The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #401  
Old 02-15-2006, 07:13 AM
Crown Jewel's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, United States
Posts: 25
Smile

Sometime ago C and C attendented a function with the royal family of Norway. Camilla wore a tiara which I did not like. It looked like iron scaffolding, I expected to see little workmen climbing about. Could somebody please tell me the history of this tiara it's real color etc. Any tid bit would be welcome. Please don't send me to Danjel 2,3 or 4, there simply are no pictures to be seen on any of those sites. When will Danjel have an operative web site? I sorely miss the wonderful pictures he has posted.
__________________

__________________
  #402  
Old 02-15-2006, 08:26 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crown Jewel
Sometime ago C and C attendented a function with the royal family of Norway. Camilla wore a tiara which I did not like. It looked like iron scaffolding, I expected to see little workmen climbing about. Could somebody please tell me the history of this tiara it's real color etc. Any tid bit would be welcome. Please don't send me to Danjel 2,3 or 4, there simply are no pictures to be seen on any of those sites. When will Danjel have an operative web site? I sorely miss the wonderful pictures he has posted.
You are referring to the Delhi Durbar Tiara, one of the grandest and most historic diadems in the British Royal collection. There is endless discussion of it in the Duchess of Cornwall Jewellery Thread. Pick any page, but here's a pic. It's real colour is the colour of massed diamonds. Danjel's site is no more.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #403  
Old 02-15-2006, 11:22 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Danjel's site fell afoul of the copyright law, didn't it?
__________________
  #404  
Old 02-16-2006, 04:24 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Danjel's site fell afoul of the copyright law, didn't it?
Yes. Danjel made a brief statement some months ago that the Agencies in effect closed his site down because of copyright issues regarding his tiara pics. The same happened with the former 'Royal Jewels of the World' site (not to be confused with the Royal Jewels of the World Message Board). We don't know exactly why these sites were targeted - I mean how many people are into tiaras? :) - but they were, and part of the reason was the use of non-credited images.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #405  
Old 05-13-2006, 05:47 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 161
All I'm saying is whether people like it or not (and I certainly don't, but my British family came to America hundreds of years ago so my opinon doesn't really count) Camilla by law is and will be Queen when POW becomes king. And as she is POW, I think it was mighty dignified of her not use that title considering who had it before her and all that history that goes along with it. And for that I think when she becomes Queen she should use the title. It's only fair and right, and I don't think it would be in Parliament's best interest for them to deny her that right. And I don't think they will, especially since it seems people are more accepting and open to the DOC.

We can debate all day about whether we think DOC deserves to call herself Queen or no, but the more important thing to remember is that legally she can.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
  #406  
Old 05-13-2006, 06:01 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: THOMPSONS STATION, United States
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vita
All I'm saying is whether people like it or not (and I certainly don't, but my British family came to America hundreds of years ago so my opinon doesn't really count) Camilla by law is and will be Queen when POW becomes king. And as she is POW, I think it was mighty dignified of her not use that title considering who had it before her and all that history that goes along with it. And for that I think when she becomes Queen she should use the title. It's only fair and right, and I don't think it would be in Parliament's best interest for them to deny her that right. And I don't think they will, especially since it seems people are more accepting and open to the DOC.

We can debate all day about whether we think DOC deserves to call herself Queen or no, but the more important thing to remember is that legally she can.
I don't think she chose not to use the title POW because of dignity sake, I believe, it was decided that it would stir up untold animosity. Ergo, she should use the DOC title. That she is the POW goes without saying and when he reigns what she chooses to call herself or what the British people will tolerate are truly up to them. It will be most interesting to see if an Archbisop of Canterbury will place any crown on her head. Most embarassing for the church, but then again so was the blessing of their marriage.
__________________
  #407  
Old 05-13-2006, 06:49 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox6
I don't think she chose not to use the title POW because of dignity sake, I believe, it was decided that it would stir up untold animosity. Ergo, she should use the DOC title. That she is the POW goes without saying and when he reigns what she chooses to call herself or what the British people will tolerate are truly up to them. It will be most interesting to see if an Archbisop of Canterbury will place any crown on her head. Most embarassing for the church, but then again so was the blessing of their marriage.
Oh I'm quite sure dignity had nothing to do with on their part but I was saying that I felt was a dignified thing to do.

