The Duke of Cambridge's 30th Birthday - Documentaries, Articles, etc: June 2012


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
anbrida said:
Your explanation just explains why Charles would have not chosen 9th April, but
does not explain why he chose 8th April. Except for 9th April, there are still bunch of days in April, or he could even choose another month.

I was never explaining why Charles and Camilla chose the 8th. I was explaining why they moved the wedding date a day rather than two or three. I also explained why the 9th was not initially chosen.
The only people who know the reason behind their choice is Charles and Camilla, if there is a reason and it wasn't just an easy day for everyone.

This conversation doesn't explain why you think the solar eclipse link means anything? Does it make William a better man? Is Charles marriage going to last because he chose the 8th. It's amusing.

Also could you answer my other questions? How do you know the royals believe in astrology? How do you know the people in the Vatican specifically chose the 8th for the reason of the eclipse? Have you got insider info?

I think I'll leave this now, it's all just rumours with meaningless coincidence.
 
And exactly how can you prove that date was chosen for the funeral for the specific reason of it coincided with an eclipse? Or is it just another rumour?

I would not say it is a rumor. To me it is a reasonable speculation based on facts. Charles and Camilla's wedding date was already set and well known around the world. But the Catholic Church still went ahead and picked that day.
Wired.
 
I would not say it is a rumor. To me it is a reasonable speculation based on facts. Charles and Camilla's wedding date was already set and well known around the world. But the Catholic Church still went ahead and picked that day.
Wired.

VERY unlikely that the Vatican timed a funeral of a Pope to clash or not clash with a wedding of a royal elsewhere that everyone knew would be low-key anyway. I think we can reasonably surmise that the choice of funeral day was not with any consideration of what was going on elsewhere, on or off the earth. Even if the Sovereign themself were marrying - a funeral is a funeral - the Pope would have been buried regardless - one fervently hopes. :p ;)

I think I can reasonably assert that the Roman Catholic Church does not subscribe to astrology - and would not be planning a funeral with an eye to the auspices of the sky. Its not what that religion is about - in fact, it is counter to all that.

All that said, I do not think anyone consciously chose anything - birth or death, wedding or funeral - with an eye to the sky. However, you need to flip this the other way - according to astrology, certain activities will occur under certain influences. Hence people will be drawn to certain moments. That a solar eclipse 'oversaw' all that activity 'makes sense' within the rationales of astrology. Certain influences would have been augmented - what those influences would have been would be determined by current sun sign in which the event took place, retrogrades, rising signs, etc. In sum - there would have to be a Court Astrologer at Buckingham Palace (as there was in the Imperial Palace of China, your august nation, in its past) to make all the calculations - as well as in the Vatican. Neither institution has such.

Its interesting to look at, however - I'll grant you that. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
anbrida said:
I would not say it is a rumor. To me it is a reasonable speculation based on facts. Charles and Camilla's wedding date was already set and well known around the world. But the Catholic Church still went ahead and picked that day.
Wired.

His funeral was 6 days after he passed. Given the logistics of it all, that's not bad at all. Plus, they had to pepare for the conclave to select the next Pope. I think they had more pressing issues than ensuring the funeral occured during an eclipse. Nothing weird, no conspiracy or anything. Things happen. Better to wait one day for the wedding than 2,3...anyway.
 
Back on topic...

I finally got a chance to sit down and watch the documentary. I don't think I learned anything new about William, but it was a nice compilation of footage of William from infancy to adulthood. It was also nice to hear from the man who was actually rescued by William and his helicopter crew.
 
Thena said:
Back on topic...

I finally got a chance to sit down and watch the documentary. I don't think I learned anything new about William, but it was a nice compilation of footage of William from infancy to adulthood. It was also nice to hear from the man who was actually rescued by William and his helicopter crew.

So was this just a broad, general look at William's life and didn't really focus too much on things, or just highlight certain events in his life?. I must admit his SAR work interests me, so it might be worthwile to watch, even if I have to listen to Katie Nicholl!!
 
I was never explaining why Charles and Camilla chose the 8th. I was explaining why they moved the wedding date a day rather than two or three. I also explained why the 9th was not initially chosen.
The only people who know the reason behind their choice is Charles and Camilla, if there is a reason and it wasn't just an easy day for everyone.

This conversation doesn't explain why you think the solar eclipse link means anything? Does it make William a better man? Is Charles marriage going to last because he chose the 8th. It's amusing.

Also could you answer my other questions? How do you know the royals believe in astrology? How do you know the people in the Vatican specifically chose the 8th for the reason of the eclipse? Have you got insider info?

I think I'll leave this now, it's all just rumours with meaningless coincidence.

Sure everything is speculation. I can ask you the same question -- How do you know they didn't take the solar eclipse into account. Actually, I original argument does not focus on Charles' second wedding. My main topic is the coincidence of the rare phenomenon with Prince William's date of birth, and Princess Diana mentioned that William's birth was induced.

About your challenge of the liability of the Andrew Morton's book. Do we really need to argue about Diana's role in that book nowadays, in 2012? The book's problem is it didn't tell all the truths -- not comprehensive enough, but the things it did tell are quite reliable. It is a not comprehensive, but reliable book, in my opinion.
 
Let's get back on topic....the actual television program.

Any and all additional posts will be deleted without notice.

Thanks!

Zonk
British Forums Moderator
 
Honestly, the program is quite boring. The only dazzling point is Prince William was dreadfully gorgeous when he was around 18, or 19. :bang:
 
someone give Thena a medal for attempting to get this back on topic! Since the wedding I have noticed that no one really has anything new to say about William or his life and I have generally stopped watching any supposed "new" programs about him or Kate.
 
While this seemed to offer NO new info it was kind of nicely put together. I enjoyed it, it is always nice to see the old and the new film and photos.
 
Talking about Prince William's date of birth 06/21/1982, I wonder whether it was deliberately chosen for William to be born on that day, because it was the summer solstice coincident with a solar eclipse. It is a very rare phenomenon.

Considering Prince Charles originally chose his wedding date with Camilla on 04/08/2005, which is also a date of solar eclipse, (although at the end he could not marry on that day because of Pope John Paul II's funeral) it drives me to think that the British Royal Family might have a special crush on solar eclipse.

William was born naturally, not by C-Section, so the date of his birth wasn't really chosen. It's still really cool, though, that he was born on a solar eclipse. I wonder if it is a coincidence, or something more... :mellow:
 
Another point of view is --- the timeline of his retreating hairline. (I am sorry, I am bad;).)
 
Actually, I hope that he can try his best to reduce the time of wearing a hat or a helmet. It is really not good for his hair. Looking at him wearing that almost air-proof helicopter helmet is really worrisome.
 
So was this just a broad, general look at William's life and didn't really focus too much on things, or just highlight certain events in his life?. I must admit his SAR work interests me, so it might be worthwile to watch, even if I have to listen to Katie Nicholl!!

There were some "decent" sources includes to balance out Katie Nichol, including former press secretary Dickie Arbiter and the queen's cousin Lady Elizabeth Anson. I'd say it was a broad look at his life with a focus on how it might shape his future.

Honestly, the program is quite boring. The only dazzling point is Prince William was dreadfully gorgeous when he was around 18, or 19. :bang:

One of the things I took away from that fangirl-pandemonium phase of his life was how uncomfortable it must have been for him. He saw his mother hounded to death by paparazzi to fulfill the public's appetite for Diana. He certainly doesn't want it for himself. I think he's happy to no longer be a pin-up boy.

While this seemed to offer NO new info it was kind of nicely put together. I enjoyed it, it is always nice to see the old and the new film and photos.

My favorite party was seeing two-year-old William playing in his army uniform. :lol:
 
Actually, I hope that he can try his best to reduce the time of wearing a hat or a helmet. It is really not good for his hair. Looking at him wearing that almost air-proof helicopter helmet is really worrisome.

Worrisome it may be, but he needs to stay safe, and wearing a helmet while flying his helicopter or playing polo may very well safe his life, which is worth more than his hair (and I'm sure if he wanted to, he could find a product on the market that would make his hair grow, since heaven knows that there are some avilable).
 
Worrisome it may be, but he needs to stay safe, and wearing a helmet while flying his helicopter or playing polo may very well safe his life, which is worth more than his hair (and I'm sure if he wanted to, he could find a product on the market that would make his hair grow, since heaven knows that there are some avilable).



I doubt the helmet does much harm; baldness is hereditary, so it is inevitable for the Windsors. (Harry will be in the same boat soon enough, I noticed at the wedding that his hair is noticeably thinning.)
 
I noticed Harry's hair too. There was a camera shot of the back of his head at the Thanksgiving service and he's getting quite the bald patch now. I actually thought it was William at first.
 
Oh Harry will lose his hair, no doubt about it, so he better stop ragging on his brother, cause it's coming lol
 
the both boys will lose the hair, sadly.I see william loses his hair like the 8 eral spencer. I don't know whay buy I see that and maybe a bit like edward, a very youbg age.

will be official photos for the birthday???' I think charles was official photos for the 30 birthday and of diana's 30 birthday too, in vouge magazine.
 
But Diana did complain that William was induced to fit in with Charles's polo diary. And Diana had to have a 16-hour labor and almost got into a C-section. For a natural birth, 16-hour labor is quite long.


the induced was a plan but the birth was natural, here is the birth's story related
Exclusive
 
William was born naturally, not by C-Section, so the date of his birth wasn't really chosen. It's still really cool, though, that he was born on a solar eclipse. I wonder if it is a coincidence, or something more... :mellow:
No, Diana said that the date of William's birth was chosen to accomodate Charles' polo schedule. A scheduled induction does not necessarily mean a c-section. Pitocin will bring labor on. I had a scheduled induction myself.
 
I think Diana's labor was induced but there was no c-section. ;)
 
It has been known for decades that she was induced.

Had she had a c-section she wouldn't have been out of hospital within less than 24 hours.
 
I don't know why what Diana says about this is given credence since we know she said these things - so many things - at a time that she was hay-bent on denigrating Charles in any way that she could. Has it been corroborated as true? Has Charles said he required it? Has a doctor agreed that that was why they induced? Wondering....
 
What Diana said does have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Anyway I haven't seen Harry's head in awhile, so far he seems to still have all or most of his hair.
 
may be the induction to into in labaour was planed but the birth was before to the day to the induction was planed. waht you think?
I read too that diana have an epidural, that said in morton's book. because she have high temperature and was a posibility to have a c-section. but william born naturally but the epidural never was confimed, and the miscarriage in 1983 never was confirmed.
 
Wow, those are great pictures Daria, thank you. Its really nice to see how William has grown through the years. Its hard to believe that he is 30. It seems like only yeaterday that he was a young boy and his mom was in the news. I remember seeing him on the tele either skiing or doing something with his mom. Amazing how fast the years go by.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom