Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Current Events 9: December 1-16, 2005


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anybody have more articles on Camilla being chosen as The Most Fascinating Person of 2005 by Barbra Walters. I also have a question. Why is there such a big deal being made over Charles and Camilla attending the opening of the Narnia movie. Will she wear a tiara. Is it that type of event. I know she goes to the Opera a week after so she will wear a tiara there. I wonder what Tiaras she will choose.
 
Princejonnhy25 said:
Will she wear a tiara. Is it that type of event. I know she goes to the Opera a week after so she will wear a tiara there. I wonder what Tiaras she will choose.

In general, tiaras are considered to be unnecessary for general evening attire, unless it is a royal or state event. Even the Queen generally avoids wearing one for cultural invitations.
 
I always thought it was proper ettiquette for a Royal or titled person to wear thier orders and a tiara. The Earl and Countess of Wessex did when they went to the opera in Monaco. My question is, is it proper ettiquette to wear a tiara to a movie opening. Do you wear evening and ball gown type dresses. I dont remember any other royal attending grand openings.
 
Princejonnhy25 said:
I always thought it was proper ettiquette for a Royal or titled person to wear thier orders and a tiara. The Earl and Countess of Wessex did when they went to the opera in Monaco. My question is, is it proper ettiquette to wear a tiara to a movie opening. Do you wear evening and ball gown type dresses. I dont remember any other royal attending grand openings.

Sophie wore her tiara in Monaco at the Opera event because it was part of the official festivities for the enthronement of Prince Albert as Sovereign, so it was a state-related event.

The Queen usually wears a nice evening gown with her diamond earrings and necklace to an evening event, but without one of her tiaras. The other royal ladies usually do the same.
 
I always thought it was proper ettiquette for a Royal or titled person to wear thier orders and a tiara.
In the good old days, tiaras were a must for the theatre. Orders and Decorations were seen as flashy if a Royal wasn't present. Sadly, this custom has died out along with many forms of elegance. I think it was the Savoy that used to insist on tiara's in the boxes and if a lady wasn't wearing gloves she could be refused a seat in a box.
 
For the US viewers, The WE channel will be having a royal saturday on December 3. They will show many shows relating to royalty. Some on Princess Di and her dresses, others on the young and sexy royals, other on how to transform us Yanks into royalty. It is topped at 8pm Eastern Time with the US debut of What Ever Love Means. I read this on an article if it is wrong please inform me.
 
I am really glad that the Duchess of Cornwall won the title – she deserved it! Indeed, during all these years she loved and was devoted to one person, HRH Prince Charles. I don’t know many examples when love does not waver for a bit during, what, 35 years?
 
Avalon said:
I am really glad that the Duchess of Cornwall won the title – she deserved it! Indeed, during all these years she loved and was devoted to one person, HRH Prince Charles. I don’t know many examples when love does not waver for a bit during, what, 35 years?

Yes I think it is wonderful as well. Not even many marriages last 35 years nowadays!:)
 
Britain's Prince of Wales and his wife Camilla have chosen this family picture taken at their April wedding for their 2005 Christmas card, royal officials said Thursday.

from polfoto
 

Attachments

  • AP487069_guest.jpg.jpg
    AP487069_guest.jpg.jpg
    53.5 KB · Views: 266
ysbel said:
Oh gosh! Doesn't this quote say it all!

Of course that it does :D But on the other hand - their affair lasted much longer than many marriages.
 
fanletizia said:
Britain's Prince of Wales and his wife Camilla have chosen this family picture taken at their April wedding for their 2005 Christmas card, royal officials said Thursday.

from polfoto

It is such a lovely photo and shows a united, if extended family. I was wondering if Tom and Laura would be included. :)
 
ysbel said:
Oh gosh! Doesn't this quote say it all
she was in love with a guy who wouldn't commit.
Charles clearly, like a lot of men (and women, Warren:) ) wanted to play the field. It is quite sad if you think about it. While he was playing around the woman of his dreams gave up on him, so that he spent a number of years trying and failing to replace her.
I bet with hindsight he could really kick himself!:D
 
I think a few kicks in Mountbatten's direction wouldn't go amiss either.

That picture is very nice for the card, but it isn't very Christmassy. Not a robin or snowflake in sight. Shouldn't be allowed.:D
 
Elspeth said:
I think a few kicks in Mountbatten's direction wouldn't go amiss either.

That picture is very nice for the card, but it isn't very Christmassy. Not a robin or snowflake in sight. Shouldn't be allowed.:D

I couldn't agree with you more about Mountbatten. he completely messed up Charles' ideas of marriage and relationships and deserves some of the blame for the divorce.

He was so arrogant, though, I'm sure if he'd live to see the divorce he'd think it was all Diana's fault.

btw, i agree about the card. a Christmas scene would have been much nicer. but i guess using the wedding photo is a good way to smooth over the issue of who should be on the card.

last year it was Charles with the boys in a sweet informal family photo.

From a PR standpoint it is impossible to have christmas card featuring Charles, Camilla and the 2 boys in some informal shot- looking like they're one big happy family as if Camilla was their mom.

this is a "transition year" for the christmas card. next year both boys will at Sandhurst and basically living their own adult lives, so they wont have to be on it anymore.

i predict the 2006 card will feature only charles and camilla.
 
I have a great amount of respect for Lord Mountbatten. I don't think he was arrogant. I think that Charles should end the House of Windsor which has been plagued by nothing but scandal and sadness and create the House of Mountbatten.
 
BeatrixFan said:
I have a great amount of respect for Lord Mountbatten. I don't think he was arrogant. I think that Charles should end the House of Windsor which has been plagued by nothing but scandal and sadness and create the House of Mountbatten.

but the name was just changed a few decades ago! all that royal house name changing will get a bit wearisome. what if the house of mountbatten becomes scandal plagued and William changes the name again? the poor moderators will spend their every waking hour going through all the threads changing the titles;)

btw, isnt their last name technically windsor mountbatten? is that also technically the name of the house?
 
The surname is Mountbatten-Windsor as of 1960. The House name remains as Windsor. But Charles should have a new start. Charles III of the House of Mountbatten - I like it. But I think they should never have changed it in the first place.
 
BeatrixFan said:
But I think they should never have changed it in the first place.

hmmm...id never really thought about that. the name change is usually considered a beautiful act of solidarity with the british people. you dont agree?
 
Not at all. It was as if George V was obliterating the history of the Empire. A House Name change now wouldn't be so bad. It's not been that long since the last. But it was as if the Royal Family were denying their roots and I didn't like that. It was pandering to the public and there was an air of "we better do as we're told" about it. Besides which, everyone knows what the real house name is anyway. I thought it was a terrible thing to do and George V (who I'm not a fan of) shouldn't have even considered it. I hope Charles will do the opposite and end the disaster that is the House of Windsor.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Not at all. It was as if George V was obliterating the history of the Empire. A House Name change now wouldn't be so bad. It's not been that long since the last. But it was as if the Royal Family were denying their roots and I didn't like that. It was pandering to the public and there was an air of "we better do as we're told" about it. Besides which, everyone knows what the real house name is anyway. I thought it was a terrible thing to do and George V (who I'm not a fan of) shouldn't have even considered it. I hope Charles will do the opposite and end the disaster that is the House of Windsor.

well I think there is something to the idea that something so quintessentially british as the royal family oughtn't have a name like "Saxe-Coburg-Gothe."
 
Lady Marmalade said:
He won't. It will stay the House of Windsor.

I dont think beatrixfan was suggesting that charles would even consider making such a change. he was merely dreaming about what his beloved saxe-coburg-gothes would do in a perfect world.
 
Warren said:
That's a very "female" point of view Ysbel!

Well since I'm a female, I plead guilty!

I think its funny that while the press just exaggerates everything about Charles, Diana, and Camilla, their relationships had normal problems like most people.

The number one complaint of single women around me is a steady boyfriend who's scared of the altar. :D
 
Sara, do you have anything other than a headline in that link? It isn't really all that useful an article as it stands; if you could find a link to the actual article rather than just the headline, it'd be helpful.
 
Elspeth said:
Sara, do you have anything other than a headline in that link? It isn't really all that useful an article as it stands; if you could find a link to the actual article rather than just the headline, it'd be helpful.

i will try find dont worry about that but warren send me private e-mail about that i told him i would find that one!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom