Kate Middleton second thoughts?
A British tabloid newspaper has reported that Kate Middleton is throwing a wobbly over her relationship with Prince William.
The reason, it says, is that Kate fears if she becomes a member of the British Royal Family in future, she would not be able to live up to the expectations of some Royal courtiers.
“She and Wills love each other dearly but Kate has just woken up to what the next few years could have in store. She is suddenly realizing the enormity of what could lie ahead if she walks down the aisle with William. It’s one thing having an on-off relationship with Wills, it’s quite another thing becoming Queen,” says one of Kate’s inner circle.
“They are keeping a discreet distance from each other. By no means are they walking round hand in hand,” continued the source.
Another unnamed friend is quoted as saying, “Kate is concerned that those before her who have married into the Royal Family have come from an aristocratic background and are from old money. She has seen how the Royal Family washed their hands with Diana — and the Princess had a privileged background and came from the right breeding.
“Kate is just from a very normal middle-class family who have done exceptionally well for themselves. They don’t live on a huge estate or have titles before their names.”
This story has all the hallmarks of being planted by journalists. Various known associates are approached and asked if Kate has ever voiced concern over “the enormity” of what might happen to her in the future.
She would be less than human if she hadn’t confided any anxiety to anyone she knew about the role she seems destined for.
The journalist would then package the comments as a story in realtime of Royal second thoughts.
Kate’s had five years now to come to terms with what must have occurred to her on their very first date.
I think it’s crap. Not the sentiments of doubt on her part, but the fact that it is now becoming a story. Of course she has had some doubts - what girl in her place wouldn’t?
She and William have given the press some proof that they are back on track (the trip, etc.) and now there isn’t as much to report. So it’s time to go digging!
By SadieBoo on September 26th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I always love it when unnamed friends are quoted as scorces. Kate has nothing to worry about. Kate has the class and dignity to handle the role as future Princess and as for living up to the expectation of courtiers rubbish, these are just suits with an overblown sense of their own importance. The problem with Diana was she wasn’t going live her life as a lie while Charlie was with Camilla and his and the families jealously of her popularity. For all the good Diana did she was constantly mocked. Kate certainly has a good role model inside the family Sophie did not have a title in front of her name when she married Edward and does not seem to have the problems that went with Charles and Andrew. Kate is not blind to what being a royal is about so I think it is safe to say there needed to be a story however inaccurate.
By Trudie on September 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
If the article is true, Kate better sort out her feelings before “her face is on the tea towels!” By the way, who are these “Royal courtiers?” Where do they come from, what is their background, and how do they get to wield so much power?
By Arthur on September 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Good question, Arthur. I have always wondered that myself. I have read biographies of historical monarchs, like Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, and I understand about courtiers in those times. But what is a courtier in the modern age?
By SadieBoo on September 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Kate’s concern is well-placed. The future Queen should be someone born and raised for the role. Not some random commoner.
By ClassyCanuck on September 26th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
The late Queen Mother was a commoner who wasn’t born, or raised, to be Queen. The British people loved her and she did a splendid job as Queen Consort.
By Arthur on September 26th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Well no one here is dumb enough to think this story is true. Kate knows what lies ahead and she has accepted that. Kate is not a wild child, she is a ver dignified woman and we can clearly see that. I knew a story like this would come up as soon as things are looking good. She’s got the love of William, the love of her family, friends and with the love and respect from the public, she will do just fine. This story is far from the truth.
By Claudius on September 26th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I have been worried about the power wielded by the Palace staff and courtiers for years, Arthur. It is known that it was the personal sabotage and intentional undermining of Princess Diana and Sarah, Duchess of York, by Palace courtiers and staff, that contributed heavily to the problems Princess Diana and Sara Ferguson had adjusting to Royal life and which contributed to the failure of their marriages. This has been going on for years, because Albert, Prince Consort was treated very badly by staff and courtiers after he married Queen Victoria and for some years, she, a very powerful and somewhat autocratic monarch, was either unwilling or unable to stop them. Eventually, Baron Stockmar, who was greatly revered and trusted by both the Queen and the Prince Consort, was able to intervene before the Queen and the Prince Consort’s marriage unravelled. The result was that the Queen got rid of the chief intriguer against the Prince Consort, Baroness Lehsen. Lehsen was a commoner who had been given a title because of her long service to and her fierce protection of the Queen since Victoria’s childhood, when Louise Lehsen was the Queen’s Governess. Unhappily, we have no selfless, wise, and deeply trusted advisor like Stockmar today, although such a man would be both invaluable and a blessing. There has always been Palace intrigue by power mad courtiers puffed up with their own self-importantance and it has always done great damage. Some things never change.
