Actually, as other members have pointed out Diana is the Roman goddess of the hunt/moon and Artemis is her Greek counterpart of sorts. Diana was originally a moon goddess anciently identified with Artemis. Artemis (daugher of Zeus and Leto and twin sister of Apollo) is more closely associated with the hunt than Diana.Vicomtesse said:
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 5: November 2004-February 2005
- Thread starter Elspeth
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
kinneret5764
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 245
- Country
- United States
I'm sure privately he's relieved that things are finally moving along. I hope the Queen lives for another 30 years.hrhcp said:
RoseMary
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2004
- Messages
- 150
- Country
- United States
Prince Charles is not the only royal to have his cornation planned out before the death of the current monarch. It may seem a bit morbid and on some levels I am sure it is strange.
I think that the Queen still has a good decade in front of her if not more.
I think that the Queen still has a good decade in front of her if not more.
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
Prince Charles attend Donald Trump's wedding next month on January 2005 to Melinda Krauss he intives to Royals Prince Charles the in-touch magazines says Donald Trump and his fiancee of 5 years really happy to intives Prince Charles to watch Donald Trump and Melinda Krauss's wedding its really official says!
Sara Boyce
Sara Boyce
Polfoto 31-12-2004 Sir Nicholas Young, right, chief executive of The British Red Cross, points out to Britain's Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, the south Asian quake disaster area on a world map during a visit to the UK office of the British Red Cross, in the City of London, Friday, Dec. 31, 2004.
Attachments
kirstengrafin
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2003
- Messages
- 157
- City
- ..
- Country
- United States
There was a brief mention of Prince Charles & Camilla in the Page Six section of the New York Post today. I'm personally not a fan of Camilla, but she certainly gets blamed for some odd things....
NATHAN LANE, seeming savior of the London production of "The Producers," is now out of that show from a very bad back. Two slipped discs, they say. He is expected to recover in time to shoot the movie version of the Broadway and West End hit in February.
When the frisky Nathan Lane first threw his back out some days ago, causing the curtain to go up 20 minutes late, it was said the reason was — Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles in the audience. Ms. Bowles is now considered a "jinx" in the English theater, something like the bad luck that ensues when anyone says aloud the name of "the Scottish play" — I won't say it myself because I'm superstitious but it begins with an "M" and was written by Wm. Shakespeare.
Anyway, the British gossip Mandrake claims that on another occasion Camilla went with the prince to see "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," and the revolving stage broke down, sending a disappointed audience home. Yet when the prince attended the Royal Variety Performance, things went off without a hitch because he was not with Camilla.
NATHAN LANE, seeming savior of the London production of "The Producers," is now out of that show from a very bad back. Two slipped discs, they say. He is expected to recover in time to shoot the movie version of the Broadway and West End hit in February.
When the frisky Nathan Lane first threw his back out some days ago, causing the curtain to go up 20 minutes late, it was said the reason was — Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles in the audience. Ms. Bowles is now considered a "jinx" in the English theater, something like the bad luck that ensues when anyone says aloud the name of "the Scottish play" — I won't say it myself because I'm superstitious but it begins with an "M" and was written by Wm. Shakespeare.
Anyway, the British gossip Mandrake claims that on another occasion Camilla went with the prince to see "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," and the revolving stage broke down, sending a disappointed audience home. Yet when the prince attended the Royal Variety Performance, things went off without a hitch because he was not with Camilla.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM: Britain's Prince Charles light candles at the London Buddhist Vihara Monastry in West London, 06 January 2005, as the senior monk, Pandith M. Vajiragnana Nayaka Mahathera receites prayers. The Prince had gone to thank volunteers for assisting in collecting items for the Sri Lanka tsunami disaster.
Attachments
Polfoto 14-01-2005 Britain's Prince Charles speaks to residents of Carlisle, England Friday Jan. 14, 2005 during a visit to see clean-up operations following gale-force winds and heavy rain which caused flooding in northern England and Scotland. Three people were killed in the storms and thousands of homes were left without electricity.
