not think I have a closed mind, assuming it was me you were talking about. I try always to see things in a open point of view and I am always willing to have that point of view changed were necessary.

Michael
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 02, 2008, 11:41:12 AM
No, Michael, I was not referring to you at all.
 Now, could we  just get back to the topic, which is Camilla, after all? The current staus and future is another topic altogether.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on August 02, 2008, 11:46:03 AM
Agreed.

Do people think she should have the rank of Queen consort or Princess Consort. A poll would be intresting.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 02, 2008, 01:07:19 PM
I think Princess Consort without coronation would be acceptable to most. Camilla would be in tune with Mett Meritte and Maxima.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 02, 2008, 01:36:37 PM
I agree with Eric. That was also what was annonuced when they married. They should stick with it to maintain some cerdibilty.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 02, 2008, 01:42:27 PM
Thanks. I think as long as they stick with the plan. Both Charles & Camilla would be accepted without much fuss. Think it is what they had in mind too...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on August 02, 2008, 04:09:10 PM
I think Princess Consort without coronation would be acceptable to most. Camilla would be in tune with Mett Meritte and Maxima.

No Eric,Mette-Marit and Máxima will be Queen of Norway/The Netherlands resp. in due time,theirs is a slightly different story on crucial points.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Norbert on August 03, 2008, 06:44:11 AM
No, Michael, I was not referring to you at all.
 Now, could we  just get back to the topic, which is Camilla, after all? The current staus and future is another topic altogether.
but surely Robert we must agree with our man who  "spends a lot of time in Britain and am a close observer and listener ", and more importantly " knows a LOT of British folks". I presume this is  "Martyn I don't really give a toss about the monarchy". otherwise we are branded a " minority with a closed mind".
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on August 03, 2008, 07:00:39 AM
The more I read on the Allly Pally, the more I feel sympathy for Camilla.  To have your life dissected on the Ally Pally is more than the average person could stand and Camilla is an average woman, nothing more.  The worst thing about being a Royal is that you are not in a position to answer back as Sarah York does and Diana did.

If I were Camilla and did not get to wear all that jewelry as a reward and compensation, I would just buy a large country house and hide out for two weeks of every month showing up in London only for the occasional flower show or garden party.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on August 03, 2008, 07:13:03 AM
She does have access to some wonderful jewels
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 03, 2008, 07:58:17 AM
That is just it, TB, she doesn't wear that stuff well.  "silk purse out of a ......"
 And whatever you say Norbert.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on August 03, 2008, 08:18:52 AM
That is just it, TB, she doesn't wear that stuff well.  "silk purse out of a ......"
 And whatever you say Norbert.

Robert,

My post was in jest to get my point of view across.  The rewards for all the scarfice of being royal are the "Trappings of Royalty", the first class travel, the historic homes, servants galore, free and reduced priced designers dudes and jewelry...etc....etc...

If one does not enjoy all of the above things then being Royal or marrying Royal is nothing but pure sacrifice.  I personally believe the that Camilla, like QEII if the whole truth were known, really does not care for the  "Trappings of Royalty".

Kate Middleton seems to enjoy her future life and understands what she is getting herself into.  However, I think Chelsy Davy like Camilla, will have problems with the heavy mantle of Royal Tiara.

TampaBay

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on August 03, 2008, 08:28:44 AM

That is just it, TB, she doesn't wear that stuff well. 


Well in that case, could I please try on all that most excellent stuff???  Please pass me the Vladimir Tiara with the sapphire dangle drops.

LOL!  LOL!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 03, 2008, 08:44:14 AM
I do not follow those gals much. I do not  read the glossy mags and usually just notice them when they pop up on the BBC.  Otherwise, they are just the Paris Hiltons of Britain, to me.  I did like, and still do, the Duchess of York.  As she thundered accross the stage '...to the wind" so to speak, she still had a charm of her own. Camilla just seems dull and lifeless, keeping her real self for the very close circle of friends they have in the country, where she can drink and tell dirty  stories.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on August 03, 2008, 09:19:06 AM
I do not follow those gals much. I do not  read the glossy mags and usually just notice them when they pop up on the BBC.  Otherwise, they are just the Paris Hiltons of Britain, to me.  I did like, and still do, the Duchess of York.  As she thundered accross the stage '...to the wind" so to speak, she still had a charm of her own. Camilla just seems dull and lifeless, keeping her real self for the very close circle of friends they have in the country, where she can drink and tell dirty  stories.

Robert,

As you and any long time Ally Pally blogger knows, I am also a big fan of Sarah York though I do think lately (past six months) she has miscalculated a bid with some of her activities.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 03, 2008, 09:25:15 AM
At least she has the freedom to make mistakes.  Camilla is sort of bound to be as perfect as possible, isn't she?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on August 03, 2008, 09:33:38 AM
At least she has the freedom to make mistakes.  Camilla is sort of bound to be as perfect as possible, isn't she?

Yes she is.  Camilla is damned if she does and damed if she does not! No matter what Camilla does 75% of people who take notice will not have a positive response.  I am on the fence about wheter she deserves this or not but her life must be pure hell 80% of the time.

It is always said to be careful what one wishes for because you just might it.  However, I do not think Camilla ever wished for any of what she ended up wirth.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Mari on August 03, 2008, 04:39:47 PM
Quote
t is always said to be careful what one wishes for because you just might it.  However, I do not think Camilla ever wished for any of what she ended up wirth.

Sorry TB but as long as she was involved with Charles and still after all that time, agreed to marry him... She had to know what She was getting into. She had years to think this thing through. Why didn't she just say no?  I'd rather remain quietly in the country and carry on as usual. Then her own little set could have her earthy humor and the rest of it. I see an ambitious Woman who hung on despite the fact that Diana confronted her as a married woman in love with her Husband....despite the fact She lost her Marriage... and has done very well out of the deal and so will  her family. Wasn't she the one in the first place who told Charles that her Grandmother..great Grandmother...whatever it was had been the Mistress of his Ancestor and how about it?  This is no shrinking little flower. I agree with those who think William is the bright ray for the up and coming Monarchy.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on August 03, 2008, 06:55:46 PM
Mari,

I agree with all you stay but it is my understanding that all of this came to a head after the Westminster- van Cutsem Wedding (Lady Tamara Katherine Grosvenor (b. December 20, 1979) married Edward Bernard Charles van Cutsem (November 6, 2004) .

Supposedly, Charles was upset that due to protocol Camilla could not/would not be seated at this table and was not given the respect of his date/escort at this very  chi-chi-po-pa Society Aristocratic Wedding of the Year of 2004 .  It was the day after this wedding that Charles began to push for the marriage to Camilla with The Grey Men of the Palace/Powers that be/Tony Blair/QEII/ANBODY THAT WOULD LISTEN and GIVE HIM THE TIME OF DAY.  Charles wanted Camilla at his side at all times.

What Camilla had to say about this I do not know and have not read.  I am sure she found a table at the reception-dance-ball and began to tell dirty jokes and laughing out loud never thinking that she would marry the POW and ascend the throne of the UK and Northern Ireland at his side.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on August 04, 2008, 11:19:53 AM
As evidenced by this thread alone, the woman is divisive !!   

Not a good quality for a Queen Consort of the UK (...........or will it still be the United Kingdom when KCIII & QC ascend the throne ????)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 04, 2008, 12:28:29 PM
I mean both Mett Meritt and Maxima would not be "crowned" like the Queen Mother or Queen Mary in England. They would be Queens but no coronation. Camilla could be Princess Consort on a swearing ceremony like the ones in Norway or Holland. It would save a lot of money for a new crown for her...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 04, 2008, 12:36:57 PM
I do not think those ladies  would even take an oath, Eric.   The king takes an oath, or swears to uphold the constitution, but they will be queens  simply by  being the wife, I believe.
 I imagine Camilla will be much the same.   She will take the style of her husband, whether or not she  is called "queen"
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on August 04, 2008, 05:04:35 PM
Does the wider populace even care any more ??  I think the main attitude in the UK is indifference.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 04, 2008, 05:56:28 PM
That is my view as well.  There are fantaic royalists and republicans but most simply can't be bothered. Camilla simply does not generate the interest that Diana did. Nor does she seem to want to.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 04, 2008, 07:13:15 PM
Well...true although Camilla & Charles always revoke memories of Diana. I think Kate would have a clean slate if she does make it to the altar.  ;)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on August 05, 2008, 08:26:26 AM

I do not think those ladies  would even take an oath, Eric.   The king takes an oath, or swears to uphold the constitution, but they will be queens  simply by  being the wife, I believe.
 I imagine Camilla will be much the same.   She will take the style of her husband, whether or not she  is called "queen"



Exactly... ;)



Then is not Camilla the current Princes of Wales no mater what title she uses?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on August 05, 2008, 09:56:03 AM
Even if she was she would not dare to use it. Can you imagine the respone in England? BP would be stormed
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 05, 2008, 10:22:14 AM
Camilla's full titles are Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on August 05, 2008, 10:27:04 AM
I've never heard the title Princess of Scotland before. Does that come from the Scottish royal family before James I or after?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 05, 2008, 10:32:24 AM
de facto, yes, she takes her  husband's styles and titles. It would be grossly insensitive  for her, however, to use  "Princess of Wales" it is not de jure, so to speak.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 05, 2008, 10:34:13 AM
According to the official royal website, Charles' titles are:  His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

Since the unification of England and Scotland in 1603, the titles have fallen from habitual use, the holder also from then on usually being Duke of Cornwall, Prince of Wales and Duke of Rothesay, which were preferred, and is now seldom referred to, except as the last in the conventional list of the Prince of Wales's titles. Similar to the process of Crown consent (see Royal Assent), in order for any bill affecting, directly or by implication, the personal property or interests of the Prince and Great Steward of Scotland to be heard in Parliament, the Prince must first consent to its hearing.

So - if Charles is Prince of Scotland, than Camilla as his wife is Princess of Scotland.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on August 05, 2008, 10:37:57 AM
Thank you for the information.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 05, 2008, 01:05:53 PM
To be fair, Camilla was more a Princess of Scotland than Diana ever was. She enjoyed the country side and met up at QM's castle at Birkhall with Charles even before she wedded him.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 05, 2008, 04:04:02 PM
That is very true, Eric. I  would not disagree at all.  Diana expressed her dislike of "country life" and it was obvious she was much happier in  urban enviornments.  Camilla is just the opposite.  Nothing wrong with either one of their preferences.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 05, 2008, 05:48:53 PM
Indeed...Camilla looked her most natural in country clothes and tweeds. She was very much an English country woman (she does not even acompany her husband on his painting expideitions to Tuscany, Italy).
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on August 05, 2008, 06:21:45 PM
Indeed...Camilla looked her most natural in country clothes and tweeds. She was very much an English country woman (she does not even acompany her husband on his painting expideitions to Tuscany, Italy).

Can't say I blame her.  Sitting on a hillside watching him sketch for hours on end while he communes with nature?  No thanks - boring!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 05, 2008, 06:33:28 PM
Indeed...Camilla looked her most natural in country clothes and tweeds. She was very much an English country woman (she does not even acompany her husband on his painting expideitions to Tuscany, Italy).

Can't say I blame her.  Sitting on a hillside watching him sketch for hours on end while he communes with nature?  No thanks - boring!

Why would she have to sit on the hill and watch him sketch? She could sight see. Tuscany is absolutely beautiful!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on August 05, 2008, 07:30:10 PM
Indeed...Camilla looked her most natural in country clothes and tweeds. She was very much an English country woman (she does not even acompany her husband on his painting expideitions to Tuscany, Italy).

Can't say I blame her.  Sitting on a hillside watching him sketch for hours on end while he communes with nature?  No thanks - boring!

Why would she have to sit on the hill and watch him sketch? She could sight see. Tuscany is absolutely beautiful!

Knowing Prince Charles I would imagine as a condition of her accompanying her husband to this well known beauty spot, she'd be required to watch him with rapt enthusiasm for the duration of the excursion and to be on stand-by for any little needs which may crop up.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 05, 2008, 07:56:46 PM
I have a feeling Grace is right.  He would expect her to  devotedly  stay by his side. Whilst she would be thinking of horse farms in the area.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on August 06, 2008, 08:05:38 AM

Knowing Prince Charles I would imagine as a condition of her accompanying her husband to this well known beauty spot, she'd be required to watch him with rapt enthusiasm for the duration of the excursion and to be on stand-by for any little needs which may crop up.
[/quote]

KILLING!  After all these years her 'rapt expression' must be extremely polished.......

I know that many have said that she prefers life in the country to that of being in the media spotlight, but she doesn't look unhappy in her new role.  I suppose in that respect, either she is a consummate actress putting on a first class performance in support of her husband, or she really is enjoying herself, decked out in all her new finery.........Personally I think that she has taken to it like a duck to water, which perhaps is no bad thing for the RF, but not nearly as diverting for us (who can forget how Diana managed to convey her unhappiness/displeasure on public occasions, to the mortification of Charles and exciting the interest of the public???)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 06, 2008, 08:14:27 AM
But then if she doesn't go with him at all, she can't admire him communing with nature even for a few minutes. Otherwise she can admire him for a little bit  and then go do some sightseeing.  ;)

Do you really think he would seriously expect that?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 06, 2008, 08:27:43 AM
Having never met the man personally, I could not say for certain.  But from all I've read and heard, my perception would be an unqualified "yes".
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 06, 2008, 10:58:13 AM
I head that Prince Charles did own property in Tuscany, I wonder if he ever took Camilla there. No she did not look unhappy in her new role, nor was she as looking forward to that as Diana would. As an older (mature) woman, she took it in stride...and it shows.  :)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 06, 2008, 11:12:51 AM
You really think so, Martyn? I find her performance at   public events for the most part  rather "forced"  except, of course the horsey events. When she is around people she has known for a long time, she seems fine and natural.  I have seen her a few times in London [not personally, just as an passing observer] and get the impression  that she really wishes to be elsewhere. Maybe is is just my perception.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 06, 2008, 11:21:21 AM
Well...I think she will never be as natural as Diana since she wasn't a good an actress as she was (in hiding her distress that is). However I find whenever Camilla was with Charles, they look genuinely happy togather.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 06, 2008, 12:04:36 PM
I did not mean unhappy with Charles at all.   No, just some situations they are put in.
 As for Tuscany, well, why  not?  She goes off on her own holidays with friends without him,  and  it is perfectly ok for him to do the same. He will anyway, he does what he likes, after all.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 06, 2008, 12:44:24 PM
Indeed yes !  ;)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on August 07, 2008, 09:28:22 AM
Having never met the man personally, I could not say for certain.  But from all I've read and heard, my perception would be an unqualified "yes".

I would agree with that Chris!

Robert, I have never had the opportunity to see her at close quarters (not that I'm that bothered) so perhaps media and magazine coverage give a distorted image of how comfortable she is with public life.  I am happy to accept your perceptions in this instance.

I will bet however that she does love waking up every morning, being waited on hand and foot and enjoying everything of the best, with the knowledge that one day she might be Queen - must be quite a contrast to not so very long ago when she was simply a powerful man's ageing mistress with a limited income..........and none too popular either!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 07, 2008, 11:31:51 AM
I have not met  them personally either. Just  see them  around London , going about my business and they come trotting by for an opening or some other function. I have seen the lot of them  this way, over the years. Never on purpose and never by plan. Diana, in my view, was the only one who seemed to truely enjoy the limelight and she  sure did shine in it.
 Camilla, of course she likes the  servants, the shopping [I suppose] and the other perks.  She deserves it, after all, putting up with Charles all these years.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 07, 2008, 01:30:18 PM
It would be good for Charles though as Camilla would "Never" outshine him...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on August 08, 2008, 08:15:19 AM
Camilla, of course she likes the  servants, the shopping [I suppose] and the other perks.  She deserves it, after all, putting up with Charles all these years.

Good point, she sure does.  But not enough to be Queen...........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 08, 2008, 08:58:17 AM
But I think good enough to be "Princess Consort"....
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 08, 2008, 11:22:28 AM
"Queen" is too much and possibly very divisive Husbands of queens regnant are not   declared "king consort" so there is no real need for Camilla to be  anything other than "Princess Consort" I suppose she could  keep  "Duchess of Cornwall" but it  sounds akward to me, especially if Charles becomes king.  Also, I do not know if that title is tied to the Wales title [?]
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 08, 2008, 12:49:12 PM
Camilla has to take another title when Charles succeeds.  It does present an interesting point, however. 

When Charles becomes King, William immediately becomes The Duke of Cornwall.  William's wife (if married) becomes The Duchess of Cornwall - until William is subsequently created Prince of Wales (likely, but not automatic).

If one assumes that William weds during his grandmother's reign, I'm sure he will be given a peerage of his own  (Otherwise his wife would have to be known as HRH The Princess William of Wales - ugh).  So after Charles' sucession William and his wife would be known as "The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and X" until the Prince of Wales title is bestowed.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Vecchiolarry on August 08, 2008, 12:58:32 PM
Hi,

"God Save The Queen"...
And, "Long may she live & reign over us!!"......

After reading all 24 pages of this thread, these salutations ring ever more desperate and true.....

I wonder if it's unpatriotic or even treasonable to say:  "Save us from Charles & Camilla".....

Larry
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Michael HR on August 08, 2008, 04:03:31 PM
Can you imagine of William was gay and entered into a civil partnership what title his partner would have? That would be fun...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on August 08, 2008, 06:49:33 PM
Can you imagine of William was gay and entered into a civil partnership what title his partner would have? That would be fun...

Now there's a thought worth conjecture, if not now, then maybe for the future

R.I.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on August 08, 2008, 08:01:20 PM
Can you imagine of William was gay and entered into a civil partnership what title his partner would have? That would be fun...

Oh, hilarious.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 08, 2008, 08:42:04 PM
Interesting...I wonder who in the current RF is actually gay. There were rumours about Prince Andrew and Prince Edward (still persist in some circles).But I heard Prince Michael of Kent's son Lord Freddy is now rumoured to be gay (like his grandfather Georgie Kent who played both teams)...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on August 09, 2008, 02:51:30 PM
Can you imagine of William was gay and entered into a civil partnership what title his partner would have? That would be fun...

I love it !!!!    Legally, it could be on the cards.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 09, 2008, 03:14:39 PM
Can you imagine of William was gay and entered into a civil partnership what title his partner would have? That would be fun...

Queen of course.  ;)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 09, 2008, 03:25:42 PM
Legally, in the UK, gay unions are "civil" or "domestic" partneships, not  marriages. So, the  question of  such a partnership would be mute until the courts decide.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: TampaBay on August 09, 2008, 09:02:21 PM
Interesting...I wonder who in the current RF is actually gay. There were rumours about Prince Andrew and Prince Edward (still persist in some circles).But I heard Prince Michael of Kent's son Lord Freddy is now rumoured to be gay (like his grandfather Georgie Kent who played both teams)...

So what?  Are they doing their jobs?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: carl fraley on August 11, 2008, 10:27:39 PM
I saw this pic today and thought I'd share it. I know a lot of folks do not like the HRH THE DUchess of Cornwall, but you have to admit... She's certainly been a devoted, supportive, and steadfast support to her husband... THis picture is worth a thousand words.....  Three Cheers to the Duchess

http://www.hellomagazine.com/photo-galleries.html?imagen=/royalty/2008/08/10/charles-kilt-laugh/imgs/charles-camilla-1a.jpg&publi=&nactual=0&nnumeroactual=1&nfotos=3&subseccion=
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 13, 2008, 05:00:52 PM
It is no secret that many  staff of the royals have been are are now gay.  They are loyal, discreet and  know what they are doing.  The royals also return the favour by generous  treatment.  Most is unnoticed, but Charles in particular is known for  coming to the assistance of his staff in times of severe distress.
 I imagine Camilla would be much the same.  She seems "down to earth" and "live & let live" in her attitude, although she is now restricted in her public statements. Of course, she has no stones to throw at anyone, I do not see her as even  thinking about it.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on January 29, 2009, 09:23:02 PM
Trust animals to provide amusement on a royal visit; cute:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131720/Royally-embarrassing-Camilla-fends-Alsatian-visit-police-dog-centre.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131720/Royally-embarrassing-Camilla-fends-Alsatian-visit-police-dog-centre.html)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 30, 2009, 10:05:44 AM
Camilla herself looked a bit shaggy...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 30, 2009, 10:39:50 AM
I adored her ensemble. Quite beautiful.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 10:53:35 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits the Metropolitan Police Dog Training Centre - January 29, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a1.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a2.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 10:54:16 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits the Metropolitan Police Dog Training Centre - January 29, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a3.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a4.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 10:54:54 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits the Metropolitan Police Dog Training Centre - January 29, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a5.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a6.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 10:55:28 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits the Metropolitan Police Dog Training Centre - January 29, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a7.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a8.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 10:56:02 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits the Metropolitan Police Dog Training Centre - January 29, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a9.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_a10.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:08:00 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits RAF Halton - January 28, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b1.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b2.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:09:18 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits RAF Halton - January 28, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b3.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b4.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:09:58 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits RAF Halton - January 28, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b5.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b6.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:10:53 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits RAF Halton - January 28, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b7.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b8.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:11:39 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits RAF Halton - January 28, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b9.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b10.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:12:15 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits RAF Halton - January 28, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b11.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b12.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:13:07 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits RAF Halton - January 28, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b13.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b14.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 30, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
Blue suited her but a hat would have been more formal...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:17:25 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits RAF Halton - January 28, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b15.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b16.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:18:03 AM
Duchess of Cornwall visits RAF Halton - January 28, 2009:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b17.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Camilla_b18.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:24:03 AM
Blue suited her but a hat would have been more formal...

On the next photos the Duchess is a very very elegant:
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:25:07 AM
Royal Variety Performance - December 11, 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Performance_a1.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Performance_a2.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:25:45 AM
Royal Variety Performance - December 11, 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Performance_a3.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Performance_a4.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:26:22 AM
Royal Variety Performance - December 11, 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Performance_a5.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Performance_a6.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Nikola on January 30, 2009, 11:27:03 AM
Royal Variety Performance - December 11, 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Performance_a7.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Performance_a8.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 30, 2009, 11:38:32 AM
The low decoletee and diamond necklace reminded me of Diana's first debut in black.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on January 30, 2009, 01:15:53 PM
The low decoletee and diamond necklace reminded me of Diana's first debut in black.


You cannot be serious !!!!!     CPB has about 40 years and many wrinkles on Diana - no comparison.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 30, 2009, 03:42:03 PM
I am think about the form, there is paralell but of course not exactly the same.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on January 31, 2009, 03:31:43 PM
The color is lovely and suits her very well--especially given her coloring.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 31, 2009, 04:15:32 PM
The decolette might be a deep low for a woman of her age and stature.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Selencia on February 03, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
Good Gawd why must she smile, she looks even worse when she smiles. Plus the photogs really need to not do close ups of her face.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 03, 2009, 03:59:13 PM
Well...For the fans who love her and those who don't more stuff to critize her about...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on February 03, 2009, 04:06:26 PM
Well, whatever people may think of Camilla, it's not a sin to be a mature woman of 61, is it?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 03, 2009, 04:08:39 PM
I agree. That is why I said the dress did not add to her dignity. She should take a leaf out of the Queen's desses at 61....
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Martyn on February 11, 2009, 08:30:14 AM
Well, whatever people may think of Camilla, it's not a sin to be a mature woman of 61, is it?

Nope.  And she looks good.  But then so she should, with all that she has at her disposal to achieve this look.

I don't think that she should emulate the Queen's style of dressing, which is eminently suited to a woman of 80+ and not for Camilla.  The point about decolletage is fair, but up to her to judge.  Presumably she will cease to wear low necklines when she feels the time is right, and hopefully before the goods on display start to look like a bag of old oranges........

I still hate the panto hats.........
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on February 11, 2009, 09:21:41 AM
Looking at the photos above, I would say that Camilla has had a lot of sun in her lifetime.   She is the same age as me and her skin is really crepey and reptillian.

We had a holiday in Cephalonia in May 2007 and the CP of Spain's yacht was berthed in Ithica.  The locals were abuzz that Camilla was on the yacht recuperating from an operation and had been for some time.  One of their Royal Highnesses favourite places - the Greek Islands !!!!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 11, 2009, 09:52:53 AM
I do not care for Camilla, nor do I dislike her. But, she might benefit from advice  given by Joan Rivers.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on February 11, 2009, 10:02:37 AM
I do not care for Camilla, nor do I dislike her. But, she might benefit from advice  given by Joan Rivers.


Which was ???   Although knowing Joan Rivers I can imagine - something involving scapels and stapling may be !
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 11, 2009, 10:30:12 AM
Yep. That is it. Ms Rivers has long extolled the virtues of "cosmetic enhancement" particularly  for "older women".  Would not hurt some older men either, I think.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 11, 2009, 11:28:24 AM
I don't think Camilla would sign up for the Joan Rivers treatment anytime soon. Maybe she will by the time of her coronation.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Mari on February 12, 2009, 04:17:47 AM
Well, she needs to quit letting her 61 year old goods hang out whatever she chooses for her Face. They are not youth enhancing. ;)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 12, 2009, 05:40:50 AM
That was a joke, Eric. And- coronation?  What makees you think she will be crowned? She has said all along "Princess Consort" is  more than what she wants.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 22, 2009, 04:04:59 PM
Camilla Duchess of Cornwall as a debutante. Very pretty. I don't know if this photo had been posted before, so here goes.

(http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww117/FernandoMario/CamillaDebutante.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: alixaannencova on April 22, 2009, 07:02:20 PM
I haven't seen that photo before...thank you DonaAntonia!


Interesting how that fringe hasn't altered a bit in forty odd years! She reminds me of Golden Labrador/Retriever hair wise even way back then!!!! I like Labs and Retrievers though the former are rather cheeky as well as love-able and do steal food when its unattended far more frequently than any other breed I have owned!

Lovely bones too! Never really notice them today, but maybe the is because HRH has bigger hair now, which may detract!
 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kimberly on April 28, 2009, 02:26:07 AM

Enjoy :-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1174108/JOAN-COLLINS-How-Id-Camilla-makeover.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1174108/JOAN-COLLINS-How-Id-Camilla-makeover.html)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on May 08, 2009, 05:19:30 AM
Who was the Royal who recently wrote to Joanna Lumley giving her support for the Gurkha campaign?   The chief suspect is Camilla.  A definite no-no to get involved in a highly political campaign.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on May 08, 2009, 12:20:20 PM
What is "support" exactly?  This can be interpreted in different ways.  The royal concerned could have just wished Miss Lumley good luck and she has assumed this as support in her current Gurhka campaign.  As a supposed friend of the royal family, she showed poor judgement here even making mention of this then subsequently playing a cat and mouse game with the media by saying it wasn't this royal and it wasn't that one.  No-one knows who it was at this stage anyway.   
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: mcdnab on May 08, 2009, 05:46:03 PM
Oh i think there's probably a number of suspects on that one. As to the Ghurka issue well Joanna's played a very good game for no doubt very honourable intent but she's had help from a government that has presented a pretty valid case in a pretty appalling way.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on August 06, 2009, 01:08:24 AM
HRH as well as HRH the Duchess of Gloucester are expected to attend the funeral of the last British WWI veteran,Harry Patch (111),today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8186578.stm

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on August 06, 2009, 06:13:08 AM
HRH as well as HRH the Duchess of Gloucester are expected to attend the funeral of the last British WWI veteran,Harry Patch (111),today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8186578.stm



http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/somerset/hi/

Live stream of the funeral.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on August 06, 2009, 09:23:09 AM
I live in the West Country and this funeral was on our local news.   Camilla was not mentioned by name - just saying "and Royalty attended the funeral.....".

Obviously, a move to try and edge this woman into the public eye without her husband.   I'm sorry but poor Harry Patch deserved better than HER attening his funeral.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Vecchiolarry on August 06, 2009, 09:53:39 AM
Hi Joan_d,

I agree with you....
I would have thought that The Queen would have attended the funeral of the last WWI veteran there.  It would have been a special honour to all veterans;  but I know she doesn't normally attend funerals as a rule.

However, it is nice that the Duchess of Gloucester attended;  she at least is a lady and not scandalous....

Larry
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on August 06, 2009, 11:39:21 AM
Hi Joan_d,

I agree with you....
I would have thought that The Queen would have attended the funeral of the last WWI veteran there.  It would have been a special honour to all veterans;  but I know she doesn't normally attend funerals as a rule.

However, it is nice that the Duchess of Gloucester attended;  she at least is a lady and not scandalous....

Larry

What's scandalous is the attitude the brits think they can have towards the Princess of Wales.
The bloody nonsense,as if they're such holyer than thou creatures.....not..

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on August 06, 2009, 02:04:05 PM
As Wells Cathedral is only a few miles from where I live, the funeral has been on the local tv station quite a bit today.  It has been hyped up (as most things are these days) as Harry Patch only wanted a simple family funeral but I think he acceded to pressure to have a military-style funeral and it was, I have to say, very moving.

However, it is so obvious what the PR team at Buckingham Palace are trying to do re Camilla.  They are relying on people having short memories.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Vecchiolarry on August 06, 2009, 08:52:01 PM
Hi,

Both canadian & American newscasts did stories on Patch tonight, which was a very respectful & compassionate gesture.
No mention or film of either Duchess, however.

Larry
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on August 07, 2009, 12:27:26 AM
Beautifull Wells cathedral yesterday:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/08/royal-tribute-to-britains-last-ww1-soldier.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on August 07, 2009, 09:25:47 AM
Thank you for the picture of Wells Cathedral, Lucien - as you say an absolutely beautiful Cathedral.   The acoustics are magnificant and anyone who can should go the Carols by Candlelight at Christmas.   Just indescribable.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on August 07, 2009, 12:17:56 PM
As Wells Cathedral is only a few miles from where I live, the funeral has been on the local tv station quite a bit today.  It has been hyped up (as most things are these days) as Harry Patch only wanted a simple family funeral but I think he acceded to pressure to have a military-style funeral and it was, I have to say, very moving.

However, it is so obvious what the PR team at Buckingham Palace are trying to do re Camilla.  They are relying on people having short memories.
People should also remember then that "Holier than thou" Diana was no saint either....
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on August 07, 2009, 12:26:56 PM
As Wells Cathedral is only a few miles from where I live, the funeral has been on the local tv station quite a bit today.  It has been hyped up (as most things are these days) as Harry Patch only wanted a simple family funeral but I think he acceded to pressure to have a military-style funeral and it was, I have to say, very moving.

However, it is so obvious what the PR team at Buckingham Palace are trying to do re Camilla.  They are relying on people having short memories.
People should also remember then that "Holier than thou" Diana was no saint either....


I wasn't really referring to the personalities involved, rather the Buckingham Palace PR machine that treats the British public with contempt.  In this media savvy age, it just will not do.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on September 11, 2009, 07:25:27 AM
Has anyone else noticed how much weight Camilla has gained since her wedding?  There is a definite spare tyre emerging.  I sympathise being of a similar age myself - however I am lucky enough not to be on show in public.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: RoyalWatcher on September 11, 2009, 10:41:29 AM
Yes, I have noticed as well. Quitting smoking, the hysterectomy, her metabolism slowing and having to attend all of those functions with super rich foods and alcohol. It's a "recipe" for weight gain.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on September 11, 2009, 11:54:59 AM
All of those things "Royal Watcher" !    Poor woman -  I know from experience that once weight goes on at the age of 60+ it is very hard to shift.   Does anyone have the facility to show a wedding picture and a 2009 picture.   I would say a good stone & half as gone on.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on January 01, 2010, 09:32:23 AM
The Duchess's daughter,Laura Lopes,gave birth to twin boys last wednesday:Louis and Gus.
Laura and husband Harry already have a daughter,Eliza. :)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: RoyalWatcher on February 09, 2010, 07:22:06 PM
She is such a charming lady. I never thought I would come to admire and respect her the way I have. She's wonderful!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on April 24, 2010, 01:36:55 AM
HRH the Princess of Wales has not only broken her leg,nut also injured a shoulder;" On one side I have a leg and no arm,
on the other side I have an arm and no leg,the broken leg does not hurt,the shoulder does"

Not that the Princess complains:" I had a letter from a soldier asking me how I was,he lost both his legs on a mission,
that confronts one with hard reality,my leg is only broken".

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c648253ef01348016a30e970c-pi
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on April 24, 2010, 04:07:33 AM
yes it takes true talent to break your leg while walking in the hills and her title isnt Princess of Wales it is duchess of Cornwall for a good reason.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on April 24, 2010, 06:45:36 AM
I like Camilla for not what she's done but who she is now as a mother and grandmother.
I do hope she has a speedy recovery.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on April 24, 2010, 07:00:31 AM
yes it takes true talent to break your leg while walking in the hills and her title isnt Princess of Wales it is duchess of Cornwall for a good reason.

Mass hysterics and hypes never are "good reasons",thus,HRH The Princess of Wales it is and will be
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on April 24, 2010, 07:52:13 AM
Lucien, just out of my own self curiosity, does Camilla carry POW title or as she turned it down for good?
I know there's been much discussion on this subject but I really don't know if she has to legally accept it or not. I know she prefers the DOC title, but does she actually have POW title as well. When she married Charles, did it automatically come to her like Diana?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on April 24, 2010, 08:20:41 AM
Yes, legally she is POW, she just doesn't use it.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on April 24, 2010, 08:26:42 AM
Thankyou Fyodor.
Then why can't people feel free to call her that if they wish, as she is.
Diana's last title was Diana, Princess Of Wales.

How often these days does Charles get called POW?
When they are introduced at formal engagements I presume it's 'The Duke and Duchess Of Cornwall'?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on April 24, 2010, 08:55:53 AM
Then why can't people feel free to call her that if they wish, as she is.
Actually, after the wedding a statement was issued saying that she preferred to be known as Duchess of Cornwall.
Of course you might call her Princess of Wales or Morganatic Rottweiler or whatever you wish to.

Quote
Diana's last title was Diana, Princess Of Wales.
Just to get things clear, that is actually a style. I guess Duchess of Cornwall is also a style with regard to Camilla.
In Charles' case, PoW and DoC are titles, since he holds them himself.

Quote
How often these days does Charles get called POW?
When they are introduced at formal engagements I presume it's 'The Duke and Duchess Of Cornwall'?
No, they will be introduced as HRH the Prince of Wales and HRH the Duchess of Cornwall.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on April 24, 2010, 09:37:08 AM
Lucien, just out of my own self curiosity, does Camilla carry POW title or as she turned it down for good?
I know there's been much discussion on this subject but I really don't know if she has to legally accept it or not. I know she prefers the DOC title, but does she actually have POW title as well. When she married Charles, did it automatically come to her like Diana?

No she can not turn down for good what is rightfully hers in the first place,she just has not used it due to it being
soo way out of line connected with the former one and only because of that she doesn't use the title that did come
to her as it did to her predecessor.

But as I wrote before,soon Harry and William will go to see The Queen,
and shortly after HM will write the Duchess and "encourage her"  to use the title Princess of Wales.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on April 24, 2010, 05:38:22 PM
Lucien, just out of my own self curiosity, does Camilla carry POW title or as she turned it down for good?
I know there's been much discussion on this subject but I really don't know if she has to legally accept it or not. I know she prefers the DOC title, but does she actually have POW title as well. When she married Charles, did it automatically come to her like Diana?

No she can not turn down for good what is rightfully hers in the first place,she just has not used it due to it being
soo way out of line connected with the former one and only because of that she doesn't use the title that did come
to her as it did to her predecessor.

But as I wrote before,soon Harry and William will go to see The Queen,
and shortly after HM will write the Duchess and "encourage her"  to use the title Princess of Wales.


Lucien, I'm sorry I missed  of when you wrote about this before. Canyou elaborate a little please? And how do you know about it?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Margot on April 25, 2010, 12:25:41 AM
Yes I to would love to know when William and Harry intend to ask the Queen to write and encourage Camilla to use the Princess of Wales title officially! I have never heard about such a plan anywhere else!

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on April 25, 2010, 01:13:39 AM
Yes I to would love to know when William and Harry intend to ask the Queen to write and encourage Camilla to use the Princess of Wales title officially! I have never heard about such a plan anywhere else!



Good.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 25, 2010, 03:27:49 AM
Lucien - I applaud you!!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Margot on April 25, 2010, 08:31:21 PM
Lucien, just out of my own self curiosity, does Camilla carry POW title or as she turned it down for good?
I know there's been much discussion on this subject but I really don't know if she has to legally accept it or not. I know she prefers the DOC title, but does she actually have POW title as well. When she married Charles, did it automatically come to her like Diana?

No she can not turn down for good what is rightfully hers in the first place,she just has not used it due to it being
soo way out of line connected with the former one and only because of that she doesn't use the title that did come
to her as it did to her predecessor.

But as I wrote before,soon Harry and William will go to see The Queen,
and shortly after HM will write the Duchess and "encourage her"  to use the title Princess of Wales.


Lucien, I'm sorry I missed  of when you wrote about this before. Canyou elaborate a little please? And how do you know about it?

Yes I to would love to know when William and Harry intend to ask the Queen to write and encourage Camilla to use the Princess of Wales title officially! I have never heard about such a plan anywhere else!



Good.


A reply like 'Good' to two enquiries as to verification of your sources as to this statement that William and Harry will soon approach the Queen to ask her to suggest to Camilla she start using the Princess of Wales title officially, soon, is hardly helpful or generous! If you have a secret source then please say so rather than replying with a rude and brusque 'Good'! All Lindelle and I wanted to know is the source for this intimate detail! I am not doubting you Lucien, but the way you wrote about it it implies you know for a fact that this sequence of events is going to happen 'soon'. By which, others must therefore construe that there is a reliable source for such information! If so, would you care to share the origin of this source with us all or prefer to keep it to yourself?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Margot on April 27, 2010, 08:28:12 AM
Lucien, just out of my own self curiosity, does Camilla carry POW title or as she turned it down for good?
I know there's been much discussion on this subject but I really don't know if she has to legally accept it or not. I know she prefers the DOC title, but does she actually have POW title as well. When she married Charles, did it automatically come to her like Diana?

No she can not turn down for good what is rightfully hers in the first place,she just has not used it due to it being
soo way out of line connected with the former one and only because of that she doesn't use the title that did come
to her as it did to her predecessor.

But as I wrote before,soon Harry and William will go to see The Queen,
and shortly after HM will write the Duchess and "encourage her"  to use the title Princess of Wales.


Lucien, I'm sorry I missed  of when you wrote about this before. Canyou elaborate a little please? And how do you know about it?

Yes I to would love to know when William and Harry intend to ask the Queen to write and encourage Camilla to use the Princess of Wales title officially! I have never heard about such a plan anywhere else!



Good.


A reply like 'Good' to two enquiries as to verification of your sources as to this statement that William and Harry will soon approach the Queen to ask her to suggest to Camilla she start using the Princess of Wales title officially, soon, is hardly helpful or generous! If you have a secret source then please say so rather than replying with a rude and brusque 'Good'! All Lindelle and I wanted to know is the source for this intimate detail! I am not doubting you Lucien, but the way you wrote about it it implies you know for a fact that this sequence of events is going to happen 'soon'. By which, others must therefore construe that there is a reliable source for such information! If so, would you care to share the origin of this source with us all or prefer to keep it to yourself?



Oh well we shall live in hope of a relevant and attributable response with a source or explanation at some time! It is curious how no one but Lindelle and I queried this rather intimate anecdote! Am I being a maverick here by daring to ask for a source pertaining to the statement that William and Harry are going to ask the Queen to suggest in a letter to the Duchess of Cornwall thats she start using the title of Princes of Wales in an official capacity soon, as Lucien claims? All I would like to know, is where he came across such a fact! He has ignored this request three times I believe, which includes his rather rude and arrogant 'Good' response to my initial follow up request to Lindelle's initial request for verification! Well I ask again would Lucien please provide a source? Fourth time lucky perhaps....?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on April 27, 2010, 08:52:13 AM
Dear Margot,
He's not going to tell as he hasn't replied.
We can always go onto other exciting ventures yes? :)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Margot on April 27, 2010, 09:04:24 AM
Well Lindelle I am merely following the precedent set here in asking for sources! After all Lucien is like myself one of those most avid and persistent advocates of requesting sources for any data shared here! Lucien normally always has a source for his facts but in this case he hasn't produced one, and I am merely adhering to the precedent we all try to follow! If Lucien wishes to make such statements I would expect him to respect the decorum of sourcing that he and many here expect from others! It is a point of principal! That is all! If he is not prepared to share his source....so be it! I just hope he is prepared to explicitly state that here, and then I will be satisfied that his statement is not entirely sound and should never have been made without thought or consideration to what has occurred since! I am sure Lucien of all people will see that I have a point here!  Whether he likes it or not! Historiography has a proper method and and a pure means!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on April 27, 2010, 11:59:48 AM
Dear Margot,
He's not going to tell as he hasn't replied.
We can always go onto other exciting ventures yes? :)

I did reply to both very soon after that post to you and dear Margot,naughty girls,by pm,you replied to that,haven't heard from Margot tho.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Margot on April 27, 2010, 08:09:01 PM
Sorry Lucien I never received a pm from you pertaining to the issue in question! I would be very grateful if you would send it again. Thank you.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on April 28, 2010, 05:23:27 AM
Thank you for the link Lucien Honey!

I think it is so sweet how the POW is pushing her wheelchair! It is really rather touching!
"Lucien honey" !!!?
Ahhhhh all is well again....now lets have that cuppa.....get the Royal Doulton out Lindelle and the Mcvities...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on April 28, 2010, 07:01:36 AM
Yes I was going to say the same thing honey.
Oh Margot, you really are a lovely lady.
And good pics Lucien.

ashdean you must be priveledged.
Although I am proud of my Royal Doulton set, normally my guests would have a beaker, as Hyacinth would say, but for you,Lucien and Margot,I insist that only the best will do.

Lucien I particularly like the pic of PM and hubby.
Even though they have supposedly had their ahem.............adventures..............they certainly look in love.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 28, 2010, 10:28:49 AM
Sorry Lucien I never received a pm from you pertaining to the issue in question! I would be very grateful if you would send it again. Thank you.

And, what about the rest of us? I would love to know as well.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: An Ard Rí on April 28, 2010, 12:14:21 PM
Then why can't people feel free to call her that if they wish, as she is.
Actually, after the wedding a statement was issued saying that she preferred to be known as Duchess of Cornwall.
Of course you might call her Princess of Wales or Morganatic Rottweiler or whatever you wish to.

Quote
Diana's last title was Diana, Princess Of Wales.
Just to get things clear, that is actually a style. I guess Duchess of Cornwall is also a style with regard to Camilla.
In Charles' case, PoW and DoC are titles, since he holds them himself.

Quote
How often these days does Charles get called POW?
When they are introduced at formal engagements I presume it's 'The Duke and Duchess Of Cornwall'?
No, they will be introduced as HRH the Prince of Wales and HRH the Duchess of Cornwall.


Morganatic Rottweiler  ;D
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kalafrana on April 28, 2010, 01:56:33 PM
In Cornwall they are called the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and in Scotland the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay. Duke of Rothesay being the traditional title of the heir to the Scottish throne, since the time of Robert III (1390-1407). Robert, possibly Scotland's most uninspiring monarch (hisd rival for the title is his father, Robert II), created his elder son, David, Duke of Rothesay, in 1398. David was then bumped off (very probably) by his uncle Robert, Duke of Albany, in 1402. The younger son, James, then became duke of Rothesay and subsequently  James I (1406-37).

It is quite noticeable that Charles was referred to as the Prince of Wales much more frequently once he got married. Before that, Prince charles was more usual. I suppose it was on the basis that 'Prince Charles and the Princess of Wales' would be a bit awkward.

Ann
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Margot on April 28, 2010, 05:15:07 PM
Sorry Lucien I never received a pm from you pertaining to the issue in question! I would be very grateful if you would send it again. Thank you.

And, what about the rest of us? I would love to know as well.

Don't worry RoyalWatcher! Lucien remains discretion personified! I think in this case we can be satisfied to take Lucien at his word! Lindelle shall I bring some shortbread or Hobnobs for tea?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on April 28, 2010, 05:27:12 PM
Anything you like dear Margot.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on June 10, 2010, 03:15:55 AM
HRH handed-out the Orange fiction prizes:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/camilla-hands-out-orange-fiction-prize.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: RoyalWatcher on June 25, 2010, 03:37:48 PM
As I posted on the Queen Elizabeth II Part 3 thread in a response to what Eric has said:

No Camilla isn't on the same level of the Queen and she never will be. She's new to being a royal after all. But, she is absolutely amazing in her dedication to the British troops. Her presence at home comings, services and awards ceremonies has moved me. I wonder how she is perceived by the troops themselves?

Additionally, I think she is a wonderful lady, a dedicated companion and consort to the Prince of Wales, a loving mother and a doting grandmother. She's fantastic.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: toscany on June 25, 2010, 03:40:32 PM
As I posted on the Queen Elizabeth II Part 3 thread in a response to what Eric has said:

No Camilla isn't on the same level of the Queen and she never will be. She's new to being a royal after all. But, she is absolutely amazing in her dedication to the British troops. Her presence at home comings, services and awards ceremonies has moved me. I wonder how she is perceived by the troops themselves?

Additionally, I think she is a wonderful lady, a dedicated companion and consort to the Prince of Wales, a loving mother and a doting grandmother. She's fantastic.

In agreement, RoyalWatcher.  I do not understand why people think negatively of her.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 25, 2010, 03:44:05 PM
I agree too (though I can understand the reasons for the hostility, which was not ultimately related to her personal character, but based on the part that she was thought to have played in the break-up of the Prince's first marriage).
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on June 25, 2010, 04:12:56 PM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/duchess.html

and:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/camilla-gets-close-look-at-artsy-elephant.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: RoyalWatcher on June 25, 2010, 04:20:28 PM
Yes, many, many people feel the same way. I used to as well, but no longer do. It was like I felt the need to protect Diana (kinda funny strange, huh?), but as time passed and I grew older I learned how complicated relationships can be.

My feelings for Camilla turned around as soon as Prince Charles began inviting her to his evening functions in the late 90s early 2000s. Diana had died by this time. It was still so hard to believe that she was gone. Camilla was so brave, my goodness. With all the press reviling her and the bad sentiments people had towards her. Then, I saw it. That unmistakable chemistry between two people that was captured in short snippets of television coverage. That never existed (from my perspective) between he and Diana.

I love seeing pictures of she and Charles together, and if we're lucky, we get to see their lightheartedness via short television highlights during an engagement of some sort. I'm really looking forward to their trip up north in the summer. They usually have a blast at the Highland Scottish games competition...forgive me, but I forget the actual name of the event. No disrespect to our Scottish friends.

It's funny, I don't personally know Camilla, but if I did, I think I'd hit it off with her immensely.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on June 25, 2010, 04:35:47 PM
Somehow every second page that dead lady pops up here in Camilla's thread,as if someones brain is numb since.

But the world moved on and Charles has the most caring loving reliable partner he could ever wish for.
And that is more then he was used to.Camilla hasn't set a foot wrong since,since decades,and I don't
except any comment by anyone coming from the UK pointing at the old issue while that same UK
sees 1 in 3 marriages fail and end in divorce.But whenevr one says that it's the old adagio:"Oh Heavens...
o...we're British, we don't have sex,let alone escapades..nah...Just the full monty....and pints..."

I think Camilla is just fantastic,and Charles counts himself lucky to call her his wife.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 26, 2010, 04:21:21 AM
What I see is a stage managed attempt to disguise her true personality which is intensely ego centric, hostile and ambitious to the point of being rediculous. 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 26, 2010, 10:14:57 AM
Oh really? And how do you know what her 'true personality' is? By reading spiteful articles in cheap newspapers?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 26, 2010, 10:29:06 AM
No those are where all the nice comments are coming from.  Bascially from people I know who have had run ins with her during the 1980s and through a number of books that were talking about her personality from before she got married to Prince Charles.  And if you are good at reading faces you can see it in some of the casual pictures where she didnt know she was being photographed.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 26, 2010, 11:49:22 AM
I don't have much time for malicious gossip; if she handles herself well on public occasions, it is good enough for me, and Prince Charles plainly blossoms in her presence.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 26, 2010, 12:05:15 PM
So good for you.  All of your impressions are based on media accounts and not very critical ones.  I have a different view and, as I believe in democraciy, believe that I have as much right to voice mine as you do.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on June 26, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
I agree too (though I can understand the reasons for the hostility, which was not ultimately related to her personal character, but based on the part that she was thought to have played in the break-up of the Prince's first marriage).

I agree. And for some people the hostility will never fade while for others, the more time that goes on the Diana is gone and Camilla conducts herself well, feelings will soften and, if not change all the way to affection, at least become less and less harsh.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 26, 2010, 05:22:18 PM
'All of your impressions are based on media accounts and not very critical ones.'  Very critical ones are presumably ones that are anxiously looking out for nasty things to say about her. Frankly I am not much interested in her private character, only about how she carries out her public duties as consort of our future King, and interacts with people while doing so; and there does actually seem to be fairly general agreement that she does this very well. And by the way, dear Constantinople, did I ever deny that you had a right to express your opinions? I suppose it is my right too to say that I find them unpleasantly bilious.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on June 26, 2010, 07:26:01 PM
This is probably what every second wife and stepmother has to go through.
She's always going to be classified as the witch.
Even more so, Camilla.
We don't know and NEVER will know what goes on between those walls and the famiily, but my judgement is not based on what she did, as there was 2/3 persons involved in THAT relationship, instead I'd rather see the good she is doing or at least trying to do.
No body in this world is perfect.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 26, 2010, 10:56:17 PM
Adagietto
            Then I also have the right to state that I find your comments fawningly obsequious.  And no, critical refers to critical thinking skillls, the ability to analyse things below the blaringly obvious.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: RoyalWatcher on June 26, 2010, 10:57:38 PM
This is probably what every second wife and stepmother has to go through.
She's always going to be classified as the witch.
Even more so, Camilla.
We don't know and NEVER will know what goes on between those walls and the famiily, but my judgement is not based on what she did, as there was 2/3 persons involved in THAT relationship, instead I'd rather see the good she is doing or at least trying to do.
No body in this world is perfect.
[/quote
 
Amen, Lindelle.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on June 27, 2010, 05:08:50 AM
Thankyou RB.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on June 27, 2010, 05:50:15 AM
This is probably what every second wife and stepmother has to go through.
She's always going to be classified as the witch.
Even more so, Camilla.
We don't know and NEVER will know what goes on between those walls and the famiily, but my judgement is not based on what she did, as there was 2/3 persons involved in THAT relationship, instead I'd rather see the good she is doing or at least trying to do.
No body in this world is perfect.

I have to disagree with your first sentence here.  I would think most second wives marry men who are free to form another relationship.  Camilla resumed a relationship with a man who was married to another woman and they had two young children together.  That's why many people classified her as a 'witch' not the simple fact she was a second wife.  All in the past now of course.  She's now married to the future king and we have no choice but to accept it.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 27, 2010, 10:05:53 AM
or do we?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 27, 2010, 11:44:53 AM
Indeed not, we could have her tried by a jury of tabloid journalists and chop off her head.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 27, 2010, 01:59:22 PM
I think the real trial will be the referenda about becoming republics that will be held in Canada and Australia that are timed for just before the corronation of king Charles.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 27, 2010, 02:28:02 PM
Ah, so they will vote to become republics because they don't like Camilla? It is of course only a matter of time before Australia becomes a republic anyhow, though I would hope not too many people would reach a decision on such childish grounds.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 27, 2010, 02:35:35 PM
That is pretty odd timing, Const. as no one knows just when such a coronation might take place.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 27, 2010, 03:00:05 PM
The point was that when Queen Elizabeth is gone and "Queen"Camilla is impending, then any referenda after that will be a referendum on Camilla basically.  The word in Canada is that she is not wanted as a head of state or consort of a head of state.  And you are right, Camilla would not be the sole reason, she would be the tipping point.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 27, 2010, 03:11:30 PM
I can certainly understand that. I do not care for the woman myself.  But a separation from the crown takes more consideration than  simply a dislike of the consort. There are serious constitutional matters to be debated. It is a lot more complicated than changing a lightbulb.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 27, 2010, 03:21:30 PM
The Queen will still be with us, God willing, for a decade more and longer, it is difficult to know how these things will play out in the long term.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 27, 2010, 04:06:00 PM
My guess is that the Queen will be with us for about 20 years.  And Robert, Constitutions are open to change and if you don't think the governments of Canada and Australia do not already have contingency plans in place for movement to a rebublic, then you don't understand what both these goverments have been up to.  Additiionally, Jamaica and New Zealand are also beginning to discuss replacing the British monarch with a domestic head of state, thats how popular Camilla is.  She will be known as the consort who put the Commonwealth to rest.

When Charles and Camilla toured Canada, they had the lowest turnout of any royal tour in Canada's history and Canada is a very monarchical country.

http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/Should+Prince+Charles+ever+king/2199748/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada

http://www.counterweights.ca/2009/05/long_wave_goodbye/
Edward McWhinney, who is the source of the some of the comments was one of my mentors at university and is one of the world's top constitutional lawyers and advisors and has been an advisor to about 30 countries and the United Nations.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 27, 2010, 04:31:56 PM
I understand quite well, Const. e discussions and debates began long before Camilla came on the scene. In any case, I do not see any changes afoot while QEII is still on the throne.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 27, 2010, 05:23:16 PM
Sometimes one begins to think  it might be 30 years! The latter article is very interesting. I would have thought have thought that in Canada etc., the monarchy/republic question is entirely secondary to the question of whether it is appropriate to have a foreign head of state (which is bound to be answered in the negative sooner or later). Are people in Jamaica and NZ really that exercised about Camilla? They are not exercised about her even here in the UK!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 27, 2010, 05:57:18 PM
I think you are right Adagieto,   none of my friends pay any attention to her. To most royals, actually. The only ones to even notice her are on  royalty boards like this.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 27, 2010, 10:41:35 PM
I am not quite sure what you mean by "exercized" but in both Canada and Australia the articles that talk about Camilla possibly becoming consort to the head of state are almost entirely negative and these are not just in tabloids.  Maybe the PR hacks have been working wonders in Britain but in Canada and Australia she is seen as a vindictive and self serving person, willing to do almost anything for power.  When those tapes came out of the cell phone calls between her and Charles she was seen as little more than a concubine or courtesan and neither country wants to be represented by that.  If  you look at her speeches on Youtube, she has little natural warmth, she is not relaxed in public and she is not a good public speaker so the question becomes, what kind of value does she add?  She obviously cannot provide Charles with children, so that aspect, which has already been fulfilled by Diana, is irrelevant.  Her main role seems to be jewelry collection and that is an expensive function.  What we have left  are private pleasures provided to a soveriegn and that is nothing that justifies the large additional costs to the state.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 28, 2010, 05:13:10 AM
Some people do seem to have an obsessive hatred of this woman, and seem to assume that everyone is similarly obsessed about her, but from casual talk in the UK, I get the impression that people are generally willing to accept her without having strong feelings either way. From film and reports of her at public occasions, she seems to perform perfectly adequately; I studiously avoid reading most of the nonsense that is written in the press about the royal family, so am not really competent to comment on that. I am thoroughly sceptical of press coverage of princesses that present them either as being saints or witches; in real life, human character and human relations are always so much complicated than that. As I have said, I have never tried to reach any conclusions about the private character of this woman, partly because I am not that interested, and partly because I think that it is impossible to do so on the basis of the kind of stuff that is published about her.  The only disinterested first-hand observations that I have heard about her come from people who mixed with her in army circles way back, and haven't been inclined to view her as some kind of stage villainess. Your characterization of her sounds to me like a one-sided caricature, and as such, a sin against human charity.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 28, 2010, 05:51:12 AM
My personal feeling is if she were married to a minor royal, I wouldnt care about her personality or her past.  The same would be true if she was a private person but as someone who has shoehorned her way into the position of consort of head of state of Canada, I am appalled.  And in terms of the role of a consort, she fulfills very few of these.  Charles' marriage to her is a reneging of any sense of noblesse oblige as she, in my opinion and the opinions of most Canadians, does not add value to the position of head of state. 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 28, 2010, 06:31:20 AM
I agree that if Charles had put his royal duty (and the interests of the monarchy) ahead of his personal desires, he would not have married her or indeed continued to associate with her, because she is a divisive figure associated with the break-up of his first marriage; this was, if you like, and allowing for due differences, his Edward VIII moment. It doesn't look to me, though, as if this was all a result of machinations on her part, he plainly loves her and even depends on her.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 28, 2010, 07:54:43 AM
Well it is interesting that  you mention that you don't think that it was a result of machinations on her part and that he depends on her.  I would describe it as an unhealthy emotional or psycho sexual dependency and probably extremely close to the one Edward developed for Wallace Simpson.  How do you think that developed? It was probably due to psycological manipulation from Camilla.  And if that is the case, you have to start to wonder who is the consort and who is the monarch in waiting.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 28, 2010, 08:57:26 AM
You are evidently a good deal more confident than I am about prying into the souls of people whom one doesn't know, I think I will pass on that one, and leave it to the historians to get the matter right or wrong as the case may be! In situations like this I do think one should be wary of interpreting the matter in terms of simple stereotypical patterns, in which the woman involved is necessarily a schemer or a temptress.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Jessamy on June 28, 2010, 10:44:04 AM
Maybe the PR hacks have been working wonders in Britain but in Canada and Australia she is seen as a vindictive and self serving person, willing to do almost anything for power.  

Please don't speak on behalf of Canada. We all have differing opinions. I for one like Camillla and apparently the future King does too.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 28, 2010, 04:10:17 PM
Well then let me let CBC do the speaking
Two polls of Canadians ahead of their arrival suggested the popularity of both Charles and the monarchy were low in the country.

A Harris-Decima poll released Nov. 2 found only 31 per cent of respondents believed Charles should be the next king, while a poll commissioned by Canadian friends of the Royal Family in October found 60 per cent of Canadians felt a constitutional monarchy was outdated.

And a lot of this is due to Camilla
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on June 28, 2010, 10:09:04 PM
 Australia she is seen as a vindictive and self serving person, willing to do almost anything for power.  .


Wrong, wrong, wrong, so badly and sadly mistakenly wrong!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: jehan on June 28, 2010, 10:37:40 PM
Well then let me let CBC do the speaking
Two polls of Canadians ahead of their arrival suggested the popularity of both Charles and the monarchy were low in the country.

A Harris-Decima poll released Nov. 2 found only 31 per cent of respondents believed Charles should be the next king, while a poll commissioned by Canadian friends of the Royal Family in October found 60 per cent of Canadians felt a constitutional monarchy was outdated.

And a lot of this is due to Camilla

Please provide some evidence that this is due to Camilla, and not to the general trend away from the British heritage, as Canada becomes a country with more and more people from other heritages and traditions.  It is more a general trend here and in other Commonwealth countries that has been going on since long before Camiilla appeared on the scene.

And you don't speak for this Canadian ( or for most others that I know).

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 28, 2010, 10:55:56 PM
then state your exception
there is plenty of proof if you want to look for it.  If you disagree with that statement show me some proof that Canadians are embracing Camilla and moving towards monarchism because Camilla is so popular in Canada.  Just because you disagree doesnt mean that you are correct and if Camilla is so popular in Canada, where were the crowds to welcome her when she came to Canada?  The reality is that the number of people who greeted Camilla were extremely low.  So I would say to you the same thing, show me the proof she is popular in Canada.  And I am sure there will be exceptions, they tend to prove the rule.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 28, 2010, 11:28:52 PM
And Lindelle, if you like Camilla, it doesnt prove the fact that a substantial number of Australians loathe her.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 29, 2010, 03:08:58 AM
So, 60% of Canadians think a constitutional monarchy is outdated 'and a lot of this is due to Camilla'. Sounds logical, doesn't it? And in fact, I simply don't believe it. This is a pefectly natural development in a country which presently has a foreign head of state, and I doubt that that the popularity of the heir, let alone his wife, would make a difference of more than a very few percentage points. Far more a long-term trend than a matter of personalities. Here in the UK the figures for people who would prefer a republic to a monarchy have been virtually unchanged since the war. The British monarchy will survive in Britain, but not outside Britain, where we can developments after the death of the Queen. In the UK, any danger to the monarchy will arise more from lack of interest than the unpopularity of specific members.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Jessamy on June 29, 2010, 08:42:17 AM
Calling her unpopular is one thing. I totally agree that she is unpopular in Canada.  I think the case in a lot of Canadians is siimply indifference.  But to call her a vindictive, power hungry woman who uses psychological manipulation, and causes psycho sexual dependency in her husband is a colourful claim that is just impossible to back up.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 29, 2010, 10:38:09 AM
It wasnt my analysis.  It came from people who had close contact with her for several years.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on June 29, 2010, 11:18:24 AM
Constantinople, once again you cannot stop yourself from throwing out opinions as if they were obvious facts and then attacking anyone who disagrees with you by demanding they substantiate their opposing views (even though you never substantiated your original points in the first place).  Cases in point....

1. It wasnt my analysis.  It came from people who had close contact with her for several years.
If you wish to use other people as a source, please cite their names and quote the publication in which it was reported. 

2. There is plenty of proof if you want to look for it.  If you disagree with that statement show me some proof that Canadians are embracing Camilla and moving towards monarchism because Camilla is so popular in Canada.
It is you who needs to show proof since you were the one who submitted the opposing view in the first place.

3.  A Harris-Decima poll released Nov. 2 found only 31 per cent of respondents believed Charles should be the next king, while a poll commissioned by Canadian friends of the Royal Family in October found 60 per cent of Canadians felt a constitutional monarchy was outdated. And a lot of this is due to Camilla
The last sentence is not supported by any cited facts, it is merely your opinion.

4.  In Australia she is seen as a vindictive and self serving person, willing to do almost anything for power.
Strong statement - please cite your source.

5.  I would describe it as an unhealthy emotional or psycho sexual dependency and probably extremely close to the one Edward developed for Wallace Simpson
This statement is utter libel - you have no substantiation for this claim and as it is so inflammatory and personally attacking, you should retract this immediately.

And they go on and on and on.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 29, 2010, 01:42:34 PM
and they probably will as long as people making fatuous statements about liking her purely on the basis that she has royal status.  Noone has actually provided proof that disputes what I say, merely subjective statements and if you cannot see a difference in objectivity between Harris Decima and the Friends of the Royal Society, your expensive education has been rather wasted.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on June 29, 2010, 02:45:28 PM
So you pass on malicious gossip (evidently your mother never taught you that you shouldn't do that) and if people can't provide proof that it is untrue or exaggerated, we have to accept it all as being true!

In my experience, when people talk in such an extremely uncharitable way about another person, and get indignant when other people are not inclined to 'loathe' her, it says more about their own psychology than the psychology of the person whom they are setting out to criticize.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 29, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
My sources are accurate and I wouldnt call it gossip anymore than what you are spreading is propaganda.  If you like her that is one thing but  don't try to convince me that she is a great person.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 29, 2010, 04:34:10 PM
Constantinople- why are you so obsessed with hatred of the Duchess ?  I do not care for her either, but she  does nothing  to influence anything, she is , IMO not clever enough anyway. No one is saying she draws pop star crowds, just that some happen to like her and she not a cypher in the republic bedates and swing towards that movement. Has has been mentioned several times, those debates have been going on  far longer than she has been around.  I can't imagine any change of a political system depends on the popularity or lack of, of an obscure duchess from the horsey set.  She does her duty as the wife of the POW and leaves it at that. Although, I did think she was quite sincere in her   appearances  honouring the British force  in the recent military week.
 And, I do not think there was a massive PR  job for her from Clarence House.  If there was,   we missed it. She is treated mercilessly by the press, especially the tabloids.
 As I have mentioned before,  none of my UK friends [and I have a considerable community of such, after all these year] pay any attention to her one way or the other.  None that know actually like her, but they do not waste time going on about her.
 Also, you know the rules here about not insulting  other members OR living members of theRoyal Family. I think you have crossed bot lines.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on June 29, 2010, 06:01:51 PM
As I have mentioned before,  none of my UK friends [and I have a considerable community of such, after all these year] pay any attention to her one way or the other.  None that know actually like her, but they do not waste time going on about her.
 Also, you know the rules here about not insulting  other members OR living members of theRoyal Family. I think you have crossed bot lines.


That goes for me as well, same from where I'm standing in Australia.
Thankyou Robert. :)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 29, 2010, 10:19:39 PM
It is not so much that I have an obsessive hatred for her.  It is what happens when I think about her being the consort of the head of state of my country that brings on really nasty reactions.  I think that if she had been his first wife and had weathered a lot of tribulations with Prince Charles, then I would feel differently.  Basically, I feel the same way that the Queen Mother felt towards Wallace Simpson and as she is going to be someone who my tax dollars are paying for. It is one thing to have a government that manipulated an election but that government will become unelected in a few years.  In the case of Camilla, she will be there until Charles dies.  And I find that repulsive.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on June 30, 2010, 03:29:37 AM
But you are NOT a member of the Royal Family, even though you ALWAYS sound as if you'd like to be.
You think you know too much!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kalafrana on June 30, 2010, 03:34:19 AM
Robert

I agree with you. As it happens, I rather like Camilla. I've never met anyone who actually knows her well (though I've shaken hands with her),so have to go on what appears in the press. I think most of the hostility towards her comes from the Diana faction.

Ann
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on June 30, 2010, 03:56:12 AM
I disagree.  I know I've voiced it before, but there are more than 'Diana fans' dismayed that Charles chose to bring his mistress to the altar.  Many don't want Camilla as Queen because of the frankly dishonourable way she came there in the first place and would probably feel this way whoever he'd been married to firstly!  Most of those against Charles feel he's not worthy because he hasn't put duty first.

I don't think what's in dispute here is whether Camilla is a 'nice' person or not.  I'm sure she is very likeable.  She certainly comes across that way!  But is that in itself good enough to be a Queen?  No way!  

As to Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia, I think they will become republics once the Queen dies and I think Charles' second marriage will not cause but will definitely impact on those decisions.  Just my view.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on June 30, 2010, 05:23:24 AM
Robert

I agree with you. As it happens, I rather like Camilla. I've never met anyone who actually knows her well (though I've shaken hands with her),so have to go on what appears in the press. I think most of the hostility towards her comes from the Diana faction.

Ann
I rather like her too....After all...she makes Charles happy...and WE ALL are entitled to any happiness we can.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on June 30, 2010, 06:07:13 AM
I sound as if I would like to be a member of the royal family? What rot.  It is such a public role that it would be uncomfortable in the extreme.
And Lindelle, I never comment on your intelligence level. To make my position clear to you, I resent Camilla because she sullies the positon she craves to be in, consort of a monarch without adding any mitigating factors.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Margot on June 30, 2010, 10:42:50 AM
Robert

I agree with you. As it happens, I rather like Camilla. I've never met anyone who actually knows her well (though I've shaken hands with her),so have to go on what appears in the press. I think most of the hostility towards her comes from the Diana faction.

Ann
I rather like her too....After all...she makes Charles happy...and WE ALL are entitled to any happiness we can.


Well said!!!!

Better a happy and contented heir then a miserable, maudlin King! Camilla is his wife lump it or leave it! I for one am quite happy to take it ta' very much!!!!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 04, 2010, 03:48:50 PM
During the visit of the Queen to Canada the size of the crowds are a huge contrast to those who came out to see Prlince Charles and Camilla.  It is clear that most Canadians have a huge respect for Queen Elizabeth and are proud to have her as the head of state but it is also clear throught the media coverage that the general feeling is that when Queen Elizabeth goes, the time will come for a Canadian republic.

   I am currently listening to Cross Country Checkup which is a Canadian national phone in program on CBC and there seems to be one person out of 45 who is talking about continuing the link with the British monarchy past the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 04, 2010, 04:13:34 PM
Const. the same has happened here.  When HM  and Prince Phillip came for a  visit in the 80's,  they drew  huge crowds, even though they arrived in an awful storm. Pouring rain and  strong winds.  They flew up from LA  as the sea was too turbulent to  take the Britannia. It tagged along on it's own.  They stayed at one of our finest hotels and gave the reciprocal dinner at  one of out finest restaurants, instead of the royal yacht.

 When Charles and Camilla arrived a  few years ago, they drew extremely modest crowds, even though the  weather was perfect. The entrance of the QM2 into SF bay  drew  much larger  crowds
 The princely couple had some royal groupies, a minority to say the least,  and left without much notice. As it happened, I was in  the UK during that event,   I persona;ly would not have  bothered anyway, but a couple of people I know went out of their way to see them and I had full reports.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 04, 2010, 04:45:45 PM
The realty is that when someone devalues an institution, it has less value, much like a debased currency.  And whatever the romantic notions about a monarchy, it still needs to have respect to do its job properly.  Without that respect, the institution is worthless.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on July 07, 2010, 01:09:38 PM
They have been recent reports in the British press that the marriage of Charles and Camilla is under strain and that, apart from public appearances, they are virtually leading separate lives.  So a continuation of their relationship BEFORE marriage then ???
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 07, 2010, 01:41:45 PM
Oh dear, I fear that our friend has been reading The People ! A sample: 'As long as two years ago, Camilla confided to friends on a Caribbean cruise that life with Charles had been a nightmare.'
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 07, 2010, 01:43:42 PM
lol, very funny!! ;);)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 07, 2010, 01:53:23 PM
Or The Mail, the UK version of the US National Enquirer.
 However, Camilla has maintained from the start, her horse farm & house and frequently  escapes to the country life she likes so muck, away from of the formality of  the  court [such as it might be] of living l at Highgrove or Clarence House.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on July 07, 2010, 05:25:09 PM
...and Charles has always maintained a lot of "me" time as well.  It's in his nature, something new bride Diana found very difficult to accept (understandable from her point of view).  I think Camilla enjoys her own space too.  It's only very young couples who think they should be together all the time!  I don't think that means there's trouble in paradise at all, though I'm sure many would like there to be...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 07, 2010, 07:31:33 PM
 Time apart can be very constructive and revovating to both parties in a relationship. I spend a lot of time away from my partner of 40 years, and, we  still take  holidays together as well from time to time.
 WE are not in the same position as the Wale's clan,  but any couple should  feel free to spend time apart without guilt.
 I would take no store with a  tabloid story anyway.  If they are to separate, there would be an announcement. After all, they have both been through this before so are old hands at it.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on July 08, 2010, 08:03:31 AM
Charles has always lived in an environment with a large household and office monitoring and supporting his every waking moment.  He has probably never left the house without being accompanied by an entourage, not to mention constant people around inside his homes.  He lives in houses where even the "informal" rooms are probably filled with valuable and historic art and furniture.  In short, his world would be bizarre and intolerable to most normal people.

In contrast, Camilla has always lived informally and simply - she may have had some household help but no army of servants. She raised her family quietly in the country, and like many women of her age a priority is clearly having her grandchildren around her as often as possible, in a place that is a relaxing environment suited to small children (which is obviously not Clarence House, Highgrove or Birkhall).

Given that set of circumstances, I would find it perfectly natural for Camilla to have said "Ok Charles, here's the deal.  Since the Queen and her aides are urging us to marry as soon as possible rather then continuing the previous informal arrangement that we both actually preferred, I will agree to marry you.  I will even accompany you on your endless boring official duties, and take on some patronages of my own.  But to maintain my sanity, my terms are this:  I am keeping my own house as a place where I can escape the insanity of your world as often as I need to, and where I can have my grandchildren climbing over the furniture and spilling their milk without fear of damaging national treasures."

And if I were Camilla, I would have done the same thing.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on July 08, 2010, 08:12:05 AM
And me!
Wouldn't it be nice for Charles to spend some of his spare time in Camilla's world?
If she can do it, he might like to give it a try.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 08, 2010, 08:26:42 AM
It is indeed natural that she should want her space, but I am inclined to doubt that either of them would have preferred the previous 'informal arrangements'; these left Camilla in a kind of limbo, and Charles himself was plainly desperate to marry her, irrespective of the difficulties that this would inevitably create.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on July 08, 2010, 08:28:27 AM
I was merely reporting what I had read in an British newspaper - I didn't make any personal comments (adverse or otherwise)  I agree with Chris' sensible take on the situation and agree wholeheartedly.

As someone who has a 35 year marriage under her belt and is the same age as Charles and Camilla, I can well empathise that they are leading separate lives.  It's just the immature tabloid journalists who have to have a story who cannot understand this way of doing things.  From a personal point of view, I only wish I had numerous houses being run by servants as a bolt hole - oh I nearly forgot and being paid for by someone else !!!!!!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 08, 2010, 08:28:58 AM
I think that the Queen may tolerate Camilla but I doubt she ever urged Charles to marry her.  She had a very clear idea of what Camilla would do the the prestige of the royal family.  The marriage was probably Camilla's idea  so that she could get HRH status and now she has that, she is spending more time in her world and this trend will probably increase into the future.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on July 08, 2010, 09:44:26 AM
I think that the Queen may tolerate Camilla but I doubt she ever urged Charles to marry her.  She had a very clear idea of what Camilla would do the the prestige of the royal family.  The marriage was probably Camilla's idea  so that she could get HRH status and now she has that, she is spending more time in her world and this trend will probably increase into the future.

She does less harm then that mental case that left us to soon,I do agree on that unanimously!
HRH The Princess of Wales isn't/nor was after any title,she just wished to be with Charles,and now she is.
What you say can be regarded as liable,and maybe you get lucky and someone might bite you in the butt
on that sort of uncalled for and totally uncanny nonsense by yourself.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 08, 2010, 10:23:53 AM
you should study law.  Opinion is never libel or liable or tortious or the basis of litigation in a free society.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 08, 2010, 10:25:29 AM
This does go round in circles, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on July 08, 2010, 10:26:02 AM
you should study law.  Opinion is never libel or liable or tortious or the basis of litigation in a free society.

Your words went far from a opinion,liabel,bet I find a luke in the net of the Law there
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on July 08, 2010, 10:32:52 AM
Um, I am unaware of any reputable sources that claimed Camilla herself wished to remarry - can someone perhaps educate me on such a source?  From what I have read and observed, Camilla neither sought out the end of her first marriage nor the start of her second.  And her present behavior suggests she doesn't exactly relish the role.

Like it or not, Camilla and her first husband were obviously both aware, accepting and content with each other's discreet extramarital affairs.  Perhaps shocking to some but quite acceptable in other circles (particularly the British upper classes).  It wasn't until the story broke in the press about Charles/Camilla's affair that Mr. Parker Bowles' hand was forced and divorce became unavoidable.  

After that, Camilla had a pretty good set-up as a divorcee.  She had a comfortable income, her own home in her beloved countryside, her friends and family around her, and her lover coming by every three weeks or so.  Even Diana, in tapes recorded between 1992 and 1993 by her voice coach Peter Settelen and later acquired by NBC, commented on Charles' schedule and limited need for intimacy / sex.

"There was never a requirement for it from him," the princess says. "Once every three weeks about, and I kept thinking it followed a pattern.  He used to see his lady once every three weeks before we got married," she says, in a reference to the prince's lover and current companion, Camilla Parker Bowles.

And by all accounts Camilla dislikes most parts of being the wife of the heir to the throne.  She has little desire to undertake official duties (she has even been kindly described as a bit lazy).  She doesn't particularly like getting dressed up, instead being more comfortable in informal country clothing.  She doesn't like traveling much, doesn't like to speak in public very often, isn't big on small talk, and escapes to her private country life as often as she can.

Do these sound like the traits of a fiercely ambitious woman DESPERATE to marry Charles and become a Duchess and eventually a Queen?  How absurd.  She was around the royals - and Charles in particular - for decades.  She knew exactly what marriage to him would require of her - and most of it is opposite of her nature.  

As for the Queen - she is well known to prefer to stay out of the personal lives of her children except when it becomes essential.  She waited and watched for a long time before advising Charles and Diana to divorce.  But then Charles hurled down the gauntlet by insisting that "Camilla is a non negotiable part of his life."

So the Queen and her advisors had two options:  In a couple of decades was Charles going to succeed as King as a divorced man living in sin with a divorcee, or as a King who had happily re-married a couple of decades earlier?  Given what happened in 1937, which option do you think the Queen chose?  Published reports at the time say the Queen advised the couple to marry.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 08, 2010, 11:06:24 AM
A good dose of common sense here, which is pleasant to see in connection with this matter that arouses so much intemperate feeling (though one should not perhaps generalize too hastily about the acceptability of adultery among members of any social class!).
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on July 08, 2010, 12:01:24 PM
Quite true, I was merely trying to illustrate that Camilla's environment within those circles might make a affair more acceptable, so long as it was agreed to by both parties - and discreet.  It is not unknown that in days gone by, many noble and royal marriages were for dynastic and social purposes rather than love matches, and those types of arrangements were not uncommon. 

However, my apology for over-generalizing the moral code of the noble and noble-adjacent social groups of today.

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 08, 2010, 02:27:08 PM
It is certainly true that the respectable middle classes in Britain have long been inclined to look askance at the raffishness and (often) idleness of the aristocracy, which has often enabled them ro regard themselves as being superior in their morals and indeed level of culture; but in fact many members of the aristocracy and landed gentry were and are thoroughly 'middle class' in these respects; there are circles within circles, and often variations too from generation to generation. One can see this in the British royal family since Queen Victoria's time, how some members have been thoroughly 'middle class' while others have been associated with raffish circles in high society.  Edward VII and (up to the time of the abdication) Edward VIII were popular enough, but that was before the days of an intrusive press. I'm afraid that the mess that Prince Charles has made of his private life has done no favours to an institution that has to present itself as being a family monarchy; though I wouldn't compare him to the Edwards, he is a serious and thoughtful man (which is paradoxically something of a problem for him in an age of celebrity culture, in which superficial glamour has more public appeal, and eccentric and original people are inclined to be mocked). Whether the great British (etc.) public really has the right to be so censorious is quite another matter. As Macaulay remarked long ago, there is no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality. And the sheer nastiness and spitefulness of so much that is said about Charles and Camilla takes my breath away.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 08, 2010, 02:35:24 PM
Adagietto
            I totally agree with you.  The Edwardians were especially pleasure loving and there was a time when the aristocracy was lliterally above the law ans felt that most rules did not apply to them.  A llot took pride in their daliances.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 08, 2010, 03:11:45 PM
What amazes me above all about the kind of people whom Edward VII used to associate with is the amount that they managed to eat - makes one surprised that they had any energy left over for their extra-curricular activities!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lucien on July 08, 2010, 04:20:32 PM
What amazes me above all about the kind of people whom Edward VII used to associate with is the amount that they managed to eat - makes one surprised that they had any energy left over for their extra-curricular activities!

Extra Curricular activities...LOL!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 08, 2010, 04:23:32 PM
and exactly what do you find wrong with a 12 course breakfast?

I stayed in a hotel that used to be a country house that entertained king George V and Mrs Keppel and they had that sort of breakfast if you wanted it.  Kippers etc etc
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 08, 2010, 05:03:58 PM
And a couple of pheasants before going to bed. I hope your hotel served up some good kedgeree.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on July 08, 2010, 09:48:20 PM
I was merely reporting what I had read in an British newspaper - I didn't make any personal comments (adverse or otherwise)  I agree with Chris' sensible take on the situation and agree wholeheartedly.

As someone who has a 35 year marriage under her belt and is the same age as Charles and Camilla, I can well empathise that they are leading separate lives.  It's just the immature tabloid journalists who have to have a story who cannot understand this way of doing things.  From a personal point of view, I only wish I had numerous houses being run by servants as a bolt hole - oh I nearly forgot and being paid for by someone else !!!!!!!


Well said!
I have a 25 year marriage under my belt and though I'm not the same age, i can well emphasis.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 09, 2010, 12:23:48 AM
I have had Kedgeree in Scotland with some landed gentry friends.   One of India's gifts to Britain.  The hotel was great and if i get to England again and dont need to be in London, I would stay there again.  It has 4 acres of gardens and if you ask and if it is available, you can stay in the room that King George used.  It is callled the Warren House Hotel.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 09, 2010, 12:52:01 AM
 I know kedgeree is a traditional dish, and most of my friends like it. I however, can't stand it nor Scottish eggs. And do NOT get me started on haggis !
  Chiarles probably laps this stuff  up wearing his kilt.
 On the other hand, I  made a curry  that my best friend in England just sent me and it was delicious.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 09, 2010, 01:49:20 AM
Perhaps he laps the stuff up out of Camillas lap when she is wearing his kilt.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 09, 2010, 03:10:14 AM
They say that curry is the English national dish. Kedgeree is about the only dish that can tempt me to eat an Edward VII style breakfast; one only encounters it among old-fashioned people. For a real historical experience one needs to try Brown Windsor soup.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 09, 2010, 03:20:54 AM
Well I was actually served it for dinner.  I have had that.  It is served with sherry I believe its a bit like turtle soup in taste and richness.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kalafrana on July 09, 2010, 03:52:49 AM
I too am puzzled about the enormous meals. I am fond of my food but one day at an Edwardian house party would be too much for me. Not so much the breakfasts - I think the set-up was that all these dishes were available but you simply helped yourself to what you wanted, buffet-style - but the five-course lunch and then the ten courses in the evening.

No wonder Edward VII was fat!

Ann
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 09, 2010, 04:07:43 AM
It  takes long training to eat gargantuan meals like that; the wonder is that not everyone was as plump as Edward.

(http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r163/linschoten/gil.jpg)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Margot on July 09, 2010, 06:50:13 AM
It is interesting to remember that during the Regency period being 'well fed' or to be un PC for a moment 'Fat' was a sign of one's wealth as it was a physical manifestation of just how much and how well one ate. It was a type pre Veblen 'conspicuous consumption'.

I guess after the Victorian fashion of abstinence and moderation, the Edwardian aristocracy were merely echoing the Regency habit of guzzling quaffing such gargantuan meals basically because they could! The richer and more lavishly luxurious the better! Truffles, Foie Gras and Caviar galore! It was just another ritual in to fill the day. The Edwardian plutocrats and aristocrats were the ultimate example of Veblen's consumers and the most obvious example of Conspicuous consumption!

From Edward VII (A notorious snob!!!) who set the example downwards, it was a matter of the best of everything! Foie Gras, Caviar, Truffles, Caviar galore and champagne fountains! Such eras come and go and in British History the Jacobean era and the Regency era are two other periods where such conspicuous consumption hit such amazing heights! During the Regency period one was judged on just how well fed or to be brutally honest and utterly un PC how fat and rich looking you were! In the Jacobean era crushing hugely expensive pearls and mixing them into wine was the ultimate symbol of just how rich and successful you were! That and how long the banquets you hosted lasted and how many courses you could provide and how many performers you employed in your troupe for masquerades and revels! That and the inevitable hunts you could host!

It seems ironic that a hundred years a go, being fat or at least extremely 'well fed' looking were attributes associated with wealth. Ironic when today being Fat is linked to junk food and poverty whilst being thin is seen as a sign of success and a wealthier strata of society....In the UK that is at least and certainly here in NZ too!



Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on July 09, 2010, 08:52:48 AM
Thanks, I shall have a look.
Do they manage to get through all the courses?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 09, 2010, 09:04:50 AM
 Most of  the food at those massive meals was not actually totally consumed at table.   Tatsted is more like it.  If the King was  there, after he finished what he wanted and his plate removed, EVERYONE'S plate was removed. Many people actually ate before  coming to dinner, otherwise they might go hungry.  Most of the food was not wasted, however, as  the servants got the left overs. And those houses required a lot  of staff. There own meals were usually rather meager, considering how much work they did.
 There are  not a few books on this subject but a recent one, EATING WITH EMPERORS by Jake Smith is the lateest and very  entertaining as well as informative. At least, so far. I have not finished reading it.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: grandduchessella on July 09, 2010, 12:04:03 PM
It's been over a page now, let's please get back on topic. Thanks.  :)

Also, a reminder (as always seems to come up in the Camilla threads) of the FA's rules about respectful discourse about living royals. You don't have to like them but no crudity or nastiness.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 09, 2010, 12:51:01 PM
 I read in  either the Evening Standard or the Mail [more likely the ES,  as I  tend to pick it up for the  tube ride home, the Mail, only oif it is  in the house, brought in by someone else]  that Camilla  likes chip butties.  That that is a disgusting meal. Not that it tastes all that bad, but talk about cholesterol & fat city ! I do not think the fast food joints could top it for unhealthy food...
 Another royal fave is beans on toast. Rather common,  but  not bad.  Forget where I read that bit.  I think everyone I know in the UK eats  that, though.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 09, 2010, 01:14:55 PM
Beans on toast are one of the best things you can eat.  Great protein source, low cholesterol, high fibre and that warm tomatoey flavour.  Favoured by the Beatles, I can see why the RF is fond of them.  I eat a lot of sophisticated things but I love beans once in a while on a cold rainy night, eaten in front of the fireplace.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Adagietto on July 09, 2010, 01:17:44 PM
Preferable by far to monkey brains.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 09, 2010, 01:24:51 PM
well last night i had calf's brain in black butter and it was delicious.  I don't have it often but it is rich and full of protein, not much fibre though
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Forum Admin on July 09, 2010, 01:28:13 PM
WHAT does all this food chatter have to do with Camilla?? TOPIC please.  Mods, please start removing any further OT posts. Thanks.

FA
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 09, 2010, 01:48:24 PM
Sorry, but MY post WAS about Camilla. And the RF. I can't help it if she likes chip butties.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 09, 2010, 01:52:39 PM
i think one sentence out of six was about Camilla, Don't suck up now Robert
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 09, 2010, 02:23:09 PM
Point taken, Const.
 Thanks.
 Now, back to Camilla. Was it last year she  took a holiday with some girl friends on a  hired private jet to  some exclusive Greek resort island? I do not know who paid for that, but other than security, I do not think the UK taxpayer  covered it. These folk all have the money to  do it on their own. This holiday was without Charles and she insisted on it. Can't say that I blame her,  I do it  twice a year,  to "get away'.  Just exclusive Greek resorts are not really to my taste.
 On a different matter,  does anyone know if she keeps in contact with the Duchess of York? Surely they must have met, at least in the Diana years.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Constantinople on July 09, 2010, 02:39:07 PM
Considering that Sarah and Diana were friends, I don't think that is too likely.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on July 09, 2010, 05:21:00 PM
They were friends in the early days only.  Diana had broken away from Sarah after the latter's separation from Prince Andrew and refused to have anything more to do with her after Sarah wrote disparagingly about her in her "autobiography". 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 09, 2010, 05:53:12 PM
That was my impression as well, Grace.  But thought perhaps  Sarah and might see each other socially, such as house parties or events of some sort. They might well not be  bosom buddies,  but would be polite to each other at least.
  After all, they both have broken marriages in common...
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: joan_d on July 27, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
Point taken, Const.
 Thanks.
 Now, back to Camilla. Was it last year she  took a holiday with some girl friends on a  hired private jet to  some exclusive Greek resort island? I do not know who paid for that, but other than security, I do not think the UK taxpayer  covered it. These folk all have the money to  do it on their own. This holiday was without Charles and she insisted on it. Can't say that I blame her,  I do it  twice a year,  to "get away'.  Just exclusive Greek resorts are not really to my taste.
 On a different matter,  does anyone know if she keeps in contact with the Duchess of York? Surely they must have met, at least in the Diana years.



Camilla must be rather partial to the Greek Islands.   In May 2007, hubbie and myself were on a holiday in the beautiful island of Ithica.  There was a huge luxury yacht moored in the harbour everybody buzzing wanting to know whose it was.   Didn't take long for the locals to tells it is was the Spanish Royal Family's boat and that Camilla was on board recuporating from an operation.  (Hysterectomy I think!)   Amazing where these royals get to when you're least expecting it.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on October 02, 2010, 10:22:07 AM
Very surprised that Camilla isnt  in India right now at the side of her Royal beau.
The Commonwealth Games will be starting soon.....  surely Camilla should be there with Charles.... ?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 02, 2010, 10:35:41 AM
Erm, she is, it's in todays paper...

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on October 02, 2010, 11:03:05 AM
She  was absent from the pics on the TV  news today   sat
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on October 02, 2010, 11:23:11 AM
Judith Keppel.... winner of  "Who wants to be a Millionaire " TV show.... said to be related
to the famous Alice Keppel...   wonder if there is a direct link...  like in the  case of Camilla ?

If so , Judith and Camilla could be distant cousins  ?


(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1329/judithkeppelfhfhhfhhf13.jpg) (http://img718.imageshack.us/i/judithkeppelfhfhhfhhf13.jpg/)
(http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1178/judithkeppelfhfhhfhhf12.jpg) (http://img52.imageshack.us/i/judithkeppelfhfhhfhhf12.jpg/)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kimberly on October 03, 2010, 02:51:59 AM
Aaah Judith Keppel, frequently gracing our TVs as part of the Eggheads quiz team. I believe she and Camilla are third cousins.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Rani on October 03, 2010, 07:19:14 AM
Just look at their hairstyle  ;D
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 03, 2010, 07:28:55 AM
Camilla is in India with Charles.  I was mentioned on BBC tolday.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on October 03, 2010, 01:13:28 PM
I rate Judith as a lot more attractive than  Camilla.... despite being a few years older than Camilla...
all that money in the bank is a bit of an attraction too !
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kalafrana on October 04, 2010, 10:16:05 AM
Charles and Camilla at the Commonwealth Games (feeling the heat).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/8039571/Duchess-of-Cornwall-struggles-in-New-Delhi-heat.html

Ann
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 04, 2010, 12:04:48 PM
The chap the Duchess is talking too is hottttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on October 06, 2010, 11:46:29 AM
The chap the Duchess is talking too is hottttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!
STEADY TIGER!
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on October 06, 2010, 01:03:14 PM
 Off  the top of my  head I think Alice Keppel is decended from a Dutch lineage....
... from the  William of Orange era .... am I wrong ?
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 06, 2010, 01:08:15 PM
The chap the Duchess is talking too is hottttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!
STEADY TIGER!

Well the Duchess agreed!!! I am just following her lead...:)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 06, 2010, 01:15:22 PM
I agree with Eddie. A fine young athlete indeed !
 I noticed that the Duchess looked  considerably more comfortable in her dress than Charles did, all done up in the suit & tie. In that heat, one  would think he might try to be  more comfortable. I did hear {BBC} or read in the papers that the Duchess was not enjoying the heat at all, but at least tried to be comfortable.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kalafrana on October 07, 2010, 04:00:21 AM
Of course, the Duchess can turn out in a simple dress suitable to the climate, while Charles, as a man, will be expected to wear a suit and tie whatever the weather.

'Off  the top of my  head I think Alice Keppel is decended from a Dutch lineage....
... from the  William of Orange era .... am I wrong ?'

The original Keppel was a Dutch favourite of William of Orange.

Ann
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on October 10, 2010, 03:30:19 AM
Off  the top of my  head I think Alice Keppel is decended from a Dutch lineage....
... from the  William of Orange era .... am I wrong ?
Alice's husband  Hon George Keppel was a descendant of the Dutch born 1st Earl of Albemarle.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on October 10, 2010, 03:46:45 AM
From  my  post.... 171   ...  you can see that  Judith is  a very attractive lady
(Im really quite taken with  her  from her appearances on Egg Head )
but I wonder ... is she really directly decended from Alice Keppel....  as  Camilla  undoubtedly is !
Alice was obviously a  very important lady in the life of  King Edward
(wonder if  Alice  has her own thread in here ? )
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: ashdean on October 10, 2010, 06:44:42 AM
From  my  post.... 171   ...  you can see that  Judith is  a very attractive lady
(Im really quite taken with  her  from her appearances on Egg Head )
but I wonder ... is she really directly decended from Alice Keppel....  as  Camilla  undoubtedly is !
Alice was obviously a  very important lady in the life of  King Edward
(wonder if  Alice  has her own thread in here ? )
No Judith is not descended from Alice...but from a brother of Alices husband.
Alice had no sons only 2 daughters...the elder Violet Trefusis was childless the younger Sonia Cubbit was Camillas maternal grandmother.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on October 10, 2010, 08:07:10 AM
thanks  for  that info ...  yes  I suspected as much .... but Camilla is the real thing....
I ll go now and do a search for Alice Kepell  !
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on March 16, 2011, 11:50:38 AM
.

Camilla in Wax !


(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7339/charlesanccamillasieiie.jpg) (http://img692.imageshack.us/i/charlesanccamillasieiie.jpg/)
(http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/38/charlesandcamilasosooso.jpg) (http://img860.imageshack.us/i/charlesandcamilasosooso.jpg/)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Lindelle on May 24, 2011, 02:39:36 AM
Thanks, that wax figure is cool!
But check out Williams hair :o
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 24, 2011, 06:49:22 AM
Of course, the Duchess can turn out in a simple dress suitable to the climate, while Charles, as a man, will be expected to wear a suit and tie whatever the weather.Ann

But don't you think it's at least party Charles' preference to wear a suit and tie to every occasion?  I don't think anybody would be offended if he turned up in lighter attire and an open collar.  Surprised perhaps at this point, but not offended.  Other European royals dress more casually at official functions in hot climates, it's just the Brits that tend to stick to the conservative suits and ties all the time.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Grace on May 24, 2011, 03:50:25 PM
Thanks, that wax figure is cool!
But check out Williams hair :o

Check out William AND Camilla's hair.  I've never seen either wear their hair styled like this.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: AnnieB on May 25, 2011, 05:36:39 AM
Amazing resemblance of Harry to Prince Philip in Reply#189!

AnnieB
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Kalafrana on May 25, 2011, 06:10:11 AM
'Amazing resemblance of Harry to Prince Philip in Reply#189!'

Yes, the shape of the face is very similar.

Ann

Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Eddie_uk on May 25, 2011, 01:45:53 PM
The Duchess looked lovely at the banquet last night. Very nice diamonds.....

Scroll down

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390540/Obama-UK-state-visit-Queen-Elizabeth-treats-President-Tom-hanks-banquet.html
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: AceOfSpades on May 25, 2011, 07:34:53 PM
Camilla did look very nice!  What is the name of the tiara she was wearing?  For some odd reason,  I want to call it "The Honeycomb" - but am really not sure?

Also,  I noticed that Camilla was also wearing The Royal Family Order.  Anyone know when she got that?  This is the first time I've ever seen it on her ..
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 26, 2011, 10:55:55 AM
Quite - the Duchess was wearing the Boucheron Honeycomb tiara.   It was commissioned by Lady Grenville in 1921 from the French jeweler Boucheron.  Lady Grenville later left the tiara to the Queen Mother, who subsequently left it to the Prince of Wales. 

I'm not sure when the Duchess received the Queen's Family Order - there is never a formal announcement, one only knows it happened after the new holder wears it in public for the first time. 
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on April 16, 2015, 03:12:37 PM
Surely  Camilla  deserves  her very   own  thread  ?


Camilla   aged   sweet  16   .......  in  1966

(http://i.imgbox.com/dPhplBpf.jpg) (http://imgbox.com/dPhplBpf)




.
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: heavensent on April 16, 2015, 03:25:29 PM
Now  thats what I  call  a  hat !

(http://i.imgbox.com/OPeacQya.jpg) (http://imgbox.com/OPeacQya)
Title: Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
Post by: Превед on August 16, 2015, 04:35:35 PM
 Принц Уэльский и герцогиня Корнуольская на торжествах в честь 70-летия победы над Японией
Герцогиня Камилла на приеме в честь ветеранов танцевала с 94-летним участником боевых действий.
=
The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall at the celebrations in honour of the 70th anniversary of the victory over Japan.
Duchess Camilla at a reception in honour of veterans danced with a 94-year-old participant in the fighting.
See http://ru-royalty.livejournal.com/3282222.html (http://ru-royalty.livejournal.com/3282222.html) for the pics.