DUMPY FRUMP A FASHION DISASTER (why don't they leave the poor girl alone, already)

NY POST ^ | 11/2/05 | ORLA HEALY

[Liz]

REGAL ROSES: Bearing flowers, Charles and Camilla visit Hanover Square, where they left a tribute to British 9/11 victims. Photo: AFP/Getty

Diana would be amused. Her successor and former rival, Camilla Parker Bowles, failed spectacularly in her attempt to wow Manhattan society with her sartorial splendor last night.

Dressed in an unflattering Anthony Price navy velvet frock with a fussy oversized chiffon collar, the Duchess of Cornwall arrived at a chi-chi cocktail party looking more like an escapee from the choirboy pew of Westminister Abbey than the guest of honor.

Earlier, Camilla caused quite a stir when she chose an eye-popping raspberry suit for her visit to Ground Zero.

We predict an "off-with-their-heads" ruling to come down on the core team who were supposed to create the "Camilla Chic" glamour on this trip..... and "a secret dresser," whose identity is fast becoming a gag in fashion circles.

[ariamne]

Thanks for the update!

[FourtySeven]

I never understood why Charles had it for her in the first place. Even on her worse day, Diana was waaay prettier than Camilla.

It truly must be love.

[tuffydoodle]

He should have married the plain, older woman instead of the glamorous Diana. Except, when you are in the market for a broodmare, you go for young and beautiful, not old and plain (and already married).

[lmavk]

You forgot to mention that hildebeast carries about 20 xtra lbs in her calves and ankles, thus the endless pantsuits.

[britemp]

They are simple enough to calculate by using figures from the National Office of Statistics and the British Tourist authority. HM the Queen also now runs a transparent public accounting system allowing her citizens to see what she spends in total, or specifically on dog food or Bentleys, thus:

The Civil list (monies paid directly to the royal family from central govt.) is 8M GBP per annum but when all other grants etc for building upkeep et al are included it totals 35M GBP.

The UK economy receives 11.9B GBP income from tourism annually and the tourist authority attributes some 400M GBP of that directly or indirectly to the Royals, be that visits to royal residences, spending on royal related souvenirs and a percentage apportioned directly from surveys conducted with foreign nationals as to the reason they visited england and the percentage thereof that responded that the royal family and their history in some way influenced their decision to visit Britain.

So in fact I have been a little mean as it's actually more than 9 times.

[britemp]

My pleasure. It will be a sad day when the two nations on earth that have done most to invent and defend personal freedom and the right of man cannot stand together.

[Citizen Soldier]

But those shoulders! My, how did she get them.

Wrestling her husband away from his first wife, that's how.

I think she is waiting for the "Farah Fawcett" hairdo to come back into style, don't you?

[ariamne]

I appreciate your update on HRH's views regarding his role as defender of the faith, but I don't buy that terrorism is not supported by the majority of muslims. I used to believe that as well, but over time since 9/11 have been sorely disappointed by the lack of condemnation of terrorism in the muslim community, which has by and large been silent, or have qualified their tepid denunciations of terror attacks where they do exist. I can only conclude that there is support for the actions of the terrorists, or at least support for the ends if not the means, in the muslim community.

It doesn't make me happy to have come to this conclusion.

[tuffydoodle]

So you figured all that up by yourself? Are there any websites to back it up?

[ladyjane]

No, of course not. I didn't say that. All I said was Diana didn't sound normal - and I didn't even mention the 40 men she had affairs with while she was married! LOL

[britemp]

You are quite welcome to your opinion, but remember that without the British monarchy, the Magna Carta would never have been written, nor the concept of personal freedom for all men that so threatened the powers of mainland Europe well before the US existed. Magna Carta was after all, the direct basis for your constitution and had my Royal family not been disposed to conquer the world and colonise it it, you might well be speaking French now! ;-)

[Iwo Jima]

Even Diana's own sons say they like her...

I can't believe that I wasted time on this thread, but I totally agree with your comment. Diana was pretty and overrated, and Camilla is underrated and overly criticized. That she has a good relationship with Diana's sons tells me all that I need to know: that the marriage is a good one and that Camilla is a good person. I think that Diana would approve.

[wouldntbprudent]

Well, I must add that I prefer the nice-looking raspberry suit to Old Crusty any day.

[britemp]

I've quoted my sources - they are very easy to find on google. Do a little thinking for yourself, you will find it very rewarding.

[lady lawyer]

What bothers me about this visit is that we are supposed to care what that dim bulb Charles thinks about anything, because of an accident of birth.

[GVnana]

without the British monarchy, the Magna Carta would never have been written, nor the concept of personal freedom for all men that so threatened the powers of mainland Europe well before the US existed. Magna Carta was after all, the direct basis for your constitution and had my Royal family not been disposed to conquer the world and colonise it it, you might well be speaking French now!

And without those Yankees, who didn't have the brains to write a consitution, you might well be speaking German now!

[Hildy]

The young one, Harry, was very mature in the last big interview he gave. He literally said that he and his brother loved her, that she makes his Father happy and that she takes more than she deserves from the media.

[tuffydoodle]

"Do a little thinking for yourself, you will find it very rewarding."

Words of wisdom, you should follow your own advice. When you post figures, you should back them up with facts, not say, "go find it yourself." It's basic freeper courtesy.

I found this interesting tidbit in my search to find your elusive figures:

Engagement of Charles and Camilla

In a way it is not fair that Edward VIII had to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson, while Charles can be a divorcee and marry a divorcee do the same thing without consequences. Of course Edward VIII was a Nazi so it was providential that he went before the Second World War.

Charles shouldn't have got married to Diana if he hadn't broken off all ties with his former girlfriend. However now he is where he is (so to speak). For the couple personally of course it is better for them to get married.

The problem is that monarchy (rule of the one) in 2005 is morally wrong in an absolute sense and in practice Charles will never be a King in the fullest sense of the word because we have a prime minister who is the real monarch, which is another problem...

Charles's divorce should have barred him from being the next king if the 'rules' of the monarchy still apply at all. However they don't and the easiest thing would be to just call the whole thing a day when Her Majesty dies.

Being a religious person, I believe that there is no King but God, and we should call no man King/Queen (see for example, Matthew 23) and to do so is idolatry. From a secular viewpoint, is it right that children grow up knowing that they have a place and have to stay in it?

The argument that it wouldn't be Britain without a monarchy is like saying Africa wouldn't be Africa without Malaria.

[A.J.Armitage]

Off the top of my head, Washington, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, probably Eisenhower, and Kennedy. At the time, the were unit commanders rather than President. Which is why the PM is indeed the relevant comparison -- a purely ceremonial status as "head of state" doesn't matter, the fact of being elected at some point in life rather than born to it does. Also the shortened timeframe makes them a better match, since with US Presidents we're talking about more or less modern warfare.

[Ima Lurker]

What "normal" woman marries a man she knows is in love with another woman?