The Royalist - Camilla 'Omitted' From New Year Prayers

Camilla 'Omitted' From New Year Prayers

Written by Joanne Leyland

Sunday, 01 January 2006

The ongoing saga of whether or not the Duchess of Cornwall is to be specifically named in Royal Prayers continues to roll on today as the Vicar of St. Mary Magdalene Church on the Queen's Sandringham Estate omitted Camilla's name during a sermon he delivered at today's New Year's service attended by the monarch and her husband. Charles and Camilla are now back in Scotland, where they enjoyed a traditional Hogmanay celebration.

Reverend Jonathan Riviere named the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales, but there was no specific reference to Camilla. However, it should be noted that it is tradition that the rest of the Royal Family — including the Queen's other children, Andrew, Anne and Edward — are included as one entity so this "omission" (which will no doubt be interpreted as a "snub" to Camilla by some media outlets) really is no big deal.

The primary reason this is making the news is because, as many people well remember, Diana's name was removed from the Royal Prayers in 1996 and so there is great interest in some quarters to see if Camilla will be given such an honour.

And another reason the story's making the headlines? It could be due to the fact it's a rather slow news day!

Please feel welcome to offer your opinions on this and any other royal story by visiting our Royal Forum or via our Comments section below.

Comment on this article

Leave your comments (Show/Hide Form)

Other Visitors Comments

Name: LadyJoan

Comment:
This is no suprise! I said this from the first announcement that Cam was to be included in the Christmas prayers. HM, Queen Elizabeth II, only included Cam on Christmas Day as Cam was present at the service and HM, Queen Elizabeth was NOT going to embarrass herself, especially in front of the people. Cam was NOT present with the royal family on New Year's Day, therefore she wasn't included. Cam will only be included when she is present. Other than that Queen Elizabeth quickly forgets her.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; FunWebProducts)

Name: Helen	Comment: Camilla needs all of the prayers that she can get. She may be married to Jug Ears now, and she may live at Highgrove, but she does not and never will have the love and respect that Diana had and still has, worldwide.

Name: Suzie

Comment:
What a difference a week makes!! The Duke of Edinburgh seems positively gleeful as he walks with Sophie's widowed father, Christopher Rhys-Jones, to church on New Year's Day. In fact, everyone is beaming. Edward and Sophie seem to be the only ones close to his parents. The Queen and Sophie looked wonderful!

I imagine it was a relief to all when Charles and Camilla took off for Scotland.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

Name: Kate	Comment: I think the minister on Xmas Sunday forgot the request that Camilla's name not be mentioned. Therefore, once it was pointed out to him, he made sure he did not make the same mistake on the next Sunday. Are there enough prayers to cleanse the inner Camilla? I know God forgives all, but he must be having a difficult time over this one!

Name: Suzie	Comment: I think perhaps that's what ministers will do, QM. A good way to solve 'the problem'!! LOL!!

Name: Suzie	Comment: On Christmas morning when the PofW and DofC were in attendance at church, didn't the minister include the DofC's name then?

Name: Queen Mary I	Comment: Whoops, I did not see that about their mentioning the PoW but not Camilla. Snubsville for sure! But as I said in my previous post, pray to your heart's content for whomever you want, or not.

Name: Queen Mary I	Comment: If that was the case then I think it seems when Charles is there they will mention her, and when he is not she will not be mentioned. In the end, who cares? Everyone can pray or not pray for this one, or that one, as they choose.

Name: NewYorker

Comment:
In the news article, there is a mention of the reaction of the crowds, and they were mixed. But what is interesting to notice is that the person who probably agreed with the Reverend's decision — saying there are far more serious issues in the world than this — didn't want her name to be made public. I really start to wonder if people who try to react against Charles and Camilla, and express their dissaproval, are being threatened or watched? We already know newspaper sites are now (allegedly) banning, by the hundreds, messages against the duo, and only pass the positive ones. I wonder what this person was afraid of, why they never gave their name on such a plain comment?

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Main Menu

Latest Puzzles

Videos

Quick Links

More Web Links

Syndicate