Prince Albert and Charlene Wittstock Current Events - Part 5: June 2010 - June 2011


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Katelle said:
^^^^^^
Large? I don't think so. I have seen much larger gatherings.
Click to expand...
What I meant was that most of the European families were represented - but Monaco wasnt. I get Zonc's point about the difference between a family wedding & State so that probably best explains why Albert & Charlene weren't present.
I know this is more a question for the wedding thread, but are weddings officially declared "State"? Also, because Albert is a reigning monarch rather than an heir apparent, does that mean his wedding will have different protocol i.e. who might be expected to attend/Albert's outfit/Charlene more likely to wear tiara etc.
 
Elly C said:
What I meant was that most of the European families were represented - but Monaco wasnt. I get Zonc's point about the difference between a family wedding & State so that probably best explains why Albert & Charlene weren't present.
I know this is more a question for the wedding thread, but are weddings officially declared "State"? Also, because Albert is a reigning monarch rather than an heir apparent, does that mean his wedding will have different protocol i.e. who might be expected to attend/Albert's outfit/Charlene more likely to wear tiara etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think "officially" look at most royal weddings-half the time they are like any other wedding, as the royals usually are in the same or similar "circles". At least from what I've seen anyway. As for the protcol on PA's outfit, Charlene to wear a tiara (or not)-I don't think there really is one for PA and Grace didn't at their wedding-so why would/should Charlene?
At Albert and Charlene's I expect to see, at the very least:
  1. Edward and Sophie, Earl and Countess of Wessex
  2. The Princess Royal ( she's been a member of the IOC almost as long as Albert)
  3. Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange (another IOC member, just not as long) and his wife, Princess Máxima of the Netherlands
  4. Princess Nora of Liechtenstein (IOC)
  5. Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark (IOC) and CP Mary
  6. King Constantine II of Greece and Queen Anne-Marie of Greece, Princess of Denmark (King C is an honorary IOC)
  7. Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg (IOC, Honorary since 1998)
  8. Count Jacques Rogge (IOC President) and his wife Anne Rogge
  9. King Albert II and Queen Paola of Belgium (PA went on a state visit there recently...)
  10. CP Victoria and Prince Daniel of Sweden (only fair they return the favor;))
But that's just my opinion. Guess we'll have to wait until next summer to find out! Can't wait.....
 
You've forgotten Frederik of Denmark who is a prominent IOC person.
 
Sorry.... I was stung by a wasp earlier .... seems to have affected my brain ....
 
Perhaps they did not attend because in 1995 Stephanie was marrying Ducruet on the same day Prince Pavlos was marrying Marie Chantal in London and all the big names in royalty went to the London event of King Constantine.
Pa is opening up embassies and making bridges to relations. So I think this was not a shrewd move - not to attend- family or otherwise-because King Constantine has behind him the contingent from Spain and Queen Anne Marie the royalty of Denmark and such pretigious ones as Farah Diba.
But They do believe in the Olympics[IOC] and they missed the opportunity the visit the country of its origin and go to wedding simultaneoulsy?
True Olympians would not miss the opportunity to see the country of origin in person.jmo
 
I'm sure PA would have visited Greece (and its islands) many times. The Grimaldis have a penchant for islands, especially the Greek ones.

As to the Olympic ideal, it seems to me that PA and CW want to make their wedding an Olympian one where they can celebrate their wedding with their long-standing friends.
 
Jaya said:
Perhaps they did not attend because in 1995 Stephanie was marrying Ducruet on the same day Prince Pavlos was marrying Marie Chantal in London and all the big names in royalty went to the London event of King Constantine.
Pa is opening up embassies and making bridges to relations. So I think this was not a shrewd move - not to attend- family or otherwise-because King Constantine has behind him the contingent from Spain and Queen Anne Marie the royalty of Denmark and such pretigious ones as Farah Diba.
But They do believe in the Olympics[IOC] and they missed the opportunity the visit the country of its origin and go to wedding simultaneoulsy?
True Olympians would not miss the opportunity to see the country of origin in person.jmo
Click to expand...
Somehow I think the Royal families would not have attended Stephanie and Ducruet (I don't remember his first name !) wedding if they had been free.
I remember many years ago in a French magazine where they asked her "Why are you never seen at big Royal gatherings ?" and she replied "I am not invited".
 
My recollection is that the Stephanie's wedding was arranged to be the same days as the Greek wedding in London specificaaly to avoid publicity. No one of note attended Stephanies wedding. It was a small civil affair.

I am sure Albert has been to Greece many times, he was certainly there in 2004 for the Olympics in Athens.
 
NGalitzine said:
My recollection is that the Stephanie's wedding was arranged to be the same days as the Greek wedding in London specificaaly to avoid publicity. No one of note attended Stephanies wedding. It was a small civil affair.

I am sure Albert has been to Greece many times, he was certainly there in 2004 for the Olympics in Athens.
Click to expand...
But he hasn't been on Larry King as promised when he became betrothed and he has not been to this affair.
Do you have a link to your recollection?
 
What's the connection between Larry King and attending a wedding in Greece?

Albert did attend a pre wedding party for Pavlos and Marie Chantal's wedding in London before flying home to attend Stephanies small wedding in Monaco, so I doubt there are any hard feelings between the 2 families. Stephanie's wedding was at the Town Hall in Monaco and the wedding and reception at Loews Hotel only had about 50 guests, probably just what she wanted.
 
I think that Charlene is in a very good position. It's possible that as well as being a person of good character her career as an athlete has had a steadying and disciplined influence on her life. IMO the Monaco RF, despite it's size, is probably the most famous after the British and is in need of a real Lady that the world can admire. The current Princesses, sometimes through their own fault sometimes not have desperatley fallen short. Charlene begins her Royal career with no baggage and if she can follow, which I'm sure we all hope, will be a glorious Royal wedding with the birth of some new Princes/Princesses and then continue to exude the elegance she already does with the warmth and charm required by a Princess Consort then I'm sure she will be a success.
 
Interview: PA: We get along, it feels comfortable??

Maybe something is lost in the translation?? Interview of Prince Albert:

Fürst Albert: «Ich weiss nicht, ob Charlene meine Seelenverwandte ist» - Royal - glanz & gloria - Schweizer Fernsehen


The reporter asks Prince Albert, "Is Charlene Wittstock your soulmate?" he replies: "I don't know if she is because everybody says that uh you are supposed to marry your soulmate I don't know yet. All I know is that we get along wonderfully and uh it feels comfortable you know, when you are with someone and it feels comfortable that's uh then that's ah the right person for you at that time."
 
The translation is right, it's been the vernissage of the exhibition "Faszination
Mensch" (fascination of human being) by the sculptor Stephan Schmidlin in
Zurich, Switzerland on September 10. The interviewer and Prince Albert first
talked about the intention of the exhibition - to show the uniqueness of each
person and then the interviewer grabbed the chance and turned the interview
to a personal level, very predictable..;) Prince Albert managed that very well,
answered unagitated, honest, still in the context of the previous exhibition
talk and that's the reserved kind of way Albert has often shown in interviews.
 
Prince Albert has always struggled with interviews, his stutter also gets in the way of expressing his ideas. If a person with a stutter does not verbally stutter, they mentally are struggling with choosing words and phrases. Perhaps he might have chosen different verbiage to express his relationship with his fiance. I would believe that these few sentences do not accurately sum up his feelings for Charlene.
 
goody7058 said:
How can PA said CW is not his soulmate. What a joke.
Click to expand...
Marrying your "soulmate" is no guarantee for a happy marriage. And how many "soulmates" have divorced? The term is elusive and I applaud P. albert for not getting in to the talk of her being his "soulmate". He had a very mature and reasonable answer to the question posed to him.
 
oh my, stuter or not, that's not cool, people usually say exactly what they mean escpecially when there caught off guard. for al to say "it feels comfortable, you know" "then that's the right person for you at that time" and that he doesn't know if she's he's soul mate "yet"... if my fiance said that i would be all over him, it's almost like he's not sure about marrying her, but oh well he's going to go through with it. I hope Charlene has her eyes wide open! :(
 
It´s amazing that some people want to see a love story where there seems to be no love.They are more interested than the protagonists in "buying" the cinderella story.
It reminded me of P. Charles "whatever love is".
Both of them will get what they want form this wedding.
 
Perhaps he just isn't a big believer in Oprahesque "soulmate" touchy feely mumbo jumbo. I think the second sentence is the important one "All I know is that we get along wonderfully and uh it feels comfortable you know, when you are with someone and it feels comfortable that's uh then that's ah the right person for you at that time"
 
i just watched the video interview and he looks nervious, irritated and he keeps saying i don't know, i don't know. oppsie, not goood, this is definately not a "love match".
 
But who said it was a love match?

Albert and Charlene have been very smart, not once have they mentioned love.

If they are okay with it, why does it bother everyone else?
 
Perhaps he just viewed the question as one that was no ones elses damn business and was being as polite as he could without telling the reporter to go to hell. He is under no obligation to bare his soul to the press.
 
Christine10 said:
oh my, stuter or not, that's not cool, people usually say exactly what they mean escpecially when there caught off guard. for al to say "it feels comfortable, you know" "then that's the right person for you at that time" and that he doesn't know if she's he's soul mate "yet"... if my fiance said that i would be all over him, it's almost like he's not sure about marrying her, but oh well he's going to go through with it. I hope Charlene has her eyes wide open! :(
Click to expand...

Have you ever had a stutter? I did and I went to a speech therapist to fix my stutter problem but If I'm caught off guard on a question or I feel uncomfortable about it it's hard to say what I want to say and express myself, so I understand why he answered the way he did...
 
People express themselves in their own way. Better to be comfortable, which is a warm word, then "WOW, she the hottest chick...." He has no reason, no may be comfortable with publicly discussing his feelings. He is, also, at a mature point of his life, where all these twardy expressions are not part of his vernacular. I have been married twice. To my first husband for 28 years until he died in my arms and my second husband for almost 20 years. Until you are, really, together for a long time, you may or not be soul mates and what does that expression mean anyway? It is just prattle by insecure people who need thwir ego's massaged.
 
Why are we so criticed when we say there is nothing in this relationship, not a hint of love? if this is not a love match, this is an agrement, arrangement, contract, call it whatever you want. CW is the one who´s losing most. She´s losing the chance to really know a true love, only for a whim.
 
rosana said:
Why are we so criticed when we say there is nothing in this relationship
Click to expand...

No one is criticized, the only one who criticizes at the moment is you. It's an
open discussion with many interesting points also including the possibility that
the relationship may be more an equitable decision than a 100% love match.
Things are not black or white, there are many different shades here and
everywhere.
 
rosana said:
Why are we so criticed when we say there is nothing in this relationship, not a hint of love? if this is not a love match, this is an agrement, arrangement, contract, call it whatever you want. CW is the one who´s losing most. She´s losing the chance to really know a true love, only for a whim.
Click to expand...

Isnt most royal marriages are a form of a agreement of some type. This has been going on since the beginning of time.;)
 
DuedePhiladelphia said:
Isnt most royal marriages are a form of a agreement of some type. This has been going on since the beginning of time.;)
Click to expand...

I think you can say the same of all marriages, royal or not. Two people decide that for various reasons they can make a life together. "Love" is a word that different people would define in different ways at different points in their lives.

rosana said:
Why are we so criticed when we say there is nothing in this relationship, not a hint of love? .
Click to expand...

Could be because unless you are behind the palace walls, watching them 24/7 and listening to their private conversations you have no clue as to the nature of their relationship.
I would draw the comparison to how people talked about how happy and in love Prince Joachim and Princess Alexandra of Denmark were, based on photographs of the couple, and then they were so shocked when the couple announced they were divorcing.
Photographs do not tell they whole story about anyone, they represent only a second in time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is the same persons who critice Charlene Wittstock for the beginning of his story whith Prince Albert (read the old boards), they did not know her, but they criticed , they did not give her a little chance. (She is no more here, it's over, oh she is here, he will never marry her and so and so). now they are engaged, that is not a love match ah he says that he don't know if she is her soul mate but these persons don't say that he also said that they get along wonderfully and it feels confortableand he knows that is the right person.For me this is a good ground for a weedding, We know them only by the photos, we cannot judge if they are in love or not, but stop to the critics, they will marry soon, we will see a baeutiful weedding, perhaps soon cute kids on the balcon of the palace and we will forgiven all this critics
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

iceflower
Prince Albert & Princess Charlene Current Events Part 6: January 2024 -
Replies
13
Views
4K
hereditarytitles
H
iceflower
King Frederik X, Current Events Part 1: January 2024 -
2 3
Replies
79
Views
10K
Izzie
Izzie
Hans-Rickard
Crown Prince Christian, News and Current Events Part 1: January 2024 -
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
iceflower
Queen Mary, Current Events Part 1: January 2024 -
2 3
Replies
75
Views
11K
Izzie
Izzie
iceflower
Princess Caroline Current Events Part 4: January 2024 -
Replies
6
Views
3K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom