Prince William to propose to Kate Middleton
The People had a short piece yesterday claiming Prince William had telephoned the Queen from Birkhall, on the edge of the Balmoral estate, telling her that his week’s holiday with Kate Middleton had convinced him that Kate is “the oneâ€.
Apparently, he intends to “propose†soon — although really the couple must have discussed this at some length by now. After they had reportedly staged a mock wedding in the Seychelles, it’s hard to know what there is to propose about.
The Queen was said to be delighted that the period of on/off dithering seems to be over.
It’s also known that William went through a period of “pretend marriage” with Jecca Craig some years ago. Clearly this Prince is determined to cover all the bases before he gives his commitment to anyone — probably a wise precaution after what his parents went through.
However, the People report begs the question, how did they know about this very personal phone call and the Queen’s reaction to it? Are they doing a News of the World? Unlikely following the jailing of that paper’s Royal editor for phone tapping.
Do they have a mole in Balmoral? That must be a possibility. Anyone who saw the film, The Queen will know how small the living quarters are there and how little privacy there is from staff.
The alternative is that they are punting this story in the hope it will prove right soon. I believe it will. Good punt. England could do with their services in the upcoming Rugby World Cup.
Or Wills could have simply called his grandmother to thank her for her support of his and his brother’s memorial their mum. Who knows what they talked about or even if a call was made?
But especially after this Camilla/Diana fiasco, I’m sure Her Majesty is quite anxious to avoid any repeat of Charles’ mistakes.
By NCKat on September 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
It’s hard to know what to think, Kat. The accumulated data, though, seems to be moving in one direction only.
By John on September 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Then there would have been no story. Who knows indeed.
By Positive on September 3rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Agreed John.
By Positive on September 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
On the topic of the “island paradise wedding,” I did look at The Globe’s report (as mentioned by someone in the previous thread). It said that William wrote his own vows, which means it isn’t legal. What’s that about? Here in the US, people can write their own vows, within certain limits (depending mostly on the clergy who is officiating at the ceremony). It also says that a clergy presided at this mock-wedding. Interesting.
I also remember someone previously reporting that William stopped off in Africa to visit Jecca Craig on his way to Desroches. If William had had one of these “weddings” with Jecca, do you suppose he stopped by to “divorce” her?
All signs seem to be pointing in the direction some of us have been hoping for!
By Evelyn on September 3rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I think William just likes to be on Jecca’s ranch in Kenya, Evelyn. By all accounts it’s a pretty fabulous place.
Let’s assume for a minute that the “wedding” was legal. They could then announce a fait accompli, with a quiet affirmation ceremony in the Guard’s Chapel, or St George’s, Windsor. That may suit both of them. After all, he’s not THE heir to the Throne yet.
Or am I being a smarty pants here?
By John on September 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Well, regardless of what the ceremony was like, I assume that if there was no marriage license, it would not be a legal marriage.
But it does sound like a romantic way for William to make his intentions very clear to Kate… if it’s true.
I think the spectacle of a royal wedding would help the monarchy. I can’t imagine the royal family not taking advantage of that opportunity, especially in light of the problems they still face with Charles and Camilla.
By Evelyn on September 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
True, especially as William and Kate are fresh, and free of the old backbiting agendas. It could be a fantastic public spectacle, assuming it’s the full Monty.
By John on September 3rd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Do you expect Peter & Autumn to have a big wedding? Or more like Edward & Sophie’s– wasn’t that at St George, Windsor? April-May-June?
By Evelyn on September 3rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I really don’t know, Evelyn. I would suspect from the way they’ve done it so far, it would be a smallish affair, possibly in Scotland.
By John on September 3rd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I agree with Evelyn – I think that weddings are one of the things that the RF does well, and think of the positive publicity! Talking about wedding dresses, rings, guest lists, wouldn’t-Diana-be-proud, Kate-finally-got-her-man, and all of that. C & C would hate it, but there would be no denying the positive effect on the public’s perception of the monarchy. I think that in the eyes of the public, C & C are tainted (even to those who support them). There is just too much unsavory backstory. We know too much about how they got to where they are, and some of it – *ugh*!
BUT – all of this is useless if Kate is not the ‘one’ – I hope they are being honest with themselves and have really thought this through. I need to remind myself that they are not living ‘normal’ lives and they cannot have a ‘normal’ relationship. All of the breakups and makeups are worrying, but then I would imagine the pressure on them is immense.
And now on a giddy girl note – BRING ON THE WEDDING! I want to buy books about it and special magazine editions and watch documentaries about it and get up at some rediculous hour to watch it – bring it on!
By SadieBoo on September 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
And what is the deal with all of these “mock weddings?” What is that? I have never done that with anyone I have seriously dated, including the man who eventually became my husband! Of course, he is no longer my husband, so maybe we should have done the mock-up – for luck!
I just wondered if maybe it was a British thing – or something that all of William’s friends do for fun. Wealthy people do lots of strange things.
By SadieBoo on September 3rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
There will be a BIG wedding! But maybe not so very soon.
Peter’s wedding will most likely be rather low key, but William’s will have to be big, almost like his parents’. And they are good with weddings. much better than with marriages…..
By daggy on September 3rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I was going to be all killjoy and give out about William exchanging vows like other people exchanging cladagh rings; that taking vows was a serious matter and shouldn’t be done, even in semi jest, with every girlfriend but done properly when you mean it for life.
BUT SadieBoo has put me in too good a form and i concur…..Bring it on!
I don’t think i can last til 2009 as you are predicting the wedding will be, i want loads of pictures of William and Kate deliriously happy and smiling and, of course, Kate looking beautiful in fabulous dresses and cool casuals.
By Eliza on September 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Daggy, I agree with you the British certainly do pomp brilliantly, not just weddings but funerals too. Both the Queen Mothers and Diana’s were spectacular. Maybe its the morbid Irish but we love a good funeral nearly as much as good wedding
By Eliza on September 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Good to see you posting again, daggy! Weclome back!
So, John, why do you say that Peter & Autumn might marry in Scotland, and where might that be at? The Balmoral church?
By Evelyn on September 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
He wouldn’t call his grandmother. He will tell her in person.
By Marilyn on September 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Didn’t Princess Anne marry in a Presbyterian church in Scotland? I don’t remember if it was the first or second time. Those of you who know your Royal stuff can help me with this…
By SadieBoo on September 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Princess Anne married her second husband, Timothy Laurence, on December 12, 1992, in the Church of Scotland rather than the CHurch of England, Crathie Kirk, near the Balmoral Estate in Aberdeen.
I shall hope for a magnificent Royal Wedding for Prince William and Kate, in Westminster Abbey or Saint Paul’s Cathedral with all the pomp, splendor and pageantry that the British do better than anyone! I am also pleased that you are posting, Daggy!
By Gigi on September 3rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Here are a couple other thoughts on the timing for William & Kate’s nuptials.
Once they are married, I expect there will be a lot of pressure for William & Kate to have a baby very soon after the wedding, much as was the case with Charles & Diana. Whenever they get married, Kate should be ready to be a mother within a year. She should do whatever she needs to do now to feel ready to take on those responsibilities and restrictions.
Similarly, William should be at a point in his life when he will be able to be with Kate throughout the pregnancy, to share that experience with her– as much as any man can “share” in being pregnant! Likewise, he’ll want to be free to be with them after the birth, to begin setting a healthy tone for his new family. This is another good reason to wait until William has completed his military obligations.
By Evelyn on September 3rd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I certainly hope this turns out to be more truth than fiction. I’d like for it to be the truth, but unfortunately The People is not the most reliable source of information around!
However, Prince William certainly went to a lot of trouble to have a private holiday in the Seychelles with Kate Middleton, I would like to think that they took that opportunity to discuss themselves and their future plans, and whether or not they intend to continue to be a part of each other’s lives.
But even so, I doubt that Prince William had such an important conversation with his grandmother over the telephone. I think I’ll just continue to watch Royal Anecdotes for any future developments.
By mapleleaf on September 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I hope this is true, I like Kate and hopes she gets her prince.
By Alicia on September 3rd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Evelyn I hope that when Kate and William do marry they do not bow to pressure and start a family within a year. This was part of Diana’s problem within a year she had to adjust to becoming a wife, mother and Princess of Wales her own words and it was a lot. I hope that Kate and William have at least a year or two of Marriage before little Princes or Princessess come their way. As for you Daggy it is so nice that you are posting still. You are so right when you say the british certainly know how to do the pomp!!!
By Trudie on September 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
It would be a shame if they went ahead and quickly had children. With the POW and then William next, would there really be pressure for them to start right away? I mean, I know that traditionally it was expected to go ahead and get the heir (and spare) but is it that way now?
I apologize in advance for the questions I will ask about the RF on this page – I don’t see much in the US besides stories about members of the monarchy but not much about rules, traditions, etc. I also don’t see much except the most general stories about public opinion/sentiment in Britain, regarding the monarchy.
By SadieBoo on September 4th, 2007 at 1:45 am
I haven’t been following their relationship too closely until the media leapt upon it recently. The perception over here in the US, or at least the way I perceive it, is that Kate comes off looking a little desperate, which translates into trying to trap the prince with ultimatums etc. which in turn smacks of grasping. During an interview with a British correspondent on the nightly news, one US news anchor commented that Kate appeared to be “campaigning” for the prince during their breakup. That kind of behavior does not seem very Diana-like (or ladylike for that matter) at all and I wish the media would quit touting her as such. She doesn’t hold a candle to Diana.
How many times has the press erroneously predicted their engagement? I don’t think I have enough fingers to count.
By Jane Doe on September 4th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Ask away, SadieBoo. Someone always seems to know the answer and if none of us knows it, John surely does!
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 4:16 am
“He wouldn’t call his grandmother. He will tell her in person.”
I agree with Marilyn here. It’s too big of a deal not to see The Queen personally about. It’s amazing the stories that the press come out with. Sure, I’d like to see them together, but what’s the hurry?
By Maricar on September 4th, 2007 at 4:22 am
If and when there is a wedding, I hope Kate DOES NOT wear those awful brown suede boots with her wedding gown! LOL.
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Gigi, didn’t Princess Anne marry in the Church of Scotland because, as a divorced person, she could not marry in the Church of England? I believe that is the same reason Charles and Camilla had to have a civil cermony, followed by a “blessing” in the Church of England. Although Charles was a widower, Camilla was a divorcee.
Considering that 1992 was Her Majesty’s “annus horribilis,” with the divorce of Princess Anne, the separation of Charles and Diana AND Andrew and Sarah, not to mention the fire at Windsor Castle, I’m sure the Queen appreciated Anne’s choice of a low key affair.
I do hope Peter and Autumn choose a wedding similiar to Edward and Sophie, but I’m not holding my breath. Since Peter Philips is not “royal” and has lead a relatively private life, his wedding will probable be on the scale of Lady Sara Armstrong Jones to Daniel Chatto and/or David Linley to Serina Stanhope. I doubt there will be any televison coverage and Princess Anne will be able to ban photographers from the event.
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 5:05 am
I mean, I know that traditionally it was expected to go ahead and get the heir (and spare) but is it that way now?
SadieBoo, the old idea of getting an heir quickly comes from a time when life was nasty, brutish and short, especially for Royal women. Nowadays, they are a little more relaxed. It was Diana’s choice to go for a quick family. Her insecurities made her sense she needed to establish herself by becoming the mother of a future Monarch.
As for Kate (nearly 26), she should be reluctant to leave it until she’s in her 30s when lots of problems arise. She will be aware of the immense difficulties Edward and Sophie have had.
Tallyho, and don’t spare the horses is Royal Anecdotes advice.
By John on September 4th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Arthur, if she wore brown suede boots at the wedding, would anyone notice under a wedding dress and train?
By John on September 4th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I like everyone else just wish that they would get on with it. We are all fed up with it’s on it’s off as reported in all newspapers.
We haven’t as yet had official clarification that it is back on although we all know that it is.
I think ( for what it’s worth) that it is going to happen and that an engagement announcement is imminent.
We need to see them on the lawn at the palace asap!!
By james on September 4th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I also forgot to add that I don’t think PW would use one of Dianas favourite rings as an engagement ring for his bride, whether it’s Kate or not.
He seems to be his own person and that constant comparison which is going to happen anyway to Diana would only be fuelled by such use of one of her rings.
Williams and Harrys brides will of course use Dianas jewellery in the fullness of time but at the moment I for one think that that it’s all just to a bit to raw to be flaunting such baubles.
By james on September 4th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Arthur I hate to correct you but Charles is also a divorcee having finalized his divorce on Aug 28 1996. Diana died Aug31,1997 so Charles is not the widower he wants the world to believe. I think Kate may find white suede boots for her wedding. LOL
By Trudie on September 4th, 2007 at 11:00 am
SadieBoo what part of the states are you from? I’m from NY, Gigi is a Texan I’m sorry Arthur I can’t remember where you are from but no matter where everyone on this site comes from ask questions you are among friends.
By Trudie on September 4th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Trudie, he is a divorcee in the eyes of the state but he may be a widower in the eyes of the Church of England. I’m not sure as i’m not up on my ecclesiastical law, i suppose it all depends if the Church of England recognises divorce, catholism doesn’t.
Arthur, I agree Kate seems obsessed by those boots and she has good legs so i don’t really understand why she feels the need to wear them at every opportunity. I suppose she is dressing down some of the short dresses but really pumps would do the same thing. May be William has a thing for boots!
By Eliza on September 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
They could have a long courtship like Sophie and Edward. Weren’t they together for nearly 9 years before formalizing things? I think pretty much the same for Kate & William. Very long courtship, until when they finally become engaged it will be a foregone conclusion. 2009 could be a pivotal year.
By Positive on September 4th, 2007 at 11:57 am
If Kate and William have a long courtship, I hope for both of their sakes that it IS like Edward and Sophie’s. You never heard of them having multiple breakups or anything else about them. And if they take some time before getting married, then maybe Kate can find something (like photography) to do with her time.
I feel sorry for her, in a way. She has gotten some of the same type of treatment that Diana did (notice I said “type”, not “level”) – meaning that she has a Royal boyfriend and yet, she is given no guidance about what to do with herself in the time before they marry. Obviously she can’t work full time, she’s got to be available for him. But many of her choices seem poorly thought out. The part-time job from friends of her parents, the charity boat race and then pulling out of it, letting herself be photographed while out after the breakup – it all seems like she does things that seem like good ideas at the time, and then they go awry. And then the media talks about it incessantly.
I know that she’s not ‘official’ yet, but surely CH could offer a little bit of guidance?
Trudie – I am from Alabama – thanks for asking. And Gigi – I was born in Texas!
By SadieBoo on September 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
James, we know that Diana left her jewels for use by her sons future wives. I don’t think there would be too much sniping about it, but the story of the ring doesn’t seem to stand up anyway.
By John on September 4th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
SadieBoo, a lot of people say she’s having no guidance, but that may not be the case. William’s staff and private secretary seem to be available to her, and before the split there was talk she was being instructed by senior courtiers.
The fact that she’s dropped off the radar now indicates she’s taking good advice about unnecessary publicity, “stunts”, as the Queen calls them. Either that, or she’s read Royal Anecdotes’ “Ten tips for the girl who would be Queen”.
By John on September 4th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I was reading up about royal jewelry yesterday. They could have Diana’s engagement ring turned into a brooch or necklace, if *the ring* makes them uncomfortable. Kate wouldn’t be coming into the marriage with too many jewels, and no family tiara (Diana wore the Spencer tiara for her wedding). But the Queen gave the Cambridge tiara to Diana, so that would be something William could give to Kate.
I think Kate should start having children by the time she turns 30. (Glad to see that John agrees here!) If the courtship and/or engagement is long, then there should be less time between the wedding and the first child. If the wedding is sooner, then Kate could take more time after the wedding to begin their family.
If William and Kate become engaged, then I think all the media will be happier laying off the other “royal” weddings on the schedule. So if Princess Anne would like Peter’s to be low-key, the best solution of to have William officially propose to Kate.
By Evelyn on September 4th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I don’t think William and Kate will get engaged til after Peter’s wedding and the engagement will difinitely be short the question remaining is how long the courtship will last.
Edward and Sophie got away with the long courtship because (a) they never really attracted the limelight and (b) people were sick and tired of the the separations and the divorces and the backbiting going on at the time between the other royals and their exs and were glad that Edward was taking his time.
I do feel a bit sorry for Sophie that they waited so long, she met Edward when she was twenty eight and they didn’t get married til she was thirty four or five and as was mentioned above she has been through the wars when it comes to having children. I hope and pray that everything works out with this baby.
Little Louise is a dote and i know they are keeping a low profile for her but she should be allowed out a little more. I think kids can be too cosseted, she is a lovely little girl and should be allowed to attend family events like little Marguerita, Lord Linley’s child and not hidden away.
By Eliza on September 4th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Arthur, I believe you are right about Princess Anne. As a divorcee whose husband was still living, she could not have been married in the Church of England and thus chose a discreet and small wedding in the Church of Scotland. As for Charles and Camilla, their wedding was what it was for a number of reasons. First, Camilla was a divorcee whose husband was still alive. Charles had been married in the Church of England and divorced, but his former wife, Princess Diana, was deceased. He was not and is not a widower, however, because he was no longer married to Princess Diana at the time of her death. Another impediment was that in the eyes of the Church as well as many of the public, Camilla and Charles were adulterers. Therefore, no prelate would agree to marry them in the Church of England. A blessing by clergy was permitted after the civil marriage service, but only after Charles and Camilla had admitted their “manifold sins and wickedness.”
As for Prince William and Kate having children, it would be best if they both were ready for that step. Fortunately they are young enough that they have time before biological pressures emerge. Speaking of Prince Edward and his lovely wife, I saw a photograph of them in formal attire at the birthday party of Crown Prince Willem and Sophie looks wonderful! Does anyone recall when the new Wessex baby is due to be born?
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
John, you would definitely notice Kate’s brown boots as she climbed in and out of the glass coach!
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Trudie, I know Charles was divorced from Diana in 1996, but at the time of his wedding Diana was deceased. That’s why I thought he was technically a widower in the eyes of his church. It doesn’t really matter at this point. Charles married the “rottweiler” and is happy in his little world!
By the way, I’m form Massachusetts, but I spent my early years living and going to school in New York. Do you want to tells us in what part of the state you live?
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Here in Texas, it is not uncommon for Texas brides to wear custom made white leather or white suede cowboy boots under their formal, full-length bridal gowns at their weddings. Many Texas grooms wear black dress cowboy boots with their tuxedos.
This does not detract at all from the beauty or the formality of the occasion, actually. It is a rather charming custom among Native Texan families.
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Gigi, I have seen Texas brides and grooms wearing cowboy boots and it looks fine in Texas. I don’t think we want to see Kate wearing boots and a cowboy hat with white tulle hanging from it! LOL.
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Cowboy boots would be sooooo much better than those slouchy brown suede things she wears with all of her outfits. They are great boots, but not with everything she owns.
Many times, I see her picture and think, “Wow, that is a great outfit FROM THE KNEES UP.”
By SadieBoo on September 4th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
SadieBoo, my sentiments exactly!
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Personally, if I looked as great in slouchy brown suede boots as Kate does, I would wear them!
Nevertheless, my guess is that Kate’s bridal attire will be British traditional, with bridal slippers covered in cream or white silk peau de soie or heavy Duchess satin, the toes of the slippers embroidered with the bride’s mongram in heavy cream silk thread. Failing that, something similarly appropriate will be chosen. That is my guess, anyway. 
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
” . . . the toes of the slippers embroidered with the bride’s mongram in heavy cream silk thread.”
Oy. I hope not. She seems to have a minimalist sense of style, so I hope she picks something other than a cream-puff-meets-Elvis getup.
By Marie on September 4th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
You know, there was a picture a few months back showing Kate out at night in a teal or green minidress – kind of a shiny material. Then she had on the boots! I wondered then if maybe she wore the boots while on her way out for the evening, and then she changed once she arrived at the club, party or whatever. I thought maybe she wore them on the way for comfort or warmth or something. I am only a few years older than Kate and I know – if you are dancing in a club, it gets hot in suede boots!
I guess I am surprised that she’s not more of a Manolo or Choo girl, at least when she’s on the town.
I promise I will say no more about the girl’s footwear – until the wedding footwear is the subject!
By SadieBoo on September 4th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I agree with you Marie, none of the recent royal brides’s dresses were great, the nicest one i remember was Sarah Armstrong-Jones’, it seemed to be inspired by Joan of Arc armoury and was designed by Jasper Conrad,but it suited her as she has strong features and is not a girly type of girl. Even Lady Helen Taylor’s dress, who i consider to the be the most stylish of the royals, wasn’t great. They go for the big wow factor and it just turns into merrigue. I reckon she’d go Carolyn Kennedy if she could but i think that would be too much for the establishment.
Anyway we are happily getting carried away with ourselves.
By Eliza on September 4th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Ooooh – I liked Princess Anne’s first wedding dress! It was perfect for her. And I thought Princess Diana’s dress was appropriately over-the-top for the occasion, even though I would never go for that myself. I like to see brides wearing dresses that suit their personalities and sensibilities. I loved Sophie Wessex’s dress, too, but it fit her poorly. I was amazed that more time wasn’t given to her fittings. Of course, like many brides, she could have dropped some weight just before the ceremony and there wasn’t time to fit the dress.
I guess John can see that if there is a Royal Wedding, (or two! or three!!) that there will be no dearth of activity here!
By SadieBoo on September 4th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I’ve never really felt that Manolos and Choos are *really* comfortable, and Kate’s a sporty girl, after all. Come to think of it, you almost never see her in heels, except for the fish-net stocking picture where she was climbing out of a cab. My guess is that she’s conscious about some part of her body (ridiculous, but beauty is wasted on the young), and feels the boots balance her out. And of course, boots are pretty comfortable–at least the ones she wears–which is helpful when you are always on the go.
And, yes, I could see her pulling a Carolyn Besette Kennedy type move, with some obscure English designer. Or maybe something lovely by Jenny Packham or that French gal . . . Suzanne Ermann. That would be cool. Just, please, no Melania Trump bourgeois embarassments. That thing was such a horror! How many silk worms died for that pretentious wadded yardage of a 17th century fantasy gone mad?
The one good thing about Kate is that she CAN wear heels and not tower over William. So, the field is wide open for her.
Yeesh. I sound like a looney, opining about dresses for a wedding that hasn’t even been announced. I must be a girl . . .
By Marie on September 4th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Now that I think of it, since the bridal gown is generally floor length, we very likely will not know what Kate’s bridal footwear looks like. LOL
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Wow, I see I’ll have to start watching the Fashion Network if wedding dresses and shoes will be the topic of discussion for the next 18 months!
I know it would be a social “faux pas” for Kate to use anyone other than an English desgner, but I’m sure Vera Wang could whip up something romantic, yet appropriate. Also, Oscar DeLaRenta and Valentino would be good choices. In my humble opinion, too many royal brides pick obscure designers who end up more interested in making a name for themselves than designing the perfect dress. An established designer would not have to worry about that and could focus on making the bride look as beautiful as she can be.
Gigi has some great ideas about bridal shoes. Perhaps she should design Kate’s dress. Are you up for the task, Gigi? LOL.
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Thanks, Arthur! Most of my ideas and tastes are very traditional and classic rather than avante garde. In fact, at 60 years of age (almost), I believe I can be called old-fashioned. Yes, definitely old-fashioned although I like many of the novelties. When it comes to bridal fashions, I think clean, simple lines, elegant fabrics and detailing make a bridal gown exquisite. It is important that the dress not wear the bride, rather than the other way around. One of the most exquisite bridal gowns I can ever recall was that designed and made by Helen Rose for Princess Grace of Monaco. Of course, Princess Grace was so lovely that she could look wonderful in a burlap sack, but her bridal gown was a triumph, nonetheless.
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Gigi, I’m with you, classic and traditional all the way. I think the mark of a great dress is that it still looks as stylish 50 years later as it did on the day it was worn. Princess Grace’s dress is a perfect example of that.
If I remember correctly, Grace’s dress was made and paid for by a Hollywood studio and Helen Rose was one of the studio designers. Oscar winner Edyth Head designed most of Graces beautiful gowns and she was very put out that Grace didn’t commission her to do the bridal gown.
Princess Margaret’s wedding dress wasn’t bad for a royal bride, but certainly not on the scale of Princess Grace.
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Helen Rose really outdid herself when she designed the bridal gown for Princess Grace. As you say, Arthur, the Hollywood film studio paid for the gown, which was the most expensive garment ever made in the history of the studio. The wedding gown was made from antique Valenciennes rose point lace, twenty-five yards of silk taffeta and ninety eight yards of tulle. Her veil was covered with appliquéd lace lovebirds and thousands of seed pearls. Edythe Head was a wonderful designer, but for classic, elegant formal gowns, no one could eclipse Helen Rose. She was unquestionably the right choice to design that perfect bridal gown for Princess Grace. There will never be another gown like it.
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Oh, I love Edith Head! She designed so many fantastic dresses. And I agree the Princess Grace was breathtaking.
Bridal dresses have really changed over the years. I tend to like either the vintage ones, or the contemporary designs. Some of the dresses in the 80s–the cream puff phase–really turn me off because they do, as Gigi says, end up being the focus. A bride should most definitely wear the dress.
But there are wonderful English designers working now, like Jenny Packham, who create what I think is the perfect mix of vintage and new. Kate’s got a great shape, so she could carry off most anything.
And I LOVE Valentino. But he just retired. Today!
By Marie on September 4th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
“I know it would be a social “faux pas†for Kate to use anyone other than an English desgner, but I’m sure Vera Wang could whip up something romantic, yet appropriate. Also, Oscar DeLaRenta and Valentino would be good choices. ”
Absolutely Arthur!!! We’re on the same wave length. And don’t forget Carolina Herrera. Oh. But alas, I know they can’t be chosen for that occasion.
By Positive on September 4th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
That great that they will wed soon. They are made for each other but have anyone been to the Wikipedia site where it has Kate’s bio?. They refuse to put that Kate is William’s girlfriend soon to be wife. No matter how many times you try to update it, it changes to his former girlfriend before you can blink your eyes.
By Claudius on September 5th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Arthur I don’t mind telling you what part of New York I’m in I live in the Town of Bedford in Westchester County what part of NY did you study in? Also Thanks Gigi for a minute there I thought I had forgotten Canon Law. Thanks for clearing that up for me. OK Gigi what Southern dessert can we add to the tea menu to welcome SadieBoo?
By Trudie on September 5th, 2007 at 1:40 am
I wonder which of the Queen’s tiaras Kate will wear to her wedding.
With her strong features and long hair. she can wear a large one. She would look lovely with her hair worn down and volumized, with a some height on the crown and a large, airy tiara wrapped around that.
By Alicia on September 5th, 2007 at 2:27 am
Trudie, here’s the “Readers Digest” version of my life. I lived in Woodside, Queens, NY where I went to Catholic elementary school and then to Catholic high school in Manhattan. After high school, my family moved to Hampton Bays, Long Island and I attended and graduated from Stony Brook University. After college, I moved upstate and lived/worked in Schenectady for 10 years before being transferred to my current home in Massachusetts.
I hope John doesn’t get made at me for putting such personal information on his website.
By Arthur on September 5th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Alicia, William may decide to give Kate the Cambridge Lover’s Knot tiara, which the Queen gave to Diana as a wedding gift. It’s the one with the free-hanging teardrop pearls. Diana’s will specified that her jewels were to be given to her sons’ wives.
As I understand it, some of the Queen’s jewels belong to the Crown, and some are her personal property. Beyond that, I don’t know much about the protocol of borrowing such jewels within the Royal Family.
By Evelyn on September 5th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Alicia, I think it would be a nice gesture if the Queen gave Kate Queen Mary’s Cambridge Lovers’ Knot Tiara, the same tiara she gave Diana as a wedding present when Diana married Charles.
By Arthur on September 5th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Trudie, how about orange tea cakes and pralines? These two desserts are in the cookie category, or tea cakes, but they are luscious, classic southern tea menu items. Pralines have pecans, of course, that most delectable of nuts found in the South. Other than that, Sadieboo is welcome to suggest what dessert she would like added to our Royal Anecdotes Tea menu, specifically to honor her.
By Gigi on September 5th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Daggy, please choose a dessert item for our tea that is a favorite of yours. We would wish to honor you as well!
By Gigi on September 5th, 2007 at 3:01 am
I’m sure whatever Kate decides to wear will beautiful.
By Claudius on September 5th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Claudius, yes! I have noticed this! It is the strangest thing. I think that they need a photo or some other kind of evidence to change the content. But, yes, Wikipedia seems to be willfully behind on this matter, and I don’t know why.
By Marie on September 5th, 2007 at 3:20 am
The first part of the Wikipedia article states that Kate is the current girlfriend of Prince William. Strange that later paragraphs focus on the “end” of their relationship.
By Evelyn on September 5th, 2007 at 3:25 am
John, I have a question for you concerning Diana’s sapphire and diamond engagement ring. I’ve heard it said many times over the years that Diana chose the sapphire ring because it was the largest ring in the jeweler’s selection. However, a gentleman on TV, here in the States, recently said that Diana’s ring was actually made for her from a sapphire originally owned by Queen Victoria. Apparently, Victoria thought the sapphire too large and had it made smaller. Various “chips” from Victoria’s sapphire were made into other pieces of jewelry, including the sapphire broach that Diana eventually made into a choker. Diana’s engagement ring and the choker originated from the same sapphire. Furthermore, another sapphire chip is contained in a cross pendent given to Jacqueline Kennedy. Jackie referred to the cross as “The Queen Mother’s Cross.” This cross is currently on loan, from the Kennedy family, for exhibition in London; however, in the exhibition, the pendent is called the “Jacqueline Kennedy Cross.”
Have you ever heard this story about Diana’s ring?
By Arthur on September 5th, 2007 at 3:29 am
It has been fun reading all of this! You know, about those boots….I remember that Kate started wearing them all of the time when her feet were photographed dirty after a night out. Does anyone else remember that? I thought she must have been horrified and then always wore the boots outside. I did think that she must stuff a pair of prettier shoes in the large purses she carries.
Does anyone think she might get an apartment at CH? Didn’t Sophie get one when she was dating Edward? I was thinking about that when the report came out that she received the security pass.
If anyone wants to see Princess Grace’s wedding dress it is in the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s private collection. It was shown last year and I went to see it. It was amazing. They had all of these photos in the exhibit. She looked lovely. Also, they had the items from the bridal party too. Hmmmm….come to think of it, shouldn’t Caroline’s children be ready to marry soon too?
By Cate on September 5th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Gosh, you are all so well informed on frocks and shoes and things, of which I know next to zilch. I keep all my shoes in a large crate and when I peer into it, they all look the same. I should point out that the crate is very stylish.
By John on September 5th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Arthur, no problems with the personal information. It reveals the person behind the name. Just be careful you don’t reveal too much.
Actually, this thread is so educational and well-informed, I should turn it into a manual for posh girls in search of a wedding outfit.
By John on September 5th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Arthur, your story of the ring rings a bell with me, but I’m not a close follower of Royal jewellery, dresses and shoes, unfortunately. Our contributors are way more knowledgable than I am, so I’m sure someone will come up with the answer.
Cate, if a long engagement is on the cards, I’m sure Kate will be offered accommodation at CH, probably with William, who may be given larger quarters.
By John on September 5th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Gosh, what a lot of talk about wedding frocks and jewellry – it’s been fun reading all of this! Re: the Wikipedia article, I wonder if they are waiting for official acknowledgment that William and Kate are back together or they are waiting to verify the source? I understand Wikipedia has become more cautious in verifying its facts after a fuss was made in the press about inaccurate changes and untruths present in articles about some people. So I’d cut them some slack.
By NCKat on September 5th, 2007 at 10:35 am
If William and Kate decide to play house and live together at CH during the engagement period, then we will know one thing for certain about her wedding gown. It won’t be white!!! LOL
By Arthur on September 5th, 2007 at 10:53 am
No, Kate’s wedding gown will still be some shade of white. Camilla’s was when she married Charles.
By Evelyn on September 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
In her book, “The Royal Jewels” Suzy Menkes reports that Princess Diana’s engagement ring was chosen from a tray a rings sent to Buckingham Palace by the Crown Jewellers Garrard. She also reports that Garrad offered the same ring in their catalog, which caused Prince Charles to switch his patronage to Asprey. I believe the choosing the ring scene was described in detail in Morton’s first book .
Prince Albert did give Queen Victoria a large, beautiful sapphire brooch surrounded by diamonds, which the present Queen wears today.
This thread is a little strange. The UK tabloid “The People” is probably the worst of the bunch. They very rarely get anything right when it comes to the royals. The American Globe is about two rungs below The People. Makes nice packing material.
We’ve already witnessed several disastrous royal marriages in the last few decades. Nothing this couple has done leads me to believe they have what it takes for the long haul. I have seen extreme immaturity, laziness, playing to the media (on Kate’s part), and crass insensitvity (on William’s part). And yet, here you all are, cheering it on. I totally believe Richard Kay’s report that the Queen is very concerned–she ought to be.
So much is expected of William, probably too much. He has to get this right. I’d like to see him date around a bit. Grow up a little. Kate’s not going anywhere.
By Jasper on September 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Jasper!! You’re not entering the sport of it at all. Us ladies like to discuss wedding dresses and paraphernalia and we like this couple so it allies our two favourite topics!
As for Princess Grace’s dress, I totally agree it was stunning and am very impressed with your indepth knowledge of it, it’s all news to me. I think the Queen’s dress was beautiful too.
It was the eighties dresses that won’t stand the test of time. Sophie’s dress was lovely but too big for her, that was because she lost a tonne of weight in the last few days and they didn’t have time to keep altering it.
As for engagement rings, don’t shoot me but i think Camilla’s ring is nicer than Diana’s, i like the thirties feel to it. I think Camillla’s ring belonged to the Queen Mother, if i’m wrong i’m sure someone here will know.
So Jasper even with your urge for caution I just can’t stop myself!
By Eliza on September 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
My goodness, Jasper, how cross you are! None of us know how Prince William and Kate really feel about each other. No one knows that except the two of them. If we are going to be reasonable about this, we have to trust the two of them to make the right decision for their lives. I recommend that we all do that. From my point of view, it is useless for outsiders to try to analyze the relationships of others. When my husband and I married, years ago, at the ages of 22, there were many people who thought it would not last. Yet here we are, 37 years on, still in love, still happy together. I am going to trust Prince William and Kate, have faith that they know what they are doing. They deserve no less from us all.
By Gigi on September 5th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“It was the eighties dresses that won’t stand the test of time.”
Amen. Down with shoulder pads.
By Marie on September 5th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Cross? Someone disagrees with you, so they’re “cross”? No, I’m just a realist. You say you’re going to trust William and Kate. OK. I hate to break it to you, but William has given absolutely no indication that he’s anywhere near announcing an engagement–quite the opposite. IMHO, the media and the royal watchers really need to tone it down a peg or two.
And Eliza, I am the “lady” sort myself and love nothing better than reading about royal jewels and wedding dresses. I’ve recently received the book that “Five Gold Rings” which is the souvenir album from the wedding exhibits at Buckingham Palace and Windsor this summer. It’s a wonderful book with lots of pictures.
I have to disagree with you about the “80′s dresses”. I thought Sarah Ferguson’s dress was really beautiful. Although, I would agree with a previous poster about Sarah Armstrong Jones’ dress, it was absolutely perfect.
By Jasper on September 5th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Eliza, the ring that Charles gave Camilla did, indeed, belong to the Queen Mother. It was a favorite of hers, a gift from her husband, King George VI (as he became), while he was still Duke of York, to mark the birth of their first child and daughter, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary of York (who became Queen Elizabeth II.) I doubt the Queen Mother would be pleased that the ring is on Camilla’s finger, however.
By Gigi on September 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Well Gigi, i thought you would know, i didn’t realise that it was such a sentimental item, really that ring should have been given to the Queen. I have a solid gold bangle that my father gave to my mother when i was born and because it celebrates me, it is of the utmost importance to me.
As i have daughters i am following the tradition and have a lovely eternity ring to commemorate the older and i want a pearl necklace to commemorate the younger.
I don’t think the tradition is as important if the child is a boy coz the wife gets it and as we know there’s no guarantee how long that will stay in the family so i’m a bit shocked that Camilla has a ring that celebrates the birth of the Queen. Never mind the Queen Mother how does the Queen feel about the wearer of her ring!
And Jasper we don’t have completely different tastes, i was the one raving about Sarah Armstrong Jones’ dress, it really was a classic and will never date.
By Eliza on September 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Wow – I have missed so much in just a 12-hour period! Trudie and Gigi – y’all are so sweet to add a dessert for me! I love pralines, Gigi – I live just down the coast from New Orleans and have had the privilege of tasting some of the best in the land! And may I also suggest Red Velvet cake? It may not be *only* Southern, but I think Southerners do it best! Or Moon Pies – chocolate only!
On to the next thing – I would love to see Kate in the Cambridge Lover’s Knot Tiara. But first, I am going to fantasize about the engagement ring. It is time to put some bling on that girl!
I have a question for everyone – do you think that either of the boys would use Diana’s engagement ring? Since there are two potential wives and only one ring, who (if anyone) would use it? I know that there are many traditions in different families, but these are Royals and also, there is such a poignant history with this ring. What do y’all think?
Jasper – I am going to look up that book you mentioned! Sounds like something I would like.
By SadieBoo on September 5th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Red Velvet cake sounds nice, whats in it?
By Eliza on September 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I forgot to add – I went to the library last night and checked out a book called “The Queen and Di” – cute title, huh? It was written by Ingrid Seward – I have seen her interviewed on specials about the Royals. I’m a few chapters in, and I am starting to wonder if Ms. Seward is kind of anti-Diana. She does present both sides, but she makes far more apologies and excuses for the RF’s behavior than she does for Diana’s. She isn’t mean, and it doesn’t matter to me if she is for or against anyone involved, but I would like to know just the same. Any thoughts? And I am sorry if this is off-topic – I didn’t want to go back to a Charles/Diana article and post because I didn’t think anyone would see it there.
By SadieBoo on September 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Eliza, the Queen Mother’s entire estate went to the Queen upon her death. This was done to avoid death duties. I’m quite sure the Queen has approved of every piece of the Queen Mother’s jewelry that Camilla currently wears. I agree with you, I think Charles is rather good at creating his own reality. He has completely disregarded the fact that the Queen Mother couldn’t stand the sight of Camilla. She was a savy little lady. She knew full well what a marriage between Charles & Camilla would bring. Just imagine what she would have made of the memorial mess?
Most of the Queen Mum’s pieces, which Camilla is currently wearing, aren’t really to my taste. The brooches tend to be rather big and ugly, and that tiara was just totally over the top. The exception would be the emerald/diamond Prince of Wales feather brooch/pendent, which was favorite of Diana’s. Some posters at other sites have stated that the one Camilla is wearing isn’t the same brooch, but I think they’re wrong. Charles isn’t going to spring for a copy when the real thing is in the vault. He’d want Camilla wearing Alexandra’s jewelry. Imagine that, the great grand daughter of her husband’s mistress, wearing her jewelry. Diana wore it on a diamond necklace, which was a wedding gift from a Saudi royal. There’s a clear picture of the piece in the Five Gold Rings book.
Sadieboo, order the book from Amazon. Don’t get it from the UK, it will cost a mint. I also bought the souvenir album for the Queen’s birthday at the same time.
By Jasper on September 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Jasper – thanks for the tip on the book and for your comments above! Things in the RF get a little tangled, don’t they?
Eliza, Red Velvet cake is heaven on a plate. It is actually a type of chocolate cake – the cocoa in the recipe turns to a reddish-brown color when certain ingredients mix with it. The frosting is white, usually a cream cheese or white chocolate flavor, which makes the red cake stand out even more. Many people sprinkle pecans over the top. It is a very dense cake. Many people have taken to adding red food coloring to intensify the red color of the cake, which leads to people getting a red tongue when they eat a piece of the cake.
If you have seen the movie “Steel Magnolias,” (starring Sally Field, Julia Roberts, Shirley MacLaine, and more), Julia Robert’s fiance’ requests a Red Velvet groom’s cake. However, he also requests that it be made in the shape of an armadillo. There’s a line in the movie referring to the fact that the armadillo looks like it is being murdered, because of the red cake.
By SadieBoo on September 5th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Red Velvet cake it is, Sadieboo! An excellent, even an inspired choice! This delectible cake is to DIE for, but I recommend we all live so we can enjoy eating the cake.
It is not exclusively a Southern recipe and in fact, was first served at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, if memory serves me well. At any rate, it is a rich, delicious cake make with the usual cake ingredients (flour, eggs, vanilla, vegetable shortening,cocoa, sugar, salt and baking soda), two of the more unusal being buttermilk and a small amount of vinegar. The ‘red velvet’ is contrived by adding two ounces of red food coloring. It is almost always served with a wonderful white buttercream frosting and since the colors of the cake lend itself splendidly to Christmas and New Year’s, I have often seen the cake decorated with Christmas bells and holly in green and silver icing. This cake was served at a Yuletide formal dinner dance I attended when a child, in honor of my cousin’s engagement, which was announced that evening. I ate three slices of red velvet cake and thought I had gone to Heaven. 
We should also serve it at our Royal Anecdotes Gala Merry Christmas Tea and again at our New Year’s Tea!
By Gigi on September 5th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Well, Jasper, I’d like to think that you are as allowed to have an opinion here as anyone else, and I agree it’s really premature to start talking sequins and engagement rings. I feel silly having done so.
But, so far Clarence House hasn’t issued a denial. Or even a no comment.
I think if Kate really does quit her day job, that will be an indication that something is afoot. But who really knows?
All the cakes and brownies sound delicious. But I’d have to exercise like a mad-woman to work them all off! I think I’d better stick to tea only a few times a month, if even that.
By Marie on September 5th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Remember, Marie– no calories with cyber tea! Join us often.
I’m up in Minnesota, so maybe we can add something with rhubarb?
It may be premature to talk about the details for William & Kate’s engagement and wedding, but William will marry one day, so the topics will be relevant at some time.
By Evelyn on September 5th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I just wish Kate would hang up those boots. Anyway where is she now? I have only read about her new interest in a change
of a new job. Where are all those great photographer’s that
know how to get the pictures. Looks like she has pulled the rug
over everyone’s eyes…..
By Judy on September 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
What is Kate employment status? Is she working now ( if you can call what she has done work…) or did she already quit? Seems like she was out on clubs everyday and being photographed and now she dissapeared from this planet. Kate is MIA.
By Marilyn on September 6th, 2007 at 12:01 am
And yes, Can she stop using those black boots? I live in Miami and wouldn’t even dare use those kind of boots in summer.
By Marilyn on September 6th, 2007 at 12:02 am
It was reported this weekend in the Daily Mail, that she was giving up her 3-day a week “job” to pursue a career in abstract photography. If true, I’m not really sure what to read into that, other than the fact that she’ll now be able to be at William’s beck & call. How many of you consider that a “good thing”?
She’s been photographed the last few days going to and from her flat. You can see some of the pictures here:
LINK
You’ll have to go to the end of a very long thread.
By Jasper on September 6th, 2007 at 12:20 am
“If true, I’m not really sure what to read into that, other than the fact that she’ll now be able to be at William’s beck & call.”
It’s hard for someone so photographed to lead a normal life. She may want a career, but it would be very difficult to carve one out when her name is in all the tabloids. I think a hobbyist-profession like abstract photography is a perfect occupation for the situation she finds herself in.
By Alicia on September 6th, 2007 at 1:05 am
What difference does it make if she works or not. And it certainly is not my business what she does unless and until she is on the public dole as a member of the royal family. People keep harping on her employment status and for all anyone knows she is helping her parents in some fashion with their business, which I am certain in the internet age does not require her presence at their offices. Kate is often photographed in dresses that are appropriate for the office. I doubt seriously she is spending days on end in her apartment. And if she is, big deal. She is not hurting anyone by her lack of known employment status.
By Positive on September 6th, 2007 at 1:25 am
I’m amused that no matter what Kate does, people object. If she’s out and about too much, with too many photos appearing of her (whether it’s errands or shopping or clubbing), people don’t like it. If she isn’t out and being photographed enough, people wonder where she is.
If William has told Kate that the royal family is concerned that she seemed to be seeking media attention too much, then it’s no wonder we aren’t seeing as many photos of her now. It isn’t even necessarily about “Kate being obedient to her prince,” it’s about Kate respecting William’s wishes and feelings, and figuring out how to make this “royal-to-be” lifestyle work for her.
By Evelyn on September 6th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Right now I suspect Kate is sitting at home reading Royal Anecdotes and getting ideas for her bridal gown, bridal shoes, engagement ring and what tiara to wear at her wedding. Also, if Kate is reading RA, I doubt she will ever wear those brown suede boots again!
By Arthur on September 6th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Arthur,
. If she is, I hope she is having a great chuckle. 
But some of the descriptions of gowns, by some wonderful posters above, are great!!
By Positive on September 6th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Unlike Positive, I care if she works or not. All I have seen so far is a spoiled brat who doesn’t like to do much. Will that continue when she is engaged and married? As a possible future Queen I want to see someone who has a strong work ethic and is a positive example for young women in England. Even now, the Queen at her age works more than Kate has ever worked in her life. Let’s not forget that she is 25 and has only “worked” a couple days a week for a couple of months, and now she is ready to call it quits. Also, look a t Sophie (good example).
By Marilyn on September 6th, 2007 at 3:49 am
I must say that if Prince William decides to have a Groom’s Cake of red velvet, I sincerely hope he does NOT have it made in the shape of an armadillo! That grey icing is most unappetizing.
I know…I know..I keep talking about food. I will try to stop.
By Gigi on September 6th, 2007 at 3:49 am
“All I have seen so far is a spoiled brat who doesn’t like to do much.”
Whoah. That’s a bit harsh. She’s really well liked by most people who’ve met her. There’s tons of stuff people in Scotland talk about–how she did work hard, is a good friend and good person, and actually put a lot of effort into getting her business off the ground. Things you don’t read about, but people will gossip about if you talk to them.
By Marie on September 6th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Sophie Wessex a good example? NOT! She couldn’t wait to exploit her royal connections to benefit her PR firm and didn’t hestitate to trash her in-laws, to the phony Sheik, when she thought there was money to be made. I certainly wouldn’t want someone with such poor business instincts representing my Company. And lets not forget Prince Edward’s failure at Ardent Productions. Except for the TV series he produced on his royal ancestors, his business was a total failure. I suppose it’s not that easy having a career when one is linked so closely with the Royal Family!
None of us knows how hard Kate does or does not work, except for what we read in the tabloids. As far as I know, Kate is not costing the British taxpayer any money and if she want’s to work part time, so she can be with William when he is available, who are we to judge? I don’t know what kind of a job prepares one for making public appearances and cutting ribbons, but it doesn’t seem like difficult work to me. I believe Kate will end up being a tireless worker, just like Diana, and remember, Diana only worked a few days a week as a glorified baby sitter before her marriage.
As far as Kate being a “spoiled brat,” I think the Royal Family has cornered the market on being spoiled. Just ask the valet who squeezes tooth past on the tooth brush for HRH the Prince Charles!!!!!
By Arthur on September 6th, 2007 at 4:45 am
Bravo Arthur!
By Positive on September 6th, 2007 at 5:06 am
We certainly don’t know what Kate is doing all those hours of the day that we don’t see her. Maybe is is preparing for her future job? Reading/studying, listening to people who know, planning… Maybe the Royal family has learnt from the past and is helping her getting the knowledge she will need? I don’t know, but maybe??
By daggy on September 6th, 2007 at 5:41 am
I’m sorry, but working as a teacher is not a glorified baby sitter. Diana’s job was very respectable. I found Diana lovely and hard working. More respect for teachers, please. What I mean by Sophie as a good example is that she worked a real job, not like Kate that hasn’t worked too much. What kind of business did she worked hard to get off the ground? Can someone inform me of this. I don’t know about it. Thanks.
By Marilyn on September 6th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Eliza, almost any Royal jewellery passed down the generations is given as a loan and is sort of entailed on the family. Camilla wouldn’t be able to pass it on to a member of her own family. There are very strict rules about the “Royal Estate”.
By John on September 6th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Sadie, Ingrid Seward was/is the editor of Majesty magazine and works as an interpreter of Royal events and personages. I would imagine she can’t afford to make enemies.
On the other hand, the Royals are not anything like as bad as they’re painted by some individuals, so they deserve a bit of slack when/if they make small errors of judgement. They are often the butt of tasteless jokes by people who don’t understand what constitutional Monarchy is about, and even senior politicians attempt to take over their roles and popularity. The Blairs are perfect examples of the latter. (See Peter Oborne’s latest book).
By John on September 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Arthur, spot on.
The kind of girls William would meet as future brides would all be of the “trust fund” variety. That is, living off the interest of capital placed in special accounts by their families. None of these have to work, but many get pretend jobs in places like Sotherby’s, magazines like Tatler and Country Life, and art galleries. Their Hon. Lady courtesy titles are sought after by employers to burnish their credentials.
Kate doesn’t need to work in a normal job, so why would she disadvantage herself against the competition, especially when she left university on the arm of Prince William?
Diana was a childminder, not a teacher, except in the sense that all childminders try to teach young children to keep them occupied. She was later a nanny with the American Robertson family.
By John on September 6th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Totally, off topic, but on the subject of wedding dresses, this article in a reputable magazine caught my eye.
LINK
It, to me, goes to show how in some ways the very best styles are vintage. I just think the construction and detailing are exquisite and unique. Somewhere in mid-century (of the last century), designers picked up the tulip shape for wedding dresses. But I think this is so feminine and gorgeous.
Note the bride’s last name is Middleton . . .
By Marie on September 6th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Ingrid Seward wrote sugary sweet stories about Diana when she was alive and POW, however once she died IMO she started anti Diana and pro RF. She is just a suckup who has to remain in royal favor to keep her career. Now back to the subject of jewelry I happen to love Sophie Wessex engagement ring and the tiara she wore at her wedding looked lovely with her dress. I have to agree with everyone else no one can top Princess Grace the closest I think is Princess Mary of Denmark.
By Trudie on September 6th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Lady Diana Spencer absolutely WAS NOT A TEACHER. That lie has been repeated too many times. She was as John said a child minder, a “teacher’s aide” as we would call her in the States. She was not standing before any classroom teaching some subject. She worked at the equivalent of a day care center. And from what I remember, it was not a 9-5, 40-hr per week job. It was fluff work, much like Kate Middleton’s Jigsaw gig.
Here in the U.S. in some states you must be certified in order to get a job as a teacher. And often, many teachers have advanced degrees. Diana Spencer did not have the British equivalent of a college degree. She was still college aged when she was watching children and working as a nanny.
SHE WAS NOT A “TEACHER.”
And I would not want to see Kate take some menial job just to satisfy the jealous, working-class hero fantasy of those for whom Kate will never be able satisfy. Her parents are wealthy, she like so many others with her circumstances do not have to work or can at least take their sweet time trying to figure out what to do. But she is the ONLY one who has to do so under the glare of the paparazzi lens and spiteful people who are ticked off that this young woman of ordinary background is dating the prince.
Criticize Kate for to your heart’s content. But at least get the facts straight before you attack someone whom I’m guessing you have no clue about.
By Positive on September 6th, 2007 at 11:58 am
So, with the exception of Kate’s college education, their young lives, early 20′s, are similar in that both were/are privileged young women who held yeoman positions while basically waiting to get married. It is old fashioned and profligate in these times, but some people still do it. Something totally alien to me, a person who graduated college and has had a long career. I don’t judge nor do I begrudge either of these women for their circumstances or their decisions about how to lead their lives, occupations, or lack thereof. Not my place, none of my business. Unless the paparazzi gets a picture of Kate robbing a bank. Then I’ll re-think my opinion of her.
By Positive on September 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
John and Trudie – Thanks for the clarification about Ingrid Seward – I had a hunch about her and it looks like it was correct! I think she does what it takes to keep in favor. Doesn’t change the fact that she has interesting info about the RF.
I think that it would be impossible for Kate to have a *real* job in the sense of 9-5, 5 days a week. She would be photographed on the way to and from work, to and from lunch, and those she worked with would be hounded for interviews and comments, especially if she became engaged to Prince William. Any boost in profile to her employer would be swallowed up by the nuisance of the media intrusion.
And I don’t know if this is correct, but doesn’t she have things to do with Prince William? If he has appearances, doesn’t she go too? Just to accompany him, not to participate.
By SadieBoo on September 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
John, you are right about the strict rules regarding Royal jewelry. I believe those rules were made absolute because of the disaster that occurred when the Duke of Windsor gave the Royal jewelry he had inherited from Queen Alexandra to Wallis Warfield Simpson. She still had those priceless jewels in her possession when she died (she survived the Duke by some years) and no one, not even the formidable Earl Mountbatten of Burma, could coax her to return the jewels to the Royal Family. My recollection is that her attorney, Maitre Blum, eventually auctioned them and the Royal Family had to bid against Sheiks and other billionaires to get them back in the Royal coffers. I feel sure the Royal Family will move Heaven and earth to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. King George VI also had to purchase Sandringham and perhaps one other palace from his brother, the Duke of Windsor, because, as the King, he had inherited those properties and would not return them gratis to the Crown when he abdicated, as he should have done. That abdication cost the Royal Family a tremendous amount of money as well as anguish and trauma. It also created a deep rift in the family that never truly healed. Since the Duke and Duchess of Windsor left no heirs of their union, there has been no chance for inclusion or reconciliation with the next generation. The closest thing to closure was when the Queen, to the despair and disapproval of the Queen Mother, invited the Duchess of Windsor to stay at the Palace during the death rites/funeral of the Duke of Windsor and then, perhaps a year later, also invited Wallis to come for the unveiling of a Memorial to the Duke. The Queen is very wise and she always does the right thing. She may not always do it at first, but it sometimes happens that she does the right thing at last.
By Gigi on September 6th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Yes, Gigi, the rule seems to be that valuable items remain the property of the Monarch (who doesn’t pay inheritance tax) even when used by another member of the family or a spouse.
The case where a King abdicates is not written into these rules, of course, so Edward VIII caused no end of shenanigans.
By John on September 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
By Gigi on September 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Gigi, I don’t want to get on your bad side, but the Royal Family treated Wallis Simpson abominably, after her marriage, so why should the Duke of Windsor treat his brother, George VI, with any respect? I understand the abdication was something unheard of at the time, but all the Duke of Windsor did was marry the woman he loved, much like Prince Charles. No one died, the monarchy didn’t crumble, and yet Wallis Simpson was vilified by the Royals until the day she died. The first mistake George VI made was listenning to his spiteful, jealous wife, the late Queen Mum, who insisted the Duchess of Windsor be denied the title HRH. This infuriated the Duke of Windsor and from then on it was all out war. I’m sure Queen Alexandra’s jewelry would have remained in the Royal Family, if not for this major slight, and something could have been worked out about Sandringham. Also, let’s not forget about was the banishment to living in exile, never returning to England, publicly, except to attend George VI’s and Queen Mary’s funerals, always with Wallace. The Duke and Duchess were banned from so many royal events, including QEII’s wedding, that I don’t see how the two brothers could ever repair their hurt feelings. I remember hearing that although Wallace was invited to stay at BH during The Duke of Windsor’s funeral, no one spoke to her the whole time she was there. Sounds similar to what Diana went through before her marriage. I also heard that at Wallace’s “family” funeral, held in St George’s Chapel, Windsor, Wallace’s name was not even uttered during her funeral service!
After being treated like that your entire married life, why would the Duke and Duchess show any kindness to the royal family? I’m sure you’ve heard the expression: “You get more bees with honey!” Some kindness shown to the Duke and Duchess during their lifetime would certainly have changed quite a few things.
PS. I used to have this great fantasy that when the Duchess of Windsor died, she left all her jewelry to Diana, Princess of Wales. That would have killed Queen Elizabeth II and the Queen Mother, figuratively speaking.
By Arthur on September 6th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
There are always two sides to every story, Arthur. You have to remember that at the time he became King Edward VIII, Britain was between the two great wars. People had made horrific sacrifices during WWI and storm clouds were gathering on the horizon for the prelude to WWII. Never had Britain needed a strong and able monarch more than at that time. Not only did King Edward shirk his duty–for which he had been trained from birth–to marry a twice married and divorced American adventuress of doubtful reputation, he also sloughed off his responsibility of kingship on his younger brother. Although King George VI became a dutiful and conscientious monarch, the personal cost to him was stupendous due to the nervous condition from which he suffered all his life and the fact that he simply was not prepared to be king. The strain of being King during those horrendous years of WWII greatly shortened his life. Furthermore, the Duke of Windsor literally bargained and blackmailed his overwhelmed younger brother, King George VI, over money settlements. Worse, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were known Nazi sympathizers and indeed met with Hitler. From the Queen Mother’s point of view, her husband was being sacrificed on the altar of the greed and self-entitlement of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, who blithely left Britain for a brittle life of luxury and self-involvement in France. Neither the Duke or the Duchess were interested in duty or self-sacrifice. The Duke’s best friend all his life was Earl Montbatten of Burma, who had, however, no illusions about his friend’s unworthiness. Read in the biographies of King Edward VIII about the incredible frustration and nervewracking tension the Duke’s staff suffered because of the Duke’s selfishness and demands he made on his brother, both at the time of the abdication, and during WWII. His behavior was appalling, and, indeed, unforgiveable. In my view, they were the architects of their own disaster. Unfortunately, the collateral damage they left in their wake nearly swamped Britain.
By Gigi on September 6th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
You make some very good points Gigi, but there were many who dreaded Edward VIII coming to the throne, including his own mother and father, George V and Queen Mary. They never thought Edward VIII would make a good king, but costitutionally he was next in line. The abdication solved that problem and in the long run, Britian was probably better off without Edward VIII on the throne.
I don’t profess to know everything that happened behind the scenes, but I do know it was a tumultuous time for the Royal Family. Just think for a moment what would have happened if Edward VIII didn’t abdicate the throne. There probably would not have been a Queen Elizabeth II, no Prince Charles and Diana, no William and Kate and worst of all, probably no Royal Anecdotes! What we have done without RA?
By Arthur on September 6th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
John mentions the movie, “The Queen” in the article. I have been thinking about that movie and I have some questions. First of all, does the Queen have anything to say about foreign policy? Is there any real reason the PM has to meet with her once a week? And did he really have to put up with her rudeness towards him when he was first elected and they had their first meeting? I thought she was a figurehead.
Don’t get me wrong, I support the monarchy and love to talk about them. However, my support will end if I find out that they, by just the virtue of birth, have any right to govern in this day and age.
I thought it was interesting at the beginning of that movie, during the scenes just after Diana’s death. The shot would go from the PM’s office, bustling with activity and youth, and then cut to Balmoral, full of white-headed people watching television and waiting for tea. I am sure that contrast was intentional. I felt sorry for the Queen, though – seemed like she was bullied from every side.
By SadieBoo on September 6th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Gigi I’m sorry to disagree but Arthur is right if they had not withheld the HRH from Wallis alot of Problems could have been avoided in light of the fact that another adventuress one Camilla is now an HRH and wearing the late QM’s jewels.
By Trudie on September 6th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Sadie, Britain isn’t America. Although we had an elected government before the US came into being, some of the old ways of doing things can be traced back to Anglo-Saxon times.
The Queen can only “advise and warn” a Prime Minister, but she also has oversight on the election process and nominally can send for any MP to form a government. She can also order an election in cases of wrongdoing or chaos in Parliament. These reserve powers are very rarely used, however. As Head of the Commonwealth she also has input into Commonwealth affairs, but not foreign policy unless it affects her own position, which is certainly the case with the European Union.
The film, The Queen, was largely fiction and was meant to be a hatchet job on the Monarchy. However, a luminous performance by Helen Mirren created the opposite effect. But you can see the digs going in from the script at certain points. Incidentally, as Tony Blair was already a Privy Councellor when he became PM, he would not have had to kneel before his Sovereign.
The scenes “of a youthful PM’s office” belie the chaotic nature of Blair’s Downing Street, which was run by a foul-mouthed red-top tabloid journalist and the spiteful, greedy, self-centred Blairs. A nest of vipers indeed.
By John on September 7th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Actually John I am surprised the British put up with Blair as long as they did. Just from observing photo’s the Blairs were self promoters who seemed to forget the Queen Elizabeth II was their sovereign. It is early yet but I think Gordon Brown will be a strong leader along the lines of Baroness Thatcher and instead of undermining HM will work hard for the crown. I still cannot forget Cherie Blair and her constant disrespect to HM. I just hope that here in the States next year we have a new President who actually listens to the people instead of being such a bully.
By Trudie on September 7th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Blair’s 10 years were a disaster for Britain, Trudie. Even the BBC is now talking about a Broken Britain, a Broken Society and a Broken Army. The man should be rowed to the Tower through Traitor’s Gate.
By John on September 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Regarding the abdication, i wonder if Edward VIII really did love Mrs Simpson, I feel that they were unhappily stuck together in exile. From what i have read he was in her thrall certainly before they married but i don’t believe that they lived happily ever after, I think they had no choice but to stay together. As for being Nazi sympathisers, i don’t think that went any further than Hitler said he would give him back the crown, a pact with the devil in my view. But Edward VIII didn’t have the best judgment.
As for Blair, i remember being very excited when he was elected he seemed to have new ideas and had the pulse of the nation but i have to say that i have detested him for a good while now and am very glad he is gone. I reserve my judgment on Gordon Blair, how different can he be, he was a Blairs right hand man for the whole tenure.
In general i think it is good for government to allow a change every now and again, i think Labour have been in long enough.
I don’t know if any of you follow Irish politics but we have the same party in government for ten years too and they just won an election in May so there is no end in sight. Its not healthy, people get too comfortable in power.
By Eliza on September 7th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I meant Gordon Brown obviously, must have been a freudian slip!
By Eliza on September 7th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Eliza, I think if we had a choice between Blair and Brown or Bertie Aherne, we’d go for Bertie any day. But then you don’t really know foreign leaders until you live in their country.
By John on September 7th, 2007 at 11:31 am
True, and Bertie is a personable type just not my type! As the late Charlie Haughey, former Taoiseach and former leader of Bertie’s party, said of him in that memorable quote ‘the most cunning and devious of them all’. By the way Charlie meant that as a compliment!
By Eliza on September 7th, 2007 at 11:40 am
John, I am well aware that Britain is not America. I could tell that the movie was anti-Royal, but I also thought that they didn’t do much to make some of Blair’s people look good. Alistair (sp?), the speechwriter, looked like an a** who would be just as at home at a tabloid.
Since the Sovereign has actual ruling to do, it’s good that someone like Queen Elizabeth was in line. I guess the thing that shocked me was the realization that one day, it will no longer be the Queen in that role, it will be PRINCE CHARLES!!!!
By SadieBoo on September 7th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I forgot to mention – there was no need to try and ‘put me in my place’ regarding the the age of your country’s traditions in relation to my country’s age. I love my country – I love your country – I have lived in another country and loved that one too! I do not believe in strict modernization, nor do I believe that the old ways are always best. Everything in moderation! *winks*
By SadieBoo on September 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Sadie, I wouldn’t dream of “putting you in your place”. But what are very old traditions here, moderated by conventions, seem extraordinary to people who come from younger countries.
The Queen has no input into policy. She is Head of State, so has a constitutional role as “Queen in Parliament”. Your President is both Head of State and Head of Government, and you have a federal system, so it’s just not possible to compare the two.
As for Alastair campbell, the man is a total ********, as well as a £%&*%^£. And Blair gave him control of the civil service, which he corrupted and politicized. I can’t tell you what a disaster it all was, I’d need to write a book about it. Come to think of it, Peter Oborne has just published one on this very subject (can’t remember the title, but Amazon would know).
By John on September 7th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I admit, I do not like the tone nor the content of Alastair Campbell’s “The Blair Diaries.” AC could do with a good skelping, in my view. I do like Tony Blair, however. Despite his faults and missteps, he has been a brave and good friend to America and has stood with us in the war against terrorism. It takes a brave man to fly in the face of public opinion and I admire him for his qualities and his actions.
As much as I love Britain and the British people, I would wish that they might avoid the pitfalls that have so damaged America. One is that our society takes great glee in tearing down and destroying the lives of our leaders. This has been going on for generations here, and the media has, from Revoluationary War times, taken a leading role. Britain has fallen prey to this ‘disease’ (for such it is) as well. Another is the elitism that characterizes a society where class is pitted against class. Britain needs to rid herself of this failing, which polarizes citizens and damages the psyche of the country as a whole. America pretends, perhaps even believes, that we are a classless society, but it is not true, nor has it ever been so. The damage is nearly as severe in America as it is in Britain. “When Adam delved and Eva span, who was then the gentleman?”
By Gigi on September 7th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Gigi, I hear what you say about Blair, and I know America loves him for supporting you after 9/11, something all of Britain did too.
But, here are just two things he did which are perhaps hidden from Americans.
1. He sold seats in our Upper House. Imagine Bush selling seats in the Senate for Republican party advantage.
2. He used the Royal Prerogative (reserve powers of the Monarch left over from absolutist medieval Kings) to sign us up to a European constitution which will remove our powers of self government and virtually abolish the Mother of Parliaments. He promised a referendum on this but reneged. Brown has reneged too.
They will rot in hell for this.
By John on September 7th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
As reprehensible as that may appear, FDR packed the Supreme Court when he was President, and Bill Clinton did far worse things, including but not limited to Monica Lewinsky, selling weekends in the White House to get funds so he and his wife could buy and furnish a lavish home in Chapaqua, NY, and pardoning so many felons that lots of folks lost count. Only God can see into the heart of a human, count the sins against the good intentions, and weigh the difference. So it will be with Tony Blair, so it will be with us all.
By Gigi on September 8th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Actually Gigi Clintons home in Chappaqua is not that lavish. Whenever I drive by their street which is short just look and you can see it and the secret service cars in front. It is just an ordinary Cape style but due to the area they have a very huge mortgage. That was not due to selling weekends in the White House. If you think it is a huge estate it really is not. Lavish was FDR’s estate at Hyde Park.
By Trudie on September 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Gigi I forgot to add that Martha Stewart’s estate is twice the size of Clintons I live two streets over from her and she has the most beautiful little houses for her employees some still vacant. Clintons protection has to make due with just a converted guest house.
By Trudie on September 8th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Gigi and Trudie, it doesn’t matter the size of the house in Chappaqua or how it was financed, Bill and Hillary Clinton are a couple of interlopers. Neither one had any connection to New York, until Hillary decided NY would be an easy state from which she could be elected to public office. Bill grew up in Arkansas and went to school in Washington DC and Connecticut, while Hillary grew up in Chicago and went to school in Massachusetts and Connecticut. As a former native New Yorker, I will never understand how or why New Yorkers allowed Hillary to fly in on her broom and get elected to the Senate from that great state. If you look up the word “carpetbagger” in the dictionary, you will see the name Hillary Clinton! By the way, it’s appropriate the Secret Service have small, servant like quarters at Chappaqua. That’s how the Clintons treated the Secret Service when they lived in the White House – like servants!
Trudie, are y0u in the market to buy any of Martha Stewart’s “Katonah” furniture?
By Arthur on September 8th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Actually Arthur It will never be trademarked Katonah and no. Everyone here is fighting her. All of the businesses that use the name Katonah have been mostly family owned businesses for years and the fact that she moved here several years ago, everyone here is appalled at her pushiness to market something and maybe get sued because the name is Katonah. Can’t blame them. I’ve lived here all my life and believe me the changes are startling with people like Martha Stewart coming into change things parts of Mt.Kisco are now called Bedford Corners because it sounds posher and of course the Clintons stay pretty low profile though they do get out and about and mix with the citizens.
By Trudie on September 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
You guys are way off the point from the actual story. This is about William & Kate.
By Claudius on September 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
You’re right, Claudius, thanks for the correction.
By John on September 8th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Sorry guys, we were just giving William and Kate a break for the weekend!
By Arthur on September 8th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Sorry John This all started with Blair and took off!!! I didn’t mean to get off topic. As Arthur said W&K need a break. Gigi isn’t is just about time for TEA!!!!!
By Trudie on September 8th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
You are all forgiven, because you are such wonderful commenters. How can I possibly live up to you?
By John on September 8th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
It is, my dears, time for Tea! Trudie, if you will be kind enough to pour, I will serve the cucumber sandwiches, Balmoral Dundee Cake, scones, Devonshire cream and jam, red velvet cake and my Grandmother’s double chocolate lace cookies, which are so sinfully rich that I have been known to put on weight just dreaming about them!
Since it is gameday (Texas is playing TCU) I also am offering old-fashioned rolled and cut sugar cookies in the shape of a Longhorn, iced in dark orange colored butter cream frosting. 
By Gigi on September 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Gigi you’re making me FAT!!!!!!
By Trudie on September 9th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Just reading Gigi’s menus will make us all fat. They sure know how to feed down in Texas.
By John on September 9th, 2007 at 11:02 am
By Gigi on September 9th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I’d much rather have Blair than Bush. And I reckon, you’d rather have Blair than Bush too.
And I’d MUCH rather have Clinton than Bush.
“Folks are less quarrelsome when they have consumed good food.”
Amen. But I’d add that the food should also be good for you.
By Marie on September 10th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Marie, you really don’t know what Blair is like. He is hated here, even in his own party. Since he left office, he’s vanished like a giant, punctured puffball. Bring on David Cameron.
By John on September 10th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Trust me. I hear how much Blair is hated every time I talk to friends and relatives.
But ask yourself:
Bush
or
Blair
Poodle or warmonger
By Marie on September 10th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Marie, give me an honest sheepdog any day.
By John on September 10th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Ha! You know, I realize that I meant to write “lapdog.” Shows you where my head is these days. Anyway. Probably best to put politics aside. Next thing you know we’ll drift into religion and, well, someone will probably get banned.
The Blair hate makes me so sad. Remember how excited and optimistic everyone was?
Has anyone written a comprehensive essay on the ways that Britain has changed post-Blair? I was fascinated, for example, while watching the documentary series 49-Up (and forgive me if this is all foreign to you), to hear both the East Ender taxi driver Tony complain about Blair’s London in the same way that the upper-crust barrister (sp?) John did. Both from totally different classes, and both equally unhappy. Spoke to the degree to which sadness pervades different walks of life. I found that fascinating and wished there had been more explanation.
By Marie on September 11th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Going back to the Mock wedding of Kate & William it doesn’t make sense, wether it is officiated or not it is still not legal. William is too smart for Kate, i hope Kate will open her eyes ! William did not seem serious in marrying her!
By amy on September 11th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Amy I hate to point this out to you but William is not as bright as he is made out to be. If you look at him and Princess Beatrice she scored higher on exams despite being deslexic and if you looked closely at Kate she is a lot smarter than William. When it comes to haveing smarts and class while exiting a club looking great while he looks trashed and his comment when they broke up “I’m Free lets drink the menu” to my mind show you that haveing no common sense does not make even the the so called smart person look and behave with stupidity. But with the venom with which you write about Kate I suppose jealously and wishing it were me is something you need to get over.
By Trudie on September 11th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Trudie, I think you’re being a bit hard on William. He’s a serious chap, but not as outgoing as some, so is liable to let his hair down a bit occasionally. No-one is at their best after that.
In terms of exam results, he got a 2:1 in science subjects, which is an excellent degree. Kate also got a 2:1, but in a less taxing subject. Chelsy too got a 2:1 but in the tough subjects of economics, philosophy and politics.
All three are clearly bright and talented.
By John on September 12th, 2007 at 10:15 am