Kate Middleton engaged by Christmas?
Kate Middleton is said to believe she and Prince William will be engaged by Christmas, according to sources close to the couple.
One source said, “Actually, word is that William and Kate had a row recently over the way in which he continues to confide in two of his closest girlfriends about matters of the heart. Apparently he had always planned to go up to Balmoral for the end of the stalking season but he decided to take Kate with him in an effort to make it up to her.”
The source continued, “Kate has now started telling people to expect an engagement by Christmas, although no-one really thinks that it will come to that so soon. William still wants to wait another year or so.
“That said, he does want to get married before his father accedes to the throne as he would like to have a family of his own before he has to take on the responsibility of being Prince of Wales.”
So the old reticences are still there, but who can doubt that this will end in the Abbey sometime in the next two years?
I really doubt that Kate would say such a thing aloud. These sources close to the couple are probably the same scources who said those nasty things about Kate last spring when they supposedly split up. If Kate is looking for an engagement she would not even entertain telling anyone what she believes will be an engagement by Christmas, she knows that would be the end.
By Trudie on October 15th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I agree Trudie, it seems a bizarre story. Why would William bring Kate to Balmoral if he still wasn’t sure, he knows that it would up expectations again.
At this stage they should have a plan, a joint plan, of when they are to get engaged so the idea that William wants to wait and Kate is pushing things is just too depressing.
If the story is true, and i hope and presume it isn’t, it bodes very badly for them- that they are still fighting and making up etc. They should be on the home straight now and all that lack of communication should be over.
By Eliza on October 15th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Of course this story is not true. Kate would not be at Balmoral and shooting with Charles if William still had his doubts. The fact that they are comfortable being pictured together tells us that they are truly in love with each other and have a plan. I don’t know about an engagement during the Christmas season but it wouldn’t surprise me if we here something soon. One thing they don’t need is the media gaining up on them about marriage. They will decide when the time is right and if it takes them two, three, four or five years to get married then so be it. The most important thing is that two people who are made for each other is together and in love.
By Claudius on October 15th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Since it sounds like the Queen is planning for a lower-key celebration for their 60th anniversary (compared with other recent milestones), might it be that William’s engagement announcement may be the “capstone” toward the end of those celebrations? Along with a special diamond for Kate?
By Evelyn on October 15th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Rather off subject, but I’m curious: if William or Harry has children before their father takes the throne, those children would be great-grandchildren of the sovereign. Aren’t only children and grandchildren of the sovereign given the style and title of HRH Prince or Princess? This would create an odd situation where the third in line to the throne (in the case of William’s child) would be essentially untitled, as in the case of Prince and Princess Michael’s children (mere Lord and Lady, no HRH).
I suppose letters patent could rectify such a situation. Or, upon marriage, William and Kate (or whomever) and Harry and Chelsy (or whomever) will have to be made a Duke and Duchess of something. The titles of Prince of Wales and Duke of York are unlikely to be available anytime soon.
By Dan on October 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Dan, the HRH prefix is in the gift of the Queen. As William’s children would be in the direct line for the Throne, it’s unthinkable that they wouldn’t have Royal titles and HRHs. As for Harry’s children, I suspect the same would apply, but, if he didn’t want them to be Royal, the Queen would follow that lead, I believe.
By John on October 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
When, or if, William and Kate get married, this doubt in my mind is due to William’s treatment of Kate. (He seems to be spending too much time with his friends and not enough quality time with her if the heading is to be believed.) What titles would they hold, I have heard the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge mentioned-what do you know John?
By Royalist on October 15th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I believe John said in one of his previous posts (quite a while ago) that the Royal Dukedom of Cambridge was the title to be conferred upon Prince William when he marries. It would be very appropriate, as Cambridge is the name given to an area in Whitehall and that particular title, last held by a grandson of King George III, has been vacant since the last Duke died in 1904. He had three heirs but none could inherit the title as they were not born of a legitimate union. Until Prince William becomes Prince of Wales, the title Duke of Combridge would do quite nicely, in my view. His wife would be known as the Duchess of Cambridge and any children born of the union prior to Prince William becoming Prince of Wales would be known as Prince_______of Cambridge or Princess_______of Cambridge. Is that correct, John?
