A Royal week to remember
Quite how an 82-year old Monarch and her 86-year old Consort managed to get through the past exhausting week is a matter for conjecture. It began with the Diamond Wedding weekend, moved swiftly on to Malta for a sentimental break, and ended in Uganda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
ITV’s Royal Correspondent Romilly Weeks
An amusing moment that showed the Duke of Edinburgh in sprightly form occurred on ITV’s news bulletin from Malta. As the Queen and the Prince conducted a walkabout on Valetta’s main street, Romilly Weeks, ITV’s Royal correspondent, spoke directly to camera about the Duke’s “romantic gesture” in bringing the Queen back to Malta, scene of one of the happiest times of their life together.
What she didn’t know was the Prince Philip was standing directly behind her listening to her piece. As she finished, she turned around to find the Duke with an amused expression. “Finished?” he said. They both had a good laugh before he moved on.
In Uganda it was Camilla’s turn to sparkle.
Camilla wearing the Queen Mother’s jewellery
The Duchess of Cornwall, obviously aware of local views that the Queen should wear a crown so that they knew she was a real Queen, chose to wear the Queen Mother’s Boucheron tiara and diamond necklace, with its full five strands, to a function. The Queen had made them available to her for the occasion.
Prince Charles was said to be there, with Camilla, to lobby for the job of Head of the Commonwealth when he becomes King. The role is not automatically given, but needs a consensus of the leaders.
With a new Australian Prime Minister apparently set on a republican agenda, the tide may be moving against him. Judging by his reception though, he has a good chance of claiming the job on ascending the Throne. As Head of the Commonwealth, the Monarch is given a world role that would otherwise be diminished.
I find it interesting that the selection of the jewels was from the Queen Mother. Seems that there was an interest in hoping that the positive thoughts of her might rub off on Camilla. I suspect thoughts are that the first step towards being accepted as a Queen is to present yourself as one. Is that what is going on with her recent makeover? Looks like some coaching to support Charles in his upcoming role.
By Cate on November 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Very bad typos!!! Sorry….here it is again.
I find it interesting that the selection of the jewels was from the Queen Mother. Seems that there was an interest in hoping that the positive thoughts of her might rub off on Camilla. I suspect that the first step towards being accepted as a Queen is to present yourself as one. Is that what is going on with her recent makeover? Looks like some coaching to support Charles in his upcoming role. Also, I think 3 strands on the necklace would have been enough. Five is a bit over the top!
By Cate on November 25th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Stephen Barry, Charles’ former valet, recorded in one of his books how very cheap Charles is and especially averse to spending money on anyone but himself. The frantic and profligate spending Charles is doing to make Camilla acceptable to the public indicates a desperation that she do him credit and add glitter to his image. It also tells me that he does not love Camilla for herself, but only wants a consort who worships at his altar. Secure people in love do not behave the way Charles behaves. Secure women who have sterling motives do not behave as Camilla behaves. We better all pray daily that Queen Elizabeth outlives Charles because I see the very real possibility that Charles and Camilla will bring down the monarchy if Charles comes to the throne. A more odious pair of losers than Charles and Camilla I never saw in my entire life.
By Gigi on November 25th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
It would be very interesting to know what kind of impression Camilla’s over-the-top diamond necklace made on the partipants in the meeting in Uganda. I wonder if it helped or hurt Charles in his move to become Head of the Commonwealth.
My personal view is that Camilla looks ridiculous, but then again, I didn’t see her in the context of the even.
By Karen on November 25th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I meant to end with “in the context of the event.”
By Karen on November 25th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Camilla did sparkle that night but I think that tiara is too big for her head. She should go with something more smaller. I guess next we will see her with the star of The Order of the Garter. After all the years that Diana served the royal family and contributed to society, she was never awarded with the order of the garter. But again I must stop living in the past and worry about the present. Camilla did look good for a person her age.
By Claudius on November 25th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I am hopeful that while the Queen lives, Camilla will not be given the Garter. Of course, after the Queen dies and Charles is King, Camilla will be given the Garter with lightning speed and as much fanfare as can be mustered.
By Gigi on November 25th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
The color of the ribbon on the Duchess of Cornwall’s Family Order should be SCARLET, not yellow. I wonder if Camilla can trace her ancestry beyond Alice Keppel and back to Hester Prynn?
By Arthur on November 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
After reading the comments from the Chelsy/Harry post re: Prince Philip’s indiscretions, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud when I looked at the picture above. That is quite a look he is giving Romilly Weeks! After reading John’s story, however, I see that they are just having a laugh and enjoying the moment.
This site is a treasure trove of information. I am not very literate about the personalities of the Royals except when it comes to the matters of the Princes Charles, Andrew, William and Harry so it is always interesting to read what everyone has to say. I have very strong feelings about Prince Charles and Camilla and I see there are others here, too, that share my same feelings. I will leave it at that for the moment except to say that someone described him as a “cad.” Ditto!
By Melissa on November 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Wouldn’t it be totally differant and nicer with their majesties
King William V and Queen Catherine-hope hope.
By Royalist on November 25th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
No matter how beautiful one can wrap up a sad cheap gift in the end it is still a sad cheap gift what an insult to the commonwealth for Charles to present Cams as such. Although I’m surprised Cams was able to upstage HM with all those jewels, I remember in 85 Diana was given a dressing down for wearing a chignon to the opening of parliament because it was felt she upstaged HM and that was a simple hairstyle. It seems HM and the rest of the family have adapted the motto to Keep Chucky Happy and his often repeated phrase Any thing for a peaceful life. How sad this is the future of Great Britain.
By Trudie on November 25th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
All the jewels in the world aren’t going to help someone like Cams…she looks like a Royal wannabe.
Is it a horrible thing to hope Chuckles kicks the bucket before the Queen does? I’d feel guilty if this were about anyone else, but it isn’t, and I don’t.
By On the Outside on November 25th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
If Charles “kicks the bucket” before the Queen, the only throne Camilla will ever get to sit beside is Lucifer’s!
By Arthur on November 25th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Well said, Trudie. As I have said more than once, and on this site, too, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. At least no one will say of Camilla (as they did of Princess Diana) “What is she doing with HIM?!” I frankly believe Charles and Camilla deserve each other. Unhappily, Great Britain is the true loser in this dirty bargain because the UK deserves far better than that gruesome twosome.
By Gigi on November 25th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
The loathing expressed here against Charles and Camilla is very sad. Diana had many nice qualities, but she had her weaknesses too. If only Charles and Camilla had been able to marry at the very beginning….
By Amity on November 25th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Things definitely would have turned out for the better had Charles and Camilla married at the outset, Amity. I’ve often thought that Diana’s undoing was the fact that she quickly realized that her husband loved someone else and she thus had no recourse and felt trapped. I can’t imagine being in my early 20’s, completely isolated and expected to maintain a stiff upper lip while my husband so obviously loved and coveted another woman. He may claim that he was true to his vows in the “physical” sense (to put it politely) until things were irretrievably broken in his marriage with Diana but he was undoubtedly not true in his heart from the outset. Diana didn’t have much of a chance, as was evidenced by the intimate gift that Camilla bestowed upon Charles shortly before his and Diana’s wedding (the piece of jewelry with the intertwined ‘C’s.’) While it is said that Diana realized the unpleasant truth of Charles’ and Camilla’s feelings a short while before the wedding, one has to remember that she was quite young (20?) at that time. I truly doubt that if Charles had been 100% invested in his marriage and had cut off ties with Camilla, that Diana would have wound up the emotional mess that she unfortunately was at times. It is heartrending to be in the situation that Diana was in and I will never see justication in what Charles did.
By Melissa on November 26th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Amity the loathing for C&C is very sad? I hardly think so!!!. These two selfish and self endulgent fools destroyed the life of a woman from the unset of her young adulthood through her death. Yes everyone has their weaknesses but Diana’s was in her being young and naive. I don’t believe for one minute that Chucky was also physically true to his vows from the minute he married Diana. He needed someone to provide an heir and she had to be a virgin Cams was involved in his decision to marry Diana as she thought Diana was a mouse and would put up with their affair. I agree with Melissa there is no justification in what he/they did. During their little boat trip down the Nile while in Uganda How I wished that little boat had capsized paving the way for them not to accede to the throne.
By Trudie on November 26th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Whoa. Count me in with those taken aback with the venom directed at Charles and Camilla. Her incredibly well-managed public image aside, Diana gave as good as she got and was as bad in her own way as Charles has ever been accused of being. Diana may have been young but she was in no way naive. She knew exactly what kind of arrangement she was getting into - she and her family were palace insiders but that gets glossed over and ignored far too often. It isn’t romantic, it doesn’t fit the media fairy tale, but this was never a love match. Families in that strata don’t play by the same rules the rest of us are able to; that’s the down side that comes with the role and the responsibilities they bear.
I think Charles will make a wonderful king whomever is at his side, and his taking the throne will give William a chance to grow up and live a little. William seems to be a fine young man but he’s in no way ready to take the throne yet, and I think it would be cruel to saddle him with the responsibility so early. Let William have time to find the things he’s passionate about, the issues he’ll tackle that will set him apart and make his monarchy memorable just as his father has done.
By Y. on November 26th, 2007 at 3:19 am
My best guess is that both of them can swim. England is, after all, an island nation and Charles was in the Navy. In that eventuality, I imagine the real peril would be the crocodiles. Such peril and death I would wish on no one. (I detest crocodiles, ever since I first saw “Peter Pan.” Tick-tock, tick-tock. Whatever possessed him to chomp off Captain Hook’s hand?! This is where gluttony leads him, to a symbiotic relationship with time!)
Hmmm…I sound quite pouty. I shall drink my 14th cup of tea and retire, hoping for fairer climes and a more cheery disposition on the morrow!
By Gigi on November 26th, 2007 at 4:45 am
After 14 cups of tea, I don’t think you will be getting much rest tonight, Gigi.
By Arthur on November 26th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Never fear, Arthur, the tea I drink is decaffeinated.
I’ll be asleep in no time! zzzzZZZzZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
By Gigi on November 26th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Well, I think it’s very important to remember that Charles did love Diana. The media have twisted the story around so much that you can’t tell what’s the truth. Most recently I was reading about the Queen Mother’s favorite servant. He said that as soon Charles & Diana got their divorce, Charles went to visit The Queen Mum’s servant at Clarence House and Charles saw a signed picture of his wedding day and Charles just broke down in tears and said that they was so in love with each other and how sad it was. So what I’m trying to say is the media and so called royal experts get the story of Charles & Diana’s love so wrong, that it’s not even funny. You just hate to hear that Charles never loved her and just used her for producing heirs to the throne. I do believe that Charles learned from his first marriage, that you can get caught up in being Prince of Wales and being heir to the throne. But you have to love and take care of your family at home because they are the ones that will be there for you when the world gets cold and no one seem to like you. This is something he learned the hard way and I’m sure William & Harry see that.
By Claudius on November 26th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Claudius, you are absolutely right. People often forget the finer shades of things over time.
The other point is that it’s quite possible for a man to love two women, especially if they are as different as Diana and Camilla. They each possessed qualities that Charles desired. His bad luck was that they were spread over two people not one.
If Diana had followed the Queen’s example and recognized her husband’s needs, she could have lived a very pleasant life and become Queen. She should not have felt threatened by his need for an older, wiser woman, discreetly managed. It’s how the aristocracy have always behaved.
I blame Barbara Cartland — a silly old biddy who was too shrewd to believe all the tosh she produced — largely for money. Our loss is that Diana swallowed it all hook, line and sinker.
By John on November 26th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Y, perfectly put. I endorse your views completely.
By John on November 26th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Diana MAY have had an understanding that this was an arranged marriage but I also believe she was in love and expected the marriage to be a marriage: two people being committed to one another. And Charles MAY have been a bit besotted with Diana in the beginning but marriage is not a step that a person takes with a divided heart. If you love two women, marry neither. How indulgent to think that it’s okay to marry one woman while loving another and expecting the wife to just shut up and toe the line while the future king has his cake and eats it, too. Maybe that’s the accepted way amongst the Royals and apparently amongst many old school men but as a woman, I can tell you it’s an untenable position to be in. Charles should have told Diana what the real situation was (Okay, I love you somewhat but my true love is really Camilla. I will continue enjoying her companionship and physical intimacy. I really just need you to push out a couple of babies for me and keep your mouth shut about everything. Just smile and look nice for me, okay?). Do you really think he or anyone in the Royal Family was that forthright? Palace insider or not, 19 is an age of naivete. Diana may have wound up a cunning woman at the end, largely as a result of living and learning, but I don’t for a moment believe she started out that way.
“Families in that strata don’t play by the same rules the rest of us are able to; that’s the down side that comes with the role and the responsibilities they bear.”
It seems to me that the only down side falls on the women. How sad that these attitudes still persist, that a woman is expected to turn her head the other way in the interest of “recognizing her husband’s needs” for the sake of maintaining the status quo. I guess the Royal men are exempt from the moral standards that everyone else is expected to adhere to. That is why the Royal Family garners little respect from many in the rest of the world. They seem to think they’re above everyone else and that they’re entitled to play by their own rules. And apparently their subjects enable them to do so by tacitly (and not so tacitly, as evidenced by John’s comments) condoning this behavior.
By Melissa on November 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Whilst I’m slowly getting used to the idea of Camilla as consort - I must admit she has behaved with dignity so far - I do think that necklace is over the top! And that tiara …. so tacky. It’s the first serious misstep in her presentation since her marriage, in my opinion. What are the reactions of the people at home?
I read that they were recieved very coolly in Turkey - is that true, John?
By NCKat on November 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Melissa, this is not just a British thing — think Bill Clinton. He is psychologically unable to keep his hands off the female interns. Hillary puts up with that for the sake of her career. It happens the world over.
I agree with you that it’s not an ideal situation, but it’s how it was. Three flawed individuals bouncing off each other’s needs and insecurities. I remember at the time saying it would never work. It ended in death. A Greek tragedy indeed.
By John on November 26th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
NCKat, Turkey is not a country where you would expect to get a large welcome for Christian Royalty. Probably only the Queen would be well enough known for that.
I also agree about the jewellery. I hope Camilla isn’t turning into a Royal Cherie Blair.
By John on November 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
John, I see a big difference between a man committing adultery vs. a person condoning adultery for the sake of maintaining the status quo or because it is the accepted tradition. What Bill Clinton did is wrong but I am not here (or anywhere) saying that Hillary Clinton should accept Bill’s nefarious ways. We are not debating whether people commit adultery. We are debating whether we should accept it and you clearly do:
“If Diana had followed the Queen’s example and recognized her husband’s needs, she could have lived a very pleasant life and become Queen. She should not have felt threatened by his need for an older, wiser woman, discreetly managed. It’s how the aristocracy have always behaved.”
By Melissa on November 26th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I’m not condoning it — it’s what happened. It’s part of history now, so I draw a line and move on. My point is that Diana would have been much happier if she had accepted her husband’s flaws — after all, she knew about them long before the marriage — and refused to get upset about his affection for a much older woman. If she’d hung on in there, she would have been admired for decades, and able to bring up her children, and carve her own career — as she was starting to do.
I really do think that would have been better for her and William and Harry, and the Monarchy if she had. Whereas the last 15 to 20 years of her life were a nightmare that ended in tragedy.
By John on November 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Sorry, John, we have to agree to disagree. It still certainly sounds to me that from your comments you do condone mistresses and the like. Diana was what, 19, when she got involved with Charles so I hardly think she knew “long before the marriage” that he was the philandering type. And what starry-eyed 19-year-old, aristocrat or not, doesn’t believe that her intended will love her enough to change? It is interesting from my female perspective that you haven’t considered (or don’t seem to have considered) that perhaps the whole family would have experienced lifelong happiness if Charles had “forsaken all others,” physically and otherwise. What a novel idea to hold a person to the standard that he took upon himself when he stood before Diana, his God, his family and his country and made the vow of marriage. I still think it to be archaic, and even chauvanistic, if I may be so bold to say, to blame the woman for everyone’s unhappiness when she doesn’t accept infidelity.
By Melissa on November 26th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I hear that the final night in Uganda was a dinner in honor of Prince Charles… but that fully half the heads of state expected were no-shows. That certainly doesn’t bode well for Charles’ prospects for becoming head of the Commonwealth when (if) he becomes king.
By Evelyn on November 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Fast forward one generation, how do you think William and Kate will be together (I am hoping fervently that they do get together for a lifetimes commitment to each other) it’s being ‘reported’ in the media that they are in love with one another. They could bring a breath of fresh air to the monarchy, Kate is a very attractjve, inteligent woman who would not be trampled on easily. I hope William doesn’t inhereit any of Charles’s more unfortuneate attitudes to marriage but more of Diana’s. Whatever her other faults she was a wonderful mother to ‘her boys’. It just depends on how Kate can come to terms with living in the Royal Family ‘fishbowl’ and just hope she would be able to do what Diana was not able to!
I am still waiting for a public commitment of William and Kate.
By Royalist on November 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Melissa, how could Diana not have known? After all she did grow up in the upper class circle where such things go on and she and her sisters surely knew about all the affairs. I can see her thinking that she could make Prince Charles fall in love with her and they would live happily ever after, with him remaining faithful to her forever - that’s the Barbara Cartland standard fairy tale that all of her books are comprised of.
I find it so ironical that herfather married Barbara Cartland’s daughter as a result of his divorce from her mother and that Raine had been married before. So much for the reality of her mother’s fairy tales!
By NCKat on November 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I also wanted to add, that in his own way you’ve got to respect Charles for at least not straying any further than Camilla (that I know of, of course!) - he doesn’t seem to have as roving an eye as the Duke of Edinburgh.
By NCKat on November 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Or Bill Clinton.
By John on November 26th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
NCKat, everybody knew Charles dated a lot of women but my point is that Diana was a teen while all of this was going on. It doesn’t always translate in a young mind that because he dated a lot of women, he would cheat on her if they were married. You don’t have to be an aristocrat to know that people cheat but you certainly don’t consent to being cheated on just because you know that many people in your upper crust group commit infidelity. Everyone hopes when they take that step that their situation will be different. Do you really believe that Diana, at 19 or 20, consented to infidelity as the normal course of things and was okay with it because that’s just the way things are? I don’t think it’s fairy tale thinking to hope and expect your husband to be true.
By Melissa on November 26th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
That’s all true, Melissa, but it’s how you deal with it when you get there. If she had accepted her fate — not like Queen Alexandra who was a doormat — but as an independent woman with her own chosen career and with the philosophy, “If my husband needs to be with a much older woman from time to time, he obviously needs a mother figure. Why should that worry me?”
What a saint she would have seemed. As it was, she wrecked her own life and those of her family. Life isn’t easy. An intelligent approach is needed as much as an emotional one.
By John on November 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Melissa, I agree it’s natural to hope that your spouse will be faithful to you; after all that is the main point of getting married - vowing before the world that you commit to each other and foresaking all others. But that’s not realistic where people marry for political and financial reasons, not just for love. It would seem that Charles and Diana entered into the marrage with two very different sets of expectations and it’s unforunately mosly the wife who has to make a decision whether to stick it out or not. Diana didn’t accept the circumstances and made bad choices which led to her death. That’s what made it all so depressing to me.
By NCKat on November 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I think Charles is the one who wrecked everyone’s lives, John. Diana would never have found herself in the situation she was in if Charles had kept his vows. You can whitewash this whole situation by saying that Diana knew, should have known, consented to the status quo by marrying into a family where mistresses are the status quo.
How did Charles deal with it when he “got there”? He just as easily could have dealt with the situation intelligently rather than with his emotions. He could have dealt with the fact that he was married to one woman and that he made that commitment. Dealt with it by being selfless and finding a more appropriate and upright way to deal with his “needs.” Charles made plenty of bad choices himself. What a great example he could have set for his sons and his country to be selfless rather than selfish. He could have been the one to put his foot down and say that the Royal way of infidelity is not the way to go. That is now up to the younger Royals such as William and Harry. Maybe they will have the courage and self-control to bring some respectability to this whole mess. I wholeheartedly agree with Royalist that perhaps the young Princes will carve a different path in these matters. I somehow doubt that that will happen, but for now there is hope.
And I don’t think that Camilla is or ever has been in the role of a “mother figure” to Charles. If that’ had been the case, the Royals’ understanding of what one shares with one’s mother is completely out of whack.
The Royal Family and its supporters don’t seem to have learned anything from the experience with Diana. They could have seized upon it as a time for change and for realizing that doing things because they’ve always been done is not very enlightened or progressive. They could have stepped up and demanded change amongst themselves and stopped carrying on their dirty little secret that’s really not so secret at all. Instead, they seem to still demand that any woman who has the unfortunate consequence to be born Royal or any woman who marries a Royal must accept and expect infidelity. That is what is so depressing to me.
By Melissa on November 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
It’s also important to not get caught up in what should have happened with Charles & Diana’s marriage. What happened was destiny. It was a lesson that I believe gave Charles knowledge about love and marriage. Of course it’s very easy to say that Charles should have married Camilla in the first place but that is not destiny presented itself. It was meant for Charles to marry Diana, for them to give the world a beautiful gift (William & Harry) and to bring a fresher air to the Monarchy. It was Diana’s turn now it’s Camilla’s turn. That is how destiny played itself. We can argue this back and forward but Charles & Diana’s marriage outcome was meant to be. I also think that not just Camilla played a part in their marriage but the media and the establishment had their hands in that as well. No one allowed these to adults to take control of their own marriage and that was just bad.
By Claudius on November 26th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“If my husband needs to be with a much older woman from time to time, he obviously needs a mother figure.
In Charles’ case, I think it’s a Grandmother figure. Just look at Camilla, dripping from head to bosom, in the Queen Mum’s jewels!
By Arthur on November 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Well said Arthur!!! At the time of Diana’s engagement she thought there might be more to Camilla and Charles and was told she was imagining it!!! Also at that time there were two more woman involved with Charles Lady Tyron aka Kanga and a Canadian Janet Jenkins. Just because her family served the court doesn’t mean Diana knew exactly what it was about. No matter how much you want to Whitewash Charles and Camilla by comparing Charles and Diana to Bill and Hilary you can’t. Hilary ’s career is political and she must get elected Diana was under no such associations. I believe Melissa is totally correct in her observations.
By Trudie on November 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Thanks, Trudie.
John and I will have to agree to disagree. While I have strong feelings/opinions about this subject, I have no hard feelings about the debate. Hopefully John feels the same.
By Melissa on November 26th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Hi John,
tell me, how was the first episode of Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work? It’s just killing me that we haven’t been able to see it here in America yet.
By Claudius on November 27th, 2007 at 4:38 am
Melissa, I never have hard feelings about an honest debate, especially if it doesn’t descend into hysteria, which they often do when Diana’s name is mentioned.
By John on November 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Claudius, we saw the first episode last night and, frankly, it was stunning. It covered this year’s State visit to America, including all the preparations in the White House and Virginia, plus, of course, the Kentucky Derby. There were long interviews with President Bush and Laura as well as other big personalities.
We had access to the Queen’s private thoughts as the camera followed her around into almost every situation. It was eye-opening.
Although this series nearly got pulled because of the coming in/going out episode, I’m glad they showed it — it’s an award-winner, if ever I saw one.
Do not miss it when it airs in the States!
By John on November 27th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Thanks, John.
That television series on the monarchy sounds like a winner. I always like to know more about the Queen firsthand, rather than what people surmise about her thoughts or personality.
By Melissa on November 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Me, too! John, have you any idea when it might air in the US?
By Gigi on November 27th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Well Gigi, I just got word that the series Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work will air on January 18th on ABC here in America. So be on the look out.
By Claudius on November 28th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Thank you, Claudius! I was rather hoping it might air over Christmas, but the holidays are so busy, mid-January will suit me equally well. I adore British films and British TV programs, especially British mysteries. I am truly addicted to “Midsomer Murders” which ran two or even three back-to-back episodes on Sundays for quite a long time and suddenly disappeared to my total dismay. Then, quite by happenstance, I found the wonderful series was being aired at 8AM Saturday mornings! Being able to see it again has given me a new lease on life!
Of course the time is not convenient, but my husband DVRs it for me.
By Gigi on November 28th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Ah, Midsomer Murders! We always watch that in our house too. It’s usually on at 9pm on Sunday evenings — perfect timing.
I’m glad you’re getting the Monarchy series. January is a good month for it. It will remind you of summer.
By John on November 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Good to know it will be on in the U.S. Thank you for the information, Claudius.
John, it has been unseasonably warm here. I have a feeling I’ll be reminded of summer without any extra help! :O
By Melissa on November 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I’ve just come in from a long walk around town, Melissa, and it’s remarkably warm, though raining. Our long range forecast is for a mild, but wet winter. It’s just that now. So far so good …
By John on November 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Melissa and John, we shall have temperatures in the mid-70’s today, according to those who profess expertise in these matters. We need rain, so anyone who has any to spare, do ship me barrels of rainwater!
Yesterday I watched the tree experts trimming and mulching everything in our yard that couldn’t get away from them and as they mulched the last three trees, I shall swear that one of the trees (named Felix) said to the other two trees (named Frank and Fred) “This wind has given me a powerful thirst. What time is the old girl serving tea?” 
Yes, we name our trees and shrubs. Further, (or, perhaps, worse) we name our appliances. I shall spare you the pain of having to hear the names of all of them, but my husband’s alarm clock is named “Shut-up” and my alarm clock is named “You Heard Me.” 
More to the point, back to the Monarchy series. John, did you mean to say that the series does, after all the sturm und drang, actually include that objectionable section where an editor with an agenda tried to convey that the Queen had been rude to the photographer? Or was that section deleted?
By Gigi on November 28th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Gigi, it’s the very first sequence in the whole series. It makes great play of the Queen COMING IN and then shows her leaving after joking with the photographer about how long it took her to get dressed.
Annie Liebovitz is a very tough cookie so wasn’t in the least put out by any of it. Minus the bad editing, it just shows two forthright women doing a professional job.
By John on November 28th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Thank you, John for the clarification. I shall watch all of it with great interest! By the way, the Daily Mail has wonderful photos of Zara with the MBE the Queen presented to her for her stellar equestrian achievements. There is a lovely photo of Zara and Mike Tindall and also a photo of the Princess Royal, her husband Timothy Laurence, Zara and Mike Tindall after the presentation of honors. According to the story, Peter Philips and his fiance Autumn Kelly were also present to see Zara receive the MBE from the Queen.
By Gigi on November 28th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Gigi, unfortunately I don’t have any rain to send your way.
We are pretty dry now north of the Red River. As you probably heard earlier in the year, however, we had too much rain and experienced quite a bit of flooding throughout the spring and summer. I think the forecasters have predicted a warmer than normal winter for those of us here in the lower middle part of the country and that has certainly proved to be true in Oklahoma thus far. And don’t feel weird…we name all of our cars and they all rhyme! 
(We use non-traditional, non-female names to top it off.) I don’t think I would be able to find a polite nickname to apply to our stove at this time. It is giving me fits.
John and Gigi, I had completely forgotten about that bit of controversy surrounding the Queen’s photo shoot. It is a shame how editing can change the whole meaning of something, isn’t it? Annie Liebovitz has done some fine work over the years.
By Melissa on November 28th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I just saw pictures of Kate at a book launch and MY GOD that’s a beautiful woman. William should get on his knees and thank God for blessing him with such a person. You know we don’t get to see Kate out to big events like this so I just have brag about it.
By Claudius on November 28th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Claudius, where did you see the photos? Was it online? I’d love to be able to see them also.
By Gigi on November 28th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Gigi, you can go on wireimage.com and see the pictures or getty images. But I’m telling you that this girl is a knockout!!!
By Claudius on November 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I totally agree with you, Claudius. I think she is really sensationally attractive. She will make a wonderful Princess of Wales and Queen Consort.
By Gigi on November 29th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Yes she will. I really don’t think she tries too hard to look beautiful, she just is. I’m also glad that she gets on well with Camilla’s children. Just by the pictures you can tell that everyone likes to be in her presence. They treat her with lots of respect knowing that someday she will be one of the most important women in the land.
By Claudius on November 29th, 2007 at 5:27 am
And most people agree she looks even better in the flesh, Claudius.
By John on November 29th, 2007 at 10:18 am