 |
|

04-21-2018, 11:18 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,827
|
|
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."
A.W. TOZER
|

04-23-2018, 06:59 AM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,890
|
|
|

04-23-2018, 03:52 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,827
|
|
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."
A.W. TOZER
|

04-23-2018, 06:09 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,890
|
|
Nicely done, and it didn't pass over some sensitive subjects...
I always thought that Camilla needed to be heard.... and known !
|

04-23-2018, 06:12 PM
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
|
|
A thoroughly nice and sincere Woman, whose genuine interest in others shone through in this programme. She will make a fine Queen Consort, when the day eventually dawns.
|

04-23-2018, 06:13 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,827
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico
Nicely done, and it didn't pass over some sensitive subjects...
I always thought that Camilla needed to be heard.... and known !
|
It was a very nice and relaxing documentary. Camilla is rather frank in her personal remarks and I just find that very refreshing.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."
A.W. TOZER
|

04-23-2018, 07:29 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,890
|
|
|

04-23-2018, 07:43 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,035
|
|
Read the comments and you get the exact opposite view.
|

04-23-2018, 07:51 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,890
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie
Read the comments and you get the exact opposite view.
|
Of course you'll get the opposite view : It's the Daily Mail comments section lol
They hate Camilla, maybe not as much as Meghan nowadays, when they don't call other members of the BRF "freeloaders". So is it a reliable source ? Your choice..
I'm more interested in the comments on Twitter, and the overall reactions about the documentary...
|

04-23-2018, 08:17 PM
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,726
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico
Nicely done, and it didn't pass over some sensitive subjects...
I always thought that Camilla needed to be heard.... and known !
|
The simple fact that the documentary referred to Camilla as the future “ Queen consort “ suggests it was produced with the approval of Team Charles. I would take it with a grain of salt, as I do with all obviously biased reporting.
|

04-23-2018, 08:18 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,890
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno
The simple fact that the documentary referred to Camilla as the future “ Queen consort “ suggests it was produced with the approval of Team Charles. I would take it with a grain of salt, as I do with all obviously biased reporting.
|
Did you see it ?
I mean OF COURSE it's some PR from Charles's camp. But is there anything wrong about that ?
After years and years of biased documentary, and books, about how the "Rotweiller" was, i do think it was a bit of refreshing to see, and hear for the first time, a much maligned woman in her own words, in a hope, maybe a bit vain,to gain a balanced and enlightened opinion about her.
And this documentary wasn't shy about Diana, the failed mariages and the sometimes difficult public image of Camilla. It was honnest. So if it's indeed a product from Team Charles, it was very well done.
|

04-23-2018, 08:25 PM
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,930
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno
The simple fact that the documentary referred to Camilla as the future “ Queen consort “ suggests it was produced with the approval of Team Charles. I would take it with a grain of salt, as I do with all obviously biased reporting.
|
I'm not sure why you say this. It is a simple fact that Camilla is the future "Queen consort."
|

04-23-2018, 08:29 PM
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,726
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico
Did you see it ?
|
No, I did not, but the use of the term “Queen consort” implies it is sanctioned by Clarence House. An impartial documentary wouldn’t use that designation when the question of Camilla’s title has not been settled yet and, until recently, the official ” intention” that she would be styled “Princess Consort” instead.
|

04-23-2018, 08:33 PM
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,930
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno
No, I did not, but the use of the term “Queen consort” implies it is sanctioned by Clarence House. An impartial documentary wouldn’t use that designation when the question of Camilla’s title has not been settled yet and, until recently, the official ” intention” that she would be styled “Princess Consort” instead.
|
When she married Charles, it was announced that they intended that she would be known as "princess consort." However, my understanding is that Camilla will legally be Queen consort, as she is the legal Princess of Wales now. She has simply chosen to use another title.
|

04-23-2018, 08:36 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 10,297
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno
The simple fact that the documentary referred to Camilla as the future “ Queen consort “ suggests it was produced with the approval of Team Charles. I would take it with a grain of salt, as I do with all obviously biased reporting.
|
Regardless of whether you are on Team Charles or Team let's get rid of the Monarchy, it will take an act of parliament to change her destiny and the government are not looking to make the UK look small, mean and petty at a time they have HM sending her family on charm offensives post Brexit.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
|

04-23-2018, 08:37 PM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,333
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno
No, I did not, but the use of the term “Queen consort” implies it is sanctioned by Clarence House. An impartial documentary wouldn’t use that designation when the question of Camilla’s title has not been settled yet and, until recently, the official ” intention” that she would be styled “Princess Consort” instead.
|
that's what was said - by the Sunday Times Royal Reporter. That she will be Queen Consort - regardless of whether she is known as Princess Consort or not.
Because you haven't seen it, I don't think you are in a position to judge the programme. You have an opinion on Camilla naturally, but that is different to judging the programme tonight.
I thought it fairly balanced - the royal authors and historians were straightforward, some friends gushed a bit, and Camilla came across as direct and positive person.
Don't think it will change many people's mind though
__________________
This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
|

04-24-2018, 06:37 AM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
|
|
The rage seen in comments could stem from the initial statement when Camilla and Charles were married; the public pronouncement was she was going to be Princess Consort when Charles becomes king. If that was never the intention then the announcement should never have been made. Now it looks like Clarence House has put one over on the public all these years and it's going to be harder to accept the name change when the time comes.
|

04-24-2018, 06:42 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,035
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico
Of course you'll get the opposite view : It's the Daily Mail comments section lol
They hate Camilla, maybe not as much as Meghan nowadays, when they don't call other members of the BRF "freeloaders". So is it a reliable source ? Your choice..
I'm more interested in the comments on Twitter, and the overall reactions about the documentary...
|
Actually there are a number of commentators on the DM that are fans of Camilla.Sometimes they get massive green votes and other times massive red ones.
Any one who claims to do research as part of their job - as I do - knows that you have to read all sides to get a full picture not just those that agree with you.
Often the DM has some very good articles and well researched ones. Others are just dross.
To completely write off a source is not what a good researcher ever does because we know that often, even in the dross, there is good stuff.
The paper itself isn't a 'source' but the articles in them are - and you need to look at who the authors are and what barrow they are trying to push.
Twitter comments are no better than the comments in the DM for the most part as again they are largely anonymous (anyone can create an account on twitter and claim to work for an organisation - and once they have been 'approved' and can prove that the name and account aren't theirs twitter still won't shut down the false account - my brother, and his employers, have been trying to get a twitter account created in his name and 'approved' by his employer shut down for three years and twitter says 'no our problem - anyone can create any account and we just approve - we don't check'. That is why I don't have not trust a twitter account and wouldn't use it as a 'reliable source' as a researcher.
|

04-24-2018, 06:44 AM
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
|
|
I watched it, and followed the comments on 'Twitter' too.. they were OVERWHELMINGLY positive, with a marked absence of bitterly hostile 'Dianophiles'...
|
 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|