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.

[britemp]

I thought Washington and Lincoln were Englishmen? ;-)

I take your point, but mine still stands - the Royal family send their sons to battle, they do not protect them from the harm that may befall any good englishman defending his country. The case is not so clear cut with the sons of US presidents.

[MarkL]

I guess I've never understood the whole "cult of celebrity" thing.

I've got a cousin who subscribes to all those "celebrity magazines," like people and us, and she reads them religiously. She seems to enjoy reading all the fabulous things about all these fabulous people. I just don't get it.

While I don't mind taking an occassional look at Cameron Dias or Brittnay Spears (the fewer the clothes, the better), I really couldn't care less about what's going on in their lives.


And it's even worse with the way people fawn over royalty. I have nothing but the upmost respect for Lady Thatcher, and have developed quite a bit of respect for Tony Blair, since Clinton (sort of) went away... I think that the Queen Mother and Queen Elizabeth both have dignity in public, but I've never really given much thought to either one. I sort of liked that Diana was involved in charities, but I really couldn't give a hoot about the rest of the royals.

Although Prince Charles did sponsor some good charity concerts, as "The Prince's Trust."

Mark

[britemp]

Indeed, and well put sir.

[britemp]

We Brits always consider the banter between the US and UK to be good natured and with our Royal family and your 'interesting' choices of President, we always have some ammunition for both saides! :)

[Chena]

Regardless of their morals, beliefs, and even stature, I don't consider it appropriate for a news publication to insult the appearance of a visitor to the US.

I agree. I find this sort of behaviour rude, tacky, and totally uncalled for. There are many people in this country and in other parts of the world who do not like Barbara Bush. I do not appreciate it when those people insult and/or critique her outfits or hairstyle either. Both women obviously try very hard to look their best, and if their "best" isn't good enough for some folks, then too bad.

Would those same people write up a nasty commentary in the family newsletter when a friend or relative showed up at some family function wearing an outfit that THEY wouldn't have chosen to wear? Wrong color, wrong style, made her look fat....blah blah FReepin' blah. That is rude. Period.

[tuffydoodle]

"And to think all this came about because you don't think HM the Q earns more for the Uk than she spends! ;-)"

Really? I thought all of this came about because I think Camilla and Charlie are adulterous pigs.


"You are free to harbour whatever religious beliefs you wish"

Thanks for your permission but my post was a quote from an internet site, which I stated.

"Your assertion that a monarchy (rule of one) in 2005 is morally wrong is factually incorrect and merely an opinion."

Not my assertion, just something I found on the internet, as stated.

"We must cherish what is important to us and not care what others think"

Then why on earth are you trying so hard to convince me that I'm wrong and you're right?

[Chena]

A few years ago, I assisted in the publication of a newsletter for a local professional organization. Sometimes it was difficult to come up with pertinent content month after month. I could just imagine the reaction of my readers if I wrote something like this: John Smith and his wife recently attended our state board meeting held in Gulf Shores, Alabama. Imagine our chagrin when Mrs. Smith showed up poolside in the tackiest and most abhorrent colored bathing suit, sans cover-up. Adding insult to injury, her towel didn't even match the swimwear! Other attendees looked on with jaws dropped as it was reported Mrs. Smith had brought 50 other outfits with her on this trip. What on earth for?

ROFL!

[britemp]

With the greatest respect, you are wrong. Our navy was very technically profificient - our invention of radar early on saw to that. It was certainly technologically sufficient to keep the entire Nazi surface fleet in harbour for the whole war with a couple of notable exceptions. Our airforce was not decimated, it was stronger immediately after the defeat of the luftwaffe than it had ever been and we were knocking the krauts out of the sky 3 for 1. We had radar you see, and no-one else did including you. The English channel is plenty big enough as a 1000 years of failed invasions, including the nazis bear testament to. If in another 800 years the US has never been successfully invaded, get back to me! :)

[britemp]

You are giving her far less hassle than we have over the past few years, but Having met her I can attest to the fact that she really is a lovely person and deserving of Charles loyalty.

[britemp]

You will find no true englishman who dislikes the US. When we formed a colony of Englishmen who loved self-determination like englishmen do, you were bound to become independent very quickly.

As for modern royals offering excuses for islamic violence, please quote examples as it is something I am genuinely not aware of.

[Final Authority]

She's alive. That's some better than Diana about now, would you say?

[britemp]

Thank you for that - the English way is that of reflection and solution wherever possible. If not we tend to send in the gunboats and blow them back to their God! :)

We suffered greatly from muslim suicide attacks in Khartoum at the end of the 19th century, but Kitchener had the right idea. He got his soldiers to pick up the remains of the attackers, wrap them up in a fresh pigskin and bury them deep, thus ensuring they never ascended to heaven. The attacks stopped instantly.

[ZULU]

Actually, I saw a posting on this website - but can't remember where the source came from. Perhaps it was bogus.

[britemp]

How very true - we were remiss in not allowing englishmen the same rights in the colonies that were enshrined at home and we paid the price.

[britemp]

. . .'"We must cherish what is important to us and not care what others think"

Then why on earth are you trying so hard to convince me that I'm wrong and you're right?'. . .

Ditto.

[GVnana]

Rather than argue the fine points of WW2 history, I think I'll just express my own opinions on the Chuck and Camilla visit.

First, I'm very glad they won't be receiving a state dinner. If Charles' advance publicity is any indication, I'll assume his bad manners are intended to score points with people back home, where apparently he sorely needs a boost. It's a shame you don't have a future monarch with better character, but we've all known about Charles' shortcomings for a long time now.

RE: the whole "Camilla thing" if either one of them had any principles they would've made the hard choices and either closed the door on their relationship a long time ago or legitimized it. They both made a lot of people suffer for their weaknesses.

People can change, and time moves on. I don't care about her looks. I care about MY country. And if Charles' is so out-of-touch as to think he will well represent YOU by chastising an American president we're both losers here.

[Paved Paradise]

How can comparisons to a dead person sting? I'd rather be alive than dead, no matter how much better looking the dead person happened to be.

[britemp]

I would be surprised if it were true, though since 911 many people in both our countries see any recognition of the fact that not all muslims are terrorists to be a defence of terrorists.

[britemp]

I see your point of view now. I can assure you that Charles will not in any way, shape or form, 'chastise' your president. Firstly, he is not a political leader and thus diplomatic protocol will not allow him to do so and secondly he would never be so rude as to do so. Charles has strong views on the environment, but he will not raise them with your president other than to share views on the basis of equals. He will not receive a state dinner because he is not a head of state.

Charles, as his history will demonstrate, has absolutely no need to score any points with the British public. He has the job for life, nothing and no-one short of God can change that, so he does not need to impress.

Charles has made mistakes like any human during his life and like the rest of us should be allowed to. Should Bush not be President because he used to be a little too reliant on Scotch? I think not. Those in the public are not perfect.

[britemp]

Right you chaps, its gone tea-time here and I'm off home. It's been fun having a little banter with the second greatest nation on earth :D take care.