 |
|

02-02-2015, 10:24 PM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,984
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS
By the time they are living in BP, Camilla's grandchildren, probably will not be racing up and down halls.
|
Let's hope so
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________
|

02-02-2015, 10:42 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,211
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS
By the time they are living in BP, Camilla's grandchildren, probably will not be racing up and down halls.
|
It is very possible that one of Camilla's granddaughters has already had the joy of running in BP's halls (maybe even with a playmate called Harry). As fact, one of Camilla's granddaughters, Eliza Lopes, (Laura Parker-Bowles Lopes' daughter) has even been on the balcony at BP. She was three years old at the time and a member of William and Kate's bridal party.
From what I've read, Camilla's children and Charles' children get along pretty well. There was an article with an interview with Tom Parker-Bowles a while back where he says that they've always called Charles "Sir" but as time went on, it became more of a affectionate term as "Uncle" would be rather than stiff and formal. I believe if you scan back in the thread dedicated to Camilla's family, you can find that article.
__________________
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
|

02-03-2015, 12:43 AM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,984
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla
Richard Kay and Geoffrey Levy strike again.
The headline is states how Camilla keeps Charles happy but there are 28 mentions of Charles' ex-wife with of course her picture.
All the so called sources are unnamed.
|
You counted them ?
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
|

02-04-2015, 10:08 PM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob
You counted them ?
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
|
This surprises you?  There are a lot of people here counting quite a few things!
|

02-07-2015, 06:51 AM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,984
|
|
Yes finding that out. 💐
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
|

02-07-2015, 09:32 AM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,122
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla
Richard Kay and Geoffrey Levy strike again.
The headline is states how Camilla keeps Charles happy but there are 28 mentions of Charles' ex-wife with of course her picture.
All the so called sources are unnamed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob
You counted them ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
This surprises you?  There are a lot of people here counting quite a few things!
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob
Yes finding that out.
|
|
|
|
You bet your booties baby! That's how people keep up with the play! After all, it is not unreasonable to expect that Charles ex wife who died 17 odd years ago would not be getting top billing in an article entitled;
Separate lives and a rather saucy secret: An intimate portrait of their marriage reveals how Camilla has kept Charles happy
Read more: How Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall has kept Prince Charles happy | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Ricky and Geoffy will have to do much better than that. Next we'll be counting the number of cut-and-pastes from their previous posts.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
|

02-07-2015, 09:48 AM
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,886
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG
You bet your booties baby! That's how people keep up with the play! After all, it is not unreasonable to expect that Charle ex wife who died 17 odd years ago would not be getting top billing in an article entitled;
Separate lives and a rather saucy secret: An intimate portrait of their marriage reveals how Camilla has kept Charles happy
Read more: How Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall has kept Prince Charles happy | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Ricky and Geoffy will have to do much better than that. Next we'll be counting the number of cut-and-pastes from their previous posts. 
|
I understand the counting. I can promise you the person didn't count from the beginning, but after reading the article for a while and seeing a name (not related to the article) pop up time and again you might think to yourself "God, they are mentioning Diana more than Camillia) and that start you counting. It's probably not a hobby
|

02-07-2015, 10:42 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,779
|
|
You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."
A.W. TOZER
|

02-07-2015, 10:56 AM
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,886
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman
You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.
|
Yeah, I know. I just said that I understand the counting since it's a little odd the dead ex-wives name being named more times than the current wife when the article is about the current wife.
|

02-07-2015, 11:11 AM
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,231
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman
You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.
|
I think most people can talk about Charles and Camilla's marriage without bringing up either of their ex-spouses. They have been married for many years and there are many aspects of their lives that have nothing to do with their ex-spouses.
|

02-07-2015, 12:48 PM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,004
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher
I think most people can talk about Charles and Camilla's marriage without bringing up either of their ex-spouses. They have been married for many years and there are many aspects of their lives that have nothing to do with their ex-spouses.
|
Well, I think the general population does not think about C and C.
But of the many that bother to comment here, most of us have problems not bringing up off topic comparisons. We do it all over the place, not just on C & C threads.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
|

02-07-2015, 01:25 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,779
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernameispekka
Yeah, I know. I just said that I understand the counting since it's a little odd the dead ex-wives name being named more times than the current wife when the article is about the current wife.
|
Yeah, I really don't bother counting stuff like that. I find it irrelevant. The late ex-wife will be forever be part of their current marriage. I just don't like how the media make it seem like she's the big and bad ghost that hangs over them. The memory is there, but no longer in a bad way, IMO.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."
A.W. TOZER
|

02-07-2015, 01:29 PM
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,886
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman
Yeah, I really don't bother counting stuff like that. I find it irrelevant. The late ex-wife will be forever be part of their current marriage. I just don't like how the media make it seem like she's the big and bad ghost that hangs over them. The memory is there, but no longer in a bad way, IMO.
|
Me neither. Just understand the "huh, seriously, how many times can they put Diana in an article about Camilla?" :P
|

02-07-2015, 01:35 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,779
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernameispekka
Me neither. Just understand the "huh, seriously, how many times can they put Diana in an article about Camilla?" :P
|
LOL, that's her history.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."
A.W. TOZER
|

02-07-2015, 01:37 PM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,603
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman
You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.
|
Don't let HM hear this!
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”
Abraham Lincoln
|

02-07-2015, 01:41 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,779
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas
Don't let HM hear this!
|
Lol, I did mean intimately.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."
A.W. TOZER
|

02-07-2015, 03:09 PM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,750
|
|
It is the corporate model of the Daily Mail: the more clicks on their site, the more unique IP's visiting them, the more revenue the newspaper generates. So every juicy story, every miraculous diet to slim into a supermodel in two weeks, every case of adultery amongst celebrities, every rant againts "scroungers", thick fat headlines, even about fungus on the Prince's nail: it does not matter. Just click, click, click and the Daily Mail thanks you. That is the sole reason for milking old cows again and again.
|

02-07-2015, 05:44 PM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,122
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman
You can't talk about Charles and Camilla without bringing up Diana. Those were and are the two most famous and important women in his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman
Yeah, I really don't bother counting stuff like that. I find it irrelevant. The late ex-wife will be forever be part of their current marriage. I just don't like how the media make it seem like she's the big and bad ghost that hangs over them. The memory is there, but no longer in a bad way, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernameispekka
Me neither. Just understand the "huh, seriously, how many times can they put Diana in an article about Camilla?" :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman
LOL, that's her history.
|
|
|
|
And that is why this thread is not a "History" thread, but one that is specifically titled "Charles and Camilla:The Marriage (2005 and on)", just so that people can keep on topic.
As hernameispekka has pointed out, "how many times can they put Diana in an article about Camilla". Had she still been alive it could perhaps have been relevant. But as things stand, it is not.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
|

02-07-2015, 05:56 PM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,984
|
|
So your comment about counting to keep up with "the state of play" means who has more coverage ???
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
|

02-07-2015, 06:08 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,421
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob
So your comment about counting to keep up with "the state of play" means who has more coverage ???
|
I would say it's more about how it's still all about Diana.  In certain journalistic quarters. That's the 'state of play'. When I read that article it was clear I was reading dog-whistle journalism. Counting how many times Diana was mentioned is simply a way of supporting the contention that what was being engaged was pot-stirring. The mentioning of Diana was very much ott. I can understand counting the number of times in an article that was supposedly detailing something else (equally pot-stirring).
__________________
|
 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|