Kate will go to the ball but not Chelsy
Kate Middleton will go to the Windsor wedding of Peter Phillips, non-Royal grandson of the Queen, and Canadian, Autumn Kelly.
Chelsy Davy — Cinders will not be going to the ball
The ceremony, described as a very small and private occasion, will apparently be held in St. George’s Chapel as originally thought. However, the recent mention of Frogmore House on the Windsor estate perhaps gives a clue to the venue of the reception afterwards.
A disappointment for some is that Chelsy Davy has not been included on the guest list. An insider has told the Mail on Sunday that both Prince Harry and Chelsy are angry at her absence — she was not invited to ski at Klosters either, suggesting some reluctance to accept her on the part of the Royal Family.
[Speculation] Of course if Prince William and Kate Middleton are secretly engaged — as has been suggested in the German press — it would explain Chelsy’s omission. [End of speculation].
The Royal insider comments, “Chelsy has been left off the list for the wedding and all the invitations have gone out now. Peter and his fiancee Autumn sent invites out a few weeks ago for what is going to be a very small and private occasion.
“The explanation being offered is that, at the time, Harry and Chelsy were going through a wobble. But Chelsy sees it as a direct snub and is pretty miffed at not having been invited, especially as Kate plans to go. Chelsy feels like she is often left out of family engagements. She was not invited to ski, which doesn’t bother her because she’d rather go home to Cape Town, but she would like to have been invited to Peter’s wedding. She’s becoming the Royals’ Cinderella.”
If Cinders needs a role model on how to be a Princess-in-waiting, she would do well to take a close look at Kate Middleton.
It’s very good to hear Kate will be going but I would have like to see Chelsy attend the wedding. But I guess the relationshion have to be on a formal footing in order for that to happen. The “Kate haters” will not be happy about this.
By Claudius on March 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Well, redheads have a notorious temper, I know, I am one. If Harry is really angry, he could boycott the wedding just like Princess Mary, The Princess Royal did when her brother, The Duke of Windsor, was not invited to Princess Elizabeth’s wedding to Prince Philip. While this would make great press, I doubt it would happen. Harry would never embarrass his grandmother, The Queen, with such behavior. I would, however, like to be a fly on the wall to hear what is being said behind closed doors about the whole situation. I bet there are a few royal curse words being spoken!
By Arthur on March 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I understand the reasons being given that at the time the invitations were were issued RH and C were going through a tough timei n their relationship so Chelsey could not be invited.
Since then PH has returned from his spell in the war zone and they seem to have got back together and went on holiday to Africa. In view of the change in their situation could there not be a royal ‘change of mind’ and invite her for Prince Harry’s sake.
It is very good that Kate has got her invitation though, what with shooting and skiing with Prince Charles it’s as near as we will get for the time being to an engagement. I cannot wait to see the wedding photographs though.
By Royalist on March 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
It sounds like it’s going to be very private. We may only see the official photos after the event.
As for Chelsy, it’s probable there’s been a complete uptake on the numbers, which will include Autumn’s family too. There just may be no space.
By John on March 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
John they should make space for her. I thought most people invited to a wedding is allowed to bring one guest. Is it different in royal circles.
By annette on March 23rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Annette, Harry may not be going. He may have Army duties or looking after his charity in Africa.
We don’t know the real reason, but I suspect it’s exactly as the explanation — that, at the time of sending invitations out, Harry and Chelsy were not an item, and Chelsy was linked to someone else.
By John on March 23rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Well, really, NO one is “allowed” to bring a guest. If it says “and Guest” on your invitation, then you may bring a guest, otherwise the names on the cover envelope of the invitation are the names of the people invited.
There needs to be a differentiation in the level of the relationships between Will & Kate and Harry & Chelsey and I think this is the way the royal family has chosen to make that differentiation. The attendance at such a private family event holds a signifigant signal for the publi about Will & Kate. Should Chelsey also attend it would send a similar signal and dilute Will & Kate.
By MexicoMom on March 23rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I think Harry was invited and Chelsy wasn’t atleast that is what is article said. Maybe the article is incorrect. It is wrong to invite one royal girlfriend and not the other.
By annette on March 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Royalist, I have to agree with you on two counts; that Chelsy should get a late invitation now things are at an even keel in the relationship and I am thrilled and excited that Kate has been invited, it should put an end to this annoying habit of calling her the on/off girlfriend.
The unfortunate thing is that I don’t think the Royals are in the habit of sending out late invites and may take the view, she either made the cut or she didn’t. As I said in the other thread, I feel it is very hard cheese on her and Harry will take it badly but as he is unlikely to blame Peter and Autumn I don’t think that he will make a scene at the wedding.
John, as for saying there is no room at the inn, there could be only two legitimate reasons for that either the Church is so small that it couldn’t take another body or the person paying the tab couldn’t afford another person - neither could be a reason here.
