Prince Charles to marry his slag

re hats at the wedding:

Quote:

Feathers Sprout in Royal Parade of Hats

Saturday April 9, 2005

By SUE LEEMAN

Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - A sea of feathers graced the heads of the rich and famous at the royal wedding Saturday, and first among the spring creations adorned the new Duchess of Cornwall - a coronet of gilded plumes tipped with crystals. Her 26-year-old daughter wore a towering creation of feathers and ribbons teased skyward like antlers.

In a country where the queen never appears bareheaded, millinery consciousness is bone-deep among the rich and famous, especially during ``the season'' - the round of spring and summer A-list parties.

The unique creations at Saturday's blessing ceremony for the newly wed Prince Charles and Camilla towered as much as 12 inches above hairlines and ranged in color from demure creams to hot pinks - feathers artfully arranged on wide-brims or bunched saucily in small hairpieces.

Even Queen Elizabeth II, the prince's mother, wore a discreet spray of feathers on her wide-brimmed, pale yellow and white floral print.

But at the civil wedding ceremony in the Windsor town hall, all eyes, of course, were on the bride and her stylish and intensely feminine straw, overlaid with ivory French lace and trimmed with a fountain of feathers. For the more formal blessing ceremony in the Gothic St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle, Camilla switched to a feathered, semicircular headdress.

Laura Parker Bowles, the bride's daughter, drew photographers like magnets with her hat, a mass of arrow-like feathers and ribbons in sand tones, chosen to contrast with her coat of mint green.

Serena Linley, who is married to Charles' cousin, Viscount Linley, the furniture designer, sported hot pink feathers above pinned up tresses. Society girl and royal pal Tara Palmer-Tompkinson drew admiring glances with a theatrical headdress of brown and cream plumes perched dizzily down on her brow.

Norway's Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway parted her blonde on one side, making way for a soft pile of purple feathers with one long plume shooting upward.

Sophie, Countess of Wessex, the wife of Charles's younger brother, Prince Edward, chose a gray and white asymmetric creation with a high-crown highlighted by dramatic black and white pheasant feathers.

Princess Beatrice, Charles' 16-year-old niece who has the copper-colored locks of her mother, the former Sarah Ferguson, looked elegant in a small headpiece combining brown and cream feathers and fabric flowers that matched her coat.

Her sister Eugenie, just turned 15, seemed a little awash inside a low-slung, white creation that hid her eyes.

Charles' sister, Princess Anne, chose her regulation pillbox, azure blue with a tiny veil for this occasion.

Anne's daughter Zara Phillips, 23, was almost unrecognizable in a dull black cloche that nearly her face.

Many wore big picture hats with broad bands, flowers or netting.

Others went miniature, with one guest adorned with what looked like a padded skullcap in black silk pinned at a dangerous angle on the side of her head and covered in white beads.

Hats are integral among the British blue bloods, especially at the well-known Royal Ascot. Women compete to be seen in splendid headwear at the several-day horse racing event; Ladies' Day, in particular, is known for its extravagant designer creations. The men wear top hats.

Source

0 Replies

Camilla is a handsome and charming woman and you should all be heartily ashamed of yourselves for maligning her, who has never done any of you any harm.

May you all look that good at her age. Nice legs, too.

I hope the happy couple have a lovely honeymoon away from all the snipers. I think Camilla will be a welcome and much beloved addition to our national scene, bless her.

0 Replies

Oh you party pooper McTag. Wink

How old is she anyway?

0 Replies

I'm with ya, McTag.

and the Queen looks so cheery

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2005/04/09/weddingblessing2/imgs/main-5a.jpg

0 Replies

I think she is 57. He is 56.

Count me among the party poopers.

I think Camilla looked lovely today. I wasn't overly fond of her hat for the civil ceremony, but at the prayer service I thought she looked exceptionally elegant and regal. Her headdress and dress complimented her beautifully and they were perfect for the occasion.

Perhaps I am overly romantic, but I am happy that this prolonged love affair had a happy ending today. These two have weathered a great deal together and their relationship has certainly withstood the test of time. I think they deserve to be happy.

I don't understand all the animosity toward Camilla. Perhaps that is because I don't see her as a "home-wrecker". The marriage of Diana and Charles was simply a very bad match.

I think Camilla will likely gain greater public acceptance as people get to see her, hear her, and just know her better. And, one day, I expect she will be Queen.

But, the hats at the wedding were a riot. Very Happy

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

How old is she anyway?

Much younger than you are - born on July 17, 1947.

0 Replies

The reason people don't like Camilla is that the Diana-Charles marriage was built up as a Fairy Tale Come True-she was just 19, and cute as hell in a reserved British way.

Apparently the British people, and perhaps many in the world, took to her.

What she walked into was a mother in law who didn't like her stardom-and Diana was a star-and went out of her way to cut her off at the knees.

Meanwhile, her husband, who should be sticking up for her, was too much of a mama's boy to do anything in her behalf, plus he was too busy with Camilla.

When Diana had her kids, she suffered from post-partum depression-there were reports she was a real screaming shrew for awhile-and for all the British monarchy's money, no treatment was given. The Queen apparently used this as more ammunition against her, and Charles was uninterested-he had Camilla going on.

When one has a family on one side, and a job on another, it becomes easier to take when things go bad. If you get fired, or forced to quit, the family will tell you the job stunk, your boss was a was an idiot, your coworkers weasels, etc. Then you go get another job, and life goes on.

But Diana, at 19, walked into a situation where her family WAS her job, and she was up against more powerful people with nobody to stand up for her.

Sure, she had her affairs, but after her husband made it plain that his passion was with another woman, who can blame her?

Despite it all, through the whole breakup and various conflicts, she remained popular and made some progress championing some good causes-which she did not have to do. While I'm not particularly in favor of the monarchy, I must admit she used her position for good about as well as anyone could.

It seems to me that what this Royalty job calls for is to smile a lot, say a few nice words here and there, and don't screw up in public as regards your private life. Charles was unable to meet even this easy job description. Diana far exceeded it.

Diana is seen by many as the best of the royals, and Camilla was largely her antagonist. That's why Camilla's unpopular, and this marriage is being downplayed.

0 Replies

Very well put keltic, and I agree.

----
Walter, I'm gonna get'cha for that Twisted Evil

0 Replies

On the new Canajun twennies, i was surprised to see a very real-to-life portrait of ol' Queenie . . . she's gettin' on, George VI was her daddy. I think she was born in the mid-1930's. I'll go check . . .

0 Replies

Good lord, Queenie was born April 21, 1926 . . . makes her almost as old as my maw . . .

0 Replies

The alcohol preserves well, doesn't it? Wink

0 Replies

Such a waste of good whiskey . . .

0 Replies

i have nothing against camilla and charles getting married, but ... i don't htink there was any need to make a big fuss about it. i think he should have taken advice from (the deceased) prince of wales. at least he had the decency to resign when he married wallis simpson. this whole thing looks like a sham to me. diana was good enough to "produce" two boys and cast aside quickly. and now charles is in line to become the "head" of the anglican church. i hope i'll never have to depend on his "moral" leadership ! hbg

0 Replies

Certainly is weird, when a couple have to repent their sins in front of the gathered throng and a TV audience before they get the official stamp of approval.

Speaking of large numbers, the TV news this morning said the sale of commemorative postage stamps, in Britain as well as abroad (overseas) has exceeded all previous sales. So there is a surprising amount of interest, support and one imagines, goodwill.

I did not see the Queen's speech, but I believe she made an unfortunate remark, this Grand National race day, about the happy couple entering the winners' enclosure after a hard race! I'm sure she did not mean it like that. I hope.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Yes, isn't it. What is the analogous term for a male who will sleep with any woman, do you remember, Dlowan?

We have a term for that. It is called a "man". :wink:

0 Replies

It's odd.

For much of my teenage and early adult life I was anti-monarchy (I've just read this thread from the beginning, which took me a while, and am musing thereupon) and even got annoyed with the rest of the Scots in 1953 when the current Queen assumed the title Queen Elizabeth II.
(The first Queen Elizabeth, of the House of Tudor, was queen of England only, not the whole of Britain)

But now, I see the value and importance of the monarchy, for all its many faults, and I find I am no longer anti-royalist but wish the current Queen and her successors well. I think they have an important, a unique and vital, role to play in the life and continuing traditions of the nation.

Conversely I wish to see the power of our presidential Prime Minister curbed. The little shifty-eyed lying rat, may he be reviled and cast into the dustbin of history.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Certainly is weird, when a couple have to repent their sins in front of the gathered throng and a TV audience before they get the official stamp of approval.

Yes it is. Look, McTag, that is your country, not mine. But even I can see that a marriage which is the final step in a three decade long extramarital affair by both parties is not going to have that sense of "freshness" about it.

McTag wrote:

Speaking of large numbers, the TV news this morning said the sale of commemorative postage stamps, in Britain as well as abroad (overseas) has exceeded all previous sales. So there is a surprising amount of interest, support and one imagines, goodwill.

Commemorative stamp collectors are a small percentage of the population, and their choices are motivated by profit motive as much as anything else. When Charles and Diana got hitched those years ago, there was no Ebay for people to sell this commemorative stuff on in a few years.

McTag wrote:

I did not see the Queen's speech, but I believe she made an unfortunate remark, this Grand National race day, about the happy couple entering the winners' enclosure after a hard race! I'm sure she did not mean it like that. I hope.

Believe it or not, she was doing her best to help. If the Monarchy has a function at all, it is to provide a link to traditional values, for the country to rally around.

Well, carryiing on an ill-concealed affair for thirty years while the only member of the royal family with any ability to connect with the public is humiliated and kicked to the curb doesn't provide that link, does it?

Let's face it. The best "spin" the Queen or anyone can do now is to portray Charles and Camilla as two people enmeshed in a love affair that could not be denied, as a partial explanation for their lousy behavior.

The Queen has given up all hope of public admiration for Charles. At this point, she'll gladly settle for a measure of public understanding and forgiveness. Hence, the repentance of the sins during the ceremony, and the Queen's attempt to ascribe the actions of these two to an inevitable love affair that nobody could stop.

The Queen-certainly not blameless during the Diana years-is doing her best to get some public acceptance for Charles. It's an uphill battle.

0 Replies

That is why I have heard speculation that Charles might never even become King. In a few years, he will be well over sixty, and his eldest son will be near thirty.

Frankly, I think this marriage to Camilla might represent Charles' acceptance of the fact that won't ever take the throne.

Instead of stepping down as Prince, as Hamburger suggested, I think the deal might be that he simply agrees to get passed over.

0 Replies

I think the cult of celebrity does not sit well with British royals and Camilla will do really well as an ordinary woman who will avoid as much publicity as she can...as did the late Queen Mother who was much loved and respected and little understood.

For that reason I think the monarchy will do very much better with Camilla on board. This is a fact I actually did not realise until yesterday (because I don't think about it much usually)

0 Replies

Prince Charles to marry his slag

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know