The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 02-21-2005, 04:26 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by susan alicia
I thougth top advisors and members of the househould are visible personalities and sort of friends of the royals (and perhaps wearing grey suits)
I was meaning the private secretaries and high-grade civil servants and legal advisors; some of them are familiar to the public, but most of them probably aren't.


Quote:
"men in grey suits" sounds like people that are not noticible as personalities,
I thougt one of the royals gave them that name but am not sure who.
The Duchess of York did; I don't know if she was the first to do so or if she was repeating something someone else had said.
__________________

  #562  
Old 02-21-2005, 06:26 PM
Splodger's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , United Kingdom
Posts: 154
Aproximate translation of Aninhas spanish post:

Ever since prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles announced their wedding plans for 8th of April, a controversial debate in United Kingdom has been opened, really uncomfortable for the English Royal Family. The misfortunes to which the fiancés have had to make from their announcement of commitment - change of venue for the wedding - they could have not done more to aggravate the situation and have infuriated Queen Elizabeth, that she has been forced to call to the attention of the couple.

The Queen met last week with her son to inform him that she did not want the festivities to be excessive. She demanded of him that the nuptial celebrations were discreet, and that the list of guests was reduced to the minimum. And it is that, until the Queen says otherwise. The Prince of Wales had predicted to invite to 750 people, among them a great number of aristocrats and celebrities of the world.

Another one of the points raised at the meeting was the hour by which the celebrations must finish. Elizabeth II insisted they did not exceed 6pm, unlike the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, which finished at daybreak the next day.

Also she reproached her son who gave his future wife an engagement ring, a jewel that had belonged to the Queen Mother. The Queen was forceful in her message, so much so that apparently the Prince returned to Clarence House with tears in the eyes.

(small section i did not understand to translate)

Whilst the Prince was at a religious service in the town of Badminton yesterday, further bad news was anounced by Lord Falconer, on the legality of a civil wedding. A law of the 19th Centiary does not allow members of the Royal Family to contract civil marriages. Therefore in order for the Prince to marry, the Government must modify the Royal Marriages Act before the 8th of April.

To make matters worse, the wedding of Charles and Camilla has undergone a new mistfortune after the American Government decided not to enterain the future Duchess of Cornwall in the White House beacuse she is divorced as this goes against President George W Bush's religious beleifs and considers her "unsutiable."
__________________

  #563  
Old 02-21-2005, 06:56 PM
Splodger's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , United Kingdom
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splodger
To make matters worse, the wedding of Charles and Camilla has undergone a new mistfortune after the American Government decided not to enterain the future Duchess of Cornwall in the White House beacuse she is divorced as this goes against President George W Bush's religious beleifs and considers her "unsutiable."
I am not sure where Aninhas found this article from the earlier spanish post, however I can not believe the White House actualy released that statement. I know Mr Bush is religious and some would say he has some pretty bizzar idea's but exactly WHO does he think HE is to pass judgement on the future wife of the future head of state of the United Kingdom. Last time i looked the "collonies" were not part of the British Empire anymore. I can not beleive he actualy said this. He might think it in person but to go and officialy refuse to entertain her, when there are not even any imediate plans for Prince Charles and Camilla to be at the White House is insane. The White House has entertained persons with far more contraversial atributes than being divorced.
  #564  
Old 02-21-2005, 07:11 PM
michelleq's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Philadelphia Region, United States
Posts: 783
I wouldn't put to much credence to that "Press Release".
  #565  
Old 02-21-2005, 07:13 PM
michelleq's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Philadelphia Region, United States
Posts: 783
This picture shows the love that she has for HRH. Again, the way they went about it I do not agree with but they have the right to be happy. Both are divorced and available.
http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/52...C30E9B9B114CE8
  #566  
Old 02-21-2005, 10:19 PM
Gaia's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splodger
I am not sure where Aninhas found this article from the earlier spanish post, however I can not believe the White House actualy released that statement. I know Mr Bush is religious and some would say he has some pretty bizzar idea's but exactly WHO does he think HE is to pass judgement on the future wife of the future head of state of the United Kingdom. Last time i looked the "collonies" were not part of the British Empire anymore. I can not beleive he actualy said this. He might think it in person but to go and officialy refuse to entertain her, when there are not even any imediate plans for Prince Charles and Camilla to be at the White House is insane. The White House has entertained persons with far more contraversial atributes than being divorced.
Well actually, the White House refusal is in the British paper called The Mirror and Charles was planning on bringing her to the US, so the White House would be the lynchpin of the trip:

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/t...name_page.html

I think it has more to do with Charles not supporting the Iraq war...Karl Rove probably made the decision.
  #567  
Old 02-21-2005, 10:39 PM
Ennyllorac's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splodger
I am not sure where Aninhas found this article from the earlier spanish post, however I can not believe the White House actualy released that statement. I know Mr Bush is religious and some would say he has some pretty bizzar idea's but exactly WHO does he think HE is to pass judgement on the future wife of the future head of state of the United Kingdom. Last time i looked the "collonies" were not part of the British Empire anymore. I can not beleive he actualy said this. He might think it in person but to go and officialy refuse to entertain her, when there are not even any imediate plans for Prince Charles and Camilla to be at the White House is insane. The White House has entertained persons with far more contraversial atributes than being divorced.
I read the article in Spanish at Hola.com
  #568  
Old 02-22-2005, 12:19 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
I have a very hard time believing that George Bush hasn't hosted remarried divorcees at the White House before this. Either something's changed in the policy or he's offering a deliberate insult or the news report is incorrect.
  #569  
Old 02-22-2005, 12:36 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,422
I doubt it. His brother last year married his long-time mistress. But anyway, it´s all stupid. We want to see Camilla! Yes, King Karl probably did.
__________________
WYAO
  #570  
Old 02-22-2005, 02:54 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splodger
Another one of the points raised at the meeting was the hour by which the Also she reproached her son who gave his future wife an engagement ring, a jewel that had belonged to the Queen Mother. The Queen was forceful in her message, so much so that apparently the Prince returned to Clarence House with tears in the eyes.

To make matters worse, the wedding of Charles and Camilla has undergone a new mistfortune after the American Government decided not to enterain the future Duchess of Cornwall in the White House beacuse she is divorced as this goes against President George W Bush's religious beleifs and considers her "unsutiable."

HOORAY TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN!!:) :) How dare he give her the Queen Mum's ring as an engagement ring!! That is the ultimate in declasse behavior.

As for the President of my country, you never know what he is going to do when it comes to "family values." You have to understand, my country is under attack from right-wing conservatives who want to turn us back to the Puritan age! He courted these people during his re-election campaign, so he has to pay them back somehow. I would say before this statement, divorced people were invited to the White House. I don't know how he cannot invite divorced people, because half the country is divorced for one reason or another! It could be pay back to Charles for not supporting the Iraqi war (one of the very few things I agree with Charles about). Also, Charles left very quickly last year after the funeral of former President Ronald Reagan. It was noted at the time that he was not comfortable coming to the United States due to the war.
  #571  
Old 02-22-2005, 04:39 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splodger
Also she reproached her son who gave his future wife an engagement ring, a jewel that had belonged to the Queen Mother. The Queen was forceful in her message, so much so that apparently the Prince returned to Clarence House with tears in the eyes.
I really wonder how people know this stuff. Seeing that the Queen Mothers estate was left entirely to the Queen I can't see how Charles would have been able to give Camilla the ring without the Queen giving her blessing.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #572  
Old 02-22-2005, 04:54 AM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
CIRENCESTER, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 21: The wedding banns for HRH Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles are displayed in the register office on February 21, 2005 in Cirencester, England. The Prince of Wales, who lives nearby in Tetbury, Gloucestershire is due to marry in Windsor on April 8, 2005. (Photo by Matt Cardy /Getty Images)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	52224654.jpg
Views:	165
Size:	34.8 KB
ID:	96741   Click image for larger version

Name:	52224655.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	13.8 KB
ID:	96742   Click image for larger version

Name:	52224708.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	57.5 KB
ID:	96743   Click image for larger version

Name:	52224717.jpg
Views:	144
Size:	33.7 KB
ID:	96744  

__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
  #573  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:04 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 185
AOL news

Prince wedding plans may be illegal



The Government has failed to give the Queen adequate advice over the legality of the Prince of Wales's planned marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles, a former Attorney General said.

Sir Nicholas Lyell suggested that emergency legislation may be needed to clarify the legal position before the wedding, planned for April 8. Otherwise, the Royal couple might have to get married in Scotland, as the Princess Royal did when she wed for the second time in 1992.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, earlier insisted that the wedding will be legal, despite claims from experts that the law does not allow civil marriages for members of the Royal Family in England.

But Sir Nicholas, who was Attorney General between 1992 and 1997, said he felt "some disquiet" about the Government's advice to the Queen. "I don't think she has been given enough advice," he told the BBC Radio 4 PM programme.

"It is not really clear that this situation has been properly thought about. (I feel) some disquiet, because the last thing one wants is for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker-Bowles, or the Queen herself, embarrassed by this question."

Sir Nicholas said that he understood that the 1949 Marriage Act, which updated the law on civil marriages in England, had excluded the Royal Family, leaving them subject to historic laws requiring marriage in church.

"On what I know at the moment - and I don't claim to be a walking expert on this topic, but I've looked it up in recent days - I would first of all have done a very careful trawl of the very best legal opinion," he said.

"I think I would clarify the position by legislation. I wouldn't simply say that the 1949 Act is crystal clear, because far too many people don't agree with that."

Lord Falconer's belief that the 1949 Act covered the Royal Family contradicted the advice his predecessor Lord Kilmuir gave Princess Margaret when she gave up her plans to marry divorced Group Captain Peter Townsend in 1955, said Sir Nicholas.

"There are very serious question marks here," he said. "I hope Lord Falconer is right, but we certainly don't have chapter and verse and the Queen is entitled to receive the correct advice, through the Prime Minister, from the Attorney General and Lord Chancellor."
  #574  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:07 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 185
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty...aweddingdress/

The design duo of Antonia Robinson and Anna Valentine has been chosen by Camilla Parker Bowles to design her wedding dress for her civil ceremony marriage to Prince Charles on April 8.

As Camilla has grown more confident as a public figure, she has also branched out with her fashion choices, adopting increasingly elegant styles. She first discovered Kensington-based Robinson Valentine in 2001 thanks to a friend's recommendation, and they have been vital in helping effect her style transformation.

One of the more notable Robinson Valentine creations the future Duchess of Cornwall has worn in recent years was the spectacular cream-coloured silk crepe evening gown with turquoise scarf and matching handbag she showed off at a charity ball at Somerset House in July 2002. Camilla later dazzled at the Fashion Rocks Prince's Trust benefit at the Albert Hall in October 2003, sporting a luxurious navy velvet gown with satin panels and sheer sleeves.

"Robinson Valentine are the smart label of choice for the younger country set," says John Davidson, fashion stylist for London Bride magazine. "They have a much more fashionable approach than many of their 'dressmaker' contemporaries and are very highly regarded in Camilla's circle, especially for their wedding dresses. They are like the English Vera Wang."

To top off the wedding outfit, Camilla has chosen the services of à la mode milliner Philip Treacy to design her hat. Philip, whose bold and exquisite designs have decked just about every famous head in the world from royalty to rock stars, is another long-term fashion favourite of Camilla's.

"I'm delighted and honoured," said the Irish-born milliner after learning the news.
  #575  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:11 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 11
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles met with explorers at Clarence House yesterday. Photos of UK PRESS and FACE TO FACE

Link: http://miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?fo...=3351020&pag=3


FORO DE REALEZA EN ESPAÑOL (SPANISH FORUM ABOUT ROYALTY)
http://realezaenespanol.foro.st
  #576  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:45 AM
Splodger's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , United Kingdom
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by cut1me
Prince wedding plans may be illegal
I really dont see the problem with passing a very simple peace of legislation. Despite a few missgivings as to the conduct of the marriage, the Queen who is responcible for her own family and house hold has given her blessing for Charles to marry Camilla. We live in the 21st centuary now and unless a fundemental shift in social policy is made to ban divorce and "puritise" the UK at all levels, such out of date restrictions could do with modernising. As for the legal documents of legislation, the Government can pass legislation within 24hrs or even term it emergency legislation and deal with the democratic part after (not as if it would be the first time). As for the wording... in addition to the lengthy "we's, do's and hearby's" can be as simple as

"All persons currently classed as members of the Royal Family by (previous act) shall have the right to engage in civil weddings, upon the permission of the sovereign without loosing their place in the line of succession or their royal status."

Such legislation will not bring the mechanics of the UK and commonwealth tumberling down around our ears. If the remaining commonwealth countries who currently have the Queen as their head of state such as Australia, dont like it, then they can eaither leave the commonwealth or have Prince Andrew acceed to their head of state in a split similar to Hannover and UK on Victoria's accession. The whole point of the Monarchy is that it is adaptable. It might be seen that Charles has shattered the mystery of Monarchy but by causing a fuss over civil weddings is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
  #577  
Old 02-22-2005, 08:44 AM
norwegianne's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rogaland, Norway
Posts: 5,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandDuchess
CIRENCESTER, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 21: The wedding banns for HRH Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles are displayed in the register office on February 21, 2005 in Cirencester, England. The Prince of Wales, who lives nearby in Tetbury, Gloucestershire is due to marry in Windsor on April 8, 2005. (Photo by Matt Cardy /Getty Images)
I especially liked the occupation column: Prince of the United Kingdom.
__________________
  #578  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:00 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 363
It's just been announced from Buckingham Palace that the Queen won't attend the civil wedding.
  #579  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:01 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,422
I just heard on the TV that the Queen will not be attending the civil ceremony.
  #580  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,422
Oops. Well, I don´t know what to be made of this news. I mean they already have cut down the number of guests but not to have the groom´s mother there is something else altogether. There must be other reasons for her decision.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker bowles, duchess of cornwall, engagement, prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on) VuMom The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1583 04-09-2015 11:10 PM
Charles and Camilla: Visit to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE - February 2007 hornsen Royal and Ruling Families of the Gulf States 183 03-02-2007 06:49 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style countess of wessex's eveningwear coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events danish royal family duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece jean kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess madeleine hats princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 spanish queen state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises