Marriage in the air again for Prince William
With information coming thick and fast that Kate Middleton is back on the Royal scene, Rebecca English is reporting that sources close to Prince William claim he believes he needs to marry “before Prince Charles becomes King so he can bring up his own family away from the limelight”.
A friend says, “A lot of William’s friends are seriously worried that it is for this reason he has decided to get back with Kate. She has always made clear that she would jump at the chance to rekindle their relationship, which has become an increasingly attractive prospect for William. Even though he has had his fair share of girlfriends it has never been easy for him to get really close to them because it is so difficult for him to give his trust completely. Kate is the one girl who changed all that.”
Apparently, they are keen to make public their renewed commitment to each other, which could be as early as at a polo match today. It seems William has realized that the “grass isn’t greener on the other side”.
We also hear that William has bought Kate a vintage Cartier locket as a sign of his commitment. Another friend comments, “William appears to be feeling the pull of marriage more strongly than ever, even though he was very much in the driving seat when he and Kate split up. That doesn’t mean he intends to walk down the aisle next week but it is now not a question of if, but when. He wants to get married, period.”
Why the change of heart? “It is clear the tenth anniversary of his mother’s death is weighing heavily on his mind. He knows how much she wanted him to marry well and have a happy family life. She was convinced it was the key to making William a great King. But a lot of people — Harry included — think that he is clinging on to the only girl he has ever come close to having a serious relationship with. Harry has said — in his own, unique way — that his brother has made a big mistake ‘dogging back to Kate’. He thinks William is being weak and going for the easy option. At least two wellbred girls have been seriously touted as future royal brides of late but quickly made it clear that they wouldn’t countenance it. Kate, however, is very much available.
“It may sound rather harsh, but he has openly admitted in the past that he wasn’t sure she was ‘the one’ and none of us can see how anything has dramatically changed.”
It appears that Kate’s mother, Carole Middleton, has agreed to “take a back seat” this time round. Despite that, the number of people interfering in their lives seems to have risen. Even Prince Harry is getting in on the act.
As they are both 25, surely they are old enough to make up their own minds?
I really want him to marry Kate. She is not wonderful, but she will be a real support for him. She is 50% true love and 50% ambition, which is perfect for such a marriage. 100% ambition or 100% love would be disastrous in the end. But to marry her just because he wants to marry before his father becomes king is a crap reason. And I think that it is really too early for talking about a marriage now, I really dont want to see another ridiculous circus again. They even don’t confirmed yet that they are back together.
By Lilyfromfrance on July 7th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I have read the article at the Mail (and I also did a lot of other fascinating things since the morning) and I must say that I don’t believe a word of it. It is obvious to me that someone wanted to show Kate like the last hope or like a stopgag solution. Where the hell could have Wills say “I want to marry before my father becomes king”? No really, he dropped his girl after 4 years, said that he didnt want to marry until 28 or 30 and then suddenly he beg his girl to come back and wants to marry. Thats all rubbish. I really wonder how Wills could tell a friend that he would like to get married before his father becomes king. And even he would have said this, I doubt he would have told that to someone that he cant trust. A reliable “relative” doesn’t sell stories to the press. The article must be an invention or from someone jealous of Kate. The “Doors to manual” person
By Lilyfromfrance on July 7th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Sorry for the mistakes. It’s still the morning.
By Lilyfromfrance on July 7th, 2007 at 11:19 am
If Kate is the only girl that he has been able to trust completely, then doesn’t that say something for how he feels about her? Based on his situation, I could see that he would value and recognize that.
By Cate on July 7th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
My guess is that the Queen and Prince Philip, and by extension the Palace entourage, want Prince William to marry before the Queen dies so that he could be seen as mature enough to become King directly instead of Charles. That may be an absolute necessity if the House of Windsor is to survive, because the anti-Royalist claque will go totally haywire at the prospect of the unworthy Charles and nauseating Camilla on the British throne. The British people are wary of a King who has no wife and no children, as we have seen, and with good reason. Family life at the highest level of the Royal Court is a non-negotiable factor if the throne is to remain stable. Let us hope that Prince William is considering his future with a clear head and an understanding heart. As for Prince Harry’s ‘interference’ let us remember that Prince Harry is his brother’s closest confidant and surely has Prince William’s best interests at heart. He may be wrong in his analysis of Kate and William’s relationship, but he should tell his brother his views in any case. There will be too many “yes men” surrounding Prince William for the rest of his life. He must be able to rely on Prince Harry to level with him, for good or ill. Siblings always bounce ideas off each other and then see which one floats to the top.
It’s a good thing.
By Gigi on July 7th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Gigi, the same thought occurred to me. If Charles becomes King, Australia will go republican, maybe New Zealand, possibly Canada, and a raft of other countries may follow on the domino effect. Even Scotland — if semi-independent then — could vote down the Monarchy in a referendum.
The transition from Elizabeth to her successor is fraught with problems. A popular, attractive couple with children — William and Kate — would be much harder to dislodge than King George VII and Queen Camilla.
By John on July 7th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
The Queen’s not going to die anytime soon and none of the Commonwealth is going republic. Charles is liable to die before his mother does - remember how long his grandmother lasted? This story is a red herring.
By Jared on July 7th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Boy, some great points you all make!
By Positive on July 7th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Whoo! I had no idea that people felt so horribly about Chucky and his bride. *snort* Sorry - I cannot resist using that particular title…
You know, I was thinking about it, and I wonder if William just plain flat out missed Kate? The old saying “absence makes the heart grow fonder” may well be the case here. I don’t think this is a case of him “settling” for her - I think he may well feel that he cannot live without her. If so - then I certainly do hope things work out for them and they (if they do marry) have a very happy and healthy marriage. It would do them a whole world of good - never mind the Royalty as a whole.
By On The Outside on July 7th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
No one knows how long Queen Elizabeth will live. She may live to a ripe old age like the Queen Mother or she may die much younger, like her Father, King George VI. The same goes for Charles, but my own opinion is that he is far too venal and selfish to die to accommodate the Commonwealth. As for a number of Commonwealth countries going Republican to escape the rule of Charles and Camilla, don’t you bet against it. A tax on tea is what tipped the apple cart in my corner of the world. After all, great explosions can be detonated by far less than is generally supposed.
By Gigi on July 7th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
LMAO
I’m strictly looking at the numbers: in 25 years won’t the Queen be 105? And in 25 years Charles will be what, nearly 85 (Prince Philip’s age now)? My numbers might be off by a few years, but, think about it. William could be well on his way to geezerdom by the time he [and KATE :-)] ascend the throne.
By Positive on July 7th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
That is one of the many reasons why it is in the best interest of everyone that Charles and Camilla never ascend the throne and that Prince William becomes King as soon as Queen Elizabeth II dies.
By Gigi on July 7th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
I am hoping that Charles will make a fine king. I’m so tired of the bitterness about the royals. They’re not perfect, they’re human.
By Positive on July 8th, 2007 at 4:49 am
What I said is not directed at you Gigi, there is just alot of bitterness out here about the royals and it’s just, an old story. I hope the best for all of them.
By Positive on July 8th, 2007 at 4:51 am
I have enjoyed reading this message board the last few months. I have a question, purely hypothetical. What if Prince William were gay? I’m not saying he is or that I think he is. But what if he were? Would he become King? Would Harry? What are the rules about such things?
By AnnRG on July 8th, 2007 at 6:47 am
IMO these concerned friends are worried more about themselves and their positions in Williams life. This was the same story when Chucky married Diana i.e. remember the Soames telling him not to marry those friends who wanted to know if Diana was going to hunt or shoot. If William wants to marry now rather than later that is for him and him alone to decide. As far as I’m concerned the only peer that really has Williams interest at heart with no agenda is his brother Harry.
By Trudie on July 8th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Pos, I agree. Charles will not be a bad King and it will be an interesting experience writing about it here. But it will cause losses to the Monarchy around the world, especially Australia. Neither Elizabeth nor William deserve that.
By John on July 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
There have been gay or gayish Kings in the past, Ann — James I, Edward II spring to mind. But people kept those things quiet then.
Now that everything’s “in yer face” it would pose an interesting dilemma for the constitutionalists, especially in the matter of providing a genuine heir. No doubt some medical procedure would be found. Whether a suitable female would take him on, though, is another question entirely.
By John on July 8th, 2007 at 10:38 am
AnnRG, for ma part, I don’t think that Wills could be gay, but I think he is bisexual. I believe it since his sabbatical year, 5 or 6 years ago, I don’t remember well. It would be interesting to know what his relation with Guy Pelly exactly is, but it’s his private life
As for Charles, I don’t think he is the monster that everybody wants to believe, and even if he is, so what, his job won’t be political, but he will never be king, I’m sure
By Lilyfromfrance on July 8th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I don’t see that an heir to the throne could be barred from ascending (if that is the right word) to the throne for being gay. I reckon it would just go to the next heir, in this hypothetical case, Harry. A bit like if the king never has a legitimate heir such as happened with Charles II and it went to James, not that he hung on to it too long.
For a while there, it was thought in Monaco that Albert was gay, (how wrong could they be!) but then it was all talk of Caroline being regent til her oldest son could take over.
By Eliza on July 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Yup. One dreads to think of the Fergie genes getting into the Royal succession.
By John on July 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am
John, that is so mean! I think Eugenie could be okay at least she is bright and doing well in school. I gave Beatrice the benefit of the doubt until she wants to be a mini mummy! the innocence of it is kind of cute though.
john have you seen the Daily Mail, i have strong views but want to wait til you post
By Eliza on July 8th, 2007 at 11:00 am
You mean “the summer of love”, Eliza? I think Katie Nicholl’s busking the story along there. We all expected some informal announcement yesterday, but it clearly didn’t happen.
I was more interested that Mohamed al Fayed’s son Karim was in the Royal box for the concert last week. Interesting choice with the Inquest coming up in October.
By John on July 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I was shocked that he was in the box, i don’t get it.
But what raised my hackles is Kate pulling out of the charity row across the channel to focus on her man.
i strongly disapprove.
By Eliza on July 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Yes, and the commenters seem to disapprove too. Here’s my take on it : Kate’s been training for the race for a while and has got rather thin. William may have asked her to put on a little weight as he doesn’t want to cuddle up to a stick insect.
He may also remember his mother’s problem with her weight and not wish to face all that again.
By John on July 8th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Lily, Guy Pelly is Harry’s friend too. He’s supposed to be their court jester. I think William’s a “straight sort of guy”.
By John on July 8th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I have to concur that Charles would probably not be a bad king. While he has made some pretty selfish choices at times - all in all, he is not the most horrible person on the planet.
I have to admit - I don’t like the Queen all that well. I cannot help but remember her attitude when Diana died - how cold and unfeeling she was to try and pretend nothing ever happened. It was only the threat that Charles would speak and apologize for the attitude of the Winsors that she finally cried “uncle”. Even then it was just an act and it was hard to believe how people just lapped it up. She couldn’t care less and was only telling people what they wanted to hear. I know it’s how she was raised, but I don’t know how anyone can care for someone who is so cold and unfeeling.
Sorry, JMHO
By On The Outside on July 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
John, you mean Edward II, not Edward III. There was never anything about Edward III and his Queen, Philippa of Hainault, that suggested they were anything but a happy and heterosexual couple. Edward II was the King who was of a different persuasion, which was said to be why his Queen had lovers.
By Gigi on July 8th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I forgot about that, Outside. Thanks for the reminder and your honesty.
By Positive on July 8th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
John, as my husband says men are simple creatures and of course a skinnymelinks is not ideal to cosy up to. But really the gig is on at the end of the month and she committed herself to it.
I understand that she can’t see beyond William and wants to be with him 24/7, that’s women for you, but she should, he would respect her more for it.
Its the first time she has made a decision that i think she will regret. heretofore she has played a blinder, doing evthing; this is not right, this is letting down her friends not to mind the Cot death charity so she can spend a few more hours with william for a few more weeks.
By Eliza on July 8th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I think it’s wierd that she dropped out of the race. If she needed to put on weight, she could eat a couple of cream puffs. And from a PR perspective, it would be better for her to do the race than not. I don’t get it. The decision strikes me as a little bit strange.
By Marie on July 8th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I agree. It’s disappointing.
By Lilyfromfrance on July 8th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I understand what you say, Positive, about Charles, but I cannot abide anyone who lies and cheats and that is Charles. If he became King, he would make a farce of the Coronation religious oaths because he has already blasphemed. Other than that, I simply cannot stand him at any price.
By Gigi on July 8th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
LOL Gigi. I’m in a charitable mood. Let’s give him and Camilla a chance. :shrug:
By Positive on July 9th, 2007 at 2:46 am
On the race : there’s also the security aspect. If she’s back with William big-time, she may have been told that it would be a security nightmare and would spoil it for the others.
Alternatively, she may have found it a bit hard going and was looking for a way out.
My money’s on the security position.
By John on July 9th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Gigi, you’re right about Edward II — a slip of the finger. There’s even a club at Oxford University named after one of Edward’s “friends”, Piers Gaveston. Members apparently dress up in women’s clothes. I believe Tom Parker Bowles was one of them.
By John on July 9th, 2007 at 8:47 am
John, you are hugely charitable and i hope you are right and there is a genuine reason for pulling out of the race.
i like the people i like to do the rigtht thing.
By Eliza on July 9th, 2007 at 9:02 am
The “It may sound harsh…” quote in the article is unattributed, and I’d love to know who said it.
By Aunt Pierre on July 9th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
They’re quotes from “friends”, Aunt Pierre. That particular quote doesn’t read as if it was spoken, though — if you read all of it. Somebody replied by email or letter when asked, so it’s probably someone significant with known links to William.
By John on July 9th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
The security explanation makes the most sense to me.
But all this must make Kate think about the things she is giving up . . . which is also interesting in light of the quote that’s come out about (paraphrasing here) that it is worth all the trouble to date a prince.
This reminds me of the Matt Lauer interview in which he asked both princes to comment on the difficulties of finding “real friends.” Either their response was genuine or brilliantly predicted by a PR wonk–or both–but I was pleasantly surprised to hear them comment on how hard it is on their friends to be friendly with princes. Interesting redirection and no small amount of self-awareness.
This makes me think that the quote about it being “worth all the trouble to date a prince” might have some validity after all.
Is it worth the trouble? Hard to say.
By Marie on July 9th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Dating a prince is one thing, dating a prince who will one day be Prince of Wales and then, in the fullness of time, King, is quite another. The difficulties attendant with entering the Royal circle are so daunting that I am grateful that any suitable young lady is willing to date Prince William. I mean that most sincerely. There are officious, personal agenda driven courtiers, jealous members of the Royal family, the rabid press, the high and unforgiving expectations of the public, and the subtext of British history bearing down with incredible pressure on any girl who dates Prince William. I am just praying that Kate doesn’t panic and head for Pago Pago.
By Gigi on July 9th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Heck Gigi! If I were Kate, I’d be well on my way! :p
To those who say Charles would make a bad king due to his own behaviors - well - can anybody then take on the role? Who amongst us hasn’t done something in our lives that we are very ashamed of? Before anyone says, “well, I’ve certainly never cheated on my spouse” - good for you - but surely there is something in your past that you have done (or not done) that you would be horrified to have exposed.
Even the Queen isn’t without some tarnish - you might have to dig a little to find it - but her attitude and own selfishness do count against her.
By On The Outside on July 9th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
The problem on The Outside is that Charles is not ashamed of what he and Camzilla did to Diana. I can’t say that I know any one who would have the nerve before the Archbishop of Canterbury and the world to take on the solemn vow of marriage and have his mistress in the congregation whilst doing so.
By Trudie on July 10th, 2007 at 5:39 am
John, I agree about the security and also suspect that they are trying to keep a very low profile the second time around. This is consistent with the concert seating and the car park transfer. I wasn’t surprised about her pulling out of the race. I also suspect that William requested it. Why would she do anything he didn’t support?
By Cate on July 10th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Cate, she should do what is right and while of course William should support her, if he doesn’t it reflects badly on him and in fact reminds me of his father, who thinks the world revolves around him. It is not like she is climbing Everest. She is not a doormat who can’t think for herself, and while i am not encouraging a scrap between them sometimes a stand has to be made and i believe this is one of them.
Would the security really be so prohibitive? they would be at sea, anyone coming near them would be visible a long way off.
By Eliza on July 10th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Well said, Trudie. Charles has no moral compass and is incapable of consideration for anyone except himself. Add to these flaws the fact that he is shamelessly acquisitive and notoriously ruthless and you have a person (I shall not call him a man) thoroughly unfit for the throne of Britain. If he were ever to place his hand on the Holy Scriptures, as he must during the Coronation, it would not surprise me in the least if the Bible leapt from his hand.
Great Britain is not like other nations. She has set herself apart by her high standards of courage, morality, of leadership and Christian precepts. The British Monarch does not stoop to the whims of modern society. Rather the Monarch sets a higher standard, provides a role model for the people of the realm. The Monarch must not merely be, but must be understood to be, fair, just, honest, worthy and upholding the religious oath taken during the Coronation, which are promises made both to the Nation and to God.
By Gigi on July 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Well Gigi as Diana once said ” The top job as I call it would bring enormous limitations to him and I don’t know that he would adapt” . Charles has not only lowered the bar on morality but showed himself to be dishonest before God and country. He is hardly worthy of being paid homage to during his coronation in the Abbey.
By Trudie on July 10th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Wow. Does having a mistress is a dishonor before God? Charles will not be the only one of this family to go to hell then
Wow, hell must look like a dictionary full of history!
By Lilyfromfrance on July 10th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
The standard set by God for a Sovereign taking the Coronation Oath is what the Monarch must match, not the sinful behavior of other flawed humans. There are ten Commandments and none of them are negotiable. By my count, Charles has already shattered two and perhaps more, and showed no remorse. He is qualified to be a sinful human, not to be a consecrated King.
By Gigi on July 10th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
A King is also a human being, not a robot with a crown. The only things that matter are to make good things, to honor its duties and to keep the Nation and the Commonwealth unified. Nevermind with who the king sleeps, as long as it’s secret. I don’t think that being selfish and being unfaithful toward its spouse is like being disloyal or a traitor toward its people. It’s very different and it has no link with religion. As long as the king is good, what he does in his bed is private. I don’t think that people need to know what the king is doing in his bed for knowing what is good or not. No one is forced to follow.
Just look the current Queen. She is so fautless that everybody doesnt give a s*** about her details, while everybody wants to know how Charles, Wills or Harry eat their cornflakes, or who was the first to sleep with Camilla.
I agree that I would find it weird and unfair to enthrone a divorced, but I think there is no need to make a fuss about how crap Charles is, since Wills will be the next king
By Lilyfromfrance on July 10th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
You will note, dear Lily, that France got rid of its monarchy because the people were tired of flawed, dissolute, selfish Kings. It can happen in Great Britain, too, if the people get fed up. Adultery is only one of the issues.
By Gigi on July 10th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I dont have got any French blood in my veins, but I think the French people were right. They got rid of them because they were hungry since ages, and no one was caring. It was in 1789, not in 2007 and the French monarchy was different of the British monarchy. It was not a constitutional one. It was arbitary, distant, useless, the people were forced to give an amazing number of taxes to keep the monarchy, not only the royal family, but the jesters and the aristocracy court who werent working too. I dont think that the British people would get rid of its monarchy, even the people who are tired of it. If one day it would disappear, it would still have a role somewhere. People are not going to think about a republic suddenly because the heir is selfish, ugly or unfaithful, but because the young people of the royal family are wasting their time and money in clubs, complaining about the hard life they have, partying and vacationing while the real people are working hard, or are fighting for their country somewhere. This, would be a good reason to get rid of it.
By Lilyfromfrance on July 10th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I was actually talking about the last French King, during the 1800s, but there is not a great deal of difference. When monarchs insist on having all of the noblesse and none of the oblige, they cease to be worthy of the sacred trust the Crown entails.
By Gigi on July 10th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
The last times when there was a king in France was called the Restauration and dured just only some years in a very troubled time. The king was very very limited. It was such an echec that almost no one knows that there was a king after the revolution of 1789. It was very different of the monarchy before 1789 and from a different family. Thats why the British monarchy is very strong, after 2 revolutions, it’s still there.
By Lilyfromfrance on July 10th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
That’s true, the English-then-British always hated absolutist Monarchs, and they were right. When the French “Sun King”, Louis XIV, was fighting wars around Europe, our King was subject to Parliament.
We then had William and Mary who were true constitutional Monarchs. It’s not an accident that after the 1688 Constitution that handed real power to the business class, Britain became the richest and most powerful nation on earth for the next 230 years. The same thing happened in America in the 20th century.
A good lesson for those who would be tyrants.
By John on July 10th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
This ol’ Rednecked American is sure learning a lot of history today!
How many kings in the years past committed adultery? A fair number of them, I imagine. I can’t imagine the Queen having done so, but who the heck knows? She’s managed to keep her private life very private and good for her. She’ll be the last to enjoy that.
I think it’s asking a lot to expect near perfection for the person sitting on the throne. Even the Pope is a human being…
By On The Outside on July 10th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
History is littered with dissolute Kings and Queens true that is probably why no one believes in the Divine King these days. The point is of all the monarchy’s in Europe and the World Britain’s Monarch is also the head of the Church and Defender of the Faith so therefore Chucky is held to a higher standard. Gigi is right Chucky is well qualified to be a sinful human being not being consecrated as King and HEAD of the church.
By Trudie on July 10th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Well, I know I’m glad I’m not destined to be the head of anything, least of all a church.
If William lives long enough, he may well find himself unable to qualify as well.
By On The Outside on July 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Hi all, I just wanted to know what kind of a race Kate was suppose to be in?
By Jean on July 11th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Jean, a number of girls are going to row a “Dragon” boat (Chinese, I think) across the English Channel to France. It sounds to me like one of those “larks” that could go horribly wrong if the weather turns nasty.
If William has intervened to stop Kate going, he’s very wise. That can be a treacherous stretch of water.
By John on July 11th, 2007 at 8:44 am
By Gigi on July 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Thanks for filling me in John. That sounds like a difficult race, I hope the ladies can succeed.
By Jean on July 12th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Its a charity event which means the girls won’t be just abandoned at sea, there will be support boats etc so i imagine there is minimal risk for the safety of the participants.
There are many excuses for Kate not doing it but no reasons.
By Eliza on July 12th, 2007 at 8:49 am
I know i am the only person who has a bee in their bonnet about this, this is my last word on the matter.
Taking the long term view;
option 1) they marry, and ten years down the road or more she can tell her kids that she rowed the Channel, it will be something she will be immensely proud of or she says i could have done rowed the Channel it but i thought that your father would give me the road because i couldn’t dedicate myself to him for four weeks during the summer.
option 2) They don’t end up together and she will still have done something amazing or she will be single again and have let down her friends and shown herself to be flighty.
By Eliza on July 12th, 2007 at 11:28 am