Could This Be True? Camilla Banned from White House?

[AGBF]

I have been trying to ascertain whether this story is true. I cannot find any reliable source that corroborates it and it seems truly bizarre. Did President Bush actually tell the Prince of Wales that he and his wife would not be welcome in the White House after their marriage because she is a divorcée? (The story says that President Bush declined to mention that the Prince of Wales had also been divorced.) Needless to say, if President Bush were actually so insane as to have said this, I would be appalled. His Christian views on marriage should not be the views of the United States government of whom he is merely an elected representative for a few years. People all over the world marry according to very different customs, after all. But could it actually even *BE* true?

Is this a Hoax? A Spoof?

 

[Mara]

maybe this should go over in 'Around the World?'

Sometimes it's hard to keep track of what DH was really created for, considering we have all these other forums about family, news, etc....

 

[ame]

What I think works in his favor, besides that gorgeous rock she''s wearing, is that his ex wife is deceased and her ex is not. He kind of is scot-free because of Diana''s death.

 

[Lurchie]

As much as I''m prepared to belive the worst about our DP, and as often as he DOES apply his religious beliefs to his public policy, I can''t imagine that that would be the case. Dunno, you think? Surely other divorceees and divorces have been to the White House. Newt Gingrich is not only divorced several times over, but didn''t his most recent ex have cancer when he dumped her for a staff member? I''m sure I''m getting all my facts wrong...I had heard that the queen would not be attending the wedding (you know, from a reliable news source - the TV told me).

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/23/2005 2:13

7 PM
Author: Lurchie
As much as I''m prepared to belive the worst about our DP, and as often as he DOES apply his religious beliefs to his public policy, I can''t imagine that that would be the case.

I agree. I am by nature suspicious and this seems to crazy to be true. I am going to check snopes.com (the urban legend site) to see if they have anything on this.

 

[AGBF]

Well...snopes has nothing on this situation yet, but I e-mailed the owners of the website with this "rumor". If they are true to form, they will research it thoroughly! In the meantime, I am still interested in where else this story has been reported and if any of the sources appear reliable! If it is true, it is beyond belief! Fact will, indeed, have become stranger than fiction and Church and State will be inseparable from here on in!

Deborah

 

[Kaleigh]

I highly doubt it, but who knows anything is possible!! I heard that Queen Elizabeth will not be present during the actual civil ceremony, but will be there for the reception.

 

[Bagpuss]

Date: 2/23/2005 2:53:37 PM
Author: kaleigh
I highly doubt it, but who knows anything is possible!! I heard that Queen Elizabeth will not be present during the actual civil ceremony, but will be there for the reception.

True. She said that in keeping with Charles and Camilla's wishes to keep their wedding a small affair, she would not be attending the civil ceremony, but will attend the Celebration ceremony in Windsor Chapel and will be hosting (throwing and paying for, in other words) the reception afterwards.

It looks like she was advised to stay away from the actual civil ceremony due to her position as Head of the Church.

We also had a ruling from the Lord Chancellor today, on the legality of the civil marriage ceremony as it pertains to the Royal family. He says that it will be legal. Others have disagreed and say new legislation needs to be brought in in order to make sure it's legal.

The plot thickens!

 

[Kaleigh]

Bagpuss,
I find all this stuff sort of fascinating. Whats your guess as to what happens with the legality of their marriage, do you think some sort of legislation will have to be passed or not?? How are people reacting over there about this whole marriage thing??

 

[AGBF]

I am as fascinated as the next guy with British history, but this is about the United States! Would President Bush have dared to snub Camilla Parker-Bowles and Prince Charles on RELIGIOUS grounds? In a country that DOES (unlike England) have separation of Church and State? Would he DARE!!???

 

[codex57]

I''m pretty sure this is a hoax. I looked at that site. It looks like a tabloid on par with the National Enquirer here in the states. Even looking objectively, why would Bush ban them cuz their divorsees? He''s not a Catholic. Not a member of the Church of England. Why would he care if they''re divorced or not?

 

[ammayernyc]

One again, our President does something else moronic to make the rest of world hate America. Someone should bring this guy a copy of the Constitution.
He''s such a monkey...

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/23/2005 3:17

6 PM
Author: codex57
I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. I looked at that site. It looks like a tabloid on par with the National Enquirer here in the states. Even looking objectively, why would Bush ban them cuz their divorsees? He's not a Catholic. Not a member of the Church of England. Why would he care if they're divorced or not?

I received an e-mail from my cousin (whom I also asked about this). He says this is a hoax, too. I must tell you that on other websites (including one for a legitimate Indian newspaper) people are debating this as if it were true, however! In the meantime, I have asked my cousin what his source is for saying this *IS* a hoax!!! (How terrible it is to trust absolutely no one and nothing!)

 

[Erin]

LOL

 

[ammayernyc]

So funny Erin!

 

[Kaleigh]

LMAO

 

[tanuki]

I''m not buying it - that''s gotta be a hoax.

Rush Limbaugh just divorced his third wife and you can bet your bottom dollar that he''d be a welcome visitor to the White House. As would Newt. And all the Texas oilmen with the trophy wives.

So much stuff that you read on the internet is just a total fabrication.

(I didn''t vote for him either time, by the way)

 

[Bagpuss]

All this just came out today - so nobody is quite sure what's going on. All the papers are saying that the Queen is snubbing the happy couple of course. It sells more newspapers, doesn't it? As far as the legality part goes - the Lord Chancellor says it's legal so I guess it must be.

I can't imagine that President Bush would really make Charles or Camilla persona non gratia at the White House. He and Blair look very pally at the moment, going by the tv coverage of them over the last couple of days and they must have discussed what's happening re the Royal Wedding.

 

[cinnabar]

My guess would be that someone - perhaps someone whose first language isn''t English and doesn''t understand English/American culture too well - saw an old news story and interpreted it in their own way.

On 23 January, the Daily Mail (a well-known and pretty reputable UK newspaper) reported that Charles and Camilla would be visiting the USA in late 2005, or early 2006.  Camilla would be travelling as Charles'' companion only, not in any official capacity; the intention was for the couple to combine a state visit with a personal holiday.  Camilla would not be attending any events at the White House, to which Charles was invited.  Obviously that story pre-dated the wedding announcement, and once they are married then Camilla will be able to travel as the wife of the Prince of Wales and will no longer be just his mistress.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=335108&in_page_id=1770

 

[abradabra]

You have got to be kidding me.... Who prints this stuff?

It never ceases to amaze me what people will believe these days--especially when it comes to liberals hearing rumors about conservatives and conservatives hearing rumors about liberals. Believe anything negative about the other side, even if it goes against all logic...

Some days it feels like the bulk of political discourse in this country has detiorated into something akin to the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/23/2005 5:18:57 PM
Author: cinnabar
My guess would be that someone - perhaps someone whose first language isn''t English and doesn''t understand English/American culture too well - saw an old news story and interpreted it in their own way.


On 23 January, the Daily Mail (a well-known and pretty reputable UK newspaper) reported that Charles and Camilla would be visiting the USA in late 2005, or early 2006.  Camilla would be travelling as Charles'' companion only, not in any official capacity; the intention was for the couple to combine a state visit with a personal holiday.  Camilla would not be attending any events at the White House, to which Charles was invited.  Obviously that story pre-dated the wedding announcement, and once they are married then Camilla will be able to travel as the wife of the Prince of Wales and will no longer be just his mistress.

It sounds like a good guess on how the rumor may have started. What I read on the originally proposed visit was similar to the view you mention, but differed slightly. I read that the visit had been supposed to be a combination holiday and trade mission, but that since only Charles was "doing business" that only he would be an "official" guest, so that his wife need not be invited to the White House! That would, of course, be nonsense. Since when does the spouse of a visiting prince fail to be invited to the White House? Or is every royal spouse part of the state''s trade delegation?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/23/2005 5:38:30 PM
Author: abradabra
You have got to be kidding me.... Who prints this stuff?

Well...one paper that did is in India, so you can''t blame "the Liberals" for that story! (At least you cannot if you meant to place the blame on the *US* liberals!)

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Here is the discussion in the Indian newspaper:

newspaper

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/23/2005 5:18:57 PM
Author: cinnabar
My guess would be that someone - perhaps someone whose first language isn''t English and doesn''t understand English/American culture too well - saw an old news story and interpreted it in their own way.

Aha! I think I found the culprit!

Did it start here?

 

[AGBF]

Well, I am obsessive-compulsive enough to be disturbed that this thread was moved here. The long thread on Camilla and Charles is now in Diamond Hangout while this shorter one is here. Things are out of place. It is not in ORDER now! I feel like throwing myself down and drumming my heels on the floor!

 

[abradabra]

Date: 2/23/2005 5:41:37 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 2/23/2005 5:38:30 PM
Author: abradabra
You have got to be kidding me.... Who prints this stuff?

Well...one paper that did is in India, so you can''t blame ''the Liberals'' for that story! (At least you cannot if you meant to place the blame on the *US* liberals!)

Deb

Just to clarify... I did not mean to imply that this was some sort of Liberal plot. I don''t believe conspiracy theories--conservative or liberal.

I do think that true liberals have more cogent arguments against the Bush administration and don''t need or want to resort to such silly rumors and general ridiculousness when they could have a more intelligent debate. Whether or not one agrees with their points, their arguments are infinitely more rational and forceful than a rumor like this.

That being said--I think this was an interesting thread... as it highlighted how quickly things are misinterpreted and spiral out of control and how people (not anyone on this board, just in general) will believe almost anything as long as it suits them.

I would love to see more stuff like this in the future, if you come across it, Deb... Plus it has the added benefit of trying to stop the rumors/conspiracy theories/etc., if only in a small online community.

 

[abradabra]

Date: 2/23/2005 5:57:10 PM
Author: AGBF
Well, I am obsessive-compulsive enough to be disturbed that this thread was moved here. The long thread on Camilla and Charles is now in Diamond Hangout while this shorter one is here. Things are out of place. It is not in ORDER now! I feel like throwing myself down and drumming my heels on the floor!

Hee! I had to write my reply twice because it got moved while I was writing the first one and the post didn''t transfer...

Perhaps the first Camilla&Charles one got to stay because it related to the engagement (and more closely to diamonds then) and this was more political in nature?

Lalala...

 

[Momoftwo]

If you believe this, you''ll believe the Enquirer also. Apparently the original so called paper this was in is the British equivalent of the National Enquirer. Gullibility abounds. Who would actually believe this "story"? It wouldn''t have been in snopes.com yet because they investigate thoroughly before they post it on their site. Some people are so quick to believe anything negative about someone they dont'' know. It''s really sad.

 

[movie zombie]

steve, in reading deb''s original post, it wouled appear she was merely asking for a yea or a nay as to whether the story is/was true.....is that really an indecent post?

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/23/2005 11

5:47 PM
Author: Feydakin

Nope, but we can blame you for running with it and trying tomake something out of nothing for no apparently decent reason..

Well, you could...but then you would be an idiot.