Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[serenissima]

Not every village or town has it's own hunt but many from these villages are members of hunts elsewhere. I know quite a few people from Sheffield, Buxton, and surrounding areas who are members of a hunt. Quite a few members of the hunts are from working class background, it might help you to read the blurb from The Countryside Alliance where they state this. Personally I am 100% behind the ban. The only thing the CA truly concerns itself with is hunting, whether it is Fox Hunting, Hare Coursing (definitely a working mans 'sport'), Shooting, Fishing, certainly not the day to day concerns of ordinary people, whereas Charles concerns himself with helping disadvantaged youth, farming communities and a variety in between. He personally donated funds to the flood hit regions.

It is not a Tax Free Asset as the Duchy pays corporate tax, employment tax, VAT etc. Charles pays tax on all his income. Charles discloses, in full his accounts every year.

Oh, thank you for your kind reply. Well, I do know that there are people who are born below our own kind who do engage themselves in such activities as you have mentioned. However, I do think that it is not the prince's place to advocate this particular matter re: the fox hunting. If he wants to represent the people, then, he cannot talk about black or gay or whatever people as if they are better off than those who want to carry on hunting etc. That is how I feel.

Thank you also for your information re: the tax matters. Well, I would like to believe what you tell me but since the financial affairs of the royal family are not always very clear (unlike those of other royal houses such as that of Sweden, of Japan etc), I should like to ask somebody whom my husband knows who knows these things better and I shall make up my mind.

Well, I would like to chat about this sort of thing a bit longer but now look it's alreday this time, I must be going. I have got my hair appointment and I have this concert to go to this evening, too. I am sorry but I must go. Thank you anyway for your swift response.

 

[Warren]

Enough of the self-serving content please. If it's not relevant to the topic, don't post it.

thanks
Warren
British forums moderator

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I have last week's Point de Vue-the one with Princess Caroline of Hanover on the cover-and it seems to indicate that there are problems in the Charles/Camilla relationship. The article is in French but loosely translated it indicates that the bloom is off the marital rose after three years and that the Duchess spends more and more time on her own at her home Ray Mill House, which is sort of a sanctuary for her. It also says that the Royal couple are undertaking a joint visit to Poland next week to stifle rumors. Point de Vue doesn't strike me as a low class rumor mongering rag, even though I admit that the magazine's standards have gone waaay below expectations since it became The Carly Bruni-Sarkozy Chronicles.

Has anyone read this article and if so what are your thoughts?

To answer the question on the topic, no. My opinion hasn't changed. I have always rather liked and admired the Prince of Wales, as for his wife the less said by me the better.

 

[Al_bina]

In my very personal subjective opinion ...

All these articles related to marital discords between Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall may be viewed as hogwash to a certain extent. The couple will continue to make public appearance with happy faces. They have to true love story to back up. Even if they have got issues, it will mean nothing in the end because they are not going to divorce. Duchess of Cornwall may spend all time she wants in Ray Mill House. In short, marital issues between Prince Charles and his wife are their personal private business.

 

[scooter]

Oh, thank you for your kind reply. Well, I do know that there are people who are born below our own kind who do engage themselves in such activities as you have mentioned. However, I do think that it is not the prince's place to advocate this particular matter re: the fox hunting. If he wants to represent the people, then, he cannot talk about black or gay or whatever people as if they are better off than those who want to carry on hunting etc. That is how I feel.

Thank you also for your information re: the tax matters. Well, I would like to believe what you tell me but since the financial affairs of the royal family are not always very clear (unlike those of other royal houses such as that of Sweden, of Japan etc), I should like to ask somebody whom my husband knows who knows these things better and I shall make up my mind.

Well, I would like to chat about this sort of thing a bit longer but now look it's alreday this time, I must be going. I have got my hair appointment and I have this concert to go to this evening, too. I am sorry but I must go. Thank you anyway for your swift response.

Sorry Warren, but that was hysterically funny! Even if one maintains a stiff upper lip, it is still possible to snort a latte over the keyboard!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Sorry Warren, but that was hysterically funny! Even if one maintains a stiff upper lip, it is still possible to snort a latte over the keyboard!

Thanks...I thought it was just me! I laughed so hard here at my desk a co-worker stopped and ask me what was going on LOL!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

All these articles related to marital discords between Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall may be viewed as hogwash to a certain extent. The couple will continue to make public appearance with happy faces. They have to true love story to back up. Even if they have got issues, it will mean nothing in the : they are not going to divorce, Duchess of Cornwall may spend all time she wants in Ray Mill House. In short, marital issues between Prince Charles and his wife are their personal private business.

Well, I sure hope to God they don't divorce even though I don't exactly enjoy them as a couple...look at all the pain and destruction it took to get them where they are.

I would hate to think it was all in vain.......

 

[Elspeth]

Even if they can't stand the sight of each other, which is highly unlikely, they won't be able to divorce in the Queen's lifetime, that's for sure.

 

[Elspeth]

CaliforniaDreamin, did the PdeV article give any sources for this story that looked reasonable? Or was it the usual "sources close to..." stuff?

 

[MARG]

CaliforniaDreamin, did the PdeV article give any sources for this story that looked reasonable? Or was it the usual "sources close to..." stuff?

I saw a very colourful cover photo of the Duchess of Cornwall with the same teaser headline on the front of th NZ Womans Weekly! Needless to say, I did not buy a copy!

 

[Al_bina]

Well, I sure hope to God they don't divorce even though I don't exactly enjoy them as a couple...look at all the pain and destruction it took to get them where they are.

I would hate to think it was all in vain[my bolding].......

In this regard, I would like to say, "In this world there are two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and other is getting it". It is said that the last is much worse.

 

[love_cc]

I saw a very colourful cover photo of the Duchess of Cornwall with the same teaser headline on the front of th NZ Womans Weekly! Needless to say, I did not buy a copy!

Weeks ago, Australia's womans weekly carried the same article from Daily Mail and I did not buy a copy either!

 

[sthreats]

Charles Camilla Fox Hunting And Slavery

It is just like in the case of that infamous La Amistad. The US president who was more concerned about his people in the southern states that supported slavery supported the Spanish claim to return those unfortunate Africans to Cuba (so that they can be sold to the plantaions etc). However, the judge who was dealing the case gave a verdict that both the president and the Queen of Spain were in wrong and allowed the freedom of the African captives. I am sure those plantation owners in the southern states must have felt all those in New York, Boston etc didn't really understand the life of southern states where the slavery dependant economy was a part of their life etc and the slavery economy was indeed their rural tradition etc.

SEREMISSMA-As an African- American and a descent of slaves, I found the above analogy extremely insulting. How can you begin to compare fox-hunting to something as serious as more than 400 years of human bondage. The United States Civil War was based on one group feeling that their economic rights were being displaced by another. But underlying the entire thing was the belief that blacks were less than human-they were chattle and could be sold, moved, etc.. at will. Your analogy was a poor one.


I[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Prince Charles has every right to say what he thinks, but just because he says it and gives his opinion does not mean that he is right. It is a pity that if he makes a statment i.e. the Big Mac issue, he could not be debated by ordinary people as to why he feels he should make such a statement. The wrong thing is that when he makes a statement, be it slightly poltical or about any other [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']controversial subject, it is all over the media and [FONT='Arial','sans-serif']For fifty four years the Queen has been a model of propriety as a constitutional monarch, both in the UK and in her Commonwealth realms. For the last thirty years and more, though, the Prince of Wales has behaved as though he were running for office, a trait indicative of a certain disconnect between himself and the office for which heredity has destined him.

I AM NOT BRITISH. But, from what I have read of history and on the monarchy's own website, the "Prince of Wales" actually has no constitutional role. Prince Charles is Not the constituional monarch yet and therefore it seems to me he has a right to express his opinions. He acts in support of the monarch (the Queen). He should not express an opinion that would go against the Crown. For example, he may feel like many of us that it was wrong to go to Iraq but as "Prince of Wales" and an armed forces officer he supports the troops.
He does NOT act as if he is running for office. Visit the US 18 months before an election and you will see real campaigning.
I watched a video series ' The Meddling Prince' a year or so ago and some of the issues you addressed were mentioned there. I didn't agree with that video either.

IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION-CHARLES AND CAMILLA....
I think Prince Charles does a good job and reaches out to all groups.As the world demographics continue to change his approach will become more and more accepted. I think Camilla does what she's supposed to do. Support him.

 

[Skydragon]

I have last week's Point de Vue-the one with Princess Caroline of Hanover on the cover-and it seems to indicate that there are problems in the Charles/Camilla relationship.

Same response from me as the D***y Mail received

 

[BellaFay]

Even if they can't stand the sight of each other, which is highly unlikely, they won't be able to divorce in the Queen's lifetime, that's for sure.

I would have thought that the Queen would be delighted if they divorced as she hasn't supported the marriage from day one. Over the last week the christening of Prince Edward's son at Windsor was scheduled for the one weekend that Charles & Camilla couldn't attend as they had engagements in Scotland. Neither do they seem to have been ivited to the Order of the Garter ceremony on April 23rd (although all the rest of the Queen's children were there) despite the fact that both Charles & Camilla were at engagements in nearby London. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rumours about the couple's marriage being promoted around the world were not the handiwork of the Queen's staff.

 

[Skydragon]

Neither do they seem to have been ivited to the Order of the Garter ceremony on April 23rd (although all the rest of the Queen's children were there) despite the fact that both Charles & Camilla were at engagements in nearby London. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the rumours about the couple's marriage being promoted around the world were not the handiwork of the Queen's staff.

This years Garter Ceremony has not yet taken place, (It takes place in June, after vetting to ensure no one person manages to get a ticket two years in a row).

The rumours seem to be being promoted by the Mail and ther imagination of it's writers.

 

[Warren]

I would have thought that the Queen would be delighted if they divorced as she hasn't supported the marriage from day one.

Do you have a source or verification for this statement?

 

[wbenson]

There was also a service of thanksgiving for the Order of the Garter a few days ago. Somehow I doubt, however, that Charles' and Camilla's absence was due to a petty feud between the Queen and Camilla.

 

[milla Ca]

-and it seems to indicate that there are problems in the Charles/Camilla relationship.

All these articles who are published now around the world, in the UK, in the US, in Australia, in Germany or France seem to have one source: The weekly D.... Mail articles...we all know....
Take a look at the pictures in the C&C current events thread and form an opinion yourself about the Royal couple. That´s more useful than read this printed rubbish.

 

[Al_bina]

I doubt that certain respected news papers and magazines would denigrate themselves by repeating stories by Daily Mail. It might be presumed that there are some issues, but all married couples have got their good and bad moments. At the same time, it is quite possible that Daily Mail is correct in its assumptions about the marriage in question.

 

[milla Ca]

The internet gives us the great possiblitity to read the press in many different countries. And if many newspapers/ tabloids/ magazines write in only one month about the same subject, using the same phrases and words then it seems to be that they all copy articles who mentioned this topic first.

 

[love_cc]

I doubt that certain respected news papers and magazines would denigrate themselves by repeating stories by Daily Mail. It might be presumed that there are some issues, but all married couples have got their good and bad moments. At the same time, it is quite possible that Daily Mail is correct in its assumptions about the marriage in question.

No the sources of those articles are mainly the Daily Mail. At least for English speaking countries such as Australia and NZ.The Womens' weekly will directly use the originial article just like the one I saw weeks ago.

 

[love_cc]

There was also a service of thanksgiving for the Order of the Garter a few days ago. Somehow I doubt, however, that Charles' and Camilla's absence was due to a petty feud between the Queen and Camilla.

are you serious about this? What makes you think so? I am wondering. Because I always think the biggest feud in BRF is btween Prince Charles and Prince Philips.

 

[MARG]

I doubt that certain respected news papers and magazines would denigrate themselves by repeating stories by Daily Mail..

The NZ Womens Weekly respectable . . . . ? Not denigrate itself . . . ? Oh how I wish.

All those rags mentioned running this particular "story" are tabloids or their international counterparts.

 

[MARG]

. . . . . Because I always think the biggest feud in BRF is btween Prince Charles and Prince Philips.

Huh? Did I miss something major?

 

[jcbcode99]

I would have thought that the Queen would be delighted if they divorced as she hasn't supported the marriage from day one.

That is interesting--I was unaware that the Queen was unsupportive of her son's marriage to someone who makes him happy and comfortable with who he is. In fact, the fact that the Queen allows Camilla to wear her mother's jewels makes a fairly big statement, don't you think? It isn't as if Camilla is only wearing a sentimental piece or two--we have seen, among other things, two substantial emerald brooches which belonged to Queen Alexandra, the Delhi Durbar tiara which was in essence a coronation crown for Queen Mary while in India, and her mother's favorite tiara-the Boucheron honeycomb. In addition to all of those visible tokens which HM has allowed Camilla to wear, there is also the matter of the five strand greville necklace, a riviere of huge diamonds given to QEQM by her husband, King George VI, and let's not forget the token of love and promise--the engagment ring--a lovely trio of emerald cut diamonds--another piece belonging to the QUeen's mother.
If HM really didn't support the marriage, Camilla would not be wearing such sentimental and historic pieces. I know if I didn't like my daugher-in-law she would never get any of my mother's jewelry.

 

[LadyCat]

Very well stated and ever so true. It is very obvious the Queen is doing all she can to ensure Camilla's acceptance by her is known.

Cat

 

[scooter]

That is interesting--I was unaware that the Queen was unsupportive of her son's marriage to someone who makes him happy and comfortable with who he is. In fact, the fact that the Queen allows Camilla to wear her mother's jewels makes a fairly big statement, don't you think? It isn't as if Camilla is only wearing a sentimental piece or two--we have seen, among other things, two substantial emerald brooches which belonged to Queen Alexandra, the Delhi Durbar tiara which was in essence a coronation crown for Queen Mary while in India, and her mother's favorite tiara-the Boucheron honeycomb. In addition to all of those visible tokens which HM has allowed Camilla to wear, there is also the matter of the five strand greville necklace, a riviere of huge diamonds given to QEQM by her husband, King George VI, and let's not forget the token of love and promise--the engagment ring--a lovely trio of emerald cut diamonds--another piece belonging to the QUeen's mother.
If HM really didn't support the marriage, Camilla would not be wearing such sentimental and historic pieces. I know if I didn't like my daugher-in-law she would never get any of my mother's jewelry.

I am under the impression that Charles inherited from his grandmother QEQM the jewels that Camilla now enjoys. Is this not true? Do they instead come from QEII?

 

[jcbcode99]

I am under the impression that Charles inherited from his grandmother QEQM the jewels that Camilla now enjoys. Is this not true? Do they instead come from QEII?

Hi Scooter Actually, Charles did not inherit his grandmother's jewels; the jewels were inherited by Queen Elizabeth II in a Sovereign to Sovereign transfer that is able to avoid huge death duties on the value of the estate. I believe everything was transferred to the Queen. Tax loophole will save Queen £20m on her mother's will | UK news | The Guardian
That is why it is so meaningful that Camilla is wearing all of these pieces. To me, the most meaningful pieces are Queen Alexandra's emerald pieces (cabochon drop earrings, leek brooch, PoW feather brooch with drop) and the Delhi Durbar tiara. Those are historic. The riviere Camilla wore for her 60th birthday was a sentimental piece that the Queen Mother received from her husband:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_03/camchuckPA2411_468x527.jpg

Here' the engagement ring: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/02/11/ncam111.jpg

Emerald leek brooch http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/391864-post8.html gift to Queen Alexandra

This link takes you to a pic of the emerald drop earrings (Queen Alexandra) and an emerald brooch which was a particular favorite of QEQM:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/397076-post28.html


I could go on and on, but just check out the six or seven threads for the Duchess of Cornwall's jewels; we discuss these pieces extensively over there!

 

[Charlotte1]

I am under the impression that Charles inherited from his grandmother QEQM the jewels that Camilla now enjoys. Is this not true? Do they instead come from QEII?

Charles didn't inherit anything from his grandmother. Even the Castle of Mey which was the only home she actually owned was put into a Trust and Charles is head of that Trust. All the QM jewels went to her daughter the Queen, Camilla wears the QM's jewels because the Queen lends them to her, this is actually information released. The diamond riviere that Camilla wore on her 60th birthday, the picture and then press release stated that it had belonged to the QM and QEII was loaning it to her daughter-in-law.

Andrew didn't inherit the Royal Lodge from his grandmother either, something else that's often stated incorrectly. QM never owned the Royal Lodge it's part of the Crown Estate, the lease was transferred to Andrew after his grandmother's death.