The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Current Events Archive (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/)
-   -   Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Current Events 6: October 4-16, 2005 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/prince-of-wales-and-duchess-of-cornwall-current-events-6-october-4-16-2005-a-7432.html)

Warren 10-04-2005 07:25 AM

Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Current Events 6: October 4-16, 2005
 
Welcome to the Charles & Camilla Current Events thread, now up to part 3

Please ensure the copyright holder is acknowledged when posting pics and articles.


Part 2 can be found here:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...5123#post295123

Warren 10-04-2005 07:29 AM

Gossip: Charles' aide quits job
 
Originally posted by Idriel...

From the Sun

Charles' aide walks out

A TOP royal aide in charge of Charles and Camilla’s wedding shambles has quit. Kevin Knott was blamed by senior palace figures when the couple had to ditch plans to wed at Windsor Castle and instead use the nearby Guildhall.

Then the Queen said she would not be attending the April 9 event — amid claims the marriage was illegal.

The departure of Mr Knott as £80,000-a-year Master of the Household, follows a BBC1 documentary on the blunders.

Amira 10-05-2005 01:28 PM

U.K.'s Prince Charles, wife Camilla to tour U.S.

Royal couple to visit N.Y., D.C., San Francisco on first joint official tour

LONDON - Britain’s heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles and his wife Camilla will meet President Bush when they travel to the United States for their first joint official tour, a spokesman said on Wednesday.

Charles, who married Camilla in April after a 35-year affair, last visited the U.S. in 2004 for the funeral of former president Ronald Reagan.

He had previously visited the country with his first wife, Princess Diana, who was hugely popular among Americans. She died in a car crash in Paris in 1997 but is still regularly discussed in the country’s celebrity press.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9598541/

another article about the visit :)
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...o/12824527.htm

Elspeth 10-05-2005 06:25 PM

It still just says "early November" on the Prince's website. This is rather late for the dates not to be known; early November is just a month away.

HMQueenElizabethII 10-05-2005 06:56 PM

4 Attachment(s)
The Duchess of Cornwall attended the Opening of The Eleven Gallery in Central London yesterday 5th of October .The Gallery is run by her daughter Laura Parker-Bowles:
The skirt is something in really new style on The Duchess, she does looks really cool on that dress.
Pics from Abacausa Press and Isifa:

Smilla 10-05-2005 07:20 PM

She actually looks human, not frightful at all.
You know, I've been reading this book about Charles and Camilla, and keep asking myself whether she might not be better suited to the job than Diana, who was very vulnerable and not very self-confident for a long time. Apparently, Camilla is as tough as an old leather shoe (as we say).

princess gertrude 10-05-2005 09:39 PM

Love the skirt! Great color, she looks wonderful. And you might be right Smilla, Camilla might be better suited for this "job". I think that she knows who she is and is comfortable with it, therefore what the press write about her just doesn't affect her daily life.

Princejohnny25 10-05-2005 10:03 PM

Camilla looks so great right their. I mean she looked good at previous royal occasions but they were royal looks. This is a normal look and it looks good. It looks like she did something to her teeth and hair. Very Nice.

caroline mathilda 10-05-2005 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smilla
She actually looks human, not frightful at all.
You know, I've been reading this book about Charles and Camilla, and keep asking myself whether she might not be better suited to the job than Diana, who was very vulnerable and not very self-confident for a long time. Apparently, Camilla is as tough as an old leather shoe (as we say).

Remember that when Diana married Charles she was a very young 20 year old and when Camilla married Charles she was a well seasoned 57 year old woman.
What a difference 37 years make.
CM

Harry's polo shirt 10-05-2005 11:38 PM

Her teeth look fake: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...hmentid=201865

I like how she is trying a new style. I like her ear rings too.

caroline mathilda 10-05-2005 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt

Are you sayng that she is wearing dentures?:D :eek:

Warren 10-06-2005 03:31 AM

Probably just porcelain veneers. Standard stuff these days.

Charlotte1 10-06-2005 04:39 AM

Finally some official news on the trip to the US. From The Prince of Wales official site.

THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE DUCHESS OF CORNWALL TO VISIT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall will pay an official visit to the United States of America in early November.

The tour will include engagements in New York, Washington DC, and San Francisco, a meeting with Secretary General Kofi Annan at the United Nations, and a lunch and dinner with President and Mrs Bush at the White House.

The visit will highlight some of the many links which bind the two countries together and have done for many years.

It will also focus on the vital importance of the economic relationship, and the exceptional range of cultural, environmental and community links between the two nations.

Sustainability will be another important theme of the tour, in areas such as housing and education, and farming and food sourcing.

Lady Marmalade 10-06-2005 09:52 AM

I have been watching Good Morning America as I have been getting ready for work the past week and they have adopted somewhat of a cautious tone towards Camilla.

GMA is broadcasting live from Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle (that was today) and the Palace of Holyrood House.

GrandDuchess 10-06-2005 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
I have been watching Good Morning America as I have been getting ready for work the past week and they have adopted somewhat of a cautious tone towards Camilla.

GMA is broadcasting live from Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle (that was today) and the Palace of Holyrood House.

How do you mean "cautious tone"?

How was the live broadcasting from BP and WC?

I can't see Good Morning America in Sweden, so I would be most greatful for some summaries of these things...

Lady Marmalade 10-06-2005 12:22 PM

Hi Grand Duchess,

What I mean by cautious is more respectful and toned down. They do not use the same sense of emotion and exuberance as they do with the mention of Diana's name.

The American media will be out in full force for this visit as the U.S. has always been Diana territory. I think those in the U.S. who follow British royalty are either indifferent to or simply do not like Camilla at all.

But that is just my view.

Good Morning America presented from Windsor Castle this morning and gave reports on William and Kate living together, while not uncommon even in the U.S., they did express surprise that a future king and head of Church of England would be allowed to live with his girlfriend so openly.

The American media as a whole tends to be more respectful towards visiting royals and heads of states and reports what the meetings and visits were about and not whether the person should or should not be welcome. Theirs is one of a more respectful tone.

But, we have our gossip news and magazines as well who bring tasted to a whole lower level.

They do not for example, relay to name calling and making fun of as the SOME of the British press did when President Bush visited in 2003.

That is why I use the word cautious. They do not want to necessarily show any judgement before the visit.

