Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 3: November 2003-May 2004


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by emsaeva@Jan 29th, 2004 - 6:50 pm
I absolutly cannot stand Paul Burrell! In my opinion, staff should not talk publicly about their employers. He is a golddigger publicity whore. Diana was unstable at the best of times. Charles in no way had a hand in her death. They were closer after their divorce than they were at any time during their marriage. Her death was a tragic accident. Nothing more. I think people want her death to be more than it was, because for someone so mythical in the publics eyes, should not die in such an ordinary way like the rest of us could.

Charles should be able to marry Camilla in a civil ceremony. If there was a plot to kill Diana to pave the way for his marriage to her, than Andrew Parker Bowles would have to die as well. As far as I know, he is still with us. They technically cannot marry in the church until they are both widowed. Yes the public would be outraged, but they will get over it. Diana was hardly the Downy innocent the world thought she was. She committed adultury as well, and with more partners than her husband did. She did not even try to be discreet about it.

I wish HRH the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker Bowles a happy future.


Eva
i disagree!, Eva

Prince Charles and Camilla would not getting married without his mother's permission! til his mother's death! the polls said that! because his mother is Queen of England, Head of state and also Church of England mostly people would upset of famously Princess Diana's death! i would break heart of Diana lots! but Prince Charles would remarried after Divorces from Princess Diana in 1996.

Sara Boyce
 
BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) -- Prince Charles paid a surprise morale-boosting visit to British troops in Iraq on Sunday, and local officials told him their concerns about the future of the country.

Arriving on a Chinook helicopter at a British base that was one of Saddam Hussein's lavish palaces, Charles shook hands with soldiers and officials of the U.S.-led civil administration amid heightened security.

During the nearly six-hour trip, he listened to prominent Iraqi officials discuss a wide list of political and economic problems plaguing postwar Iraq.

At one stage, gunshots rang out from a neighborhood near the base, underscoring Iraq's precarious security situation.

"It's very nice to see him here because he's the future king and he seems like a nice personality to me," Ban al-Durani, an Iraqi woman clad in a black veil, said at the base in the southern port city of Basra.

It was a rare visit by a British royal to the country that won independence from Britain in 1932. Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Basra last month.

News of the prince's visit was embargoed until he left the country.

"It's good to have his support and to boost the morale of the troops," Captain Sandy Stuart, 31, from Dumfries in Scotland, said at the base.

Charles, dressed in a grey suit, met Shi'ite clerics, Christian clergymen, the governor of Basra and a prominent tribal leader in the palace overlooking the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

"I basically talked with him about people's complaints about salaries and how they are demonstrating," said tribal leader Morahim al-Kannan.

"We told him that Iraq must have elections because otherwise there will be no stability. I told him we have no government and we have to have elections," al-Kannan said.

Iraq's majority Shi'ite Muslim community is demanding elections before a planned handover of power by June 30. The United States says elections cannot be held before then.

"We felt that he should know that our worries about the transfer of power in Iraq. There are still lots of problems in the country and that's what we told him," Sheikh Haitham al- Sihlaani, a prominent local cleric, said.

Charles, an advocate of dialogue between religions, chatted with three Iraqi Muslim women in traditional veils in a room at the palace.

"I told the prince that we want to make sure that women have rights in Iraq and I asked him for his support," one of the women, Gheida Adbul-Razzaq, said.
 
Bravo to Charles. I can't wait to see the photos from Bam.
 
BBC

Prince Charles has seen at first hand the devastation caused in the earthquake-hit city of Bam in Iran.

Charles toured the city, meeting survivors of the earthquake that killed an estimated 42,000 people and injured more than 30,000 on 26 December.

He was the first British royal to visit Iran since the 1970s.

The Prince of Wales has now flown to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, but earlier gave his condolences to the Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in Tehran.

Their meeting was "warm and cordial", according to one of his aides.

My people in Britain are very concerned and they're praying for the Iranian people
Prince Charles

The two men discussed the prince's visit the previous day to neighbouring Iraq.

The president spoke of "the need for a free election [in Iraq] under UN supervision".

But Clarence House insisted the purpose of Charles' trip was humanitarian.

Andrew Dunn, of the British Embassy in Tehran, said before the visit: "Prince Charles is patron of the British Red Cross and he is coming in that role."

Arriving in Bam, Charles toured the rubbish-lined streets, watched by local people from the tents where they have lived since the earthquake demolished their homes.

He said: "My people in Britain are very concerned and they're praying for the Iranian people."

Charles also visited a date orchard and met farmers trying to rebuild the ancient underground irrigation structures, the Qanat.

His visit to Saudi Arabia comes as relations with the UK are starting to improve.

They had gone through a rocky period after a number of Britons were imprisoned over allegations of making explosions, and the kingdom was criticised for its lack of action over Islamist militants.

Charles knows the Saudi ruling family well and is considered ideal for the role of helping to build on warming relations.

Iranian Red Crescent International Affairs director Mostapha Mohaghegh said 200,000 people would need help in the earthquake's aftermath in the years to come.

During the earlier visit to Iraq on Sunday - the first by a British royal since the nation was created in 1919 - Prince Charles met troops working to restore stability in the aftermath of the war.

He also met Paul Bremer, the US top administrator in Iraq."


And an article on the possible wider implications of the trip from the BBC:

" The visit by Prince Charles to Iran - the first by a member of the British Royal Family to the 25-year-old Islamic republic - has political implications whatever the protestations of diplomats.

All official visits abroad by the Royal Family are cleared and many are proposed by the Foreign Office.

The detailed and often delicate negotiations about them are usually revealed in files which are released by the National Archives after 30 years.

This visit will have been through the same process.

So one can discount the dutiful comment of a British diplomat in Tehran who said: "Prince Charles is patron of the British Red Cross and he is coming in that role. It's a completely non-political visit."

In this case, it is true that Prince Charles's interest in Islamic history and architecture has proved the incentive for a visit to the destroyed ancient city of Bam, which was hit by an earthquake in December.

It is also true that the Prince of Wales is unlikely to have got into political discussions with Iranian President Mohammad Khatami on whom he called on Monday.

But too much has been going on on the diplomatic front recently for this visit to be wholly "non-political".

It has important symbolism at the very least and it is also a signal of a desire by the British government to continue to engage in what the diplomats call "constructive dialogue".

Good cop, bad cop

The broad picture is that Britain is part of a Western effort to bring about change in Iran.

The British government is in a European troika with the French and Germans playing the "good cops", compared to the more critical approach of the Americans, cast as the "bad cops".

Dr Haleh Avshar, professor of Middle Eastern Studies at York University, placed the visit in this context.

She told the BBC: "I think that the Iranians will welcome such a visit. The important thing for the Iranians is that Britain and Europe are really sending a hand of protection against the kind of labels which America was placing on Iran."

The most recent focus has been Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran was discovered to have been secretly developing a centrifuge for the enrichment of uranium and has now signed an agreement with the UN nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to allow for stricter inspections.

It has also said it is suspending the enrichment procedure for the moment.

As part of the negotiations leading to this agreement, the British, French and German foreign ministers went to Tehran and promised that Europe would supply Iran with the technology needed and, if necessary, the fuel required, to drive Iran's civil power station.

Iran had argued that it could not rely on outside suppliers and that was why it wanted to develop its own fuel enrichment capability.

It may of course continue to do this, which is why the issue remains quite tense.

The United States is suspicious of Iranian intentions and Israel is alarmed.

Political reform

This visit therefore can be seen as a goodwill gesture by the British government, a symbol that Britain is mindful of its new relationship with Iran and wants to build confidence in it.

There is also the question of internal political reform, which is much harder for outsiders to influence.

Currently the parliamentary elections on 20 February are overshadowed by the refusal of the country's religious overseers, the Council of Guardians, to approve some liberal candidates.

Here again the European idea is to get friendly and try to encourage change while the United States emphasizes the remaining problems and offers a dialogue rather than diplomatic relations.

Prince Charles' fascination with Islamic and other ancient history was made use of by the Foreign Office in 1996 when it sent him on a visit to Central Asia and the new countries which broke away from the old Soviet Union - Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

The prince was never quite at ease on this journey, took his own cook, insisted that his hotel windows open and managed to go nine days without once speaking to the small press party with him.

But he went about the political business of meeting the new leaders.

This included a bizarre visit to the pink desert palace of Turkmen President Niyazov, who showed the prince his prize racehorses and his maidens serving mint tea.

He had his reward in visiting the wonders of the Silk Route and indeed he only seemed to come to life when he was tramping over the ruins of the lost city of Merv and gazing at the wonders of Samarkand. "


It's not often I can say that I envy the Prince of Wales but I do until I can make my own trip to Samarkand.
 
Getty

Arriving at Tehran

In Car

Chatting

The Prince of Wales and the British Ambassador Mr Sherard Cowper-Coles (left), listen to a business leaders forum at the Ambassador's residence on the outskirts of the capital Riyadh, 10 February 10, 2004. Charles landed in Riyadh yesterday evening, following historic trips to Iraq and Iran.

http://delivery.gettyimages.com/comp/29590...E3277057872A3C3

HRH the Prince of Wales talks to Iain Logan. head of operations at the International Red Cross, as they tour a field hospital on February 9, 2004 in Bam, Iran.

http://delivery.gettyimages.com/comp/29548...757C85AE85A779B
 
Now that would be interesting.
 
I think it's unfair to Charles that people all over dislike him because of the whole Diana/Charles media debacle. It was ages ago, and Diana did just as many wrongs as Charles, yet people hold her up on this pedastel as though she is some sort of saint.

Yes cheating was wrong, Charles and Camilla are both very aware of that, I'm sure...but why don't we look into the many affairs Diana participated in.

Charles was painted as an uncaring, unloving father to his two boys...I think he has proved numerous times just how important his boys are to him, and how much he loves them.

Charles is just as interested in helping the less fortunate and sick, but unlike Diana, he jsut simply doesn't have the option of being pictured in areas where there are known land mines...he acts as patron for so many different charaties and groups his head must spin when he thinks of it all.

Charles will make a fabulous King of England when his time comes, and putting him down, degrading him, and hating him won't change that fact...people need to learn to leave the past in the past and move on. Especially when that past is rather biased, and swayed by one party.
 
Originally posted by Britters@Feb 12th, 2004 - 11:57 am
I think it's unfair to Charles that people all over dislike him because of the whole Diana/Charles media debacle. It was ages ago, and Diana did just as many wrongs as Charles, yet people hold her up on this pedastel as though she is some sort of saint.

Yes cheating was wrong, Charles and Camilla are both very aware of that, I'm sure...but why don't we look into the many affairs Diana participated in.

Charles was painted as an uncaring, unloving father to his two boys...I think he has proved numerous times just how important his boys are to him, and how much he loves them.

Charles is just as interested in helping the less fortunate and sick, but unlike Diana, he jsut simply doesn't have the option of being pictured in areas where there are known land mines...he acts as patron for so many different charaties and groups his head must spin when he thinks of it all.

Charles will make a fabulous King of England when his time comes, and putting him down, degrading him, and hating him won't change that fact...people need to learn to leave the past in the past and move on. Especially when that past is rather biased, and swayed by one party.
I totally and absolutely agree! (Though I have a slightly more radical view of diana ;) )
 
Yes, I would say so.
 
Not sure of the source. I got it from a Yahoo group:


PRINCE Charles and other royals will be forced to have ID cards when
they become compulsory, David Blunkett announced yesterday.

But a clause in Mr Blunkett's draft legislation ensures the Queen
will NOT need a card - just as she does not have a passport or
driving licence.

The other royals will be fingerprinted and have either their iris
image or facial features mapped and put on a chip just like their
subjects.

And under the Home Secretary's proposals, members of the Royal
Family will also risk a £2,500 FINE if they refuse to register.

A Home Office source said: "The Queen will be exempt but the rest of
the Royal Family are not."

Mr Blunkett yesterday unveiled a draft law aimed at making ID cards
compulsory within ten years, by 2014.

Brits will not need to carry their cards at all times but will have
to be able to produce them if requested.

Police stations will be equipped with machines to check the so-
called biometrics - fingerprints, iris image and a digital "map" of
the face - of suspects against a national database of 60million
Brits.

Celebrities such as TV star Cilla Black - real name Priscilla White -
may also have to register their stage names on the identity
database.

The cards will be used to tackle terrorism, illegal immigration,
benefit cheats, NHS tourists and serious crime.

Mr Blunkett said: "We are taking action now to prepare the UK for
the challenges of the 21st Century. In an increasingly
technologically complex and global world, correct identification has
become critically important."

Cabinet colleagues including Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have
raised concerns about the widespread use of ID cards to access
public services.

But the Home Secretary has agreed with Health Secretary John Reid
that a card will be necessary to register with a GP or get hospital
care.

Business chiefs also supported Mr Blunkett's proposals.

CBI boss John Cridland said: "Identity cards could help reduce
illegal working by enabling UK employers to verify the
identification of would-be employees more swiftly and with greater
certainty."

Everyone over 16 will need to have a card with teenagers getting
their first free.

Pensioners and low-income groups could also get concessions.

Chancellor Gordon Brown is wary of the costs of the massive scheme.

But Mr Blunkett argued that combining biometric ID cards with
passports and driving licences will only add £4 to the respective
£73 and £69 costs of each document.

An ID card on its own would cost £35.

ID cards will make it easier to keep tabs on fanatics such as
supporters of extremist Abu Hamza, who is currently fighting a
deportation battle.

The draft Identity Cards Bill will be introduced to Parliament this
autumn.

The first voluntary cards with fingerprints and iris images or
facial maps could be introduced by 2007.
 
Ms. Parker-Bowles has lung cancer:
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/cindy.htm

April 30, 2004 -- ON MARCH 30, I reported Camilla Parker Bowles is not well. Said news - neither sought nor especially wanted - was handed to me unsolicited. It being my job to report, I therefore printed this, carefully placing what had been learned in the context of rumor, since there appeared no way to confirm it. Scratching after information dealing with illness is not something which affords pleasure.
When Jackie Onassis was handed her terminal diagnosis, it was I who broke the story. I wrestled with what I knew to be an absolute fact, even withholding it temporarily because a) it was not pretty, B) it was clearly being kept secret, c) it is unattractive to intrude on anguish. This was ultimately shared with my editors when we realized it could not be kept under wraps. With someone so focal, news cannot be permanently withheld. It becomes public momentarily.

So, now, an update. Medical circles in London confirmed the diagnosis. Camilla, a longtime smoker, appears to be battling cancer.
 
if must truth the news!

I got news from what i found out!

http://www.sky.com - see Camilla Parker-Bowles
http://www.femail.co.uk - see Camilla Parker-Bowles if you can click its so easy! see news!

we have more add one soon!

Sara Boyce
 
Originally posted by Bubbette@Apr 30th, 2004 - 9:37 am
Ms. Parker-Bowles has lung cancer:
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/cindy.htm

April 30, 2004 -- ON MARCH 30, I reported Camilla Parker Bowles is not well. Said news - neither sought nor especially wanted - was handed to me unsolicited. It being my job to report, I therefore printed this, carefully placing what had been learned in the context of rumor, since there appeared no way to confirm it. Scratching after information dealing with illness is not something which affords pleasure.
When Jackie Onassis was handed her terminal diagnosis, it was I who broke the story. I wrestled with what I knew to be an absolute fact, even withholding it temporarily because a) it was not pretty, B) it was clearly being kept secret, c) it is unattractive to intrude on anguish. This was ultimately shared with my editors when we realized it could not be kept under wraps. With someone so focal, news cannot be permanently withheld. It becomes public momentarily.

So, now, an update. Medical circles in London confirmed the diagnosis. Camilla, a longtime smoker, appears to be battling cancer.
It migth be hard for som to read.
But i think that it is her one fault if she has that kinde of disease.
She has been smoking for many years,so i have no sympathy her or for that matter my one queen her in Denmark.
 
Prince Charles talks to fishing boat skippers over a cup of tea while onboard the Margaret of Ladram in Plymouth harbour during his visit to the Invest In Fish South West project. April 30, 2004

1

2


Prince Charles speaking during his visit to the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth, where he met stakeholders involved in the Invest In Fish South West project.

3


Prince Charles talks to fishing boat skipper Anthony Shine, of the Margaret of Ladram, in Plymouth harbour, during his visit to the Invest In Fish South West project.

4
 
Prince Charles, president of the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, visits a regeneration project in Essex to show his support. Supported by the Prince's Regeneration Through Heritage Initiative, Mistley Maltings, which has been left empty for years, has been redeveloped for community use. He is given a builder's hard hat for protection.

April 27, 2004 Mistley, Essex,

From Corbis:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14
 
Originally posted by Bubbette@May 5th, 2004 - 11:37 am
"FRIDAY I reported I'd been told, more than once, that longtime heavy smoker Camilla Parker Bowles was fighting cancer. Mrs. Parker Bowles has since asked me to say it's "untrue." Her genteel request was ladylike. Very polite. I therefore accede to whatever Camilla Parker Bowles wishes said" From Cindy Adams, who is rarely wrong. http://www.nypost.com/seven/05032004/gossip/cindy.htm
Typical gutter press reporting!

The fact that this woman reported on the last days of her FREIND, the Shah of Iran and reported details of Jackie Kennedy Onassis's fatal condition (which I understand the Kennedys wished to keep private) makes her nothing more than a Hyena feasting on the misery of others.

I wouldn't even clean up after my dog with the garbage she produces!
 
Garbage? Are you saying that what Cindy Adams writes is not true? I disagree.
 
Whether it's true or not really makes no difference. If it is, my heart certainly goes out to Camilla. I don't approve of much of what she has done, but I hope that, if she is ill with cancer, she will undergo a speedy recovery and move on with a happy life. PS: Cindy Adams is one of the most accurate gossip writers out there. About 90% of what she has said in the past, at least by my estimate, has been correct.
 
The Prince of Wales greets Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski in a driving rain after a wreath laying ceremony at the Polish War Memorial at Northolt in London 05 May, 2004. Kwasniewski is on a two-day State Visit to Britain.
Prince Charles

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski ® is greeted by the Prince of Wales in a driving rain after a wreath laying ceremony at the Polish War Memorial at Northolt in London
Prince Charles 2
 
Originally posted by grecka@May 5th, 2004 - 12:39 pm
Whether it's true or not really makes no difference.

PS: Cindy Adams is one of the most accurate gossip writers out there. About 90% of what she has said in the past, at least by my estimate, has been correct.
You said it! This woman is doing nothing more than trading on other peoples misery and misfortune. I doubt that truth is even a word in her vocabulary.

If she has been so accurate it has only been that she has used her freindships and contacts to feed on the misery and misfortune of others.

In my opinion, Fleas have more sincerity than this scandal monger.
 
Why do you say that? What has she ever printed is not true, or not general knowledge in certain circles? Please let us know what you have against her.
 
Originally posted by Bubbette@May 6th, 2004 - 11:03 am
Why do you say that? What has she ever printed is not true, or not general knowledge in certain circles? Please let us know what you have against her.
Fortunately, here in Australia we don't have to put up with this woman and we have few of her kind.

I simply hate people who trade on the misery of others. :sick: :sick: :sick:
 
Hate to ruin your finger pointing session, but her kind are made possible by no less than Rupert Murdoch himself, owner of the New York Post who started out in your part of the world. But then it seems you veer towards these generalizations about Americans versus Australians in other threads as well. You might not like what Cindy Adams has to say because of who she has to say it about on this occasion, but the fact is she's accurate most of the time once she decides to say it in print. There's been far sadder things that she's reported on in the course of her career and people didn't get their knickers in a twist over the messenger just because they didn't like the message.
 
I had no idea who owns the papers she writes for and I made no mention of her being American!

I don't care who she is saying it about. I would be equally appalled if it was Mrs Bush or any other PRIVATE citizen of any country.
 
I still don't understand what you mean by trading on the misery of a private person. Camilla is not a private person, by dint of her relationship with a public person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom