Royal Wedding — now a constitutional crisis
How could a “private” Royal wedding between the Queen’s normally well-behaved grandson and a Canadian secretarial assistant end in a minor constitutional crisis?
Weddings and funerals are what Royalty does best, aren’t they?
Last night, Princes William and Harry let it be known they are furious about the extensive Hello! magazine coverage of the event and their own unwitting involvement.
A Royal source said, “Neither Peter nor the magazine sought their approval, and if they had, it certainly would not have been given. What has happened has not gone down well at all. They are very unhappy about it … as far as Harry, Kate and Chelsy are concerned, they were just letting their hair down at a private family event.”
Looking back over the titles of our wedding reports here at Royal Anecdotes, words like “fiasco”, “fandango”, “woes”, “pullout” and “sellout” predominate, some as far back as May the 5th.
I’m inclined to believe that naivety was the central cause of this slow motion train wreck of a wedding, mainly because very few of the participants knew the full extent of the sell-out to Hello! magazine, or even that the official photographs were to be handed to the notoriously voracious celebrity glossy.
From the Kelly family we were fed the sob story that they couldn’t afford the £50,000 ($100,000) for the reception in Frogmore House. That doesn’t begin to stack up because such a relatively small sum would easily have been found from the Royal Family, or their many supporters, had word gone around.
My guess is that Autumn Kelly didn’t want the state of the family finances to become known, so senior Royals were kept in the dark while she used her celebrity connections in Michael Parkinson’s office to broker the £500,000+ ($1m) deal. In that case, Peter Phillips is partly culpable. At some point his instincts as a member of the Royal Family must have kicked in to warn him of the dangers.
As for the Queen, who is now open season for criticism by some anti-Royal Members of Parliament, she must bitterly reflect that nothing much has gone right since the retirement of Sir Robin Janvrin, her Private Secretary, last year.
In November, there was the “double-booking” of a Commonwealth Conference in Africa with her Diamond Wedding Party at the Ritz — eventually cancelled.
Then came Gold Cup day at Cheltenham, when the Queen found she was to open the ill-fated Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport on the same day. Other confusions have occurred too, culminating in the appalling Palace handling of the Phillips wedding. Dare we suggest that the Queen needs a new Private Secretary?
As for Peter and Autumn, they will not easily be allowed to forget the damage they have inflicted on the Monarchy for personal gain.
Let’s hope future Royal weddings, now queueing in the pipeline, are better handled and managed. Some frankness from those concerned might be a very good start.
It’s obvious that Kelly’s family couldn’t afford such an expensive wedding, mom hairdresser, middle class. So that she didn’t want anyone to know the family finances is just another excuse, i don’t buy. We all know her family finances. AS soon as Peter knew about this, he should have said firmly no, or is is that Kelly wears the pants in this family?
By Marilyn on May 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Tradition aside, P & A could have financed their own wedding if necessary, WITHOUT selling it to Hello. They clearly wanted to sell out, not shell out. Crude, but also shrewd. Welcome to the future of Royalty in Britain, looking ominously like the past in places like Monaco.
You were right all along, John. I sadly but willingly eat my featherless, butterfly-less hat.
By Dan on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Can someone explain why this has become a “constitutional crisis”?
By Evelyn on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
John
Where did the information come from that Harry William etc were upset?? I agree that it wasn’t handled in the best manner, but as I’ve said before and you have also conceded, Peter is part of the Royal family and knows what is expected of him. The Royal family as you have said could have afforded to pay so why did they stick their heads in the sand, instead of saying from the outset you are one of us lets take care of it???
I’m not sure how accurate the Daily Mail is (we all know they have been wrong in the past) but several sources are saying that the Queen agreed although I know many will say she didn’t know to what extent.
Was it really that bad John?? I know a lot of the press were annoyed that they were locked out but is it really that awful that the pictures were taken? Am I being naive or slightly selfish as I enjoyed seeing pictures of them???
By jackie Mccoy on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Evelyn, whenever MPs get involved in criticizing the Royal Family, it becomes a constitutional crisis. British Royalty provides the Head of State, so is at the very top of the constitutional tree.
By John on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Jackie, the Princes’ office issued a statement of their annoyance.
It’s worse than bad because now the Queen can never claim privacy or total command of her private life without having this thrown in her face.
HM banned Hello! from the Chapel and reception, but the official photographs were part of the deal and, it appears, some Hello! snappers got in under the radar.
It’s a total shambles, as I’ve been saying for weeks, and chops down more trees in the Royal forest.
I bought a copy of the magazine this morning and it’s all rather sickening. Autumn looks pretty but slightly common in her attitudes.
Kate and Chelsy look gorgeous, but the shots of them in the Chapel should never have been printed in this way.
By John on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
John, do I remember correctly that Prince Andrew and his wife had themselves splashed across the pages of Hello for money early in their marriage?
I just read an article on the Daily Mail website which adds a few more details beyond your excellent coverage John that might clarify some more for the Yanks among us as to why this has become a firestorm.
By Claudia on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I agree that it was entirely obvious that Autumn’s family would not be able to afford such an expensive wedding, on top of the costs of their family travelling to the UK for the event. How is it that neither the royal family nor their respective courtiers did not see this or at least ask how the wedding was going to be paid for?
Princess Anne is known for being excessively frugal. It is said that Autumn Kelly sought guidance from her future mother-in-law prior to the wedding for matters of royal etiquette, etc. Given Autumn’s proper behavior in the 5 years prior to her wedding, it would appear that she pretty much followed any such advice and did her best to not embarass Peter, herself, or the Royal Family. Surely then, Autumn would have consulted with not only Peter, but also Princess Anne regarding royal protocol for the wedding. I cannot imagine that she did not explain to Autumn how a royal wedding normally takes place (i.e., that there will be an official photograph, what to expect from the press, protocole, etc.). It also seems unimaginable that Autumn and Peter did not seek the Princess Royal’s input when considering the Hello! deal, since both would rely upon her as their royal compass. Indeed, several reports have stated that Princess Anne was not necessarily opposed to a deal with the glossy.
If these reports are true, then the fury should be over Princess Anne failing to properly instruct the bridal couple, who almost certainly would have listened to her. The bride gave up Catholicism and joined the Church of England in order to accommodate her soon-to-be spouse and his family, so there is no reason to believe that she would not have wanted to respect the wishes of the royal family, let alone avoid the scourge and embarassment that has ensued, had she been instructed to nix the Hello! deal.
In the outside chance that the couple might have chosen to ignore Princess Anne’s advice on proper protocole, it would have been the Princess Royal’s duty to escalate the issue within “the Firm” to protect not only the Queen and other family members, but most importantly, to protect the reputation of her own son and her future daughter-in-law.
Either way, the Princess Royal should bear considerably more blame in this fiasco than the bride. One has to question not only Princess Anne’s stinginess, but also her sentiments toward her mother (why would she embarass HM in such a way? why was she not more careful in overseeing the event?) and toward her new daughter-in-law (the ultimate passive-aggressive move of setting Autumn up for a huge fiasco?).
As for PW and PH and their girlfriends being upset about photos showing PH, Chelsy and Kate at the reception, they need to get over it and stop fanning the flames with their indignation. There was a bad decision made, now move on. None of the Hello! photos are unflattering and are far less embarassing than any number of pictures of young royals and their girlfriends stumbling out of Bouji’s at 3am.
By Lisa on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Ok clarification understood John. The lessons will have been learnt and I’m pretty sure given the back lash it won’t happen again. The Royal family will survive this they have been through a lot worse and you maybe right they may need new people in at the top organizing….
But a lot of people died in China last week and I think there are bigger problems in the world that the press/mps should focus on rather than pictures of a wedding in a magazine.
By jackie Mccoy on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Claudia, Fergie has been in and out of the celeb mags for years, but she is not part of the constitutional process.
Windsor Castle is supported by public funds, so when the public is locked out of a wedding the Queen attends, questions are rightly asked in Parliament which embarrass the Queen.
Imagine a wedding in the White House involving the son or daughter of the President. The person marrying into the First Family sells EXCLUSIVE rights to the occasion to a celeb rag without properly informing the President or the staff or asking permission.
How would that go down in the States?
By John on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
That’s a good point Lisa they all looked stunning at the wedding and there have been far worse photographs for example prince harry Nazi photographs, prince harry almost getting into fights with photographers at the airport when Chelsy was arriving. Those photographs were a lot more damaging I think… But anyway it done…. the horse has bolted lets move on to something more positive.
By jackie Mccoy on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
My point — and I’m sure the Princes’ and the Queen’s — is that if the Royal Family don’t take their role seriously, nobody else will. This whole episode looks frivolous and descends to the level of “footballers’ wives”.
We don’t know Autumn at all, of course, but she wanted to be an actress and achieve fame. Marrying into the Royal Family is not a good move in that direction. I doubt Peter will get a title now and we’ll probably see less and less of them as time goes by.
This has nothing to do with China, Burma or any of the other world problems. It’s about British constitutional integrity, and that is very important.
By John on May 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Got the distinction John thanks!
We are seeing a general loss of dignity and cheap tabloid-ism all around society. People will seem to do anything for their celebrity moment. Is this another missed royal opportunity to properly educate a new bride as to protocol, however far she might be from the senior royal establishment?
Ironically enough we just had the Presidents daughters wedding displayed in American People and I thought that was a bit cheesy. I have no information as to any money changing hands however.
By Claudia on May 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Was that in the White House, though, Claudia?
By John on May 22nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
No it was not in an official venue which I understand is the salient point. Jenna Bush’s wedding was at the Bush ranch in Texas.
By Claudia on May 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Actually John I just saw the Hello photos on another picture site and they are fun to see from a peeping-tom perspective. I always buy Hello magazine here when the cover focus is on the royals or near royals. I am very much looking forward to getting this one when it arrives here next week. So I guess I am one of the guilty buying public that pays for Hello to enter into such agreements with people.
I do feel sorry for the new Mrs. Phillips though, this will be very tough for her to overcome unless she is really an opportunist at heart.
By Claudia on May 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Thanks, Claudia.
We’re just hearing that what sounds like a suicide bomb has gone of in Exeter (RA’s home town). It happened in a restaurant in our new Princesshay shopping mall. I was there just a couple of hours ago. More devices are being reported around the city centre and it’s now been evacuated.
Is this another 7/7 in the making?
By John on May 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
John I hope your family and friends are ok it sounds pretty serious. I’m off to check CNN.
By jackie Mccoy on May 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
John,
I could not agree more with you that if the royal family does not take its role seriously, no one else will. Therefore, it would seem that the onus is on the senior royals to make sure that new members are properly instructed and overseen, including making sure that they understand the hierarchy, decision-making processes and risks of that come with the honor of joining the royal family.
As much as I like the royal family and continue to support it, I have to say that the crisis occurred because members of the royal family and their closest advisors let it occur. They already knew what could happen when a non-royal is not properly incorporated into the family. The RF is supposed to be strong enough to foresee and prevent these types of issues.
By Lisa on May 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I found photos of the Hello spread at another site and frankly I’ve never seen either Kate or Chelsy look so good.
Lisa brings up a good point about Princess Anne (amoung others) but, seriously? I think this is gotten out of hand. Yes the whole thing is tacky but it’s not the end of the Monarchy. For cryin’ out loud, the Monarchy has survived the toe-sucking Duchess and the nightmare of Diana’s death and funeral - and that’s just in the last 20 years.
There was a serious lapse in judgement which resulted in an embarassing situation, but it’s not a Constitutional crisis. Hopefully everyone involved will learn a lesson from this and move on.
By Laura on May 22nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
And John I didn’t mean sound unsympathetic to the British Constitution it’s where I’m originally from after all. The world events are of course unrelated. I was just trying to point out that although unrelated there are a lot more serious things going on in the world then photographs in a magazine and maybe we should give a little more attention to those and not suck the life out of what should have been a happy event.
The Royal family do need to be taken seriously and as Lisa and I have pointed out that needs to begin with the first line of defense i.e. looking after their own. If they could see that Kate taking part in the sisterhood rowing challenge was a bad idea (and she is not even an official member yet) then they should have seen this problem coming a months in advance and dealt with it, rather than watching it all happen and pointing the finger at the wife after it had all happened.
John you made a good point the other day about Royal wives and making waves & why that happens. I think the answer for that is not being guided correctly and being made to sink rather than swim with a good guidance. They need help. I hope if Kate and or Chelsy are to make a successful debut they will need a substantial amount of guidance.
By jackie Mccoy on May 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Jackie, yes, thank you, everyone seems to be okay. The story is dying away now, so I guess there was only one small bomb.
According to the Mail, the Queen “was duped” and my information suggests this too. By the time they acted, there was little they could do without stopping the wedding.
Interestingly, Richard Kay is floating the idea that William was advised to stay away from the wedding. As “the future of the Monarchy” it was thought best to keep him untarnished by the trashy rag.
I must say I thought his decision to go to Africa very strange at the time. I think Kay may be spot on.
By John on May 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I don’t know what life is like in Great Britain, but here in the US, $100,00 is the annual income for a middle class family with both husband and wife working. It certainly isn’t a “relatively small sum” of money, unless you have millions of dollars/pounds oozing from your pores like the Royal family.
The Queen and Princess Anne have known about Autumn’s background for years and must have known that her parents could not afford the type of wedding required for the Queen’s grandson. The Queen and Princess Anne should have opened their handbags and offered to pay for this wedding from day one. What is the purpose of having enormous wealth if you are not going to spend some of it on your children and grandchildren?
No one is suggesting that the Queen and Princess Anne support a couple of slackers, who don’t work and sit home all day watching the telly. Autumn and Peter are not like that. They both work and support themselves, but a wedding on the scale necessary for the Queen’s grandson was beyond their means.
In my opinion, this Hello! fiasco is simply another example of the Royal family breezing through life with their heads in the sand, totally oblivious to what life is really like for average working class people like Autumn Kelly and her family. The Royal family have only themselves to blame for this debacle, but as usual, they are circling the wagons and making the newest member of the family the scapegoat.
By Arthur on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Ok I have been have problems trying to post so my lovely long reply has disappeared but anyway….
I don’t care that they sold their wedding pictures to Hello, they are their photographs at the end of the day. What does annoy me is that they sold Harry, Kate and Chelsy to Hello. There are more photographs of these three that any other guests, come to think of it if it weren’t for the group photo one couldn’t be faulted for thinking that these three were the only guests..ok maybe a bit of an exaggeration but you can get my point. According to reports Chelsy wasn’t even on the guest list till recently, so I can’t help but wonder what got her on it. Did her invite come before or after the deal with Hello.
By Ash on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I had the same idea, John. Given how protective William has always been about his privacy, it’s better that he was not part of this exclusive Hello spread. I can just imagine how the issue would have looked had he been there, too. Kate and him would probably have ended up on the cover instead of the bride and groom. Now he can at least still demand that the press respect his privacy (and Kate’s) since they didn’t agree to be part of this deal.
I cannot understand how matters could have gotten so out of hand though. I doubt that Autumn made this decision all by herself and am a little confused of the suggestion that her family would have been expected to pay the wedding. I hope she (and other future brides as well) will be given more guidance by other members of the Family and staff. What might be common ground for someone who has grown up a member of the RF must not be all that clear to an “outsider” like Autumn. And since she didn’t face the same sort of media scrutiny Kate and Chelsy do, she apparently has not yet developped a healthy scepticism and distance towards the press. I do not expect any such episode to repeat itself though.
By Isana on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
You raise a good point, Arthur. I think it’s not the fact that Peter and Autumn posed for some pictures that’s bothering the other members of the RF but that they were sold out, too. If it is true that neither Harry nor Chelsy or Kate were approached beforehand and okayed these pictures, I see where the fury is coming from. Especially Kate has been keeping a very low profile recently and only rarely appeared in public at family functions or with William. She certainly didn’t intent to turn this wedding into a Hello photo shoot and neither did Chelsy, I’m sure. We also have to keep in mind that Hello must have hundreds of pics more that did not make it into the current edition. Probably some of HM talking to Chelsy and/or Kate. I’m sure such pictures are very valuable. It looks like the attendance of Chelsy and Kate certainly would have raised the price Autumn and Peter got.
By Isana on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Isana, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the photographers didn’t start taking photos at the reception until the Queen and Prince Philip departed. I don’t know if that’s true… or if my memory is entirely accurate.
By Evelyn on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Although I totally respect the royal family’s privacy and believe these pictures shouldn’t have been published in the first place, there’s guilty pleasure for a commoner like me to feast my eyes on the Hello spread. Wow! Those pictures are gorgeous!
I agree that Hello has gone a bit overboard with the Chelsy/Kate display, though. But we can’t totally blame them… they know what sells. Would have been a lot worse had William been there.
Despite the delight in seeing the lovely wedding, the beautiful bride, and the beaming royal girlfriends, it’s safe to say we won’t be treated to such a spread again. Maybe the RF should be grateful for the lesson learned… at least the pics are tasteful… could have been a lot worse.
By frands on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
As far as I can see the only photos of The Queen, Duke, Charles, Cameilla, Ann, Tim, Andrew, his girls, Edward, and Louise are in the Church, which were taken without their knowledge, on the steps where they posed for all the media and the official photographs that were NOT taken by Hello but because Peter has the copyright he was able to give them to Hello. There is a photo of Sophie in the reception. I believe that it is very clear that people were unhappy with this. The main member of the RF to be photographed by Hello was Harry and the main two guests were Kate and Chelsy.
By Ash on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
how did this whole thing get so out of hand?! i cant imagine that peter and autumn would have not consulted princess anne on something like this. assuming the motive is financial to pay for autumn’s familys part of the wedding certainly some arrangement could have been made so to avoid the situation they find themselves in now. not a great way to start a marriage…
thoughts
By coni on May 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I agree with those of you who blame the royal family and its advisors for this mess as Arthur said they put their head in the sand until it was too late. Nobody asked who was paying because they didn’t want to know the answer.
As Lisa said the blame should be laid squarely on Princess Anne’s shoulders. You can bet it was run by her and she okayed it.
It is very hard on Autumn to give her sole responsibility, she only wanted a nice wedding. Her parents couldn’t afford it so she did what she had to do. It is shocking that the RF didn’t pay up.
As for the pictures, they were lovely. Autumn looked beautiful and it is a bit harsh to say she was common in her attitudes.
I didn’t see anything out of order in what she said, if anything it was last weeks article when there was so much talk about money.
But in my experience, most brides have panic attacks about the price of the wedding as it comes closer and become a little obsessed.
I thought Kate and Chelsy looked lovely, I did prefer Chelsy’s outfit, the dress was gorgeous and really suited her but then maybe Kate was trying to stay below the radar and went for something suitable rather than nice.
It was nice to see the girls all friendly too.
By Eliza on May 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Okay John,
Help me with this…if William was advised to stay away, why didn’t he take Kate with him and keep her out of it too? Or, would that have made it worse somehow? It makes sense (the William part) but I can’t see why Kate still went.
Help me understand the line of thinking here…
By Claire on May 22nd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Well said, Arthur, I agree with you! This problem was created by the Princess Royal not properly managing her son’s wedding and taking care of the finances.
John, regarding the White House, no one can get inside unless they go through the Secret Service security barrior first, so no such photographer scenario was possible for a White House wedding. It was always a secure residence, but since 9/11 it has become a fortress. As for members of Parliament criticizing the Queen, I do not like that at all and I agree that is a Constitutional crisis because it gives the anti-Royal claque further ammunition to launch their campaign. Apparently the MPs are so misguided as to think that there are no other prolems in the UK that need solving if they feel free to take so much time to cast slurs on the Queen! I am most seriously displeased! Shame on them!
By Gigi on May 22nd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
If Autumn Kelly is like most women, the only weddings she has seen among the Royal family are Charles and Diana, Andrew and Sarah, Edward and Sophie and maybe Lady Helen Windsor and Timothy Taylor. All are examples of very spectacular weddings. Edward’s and Sophie’s wedding was described as a family affair, but it was conducted at St. George’s Chapel, followed by a reception at Windsor Castle for approximately 500 guests. Perhaps Peter and Autumn believed something similiar was expected from them.
Do we know if Princess Anne took Peter and Autumn aside and told them no one is expecting them to have a grand wedding? Were the couple advised to have a small wedding in the private chapel at St. James’ Palace, followed by a wedding breakfast for the immediate familiy? If Peter and Autumn were given that sort of guidance and still opted for something they could not afford, that’s a different story.
To put the blame for this wedding fiasco solely on Autumn Kelly and her family reeks of class snobbery. Peter Phillips may be a commoner, but his grandmother is the Queen, his mother the Princess Royal, his uncle the Prince of Wales and his first cousin an heir to throne. This wedding was always “royal” and should have been paid for by the Queen or Princess Anne. If that had been done, Hello! would never have been involved and no one would be upset about a glossy tabloid turning a Royal family occasion into a footballers wives’ soire.
By Arthur on May 22nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Frands, I loved the photos too and have spent the last hour analysing them with my mother and then one of my sisters. We all agree that they are gorgeous.
I do understand why Harry, Chelsy and Kate are annoyed; there is no doubt but that they were taken advantage of.
Still they look fabulous and I actually think it is better for Kate that the pictures were shown, there could have been a view that she wasn’t wanted and that she just brazened it out whereas after seeing the pictures there is no doubt that Harry and Chelsy are fond of her and they all get on.
My only regret is that we won’t get the same inside track at the next weddings!
By Eliza on May 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Also, the wedding cost alot more than STG£50,000.00 bandied about so if thats all the couple paid then I reckon the Royal Family did pay for most of it.
If the wedding dress was €7,500.00, the bridesmaids dresses were probably 2 /3 grand, that is £17,500.00 on the dresses alone, then the food, the free bar, the flowers, the marquee.
The flowers alone could have cost £50,000.00.
The free bar cost say £20,000.00 which is a lot considering that a lot of the party wouldn’t have been drinking but they were serving expensive drink, the food £100.00 a head, at a very conservative estimate, by 350 people, not including the snack at midnight and the nibbles for the champagne reception, say £50,00 a head.
The the marquee itself which Prince Philip supposedly has made a permanent structure so they didn’t pay for that.
Then the tables, chairs, linen, ware, cultery, staff to serve that all costs money.
Maybe they used the money to pay for the honeymoon!
So on the reflection maybe we are doing the RF a disservice, and the Queen did pay for most of it.
If Autumn and Peter did pay for it all then they needed Hello and the RF were silly to think they could afford it themselves.
By Eliza on May 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Does anyone know how to buy the Hello! wedding issue on line, so I can download the pictures? I have Googled Hello!, but can’t seem to find a way to buy the wedding issue for download.
By Arthur on May 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I feel sorry for Autumn. It is all “Autumn did this and she did that”. Peter Phillips is just as much to “blame” (if there is any reason for such thing!). It is just so typical - blame it on the wife, the bride, the “outsider”.
People wanted to see some glitter? Well it does not come for free. She is not wealthy and his mother the HRH did not want to pay. So, what to do? Normal young couples could well just tie the knot during their lunch hour. But what about the Queens grandson? I bet that then all these critics would have been like.. “ah, so COMMON to do such a thing..”
It sounds like me that you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. They - or SHE - just cannot win.
By Lina on May 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I can’t figure out how to do it either, Arthur! When you figure it out, please post so you can tell me how to buy the Hello wedding issue online, also! I admit I am technologically challenged!
By Gigi on May 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Gifi and Arthur try this link!
http://tinyurl.com/6bhmma
By Ash on May 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Oh dear, Gigi not Gifi - sorry about that LOL
By Ash on May 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Oh please a constitutional crisis? The MPs and RF are just showing their snobby class system for all and sundry. First of all if anyone knew about the Kelly’s background and financial circumstances you can bet it was Princess Anne and Peter. Although Peter holds no title he knows the protocol and would not dare not adhere to it same with Princess Anne. Autumn cannot be blamed for that. Second all the fuss that seems to be coming from CH is probably smoke to take away from the fact that Willie was not there and they did not know about Hello? It’s been talked about for weeks and if he did not want to go to fuel speculation about him and Kate then Why did he send her. And where is he really? no pictures surfaced of him in Africa at Jecca’s brother wedding and from what I gather he doesn’t know her brother very well.
Third Prince Harry and Chelsy are used to being photographed and looked happy and comfortable it is always Willie and Kate who go to the press commission with complaints.
If the Royal Family wanted a fancy wedding they well could have anted up they enjoyed the food and drink now they are laying Autumn out to dry. CH should put a lid on it after all Charles himself lowered the bar with his marriage dedication at St’ Georges with photographers and As for Prince Edward he himself cashed in on the Family with his Ardent Productions documentaries and Went to St. Andrews when Willie started there knowing a press ban was in place, Was he to be excused because he was Willies Uncle?
At one time or another the RF have profitted from the media with the exception of HM and PP so why cry out with indignation now.
By Trudie on May 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Ash, thanks for the link. I downloaded Hello! and the pictures are great.
By Arthur on May 23rd, 2008 at 12:54 am
By Gigi on May 23rd, 2008 at 1:01 am
The issue of “selling out” aside, it is a beautiful wedding album.
I wish we could get the whole story about who knew what, when, and how much they knew. William and Harry may be angry, but surely they knew some of the truth. Would Peter have kept them in the dark so fully? I bet not.
It’s still very strange that Kate went alone and features so prominently—and beautifully—in the pictures. They are some of her best yet. She looks like she fits right in, which, if that was not part of the plan, is certainly a fringe benefit.
Without fully condoning what the bridal couple did, I agree with others that these pictures show the Royal family in far better light than the usual photos of the younger set tripping out of nightclubs at 3 a.m. There’s really not an embarrassing shot in the lot. That’s unusual for press coverage of this family!
It might go a long way toward patching things up if the couple gave a chunk of the payoff to charity.
By Dan on May 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 am
The Telegraph is now reporting that the Queen will veto any future plan to sell access to events that she and the Duke attend.
The headline says the veto will apply to “deals involving senior members of the Royal Family,” which Peter and Zara are not. Arguably, none of the Queen’s grandchildren lower in the line than William and Harry are senior members, so the veto may only apply to events (or parts of the events) at which senior members are in attendance.
I think the part of the deal that rankles the family most is the photography in the chapel. I bet that’s the part that the senior members had not been made aware of and which had not been agreed upon.
Once the senior members have left the party, the deal may go on.
By Dan on May 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 am
…And the Sun is reporting that Peter and Autumn were given approval of the photos that were used in the spread, making the point that it explains why no Royal has complained to the publishers.
But if it’s true, William and Harry have right to be angry that P&A (or their surrogate) picked so many pictures of Kate and Chelsy. But again, I say that the pictures are far more flattering than the shots that usually make the papers.
Still, when publishing photographs of people—certainly if money is received from their publication—the people in the photos have a right to sign a release for their use.
The result is that Harry, Kate, and Chelsy (or anyone else in those photos) could sue P&A for part of the profit!
OK, enough from me tonight.
By Dan on May 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 am
Has anyone heard of the whereabouts of Prince William Kate? Are they at Mustique? Are there any photos out of Africa?
By kat on May 23rd, 2008 at 2:33 am
Imagine a wedding in the White House involving the son or daughter of the President. The person marrying into the First Family sells EXCLUSIVE rights to the occasion to a celeb rag without properly informing the President or the staff or asking permission.
How would that go down in the States?
I don’t think it would be a scandal at all in the US public’s view. The British Royal family has this aura of mystery, of not appearing to be “common.” Not so our politicians, I think. I just don’t get this outrage — if true — on the part of William and Harry, when we repeatedly have seen them worse for the wear at 3am stumbling out of nightclubs.
Autumn had to do what she had to do to pay for a wedding. Would there have been more of an outcry if public funds had been used to pay? Or if she had her hands out to her new in-laws to foot the bill? The names the royalty internet site psychos hurl at Kate Middleton would pale in comparison if she had done either, I think.
By Positive on May 23rd, 2008 at 2:33 am
I just bought the online edition of the wedding issue from Hello and the photos are absolutely breathtaking!! The chapel at Windsor is incredibly beautiful and Frogmore is simply stunning! The photographs of Autumn, Peter, the Royal Family and Kate and Chelsy are so wonderful I could hardly take my eyes away–both girls looked so elegant and lovely! Thanks so much, Ash and Arthur!
It is quite shocking that, considering that I have so many books regarding Queen Victoria, I have never until now seen photographs of Frogmore, except for a black and white photo of the building where Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort are buried. No wonder Queen Victoria adored Frogmore so much!
By Gigi on May 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 am
The wedding looked wonderful. I don’t believe the press hype at all. Autumn and Peter did a smart deal, They haven’t taken any money out of taxpayers pockets and they made money to pay for the wedding. Zara is in one of my current fashion magazines selling Rolex watches , looking regal and beautiful. I doubt anyone is truly annoyed about that or the wedding photo deal, as long as it was a one time thing and Peter and Autumn tuck the money away and don’t cash in again with photos of events in their lives in the future. The photos of Pr. Harry and Chelsy were lovely and any of the Senior Royals shown are all shown in a good light.
It was a joyous day, I think the other news sources just have SOUR Grapes that they did not get an exclusive.
I will never understand why William didn’t go, except maybe because he enjoys being with Jecca’s family, but why didn’t Kate go with him?
By paula on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
With such an uproar going on right now, does anyone know if/how this could affect the timing of a potential engagement between Wills & Kate or Harry & Chelsy?
By Lisa on May 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 am
Gigi, I’m glad you were able to figure it out. I was just about to send you directions.
John, after seeing the pictures in Hello!, I now understand the unhappiness of some members the Royal family. Although the pictures at Frogmore House are beautiful and portray what we normally see at weddings, no guest, especially the Queen, ever expects to have their image splashed all over the pages of a glossy tabloid. The wedding ceased to be a private, family event when it was sold to Hello! It was bad form and feels like an invasion of privacy.
If the wedding was sold to Hello! to cover the cost of the reception, flowers, etc., that’s unfortunate. However, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it could all have been avoided with some communication among Peter, Autumn, Princess Anne and the Queen long before the wedding day. The blame is not Autumn’s alone.
By Arthur on May 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 am
Arthur, fifty grand is not beyond their means, it never was. If they had asked around they could have raised that sum through the Royal Family so as not to have embarrassed Autumn’s family.
Instead, they went for the big payout and embarrassed the Queen instead. Poor show.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 am
Evelyn, the material point is that the official photographs were part of the deal — they sold those to Hello! too.
It’s probable that the shots in the Chapel were taken officially but then passed to the magazine. No wonder they were shocked at the coverage.
I know the picture are ravishing, but they were taken in dishonest and underhand circumstances. That has completely sullied this wedding in many people’s eyes — at least over here in Britain.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Coni, Kate may have preferred the wedding at Windsor to the one in Kenya. Simple as that. Many people there are her friends. But when she agreed to go, it was not clear just how much of a sell-out it had been.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Gigi, the MPs concerned have just voted for a Bill allowing the creation of animal/human hybrids. Clearly they recognize their own kind.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Eliza, if they had to sell the Queen and the Royal Family to a celeb mag, without informing them of the contents of the deal, they should not have had that particular wedding at all.
A small ceremony in the church at Balmoral with just a few guests (like Princess Anne) would have sufficed.
But Autumn wants fame (read her biography) — so Autumn reaped notoriety instead. Peter should have spotted the forthcoming damage.
The deal is said to have been worth closer to £1m ($2m) than the reported figure. So they went for a big payday as well as a celebrity wedding. Tacky and worthy of the Beckhams at their worst.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 9:57 am
One thought which hasn’t been aired yet: could the St George’s Chapel / Frogmore combination have been a “live” rehearsal for William and Kate? Maybe that’s why Kate was there.
Without the Hello! debacle, but with proper broadcasting access to the Chapel and the first stages at Frogmore, wouldn’t it be a perfect setting for the wedding of a future King and Queen?
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Reflecting again on the views of some of our North American readers, the difference between our system and the U.S. is that almost every indigenous Briton can trace some blood ties with the Royal Family, no matter how weak or ancient.
Most of us feel a visceral connection with the Monarchy and its symbols. That’s why anything which drags it down to the gutter is deeply repugnant to us.
The American system is purely political and (with small exceptions) is not family-based. The continuity of the English Monarchy is what makes its activities so fascinating to us.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
It is interesting to see photos of the Bush wedding at the ranch at Crawford, Texas, in the same issue of Hello. Surely those are the official family photos, and not the result of an exclusive deal.
Actually, I don’t know if Hello even has a US version.
By Dan on May 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
I didn’t see that in the British version, Dan. But being on private property any deal would have been agreed with P. Bush.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Absolutely John, a small ceremony at Balmoral would have been fine. No need to go all out when Peter is “not a royal”.
By Marilyn on May 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Well there are millions of Americans, Canadians and Australians that are related to the RF and in the line of succession abeit very far down it doesn’t rate. So there really is no visceral living through the royals.
However that said it is very unfair to lay all this at Autumns door the RF is notorious Charlie in particular to hoard his money and live off the largese of friends. As I said the family has profitted from their connections for years and posed in and were interviewed in Magazines so why get all hot and bothered about it now.
By Trudie on May 23rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Trudie, you’re misinformed. You read too much anti-Royal propaganda, and have too much hate for people you don’t know who live on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. Mysterious.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“…could the St George’s Chapel / Frogmore combination have been a “live” rehearsal for William and Kate? …wouldn’t it be a perfect setting for the wedding of a future King and Queen?”
John, I have thought about what wedding venue W&K might choose. As has been mentioned, William is unlikely to choose St Paul’s, with all its connections with his parents’ wedding. When people mention Westminster, I have all these visions of Diana’s funeral, which would play prominently in William’s mind. I think St George’s is a likely alternative.
With the addition of the dining/dance room at Frogmore, that becomes a wonderful venue. I read that it was Prince Philip’s idea, and that he paid for that. In part, it will be used at dinners he hosts there… but it will be handy for the weddings of all their grandchildren. I’m guessing that Windsor will be the preferred venue for Royal Weddings from now on.
By Evelyn on May 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
John, I do not at all condone selling the royal family to magazines with out their knowledge and certainly it looks like Harry, Chelsy and Kate were used to get the big payoff.
My point is that the royal family should have asked the question who is paying much earlier on and once they heard it was Hello, should have either paid themselves or told Autumn and Peter that they couldn’t do it and they would have to scale down.
I don’t think even Autumn ( who seems to be sold as a regular haridan now!) would have the brass neck to face down the Queen’s express request.
The problem is that nobody asked the question.
And as for the expense of the wedding, I thought it was a lovely classy affair and had no WAGish aspects, and i’m afraid even family weddings, which this was, cost money. Weddings are expensive.
Maybe they should have had the hole in the wall affair with thirty guests but all brides want their day and that would not be day to remember.
I have sympathy for them but that is not taking from the fact they did sell Kate and Chelsy to the highest bidder and the girls are entitled to be annoyed.
That said the pictures are absolutely gorgeous and I loved getting a chance to see the wedding reception and how they all interact.
By Eliza on May 23rd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Despite the unfortunate aspect of the deal with Hello Magazine, I just want to review the positive aspects of the Phillips-Kelly wedding. First, it was a very beautiful wedding held in two of the most glorious venues I have ever seen. The sacred service and the reception were lovely as were the participants and guests and the weather semi-cooperated. For those of us who were hoping that Chelsy and Kate would be at the wedding, those wishes were fulfilled, and, even though the manner of the Hello participation was not in compliance with protocol, we did get to see some splendid photographs of Peter and Autumn’s big day. It was a true delight to see the members of the Royal Family united and sharing Peter and Autumn’s joy on their wedding day! The wonderful and wise Queen, who tends not to make heavy weather for long over such matters, will clarify the rules regarding access and insure that no one trespasses on Royal protocol again. Let us all hope that no permanent damage has been done and that the MPs turn their attention to criticizing someone or something else, or, in the fullness of time, do the work they were elected to do!
We may never know exactly how this all happened, but we can be certain that it will never happen again.
By Gigi on May 23rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Gigi, I have to agree, it was a beautiful wedding, St George’s was breathtaking and Frogmore was a lovely stately home, it had a relaxed homey feel that a fancy hotel just couldn’t replicate.
The bride was stunning and the groom very handsome and it was a lovely lovely family wedding.
Chelsy and Kate may not have expected all the pictures but they looked gorgeous and such photos can only be to their advantage.
I loved it all!
By Eliza on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Evelyn, that’s true, and Kate would feel more comfortable having had a dry run, so to speak.
I don’t think William is very fond of these occasions, so keeping it all inside the Castle would probably suit him temperamentally.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Eliza, absolutely, you can’t beat a Windsor wedding for class. The WAGish element was its appearance in a WAG mag for money.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Gigi, the Queen has now vetoed all such deals in the future, at least for the central core of Royal Family members.
It will be good to have it all in the open for W+K, H+C, and Z+M.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
John I know you mentioned earlier that it would have been easy had they asked to raise the money for the wedding, but that in its self is highly embarassing. Can you imagine John maybe I’m just to proud…..
By jackie mccoy on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
John, is the Queen’s veto for any event that would be attended by senior royals?
By Evelyn on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Gigi you shout have emailed me I left my email address above so that I could send you the link!!
By jackie mccoy on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Hmm, Jackie, but not too proud to sell the Queen and her Castle for a big payout.
There’s no way round the negatives with this. I know it sounds a bit stuffy, but I think it was very wrong.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Jackie, by taking the Hello! money, Peter & Autumn have taken the situation from a private embarrassment (asking family for financial assistance) to a public embarrassment for many in the Royal Family.
By Evelyn on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Read over in the US the Queen has banned the media from these royal events in the future. Any more to this story?
By American Cousin on May 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
American Cousin, it’s only the celeb mags (for money) that are banned. The press and broadcasters are entitled to be there for a Royal Wedding, since these occasions are supported by public funds.
One of the discordant features of this wedding was that the public was locked out and required to pay Hello! for access.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
John, touche!!
By Eliza on May 23rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Well, we’ve all had our say. I think this subject must now be closed, else some people think we’re obsessed.
Perish the thought!
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
But until you write another piece for us to comment on, we’ll keep adding to this thread! So, what will it be– Prince Charles’ minor surgery? Prince Harry on a training hike with the Blues & Royals? Peter & Autumn’s honeymoon? Prince William & Kate’s holiday on Mustique?
Come to our rescue, John, and give us something else to mull over and write about!
By Evelyn on May 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Here here, i would love to hear if John you have heard
anything about Kate & William!! The kate William fever begins again!! This has been a great topic of discussion though!!
By jackie mccoy on May 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Just passing through, late at night. I hear you though.
By John on May 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Jackie, somehow I missed the post where you told me to email you! Thank you so much for your very kind offer and I am so sorry that I did not see it!
By Gigi on May 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Jackie, thank you so much for offering! Gigi, I took Jackie up on her offer, and have been enjoying the Hello! wedding exclusive!
By Evelyn on May 23rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
John I don’t hate people I don’t know who live across the pond. I am merely saying that in 1992 Prince Andrew and Sarah sold pictures of their children with an interview to Hello. Prince Edward and Sophie tried using their family connections in business until the fake Sheih incident.
All I am trying to say is Autumn is getting the blame for the whole thing and not one person has asked why didn’t Princess Anne step in? You are saying I am misinformed but I can assure you I am not and I can back up what I post. I really feel for Autumn who tried to please everyone and have a wonderful wedding and the remarks from the press suppossedly put out by the palaces are really hurtful to her. I just hope when they return from the honeymoon this will be forgotten and they can start their beautiful new life.
By Trudie on May 24th, 2008 at 12:14 am
They should be back from their honeymoon now, Trudie. Peter was quoted before the wedding to say that they’d be back home by Friday and back to work Monday morning. Perhaps they’ll speak with Princess Anne about the whole mess this weekend.
It may be difficult for Peter & Autumn to write thank-yous for their wedding gifts if they also have to include apologies for the Hello! spread. Perhaps time will put things right, but this probably will hang over them for the summer, perhaps beyond.
By Evelyn on May 24th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Well Evelyn it is now done and over so I hope P&A can start haveing a happy long life together. Personally I think there is alot of jealously over Autumn just from what I have read former classmates saying she was a snob and harbored ambitions to become famous well a lot of teens harbor big dreams but Autumns just happen to come in the form the man of her dreams who just happens to be the grandson of HM. From what I can see she looks like a very warm and beautiful young woman.
By Trudie on May 24th, 2008 at 1:10 am
John,
Clearly, this whole incident will have an effect on future royal weddings. Will the Hello! wedding photo fiasco also affect the timing of any potential royal engagements? If so, could you please explain how might they be affected? Thx!
By Lisa on May 24th, 2008 at 4:19 am
Lisa, we don’t know at this time. Kate and William are in Mustique until May 28 (Wednesday), so who knows.
By John on May 24th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
John, the Daily Mail has an article by Richard Kay and another writer regarding Viscount and Viscountess Linley with a photograph of them at the Phillips-Kelly wedding looking very downcast. The photograph is used to support the premise of the article, that all is not well with them. However, there was at least one other photograph in Hello, taken at the wedding, that shows Linley and his wife smiling and happy, which the writers chose not to use for obvious reasons. I would be grateful for your opinion on the credibility of the content of the article.
By Gigi on May 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Gigi, the subtext of this article is a court case that was recently resolved and which we covered towards the end of last year.
A “member of the extended Royal Family” was subjected to blackmail about gay sex by two society chancers. The judge ordered a complete media blackout, but the Huffington Post named him as Lord Linley.
The two accusers were jailed for lengthy periods (5 years from memory) a month or so ago.
The Queen stood by her relative and all seemed resolved, but there have been persistent rumours of discord in his marriage to Serena — without mentioning the case, of course.
It’s a strange business and we, of course, have no comment to make on the Mail article.
I hope that helps.
By John on May 24th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I heard that there were troubles in the marraige too but I think it is more likely do to with all the travelling he is doing with work and Serena is left at home to amuse herself.
I do not believe there was any truth in the blackmail allegations and the fact that he had the nerve to go to the police backs up my belief that there was no truth in it.
Though I will say I thought Serena looked awful at the wedding and has got very old looking, she is only in her late thirties.
Margarita looked gorgeous though and the head off Serena when she was younger.
By the way who was Rosie, that is Peter’s godchild, and why wasn’t Louise in the group photo or was there another private photo. It is awfully mean not to have her in the photos when all the other children were in it.
By Eliza on May 24th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I agree with you, Eliza. I do not believe that the allegations against a member of the Royal Family by those odious individuals were true at all. I agree, especially given the details in the article, that the issue in the marriage appears to be one relating to Linley being what Queen Victoria used to call “a terrible man of business,” which is what she said when she felt Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, was spending more time on the business of the Kingdom than with her. For whatever reason, Linley appears to be determined to be a very wealthy man, and the kind of work it takes to achieve great wealth also can be damaging to family life and interpersonal relationships.
Regarding Lady Louise, the Earl and Countess of Wessex appear to be more protective of their children than some members of the junior Royals. She is their first child and has rarely been photographed for the public view. I imagine they will do the same with James, the infant son who was so recently christened. Their decision is a wise one when you consider the collateral damage done by the over-the-top publicity that bombarded Prince William, Prince Harry, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, and still does. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
By Gigi on May 24th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Eliza and Gigi …I have already posted that you can see Lady Louise if you click on Rex Features and search for the Phillips’ wedding
also check out today’s royal wedding in Denmark on getty mages. The royals are dressed with simple elegance and no silly hats in sight
By Dot on May 24th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Well… from the photos I’ve seen on Hello!, all the royal women are wearing tiaras.
By Evelyn on May 24th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Thanks, Dot, for correcting that. I went to Rex Features when you posted about that and I forgot that, as you said, there was a photo of Lady Louise. Now I must ring off so I can go check out the Royal Wedding in Denmark!!
By Gigi on May 24th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
There seems to be a fabulous collection of tiaras in Denmark. They all look so lovely.
By Dot on May 24th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
They certainly do look lovely, Dot, and Marie Cavalier looks exquisite in her bridal gown of silk tulle and Calais lace. I also love the cerise gown of Queen Margarethe II, and the elegant eggshell blue gown of Crown Princess Mary. Mary and her husband, Crown Prince Frederick, are one of the most handsome Royal couples I have ever seen. The tiaras worn by the bride, the Queen and the Crown Princess are simply magnificent!
By Gigi on May 24th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I would guess that the other royal guests (I saw Sweden, Norway, Greece) didn’t wear their “best” tiaras. It’s appropriate to let the Danish Royal Family shine brightest this day.
Great photos at Getty.
By Evelyn on May 24th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
There’s a nice story about Kate in today’s Telegraph. I hope it begins to change some minds about her, particularly the people who judge her without having any facts. The story echoes the thoughts of many of us as to her dilemma at starting a career.
There’s also an interesting suggestion that an engagement should come before Christmas if they have any thoughts of spending the holiday together at Sandringham.
Since William is to become a full-time royal next year, it seems natural that he would prefer to conduct that part of his life in partnership. But when they separate to work either side of a street, which side will cheer and which will boo?
By Dan on May 25th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Thanks for the heads-up on the Telegraph article, Dan. It sure seems like that writer has been following our conversations at RA!
By Evelyn on May 25th, 2008 at 3:12 am
That is the best article yet to come out on Kate.
LINK
By Claudius on May 25th, 2008 at 6:27 am
But isn’t it a bit typical: They have found one person who is critical to Kate and they have to tell us what this one person thinks. Why not forget this one and consentrate on all the others?
By dagga on May 25th, 2008 at 8:54 am
It looks like a very interesting article. But please remember to go to tinyurl.com to shorten long links. Eh, Claudius?
By John on May 25th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I think an engagement will happen this within the year!!! Finally I don’t know if it is because P&A’s wedding or what but it appears something is now different. Kate being just a girlfriend and attending the wedding with out Willie and sitting among the royals in the chapel is definitely sending signals. Whatever it’s time he got it together and stopped keeping Kate in limbo.
By Trudie on May 25th, 2008 at 10:07 am
I like that Telegraph article (even if it seems a bit enthusiastic about an engagement). I think it’s fair in painting Kate as the intriguing and low-key figure that she truly is. I’m also glad it corrects nasty rumors about her family and her involvement at Clarence House. It’s a nice article to recommend to people who don’t know much about Kate… it covers the most significant aspects of her life and relationship with William… gives insight on her personality… and is written in a way which I believe is as objective as it gets for a story about the royals.
By frands on May 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
True, Frands, and everyone else. Andrew Alderson is one of my favourite Royal writers, always producing well-researched and sourced pieces like this one, which will be the article of record for the William-Kate story until a definitive book appears after their marriage.
Interesting too that Royal Anecdotes has been more or less spot on over the long and tortuous path of their relationship, both in good times and bad. Significant as well is how many of the tabloid headlines were just plain wrong, even in the hard-working Daily Mail.
One thing’s for sure, it ain’t easy being a Royal correspondent.
By John on May 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am
people.co.uk is reporting a sighting of Prince William & Kate in a restaurant on Mustique.
By Evelyn on May 25th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
The new Daily Mail article is almost right on board, although it focuses on her desire to be called Catherine now—as if she’s putting on airs. Didn’t the Telegraph article say that she was always called Catherine?
Oh well, Diana was always called Lady Di and then Princess Di, the latter not even being accurate—Princess Diana was never her official title.
As for the DM article, I wonder who got her on the phone? Nice of her to answer the call! Why didn’t we think of that? Surely we’ve got her number.
By Dan on May 25th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
You’re right, Dan. The Mail article is just a new intro tacked onto a basic piece about the holiday in Mustique.
The two new bits of information, that she wants to be called Catherine and that she was phoned on the island, tell us practically nothing that we don’t already know. If the phone call was real, she just no-commented everything, so why mention it?
If she does want to be called Catherine, she’ll have a job getting the media to follow suit because the name Kate Middleton has got all the Google juice and it’s what people write into their search engines. The media know that and will keep using Kate, come what may.
By John on May 25th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Also, it looks as if the piece has been written by a stringer in the Caribbean, not one of the main Royal writers. How accurate is this stringer?
By John on May 25th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Whats the difference if she is called Kate or Catherine? those who are accusing her of putting on heirs because she wants to be called by the latter are jealous probably because she bagged the Prince. But according to the article at Marlborough she was called Catherine and calling her Kate started when she went to St. Andrews besides whether you google Kate or Catherine it will probably still come up the same.
Personally I like the name Catherine and who can forget the ledgendary Katherine Hepburn who was also called Kate.
By Trudie on May 25th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I think that her wanting to be called Catherine is an old post. I seem to remember that coming out a while back. It is amazing that William and Kate have been there a couple of days at least and now these things are starting to come out. I hope that William and Kate (Catherine) are having a good time. I also hope that they enjoy not being hounded by the press. By the way, how did the DM get the phone number? It was interesting that Kate answered. They have an amazing view of the water from where they are staying. I am hopeful for a proposal. As the saying goes, I won’t hold my breath. Telegraph article is fair and balanced if true. The article makes sense. Still keeping my fingers crossed.
By kat on May 25th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Somehow, I don’t believe the phone call. I just don’t think anyone has spoken to Kate.
By Claudius on May 25th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Somehow I cannot imagine that the DM would have succeeded to call William and Catherine in Mustique. Even if the paper knows exactly where they stay right now, which is very unlikely, I doubt that anyone would be “let through” to their room like that. A security guard would probably accept the call, I imagine. And I doubt that the DM has Catherine’s mobile number. They probably just added that to appear more “in” with the couple since the rest of the article is merely a rehash of things that have been written before. I also remember past articles saying that the papers started to call Catherine “Kate” and that that nickname was never actually used by her friends.
It slightly worries me though that the press once more seems to put on pressure about an engagement. Even if William really had planned to propose during this holiday all those articles probably spoiled it for him even more so if the DM truly called Catherine and asked about it. I guess every man wants an engagement to be special and some sort of a surprise which would be extremely hard to do with speculation in the papers on a daily basis. I feel sorry for him.
By Isana on May 25th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I looked up the name reference. It went back to Oct. 2006. One of the forums mentioned that it was in an article in Hello. It was also referenced in the Royalist. So this is nothing new. I do think that there was no phone call. Why would she even answer the phone? I do think that they will get engaged. However, I think that a lot of people are going overboard on the speculation. It will happens when it happens, No amount of prodding will change that. I hope that they are having a good time.
By kat on May 25th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
It is entirely appropriate that Miss Catherine Middleton be called by her proper Christian name and I do not blame her for not wishing to be known by a nickname bestowed upon her by the intrusive and irreverent media. It is also a good idea for her to make her wishes known now regarding this and has nothing to do with “becoming aware of her status,” which is the most pretentious accusation the press has come up with yet! What utter rubbish! Let’s turn this around a bit and see how absurd this story is. What do the misguided members of the press corps plan to call Prince William when he ascends the throne? King Bill? King Will? Of course not, nor will his Queen Consort be called by an inappropriate diminutive. No one ever called Queen Elizabeth II “Queen Liz” unless they were completely ’round the bend (I actually feel faint typing that.) Of course, Prince Henry is called Prince Harry, in the English way, but that is a very different matter entirely.
I also agree with those of our dear RA clan who doubt the authenticity of the story regarding the telephone call to Mustique. It is such utter nonsense that I cannot credit it at all. I fear the Daily Mail has ridden this story right off the rails.
By Gigi on May 25th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
If the bride was required to betray her faith to marry into the royal family, why should they be shocked that she should consider sacred keeping weddiing pictures secret?
By Joseph Girzone on May 25th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Come on the phone call could have happened. I remember a story that Diana related when she stayed in New York one Time. Someone on the street saw her arrive and later Called the Carlyle Hotel and said he was Charlie Windsor and they put him through and he and Diana did speak. So Anything is Possible. I just find that sort of thing happening extremely funny.
By Trudie on May 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
John, AOL News is carring an AP article, dated May 25, 2008, titled “Queen Furious Over $1 Million Photo Deal.” The AP article states: “On Thursday gossip website Royal Anecdotes said princes William and Harry have let it be known they are unhappy. It quoted a royal source saying: “Neither Peter nor the magazine sought their approval, and, if they had, it certainly would not have been given. What has happened has not gone down well at all.”
Royal Anecdotians have always known you were THE source for Royal news. Now the rest of the world knows as well.
By Arthur on May 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Gigi The short names Willie and Harry go by were introduced to the public by Charles and Diana. They revealed that William was called Wills and Harry that came out as soon as the name was announced. But here again Kate was always Catherine and as some young girls mature they like to be called by the more formal name such is the case here. As I said earlier I happen to love the name Catherine and would have named my daughter that by I was vetoed!!!!!
By Trudie on May 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Catherine it is! The DM did mention that “Kate” has been more a media name for her and close friends and family call her Catherine. I like Catherine. Definitely has a regal ring.
As for the phone call, it think it may or may not have happened. If I were to fabricate a story that I’ve spoken to Kate Middleton, I’d create a more interesting response than the usual “no comment.” Perhaps they got through by pretending to be someone else like Trudie said. If true, Catherine handled herself very well by being polite. But the press should get off this poor couple’s backs! Leave them alone! Enough with the intrusion and the engagement pressure already! I’m glad they’re away on holiday so they won’t have to see every other Sunday paper having Catherine’s face on it.
By frands on May 25th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Gigi and others, I agree that Catherine is a very nice name for a future Queen. What does that tell us about the state of play in this relationship? Can RA be right again about an imminent announcement? Hmmm.
Arthur, thanks for the heads up on the AOL/AP quote. I wondered why the site was so slow this morning our time. But “gossip site”?
By John on May 25th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
The Mail piece has been updated with the addition of Rebecca English as joint writer, but with the absurd sentence: “For she has let it be known that, if all goes according to plan, she would be like to be called Queen Catherine.”
I’m as sure as I can be that Kate/Catherine would never make such a naff statement on the record. To even breathe the idea that you may one day be Queen would be the kiss of death. K/C is far too dignified to do that.
