The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #701  
Old 03-17-2005, 06:44 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hamilton, United Kingdom
Posts: 123
Prince Charles' wedding has left me perplexed. On one hand I wish them all the happiness in the world as they are both middle aged people who obviously love each other and aren't getting any younger.
However, Charles isn't just all those things I just mentioned. He is heir to the British throne. He has a greater responsibility to the future of OUR monarchy than anyone else. If the majority of the public oppose this wedding then shouldn't he reconsider? Isn't the future of the monarchy not more important? After all he is but a future figurehead to something much greater than he. In a time when republicism (sorry for the swearing!) is rising and freedom of speech is ever growing, shouldn't Charles be thinking of his responsibilities and his future as well as that of his son? If he really does love Camillia and I'm sure he does, then he should do the honourable thing and renounce the throne. Not for the Diana lovers or the extreme relgious views but for an institution that has been part of British history for centuries.
__________________

  #702  
Old 03-17-2005, 07:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,194
You have to understand that he is only human. He can't exactly renounce his right to the throne. If it was that easy, the Queen would have alreay abdicated and be living her life peacefully in retirement.
__________________

  #703  
Old 03-18-2005, 06:30 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
There are elements of sacred duty, dynasty, birthright, and service to the nation.

Not to be given up lightly.

Renunciation would be the easy way out. Instead, the Prince of Wales is facing this issue head-on. This shows courage and strength of character.

Prime Ministers come and go; public approval rises and falls; the media see-saws between adulation and ridicule.

Ride out the storms, and always look to the long-term.
  #704  
Old 03-18-2005, 10:48 AM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
The makers of tacky souvenirs have apparently decided to try and make a few bucks out of the coming marriage.... From Getty:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	52445711.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	45.0 KB
ID:	112154   Click image for larger version

Name:	52445712.jpg
Views:	43
Size:	65.5 KB
ID:	112155   Click image for larger version

Name:	52445713.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	71.1 KB
ID:	112156   Click image for larger version

Name:	52445714.jpg
Views:	56
Size:	37.3 KB
ID:	112157  

Click image for larger version

Name:	52445715.jpg
Views:	51
Size:	54.0 KB
ID:	112158   Click image for larger version

Name:	52445718.jpg
Views:	57
Size:	63.5 KB
ID:	112159  
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
  #705  
Old 03-18-2005, 02:04 PM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
From BBC NEWS:



Charles' wedding blessing on TV

The church blessing of the Prince of Wales' marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles will be televised live.

The 45-minute religious service will follow the private civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall on 8 April.

Led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the blessing in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle will be attended by about 750 guests.

The Clarence House move ends debate over whether the public will see the couple on their wedding day.

Previously, it was suggested that the media would be barred from the civil ceremony.

Audience

A Clarence House spokesman said "all parties have agreed that televising the service in St George's is the right way forward".

He said the Queen, the Prince of Wales, Mrs Parker Bowles, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dean of Windsor were all consulted about the decision to televise the ceremony.

The BBC will host the broadcast of the 45-minute ceremony.

In 1981 some 750 million people watched Prince Charles marry Lady Diana Spencer at St Paul's Cathedral.

While the April service will also be broadcast to the masses, only 30 people will be present at the Guildhall to witness the marriage in person.

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have already announced they will not be attending the civil ceremony, but will be at the church blessing.

There has been interest in whether Charles and Camilla would decide to include prayers of penitence in their blessing.

Blunders

If they do, the nation could see Charles and Camilla, who committed adultery together, confess their sins in a standard prayer.

Since its announcement the wedding appears to have been plagued by controversy and blunders.

Due to both Charles and Camilla being divorcees, they were unable to have their wedding in a church.

