Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Current Events 15: June-July 2006

[Skydragon]

Charles and Camilla prove they're hands on

THE Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall unveiled a new look during a visit to Swansea yesterday, sporting chunky, thick spectacles.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=17332352&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=charles-and-camilla-prove-they-re-a-dead-hand--name_page.html
​

 

[Olka]

troubles?

I got an article by e-mail about some troubles that would exist in C&C's marriage. I think it's pure gossip and speculations, what do you think about it?

http://www.theroyalist.net/content/view/907/1/

 

[hornsen]

Olka, we discussed it here

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...-events-1-march-2006-july-2006-a-9092-10.html

We found out it is completly rubbish. Look at last photos and hear what onlookers said.

 

[Avalon]

CAMILLA MODELS SOME UNIQUE EYEWEAR ON TOUR IN WALES

With plenty of engagements at home and abroad, life in royal circles can pass in a blur. But the Duchess of Cornwall got to see clearly with the help of some 3-D specs when she visited the University of Wales on a whirlwind tour of the principality.
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2006/07/05/charlesandcamilla/

 

[Avalon]

Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall visit the Clwyd Theatr Cymru on July 05, 2006 in Mold, Wales
from getty

 

[Avalon]

Prince Charles, Prince of Wales visits the Pontbren Rural Care project on July 05, 2006 in Powys, Wales
getty

 

[Avalon]

I really love the 8th and 9th pics from the 72 post, they are so funny!
Charles looks so happy and Camilla looks magnificent in that white dress! It looks like they are really having a great time!

 

[hornsen]

Thanks, Avalon. Great pics again. They really are enjoying their trips together. They always are happy and relaxed.

 

[amy0411]

I just have to say i really dont like the way the royalist website is always putting Camilla down and Charles too. I love just love pair of them!

 

[Skydragon]

Eisteddfod visit on royals' tour

The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall have paid a surprise visit to the International Musical Eisteddfod in Llangollen on Wednesday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/5151212.stm

 

[Skydragon]

Charles and Camilla visit a bead shop and crafts fair on July 04, 2006 in Southgate, Wales. Getty Images.

 

[Avalon]

Eisteddfod visit on royals' tour

The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall have paid a surprise visit to the International Musical Eisteddfod in Llangollen on Wednesday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/5151212.stm

Thanks for the article, I love this line:

He added: "I'm extremely grateful that neither myself or my wife have to dance on this stage."

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I just have to say i really dont like the way the royalist website is always putting Camilla down and Charles too. I love just love pair of them!

I read the article at http://www.theroyalist.net/content/view/914/2/
and thought it was infamous - such a dirty way to review things and pictures that were published and to throw the muck at the people involved.

First the author claimed that "royal aides" told stories about a strife in the marriage of Charles and Camilla, then she questioned the more happy pics which seem to belie these stories ("didn't Charles and Diana seem happy at first as well?") and then comes back to the accusation that Camilla does not do enough royal engagements, seems to mourn the fact that there is no national TV coverage of the Welsh tour which could change this image and implies that Charles knows exactly how scandals tend to lead to more coverage... As if Charles was responsible for everything! That's slander and it's so cheap!

I really do wonder why people pay for that webpage!

 

[BeatrixFan]

I do wonder how Clarence House would react if they knew.

 

[hornsen]

I´m sure, Clarence House knows the story. But they prefer not to react. The actually tour proves the opposite.

 

[Avalon]

I do wonder how Clarence House would react if they knew.

Probably wouldn't care. Why should they? There isn't a word of true or at least a creidble information in the article.

 

[Skydragon]

I do wonder how Clarence House would react if they knew.

I am sure that they know everything written on this and other sites, including the i/n rag in question. I am also sure that they sit and have a blooming good laugh at the 'facts' some people come out with.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I am sure that they know everything written on this and other sites, including the i/n rag in question. I am also sure that they sit and have a blooming good laugh at the 'facts' some people come out with.

You really think so? Do you think they have the time or the wish to be informed so that it's worth their time/money to be updated on the internetter's opinions? Okay, these forums are a nice place to keep informed about their cousin's doings and the forums are well administered, so at least these pages here may make for an interesting read but still I don't see someone scanning this forum for TRH's need for information.

As for the royalist.com I wonder at all why somebody should read this site. I did in the beginning but stopped when I all to clearly saw that it was
a) a means to make money
b) a means to get oneself in a position that asks for offers from editors looking for a new "royal editor"
c) far, far away from everything I connect with "good journalism" - while for me there is wide range possible within that expression, the royalist and it's editor is not.

 

[ysbel]

The Royalist website has a lot of factual errors but its not a traditional news publication. As far as I can tell, its a blog though it does quote articles. Blogs in general are people's opinions, nothing more, they were originally never meant to be anything else. They can be fun to read as long as members don't confuse them with a reliable newssource. And its good for members to post a link from these blogs to ask for further verification as this member did. I haven't seen any.

As with any information source, if the Royalist or any other site quotes another article, they should provide a link to the original article so you can review it yourself. I have heard complaints though that the Royalist doesn't always provide links to articles it quotes which makes it harder to confirm their accuracy.

And its probably not a good idea to use a Royalist link to back up a claim in the forums. Traditional newssources are always better.

 

[redfox6]

I read the article at http://www.theroyalist.net/content/view/914/2/
and thought it was infamous - such a dirty way to review things and pictures that were published and to throw the muck at the people involved.

First the author claimed that "royal aides" told stories about a strife in the marriage of Charles and Camilla, then she questioned the more happy pics which seem to belie these stories ("didn't Charles and Diana seem happy at first as well?") and then comes back to the accusation that Camilla does not do enough royal engagements, seems to mourn the fact that there is no national TV coverage of the Welsh tour which could change this image and implies that Charles knows exactly how scandals tend to lead to more coverage... As if Charles was responsible for everything! That's slander and it's so cheap!

I really do wonder why people pay for that webpage!

It's called free enterprise and choice. Everyone does not perceive things as others and are free to express their opinions. If public figures can't stand up to scrutiny and critcism, they should cease being public figures.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It's called free enterprise and choice.

No, it's called lying with intent to demonise someone and that's not free enterprise and choice, it's low and it's wrong.

 

[redfox6]

No, it's called lying with intent to demonise someone and that's not free enterprise and choice, it's low and it's wrong.

Each side had demonized each other. All have lied. All sides are guilty. If you are part of the garbage you get hit in the face with it.

 

[Elspeth]

Unfortunately people who aren't part of the garbage get hit in the face with it too. As you said in your previous post, it's called free enterprise, and people who care more about making money than telling the truth aren't choosy about who they attack.

 

[joon112]

I too, no longer bother with The Royalist. In my opinion, it is a very pro-Diana site, and anyone who isn't a Diana fan, is shot down in flames. Some people just can't seem to accept that Diana died years ago, and show their bitterness and total lack of respect by making nasty comments about Prince Charles and Camilla.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It's called free enterprise and choice. Everyone does not perceive things as others and are free to express their opinions. If public figures can't stand up to scrutiny and critcism, they should cease being public figures.

No, it's not. I studied law and trained as journalist after finishing university, so I have quite a good knowledge of the idea behind the laws for the press. Even though the UK has its own laws which are in some parts not as protective as ours, I still think that what the author at the royalist.com does is way too much in terms of correctness. It's not her facts that I'm critizising but they way she combines it with innuendoes, heresay and interpretations.

It's exactly what the mods on this forum try to stop here, with great success, IMHO - the royalist does not play according to the rules but plays dirty. That's different from having a different opinion and expressing it. For me, that's the difference between journalism and negative propaganda. And you may believe me, as a German and graduate in history of media law I know a lot about Propaganda (as introduced to the world at large by Dr. Goebbels of the nazi government of Germany, 1933-1945).

 

[Skydragon]

You really think so? Do you think they have the time or the wish to be informed so that it's worth their time/money to be updated on the internetter's opinions? Okay, these forums are a nice place to keep informed about their cousin's doings and the forums are well administered, so at least these pages here may make for an interesting read but still I don't see someone scanning this forum for TRH's need for information.

I should imagine that they have friends who have a look and of course the whole PR team. As was shown, it is always advisable to have a rough idea what people are saying and how they are reacting.
Like LiW, not everyone expects remuneration.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I should imagine that they have friends who have a look and of course the whole PR team. As was shown, it is always advisable to have a rough idea what people are saying and how they are reacting.
Like LiW, not everyone expects remuneration.

Well, we'll never know...

 

[Skydragon]

I couldn't be more proud to be patron at Llangollen

PRINCE Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall delighted visitors when they flew into the International Eisteddfod yesterday.

The couple were given a rousing welcome at Llangollen's Royal International Pavilion, as temperatures soared.

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=17338983%26method=full%26siteid=50142%26page=1%26headline=i%2dcouldn%2dt%2dbe%2dmore%2dproud%2dto%2dbe%2dpatron%2dat%2dllangollen-name_page.html
​

 

[BeatrixFan]

Each side had demonized each other. All have lied. All sides are guilty. If you are part of the garbage you get hit in the face with it.

So it's alright for The Royalist to print pure fiction and pass it off as fact? To me, that's illegal and I'd love to see their ridiculously biased site shut down.

 

[Skydragon]

Charles and Camilla visit Rhossili Village Hall on July 4, 2006 in Middleton, Gower, Wales.



and during a visit to Cardigan Castle and the Garrison Chapel in Pembroke Dock on July 3, 2006






All Getty Images