Camilla & Charles: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[milla Ca]

The internet gives us the great possiblitity to read the press in many different countries. And if many newspapers/ tabloids/ magazines write in only one month about the same subject, using the same phrases and words then it seems to be that they all copy articles who mentioned this topic first.

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I doubt that certain respected news papers and magazines would denigrate themselves by repeating stories by Daily Mail. It might be presumed that there are some issues, but all married couples have got their good and bad moments. At the same time, it is quite possible that Daily Mail is correct in its assumptions about the marriage in question.

No the sources of those articles are mainly the Daily Mail. At least for English speaking countries such as Australia and NZ.The Womens' weekly will directly use the originial article just like the one I saw weeks ago.

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by wbenson

There was also a service of thanksgiving for the Order of the Garter a few days ago. Somehow I doubt, however, that Charles' and Camilla's absence was due to a petty feud between the Queen and Camilla.

are you serious about this? What makes you think so? I am wondering. Because I always think the biggest feud in BRF is btween Prince Charles and Prince Philips.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I doubt that certain respected news papers and magazines would denigrate themselves by repeating stories by Daily Mail..

The NZ Womens Weekly respectable . . . . ? Not denigrate itself . . . ? Oh how I wish.

All those rags mentioned running this particular "story" are tabloids or their international counterparts.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by love_cc

. . . . . Because I always think the biggest feud in BRF is btween Prince Charles and Prince Philips.

Huh? Did I miss something major?

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by BellaFay

I would have thought that the Queen would be delighted if they divorced as she hasn't supported the marriage from day one.

That is interesting--I was unaware that the Queen was unsupportive of her son's marriage to someone who makes him happy and comfortable with who he is. In fact, the fact that the Queen allows Camilla to wear her mother's jewels makes a fairly big statement, don't you think? It isn't as if Camilla is only wearing a sentimental piece or two--we have seen, among other things, two substantial emerald brooches which belonged to Queen Alexandra, the Delhi Durbar tiara which was in essence a coronation crown for Queen Mary while in India, and her mother's favorite tiara-the Boucheron honeycomb. In addition to all of those visible tokens which HM has allowed Camilla to wear, there is also the matter of the five strand greville necklace, a riviere of huge diamonds given to QEQM by her husband, King George VI, and let's not forget the token of love and promise--the engagment ring--a lovely trio of emerald cut diamonds--another piece belonging to the QUeen's mother.
If HM really didn't support the marriage, Camilla would not be wearing such sentimental and historic pieces. I know if I didn't like my daugher-in-law she would never get any of my mother's jewelry.

[LadyCat]

Very well stated and ever so true. It is very obvious the Queen is doing all she can to ensure Camilla's acceptance by her is known.

Cat

[scooter]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

That is interesting--I was unaware that the Queen was unsupportive of her son's marriage to someone who makes him happy and comfortable with who he is. In fact, the fact that the Queen allows Camilla to wear her mother's jewels makes a fairly big statement, don't you think? It isn't as if Camilla is only wearing a sentimental piece or two--we have seen, among other things, two substantial emerald brooches which belonged to Queen Alexandra, the Delhi Durbar tiara which was in essence a coronation crown for Queen Mary while in India, and her mother's favorite tiara-the Boucheron honeycomb. In addition to all of those visible tokens which HM has allowed Camilla to wear, there is also the matter of the five strand greville necklace, a riviere of huge diamonds given to QEQM by her husband, King George VI, and let's not forget the token of love and promise--the engagment ring--a lovely trio of emerald cut diamonds--another piece belonging to the QUeen's mother.
If HM really didn't support the marriage, Camilla would not be wearing such sentimental and historic pieces. I know if I didn't like my daugher-in-law she would never get any of my mother's jewelry.

I am under the impression that Charles inherited from his grandmother QEQM the jewels that Camilla now enjoys. Is this not true? Do they instead come from QEII?

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by scooter

I am under the impression that Charles inherited from his grandmother QEQM the jewels that Camilla now enjoys. Is this not true? Do they instead come from QEII?

Hi Scooter Actually, Charles did not inherit his grandmother's jewels; the jewels were inherited by Queen Elizabeth II in a Sovereign to Sovereign transfer that is able to avoid huge death duties on the value of the estate. I believe everything was transferred to the Queen. Tax loophole will save Queen £20m on her mother's will | UK news | The Guardian
That is why it is so meaningful that Camilla is wearing all of these pieces. To me, the most meaningful pieces are Queen Alexandra's emerald pieces (cabochon drop earrings, leek brooch, PoW feather brooch with drop) and the Delhi Durbar tiara. Those are historic. The riviere Camilla wore for her 60th birthday was a sentimental piece that the Queen Mother received from her husband:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...11_468x527.jpg

Here' the engagement ring: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...11/ncam111.jpg

Emerald leek brooch http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/391864-post8.html gift to Queen Alexandra

This link takes you to a pic of the emerald drop earrings (Queen Alexandra) and an emerald brooch which was a particular favorite of QEQM:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/397076-post28.html


I could go on and on, but just check out the six or seven threads for the Duchess of Cornwall's jewels; we discuss these pieces extensively over there!