Instead, they agreed to a civil ceremony which would then be blessed in a religious service.
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
  #706  
Old 03-18-2005, 03:20 PM
HMQueenElizabethII's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ryde, Australia
Posts: 3,783
It's great that they will televised the Blessing Ceremony.So i think they will have some pics.
__________________
"God save our Gracious Queen,
Long live our Noble Queen,
God save The Queen"
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
  #707  
Old 03-20-2005, 12:55 PM
Monalisa's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Namur, Belgium
Posts: 747
INSIDE THE VENUES FOR CHARLES AND CAMILLA'S WEDDING:









1-INTRO:

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty...agina_1_1.html

2-THE BACKDROP – Windsor :


http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_2_1.html

3-THE CEREMONY – The Guildhall:

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_3_1.html

4-THE BLESSING – St George's Chapel:

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_4_1.html

5-THE RECEPTION – The State Apartments at Windsor Castle:



http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_5_1.html

6-THE HONEYMOON – Birkhall, Scotland:



http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_6_1.html

7-THE PHOTO GALLERY:



http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_7_1.html

  #708  
Old 03-20-2005, 01:06 PM
Monalisa's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Namur, Belgium
Posts: 747
more about charles and camilla!






pictures' gallery:







http://www.hellomagazine.com/special...lla/cover.html
  #709  
Old 03-20-2005, 02:53 PM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
Interesting piece from The Guardian:

Let's get personal
Charles and Camilla's wedding is a chance to inflict some real damage

Ros Coward
Saturday March 19, 2005
The Guardian


The wedding of Charles and Camilla offers plenty of opportunity for republicans to score some goals. They could deride the useless royal advisers who failed to check the venue's viability and, more spectacularly, the legality of the marriage itself. They could expose an India rubber constitution that resists change but creates new categories such as "Princess Consort" when the need arises. They could highlight Charles's hypocrisy, falling back on the human rights legislation that he so often rails against. They could capitalise on the unpopularity of Camilla or dwell on our first family snubbing each other's nuptials. But republicans have had nothing to say.

This silence is scarcely surprising. Republicans in recent years have been very high-minded, insisting the real questions are constitutional and nothing to do with the soap opera that has fascinated the rest of the population. Ironically, theirs is a mirror image of what monarchists think. Royalists also believe the institution is more important than the flawed individuals who sometimes inhabit it. They must be hugely relieved that, on top of all the other wedding disasters, they don't have to deal with republicans.

But this republican separation of constitutional issues and incumbents fails to understand the nature of contemporary royalty. The monarch certainly has constitutional powers, but for a long time has not exercised them. The monarch's role is increasingly symbolic. The monarch is meant to be above politics, embodying national identity or values. That means their personalities and behaviour do actually matter.

Even republicans would be hard pressed to deny the Queen has fulfilled those functions. Apart from being the mother of dysfunctional children and having Tupperware on the breakfast table, we know little personal about her. Unlike her son, she has spared us her views on issues of the day, and we only know her as someone who turns up, shakes hands, offers consolation and does her duty. To the public, she represents continuity with the past, a link to the war and the old Commonwealth, someone who puts country before herself. As such she's a figure of unity.

Nobody could say the same of Charles. However sound he is on GM crops, however useful the Prince's Trust may be, however delightful his organic dinner parties at Highgrove might be, Charles divides people rather than unites them. The disaster of his marriage to Diana and Camilla's role in that unleashed unparalleled hostility to the monarchy at the time of Diana's death. Since then, attempts to spin Camilla and Charles as devoted old codgers or Camilla as a star-crossed loyal love destined for Charles's arms have never quite worked. Diana's story revealed Camilla as cynically involved in setting her up as a suitable and passive royal bride.

Nor has Charles since been able to set any example that might resonate with his subjects. During Diana's life, many saw his treatment of a well meaning, charismatic girl as unforgivable. After her death, partly as a result of the Burrell trial, we've heard how Michael Fawcett (Charles's factotum) threw unwanted gifts on the fire (no wonder the invitation to Charles and Camilla's wedding announces that "there is no wedding list") - as well as performing numerous other peculiar functions. We've heard how an allegation of gay rape was hushed up. We've seen the palace conduct its own inquiry and release the findings the day before the invasion of Iraq. We've even seen letters indicating just how alarmed Diana had become by hostility towards her.

Now, even as the wedding takes place, there's an ongoing inquest into Diana's death. Perhaps it won't ask why Diana was so afraid. But at the very least the public will expect to find out why the royal family agreed to have Diana's protection removed, leaving her to be hounded by the press and fall into the hands of Mohamed Al Fayed's so-called security. Diana's death also left a legacy of revelations about royal self-indulgence, cruelty, peculiar goings on and a remote aristocratic lifestyle.

Until I researched a book on Diana, such words as aristocracy and establishment seemed to refer to a powerless, semi-defunct species. But I encountered a stratum of people whose existence depends on finding royal favour and being part of the royal crowd. It's a world of double-barrelled names, polo matches, country sports and society weddings. Were it not that these days you can buy your way in with wealth and celebrity, it would be seriously inbred. Far from powerless, they own vast swaths of land and cultivate power and influence, mixing socially with politicians, media pundits and celebrities. The guest list to the "real" wedding in Windsor chapel, emerging slowly into the press, will tell you everything you need to know.

While researching the book, the most distasteful thing I encountered was the role royal sycophants played in Diana's life. Many of these titled and wealthy families closed ranks against her, providing Charles with safe houses to conduct his affair, keeping her in the dark and promoting the view that she was unstable.

I had a small insight into how Diana must have felt during an encounter with Jonathan Dimbleby, Charles's most vociferous public supporter, on the Today programme. It emerged, only once I was in the studio with him, that the BBC had agreed he could put his point of view without entering into discussion. He was allowed to speak after me and described my comments about Charles's failure to live up to the symbolic role of the monarchy as "poppycock on stilts". He then segued into a promotion of his own radio programme and his journalistic objectivity. The editor later wrote to apologise, but it's a shame Today listeners were deprived of the heated discussion that took place in the corridor afterwards.

Rancour like this follows Charles. Its not a simple division between "them" and "us", the toffs v the people. Charles also divides people along the lines of sex and race. There are still many women who feel Charles set a terrible example for husbands. Similarly there are many people in ethnic minorities who feel "the establishment" destroyed Diana, depriving them of their one friend in high places. If Charles fails to embody common values, how can he ever be a symbolic head of state?

Waiting in the wings is, of course, the figure who many believe will succeed where his father failed. Some see in William a healing figure, the son uniting Diana and Charles. They regard him as having the capacity to embody everything a monarch should. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. His milieu is probably not much different from his father's and his peculiarly unhappy upbringing may leave him even less suited to connect with the lifestyles of the population. And in 20 years, he, too, may be another balding Windsor.

The power of myth is strong - almost as strong as the desire to see the next episode of the soap opera - and republicans need to engage with what monarchy actually means to people rather than hold an abstract debate that excites no one. The fiasco around Charles's second wedding has exposed hypocrisies and contradictions in our constitution as well as a person ill-fitted to perform the symbolic function of royalty. Here's an opportunity to inflict some damage on an anachronistic institution. So why not get personal?


· Ros Coward is the author of Diana: The Portrait
rcoward@city.ac.uk
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
  #710  
Old 03-20-2005, 07:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,194
How on earth can someone be talking about the Windsors and politics? The Windsors aren't allowed to have anything to do with politics.
  #711  
Old 03-20-2005, 08:12 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandDuchess
Let's get personal
Charles and Camilla's wedding is a chance to inflict some real damage

Ros Coward
Saturday March 19, 2005
The Guardian

Waiting in the wings is, of course, the figure who many believe will succeed where his father failed. Some see in William a healing figure, the son uniting Diana and Charles. They regard him as having the capacity to embody everything a monarch should. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. His milieu is probably not much different from his father's and his peculiarly unhappy upbringing may leave him even less suited to connect with the lifestyles of the population. And in 20 years, he, too, may be another balding Windsor.

