Charles & Camilla's Official Visit to the U.S.A. (1-8 November 2005)

[susan alicia]

....The prince is a keen environmentalist, but his office declined to say whether Charles will raise the issue of climate change when he dines with President Bush at the White House this week. Clarence House, the prince's office, said it would not be appropriate to comment on a private dinner.......


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu....ap/index.html

[Skydragon]

I would like to give a big thank you, to an american woman called Lisa Stewart, 35 from Louisiana, who because she has been on the tv, representing the American section of the fanatical diana circle, has raised Camilla's support here in the UK.

She said that the fact that they support a woman who has been dead for 8 years, does not make them nutters. That most have a room 'dedicated' with pictures, dolls, spoons, plates, etc of her, also does not mean they are mentally challenged. I just wonder if they are all ex wives or children of ex wives?

I hope that most Americans, will warmly welcome Prince Charles and Princess Camilla.:)

[BeatrixFan]

She said that the fact that they support a woman who has been dead for 8 years, does not make them nutters. That most have a room 'dedicated' with pictures, dolls, spoons, plates, etc of her, also does not mean they are mentally challenged.

Most people have a panic room. I would hope people don't have these shrines to Diana - my question would be.....why? I have a photograph of the Queen on my sitting room wall and I have had one in my bedroom since I was born. I've got a signed portrait of Princess Alexandra of Kent and recently, I popped in a photograph of Charles and Camilla in their State Banquet outfits. But I haven't filled the place with Royal bric a brac. I don't see any problems with the odd photograph or tasteful china but a room full of dedicated spoons?

[susan alicia]

Dennism, they are going to New Orleans:) :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4393636.stm

Originally Posted by Dennism

I find the cancellation of the visit of the Duke and Duchess to New Orleans unfortunate. The President has since visited the area several times and I don't think it would reflect on him poorly had they visited the area.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Dennism

Well, on a lighter note, to me and my family, Charles has always been called "Chucky" and I "chuckled" tonight when they mentioned Camilla as his bride and I immediately thought of "The Bride of Chucky". Hmm.

That's funny Dennism.

I'm glad they're going to New Orleans. It makes the trip more relevant.

[Dennism]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

Dennism, they are going to New Orleans:) :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4393636.stm

O, there´s an article. I just saw that in the ticker at the top of the main news page and it didn't go anywhere. Yes, O, well. Okay. Then that's good. More relevant too. I like it. Bravo to them. Besides, they are supposed to be beyond politics. And the idea that visiting NO would make Bush look bad is purely a political idea.

[susan alicia]

of course :)

Originally Posted by Dennism

O, there´s an article. I just saw that in the ticker at the top of the main news page and it didn't go anywhere. Yes, O, well. Okay. Then that's good. More relevant too. I like it. Bravo to them. Besides, they are supposed to be beyond politics. And the idea that visiting NO would make Bush look bad is purely a political idea.

[sara1981]

CAMI-££-A
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_obje...name_page.html

FROM NY OVER TO 'FRISCO
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_obje...name_page.html

[ysbel]

I noticed that Clarence House saw fit to rebut the outlandish statement that Camilla would be taking a 40 person entourage with her. Now the papers are claiming its 20 when its actually 16.

[Elspeth]

I thught that account of 40 people looked a bit bogus. She'd be guided on this first tour by what the royal family usually does, and the royal family usually doesn't take that many people along. Is this a symptom of the Mail's continuing partisanship of Diana, trying to cause problems for Camilla, perhaps?

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I thught that account of 40 people looked a bit bogus. She'd be guided on this first tour by what the royal family usually does, and the royal family usually doesn't take that many people along. Is this a symptom of the Mail's continuing partisanship of Diana, trying to cause problems for Camilla, perhaps?

I wouldn't doubt it Elspeth. What surprised me is the rebuttal from Clarence House. I guess they took it seriously enough to speak out.

Most probably Charles and Camilla are NOT coming to my building but will attend a ceremony at the platform constructed on the WTC site. I've been scouting the building for places to take pics but it looks pretty slim. I'll have to take a telephoto lens to get any good pics.

The weather should be nice though.

[Lady Marmalade]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I wouldn't doubt it Elspeth. What surprised me is the rebuttal from Clarence House. I guess they took it seriously enough to speak out.

Most probably Charles and Camilla are NOT coming to my building but will attend a ceremony at the platform constructed on the WTC site. I've been scouting the building for places to take pics but it looks pretty slim. I'll have to take a telephoto lens to get any good pics.

The weather should be nice though.

You are not going to pull a Spiderman act and leap from the buildings to get the pics are you? :)

I mean that in a teasing manner.

[Elspeth]

Well, ysbel, if the desire of the board regulars here to see some of your pics of Charles and Camilla isn't enough to make you rush out immediately and invest in whatever photographic equipment is necessary, I really do have to say that you don't appear to be taking your membership of this board anywhere near seriously enough.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Well, ysbel, if the desire of the board regulars here to see some of your pics of Charles and Camilla isn't enough to make you rush out immediately and invest in whatever photographic equipment is necessary, I really do have to say that you don't appear to be taking your membership of this board anywhere near seriously enough.

LOL you two

I'll be taking my camera but my boss signed me up for a 2 day class starting tomorrow so if they don't do it during my lunch break I'm in trouble.

I did find the entrance to the platform at the World Trade Center. Now only to find out when they will be there. The lack of details here is maddening!

[Dennism]

Apparently, they want to jump on any possible bad news about the trip. Saving too much face, I think though. It sounded ridiculous. No need to comment on everything.

[Elise27]

Originally Posted by Dennism

I liked the interview tonight. As always I find myself agreeing with the Prince on many things; the importance of ecumenicalism in world politics, bringing back the "humanity" to these times of great technological advances, and his views on architecture. I just wish this side of him was more respected in Great Britain and in the wider world. There was a good article written by him in this month's Conde Nast Traveler(British edition) about the importance of maintaining a balanced ecosystem alongside an area where tourism is an important part of the economy. He wrote mostly about area affected by the Boxing Day Tsunami. Well, I count myself as an American who will be curious and non-critical(that whole glass houses idea) about the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall coming to the US. I do, however, take great offense at the idea that simply because I live(born and raised) within 50 or even 500 miles as some idiots say, of an ocean, that I do not reflect the views of Middle American(read: a "real" America supposedly inhabitated by morally superior people). That gets my goat. Well, on a lighter note, to me and my family, Charles has always been called "Chucky" and I "chuckled" tonight when they mentioned Camilla as his bride and I immediately thought of "The Bride of Chucky". Hmm.

I strongly disagree charles to me seemed more of a pompous *** excuse my language. :) Not only that but he just seemed like this carefully constructed character who's extremely aloof. In any case it did not help that the reporter pointed out that he would not answer questions abt the queen, his sons, or his wife, and how everything about his image is carefully crafted. The one thing that the interview was successful in portraying was that he does a lot of work. but other than that it does not leave you sympathizing with prince charles at all, and does nothing to support the supposed goal of helping to give him and camilla a better reception in the US. He did not have to say anything personal but could have complemented camilla on how wonderfully well she has adjusted to her new role--which would really help improve the image of Camilla in the US. As far as not answering questions abt the queen ok so he could have refused to answer personal questions about his relationship with her,but could have spoken about how she has done an admirable job as queen.---all of this would have made him seem less detached, more human-without getting personal at all. When you look or read interviews that his sons have given they dont seem to have that pompousness, that aloofness, they seem like people you can sympathize with and could have a conversation with.

The last question he was asked was a total disaster-I dont really deem it that personal of a quuestion--It was something abt how he seemed happy and stable---what would have been wrong with a short yes. as opposed to his answer "if that's what you think". I didnt like the interview at all and can now understand better why so many people have that negative view of him.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elise27

I strongly disagree charles to me seemed more of a pompous *** excuse my language. :) Not only that but he just seemed like this carefully constructed character who's extremely aloof.

I didn't get this impression at all. He didn't look like a man who was carrying an attitude. Charles is not one of my favorite public speakers. He mumbles a lot and rambles; that hardly makes him a carefully constructed character.

I'm also not a fan of public figures divulging personal things about their loved ones. I always wonder what the loved ones think. He could have said something innocuous like you suggested but I suspect Charles' emotions run very close to the surface and if that's the case, its better for him not to go there.

He did talk about the things that are important to him and while his delivery was not the best he came off to me at least as very sincere.

I will agree though that 60 minutes wasn't the most receptive forum to have the interview. You picked up on the fact that they advertised what questions he wouldn't answer which made him look worse. But all royal interviewers are given a list of questions that won't be answered and they generally don't publicize it. I'm sure Harry's people had a list of these questions when BBC did the interview with him but the BBC didn't see fit to publish what they were.

If you take a look at the interview Steve Croft had with another CBS commentator (on 60 minutes website), you'll really see how politely hostile they were. Steve couldn't get over the fact that Charles had never had to work for a living - well that was obvious before the interview started; you mean he didn't get anything more out of it than that? And the other reporter said that his attitude towards royalty was the same as the Founding Fathers - he didn't see any use for them.

It was a shame that Barbara Walters or someone like that couldn't do the interview. She wouldn't have been so turned off that he never had to work for a living and you may have seen Charles open up more.