Christening of Viscount Severn at Windsor, 19 April 2008

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Bella

I think it's absurd to assume Charles and Camilla did not attend out of some sort of spite towards Edward and Sophie. We don't know this. We don't know these people at all. For all we know Charles and Camilla may not have been invited or Edward may have understood C&C have other obligations and insisted they not change their plans.

I think the situation was made worse by the fact that Andrew cancelled his arrangement to attend Colin Montgamery's wedding to attend.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Bella

I think it's absurd to assume Charles and Camilla did not attend out of some sort of spite towards Edward and Sophie. We don't know this. We don't know these people at all. For all we know Charles and Camilla may not have been invited or Edward may have understood C&C have other obligations and insisted they not change their plans. I think people are drudging up drama where there probably is none.

My understanding, from published reports, is that Charles and Camilla were vacationing at Birkhall. Not sure if that qualifies as 'other obligations'....even if one takes vacationing very seriously.

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by princess leonor

Come on, he is their son even if he is very low in line to the thrown. How can he just accept that he is not a priority in the life of his own brother

They did not attend any of Charles's graduation or visit him when he was in Australia as an exchange student either. i doubt they had attended any of their children's graduations.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Claire

I don't really think its that. its just Edward and Charles are both well aware of their position and station in life and the family. Edward knows very well that he is comes very low down in the Queen's and Charles' priorities. He accepts its. I remember an interview with him when he was in New Zealand if he felt slighted that no member of his family had come to his graduation. Edward replied that his parents and siblings had more important things and that his parents tried to be there for the special occasion but usually made it up to him if they missed it. Edward understands that it is more important for the Queen to be more visable in the lives of Prince Charles, William and Harry then in his, he is just not as important for the crown and the monarchy. It is something he has accepted for the long time.

I am sorry, but that strikes me as incredibly sad! I realize the need for a pecking order officially, but in private among family there should be NONE. The birth of Viscount Severn is a big deal for a couple of reasons....he is the first male grandchild born to HM since Prince Harry in 1984, not to mention that his existence is somewhat of a miracle considering all the suffering that Sophie and Edward went through to have him(and little Louise) Charles and Camilla were at Birkhall, it would not have killed them to show up.

I think it was rude of them personally.

On a happier note little James is a huge, beautiful robust looking baby. Sophie and Edward couldn't look more happy.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

I think it is interesting that Sophie and Edward think that their children will have no roles within the Royal Family given that the Dukes of Kent, Gloucester are cousins of the Queen and are involved in the Royal Family, Also, Andrew has made certain his children are going to be involved--I'm sure they'll be involved, but I suppose that Sophie and Edward just want a more private lifestyle. Of course, James will be the Duke of Edinburg which is a royal title....

Its important to note that the Dukes of Kent, Gloucester,etc had a more prominent role during the the early part of the century until the 70's because for intents and purposes the royal family was smaller at that time. In the 60's for example it was just the Queen, the Duke, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, Marina, Duchess of Kent, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester (Harry and Alice) and Princess Alexandra and that was it (through in Princess Alice, Countess of Althone for good measure). Also, royalty played more of a role in the day to day life, (i.e. a royal was almost always a sponsor or patron of a charity) nowadays a celebrity might serve to draw interest to a particular charity. And finally, the costs of the royal family. But I am thinking that Sophie and Edward saw what the press has down to Charles/Diana and Camilla and and Harry/William and simply don't want that for theirs.

And finally (to get back on subject), what a great picture! Sophie, Edward and baby James look adorable.

[Kezza]

I think in the daily mail article it says Lady Louise kisses and cuddles her baby brother all the time.

Looks like baby James has a good big sister looking out for him.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

I think it was rude of them personally.

What do we know about other people? Camilla ist 60 and last year had an operation which ended the topic of becoming a mother once and for all. Maybe she and Charles had longed for their own little girl for decades and it was impossible. So there could be an emotionally understandible reason why he didn't attend the christening of his brother's surprise son. I don't say this reason exists, only that we simply don't know why they didn't attend. Maybe they have engagements in Scotland this week and didn't want to fly down for a christening and back-up again?

From the Court Circular:

18th April, 2008
The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, Royal Colonel, 51st Highland, 7th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, this morning received Colonel Colin Campbell upon relinquishing his appointment as Commanding Officer

That's from Charles' website, the Diary:

Monday 21st April 2008
The Duke and Duchess of Rothesay will open the new Queen Mother Memorial Gates at Glamis Castle, Angus.

So it seems Charles did not only spent the weekend in Scotland but the days before and after as well.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

Maybe Sophie can't stand Camilla and vice versa, I'm just sayin'.....

The pictures of Camilla and Sophie at Royal Ascot would refute that though, don't you think.
--------------------
It seems to me that some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. Charles and Camilla were in Scotland, they had engagements booked before and after the christening, long before any date for the christening was set, so why did Edward choose to slight his brother by arranging it when he knew they were going to be busy ........ Can you imagine the headline if Charles and Camilla flew back from Scotland just to attend a christening ceremony.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

What do we know about other people?

No disrespect, but you don't SERIOUSLY believe that Camilla still entertained the idea of having another baby as recently as a few years ago do you? Her hysterectomy was at the age of 60. Women don't NORMALLY have babies at that age and I doubt very much Camilla fancied more children, reading and hearing all the things about her that I have. The idea that after she married the Prince of Wales she hoped to have a child is farfetched at best and absurd at worst.

She has two healthy children and grandchildren. She has achieved her longtime goal of marriage to the Prince of Wales. She should count herself as very blessed indeed!

I still say it was a little unkind of them not to be there for Edward and Sophie.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

No disrespect, but you don't SERIOUSLY believe that Camilla still entertained the idea of having another baby as recently as a few years ago do you?

I just wanted to point out that you don't know Charles and Camilla and so don't know about your motives. To call their not being present "rude" means that you believe you know their motive and are able to judge it.

What I pointed out was just one potential explanation. It has a plausibility to it, because I connected three things that are actually known.

1) Charles and Camilla did not attend the christening.
2.) Camilla had a hysterectomy.
3.) There are psychological problems that can be caused by a hysterectomy which make attending a christening hurtful for the sufferer.
At least that's what it is said here: Khastgir G, Studd JW, Catalan J. The psychological outcome of hysterectomy. Published: Gynecol Endocrinol . 2000;14:132-141. And here: Wright JB, Gannon MJ, Greenberg M. Osychological aspects of heavy periods: does endometrial ablation provide the answer? Br J Hosp Med. 1996;55:289-294. A quote: "Other factors that have been associated with increased risk of emotional distress posthysterectomy include loss of childbearing capacity, adverse effects on a woman's self-image, social disruption due to a long recovery time, and history of inadequately dealing with loss."

So what I did was taking three facts and used them to form an idea why Charles and Camilla did not attend. Of course it is far fetched and, as I said, I don't think it's the truth. But it could be a possibility and for me it is "In Dubio Pro Reo" when I don't know the facts. - meaning that I don't want to judge as long as I don't have more input.

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Thanks for clarification . It is obviously true that I don't know the Royal couple, none of us do. But it doesn't stop us from discussing them all and giving our opinions and speculations on their behaviours, which is why these Forums exist and is what I did.

Anytime someone says, for example that Sarah Ferguson is exploiting the BRF and is not sorry for her past behavior is not presuming to know the woman, they are simply stating how they feel whether it's fair or not. Anytime someone posts that Princess Michael is a gold digging racist, they are not presuming to know the woman. They are stating what they believe based on her actions and what is reported in the press. The same goes for all the Royals we post about.

We obviously don't need to know them to be able to post an opinion about them do we?

[rmay286]

Knowing that Charles and Camilla had engagements before and after the christening does make a difference in my opinion. The paper presented it as though they were simply on vacation. Their engagements are certainly a far more plausible reason to me than C&C wanting a baby girl...really? By the time they were both divorced they were nearly 50, I would think they would be happy just to be together.

I also think the royal family operates differently than a "normal" family would. If his parents thought nothing of missing Edward's graduation because of prior engagements, then why would Charles think twice about missing Edward's son's christening for the same reasons? It's too bad but simply the way life in the royal family goes, I guess.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I also think the royal family operates differently than a "normal" family would.

I'm not so sure about that. The problem is that you have to find a date when most of the family have no prior engagements. Some are willing to adjust their schedule, like Andrew but others can't. That's IMHO why it always take so long till the christening: with four months after the birth the chance is much greater to find an open slot in the appointment books of the family. If I were Edward and had to choose to have either the queen or Charles or to wait for another few months, I'd gone for the queen.

[Josefine]

hi there is a blogg about celebrity babies and they have started to wright about royal babies. but there is not much about James.

Sophie and Edward's son James is baptized : Celebrity Baby Blog

Is there a deal that the children will not be in magazines?
how is it that just one photo is taken for the public. W
as is the same with annes children and andrews

[iowabelle]

I am very disappointed that Charles and Camilla didn't attend this christening. And very disappointed that we didn't get a photo with grandparents and godparents (let alone one with Louise, which we pretty much knew we WEREN'T going to get).

[PrincessofEurope]

the tmore you try to hid away the child the more people will suspect that something is wrong

will she be starting school this september then she will be out in the public eye and it wont be hard to get a picture of her then

[CaliforniaDreamin]

I've seen a couple of photos of Lady Louise. She is an extremely pretty child with golden blond curls and blue eyes.

Unless there is something we don't know she appears to be very healthy.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I'm not so sure about that. The problem is that you have to find a date when most of the family have no prior engagements. Some are willing to adjust their schedule, like Andrew but others can't. That's IMHO why it always take so long till the christening: with four months after the birth the chance is much greater to find an open slot in the appointment books of the family. If I were Edward and had to choose to have either the queen or Charles or to wait for another few months, I'd gone for the queen.

That's something along the lines of what I meant, I guess. In an ordinary family schedules are, or should be, somewhat more flexible. The royal family is answerable not just to a boss, but to the whole public, so it's harder for them to switch their schedules around.

I am quite pleased that Andrew decided to put his brother before the wedding, it was nice that he could be there.

I am starting to wonder about the lack of pictures of Louise. I understand the lack of public photographs, but excluding her from a picture with her parents and baby brother is a little bit more suspicious. No one can possibly argue that a single picture of her with her family would be undue