Posted on 04/07/2005 12:35:32 PM PDT by billorites
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The wedding of Britain's Prince Charles to a woman dubbed by one tabloid commentator "the Duchess of Frump" has stirred few hearts in America, distracted this week by the pomp and ceremony of a papal funeral.
"America has a case of the royal blahs," said the Omaha World-Herald in Iowa, deep in the heartland of a country which, despite fighting a war for independence from England, has a soft spot for the glamor and old-world charm of the royals.
"The marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles on Saturday just isn't tugging at our heartstrings the same way his marriage to Princess Diana did in 1981," the paper said.
Charles, 56, and his lover of 35 years, Camilla Parker Bowles, 57, will marry in a humble town hall ceremony in Windsor, west of London.
The Contra Costa Times in Walnut Creek, California, had some words of advice for the couple, noting that second marriages were not uncommon "even among us common folk."
"Although no one consulted us, we would have recommended Vegas," it said. "It's fast, easy and, for a few extra bucks, the future king could have been married by the former king," referring to a Las Vegas speciality of being married by an Elvis Presley impersonator.
New York Post columnist Cindy Adams slammed Charles for dithering before deciding to postpone his wedding, originally fixed for Friday, to avoid a clash with the Pope's funeral.
"The wedding of that prince of a guy to the Duchess of Frump or whatever those simians at the Palace titled Camilla is now Saturday," Adams wrote. "What is it with these royal retards? Even a lowly scribe knew this blessed bliss absolutely could not be same day as the Pope's funeral."
There was more sympathy from columnist Ellen Goodman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, who said she was still hooked on the "thoroughly un-fairy tale wedding," not least because of the "beastly" media treatment of Camilla.
"It was as if Charles had upset the natural order of things, whereby every Donald Trump must have his trophy wife," Goodman wrote, tipping her hat to the couple for their endurance, if nothing else.
The New York Times pondered the challenge faced by Britain's poet laureate, Andrew Motion, charged with penning a commemorative verse about Charles and Camilla.
"None of the obvious rhymes -- vanilla, flotilla, Godzilla -- seem appropriate, somehow," the paper said.
The three major television networks CBS, NBC and ABC, planned to cover the event as part of their regular morning news shows while cable channel Women's Entertainment will show 3-1/2 hours of live coverage from the BBC.
Cathie Farrel of Women's Entertainment, which boasts a show called "Young, Sexy and Royal," said the channel's target audience of 25- to 54-year-old women were big royal watchers.
"The royals are something that's interesting because it's like a soap opera," Farrel said.
"This nation bows to no earthly king"
Thank goodness these two are past breeding age. Just try to on a full stomach imagin the coyote ugly kids that would spawn.
Does Charles still want to become a tampon and crawl into her knickers like that Saturday night live skit?
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
I didn't need that visual...
*El Conservador promptly proceeds to slit his wrists*
When I think of the word "princess" a mental image of my 19 year old daughter comes to mind. Not Mrs. Bowles.
Now you did it. Where are the obligatory pix?
She looks like Hillary to me.......
I feel kind of sorry for Camilla. She's not so bad looking. ;)
She kind of invites the criticism. However, if she were pretty none of these attacks would be happening tho. Here and abroad, looks are everything.
Still, as an admirer of women, I will give my undoubted evaluation. This woman is what a working class Londoner would call "Cosy". Ah yes, an nice sympathetic confidante ('eavens these bloomin French words),that's wot she is. My Socialist Liberal spouse, spits daggers at this lady.
Female persons in my family oppose me 5-1. Yet, this is one thing to commend her. She has kept her mouth shut. How many have?. I hope that my whimsical post will be taken as such by all. LOL.
You mean under Charles?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The Royals are (or were) always told who they could or could not marry, I guess to keep the integrity of the Throne (as if it had any, for some time now).
Charles always loved Camilla, that's what I've heard, but was not allowed to marry her. Now that they have their chance to be happy, I say go for it.
BTW Camillas husband never seemed to have much to say about it - I think he was a "cover", marriage in name only, for whatever reason.
Ah, as Shakespeares quote- " wicked wit, prithee, a wicked wit". Cheers.
I think the tack shop did a beautiful job on her wedding gown.
Eeeewwww She looks as repulsive as hitlery.
It's too bad Diana had to be used. My feelings have nothing to do with Camilla's looks. That's shallow. It has to do with the Royals of England using Diana because having children was the most important thing to them. I always loved Princess Diana and I still do. She really got the raw end of the deal.
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.