 |
|
11-06-2004, 03:41 PM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
|
|
|
Sara, Prince Charles didn't attend Princess Alice's funeral.
__________________
|
11-06-2004, 04:55 PM
|
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,332
|
|
|
WARMINSTER, UNITED KINGDOM: The Prince of Wales, Colonel-in-Chief of the Highland Regiment speaks to the wives and children of the Black Watch soldiers who are serving in Iraq, during his visit to Battlesbury Barracks in Warminster, Wiltshire, 06 November, 2004. Families at the camp were likely to be in a state of anxiety following the deaths of Sergeant Stuart Gray, 31, and Privates Paul Lowe, 19, and Scott McArdle, 22, all from Fife, in an incident at a checkpoint on Thursday.
__________________
|
11-06-2004, 04:57 PM
|
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,332
|
|
According to Getty Images, he did attend.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Sara, Prince Charles didn't attend Princess Alice's funeral.
|
|
11-06-2004, 05:29 PM
|
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,332
|
|
|
Polfoto 06-11-2004 Britain's Prince Charles,Colonel-in-Chief of the Highland Regiment, speaks to wives and children of the Black Watch soldiers who are serving in Iraq, during his visit to Battlesbury Barracks in Warminster, England, Saturday Nov. 6, 2004. The regiment suffered three fatal casualties in a suicide bomb attack in Iraq on Nov. 4.
|
11-07-2004, 12:41 AM
|
|
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sharon_rose
|
Charles, Charles, Charles. I guess he really does want to be Camilla's tampon! I can't believe he threw such a hissy fit over such a non-issue. Didn't anyone ever teach him to pick his battles? So he sits next to his sons or with the bride's family for a few hours and Camilla sits a few rows back staring at the back of his head; would that really be the end of the world for them? If he can't be seperated from her for the duration of a religious ceremony than he has much bigger problems and issues than anyone ever thought.
|
11-07-2004, 01:47 AM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,302
|
|
|
I completely agree..He needs to get over it, Camilla has probably stopped menstruating for a while.
|
11-07-2004, 01:47 AM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lyonnaise
According to Getty Images, he did attend.
|
Ah, OK, so was it William and Harry who didn't go? I thought I read somewhere that at least some of the Wales family had sent messages rather than attending.
|
11-07-2004, 01:48 AM
|
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,302
|
|
|
William and Harry attended, but their father opted not to perhabs because it would be humiliating to his mistress.
|
11-07-2004, 06:05 AM
|
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 414
|
|
|
The menstruating thing- I just thought it would be wise to consider Camilla is extremely old and probably dry as a well by now. Meaning no periods, just her own natural catiness.
__________________
The English take the breeding of their horses and dogs more seriously than they do their children- HRH Princess Michael of Kent
|
11-07-2004, 07:34 AM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,548
|
|
|
Personally I think the families involved were rather two-faced. Both are friends of Charles &, if I read correctly, Camilla & Charles have been welcomed into their homes as a couple. Personally, I'm glad to see Charles showing a bit of backbone & standing by Camilla.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
|
11-07-2004, 08:07 AM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,975
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wymanda
Personally I think the families involved were rather two-faced. Both are friends of Charles &, if I read correctly, Camilla & Charles have been welcomed into their homes as a couple. Personally, I'm glad to see Charles showing a bit of backbone & standing by Camilla.
|
Not that I am a Camilla and Charles fan, but it is well-known and has been accepted that they are a couple. Let them be a normal couple. The wedding was not a state event. If I recall Prince Felipe did not attend festivities last year because Letizia was not accepted by his family. I think it is a good statement for Charles to make.
|
11-07-2004, 11:26 AM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 3,212
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ennyllorac
Not that I am a Camilla and Charles fan, but it is well-known and has been accepted that they are a couple. Let them be a normal couple. The wedding was not a state event. If I recall Prince Felipe did not attend festivities last year because Letizia was not accepted by his family. I think it is a good statement for Charles to make.
|
Interesting point ennyllorac. I hadn't thought of things from that perspective.
I think the Charles non-attendance/Camilla non-attendance issue is much more complicated than I initially thought. I read somewhere else that while Charles and Camilla were both friends of the wedding couple's family, Camilla had apparently had a falling out with the parents of the bride/groom (not sure which one now) and perhaps the family was trying to snub Camilla in some way. (Not very adult of anyone.)
Also, with the Queen in attendance, certain protocols had to take place and be followed. And as long as Camilla is an unofficial part of Charles' life, she cannot sit next to him in the Queen's presence.
I do agree with whomever else said that Charles needs to pick his battles. In terms of his relationship with Camilla, there are more important issues to take a stand for than whether Camilla can sit next to him for an hour and a half. The situation with Felipe and Letizia was slightly different in that the King did have a choice in granting approval for Felipe and Letizia's relationship; Queen Elizabeth, as long as she is also the head of the Church of England, cannot condone Charles' relationship with a divorced woman, even if she condones it as a mother.
Ultimately the sad thing for me is that Charles made a big stink about a silly situation and stole the limelight away from the bride and groom on what should've been their day. It was not Charles and Camilla's day or Charles' day to prove something to his mom, their family, the world.
|
11-07-2004, 11:34 AM
|
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,975
|
|
|
I also see your point Alexandra and I agree with what you say, but maybe it is time for the Church of England to start to get a little more with the times. It is very sad that because she is divorced, he cannot marry her. For goodness sake their church was formed because their king couldn't get divorced in the Catholic Church.
And this is coming from a person that really was a Diana fan.
|
11-08-2004, 02:33 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 2,742
|
|
|
BRITAIN-CHARLES-HEALTH CARE LON003
Prince Charles (R) speaks with Camilla Parker-Bowles and Michael Dooley, head of the Integrated Health Care centre in Poundbury, in Dorchester, Dorset, on 08 November 2004. The Prince of Wales opened the clinic which offers both homeopathic remedies, along side more conventional methods of health care. AFP PHOTO/CHRIS YOUNG/WPA POOL
__________________
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."--P&P
|
11-08-2004, 04:57 PM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
|
|
Quote:
|
I also see your point Alexandra and I agree with what you say, but maybe it is time for the Church of England to start to get a little more with the times. It is very sad that because she is divorced, he cannot marry her.
|
It is getting more with the times, in that it's finally coming round to realising that some marriages don't work and it's more destructive to put obstacles in the way of divorce and remarriage in those cases than to acknowledge the failure and let the individuals be free to remarry others.
However, the church is understandably reluctant to get into the situation where the clergy are marrying people "till death us do part" for the third of fourth time because they got bored with their previous spouses or preferred to walk away from a difficult patch in their marriage rather than work at it and get through it. If divorce is made too easy, there's a danger of devaluing marriage because it'll be seen as just another of those things you can try for a while and then give up on if it stops being completely wonderful.
One of the sticking points in the church's new approach to divorce is to not permit (or at least to very strongly discourage) remarriage of a divorced person to a person who was involved in the breakup of the marriage. In Prince Charles's case, a good case could be made that that's exactly what he'd be doing, even though that isn't the only factor. It'd be bad for the royal family and the church if it appeared that an exception were being made to let Charles do something that the rest of the population couldn't do, especially since Charles is in the position of being the next head of the church. Because of that, he has to be held to higher standards than the rest of us. It's one of the responsibilities that comes with all the privileges of his position.
|
11-08-2004, 05:01 PM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
|
|
Quote:
|
The menstruating thing- I just thought it would be wise to consider Camilla is extremely old and probably dry as a well by now. Meaning no periods, just her own natural catiness.
|
Extremely old??? She's in her mid-fifties. Princess Alice was extremely old; Camilla is middle-aged.
|
11-08-2004, 06:51 PM
|
|
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 152
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Extremely old??? She's in her mid-fifties. Princess Alice was extremely old; Camilla is middle-aged.
|
According to who? I just saw her son's picture. Not really attractive, in that hey, I prefer william. I wonder their son would look alike if C&C were to married earlier.
|
11-08-2004, 06:57 PM
|
|
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 152
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wymanda
Not to be nasty but the gullible will believe anything! Why hide a child away? Camilla was married at the time and the child could have been passed off as her husbands.
|
The question is would her husband want it? Not that I believe this rumor, abortion was available at the time, wasn't there, if she had a preg?
|
11-08-2004, 07:07 PM
|
|
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 152
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bubbette
Hell? Having tons of servants, clothes, travel and a mistress he loves? IF that's hell, sign me up!
|
Me 2. At most, he just misses one of his heart's desires.
|
11-08-2004, 08:35 PM
|
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,548
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lori
The question is would her husband want it? Not that I believe this rumor, abortion was available at the time, wasn't there, if she had a preg?
|
APB was of the school that having your wife bonking the PoW was a privelage! Accepting the PoW's daughter as your's would have been an easy step and a hold to keep Cammi in line! :p
__________________
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