By Eliza on March 23rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
My dear John, Queen Elizabeth II, as the reigning monarch, has no non-Royal grandchildren. They are all of the Blood Royal. Because Princess Anne insisted on refusing titles for her children, (while reserving a title for herself, of course) Peter and Zara are non-titled, but they are Royal by virtue of their birth. That cannot be taken away from them by any means whatever.
I am mystified and not entirely satisfied with the explanation given for Chelsy’s exclusion. Out of respect to the feelings of our hero Prince Harry, the Royal Family should have made sure Chelsy was included among the wedding guests. It is very bad manners to do otherwise and I am floored that the Queen allowed such a faux pas to occur. Even if the Royals do not consider Chelsy to be good partis for the Prince, she is his chosen companion for some years now and to snub her when issuing Royal invitations demonstrates ill-breeding that is not attractive in anyone, least of all the Royal Family.
By Gigi on March 23rd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Eliza, the word is that it’s going to be a very small and private affair, so it could be held in a side chapel of St George’s, in which case space would be at a premium.
Also the reception facilities at Frogmore (if it is held there) may be cosier than we’re used to. Don’t forget this is not a Royal wedding, and Autumn’s parents may be footing the bill for the reception. The rather distant figure of Chelsy may just not fit in with the intimate arrangements, although Kate, who knows Autumn and Peter, does.
By John on March 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Gigi, if you don’t carry an HRH you are not included in Royal arrangements. I doubt the Queen will have had anything to do with them. As Princess Anne is the mother of the groom, she probably swung the venue, but that would be purely family, not Royal as such.
If Harry had been at home at the time, instead of in Afghanistan, he probably would have pushed the case for Chelsy to go. However, Peter and Autumn may well have wished to exclude as many “outsiders” as they could. I’m not sure if either has met Chelsy.
Kate is now regarded as a done deal so is automatically included with William.
By John on March 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Quite so, MexicoMom.
By John on March 23rd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Has the official date for the wedding been announced yet? How can the paper know who’s invited but not when this will actually take place? I think they just wrote what’s plausible (as they always do). Except for the concert for Diana Chelsy has not attended anything “royal” together with Harry certainly not an event with the Queen present. It would therefore be very unlikely that she will now, IMO. It’s much more plausible that Kate will attend who had been in proximity of the Queen at William’s St. Andrews and Sandhurst granduation. Though it’s also possible that she would not attend the actual Church ceremony but only the reception afterwards. Kate’s presence would certainly focus the attention on her rather than the bride and groom and I don’t think she’d want that since her and William have been keeping a very low profile lately (except for the current holiday). I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
By Isana on March 23rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Yes John, I think there is the real hook. It seems to me a condition to be invited is, that not only one is linked to a royal, but also that one is sure to remain the same. It would not look so good, if a sucsession of persons, in the course of time, are reported on such family events in photo or comment.
It’s a go for non royals, but not for them. I doubt if this has happened before.
Yet it is very dissapointing for Chelsy, because seemingly she has been urged to appear remote to PH for the time preceeding and during his military engagement, and now this estrangement is used to “explain” her exclusion from the wedding list.
By Gena on March 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Just to rock the boat, I assume that Zara will be a bridesmaid for her brother and I also assume that Mike Tindall will not be invited???
Any comments?
By Royalist on March 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
You raise a very interesting question, Isana. When I first read the Daily Mail article earlier this morning, the author, Katie Nicholl, said the wedding date was set for May 17th, 2008. The DM article has since been revised to delete the date and just say the wedding is in May. Perhaps Ms. Nicholl is incorrect about a few other things, such as who is and who isn’t invited to the wedding.
By Arthur on March 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Royalist, if Mike Tindall does attend the wedding, I don’t think he will be driving himself to St. George’s Chapel!
By Arthur on March 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Zara and Mike are unofficially engaged, so I’m sure Mike will go. He and Peter share a love of rugby. I’m certain Peter admires him enormously.
As for the date, so much of this wedding is like a moveable feast. It changes every day. It seems they are busking the whole event.
By John on March 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Fie! Arthur, how droll you are!
My guess is that Zara will have made sure that her beau, Mike Tindall, is invited to the wedding in which she shall appear as a bridesmaid. It sounds to me as if Zara and Mike will be married as soon after the Olympics as can possibly be arranged. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Mike and Zara are unofficially engaged (i.e. without the ring) and to exclude him from the wedding of his future brother-in-law would be a social error too ghastly to be contemplated. While I understand John’s explanation of Chelsy’s exclusion, I must say that the Queen does not behave any differently towards her untitled grandchildren than she does towards her titled grandchildren. Since the Queen’s opinion regarding Royal etiquette is the only one that matters, I will be floored if Mike Tindall is not at Peter and Autumn’s wedding.
Happy Easter, everyone! I am just about to set the dining room table for our traditional Easter dinner, and to put the ham in the oven. Before dinner we will watch Texas play Miami in the NCAA Second Round games. The weather was lovely this morning but it is supposed to rain pitchforks and hammer handles this afternoon. John, are you quite frozen? Is snow falling like powdered sugar?
By Gigi on March 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
It’s good to know I’m not the only ham you have to deal with today, Gigi.
Happy Easter to you and yours!
By Arthur on March 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Gigi, I hope you enjoyed the Texas/Miami game and that the ham was done to a turn (English expression which I hope you Americans are familiar with) I have to keep the sporting record straight as far as the rugby supporting English are concerned, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing my team Leicester Tigers beat London Wasps in the semi-final of the Anglo-Welsh cup before the snows came.
Happy all that is left of Easter
By Royalist on March 23rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Might the space issue change if someone sends their regrets and cannot attend? I realize most people would rearrange their calendar to make it possible to join the celebration, but perhaps someone has long-standing plans or health concerns that might prevent their attendance. Is it possible that Chelsy might, in the end, receive an invitation?
Harry & Chelsy have been off-and-on more times than just the last six months. Yet Chelsy, like Kate, has been closed-mouthed about their relationship, which should be to her advantage within the Royal Family.
Do we know if Chelsy has met Prince Charles and Camilla?
I know many talk about Chelsy becoming a “princess” if she marries Harry, but wouldn’t she actually become a royal duchess, like Sarah Ferguson?
By Evelyn on March 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I guess she’d be HRH Chelsy Princess Harry of Wales but yes HM would probably bestow the title of Duke on Harry so that his wife would become a Duchess (I think the same goes for William and Kate). And Chelsy has been seen around Charles. There were pictures of him greeting her with a kiss on the cheek at a polo match as early as 2004. I don’t think the Royal family is in any way opposed to Chelsy but because her and Harry are still so young their relationship is probably not regarded quite as serious yet as those of the elder grand-children of HM. Beatrice’s b/f, for example, will probably not be invited either.
By Isana on March 23rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
We just have to wait and see. Chelsy just might get a late invitation. The royal website will probably announce the date next month. As for Kate attending the wedding, I just know she will attend both the wedding and reception. I just can’t wait to see the photos. There will be some attention on Kate but they can’t help that.
By Claudius on March 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Chelsy has met Prince Charles, as he was photographed kissing her cheek at least a year ago. If Chelsy and Harry were split when the invites were sent out, I think it would have been uncomfortable if she had been invited and attended while estranged from Harry, especially if she is not acquainted with Autumn or Peter, in which case why would she be attend if she is apart from Harry and doesn’t know the couple??? So why is this an issue???
William and Harry and Kate and Chelsy are different. This is not a question of parity. And fair or not for now William and Kate’s relationship is given more deference than Harry’s with Chelsy. William and Kate have been together for what….5 years or more? That is a long time. I am sure they probably have socialized as couples during that time. This is beginning to sound like the Charles & Camilla/Van Cutsem seating arrangement drama. Seems to me it’s about the bride and her wishes, not the invited guest and his/her companion.
By Positive on March 23rd, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I really find it hard to believe that lack of space could be a genuine reason for not inviting her. I don’t know how big the side chapels are in St Geroge’s but in my experience these chapels take thirty/ forty people at most and I just don’t believe that the wedding is going to be that small and intimate.
I notice when celebrities wed if the number is under five hundred it is called ‘intimate’ so my guess is that they are having between one fifty and three hundred people most likely two hundred.
So I just don’t buy that space is a reason.
I also don’t buy that ‘There needs to be a differentiation in the level of the relationships between Will & Kate and Harry & Chelsey’ as Mexicomom suggests, the level of either’s relationship is a personal matter not up to the family as a whole to decide.
If as has been suggested by someone that the Queen wasn’t involved in the invites well then it comes down to the fact that Princess Anne doesn’t rate her or Peter and Autumn don’t know her and I find it hard to credit that Peter and Autumn haven’t met and hung out with her down the years.
I must agree with Gigi that to exclude her smacks of bad manners at the very least and ill breeding at worst.
Also, this thing of outshining the bride gets up my nose. Nobody outshines the bride - if you aren’t dressed in a wedding dress then you are only a guest no matter who you are, be it Princess Diana or a super model.
At every wedding there are going to be prettier and even more beautiful girls there than the bride and that will be the case unless you are Cindy Crawford or Angelina Jolie but you are always the bride and it will always be your day.
By Eliza on March 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Please forgive the rant, my views wouldn’t sound so bad if we were actually all sitting around enjoying one of Gigi’s famous RA high teas!
By Eliza on March 23rd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I am surprised the invitation wasn’t sent to Prince Harry and Guest. This would have allowed for him to ask Chelsy, but not have her named if the split would have lasted. The family would have also avoided the faux pas and kept Kate’s invitation more significant as she would have been named. This would have helped to keep the family peace. Does the Queen really want Harry upset so soon after he returns from war? This was in very poor taste, except if the true intent was to offend Chelsy. If so, looks like they were successful.
By Cate on March 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Chelsy should forget about the royal snub and plan to spend Peter’s and Autumn’s wedding day with Sarah, Duchess of York. I’m sure Fergie was also left off the guest list. These two party gals could do lunch together and feast on frogs legs and toad in the hole. It would be the next best thing to actually being at Frogmore without all the anxiety.