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by scooter

I am under the impression that Charles inherited from his grandmother QEQM the jewels that Camilla now enjoys. Is this not true? Do they instead come from QEII?

Charles didn't inherit anything from his grandmother. Even the Castle of Mey which was the only home she actually owned was put into a Trust and Charles is head of that Trust. All the QM jewels went to her daughter the Queen, Camilla wears the QM's jewels because the Queen lends them to her, this is actually information released. The diamond riviere that Camilla wore on her 60th birthday, the picture and then press release stated that it had belonged to the QM and QEII was loaning it to her daughter-in-law.

Andrew didn't inherit the Royal Lodge from his grandmother either, something else that's often stated incorrectly. QM never owned the Royal Lodge it's part of the Crown Estate, the lease was transferred to Andrew after his grandmother's death.

[Elspeth]

I've just removed an off-topic conversation. Just a reminder that if you really need to spend your time at TRF chatting about political issues that have nothing to do with royalty, we have the chat room available.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

CaliforniaDreamin, did the PdeV article give any sources for this story that looked reasonable? Or was it the usual "sources close to..." stuff?

Hi Elspeth!

They allegedly interviewed the servants...or people that know the servants! The only photos they posted was the famous one from the early 70's that show a young Charles and Camilla standing in front of a tree staring into one another's eyes.

The second photo...the "proof" of trouble photo was taken a couple of weeks ago on the couple's third wedding anniversary. They are together at some public engagement. Neither is smiling and they are standing next to one another but looking in opposite directions.

So there you have it!

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by BellaFay

I would have thought that the Queen would be delighted if they divorced as she hasn't supported the marriage from day one. Over the last week the christening of Prince Edward's son at Windsor was scheduled for the one weekend that Charles & Camilla couldn't attend as they had engagements in Scotland. Neither do they seem to have been ivited to the Order of the Garter ceremony on April 23rd (although all the rest of the Queen's children were there) despite the fact that both Charles & Camilla were at engagements in nearby London. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rumours about the couple's marriage being promoted around the world were not the handiwork of the Queen's staff.

I don't think HM The Queen would be "delighted" at the thought of her eldest son and heir being a double divorcee.....when one remembers the anguish and chaos caused by the Prince of Wales first divorce, no one who supports the monarchy could ever want such a thing, even if they didn't want Charles and Camilla to marry.

A second divorce would effectively end all chances Charles has of one day becoming King.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

They allegedly interviewed the servants...or people that know the servants!

The same drivel the D Mail came up with, with unnamed royal aides, unnamed close friends. They obviously reprinted the D Mail article, IMO.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

A second divorce would effectively end all chances Charles has of one day becoming King.

The only thing that will end his chance of becoming King, is his death.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

A second divorce would effectively end all chances Charles has of one day becoming King.

I highly doubt that that will EVER come to pass. We're talking about a couple here who pretty much completes each other and each other sentences.

[BellaFay]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

That is interesting--I was unaware that the Queen was unsupportive of her son's marriage to someone who makes him happy and comfortable with who he is. In fact, the fact that the Queen allows Camilla to wear her mother's jewels makes a fairly big statement, don't you think? It isn't as if Camilla is only wearing a sentimental piece or two--we have seen, among other things, two substantial emerald brooches which belonged to Queen Alexandra, the Delhi Durbar tiara which was in essence a coronation crown for Queen Mary while in India, and her mother's favorite tiara-the Boucheron honeycomb. In addition to all of those visible tokens which HM has allowed Camilla to wear, there is also the matter of the five strand greville necklace, a riviere of huge diamonds given to QEQM by her husband, King George VI, and let's not forget the token of love and promise--the engagment ring--a lovely trio of emerald cut diamonds--another piece belonging to the QUeen's mother.
If HM really didn't support the marriage, Camilla would not be wearing such sentimental and historic pieces. I know if I didn't like my daugher-in-law she would never get any of my mother's jewelry.

I was under the impression that the Greville necklace and ring were given directly to the then Queen (later the Queen Mother) by the Hon. Lady Greville in 1942 and that the KIng was so horrified at the extravagnt gift that he forbad his wife from wearing it in public. This is why the Queen Mother didn't wear the 5 strand necklace until the state visit of President De Gaulle in 1960, when her husband was long dead. I know from the Queen Mother's attitude to her picture collection that she was very protective of those works that had been given to her directly rather than to her husband & she regarded them as her personal property not part of the Royal Collection. So presumably Camilla was given the Greville ring as her engagement ring by Prince Charles because it was known that the Queen Mother wanted that. But we won't know what the Queen Mother's will actually said until William Shawcross's official biography of the Queen Mother is actually published. According to the publishers' website it was due to be published by Penguin books in October 2007, but never appeared. When I emailed Penguin in March 2008 to ask them why it hadn't appeared they told me that they were not publishing it but Macmillans were. But Macmillans website made no mention of them publishing any biography of the Queen Mother.