King and Queen to spend 20th wedding anniversary at state banquet in Rome
Charles and Camilla are expected to be joined by leading figures from Italian life at the black-tie dinner held during the couple's four-day state visit to Italy.
The head of state and his consort wed in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall on April 9 2005 following a romance that began when they were in their early 20s.
Charles first met fun, confident Camilla on Windsor Great Park polo field in 1970 when he had just left Cambridge University, a year before he joined the Royal Navy.
No marriage proposal came despite the closeness between the pair and when the relationship cooled after Charles dedicated himself to his Navy career, Camilla wed cavalry officer Andrew Parker Bowles in 1973 and Charles later married Diana, Princess of Wales in 1981.
After Charles and Camilla both divorced – and Diana died in l997 – Camilla's eventual emergence as Charles' long-term partner was part of a carefully planned PR campaign masterminded by the heir to the throne's spin doctor Mark Bolland.
At their wedding reception, held the same day as the Grand National, Queen Elizabeth II said about their romance: 'They have overcome Becher's Brook and The Chair and all kinds of other terrible obstacles. They have come through and I'm very proud and wish them well.
'My son is home and dry with the woman he loves.'
During the third day of their Italian state visit, Charles will become the first British monarch to address both houses of Italy's parliament – the chamber of deputies and the senate of the republic.
Before delivering his speech to the politicians, the King will have an audience with Italy's prime minister Giorgia Meloni, the country's first female premier who took up office in October 2022 at the head of a coalition of right-wing populist parties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Judge denies justice department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
The ruling on Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. A US justice department spokesperson declined to comment. Judge Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.' According to his ruling, no victims gave evidence before the Epstein grand jury. The only witness, the judge wrote, was an FBI agent 'who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay'. The agent gave evidence over two days, on June 18 and July 2 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Judge Berman ruled. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the justice department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of US President Donald Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, Trump administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. 'The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,' Judge Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the justice department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts. 'By comparison,' he added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.' Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by US deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, and the house oversight committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In a letter Maxwell's lawyers, representative James Comer, the committee chairman, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Mr Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Comprehensive trade embargo would halt aggression by Israel
The severe human rights violations perpetrated by Israel in Palestine could be curtailed within a month through the implementation of a comprehensive trade embargo against Israel. This would entail prohibiting flights, maritime activities and tourism associated with the nation. Specifically, no overflights should be allowed through the airspace of civilised nations, no vessels should be permitted in territorial waters, and all engagement should be limited to communications through Israel's delegation at the United Nations – constituting an unequivocal boycott of what may be characterised as a terrorist state until the current regime, seen as criminal by many, is compelled to respond to the dissatisfaction of its own citizenry. READ MORE: Ken Loach protests against UK's Palestine Action terror label It is essential to acknowledge the complexities surrounding such an approach, particularly concerning the safeguarding of Israel from external assaults during a period of internal upheaval, with Iran being a potential aggressor. Moreover, Palestine must recognise that the reality of the situation has irrevocably changed, and the consequences of the controversial establishment of the Israeli state in 1947 must be confronted, even if it leads to heightened hostilities. Since its establishment, Israel has been a source of persistent conflict in the Levant, arguably contributing to many of the issues plaguing the Middle East today. An examination of the actions of the British government reveals a need for accountability. The superficial expressions of concern and ineffectual criticisms emanating from a government perceived as failing must be recognised for what they are: a façade intended to obscure its complicity and servitude to the current US administration. R Mill Irving Gifford, East Lothian I DISAGREE with Lorna Slater's suggestion concerning the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise. Checks are indeed necessary, in terms of the human rights inclusion, on firms in Scotland that are still supplying materials that enable armaments being sold to Israel. But to go on and suggest that there is no point in having 'human rights' checks if they are never carried out is totally wrong and defeatist. Of course we do need to have the power in place that enables the government to carry out its duty in carrying out human rights checks. Why it does not do so I have no idea, unless it's anything like the English government and more concerned with the business ethic ... if there is such a thing in this case! READ MORE: Politicians across UK demand Keir Starmer impose sanctions on Israel The Scottish Government is making the same pathetic excuse as David Lammy, that such enterprise funding goes towards research, training and apprenticeships. In much the same way Lammy says that Westminster money is for parts for F-35 jets which are supplying Nato as well Israel. All these pathetic excuses are a load of bollocks as well as a load of baloney. We need whatever rules are in place where armaments sales to other countries are concerned, in order to hold governments to account when they are misused or not used. We all know that Scotland is almost surrounded by the seas and so needs protection of its land, sea and air. In his excellent piece in The National, Paul Laverty questions Ian Murray about the Israeli genocide. He raises Article 3 of the 1951 Genocide Convention, and says that direct action is an 'international obligation'. Laverty goes on to suggests that 'even a semi-competent monk administrator in the Middle Ages could organise a system where one recipient did not receive materials from a pool, if the will was there'. Says it all, really!! Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife APPALLING though the images from Gaza are, the fact remains that so long as Hamas refuse to release their hostages and also to recognise the right of Israel to exist, then Netanyahu has all excuses he needs to just carry on. Starmer's position has rightly been recognised as at best being 'confused' and at worst 'hopelessly inept'. It needs to be revised, and we need a new and co-ordinated international approach. The UK et al should commit to an immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, including acting to support its security and viability, conditional upon Hamas releasing the hostages and renouncing their long-held policy of seeking the destruction of Israel. Faced with this, what excuses would Netanyahu and the Zionists have left past sheer prejudice for ending hostilities and recognising that peace and justice go hand in hand? Of course, the international community would be looking for reasons to believe any commitment made by Hamas, but does anyone have a better option? Michael Collie Dunfermline
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
I know the Home Office is hiding the real costs of asylum
Our immigration system sometimes feels like an organised conspiracy against the British people. For decades, the public have voted for drastic reductions in immigration, only to see the numbers go up and up. For years, they have demanded an end to the Channel crossings and the asylum crisis, only to see politicians refuse to do what is necessary. When governments do move in the right direction, they are undermined by weak enforcement, litigious and often publicly-funded NGOs, activist judges who are often former claimant lawyers in the immigration tribunals, and human rights laws that make securing the border an impossible job. Not that governments should be let off the hook: ultimately our constitution allows Parliament to change the law. The last Conservative government had the right idea to stop the Channel crossings. Deporting every migrant coming to Britain without permission – to their home country or a third country like Rwanda – is ultimately the only way to end this wave of illegal immigration. But the plan was never going to work unless we left the European Convention on Human Rights, and that government – with exceptions like Robert Jenrick, who resigned for this reason as immigration minister – was unwilling to go that far. Immigration is the biggest single reason my party is in the predicament it is in, and we must be brutally honest about our record and radical in our solutions if we are ever to win back the trust of the British people. Labour's approach, however, is even worse. They abandoned the policy of deporting migrants who cross the Channel and are now rushing illegal immigrants through the asylum system. Approvals are up, and once asylum is granted, the migrants are hidden in the social housing and welfare systems, where it is impossible to track their costs. The Office for Budget Responsibility calculates that the average 'low-wage migrant worker' arriving aged 25 will cost the British taxpayer over £400,000 by the time they reach 81. Ministers muddy the waters by claiming they are deporting record numbers of people. But this is dishonest. First, the numbers they use include migrants who leave voluntarily. And second, only about three per cent of Channel crossers are ever removed. It's no surprise that Channel crossings are up – by almost 50 per cent – under Labour. And the court injunction won by the Conservative council in Epping, which stops a local hotel being used to house migrants, throws the Government's policy into further chaos. But while the injunction is undoubtedly a clear victory for the local residents – vilified as 'far Right' by those who should know better – it may yet mean more trouble for communities affected by 'asylum dispersal'. Those hoping for a policy of detention and deportation will soon be disappointed. Human rights laws can prevent deportation, and Labour reject automatic deportation for those who cross the Channel. So the migrants will still end up housed in towns and cities across the country. There are already more than twice as many migrants in private housing, including houses of multiple occupancy, than in hotels. And accommodation like this may suit a government as cynical as this one better than hotels. Individual houses provide less of a focal point for protest than hotels, and the Home Office, working with Serco, has been building up its property portfolio for some time. With 1.33 million people on local waiting lists for social housing, this is a serious breach of the fundamental deal offered by citizenship. Foreign nationals – who broke into our country knowing it was illegal – are being offered housing that is not available to British families in need. And the unfortunate residents who live nearby are very deliberately kept in the dark. As an MP elected last year, I have been horrified by the secrecy with which ministers handle housing migrants. When I asked why MPs are not informed about migrants being moved into their constituencies, the immigration minister said we would only be told when it is 'lawful, proportional and necessary.' In other words: never. After the disorder last year, we learnt from press leaks that an internal government paper had said asylum hotels had 'stoked community tensions' and were a 'critical factor behind the summer riots.' Yet when I used the Freedom of Information Act to request a copy of the paper, the Government said while the information was held, it would not be released because ministers needed a 'safe space' to think about policy. The truth is that Labour's immigration policy means surrender and secrecy. The illegal immigrants crossing the Channel will keep on coming, Labour will keep granting them asylum, and ministers will do everything to keep the consequences – for housing, for crime, for the cost to the taxpayer – a secret from you.