By Arthur on March 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Poor taste, good grief I doubt you could find a group with more etiquette advisors. And Chelsey isn’t being snubbed, she just isn’t being included in a family event. It’s Princess Anne’s family event and Autumn’s mothers family event, not the Queens and not Charles. Its simply going to your male cousins wedding and the bench isn’t that deep for invites. Taking a ‘guest’ to a family wedding is usually an indication of some intention, especially a wedding not in your immediate family. Otherwise as a young adult you are expected to chat up old aunt Karen and sit with great uncle Joe and have a turn or two on the dance floor with your cousins, who also didn’t bring a “date”.
There is enough attention on Will and Kate to outshine Autumn and Peter - throw Harry and Chelsey in there and she might as well elope.
By MexicoMom on March 24th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I agree with you, MexicoMom. Unlike Kate Chelsey isn’t in the circle of Peter and Autumn. But don’t get upset Chelsey, not all of the Autumn’s cousins aren’t allow to bring their “date”.
By Mikado-watcher on March 24th, 2008 at 1:54 am
FYI, the Sun online has a few photos from the Queen’s Easter in Windsor– Sophie Wessex and Autumn Kelly were there.
By Evelyn on March 24th, 2008 at 2:07 am
It was in poor taste to exclude Chelsy from the wedding. After all, they have been dating for a couple of years. We shouln’t forget that Harry was “leaning on her shoulder” while he was in Afghanistan. Even if it’s princess Anne and Autuum planning the wedding, Harry and all the cousins should have been allowed to bring a guest. At least that’s how it’s done here. Happy Easter to all.
By Marilyn on March 24th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Chelsy stayed briefly at Highgrove when Harry returned from Afghanistan, so she has certainly met Charles and Camilla. I don’t recall any photos of Charles kissing her, though, in fact I’ve never seen a picture of them together.
By John on March 24th, 2008 at 10:31 am
In terms of the guest arrangements, let’s remember that this is not Royal, so traditionally will be in the hands of the Kelly family. They are Canadian Catholics with (speculatively) strong moral views on things. Could it be they disapprove of Chelsy’s lifestyle?
I also think numbers are a factor here. Charles and Camilla’s wedding had a limit of 700 or so guests, and that used up the entire chapel. The couple have obviously decided they want a small, private do, which would mean being pretty aggressive in leaving out borderline cases. Chelsy was probably very borderline since they don’t seem to know her personally.
Also, all the guests at such an event in Windsor will have to be vetted by the security services. Unspecified invitations for a “guest” seem very unlikely. Could it be that they would prefer Harry, with his new high-security status, not to be there at all?
By John on March 24th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Well, we thought “very small and private” for the wedding meant just that. In fact there will be more than 350 guests at the service. Quite a crowd.
Also we learn that Autumn has chosen Chelsea-based designer Sassi Holford to make her dress. I’ve no idea who she is, but with a name like Sassi, maybe we can expect some fireworks.
By John on March 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
It sounds like Autumn Kelly is going to look very sassy in her Sassi!
By Arthur on March 24th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Wow, with 350 guests invitied….it really does say something if “there wasn’t room for Chelsy”…
By Cate on March 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Chelsy is always being snubbed by the RF who are you kidding. I have to agree that not inviting Chelsy is bad manners as Kate and William are not officially engaged I don’t see why she was invited. I think the Harry Chelsy breakup was also a ruse to keep the spotlight off Harry when he went to serve in Afghanistan. But whatever the case I’m sure Harry has let his displeasure be known which is why he was not at Klosters.
By Trudie on March 24th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
John, I don’t see how Chelsy’s lifestyle is that much different from Autumn’s, just on the front page more often because of who Chelsy is dating. Autumn is living with Peter, which certainly isn’t sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church.
By Evelyn on March 24th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Evelyn, I don’t think Autumn spends most of her leisure time in bars and nightclubs or on holiday.
By John on March 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I’m just trying to look at it through the Kelly’s eyes, although we don’t really know much about them.
By John on March 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Yes, early on there are photos of Chelsy at an outdoor event, in all likelihood polo, where Charles is pictured greeting her and kissing her on the cheek. I know the photos distinctly. I don’t have time right now to find a link but when I do, I will email it to you, John.
By Positive on March 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Perhaps there is a very simple explanation for why Chelsy has not been invited to Peter’s and Autumn’s wedding - the bride and groom don’t like her. Chelsy is not married to Harry, nor engaged to him; therefore, Peter and Autumn are under no obligation to invite her to their wedding.
On the other hand, if Harry and Chelsy decide to elope while in South Africa and return to England as husband and wife, Peter and Autumn would have to find room for Chelsy on the guest list. The marriage would probably be invalid, as Harry must have The Queen’s permission to marry, but it would definitely send a message to the entire Royal family, not to mention getting Chelsy an invite to the wedding.
By Arthur on March 24th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
That sounds more like the plot of a Barbara Cartland novel, Arthur.
By John on March 24th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I suspect that even though the Kelly family may be presented as the hosts, they are getting much royal advice. What parent would go against the advice of royal staff and risk anything for their daughter? They would probably eliminate a person on their list first if space was really limited. This is why I would suspect the snub is coming from the royal family. The Kelly family would never be this bold.
By Cate on March 24th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
That sounds more like the plot of a Barbara Cartland novel, Arthur.
Maybe so, John, but Barbara Cartland’s step-granddaughter did marry the future King of England.
By Arthur on March 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Is it even 100% certain that Kate will be there? I have read four different articles so far today about how they are going to get engaged at Christmas as a result of them just taking a skiing holiday together, I can’t imagine what will be said if Kate attends this wedding with William. They have seemed to be trying to keep a low profile for the last few months; I have to say I am really surprised with all of this. If it is true then I see it as a clear sign of the plans that William and Kate have made for their future and I’m very happy for them as I think they are a wonderful young couple and I wish them all the best.
And if it’s true that Chelsy has not been invited, well I believe that at the end of the day it is up to Peter and Autumn who they want at their wedding and if they do not want to invite someone then they should not have to. Perhaps they simply do not know Chelsy, I have been at wedding where the invitations did not come with an ‘and guest’ as the Bride and Groom only wanted actual friends and family at the wedding. Perhaps they did not invite the girlfriend/boyfriends of family and friends that they did not know personally, not just Chelsy. Kate’s invitation, if she got one, may have come from her being a friend of the couple and not as a result of her being William’s girlfriend. I believe that she was not invited to Tom Parker-Bowles wedding but was to Laura’s and she seems to have a friendship with Laura, didn’t she show up to support Kate’s exhibition just before her daughter was born? Add into the equation that this is also a member of the Queen’s family that is getting married and having Harry and Chelsy attend together might draw a lot of press attention and rumours about engagements, like those that William and Kate have had to suffer. I really don’t see it as such a big deal and I am sure that it has been explained to Chelsy why she is not going; I didn’t even expect Kate to attend. I can’t help but feel that Chelsy’s outrage at the snub might only exist in the minds of newspaper editors.
By Ash on March 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
being that william and kate’s relationship is more serious that harry and chesy’s - is why she didnt receive an invite to the wedding..as for zara and mike - i believe i read somewhere they are living together which i would hope means their relationship is serious hense - mike’s probably going to be in attendance.
By coni on March 24th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Actually, for a Royal wedding, 350 guests is very small and private. That number will barely allow extended family and friends to be included. This may, indeed, simply been a case of priorities. For all we know, Autumn has a large family of aunts, uncles and cousins to whom she is close and who are flying to England for the wedding. A family member would definitely trump someone who is not a member of the family. Prince Harry is a senior Royal, but in terms of this wedding, he is a cousin of the groom and will be a cousin-in-law of the bride, already in the ranks of ‘extended family.’ Chelsy is the companion (not engaged) of the cousin of the groom. Perhaps there were just too many other “must invites” to make room for Chelsy. My guess is that Prince Harry was told about this prior to the invitations being issued. Queen Elizabeth II likes to head off confrontational situations and she is a paragon of tact and good manners. Of course, this wedding is not being arranged by the Queen, but my guess is that she knows what the arrangements are and has influence regarding those decisions. This story may be right in that Chelsy may not have been included, but the outrage and snub portions of the story may have been exaggerated by the press to try to inflame public opinion.
By Gigi on March 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if Chelsy ends up being there… or ends up being invited but skipping it because she’s away at university. With the commotion these reports are stirring, I’m sure they can easily add her to the list. Then again, we don’t even know how accurate these reports are. I know Kate has always been closer to Peter and Autumn, but it’d be terribly insensitive not to allow Prince Harry to bring a willing guest.
By frands on March 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
John your reply to Evelyn was laughable let me remind you that is exactly how Kate spends her leisure time. At least Chelsy is at school but what excuse is there for Kate? I think the real reason is Chelsy is smart, enjoys life and intimadates the RF with her I’m with Harry and don’t care if you accept me or not Harry is what matters. I think after the three years they have been together there should be some sort of effort to meet her.
By Trudie on March 24th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Hi Trudie
I think that Kate and Chelsy do frequent similar places, the difference is that Chelsy wears the shorter skirts is pictured with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth, or looking intoxicated. Kate dresses much more demurely and in keeping with what a Royal woman would wear, where as I feel Chelsy won’t conform & that’s fine I have nothing against Chelsy at all. I think she makes an excellent fit for Harry she is just not what I think people would normally expect of a royal girlfriend and that maybe because she was not born here and does not hang around with the “Chelsea set”. John?
By Jackie Mccoy on March 24th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Chelsy was eductaed in Cheltenham College in England as far as I know and is friends with people like Jocobi Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe and Lady Natasha Rufus Isaacs. I guess she’s a more natural part of the English upper class than Kate for example. I agree though that she doesn’t “fit” the public perception of what a royal should look like but then Harry doesn’t either. I repeat my comment that I don’t think the Royals purposly exclude Chelsy, I just think that she does not show the same interest to be included that Kate does. Kate is clearly willing to fit in and tries to socialise with members of the RF as much as possible, which is very positive, IMO, since she’ll know and have befriended most of them already when she becomes a member of the family so that she won’t be an outsider. Chelsy seems to live her life like she would have, had she not been with Harry. She hasn’t shown interest to get to know the RF hence they don’t show interest to get to know her either as long as Harry does not make it clear that he intents to marry her.
By Isana on March 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Isana it doesn’t matter whether you show an interest to be included as Kate does. Unless a member of the RF extends an invitation to meet someone it doesn’t happen. And I am not Kate bashing here but Diana grew up at Park house played with Andrew and Edward, Both of her Grandmothers were women of the bedchamber to the Queen Mum and her father was an equerry to King George VI and QEII yet she was treated like an outsider. The royal way is usually unless you are officially engaged or married a girlfriend or boyfriend is left off the guest list.
By Trudie on March 24th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Just one other thought as I’m not sure of the date that the wedding will take place. But Harry was called back early from Afganhistan could it be that he wasn’t originally going to be back anyway so there was no need initially to invite Chelsy because he wouldn’t have been here anyway?
It’s just a thought. I think that it’s just a matter of numbers really it happens all the time in everyday weddings so…. I don’t think it’s a snub and if Harry decides to get serious with Chelsy i.e. engagement then anyone with issues with Chelsy will have to get over it!
Thanks Isana I had forgotten that she was educated here.. I was just addressing Trudie’s comments about why some may hold Kate in higher esteem compared to Chelsy
By Jackie Mccoy on March 24th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
If memory serves, Harry returned from Afghanistan on March 1, and that was about 4 weeks ahead of his unit. So he would have returned sometime in this coming week.
So… that might also mean that the Queen & Prince Philip’s wedding anniversary party at the Ritz might be scheduled for the coming weekend.
I’d expect that Kate might be invited; I wonder if Chelsy will be.
So this topic may continue to go around… and around… and around….
By Evelyn on March 24th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Seriously Chelsy dresses like most young women in hot climates and that is just a snobbish assessment since it was Kate modeling sheer negligees that caught Williams attention in the first place.
Kate parties and shops harder than Chelsy and again I am not bashing her but Williams influence is certainly seen in her behavior. The only difference is Kate dates No1 heir and Chelsy dates No2 .
By Trudie on March 24th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
There are many other differences IMO. Each girl has their own character and personality !
This whole story might not even be true, in fact I find it tacky that the editor even authorized its publishing in the DM. Press likes to sell and people seem to like the tacky stories to later read the posters and comments pro and cons with the victim of the article.
By Me on March 24th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
We have been discussing the topic of whether Kate and/or Chelsy would receive invitations to the wedding since it was announced last July. We would have continued to discuss it without the DM article. I don’t expect we’re done with the topic yet.
By Evelyn on March 24th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I might be totally wrong, but I think that we are seeing that Kate’s status has changed or might be changing. She wasn’t invited to royal events in the fall. Because Autumn had become engaged to Peter she was invited. Autumn was with the Queen at Easter. I might be wrong but it seems to me that with Kate’s Easter invite to Klosters and Peter and Autumn’s wedding, she has become unofficially official. Along with seeing Peter and Autumn socially, these could be reasons for Kate’s being invited to the wedding. It might not be that Chelsy is not liked by the RF, it could be that they are waiting for the right time to include her in royal events. Then again, it could be none of the above. It is just speculating on my part.
By kat on March 25th, 2008 at 12:05 am
That sounds right to me, kat. I think I remember that Autumn was invited to some of the royal events in the fall. Perhaps Kate hadn’t been put on those guest lists because, when the invitations were discussed in early summer, she & William weren’t yet back together on a firm and settled footing. It could be that timing is everything.
By Evelyn on March 25th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Jackie, there’s also the little matter of her father’s links with the Mugabe regime in Zim.
I’ve nothing against Chelsy either. I think she’s been good for Harry and clearly they are a match chemistrywise. But you have to see this from a Royal point of view. Charles obviously has no objections, but others may.
I still think the reason for her exclusion from the invitations is the one given, that she and Harry were no longer an item when the list was made, and/or that Peter and Autumn don’t particularly want her there.
By John on March 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Why Peter and Autumn wouldn’t want her there?
Also, if Kate and William were engaged, do they have to make it public right away, as far as protocol, etc, or can they keep it “secret” for a while. That could explain a lot.
By Marilyn on March 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
John, also just a thought. If Peter is “not a royal” and Autumn’s family is the one planning the wedding, why are they having the wedding in England and not in Canada?
By Marilyn on March 25th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Security reasons and travel arrangements, Marilyn. Most of the Royal Family will be there and Windsor is easier to protect than a church in Canada. Getting all those family members over the Atlantic on the same day would be very difficult and would take on a significance way beyond the quiet wedding the couple want.
By John on March 25th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Thanks John I had forgotten about the Robert Mugabe ties. That is a problem. I wonder how that will affect their relationship in the future in terms of acceptance and inclusion? I think I remember reading that her father had cut ties with him but that is a rather large potential mine field.
By Jackie Mccoy on March 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Marilyn, that is something I voiced on RA some months ago, I thought a wedding in Montreal the bride’s home city would be viewed with much pleasure by the Canadians. John thought there would be problems in ’shipping’ the royals over the pond and create security problems too.
I still thing it would be a nice idea though.
By Royalist on March 25th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
All I can say this is going to be an interesting Wedding in terms of who is or who is not there. i am curious to know if Peter’s half sibling is getting an invite. hehehehe
By Trudie on March 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
sounds like typical family wedding drama..(which i’m going through at the moment) who’s invited/who’s not/who’s attending/who’s not - is it a snub if one doesnt attend…
stay tuned..will be interesting to see how it all comes out..
By coni on March 25th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
If the wedding had been in Canada, choices would have been made regarding who among the senior Royals could leave the UK to attend. I believe that the Queen and Prince Charles, as the Heir, cannot travel outside the UK at the same time, or perhaps they cannot travel on board the same airplane, is that true, John? For the sake of securing the succession, perhaps there are rules governing whether Prince William can travel outside the UK on the same plane as Prince Charles and the Queen. At any rate, a Royal wedding in Canada would have been a challenge logistically.
By Gigi on March 25th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
The Queen and prince Charles were both at the Commonwealth meeting in Africa last year.
I believe I heard years ago that there are rules about not flying on the same airplane. As I remember, when the Wales family flew somewhere, Princess Diana and the young princes would fly on one airplane, and Prince Charles on another. I’m sure the same is true for many in the line of succession.
By Evelyn on March 25th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
actually when william was a baby diana insisted that she, charles and william all fly together to australia which was a break in protocol…
By coni on March 25th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
If I remember correctly, when the Queen Mother died, in 2002, Princes Charles, William amd Harry were skiing in Klosters. All three flew home to England on the same plane, with the Queen’s permission. I’m sure it is rare that the immediate heirs to the throne fly and/or travel together, but it does happen on occasion.
By Arthur on March 25th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I’m sure the happy couple would try to avoid that bureaucratic nightmare like the plague. Not to mention the Canadian authorities on hearing that the entire Royal Family was about to descend on them for a wedding. “What’s wrong with Windsor?” they would undoubtedly demand.
And that, folks, is why it’s being held at HQ.
By John on March 26th, 2008 at 10:19 am
LOL! Actually, John, I have no doubt that Canada would have been thrilled to have the Royal Family within their borders for the Royal Wedding of a native daughter and the grandson of the Queen. Nevertheless, I feel sure that Windsor is the right choice of venue for the wedding. The recent trend for “location weddings” have made couples want to choose exotic climes and faraway countries for their big day. For a union between two persons whose families live on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean, however, the best choice is the home base of either the bride or groom. In this instance, the home base of the groom seems more suitable, for security reasons if for nothing else. I cannot imagine anyone passing up the chance to be wed at Windsor. The beauty of the place is both magical and mystical and I am sure the wedding will be a tremendous occasion.
By Gigi on March 26th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Gigi, how do you feel about Jenna Bush forsaking the beauty and elegance of the White House, with its lovely Rose Garden, to hold her May 17, 2008 nuptials to Henry Hager at President Bush’s “ranch” in Crawford, Texas? I mean no disrepect to your beautiful State, but the tumbleweeds, rattlesnakes and dust of Crawford pale in comparison to the history and grandeur of the White House. I appreciate Jenna and Henry wanting an intimate and private wedding with family and friends, but that doesn’t mean you have to pass up the White House as the venue. Only 8 presidential children have married at the White House since it became the President’s official home in 1801. Jenna and Henry are giving up the opportunity to have a beautiful wedding and become part of history at the same time.
Oh well, I’m sure the President’s daughter doesn’t care what I think about her wedding. I just fear, that with 250 guests, the most prominent feature at the Crawford, Texas location will be the port-a-potties dotting the landscape.
By Arthur on March 26th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
You will be interested to know, dear Arthur, that the First Lady, Laura Bush, would love her daughter and future son-in-law to have a White House wedding, but Jenna is set on a wedding at the ranch in Crawford. It is not a rustic ranch house by any means, however. It is very lovely and I doubt there will be a need for port-a-potties, either. The Bushes have done a considerable amount of entertaining there over the last few years, for Heads of State and their entourages, and because the President and the First Lady are noted for their gracious manners and warm hospitality, I am certain the wedding guests, of whatever numbers, will be quite comfortable. Even at the White House, it will be difficult to have a private, intimate wedding, so Jenna, who is said to love the ranch and Texas (she chose to go the University of Texas at Austin for college) probably feels more comfortable coming home for her wedding.
By Gigi on March 26th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Gigi, I know the President and Mrs. Bush are gracious hosts and I’ve seen pictures of their ranch and know it is more contemporary the the Reagan’s ranch in Santa Barbara, CA, but it’s not the White House.
I understand the wishes of the bride and groom come first, but I’m with Laura Bush on this one. Parents want to give their children the world and in this case, that includes a White House wedding. The President and Laura Bush had a very small wedding themselves and Laura Bush probably wants to pull out all the stops for her daughter. If I were able to offer my daughter the White House as a venue for her wedding, I would probably pout until she said yes. 
By the way, will you be hosting a Gala Texas Hoedown Tea to celebrate Jenna’s nuptials? That’s the closest we will come to Royality in the USA.
By Arthur on March 26th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Arthur I hope none of the Kennedy’s read this site. I’m sure they would be deeply offended at the Bushes being called something close to royalty
By Trudie on March 27th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Frankly, it offended me for years to hear the Kennedy clan referred as American royalty, and I am both Catholic and of Irish extraction!
By Gigi on March 27th, 2008 at 2:50 am
The Telegraph is reporting that Peter Phillips WILL renounce his birthright when he marries Autumn, who was baptized Catholic. However, they don’t give any source for this info, so I don’t see how it’s any less speculative than the talk going around since the wedding was announced last July. But it’s stated very authoritatively.
By Evelyn on March 27th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Trudie and Gigi, I was basically referring to the daughter of the President being married on what appears to be the same day as Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly. The British are having their Royal wedding and Jenna Bush’s nuptials is the closest thing Americans will have to something as grand as a Royal event. I wasn’t making any comparison between the Kennedy and Bush dynasties.
I agree with Evelyn, back to the wedding at hand.
By Arthur on March 27th, 2008 at 5:40 am
John, does Peter Phillips have to sign a legal document of some sort to effectively give up his place in the line of succession, or is it simply a fait accompli when he says the words “I do?”
By Arthur on March 27th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Evelyn, I’ve also heard that Peter will give up his right of succession. As the years go by he will continually drop down the list anyway, so giving it up for Autumn is not such a big deal, although it adds a certain romantic ambience to the affair.
By John on March 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Arthur, these are arcane matters. My guess is that he will simply tell the Queen, who will inform her private secretary to have the matter recorded in the Annals of the Privy Council.
There again, I may be wrong.
By John on March 27th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
It comes down to personality, doesn’t it? Some people like a big do and others prefer quiet and simple. I’m sure a Texan wedding will be great — if the weather improves.
By John on March 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
As Evelyn says, back to the wedding in hand, with no disrespect to the Bush nuptials.
The UK has just had a state visit by the President of France and Mrs Sarcozy and despite her rather ’shady’ past she has appeared in three or four outfits that have had the media ‘drooling’ and comparing her with Jackie Kennedy. I found myself comparing her with Kate Middleton and what will she wear at the P/A wedding. Although it is Autumn’s day the media are bound to have an interest in Kate’s first official public appearance. I have no doubt she will look stunning with a move away from her favoured black and white.
I just feel sorry for her because she has to dress not to eclipse Autumn yet be herself but I do know that if she becomes William’s wife/consort she has the dress sense to have the media drooling in her turn. What a queen she could make.
By Royalist on March 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Regarding the First Lady of France, her clothing choices were excellent. You just can’t go wrong with Christian Dior!
Jackie Kennedy was of French extraction and she often had a French designer label on her clothes. I have no doubt that whatever Kate wears to Peter and Autumn’s wedding, she will look marvelous. She has wonderful taste and knows how to wear clothes so that they and she appear to the best advantage. Regarding Autumn–she is the bride. No one can eclipse the bride on her wedding day, in my opinion.
By Gigi on March 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I think that no matter what the bride and Kate wears, most eyes will be on Kate anyway, not on Autumn.
And yes, a White House wedding would have been wonderful? Who knows when was the last time there was a WHite House wedding?
By Marilyn on March 27th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I think it was Tricia Cox, Nixon’s daughter.
By Evelyn on March 27th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I think you are right, Evelyn. Her wedding ceremony was held in the Rose Garden, quite a lovely event. Let’s hope that Jenna’s wedding is not going to be outside at the ranch. The wind here is blowing so wildly that an outdoor wedding would be a gamble.
By Gigi on March 27th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Also, to prepare for the pageantry that is a British Royal wedding, I am watching “An Ideal Husband” and “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” which, although not about Royal weddings, definitely show weddings in beautiful ancient English churches.
I am also watching “Pride and Prejudice,” the version starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, since that double wedding at the end occurs in an ancient English church. Yes, I am working myself merrily into a wedding frenzy! 
By Gigi on March 27th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
oqUMGd grxhmwlckpbs, [url=http://gjaphxqnqbig.com/]gjaphxqnqbig[/url], [link=http://vcayqdxtsanl.com/]vcayqdxtsanl[/link], http://rwdhlkpljmnr.com/
By reyskprqz on December 31st, 2008 at 9:20 pm