Posted on 11/24/2007 6:15:30 AM PST by bannie
Its five strands of diamonds covered her decolletage and made the Queen's jewels look quite modest as they attended the Queen's banquet for the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Kampala, Uganda, on Friday.
But Camilla didn't deliberately set out to overshadow her mother-in-law - the Queen gave her permission to borrow it from the royal collection.
Camilla's favourite couturier, Anna Valentine, designed her a simple duck-egg blue dress and matching stole to set off the necklace, estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars.
The Duchess added the Queen Mother's Boucheron tiara, a set of diamond earrings and the Queen Elizabeth II Family Order, given to female members of the royal family.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
I do it with.
The Boucheron tiara is awesome. The necklace is a bit over the the top.
oh-oh, now what ? Sounds like you can do it either way. Thanks. :-)
I think it can be done without, but the quotes work for me and I try to never taunt these devil machines more than necessary.
Isn’t that a Kabbalah thing?
Are clothes now required for FR?
I’m inclined to agree. It is always worth remembering...”No matter how pretty a woman is, someone somewhere is tired of her $&!#.”
I don’t like any of the royals, but Diana-worship is nauseating.
Royal Trailer Trash...........my apologies to common trailer trash.
She didn’t say Banditos from San Antonio wearing too much aftershave.....:o)
What German accent?
Good Grief!! The RED STRING means you’re part of Judaism??
Thank God someone posted what I was thinking. Obviously, he has loved her for a very long time. The misfortune is that he wasn’t allowed to marry her way back when, they probably would have had many happy years together. The royals aren’t known for their stunning looks anyway. She fits right in, in a way that Diana never did, with her interest in hunting, riding, and outdoorsy stuff. I don’t condone their adultery at *all* but their love had endured for many decades.
Besides. Let’s teach our daughters that there are more important things than looks, ok?
Whoooo....I hadn't thought of that!
You suppose she was trying to let the girl cook her own sow's ear?
snicker...
Yes - and the rest of the Royal females are just *known* for their sartorial sense. (snort)
sure she was. After all, she wore white to her son’s wedding.
Looks like that little Parker girl is an amateur. It would take generations for her to catch up.
“Are clothes now required for FR?”
Depends on who is in the house.
It’s not that I’m down on Diana (who was herself a bit profligate in dispensing her favors). It’s just that as a middle-aged lady myself I am touched by the spectacle of a rich, powerful man who could have any woman in the world, and yet fell in love with a plain-looking country lady and stayed in love with her through all these years, despite a political marriage to a famous beauty.
I’m not oblivious to the issue of adultery, and I regard the entire marriage to Diana as a tragedy not uncommon through British history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.