I understand they're in the US right now in a PR move. Please keep them.

I was gonna ask you to come and get Chucky and The Bride of Chucky and take them back home. I'm just glad I escaped New York virtually a day before their arrival. And yesterday they were in Washington. My thing is, who cares. The only reason why Charles' first visit got attention was because of Di. And face it, Camilla is no Di. She's getting ripped to shreds in the papers here. She may not have any fashion sense, but face it, she's pushing 70. She's not gonna dress like Paris Hilton. Then again, you don't know how she dresses for Charles in the bedroom.

Turi, why are you hanging upside down? Are you swinging from a chandelier?

Hahaha! I was going to ask the same thing when our president went to NY to attend the UN assembly.

:rolleyes: The most horrifying image I can think of is indeed Camilla in a baby doll nightgown...

Here are some pics from Chuck and Camilla's Excellent Adventure.

I'm not educated on England's present government but hasn't a monarchy been dead? Isn't the government the Parliament and not the royal family?

Anyway, just a few random opinions.

Charles is an idiot for cheating on Diana with this woman. I heard he did it because he didn't want to be the only prince not to have a mistress. Idiot.

So this girl is Charles' whore for years and now she's got some elevated title of status in England?

Or Bogus Journey, according to taste.

I don't mind Camilla. She tends to keep her mouth shut, and knows her role. The Royal Family is a bit of an embarrassment anyway.

In all European countries, the monarchy only has a symbolic power. The grade of symbolism depends; in Belgium for instance no law can be installed without the king signing it. But then again, he doesn't has a choice, he just has to sign it.
In some countries, the king has a bit influence in the society, in other countries, he just has to smile, and appear in the crowd a bit.

In Germany, even the president only has a symbolic function.

So in other words, the "royal family" is simply an illusion of power, basically famous for simply being part of the rich family?

So who would be in power? Tony Blair?

Di might be as beautiful as she chooses, but Camilla looks a lot smarter, do what you please with me. And it's unfair to compare them. It's not her goal to be second Di.

Yep. But not all European royal families are very rich. Of course they're all more rich than you and me, but not Bill Gates-like rich. I think the Dutch and the UK royals are the richest of them all. They all had more power in the past, but when countries became more democratic, they lost most of their power.


The normal thing, the 3 powers...
1. The executive power: The Prime Minister (Tony B) and the other ministers.
2. The governemental/lawmaking power: The Parliament consisting of the House of Lords, and the House of Commons
3. The judgemental power: All the judges

But I'm sure the Brits here can correct/elaborate this...

I despise the "Royal Family." I hope one day my government sees the light and declares Canada a republic. Charles and Cruella...er Camilla are an embarrasment to the U.K. and the world, and please don't get me started on "Queen" Elizabeth and her bratty grandchildren. Good riddance to the whole lot of them! Sorry to any admirers of the Unroyal family (I truly feel sorry for you) I just had to rant.

http://www.canadian-republic.ca/home.html
http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?CRO&201

What does it really matter?
The royals have no power, and a president often costs the country more money than a monarchy.

It matters because its embarrasing and shameful. Regardless of the fact that having a President and heads of Provinces would probably be cheaper than having a Governor General and Lieutenants Governor and paying for "royal" visits this is an issue that concerns the very heart of what it means to be Canadian. We are a democratic nation that believes in freedom, honour, liberty, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and good government. We don't believe in a bunch of spoiled, do nothing, know nothing, adulterous, inbred pissants.

I still can not get used to her (Camilla) Diana will never be replaced. As long as she lives (Camilla) she will be in Diana's shadow

Reminds me of the novel Rebecca. :p

Reminds me of the novel Rebecca. :p [/b][/quote]Except Camilla is a hag

Personally I thought that some of the newspapers here and some of the media were kind of cruel in how they made fun of their looks. Although I must admit that they both are pretty homely.

However I didn't see the need for the press to be as mean as they were about them. For God's sake they even made fun of the dress that she wore when she went to ground zero to pay her respects.


Don Cardi

Yeah, send the royal family back to Germany where they came from.

Not like it matters anyways, they're so inbred it makes hillbillies look like they have pedigrees.

The royal family serves no purpose. They have no real power anymore after Cromwell proved the people can do what they want.

What amazes me is that the British government gives him 7 million pounds a year to cover his expenses, then he has such contempt for the media in his own country. Hell, even the worst politician smiles for the camera.

Kudos Mad Johnny! Right on brother!

:D

I nearly fell off my chair, best statement of the night by far.

she surely is, if she managed to marry Charles, in the end.

As unfair as it may be (and I agree it is), it's almost impossible not to compare them. Honestly, I admit I don't like Camilla. I think she had a primary role in Diana's unhappiness, second only to her husband's. That's why I don't like Charles at all either.

Primary role in enybody's unhappiness always belongs to their own self... :rolleyes:

do you think so? I'm not sure. Besides, in this case, what could Diana do? When she married Charles, she was 19, innocent and naive.

do you think so? I'm not sure. Besides, in this case, what could Diana do? When she married Charles, she was 19, innocent and naive. [/b][/quote]If people have brains, they show even at 19
She had a reason to complaint, but then, you know, complaining and being a victim is the stupidest choice of all possible.

ok, maybe she wasn't a Nobel prize, but she had a heart anyway. She didn't deserve to be treated like that.

Being vulnerable doesn't mean being stupid. Sometimes you would like to be strong but you simply can't.

ok, maybe she wasn't a Nobel prize, but she had a heart anyway. She didn't deserve to be treated like that.
[/b][/quote]Everybody has heart. And rarely is treated as they deserve. It doesn't make Camilla guilty of anything.
Being vulnerable doesn't mean being stupid. Sometimes you would like to be strong but you simply can't. [/b][/quote]And to go out and cheat on your husband with nearly everyone around is being just vulnerable, right?

Yes, it may be. You don't go out and cheat on your husband if you are happy and respected. Mind you, I'm not saying that Diana was a saint, I just think she was terribly alone and unhappy.

Yes, it may be. You don't go out and cheat on your husband if you are happy and respected. [/b][/quote]Why not? I heard such stories. But that's not the point. Cheating doesn't make anyone happy and respected. It is not a decision of any problem, it's just increasing them. If you call it dishonesty in Charles, isn't it in her case?
Camilla might be also very lonely and unhappy when this 19-year old intruder came and stole from her the man she loved. It's not her fault.