I personally hope Her Magesty will continue to reign down to the last minutes of her life, because she is truly a wonderful person and leader; a role model, I think for any female-maybe not as a mother-who becomes a leader. I would hope that she doesn't abdicate, but would continue to be the wonderful Queen she is and naturally as she can no longer continue with her duties due to whatever reasons, she would give them to POW, DOC, et al. to carry them out.

I'm not ready to see POW or DOC on the golden throne and I kind of hope it never happens, though I know it will.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
  #408  
Old 05-13-2006, 09:13 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox6
I don't think she chose not to use the title POW because of dignity sake, I believe, it was decided that it would stir up untold animosity. Ergo, she should use the DOC title. That she is the POW goes without saying and when he reigns what she chooses to call herself or what the British people will tolerate are truly up to them. It will be most interesting to see if an Archbisop of Canterbury will place any crown on her head. Most embarassing for the church, but then again so was the blessing of their marriage.
I'm American Episcopalian so our church does keep up ties with the Church of England and all the Anglican churches monitor each other's changes and sometimes they adopt what the other churches are doing.

My understanding was that before the wedding, there were already some CoE bishops who wanted the church statutes changed to allow marrying divorced people in the Church. The American Episcopal church has allowed it for some time. However, my understanding was that the bishops didn't press it for the marriage because there was already a more controversial movement for allowing gay priests and churches don't generally make too many controversial changes at once.

The fact that the marriage was blessed was interpreted in my Church to mean that by the time Charles is crowned, the CofE will probably by that time have changed the church statutes about allowing divorced people to remarry. If they had serious doubts that the statutes would not be changed, they wouldn't have blessed the marriage.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #409  
Old 05-13-2006, 10:22 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Well, it's been standard practice in England for many years to have a church blessing after a civil ceremony when one of the couple is divorced, so it wasn't something done especially for Charles. However, his position as the future Supreme Governor of the church does make things a bit more difficult - the idea of having this service of prayer and dedication after a ceremony that the church refuses to perform because it doesn't consider the pair free to marry has always been a rather uncomfortable compromise, and it's made all the more awkward by Charles's future position in the church.

Recently the church has been somewhat more consistent in its approach and has begun to allow the remarriage of divorcees under certain conditions. However, one of those conditions is that the second spouse not be instrumental in the breakup of the first marriage, which obviously wasn't the case here. The service of prayer and dedication (commonly known as blessing) continues to be available for remarried divorcees who have to have civil ceremonies because they don't fulfill the criteria for a second marriage in the church.

This whole business of the church blessing of a civil ceremony because of church refusal to conduct the ceremony has always struck me as hypocritical, but it's by no means unusual and it's been going on for a long time.
__________________
  #410  
Old 05-14-2006, 06:35 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
The church does allow remarriage in church even if one of the parties was involved in the breakup of the former marriage.

I have attended four such weddings over the last 10 years and one 16 years ago, it is at the sole discretion of the minister in charge. One cynic said it depended how much they put on the collection plate!
__________________
  #411  
Old 05-14-2006, 08:08 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
The church does allow remarriage in church even if one of the parties was involved in the breakup of the former marriage.

I have attended four such weddings over the last 10 years and one 16 years ago, it is at the sole discretion of the minister in charge. One cynic said it depended how much they put on the collection plate!
Alas, Skydragon, there are those darned 'rogue' priests! Even here in these exceedingly far-flung countries of the Commonwealth.:o

Here's hoping that the CofE and the entire 'Worldwide Anglican Communion' can get their collective connonial act together and tidy up the cannon law...Waaaaay before it is urgently needed. :o

Mind you, the rate of progress here at Diocesan Synod Level, not to mention National Synod would make a snail look like a jaguar. (I am guessing that it is exactly the same in 'Mother England' - writing as someone living in a city that was founded by stalwarts of the CofE, naming squares 'Latimer', 'Ridley' and 'Cranmer' - and is this year celebrating both the City and the Diocesan sesquicentennial).

When the time comes, I will be shouting "God save King Charles"! And hoping that the situation with his consort will be (distant) history.

Until then, God Save the Queen! :) :)
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #412  
Old 05-14-2006, 09:55 AM
crisscross1's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 818
I hope that when the Queen does give up the throne it will be to William.
Charles is too old and set in his ways to rule. He should have been given the reigns years ago.
William will bring a young and fresh feel to the British Monarchy.
__________________
  #413  
Old 05-14-2006, 10:08 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisscross1
I hope that when the Queen does give up the throne it will be to William.
Charles is too old and set in his ways to rule. He should have been given the reigns years ago.
William will bring a young and fresh feel to the British Monarchy.
It is a hereditary monarchy, therefore the Queen can't 'give up' the throne to William. If he is alive, she has to be followed by her son, Charles.
__________________
  #414  
Old 05-14-2006, 10:13 AM
crisscross1's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 818
Camilla is so much older and not at all beautiful, but, she loves Charles and she has taken on the role of his wife very well. They are well suited and if Charles ever inherits the throne from his mother I don't think it will be a long reign. William will be a young and fresh King and his father will be a great advisor.
__________________
  #415  
Old 05-14-2006, 10:18 AM
crisscross1's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
It is a hereditary monarchy, therefore the Queen can't 'give up' the throne to William. If he is alive, she has to be followed by her son, Charles.
Good point, can Charles inherit the throne from the Queen but choose to abdicate, or does he have to, God forbid, pass away.
__________________
  #416  
Old 05-14-2006, 10:35 AM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
HE would never abdicate. He would take his oath as seriously as his mother.
__________________
  #417  
Old 05-14-2006, 10:41 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisscross1
William will be a young and fresh King and his father will be a great advisor.
The way the monarchy works, William will only become King when Elizabeth and Charles are both dead so Charles can hardly be William's advisor when William is King.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #418  
Old 05-14-2006, 10:44 AM
crisscross1's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 818
Prince Charles will be 60 in two years time, if the Queen holds the throne for another ten years, will he have the desire or indeed the energy to take on that role. His son who will be around thirty, will have what it takes.
In ten years time perhaps the British monarchy will be a thing of the past anyway.
__________________
  #419  
Old 05-14-2006, 10:54 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,200
Really, this is none of my business, since I'm Swedish, and we have our own royal house to care about. But I really do think, that Charles should become king after his mother. I mean, why not? You shouldn't just jump a generation in the succession like that! We did that in Sweden because our current king's father died prematurely in a airplane crash. Our current king had to succeed his grandfather, not his father. I have always thought, that one of our current king's uncles should have been king before the crown went to their nephew. Thinking about it, Bertil and Lillian could very well have been king and queen, if they only had been allowed to get married! And then, Carl Gustaf and Silvia could have been king and queen after Bertil's death. I only think like this, since I think every generation should have a representative at the thrown, if there only is a representative left. So let Charles become king and Camilla become queen! End of story!
__________________
  #420  
Old 05-14-2006, 10:58 AM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
Charles is in better health than his mother and she is 80 and full of energy so I dont think Charles will be tired at all. He has stamina to go on as long as his mother and grandmother.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
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 Current Events 4: Oct - Nov 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 248 11-18-2005 02:47 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? grecka The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 641 11-07-2005 08:22 AM
Charles and Camilla: Current events 2: Sept - Oct 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 199 10-04-2005 04:45 AM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles 6: Feb - April 2005 Alexandria Current Events Archive 183 04-09-2005 07:54 PM
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles 5: Nov 2004 - Feb 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 188 02-27-2005 09:48 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman palace poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:33 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]