The power of myth is strong - almost as strong as the desire to see the next episode of the soap opera - and republicans need to engage with what monarchy actually means to people rather than hold an abstract debate that excites no one. The fiasco around Charles's second wedding has exposed hypocrisies and contradictions in our constitution as well as a person ill-fitted to perform the symbolic function of royalty. Here's an opportunity to inflict some damage on an anachronistic institution. So why not get personal?


· Ros Coward is the author of Diana: The Portrait
rcoward@city.ac.uk
I think this is a lot of pressure to place on William. He is a young boy still who has had a trouble young life which was played out on a very public stage. While both of his parents loved him I think to some degree both also used him and Harry to further their plights.

William has also been isolated a lot during the last decade or so, first while he was at Eton and now at St. Andrew's. If he decides to go to military school St. James's palace will likely want further privacy for him until he is out of school. He's certainly not had as much exposure to being a monarch as his father had at his age.
  #712  
Old 03-20-2005, 10:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 767
umm...just one question...do you think that Camilia will be wearing a tiara on her wedding day?
  #713  
Old 03-20-2005, 10:54 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
No! :) :)

The wedding is in the afternoon not evening so tiara's won't be called for.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #714  
Old 03-21-2005, 12:18 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
No! :) :)

The wedding is in the afternoon not evening so tiara's won't be called for.
thank you very much wymanda
  #715  
Old 03-21-2005, 12:19 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 767
will there be like a grand gala party after their wedding (like Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia's/ Prince Frederick and Mary's) ? is this known yet?
  #716  
Old 03-21-2005, 12:21 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
No Problems.

It is a shame as it would be wonderful to see what tiara Camilla is given by the Queen but we shall have to wait for the first "Big Dressing" (as the Royals apparently call these events) to see if it is one of the many that haven't seen the light of day for many years.

HINT: If you have a look in the Royal Jewels section of TRF we have been discussing some of these pieces in a thread about Camilla and the Royal Jewels. :)
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #717  
Old 03-21-2005, 12:25 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 767
actually...it doesn't really matter what tiara she's gonna wear...as long as she doesn't wear the ones worn by Diana i'd say...haha rite?!

i wanna see those grand gala dresses worn by different royals~!!! and this wedding seems to be this year's "BIGGEST" wedding ....soooo.....
  #718  
Old 03-21-2005, 01:14 AM
HMQueenElizabethII's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ryde, Australia
Posts: 3,783
It just announce that TRH Crown Prince Haakon and his wife Mette-Marit will be at the Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla.Also Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg,Queen beatrix,Prince W-A and Princess Maxima,Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde of Belgium.
__________________
"God save our Gracious Queen,
Long live our Noble Queen,
God save The Queen"
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
  #719  
Old 03-21-2005, 01:16 AM
HMQueenElizabethII's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ryde, Australia
Posts: 3,783
It's great that the other European Royals will be there.
__________________
"God save our Gracious Queen,
Long live our Noble Queen,
God save The Queen"
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
  #720  
Old 03-21-2005, 02:48 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigheadshirmp
actually...it doesn't really matter what tiara she's gonna wear...as long as she doesn't wear the ones worn by Diana i'd say...haha rite?!
bigheadshrimp,
We have discussed this ad nauseum on the Royal Jewels section of TRF. The concensus of opinion has been that we will not see the Lovers Knot Tiara or any of the other jewels that were Diana's until such time as William & Harry have wives, if then. The royal collection is vast and there are many pieces that Camilla can be offered that haven't been worn since, at the latest, 1952 when Queen Mary passed over. Others belonged to Queen Alexandra, Queen Victoria & to Prince Phillips mother Princess Andrew. So as you can see there is no reason for Camilla to even be offered Diana's things and I think that the lady has far to much class & pride to even consider wearing them. She is her own person and is very confident in who she is (something she & Diana did not have in common!) :)
__________________

__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
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 best outfit june 2016 catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece harald kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander may 2016 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 marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess stéphanie's fashion & style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde 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 royal visits september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark state visit to france 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 01:59 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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