<p>My mom’s set was platinum in the 50’s… I am not sure how common that was. </p>
<p>I love white gold/platinum. I don’t own any yellow gold. I look better with the white and silver jewelry.</p>
<p>Consolation
</p>
<p>You missed something in my post. It was Charles who cheated first. After that, they were staying together for the sake of appearances, and the marriage was open. She then had extramarital affairs as well. This certainly does make him the bad guy. </p>
<p>That Diana was “dim”, a “broodmare”, or whatever else you say about her is irrelevant. If he was willing to go along with his mum in order to pick the virgin, he should have been man enough to keep to his vows. Additionally, since Charles left his gorgeous young bride for a dried up old shoe, and Diana had relationships with dynamic, attractive men, who is the dim one? Charles is known to be a total goofball, a real flake. You really cannot put him above Diana when it comes to brains. She was raised as a country girl, an aristocrat destined to be a mom (a noble profession at which she excelled). He was raised to be worldly and a king (for which many would argue he is ill-prepared).</p>
<p>Consolation
Yikes, chill out. You don’t need to get personal. Save it for something other than a chat about the British Royal family. My contempt is for cheaters, and Camilla is one. That makes her ugly.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with having your engagement and wedding rings “dated” by virtue of when you were married. The rings are a symbol, not a fashion statement. ps- I don’t like wearing jewelry, had only a wedding ring with a diamond, then a 10 year ring which I took off every evening and quit wearing when finger become too large for comfort in doing so- H and I know we’re married (he wasn’t wearing his either- they’re locked up somewhere- Indian culture, despite being heavily into jewelry isn’t into wedding rings). </p>
<p>I think it is nice and romantic that William gave a meaningful ring (meaningful to him in a good way)- not just a costly one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that why Charles couldn’t marry Camilla in the first place? I always wondered. They seem so obviously bonded to each other that it’s no wonder that they couldn’t be comfortable married to other people. They should have been allowed to be together from the beginning.</p>
<p>Times have certainly changed. William and Kate apparently live together, at least some of the time, and nobody seems to care one way or the other.</p>
<p>cartera45
</p>
<p>Meh…moral relativism. Sorry, there really is a right and a wrong. You marry a 19 year old and cheat on her, and you are unethical. Charles needed to put his big boy pants on and man up to his commitment. At his age, if his heart was elsewhere, he should have given up his future crown and married Camilla to begin with. He was no victim (his wife, his kids, and his parents were the victims). He was an adult, and he made a bad choice.</p>
<p>Back to the ring…I hope that every time Kate wears it at a dinner table, Charles and Camilla get their food caught in their throats and need to take a sip of water.</p>
<p>History buff here: (Not a royalty fan or foe) The reason that Charles and Camilla didn’t marry when they were both young a single was because Charles was in the Royal Air Force (I believe that was his branch of service) and…he couldn’t or wouldn’t commit to getting married. (He had to many wild oats to sow.) So Camilla decided that she wasn’t getting any younger (my take) and married Bowles. She had at least one child with him. (Who I might add never gets invited anywhere near the royals. And is rarely mentioned) Charles came back and well, she wasn’t a virgin and he still wasn’t ready to commit </p>
<p>Do I feel “sorry” for Charles? Is he a victim? No. He is paid enormously well to cut ribbons and to criticize modern architecture. He wasn’t man enough to buck tradition or his mother and married a young kid. Rumor has it that Camilla wasn’t his only dalliance in the marriage. As for Diana, she was a kid who, according to reports wanted to call off the marriage but was told that the tea towels “already had her picture on them.” Her family pushed her down the aisle as well. (let us not forget that her sister also dated Prince Charles)</p>
<p>And even though I am of the 80s marriages, my diamonds are set in platinium (if only the prongs). I was once told that only platinium is strong enough to hold a diamond in place. </p>
<p>And yes, hope they choke…just a little.</p>
<p>Actually, a little more history illuminates the real forces at work in Charles’ life. Charles was raised to always put England before himself. Not just in a patriotic way, but in a very real, day to day way. In every way he must put country before himself. This is what it means to be next in line to the throne. This is why his grandmother walked out on the streets of London during the Blitz, this is why Richard the Third rode on St. Crispin’s Day. To us it sounds silly, but to the Prince of Wales it is a reality that is reinforced by not just his immediate family, but by his teachers, his friends, the media, every person he ever meets. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.</p>
<p>In addition, every piece of his life, from his very conception, was documented and commented on the media and the country as a whole.</p>
<p>Then, add to that the fact that his mother would never have been Queen had her Uncle Edward not have given up the crown for an inappropriate woman. His whole life Edward was held up to him as weak, selfish man who put himself ahead of England, the ultimate wrong for the next in line to the throne. So what happens when he falls in love with an inappropriate woman? His mother cannot sanction the marriage without putting a taint on her own right to the throne. He cannot give up the throne without betraying England. He gives up the woman he loves and goes into what is clearly an arranged marriage. And it then becomes clear that his mother is not going to give up the throne anytime soon, and once Wills in born it becomes clear to him that she intends the crown to pass him by entirely. </p>
<p>Diane may have been pushed into the marriage, although she did later admit that she knew on her wedding day that Charles loved Camilla and not her. But this was not an unknown entity to anyone who had even a vague understanding of the history of the British Royal family. Marriage in this world is as much, if not more, of a political act then a love story. Diane bought into the media’s “fairy tale princess” story without facing the reality on the ground. </p>
<p>It is ridiculous to evaluate Charles life in the realm of a normal American life. He has never led a normal life, while he has had great privilege, he also has had great responsibility. We may not see it that way, because we are not use to the concept that one man holds responsibility for an entire country in his hands. In many ways he is more of a political institution then a man.</p>
<p>My mother’s and my engagement and wedding rings/bands are all in platinum. Yellow gold with diamonds were not common among my family.</p>
<p>I think it’s very sentimental that Willliam gave Kate his mother’s engagement ring, but if I were Kate,I’d prefer an engagement ring of my very own, but still has Diana’s ring as a cocktail ring.</p>
<p>St. Crispin’s Day? Richard III? I’m not checking any books, but that speech is from Henry V. Richard III is a hunchback murderer. (They actually found the bones of his victims in the Tower of London within the last 20 years – 2 little boys.)</p>
<p>Not that anyone cares, but here’s my take on Charles and Diana.</p>
<p>The Queen is an old battle axe with the power to run everyone’s lives. Diana was a foolish girl with stars in her eyes and Charles probably wanted to keep the old girl happy in hopes she’d abdicate in favor of him one day. Given the longevity of grandmama he probably wondered if there was any other way he’d see the throne. Daddy is also a curmudgeon.</p>
<p>Given all that I had (have) fondness for both Charles and Diana.</p>
<p>Diana was an awesome mother. She pushed for her kids going to Eton to stay close to home rather than being sent to the Dickensesque school Charles had to go to in Scotland. She won my heart with her advocacy of AIDs patients and other marginalized folk. However, I’m sure with her histrionics and bulimia she was annoying to hav around and a bit spoiled herself. She was very threatened by very idea of Camilla. </p>
<p>However, her grace, her fun made her great to have around. Remember her dancing with John Travolta at the White House? Good times. I <em>do</em> think her serious romance with a foreign national was ill-advised given her position, but even so, her death was very sad.</p>
<p>Charles is a bit of a pompous fuddy-duddy, but for the most part his heart is in the right place. He loves his sons. He loves his wife. He loves his riding, etc etc. He lacks empathy.</p>
<p>Someone should have explained to Diana that she was committing herself to a job, not a marriage. I remember the first interview after their engagement when the pair were asked if they loved each other. She said, “Of course.” Charles said nothing.</p>
<p>The royals were ruthless in getting some new appropriate aristocratic blood into the family, and Wills and Harry are the happy result of that outrageous bargain.</p>
<p>As for the ring – I too find large, blue ring cumbersome for everyday wear. However, I find the sentiment behind it totally appropriate. Diana should be remembered on this occasion. </p>
<p>Gemstones vs. diamonds: I <em>do</em> think as more and more boy soldiers lose their hands in Africa diamonds will go out of style. De Beers has made them what they are by decades of shrewd advertising. And the diamond cartel keeps many diamonds locked in vaults to keep the price up.</p>
<p>My D refuses to wear a diamond and is furiously looking for pictures of special pearl (also neutral and charmingly organic) rings to send to her BF. Unfortunately, many of them contain diamonds in their settings.</p>
<p>I, myself, have never understood this custom. My grandmother and mom both had diamonds. I never did, or a ring of any sort, because I guess my early 70’s feminism was just too strong. Oh well. My loss. (I am NOT criticizing anyone else. And not for diamonds either. First off, times were different. Secondly, everyone has her own values and sensitivities.</p>
<p>On the issue of infidelity, I am a moral relativist and don’t really blame either of them.</p>
<p>As for Kate and Wills: “middle class blood” obviously does not appall me. Nothing aristocratic going on here. But the more of it there is, the more obvious it will become that the royals are arbitrary and expensive pets. It’s a far cry from the Sun King and the idea that kings were anointed by God.</p>
<p>Sorry mythmom, typing faster then my brain. It is Henry V.</p>
<p>Our bands are from Green Karat.
[Is</a> there such a thing as eco-friendly jewelry? | MNN - Mother Nature Network](<a href=“http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/natural-beauty-fashion/questions/is-there-such-a-thing-as-eco-friendly-jewelry]Is”>Is There Such a Thing as Eco-Friendly Jewelry?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, Charles did respond. He said “Whatever ‘in love’ means.”</p>
<p>what a romantic
:rolleyes:</p>
<p>oh yes. Thanks fpr the correction. Smiley face. Same point.</p>
<p>Lololu in #87: yes, exactly. To attempt to put their relationship in the context of a bourgeois American marriage is simply foolish. There is in fact a long tradition of kings having their official marriage and their unofficial–or even official-- mistress. Until recently that was really the expectation for crowned heads of state: they married to serve the nation, and were allowed to follow their own inclinations on the side. The Windsors have made a bargain with the devil: in trying to recover from the disaster of the abdication, they opened their private lives to more public scrutiny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are talking about Gordonstoun, you are doing it a tremendous disservice. It is not even faintly a Dickensian horror show. In fact, it and the other schools with its philosophy are designed partly to avoid the well-known horrors of places like Eton, with their ■■■ system and sadism. I went to an allied school in the south of England, and it was wonderful. The founder and headmaster of my school was a former housemaster at Gordonstoun. Charles, by the way, was the first heir to the throne to be educated with other students in a real school. I believe that he was also the first to get a university degree. Exactly how such intimate daily interaction with hoi polloi was to be handled must have been a difficult balancing act for him. It would be much easier to be with courtiers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or maybe not. The “history” on that one was written by the mouthpieces of the Tudors, who usurped the throne from him, and who then proceeded to methodically execute each and every one of the people–13-16, of them, IIRC–with a better claim to the throne than Henry VII & VIII. You might want to read Josephine Tey’s “Daughter of Time.” It’s a fun read, and quite convincing. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love this concept!</p>
<p>But within the context of the concept, I think that William, who has no choice but to be part of it, has done a pretty good job of handling himself. Unlike many members of his family, he does not appear to be a jerk or to be overly resentful of the duty that has fallen upon him. </p>
<p>As for boarding schools, Charles would have been bullied anywhere (unless the school made a concerted effort to stop bullying), and William would have been fine anywhere. It’s a matter of their respective personalities. I suspect that William is also fine in the air force. When he has to be excused from his air force duties for royal reasons, I suspect that the other pilots think, “It must be annoying to have two jobs, the way he does,” rather than “I resent the privileges that he has and I don’t.” There’s just something about William that elicits that kind of reaction.</p>
<p>^^^ probably his mother’s influence!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who says he was bullied? I’ve never heard that. </p>
<p>Ironically, the man himself is on the TV this very minute, one of the narrators of a program on environmental issues, something about which he has been both passionate and an activist for decades. His interest in organic farming, before it became fashionable, is one of the things that led cynical media types to label him as a nut. He was also derided for expressing a desire to preserve English villages in the seventies and eighties, when there was an increasing tendency to rip out the heart of the community by putting a highway down the high street. Any of you who have ever actually lived in an English village or town should have some idea of what that would mean.</p>
<p>I simply do not understand those who regard this serious-minded, interesting man as simply a bit player in the life of a People-magazine clothes horse.</p>
<p>*His interest in organic farming, before it became fashionable, is one of the things that led cynical media types to label him as a nut. *</p>
<p>now that is something that I really respect him for- he takes it very seriously and Highgrove is a great example of sustainable living.</p>
<p>Consolation: I share your admiration for those parts of Charles you admire, and I do think his heart is in the right place, as you said.</p>
<p>But I think Diana also grew into a compassionate woman who genuinely did feel for marginalized people and did much bring taboo topics, like AIDS and bulimia, to public attention so it has become completely okay to talk about them.</p>
<p>There doesn’t have to be a villain.</p>
<p>As for People Magazine clothes horse – yes, Diana was much more savvy about using the media to her own ends, which is a bit cynical and manipulative but also very modern. Charles was definitely not of the same generation. Perhaps Diana did start out more shallow, but she was always endearing as a kindergarten or preschool teacher. She didn’t have the brain power Charles has, which also says if either of them should have known better, it should have been him.</p>
<p>I think he lost credibility when he heard him passionately assert that he wanted to be Camilla’s tampon. It’s not fair, but that’s the way the cookie crumbled.</p>
<p>I think we can all appreciate the idea of the garden at Highgrove as well as the beauty of an English village that certainly should not be destroyed.</p>