Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall: Visit to the US - November 1-8, 2005


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elspeth said:
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.
 
ysbel said:
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.
 
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.:D
 
Elspeth said:
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.:D

LOL you two :D

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. :mad:

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!
 
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.
 
Dennism said:
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.
 
Elise27 said:
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.
 
What time exactly does TV coverage of Charles and Camilla's visit begin?
Im having to put up with CNN just so I dont miss anything. The host keeps saying "the royals are coming" as if charles and camilla were the only royals in the world. And then there's a stupid question they're asking everyone and Carol Costello keeps saying "what do the royals have to do to earn your love" because according to CNN polls nobody seems to care. I find that rather pompous.
This woman's just as bad as another CNN host who didnt know what the word princess-consort meant.
Screen caps of the poll:
 
Re:

In Britain there is an unwritten law that concerns Tv Interviews. You're briefed on the questions before you go on and you answer each one with your rehearsed or planned answers. The same occurs with Radio. It's impolite to ask any other questions than the interviewee is prepared for.

I think alot of people think Charles is pompous because he speaks extremely well, holds himself well and doesn't share his secrets with the world. The Royal Family don't have alot of privacy and what they have, they're entitled to keep.

I find this sooo annoying. He does work for a living! He's a member of the Royal Family - thats a job in itself and its a difficult one. (More difficult than interviewing people on news channels)

The better option would have been for Charles to appear on Parkinson and for it to have been broadcast in America. Parkinson knows the boundaries and is generally easy to talk to. He's done some brilliant interviews with Princess Anne and Prince Andrew. I find American journalists tend to forget their place.
 
It was the press that made this into a campaign for the u.s to like camilla. Nobody ever said it was true and they said he would not talk about anything else. I think his personal life is private and it should stay that way. He and Camilla should get on with their lives and their royal duties.
 
Last edited:
well, Charles has to take them as he finds them and that might be why is job is soooooooo difficult ;)



BeatrixFan said:
......... I find American journalists tend to forget their place.
 
BeatrixFan said:
I find American journalists tend to forget their place.
Just because Britain used to lay claim on a portion of the land that is now part of United Stated, doesn't mean the decendents and other immigrants in the 200+ years should automatically understand their "place" in the eyes of British Royals. The journalists are just doing their job trying to explain in basic terms what the royals do and why. There are many people in US and around the world, whose lives don't involved meeting or even reading about royals on a daily basis, nor living with a strict social structure that puts people in their place since birth.
 
Apparently, they'll be at the world trade center after 12:00 today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeatrixFan said:
I find American journalists tend to forget their place.

LOL...since I live here I am finding even our tabloids are behaving in a most respectable manner when reporting any news regarding their visit.

We tend NOT to treat foreign visitors, royal or not, with hostility while they are in our country on official business.

While they are visiting we do not protest, threaten, throw things at, verbally assault, swear at, make fun of like a bunch of children, etc.

We allow them to do what they came here for, whether we agree or not agree.

It is called diplomacy. Anything less tampers with relations.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand this stuff about Charles not working for a living. A lot of rich Americans whose basic income is inherited and coming from income from investments are doing the same thing he is, with their dedication to charity work and work in society along the lines of Charles's invovlement with Poundbury. As the 60-minutes segment said, he acts as an ambassador for British goods, services, and values by carrying out tours arranged by the Foreign Office. How is this different from the way a lot of well-connected friends of the US President of the day conduct their lives with no criticism from mainstream journalists?
 
Re:

We tend NOT to treat foreign visitors, royal or not, with hostility while they are in our country on official business.

How very welcoming.

While they are visiting we do not protest, threaten, throw things at, verbally assault, swear at, make fun of like a bunch of children, etc.

Really? I've been hearing an interview with a woman from 'The Diana Circle' being played all day saying how she will be protesting loudly at every avaliable opportunity whilst Their Royal Highness's are in America. I admit that they don't represent a majority but can't the mighty forces of America move them on?
 
I agree for the most part Elspeth.

He does work. He works his backside off. I may not have agreed with everything he has done in his life, but I admire and respect the hard work and dedication he has to his role ans to the Monarchy.

But, I think maybe what the journalist from 60 Minutes was trying to say, and poorly, is that a royal does not work in the traditional sense like us commoners. Edward and Sophie tried to be both royal and work at normal jobs and as we saw, were not able to do both so they had to pick.

I do not think it was meant to angled: Prince Charles does not work, does not have to work, etc.

I think part of the problem is the journalist from 60 Minutes did not do his research properly.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Really? I've been hearing an interview with a woman from 'The Diana Circle' being played all day saying how she will be protesting loudly at every avaliable opportunity whilst Their Royal Highness's are in America. I admit that they don't represent a majority but can't the mighty forces of America move them on?

It depends how seriously the mighty forces of America take the US Constitution. The mighty forces of Singapore or Libya would be moving them on. Western democracies, on the whole, think freedom of speech is a good thing rather than a bad thing. For one thing, it lets people sit on computers criticising the government and society, which wouldn't be allowed in countries where the mighty forces are too scared of the opinions of individuals to allow them to be aired.
 
Re:

There is such a thing as public decency. If they want to protest then let them, but they should do it far away from TRH so as not to cause a scene. It creates a bad impression and lets face it, America needs all the good PR it can get right now.
 
BeatrixFan said:
How very welcoming.



Really? I've been hearing an interview with a woman from 'The Diana Circle' being played all day saying how she will be protesting loudly at every avaliable opportunity whilst Their Royal Highness's are in America. I admit that they don't represent a majority but can't the mighty forces of America move them on?

That is one person and one VERY small group of people.

I will not debate, nor allow you to lead me into an argument with you, of any kind, and break any of the forum rules.

May I remind you how a certain person was treated in your country in November of 2003?
 
Re:

May I remind you how a certain person was treated in your country in November of 2003?
Please do.
 
:rolleyes: Anyway, to move one to what this forum is really about, which is not ripping each other's countries apart.

Are the Prince and Duchess getting in later today, or this evening?
 
{Removed response to off-topic post - Elspeth}

Are the Prince and Duchess going to visit New Orleans for sure?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe New Orleans has been scrapped.
 
pollyemma said:
I believe New Orleans has been scrapped.

Thank you, pollyemma, for answering my question.

We are hoping another member on here, ysbel, who works across the street from where they will be today in New York will be able to get some pictures and then post them on here.
 
Does anyone know if reporters will be able to ask the royal couple questions, and if they have planned any walkabouts to meet and greet the people?
 
I haven't read all of the posts so this schedule may have been posted already, but the latest is that the couple will be in New York to visit Ground Zero and the UN, then go to Washington for lunch and dinner with the president, and finishing with 2 days in San Fransisco.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom