http://www.flickr.com/photos/65817306@N00/sets/486575/

Private and military archive photographs of a German officer during WWI. A lot of them are unpublished. Fascinating!!

Let’s clear up one thing.

Paris Hilton, who was engaged to Greek shipping heir Paris Latsis, apparently had it in her head that, as a Greek, her fiance would help to further a royal image for her.

“The Queen married a Greek,” she said. “So shall I.”

First of all, Prince Philip is not Greek. He was a Prince of Greece, but his heritage is Danish and German.

Just thought I’d get that out there, for the record!

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2005/10/26/camilla/

The Duchess of Cornwall made a dazzling impression on well-wishers gathered outside Buckingham Palace on Tuesday when she arrived for a state dinner wearing a stunning diamond tiara.

Her mother-in-law loaned the Duchess the impressive headpiece in what royal watchers have taken as a clear sign of the growing closeness between Camilla and the Queen. The Durbar tiara, which was previously worn by Queen Mary to mark the coronation of King George V, is made of a circle of brilliant-cut diamonds and this was just the third time it had been worn in public.

Made by Garrards in 1911, it originally featured five emeralds, but Queen Mary chose to have these removed and made into another piece. The glittering tiara was also worn by the Queen Mother when she paid an official visit to South Africa in 1947.

Camilla’s attendance at the bash, which was thrown in honour of the King and Queen of Norway, also marked her debut at a royal banquet. And it didn’t go unnoticed that the Duchess was seated just one place away from the monarch, in between King Harald and Crown Prince Haakon. The Royal Family’s other senior female members, including Princess Anne and the Countess of Wessex, were seated further down the table.

The Royal Representative forum has been updated! Check it out…

Fanboys and Overdogs: The Language Report credits Camilla with helping the label Burberry boost plummeting sales. In 2005 it regained ascendancy when Camilla Parker Bowles pronounced the chain’s designer, Christopher Bailey to be her favourite.

My site’s guestbook got spammed within an inch of its life. I now use a Bravenet guestbook, because there I can control the flow of messages.

To recap, there were a few interesting posts in the last guestbook:

JCM – 10. August 2005

I feel that HM The Queen snubbed the newly created Duchess of Cornwall. First of all, HM could have arranged for security had she chosen to attend the civil ceremony; however, she claimed she did not wish to upstage Camilla; secondly, at the formal reception at Windsor Castle, HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh hardly took the time for “family photos” before hurrying off in their automobile. From all appearances, it is obvious that there is no love lost on the part of HM toward her new daughter-in-law, Camilla. It is my understanding, based on English law, that the wife of a monarch (King) will wear the title Queen, regardless of the style that she has selected, and also technically, Camilla is Princess of Wales, regardless of public opinion and feelings for the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Regardless of the feelings of the Royal Family for the late Princess Diana, I know that William and Harry will always love their mother, and no stepmother will ever alter those feelings.

A couple of not-so-cheerful posts…

shelley – 28. June 2005 08:13 PM
Shame on you for such a biased site….you barely mention the mother of our future King…..and when you do it is to insult her and her family.Do you really think that no one remembers Diana, Princess of Wales? Camilla is a trollop….an adulterer, a manipulative, scheming hussy of the worst kind. Charles is a weak, selfish, silly boy, who should never be King.
C & C have made a sordid laughing stock of The British Royal Family. They have embarassed HM The Queen and humiliated William and Harry. I have no idea why you would lavish such praise on them….they are not fit for decent society.

Denison – 28. June 2005

Why have you airbrushed Diana, Princess of Wales?, you refer to her Lady Diana Spencer…….not right…..and make some very snide remarks regarding her and her family….as mother of our future King, William, it is decidedly “tacky” of you to treat her in such a shoddy fashion. Camilla Parker Bowles…now Duchess of Cornwall was the PoW’s mistress for years…even during his and her marriages, and yet you choose not to menion this unsavoury fact. If you are going to have a website dedicated to the British Royal Family….may I suggest you be more honest and upfront and not treat those who view it as though they were idiots.

I responded: This site mentions Diana as “Princess of Wales” TWICE. Read all of the obituary, please.

This previous post also inspired me to write “Glass Houses”.

Everything said about Camilla – or Charles – can justly be said of Diana. I am not overly thrilled about the latest marriage. It could’ve happened differently, but it didn’t. There isn’t a way to stop it or change it, and for heaven’s sake, Charles needs some peace for once. How long can we go on bashing him? Or Camilla for that matter? Everyone wants Diana’s praises sung, or that there should be no criticism of her at all. So be it. But let’s have that all around! Live and let live.

And please, the next time you want to rant in the guestbook, remember to read ALL of what I write, so you can at least be accurate in what you talk about.

I do not treat anyone who comes to this site as an “idiot”, as this Denison person says. I fully expect intelligent conversation and debate from those who choose to view this website and my opinions. The idiots are the ones who expect their side of the argument to be the only choice, and berate you for your own personal thoughts.

In this issue of Majesty magazine, (October ’05), Sarah Ferguson appears on the cover. However, she does not look like herself at all. Her face seems to be very puffy, and the photos within the magazine are much the same, give or take a photo.

Maybe some of you out there can help me figure out why she appears that way.

Here are the few photos that concern me; they seem to be mid-to-late 2004. Sarah looks very puffy and not at all like she usually does.

1. This is how I usually see Fergie…

2. But, while visiting her mother and stepfather’s old ranch in Argentina (2004) she looks different.

3. On the cover of Majesty (Oct ’05).

4. At a book signing during the holiday season.

Was it illness? Was it Botox? I am very curious to know why she looked so different, if only temporarily.