The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 10-07-2005, 10:04 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incas
I just checked the Prince of Wales website to see when C&C will make the next joint appearance. Looks like nothing is scheduled until the US visit next month. Camilla doesn't have anything at all the rest of October. Does royals often taken time off before a major trip? I thought the visit will only be a few days. Didn't seem like they need a whole month to prepare.
Yeah, I've been disconcerted by the lack of activities for Charles and Camilla lately.
__________________

__________________
  #62  
Old 10-07-2005, 10:10 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incas
I just checked the Prince of Wales website to see when C&C will make the next joint appearance. Looks like nothing is scheduled until the US visit next month. Camilla doesn't have anything at all the rest of October. Does royals often taken time off before a major trip? I thought the visit will only be a few days. Didn't seem like they need a whole month to prepare.
Not everything seems to be posted on the official site. Both Charles and Camilla are involved in the visit of the Norwegian royals in late October, details of this trip are posted on the royal family site but not Charles' ( as yet)

Camilla's going to her daughter's art gallery opening was listed on the Prince of Wales site either.
__________________

__________________
  #63  
Old 10-07-2005, 10:15 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1
Not everything seems to be posted on the official site.
I noticed that; I wonder why?
__________________
  #64  
Old 10-07-2005, 10:15 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,692
I guess the gallery opening would probably be classified as a private visit.
__________________
  #65  
Old 10-07-2005, 10:33 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Excuse me for admiring Diana. Also, Diana "fanatics" are not selfish either. We see something that others do not. While she was not blameless, Diana was used by Charles and his family to produce the next heirs to the House of Windsor. That is being treated pretty shabbily in my opinion and makes me understand why she did what she did. Charles needed that virgin bride and that is the only reason he married Diana.

By the way, I was the one who wished she hadn't married him so she would have had a much better chance at a happier life.

A note to Beatrix Fan: Camilla is not a saint either. She was sinning before Diana was born!

Also, contrary to popular belief, I do have a life outside of "Diana worship".
You go girl! :)

I wonder....what would the two Georges...Washington and III, make of all this?

Here we are in the U.S., taught by our Constitution titles are forbidden to accept and monarchy is not needed here.....and yet, Americans savor stories about the British Royal Family.

Charles and Camilla coming here will receive more attention then if another royal from another country visits.

Let me tell you all, Diana came to Chicago in 1996, her last official overseas visit as an HRH....this city of 3 million went absolutely ga ga in love....for three days NOTHING else happened in the world or in the city.

They even closed the expressway from O'Hare to Northwestern University so she could get to her symposium on time..

They do not even do that for our president...

I think you are all right....in many ways...their weddings are shown here...Charles and Camilla got CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC for theirs...

What I do find most fascinating is the U.S. is always the "test" country for European celebrities, musicians, athletes...they are in fame in their own country but know if they make it here....they reached the top.

David and Victoria Beckham tried it in 2003 and failed at it.

That parallels with Charles and Camilla, if it is huge success in "Diana Territory", then the seal is strengthened 100% in the eyes of the world.

I love this topic because the intellect in all of you is pouring out. Keep it coming from all sides.

And Warren, as always, if I make a historical error...please correct me? :)
__________________
  #66  
Old 10-07-2005, 10:37 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by caroline mathilda
I find this discussion interesting and am glad that we are exchanging views without rancour.

I always enjoyed following Princess Diana's story from begining to end. I have to admit that I am not as interested in C&C as I was her. Perhaps for many of the reasons cited by Lady Marmalade. I also think Lady Marmalade very articulately summarized the "average" American's view of the Diana-Charles-Camilla situation.

I have followed C&C since they were engaged, including getting up early to watch their wedding on TV, and will continue to watch with interest their visit to the States. As I said earlier, I think most Americans will either be indifferent or curious. I also think Americans will receive them with courtesy.

Whether it is odd or not, Americans still see the British Royal Family as "ours....sort of." There is always some degree of excitement when a British Royal comes calling on these shores. :)

Caroline Mathilda
Thank you. That is very kind of you. I think we all do a great job in professing our views in such well thought out ways. :)

I said it before....maybe because I am a girl...but I am dying to see if she wears a tiara here and which one it will be......
__________________
  #67  
Old 10-07-2005, 10:57 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

I wonder....what would the two Georges...Washington and III, make of all this?
An interesting question. :)

George Washington was offered the chance to become King of the new country but he turned it down. The established reason is that he opposed the concept of monarchy...but I wonder if his inability to father children had anything to do with it.

If so I think its incredibly ironic that a reason we don't have a monarchy here could be that the only man who would be accepted as King couldn't father an heir to the throne.

Washington is quite a paradox. He was very pro-British until very late. If you get a chance to read "For King and Country" by all means do. Its an account of his early life as a loyal British subject.
__________________
  #68  
Old 10-07-2005, 11:24 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Camilla is not a saint either. She was sinning before Diana was born!
I do apologise. Here was I thinking that it was Our Lady who was born via the Immaculate Conception - not Diana Spencer.
And I don't think we can really judge can we? What has it got to do with us? When did Diana Spencer ask you to defend her?
Well, it seems quite a bit of judgement is coming from you. Diana is no longer here and she doesn't have a voice to protest what is said about her. Charles and Camilla are still here and can fight for themselves if they wish too. Diana does not have that luxury.

Those of us who still love and admire Diana are being painted as lunatics living in the past because we detest Charles and Camilla. While I am not going to go out and join a protest against Charles and Camilla, I will stand up for Diana when I feel she and her memory are being maligned by people who just seem to be downright cruel.

I will also stand up for myself for being painted as a lunatic because of my Pro Diana feelings. I know she isn't here anymore and I don't live in the past. It doesn't mean I have to like the present and future though. What I see in the present and future for the British Monarchy makes me so angry, and not just for Diana's sake, but for the sake of the institution itself.

Diana was not a temporary deity to make my life all the better. She was a flesh and blood human being who made mistakes. She tried her best and showed that she actually cared about people. I have learned much from her triumphs and mistakes. As Ysbel said in her post about not waiting for a prince to come and rescue you and make it all better, that is one lesson I learned from her mistakes. There are no real "princes" in this world to make a fairytale. There are no fairytales, and Diana stood up for women everywhere by blowing the whistle on what has been hypocritical for ages within loveless marriages. I don't condone her affairs, but at least she saw what a ridiculous lie it all was!
__________________
  #69  
Old 10-08-2005, 01:51 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I will stand up for Diana when I feel she and her memory are being maligned by people who just seem to be downright cruel.
tiaraprin, maybe my comment about needing an idol to identify and feel sorry for was harsh and I apologize. I did not mean you personally.

No posts in this thread have maligned Diana's memory. Some of the cruelest comments though around have been about Camilla, not Diana. Its perfectly fair to not approve of the affair but calling her a Rottweiler is totally obnoxious although I know iowabelle didn't mean it herself; she was just quoting what other people say and I know that others have said it. Its one thing to be critical but quite another to be vindictive.

I applaud you for standing up for people who are wrongly maligned; some of the people who stand up for Camilla are doing the same thing. Yes, she's done some things wrong but some of the things she is criticized for are uncalled for.

And now for Camilla's current events. As for seeing Camilla in a tiara, well I don't think she is a tiara kind of girl so it doesn't matter to me, but I work across from Ground Zero so I am looking forward to sneaking out of work to go see them when they come. I am annoyed though that we're not getting more info about the visit. It all seems so sketchy.
__________________
  #70  
Old 10-08-2005, 01:58 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Washington is quite a paradox. He was very pro-British until very late. If you get a chance to read "For King and Country" by all means do. Its an account of his early life as a loyal British subject.
I will check that out. Thank you! :)
.
__________________
  #71  
Old 10-08-2005, 02:06 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
I think for security reasons, according to our news, they are keeping much of the official times under wraps.