Harry's polo shirt 10-06-2005 01:21 PM

Good Morning America broadcast was oviously an attemt to get tourists, you noticed that very quickly. I liked how we got to see the foot print in the ally that legands say was there because he always put his foot there while riding past. The boys chior was really cute, the boys they interviewed seemed really sweet. I didn't get to see there performance because I had to get ready for school, I was 30 minutes late to class because I had to watch the entire thing!

The books we saw were beautiful!! the artistry and design was amazing. I was suprised that the queen owns those Devinchi (sp?) drawings--they are the most recognised and famous drawings.

Princejohnny25 10-06-2005 05:00 PM

If her teeth are Porcelan Venears they did a bad job. They are still crooked like before I just think she had them whitened more. I would actually like her to get some venears to straighten out her smile. It would look better. I think there "cautious" because they dont know much about The Duchess of Cornwall and cant report bad things about The Duchess of Cornwall. They dont want to dwell on the past either. I saw the report about the foot print too. That was cool. I didnt know that they proclaimed a monarchy on a balcony from St. James Palace. The whole system is very much like the Papal system if you think about it.

iowabelle 10-06-2005 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
Camilla looks so great right their. I mean she looked good at previous royal occasions but they were royal looks. This is a normal look and it looks good. It looks like she did something to her teeth and hair. Very Nice.

At the least she's had her teeth whitened. And I think she's had some Botox. Her skin doesn't look so weathered.

Incas 10-06-2005 07:21 PM

That was what I was thinking when I first saw the photos. She looks years younger, even better than on her wedding day in April. Either that or the lighting was just perfect. And beautiful skirt!

Lindy80 10-06-2005 07:23 PM

She looks great! Her hair's a little shorter too, which is fresher looking.

Alisa 10-06-2005 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII
The Duchess of Cornwall attended the Opening of The Eleven Gallery in Central London yesterday 5th of October .The Gallery is run by her daughter Laura Parker-Bowles:
The skirt is something in really new style on The Duchess, she does looks really cool on that dress.
Pics from Abacausa Press and Isifa:

She looks really nice! I like the skirt.

caroline mathilda 10-06-2005 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
It still just says "early November" on the Prince's website. This is rather late for the dates not to be known; early November is just a month away.

President Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan, announced today that Charles and Camilla will have lunch and dinner at the White House on November 2nd.
(source: USA Today)

Elspeth 10-06-2005 11:56 PM

Well, I hope they remember to inform Clarence House, which doesn't seem to know the dates (unless they're being withheld deliberately).

caroline mathilda 10-07-2005 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, I hope they remember to inform Clarence House, which doesn't seem to know the dates (unless they're being withheld deliberately).

Hello Elspeth,
This date is official from the White House in Washington and is also printed in many of the big city dailies here. Their other tour dates in the US are vague. This may be secondary to security which is reported to be tight as there are murmurings of potential Anti- C&C protests by Diana supporters who are hostile to the couple.

Also the New York subway has been reportedly (allegedly) targeted by terrorists. So we are on heightened alert here Stateside so C&C's itinerary may be not published too far in advance.

CM

ysbel 10-07-2005 12:37 AM

Michael Kinsley of the Washington Post had this interesting commentary about Charles and Camilla.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040801799.html

a quote from the article

Quote:

There's no special magic about a prince approaching middle age who marries a young society beauty. And the more we learn about Princess Diana, the less magical that story seems. And, of course, the abdication tale remains far from inspiring.
Now, what about a prince who marries a young beauty out of his sense of duty, who waits for decades until a car crash frees him and then marries the woman he really loves -- a woman whom almost everyone else in the world finds remarkably unattractive; a woman he didn't need to marry in order to enjoy her companionship as he had for decades; a woman his family and the world didn't want him to marry. And what about a woman who watched her longtime lover marry a much younger beauty; who married someone else herself out of some kind of bitter realism; who fell in love with a young future king but is marrying an old weirdo who very likely won't ever occupy the throne; a woman who is inviting a lifetime of public mockery for every aspect of her public appearance. . . . Now that is a love story.
He says a lot more but he ends by saying that: .....Camilla and Charles [is] the greatest love story of the 21st century, so far.

ysbel 10-07-2005 12:51 AM

Here's another article I found about Camilla's style:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr2.html

quote from the article

Quote:

The public is judging Parker Bowles, too. And if there is anything that her clothing has said over the years, it is that she will not be swayed by public perceptions. Rare is the person who can withstand withering public scrutiny without trying to put a more pleasing gloss on her appearance. But Parker Bowles's appearance over the years has shown a more natural evolution than concerted effort.

Warren 10-07-2005 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt
The books we saw were beautiful!! the artistry and design was amazing. I was suprised that the queen owns those Devinchi (sp?) drawings--they are the most recognised and famous drawings.

The Queen has the largest collection in the world of Leonardo Da Vinci sketches and drawings. They are kept at Windsor Castle.
.

Princejohnny25 10-07-2005 05:51 AM

I Queen has a pretty cool collection. I like Millas hiar shorter. It is fresher and much more flattering. I just wish she would choose a more lively hair color. I would like to see a really light brown/dark blond color on her. There are security threats against New York so they have to be cautious. I cant believe people have time in their lives or are that obsessed to protest thier visit because a long dead women said one line about her " there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded." Diana took half the blame which means charles and camilla take 25% each or it is what it really was and just charles and diana were not right to be married toghether. Those protesters need a life. Does anybody know how long their in the US. Will it be a whirlwind tour or more than a week.

Warren 10-07-2005 09:18 AM

Whew, we covered a bit of ground in that post!
I trust we won't get a continuing debate on blame apportionment following Princejonnhy25's interesting and novel percentage calculation:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
Diana took half the blame which means Charles and Camilla take 25% each...


ysbel 10-07-2005 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
Those protesters need a life.

I agree, although I haven't heard of any C&C protests planned that caroline mathilda is referring to.

But it seems that Camilla has a very strong sense of who she is regardless of what other people think of her.

While I don't like everything that she has done, I do admire that. Its very rare to have such a strong self-identity that you are unaffected by other's perceptions of you. In fact I wish I had that.

Warren 10-07-2005 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
...I haven't heard of any C&C protests planned that caroline mathilda is referring to.

What exactly would they be protesting about? That Camilla is not Diana? Surely that's self-evident?
.

BeatrixFan 10-07-2005 10:12 AM

Re:
 
Exactly Warren!

Bawling at Camilla won't ressurect St Diana - it will show that those who protest will worship any temporary Gods that enter the world stage without having a clue what the person is really like.

I'm sure that Her Royal Highness will be extremely popular in America - she's elegant, charming, attractive, sweet natured and she'll be Queen one day.

What gets my goat is that these Diana fanatics have taken it upon themselves to spout utter rubbish in an attempt to 'keep her memory alive'. As unpopular as this will sound, why are we keeping her memory alive? Do we do the same for Queen Mary or Queen Alexandra, who in my humble opinion did a damn sight more for the monarchy than Diana ever did. Why can't she fade into the history books which will eventually happen whether people like it or not.

The only people who should be concerned with remembering her and 'keeping her memory' is her close family and of course, her sons. The rest of the world needs to move on and stop worshipping a woman who was no Saint. She was a temporary God in a world obsessed by fame and fortune.
The Duchess of Cornwall is Princess of Wales and will be Queen. They can stage all the protests they like, but the Monarchy is not run by commitee and nor should it be.

What makes certain sectors of the community believe that it is anything to do with them to criticise the relationship of a future King and a dead ex-wife? If Prince Charles and the Duchess are carrying out their official duties well then they are doing their jobs properly - the affairs of their marriage bed are private and have nothing to do with anyone but themselves.

Alicky 10-07-2005 10:44 AM

I just can't believe how personally these people are taking the whole thing. What are they like in person I wonder?

Alicky 10-07-2005 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
What gets my goat is that these Diana fanatics have taken it upon themselves to spout utter rubbish in an attempt to 'keep her memory alive'. As unpopular as this will sound, why are we keeping her memory alive?

Not only why, but how do they think that bawling at Camilla will do so?

Eilish 10-07-2005 11:08 AM

BeatrixFan,

You took the words right out of my mouth. Excellent and eloquent post!

Lady Marmalade 10-07-2005 11:41 AM

I think part of the reason why people have talked about protesting is because Diana was hugely popular in the U.S. and Charles was not. For the most part he was seen as the bad guy who was first to cheat in his marriage and then added insult to injury by marrying his mistress.

While many in the U.S. are fascintated by royalty in general, it is the British Royal Family who always gets the most press coverage here for anything they do.

If I said the Queen....people would respond...oh you mean Queen Elizabeth...never thinking there are other queens.

I think the view here in may respects is Diana was beloved greatly for her modern approach to royalty and for her glamour and youth.

In the U.S. as well, and this just maybe my view, so please forgive, marrying the woman who broke up your marriage is still not viewed as socially acceptable no matter the circumstances.

But, I along with all of you, CANNOT WAIT, to see them here.

Another tidbit is Charles has been openly critical of President Bush at times so that relationship will be interesting to see.

BeatrixFan 10-07-2005 12:04 PM

Re:
 
You took the words right out of my mouth. Excellent and eloquent post

Thanks!!

If I said the Queen....people would respond...oh you mean Queen Elizabeth...never thinking there are other queens

I've noticed that alot too! Sometimes I hear American TV Presenters talk about the Queen as if Elizabeth II was still the USA's Head of State and not Bush.

In the U.S. as well, and this just maybe my view, so please forgive, marrying the woman who broke up your marriage is still not viewed as socially acceptable no matter the circumstances

I think we British are a bit strange. Years ago, Divorcees were the scum of society - now the children of the Queen are all divorcees apart from Prince Edward. America isn't as progressive in its attitudes to sex and relationships as we are I think. But I may be wrong. The whole Janet Jackson nipple thing - over here nobody would have flinched. In Britain, two people can lay on the floor and indulge in passionate love-making and nobody would look up from their newspaper but jump the queue and there's outrage.

Another tidbit is Charles has been openly critical of President Bush at times so that relationship will be interesting to see

Joan Rivers was on a radio station here and said how suprised she was as to how anti-Bush Britain is. She said that in the USA, its the general idea that we love Bush and that Britain and the USA are the strongest of allies. Sadly, not true at all. If that is true, Prince Charles is sharing the opinions of many.

caroline mathilda 10-07-2005 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
What exactly would they be protesting about? That Camilla is not Diana? Surely that's self-evident?
.

The "protests" I was referring to were found when I was reading through some of the online US newspapers. Nothing huge or organized; probably all talk. The articles were just saying how some folks still are not happy with the C&C marriage and are still Diana supporters in this "post-Diana" era.

As an American, my read on the "mood" here towards C&C will either be indifference or mild curiosity. IMO, in most quarters there is not enough interest to generate outright hostility. William and Harry are actually the favourite British Royals and generate the greatest buzz right now.

Caroline Mathilda

ysbel 10-07-2005 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
I think part of the reason why people have talked about protesting is because Diana was hugely popular in the U.S. and Charles was not. For the most part he was seen as the bad guy who was first to cheat in his marriage and then added insult to injury by marrying his mistress.

I think you have a point, iowabelle. I continue though to be amazed at the hypocrisy of people's attitudes. Charles' and Diana's marriage is not the first to be affected by an affair. Several marriages in the papers have broken up that are far worse. Just take the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston/Angelina Jolie scenario. Even among royal watchers, the same people who condemned Charles and Camilla have glossed over Fergie's dalliances with that Texan. And Prince Andrew was really and seriously hurt by that infidelity. But I guess Andrew's hurt isn't real or at least important to some.

This is just my opinion only, but I see a degree of selfishness with the idolization of Diana. Somebody here once mentioned that she would have been better off if she hadn't married Charles and someone else responded that if she hadn't married Charles we wouldn't have had her to love. That is extremely selfish I think.

People identified with her and felt sorry for her but if she hadn't had so many troubles and she hadn't been so beautiful, she wouldn't have been in the papers so much for people to read about. The tabloids fed off her troubles. And if there hadn't been so many people willing to shell out money for the latest magazine with her picture on the cover and latest personal crises, she wouldn't have been chased by a posse of photographers into that Paris tunnel which killed her.

It was as if people needed an idol to identify and feel sorry for to project their own fantasies about without any regard of how that idolization would affect the object of their adoration. Basically the idolization ended up killing her.

Lindy80 10-07-2005 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
I think part of the reason why people have talked about protesting is because Diana was hugely popular in the U.S. and Charles was not.
I think the view here in may respects is Diana was beloved greatly for her modern approach to royalty and for her glamour and youth.

In the U.S. as well, and this just maybe my view, so please forgive, marrying the woman who broke up your marriage is still not viewed as socially acceptable no matter the circumstances.


Another tidbit is Charles has been openly critical of President Bush at times so that relationship will be interesting to see.

People marry the person who broke up their marriage and it doesn't hurt them--see Anna Wintour, Woody Allen, Brad Pitt, among others.
I don't know about "beloved" but Diana had her fans here.
I agree re the Charles/Bush opinions, but I think Charles knows that for protocol reasons he has to keep his mouth shut.

Thanks for posting the Post articles--that Kinsley one was excellent, and true! How many men would do that!

ysbel 10-07-2005 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caroline mathilda
The "protests" I was referring to were found when I was reading through some of the online US newspapers. Nothing huge or organized; probably all talk. The articles were just saying how some folks still are not happy with the C&C marriage and are still Diana supporters in this "post-Diana" era.

I read the online papers too but they all quoted the same story. Basically that Charles and Camilla's wedding was controversial in Britain and some in Britain still opposed it. They also referred to Charles' advisors who apparently thought America was Diana-land which was a reason the papers speculated that he hadn't made a public visit in awhile. The British royal family doesn't make official visits to the U.S. often so I doubt that's the reason Charles hasn't come. I think an advisor or two probably said at some point that America was Diana-land but just because one of Charles' advisors said at some point back in history it doesn't make it true today.

Lady Marmalade 10-07-2005 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
You took the words right out of my mouth. Excellent and eloquent post.
Thanks!!

Thank you. :)

I know we can be a bit more prudish in this country regarding such things, but while divorce is accepted, the idea of marrying the other woman and living like nothing has happened is not.

I think many Americans still lay a lot of the blame on Charles and then also, and this is the cruel part, loved and adored Diana because she was beautiful, wore clothes well, showed the human side of the monarchy and was a thoroughly modern woman who refused to share her husband...not that she was perfect either.

I think we are still strong allies and of course we will disagree about certain issues, but that is expected.

With that said, it will be great to see them here and hopefully we will FINALLY see Camilla in a tiara!!!!!!!
.

Warren 10-07-2005 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
This is just my opinion only, but I see a degree of selfishness with the idolization of Diana...

Ysbel, wasn't it just the other day someone was complaining that yet another Camilla thread had been taken over by Diana discussions? :D

Off-topic for the moment, but in terms of hypocrisy with selective condemnation, I've always been puzzled why Princess Caroline of Hanover has been left untouched by the moralists. Is there a scale for the volume of moral outrage dependent upon the attractiveness and style of the female protagonists? Was it simply a case of Chantal losing out in the glamour-stakes and therefore not worthy of a prolonged campaign of support? Has anyone accused the two Hanoverian princelings of giving a "slap in the face" to their mother by admitting to liking Caroline? Did anyone constantly ask "what must the boys think?" I suppose not. There are some interesting parallels in the two stories, but it just shows that moral indignation and self-righteousness can at times be very selectively applied.
.

Lady Marmalade 10-07-2005 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
Ysbel, wasn't it just the other day someone was complaining that yet another Camilla thread had been taken over by Diana discussions? :D

Off-topic for the moment, but in terms of hypocrisy with selective condemnation, I've always been puzzled why Princess Caroline of Hanover has been left untouched by the moralists. Is there a scale for the volume of moral outrage dependent upon the attractiveness and style of the female protagonists? Was it simply a case of Chantal losing out in the glamour-stakes and therefore not worthy of a prolonged campaign of support? Has anyone accused the two Hanoverian princelings of giving a "slap in the face" to their mother by admitting to liking Caroline? Did anyone constantly ask "what must the boys think?" I suppose not. There are some interesting parallels in the two stories, but it just shows that moral indignation and self-righteousness can at times be very selectively applied.
.

Hi Warren,

I know....off topic... :)

I think because of the deaths of Princess Grace, her second husband Srefano, and when she seemed to spend much of the early 90's in mourning people just figured she was a hands-off situation....

iowabelle 10-07-2005 03:09 PM

I think that Caroline has gotten a break in public opinion because she is an attractive woman, whereas Camilla was "The Rottweiler."

caroline mathilda 10-07-2005 04:46 PM

I find this discussion interesting and am glad that we are exchanging views without rancour.

I always enjoyed following Princess Diana's story from begining to end. I have to admit that I am not as interested in C&C as I was her. Perhaps for many of the reasons cited by Lady Marmalade. I also think Lady Marmalade very articulately summarized the "average" American's view of the Diana-Charles-Camilla situation.

I have followed C&C since they were engaged, including getting up early to watch their wedding on TV, and will continue to watch with interest their visit to the States. As I said earlier, I think most Americans will either be indifferent or curious. I also think Americans will receive them with courtesy.

Whether it is odd or not, Americans still see the British Royal Family as "ours....sort of." There is always some degree of excitement when a British Royal comes calling on these shores.:rolleyes: :)

Caroline Mathilda

ysbel 10-07-2005 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
There are some interesting parallels in the two stories, but it just shows that moral indignation and self-righteousness can at times be very selectively applied.

Hey Warren, that's what I meant to say. :D

I agree with iowabelle, I think physical appearance drives our opinions of people more than we're willing to admit.

Princejohnny25 10-07-2005 06:10 PM

I also think america will be more curious than anything. Americans do think of the British Royal Family as ours almost. When we say Queen everone thinks of Lizzy. We have a strange connection with them. Diana's outside beauty and genius PR sense helped her win the obsessive support and idolization. She is forgivin for having affairs with numerous men and breaking up marriages but charles is damned to hell for having an affair with his soul mate. I love to read about Diana's PR stragies. She was a genius, the royal family could learn something from Diana.

tiaraprin 10-07-2005 06:23 PM

Excuse me for admiring Diana. Also, Diana "fanatics" are not selfish either. We see something that others do not. While she was not blameless, Diana was used by Charles and his family to produce the next heirs to the House of Windsor. That is being treated pretty shabbily in my opinion and makes me understand why she did what she did. Charles needed that virgin bride and that is the only reason he married Diana.

By the way, I was the one who wished she hadn't married him so she would have had a much better chance at a happier life.

A note to Beatrix Fan: Camilla is not a saint either. She was sinning before Diana was born!

Also, contrary to popular belief, I do have a life outside of "Diana worship".

Princejohnny25 10-07-2005 06:28 PM

Yes tiarapin but you had no mention of why people kept bawling at Camilla in your post. Diana knew very well why the Royal Family wanted her. She grew up in with the aristos. She was not that stupid. I admired Diana for her style and charitiy work too. Diana also used her Royal status to get what she wanted. Diana forgave and acknoledged C&C why cant others. Looking only at Dianas misery is very one sided. You cant change the past but you can try to make the future better.

tiaraprin 10-07-2005 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
Yes tiarapin but you had no mention of why people kept bawling at Camilla in your post. Diana knew very well why the Royal Family wanted her. She grew up in with the aristos. She was not that stupid. I admired Diana for her style and charitiy work too. Diana also used her Royal status to get what she wanted. Diana forgave and acknoledged C&C why cant others. Looking only at Dianas misery is very one sided. You cant change the past but you can try to make the future better.

I won't stand to one side and let people bash her and make Camilla out to be a good person. I just can't. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Princejohnny25 10-07-2005 06:35 PM

News
 
https://people.monstersandcritics.com...meets_Jude_Law

Duchess Meets Jude Law

Just felt like posting it.

If there is a terroist attack within the next few days will the royal or state visit be canceled.

Forgive me for being a bit random. I am very used to just jotting down a bunch of thoughts.

caroline mathilda 10-07-2005 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I won't stand to one side and let people bash her and make Camilla out to be a good person. I just can't.

Tiaraprin, as I understand your feelings, I actually don't think this will happen in the US. Diana will always be the epitome of what Americans see as a fairy princess.

I think the best C&C can hope for in America this time is that the public will give them (ie her) a neutral and pleasant audience. IMO Camilla will never exceed Diana in the American mind; perhaps in time, Camilla can look forward to a level of acceptance with less harsh comparision.

Caroline Matilda

BeatrixFan 10-07-2005 07:35 PM

Re:
 
Camilla is not a saint either. She was sinning before Diana was born!



I do apologise. Here was I thinking that it was Our Lady who was born via the Immaculate Conception - not Diana Spencer.

And I don't think we can really judge can we? What has it got to do with us? When did Diana Spencer ask you to defend her?

Princejohnny25 10-07-2005 08:08 PM

Thank you for changing your icon Tiarapin. I did not think your last icon did Dianas beauty justice. This one does. It is very nice. Of course Diana and her marriage and the good times of her being in the Royal Family will be the epitome of a fairytale princess to americans. But there is no need for fairytales anymore. We need real people.

ysbel 10-07-2005 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I won't stand to one side and let people bash her and make Camilla out to be a good person. I just can't. It makes me sick to my stomach.

No one was bashing Diana here, tiaraprin. I may have been bashing the Diana-lovers but not Diana herself.

Camilla is not a saint but she does have one trait I admire and that she is unswayed by the opinions of others. That shows a strong sense of her own identity and is a pretty good and healthy outlook on life. Not very many people have that, so when I see someone that does, I admire their strength and wish I had it. I wish for Diana's sake that she had had some of that strength because if she had she may have been alive and happily married today.

Now this thread is veering into going way offtopic but I will say that the fairytale princess myth is a very destructive myth for women to buy into. It disempowers them and puts them at the mercy of the handsome prince (who may turn out to be a jerk) or anybody else in a powerful position. I would hope that women in this day and age don't expect a prince to come by and suddenly make everything better. Men are human too and they have their own problems.

A far better role model is a woman who can take care of herself and does but as an adult is willing to make some sacrifices to share her life with someone she loves.

Now does this mean I approve of the affair? No, but overall I think Camilla has a very healthy and strong outlook on life which a lot of women could use.

caroline mathilda 10-07-2005 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
https://people.monstersandcritics.com...meets_Jude_Law

If there is a terroist attack within the next few days will the royal or state visit be canceled.

Princejonnhy 25, if there is a terrorist attack, God forbid, we will have much more important things to deal with than royal visits. Hopefully you know that.

Caroline Mathilda

Princejohnny25 10-07-2005 09:40 PM

I dont know what I was thinking. God forbid, I hope we dont have one. I had forgoten for a second the real world that we live in. I guess I got caught up in something fun happening. Sad world we live in. I dont think I could handle another blow to my favorite city.

Incas 10-07-2005 10:02 PM

I just checked the Prince of Wales website to see when C&C will make the next joint appearance. Looks like nothing is scheduled until the US visit next month. Camilla doesn't have anything at all the rest of October. Does royals often taken time off before a major trip? I thought the visit will only be a few days. Didn't seem like they need a whole month to prepare.

ysbel 10-07-2005 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incas
I just checked the Prince of Wales website to see when C&C will make the next joint appearance. Looks like nothing is scheduled until the US visit next month. Camilla doesn't have anything at all the rest of October. Does royals often taken time off before a major trip? I thought the visit will only be a few days. Didn't seem like they need a whole month to prepare.

Yeah, I've been disconcerted by the lack of activities for Charles and Camilla lately.

Charlotte1 10-07-2005 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incas
I just checked the Prince of Wales website to see when C&C will make the next joint appearance. Looks like nothing is scheduled until the US visit next month. Camilla doesn't have anything at all the rest of October. Does royals often taken time off before a major trip? I thought the visit will only be a few days. Didn't seem like they need a whole month to prepare.

Not everything seems to be posted on the official site. Both Charles and Camilla are involved in the visit of the Norwegian royals in late October, details of this trip are posted on the royal family site but not Charles' ( as yet)

Camilla's going to her daughter's art gallery opening was listed on the Prince of Wales site either.

ysbel 10-07-2005 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte1
Not everything seems to be posted on the official site.

I noticed that; I wonder why? :confused:

Incas 10-07-2005 10:15 PM

I guess the gallery opening would probably be classified as a private visit.

Lady Marmalade 10-07-2005 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Excuse me for admiring Diana. Also, Diana "fanatics" are not selfish either. We see something that others do not. While she was not blameless, Diana was used by Charles and his family to produce the next heirs to the House of Windsor. That is being treated pretty shabbily in my opinion and makes me understand why she did what she did. Charles needed that virgin bride and that is the only reason he married Diana.

By the way, I was the one who wished she hadn't married him so she would have had a much better chance at a happier life.

A note to Beatrix Fan: Camilla is not a saint either. She was sinning before Diana was born!

Also, contrary to popular belief, I do have a life outside of "Diana worship".

You go girl! :)

I wonder....what would the two Georges...Washington and III, make of all this?

Here we are in the U.S., taught by our Constitution titles are forbidden to accept and monarchy is not needed here.....and yet, Americans savor stories about the British Royal Family.

Charles and Camilla coming here will receive more attention then if another royal from another country visits.

Let me tell you all, Diana came to Chicago in 1996, her last official overseas visit as an HRH....this city of 3 million went absolutely ga ga in love....for three days NOTHING else happened in the world or in the city.

They even closed the expressway from O'Hare to Northwestern University so she could get to her symposium on time..

They do not even do that for our president...

I think you are all right....in many ways...their weddings are shown here...Charles and Camilla got CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC for theirs...

What I do find most fascinating is the U.S. is always the "test" country for European celebrities, musicians, athletes...they are in fame in their own country but know if they make it here....they reached the top.

David and Victoria Beckham tried it in 2003 and failed at it.

That parallels with Charles and Camilla, if it is huge success in "Diana Territory", then the seal is strengthened 100% in the eyes of the world.

I love this topic because the intellect in all of you is pouring out. Keep it coming from all sides.

And Warren, as always, if I make a historical error...please correct me? :)

Lady Marmalade 10-07-2005 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caroline mathilda
I find this discussion interesting and am glad that we are exchanging views without rancour.

I always enjoyed following Princess Diana's story from begining to end. I have to admit that I am not as interested in C&C as I was her. Perhaps for many of the reasons cited by Lady Marmalade. I also think Lady Marmalade very articulately summarized the "average" American's view of the Diana-Charles-Camilla situation.

I have followed C&C since they were engaged, including getting up early to watch their wedding on TV, and will continue to watch with interest their visit to the States. As I said earlier, I think most Americans will either be indifferent or curious. I also think Americans will receive them with courtesy.

Whether it is odd or not, Americans still see the British Royal Family as "ours....sort of." There is always some degree of excitement when a British Royal comes calling on these shores.:rolleyes: :)

Caroline Mathilda

Thank you. That is very kind of you. I think we all do a great job in professing our views in such well thought out ways. :)

I said it before....maybe because I am a girl...but I am dying to see if she wears a tiara here and which one it will be......:D

ysbel 10-07-2005 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

I wonder....what would the two Georges...Washington and III, make of all this?

An interesting question. :)

George Washington was offered the chance to become King of the new country but he turned it down. The established reason is that he opposed the concept of monarchy...but I wonder if his inability to father children had anything to do with it.

If so I think its incredibly ironic that a reason we don't have a monarchy here could be that the only man who would be accepted as King couldn't father an heir to the throne.

Washington is quite a paradox. He was very pro-British until very late. If you get a chance to read "For King and Country" by all means do. Its an account of his early life as a loyal British subject.

tiaraprin 10-07-2005 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Camilla is not a saint either. She was sinning before Diana was born!
I do apologise. Here was I thinking that it was Our Lady who was born via the Immaculate Conception - not Diana Spencer.
And I don't think we can really judge can we? What has it got to do with us? When did Diana Spencer ask you to defend her?

Well, it seems quite a bit of judgement is coming from you. Diana is no longer here and she doesn't have a voice to protest what is said about her. Charles and Camilla are still here and can fight for themselves if they wish too. Diana does not have that luxury.

Those of us who still love and admire Diana are being painted as lunatics living in the past because we detest Charles and Camilla. While I am not going to go out and join a protest against Charles and Camilla, I will stand up for Diana when I feel she and her memory are being maligned by people who just seem to be downright cruel.

I will also stand up for myself for being painted as a lunatic because of my Pro Diana feelings. I know she isn't here anymore and I don't live in the past. It doesn't mean I have to like the present and future though. What I see in the present and future for the British Monarchy makes me so angry, and not just for Diana's sake, but for the sake of the institution itself.

Diana was not a temporary deity to make my life all the better. She was a flesh and blood human being who made mistakes. She tried her best and showed that she actually cared about people. I have learned much from her triumphs and mistakes. As Ysbel said in her post about not waiting for a prince to come and rescue you and make it all better, that is one lesson I learned from her mistakes. There are no real "princes" in this world to make a fairytale. There are no fairytales, and Diana stood up for women everywhere by blowing the whistle on what has been hypocritical for ages within loveless marriages. I don't condone her affairs, but at least she saw what a ridiculous lie it all was!

ysbel 10-08-2005 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I will stand up for Diana when I feel she and her memory are being maligned by people who just seem to be downright cruel.

tiaraprin, maybe my comment about needing an idol to identify and feel sorry for was harsh and I apologize. I did not mean you personally.

No posts in this thread have maligned Diana's memory. Some of the cruelest comments though around have been about Camilla, not Diana. Its perfectly fair to not approve of the affair but calling her a Rottweiler is totally obnoxious although I know iowabelle didn't mean it herself; she was just quoting what other people say and I know that others have said it. Its one thing to be critical but quite another to be vindictive.

I applaud you for standing up for people who are wrongly maligned; some of the people who stand up for Camilla are doing the same thing. Yes, she's done some things wrong but some of the things she is criticized for are uncalled for.

And now for Camilla's current events. As for seeing Camilla in a tiara, well I don't think she is a tiara kind of girl so it doesn't matter to me, but I work across from Ground Zero so I am looking forward to sneaking out of work to go see them when they come. I am annoyed though that we're not getting more info about the visit. It all seems so sketchy.

Lady Marmalade 10-08-2005 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Washington is quite a paradox. He was very pro-British until very late. If you get a chance to read "For King and Country" by all means do. Its an account of his early life as a loyal British subject.

I will check that out. Thank you! :)
.

Lady Marmalade 10-08-2005 02:06 AM

I think for security reasons, according to our news, they are keeping much of the official times under wraps.

They will meet with the President and First Lady for lunch and dinner. They will not be staying at the White House either. No details have been given as to where they are staying but if it is not one of the 4 star hotels then maybe either Blair House or the British Embassy.

Oh to be a fly on the wall during both of those times.....

I give Camilla credit in one respect. She NEVER has gone to the media to give her side of the story and always acted with discretion.

I know how terrible the British Press (not all of them :) ) can be and how they are not afraid of ripping someone to shreds to sell papers.

But she just smiled and never opened her mouth.

I still cannot believe they are married....but if they are happy..so be it...

All three are to blame in their own respects for the mess that marriage became.

Oh and to clear my post up earlier, the purpose Good Morning America filming from the palaces is to boost U.S. travel to Great Britain in light of all the terroism. It seems that U.S. travel is down there something like 7-8% over the past few years.

And now to my British friends on here. I was lucky enough to visit your country 3 years ago during HM's Jubilee. I found you all to be so kind, gracious and warm. The bond between our people, maybe not the governments, is strong and I thank you for showing such wonderful hospitality.

Oh...and thank you for getting me hooked on Eastenders. :)

Warren 10-08-2005 02:42 AM

A couple of things...
 
I think it best in discussions such as this to avoid the use of extreme language. No-one has called anyone a "lunatic"; no-one has launched a personal attack on any other member; use of phrases such as "... detest Charles and Camilla" is surely over-statement (does any of us know them personally?). I think we are agreed that none of the cast of characters are, or were, "saints"; most of us agree that a messy marriage breakdown is particularly ugly, and only some of us take pleasure in sifting through the (increasingly cold) entrails.

Extreme language and hyperbole invites response in kind, which we have largely managed to avoid. Everyone has a view, we just need to be thoughtful in how we express ourselves and ensure that no disrespect is shown to members on a personal level.

W

Princejohnny25 10-08-2005 08:48 AM

I think Diana lacks what makes Camilla admirable and Camilla lacks what made Diana admirable. I think the perfect Royal would have been someone with Dianas looks and style, and Camillas innerstrength and discretion. But, we have to take what we got. I think Camilla is perfect for the Royal Family because she is a tough old broad. Diana was too emotional in public. That was one of her greatest flaws. Emotion is good but it can get messy. The British Royal Family has been a matriarchal family since Queen Victoria. If you look through previous Royals it is the women in their lives who controll so much. The Queen Mum, Lady Diana, and Wallis Simpson for example. That is why women who marry into the Royal Family need to be strong. Camilla is Charles backbone which makes Charles a much better Prince. Gone are the Drama Days and know there is love and duty to ones nation. The future King is at peace with his life and that gives me hope for the future of the monarchy. He doesnt seem like and old fart anymore.

ysbel 10-08-2005 11:22 AM

I think Camilla can be more discreet because her relationship with Charles is healthy. If things are really bad, putting up and shutting up is not going to work. I think everybody needs someone to turn to in times of trouble. Charles' saving grace was that he turned to Camilla who really cared for him the person and was looking out for his interests. Diana had extremely bad luck in the people she turned to-the media and some of her lovers. They weren't looking out for her interests, but for their own. I suspect some of her media friends goaded her into a public war with Charles because it would sell more papers. It did but it shredded any last remaining hope for their marriage.

The media and the public are very fickle lovers. They always look out for their own interests first and are willing to turn on a public figure with the slightest provocation. Because of the bad press, Camilla knows their game and refuses to be sucked into it.

Princejohnny25 10-08-2005 11:35 AM

Thats whats tragic about Diana. She had no one to turn to. She was estranged with her spencer family. She turned to her kids which I hate her for doing because little children shouldnt be exposed to that stuff. But, she had no where to turn. I think thats why she had a love affair with the media. They were on her side even if what they were reporitng where lies. But she became stronger and had someone until her death.

ysbel 10-08-2005 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
I think thats why she had a love affair with the media. They were on her side even if what they were reporitng where lies.

I guess I'm more cynical Princejohnny. The media was always on its own side, not necessarily Diana's. Her pain sold a lot of papers. But having your pain splashed out and exaggerated in the media is not always the best way to overcome it.

I'm not quite convinced Diana was stronger at her death. I've been close to women with eating disorders and some of her last comments about the bulimia give me the impression that she hadn't really overcome it. I don't think Dodi had her best interests at heart. The al-Fayeds I suspect were using her to get back at the Royal Family for not being granted British citizenship. So she appeared not to have developed the knack for trusting people who had her best interests at heart and that is very sad.

That's not a judgment on Diana, with her family history, I think it was natural that she learned at an early age to form non-healthy relationships and that is very hard to unlearn. One of my friends just learned to develop healthy relationships at 43. I'm sure during the 15 years that she was married, Diana must have come across at least a few people whom she could trust but she probably didn't have the ability to develop these acquaintances into strong relationships.

Camilla, for some reason, was able to develop healthy relationships. She has good relationships with her kids and she was able to develop a mutually beneficial relationship with Charles. I agree with you in one respect; I think a woman has to be strong as an ox to marry into the British royal family and Camilla fits the bill.

Lady Marmalade 10-08-2005 01:10 PM

The royal couple will have lunch and dinner with President Bush on Nov. 2, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

From Reuters News Agency....

Princejohnny25 10-08-2005 01:31 PM

I knew that Dodis father was using Diana but I never heard of Dodi doing it. I have always thought that Al-Fayed is over his sons death and really only misses his connection with royalty and fame. I dont know loads about Diana I just use what I know and if i mess up please correct me. The media does look after its self but I think it was a comfort to Diana somewhat. British Tabloids are vicious. I read my first one a couple of weeks ago and I will never again. Were getting off topic. I know about the Nov. 2 dinner, I suppose they would either arrive on the 1st or 2nd. Its so strange how nothing is being posted. Charity works or visit info.

ysbel 10-08-2005 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
I knew that Dodis father was using Diana but I never heard of Dodi doing it.

Dodi may have felt great affection for Diana but he was first and foremost a loyal son to his father who did have some issues with the British Establishment. It doesn't make him bad; I just think that Diana could have done better than to get caught up in a family that had such an obvious axe to grind with the Establishment and the Royal Family.

The lack of information on Charles and Camilla's doings is getting to really annoy me. :mad: I think that's why we're going offtopic so much. :rolleyes:

una 10-08-2005 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
I suspect some of her media friends goaded her into a public war with Charles because it would sell more papers. It did but it shredded any last remaining hope for their marriage.

I don't think Diana needed much goading. She wanted out of the marriage, but without losing her reputation like her mother had-- she wanted to come out of it looking like a good mother and the injured party in the marriage breakup. The 'bad father' and 'good mother' press stories helped her look like a good mother, and the Diana-Morton book put the blame for the breakup 100% on the other side. She went looking for Morton, he didn't come to her. And it all worked really well. The day after the Morton book was published, Charles asked for a separation, and she came out of it all smelling of roses (with the public, for awhile).

pollyemma 10-08-2005 04:51 PM

oh my goodness...can we please stop speculating about all this??? we'll never know the full truth. and I'm sure that even if all the people involved gave fully honest accounts of their experiences they'd each say different.

Diana is dead. C and C are married. let's move on!

LaMinka 10-08-2005 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pollyemma
oh my goodness...can we please stop speculating about all this??? we'll never know the full truth. and I'm sure that even if all the people involved gave fully honest accounts of their experiences they'd each say different.

Diana is dead. C and C are married. let's move on!

Totaly agree with you!

ysbel 10-08-2005 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pollyemma
oh my goodness...can we please stop speculating about all this???

Well if C&C gave us some current events to talk about, I'm sure we would. ;) :D

Talk started about Camilla being better suited for handling life in the royal family and then it went on from there. :rolleyes:

I think one thing I have learned by the public's acceptance of Camilla is that sometimes its better to say the public be damned and go on about your own life the best way you know how. Then you have a better chance of getting what you want and the public ends up coming around.

Talking about C&C's upcoming visit, Camilla apparently has a fear of flying. If so, she's going to dread the flight over the Atlantic. I'm not afraid of flying but the long flight is really uncomfortable and the jet lag can throw you off for days.

What I didn't know is that she made a visit to New York a couple of years ago. I must have missed that. I hope she and Charles make a visit to the World Financial Center where I work. We have a lot of events related to remembering WTC and a beautiful atrium that looks out over the Hudson River and the New Jersey skyline.

Plus I'll be able to skip out of the office during work and take a peek. After missing out on Marthe-Louise's book signing at the Scandanavia Society today, I really want to see a royal visit in person.

BeatrixFan 10-08-2005 06:56 PM

Re:
 
Talking about C&C's upcoming visit, Camilla apparently has a fear of flying.

I am sure that the Duchess has absolutely nothing to fear - she'll be taken good care of. But I'm terrified of flying so I can sympathise!

Can't they sail?

ysbel 10-08-2005 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Talking about C&C's upcoming visit, Camilla apparently has a fear of flying.

I am sure that the Duchess has absolutely nothing to fear - she'll be taken good care of. But I'm terrified of flying so I can sympathise!

Can't they sail?

Well they don't have the Britannia anymore which is a shame :( I think the Queen and Prince Philip sailed on Britannia when they first visited the United States in 1957. I stayed at the Williamsburg Inn where they had stayed to commemorate the first English settlement at Jamestown. It was beautiful and photos were in all the staterooms of their visit.

Lady Marmalade 10-08-2005 07:33 PM

They will fly here. In the end it is much more cost efficient and practical. If I were her I would have a couple of G&Ts, as the British say,...to calm my nerves.. :)

Princejohnny25 10-08-2005 08:16 PM

Yea I heard Camilla has a huge fear of flying. I hope she doesnt freak out. People do weird things when they have to face their fears. I hope she gets over her fear after this trip though. She is going to have to do a lot of flying. I also missed millas trip in 99. Make sure you bring some cameras and take pics of the royal couple if you see them ysbel. That is so cool that they are going to visit right next to you work place. Seriously, there is no news going around it is annoying me too. Charles needs to lay a wreath somewhere and Camilla wear something nice so we can have something to talk about.

Princejohnny25 10-09-2005 01:06 PM

Some Controversy. I dont like Charles using Prinvate Jets. It is way to expensive. I hope they can switch to scheduled flights soon.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/ixhome.html

Lady Marmalade 10-09-2005 01:13 PM

They would either fly commercial, first class of course, or fly one of the royal planes over.

They are trying to keep up with cutting costs down.

Since this is an official visit and not private, they will not be flying on a private plane.

ysbel 10-09-2005 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

Since this is an official visit and not private, they will not be flying on a private plane.

They're chartering a jet. I think Charles and Camilla with their security on a regularly scheduled flight would inconvenience the other passengers too much.

Princejohnny25 10-09-2005 04:34 PM

I am going to try to strech this story out as much as possible cause I dont think there is going to be any other news for a while. Didnt the goverment temporarily decommision the royal planes because they were a easy terroist attack. Security is i guess the major issue when it comes to scheduled flights and charting a jet. But, didnt the Queen and Prince Philip take a scheduled flight to Canada. Surely they have more security. Using sceduled flights would be cheaper and that would mean they would be able to travel abroad more often.

Princejohnny25 10-09-2005 04:36 PM

There hasnt been much news at all from any Royal House. It has been very quiet. You think it is the calm before the storm. Waiting for the Danish and Spanish heirs to be born.

Lady Marmalade 10-09-2005 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
They're chartering a jet. I think Charles and Camilla with their security on a regularly scheduled flight would inconvenience the other passengers too much.

Cool..thank you Ysbel! :)

Let's try and keep each other all up to date. Hey, this is big news coming up! ;)

BeatrixFan 10-09-2005 05:25 PM

Re:
 
Didnt the goverment temporarily decommision the royal planes because they were a easy terroist attack

No. They took the markings off that showed it was a Royal Jet.

Princejohnny25 10-09-2005 05:30 PM

O yea I remember now. Princess Mary is due anyday. The gaurds are standing ready to fire a gun salute. People in charge of the bonfires are ready to light up. The goverment is already warning people not to light bonfires in the wrong places. Big event. Wow, Were reduced to talking about another countrys royalty. Chaz, milla please give us some news.

Incas 10-10-2005 08:06 AM

Well, there is an item today on one of the newspapers about C&C having a charter flight for the US trip for 300,00 pounds. I think the paper couldn't decide which side to take on the charter. So it was critical of its cost to taxpayers, as well as talking about the July bombings leading up to the decision for security reasons.

ysbel 10-10-2005 08:21 AM

I think the visit will be lowkey. They're not a glamorous couple so the interest will be more on the relations between the two countries, etc. and they will be showing their respect towards the events that have hit the U.S. over the last few years.

That can be a good thing.

Warren 10-10-2005 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incas
Well, there is an item today on one of the newspapers about C&C having a charter flight for the US trip.

See posts #88 - #91 below.

iowabelle 10-10-2005 01:23 PM

It would probably be a nightmare for any other "regular" passengers to have to share a plane with C & C. Just think of all the security headaches, and all the checkpoints -- they would probably make all the passengers unpack their bags prior to loading them. (And having that couple on a regular plane would pose a danger to "regular" passengers too.)

In this case, taking their own plane is a reasonable thing to do, minimizing the inconvenience to other passengers.

seto 10-10-2005 03:07 PM

The palace and security must have changed their minds. I remember reading that the last time charles traveled it was charged it cost too much. It was decided that he and camilla would fly via regular flight to the us. Which makes no sense to me flying isn't safe anyway why would you put a royal on a public flight. Just seems rediculous their own planes must be safer than the ones the that regular passengers ride on.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises