Duchess Camilla in white Bruce Oldfield: appropriate or corpse-bridey?

On Wednesday, Queen Elizabeth “opened Parliament” at the Palace of Westminster in England. This is one of the Queen’s many duties – she has to give a speech and outline some goals for the current session of Parliament, blah, etc. What was interesting to me was that Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla came to the opening as well, and it was the first time Charles and Camilla ever came together to the opening. FYI: I know I shouldn’t call her “Duchess Camilla” any more than I should refer to Kate as “Duchess Kate”. I just worry that most American readers won’t know who I’m talking about if I say “the Duchess of Cornwall” and at this point, I don’t want to use “Camilla Parker Bowles”.

Anyway, Duchess Camilla was there are as I was looking through the photos, I began to wonder if there’s some kind of rule in which the ladies have to wear white. Because it seems like Camilla really went out of her way to do a matchy-matchy thing with the Queen. While the Queen was decked out in her white fur and then her regal cape (eat your heart out, Tom Ford), Camilla wore a very bridal-seeming Bruce Oldfield gown. Officially, Camilla’s gown is “champagne” colored, but on camera it just reads as white or off-white. The lace on the sleeves and bust is particularly fussy as well. The reverse-pleating in the midsection is terrible – it makes Camilla look heavier than she actually is.

I was reading The Mail’s story on Camilla and Charles’ appearance, and they did an excellent breakdown on all of Camilla’s jewelry and what it all means. Her tiara is The Boucheron Tiara which one belonged to the Queen Mother, and now belongs to the Queen. Camilla borrowed it for the event. I’m pretty sure the pearl necklace and earrings are from the royal collection as well, because I have memories of Princess Diana wearing that necklace too. The weird little brooch with a tucked in napkin (WTF?) is Camilla’s “Order of the Royal Family of Queen Elizabeth II” medallion. And her blue sash represents that she’s been made a Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.

As for Camilla’s hair… well, this is actually an improvement from how she used to wear it. I kind of like the feathered style, and it looks good with the tiara. But! I think she might want to go a few shades darker with her blonde. Right? It’s much too light. She turns 66 years old this year – she needs a darker blonde.

Apparently, the Queen fumbled several times during her speech too, so now everyone is like “Huh, I wonder if the Queen should just let Charles do this junk from now on?” But I don’t think Charles could even if the Queen wanted him to. I think the sovereign has to officially “open” Parliament, she can’t send the heir.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

202 Responses to “Duchess Camilla in white Bruce Oldfield: appropriate or corpse-bridey?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. T.Fanty says:

    That brooch makes her look like she has a post-it note tacked to her dress.

  2. teehee says:

    Queen mum needs to get her eyes lasered– or contacts– anything but those specatacles which just make her strange glare even more odd due to magnification… :P

    And Diana wore that ‘napkin’ or a similar one with yellow backdrop on that pink dress–http://www.howtofeelgood.org/uploads/8/6/8/3/8683440/5755599_orig.jpg

  3. gogoGorilla says:

    The dress is fug and I wish she would invest in supportive bras. But she looks good otherwise- the hair and face. She would look so much better in tailored suits and non-pastel colors.

  4. Kate says:

    They’re angling to get her in position to be an acceptable Queen, not just Princess Consort or whatever else it was going to be when she married him. She’s styled like Old Diana here.

    (I’m actually okay with her, and I’m okay with her and Charles as a couple, but…yeah.)

  5. Mich says:

    Anyone else notice how red in the face Charles has been lately?

    Loved the DM’s photos of this event through the decades. It looks so regal!

  6. LadyMTL says:

    I’m sorry, I can’t see anything other than all of those pretty, pretty diamonds. I mean…the Queen’s necklace alone…wow.

  7. Poppy says:

    I believe white is traditional – the Queen’s ladies in waiting were also wearing white.

    There’s been a lot of speculation here recently that the Queen is stepping back a little – not anything like abdicating, but letting Charles take more of a role, especially taking on the overseas trips. This is a first step in that process.

    She’s 87, and the Duke of Edinburgh is 92 – I’d say they’ve earned a semi-retirement!

  8. m says:

    Every royal family has an order. Queen Elizabeth wears her fathers and grandfathers while her family wears hers. The Swedish royals have the nicest order, in my opinion. I like the design of their ribbon. Go look at The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendour, they explain what all of the decorations mean.
    As for the pearls, those are Camillas. Diana wore a lot of pearls as every royal woman does, but Cam has always worn these.
    And yes, there is a rule that women wear white.

  9. l says:

    Camilla’s dress does read as off white against the blue carpet, but man. It’s basically the same gown she wore to the dutch precoronation gala, except in white. Still with the horrible boob seam, still with the horrible corset.

    I like the hair and makeup. Is she blond though? I always thought of it as a pale white/grey with a wash in it.

  10. Suze says:

    The super old royals edge out the old royals for a sartorial win here! The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh look much better than Cams and Chuck.

    Chuck looks like a tomato – is he drinking or just spending too much time outside without sunscreen? And Camilla shouldn’t wear lace at her age – she’s no ingenue. And I say all this with love because I don’t mind these two at all.

    But the Queen and Duke look good. I like the Queen’s dress and the Duke of Edinburgh still brings it at 92.

  11. Faye says:

    Eh, that dress isn’t the most attractive, but Camilla is hardly the fashionable type, so she probably doesn’t care.

    For some reason, seeing Queen Elizabeth wearing her glasses just seems sweet to me. I can practically hear her thinking look, I’m almost 90, I’ll wear my glasses if I want to.

  12. paola says:

    Camilla is aging well, she looks less horse-y and ugly. That should raise hopes for LeAnn Rimes too!

    • FLORC says:

      She never looked like a horse. People were just cruel because they favored Diana and attacked Camilla on all fronts. If roles were reversed Diana would have been the horse-faced homewrecker. She is aging well though. They look genuinely happy together and that’s nice to see. Too bd the dress down make her look “thicker”.
      The thread isn’t about Leanne.

  13. Sue says:

    Forget the dress. I want that crown!!

  14. MisJes says:

    I love and admire Queen Elizabeth II, I hope she remains in her position for a while yet!

    RE: Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II, it is awarded to female members of the Royal Family (although there has been exceptions – for instance, Queen Elizabeth’s Mistress of the Robes has one) for personal service to the Queen. That “napkin” is in actual fact a yellow silk bow that the medallion sits on.

    • Jacqueline says:

      That is what I thought, that the fabric is what the medal is actually attached to. As a Diana-phile I remember seeing her wear them that way also.

      How strange it must be for Camilla to wear jewels that Diana wore. She probably tries to avoid it if at all possible, it isn’t like there aren’t enough to choose from.

      • LAK says:

        The Jewels never belonged to Diana. they were always on loan to her and wear returned to the crown when she divorced and certainly on her death.

        Also, Diana preferred to wear her Spencer family Jewels over the royal ones so no chance that Camilla will ever wear those.

        Camilla, for the most part, has not worn jewels associated with Diana when she wears royal ones. She tends to wear the Queen Mum’s jewels.

        As for the order, that is in the Queen’s gift. Given for personal service to the Queen. Clearly, HM thinks better of Camilla than many people are comfortable admitting.

      • BW says:

        The choker and earrings are Camilla’s private property, and never belonged to Diana or the Queen. The tiara belongs to the Queen but is on permanent loan to the DoC. Diana wasn’t the only one who owned and wore pearl chokers. She just brought them back in style in the 1980s. Camilla has several jaw dropping pearl chokers that are her own.

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        @LAK I strongly believe the Queen secretly wishes that Charles had married Camilla in the first place, as he wanted to, and spared her a lot of bother and embarrassment.

      • Amy says:

        Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose. Diana seemed more “suitable” at the time.

      • LAK says:

        Bored suburbanhousewife – I think in retrospect that is true, but at the time, Diana was thought to be the perfect bride for Charles. And the Queen genuinely liked her.

  15. Shelley says:

    Camilla looks beautiful..she is really ageing well. I have always rooted for her and Charles, especially after reading a biography on their love story and how he pretty much became a man because of her and how the royal family was always supportive of them as a couple behind closed doors…it really is quite romantic. I never loved Diana as much as most people. She was just as bad with her infedelities.

    • Angelic 20 says:

      It’s romantic that after Charles married a virgin 19 year old bride to produce his children under wrong pretence and after she produced them she was left on her own by the rf and her husband while they supported a married man to have an affair with another married woman? I guess our definition of romantic is very different. I am actually okay with them and think it’s nice they are happy now but no the way they treated Diana and carried out the whole affair was wrong , is wrong and will always remain wrong to me.
      Also Diana didn’t cheat because her marriage was officially over, they weren’t even living in same palace forget about roof. He left her and the children to pursue his extra marital affair, what was she supposed to do? Remain a virgin married woman? She was wronged on do many levels.

      • MsAubra says:

        *Aubra stamp of approval*

      • bluhare says:

        And I added the bluhare stamp of approval too.

      • inthekitchen says:

        I agree with almost everything except the being okay with C&C. I just canNOT warm to them at all. Probably my own issues – since what on earth does it matter to me, personally – but I just think they are kind of despicable people and hate to see them celebrated.

        I think Charles should have had to give up his place in the line of succession if he wanted to marry Cams. Then? do whatever you want. But you just know he will insist on her being recognized (styled/called/whatever) as queen. I know technically she will be queen because he will be king, I just feel they’ve lied all along to make their relationship more palatable and that pisses me off (the lying all along). Argh…I don’t know why I care but it just bugs.

      • Grace Under Pressure says:

        Exactly. Charles never stopped writing and phoning Camilla. He even asked for Camilla to approve of Diana. Emotionally he was always committed to Camilla. From the beginning Diana felt threatened, she even had Camilla banned from the Wedding Breakfast. But Diana was vivacious, young, beautiful, so Charles found time to visit her bedroom with plenty leftover to phone Camilla to discuss tampons etc.

        Once the newlywed bliss wore off, Charles stopped even trying, and Diana saw that and it stung her to the core. The day that Diana returned from the hospital with her baby Prince Harry, Charles moved into a different bedroom and for the rest of their marriage they rarely spent another night together. This is when Diana became tragically, desperately, and publicly unhappy. When she was abandoned by her philandering husband, and backstabbed by the entire palace of courtiers.

        In my opinion, Camilla & Charles are a modern day Wallis & Edward/David. The same way the British people couldn’t tolerate Wallis as Queen, they will not tolerate Camilla as Queen either.

        Are we going to see the Monarchy give way to a Republic in our time?

      • c'est la vie says:

        Agreed.

        Diana didn’t have a chance. Ugly affair all the way around.
        I’m not comfortable with Charles’ marriage either.
        Hardly a fairytale romance. More of a lesson on how not to conduct yourself in public or in private.

      • LAK says:

        Grace Under Pressure – Whilst i am not condoning C&C, there is alot in what you’ve written that is very much the POV of 20/20 hindsight and excuses Diana’s actions in the same time frame as though she were a saint.

        Diana had a series of lovers from 1986 through to her death. And she didn’t care if they were married or not, which is appalling given her own anguish about her marriage and her parents’ marriage.

        Ultimately, Diana and Charles were completely wrong for each other. The marriage was doomed to fail even without the external factors. Charles as a grown man, shouldn’t have married a 20yr old child-woman he had only met 13 times prior to marrying her. And Diana should have resisted her family’s pressure to marry when she had cold feet…her sister is quoted as saying,’too late dutch, your face is on the tea towels!’ when she asked for advise because she didn’t want to go ahead.

        That said, the marriage WAS a success in the early years despite the later revisionist history. There is enough picture/video and eye witness proof of this.

        BTW: It was the clergy of The church of England, Queen Mary and the Queen Mum who opposed Wallis as Queen Consort. The people were never given a chance to vote on it either by being informed of her through media coverage or parliament debating on it.

      • Angelic 20 says:

        LAK,
        Just because they were wrong for each other doesn’t mean a grown 32 year old man’s action towards a emotionally unstable 19 year old. What Diana did in her later years were wrong too but IMO royal family stole her innocence and made her into an angry, selfish, resentful woman. Irrespective of her own actions, the actions of Charles Camilla and the whole brf cannot be excused or justified by any stretch of opinion .

      • c'est la vie says:

        LAK – read Andrew Morton’s book on Diana that she collaborated with him on.

        She wasn’t happy and knew about Camilla. She even noticed her in the church while they were getting married. Nothing says romance like having your husband’s lover on your guest list at your wedding.

        In fact, it was his off hand, disrespectful comment about her weight that kicked off her ana/mia behavior.

        There are many more instances of their unhappiness early on and well documented including the famous quote when asked if they were in love on national television and she replies ” of course to which he adds ” whatever in love means”.

        No, their marriage was not a great success even in the early years.

        And that’s when they were both trying.
        By the time Harry was born, they both gave up.

        Diana’s actions to live an independant life are mostly admirable. She truly threw herself into her charity work. And who says she had to live like a single woman when her husband was carrying on a long time affair with a married woman. Who he then married!

        If anyone should have known better in this marriage, it would be Charles. So I have little patience for either him or Camilla. Or William and Waity Kate. After the whole Diana affair I still can’t believe there is royalty to be waited upon. This is the 21st century, isn’t it? And they are antiquated and overprivileged as hell.

      • LAK says:

        c’est la vie/Angelic20 – Several things;

        1 – Please read my original post again. I do not condone C&C. Nor do i think that Charles, Camilla and or the royals are blameless.

        2 – Diana’s own family contribution to this mess is often overlooked in the rush to vilify the royals. I also suggest you read up on Lady Ruth Fermoy, Diana’s grandmother, a lady who puts Carole’s alleged title chasing to shame, who pushed Diana into this marriage.

        3 – Not to mention the red flag of Charles having dated her older sister Sarah.

        4 – Youtube that engagement interview from which that quote is taken. out of context i may add. If you watch and listen to entire interview, there is alot of loving joshing from both of them. Read in isolation, that quote seems unfeeling, but the interview as a whole is not. And it only took on significance when Diana painted herself as the victim whilst glossing over her own little affairs and her part in the marriage breakdown.

        5 – Andrew Morton’s book is to be read with alot of pity and a pinch of salt, which isn’t his fault. He was working with the material he was given, but Diana was deeply, profoundly unhappy during this time. She had a history of lashing out and being unkind and malicious when she was unhappy. That book doesn’t tell you of any compromises SHE may have made to try and make the marriage work. Nor does it tell you of Charles efforts which SHE deemed unhelpful and therefore in her mind no help or compromise was given. She was an uncompromisingly black and white person. people were either enemies or loved ones. She could be offended by small things that immediately turned a person from a loved one to an enemy with no recourse to discuss or explain.

        She paints Charles as a supremely cold unfeeling man when the reality is not true. A man who didn’t love his wife doesn’t continue to wear his wedding ring after the divorce, right up to the morning of the engagement to his 2nd wife. i suggest you read a more balanced book eg the one by Sarah Bradford.

        6 – Diana was a PR genuis, which always shortchanged Charles. And if you look at ALL his interviews, he has never said a bad word against Diana despite the provocation. His friends may have, but not Charles. And we are talking about a man who bad mouthed his own mother.

        7 – Finally, there is alot of evidence, from a good many sources that the marriage was successful at the beginning despite their drama. The problem is that this period was so brief, coupled with the unhappiness of Diana that people don’t believe it.

        Postscript to all this drama and trauma is that during Diana’s final year, they had started to become friends.

      • Grace Under Pressure says:

        LAK,

        I appreciate your well considered post. I agree with you on the fact that Charles should never have pursued Diana. It was unethical, precisely because she was a woman-child and he a grown and very experienced man. Only a very naive woman would believe in a fairy tale romance with a flawless prince, but Diana was childish. The “romantic early years” are photos of her tickling him, joking with him, her charm was in her youthful spirit and utter lack of complication. Once Diana needed support from Charles, as a young mother with a busy work schedule, he was unavailable to her. He was never emotionally going to be available to Diana because he had reserved his feelings for someone in his past and saw Diana as a means to an end, not as his true love. I believe that Charles cheated first, and Diana only pursued relationships outside of her marriage because of her feelings of abandonment. I believe that Diana was naive enough to think Charles was going to love her, and only her, forever. I believe that when she found out about his affair, that is when she felt trapped and desparate and miserable. Some of her relationships that were conducted during that time were merely out of convenience, like her body guard. When you are trapped in a palace full of staff who work for your estranged husband, I would imagine that a strapping body guard who shows you personal loyalty would suddenly seem like a Prince. I agree that Diana’s judgment in some of her love affairs faltered, but I have a great deal more empathy for her position, than I do for Charles.

      • c'est la vie says:

        LAK – while I respect your point of view and agree with some of it, I still agree with Morton’s book and the other points I made – because Diana had every reason to be deeply unhappy in that marriage.

        That being said, I believe she started to come into her own after the divorce.

        And I still lay most of the blame of the marriage and divorce mess right where it belongs, on Charles.

        One of the many reasons I don’t support the monarchy – plus soaking the taxpayers for it. It really is nonsensical to have royalty in the 21st century. It’s beyond me why they continue to exist the way they do.

      • Angelic 20 says:

        LAK,
        Please its does look like you are making excuses for Charles and Camilia. Diana went into that marriage with an honest heart even thought she had cold feet, she wasn’t the one calling her ex bf and saying she would love him (this would give anyone a cold feet despite how they feel for their fiancee). Despite who pushed her she was faithful to Charles until he walked out on her and cheated on her while leaving her alone in that awful family. Her bad decisions don’t cancel out all the wrong things that were done to her and yes she was a victim. You are right the marriage could have ended for other reasons but it didn’t, it ended because Charles left his wife to bed another married woman and that’s the reality. Whatever may be the driving force behind that wedding IMO a naive woman who was head over heels in love with her first bf/husband was cheated on, abandoned and mistreated by a man who IMO never had any intentions of being faithful.

      • Peta says:

        Spot on LAK, on every point above. You always bring a measured and reasoned pov into the posts re the royals.

        Have to say Camilla looks good here, a preview to what’s to come when she’s eventually Queen (and she will be Queen, mark my words). Agree about the need for a darker blonde shade though. Or some lowlights.

      • c'est la vie says:

        Angelic 20 ITA – this was a used and abused 19 year old, people seem to tend to forget that.

        Who Charles actively pursued. The royals just helped push him along to the altar, because she seemed like the right candidate for marriage.

        Honestly, a 19 year old? And a much older, jaded prince with a lover. Hardly a love match, though that was what Diana was obviously hoping and expecting for.

        Anyone deserves a better marriage than that.

      • LAK says:

        Angelic20 – There are so many aspects to their marriage failing, a mistress or 2 would hardly have made a dent. Having absolutely nothing in common with your husband including friends is a pretty big one especially when those interests and friends bore each other.

        perhaps if they had dated properly and for longer, they would have seen this.

        Charles chasing Diana wasn’t as simple as a naive girl getting caught unawares. Her own grandmother and sisters absolutely encouraged the match based upon Charles’ status and against her won cold feet. And Diana had supposedly told a friend years earlier that she would marry at Westminster Abbey – this was verified by James Whitaker.

        It wasn’t just coming from the royals pushing Charles along to marry her. Diana was also under the same pressure from her own family. And don’t think Diana was unaware of status. She showered off her Spencer credentials to the American lady for whom she worked who assumed she was a girl of no importance by ‘accidentally’ leaving her coutts cheque book somewhere the lady could find.

        There is also the nature of Diana’s character. If you were a smidge out of line with her way of thinking, she rejected you. end of. and then told anyone who would listen that you had never tried. conversely if you were in tune with her, she went to the ends of the world for you.

        All her lovers, Charles included, fell victim to this. perhaps Charles used her and perhaps he didn’t. The fact is he fell below the Barbara Cartland standard she set for her romances and so as far as she was concerned he was completely useless.

        i do not make excuses for Charles. I fully support the idea that as a grown man, he shouldn’t have married a barely 20yr old girl. That in itself tells you the outcome of the marriage, and i would make the same judgement of regular people.

        …but the idea that she was a lamb to the slaughter is quite ridiculous.

        Her only naivety in this scenerio is not being worldly enough to see off ALL Charles mistresses because Camilla was certainly worldly enough to see them ALL. That required life experience she didn’t have, and when she did get it, wasn’t interested in Charles anymore.

      • FLORC says:

        To every lady that just posted here on the subject of guilt/innocence/truth/spin. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this! I respect all of your many opinions, but have a few things to add that were partially covered.

        Diana wasn’t a lamb to the slaughter, but she chose her path. She didn’t ask to be cheated on, but chose to be the other woman to others. Charles may get some blame for setting her off into a her bulimia and self mutilating behavior, but you don’t want to cut yourself because you’re mad at your husband. There are many factors that had to come together to create a perfect storm of self destructive behavior.

        Everyone takes a little bit of blame in the whole thing and I think that’s been well stated in all of your comments. To think about it all I feel like William never had a chance to be normal and learn what a healthy relationship is. He, like his mother, can’t play the “victim of circumstance” card. They may have had rough moments, but ultimately made their beds and now have to sleep in them.

        Again, really enjoyed your comments (and book recommendation LAK).

    • Suze says:

      It was just a mess of a situation all around but I give Diana a bit more of a pass because she was so young and so naive, and I believe she went into her marriage with very high hopes of a happily ever after.

      Charles and Camilla were much more cynical about the situation.

      Of course, Diana’s behavior in her later years became more cynical, as well.

      I believe that Diana did spectacular work as Princess of Wales but her marriage was always a mess and it was better for all that it ended.

      It’s ancient history now, anyway, and everyone is getting on with things as best they can. I have come to accept that Camilla and Charles are a functioning couple and that they will be king and queen.

    • Emily says:

      I know too much history to ever see any English royalty as “romantic”, especially the heirs. There’s always something gross behind closed doors, and no one involved is clean. This much money and power (and they still have a lot of power) stain everyone who has them. The romance is a facade put in place and kept there on purpose to keep their wealth and power.

    • m says:

      Personally I blame the Spencer clan. They were so hell-bent on getting Diana to be the Princess of Wales that they never told her the truth. Charles never loved her, nor was he ever expected to. He was also not expected to be faithful to her. She was a well-bred virgin suitable to provide an heir, and once done she too could carry on discreetly with her own affairs.

      Remember this clip during their engagement where Charles’ comment says it all…..

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUtF034h41Q

  16. Barrett says:

    I was once told by someone who saw Camilla at an event years ago that she is much much better looking in person. I try to remember that bc I try to understand her appeal for Charles.

    • Amy says:

      They were always each other’s lobster. They should have gotten married to begin with and spared a lot of people a lot of pain

    • Angelic 20 says:

      LET me help you, it’s because looks aren’t everything to a person and they love each other for who they are and not how they physically look. To not understand what her appeal is because she isn’t good looking is very shallow IMO .

    • DeltaJuliet says:

      He’s not much to look at either you know. Sometimes looks *aren’t* everything. GASP!

    • Amy says:

      A lot of people don’t photograph very well, and look much better in motion. Plus, I don’t think the tabloids go out f the way to publish their most flattering shots of Camilla.

    • RobN says:

      It’s true, she is. I saw her when she visited Northern California a few years back and she was really a very attractive 60′ish year old woman. I’ve had a soft spot for her ever since because she was very friendly and approachable. The organic farm we were at had a farm dog that was all over her and she was great with him. I like anybody who doesn’t mind a dirty dog jumping all over them.

      • Mich says:

        Some people are so charismatic that their looks become secondary. Camilla as always struck me that way.

        And a HUGE +1 for liking anyone who doesn’t mind dirty dogs jumping all over them…as long as that ‘dirty dog’ is of the canine variety ;-)

      • Laura says:

        Although I adored Diana, Princess of Wales I also adore the Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla). I understand why some people harbor resentment toward Camilla – but really, it’s been ages since the scandal involving her and Charles took place and everyone else that was directly affected by it has moved on with life, so why can’t others? Camilla and Charles clearly love one another and will likely to be together for the rest of their lives. They are happy and try their best to do good for others using their unique positions in life.

        Personally, I think Camilla looks lovely in these photos and was a very attractive lady in her younger years, and still is, in my opinion. The Queen also looks lovely — though I am not a fan of wearing fur. I can understand why the Queen is attempting to involve Charles more in the duties of her position as she is getting older and likely wishes to spend more time with her husband who is not likely to be here for many more years. I am sure his (and hers) mortality is not lost on the Queen.

        I am thoroughly impressed with the Queen, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, and hope that the younger royals (such as Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge) take note of what it truly takes to be a good and useful member of the royal family – to take one’s unique duties and position seriously, and not treat it as an excuse to live like spoilt, entitled, lazy Hollywood celebrities.

      • bluhare says:

        This is probably the first time I’ve agreed with you :) , but anyone who’s OK with a dirty dog jumping all over them is A-OK in my book too.

      • FLORC says:

        RobN
        Camilla won me over from the start when Charles was with Diana. I was very young, but still recalled feeling like Diana was playing the pity card too much and even though the ycould have married and saved everyone trouble, they were in love, and I loved that. If I knew this I assumed all knew and they were only keeping up appearances. Side note: I loved watching “Keeping up Appearances”!

        And you must really not have cared for Kate being skiddish of the wolf hound at the St. Patrick’s Day appearance. Yes she has Lupo, but aside from those staged starbucks visits, she isn’t seen with him ever. And at a polo charity event she ignored him entirely, but William and Harry played with him.

    • Emily says:

      No one ever falls in love with anyone because of how they look. Looks mean something for initial attraction, before you’ve even had one conversation with someone, and beyond that, they are immaterial.

  17. The Original G says:

    So ill fitting. And get a bra for the love of God and wear it when you go out of the house.

  18. Micki says:

    Her first wedding gown was off white I think and was very pretty. The second one was absolutely gorgeous. Dove blue-gray and she looked really good in it.
    I think she wears her hair pretty much the same after the wedding, the only thing is I think she has put on some weight again or is it the white?

  19. janie says:

    I think she just tries to fit in? She’s a little frumpy… The Monarchy is an odd bunch, but Camilla does her best.

  20. Cazzee says:

    I want Camilla to be my Mom, just so I can insist on taking her shopping for a good bra.

  21. LAK says:

    The Ladies who attend parliament have to wear white. If you look at the wider picture below, everyone is in white.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/08/article-2321142-19AD9A19000005DC-792_964x1245.jpg

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/08/article-2321142-19AD2761000005DC-70_964x605.jpg

    Camilla has always had that necklace.It’s not surprising that Diana had a similar necklace since they were very popular during the early part of last century amongst wealthy ladies. You’ll find that many ladies, young and old have them. usually inherited.

  22. Angela says:

    Camilla, has stepped up her appearance lately. She is never going to be a fashion star. but apart from the Queen when she was younger and princess Margaret and Diana, no one in the family really goes big on fashion. Think of princess Anne and her 20 year old suits. I am not criticising just commenting on this fact.

    Camilla looks the part, she fits in. There are pictures of her in the UK papers today with the Queen.

  23. Audrey says:

    Is the royal tailor on vacation? Her dress doesn’t fit at all

  24. Lexi says:

    That final 4 pic says it all ~ antideluvian, irrelevant monarchy clinging to outmoded tradition and, of course, power! Gah!

    PS Harry is dumb & ugly.

  25. Grace Under Pressure says:

    Camilla is repulsive and hideous.

    Charles is a joke. All those medals given to him by Mummy.

  26. Murphy says:

    I was really excited to see these pics, I think she looks fab, and she’ll make a great consort.

    She always wears her hair feathered around the honeycomb crown. This is not a new thing.

  27. Kelly says:

    She looks pretty good here. I kind of like her hair. The Royals don’t exactly go to Vogue for the fashion advice; they are still more aboutwhat’s appropriate and ceremonial.

    I hate adulterers, but she’s had a bad rap over the Princess Di thing. I loved Princess Di, but she was no saint, press to the contrary.

  28. Reece says:

    She looks really good, for her. She’s not a fashion girl. That’s pretty much her style. And she does carry that tiara well.
    I have the feeling Camilla is one those blessed ladies who needs a special made bra but she doesn’t particularly care so she doesn’t buy them. It could also be a generational thing. She was young in the 60-70′s so maybe she’s still like “bras shmas”! I wear because I have to. Otherwise it’s pancake city! lol

  29. DianeP says:

    I was, and will always be, a huge fan of Princess Diana, but I think it’s time to give Camilla a chance. Charles always wanted to be with her, and his wish was granted. The Queen will NEVER abdicate, but when she does pass away, Camilla WILL be Queen, and with none of this “Consort” business, either.

  30. littlestar says:

    I think the Queen looks adorable sitting there with her glasses on :O).

  31. Ag says:

    This is so hilarious to me. Grown people playing dress up without a hint of self-deprication.

  32. MousieBrown says:

    Charles wasn’t ready to settle down when they were younger, so Camilla married the other guy. Unfortunate that so many people had to be affected along the way before they finally ended up together.

    By the way, I think Diana’s pearl choker had a sapphire in the center.

    • Amy says:

      I want to say that was a sapphire brooch that she had reset as a choker. It was gorgeous. If Kate doesn’t have it yet, she will probably get it eventually, as she seems to be inheriting Diana’s sapphires–including the engagement ring.

      It wasn’t her only pearl choker, though.

  33. buzz says:

    all their looks need major updating!

  34. buzz says:

    I read somewhere that there is a general opinion, held by the Queen and others, that Charles is too intemperate to be king. He has been slightly outspoken on a few issues – but that’s going too far by royal standards! There is even a fear that making Charles king could cause the monarchy to collapse because the perception of him is so much different than his mother.

    I say Bollocks! Let Charles be king already!

  35. Ruyana says:

    I despise both Charles and Camilla. They were selfish and caused a great deal of unnecessary pain and grief. I can’t even imagine *ever* accepting them. They are ick nasty and I’m glad I don’t have to look at them all the time.

  36. gogoGorilla says:

    I kind of wish people would just get over the adulterer thing. I mean, we’re not living in 1700 and shit happens. No one knows what it is like to be inside a marriage except for the two people who are in it. People do dumb, hurtful things for a lot of reasons. It doesn’t make them the devil. It just makes them easy targets.

    • Amy says:

      (Or, as Diana famously put it, the three people in it…)

      Cosign.
      It happens. It sucks. People make bad decisions that screw up their lives and other people’s lives. People hurt people. People do stupid things. People do bad things. Sometimes there is regret. Sometimes there is forgiveness. Sometimes a marriage survives, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes people have to move on, and face the consequences. I wish Diana had gotten to live and find lasting love and happiness. I’m sure C&C wish they had done some things differently. I’m sure we all do.
      None of them were perfect. It’s not “right” what they did, imho. But I’m in no position to cast any stones. I’m also not going to say they have to be miserable and alone all their lives for it. And I was “Team Di.” ;)

    • Suze says:

      Yeah, I agree. It’s moving on time.

      Not to mention that a lot of what we, the public, think of as the true story of DiCamCharles is really tinged by hindsight and revisionist history from all sides.

      Cam’s the princess now, and she will be queen. It is something that just is.

  37. Kristen says:

    I’m conflicted. I LOVE the RF because of the pageantry, drama, diamonds, etc.

    But as an American, I just don’t understand why they exist? It’s 2013. The idea of a monarchy just seem so archaic and outdated. Thoughts?

    • Amy says:

      I think at this point, they’re just a living national symbol. They’re like a mascot. (I apologize if this comes across as insulting. It isn’t meant to be. I’m a royaloonie myself, if you couldn’t tell from the avalanche of comments I’ve made on this one thread. This is just what it looks like to this American. I’d love to hear a British perspective).

  38. Mirna says:

    I’m convinced the queen is waiting for Charles to die first, JUST so Camilla never gets to say she’s married to the king (she won’t hold the title of queen anyway, but just being married to king will be enough for her). Queen Elizabeth will outlive us all!

    • looseal says:

      She will hold the title of Queen Consort if Charles becomes King…just as she is now the Princess of Wales. She just uses the secondary title of Duchess of Cornwall to distinguish herself apart from Diana.

      From my understanding of British royal law, there is no such thing as a Princess Consort.

      Wonder what Cam’s title would be should there be a regency.

  39. Patrice says:

    The Queen looks gorgeous as always :) (Just look at how she lights up when she smiles!) I’ve watched countless documentaries and read several biographies on her and whether they’re aimed to flatter her or not, I come away from each just admiring her a little more; this American hopes she never abdicates but if she does, it’s 100% of her own free will and not a second before she’s ready!

    Side note: Camilla isn’t ‘blonde’ at this point-she’s grey.

  40. Lara says:

    I actually attended the Opening of Parliament – I work in the House of Lords and then chatted up a doorkeeper (basically a security guard) to get a seat instead of having to stand.

    The Queen is old! I know thats a silly thing to say but to actually see her walk in all doddery and have a hand getting up the stairs to the throne really brought it home to me. She was very glittery and shiny, it was like looking at the sun…

    Camilla is a lot slimmer in ‘real life’ and very attractive, she doesn’t photograph well which is something I can sympathise with…

  41. Froyo says:

    Err, being the ‘original Queen Mum’ has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    She is the Queen. The Queen Mum was her mother. Hence the moniker.

    Also the Queen Mum was not the monarch- her husband was. So, she was a Queen by marriage, not by birth. They are different things.

    • Amy says:

      I think the queen mother title was invented by or for the present queen’s mother after her husband’s death. The term used before that was “queen dowager,” which I don’t think the queen mum liked. Can’t say I blame her.

      • Flower says:

        Queen Mother is a legitimate royal term there have been several of them in European history who used the name. Every Queen Mother is a Dowager Queen but not every Dowager Queen can be termed ‘Queen Mother’.

        For the title to apply you must have been officially recognized as ‘Queen Consort’ and also be the mother of a Monarch.

        By definition all ‘Queen Mothers’ are widows and they do not hold the title for life only as long as their child is monarch, if QEII had abdicated or died before her mother the title would have been dropped as she would no longer be the mother of the monarch. She would have then become Dowager Queen Elizabeth.

        Apart from tradition there is also another reason Queen Elizabeth II’s mother used the title specifically because her given name was also Elizabeth which meant there would actually have been two Queen Elizabeth’s in the UK. Dowager Queen Elizabeth and Queen Elizabeth II which would have been confusing so she was always known as ‘The Queen Mother’ …..confusion avoided.

        Wiki has an interesting article on the subject with historic examples of Dowager Queens and Queen Mothers
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_dowager

    • Amy says:

      As far as “soaking the taxpayers” goes, I was of the understanding that much of the financial support the rf receives through the List is due to certain lands the monarchy turned over to the public, and they basically sort of live off the rent or interest or whatever.

  42. Flower says:

    Camilla looks good, she is wearing court dress the same as every other lady in the room. All the other women in court dress (long white gown with gloves and tiara) actually have titles they are either the wives of Dukes and Earls and Lords or female members of the house of Lords.

    I blame Earl Louis Mountbatten (Phillip’s uncle) for the whole fiasco. When Charles was young he was very lonely and didn’t get much affection from his parents, it is a well known fact that Andrew was and is the Queen’s favourite and Anne was the Dukes favourite. Charles was shuffled off to nannies and boarding schools from a very young age and turned to Lord Louis as a father figure and mentor. It was Louis who scotched the Camilla romance convincing Charles he had to marry into aristocracy and organized that Charles would be out of the country for almost 2years on Naval duty. Louis’ eventual plan was to manipulate Charles into marrying his own grand daughter who was only a child at the time.

    However the Queen Mother was also a big influence on Charles, a doting grand mother who gave Charles unconditional love and whose advice he trusted and her friend and Lady in waiting, Lady Fermoy (Diana’s grandmother)convinced her that one of the Spencer girls would be a more suitable match, if not Sarah then Diana.

    No one bothered to look very hard at Diana the person they only saw her good breeding, physical comeliness, youth and PR value.Had anyone looked further they would have discovered her emotional problems. Both her grandmother and grandfather said later that they should have warned the Royal Family about her emotional history. Lady Fermoy called her conniving and manipulative and her father said she was emotionally unsuited to the position.

    So the whole business was not just a man marrying a young naive girl he hardly knew (the tradition of all Royal Families before the war) but a whole edifice of tradition and expectation along with family interference and pressure on all concerned Charles, Diana and Camilla.

    The whole thing turned out tragically but there are a lot of people implicated in the chain of blame including the Queen and Prince Phillip.

    On my part I’m glad that Charles and Camilla ended up together and somehow I think that given their mothers emotional neediness and penchant to see the world as friend or enemy according to how they sucked up to her, the boys may have ended up with a more balance view of life and people and certainly less emotional drama and histrionics in their young lives.

  43. xoxokaligrl says:

    Looks like she got what she wanted.

  44. ANGELIC 20 says:

    LAK, (the post was getting longer so i wrote here)
    Again I like to stick with facts and not with hypothetical situations that might have broke that marriage. The fact is Charles walked out on her to bed another married woman,that’s how the marriage ended. Maybe because of their different personalities it was doomed from the start but he never stick around for long to find that, he got his children and there he went under the skirt of Camilla.

    What sort of successful marriage was he planning on having while he was saying he loved Camilla few days before the wedding or when he was wearing her girts on his honeymoon? As you said me to read sarah’s book ,i will quote you what she said ” Charles physically removed himself from Camilla but he was never emotionally she was never gone and this fact made Diana very insecure and unhappy in her marriage’

    You are also wrong about Diana being sacrificial lamb imo. How exactly a emotionally unstable woman pressured to marry a man way older then her is not a sacrificial lamb? She had no support system not from her family and not from the man she was marrying. Of course she had cold feet ,she just heard her fiance tell his married ex that no matter what happens he would always love her. Diana was already insecure but rather then assuring her of his love he was too busy confessing it to his ex. He had no right to marry, produce children and then leave her all by herself in his goddamn family.

    You are right Charles was never cold towards. He was such a loving respectful husband towards his wife that when he went to a party with her, he could not even pretend to show her any regard for few hours and sneak out in a room to grab a quickie with his mistress and that mistress had the audacity to tell her that she have 2 boys and men all over the world want her,so what else she wants? He could not show her some respect for a lousy few hours. Also he was such a loving husband that he induced his wife to have his second son between his 2 polo matches and drooped them at palace and left to play another polo match. You are so right he was always such a loving, respectful husband . I don’t know how she got so lucky.

    Also you claim to work for PR and yet you give him credit for not bad mouthing Diana? Given the sympathy and popularity wind was blowing so strongly in her directions, he would have been literally eaten alive had he ever tried to bad mouth her. And what ground did he had? Did she left him to sleep with her BFS? It was a pr strategy and since he couldn’t bad mouth her, he went ahead and bad mouthed his own parents to get some sympathy. He wasn’t some powerless guy who didn’t have any hold on his friends and could not do anything when they were ban mouthing her. His friends were doing his dirty work.

    • ANGELIC 20 says:

      I just like to add that no I don’t think she was a damsel in distress and a victim all her life. I think she was a victim. sacrificial lamb who was mistreated and wronged by Charles,BRF and Camilla and in return she turned into a intelligent, conniving, manipulating and resentful woman in the end. She was thrown in a prison but instead of suffocating and dying from inside she grew a backbone, she fought back, became selfish to a lot extent ,sometimes she hit below the belt and made very bad decisions on her life too But she kicked RF’s ass and these are the reasons I admire her not because I see her as a life long victim. That whole family does whatever they want without thinking of the consequences and think they are above the rules and rules only apply to peasants but did she kick them in the gut. Made them pay for what they did and brought them on to their knees. Someone needed to do that and i love her for doing so.

      Now that i think of it, it will be her little boy William who will bring down the house of Windsors, I bet she must be looking down and smiling at him for doing this.

    • bluhare says:

      +Angelic, I’m with you on this one. I’ve read every Diana bio ever written (well most of them) and I know how unbalanced and dramatic she could be. But to find out right before what’s supposed to be the happiest day of your life that your husband has no intention of dumping his gf, and her family talking her into going through with it so they get their piece of the pie, it’s no wonder things ended the way they did.

      If the RF weren’t so fixated on virgins back then, things could have had a much happier ending.

    • LAK says:

      Angelic20 – My take away from your comments is that you are so tunnel visioned about this subject that you can’t see where i agree with you. Not only that, you’ve completely ignored my comments since apparently they don’t fit in with your preferred rigid viewpoint. I won’t go any further, but i suggest you read post #43 with @Flower’s excellent summary of what i was trying to say about both families’ involvement pushing the marriage and especially Diana’s family role in it.

      I have posted twice that i do not condone Charles and Camilla’s actions. Perhaps you don’t understand what the word ‘condone’ means. Let me re-phrase. I do not support Charles and Camilla’s actions.

      I have also said twice that i do not support a 30something grown man under any circumstances marrying a barely 20yr old child-woman. A 30something yr old dating/marrying someone who is in 18-25yr old bracket is doing a major disservice to the younger partner. They are still growing, maturing, finding themselves. They are easily manipulated and controlled, not necessarily to their benefit by the older partner. Do you understand why/how this applies to the Charles/Diana dynamic? Divorce Statistics support this dynamic. From that perspective, even if they had been 100% in love, it was highly likely that they would end in divorce.

      It’s also quite clear that you don’t understand why i would recommend Sarah Bradford’s biography over Andrew Morton. Sarah Bradford puts the facts in view without sympathy or sycophancy to either Diana or Charles and she puts out wider family information to paint the bigger picture. Andrew Morton’s book is completely syncomphatic to Diana in the same way that Penny Junor’s book is completely syncophantic to Charles. I would never recommend either author’s book to anyone since they are written to promote their favoured party whilst painting the other as a complete blackguard. And you know what? Sarah does paint a sympathetic picture of Diana, even as she holds up her less than stellar qualities. I prefer to see Diana as a person rather than the saint you’d prefer she was.

      I don’t understand why you don’t see that a marriage where 2 people have nothing in common is a disaster not to mention more likely to lead to extra marital affairs. Diana and Charles had absolutely nothing in common. Here is a helpful list provided by James Whitaker.

      “His older, wiser friends intimidated and bored her. Her younger, brighter set irritated him.

      She did not care for his polo, nor for the country pursuits which were the centre of his family’s life.

      He was not at home in discos, or even on the dance floor, and preferred Berlioz to Dire Straits.

      Much was made of the trainee Princess’s careful “grooming” for royal life. Yet in reality, she found the transition to her royal role a great strain.

      The abrupt move from girlish independence at Coleherne Court to the conformity of court life appalled her.

      The prince had never seen his role as that of a superstar, while his wife undoubtedly did.”

      Pointing out how incompatible these 2 people were does not automatically mean that i am attacking either party or that i support one over the other. Arranged marriages work because the arrangers try and find common ground to work with. That was something that was completely overlooked in this case.

      As for my PR credentials as judged by you……If you don’t think a statement straight out of Charles mouth is more effective than friends who can easily be dismissed by everyone as gossips and sycophants, then clearly YOU don’t understand PR. You think Charles was any good at it? Diana was masterful at PR. She played Charles like a fiddle and he was always struggling to catch up. And he could never match her brilliance in this field. Perfect example is your continuous belief that Charles is a cold man. He is not. He is spoilt, entitled, self absorbed, whiny, needy but he is not cold.

      And finally, if you would support William, knowing everything you do about him and what Kate has to put up with from him. I am afraid this is where we part ways. cyberspeaking.

      I am appalled that after everything that William witnessed and went through with BOTH his parents, he has turned out the way he has.

      • ANGELIC 20 says:

        LAK,
        First of all thank you so much for talking down to me and for calling opinions rigid and for telling me the meaning of condone. I did read your comment and Sarah’s book FYI.

        Now where exactly did I say Diana was a saint? Be kind and point it out to me because this narrow minded poster is lost and need your assistance. I wrote just below my post that she wasn’t a victim for life and i highlighted her flaws and bad decisions, all of which i hold her responsible for. I said she was wronged, mistreated, abandoned by her husband and was a victim in the early years of her marriage but later on she stoped being one and took control of the situation. I stand by this narrow and rigid point of view of mine.

        I also never said Charles is a cold person in general but yes he was definitely cold , disrespectful, unfaithful, insensitive towards his wife. He is not a cold person to people he loves and sadly diana was not 1 of them. This was to the response to your comment where you tried to tell me that he loved diana and wore his wedding ring as a symbol of that love something i disagree with.

        I also disagree with you on her not being a sacrificial lamb. She was a unwanted child who was being pressured to marry an older man. Please tell me how this doesn’t make her a sacrificial lamb as you said in your post this idea was ‘ridiculous’ ?

        Also you are saying that you don’t ‘condone’ what they did but what I get from your posts is that somehow Diana was responsible for the way she was treated by him and there is something she could have done or lacked something that MADE him look else where and leave her. Maybe I am wrong but it just feel like you are putting the blame on her for his actions and indiscretions. Maybe I am wrong but that’s what i got from your post.

        You are a regular poster who knows i don’t support William at all but in the context of everything that happened to his mother and how she was treated by BRF especially since she worked her ass for that constitution, a part of me is happy that he will be the one to bring down the house of Windsor. As far a being done with me is considered ,don’t bother as am really not interested in talking with you after you condescending and disrespectful tone just because i am not agreeing with you.

      • Mrsjennyk says:

        And it appears the tables have turned on Angelic20. Is this what happens when someone doesn’t agree with LAK?
        Angelic20- I totally agree with you regarding Diana/Charles/Camilla

      • Another K says:

        I have to agree with Angelic 20 as well. No one was a saint in this scenario but Diana was just barely 20 years old when enticed into this drama. I remember when it was all going on and Charles’s buddy, that grossly fat Soames guy, was always carrying on to the press about how Diana was “crazy and unbalanced” because she thought Charles was having an affair with Camilla. Angelic 20 is right. Charles just sat back and let his friends do the dirty work. Very Sad.

  45. Amy says:

    Thanks, Flower, for clearing that up! I thought the older Elizabeth was the first to be known as QM. I learned something today!

    • Flower says:

      Most welcome Amy…..the ins and outs of Royal protocol have always fascinated me, totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but these odd little details are very important to the Royals and their courtiers and play into their little games of one-upmanship amongst themselves rather like the title ‘Princess Royal’, which makes Princess Anne the premier Princess in the land even above the current Princess of Wales. Meaning Anne is not required to curtsey to Camilla when meeting her at official functions a subtle but at the same time obvious way of sorting out the pecking order in the RF.

  46. Amy says:

    No opinion on Camilla et al, but the queen is absolutely adorable. I just want to hug her.

  47. Jade says:

    Though the dress doesn’t seem to fit well, I think Camilla still looks nice. She is aging well. I think maybe Charles, Camilla, the Queen and Diana (if she were still alive today) would have had their regrets and known that they were not saints during the marriage. Yes there was cheating and no it was not right. The Queen surely would not condone such infidelities, seeing her devotion to her royal status and her marriage. Seeing Charles, Camilla and the Queen eventually move on and make the best of their current relationships is heartening. Maybe in the end, the Queen just wants her son to be happy and if Camilla is the one, she should just let them be regardless of the public being accepting or not. Sometimes being older, you let go of your ego and pride slowly and start to accept that happiness matters in the end, not pomp, pageantry or having the perfect princess bride. I would have loved to see Diana also finding her happiness in the end. Charles could have just been a playboy and not married Camilla, what more with all the bad press and hate she got. She was the last person that should be his wife. Seeing them grow old together makes me wish them the best.

    • Flower says:

      The Queen and Phillip have had their moments There was a period between 1951 and 1959 (after the birth of Anne) when the relationship was very strained.

      The rift was Instigated by the insistence of Phillip,encouraged by Lord Louis Mountbatten, that the children officially carry the name Mountbatten along with Windsor.

      Phillip has always been very sensitive about his lineage , the Mountbattens were historically always considered to be lesser aristocracy and looked down upon in European Royal circles, despite several Queen Consorts being Battenbergs (Mountbatten’s). He wanted to elevate the family name by linking it officially with the Royal house of Windsor, arguing that even the most lowly man in the land was permitted to give his children his name but he was nothing but a sperm donor. The Queen refused point blank and was often brought to tears by Phillips badgering but she stuck to her guns and Phillip went off in a huff , he was linked to several aristocratic ladies during this time.

      Eventually he figured out what side his bread was buttered on and the rift was patched up and they settled back into a state of harmony. So infidelity was present for at least that period in their marriage, which the Queen forgave. There are reports of other affairs in several books but the period between Anne’s and Andrew’s birth was the lowest point in the marriage. There are also reports that the Queen was very close to one man in particular during this time, whether it was just a close friendship, flirtation or an actual affair no one speaks of it.

      Oddly enough with all this huff and puff from Phillip about his children bearing his name, it is not even really his name, Mountbatten(Battenberg) was his mother’s maiden name. Strictly speaking his paternal surname is Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Odd that he never saw the irony in insisting his children take his name while he took his own mothers name and not his fathers.

      His machinations on the subject never worked with the Queen but he obviously brainwashed the children as they do sometimes sign their name as Mountbatten-Windsor on documents , Anne in particular.

      • Poppy says:

        Actually, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor was formalised by a Privy Council, of which the Queen is head and gives assent. No-one’s been ‘brainwashed’ in to using it, it is simply one of the surnames that can be used, similar to ‘Windsor’.

      • Jade says:

        That’s interesting Flower, thanks for the clarification. In the end I, like some others here, agree that the C n C affair and history were messy. I just wish them the best.

      • Flower says:

        Poppy…….perhaps brainwashed was too harsh a word, but he never gave up badgering the family till the privy council decision was made, it was merely a sop to him to shut him up. None of the children officially hold the surname as part of their legal name they merely have permission to use it if they like.

        Mountbatten-Windsor may be used as the personal surname of the descendants of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh under an ambiguously-worded Order in Council issued in 1960 (note the date….this was the concession made for him to seal the reconciliation with Elizabeth and clear the air)

        Mountbatten-Windsor differs from the ‘official’ name of the British Royal Family or Royal House, which remains Windsor.

        Informal documents may be signed Mountbatten-Windsor (even marriage licenses) but official documents related to the Crown only by Windsor. The Council document was worded in such a way that the Queen would never use the name herself as all her signed documents are considered ‘official’. Philip had been pushing for full official recognition of Mountbatten-Windsor as the British Royal House name.

  48. Lola says:

    This should have been Diana….

    • FLORC says:

      Lola
      It was never meant to be Diana. Camilla had his heart, and yes, they handled it very messy, but Diana and Charles were never going to last and I think she knew that. To say that should be Diana is forgiving and forgetting everything Diana was except for her charity work. People take the image of her hugging the HIV+ children and create a saint-like image. She was far from that.

  49. India says:

    Camilla looks great. The best she has ever looked. God only knows how much money was spent to achieve this. She will make a great Consort.