They will meet with the President and First Lady for lunch and dinner. They will not be staying at the White House either. No details have been given as to where they are staying but if it is not one of the 4 star hotels then maybe either Blair House or the British Embassy.

Oh to be a fly on the wall during both of those times.....

I give Camilla credit in one respect. She NEVER has gone to the media to give her side of the story and always acted with discretion.

I know how terrible the British Press (not all of them :) ) can be and how they are not afraid of ripping someone to shreds to sell papers.

But she just smiled and never opened her mouth.

I still cannot believe they are married....but if they are happy..so be it...

All three are to blame in their own respects for the mess that marriage became.

Oh and to clear my post up earlier, the purpose Good Morning America filming from the palaces is to boost U.S. travel to Great Britain in light of all the terroism. It seems that U.S. travel is down there something like 7-8% over the past few years.

And now to my British friends on here. I was lucky enough to visit your country 3 years ago during HM's Jubilee. I found you all to be so kind, gracious and warm. The bond between our people, maybe not the governments, is strong and I thank you for showing such wonderful hospitality.

Oh...and thank you for getting me hooked on Eastenders. :)
__________________
  #72  
Old 10-08-2005, 02:42 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
A couple of things...

I think it best in discussions such as this to avoid the use of extreme language. No-one has called anyone a "lunatic"; no-one has launched a personal attack on any other member; use of phrases such as "... detest Charles and Camilla" is surely over-statement (does any of us know them personally?). I think we are agreed that none of the cast of characters are, or were, "saints"; most of us agree that a messy marriage breakdown is particularly ugly, and only some of us take pleasure in sifting through the (increasingly cold) entrails.

Extreme language and hyperbole invites response in kind, which we have largely managed to avoid. Everyone has a view, we just need to be thoughtful in how we express ourselves and ensure that no disrespect is shown to members on a personal level.

W
__________________
  #73  
Old 10-08-2005, 08:48 AM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
I think Diana lacks what makes Camilla admirable and Camilla lacks what made Diana admirable. I think the perfect Royal would have been someone with Dianas looks and style, and Camillas innerstrength and discretion. But, we have to take what we got. I think Camilla is perfect for the Royal Family because she is a tough old broad. Diana was too emotional in public. That was one of her greatest flaws. Emotion is good but it can get messy. The British Royal Family has been a matriarchal family since Queen Victoria. If you look through previous Royals it is the women in their lives who controll so much. The Queen Mum, Lady Diana, and Wallis Simpson for example. That is why women who marry into the Royal Family need to be strong. Camilla is Charles backbone which makes Charles a much better Prince. Gone are the Drama Days and know there is love and duty to ones nation. The future King is at peace with his life and that gives me hope for the future of the monarchy. He doesnt seem like and old fart anymore.
__________________
  #74  
Old 10-08-2005, 11:22 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
I think Camilla can be more discreet because her relationship with Charles is healthy. If things are really bad, putting up and shutting up is not going to work. I think everybody needs someone to turn to in times of trouble. Charles' saving grace was that he turned to Camilla who really cared for him the person and was looking out for his interests. Diana had extremely bad luck in the people she turned to-the media and some of her lovers. They weren't looking out for her interests, but for their own. I suspect some of her media friends goaded her into a public war with Charles because it would sell more papers. It did but it shredded any last remaining hope for their marriage.

The media and the public are very fickle lovers. They always look out for their own interests first and are willing to turn on a public figure with the slightest provocation. Because of the bad press, Camilla knows their game and refuses to be sucked into it.
__________________
  #75  
Old 10-08-2005, 11:35 AM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
Thats whats tragic about Diana. She had no one to turn to. She was estranged with her spencer family. She turned to her kids which I hate her for doing because little children shouldnt be exposed to that stuff. But, she had no where to turn. I think thats why she had a love affair with the media. They were on her side even if what they were reporitng where lies. But she became stronger and had someone until her death.
__________________
  #76  
Old 10-08-2005, 12:00 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
I think thats why she had a love affair with the media. They were on her side even if what they were reporitng where lies.
I guess I'm more cynical Princejohnny. The media was always on its own side, not necessarily Diana's. Her pain sold a lot of papers. But having your pain splashed out and exaggerated in the media is not always the best way to overcome it.

I'm not quite convinced Diana was stronger at her death. I've been close to women with eating disorders and some of her last comments about the bulimia give me the impression that she hadn't really overcome it. I don't think Dodi had her best interests at heart. The al-Fayeds I suspect were using her to get back at the Royal Family for not being granted British citizenship. So she appeared not to have developed the knack for trusting people who had her best interests at heart and that is very sad.

That's not a judgment on Diana, with her family history, I think it was natural that she learned at an early age to form non-healthy relationships and that is very hard to unlearn. One of my friends just learned to develop healthy relationships at 43. I'm sure during the 15 years that she was married, Diana must have come across at least a few people whom she could trust but she probably didn't have the ability to develop these acquaintances into strong relationships.

Camilla, for some reason, was able to develop healthy relationships. She has good relationships with her kids and she was able to develop a mutually beneficial relationship with Charles. I agree with you in one respect; I think a woman has to be strong as an ox to marry into the British royal family and Camilla fits the bill.
__________________
  #77  
Old 10-08-2005, 01:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
The royal couple will have lunch and dinner with President Bush on Nov. 2, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

From Reuters News Agency....
__________________
  #78  
Old 10-08-2005, 01:31 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
I knew that Dodis father was using Diana but I never heard of Dodi doing it. I have always thought that Al-Fayed is over his sons death and really only misses his connection with royalty and fame. I dont know loads about Diana I just use what I know and if i mess up please correct me. The media does look after its self but I think it was a comfort to Diana somewhat. British Tabloids are vicious. I read my first one a couple of weeks ago and I will never again. Were getting off topic. I know about the Nov. 2 dinner, I suppose they would either arrive on the 1st or 2nd. Its so strange how nothing is being posted. Charity works or visit info.
__________________
  #79  
Old 10-08-2005, 02:24 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
I knew that Dodis father was using Diana but I never heard of Dodi doing it.
Dodi may have felt great affection for Diana but he was first and foremost a loyal son to his father who did have some issues with the British Establishment. It doesn't make him bad; I just think that Diana could have done better than to get caught up in a family that had such an obvious axe to grind with the Establishment and the Royal Family.

The lack of information on Charles and Camilla's doings is getting to really annoy me. I think that's why we're going offtopic so much.
__________________
  #80  
Old 10-08-2005, 03:56 PM
una una is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
I suspect some of her media friends goaded her into a public war with Charles because it would sell more papers. It did but it shredded any last remaining hope for their marriage.
I don't think Diana needed much goading. She wanted out of the marriage, but without losing her reputation like her mother had-- she wanted to come out of it looking like a good mother and the injured party in the marriage breakup. The 'bad father' and 'good mother' press stories helped her look like a good mother, and the Diana-Morton book put the blame for the breakup 100% on the other side. She went looking for Morton, he didn't come to her. And it all worked really well. The day after the Morton book was published, Charles asked for a separation, and she came out of it all smelling of roses (with the public, for awhile).
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Camilla current events 11: April 2006-June 2006 Warren Current Events Archive 202 06-26-2006 01:27 AM
Charles and Camilla: Current events 1: Aug - Sept 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 194 09-12-2005 12:46 AM
Royal Family of Thailand: Current Events October 2003 - August 2005 mybags Royal Family of Thailand 192 08-30-2005 10:31 AM
Prince Rainier Current Events 1 : Nov.2002 - Apr.2005 Jacqueline Current Events Archive 428 04-06-2005 10:16 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:35 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]