Charles and Camilla 2

[Destiny]

19 minutes ago, TN-peach said:

I have to admit (it was 5am) I thought to myself “I thought they weren’t wearing tiaras. I’ve never seen that one before.”  Then I had some coffee rubbed my eyes some more and realized it was a headpiece. It had me fooled for a minute. I loved how Catherine and Charlotte were coordinating. 

I somehow missed that we weren’t doing tiaras and that was my whole reason for watching. (I’m far more interested in their shiny objects than the people.) I’m disappointed. That said, I LOVE the headpieces they are wearing. They’re beautiful. 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Destiny
more words

[viii]

I liked the headbands but they were a joke. The whole reason Charles skipped the tiaras is because the UK is in financial crisis and he knew how bad it would look, plus he’s all about sustainability. 

So naturally Kate and Charlotte get brand new, custom headpieces. I mean… they really should have just pulled something out of the vault. They spent more money trying to avoid the image of spending money. 

[Coconut Flan]

I hope they rewear the flowery bands. 

[prayawaythefundie]

4 hours ago, viii said:

I liked the headbands but they were a joke. The whole reason Charles skipped the tiaras is because the UK is in financial crisis and he knew how bad it would look, plus he’s all about sustainability. 

So naturally Kate and Charlotte get brand new, custom headpieces. I mean… they really should have just pulled something out of the vault. They spent more money trying to avoid the image of spending money. 

Kind of agree but I think they didn‘t actually skip the tiaras and coronets for sustainability or austerity (though they might like us to assume this) but because they did not want a discussion about the colonial gemstones in many of them to taint the occasion.

As for the robes, I think the dark blue ones of the men are Order of the Garter, the not so dark ones of the women are Royal Victorian Order. The women wearing them probably did not mind them covering their gowns for two reasons: They get to wear beatiful gowns a lot and the robe on this occasion marks their status high up the ranks in the royal family. 

Edited May 7, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[FluffySnowball]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:01 PM, QuiverFullofBooks said:

My thought on watching Anne’s interview was that it’s a shame she didn’t serve in the military. She would have been so much better at it than her brothers.

While you very well might be right, wearing a uniform and parading around doesn't mean she'd be suitable for combat. So far, it's all show with her but yes, she pulls it off better than her brothers. 

[anjulibai]

11 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Kind of agree but I think they didn‘t actually skip the tiaras and coronets for sustainability or austerity (though they might like us to assume this) but because they did not want a discussion about the colonial gemstones in many of them to taint the occasion.

As for the robes, I think the dark blue ones of the men are Order of the Garter, the not so dark ones of the women are Royal Victorian Order. The women wearing them probably did not mind them covering their gowns for two reasons: They get to wear beatiful gowns a lot and the robe on this occasion marks their status high up the ranks in the royal family. 

Not all of them have colonial gem stones. They have so many, some are just old. 

I think they didn't want any other woman potentially outshining Camilla. 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, anjulibai said:

Not all of them have colonial gem stones. They have so many, some are just old. 

I think they didn't want any other woman potentially outshining Camilla. 

ALL the women outshone Camilla--certainly Kate, Beatrice, Eugenie. They are decades her junior. They outshone her just for that reason alone.

 

7 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

While you very well might be right, wearing a uniform and parading around doesn't mean she'd be suitable for combat. So far, it's all show with her but yes, she pulls it off better than her brothers. 

She's done nothing in the military--no exercises, no deployment, no marching, no training. She could have, but she chose a life of royal indolence instead. Women have served in the UK military for decades. She chose to wear fake medals and "lead" troops but do nothing else.

[ADoyle90815]

I agree that color TV, especially HDTV really brings out how bright the gold clothing relly is. One thing I have to admit I missed was seeing the peers put on their coronets like they did for previous Coronations. At least, the heralds that are considered sovereigns of arms got to wear theirs. That anointing screen was gorgeous, as was Camilla's purple robe. 

[Mama Mia]

On 5/6/2023 at 6:20 PM, viii said:

I liked the headbands but they were a joke. The whole reason Charles skipped the tiaras is because the UK is in financial crisis and he knew how bad it would look, plus he’s all about sustainability. 

So naturally Kate and Charlotte get brand new, custom headpieces. I mean… they really should have just pulled something out of the vault. They spent more money trying to avoid the image of spending money. 

That was the most disappointing  part - all this over the top pomp and circumstance and gold everything and ancient orbs while they are simultaneously talking about how it’s “toned down” and more modern and relatable — but no tiaras, mostly clothes they’d wear to a fancy wedding, just William doing the bow down. If they are going to spend over $100 million - pull out ALL the jewels and gowns.  The including different religions was a nice touch - but no one is going to look at that whole thing and think -“ oh my, these people are just like me! I can tell because they are wearing big hats instead of the jewels they already own!” 

My mom loved it though, she likes Charles because of his environmental interests. And  Charlotte and Kate did look beautiful. Still disappointed they couldn’t work it out to get Meghan and the kids there on the balcony.  But family drama is family drama. Sucks it impacts allllll the other cousins though.
 

 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

I’m not sure that I’ve seen any official statement or unofficial comments on this, but it’s clear to me that Camilla’s necklace was the one that the Queen wore in 1953. 

[Loveday]

20 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

I’m not sure that I’ve seen any official statement or unofficial comments on this, but it’s clear to me that Camilla’s necklace was the one that the Queen wore in 1953. 

It was. It was originally made for Queen Victoria in the late 1850s. The huge pendant diamond is nearly 23 carats all by itself. 😳 Here's a link to an article about the necklace from People magazine:

https://people.com/royals/queen-camilla-coronation-necklace-everything-to-know/

[Gobsmacked]

On 5/3/2023 at 2:42 AM, Jackie3 said:

If the next coronation is in 30 years, William will be in his 70s when he ascends the throne, and George will be 40 when he becomes POW. If William reigns for a similar amount of time, then a third 70 year old will ascend the throne (George). I’m not sure the public will support three consecutive 70 year old kings and their expensive coronations. 

Charles would be 104? Surely.  I reckon the next coronation will be in 10 years. Charlie doesn’t appear to be in the best of health. 

[Loveday]

5 minutes ago, Gobsmacked said:

Charles would be 104? Surely.  I reckon the next coronation will be in 10 years. Charlie doesn’t appear to be in the best of health. 

He does come from a line of long-lived people, though. His mother was 96, his father 99, and his grandmother over 100, when they died. I do agree he doesn't look 100% healthy, but I could see him living at least another 15 years or so, just on genetics alone! (I'm kind of hoping for that myself, actually. The men in my family tend not to live much past 80, but the women usually make it to at least 85, and my mom's mother was 100 when she passed. I'm like, come on genes, don't let me down! 😆)

[Jackie3]

8 minutes ago, Gobsmacked said:

Charles would be 104? Surely.  I reckon the next coronation will be in 10 years. Charlie doesn’t appear to be in the best of health. 

I don't know how long Charles will live. 

But his grandmother lived to 101, his father almost made it to 100, and his mother lived till 96.  With the advancement in medical care, 100+ doesn't seem impossible for Charles. 

[Coconut Flan]

Alternatively his great-grandfather died in his fifties.  

[Loveday]

52 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Alternatively his great-grandfather died in his fifties.  

He was a really heavy smoker, unfortunately, and had lung cancer. My dad died of emphysema also due to heavy smoking. I often wonder how long he'd have lived had he not been a smoker, and had he not been an alcoholic as well. 

[anjulibai]

50 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Alternatively his great-grandfather died in his fifties.  

No, all his great-grandfathers lived past 60, as did one of his grandfathers. His grandfather George VI died in his 50s, but he had lung cancer brought on by decades of smokeing, something Charles doesn't do, which was exacerbated by the accute stress of leading his country during WWII. 

Most of Charles's great-grandparents lived well past their 60s, and some into their 70s and 80s, well past life expectancy for the times they lived. 

Charles has good genes and decent health habits from what can be gathered, he's very active, and he has access to the best medical care out there. I would not be surprised if he lives another 20 years. 

[Loveday]

29 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

No, all his great-grandfathers lived past 60, as did one of his grandfathers. His grandfather George VI died in his 50s, but he had lung cancer brought on by decades of smokeing, something Charles doesn't do, which was exacerbated by the accute stress of leading his country during WWII. 

Most of Charles's great-grandparents lived well past their 60s, and some into their 70s and 80s, well past life expectancy for the times they lived. 

Charles has good genes and decent health habits from what can be gathered, he's very active, and he has access to the best medical care out there. I would not be surprised if he lives another 20 years. 

I didn't even catch that when I responded; I'm guessing she meant George VI, though, Charles's grandfather. George V was 70 when he died, a respectable age in the 1930s. 

I think a lot of what may keep Charles going regardless of his genetic background is, as you mentioned, his health habits and access to excellent medical care. If only we ALL could count on the health care he has!

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I dont quite get the difference between what Kate wore and a tiara.

It's a shame they didn't pull something from the vaults. I was mildly interested in the site that has info about all the tiaras and fancy jewelry and when it was last seen etc. Would have been cool to be like... ahhh..."the such n such tiara we've not seen since 1910."

What's the point if you never bring it out?

 

Since they did the match thing I wish Kate's had been a little less. More like the laurel garland thing. It seemed rather big on her head for her overall size.

Now camilla has big hair. So she needs something to stand out from it. 

 

[SPHASH]

Question. When Elizabeth became queen back in 1952-53 why wasn't Prince Philip made King?

[TN-peach]

19 minutes ago, SPHASH said:

Question. When Elizabeth became queen back in 1952-53 why wasn't Prince Philip made King?

Because King out ranks Queen. And Elizabeth was the Queen Regent. She can’t be out ranked. 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, TN-peach said:

Because King out ranks Queen. And Elizabeth was the Queen Regent. She can’t be out ranked. 

But really, out-ranked in what way? They are essentially powerless.

[rosamundi]

4 hours ago, SPHASH said:

Question. When Elizabeth became queen back in 1952-53 why wasn't Prince Philip made King?

Men never take the male equivalent of their wife's title, but women take the female equivalent of their husband's title. So for a few years between her marriage and her accession to the throne, The Queen was Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

It's not so long ago that women became their husband's property at marriage, and all her worldly goods became his. When the worldly goods include a country and the associated trappings of power, there needs to be something to ensure the Queen technically still holds some power over her husband, so the husband never receives the title which would put him above her.

[Jackie3]

15 hours ago, Gobsmacked said:

Charles would be 104? Surely.  I reckon the next coronation will be in 10 years. Charlie doesn’t appear to be in the best of health. 

If Charles dies in 10 years, will the public want to fork out another $100 million for a Coronation?  So soon after the first? That would be $200 million in 10 years.

(And that's a conservative estimate of the cost. It's widely thought to be more.)

 

The world is changing. This would have never been written about the Queen's Coronation (and certainly wouldn't have been tweeted!)

 

[Mama Mia]

13 hours ago, rosamundi said:

Men never take the male equivalent of their wife's title, but women take the female equivalent of their husband's title. So for a few years between her marriage and her accession to the throne, The Queen was Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

It's not so long ago that women became their husband's property at marriage, and all her worldly goods became his. When the worldly goods include a country and the associated trappings of power, there needs to be something to ensure the Queen technically still holds some power over her husband, so the husband never receives the title which would put him above her.

It’s so ironic to me that most of their greatest, longest running rulers have been Queens, but the entire aristocratic structure is still so deeply sexist and favors males. I know they changed it right before George was born, for the first born, regardless of sex, to become monarch. But all of the other titles and stylings and inheritance rights throughout their hierarchy still pass to the eldest male in line.