Discussion:
When was '"Prince" Charles to wed" news originally planned for?
(too old to reply)
banana
2005-02-12 00:45:08 UTC
Permalink
According to the 'Guardian', the news that 'Prince' Charles and Camilla
Parker-Bowles are to marry was released early, to pre-empt imminent
publication by the London 'Evening Standard'.

When was publication actually planned for?

Not 14 February, Valentine's Day, by any chance, was it?



Extract from the following article:

***BEGIN EXTRACT***

Even yesterday, smiles at Clarence House froze slightly when a
journalist raised the latest, instant, opinion polls from Teletext and
ITV's This Morning programme which suggested between two-thirds and
three-quarters of those who registered their opinions were opposed to
the marriage.

A senior official dismissed their findings. "A number of opinion polls I
have seen are not against the marriage," he said, begging the question
of how closely he had been scrutinising them.

***END EXTRACT***

...to which one might add: 1) was the number zero? and 2) were the
opinion polls about anything to do with the planned marriage?


From:

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1410374,00.html>:

***BEGIN ARTICLE***

Tears and relief as Clarence House finally judges the moment is right

Prince's advisers decide attitudes to remarriage have changed

Stephen Bates
Friday February 11, 2005
The Guardian

There was a certain poetic irony in the fact yesterday that Clarence
House brought forward its official announcement of Prince Charles's
plans to marry his long-term partner Camilla Parker Bowles - originally
scheduled for next week - because of the imminent publication of the
leaked news in the London Evening Standard.
It may be the first such announcement pre-empted by the press. But then
this has been a courtship played out over many years not only in the
spotlight of media interest, but also with a finely-tuned appreciation
of what the public and the tribunes of the media might say.

The prince's entourage - some of whom burst into tears when the long-
awaited news was finally broken to them by Sir Michael Peat, the
prince's private secretary - have long scanned the runes to gauge Mrs
Parker Bowles's growing acceptability to the British public.

It has been a complicated choreography, as stately as a gavotte, or
perhaps a dance of the seven veils, to determine how public the
relationship should be allowed to become. Increasingly Mrs Parker Bowles
has been backed into the limelight: first an appearance at the same
events as Prince Charles, then arrival together, then a chaste, but
photographed kiss, then the strained grins of a chat with the queen.

"It was always going to happen," said one former adviser last night.
"But there were regular discussions about how it was going to be
handled, what the balance was going to be, where Camilla Parker Bowles
was going to sit in the royal box at the jubilee. There was particular
care not to move too fast."

The concern, of course, was how the public would respond to Mrs Parker
Bowles after the outpouring of emotion following the death of Princess
Diana, conscious as it was of the part that the prince's adultery had
played in the break-up of his previous marriage.

Gradually the Diana effect appears to have waned, at least in this
country if not in the US where the televising of decade-old private
interviews between Diana and her voice coach last year still had the
power of prurience.

As recently as a year ago when the British inquest into Diana's death
was opened, it was being said that there could be no move towards
marriage until those legal proceedings were over. But they are now
unlikely to be done with before the autumn, by which time the remarriage
will have long taken place.

It was with relief that the prince and his advisers realised that, with
most of the country having experience of marital break-ups, co-
habitations and remarriages, there was very little public censure or
particular interest in the long-drawn out relationship. Camilla, after
all, was not a fairytale princess and it was hard to depict her as a
wicked stepmother either.

Even the Church of England, which might have been censorious, has been
muted. There have been mutterings from the odd evangelical bishop, but
they have been in private. Times have changed and there has been no
modern equivalent of Bishop Blunt of Bradford whose pulpit denunciation
first sparked public awareness of the Edward VIII abdication crisis in
1936.

In any event, partly because of the distrust caused by previous
maladroit royal attempts at news management, the public already knew all
about Charles and Camilla's most intimate communications through the
publication of the Camillagate tapes in 1993, in which the heir to the
throne expatiated on his desire to live inside his mistress's trousers.

Yesterday the reactions of the main churches to the announcement were
those of relief and pious hopes, with only thinly-veiled references to
previous conduct.

The man generally credited with masterminding the emergence of Camilla
as partner and future wife as opposed to mistress is Mark Bolland, the
prince's former press adviser, now running his own public affairs
consultancy and lying unusually low yesterday. His acute perception of
the needs of particularly the tabloid press and his zealous defence of
his master, even at the perceived expense of other, lesser royals
clearly aided the rehabilitation of the prince's reputation following
the Diana debacle.

Mr Bolland's job was helped by Mrs Parker Bowles's discretion. She has
rarely opened her mouth in public and has gone about her life in
exemplary fashion, avoiding the worst pitfall of all: that of making a
public spectacle of herself. Her press has been almost universally
positive, which is more than can be said for Prince Charles or his
younger son in recent months.

The position of official royal mistress cannot have been an easy one for
a woman of her age and class, though of course her family does have
something of a track record: her great-grandmother Alice Keppel having
been Edward VII's last mistress a century ago.

Only once has Camilla veered into potentially dangerous territory: when
she rather too ostentatiously made clear her support for the countryside
march in London in September 2002. She carried a sticker advertising the
march in her car and had to be dissuaded from going on it herself. A
keen huntswoman and rider, her views are similar to Charles's.

Sensitivities over her irregular position have remained however,
particularly on the part of the prince. Last year he pulled out of a
society wedding when it became clear that Mrs Parker Bowles would not be
allowed to accompany him.

Even yesterday, smiles at Clarence House froze slightly when a
journalist raised the latest, instant, opinion polls from Teletext and
ITV's This Morning programme which suggested between two-thirds and
three-quarters of those who registered their opinions were opposed to
the marriage.

A senior official dismissed their findings. "A number of opinion polls I
have seen are not against the marriage," he said, begging the question
of how closely he had been scrutinising them.

Now the royal marriage hoopla will begin. Clarence House was yesterday
contemplating inviting television cameras into the supposedly quiet
wedding, to be attended only by family and friends. And a worldwide
audience of millions.

***END ARTICLE***
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
Michael Rhodes
2005-02-14 01:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by banana
According to the 'Guardian', the news that 'Prince' Charles and Camilla
Parker-Bowles are to marry was released early, to pre-empt imminent
publication by the London 'Evening Standard'.
When was publication actually planned for?
Not 14 February, Valentine's Day, by any chance, was it?
The BBC sais that the engagement announcement was planned for the end
of this week.
Post by banana
***BEGIN EXTRACT***
Even yesterday, smiles at Clarence House froze slightly when a
journalist raised the latest, instant, opinion polls from Teletext and
ITV's This Morning programme which suggested between two-thirds and
three-quarters of those who registered their opinions were opposed to
the marriage.
A senior official dismissed their findings. "A number of opinion polls I
have seen are not against the marriage," he said, begging the
question
Post by banana
of how closely he had been scrutinising them.
***END EXTRACT***
...to which one might add: 1) was the number zero? and 2) were the
opinion polls about anything to do with the planned marriage?
***BEGIN ARTICLE***
Tears and relief as Clarence House finally judges the moment is right
Prince's advisers decide attitudes to remarriage have changed
Stephen Bates
Friday February 11, 2005
The Guardian
There was a certain poetic irony in the fact yesterday that Clarence
House brought forward its official announcement of Prince Charles's
plans to marry his long-term partner Camilla Parker Bowles -
originally
Post by banana
scheduled for next week - because of the imminent publication of the
leaked news in the London Evening Standard.
It may be the first such announcement pre-empted by the press. But then
this has been a courtship played out over many years not only in the
spotlight of media interest, but also with a finely-tuned
appreciation
Post by banana
of what the public and the tribunes of the media might say.
The prince's entourage - some of whom burst into tears when the long-
awaited news was finally broken to them by Sir Michael Peat, the
prince's private secretary - have long scanned the runes to gauge Mrs
Parker Bowles's growing acceptability to the British public.
It has been a complicated choreography, as stately as a gavotte, or
perhaps a dance of the seven veils, to determine how public the
relationship should be allowed to become. Increasingly Mrs Parker Bowles
has been backed into the limelight: first an appearance at the same
events as Prince Charles, then arrival together, then a chaste, but
photographed kiss, then the strained grins of a chat with the queen.
"It was always going to happen," said one former adviser last night.
"But there were regular discussions about how it was going to be
handled, what the balance was going to be, where Camilla Parker Bowles
was going to sit in the royal box at the jubilee. There was
particular
Post by banana
care not to move too fast."
The concern, of course, was how the public would respond to Mrs Parker
Bowles after the outpouring of emotion following the death of
Princess
Post by banana
Diana, conscious as it was of the part that the prince's adultery had
played in the break-up of his previous marriage.
Gradually the Diana effect appears to have waned, at least in this
country if not in the US where the televising of decade-old private
interviews between Diana and her voice coach last year still had the
power of prurience.
As recently as a year ago when the British inquest into Diana's death
was opened, it was being said that there could be no move towards
marriage until those legal proceedings were over. But they are now
unlikely to be done with before the autumn, by which time the
remarriage
Post by banana
will have long taken place.
It was with relief that the prince and his advisers realised that, with
most of the country having experience of marital break-ups, co-
habitations and remarriages, there was very little public censure or
particular interest in the long-drawn out relationship. Camilla, after
all, was not a fairytale princess and it was hard to depict her as a
wicked stepmother either.
Even the Church of England, which might have been censorious, has been
muted. There have been mutterings from the odd evangelical bishop, but
they have been in private. Times have changed and there has been no
modern equivalent of Bishop Blunt of Bradford whose pulpit
denunciation
Post by banana
first sparked public awareness of the Edward VIII abdication crisis in
1936.
In any event, partly because of the distrust caused by previous
maladroit royal attempts at news management, the public already knew all
about Charles and Camilla's most intimate communications through the
publication of the Camillagate tapes in 1993, in which the heir to the
throne expatiated on his desire to live inside his mistress's
trousers.
Post by banana
Yesterday the reactions of the main churches to the announcement were
those of relief and pious hopes, with only thinly-veiled references to
previous conduct.
The man generally credited with masterminding the emergence of
Camilla
Post by banana
as partner and future wife as opposed to mistress is Mark Bolland, the
prince's former press adviser, now running his own public affairs
consultancy and lying unusually low yesterday. His acute perception of
the needs of particularly the tabloid press and his zealous defence of
his master, even at the perceived expense of other, lesser royals
clearly aided the rehabilitation of the prince's reputation following
the Diana debacle.
Mr Bolland's job was helped by Mrs Parker Bowles's discretion. She has
rarely opened her mouth in public and has gone about her life in
exemplary fashion, avoiding the worst pitfall of all: that of making a
public spectacle of herself. Her press has been almost universally
positive, which is more than can be said for Prince Charles or his
younger son in recent months.
The position of official royal mistress cannot have been an easy one for
a woman of her age and class, though of course her family does have
something of a track record: her great-grandmother Alice Keppel having
been Edward VII's last mistress a century ago.
Only once has Camilla veered into potentially dangerous territory: when
she rather too ostentatiously made clear her support for the
countryside
Post by banana
march in London in September 2002. She carried a sticker advertising the
march in her car and had to be dissuaded from going on it herself. A
keen huntswoman and rider, her views are similar to Charles's.
Sensitivities over her irregular position have remained however,
particularly on the part of the prince. Last year he pulled out of a
society wedding when it became clear that Mrs Parker Bowles would not be
allowed to accompany him.
Even yesterday, smiles at Clarence House froze slightly when a
journalist raised the latest, instant, opinion polls from Teletext and
ITV's This Morning programme which suggested between two-thirds and
three-quarters of those who registered their opinions were opposed to
the marriage.
A senior official dismissed their findings. "A number of opinion polls I
have seen are not against the marriage," he said, begging the
question
Post by banana
of how closely he had been scrutinising them.
Now the royal marriage hoopla will begin. Clarence House was
yesterday
Post by banana
contemplating inviting television cameras into the supposedly quiet
wedding, to be attended only by family and friends. And a worldwide
audience of millions.
***END ARTICLE***
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
Susan Cohen
2005-02-14 01:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by banana
Post by banana
According to the 'Guardian', the news that 'Prince' Charles and
Camilla
Post by banana
Parker-Bowles are to marry was released early, to pre-empt imminent
publication by the London 'Evening Standard'.
When was publication actually planned for?
Not 14 February, Valentine's Day, by any chance, was it?
The BBC sais that the engagement announcement was planned for the end
of this week.
Feb 14 smells too much of conspiracy.

Susan
banana
2005-02-14 11:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by banana
Post by banana
According to the 'Guardian', the news that 'Prince' Charles and
Camilla
Post by banana
Parker-Bowles are to marry was released early, to pre-empt imminent
publication by the London 'Evening Standard'.
When was publication actually planned for?
Not 14 February, Valentine's Day, by any chance, was it?
The BBC sais that the engagement announcement was planned for the end
of this week.
Thanks for this. I think it's probably true. That would mean an
announcement at the time of the foxhunting ban! Very interesting, given
that the foxhunting lobby is basically the 'queen and country' mob on
horseback, and Camilla Parker-Bowles has openly displayed her support
for the Countryside Alliance.

Things should get even more interesting towards the end of this week.
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
light
2005-02-16 13:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by banana
Post by banana
Post by banana
According to the 'Guardian', the news that 'Prince' Charles and
Camilla
Post by banana
Parker-Bowles are to marry was released early, to pre-empt imminent
publication by the London 'Evening Standard'.
When was publication actually planned for?
Not 14 February, Valentine's Day, by any chance, was it?
The BBC sais that the engagement announcement was planned for the end
of this week.
Thanks for this. I think it's probably true. That would mean an
announcement at the time of the foxhunting ban! Very interesting, given
that the foxhunting lobby is basically the 'queen and country' mob on
horseback, and Camilla Parker-Bowles has openly displayed her support
for the Countryside Alliance.
Things should get even more interesting towards the end of this week.
Or even in the coming months as the brouhaha warms up - at least it'll
keep peoples' minds deflected from the 'election' which imv is going to
be more a like a US-style 'selection' if postal ballot fraud reallyt
gets into stride...

Whatever happened to the Green Party?

l

Michael Rhodes
2005-02-15 03:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by banana
Post by banana
According to the 'Guardian', the news that 'Prince' Charles and
Camilla
Post by banana
Parker-Bowles are to marry was released early, to pre-empt imminent
publication by the London 'Evening Standard'.
When was publication actually planned for?
Not 14 February, Valentine's Day, by any chance, was it?
The BBC sais that the engagement announcement was planned for the end
of this week.
Perhaps to come after the close of the General Synod meeting in London?
Post by banana
Post by banana
***BEGIN EXTRACT***
Even yesterday, smiles at Clarence House froze slightly when a
journalist raised the latest, instant, opinion polls from Teletext
and
Post by banana
ITV's This Morning programme which suggested between two-thirds and
three-quarters of those who registered their opinions were opposed to
the marriage.
A senior official dismissed their findings. "A number of opinion
polls I
Post by banana
have seen are not against the marriage," he said, begging the
question
Post by banana
of how closely he had been scrutinising them.
***END EXTRACT***
...to which one might add: 1) was the number zero? and 2) were the
opinion polls about anything to do with the planned marriage?
***BEGIN ARTICLE***
Tears and relief as Clarence House finally judges the moment is right
Prince's advisers decide attitudes to remarriage have changed
Stephen Bates
Friday February 11, 2005
The Guardian
There was a certain poetic irony in the fact yesterday that
Clarence
Post by banana
Post by banana
House brought forward its official announcement of Prince Charles's
plans to marry his long-term partner Camilla Parker Bowles -
originally
Post by banana
scheduled for next week - because of the imminent publication of the
leaked news in the London Evening Standard.
It may be the first such announcement pre-empted by the press. But
then
Post by banana
this has been a courtship played out over many years not only in the
spotlight of media interest, but also with a finely-tuned
appreciation
Post by banana
of what the public and the tribunes of the media might say.
The prince's entourage - some of whom burst into tears when the long-
awaited news was finally broken to them by Sir Michael Peat, the
prince's private secretary - have long scanned the runes to gauge Mrs
Parker Bowles's growing acceptability to the British public.
It has been a complicated choreography, as stately as a gavotte, or
perhaps a dance of the seven veils, to determine how public the
relationship should be allowed to become. Increasingly Mrs Parker
Bowles
Post by banana
has been backed into the limelight: first an appearance at the same
events as Prince Charles, then arrival together, then a chaste, but
photographed kiss, then the strained grins of a chat with the queen.
"It was always going to happen," said one former adviser last night.
"But there were regular discussions about how it was going to be
handled, what the balance was going to be, where Camilla Parker
Bowles
Post by banana
was going to sit in the royal box at the jubilee. There was
particular
Post by banana
care not to move too fast."
The concern, of course, was how the public would respond to Mrs
Parker
Post by banana
Bowles after the outpouring of emotion following the death of
Princess
Post by banana
Diana, conscious as it was of the part that the prince's adultery had
played in the break-up of his previous marriage.
Gradually the Diana effect appears to have waned, at least in this
country if not in the US where the televising of decade-old private
interviews between Diana and her voice coach last year still had the
power of prurience.
As recently as a year ago when the British inquest into Diana's death
was opened, it was being said that there could be no move towards
marriage until those legal proceedings were over. But they are now
unlikely to be done with before the autumn, by which time the
remarriage
Post by banana
will have long taken place.
It was with relief that the prince and his advisers realised that,
with
Post by banana
most of the country having experience of marital break-ups, co-
habitations and remarriages, there was very little public censure or
particular interest in the long-drawn out relationship. Camilla,
after
Post by banana
all, was not a fairytale princess and it was hard to depict her as a
wicked stepmother either.
Even the Church of England, which might have been censorious, has
been
Post by banana
muted. There have been mutterings from the odd evangelical bishop,
but
Post by banana
they have been in private. Times have changed and there has been no
modern equivalent of Bishop Blunt of Bradford whose pulpit
denunciation
Post by banana
first sparked public awareness of the Edward VIII abdication crisis
in
Post by banana
1936.
In any event, partly because of the distrust caused by previous
maladroit royal attempts at news management, the public already
knew
Post by banana
all
Post by banana
about Charles and Camilla's most intimate communications through the
publication of the Camillagate tapes in 1993, in which the heir to
the
Post by banana
throne expatiated on his desire to live inside his mistress's
trousers.
Post by banana
Yesterday the reactions of the main churches to the announcement were
those of relief and pious hopes, with only thinly-veiled references
to
Post by banana
previous conduct.
The man generally credited with masterminding the emergence of
Camilla
Post by banana
as partner and future wife as opposed to mistress is Mark Bolland,
the
Post by banana
prince's former press adviser, now running his own public affairs
consultancy and lying unusually low yesterday. His acute perception
of
Post by banana
the needs of particularly the tabloid press and his zealous defence
of
Post by banana
his master, even at the perceived expense of other, lesser royals
clearly aided the rehabilitation of the prince's reputation
following
Post by banana
Post by banana
the Diana debacle.
Mr Bolland's job was helped by Mrs Parker Bowles's discretion. She
has
Post by banana
rarely opened her mouth in public and has gone about her life in
exemplary fashion, avoiding the worst pitfall of all: that of
making
Post by banana
a
Post by banana
public spectacle of herself. Her press has been almost universally
positive, which is more than can be said for Prince Charles or his
younger son in recent months.
The position of official royal mistress cannot have been an easy
one
Post by banana
for
Post by banana
a woman of her age and class, though of course her family does have
something of a track record: her great-grandmother Alice Keppel
having
Post by banana
been Edward VII's last mistress a century ago.
when
Post by banana
she rather too ostentatiously made clear her support for the
countryside
Post by banana
march in London in September 2002. She carried a sticker
advertising
Post by banana
the
Post by banana
march in her car and had to be dissuaded from going on it herself. A
keen huntswoman and rider, her views are similar to Charles's.
Sensitivities over her irregular position have remained however,
particularly on the part of the prince. Last year he pulled out of a
society wedding when it became clear that Mrs Parker Bowles would
not
Post by banana
be
Post by banana
allowed to accompany him.
Even yesterday, smiles at Clarence House froze slightly when a
journalist raised the latest, instant, opinion polls from Teletext
and
Post by banana
ITV's This Morning programme which suggested between two-thirds and
three-quarters of those who registered their opinions were opposed to
the marriage.
A senior official dismissed their findings. "A number of opinion
polls I
Post by banana
have seen are not against the marriage," he said, begging the
question
Post by banana
of how closely he had been scrutinising them.
Now the royal marriage hoopla will begin. Clarence House was
yesterday
Post by banana
contemplating inviting television cameras into the supposedly quiet
wedding, to be attended only by family and friends. And a worldwide
audience of millions.
***END ARTICLE***
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
Loading...