Amie KeeleyANDALUCIA is gearing up to give a royal welcome to Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall.
The pair, who married in 2005, are Sevilla-bound as part of their first official visit to Spain later this month.
While Charles has visited the country before – including a trip with Princess Diana to Mallorca in 1987 – this is the first time he has brought Camilla.
Their impending visit will also take in Madrid, according to El Pais, but their exact dates are still being kept under wraps.
During the three day sojourn they are expected to meet the Spanish royal family and Prime Minister Zapatero.
Camilla, the Olive Press can reveal, went on a number of family holidays to the region, before marrying Charles.
A spokesman for the Prince at Clarence House refused to confirm the plans. She said: “At the moment it is all sheer speculation. Call back next week.”
God bless them.
Prince Charles and Diana visited Sevilla when it was European City of Culture around about 1990? On British Day my wife and myself visited because the Red Arrows were the British representatives!! and gave a display.
I heard about it on Radio Andalucia Información one day this week but didn’t catch the whole of it cos I was driving. They mentioned Madrid, Sevilla and named a finca in Granada that they’ll be staying at – but I can’t remember the name of it.
Lucky me, that’s my city, maybe we can shake hands with a nice t-shirt reminding the crown to give up their properties in the very spanish tip of Gibraltar.
Please, inform us of their exact visits so me and my friends can arrange a few placards. ;)
Carlos the territory was ceded to Britain by Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It has been part of Britain for longer than it was part of Spain. Following your logic Carlos, you will have no objection to the Morroccans demanding the return of Melilla, Cueta and the rest of what is now central and southern Spain? Or perhaps you also believe Portugal should be spanish too? Do tell.
lol Carlos knows less about his own country than most expats.
Ben, you forgot telling that Gibraltar was firstly under Spanish rule and later British (since 1713, as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht). Ceuta and Melilla have always been Spanish, even before the creation of the Moroccan nation and kingdom. So you cannot compare Gibraltar to Ceuta and Melilla for Spain. I see that both of you (Ben and Fred) don’t really know much about the Spanish history. Gibraltar would be better compared to the old British colony of Hong Kong, now under the Chinese sovereignty. Britain accepted to transfer the sovereignty of Hong Kong to China in 1997, but it’s not willing to debate about the future cesion of Gibraltar to Spain. I think it’d possible to open a fruitful debate about it.
Spain always asks Gibraltar, but always forgets to give back Olivenza/Olivença to Portugal. In 1801, Olivenza/Olivença was occupied by Spain. In 1815, Spain accepted, by the Treaty of Wien, to give it back to Portugal. Other countries were there (UK, France, Russia, Prussia, Austria), and signed it. Even nowadays, Portugal does not recognize Spanish sovereignity over Olivença. How can Spain forget it?
Also remember that Gibraltar is not the only Bristish possession undergoing conflict. The Falkland islands constitute a matter of dispute with Argentina since 1833 when the British occupied the islands. It was a show of pure British imperialism. These islands have given way to an eternal conflict with Argentina and a war in 1982.
Some clever guy reminding the year count. Nice try, but your count is biased. Leaving aside the original civilizations on Spanish soil there’s legitimate continnuity for Spain starting in the Visigoth Kingdom. Unless you prove that the Rock was towed from Denver in the XIVth century your argument is invalid.
One word about Olivenza, ever heard about the Alcañices Treaty?
I meant Dover, not Denver.
James,
Ben was correct when he said Gibraltar has been British longer than it was Spanish.
Ceuta has not “always been Spanish”. It was ceded to Spain by Portugal in 1668, so not that long before Gibraltar became British.
The vast majority of Hong Kong was on a lease from China. There was not really any question of the UK hanging onto it, and the bits that were sovereign British territory were not viable on their own. Not very relevant to the Gibraltar situation.
You seem to forget that the Gibraltarians have a right to self determination. Gibraltar is not the UK’s to give away. Oh and don’t forget, the Treaty of Utrecht ceded Gibraltar in perpetuity. Do you know what “in perpetuity” means?
Ceuta was Spanish much before the arabs came. Most people fail to know that the conquest of Spain didn’t start with the landing in Gibraltar, it started in Ceuta, retained by the Visigoth Kingdom as an enclave in North Africa. Furthermore, in the Roman Empire what is now Northern Morroco was administered from the Hispania province. Now, how many years does that adds to the Spanish period in Ceuta?
Carlos, understand the concept of “in perpetuity” please.
But the Visigoths were not Spanish Carlos, and nor were the Romans. You really do write a the biggest load of BS to “support” your neo-Francoist fantasies…
By the way, Hispania province was a province of Rome, so what you a really saying is that Spain should belong to Italy! Perhaps you should have taken that Logic 101 course.
Carlos,
the Visigoths were illegal aliens in western Europe – no one asked them to leave the Steppes.
How stupid to conflate Roman with Spanish and the Romans of course had no right to be anywhere but in southern Italy.
So to encapsulate the rubbish you are stupidly spouting – when it suits the ‘Spanish are Visigoths and Romans.
The reality is that the first modern people as in post ice age in the Iberian peninsular (I wonder what the Euskadi call it)were the Euskadi, then the Celts and Morenos – why did you fail to mention them.
Don’t give up your day job, that is if you have one because you hav’nt a clue how to present anything like a rational argument – you just make yourself look like a resentful fool.
James you talk about British Imperialism but fail to mention Spanish Imperialism – why is that. You also fail to mention that the Spanish did their best to exterminate the indigenous population of the land that they called Argentina and that they had absolutely no right to live in that land, they were illegal murderous aliens. You also forget to mention that the Falklands had no human population at all – another one who presents a stupid argument.
Stuart and Guriziano, I wouldn’t make use of such ridiculous arguments, tracing us back in time to the Romans, Visigoths or post-Ice Age periods, to try to justify the Spanish unfair or illegitimate claim to the Rock.
Stuart, you say that the Treaty of Utrecht ceded Gibraltar in perpetuity to Britain. Please, can you tell me how many territories have been ceded in perpetuity as a result of war treatries from states to states? Can you tell me how many have been kept forever? I’ll give you one example: The Treaty of Wad-Ras in 1860, which implied the Moroccan cession of a long list of territories in today Morocco (Tetuan, Alhucemas, etc.) to Spain after a war with Morocco. All these territories were known as the Spanish Protectorate in Africa. And all these territories were ceded “in perpetuity” to Spain. In the 1920’s, they were ceded back to the kingdom of Morocco.
Stuart, you talk about the Spanish Imperialism in America. I know it was very abusive, but I don’t want to remember the long list of political and economic abuses and exploitation caused by the British people around the world. The Falkland islands is just one example of British show of imperialistic greed. No people living there but putting life of soldiers in risk to retain them, just for power. I think we’re not a good example to teach others.
I think hypocresy is an innate feature of people, but especially of the British people. One clear example: Henry VIII was given the title of “Fidei Defensor” by the Pope because he fought bravely against Protestant reform in Britain. After disobeying the Pope with his marriage with Anne Boleyn and the Act of Supremacy (1534) British monarchs were no longer catholics, but surprisingly they kept this title for themselves with great honour. I think it’s a show of British hypocresy, the same as the one involving the issue of Gibraltar.
James, Europe is full of territory ceded by treaty after a war. Most of it still in the hands of the polity to which it was ceded. Anyway, what is that relevance? And what is the relevance of Spain’s actions in Morocco? I really don’t see the link. Perhaps you could explain?
As for tarring a whole nation as hypocrites because of the actions of a long dead king, perhaps you forgot that the Spanish king gives himself the title “King of Gibraltar”, and that’s after ceding that title to the British monarch by treaty. That seems just a little hypocritical, no? Not to mention the Spanish King also hanging onto titles such as “King of Jerusalem”. Slightly ridiculous…
Once again you completely ignore the right of the Gibraltarians to self determination. Gibraltar is not for the UK to give away, nor is it for Spain to take.
James,
so many mistakes in your reply and so much obvious dodging.
I never mentioned the Treaty of Utrecht.
You cannot bring yourself to admit that Argentina has zero rights to the Falkland Islands.
How is it Imperialistic greed on the part of Britain and not on the part of the mass murdering Spanish/Italians – your just making yourself look an even bigger biased fool.
Listen to what guirizano is saying instead of continuing with your pompous biased bullshit – the only people to decide the fate of Gibralter must be those people themselves – now what part of that don’t you understand.
@ Carlos, James et al,
The French were here, you didn’t like the french but you couldn’t get rid of them, you asked the rest of europe for help and the only ones to aid you where the British. You didn’t have enough gold (the “empire” was gone and spain bankrupt) to pay for the blood the British shed and lives sacrificed to push the French out. So when the British put your “king” back on the throne he paid with Gibraltar. In perpetuity. Is that simplified enough for you?
You are really biasing and dodging the issue when you say that Gibraltarians have the right to self determination. Gibraltarians may have a legitimate wish to opt out for independence, but the final decision about Gibraltar’s self determination can only be taken by the Westminster Parliament, because the sovereignty of the rock is not Gibraltarian, but British.
I think that Gibraltar is a headache for Britain rather than a treasure to keep, an unfair tax haven, full of burdens for the British budget. And I also think that Gibraltar could not rule alone by itself. It would need the help of its neighbours. I think it would be easier to be kept by Spain, since we are political, economic, military allies for a very long time. You shouldn’t be afraid of Spanish. There are more than 600,000 Bristish people living in Spain.
You are misinformed James. The Gibraltarian right to self determination is enshrined in international law and guaranteed by the UK. If the Gibraltarians want independence it is theirs for the taking and has nothing to do with Westminster.
Oh and please aquaint yourself with the facts in other areas. Gibraltar is not a tax haven. Gibraltar has signed tax information exchange agreements with nearly 20 other jurisdictions. That’s not the sort of thing tax havens can do.
And, Gibraltar does not cost the British tax-payer a single penny (Spain on the other hand, has been costing the British tax-payer MILLIONS for DECADES in EU development money and will do until 2013).
Who cares about the Charles visit, the comments section is far more interesting.Life would be very boring if we all agreed all the time about everything but its time to stop bitching now. I am English, i love Spain and the Spanish people i have met have all been lovely and helpful. I don’t care who owns what country and who did this and who did that, lifes too short!