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)

ysbel 10-10-2005 03:23 PM

I think they were talking about taking a scheduled flight back in July when the trip was first planned, but now they're chartering a flight. As you and iowabelle say, it makes more sense to charter.

Princejohnny25 10-10-2005 05:15 PM

We have news Yeah!!!!!!!

Charles heralds unsung heros.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...70&in_a_source=

Camillas body gaurd launches race case.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

caroline mathilda 10-10-2005 06:25 PM

I was reading online today that Camilla had had both botox injections and cosmetic surgery. This was all allegedly done for her to put her "best face forward" for the US visit.

Does anyone else know anything about this rumour? :confused:

Caroline Mathilda

pollyemma 10-10-2005 06:34 PM

wow. interesting! I can't wait to see her now. the problem wiht botox is that it wears off again fairly quickly. she'll have to keep getting the injections for awhile so it won't be too obvious-like "wow she looks great" one week to "she looks tired" the next.

personally if i was her i'd just get a facelift. more permanent but I guess that would take too long to heal.

ysbel 10-10-2005 06:35 PM

Quote:

Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne with daughter Kelly, Sir Cliff Richard, Gordon Ramsay, Sarah Ferguson and Yoko Ono were among other stars at the awards, Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne with daughter Kelly, Sir Cliff Richard, Gordon Ramsay, Sarah Ferguson and Yoko Ono were among other stars at the awards,
I hope that means that Ozzy was just PRESENTING an award, not getting one. :eek:

Somehow I just can't imagine Ozzy and Charles in the same room :D

ysbel 10-10-2005 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caroline mathilda
I was reading online today that Camilla had had both botox injections and cosmetic surgery. This was all allegedly done for her to put her "best face forward" for the US visit.

Does anyone else know anything about this rumour? :confused:

Caroline Mathilda

I haven't heard anything but its pretty common with people in the public eye. I'm surprised Camilla would do Botox; she doesn't seem like the type.

tiaraprin 10-10-2005 06:45 PM

If they are chartering a plane to come here to the USA, who is absorbing the cost?? I don't think it is fair for the taxpayers to pay for all of it. While security is a nightmare situation in this day and age, I think Charles could give a little towards the chartering cost.

Princejohnny25 10-10-2005 06:46 PM

I dont think Camilla is that type of person either but you have to make sacrifices and do things outside of your controll in joining the royal family. I see nothing wrong with a little botox. I am totally against face lifts for anyone. They look disgusting and are completely unnatural. Camilla would look awful if she had a face life. At her daughters art gallery opening Camilla did look a lot better than on her wedding day. Camilla ages well anyway. I havent heard of any cosmetic surgery. She may have done something to her teeth but I havent seen a close enought pic to see. It doesnt look like she had cosmetic surgery. Maybe a little lypo from the tummy but that is just a wild guess. I think it is mostly rumours.

pollyemma 10-10-2005 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
I hope that means that Ozzy was just PRESENTING an award, not getting one. :eek:

Somehow I just can't imagine Ozzy and Charles in the same room :D

I wish I couldnt imagine it. I think Charles unfortunately doesnt avoid some of the entertainment world's more unsavory characters. I wish he would.

Ultimately I dont think its good for the monarchy to be seen too much with figures from the entertainment world who openly use drugs, sing about promiscuity etc.

If I want to hear that kind of message I'll go out and buy their albums. I prefer royalty to point me to things like service to others and community involvement.

but that's just me...

Princejohnny25 10-10-2005 06:49 PM

Chartering a jet is expensive and I dont like it but i dont think it is a lot more expensive than if they went through a lot of trouble with the scheduled flights. I also have a hunch that Charles plans on using scheduled flights for most of his visits but the US is such a high profile country and high risk target that to come to the US it was probably best to charter a flight.

ysbel 10-10-2005 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pollyemma
I wish I couldnt imagine it. I think Charles unfortunately doesnt avoid some of the entertainment world's more unsavory characters. I wish he would.

Ultimately I dont think its good for the monarchy to be seen too much with figures from the entertainment world who openly use drugs, sing about promiscuity etc.

If I want to hear that kind of message I'll go out and buy their albums. I prefer royalty to point me to things like service to others and community involvement.

but that's just me...

I agree pollyemma although I was thinking more that conservative Charles would just look embarassed if Ozzy did some crazy antics. I don't think Charles had a choice. The awards themselves look like a noble gesture but the organizers probably thought they needed some names other than royalty to get attention.

Not all of Charles' associations with unsavoury characters are bad. He associated with Bob Geldof in the 80s and that gave the Princes Trust a high profile. Bob is not one of your nicer characters.

ysbel 10-10-2005 07:23 PM

Speaking about the Princes Trust.

The next big event will take place on Oct. 17 in Monaco, Prince Albert will be attending. I don't know about Charles and Camilla.

https://www.princes-trust.org.uk/Fash...ks/artists.asp

Warren 10-11-2005 04:42 AM

Camilla, Ozzy & Sharon
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Somehow I just can't imagine Ozzy and Charles in the same room :D

Well, imagine again! After the "Party at the Palace" pop concert in the Buckingham Palace garden to celebrate the Golden Jubilee, the Royal Family hosted a party for the artists. The Daily Mail reported that Ozzy Osbourne and Camilla took quite a shine to each other, with Camilla leading Ozzy around by the hand as they joked together. Sharon Osbourne got in on the act as well, and she related to Michael Parkinson what a great time they had, what a fun person Camilla was, and how Ozzy admired Camilla's décolletage [euphemism!].
.

ysbel 10-11-2005 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
The Daily Mail reported that Ozzy Osbourne and Camilla took quite a shine to each other, with Camilla leading Ozzy around by the hand as they joked together. Sharon Osbourne got in on the act as well, and she related to Michael Parkinson what a great time they had, what a fun person Camilla was, and how Ozzy admired Camilla's décolletage [euphemism!].
.

Warren, that has got to be a hoot! I guess Charles is becoming less stuffy in his old age. :D and Camilla can take anything. As long as they don't invite Ozzy to the coronation I'll be fine. :eek:

Actually if you visit the Princes Trust site, you'll see that Sharon and Ozzy have contributed quite a bit to the Trust.

The Princes Trust has got to be one of the most successful charity efforts that any of the royals have undertaken and its a shame that Charles gets so little credit for it.

BeatrixFan 10-11-2005 11:22 AM

Re:
 
If they are chartering a plane to come here to the USA, who is absorbing the cost?? I don't think it is fair for the taxpayers to pay for all of it. While security is a nightmare situation in this day and age, I think Charles could give a little towards the chartering cost.

I think its thought by some that by chartering a plane, the cost of the Monarchy will go up and up. In fact, it doesn't. The 61p paid by Tax-Payers covers it all. To be honest, I'd rather pay 61p for the Monarchy than the high prices for other less-welcome institutions etc in Britain.
You can't run a Monarchy on a budget and they don't come in a package-deal. The Press should stop playing the penny-pinching nanny role which is becoming so boring. Prince Charles isn't making a social trip to the USA - he's making a Visit on behalf of the Queen - that's an official trip and thats what they are paid to do.

Lady Marmalade 10-11-2005 11:27 AM

Penny Junor pointed out in her book though that the Monarchy is essentially paid for out of the Crown Estates profits and not from the taxpayer directly as some may want the British people to believe. Charles's income is totally derived from the Duchy of Cornwall, is it not?

And as for Prince Andrew and the Earl and Countess of Wessex, their stipends come from the Queen's purse directly, correct?

If I am incorrect, please let me know. Thank you. Since you are from the United Kingdom, BeatrixFan, you would know better than I. :)

BeatrixFan 10-11-2005 11:43 AM

Re:
 
Thank you. Since you are from the United Kingdom, BeatrixFan, you would know better than I.

Oh No! I'm always finding out new things Lady Marmalade! I've read that the big events, like Trooping the Colour, etc - are mainly paid for by the Queen's private income believe it or not because the money given by the tax-payer simply wouldn't stretch to the other areas it was needed in.

The Queen is the only member of the Royal Family to recieve money directly from the tax-payer and then she shares that out amongst her family. I think. ;)

I think that the general sum given by Palace Officials is; the Crown recieves about 60 million but gives back about 140 million - something like that.

ysbel 10-11-2005 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
Penny Junor pointed out in her book though that the Monarchy is essentially paid for out of the Crown Estates profits and not from the taxpayer directly as some may want the British people to believe. Charles's income is totally derived from the Duchy of Cornwall, is it not?

Charles' income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall and his yearly stipend from the Civil List (only the Civil List is paid directly from the government) I don't know whether these monies will be tapped to pay for the charter though.

The 'cheating the poor taxpayers' argument has always been weak. People only target Charles or Andrew with wasting the taxpayers money even though they're not the only royals to charter flights.

If Charles paid for the charter himself, I imagine the politicians will complain that he is using his own money to ignore the 'will of the people' who want him to scale down and be more 'cost-conscious'

Lady Marmalade 10-11-2005 12:06 PM

Ahhh...thank you both BeatrixFan and ysbel. :)

Seems complex in some respects.

I have read that Charles turns quite a yearly profit on his returns from the Duchy's income, more than enough to support the Duchess and his two sons.

But the refurbishment of Clarence House was paid for primarily from the taxpayer, is that correct?

seto 10-11-2005 12:06 PM

cost conscious
 
I can see that that they want the royals to be cost conscious.But to the detriment of their safety. I do not like flying and from what I have seen of the safety measures and accidents on non chartered planes isn't this a bit foolish. Does anyone really want william on public planes it just seems a bit dangerous to me.

ysbel 10-11-2005 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
Ahhh...thank you both BeatrixFan and ysbel. :)

Seems complex in some respects.

I have read that Charles turns quite a yearly profit on his returns from the Duchy's income, more than enough to support the Duchess and his two sons.

But the refurbishment of Clarence House was paid for primarily from the taxpayer, is that correct?

Ah, Lady Marmalade, you're getting into territory I'm unfamiliar with. I think if Clarence House belongs to the government, I imagine the government would pay for its upkeep but if its privately owned then the royal family would. I'm not 100% sure of this. Windsor Castle was owned by the government but the government refused to pay for its reconstruction after the fire, so the Queen put up the money.

As far as covering the normal living expenses for the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall and the two princes, the Duchy income is meant for that type of expense and I imagine that's how its being used. I don't know for sure though.

But chartering a plane for an official trip goes far beyond the realm of a private living expense. Its rather like expecting a private businessman to pay for his own flight and hotel room on a business trip. I mean, yes, they can afford it, but if they're on official business should they?

Again I am amazed that only Charles and Andrew get criticized for this type of thing.

BeatrixFan 10-11-2005 12:59 PM

Re:
 
All the major Royal Residences belong to the Queen. Tax-Payers Money is used to keep them running, but as far as I know, the Government have never owned the Royal Residences.

Windsor Castle became an issue for the Government after the fire. John Major said that the Government would fund the repairs (but in actual fact, that would be tax-payers money) and there was media outcry. The basic opinion was ' Its her home, she should pay'. In the end, the Queen payed the bill for the repairs and this has made the Royal Family a bit more careful about fire prevention etc.

The big-wigs in finance break down every aspect of Royal Life to decide who should get what. For example;

Princess Alexandra - Widow - Coppins and Thatched House Lodge, Apartment in St James's Palace

The houses are not rented of course. They will probably be owned, either by the Princess herself or by the Queen (Thatched House Lodge and her apartment in the Palace are definately Crown Property). So, the only tab is the upkeep of the properties - gardeners and groundsmen, game-keepers etc. Then you have the 3 footman that are assigned to the Princess. 30,000 a year. (Each one earns about 10,000 a year). Then you have the security which I believe is 4 police men assigned to the Princess. I'm not sure of Police Salary but that could equal 50,000 easily. Then you have everyday bills - water, electricity etc. Her Ladies and Waiting (4 of them) don't get paid. Her Staff and Property would be considered as Business I imagine because she has to have somewhere to live and staff to help her.
She has an office and an apartment in Buckingham Palace complete with a Lady in Waiting, a Press Secretary and a Private Secretary. All have salaries to be paid, as well as office costs for stationary, mailing costs etc etc
Food etc would also be classed as living costs so that comes in to the bill too. Then you have travel. The police escort, the bentley, the footman in the front and the Chauffeur. Again, adds to the Bill.

All this would be paid for by the Civil List - but say the Princess fancies a trip to Biarritz, then she pays for that out of her personal purse. That is a private matter and she wouldn't be expected to give a breakdown of costs (although I imagine it would be made avaliable).

When you add all of this up, you get a pretty high total. She is considered the lower end of the Royal Scale and so for Prince Charles - the costs would be 4 times as much - he has to support Prince William and Prince Harry. As a member of the Royal Family, I think that the Duchess of Cornwall would get a set amount from the Civil List that was set aside from her husband. In the past, Prince Charles took from his alloted fund to support Camilla, but now, she will recieve it personally, the amount given to Prince Charles will account for her or there'll be no extra.

St James's Palace, Kensington Palace etc etc are all owned by the Queen and over the years, they'll have become the property of the Sovereign to do as she likes with within reason. She won't charge rent for her family living there, but they'll have to pay taxes and land costs etc. So, when there was that hoo-hah about Prince and Princess Michael living on a small rent, they probably were only paying the bills we all have to pay and not a rent for the apartment. Their home in Gloucestershire that they are trying to sell (Nether Lypiatt) will be their private home and so the Queen won't own it or have anything to do with it's selling or the new house that they buy.