By Gigi on September 26th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Excellent point about the Queen Mother, Arthur. She was a tremendous success in every way and was greatly beloved as well as being a superb inspiration and example to all, especially during the horrific years of World War II. Furthermore, she is the mother and role model of Queen Elizabeth II, who is one of the best and most worthy monarchs ever to grace the British throne.
By Gigi on September 26th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
The term “courtiers” covers a lot of people. For example, the Queen’s recently retired private secretary, Sir Robin Janvrin; her Ladies in Waiting (whose rank is that of a “cousin” of the Monarch); Mistresses of the Bedchamber; Silver Stick in Waiting (once Andrew Parker Bowles). They might also include close friends of the Queen, relatives who keep in touch with the Palace. In fact, a host of all kinds of people.
Apart from a few kindly souls, there will inevitably be a tendency to look down on someone like Kate. She should bide her time until she’s Princess of Wales, then Queen, when they will all come crawling to her.
By John on September 26th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I don’t care who they are or what their pretensions happen to be, John. When they attempt to undermine a Royal marriage and intrigue among members of the Royal Family to further their own petty agendas, they should be summarily dismissed and drop-kicked from the Palace. Enough is enough! The wife of the Heir Apparent to the Throne should not have to bide her time and suffer in silence the slights and intrigues in a nest of vipers. At the time of the murders in the Tower of the two young princes, Prince Edward and Prince Richard, during the reign of their uncle, King Richard III, it was said that the entire staff of the Royal Family at the Tower was turned out, fired, and made to leave with all their belongings and find other ways to earn a living and other places to live. This was unprecedented at the time, and was much commented upon because entire families of courtiers lived in and around the Tower, some of whom were second, third and even fourth generation in families always employed by the Royals. This great upheaval was done to cover up a horrific crime, of course, and to shield the guilty persons, but perhaps something similar should be done today for a positive, proactive purpose. A clean sweep of all the staff and courtiers in the Palace perhaps would not go amiss. It will never happen, but I often wish it would.
By Gigi on September 26th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
We don’t really know what’s happening, Gigi, just putting two and two together. The story is obviously a manufactured one based on odd comments, which are perfectly understandable. Anyone in the Royal Family can be undermined by stray gossip regaled by servants to the press for money.
Kate should stay calm and let it all flow over her.
By John on September 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
John your comment that Kate should bide her time until she becomes Princess of Wales and then Queen when they all will come crawling to her. Well Diana was Princess of Wales and they did not come crawling to her they undermined and mocked her and helped label her as mad and paronoid when she was suspicious of Charles cheating. Her own grandmother and brother-inlaw who as courtiers constantly criticised her. Even Sarah was given a telling off by Fellows for something and Sarah asked if the Queen knew about this and he said he was speaking on behalf of the Queen who incidentenally knew nothing about it when Sarah had asked her. These people are nothing more then a bunch of titles who’s families have served for generations and old school eton attendees who’s only credentials are the family’s name and title.
By Trudie on September 26th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Oh Classy by the way “the future Queen should be someone who is born and raised for the role, not some random commoner” Hate to say it but anyone not born with an HRH IS a commoner and we all know what in-breeding did to the royal family, Take a good look at Charles. hehehe
By Trudie on September 26th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Trudie, both postings are very well said, I agree with you. John, I certainly understand all you say, but I for one am totally fed up with the power that is abused by these presumptuous, small minded retainers at the Palace. I am also fed up with the apparent unwillingness or inability of members of the Royal Family to protect themselves and their spouses against the bullying, the pettiness, the vicious undermining, the manipulation and the sabotage these retainers wreak on whomever they deign to be less than Royal. We have two marriages that were destroyed, a Duchess driven to despair, a Princess of Wales driven to bilemia and desperation, and no one lifted a finger to help them. I do not want to see another beautiful young lady thrown into the shark pool. The more I think about the ordeal Princess Diana and Sarah, Duchess of York endured, the more angry I become.