Attachments
Dennism
Majesty
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 6,408
- City
- East of the sun and west of the moon
- Country
- United States
Good grief. That is odd. What is also odd is that when I read the word "Jinx" the first thing that came to mind was indeed that certain Scottish Play written by one W.Shakespeare. Poor Camilla. Stupid superstitions.kirstengrafin said:
Joe Public
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7
- Country
- United Kingdom
The trial of Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was stopped in November 2002 after a single phone call from Prince Charles to the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the Queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation she had with Paul Burrell shortly after Diana's death. During this conversation, Burrell is said to have told the Queen he would be taking some items for safe keeping. This revelation lead to the ending of the trial, despite the fact that the statement by Prince Charles was legally nothing more than hearsay. The Queen or Prince Charles was never asked to back up this statement in writing, or under oath. Legally speaking, this is unprecedented. Anybody else coming forward with such 'evidence' at a late date may well be charged with wasting police time for not mentioning it earlier, and would certainly be required to sign an affidavit under threat of perjury.
The press began to speculate that the Queen and Prince Charles had wanted the trial stopped because Burrell as part of his defence was about to make revelations that would shake the monarchy, and possibly endanger its future. Burrell had claimed as much.
Slowly, details of these allegations have begun to surface.
There are actually 2 allegations.
The first is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal is alleged to have male raped George Smith, another palace servant. George Smith later reported the alleged attack to Police and it is suggested that the claims have been recorded on various video tapes possibly by Diana. George Smith later withdrew his complaint when questioned by Police. He was also given a £38,000 pay off by Prince Charles, apparently unconnected with the withdrawl of his complaint.
The second allegation is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal was found in bed with that royal by a servant. Both the royal and the servant are male. This allegation is also said to have been recorded by Diana.
It must be noted that these are at present just allegations. No court of law has ruled on their veracity. However, the royal family and their 'friends' have abused all legal precedent to make sure no court gets a chance.
A senior royal servant has recently obtained an injunction against the Mail on Sunday (and now other newspapers) prohibiting them from publishing this story complete with the names of the alleged participants, on the grounds that it is defamatory. When the injunction was issued, another was then slapped on the Guardian newspaper to stop them even naming the person in whose name the injunction was issued. However, that was apparently overturned, revealing that it was Michael Fawcett, 'trusted aide' to Prince Charles. A senior royal is also said to have written a letter to the Mail on Sunday asking that it not publish the story.
At present the injuction is in force, but is being fought by the newspapers. It is unprecedented for a court to grant such an injunction. The usual course of action for defamation is to sue for damages after such a statement has been made. A defence to defamation is truth, it is not defamatory to state the truth. The newspapers believe they have sufficient evidence and are prepared to publish on that basis, facing enormous damages claims if it is later held to be untrue. At present they are being prevented from doing so. Even more unprecedented is that much of the court's proceedings were held in private with the press and public excluded on request of the Fawcett's lawyers. Is justice being abused? Who knows when it is conducted in private. It is certainly not seen to be done.
At some point the court must decide whether such a statement is true, and libel is one of the few civil actions where a jury is required. The legal situation could be interesting, to say the least. As with the Burrell trial, it appears that legal precedent and the rule of law is being discarded to keep the Windsor's dirty secrets secret a little longer.
Clearly revelation of such a secret, and the fact that Diana was collating evidence of these secrets that the Palace is so keen to hide, will further speculation that Diana's death was no accident. Some have suggested that this evidence may have formed part of a custody battle, if Diana had have lived long enough.
Once again Diana's death has created a legally dubious situation. Firstly there must be an inquest when a British Citizen killed abroad is returned home. This inquest has been opened but then adjourned, and some 6 years after her death there are no plans to re open it.
To add further controversy, the Royal Coroner has been appointed. However Diana was not royal (her royal status was removed before her death as a result of her divorce) and she was not found dead in a royal palace. Therefore there would appear to be no legal course to appoint a Royal Coroner. However this is exactly what has happened. Why is this suspicious? Well, an inquest usually has a jury of ordinary members of the public. However a Royal Inquest has only hand picked members of the royal household. A nobbled jury? Add it all together and there is a nasty stench. No wonder the Royal Family are trying to keep you, the people who pay for their extravagant lifestyle, in the dark.
Whether people are gay or bisexual is neither an issue nor a scandal as far as we're concerned. The real scandal is whether any close personal relationship resulted in serious allegations of rape being 'made to go away' (as Fiona Shackleton, Charles's lawyer, might say).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit by Elspeth (British Royals moderator): Since the above is a straight C&P from another source, it's appropriate to acknowledge the source for copyright reasons. The above comes from the site "Throne Out," which is dedicated to getting rid of the royal family.
http://www.throneout.com/viewstory.asp?STORY_ID=108
The press began to speculate that the Queen and Prince Charles had wanted the trial stopped because Burrell as part of his defence was about to make revelations that would shake the monarchy, and possibly endanger its future. Burrell had claimed as much.
Slowly, details of these allegations have begun to surface.
There are actually 2 allegations.
The first is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal is alleged to have male raped George Smith, another palace servant. George Smith later reported the alleged attack to Police and it is suggested that the claims have been recorded on various video tapes possibly by Diana. George Smith later withdrew his complaint when questioned by Police. He was also given a £38,000 pay off by Prince Charles, apparently unconnected with the withdrawl of his complaint.
The second allegation is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal was found in bed with that royal by a servant. Both the royal and the servant are male. This allegation is also said to have been recorded by Diana.
It must be noted that these are at present just allegations. No court of law has ruled on their veracity. However, the royal family and their 'friends' have abused all legal precedent to make sure no court gets a chance.
A senior royal servant has recently obtained an injunction against the Mail on Sunday (and now other newspapers) prohibiting them from publishing this story complete with the names of the alleged participants, on the grounds that it is defamatory. When the injunction was issued, another was then slapped on the Guardian newspaper to stop them even naming the person in whose name the injunction was issued. However, that was apparently overturned, revealing that it was Michael Fawcett, 'trusted aide' to Prince Charles. A senior royal is also said to have written a letter to the Mail on Sunday asking that it not publish the story.
At present the injuction is in force, but is being fought by the newspapers. It is unprecedented for a court to grant such an injunction. The usual course of action for defamation is to sue for damages after such a statement has been made. A defence to defamation is truth, it is not defamatory to state the truth. The newspapers believe they have sufficient evidence and are prepared to publish on that basis, facing enormous damages claims if it is later held to be untrue. At present they are being prevented from doing so. Even more unprecedented is that much of the court's proceedings were held in private with the press and public excluded on request of the Fawcett's lawyers. Is justice being abused? Who knows when it is conducted in private. It is certainly not seen to be done.
At some point the court must decide whether such a statement is true, and libel is one of the few civil actions where a jury is required. The legal situation could be interesting, to say the least. As with the Burrell trial, it appears that legal precedent and the rule of law is being discarded to keep the Windsor's dirty secrets secret a little longer.
Clearly revelation of such a secret, and the fact that Diana was collating evidence of these secrets that the Palace is so keen to hide, will further speculation that Diana's death was no accident. Some have suggested that this evidence may have formed part of a custody battle, if Diana had have lived long enough.
Once again Diana's death has created a legally dubious situation. Firstly there must be an inquest when a British Citizen killed abroad is returned home. This inquest has been opened but then adjourned, and some 6 years after her death there are no plans to re open it.
To add further controversy, the Royal Coroner has been appointed. However Diana was not royal (her royal status was removed before her death as a result of her divorce) and she was not found dead in a royal palace. Therefore there would appear to be no legal course to appoint a Royal Coroner. However this is exactly what has happened. Why is this suspicious? Well, an inquest usually has a jury of ordinary members of the public. However a Royal Inquest has only hand picked members of the royal household. A nobbled jury? Add it all together and there is a nasty stench. No wonder the Royal Family are trying to keep you, the people who pay for their extravagant lifestyle, in the dark.
Whether people are gay or bisexual is neither an issue nor a scandal as far as we're concerned. The real scandal is whether any close personal relationship resulted in serious allegations of rape being 'made to go away' (as Fiona Shackleton, Charles's lawyer, might say).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit by Elspeth (British Royals moderator): Since the above is a straight C&P from another source, it's appropriate to acknowledge the source for copyright reasons. The above comes from the site "Throne Out," which is dedicated to getting rid of the royal family.
http://www.throneout.com/viewstory.asp?STORY_ID=108
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
Charles and Camilla at USA for Donald Trump's wedding this weekend i cant believe Prince Charles took Camilla to USA! but Donald Trump wanted intives Prince of Wales to his wedding.
Sara Boyce
p.s. please post pictures of Charles and Camilla at Donald Trump's wedding
Sara Boyce
p.s. please post pictures of Charles and Camilla at Donald Trump's wedding
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
YES im serious!james said:
Donald Trump intives Prince Charles to his wedding i read in-touch magazine says that! im not kidding! you wouldnt believe me!
Sara Boyce
bigheadshirmp
Courtier
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2004
- Messages
- 767
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
selrahc4
Courtier
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2004
- Messages
- 760
- Country
- United States
You or I or anyone could send him an invitation to an event. All it takes is a postage stamp. Now whether he would accept and attend...that's another story.
norwegianne
Majesty
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 6,040
- City
- Rogaland
- Country
- Norway
selrahc4 said:
A very valid point.
kinneret5764
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 245
- Country
- United States
I'm sure Charles would love the opportunity to "walk down the aisle", more than like the Donald.
glossypinky
Gentry
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 65
I didn't know that either.I guess Trump is inviting a wide range of celebrities to make his wedding more "important" or something like that.Trump wants a lavish wedding with famous people,so that it can thought of as the ultimate society wedding.james said:
glossypinky
Gentry
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 65
Off To Camerica
LOL.There is no way of Camilla getting an offical,state dinner with the Bushes.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=15105528&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=off-to-camerica-name_page.html
LOL.There is no way of Camilla getting an offical,state dinner with the Bushes.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=15105528&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=off-to-camerica-name_page.html
kinneret5764
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 245
- Country
- United States
Misery loves company.james said:
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
please post pictures of Prince Charles at Donald Trump's wedding i dont see him pictures!
Sara Boyce
Sara Boyce
I hope this is not true. They are not married! This is not proper at all!glossypinky said:
Eps. coming to the U.S. We already have trashy shows. He does not need to show off his discfunction on an official U.S. visit. If he needs to test the waters he needs to do it in Canada or some other place!Oh. I don't think that Prince Charles went to the wedding so there might not be any pics. SOrry
glossypinky
Gentry
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 65
I agree with you,Reina.If Charles want to win approval for Camilla,then America is the last place to do it.Most Americans adore Diana and think Charles is dull.
glossypinky
Gentry
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 65
I don't think Charles attended,Sara.sara1981 said:
RoseMary
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2004
- Messages
- 150
- Country
- United States
If Charles loves Camilla as much as he says he does. He needs not to show one minute and the next act as though they aren't a pair. I just think he needs to be like,
"Look, this is the woman I love and if you don't like well, that is your problem. If you can't invite her and me as a couple than don't invite either of us."
I don't particually like the woman but if he was willing to sacrifice his marriage to be with her he needs to be consistent with his actions.
The man needs a backbone.
"Look, this is the woman I love and if you don't like well, that is your problem. If you can't invite her and me as a couple than don't invite either of us."
I don't particually like the woman but if he was willing to sacrifice his marriage to be with her he needs to be consistent with his actions.
The man needs a backbone.
He does not need to bring that situation to an official visit. Yeah he needs to show some backbone and get married and then he can bring her anytime. This is a very bad example he is setting. ALthough I think the institution of the British MOnarchy is superior, some of the membes are absolutely nuts and could learn a lesson from other royal ppl!
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
