Chamilla's Fashion Faux Pas – Wearing Red for the Dead

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/56747.htm
DUMPY FRUMP A FASHION DISASTER
By ORLA HEALY
November 2, 2005 –– DIANA would be amused. Her successor and former
rival, Camilla Parker Bowles, failed spectacularly in her attempt to
wow Manhattan society with her sartorial splendor last night.
Dressed in an unflattering Anthony Price navy velvet frock with a
fussy oversized chiffon collar, the Duchess of Cornwall arrived at a
chi–chi cocktail party looking more like an escapee from the choirboy
pew of Westminister Abbey than the guest of honor.
Despite the fact that she is traveling with an army of wardrobe
consultants ("Team Camilla"), the duchess couldn't seem to put a
sartorial foot right yesterday.
Earlier, Camilla caused quite a stir when she chose an eye–popping
raspberry suit for her visit to Ground Zero. While the vibrant
wool–crepe suit, with velvet wing–cuffed sleeves and a matching collar
designed by Brit Roy Allen ensured the hatless blonde stood out from a
sea of dark suits, it was a decidedly odd choice for such a solemn
occasion.
Camilla, who patronizingly dissed Diana's passion for fashion as
birdbrained, has herself become a servant to style since her wedding
seven month ago.
We predict an "off–with–their–heads" ruling to come down on the core
team who were supposed to create the "Camilla Chic" glamour on this
trip: hairdresser Hugh Green, celeb makeup artist Julie Biddlecombe
(other clients include Jade Jagger), personal assistant Amanda McManus
and "a secret dresser," whose identity is fast becoming a gag in
fashion circles.

"Fussy Chiffon Collar" <theduch...@offrumpinthedump.usa> wrote in message
news:mglim1lgg73vlo5oqjb3rvkvqqan45k...@news1...
Diana was birdrained, and looked like an overprocessed goose. I'm sick of
this Diana adulation. She was a needy, entitled, whiny and overrated boor.
Classless. Chamilla, with all her buck teeth and flaws, has more appeal in
one bad hairstyle than Diana could ever hope to.
Incidentally, until Harper's Bazaar's Liz Tilberis took Diana under her
"style" wings and started telling her what to wear, she committed enough
fashion atrocities to start a small museum.

FRUMP TOWER says it all. How sad that with all that help and money she
cannot make herself look good. Unlike Diana, she has no taste, no
style, and no physical grace. A drag queen could look and walk more
like a woman. They have done one thing right: they have left those
horrific hats and that tiara in the boxes.
As to a bird–brain, Camilla is an uneducated person, with the same
finishing school education as Diana, who did no work at all until
forced now to do charity work in hopes of marrying Charles. As her
former PR person has said, she is monumentally lazy. She is, quite
simply, an old whore.

FRUMP TOWER says it all. How sad that with all that help and money she
cannot make herself look good. Unlike Diana, she has no taste, no
style, and no physical grace. A drag queen could look and walk more
like a woman. They have done one thing right: they have left those
horrific hats and that tiara in the boxes.
As to a bird–brain, Camilla is an uneducated person, with the same
finishing school education as Diana, who did no work at all until
forced now to do charity work in hopes of marrying Charles. As her
former PR person has said, she is monumentally lazy. She is, quite
simply, an old whore.

"Fussy Chiffon Collar" <theduch...@offrumpinthedump.usa> wrote in message
news:mglim1lgg73vlo5oqjb3rvkvqqan45k...@news1...
Poor old Camilla. She will never be anything other than Charlie's whore. He
should have dropped her like a turd when he realized most of England rode
her at one point or another.

"Foxglove" <ihateflo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dmaf.67129$GQ.24...@tornado.texas.rr.com...
He
"most of england" wtf did you get that from?

Steve and Debs wrote:
Maybe s/he was reading Diana's biography by mistake. The Queen of
Tarts wasn't that fussy about who she shagged when she was married.

the_vermina...@comcast.net wrote:
I really don't give a shit. SHE WORKED. That was my point. What her
title was or how much she made is of no consequence. Someone said she
never worked a day in her life before marrying and it's just not true.

Lux wrote:
Diana was a kindergarten teacher before she married Charles. And as far
as I know it was a paying job, not "charity".

On 2–Nov–2005, "Lux" <luxperpe...@aol.com> wrote:
Hear! Hear!!

Sorry, my editing was off. I meant that CAMILLA had done no work in
her life, except, of course, being a royal whore. Diana was naturally
intelligent and anyone who worked with her will tell you she mastered
every brief and worked extremely hard. Unlike Camilla, who finds at
age 58 that she has to get off her fat arse once in a while now.
Miss Information wrote:

Miss Information wrote:
Nice to see Diana working with her intellectual peers. She probably
learned a lot about attention seeking and throwing herself downstairs
from the 3 year olds she had to mind.

Miss Information wrote:
At no time in her life was Diana a kindergarten teacher! She had
neither educational nor vocational training and/or requirements to fill
such a position.
She was a glorified nosewiper and nappy changer – end of story.
––
The Verminator

Hm. I wonder how Diana then won the Humanitarian of the Year Award,
something Charles has never done. No fear that Camilla will.

On 3 Nov 2005 07:21:50 –0800, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "the_vermina...@comcast.net"
<the_vermina...@comcast.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... Miss Information wrote:
... > Lux wrote:
... > > FRUMP TOWER says it all. How sad that with all that help and money she
... > > cannot make herself look good. Unlike Diana, she has no taste, no
... > > style, and no physical grace. A drag queen could look and walk more
... > > like a woman. They have done one thing right: they have left those
... > > horrific hats and that tiara in the boxes.
... > >
... > > As to a bird–brain, Camilla is an uneducated person, with the same
... > > finishing school education as Diana, who did no work at all until
... > > forced now to do charity work in hopes of marrying Charles. As her
... > > former PR person has said, she is monumentally lazy. She is, quite
... > > simply, an old whore.
... >
... > Diana was a kindergarten teacher before she married Charles. And as far
... > as I know it was a paying job, not "charity".
...
... At no time in her life was Diana a kindergarten teacher!
Yes, she was.

Fussy Chiffon Collar <theduch...@offrumpinthedump.usa> wrote in
news:mglim1lgg73vlo5oqjb3rvkvqqan45k...@news1:
We might give a fuck "Orla," if you weren't using a fake name, you loser.

Hal S. <h.sand...@comcast.net> wrote:
Now please use your limited intelligence to translate that
into something approximating to the Queen's English.
––
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

"Hal S." <h.sand...@comcast.net> wrote in message
You two might have something interesting to say, but
most of us will never read it....'cos we've killfiled both
of you.
Kris

On 3–Nov–2005, "Hal S." <h.sand...@comcast.net> wrote:
His correction was not a denigration.
He was stating facts.
SusanC

Magda wrote:
Check your facts– she was a kindergarten *aide* – NOT a teacher.
––
The Verminator

Lux wrote:
No "O" Levels, no "A" Levels which mean no third Level education.
According to one biog, "when she was at school, she excelled at music,
dance, and home economics" In other words she could prance around and
cook a bit. She still didn't "excel" enough at them to pass any state
exams! She was as thick as shit!

On 3 Nov 2005 08:04:03 –0800, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "the_vermina...@comcast.net"
<the_vermina...@comcast.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... Magda wrote:
... > On 3 Nov 2005 07:21:50 –0800, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "the_vermina...@comcast.net"
... > <the_vermina...@comcast.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... >
... > ...
... > ... Miss Information wrote:
... > ... > Lux wrote:
... > ... > > FRUMP TOWER says it all. How sad that with all that help and money she
... > ... > > cannot make herself look good. Unlike Diana, she has no taste, no
... > ... > > style, and no physical grace. A drag queen could look and walk more
... > ... > > like a woman. They have done one thing right: they have left those
... > ... > > horrific hats and that tiara in the boxes.
... > ... > >
... > ... > > As to a bird–brain, Camilla is an uneducated person, with the same
... > ... > > finishing school education as Diana, who did no work at all until
... > ... > > forced now to do charity work in hopes of marrying Charles. As her
... > ... > > former PR person has said, she is monumentally lazy. She is, quite
... > ... > > simply, an old whore.
... > ... >
... > ... > Diana was a kindergarten teacher before she married Charles. And as far
... > ... > as I know it was a paying job, not "charity".
... > ...
... > ... At no time in her life was Diana a kindergarten teacher!
... >
... > Yes, she was.
...
... Check your facts– she was a kindergarten *aide* – NOT a teacher.
You were not even alive at the time, what do you know?

the_vermina...@comcast.net wrote:
She was probably a pre–school teacher and if you have never done it you
dont know how hard it is. I did it many years ago, loved it but not
much money in it and it IS HARD WORK!!!

iwantthisn...@gmail.com wrote:
She was NOT a teacher – she was an unqualified assistant in a
pre–school nursery (kindergarten to the pretentious).
––
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Wotcher Lux Perpetua !
As you say Lady Diana won the Humanitarian of the Year Award and
accolades that shall echo throughout the annals of History as a Lady
waaaay ahead of her Time on tactile encouragement of Lepers, AIDS
patients, homeless and down–trodden HUMAN BEINGS across the Planet.
During her bizarre existance with the hate–riddled heir she eventually
swept aside his clumsy groping of Alexandra 'Tiggs' Legge Bourke, Milly
P. 'Wait till your read MY book' Bowles, 'Kanga' Tryon, Janet Jenkins,
Elizabeth Buchanan, the Druro woman and assorted staff members all
during her mockery of a marriage to Prinny the Poo.
Reminds one of how JAWS is said to have worked her way through all the
PB lads....lighting on Andy for another sham wedding....were K.Burke,
R. Benson and the bloke the Telegraph refused to name still keeping her
company has she alternated between Cholly and Andy ?? Don't know and
don't care....her sordid life is chronicled by Caro Graham, Beckie
Tyrell et al.
Lest we forget, Mike The Drip Fawcett went right along on their
honeymoon to Birkhall, Chas says Mikie is more non–negotiable than JAWS
!!
http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/16/npeat16.xml
Chas Darling Girl, Janet:
"wice–divorced Janet, who lives in Toronto and has a teenaged son, has
claimed that although the affair ended earlier, she slept with Charles
at Highgrove in July 1992."
http://everythingroyal.com/everythingroyalpublicity.html
Despite all the fabrications Junor and Bedell–Smith among others have
dashed off in their bodice–ripping novels, Major Jas Hewitt, medal
winning Hero of Desert Storm is the only Documented lover Diana EVER
had other than lame Chazbo. Both Trvor Rhys Jones and the other chap
Wes said that Dodi and Diana didn't share a cabin, or spend time
together on the cruise..for whole days they didn't even see each other
....but 'teased' the paparazzi witha few quickcuddles.
Lux wrote:

Brian Pears wrote:
its the same thing, they call them teachers in pre–school but its just
a unqualified assistant as you call them and its HARD WORK DUDE. You
act like its not work and it is probably harder than anything else she
did in her life

iwantthisn...@gmail.com wrote:
No I did not suggest that it was easy. I've seen the work of a
nursery manager and her staff of nursery nurses and nursery
assistants at first hand and I'm fully aware of the hard work
involved. What I said was that Diana was not a teacher – she
was not called a teacher, she did not call herself a teacher.
She held the lowest of the three jobs in a nursery, that of
Nursery Assistant, above her were the qualified Nursery Nurses
and the Nursery Manager. Yes she'd have had to work bloody hard,
but let's get her job–title right. Her work was also excellent
preparation for parenthood and probably accounts for the great
job she did with her sons.
––
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

"Brian Pears" <bpe...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5JmgWhFinaDF...@tardis.main...
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
So you really "didn't mean it" when you denigrated her work earlier? On the
Pears' list of excuses is that No. 2 or No. 3?
Hal S.

"Brian Pears" <bpe...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i2DdD0htGoaDF...@tardis.main...
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Oh Arrogant One: If you hadn't done your usual hatchet job of editing and
snipped the message to which I was responding, what I said who have been
apparent to anyone, even you. I'll refresh your memory.
The Pears list of excuses when the Man Who Knows Everything is caught with
his pants down:
1. I was joking.
2. You misunderstood.
3. I didn't mean it.
4. You're a bald–faced liar.
Hal S.

Hal S. <h.sand...@comcast.net> wrote:
So your translation reads. "As usual, Hal the Fatuous has
absolutely nothing sensible to say on anything pertinent so,
again as usual, he spews forth a load of vicious drivel".
Now please, do everybody a favour and go to hell.
––
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Brian Pears wrote:
Ooh, look at the fur fly! Meow!

Doomella wrote:
As usual, Dooemella, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.
Big faus pas wearing red to ground zero? More like big f*ing deal.

"Brian Pears" <bpe...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mHNMvTnWroaDF...@tardis.main...
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
We'll add Oh Arrogant One's latest excuse:
No. 5: Don't deal with the subject at hand.
Hal S.

On 3–Nov–2005, Brian Pears <bpe...@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
This must be another trans–altantic thing, as in America, "kindergarten"
and "nursery" are 2 different things, the former being formal, public school
education & the latter being optional, private schooling.
Either way, the work *is* hard, but there is no special training needed
for it whatsoever. It's like organized abysitting.
SusanC

flav...@verizon.net wrote:
Susan
There are two types of pre–school here too: the school nursery
class which is an integral part of the school and takes children
from three – ie a year before the usual school starting age –
and there's the type of nursery – separate from our school system,
fee–paying and mostly privately operated – which can take kids
almost from birth (6 weeks) up to school starting age.
At my old school, now called Highfield Community Primary School,
they have both. Because of falling numbers (350+ when I was there,
120 now) they have lots of space, so what was the Infants Dept
now accommodates just the reception class and the school nursery
class. The remainder of the old Infants building houses the
separate, fee–paying, High Hopes Neighbourhood Nursery, with
its entirely separate management and staff. This takes children
from six weeks to three years at which age they move to the
school nursery class.
The Neighbourhood Nursery also runs an "Out of School Club" which
looks after kids from six–weeks to 11 years (theoretically up to
14) (a) on school days from early morning up to school/nursery
start times and after school/nursery up to early evening, and
(b) all day on weekends and holidays. This is open every day of
the year except Christmas day.
––
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

You are talking to one of the AGR creeps Miss. Nothing you say will change
their opinions, right or wrong.
Wull


"Miss Information" <getsomebeni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131109468.216695.223...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

At least get her name spelled right before you start slinging the
criticism.

On 4 Nov 2005 06:13:55 –0800, "val189" <gwehr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I think the point is that the majority of British people see the
Royals as scrounging parasites living off the hard work of ordinary
British working people. We're sick of the poncing thieves stealing our
money and I would for one would welcome the French solution to the
royal problem.
Hopefully the unrest in France will spread to Britain and we can use
that to attack Buckingham Palace and kill ALL the royal leeches.

"Chamilla" is a combination of Charles and Camilla used in other groups as a
name for the couple, just as "Bennifer" was used for Ben Affleck and
Jennifer Lopen and "Brangelina" is used for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
Bubbles
–––
"Don't go to bed angry –– stay up and plot your revenge."
(Maxine)

Bubbles wrote:
thanks for the info and for not yellin'. Shows how little I am up on
current lingo. Back into my cave, now.

Foxglove wrote:
Well in fact he did, on his Uncle Dickie Moutbatten's advise who told
him Camilla was only good for one thing. Thus Camilla married Princess
Anne's beau, Andrew Parker Bowles....always had to steal another
woman's man....couldn't get one of her own...
Then Camilla gets in thick with the prince's crowd because the Parker
Bowles were close friends of the Queen Mum..next thing you know she has
loads of dirt on Charles that can be VERY useful in her next move
toward her Whorey old Gr Gan's pattern, cozy up to the PoW and make
herself rich over night.
As you say she had sooo much experience...her bios tell of how that was
her hobby during school and before she married as well as afterward.
Of course the PoW always has a mistress, PB always looked the other way
as he went through one person after another and even during his
marriage, she likes to share him...gives her more spare time to spend
his money.
IMO

Camoosa!

"Bubbles" <skate...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QlRbf.1061$Xo.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
At least get her name spelled right before you start slinging the
criticism.
a So Charles was wearing red as well?

Homilla