To sum up my huge waffle, it's a private and public pay-check. Their private finances are exactly that and they can do as they wish, but their public one is dealt with by the tax-payer but that doesn't mean that everything they do with the money can be criticised. The public pay-check is there to ensure that they can carry out official duties and that they can be Royals.

As Ysbel, Prince Charles's expenses to the USA will be picked up by the tax-payer because thats what their pay-check does. If he wants to buy a baseball cap for Camilla, that will come from his private pay-check.

Harry's polo shirt 10-11-2005 01:03 PM

I thought Prince Charles paid for most of the refurbishment of Clarence House himself.

Elspeth 10-11-2005 01:05 PM

I think he paid for the refurbishment of the private apartments, whereas the rooms to be opened to the public and the general structural upgrading were covered by the Crown Estates.

ysbel 10-11-2005 01:21 PM

Thanks BeatrixFan and Elspeth. See, Lady Marmalade, I told you I was getting out of my depth here. :D

The knowledge in these forums never ceases to amaze me.

Lady Marmalade 10-11-2005 01:49 PM

WOW!! :)

Thank you for the breakdown.

I know he pays income tax as well, and has done so for many, many years and decided to do this on his own accord without anyone pressuring him.

Lady Marmalade 10-11-2005 01:52 PM

Thank you Elspeth and BeatrixFan for your helpful clarifications. :)

And just to clarify, the only two residences owned outright by the Sovereign as her personal property are Balmoral and Sandringham.

Charles owns Highgrove outright as well.

If I am incorrect, please let me know.

Elspeth 10-11-2005 02:02 PM

I think you're correct, with the minor nitpick that I think Highgrove is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall rather than by Charles outright.

Lady Marmalade 10-11-2005 02:10 PM

ahhh....thank you! :)

See..there can be so many interesting points on this to learn about.

BeatrixFan 10-11-2005 02:14 PM

Re:
 
I thought the Queen owned Windsor? I don't think she did until 1992, but after paying for the entire repairs herself, I believe they came to a decision that it would become the Queen's property, much like Balmoral and Sandringham. I may be wrong.

Clarence House. I think that Prince Charles offered to pay for it but in actual fact, the Government paid because it was deemed a working residence.

The problem with the whole money thing is that we rarely get a financial report on each item and why the hell should we? ;)

Elspeth 10-11-2005 02:44 PM

As far as I understand it, the repairs of Windsor were financed by the money obtained from opening Buckingham Palace to the public and by using money already set aside for repairs of royal residences. No extra money came directly from taxpayers via a request for funds in Parliament. The Queen didn't pay for the money out of her private funds, and Windsor hasn't changed ownership.

The negative response by the public was to a suggestion from a minister that the money to repair Windsor should be made available from the Treasury over and above anything already set aside for upkeep of royal buildings, so this wasn't done. Instead they opened Buckingham Palace to the public (not before time, IMO) and got most of the money that way.

selrahc4 10-11-2005 02:54 PM

RE: ownership of Windsor Castle. Some links and information from the royal website.
https://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/page3108.asp

The residences associated with today's Royal Family are divided into the Occupied Royal Residences, which are owned by The Queen as Sovereign (i.e. not as a private individual) and the Private Estates which have been inherited by The Queen from her father. The Occupied Royal Residences are Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St James's Palace and the Palace of Holyroodhouse.

The private estates are Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle, which are commercial estates managed privately on The Queen's behalf.

https://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/page396.asp

The Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham, both inherited from her father. She also owns the stud at Sandringham (with a small amount of land in Hampshire). Her Majesty owns no property outside the United Kingdom.

Estimates of The Queen's wealth have often been greatly exaggerated, as they mistakenly include items which are held by The Queen as Sovereign on behalf of the nation and are not her private property.

These include Royal Palaces, most of the art treasures from the Royal Collection, heirlooms in The Queen's jewellery collection and the Crown Jewels.

The 'inalienable' items held by Her Majesty as Sovereign, rather than as an individual, cannot be disposed of by The Queen and must pass to her successor as Sovereign.




branchg 10-11-2005 02:57 PM

The Queen does not directly own any private property except for Balmoral and Sandringham House. All of the other palaces and home mentioned belong to the Crown Estate, which is the property of the Exchequer, or the Royal Trust, held in perpetuity by the Crown for each Sovereign. The Royal Trust properties (like Clarence House) cannot be sold, but their use is governed by the wishes of the Sovereign.

Renovations of Crown Estate and Royal Trust properties are usually paid by the Government out of Crown Estate monies, with some contribution by the individual (or the Queen) when appropriate.

Since most of the Queen's cousins have little money of their own or small fortunes, she pays a lot of their expenses out of her private purse.

Iluvbertie 10-11-2005 05:06 PM

Quote:

When you add all of this up, you get a pretty high total. She is considered the lower end of the Royal Scale and so for Prince Charles - the costs would be 4 times as much - he has to support Prince William and Prince Harry. As a member of the Royal Family, I think that the Duchess of Cornwall would get a set amount from the Civil List that was set aside from her husband. In the past, Prince Charles took from his alloted fund to support Camilla, but now, she will recieve it personally, the amount given to Prince Charles will account for her or there'll be no extra.
Please note that Charles receives nothing from the Civil List. His income, on which he supports himself, his sons and his wife, comes from the Duchy of Cornwall estate only.

Only the Queen and Prince Philip actually receive payments from the Civil List. The others, except for the Duke of Cornwall and family, who are listed have their income repaid by the Queen. This was agreed to as part of the scaling back of the cost of the Royal Family in the early 90s.

Charles started voluntarily paying taxes in the 1970s or even 1969 when he gained control of the Duchy estates on turning 21. He was paying 50% at that time but scaled it back to 25% after marrying Diana to pay for the cost of having a wife. I don't know if he has ever increased it but as he has had to pay for his sons since then and has now acquired a new wife he probably hasn't done so.

BeatrixFan 10-11-2005 06:27 PM

Re:
 
Please note that Charles receives nothing from the Civil List. His income, on which he supports himself, his sons and his wife, comes from the Duchy of Cornwall estate only.

I meant that he recieves money from the Queen from the money she recieves from the Civil List. My error! :)

branchg 10-11-2005 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Please note that Charles receives nothing from the Civil List. His income, on which he supports himself, his sons and his wife, comes from the Duchy of Cornwall estate only.

I meant that he recieves money from the Queen from the money she recieves from the Civil List. My error! :)

Prince Charles does not receive a penny from the Queen, whether from her private purse or through her Civil List monies. As Duke of Cornwall, he receives the duchy's profits, which is designated to provide an income to the heir to the throne and his family. He also pays taxes on this income.

Also, Princes William and Harry have plenty of their own money, both from Diana's estate, the Queen Mother's trust and the money left to Harry in trust by the Earl Spencer before he died. So, we don't have to worry about them sucking up taxpayers' dollars!

Lady Marmalade 10-11-2005 09:14 PM

To remark on an earlier post someone made...even though I know it is admanently denied, I would not be surprised if the Royal Family did in fact own property in the U.S. privately.

Princejohnny25 10-12-2005 10:17 AM

They probably do own land outside the UK but it is probably under an alias. I know Princess Margaret owned land in the Carabean.

Harry's polo shirt 10-12-2005 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think he paid for the refurbishment of the private apartments, whereas the rooms to be opened to the public and the general structural upgrading were covered by the Crown Estates.

well, that isn't bad...acceptable if you ask me.

Then why are so many complaining about the royal family's wasting tax payers money?

ysbel 10-12-2005 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt
well, that isn't bad...acceptable if you ask me.

Then why are so many complaining about the royal family's wasting tax payers money?

Beats me! I'd rather talk about Camilla leading Ozzy around a high British tea party telling jokes!

BTW, Warren, did they catch any jokes Her Royal Highness told the Oz-ster? :D

Princejohnny25 10-12-2005 11:20 AM

For some reason it does not seem so far fetched that the Duchess and Ozzy and Sharon got along. For all we know she could be listining to the Prince of Darkness everytime she takes a drive. That would be a site. Here is some other news. The Prince and Duchesses first joint royal patronage.

https://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/View...icleID=1218300

BeatrixFan 10-12-2005 11:23 AM

Re:
 
Charles and Camilla have a brilliant sense of humour and so I can really see them getting along with Ozzy and Sharon. I wonder if they vote on the X-Factor? ;)

ysbel 10-12-2005 11:27 AM

Thanks Princejohnny. What type of plays does the theatre put on? I'm planning a trip to the UK and I love to check out new theatres.

branchg 10-12-2005 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
To remark on an earlier post someone made...even though I know it is admanently denied, I would not be surprised if the Royal Family did in fact own property in the U.S. privately.

There is no reason for the royal family to own property in the U.S. While it's true Princess Margaret built a home in Mustique, it was sold by Viscount Linley before she died.

The Duke of Windsor owned a ranch in Alberta, Canada, which he purchased in the 1920's as Prince of Wales and sold in the late 50's. The only personal property I've heard the Queen acquires in the U.S. is Kentucky racehorses!

Lady Marmalade 10-12-2005 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg
There is no reason for the royal family to own property in the U.S. While it's true Princess Margaret built a home in Mustique, it was sold by Viscount Linley before she died.

The Duke of Windsor owned a ranch in Alberta, Canada, which he purchased in the 1920's as Prince of Wales and sold in the late 50's. The only personal property I've heard the Queen acquires in the U.S. is Kentucky racehorses!

Why not? They have the right to use their own personal money to purchase property wherever they want to.

ysbel 10-12-2005 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Charles and Camilla have a brilliant sense of humour and so I can really see them getting along with Ozzy and Sharon. I wonder if they vote on the X-Factor? ;)

OK, dumb question. What's the X-factor?

BeatrixFan 10-12-2005 01:49 PM

Re:
 
Basically, they take members of the public who want to be singers and judge them - whoever wins is supposed to get a record deal.

Much like Pop Idol but Sharon Osbourne is a judge.

ysbel 10-12-2005 02:25 PM

Thanks BeatrixFan. I'm so behind the times when it comes to TV.

I did come across this photo of Charles and Camilla out in July. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/06102005/32...e-charles.html

I liked her outfit - the light pinky beige looked good for her complexion Nice new haircut too.

Princejohnny25 10-12-2005 02:31 PM

Pink is Camillas best color. I wish she would grow her bangs out and were her hair in some soft curls.

Princejohnny25 10-12-2005 03:05 PM

I have found a quote that Camilla said to Sharon at the Golden Jubilee Concort when Ozzy said to her "Your ****ing great!" Camilla told Sharon that "Oh, it's quite all right, we curse quite a lot around here."

pollyemma 10-12-2005 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
I have found a quote that Camilla said to Sharon at the Golden Jubilee Concort when Ozzy said to her "You're ****ing great" Camilla told sharon that "Oh, it's quite all right, we curse quite a lot around here."

oh no! is that really true. how awful! I hope she didnt say that.

I(and loads of people I know) don't use language like that (99% of the time;) ) and is it too much to expect her to do the same???

BeatrixFan 10-12-2005 04:31 PM

Re:
 
The British have begun to swear alot. It's not hard to find school children as young as 13/14 swearing like troopers. Blame rap-music.

ysbel 10-12-2005 04:39 PM

I don't like the f-word but admit to using the s-word quite a lot.

Iluvbertie 10-12-2005 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt
well, that isn't bad...acceptable if you ask me.
Then why are so many complaining about the royal family's wasting tax payers money?

Because many people don't really understand exactly how cheap the RF really is.

When the cost of the family was published earlier this year - 61pence per British person per year for the Queen and the Duke and 4pence per British person per year many people simply chose not to believe the figure was that low or didn't register that it could be that low.

BeatrixFan 10-12-2005 04:50 PM

Re:
 
Without getting into mass political debate, this Government are spending a fortune on ridiculous things and 61p for the Monarchy is possibly one of the few good and worthwhile things they are spending our money on!

ysbel 10-12-2005 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
Pink is Camillas best color. I wish she would grow her bangs out and were her hair in some soft curls.

Actually I think the hairstyle in that picture is pretty flattering. Its more under control and the color looks even. Its a good look for her.

Princejohnny25 10-12-2005 05:19 PM

Most of the men in the family were in the military so they probably swear. They live stressfull lives so they probably swear. I thought it was really funny. They are normal people.

james 10-12-2005 05:38 PM

At the end of the day however, in a democracy, the working person is entitled to say where their 61p in tax should go and they are entitled to object, if they chose to do so, to their money supporting an institution they have no say in the running of ie the Monarchy.

ysbel 10-12-2005 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james
At the end of the day however, in a democracy, the working person is entitled to say where their 61p in tax should go and they are entitled to object, if they chose to do so, to their money supporting an institution they have no say in the running of ie the Monarchy.

Yes, they can james, but its interesting people only complain when its Andrew or Charles. Makes the complaints a little less valid, don't you think?

branchg 10-12-2005 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
Why not? They have the right to use their own personal money to purchase property wherever they want to.

Of course. I'm just pointing out there is no particular reason for them to have property in the U.S. because they don't live or vacation here.

The Queen has made private visits to Kentucky to visit with the Farishes and other horse-breeding families because that's her biggest personal interest. She certainly has stayed with them as guests and also purchased horses. That's about it.

Harry's polo shirt 10-12-2005 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
The British have begun to swear alot. It's not hard to find school children as young as 13/14 swearing like troopers. Blame rap-music.

:D :D that is sooo funny. It made my day!

Lady Marmalade 10-12-2005 11:32 PM

LOL!!! I love that post! Thank you BeatrixFan..

When I was there three years ago for the Jubilee, many of them did not seem shy about using colorful metaphor. Some of the slang I picked up from watching Eastenders.

Warren 10-13-2005 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
BTW, Warren, did they catch any jokes Her Royal Highness told the Oz-ster? :D

No, only that there was lots of laughter, and she was quite amused by Ozzy's admiration of her...décolletage. I guess she was in no danger of an unwanted advance...Sharon was on hand! A good time was had by all.
.

Warren 10-13-2005 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pollyemma
oh no! is that really true. how awful! I hope she didnt say that. I(and loads of people I know) don't use language like that (99% of the time;) ) and is it too much to expect her to do the same???

??? I have missed something here.
Ozzy Osbourne used the **** word, NOT Camilla.
Quote:

Ozzy said to Camilla "You're ****ing great!"

BeatrixFan 10-13-2005 07:50 AM

Re:
 
Some of the slang I picked up from watching Eastenders.

Oh dear. I promise you we don't talk that!

"A'wight guv, whesya gon aht den?"

Awful....

Lady Marmalade 10-13-2005 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Some of the slang I picked up from watching Eastenders.
Oh dear. I promise you we don't talk that!

"A'wight guv, whesya gon aht den?"
Awful....

Oh, I know that. :)

Did you all the read about Prince Charles picking up a medicine at one of his visits and asking what it was only to be told it was used to help....men's enhancements in bed?

Apparently he and the staff got a big kick out of it..

I cannot believe how relaxed he has been these past few months. The transformation is mesmerizing..for the first time in a very long time, he looks genuinely happy.

ysbel 10-13-2005 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
Oh, I know that. :)
Did you all the read about Prince Charles picking up a medicine at one of his visits and asking what it was only to be told it was used to help....men's enhancements in bed? Apparently he and the staff got a big kick out of it..
I cannot believe how relaxed he has been these past few months. The transformation is mesmerizing..for the first time in a very long time, he looks genuinely happy.

I wonder if it were a homeopathic remedy! ;)

ysbel 10-13-2005 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
No, only that there was lots of laughter, and she was quite amused by Ozzy's admiration of her...décolletage. I guess she was in no danger of an unwanted advance...Sharon was on hand! A good time was had by all.
.

Come to think of it, Ozzy's height comes right to her decolletage so he got a good view.

Lady Marmalade 10-13-2005 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
I wonder if it were a homeopathic remedy! ;)

Hi,
I think that is what it was.
If you go to hellomagazine.com, the story is on there. :)

Princejohnny25 10-13-2005 12:20 PM

Charles Laughs Off a Potent Encounter


https://hellomagazine.com/royalty/200...princecharles/

He is much more relaxed. It is a much better image of him.

Princejohnny25 10-13-2005 12:31 PM

Monarchies set to Collapse

https://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Spa...sk-10204.shtml

This article scares me but when I read it, it sounds like the guy has no idea what he is talking about. In a sense, I can understand the collapse of mainland europes monarchies because they have lost so much tradition and royal grandeur that they act like republics. But, they dont seem anywhere near collapse, Norway does seem in danger of a huge political debate emboiling the country on whether to retain the monarchy in the next few years though.

Elspeth 10-13-2005 12:35 PM

Well, when people start on about what a waste of space a monarchy is, I usually remind them about the United Nations list of countries with the highest quality of life. Year after year, more than half of the top five, top ten, and top fifteen countries are constitutional monarchies.

BeatrixFan 10-13-2005 12:37 PM

Re:
 
As long as there's one man alive to say, "You are my King/Queen" then Monarchy exists.

tiaraprin 10-13-2005 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
Monarchies set to Collapse

https://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Spa...sk-10204.shtml

This article scares me but when I read it, it sounds like the guy has no idea what he is talking about. In a sense, I can understand the collapse of mainland europes monarchies because they have lost so much tradition and royal grandeur that they act like republics. But, they dont seem anywhere near collapse, Norway does seem in danger of a huge political debate emboiling the country on whether to retain the monarchy in the next few years though.


If I am not mistaken, there is still a strong Anti-Monarchy movement in Australia also. Perhaps the Australians on the board could speak about this.

Iluvbertie 10-13-2005 05:54 PM

It is not so much anti-monarchy but pro-republic.

At the moment it is on the back burner and will stay there as long as John Howard is PM as he is a staunch monarchist.

These days we hear a lot about Mary of Denmark, as she was an Australian before her marriage.

No-one is really against the Brits having a monarchy but do question whether or not the British monarch should also be ours.

Personally I love the Queen and the RF and would hate to live in a republic but if the majority of people in a majority of states vote that way in a referendum at some time in the future then I will have to get used to it.

ysbel 10-13-2005 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57
No-one is really against the Brits having a monarchy but do question whether or not the British monarch should also be ours.

I can kinda understand that. I like the British Royal Family too but if we started to have a King and Queen of the United States, it would feel kinda weird!

ysbel 10-13-2005 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
Monarchies set to Collapse

https://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Spa...sk-10204.shtml

This article scares me but when I read it, it sounds like the guy has no idea what he is talking about.

Thanks for the article, princejohnny. He's talking about the lack of blue blood in the royal houses these days. I can kinda understand him. Prince Charles said before he married that he thought he ought to marry a princess because she would know what she was getting into but he really wanted to marry a nice English girl. He ended up marrying the nice English girls.

But I think its tougher for non-royal brides to be accepted within the royal family.

ysbel 10-13-2005 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
Hi,I think that is what it was.
If you go to hellomagazine.com, the story is on there. :)

Thanks Lady Marmalade,
that gave me a chuckle! :D

Harry's polo shirt 10-13-2005 11:20 PM

Countries with monarcys also have high tourism. Isn't that what keeps Englands economy up? If you think about it, the reason people visit England is mainly for the palaces, royal museums, changing of the guards, and such.

Warren 10-14-2005 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
If I am not mistaken, there is still a strong Anti-Monarchy movement in Australia also. Perhaps the Australians on the board could speak about this.

In the referendum a few years ago a majority of people in EVERY Australian state voted to reject the proposed change. Four reasons: disagreement with how a replacement Head of State would be elected/appointed; the fear of major constitutional change (which Australians have traditionally rejected); satisfaction with the status quo ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it"); and resentment by "average" people of the cultural elite's claim that the Monarchy denied us our own "identity" and their patronising and condescending attitude of "we know what's best for you".
.

Iluvbertie 10-14-2005 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
In the referendum a few years ago a majority of people in EVERY Australian state voted to reject the proposed change. Four reasons: disagreement with how a replacement Head of State would be elected/appointed; the fear of major constitutional change (which Australians have traditionally rejected); satisfaction with the status quo ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it"); and resentment by "average" people of the cultural elite's claim that the Monarchy denied us our own "identity" and their patronising and condescending attitude of "we know what's best for you".
.


Actually Victoria's vote was 50% each way, but the other states all rejected it.

karla64 10-14-2005 09:50 AM

Psst! Prince's red-faced moment with sex drug....lol

htp://www.telegraphindia.com/1051014/asp/atleisure/story_5352903.asp

Australian 10-14-2005 10:05 AM

Haha, i dont know what I would have said if I was that pharmaceutical worker! I wouldnt want to be in her position lol

Genevieve 10-14-2005 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.

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.

Right back at you BeatrixFan! Exactly BeatrixFan! :)

I never understood why it is so necessary to bawl at Camilla in order to defend Diana. Throwing oneself against Diana's tomb or her memory won't bring her back. Living in the past good deeds of Diana won't bring resurrect her body either.

Diana died young. That is why people are so obsessed with her life. In the eyes of some, she died a matyr. But those people forget that she was very human too and made very human mistakes. She was no angel nor was she a matyr. The sooner people realize that, the easier it will be for the future wives of William and Harry who will most certainly be compared to Diana which is totally unreasonable.

People will conveniently forget that Diana was a troubled young woman from the beginning with emotional problems stemming from her parents' divorce and her troubled relationship with each of her parents that carried on and grew with her marriage to Charles. People will say that William and Harry's choices of wives are not as pretty as their mother was - forgetting that she didn't get a chance to age before the public eye - or that they are not as devoted to royal duties as Diana was or a million other reasons that are unfair to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
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.

Even her sons are not obsessive over their mother's memory as some people on this forum and elsewhere seem to be. You do not hear either of the boys defending Diana at every slight of a tabloid story or slaying Camilla in defending their mother. These are her sons! If they have moved on with their lives while keeping their mother in their hearts then why can't everyday people who never met her or met her once in their lives?

Harry's polo shirt 10-15-2005 07:50 PM

I wonder who was the most embarrassed...lol...it is a cute story though. Wills would have been embarrased if he was there also.

Elspeth 10-15-2005 08:11 PM

Since this thread is on its tenth page, and since it's taken quite a few turns off topic, I'm going to close it and start Part 4.

If people wish to discuss things like the relationship between Camilla and the two princes or how Diana might have felt or whatever, please feel free to start a new thread to do so, and leave this thread for reports of news events and discussions about those events specifically.

The new thread is here:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ead.php?t=7559


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises