Kate Middleton back in Balmoral
There’s some interesting news from Katie Nicholl in the MoS concerning the movements of Kate Middleton and Prince William. Their under-the-radar love affair is set to come back into the spotlight as William plans to take her to Balmoral in October to meet the Queen and Prince Philip.
Katie writes, “Until now Kate has enjoyed a warm welcome from the Monarch but their next meeting could be frostier.”
I wonder. Would William subject his long-term girlfriend to a painful encounter with his grandmother if he knew she would meet with froideur and an unfriendly welcome? It would be embarrassing to everyone and doesn’t ring true to me.
More likely though, the MoS says, “While I’m told there is to be no engagement announcement for the foreseeable future, they are very much an item again and have already planned another romantic retreat.”
A friend is quoted as saying, “William said the Seychelles holiday with Kate was perfect because it was just the two of them. It went so well they have planned another short trip to Scotland. William was originally going to take a group of friends stag-shooting to Balmoral, but he’s decided he wants to have some time with Kate. They are very much in love and want to enjoy their relationship out of the spotlight before they go public again.”
That sounds like smart thinking. They really need to firm up on their future before coming out in public again.
Why would Kate get a “frosty” reception from the Queen and Prince Philip? If William is happy, they should be happy!
By Arthur on September 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
This is very true. William will never let Kate meet the Queen and she is frosty. They have put their problems behind them. They are thinking about the future and I’m happy for them. They are taking the right moves to becoming official.
By Claudius on September 16th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I’m glad to hear that William is realizing he needs more time with Kate and less time with friends. This sounds like the right steps to be taking to make their relationship strong.
By Evelyn on September 16th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I’m with Arthur on this. If the Queen is “frosty” then she is making a bad move. She needs to have a little faith in William and let him make his own choices. Yeah yeah, he’s the “King to Be” - but above all, he is HUMAN.
At least he was the last time I checked…
:p
By On The Outside on September 16th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I wonder if the meeting with the Queen is a more formal meeting to discuss what would be expected of her if she married William? This could be a discussion of “setting expectations”. As she is not royal, she would not be accustomed to these things. While potentially “frosty” this could still be positive in the realm of her future. Maybe now that William is convinced of her, the next step is to convince the queen that she would be good for her role.
By Cate on September 17th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Somehow I don’t think a meeting with HM and Kate would be frosty. True W&K did split up for a few months however, If William is now serious and this seems to be the case HM would probably be happy for William and treat Kate warmly.
By Trudie on September 17th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Such a meeting looks (to lowly me) like an indication that things are speeding up a little. October vacation and meeting, November anniversary celebrations… Christmas engagement? It would make security issues clear, with Kate receiving the protection she certainly needs.
Even if royal engagements usually are short, that doesn’t mean William & Kate need to follow that tradition. It’s a new era, with many new “rules of engagement.”
I’m sure Prince William would rest easier if Kate had her own protection team.
By Evelyn on September 17th, 2007 at 2:12 am
I agree with you, Evelyn. I believe all of us would rest easier.
By Gigi on September 17th, 2007 at 2:35 am
That is true. I really worry about her out there on her own and that press can be pushy. It is time for her to get some protection.
By Claudius on September 17th, 2007 at 5:01 am
It’s been over long ago. William has not been with Kate since the Diana Concert. The press is still pushing this romance that broke up last spring, They haven’t been seen together since the Diana Concert. This is hilarious, I’m waiting for the press to eat crow again, when William shows up somewhere with a new girl. The Queen is away during the time this supposed meeting is supposed to take place, just look at the Royal gov site, the Queen won’t even be where these stories have this meeting taking place. This is just all press pushing mediocre Kate who William could have put a ring on her finger long ago if he wanted to. The Queen has apprehensions about Kate and so did William, which is why he dumped her months ago. The only marriage we’ll be seeing is Autumn and Peter Phillips. Not one new photo of Kate with William since the Concert, give it up already, it ended long ago.
By mandy on September 17th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Errr, Mandy, what about the week in the Seychelles? I’ve seen photos of them travelling there and there was lots of news of what they did.
It’s certainly true they’re keeping a low profile, but that’s what Royal Anecdotes advised them to do in our post, “Ten tips for the girl who would be Queen”.
By John on September 17th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I think the “frosty” idea comes from Richard Kay’s whisper from “a friend of the Queen” that she was concerned about them getting together again. However, it seems that William’s doubt was fully dispelled when he had to do without her for three months.
The Queen would not be frosty with Kate if she were really displeased. She would simply refuse to meet her. That’s what Monarchs do. The fact that Kate is invited means she will get a warm welcome.
By John on September 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am
They’re keeping a low profile because THEY WANT TO, that’s why you don’t see them together. HELLO!!! And the press isn’t “pushing” anything. They don’t care. They will write about William with ANY woman who appears to be a love interest. But so far, much to your extreme annoyance, there have been NONE because–and I think I might be going out on a limb here–THERE ISN’T ANYONE EXCEPT KATE.
Yeah, you wait on Will with that new girl. And be sure and let us know when you see her.
By Positive on September 17th, 2007 at 11:59 am
John, how about showing us the pictures from the Seychelles?
We haven’t seen them.
By Marilyn on September 17th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Marilyn, the pictures I saw were of Kate passing through the local airport on her way there. I haven’t seen any on the Seychelles because William had booked the whole resport for them. But there’s no doubt they were there. Various journalists were in the area and reported gossip coming out of the island.
By John on September 17th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
How about showing us pictures of Kate taking a bath. Oh right. There are none. So she doesn’t bathe.
By Positive on September 17th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
LOL Positive!
Mandy, I went to look at the Royal.gov calendar, and I don’t see it the way you do. Looking at the October calendar, the Queen won’t be leaving the country all month. And there are no engagements until October 9. From what I see, Kate’s meeting with the Queen at Balmoral could easily happen the first week of October.
By Evelyn on September 17th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Positive, you are absolutely hilarious!
That bathing remark set me up for the entire day! Speaking of Peter and Autumn, is there any news of when they plan to marry?
By Gigi on September 17th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
John, I also refuse to meet a lot of people. Does that make me a Monarch? King Arthur, perhaps?
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Positive, you crack me up! LOL
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
More Maid Marion, I fancy, Arthur.
By John on September 17th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
John, I don’t come to RA to be made sport of!
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Okay, Robin Hood.
By John on September 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Thanks John, but I’m a realist. Friar Tuck is more like it!
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
LOL How about Will Scarlett? He was known for his really breathtaking good looks, which is why Patrick Knowles was chosen to play that role in the 1938 movie. Your reference to Friar Tuck reminds me that I need to come up with some tasty Autumnal items for our Royal Anecdotes Teas. Does Apple Charlotte sound good to anyone?
By Gigi on September 17th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
One of my faves, Gigi, if that’s the one with crumble on top. And English custard, of course.
By John on September 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Gigi, any home baked goodie is fine with Friar Tuck!
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
“I think the “frosty†idea comes from Richard Kay’s whisper from “a friend of the Queen†that she was concerned about them getting together again.”
I’ve been thinking about this.
After William and Kate “broke up,” there were a number of stories in the news in which supposed friends and sources close to the Royal family expressed concerns that Kate was not a suitable bride–and that her mother, in particular, was very bad in-law material.
Somehow, the Middletons kept quiet through all of that. Here and there we heard that William was “outraged” by the so-called news stories.
Only, I bet they weren’t news stories, but the opinions of the same sources who are now whispering that the Queen is displeased. In other words, someone close to her was thrilled that William had (apparently) finally dumped that commoner (and with the name “Middleton” of all things) and moved on to someone more appropriate. Only, he didn’t move on, and now Kate’s back in the picture, and the classist attendant is upset and continuing to whisper.
I’m curious to see if anyone gets fired any time soon. Kate has enemies. And not just on a message board.
By Marie on September 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I vote for some sandwiches with cheese from Mull.
By Marie on September 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Gigi, I just figured Robin Hood was too difficult to live up to. Pictures of Errol Flynn, prancing around in tights, kept coming to mind!
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Kate and William haven’t been photographed together since the Diana Concert. I stilled don’t believe the stories of them together, but once again, you will all be moaning when I am proven correct and William is seen with some other young woman, he decides to date in a few months. STILL NOT ONE PHOTO of the two together, a photo of Kate standing at an airport alone, what does that prove NOTHING. I read about the Vacation, and I DON’T Buy it. They NEVER went on any vacation together and those photos were questionable, all we saw was Kate without William and some photos that were questionable at best. I DON’T THINK they are back together at all, I see no evidence of it. William dumped her long ago and I doubt he has taken her back on any permanent level, I think it’s over. The relationship with Kate has had too many ups and downs, I doubt the Queen or William sees a happy ending in this with Kate. William has had too many doubts about her, which is why he DUMPED her in the first place. I think it’s OVER. The press is dreaming.
By mandy on September 17th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Mandy writes:”They NEVER went on any vacation together and those photos were questionable, all we saw was Kate without William and some photos that were questionable at best.”
Mandy, do you believe Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon, or were the pictures simply of two men roaming around the desert in Arizona?
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
There’s absolutely no doubt they’re back together. They are just keeping a low profile. Kate has even ditched her job to stay out of camera-view.
By John on September 17th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I don’t believe they are back together and I don’t believe the vacations. You can believe what you like, I haven’t seen one indication that William and Kate are back together. He DUMPED her in the spring.
Kate was dumped that much we know and then sat behind William at the Concert, along with his other old girlfriend Jecca and others. I see no indication they are together, but you have enough believers to satisfy, so why should my one lone voice matter. I JUST don’t believe they are back together.
(P.S. My older brother worked for NASA, I love seeing the moon landing it was a glorious accomplishment.)
By mandy on September 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Mandy,
Take a chill pill. Stop being so angry. Get somewhere and sit down. Stop with the doubts already, you just sound mad about something.
By Claudius on September 17th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I just don’t believe they are back together, you can believe what you like,I am happily sitting in 90 degree weather, looking over a beautiful beach, tapping on my computer. I JUST DON’T BELIEVE they are back together. I don’t buy the stories, I see nothing to prove they are back together. John you said they were DEFINATELY getting engaged, last Dec-Jan…….so much for being definate about things and having no doubts…..
I don’t believe they are back together at all. I think she quit her job because the pretense is off, she is no longer in running for Princess so she can dabble in what she likes, photography or other careers, I think it’s over with them. Besides Jigsaw is having trouble with Bankruptcy in other countries, so maybe she just left a sinking ship. I don’t think we’ll see an wedding for Kate and William, but that is my opinion and I said it in the past when many said they are definately getting engaged. Still no engagement, still no wedding, still no indication that they have reunited even for a moment, except the Diana Concert.
By mandy on September 17th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Oh, I’m glad Mandy is back. Things are more interesting when she is here.
As I said (in a post that seems unwilling to materialize?), Kate seems to have enemies not only within the palace but on message boards.
I also wrote earlier that the same whispers which so insulted Kate and her family post breakup, are probably the same ones insulting her now. It was reported that William wasn’t too happy with the anti-Middleton sentiment portrayed in the media. I don’t blame him. Amazing that the Middletons kept their cool.
Anyway, it’ll interesting to see if someone gets fired soon.
And if no one is fired soon, then we can assume that the “whispers” come frome someone close to the family and with an inherited title, who can’t just be dismissed for speaking out of turn.
By Marie on September 17th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Two of your comments got stuck in the mod panel, Marie. I’ve released them now. I don’t know why that happened.
It’s hard to know the ins-and-outs of these whispers, and the motivation behind them. Mandy’s motivation is also strange. Why does she hate Kate so much?
Mandy?
By John on September 17th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Is there cheese from Mull, Marie? You’ve stumped me on that one.
By John on September 17th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I’m just saying I don’t think they are back together, but if it feels better to say I hate her, that’s fine, I don’t, but if you all think saying WILLIAM WON’T MARRY HER, is ewuated to hating her that;s fine….so doesn’t bother me…. I never thought William would marry her, how does my disagreement equate to hate. I DON’T THINK HE WILL EVER MARRY HER and NEVER DID from the first Underwear runway photos. I think she’s mediocre, I never thought he would marry her, I never thought she was Queen material, I don’t think William will end up marrying her, I never have. Kate is medicre and has always seemed a bit too desperate and available to me, call it what you will. I just don’t think he’s ever going to marry her. Just like that DEC-Jan engagement everyone said would happen, I said it never would and a few months later they broke up, I don’t see any evidence of a reunion for these two except the Diana Concert a few months ago.
By mandy on September 17th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Marie, how could anyone close to the Royal family “express concern that Kate was not a suitable bride…..”
Prince Charles has set the bar so low, by marring his royal “mistress” (I wanted to use the “W” word here, but John runs a classy web-site), making Camilla a HRH and future Queen of England, that almost anyone can meet those standards. This is not intend to cast any aspersions on Kate Middleton. I think Kate is head and shoulders above Camilla, when it comes to grace and class, but it makes the royal friends and sources seem awfully hypocritical when they start to reflect on what qualities makes one acceptable royal bride!
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Well said, Arthur. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this.
Mandy, Kate may “be available,” but there isn’t any evidence that other young women are interested in a serious relationship with William. I have no doubt that’s more about the role and expectations that would come with a relationship with the heir than about William himself.
As Arthur said, this is not intended to cast any aspersions on Kate Middleton. I think her loyalty to Prince William and her willingness to figure out what else her life could legitimately include (photography over fashion buyer) speaks volumes for her willingness to remain by his side through thick and thin.
By Evelyn on September 17th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I recently read two articles about Prince William and Kate Middleton that were very interesting. One article said that Kate Middleton has chosen to stay out of the limelight for now so that they can conduct their relationship quietly without a lot of fuss.
The other article is about Prince Harry’s birthday celebration, but it mentioned that Prince William and Kate Middleton were present at Prince Harry’s party (along with Harry’s lovely girlfriend Chelsy) after all four of them had had dinner with Prince Charles and Camilla. The article said that during the course of the party they all threw cake at one another, and smashed cake in each other’s faces, and that Prince William and Kate Middleton were snogging (’smooching’ for our more mature RA members) in public during the party. That sounds like a lot of fun and togetherness to me!
By mapleleaf on September 17th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
It is fun. It doesn’t matter if we don’t see them in public together or not. You can ask any royal expert, they know that they are together. Mandy just want to see them in public and I understand that but they are going about this in their own way which I really respect and so should Mandy. Mandy, things will become more official soon, you’ll see. But for right now, relax.
By Claudius on September 17th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
WHAT?!?! Throwing cake at each other instead of eating it? They must be mad!
That does it, I am NOT making my chocolate layer cake with raspberries for the Royals, if that is how they mistreat perfectly good cake. 
By Gigi on September 17th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Gigi, how do you know it was perfectly good cake?
Perhaps they decided to have a food fight because the cake wasn’t up to their standards! Woe to the pastry chef!!!
By Evelyn on September 17th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Gigi, I have a very important question.
Which chocolate do you use to bake your cake?
Last year I tried Sharfenberger for my holiday baking and people acted as though I had put something narcotic in my sweets. I’m going to use it again this winter.
So, as Evelyn said, perhaps the ingredients in the cake William and Kate were eating just wasn’t really all that good in the first place . . .
By Marie on September 17th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Sounds like a great way to spend Harry’s birthday, just like the common folk. However, I take exception to smashing cake in one another’s face. I’m no prude, but I hate when couples do this, especially at weddings. It is so vulgar, even if it is done in fun.
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Marie, are you sure you didn’t slip some cannabis into your holiday baking? LOL
By Arthur on September 17th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Well, Arthur, Scharfenberger IS made in Berkeley . . .
I’m getting married soon, and my fiance and I have sworn that there will be no cake smashing.
By Marie on September 18th, 2007 at 1:08 am
I was born and raised in Pennsylvania and the only chocolate I use in baking is Hershey’s. I have used it all my life and my Mother and Grandmother before me relied on it, also.
By Gigi on September 18th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Have you seen the photos of Harry’s Party , I have and guess what William is sitting with friends, a girl and a guy and Harry and Chelsy and alas NO KATE present anywhere…..
By mandy on September 18th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Mandy, where did you see photos of Harry’s party? Can you post a link please?
By Grace on September 18th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Thank you Marie. Sounds like your wedding will be an elegant affair!
By Arthur on September 18th, 2007 at 3:36 am
John,
I, too, do not understand why the author of the article states that HM might be “frosty” in her reception of Kate. The paparazzi and supposed friends of William were quite unkind to Kate and her family, but they showed dignity in not responding. Would not HM find this to be a very suitable quality in a prospective royal bride, particularly one who seems genuinely in love and loyal to William?
By Lisa on September 18th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Where did you see the photos, Mandy?
By Marie on September 18th, 2007 at 3:59 am
John, I see you’ve got a viper problem again. Do you want to call the exterminator or shall I???
By Positive on September 18th, 2007 at 4:05 am
Rather interesting reports that Kate Middleton and William have discussed her need to be kept out of the limelight and that he is sympathetic.
Also interesting spin control on how she only went clubbing because they “broke” up and that she is really much more reserved than Chelsy.
Someone is spinning to put her story out there.
As for the viper–there are so many reports of Kate having been at the party, that it’s hard to question. But I’m curious to see these photos of Mandy’s if she would be kind enough to share a link.
By Marie on September 18th, 2007 at 4:36 am
I haven’t written about Harry’s 23rd because it was just another party. I could spend all day here writing about parties. Chelsy’s had more than a few over recent weeks, and more photos of her being helped from Mahiki’s would be sooo boring.
However, I’ve heard that Kate was at Harry’s do. The persistence of these reports from lots of different people confirms it as true. Why would so many people lie about it if William and Kate were not together? That, Mandy, just doesn’t add up.
By John on September 18th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Because don’t you see??? In a world where the sky is magenta with yellow polka dots, the press is determined that William and Kate are together!! They don’t want William to date anyone else so they’re going to lie about Kate vacationing with her boyfriend and attending birthday parties where she has been spotted kissing her boyfriend. KEEP UP JOHN! :rolleyes:
By Positive on September 18th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I saw some pictures of Harry’s party in the Daily Mail there were three pictures one of Harry, one of two of their friends and one with William chatting to friends there was no Picture of Chelsy so does that mean she was not their either? For most of last autumn and winter Kate was constantly in the media and it nearly destroyed her and William. Just because they are not in the media does not mean they are not back together, It just means they are doing what is best for their relationship. Pos I think an exterminator is in order and then we can have some tea. Gigi where are you?
By Trudie on September 18th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I’m delighted that they are back together and i fully agree that Kate would not be going to Balmoral for a frosty reception, her invite can only mean that things are on the up and up.
As for any exterminations, i think they should be kept as a last resort. What is it that some eminent American said, ( i can’t remember who) that while he might disagree with what is said, he would defend to the last the right to say it. After all it adds a bit of spice to the board as long as there are no personal attacks or lowers the tone of a fine debate.
By the way, i think Kate would make a lovely Maid Marion, she has the colouring for it.
By Eliza on September 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am
“Kate would make a lovely Maid Marion, she has the colouring for it.”
Maybe Kate will read that here and get a costume for a Halloween party. Which part should William play?
By Evelyn on September 18th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
quote: “Have you seen the photos of Harry’s Party , I have and guess what William is sitting with friends, a girl and a guy and Harry and Chelsy and alas NO KATE present anywhere…..”
Mandy, how many tables were there at the party for all the guests? Did the photos that you saw show the entire party and all of the attending guests? Because if there was more than one table in the room, and you didn’t see a photo of the entire party and each guest, then how in the world could you know whether Kate Middleton was there or not? I’m sure there would have been no difficulty for Prince Harry or Prince William to ask the person snapping photos to just leave Kate out of the pictures.
Since I sincerely doubt that Prince Harry asked any paparrazzos to his private birthday party, whoever took those photos was probably more than willing to oblige Prince Harry and Prince William if they requested privacy with regards to Kate’s presence.
By mapleleaf on September 18th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Trudie, I think Gigi is out trying to purchase some of Marie’s “mind-numbing” baking chocolate. Mmmmm, I can’t wait for the next tea party!
By Arthur on September 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I have just been catching up on the message board and there are several points that interest me. Firstly I agree with the start of Mappleleaf’s article (I take it you are Canadian?) W and K are taking things softly softly so that they can strengthen their relationship without too much fuss and media attention. I wish them all rhe best because unlike Mandy I BELIEVE THEM TO BE BACK TOGETHER, but time will tell and before too long I suspect. I didn’t believe anyone could spit out quite so much bile as you Mandy. To come to the alledged cake throwing incident Queen Marie Antoinette of France said ‘let them eat cake’ and look what happened to her, she just lost her head.
All of these positive coments about W and K only strengthen my ‘nom de plume’ - Royalist
By Royalist on September 18th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I saw the photos. You can see them on theroyalist.com. They are candids someone took with a cell phone and sold to the tabs–obviously without telling the subjects of the photos. They aren’t official photos and don’t prove much of anything, actually.
Much more interesting are the numerous reports of Kate and William’s behavior at the party.
I don’t know. I think he’s found his girl, and I think that’s great.
By Marie on September 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Tea, my dears, is most definitely in order! I am sure we could all do with a cup. Dear Trudie, if you will pour, I will serve the Apple Charlotte and pass the English custard, sandwiches, scones and Balmoral Dundee cake. My goodness, if we are to rely on photographs as sole proof of a relationship, we might have to wonder if I am even alive! I always take the photos in my family and, as a result, there are very few photographs of me in existence. Just wait until the engagement announcement and the wedding of Prince William and Kate. THEN we will have enough photographs to satisfy everyone!
By Gigi on September 18th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Royalist, I’m Canadian and I’m also a staunch royalist myself, so I like your chosen ‘nom de plume’. I think Gigi’s tea will be just the thing that we need to bring everything to an even keel. I agree, I think they’re taking things softly with regards to the public. Since they’ve been engaging in this ‘out of the limelight’ behaviour for a while, I think it must work well for them.
I have every confidence that some point we will be rewarded with some great photos of Prince William and Kate Middleton together. Maybe not right away, but I think we’ll see something eventually. In the meantime, I wish them well, and I hope that keeping things discreet continues to work for them.
By mapleleaf on September 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Mandy just made something up. Yes I have to agree with you Mapleleaf, there will be pictures someday and it will be rewarding. Just wait.
By Claudius on September 18th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Gigi I’m pouring Pos do you need something stronger in your tea to soothe your temper over the rudeness of some? Perhaps a nice cappucino with sambuca will do the trick. hehehe. Gigi any double dutch chocolate cookies?.
By Trudie on September 18th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Going back up a ways in this thread, I have to comment on Arthur’s statement “Sounds like a great way to spend Harry’s birthday, just like the common folk. However, I take exception to smashing cake in one another’s face. I’m no prude, but I hate when couples do this, especially at weddings. It is so vulgar, even if it is done in fun.” - Arthur - you’re a sweetheart - and I so agree with you on this. I insisted on NOT doing this at my own wedding. My husband so wanted to but I gave him the evil eye - he didn’t dare!
LOL
I’m one of the optimistic people as far as Will and Kate go - I really believe those two are good for each other. They have so much going for them - so much more so than William’s parents did and this really bodes well for their future marriage.
By On The Outside on September 19th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Gigi, I leave it up to your impeccable taste to pour whatever your fancy!! But Trudie’s idea sounds like a good one!!
Welcome Mapleleaf!!
By Positive on September 19th, 2007 at 12:47 am
I so agree On the Outside!!
By Positive on September 19th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Speaking of pictures, I haven’t seen Kate’s outing photos for awhile. She seems to quit both working and clubbing. Has someone advised her to stay out of spotlight?
By Mikado-watcher on September 19th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Excellent notion regarding the alternative beverage for our tea, Trudie! Thank you for reminding me that I forgot to mention the chocolate lace cookies, which, of course we are also having for tea.
We must have our sweets, afterall!
I also must add that I agree with On the Outside and Arthur regarding proper cake etiquette. Neither my husband nor I wished to smear each other with cake at our wedding and we were glad we did not. My two great aunts were present and both these lovely Victorian ladies would have fainted dead away at such an impropriety, not to mention my very proper Mother!
By Gigi on September 19th, 2007 at 2:47 am
In my view smearing cake over people is common and not in a good way. Food fights are a different thing and i’m sure most were involved in one at school still i think it is a little infantile to engage in a food fight at an adult party. Whatever about the young set having one i can only hope that C & C were not involved, people of that age throwing food merely shows they know no better.
By Eliza on September 19th, 2007 at 8:17 am
I suspect Mandy has a very personal involvement in this affair. Get over it, Mandy, it’s not going to happen.
Royalist, I agree totally with you. Are you by any chance connected to The Royalist website? If I commented on other sites (which I don’t), I would use the nom de plume of Royal Anecdotes — or maybe Balmoral Dundee Cake.
Gigi, you refresh us all with your comprehensive menus. Keep pouring.
By John on September 19th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I agree. Throwing food at a party is very Hooray Henry.
The only time I did that was at a school party when all the food was made by volunteer mothers. Unfortunately, they didn’t coordinate, so they all made rock cakes and sticky buns. Nobody fancied any of them, so they started to throw them. Believe me, being hit in the face by a rock cake is no laughing matter. It was like world War II.
By John on September 19th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I think Mandy IS Kate under a pseudonym. She is just trying to throw us off.
By Mary on September 19th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I’m intrigued what kind of personal involvement could Mandy have. A hopeful girlfriend, an ambitious mother, an ex school friend? she says she is typing at the beach and she would want to be very hardy to hang at the beach at this side of the pond, the weather has become decidedly autumnal with the indian summer gone.
By Eliza on September 19th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Eliza, I’m guessing, but, like many haters of Kate, I think she has a crush on William.
By John on September 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I think Mandy’s line about being at the beach was just a comeback for those who were saying that
because we didn’t see any photos of Kate doing x, she must never do x. Etc.
By Evelyn on September 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I don’t think Mandy spells well enough or understands how to use punctuation well enough to even possibly be from William and Kate’s same education/social circle. I think John’s right; she has an unhealthy and personal fixation on William, which has led her to think that she “knows” him and what is best for him.
By Marie on September 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Sorry to disappoint you John but my choice of Royalist as my name was just a spur of the moment thing and I have no connection with any website. It just reflects my personal feelings. I am sure W and K are keeping a low profile until they are ready and a public ‘togetherness’ which will not be too long coming but an engagement might be a while but I feel worth waiting for. As for K I think she will be the best thing that has ‘happened’ to the monarchy since Dianna. Having said that whilst there are similarities with D she is her own woman with her own qualities she could bring as Princess and eventually Queen CATHERINE!
By Royalist on September 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Marie, i doubt if either spelling or punctuation is a criterion for entry into the upper classes in fact being academically dim is more likely to be a prerequisite! They don’t need education because they have the network system. Anyway there is no entry except birth see how they react to Kate and look down their noses at her credentials.
But you have made me very concious of my grammer! Especially as you are a writer and write so fluently.
By the way, hope you have a wonderful day at your forthcoming nuptials, is the wedding this year?
By Eliza on September 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Positive, thank you for your warm greeting! Marie, I wish you much happiness and unending love for your upcoming marriage.
A wedding is an occasion to celebrate with something special, so I feel sure that Gigi will plan something extraordinary for your nuptials here on RA! And I agree Eliza, I will be much more conscious of my grammar in the future, since Marie is a writer I don’t want her to think we’re all uneducated and have difficulties with grammar, spelling and punctuation like our erswhile friend. (lol)
By mapleleaf on September 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Sorry, left out the ‘t’ in erstwhile!
By mapleleaf on September 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
When I comment on other web sites (which I do), I use the nom de plume “Robin Hood,” just so you know!
By Arthur on September 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Arthur, Robin of Loxley might be a little less romantic.
By John on September 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Whilst these coments are about KM going to Balmoral, it will not be the first time that thr Annecdotes have gone off-track. As we have a Mapleleaf contributing I would like to bring in the engagement of Peter Phillips to Autumn Kelly the by all accounts level headed, uncomplicated attractive Canadian. The questions being asked are when and WHERE will the wedding take place. St Pauls, Westminster Abbey etc are being mentioned but what I want to know is why not in Montreal, it is custom for the wedding to take place in the brides church. The Canadians (and I suspect Mapleleaf) would love it and it would be great to see the Q and RF crossing the pond to attend. I think she will prove to be a big plus to the monarchy without being HRH.
By Royalist on September 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Montreal would be a great idea, Royalist, although there may be security fears about the separatists, given a Royal connection in the wedding. Would that be a problem, Mapleleaf?
My instinct tells me St George’s Chapel, Windsor, in a private ceremony. But I could just be wrong.
By John on September 19th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
If Peter and Autumn were to marry in Canada, in her church as is customary, it would have to be a Roman Catholic Church as Autumn is of the Roman Catholic faith. This raises the politically charged question of whether or not Peter is going to renounce his place in the line of succession to marry a Catholic. Perhaps that’s why we haven’t heard too much about Peter and Autumn’s nuptials up to now. There are a number of important issues that need to be worked out behind closed doors.
By Arthur on September 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
John, I like Robin of Loxley. It makes me feel like an Aristocrat, which is the closest I’ll ever get to being one.
By Arthur on September 19th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I don’t think Peter would lose too much sleep over renouncing his claim to the Throne — it’s rather remote, anyway.
Going back to the original theme of the post, the leaking to the Mail on Sunday of this visit of William and Kate’s to see the Queen and Prince Philip specifically — no mention of C & C — suggests to me that something important is going to be discussed. We can only guess what that might be, but I know what my money’s on.
By John on September 19th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I shall, indeed, attempt to contrive appropriately festive menu items for the Royal Anecdotes Nuptial Tea for our very own Marie! When is the wedding to be? We shall also have to have a special Royal Anecdotes Nuptial Tea for Peter Phillips and Autumn, when that wedding takes place. Saint George’s Chapel, Windsor, sounds ideal to me as well, John. I forgot, however, that Autumn is Catholic, so we shall see what the arrangements will be.
John, I have always seen Robin Hood’s formal name and title spelled “Robin of Lockesley.” Is that incorrect?
By Gigi on September 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Gigi, I was wondering if Peter and Autumn might decided to have a festive, Christmas wedding at Sandringham? It would certainly be private, like the young couple themselves, and you could serve plum pudding (one of my favorites) at the Nuptial Tea!
By Arthur on September 19th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Gigi, spellings were a bit hit and miss in the 12th century. I’ve seen it spelt both ways, though your version may be closer to the root in that a lock may have been involved.
By John on September 19th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Excellent idea, Arthur! My darling Father also adored plum pudding and often said to Mother “Why must we only have it at Christmas?” Is the Royal Family spending Christmas at Sandringham? I know that has been the custom for years and generations, but I believe I heard, only quite lately, that the Queen had decided to have Christmas Court at Windsor from now on. John, what do you say to this?
By Gigi on September 19th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Thanks, John, for the information. I know that the name is spelled “Lockesley” in Sir Walter Scott’s work “Ivanhoe” when it is mentioned in passing in a speech by Wamba, Ivanhoe’s squire. But of course, as you say, spellings change over the centuries.
By Gigi on September 19th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I have just learned the real reason Kate Middleton is traveling to Balmoral and it has nothing to do with meeting Her Majesty.
Kate is aware of the recent claims, made by a British bio-science company, that mineral water, from a spring on the Balmoral Estate, helps keep the body and skin young and healthy. QEII’s robust health and flawless skin, as well as the long life of the Queen Mum, is being attributed to drinking this “miracle” spring water during vacations at Balmoral. Kate figures it couldn’t hurt to give it a try, so she’s bringing some of the water back to London. After all, the poor girl is entitled to something for all the grief she has had to endure being Prince William’s girlfriend.
Be a good girl Kate and bring your mother a few cases of spring water as well. She has certainly endured her share of harassment and she isn’t even dating a prince!
By Arthur on September 19th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Gigi, my Grandmother used to make plum pudding every Christmas and she served it with hard sauce, which was nothing more than softened butter, sugar and whiskey creamed together. If truth be told, I only ate the plum pudding to get to the hard sauce!
By Arthur on September 19th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
LOL Well…Arthur, that may be true, but personally, I am a bit skeptical. For one thing, the first instance of the “perfect skin” in the Royal Family was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons, who became Queen Elizabeth and then the Queen Mother. She had that perfect skin from birth, long before she ever saw Balmoral and passed this perfect complexion along to her two daughters, Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret, Countess Snowden. The reason I also doubt that it has much to do with the mineral water from the spring on the Balmoral Estate is that Queen Victoria’s skin was not perfect and neither was the complexions of her sons and daughters and they spent far more time at Balmoral and presumably drank the Spring water, than the current members of the Royal Family. Even when a young bride, Queen Victoria’s skin was somewhat sallow. I believe we must credit that lovely Scottish lass, the Queen Mother, for the fresh and perfect skin of Queen Elizabeth II. No doubt, however, the pure water and pure air of the Scottish Highlands contributed to the extraordinary good health of most of the members of the Royal Family.
By Gigi on September 19th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Gigi, I also have my doubts about the “miracle” spring water, but it was fun to speculate. Also, the Balmoral springs didn’t do much for the health of the Queen’s father, King George VI and ultimately Princess Margaret. Damn those nasty cigarettes!
By Arthur on September 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
John, I think Montreal would be an excellent choice for the wedding of Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly! I’m not from Montréal, but I do know that the Basilique Notre-Dame de Montréal (the Notre-Dame Basilica) is an absolutely beautiful place to hold a wedding. It’s one of the grandest basilicas in the world. But if Autumn decides to convert and become Anglican and she still wants to get married in her native land, then the Christ Church Cathedral would be perfect. It’s also very beautiful, and it’s the seat of the Anglican Diocese of Montreal. I think it’s almost as lovely as the Notre-Dame Basilica.
Whether she chooses one of those cathedrals or they choose Saint George’s chapel in Windsor, I just hope they announce a date some time this year. I’m really looking forward to their wedding. I hope some of it will be televised.
By mapleleaf on September 19th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
William and Kate’s relationship is often described as “on again, off again.” I thought they had only split up once; this description makes it sound like more often. Which is it?
By Mae Elgin on September 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Okay Hi, I was away doing work for a news channel for a few days, but now , yes , I’m back at the beach, it’s 85 today. I had to go to Las Vegas to send in some†on the scene reports†to a news channel I work partime for.
Why do you feel the need to attack me personally just because I don’t think William and Kate are back together, I don’t believe the Kate-William press hype. I don’t think they are together seriously at all. I actually enjoy reading all of your posts and I adore John, he’s great, (but I put my accuracy rate against his anyday, because there was NO engagement as he predicted last year. I said there would NOT be one.) I don’t think William will ever marry Kate. I don’t think she was at the party, most sources are from one or two outlets just repeating what the others have said, I don’t think William has any intention of getting engaged to Kate or is even seeing her seriously now. Here is where I saw the party photos….
LINK
By mandy on September 19th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Mandy are you the author of one of the other royal sites? I ask because 85 weather and the beach sounds alot like Florida where that Mandy is from. As for William I think he will marry Kate she seems like the only girl willing to put up with the baggage that comes with being associated with him, As I have said before She very obviously loves him for himself. I know if it was myself if I didn’t love him I would not subject myself to all the pressure and comments from people who don’t even know me. William it seems is the type who values trust and loyalty and Kate certainly has been loyal and trustworthy even during the split. Look it took Edward and Sophie almost 8 years and they have a wonderful marriage. Something to think about.
By Trudie on September 20th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Mandy, I couldn’t see the link. Apparently you need a subscription or something. Diversity of opinions is what makes the forum interesting. Contrary to Trudie, I see in Kate a girl who will put up with everything in order to be queen. She has no self respect or dignity, but has big ambitions. Most will call it loyalty to William, I might call her a doormat. Just my opinion. I have nothing personal against her.
By Marilyn on September 20th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Testing…
By Positive on September 20th, 2007 at 2:11 am
I pretty much call what Kate does her business and not mine nor anyone else who’s not paying her bills or kissing her on the lips at night.
By Positive on September 20th, 2007 at 2:13 am
No… I work for a TV Station in Los Angeles partime, I used to be full time, but requested partime hours for family reasons, so now I get calls to go on the scene for a developing story. I don’t have any problem with the everyone’s view of Kate, but I just DON’T feel she will make it to the alter with William. I just don’t think her being available or being around for him, will end in marriage; just as I didn’t see them getting engaged last DEC-Jan. As far as Sophie is concerned, she met Edward at about 27, she dated him about 5 years, then proposal/marriage in 6th year, I’m not sure this will happen for Kate (but we’ll see.)
By mandy on September 20th, 2007 at 2:37 am
Well, I don’t want people to get self-conscious about spelling. I make plenty of errors, and want to reserve the right to do so. It was a rather catty thing to say and something I regret. But it is true that the British school system is still impressive and that those with money–regardless of brains–exit with an enviable fluency in the language.
I do, however, think that an ability to express one’s thoughts well does in some measure reflect how well a person has thought out his position–whether right or wrong. There is a difference between a purely emotional impulse that’s not based in any kind of evidence, and one that has some thought to back it up.
At the same time, of course, it’s always possible that a gut instinct is right and an overly thought-out theory is not.
I’m getting married the first week of November, in California. Pray for sun! I’m marrying the most wonderful person–not sure how I got this lucky. He’s British and thinks it’s crazy that I care about the royal family; he does not. No one in his family does. Even when his mother used to regularly see Prince William, she was not impressed. None of the friends who also used to see William were particularly impressed either.
However, when I told them all a story of standing by the side of the avenue in Paris because the Queen was going by . . . that impressed them. They like her, you see.
I’ve seen the same photos that Mandy references–they are in the royalist site, as I mentioned above. You can all go see them too. And, no, there are no photos of Kate.
At the very least, Mandy’s skepticism keeps things interesting. And it’s true–there’s no photographic evidence. Just piecing things together and hearsay. And frankly, that will make it more fun for us in the long run.
Gigi–my cake is going to two flavors: mocha and Meyer lemon. I’m excited about the decorations. I’m afraid they will be so beautiful, I can’t cut into the cake at all. My fiance has always hated the cake smashing thing–he’s a true gentleman–so I’m not worried.
Now, I have gone on and one with totally disorganized paragraphs, running off at the mouth. So you see, I’m as guilty as anyone else of being disorganized on a message board post.
John, any new gossip?
By Marie on September 20th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Wow, calling Kate a doormat sounds a bit harsh. Isn’t it possible this young woman simply loves William and sees him as the partner with whom she wants to spend the rest of her life? Being Queen is nothing to write home about. Just look at the torturous life Diana endured living within the confines of the Royal family. What sensible woman would want that life without loving the man who comes with it? Seeing first hand the heartache his parents went through, William is going to make certain his bride is in it for the right reason. William would not have resurrected his relationship with Kate, if he didn’t believe they were right for one another and in it for the long haul. I believe William and Kate “will make a great team,” something Diana always believed she and Charles would have become under different circumstances.
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Arthur, “doormat” is harsh. It is an attack masked in smooth talk. Much like me calling Chelsy Davy, someone whose photographed behavior in compromising shots I find questionable, a comparable name, which I will not.
By Positive on September 20th, 2007 at 3:18 am
Well, she’ll drop everything just by his asking. Sometimes that’s not love, is being stupid.
By Marilyn on September 20th, 2007 at 3:24 am
And you know for a fact that she dropes everything? And stupid is equally offensive. This is what I hope this site does not become: another breeding ground for the haters to congregate and throw tomatoes at Kate Middleton. This is a mature and peaceful site, not a playground for young kids to call Kate Middleton names.
By Positive on September 20th, 2007 at 3:27 am
You have your own site for trash mouthing Kate Middleton non-stop. And you know where that site is. Go back there if you want to hurl baseless attacks. This is not the place. It has no currency here.
By Positive on September 20th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Marie have a wonderful wedding. I also got married in California. I remember planning everything, it was exciting. I was on my Honeymoon in Paris when Edward and Sophie’s wedding took place. I watched the wedding of Sophie and Pr. Edward, at the start of my honeymoon in Paris, meanwhile my husband was out searching for wonderful french food so we could have a romantic picnic.
Now I’ll get back to Royal news.
By mandy on September 20th, 2007 at 3:36 am
Arthur, Deeside spring water is available from some supermarkets in the south, and is even bottled by Prince Charles as a Duchy Original. Much easier for Kate to order some online.
Interesting about the water, though. It’s well known that on particular farms and paddocks horses live much longer than others in a different location. It’s been discovered that willow trees by a stream leach salicylic acid (aspirin) from their bark. This has a powerful anti-inflammatory effect which protects against many age-related diseases. I wonder if the Deeside water has willows nearby?
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Gigi, old Sir Walter Scott had his own ways of spelling, especially when he broke into lowland Scots dialect — which, astonishingly is not Scots at all, but Anglo-Saxon.
Maybe Arthur should stick with Robin Hood (or is that Hode?).
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Gigi, I suppose it depends on how much of that other Scottish brew they drank. I can’t see Edward VII knocking back much of the water, can you?
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Mandy, both Richard Kay and Kate herself thought there would be an engagement in February. There was a lot of mind changing going on at that time. Here, I can only reflect what significant people are thinking.
Imagine for a moment that they’re not together now, as you say. Why would William and the Royal Family allow the view that they are, become general across the press and the major commentators. Don’t you think CH would have issued a strong rebuttal? It’s also not in Kate’s interest to be linked to him if she’s just a distant memory.
I think you’re way off beam here, Mandy — although in this relationship anything can happen at the drop of a top hat.
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Marie, thanks for the information. I hope you have a wonderful day and, more importantly, an even better life together thereafter.
In terms of gossip, it’s incredibly quiet on the Royal front now. Chelsy’s at Leeds, the Princes are presumably in the bosom of the Army at Windsor, the Queen is tucked away at Balmoral, Zara is nursing her wounds at losing her European title. Not much at all.
Oh, the Queen’s Private Secretary, Richard Janvrin has retired and received the Royal Victorian Order. But I don’t think that news will light up the night sky.
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Mapleleaf, thanks for the information. I had to remove the links because more than one spooks the spam traps and your comment was stuck in the moderation panel. Long links also break the sidebar in older browsers, like Internet Explorer 6.
I haven’t heard any news about this wedding at all, but after announcing an engagement it would make sense to publicize the details. Unless, of course, they’re going to do it in total secrecy. That would be in character, I think, although I’m still backing Windsor in the spring.
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Positive, first of all, learn to spell. I am not a teenager. I really don’t know those sites. You can sense anger from your comments. As I said before, I don’t hate Kate, we just don’t agree on some issues.
You are right, she doesn’t DROP everything to be with him because she doesn’t works, but I wish she would. I know you are going to say what she does is none of your business, but you have to agree that most people want to see her doing something productive and be an example to young women rather than just waiting around for William to propose. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter if her parents can support her lifestyle, but she is on the public eye whether she likes if or not.
Kate, How about some charity work ( not the dragon boat race)?
It will be good PR for her and in a way for the RF.
By Marilyn on September 20th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Nice ‘where they all’ John, but find the lady where is Kate? If she has given up Jigsaw is she back with Mum and Dad?
An interesting comparison between Kate and Autumn is that both father/step father are/were airline pilots.
Don’t quite follow that Mapleleaf.
By Royalist on September 20th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Royalist, I don’t know where Kate is. I imagine she’s preparing for her new career as a photographer somwhere in London. She now has a pass to Clarence House, so may be living there.
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Mandy fyi I am an excellent speller, OTOH I am not the greatest typist. For those people who wait with baited breath for Kate to do something so that she can be a role model or prove herself suitable princess material, I say role models are overrated. They should look to examples in their own lives to model themselves after–parents, siblings, friends, relatives, teachers, neighbors, etc. One does not need Kate Middleton to set the proper example by getting a job. Nor does Kate Middleton have to work to prove her worth as a human being.
I’m sure Hitler had a job and a budding career when he was Kate’s age. Would he be viewed as a role model because he was constructive at 25? You let me know.
The words that have been spoken about Kate Middleton by those who have known her, those who know her, all pretty much agree that she is a great girl. I have been impressed at her closeness with her mother and sister. Vacationing with her family as well as William. Socializing with her mother at her young age is a wonderful thing. This says strong family ties, which usually means well-adjusted person. This is what is important to me, not whether or not Kate Middleton is punching some timeclock at Walmart just to satisfy those who will never accept her and will most certainly find something else to b*tch about simply because she snagged a prince. And they didn’t.
By Positive on September 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I think the fact she is keeping a low profile is even further proof (if proof be needed) that all is well in the romance because if it was off we would see her out and about showing the world that she is ‘just fine thank you very much’.
As for news about the royals, i saw on another site (sorry John!) that the Queen won a raffle at a local school; she got some bath salts. A cute story i thought, quite funny ‘… and the winner is - The Queen, Buckingham Palace’
By Eliza on September 20th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“Oh, the Queen’s Private Secretary, Richard Janvrin has retired and received the Royal Victorian Order. But I don’t think that news will light up the night sky.”
Ah. But have the whispers stopped at the same time? That would be very, very interesting. That was one of my points–that we should look to see who will retire or be fired in the near future (okay, I used the word “fired” originally, but I’ll take retired too).
By Marie on September 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Excellent post, Positive, regarding Kate being close to her family and well-adjusted. I agree with you! Of course, everyone who posts here is entitled to his or her own opinion, but, if I may, I would like to reiterate the view that this site has a well-earned reputation of civility that many other sites lack. We do disagree on occasion, of course, but we prefer to do so agreeably, rather than with rancor and harsh words. This is a wonderful site, one that John has worked hard to create and maintain, and I do beg that we all endeavor to support the congenial tone John has set as the standard. When a particular topic becomes controversial and discussion grows heated, we generally adjourn for Royal Anecdotes Tea which, if not exactly healthy, is certainly soothing.
Marie, many good wishes to you and your bridegroom on your forthcoming nuptials, and may every blessing be yours! Your cake sounds luscious and I am sure the wedding will be beautiful in every detail! We shall offer champagne toasts to you and your husband at Royal Anecdotes Gala Nuptials Tea during the first week of November!
Arthur, as usual, your comments are insightful and useful. I agree with you that Kate and Prince William will make a great team. I look forward happily to the day when they are King and Queen and the golden British sun shines upon their Royal House.
By Gigi on September 20th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Three cheers for Gigi. She always knows the correct way to get us back on track: Tea time! A good “cuppa” and a sweet treat always put a smile on my face.
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Eliza, I also read the story of the Queen’s windfall at the school raffle and heard Her Majesty “was amused.”
I also understand the Queen is going to “re-gift” the bath soap and bath oil to Camilla for Christmas. Her Majesty is quite the frugal lady!
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Thank you for your kind cheers, Arthur, and you are correct about the Queen’s frugality. She comes by that quite honestly, I believe, as Queen Victoria and her husband, the Prince Consort, were known for their careful money management. I recall reading that Queen Victoria sent a hot dish (china divided compartment dish with an area for hot water underneath so the dinner stayed warm) to her daughter, Vicky, the Crown Princess of Prussia, as a gift for one of her small children. Vicki had asked her Mother for a new hot dish, and when the Queen complied, she asked her daughter to “return the old hot dish so it can be used for someone else!” Regarding the incredibly gifted and conscientious Prince Consort, he revamped the running of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, cutting out wasteful ordering and repetitious procedure, streamlining expenses to such an extent that the savings enabled the Royal couple to purchase Osborne and Balmoral. I also recall reading that the present monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, sent Charles back out into the Highlands of Balmoral to search for a dog lead he had lost earlier in the day. When Charles protested that it was getting late and he was tired, the redoubtable Queen insisted he go search for the missing item, saying crisply “Dog leads cost money! ”
By Gigi on September 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Gigi, you have so much knowledge about the Royal family you should start your own website. We’ll name it: “Royal Tea with Gigi!
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Sorry I haven’t posted for while … been following the story of the other Kate (Mrs McCann).
Congratulations Marie on the wedding, hope it has a glamourous, fairy tale feel.
Thanks John and others for pointing out that Kate haters seem to be young girls who are jealous and have a crush on William. There is another site where the posters disparge Kate terribly and then post threads titled “Do you think you will ever meet William?” or “Can William marry one of his fans?”
I take a much more sympathetic view of Kate - simply a girl who met her Prince at college and would have married by now but for Palace interference.
After the disastrous marriages of Charles and Andy, the palace seems to be requiring long, stable relationships before marriage. It sounds terrible - like a probationary period - but necessary given what happened in the 80s.
I hope Kate passes her probation and is made “permanent.” As for her relationship with William - whether she’s a doormat or whatever - I simply do not know enough about the dynamics of it to have an opinion. However, my impression is that Kate calls the shots.
With a few rebellious acts now & then by William.
By Alicia on September 20th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
LOL Thank you, Arthur, but I much prefer to serve tea and comment on John’s site, which is such a delight because of John’s gracious, skillful management and because so many lovely people post here! I should add that all my knowledge of the Royal Family comes from books I have collected over a lifetime and research I have done. I am an American but I am most definitely a Royalist, if such a thing is possible.
The Prince Consort is one of my personal heroes and my interest in all his extended family and descendents has been one of the major hobbies of my lifetime. Another is a deep interest in Sir Winston Churchill, another of my personal heroes.
By Gigi on September 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Mandy - I enjoy reading your thoughts about W&K. Keep
writing about them. At least you stay with the issue and not
all this food and beverage chit chat.
By Judy on September 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Positive I never addressed your spelling ,I think that was someone else. I have enough typos myself, from looking around at the surf and other things while typing, I enjoy reading your views.
John I will have to disagree with you about William and Kate. I just don’t think anything big is going to happen for them. Several little break-ups and then a big break-up, now it’s called off and on ; it doesn’t bode well. Now he can quietly dump her with out ever acknowledging her, they haven’t been photographed together, since the Concert. I do think the break-up was quite real, I don’t think the relationship is on serious footing now, even if they’ve seen each other from time to time. I think the only engagement the Royal Family are discussing is Peter Phillips in the near future. You said an engagement in Dec, would take place, it never happened, I don’t feel it ever will. The press will repeat itself this year and predict another engagement in Dec/Jan. for William and Kate, but my instinct is it won’t come again.
By mandy on September 20th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Well, let us wait and see what transpires! But, to be safe, let none of us hold our breath. Asphixiation, I suspect, is unpleasant.
By Gigi on September 20th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Hahaha.
By mandy on September 20th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Please can someone tell me about this other girlfriend Jecca.
Am I correct that she attended the Diana event and was seated near Kate. Why did Wm break up with Jecca…
By Judy on September 21st, 2007 at 12:00 am
In reality, all a site like this can offer is a little news, some rumors and gossip, and everyone’s intuitive guess and opinion. It can make for interesting conversation, but makes debating the different views difficult. We’ll go round and round and round… and eventually some will be able to say that they were right. None of us knows when that will be, though many of us have opinions about the matter.
I don’t know if anyone is up to talking about an off-topic question that has been brewing in my mind. No doubt any discussion of this is very premature, but here it is:
We can assume that one day, both William and Harry will marry someone [sometwo? ;)] and have children. If they have girls, will one of their many names be “Diana”? Where might they place their mother’s first name among all the girl’s other names?
As I said, very premature. Anyone have any thoughts?
By Evelyn on September 21st, 2007 at 12:03 am
Judy sorry if you don’t like the beverage chit chat but we are a civilized cyber social group. Arthur, Gigi and John time for a cuppa!!! Also Judy does this mean you are sending regrets for the gala tea to celebrate Marie’s wedding?.
By Trudie on September 21st, 2007 at 12:48 am
Well Evelyn, I’ll take a stab at it, but keep in mind this is just an educated (or uneducated) guess.
Since order of precedence is very important in the world of royalty, I suspect the closer the name Diana is placed to the first name, the more significance it will have. For example, the Prince of Wales is named: Charles Philip (after his father, Prince Philip) Arthur George; The Princess Royal is named: Anne Elizabeth (after QEII and/or the Queen Mother) Alice Louise; The Duke of York is named: Andrew Albert (after his Grandfather, King George VI) Christian Edward and so on.
When the time comes and William or Harry is blessed with a baby daughter, her first name will probably have some royal provenience; however, her second name could be and probably should be Diana.
By Arthur on September 21st, 2007 at 1:03 am
My sentiments exactly, Trudie. As a matter of fact, I hear the tea kettle whistling in the background. I hope Gigi is ready with the sweet treats!
By Arthur on September 21st, 2007 at 1:11 am
Well said, Arthur! I confess, I shall be deeply disappointed if one or both of Princess Diana’s son do not name a daughter after their beloved Mother. Of course, to do so, they must have daughters. I believe the masculine for Diana is “Dion” which is the diminutive for “Dionysis” and I cannot see that name entering the annals of names in the Royal Family. It really would not do.
Judy, do share a glass of champagne with us as we toast to our dear Marie’s wedding in early November. You have several weeks to decide, of course, but we do hope you will join us.
By Gigi on September 21st, 2007 at 1:12 am
Thank you for the instructive lesson, Arthur. And for your concurrence, Gigi, that Diana’s name should appear in her granddaughters’ names (should she have any).
I would also certainly hope that “Camilla” does NOT appear, no matter what the girls’ grandfather might like.
By Evelyn on September 21st, 2007 at 1:20 am
Speaking then of names, do royals ever use a surname as a middle name? If William and Harry have boys, “Spencer” might be appropriate, without singling out any one of Diana’s relatives. It is sometimes used as a given name.
By Evelyn on September 21st, 2007 at 1:24 am
Evelyn, I do not recall a surname being used as a Christian name in the Royal Family. The Royal Family gives multiple Christian names to their children, as few as two (Albert Edward, who became King Edward VII) and as many as seven (Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, who became first King Edward VIII and then Duke of Windsor), whether the child is female or male.
John, can you ever recall a surname being used as a Christian name for a Royal in Britain?
By Gigi on September 21st, 2007 at 2:23 am
[Of course, with Charles thinking he should be crowned as "Defender of Faith" instead of Defender of THE Faith, should future royals be given "Christian" names?
]
By Evelyn on September 21st, 2007 at 2:44 am
LOL Clever remark, Evelyn.
By Gigi on September 21st, 2007 at 2:53 am
I read a couple of weeks ago on RA that William had opened an account on Facebook under the pseudonym “Bobby Davro” and posted a picture of a fighter pilot on his profile. I noticed that the account was deleted within a week or so, right around the time he supposedly returned from his trip to the Seychelles. Does anyone know if that was a hoax or did he have to cancel it because he was discovered?
By Grace on September 21st, 2007 at 3:44 am
I think Prince William made that profile completely private when he returned from his Seychelles holiday, because it was discovered that it was really him and not just another pretend or false profile.
And to answer Judy’s question, Prince William and Jecca seem to have stopped being an item sometime during 2003, although the reports are that they have remained very good friends, and that Kate has become good friends with Jecca herself after Kate’s two safari visits with Prince William to Jecca’s family’s 45000 acre ranch in Lewa Downs.
Jecca herself has been in a serious relationship with the same man for the last two years, so apparently she has quite moved on with her life, the same as Prince William.
By mapleleaf on September 21st, 2007 at 9:15 am
Alicia, I’ve been obessesed with the McCann story too, it is so heartbreaking. Even though i know it is highly unlikely i keep hoping that Madeleine will be found.
By Eliza on September 21st, 2007 at 9:22 am
Mandy, as I’ve said many times, you may easily be right. There’s nothing that we know that’s set in concrete. But it’s a little premature for “I told you so!”
My own view is that they have been seeing each other regularly through the summer but are keeping a very low profile. November’s party at either Highgrove or the Ritz for HM and PP, which is being organized by the Princes, may well be the first outing between them.
Early October’s inivitation from the Queen to Balmoral may well be the moment they decide on their future. If it was not on, there would be no invitation.
By John on September 21st, 2007 at 10:09 am
Gigi, the English equivalent of Dionysis is Dennis, definitely not a Royal name.
Also Spencer will never be used as a middle name because it could be seen as giving the Spencer title equality with Windsor, which it isn’t. As the Queen demonstrated when she rejected Philip’s plea to have Mountbatten in the children’s name, the House of Windsor will not accept any dilution of its Royal status. And quite right too. Names are complicated enough without adding bits at every new generation.
By John on September 21st, 2007 at 10:17 am
Evelyn, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that Defender of the Faith is how Charles should be crowned. Our constitution is a Christian one based on the Anglican church, so it would be unconstitutional.
In any case, Charles’s early enthusiasm for Islam has been severely watered down since 9/11 and 7/7.
By John on September 21st, 2007 at 10:20 am
The stitch-up of the McCanns by the local cowboy police in Portugal has been the outrage of the summer. One very good reason for Gordon Brown NOT to sign up to the European Constitution next month.
By John on September 21st, 2007 at 10:24 am
The portugese are hardly running the EU, John! But i totally agree their police are a shambles and what they are doing to the McCanns is reprehensible; they just want the British tourist back and blaming the parents is how they are doing it. The real outrage is that they aren’t looking for Madeleine.
If the baby was a boy could one of the names be Diana, my brother’s third name is Mary and many of his era have Mary in their name because of the Marian year. Maybe it would be a bit ‘a boy named Sue’!
By Eliza on September 21st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Thanks for your enlightening comments on the names, John. There’s so much I do not know, and I appreciate your help in learning.
I fully agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the coronation. And it’s good to remember that Charles’ views on world religions may have altered since he first considered being “Defender of Faith.” My personal opinion is that Charles has already disregarded Christian teachings on adultery to an extent that may make it difficult for him to adequately defend the Christian faith. At least in my eyes.
By Evelyn on September 21st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Eliza, the Portugese are not running the EU — that’s true, although the current Commission President, Manuel Barrosso — the self-styled Emperor — is Portugese.
My point was that the European Arrest Warrant prevents Britain from defending people like the McCanns against rotten police forces across Europe. If the local judge had asked for their extradition, they would have had to go, even if it meant losing their twins and a long spell in a Portugese jail for a non-existent crime they didn’t commit. Add that to losing their oldest child, and I doubt either of them would have survived.
By John on September 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I really believe that Madeleine’s disappearance was the result of an oppurtunist taking the child either for ransom or to sell in to child slavery. Here in the US several children have been taken from their own homes in the middle of the night, Polly Klaus, Elizabeth Smart, and Jessica Lundsford it goes on and on, only the Elizabeth Smart case had a happy ending the other two abductors are on death row awaiting execution. I think on the part of the Portugese police it is easier to blame the parent and point the finger than actually work to find out the truth. This is as bad as the Natalie Holloway case in Aruba she disappeared and no answers but they sure are worried about tourism.
By Trudie on September 21st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Well John, the commission is the EU executive, someone has to be head of it. In the same way as i despise George Walker Bush that doesn’t mean i write off the country or think every other Amercian would act similarly if they held the position.
As for extradition, most of the civilised world have extradition treaties not just between European member states so unless a country wants to opt out of international life and exist in splendid isolation it has learn to live with other countries.
As i said previously i think the Portugese police have behaved disgracefully but they are only the investigative wing of the justice system so far the Judicial wing have done nothing wrong and give us no reason to say that a person would not get a fair trial in Portugal.
That said i am very glad that the case against the McCanns seems to be collapsing and they won’t have to go through the added ordeal of a court case.
Trudie, what you say about children being taken in their beds frightens the life out of me. Everybody thinks it couldn’t happen to them and God willing it won’t. It shouldn’t happen to anyone.
Anyway i’m going to revert back to commenting on the Royals - that doesn’t give me sleepless nights!
By Eliza on September 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 am