By Gigi on October 15th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I like the title Duke of Cambridge, it has a good ring to it. I’ve never been a huge fan of the Wessex title, it sounds made up. I understand it is an ancient title but still it just doesn’t ring true.
And Claudius, I think you are right and the story isn’t true but it is such a mean spirited story that it just shows what Kate will be up against when she joins the family and she has to deal with this undermining of her relationship with William all the time.
Still, Gigi’s post about their possible name has been all upbeat again.
By Eliza on October 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Those whispers never stop…just when it seems like Kate is getting close, some story comes up that undermines her.
This story is particularly insidious. First, it starts the media mill running about an engagement in Christmas, which when it doesn’t happen – because all indications are for early 2009 — will then be spun as another rejection of Kate.
Second, another mention of shadowy girlfriends, who seem to be lurking around but never identified. After the April breakup, there was mention of some shadowy girl and then nothing.
It makes me think of John’s earlier posts wondering what is the agenda of the person making these comments to the press.
I can’t help wondering whether some courtier is pushing his own girl and not giving up. If this is the case, this would not be happening without Wills’ encouragement. But, this is just speculation on my part.
By Alicia on October 15th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Duke and Duchess of St. Andrews would be more apt–certainly more romantic–although the Earl and Countess of St. Andrews (Courtesy titles of the son and daughter-in-law of the Duke and Duchess of Kent) may not agree. Such a title would also represent solely the realm of Scotland, and is not a tradition dukedom. But why Cambridge? True, it’s a customary title for a royal family member, but it would be like creating a Yale alum the Duke of Harvard. Duke and Duchess of Clarence makes more sense to me (also the pre-accession title of the last King William, William IV, but most recently held by the eldest son of Edward VII, whom some believe to have been Jack the Ripper. No small matter, that.) But it is also the name of what is likely to be the first marital home of William and spouse.
Sorry for the tangent. As you can see, I’m more interested in the history and traditions than the rumors. I hope they’ll take their time and be certain, so we can avoid more decades of tabloid turmoil.
By Dan on October 15th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Correction: the last King William was actually Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews for the 40-some years before his accession (created Duke 1789, became King William IV in 1830). It’s too good a coincidence to pass up.
By Dan on October 15th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Yes, could someone please identify who the others ladies are;
that Wm. was involved with that he consults regarding his
love life?
We all know that it is rediculous for Kate to start broadcasting
that it will be Christmas when she gets engaged. She walks in Wm.
shadow and to frighten to tell anything.
By Judy on October 15th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Judy, why do you say that Kate is too frightened to say anything (I think that’s what you were trying to say)? She always appears supremely poised and self-confident to me….
By Amity on October 15th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I don’t know why the Royal Family doesn’t dust off the Duke of Clarence title, to be honest. The last time it was given, it was held by Prince Eddy, who was actually named Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. He was the one who died shortly after getting engaged to Princess May of Teck. He would have been king had he not died young but there was a dark side to him and many thought he would be incapable of reigning. At any rate, a year after his death, his younger brother, Prince George, became engaged to the same Princess May of Teck. They married, became the Duke and Duchess of York, then became the Prince and Princess of Wales after Queen Victoria died, then became King George V and Queen Mary after King Edward VII died. At any rate, either the Duke of Cambridge or the Duke of Clarence would be very appropriate Royal titles. I believe Cambridge is actually older than Clarence as a Royal title, but I may be wrong.
By Gigi on October 15th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I think William should be given the title:Duke of Earl!
By Arthur on October 15th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Judy — I agree with you completely.
Amity – I think Judy meant to say that Kate is too cautious about her relationship with the Royal Family to start broadcasting remarks like this.
By Alicia on October 15th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Judy, if I had to guess I think the comments about William confiding to two close girlfriends may in fact be his old girlfriends. Didn’t he visit one in Africa just before going on vacation with Kate? She would be a first guess. Not sure on the history with the second. John, any ideas?
By Cate on October 16th, 2007 at 2:23 am
I totally don’t believe she said that. That’s risking way too much. She’s much to bright and savvy to make such a remark.
I think it’s someone’s wishful thinking that somehow was attached to Kate
By KM on October 16th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Royalist, it would be a “holding” title, like Edward’s Earldom of Wessex. We’ve had hints it could be Duke of Cambridge, but that was a while ago.
By John on October 16th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Spot on, Alicia. You only have to read any novel about upper-class life, whether it’s English, Russian, French or American, and you’ll find middle-aged ladies jockeying to get their daughters married to the most eligible batchelor around. And we all know that middle-aged ladies fight like cats and dogs.
By John on October 16th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Dan, Cambridge is not just a university but a large thriving city. As for St Andrews, with the present situation in Scotland, it would have political overtones, so will be avoided.
I too favour the Dukedom of Clarence. The previous occupant was sorely treated by a vicious lawyer who covered up for his aristocrat client by blaming certain events on the Duke. The Ripper charge was preposterous — it was almost certainly Walter Sicket, the painter — and the letters of the Duke himself show him to be a normal intelligent man, with just a few small Royal vices.
By John on October 16th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Jecca Craig comes to mind, Cate. He’s also known to be in touch still with Isabella Calthorpe, but there are lots of girls who buzz around him, some of them students at Cirencester Agricultural College and part of the Pelly circle.
By John on October 16th, 2007 at 8:59 am
John, isn’t it likely that William will get some Scottish title anyway? Following precedent he will be created a Duke, an Earl, and a Viscount or Baron upon marriage, and one of the lesser is traditionally Scot. If this tradition passes, what might the present situation in Scotland mean for the Earl of Wessex’s future as the Duke of Edinburgh? (Both his current titles, Wessex and Severn, are solely English.)
By Dan on October 16th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Dan, when William becomes Prince of Wales he’ll also be Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.
He won’t be short of Scottish titles. However, I think an English title is more likely at first, with possibly a secondary Scottish one.
These things are always up for grabs, and Edward’s totally new title of Earl of Wessex — which used to be the Kingdom of Alfred the Great, was a surprise indeed.
By John on October 16th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Apparently the Earl of Wessex title was chosen for Prince Edward because when Prince Philip dies, the intention is that Prince Edward will then become Duke of Edinburgh. Prince Andrew is already Duke of York, which is, by tradition, the title held by the second son of the sovereign. Since Prince William will be Prince of Wales in the fullness of time, I don’t really think it matters too much what holding title he is given, Clarence or Cambridge. Both are ancient titles, both have been held by sons of sovereigns in the past.
By Gigi on October 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I was just thinking how lovely it would be if Town & Country or some other glossy magazine would get permission to do a feature article on the renovation of the cottage at Balmoral so we could see how it was redecorated. No chance of that, I suppose. With Balmoral Castle and the estate being privately owned by the Queen, we shall just have to content ourselves with outdoor shots taken furtively by unwelcome photographers hiding in the heather.
By Gigi on October 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I find it hard to believe that the first pictures of Kate and Charles together were the result of hidden photographers doing anything furtive or unwelcome. Is the royal family that unaware, or otherwise naive, about the press? Nor do I consider it the result of anything cynical or calculating on the part of the Family. We’re simply seeing good PR people doing their jobs. Rather than making the world go ga-ga for Kate by having a lavish trotting out (e.g., the famous interview with Charles and Diana “in love”, which still airs regularly as a prelude to the tragedy it became), we’re seeing a potential princess being brought into the family first, like nothing out of the ordinary, as it should be done.
Images of William and Kate “at home” in Balmoral ought to wait until it proves itself a happy home. Otherwise, they become like crime scene photos. Fascinating, yes, but not for the right reasons.
By Dan on October 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Yes, I agree, Dan. The photos were handled quite well, without fuss. They show Kate at home with William’s father. That alone establishes her in the spectrum of the Royal Family.
She also gets on very well with Camilla — who can probably teach her a thing or two.
By John on October 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
You lost me there, Dan. This is not a Cult of Personality foray on my part. I would just like to see the lovely interior of a cottage on the Balmoral Estate. There is no hope of seeing photographs of inside the castle, I am sure, but it would be nice to see how one of the cottages is decorated. It need not be a cottage associated with Prince William and Kate. I would love to see photographs of inside Birkhall, too, but as it was when the Queen Mother lived there, not now.
By Gigi on October 16th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Gigi, you can see views of Balmoral’s interior at this link
I doubt we’ll get pics from Teapot Cottage (if it’s still called that), as it’s a very private space.
By John on October 16th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Doesn’t the first born son usually inhert his father’s Dukedom? If that’s the case, won’t Prince Charles automitically become Duke of Edinburgh and inherit that title, upon Prince Philip’s death? Can Charles, if he is still Prince of Wales, just hand over the title and Dukedom to Edward, or does Queen Elizabeth have to issue a Letters Patent to effect this change?
By Arthur on October 16th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Then again (arguing with myself), look what Jackie Kennedy’s televised White House tour (Valentine’s Day, 1962) did for her? 3 out of 4 American televisions were tuned in, and about that much of the American people fell in love with her on that most appropriate day. Kate personally showing off her decorating skills (at an appropriate time) would be preferable to tabloid exposés from dubious sources (or God forbid, Panorama interviews) focused on more lurid subjects.
Of course, in Jackie’s day, whether or not hers was a happy home was considered (how quaint!) a private matter.
By Dan on October 16th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Arthur, yes, Charles gets the Edinburgh title first, if Prince Philip pre-deceases the Queen. Not until both the Queen and Prince Philip have departed, and Charles takes the throne, will he (presumably) create his brother and sister-in-law the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.
By Dan on October 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Clarification: When Charles takes the throne, all his current (and potential additional titles in the meantime), will merge with the Crown. When Charles becomes King, he won’t also remain Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothsay, Duke of Edinburgh, or such. All the titles he has at the time in effect become extinct, and therefore “creatable” again. He’ll get new lesser titles (new to him anyway), those of the sovereign: Duke of Lancaster, Defender of the Faith, etc.
Of course, as King, he can do what he likes with all those merged titles. With any luck, Wessex will revert to its rightful bearers, namely the fictional ones.
By Dan on October 16th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Dan, if that’s the case, Prince Edward may have to wait another twenty years to become a Royal Duke. That seems awfully unfair, particularly when his brother, Andrew, was created Duke of York on his wedding day. I suppose the honor and sentiment, associated with inheriting Prince Philip’s title, makes it worth waiting for.
By Arthur on October 16th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I think Prince Edward would have been an apt Duke of Cambridge. (Yes, Cambridge is not just a University, but that is for what the name is synonymous.) Maybe one day we’ll know for sure why he was denied, or indeed preferred, an Earldom. When/if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh he’ll keep Wessex as a subsidiary title, but we’ll most likely never hear it again, unless a future son uses it as a courtesy title. But the fact that Lady Louise is styled a Windsor, not a Wessex, can perhaps be seen as an indication of the latter’s longevity.
I kind of hope the Countess has a son this time, if only to see how they manage another heir in the family.
By Dan on October 16th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Decorating the cottage was a big step for Kate. We all should know that it was Charles who asked Diana to decorate Highgrove before he proposed to her. This was to let her know that she was soon be lady of the manner. Of course she did become The Princess of Wales. In some cases, when your boyfriend ask’s you to decorate his house or apartment, that will tell you that your future with him is sealed. In Kate’s case she is taking the steps to becoming the next Mrs. Wales.
By Claudius on October 16th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I know this is getting off topic, but all the discussion about royal titles has peaked my curiosity. George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews, is the first born son of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. Earl St Andrews married a divorced Roman Catholic and was forced to give up his position in the line of succession. Upon the death of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, will the Earl still inherit his father’s Title and Dukedom, or does he forfeit this honor because he is no longer in the line of succession?
By Arthur on October 16th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
We all should know that it was Charles who asked Diana to decorate Highgrove before he proposed to her.
Hello! Claudius, did that mean anything … as to what was in his heart?
Don’t get me wrong … there’s something admirable about a man who marries his 60-year-old mistress, it’s obviously love. But, to assume that an offer to decorate means something … well… wouldn’t a simple “I love you, you are the one for me, I want to have children with you” be sufficient?
All these coded words and conversations make the Royals look foolish … if Kate is the one for William, he should say it to her directly.
Hopefully this has ocurred … Architectural Digest be damned.
By Alicia on October 17th, 2007 at 12:41 am
I got the italics right, sorry, John, about the wording.
By Alicia on October 17th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Arthur, The Earl of St. Andrews (son of the Duke of Kent) has only given up his place in the line of succession by marrying a Roman Catholic. He will still, if he outlives his father, become the next Duke of Kent. His son, the Lord Downpatrick, a Godson of Diana, has embraced his mother’s Roman Catholicism, and thus “is the most senior person excluded from the line of succession for being a Catholic under the Act of Settlement 1701.” (a quote from Wikipedia, therefore it begs confirmation.) Still, any future son of the Lord Downpatrick, grandson of the current Duke of Kent, would assume his place in the line of succession, so long as he veers toward the Anglican Church, and does not become a Roman Catholic.
By Dan on October 17th, 2007 at 12:43 am
I have just been a looking at Kate pictures on the “Team Highgrove” site. It’s hard to imagine Wills getting another girl that is a lovely as Kate … most of the pictures were in bad lighting, pap shots … yet she still looked stunning.
Definitely a potential Royal superstar … hope that doesn’t cause a lot of envy within the Royal Family … it is a world of images after all, and from images comes power … we don’t know her as a person … but in photographs, she is gorgeous, quite lovely, in fact ….
I am a big Kate fan, I guess.
By Alicia on October 17th, 2007 at 12:49 am
While still supporting my earlier self-arguing statement about the potential value of publicly-redecorated Princely cottages, I also happily echo Alicia’s forthright opinion. William and Kate, not to mention the rest of the family, should secure the important things first. If they can do that, there will be many years (hear that, Kate? MANY YEARS) of pretty cottage pictures.
By Dan on October 17th, 2007 at 12:52 am
I just found out that Kate and Wills were living together throughout their entire college days — first on the same floor at their residence hall (St. Sallie – I think) and then afterwards at a rented house.
If this is case, then it’s understandable for Wills to want to sow some wild oats, so to speak. But … in matters of the heart, first instincts are often the right ones …
By Alicia on October 17th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Thanks, Dan, for the acknowledgement … and yes, a publicly decorated cottage is one of the hints that we, the public, get to decipher … didn’t mean to belittle it, it is important from our vantage point.
By Alicia on October 17th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Kate’s superstar potential is precisely the reason for the family to first bring her into the fold, then escort her out casually (regally?), as one of them; not as a stylish and redeeming accoutrement, as Diana was used for. I know it sounds calculating (and far from romantic), but the process is necessary if Kate is to be accepted as a member of the family, as an HRH, and as a person of substance, not merely a camera-ready phenomenon destined to blow out. (Just imagine the poison that would have spilled had Diana had the impudence to gain our love, grow to deserve it, but then grow OLD! A part of me thinks she got the easy way out, God bless her.)
By Dan on October 17th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Thank you for your input, Dan. It seems like a lot of fuss to go through, especially since the Roman Catholic Church does not consider The Earl and Countess of St. Andrews to have a valid marriage!
By Arthur on October 17th, 2007 at 4:17 am
The title Duke of Edinburgh will already have been “entailed” (if that’s the right word in the context) on Prince Edward upon the Duke’s death, just as William will automatically become Prince of Wales. Charles will have waived his right to the title some years ago. Charles, himself, had to be made PoW by the Queen because there was no living holder at the time. It may have to be confirmed by the Monarch, but he/she has the final say.
By John on October 17th, 2007 at 9:55 am
I too would like to see Kate’s taste in decor at Teapot Cottage. It would fill another piece of the jigsaw of her character. She’s got a good degree in History of Art, so we can be sure nothing will be out of place or unseemly. Ikea or Habitat it won’t be.
By John on October 17th, 2007 at 10:02 am
not as a stylish and redeeming accoutrement, as Diana was used for.
Dan, Diana didn’t have many talents beyond the decorative and emotive. She struggled to talk with anyone who held a position beyond her experience, and often, with a man, resorted to flirting. She had quite a complex about this throughout her life and it often made her angry that she wasn’t being heard, just photographed and looked at.
Marilyn Monroe had the same syndrome. When she married the scholarly Arthur Miller, she put on specs, walked around with a notebook and pencil, and enrolled in various university-type courses. Unfortunately for her, underneath the specs, she was still Marilyn Monroe.
By John on October 17th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Alicia, I agree with you about Kate. You couldn’t imagine her dressing up as a policeman and walking around London giggling, as Fergie and Diana did.
If she’s allowed to bring her unique talents to the Royal pageant, she will become a firm favourite with most people. I do believe William is the sort of chap who will give her her head and not be jealous of her popularity.
By John on October 17th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Alicia, firstly I must thankyou for bringing my attention to Team Highgrove. As you say there are several good pictures of Kate there, many of which show her to her stunning best and I completely agree she is a potential Royal Superstar I just hope the RF come to realise this. You may be a Kate fan as I am but her beauty is better appreciated by we males , sorry!
Her majesty I understand reads the daily papers and I just wonder John if she, or her aides, ventures into the realm of Royal Anecdotes?
By Royalist on October 17th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Royalist, we’ve had quite a few hints that many in “the Top Brass” read this site. I also see lots of snippets behind the scenes suggesting that we are often graced by Large Luminaries — can’t say more than that.
By John on October 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I agree that the photos reintroducing Kate as an official girlfriend have been handled very well. They have been done in as subtle a way as possible anything more overt would be recreating the hysteria for an engagement.
As regards the possible titles I like Duke of Clarence as well, it has a serious ring to it.
Arthur, why doesn’t the Catholic church recognise the Earl of St Andrew’s marraige? I thought they got married in Rome in a Catholic Church. I understand if they got married in a Registry office it wouldn’t be recognised but i didn’t think that was the case in this instance.
By Eliza on October 17th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Question for you John, How come the site doesn’t operate on Greenwich Mean Time? It always confuses me when i see the time on the site and the time on my computer.
By Eliza on October 17th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Eliza, I’ve just looked at the set up and the site is set to UTC, which is the same as GMT. Britain is currently on British Summer Time which is one hour ahead of GMT, and Europe is, for the next week or so, on the same time. So, the answer is that the site is always set to GMT.
By John on October 17th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Oh, I never thought of daylight saving time and that it was different to GMT.
But i’m a little confused.
Trying work it out -as I understand daylight saving time that comes in for the winter, (in Ireland as well as in Britain) but as daylight saving time was only introduced at the beginning of the 20th century (i may stand corrected as to that) surely what you call British Summer Time is actually GMT and then to make the most of daylight in winter GMT is altered by an hour. So it is actually the Winter Time that is an hour off GMT.
I may be looking at it completely skuways.
By Eliza on October 17th, 2007 at 11:40 am
By the way whats UTC?
By Eliza on October 17th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Eliza, UTC is Universal Time Coordinate. It’s the same as GMT which is measured by the sun’s position at midday over the Greenwich Meridian in London — marked by a steel line from north to south.
GMT is a constant. BST is one hour ahead and is the only time Britain aligns with European time. I set all my sites to GMT because people all over the world calculate time differences from it.
By John on October 17th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Eliza, the Earl of St. Andrews’s married Sylvana Tomaselli in a registry office in Edinburgh. She had been married before, and divorced, which is why she could not marry in a Roman Catholic Church again and why the Church would not recognize a 2nd marriage as valid.
By Dan on October 17th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Slight change of topic, John, but the Daily Mail is reporting that Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly will wed next year in Britain. The year 2008 should be pleasantly eventful!
The article amusingly quotes Peter Phillips as saying that his Father, Mark Phillios, misunderstood what he saw in the news and thought that Peter and Autumn had announced their engagement without telling him first. Peter said he told his Father, (who was a bit disgruntled), that they had not, in fact, announced their engagement as yet because they were not ready to do so.
By Gigi on October 17th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Eliza, the Catholic Church does not recognize divorce; therefore, in the eyes of the Church, Sylvania Tomaselli is still married to her first husband and she is “living in sin.” Furthermore, Sylvania has been excommunicated from the Catholic Church for remarring. If Sylvania had received a Church annulment of her first marriage, she could then remarry in the Catholic Church and her marriage to the Earl of St. Andrews would be valid. I believe it is important to point out that the Earl and Countess of St. Andrews’ marriage is only invalid as a matter of religion. It’s a perfectly valid marriage as a matter of civil law.
Also, I think you might be confusing the Earl of St. Andrews with his younger brother, Lord Nicholas Windsor. Lord Nicholas converted to the Catholic faith, following in the footsteps of his mother, the Duchess of Kent, and Lord Nicholas was married last year in a Catholic ceremony at the Vatican.
By Arthur on October 17th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
It would fill another piece of the “jigsaw” of her character.
Are we using “puns” today, John?
By Arthur on October 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Arthur, I hadn’t spotted that one. Well fielded.
By John on October 17th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Yes, Arthur I was confusing the two. In fact I know nothing about the elder brother it was Lord Nicholas i was thinking of.
Has Sylivanna actually been excommunicated or it just that in theory she has.
In Ireland what happens is that while somebody who has been divorced can not remarry in a catholic church the church does do Blessings that is they will have a cermony in a church blessing the marriage that has taken place previously in a registry office so by that token the second time rounder is obviously not excommunicated!
By Eliza on October 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Eliza, the Catholic Church, here in the US, does not offer a Church Blessing to divorced and remarried Catholics. In the eyes of the Church, the divorced and remarried Catholic is committing adultry against their former spouse and that is not something the Church would publicly condone with a Blessing. I’m surprised to hear Church Blessings are being performed in Ireland. The local Bishops must have decide, on their own, to provide Blessings to members of their flock.
With respect to excommunication, there are certain events, which, when they occur, are self-excommunicting. Getting divorced and remarring is one such event, having an abortion is another. In these cases, the individual is not formally “kicked out” of the Church by any official document from Rome, but their actions prevent them receiving the sacraments. They can attend Mass, but that’s about all, until they receive absolution for their sin. In the case of a divorced and remarried Catholic, absolution means renouncing the second marriage and either returning to the original spouse, or, remaining divorced, but living as a single person.
I apologize, John, for going waaaaaaaaay off topic, but sometimes one question leads to another, and another, and another………..
By Arthur on October 17th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Ha ha, Arthur, I know the feeling well.
Interesting information about the Catholic Church anyway.
By John on October 18th, 2007 at 8:34 am
thanks Arthur, you are certainly up to speed! Yeah, it is a little strange that Blessings are done in Holy Catholic Ireland but they are, regularly. And i think you are right it is up to the Bishop of the Diocese to decide if it can be done in his baliwick.
And Arthur i think it is my fault that these off point discussions occur, certainly in the last two!
By Eliza on October 18th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Eliza, believe me when I say that I have dragged the site off-topic so often that John has sunk into utter despair on numerous occasions. These off-topic forays have included but were, alas, not limited to: food, alcoholic beverages, tea service, recipes for holiday fare, ancient history, international politics, regional colloquialisms, indigenous water fowl, horsemanship and I know not what!
By Gigi on October 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
We all get an education on this site if nothing else.
By John on October 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
How tolerant you are, John!
Never fear, when the details of the forthcoming Royal marriages are revealed I have no doubt that we shall all stay on topic!
By Gigi on October 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Sorry to drag this out!…..Arthur, isn’t that why Catholics have their first marriages annulled, especially if they were for a short duration? It changes the position of the church in that they do not recognize that the person was married. Then, their second marriage would be recognized. Might be good for the next future spouse, but very poor choices for marriages that have children. Their have been some famous marriages where this was proposed, by the husband, only to be fought back by the wife usually in an effort to defend the view of her children by the church.
By Cate on October 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Speaking of off topics, Gigi, we have not had a Royal Anecdotes tea in quite some time. Wassup?
By Arthur on October 19th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Cate, you are absolutely correct. An annulment of a first marriage would allow a Roman Catholic to remarry in the Church. The annulment, in effect, voids the first marriage as though it never occurred, however, both spouses must agree on the reasons why the marriage should be annulled. If one spouse objects, the annulment can not go forward. I believe I know the famous marriage you mention and I was behind the wife 100%!
By Arthur on October 19th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Arthur, I think the most recent was Alec Baldwin. But I do think that Ted Kennedy also requested one from his wife Joan. Both just seem to be messy situations! Renee Zellweger and Kenny Chesney attained one, but appropriate after only being maried 4 months. OK, sorry John….back to Royal Anecdotes! We need new topics to chat about! I think we stray when we need more information!
By Cate on October 19th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Cate, the autumn is always quiet on the Royal front as many of the main players are tucked away on the Balmoral estate. William and Harry are training hard with Army, while Chelsy is at university in Leeds. The next big occasion will be the State Opening of Parliament in November and, of course, the Diamond Wedding celebrations.
Let’s hope Kate gets up to something soon.
By John on October 19th, 2007 at 8:26 am
John, a Golden Wedding anniversary is 50 years. The Queen and Prince Philip have been married 60 years, as they married in 1947. This is their Diamond Anniversary, I believe.
By Gigi on October 19th, 2007 at 11:09 am
What does one give the Queen, on her Diamond Wedding Anniversary, when she already has a treasure trove of beautiful diamonds?
By Arthur on October 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Gigi, quite right. Slight brain fade, I think.
By John on October 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
That is a definite dilemma, Arthur. When Sir Winston Churchill and his wife, Clementine, celebrated their Golden Wedding Anniversary, their children gave them a border of yellow roses for their gardens at Chartwell Manor, their country home. The actual presentation of the gift was a beautiful album filled with artistic represenations of the roses by famous artists who had been asked to contribute their artwork to honor the Churchills. I thought that was a very creative gift. For a Diamond Anniversary for the reigning Sovereign and her husband (who was, in her early childhood, Princess Elizabeth of York), I would think that something creative involving white roses would be apropos. The white rose is the symbol of York, and white is the most recognized color of diamonds, also. It will be interesting to see and hear (if we ever do) what the Queen’s nearest and dearest select as a Diamond Anniversary gift for her and the Duke of Edinburgh.
By Gigi on October 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
What does it say about me, Gigi, in that I only focused on a gift for the Queen and completely forgot about Prince Philip? There wouldn’t be a Diamond Anniversary without him. I must be suffering from the same brain fade as John!
By Arthur on October 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
By Gigi on October 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pm