By Gigi on September 26th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I was considering that William must be aware of this issue and the potential treatment of Kate, especially because in some instances that it has already happenned. Remember “coal miners daughter”… Might there be a possibility that William is already trying to address this issue with the Queen, because of the differences in Kate’s background? It is so obvious, that to not address it would seem in poor choice. Maybe this could represent a change in the situation for the better?
By Cate on September 26th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
I understand Andrew Parker Bowles had quite a reputation with the ladies. That would explain the title: Silver Stick in Waiting!
By Arthur on September 27th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Spot on, Arthur. A touch of humour from the Queen, methinks.
By John on September 27th, 2007 at 7:59 am
As a follow-up to the Queen Mother being a commoner who then performed well in her role as queen: Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was born into an aristocratic Scottish family. Her parents became Lord and Lady Glamis when Elizabeth was a child. They inherited Glamis Castle (setting of Macbeth) where young Elizabeth spent her summers. I had the opportunity to tour Glamis Castle several summers ago and found it very intriguing. Certainly, it was not the home of a “commoner.”
By Karen on September 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Karen, “commoner” means non-Royal, i.e. not having HRH before the name. Kate is a commoner, but lacks the advantage of being an aristocrat, as previous Queen Consorts were.
Size of estate is not important, some Beverley Hills dentists have larger properties than some British aristos.
By John on September 27th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Gigi, I remember watching the wonderful actress, Diana Rigg, portray Baroness Lehsen in the excellent BBC/A&E mini-series “Victoria and Albert.” I may rent the mini-series this weekend for a second viewing. I’m more intrigued by Victoria and Albert now, than when I first watched the PBS series. It would also provide good perspective for the movie, “Young Victoria,” currently in production and starring Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend AND Princess Beatrice of York!
By Arthur on September 27th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Thanks John for the clarification on the word “commoner.” I used it to loosely.
The point I was making in referring to Glamis Castle was not related to the size of the estate, but its ancient origins and its importance in Scottish history. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons had a very privileged upbringing in a home “fit for a queen” and in fact one suite of the castle was outfitted for visits from Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip. The Queen Mother, in other words, was a better fit in royal circles than Kate Middleton.
That said, I hope Prince William does marry Kate Middleton. She would be good for England and would fit in well with the other young European princesses who are not royals or aristocrats.
By Karen on September 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
John, could Queen Elizabeth have given Capt. Mark Philips the title HRH, upon his marriage to Princess Ann? Also, are Anne’s children, Peter and Zara, commoners, because they don’t have HRH before their name, or because their father does not have Royal blood flowing through his veins?
By Arthur on September 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
True, Karen, some high-born aristocrats have descended from great Lords of the past but, without that HRH, they are still commoners.
It’s changing now in that Royal blood is not seen as the final arbiter. Suitability is a much better criterion, especially in an age of total media exposure. Also, inbreeding is an ever-present danger. The Spencer bloodline has certainly invigorated the present Royal Family.
By John on September 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Arthur, Peter and Zara are commoners by choice of Princess Anne and Mark. If Anne had insisted there’s no doubt they would be Royal. However, the case of Mark Phillips is different — as he’s a mere man.
By John on September 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
“She would be good for England and would fit in well with the other young European princesses who are not royals or aristocrats.”
Karen, if anyone questions Kate Middleton’s background as unsuitable for a future Queen, they should take a look at Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Denmark!!!
By Arthur on September 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Oops, I intended to write Mette-Marit of Norway.
By Arthur on September 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Ok, John, but what about Princess Margaret’s children, Vicount Linley and Lady Sara? I know they are members of the Royal family, but neither one has HRH before their name. Are they Royal or, theoretically, commoners?
By Arthur on September 27th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
How the new European princesses (Kate Middleton included I hope) will live out their lives as royals is a great drama being acted out on the stages of Europe in our lifetime.
By Karen on September 27th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
They are commoners, Arthur, which is not an insult. You and I are commoners — and probably proud of it. “A rose by any other name …”, as Shakepeare said.
By John on September 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
John, you are absolutely correct. I did not intend “commoner” to be a term of derision, just a distinction between ordinary folk, like myself and the HRH’s of the world.
By Arthur on September 27th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Arthur, 99.99999 recurring percent of people in the world are commoners. Frightening, isn’t it?
By John on September 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Not frightening at all, John. It just means we are in good company!
By Arthur on September 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I think we are getting all tangled up with the word “commoner,” when what is being discussed is that Kate Middleton is not from an aristocratic family with titles, old landed estates, and connections with the royal family.
John said, “Suitability is a much better criterion, especially in an age of total media exposure.” I completely agree. Who best can cope with being a princess and a queen in a media-obsessed world? That’s who should be a princess these days. With folks like us sit around mulling over every nuance of the British royal family, being a princess is a tough role to play.
I wish Princess Diana could have succeeded.
By Karen on September 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Spot on, Karen … and if Prince William chooses her, of course.
By John on September 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Karen Diana would have succeeded had it not been for Camilla. But I have every confidence that Kate will succeed because unlike Sarah Duchess of York she has dignity and class.
By Trudie on September 28th, 2007 at 1:39 am
First of all, i don’t believe this story at all. i mean Kate is a big girl, she would know what could be in her future if she starts a relationship with Prince William. and come on people! it’s been 5 years.
Second, I think Kate has a very high chance of succeeding in her potential future role. Because unlike Princess Diana and Prince Charles, Kate has William’s love. and love will conquer all. Also you’re not born into a role or job, it’s something that you grow into and learn in the process. Besides, if you look at most of other European crown princesses, they come from “commoner” background. Most notably Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, Crown Princess Letizia of Spain, Crown Princess Maxima of The Netherlands and Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway. What’s more, Crown Princess Mette-Marit had a reputation as a “wild child”. And some of them are foreigners and they fit in quite well and are well-loved by their people. So Kate would have an advantage because she’s British herself and knows the people and is loved by most, if not all. So if the other crown princesse are doing a great job, i have no doubt Kate will as well. More importantly, they are in happy and in love. What i think on those “courtiers” is that they’re simply jealous. “You hate me, because you ain’t me.”
By Alyson on September 28th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Well I have to say The Duchess of York has alot of class and still has a royal dignity to her but people have really gotten carried away with the whole class thing. William seem to not be bothered with if she comes from a titled background, he really loves her for who she is. Love is all that counts not titles.
By Claudius on September 28th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Diana thought love could conquer all;but look what happened.
I think Wm. should wait because he seems so IMMATURE at
this time. He should really give some Thought about MARRIAGE. If this is true that Kate has 2nd thoughts then she should move one because she is really out of her ELEMENT.
I think she knows it and I think her family knows it. The old saying “All that Glitters Is Not GOLD. Time to move on from this college romance.
By Judy on September 28th, 2007 at 5:30 am
that’s very interesting Judy, since Kate is about to spend the weekend with The Queen. They are taking there relationship to another level and love and understanding is all they need. The college romance is completely gone. She really need our prayers now.
By Claudius on September 28th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I would like to say that I completely agree with SadieBoo this story is a lot of crap! A single word or phrase out of place and the newshounds magnify it out of all proportion just for a story. Not of course that Kate has said anything out of place she has been the soul of discretion, the only thing she has gone on record as having said is ‘Prince William is lucky to have me’. You have got that slightly wrong Kate, the RF will be lucky to have her, apart from that she not put a foot wrong. I also completely agree with Alyson about the ‘common background’ of several European Princesses, the same goes of course for Sophie Wessex and the step father of Autumn Kelly is an airline pilot-now there’s a coincidence. As has been said previously, suitability is more important than the accident of birth. I have always felt that she is a classy, inteligent, elegant, sophisticated woman who will be the best thing to ‘happen’ to the monarchy for years. She will be able to bring the monarchy into the 21st Century, it’s in need of it and who knows dispose of these self-opinionated courtiers.
I just wish that I were not so old to be able to see King William and Queen Catherine but I will willingly settle for her as Princess. I an sure this will come about because it seems, if the media is to be believed, that they have a very deep feeling for each other.She needn’t worry about being a second Dianna she will be a superb first Catherine.
By Royalist on September 28th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Claudius just where does the Duchess have class and royal dignity to her lately? All you see is her and Beatrice out partying, sashaying down a cat walk and going to funerals or memorial services looking like she is attending a 1950’s cocktail party. I may be old fashioned and two years younger than Sarah but I certainly don’t party with my daughter. Having class and dignity means you grow older gracefully and not compete with younger women and do not talk or trade on your past. Sarah does this constantly and is shamless at self promotion and using her daughters. Really does this seem classy or dignified to you?.
By Trudie on September 29th, 2007 at 12:08 am
right on Royalist! Kate will at least have decent role models, one of which that is closer to home is her potential future aunt-in-law, the Countess of Wessex. Also she’ll have a companion and mayB even role model, her possible future sister-in-law.
Sorry Judy, no offense to you, but i just wanted to point something out about “Diana thought love could conquer all;but look what happened” . What Princess Diana never knew until it was too late, was that Prince Charles was in love with Camilla. so technically, it wasn’t true love, so Prince Charles wasn’t “the right one” for her. I believe love CAN conquer all, just as long as both parties are sincere and willing to work and fight for it. And i have no doubt that Prince William and Kate will take away examples from what happened to his parent’s unfortunate marriage. And i think Kate is old enough to know that their relationship isn’t just a “college romance” anymore.
Also, i don’t believe in the whole “second Diana” thing. everybody’s different. we make our own mistakes and learn from them. and so what if Kate is similar to Diana? i mean, Princess Diana did so many great things and has such a big heart. She also connected very well with her people and mingled with them and got to know them. So many people just love her. And it’s apparent who her son got some of those traits from. (but i’m not saying the rest of the royal family is heartless or anything). So i think there are some changes, even little changes, that Diana made in the Royal Family, or tried to, and now i think Kate can finish that. So if William and Kate has a heart like Princess Diana, or if their minds and hearts are set that way, by all means, i believe they will do great things together.
By Alyson on September 29th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Well said, Alyson!
By Gigi on September 29th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Is this like that Wedding where William and Kate were suppose to attend together this summer and never did, It never happened., no wedding attended together ever materialized with K and W….another made up press story. It appears the press is trying to give themselves an out after backing themselves into an engagement corner, that has never materialized for Kate anyway.
By mandy on October 1st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
why thank you Gigi. you know, i personally like Autumn Kelly, and Kate too though. Autumn seems to fit that “royal princess without a royal title” person. Also that whole controversy about her being a Roman Catholic thing. i think it’s just bogus. i mean, you don’t have to change your belief or religious faith to marry the person you love. And same goes for Peter Phillips, he shouldn’t have to give up his birth right to marry Autumn. But that, that is true love right there; fighting against all odds to be together with the person you love. And i’m not just saying this because i’m a Roman Catholic and a girl myself, but that Act of Settlement is just old and outdated. Sure, traditions should be kept, good and reasonable traditions yeah. But traditions could and should also be changed sometimes. i mean, a person shouldn’t be judge by their religion or gender.
By Alyson on October 1st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Does anyone know when the big Balmoral “showdown” is set to take place? I read an article on http://www.theroyalist.com that claimed PW was partying in London over the weekend. They sure are doing a good job of keeping a low profile.
By Grace on October 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 am
Looking on the official engagement calendar, here’s what’s planned for the Queen and Prince Phillip on weekends this month:
Sat, Oct 6 - Prince Phillip at Sandringham (maybe the meeting will be here instead of Balmoral?)
All other Saturdays-Sundays are free, but most weeks they have engagements on both Friday and Monday. Except for the last weekend, when the don’t have engagements listed for F-Sat-Sun-M. So, if I had to bet on one, it would be October 26-29.
By Evelyn on October 2nd, 2007 at 2:53 am
We just have to wait and see. I know people are very nervous about all of this but again we just have to wait.
By Claudius on October 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 am
The grievance between Protestants and Roman Catholics is deeply embedded in British history, Alyson. It includes the Civil War, which was really about the Divine Right of Kings versus Parliamentary government.
From today’s perspective, the Parliamentarians (Protestants) got it right, although their methods were questionable. In England, the Roman Church is seen as predatory and absolutist. Elizabeth I made a shrewd decision that the Anglican (Protestant) Church set up by her father, should not preclude Catholics practising their faith. That settlement has basically lasted since then, with new laws supporting Catholics passed by the Victorians.
One of the great divides in British society now is between those who support an independent Britain, and those who support membership of the European Union. The underlying theme is that the EU is a Catholic concept that promotes an authoritarian form of government (which it does).
So you can see the historical undercurrents still swirling around this issue. While Catholics have absolute freedom in Britain, the absolutism of the early Church still sways minds here. It’s hard to see that changing until the churches become irrelevant.
By John on October 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 am
The best guess on the meeting at Balmoral is that it will take place this week. It only needs a day plus travel time, so could be done any time. We may not even be told it’s happened, or what was decided, although these things are usually leaked by someone a week or two later.
By John on October 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 am
I know Anne Boleyn was interested in protestantism but as i understand it Henry the eighth was a staunch Catholic, it was he that received the title Defender of the Faith for his treatise on the Catholic Church. He used the minority religion for his own purposes not just to marry at will but also to keep all the taxes that previously went to Rome and to sack the weathy Abbys and take their wealth. The Church of England was founded on purely pragmatic grounds - money and sex.
As for the religous wars after maybe some of the participants were fervent church goers but most of it was personality driven and money driven, those that had done well with the dismantling of the church were not going to hand back their new lands and start paying taxes to a foreign entity again. Once the dam was burst there was no going back.
Maybe in a different way that is the source of all this eurosceptic angst - the idea of handing over power to a foreign entity.
Being pro the EU myself I can only say that while all the red tape which comes from Brussels can be annoying you have to appreciate the expanded EU is a big place and to run it efficiently it must be run in a ‘big picture’ way, I know John, you would say absolutist way!
The reason i am pro the EU is i think it is the only way that Europe can compete in a global context. I will probably appall John here but really we need something like the American model, each country running itself like an American state and then having a federal government running the Union. I can just see you shaking your head, John, but that is the way its going and a country is either in or out.
By the way I’m not asking you to change your mind to my way of thinking but i don’t accept that the British hesitancy has anything to do with any Church its to do with handing over autonamy and i do understand why that can be difficult.
By Eliza on October 2nd, 2007 at 9:26 am
Eliza, your enthusiasm for the EU and my rejection of it makes my point exactly.
It is a Catholic / Protestant issue at the deepest level, and that has its roots in English and European history.
As for a Europe-wide behemoth controlling us all, God help us! Brussels is corrupt, bureaucratic, and useless. It more closely resembles the Soviet Union than Western liberal democracy, as practised by the Anglo-Saxon, common law countries, like England, America, Australia, etcetera. There really is an ideological divide here.
A Catholic country like Ireland naturally feels more at home in an all-embracing, authoritarian regime like the EU. The English definitely don’t.
Oh, and the most successful European countries, Norway and Switzerland, for example, are outside the EU.
By John on October 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
I knew you would come back fighting!
The reason we (the Irish) find it easier to accept foreign control is because we are used to it! Being an ex-colony and all that.
800 years of rule etc etc
The reason the British can’t handle it is you were the rulers not the ruled.
I really don’t believe that it has anything to do with Catholism versus Protestantism, in fact that suggests that religion holds more sway in peoples minds than it has. Whatever about the power of the Church in DeValeras Ireland it has no power at all in Ireland now.
John you are right the different attitudes to the EU are historical but not religious based just the colonised and the coloniser.
True some of the central countries were never colonised but they fought some well known wars and have learnt their leason. They don’t want that history repeated. Keep your friends near and your enemies nearer.
But why is England still in the EU? If you would be happier out of it. Do a referendum. It seems that Ireland is the only EU country holding a referendum to ratify the new treaty.
And you know we are not complete saps.
We failed to ratify a treaty a few years ago and it had to be changed so we do think about these things and make considered judgments.
(I would do smilies but i don’t know how!)
By Eliza on October 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 am
Eliza, the Irish at least give their people a referendum. Here, Labour made a solemn manifesto commitment in 2005 to have one, then they reneged on it. Unforgiveable!
If there were a referendum of leaving the EU now, England would vote YES. Scotland, Wales and NI would probably vote NO, which might give a close result overall. That’s England’s tragedy. A Scottish Prime Minister who granted Scotland a referendum on independence, but won’t give England one on its’ — from the EU.
But I do believe David Cameron may well make the break when he gets in. He will negotiate an association agreement and Britain will become semi-detached from Brussels.
When Ireland and Denmark voted NO in referendums on previous treaties, they were fooled by cosmetic changes by Brussels and then made to vote again until they said YES. Shameful! And the same is happening with this constitution.
You can do a smilely with colon, hyphen, end curved bracket. Make it glum with an opening curved bracket, and a wink with a semi-colon. For sunglasses, do an 8, followed by hyphen and end bracket.
By John on October 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 am
By Gigi on October 2nd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I’m a bit confused here. This is supposed to be about Kate having second thoughts and I find myself reading interesting posts about the European Union
Is she in two minds over that? Good for her, but I for one am more interested in learning about her thoughts on other important issues like engagements and weddings 
Come on Kate, give us a hint!
By daggy on October 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Yes, Daggy, we have gotten off-topic once again. Are you at least pleased that I have not gone adrift by discussing food?
As long as I am in for a penny, I might as well be in for a pound. This is the first day of the inquest into the death of Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed and I am following it with interest as well as dread. Let us hope the truth comes to light.
By Gigi on October 2nd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I like it when you discuss food:) Your cakes must be yummy.I have never heard about most of them before, don’t think we have them in Norway. And tea isn’t exactly our favourite, so may I take coffee with your cakes?
By daggy on October 2nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Yes, I just saw the new pictures of Diana in the car before the crash. I never thought we would get to see those pictures. My thoughts are with Diana’s family and the Royal family. It really does bring up all of those sad memories of those days of 97. I just wish Diana was never in Paris at that time. Although divorced, Diana was still Princess of The United Kingdom and the mother of future kings, she should have never been put in that kind of situtation. But it is too late now, Diana is gone and we must find the truth so she can finally rest. I can only imagine that Diana is turning over in her grave right now.
By Claudius on October 3rd, 2007 at 12:47 am
Of course you may, Daggy. Forthwith we shall offer coffee and tea with our sandwiches and cakes! And of course Long Island Iced tea when we are stressed, and champagne when we are celebrating.
Claudius, well said. I agree with you! I almost looked at the photos and then decided not to. I can still remember that horrific evening and the next day with perfect clarity, and then the crisis with the Queen, and then the funeral. The pain of those days has not diminished.
By Gigi on October 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 am
Oh wow. I was just saying what i thought on the matter of Autumn Kelly being a Roman Catholic. I never thought that would launch a whole discussion on the EU and all. All i wanted was just to speak my mind about Peter Phillips’ marriage controversy and the speculations that he might have to give up his rights to the throne. All this because of a 300-year-old law, formed because of selfish Church officials and kings.
By Alyson on October 3rd, 2007 at 5:47 am
Don’t worry, Alyson, it was all interesting!
I agree with you about the law and the seflish officials and kings. I do not like King Henry VIII because of his heinous deeds and the havoc he wreaked upon England just to marry five additional wives and sire a male heir. Let us hope we never see his like again!
By Gigi on October 3rd, 2007 at 6:24 am
There is a Engagement,( the lady I mentioned a few days ago, who reminds me a little of Princess Mary.)
Denmark’s Prince Joachim to wed
OCTOBER, 3 2007
Denmark’s Prince Joachim, has become engaged to his pretty French girlfriend, Marie Cavallier.
The couple - who’ve been dating since summer 2005 - have announced they will marry next spring.
A statement from the royal family issued on Wednesday morning said: “Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark and His Royal Highness the Prince Consort have the pleasure to announce the engagement of their son, His Royal Highness Prince Joachim to Miss Marie Cavallier”.
HELLO Mag.
By mandy on October 3rd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Yeah. i absolutely agree Gigi. Let’s hope history does not repeat itself so we don’t have to see another Henry VIII. And come to think of it, he went through all the fuss just for a male heir, but his only son didn’t end up ruling very long anyways. It was actually his daughter, Elizabeth I that made history.
Oh my gosh! Prince Joachim’s finally engaged! well, it was bound to happen, but that was really unexpected. Congratulations to the couple!
By Alyson on October 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm