The Prince of Wales's 70th Birthday: November 14, 2018

[Nico]

Well i can't blame Marie-Chantal to be a working business woman. The dress was probably a loan from the fashion house so she had to show off a bit in return to this freebie.
Tatiana and Lady Frederick did exactly the same so ...
Is it classy ? Maybe not. But not really shocking nowadays.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Does Marie-Chantal depend on freebies to get dresses for a birthday of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales at Buckingham Palace? I have more respect for a Princess Elisabeth of Denmark who made her own gowns than for a Marie-Chantal splashing Prada.

 

[sophie25]

Prince Palvos looked quite dashing.

Lady Frederic's dress is awkward. It reminded me of the dress worn by the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

Lady Frederick's dress will have reminded you of one worn by Diana because it is indeed a pink version of a Catherine Walker dress that Diana had in black. Lady Gabriella also wore a pale grey version of this dress to Prince Nicholas of Greece's wedding.

 

[Iluvbertie]

On a more general note, I so wish the palace would release a full guest list, even after the fact. It's irritating not to be sure who attended and who didn't.

The BRF do not released lists of people invited to PRIVATE events like this one.

Had this been an official event the list would have been in the Court Circular but as it was purely a private family occasion there is no list.

The BRF have different practices to other royal families and have a clear delineation between public and private events and believe that private events are just that - private.

They allow a lot of access for public events but limited to none for their private events.

After the 1980s and 1990s they very much pulled back from allowing the media in in order to try to take back control from the media and public who had come to believe that they had every right to know every little detail about their lives.

 

[Sun Lion]

Who left first, what food was served, which rooms at the Palace were used, what the table settings were...

What the entertainment was - vintage car horns playing the "Blue Danube", Chinese acrobats, Edward sawing Peter Phillips in half!...

No photos, but plenty of details of the party -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nce-Charless-extraordinary-70th-birthday.html

 

[Gawin]

The Palace always plays down visits from the German side of the family. I can understand that in the past this was necessary to respect sensibilities and avoid the press baying about the Saxe-Coburg, Hesse and Baden connections. But surely now it is time to move on. The British Royals are part of a wider European Royal family which, in these dreadful times, could be a powerful example of the links that connect the people of the continent together, and representative of so many other families which cross borders, as a result of increased mobility and emigration.:

The German relatives are private citizens, not public figures, and may prefer to stay under the radar, just as we really don't hear about visits from the Queen Mother's family who are private citizens too. But I'm only speculating. I really don't think visits from the Germans are played down because they're German.

 

[Al_bina]

Lady Frederick's dress will have reminded you of one worn by Diana because it is indeed a pink version of a Catherine Walker dress that Diana had in black. Lady Gabriella also wore a pale grey version of this dress to Prince Nicholas of Greece's wedding.

Thanks! The dress in question is not particularly flattering.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Who left first, what food was served, which rooms at the Palace were used, what the table settings were...

What the entertainment was - vintage car horns playing the "Blue Danube", Chinese acrobats, Edward sawing Peter Phillips in half!...

No photos, but plenty of details of the party -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nce-Charless-extraordinary-70th-birthday.html

I notice that Richard Key didn't say what his sources were - so is he making this up or did he ask guests to get his information.

Normally the author of such articles identifies there sources e.g. the sources for comments included in the toasts at Harry's wedding were named but not this time.

So this may be Kay having sources who don't want to be named OR he could be making it up.

This isn't officially released information.

 

[Madame Verseau]

The DM article is a sretch. Andrew Parker Bowels, Camilla'd ex, was a guest? Okay

 

[sophie25]

The DM article is a sretch. Andrew Parker Bowels, was a guest? Okay

Well he did go Charles and Camilla's wedding

 

[Osipi]

I'm not surprised at all that Andrew Parker Bowles was a guest. All of them (Anne included) have remained friends despite failed romantic relationships. We often see APB pop up attending something along with the royal set.

Its good that there's no hard feelings or grudges but rather enduring friendships. This article about their relationships was printed when Andrew's second wife, Rosemary, died after a battle with cancer.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/201001192765/princess-anne/rosemary-parker-bowles/funeral/

 

[sophie25]

My husband hears me talk about this stuff and is truly shocked. He shakes his head and will say 'So Prince Charles was having an affair with Camilla and her husband was having affairs too and they were all OK with it but they made out that Princess Diana was mad because she objected? I think I am with Princess Diana'. I guess unless you are used to the ways of the upper classes, as we are via forums like this, it dosn't make sense to most people.

 

[jacqui24]

My husband hears me talk about this stuff and is truly shocked. He shakes his head and will say 'So Prince Charles was having an affair with Camilla and her husband was having affairs too and they were all OK with it but they made out that Princess Diana was mad because she objected? I think I am with Princess Diana'. I guess unless you are used to the ways of the upper classes, as we are via forums like this, it dosn't make sense to most people.

Even knowing that’s how they roll, it still doesn’t make sense to me. I just leave it as that.

 

[Curryong]

Not everyone in the upper classes had/has that attitude, though. It was only certain people in the hunting and polo set.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The DM article is a sretch. Andrew Parker Bowels, Camilla'd ex and the man Charles cuckolded, was a guest? Okay

Absolutely. I would have been surprised if he wasn't there. He and Camilla had a very civiiised divorce. Charles and Andrew both have the pleasure of 'grandfathering' Andrew's biological grandchildren and unlike the Diana fanatics who go ballistic at the sight of Camilla anywhere near Diana's biological grandchildren Andrew is happy to see another 'grandfather' in his grandchildren's lives.

Andrew has been on excellent terms with Anne since the 1970s when they had their affair, which may or may not have had later reincarnations over the decades. I would expect him to be at Anne's 70th birthday celebrations in a couple of years as well.

Richard Key isn't stupid enough to include a name of someone who wasn't there as he could very easily be called out on that.

Not everyone in the upper classes had/has that attitude, though. It was only certain people in the hunting and polo set.

There was a very clear unwritten rule that applied across the aristocracy - largely due to the 'arranged marriages' that occurred within that class until the 1960s in many cases:

at least two sons - the heir and spare - and then the wife was as free as the husband to sleep around so long as she was discreet.

The only two women who didn't have that freedom was the wife of the monarch and the wife of the heir to the throne as for them to sleep with any man, other than their husband, was treason. It was on those charges that both Anne Boleyn and Kathryn Howard were executed - for treason.

 

[soapstar]

A few posts have been deleted because of derogatory comments made about one of the guests at Charles’ birthday party. When discussing royals/those associated with royals, please remember this posting rule: “Insulting comments about royals are not permitted. Criticism is acceptable; insults and flames are not.“

Also, posts that contained references to plastic surgery have been deleted.

Let’s not rehash the Camilla/Diana/Charles triangle.

 

[wartenberg7]

The BRF do not released lists of people invited to PRIVATE events like this one.

Had this been an official event the list would have been in the Court Circular but as it was purely a private family occasion there is no list.

The BRF have different practices to other royal families and have a clear delineation between public and private events and believe that private events are just that - private.

They allow a lot of access for public events but limited to none for their private events.

Interesting enough a milestone birthday of the immediate heir is considered a "private event" at all!

 

[muriel]

Interesting enough a milestone birthday of the immediate heir is considered a "private event" at all!

Of course. A private event, funded privately, involving friends and family and not appearing in the Court Circular. Did not include politicians or government officials.

 

[Sun Lion]

Well now I get William's joke about red squirrels at your birthday party Charles.

Letting them run around inside Birkhall?

Letting them climb into the pockets of your jacket when it's on a chair?

Don't you have to worry about fleas, rabies, number 1s and number 2s on the carpet and soft furnishings?

Guess not.

Sounds like a lot of fun.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...try-life-interview-royal-family-a8632941.html

 

[Iluvbertie]

Interesting enough a milestone birthday of the immediate heir is considered a "private event" at all!

That is the British way.

Remember that they also regard the receptions after weddings as private events unlike many, if not all, of the continental royals who believe in having everything covered.

Different families so different rules.

The Queen had some public events for her 90th birthday, as Charles did for his 70th, but the big family bash was also private and she is the monarch.

Charles had a garden party in May, a concert thing a few weeks ago and another event the other day before his actual birthday on which he again had an event related to his birthday before the private family dinner. The actual dinner was the private celebration while the others were more public and official. He had more official birthday events on the 15th as he had formal addresses from parliament - normally something only the Queen gets a couple of times a year.

 

[Nico]

I notice that Richard Key didn't say what his sources were - so is he making this up or did he ask guests to get his information.

Normally the author of such articles identifies there sources e.g. the sources for comments included in the toasts at Harry's wedding were named but not this time.

So this may be Kay having sources who don't want to be named OR he could be making it up.

This isn't officially released information.

Considering that Richard Kay is still mourning those "exclusive insights" given by Diana herself during the golden 90's, i will take this article with a grain of salt, indeed.

My husband hears me talk about this stuff and is truly shocked. He shakes his head and will say 'So Prince Charles was having an affair with Camilla and her husband was having affairs too and they were all OK with it but they made out that Princess Diana was mad because she objected? I think I am with Princess Diana'. I guess unless you are used to the ways of the upper classes, as we are via forums like this, it dosn't make sense to most people.

Well Diana had her affairs too...
Not seen not caught. Then the Press arrived....

 

[Somebody]

That is the British way.

Remember that they also regard the receptions after weddings as private events unlike many, if not all, of the continental royals who believe in having everything covered.

Different families so different rules.

Crown princess Victoria and Daniel Westling indeed had their whole wedding covered but most of the other royal houses just show the main thing (the wedding itself) and might release a few pictures of other events (just like the British did with the recent weddings where pictures and even video of the couple leaving Windsor for the evening party was publicly shared). In some cases arrivals at a venue are photographed.

My husband hears me talk about this stuff and is truly shocked. He shakes his head and will say 'So Prince Charles was having an affair with Camilla and her husband was having affairs too and they were all OK with it.

To me that is also incomprehensible but as stated above by iluvbertie it seems that part of the upper class thought that way (I don't understand how they could reconcile that with the vows they made at their wedding). Luckily, it seems that the younger generation no longer shares these ideas.

 

[Stefan]

Crown princess Victoria and Daniel Westling indeed had their whole wedding covered but most of the other royal houses just show the main thing (the wedding itself) and might release a few pictures of other events (just like the British did with the recent weddings where pictures and even video of the couple leaving Windsor for the evening party was publicly shared). In some cases arrivals at a venue are photographed.

Actually at the Crown Princely Weddings in Denmark, Spain, Norway and Belgium parts of the recptions where shon o national TV. Only at the dtuch Wedding there was nothing from the receptions at the weding of Willem-Alexander they released on pic from it but that was it.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is the British way.

[...]

"The British way" is pretty much the same in many other European monarchies. We have not seen inside pictures either from the 80th birthday anniversaries of Queen Sofía or King Juan Carlos, we have not seen inside pictures from the 50th birthday of King Willem-Alexander, etc. These are -like in the UK- seen as "private" and therefore were barely mentioned on the official website and shielded from media. I remember Queen Beatrix' 60th birthday: a group of citizens organized a mass choir outside of the Royal Palace and wanted to bring a spontaneous serenade to the Queen.

Queen Beatrix seems to have objected to this idea: it was not in the schedule and she probably saw it as an attempt to turn her so desired private affair into a public one. The Queen's defensive reaction to a spontaneous show of adherence was not understood by the public and was seen as a confirmation of her image as an "aloof & hautain" Queen. This to show that the British are not unique in this and how difficult it is to have a desire for a private party while the public would like to see it all.

 

[Somebody]

Actually at the Crown Princely Weddings in Denmark, Spain, Norway and Belgium parts of the recptions where shon o national TV. Only at the dtuch Wedding there was nothing from the receptions at the weding of Willem-Alexander they released on pic from it but that was it.

Thanks for adding that piece of information. The 'complaints' however stretch much further than just the heir. Did all other royal houses also have live coverage from the heir's siblings' weddings? I can't remember but apparently mainly used my Dutch point of reference (and the Luxembourg grand ducal family), so might be wrong.

 

[Curryong]

There was a very clear unwritten rule that applied across the aristocracy - largely due to the 'arranged marriages' that occurred within that class until the 1960s in many cases:

at least two sons - the heir and spare - and then the wife was as free as the husband to sleep around so long as she was discreet.

The only two women who didn't have that freedom was the wife of the monarch and the wife of the heir to the throne as for them to sleep with any man, other than their husband, was treason. It was on those charges that both Anne Boleyn and Kathryn Howard were executed - for treason.

Yes, but it certainly wasn't compulsory for members of the aristocracy to be unfaithful to each other, nor do I believe it was extremely widespread in that class, even in the 19th century and early 20th centuries, despite what certain biographies and social histories have inferred.

There were plenty of aristocrats who remained faithful to each other in every century, adultery WAS more accepted in certain 'fast' circles than others, and that included hunting and polo insiders in the 20th century who knew each other very well. And the 1970s and 1980s when the Parker Bowles were married, (and theirs wasn't an arranged marriage) were very different to arranged marriages of generations before, and even more removed from Tudor times.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Is this the thread to discuss adultery?! Nope. Let’s stop now.

 

[Stefan]

Thanks for adding that piece of information. The 'complaints' however stretch much further than just the heir. Did all other royal houses also have live coverage from the heir's siblings' weddings? I can't remember but apparently mainly used my Dutch point of reference (and the Luxembourg grand ducal family), so might be wrong.

In Denmark and Sweden they had live Coverage from the reception at Joachim's first Wedding (not from the second) and in Sweden from Carl Philip's Wedding. Dont know if there was live Coverage at the reception of Märtha Louise's Wedding but there where pictures. Also from the weddings of Infanta Elena and Cristina there where in any case pictures from the recptions but i don't know if there was also TV-Coverage.

 

[Somebody]

Thanks, so it looks like it is mainly the Scandinavians who are extremely open to the media on these kind of occassions (also thinking about all the parties that !argrethe likes to throw). The UK is more in line with the rest of Europe.

 

[wartenberg7]

The Scandinavians are very open, democratic societys and I think as part of that their respective royal families regard it as some sort of a right of the people to join in and, in a way, have a chance to participate in great milestone occasions, at least via media, instead of celebrating behind closed doors only among themselves.