Silversea Water Cooler: Welcome!

[UKCruiseJeff]

We'd like to think so too! George will be getting a run for his money with her I think! :)

 

I am so much looking forward to seeing this family grow. It is going to be lovely.

 

:)

[UKCruiseJeff]

What happy news! Congratulations to the wonderful young couple, and best wishes for the little princess' long and happy life.

 

A toast is in order!

 

I think so.

 

:)

 

Jeff

[TLCOhio]

Terry ... thanks. I must admit to being surprised at your comments and think your theory although not completely impossible, very highly improbable unless the Queen has a welcome very long life and if for example Charles was infirm or ill when she passed. I must admit I'm surprised anyone would wish otherwise. The age gap between William and his dad makes it reasonably certain both can have a shot. I don't know why you would think that Charles is out of touch with the real people of the world and I hope they both reign when they must. Charles is a lovely passionate man who would be a lovely King and give William a crack at a more ordinary life he clearly wants for his family for as long as possilble whilst probably giving him a crack later. I'd put my money on him wanting his dad to do the job first and not wanting it before it became unfortunately his role. Tradition is a very powerful component of the British monarchy and it is a component of it's very strength. :)

 

Just posted an hour ago is the news that the new princess has departed the hospital, only about nine hours after her birth. That's almost like a "drive-through" baby-delivery process.

 

We certainly wish your Queen, a long, long life!! Great health and more! She has been a wonderfully stabilizing leader for the nation and Empire during many difficult periods, just as her father did so well under challenging and surprising situations. BUT, for lots of reasons, including Charles' marriages and personal political philosophies, I am not a "fan" of him. It is not that I believe that Diana was perfect, either. Won't get into debating those various viewpoints and details. It's just how my opinions have been formed from watching the "soap opera" and his "causes" over the recent decades. Yes, Charles is "passionate", but is it his "job" to be such a "pusher" for his "elite" viewpoints??

 

Jeff makes many excellent points for how having Charles be the King for ten or so years would allow more time for Prince William to have more and better family development periods, etc. On "tradition", things do sometimes change and/or evolve. The last Pope did not wait for death to take him. He retired! Early! As people live longer and longer AND LONGER (fortunately), things will not always be the way they were in the past. Just my opinions!!

 

For Millie, below is lots more on Venice, its history, charm, beauty, etc.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

If Venice is one of your future desires or past favorites, look at this earlier posting for many options and visual samples this city that is so great for "walking around", personally seeing its great history and architecture. This posting is now at 51,375 views.

Venice: Loving It & Why??!!

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1278226

[spinnaker2]

Long live the Princess! welcome to the world little one! And raise your flute, glass or mug to GIRL POWER!

[UKCruiseJeff]

Just posted an hour ago is the news that the new princess has departed the hospital, only about nine hours after her birth. That's almost like a "drive-through" baby-delivery process.

 

We certainly wish your Queen, a long, long life!! Great health and more! She has been a wonderfully stabilizing leader for the nation and Empire during many difficult periods, just as her father did so well under challenging and surprising situations. BUT, for lots of reasons, including Charles' marriages and personal political philosophies, I am not a "fan" of him. It is not that I believe that Diana was perfect, either. Won't get into debating those various viewpoints and details. It's just how my opinions have been formed from watching the "soap opera" and his "causes" over the recent decades. Yes, Charles is "passionate", but is it his "job" to be such a "pusher" for his "elite" viewpoints??

 

Jeff makes many excellent points for how having Charles be the King for ten or so years would allow more time for Prince William to have more and better family development periods, etc. On "tradition", things do sometimes change and/or evolve. The last Pope did not wait for death to take him. He retired! Early! As people live longer and longer AND LONGER (fortunately), things will not always be the way they were in the past. Just my opinions!!

 

For Millie, below is lots more on Venice, its history, charm, beauty, etc.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

If Venice is one of your future desires or past favorites, look at this earlier posting for many options and visual samples this city that is so great for "walking around", personally seeing its great history and architecture. This posting is now at 51,375 views.

Venice: Loving It & Why??!!

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1278226

 

Terry,

 

I recognise that the Diana effect influenced many, but many of us Brits do not see the Royal family as a part of the entertainment industry and find the attitude a bit disrespectful.

 

Jeff

[UKCruiseJeff]

Long live the Princess! welcome to the world little one! And raise your flute, glass or mug to GIRL POWER!

 

With a mum and dad like that can you imagine how gorgeous she wil be ....

 

:)

[spinnaker2]

I vote for Nettie's in Ravello.

We spent almost a week at the Palazzo Sasso ( now has a new name) in a room that had a terrace where we could easily have hosted a cocktail party for 50.

It was magical! While we ate at many wonderful places, We kept returning to Nettie's, mostly because she fell head over heels crazy for my husband and kept bringing him food, at no charge, because he is so tall, she was worried he would be hungry.

Not a pretentious place, just good food.

There are lots of other places to explore in Ravello, and the views are extraordinary.

[mw8811]

With a mum and dad like that can you imagine how gorgeous she wil be ....

 

:)

 

Jeff exactly what I said to a friend of mine - she will be a beautiful Princess! So happy for them whatever her name may be - I think maybe Victoria Elizabeth Diana.

 

Just my 2¢ LOL

 

M

[Seafairer]

Jeff, I certainly feel as you do. Given the fairly strict limits of his official role, Charles has done what he can to make a difference and deserves a great deal of respect for his commitment to his country and its fine traditions. While he could have gone in an entirely different, and easier, direction, like Edward VII or Edward VIII, he has chosen to pursue a life of duty and usefulness. He will make a fine King.

 

(I should mention that, when anyone asks if I'm a Republican or Democrat, my reply is always, "Neither. I'm a Monarchist.")

 

Long live the Queen, y'all.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Seafairer

[UKCruiseJeff]

Thanks.

 

The issue is in my view a much more fundamental and practical issue. One needs to think about the difference between power and influence and which in the long term is the most useful.

 

For what it is worth, my view! :)

 

The most powerful person in the world at the moment is without doubt your President. Perhaps the Pope is in second place ..... They in fact can set rules and can do so because of their power. The pope can decrease the spread of aids or reduce poverty through by simply saying today that contraception is acceptable. The President can tell many nations what to do because of the levers of power whilst he occupies The Oval Office. The Queen has absolutely no power whatsoever, but it seems to me that she is by far the most influential person there has been in the World for the last 60 years. Both popes and presidents come ..... and go.

 

She has been Queen for over 60 years, 60 years ago the world had a population of less than 3bn. Today their are over 7bn. I believe that she is the most influential person in the World. In your view which single person has been more influential than her during the last 60 years. All without a single television interview. All without ever publicly expressing a personal political view. All without the slightest power. How many Presidents has she known? How many Prime Ministers has she counselled? How many heads of state have counted her as a person that they can trust implicitly.

 

Her influence has grown as she has grown older and as she has become known and respected by more heads of state and royalty than any living person during the course of their lives at any time in history. We can only guess at the value of that quiet and unpublished influence.

 

Being the Queen is more than being a figure head. Charles will take some time to fill those shoes when he has to, but he will. It isn't about who is more photogenic or easier.

Edited May 2, 2015 by UKCruiseJeff

[Seafairer]

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, Jeff.

 

As to a name, anyone for Elizabeth Catherine Victoria?

[UKCruiseJeff]

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, Jeff.

 

As to a name, anyone for Elizabeth Catherine Victoria?

 

To state the obvious ... the only person that can teach a future King is a current Queen .......

 

:D

 

Excellent choice of names.

 

:)

[UKCruiseJeff]

We are at this very moment starting again with "The West Wing"

 

Is it not the silkiest and smoothest of series?

 

Only 01:30 in the morning ..... and a very large glass of Torres Brandy.Life doesn't get much better .....

 

:)

[Travelcat2]

I think that some people in the U.S. have more of a problem with Camilla than with Charles. I agree that he would make a good King. However, what would Camilla's title be? She is most disliked over here.

 

We are over the moon happy with the birth of the Princess. Pray that she has a long and prosperous life!

[UKCruiseJeff]

I think that some people in the U.S. have more of a problem with Camilla than with Charles. I agree that he would make a good King. However, what would Camilla's title be? She is most disliked over here.

 

We are over the moon happy with the birth of the Princess. Pray that she has a long and prosperous life!

 

 

Yes .... as I understand it Diana was popular because she was close to what many Americns see as a fairytale Princess, and Camilla is errr ..... seen differently! She keeps to the background. Much of the issue I suspect is more about Diana and I'll say nothing more about Diana ......;)

 

Camilla will be Queen. I really do not see what there is for "her to be most disliked by Aemricans". :confused:

 

She makes Charles extremely happy, is his "soul mate" bosses him around and he is happier now than he has ever been ..... everyone is allowed that .... and that is good enough for many.

 

Happy days about the new Princess .....

 

 

:)

[lincslady]

Prince Charles is basically a rather shy and introverted person - I can empathise completely with him on this - and there is no doubt in my mind that in spite of the past, Camilla makes him happier than he has ever been, and IMO is a typical caring, jolly, empathetic Englishwoman. A pity if she is not liked partly because of her lack of youthful glamour, as I think she will make an excellent consort to him; I would personally however prefer her not to made Queen. I suspect this is a generational attitude on my behalf.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Has anyone else noticed an eery resemblalence to Henrietta VIII?

 

:eek:

 

 

 

 

[spinnaker2]

Charlotte Olivia Diana Victoria.

that's my pick.

She has a rosebud mouth, she's just beautiful and scrumptious.

[TLCOhio]

I think that some people in the U.S. have more of a problem with Camilla than with Charles. I agree that he would make a good King. However, what would Camilla's title be? She is most disliked over here. We are over the moon happy with the birth of the Princess. Pray that she has a long and prosperous life!

 

UKCruiseJeff: Yes .... as I understand it Diana was popular because she was close to what many Americns see as a fairytale Princess' date=' and Camilla is errr ..... seen differently! She keeps to the background. Much of the issue I suspect is more about Diana and I'll say nothing more about Diana ...... Camilla will be Queen. I really do not see what there is for [b']"her to be most disliked by Aemricans"[/b].

 

UKCruiseJeff: Terry' date=' I recognise that the Diana effect influenced many, but many of us Brits do not see the [b']Royal family as a part of the entertainment industry[/b] and find the attitude a bit disrespectful.

 

Yes, agree with much of the above wise and insightful highlights for part of the "problem" being about Camilla, the Royal family as "entertainment", etc. Many will never forget . . . or forgive . . . the role of Camilla being, as Diana noted, the "the THIRD PERSON" in their original Charles-Diana marriage. Few good memories for that aspect of the "Soap Opera" history.

 

Part of what has been so super great about Queen Elizabeth II has been her excellent taste and judgement for staying out of politics and preaching to the people. Charles, by sharp contrast, has been very aggressive in pushing and demanding his viewpoints for his personal architecture styles, political postures on many issues, organic farming, alternative medicines, etc. Every person is fully entitled to their personal viewpoints and opinions. BUT, when you occupy and possess a highly-visible Royal position and power, there is question for if and how you promote your political and personal viewpoints. If I lived in the UK, my view would be that there should be a very clear "line" and separation between the Royal family versus the political process/powers.

 

Hopefully this share some "perspective" for how and why Charles and Camilla are viewed by some on this side of the Atlantic.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

From our Jan. 25-Feb. 20, 2015, Amazon River-Caribbean combo sailing over 26 days that started in Barbados, here is the link below to that live/blog. Lots of great visuals from this amazing Brazil river and these various Caribbean Islands (Dutch ABC's, St. Barts, Dominica, Grenada, etc.) that we experienced. Check it out at:

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2157696

Now at 22,118 views for these postings.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Yes, agree with much of the above wise and insightful highlights for part of the "problem" being about Camilla, the Royal family as "entertainment", etc. Many will never forget . . . or forgive . . . the role of Camilla being, as Diana noted, the "the THIRD PERSON" in their original Charles-Diana marriage. Few good memories for that aspect of the "Soap Opera" history.

 

If I lived in the UK, my view would be that there should be a very clear "line" and separation between the Royal family versus the political process/powers.

 

Hopefully this share some "perspective" for how and why Charles and Camilla are viewed by some on this side of the Atlantic.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

From our Jan. 25-Feb. 20, 2015, Amazon River-Caribbean combo sailing over 26 days that started in Barbados, here is the link below to that live/blog. Lots of great visuals from this amazing Brazil river and these various Caribbean Islands (Dutch ABC's, St. Barts, Dominica, Grenada, etc.) that we experienced. Check it out at:

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2157696

Now at 22,118 views for these postings.

 

 

Terry,

 

I know you are a particularly well-informed American and if the views of most Americans about the facts of the situation you discuss is general, then I must say I am saddened. The memory does appear somewhat selective.

 

Perhaps ... sadly many Amercians against the glitter of her smile and dresses and with the love for the "fairytale" they have rather conveniently overlooked who she actually was and what she actuall did. From the numerous and rather unsavoury affairs Diana had whilst married to the next in line to the throne - and afterwards - and indeed what she was doing on the night she died. From rugby players, to soldiers, to policeman, to surgeons to international playboys, to bodygaurds. Actually she particularly liked doctors and there was more than one of those I recall. All of this of course Charles has remained pretty dignified about. I use to know the rugby player .... you really couldn't make this stuff up it was so terribly distasteful for the mother of a future King.

 

They also overlooked how she would incorporate the press, TV and as many "supporters" in her single minded attempts and conspiracies to trash and cause as much damage to the monarchy as she could. Nothing was too much trouble. She conspired with so many in a truly treacherous and nasty campaign of hatred towards our Royal family. I genuinely thought most had noticed.

 

There are other rather more serious questions about how this has effected the "genuine" line she has created which I guess we needn't dwell on.

 

There is some authritative accounts on her mental instability from before she was married. Charles did quite a lot to keep things going from firing staff she "didn't like" at whim to even getting rid of a favourite dog "she didn't like".

 

She employed nannies for her children and when they became fond of one - Barbera Barnes springs to mind, she fired her out of jealousy which made William distraught. Her "friendship" with Dodi Al Fayed seemed almost entirely and totally intended to offend and upset the Royal Family. Even after the end of her marriage, do you believe her behaviour was "discrete" and you think her behaviour throughout the marriage and after was OK?

 

But you say that Americans condemn Charles for his friendship and solace he took from someone he had known and even more importantly trusted for most of his life.

 

 

I'm also unclear as to how you think that there is some unclarity of line between politics and the Royal family as it seems very clear to me and I have never heard a Brit make the same comment. Where do you believe there is or has been some overlap or unclarity?

 

Anyway .....

 

Jeff

[Winner]

Jeff, I admire your clear (and accurate) responses. I, as many Americans are, am a confirmed Anglophile and as such agree with much of what you have written.

 

Charles and Camilla visited California several years ago; Charles especially wanted to visit one of our Farmers' Markets, most of which are certified organic; they did and were treated with the respect and warmth they deserve. BOTH of them left lasting impressions of being very involved in our mutual interest in organic, sustainable farming practices.

 

Since most Americans know very little about Camilla, we hardly have a basis to dislike her. It is true that, thanks to People magazine, many put Diana on an impossible goddess pedestal. By comparison, People now puts the like of Kim Kardashian on that same pedestal.

That irony seems lost on some.

 

America is not Britain nor do we have any right to preach to you about your present and/or future Royals. Those that do should be more involved in electing our own leaders since our voting records are woefully small.

 

Perhaps what I am saying is: mind your (our)own business, Americans. England has a long Royal history and knows better than we how to live with it. (1776 and all that!)

 

And congratulations to you all on the birth of the newest Royal!

Edited May 3, 2015 by Winner
punctuation

[UKCruiseJeff]

Thanks Winner,

 

I very much appreciated your note as I hadn't expected a warm response to my post and had my pith helmet on!

 

Diana was clearly "unwell" for much of her time in the public eye... you may have read over there that she would do rather terrible and bizarre things like throwing herself down flights of stairs whilst pregnant. You may have read of her bulimia. And more. Will we ever forgive her for falling out with our second Queen ... our beloved Elton John! :eek:

 

To be as balanced and as fair as I can on the topic, my opinions are a minority view and the majority of the public here also lionised Diana into goddess status and to some degree that filled me with some despair. But .... well that is the great British public for you!

 

You mention 1776, and Terry mentioned the line between Royalty and politics. Well we had a way with those that didn't understand this. We have a proud history of reminding our monarchs about the importance of knowing their place and as you also may know we offered Charles 1st a "severance package" ;)

 

I had a girlfriend when younger whose family was a well know Nottingham lace factory family called "Millington" and over dinner one day she told me that an ancestor of hers - Gilbert Millington" signed Charle's execution warrant.

 

And that brings us to his namesake who will one day be Charles 3rd!

 

I disagree with some of what he says. But he has only influence with no power and he is passionate about important things. I hope his lobbying on behalf of green issues and architecture issues aren't ruined by people breaking confidences and he is allowed to think of long-term issues and lobby and irritate. It is the role of our Royal family to be a common thread through generations that anchors us to both our past and our future and to use their influence to quietly try and protect us from the short termism of day to day politics. I am so pleased we have a Monarchy. There is no downside .... it's all upside.

 

And what would Americans do when they come to England if we didn't have Buckingham Palace and The Changing of The Guard?

 

Thanks again for taking the trouble to post. You are my new best friend!

 

Jeff

 

:D

[Travelcat2]

Yes .... as I understand it Diana was popular because she was close to what many Americns see as a fairytale Princess, and Camilla is errr ..... seen differently! She keeps to the background. Much of the issue I suspect is more about Diana and I'll say nothing more about Diana ......;)

 

Camilla will be Queen. I really do not see what there is for "her to be most disliked by Aemricans". :confused:

 

She makes Charles extremely happy, is his "soul mate" bosses him around and he is happier now than he has ever been ..... everyone is allowed that .... and that is good enough for many.

 

Happy days about the new Princess .....

 

:)

 

I am appreciating this discussion and am learning quite a bit. My personal feelings about Camilla have more to do with respect for the 2nd in the line to the throne, Prince William. Whether people liked Diana or not, Camilla (at least in the eyes of Diana as per her interview in the U.S.) blamed Camilla as well as Charles for the break-up of their marriage. While not trying to place "blame", Prince Williams (and his brother) are aware of the situation. While they must be happy that their Father is happy, there must be some underlying feelings about the role Camilla played in their parents divorce.

 

Two more questions: So, Camilla will eventually be Queen. Should Charles pre-decease her, would she remain Queen until her death or would Prince William take over? And, would you kindly explain why Queen Elizabeth's husband does not have the title of "King" and why Camilla will be "Queen".

 

Thank you so much for your education:)

[TLCOhio]

Terry, I know you are a particularly well-informed American and if the views of most Americans about the facts of the situation you discuss is general, then I must say I am saddened. The memory does appear somewhat selective. Even after the end of her marriage, do you believe her behaviour was "discrete" and you think her behaviour throughout the marriage and after was OK? But you say that Americans condemn Charles for his friendship and solace he took from someone he had known and even more importantly trusted for most of his life. I'm also unclear as to how you think that there is some unclarity of line between politics and the Royal family as it seems very clear to me and I have never heard a Brit make the same comment. Where do you believe there is or has been some overlap or unclarity? Anyway ..... Jeff

 

Appreciate Jeff's detailed thoughts and responses. Although I would like to think that I follow "current events" and know a decent amount of history, I cannot claim to speak for and/or reflect ALL of America in their viewpoints on these issues. I absolutely am aware that there were, despite her skilled PR spin, certain very serious "issues" and questions involving Diana. She was not the "Saint" that some liked to claim after her tragic death. I am fairly sympathy to Prince Charles from having grown up under a very rigid and inflexible father. Prince Phillip had many challenges from when he grew up as an almost-homeless Greek and Danish royal family member. See, I know that "history", too!!

 

My understanding is that Prince Charles got much more than "friendship and solace" from Camilla during the period he was married to Diana. Do I need to replay some of those quotes from their cell phone conversations? It was a multi-layer, twisted "Soap Opera" after their fairytale wedding in 1981. The whole relationship between Prince Charles and Lord Mountbatten is another tangled "wrinkle" in the overall fabric for this total story.

 

That is what is so good and refreshing about William and Kate, plus their two young children. It is a nice "turning of the page" and clean slate from all of that twisted past. Hope this helps to clarify some of the basis of my viewpoint and options. Just one American's perspective and memories on these histories!!

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

Enjoyed a 14-day, Jan. 20-Feb. 3, 2014, Sydney to Auckland adventure, getting a big sampling for the wonders of "down under” before and after this cruise. Go to:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1974139

for more info and many pictures of these amazing sights in this great part of the world. Now at 106,467 views for this posting.

[UKCruiseJeff]

I am appreciating this discussion and am learning quite a bit. My personal feelings about Camilla have more to do with respect for the 2nd in the line to the throne, Prince William. Whether people liked Diana or not, Camilla (at least in the eyes of Diana as per her interview in the U.S.) blamed Camilla as well as Charles for the break-up of their marriage. While not trying to place "blame", Prince Williams (and his brother) are aware of the situation. While they must be happy that their Father is happy, there must be some underlying feelings about the role Camilla played in their parents divorce.

 

Two more questions: So, Camilla will eventually be Queen. Should Charles pre-decease her, would she remain Queen until her death or would Prince William take over? And, would you kindly explain why Queen Elizabeth's husband does not have the title of "King" and why Camilla will be "Queen".

 

Thank you so much for your education:)

 

Hi,

 

Thanks for the note.

 

Just remember, she was pregnant with William when she was throwing herself down the stairs .....

 

As I "understand" it Charles has indicated to his circle that he would love Camilla to be queen but she will more probably titled Princess Consort but will be thought of as "Queen" by many but not most. Our Monarchy depends on common consent for it's influence and standing and the title is pretty much out of the question. The majority are against it. I am for it simply because it would make him happy.

 

Thanks for your "insights" Terry.

 

Jeff

Edited May 3, 2015 by UKCruiseJeff
spelling