I’m beginning to think the phone call may be correct, given that she says nothing — why report that if it’s false? But please Rebecca get rid of that Queen sentence.
By John on May 25th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Yes I agree John
There is no way Kate would make a slip up like by calling herself Queen at this stage in the game. It would be very very stupid. I think the press are bored again and out for any piece of information which they can get given that there is not a lot of information which they can get from the Mustique trip.
Lets hope you are right John about an engagement soon. Congratulations on critical acclaim
I’m sure it is the first of many even if you are only referred to as a gossip site 
By jackie Mccoy on May 25th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Sorry to drag everyone back to P & A…But if Princess Anne would not help to pay for the wedding, then why didn’t Peter pay for it himself from his own inheritance?
John, do I remember seeing that he inherited $12M from the Queen Mother? Might that be why no one offerred to pay; they thought that he had ample money and should pay himself?
By Cate on May 25th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Cate, you hit the nail on the head.
By John on May 25th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I, too, had wondered about Peter’s ability to pay for the wedding. If Peter has millions, then it’s immature of him to not pay for their wedding out of his inheritance.
Many young adults continue to expect their parents to help them out financially. Standing on their own feet and managing their own expenses is an important part of being recognized as “real” adults.
So, then, the choice of using Peter’s own inheritance to pay for the wedding, or choosing to make the most of the Hello! deal was entirely Peter’s (& Autumn’s) choice. As adults, they’ll need to live with any consequences.
By Evelyn on May 25th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I agree with you, John. Royal Anecdotians are intelligent individuals who exchange ideas about current events. That hardly qualifies as gossip.
By Arthur on May 25th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I agree with Arthur and John. We are NOT a gossip site nor could we be, as we Royal Anecdotians do NOT gossip! If anything, we, with John as our fearless leader, attempt to find the truth in all things Royal. If that is gossip, I shall eat my gardening hat.
By Gigi on May 25th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Gigi I just love your use of the royal WE!!! gossip indeed.
By Trudie on May 26th, 2008 at 1:03 am
No, Cathrine would have never made such a statement.
By Claudius on May 26th, 2008 at 1:56 am
The Daily Mail has updated their article on Catherine, with an inserted piece on Queen Catherines in British history:
+ Catherine of Valois (Henry V)
+ Catherine of Aragon (Henry VIII)
+ Catherine Howard (Henry VIII)
+ Catherine Parr (Henry VIII)
+ Catherine of Braganza (Charles II)
Catherine Middleton would be the sixth queen of that name in British history.
By Evelyn on May 26th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Sunday’s articles reminded us again that Kate prefers to be called Catherine. Perhaps we should all make an effort to refer to her as Catherine from now on.
(If we play our cards right, maybe John will be invited to PW&C’s wedding celebrations!
)
By Evelyn on May 26th, 2008 at 2:21 am
LOL, Trudie you are hilarious!
Evelyn, that is an excellent idea! I think we should all do our part to assist John in securing the coveted invitation to the wedding of the decade! Catherine Middleton will not only be the sixth Queen Catherine, she will be the most beautiful bride of that name as well! King William V and Queen Catherine–it sounds so wonderful together! Of course I am getting a bit ahead of myself, since the engagement has yet to be announced. I shall blame it on the superb weather we had all Spring and the fact that my rose bushes are simply loaded with gorgeous, fragrant roses, perfect for the rose bowls which must be filled for a wedding. 
It is almost June, the roses are in bloom–all the planets are aligned for a Royal Wedding!
By Gigi on May 26th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Ah, Gigi, your rose bowls would be beautiful for our Royal Anecdotes Engagement Tea! Perhaps sometime in the next month we can have that celebration!
By Evelyn on May 26th, 2008 at 2:48 am
We’ve only got a bit of gossip in the papers saying that Kate wishes to be known as Catherine. She will realize it would be presumptuous to make a statement now. The time for name changes will be when she is married and the Duchess of …….
Until then the “brand” is Kate Middleton. Sites like this that depend a lot on search traffic will continue to use the potent keyworks “kate middleton” because the alternative is to lose a lot of their traffic.
Most people out there won’t know who Catherine Middleton is.
By John on May 26th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I completely understand why someone would want to be known by the name their family and friends have called them, after all Catherine is her name and Kate is not, however it is too late for me, I should have been informed much earlier on! I can’t get used to her being called Catherine now, in fact I can’t even picture her as a Catherine. She will always be Kate to me!
If that marks me out as a Johnnycomelately so be it.
She’ll have to understand that even some who call her by her nickname wish her well.
As for all those millions Peter is supposed to have inherited, I just don’t believe it. I don’t know if I ever actually commented on it though I tried ad nausem last weekend!
The Queen Mother may have had substantial assets but she had no cash and so unless there has been a sale of some of those assets her greatgrandchildren have only notionally inherited.
By Eliza on May 26th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Eliza, I expect the Queen discreetly bought some of her mother’s jewellery after her death, partly to release cash for the beneficiaries, and partly to prevent another undignified firesale, as happened with her sister’s most treasured possessions.
Even if the items are locked away in Peter Phillips’s bank, they would make excellent collateral for loans and overdrafts, especially as the price of raw gold and diamonds has soared over the past year.
By John on May 26th, 2008 at 10:07 am
John, may be you are right but borrowing to finance a one day celebration would be madness.
I know I know better than selling your granny you say!!!
By Eliza on May 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
There again it was “only” £50,000 which, for the Monarchy, is a trifling sum.
By John on May 26th, 2008 at 11:43 am
John, I have a question. Is there any movement from the press office of Buckingham Palace that an announcement of some kind is going to be issued within the next couple of days?
Has the media being given any hints that something big might
be breaking? I am just hoping that all of this press coverage won’t derail any present or future plans for William and Kate (Catherine). I don’t want him to be scared off or her to be disappointed. I just want them to be happy.
By kat on May 26th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Kat, to my knowledge there’s not a whisper of anything official happening soon. That doesn’t mean it won’t, of course, just that the noise is indistinguishable from the truth right now.
By John on May 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
John, thanks for your insight.
By kat on May 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
“The time for name changes will be when she is married and the Duchess of …….”
John, I’ve heard that the Royal Ducal titles are only given to the son of the sovereign, and that William and Harry won’t be eligible for those until Charles ascends the throne. If no other title is given at marriage, Catherine and Chelsy would become The Princess William and The Princess Harry/Henry.
Is it possible the Queen might give PW and PH some other, lesser holding title? Perhaps earldoms?
I also read that only Prince William’s first-born son would be a Prince from birth; the others would be Lord/Lady until William becomes the son of the sovereign. Worse yet, if Charles were to die before the Queen, and Harry not become the son of the sovereign, his children would never become princes and princesses.
I realize all this could be changed according to the reigning sovereign’s wishes, so anything is possible.
By Evelyn on May 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
There’s a lot of flexibility in titles, Evelyn, so we’ll have to wait and see. You can be sure Prince William will be fast-tracked to the best option.
By John on May 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
It is amazing how many articles there are about the name Kate/Catherine change this morning. Wow Kate really is big news!! Does anyone know exactly which date Prince William is supposed to start his position within the Navy?
By jackie Mccoy on May 26th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I’ve only been hearing June, jackie. I’ve been assuming it will be the beginning of the month, but don’t have any idea if that’s accurate.
If I remember from Prince William’s RAF attachment, we knew when he’d start the week before. So maybe we’ll hear something more specific tomorrow, after today’s Bank Holiday.
By Evelyn on May 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Indeed! The Telegraph also has its story about the name change.
Kate Middleton says call me Catherine
Nothing new, except a quote at the end:
One source dismissed the suggestion that Miss Middleton was demanding people call her Catherine.
“She’s too polite, the thought that she’s running around saying ‘You must call me that because, you know, I’m going to be Queen one day’ - she’s not like that.”
By frands on May 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
whooops! sorry for the long link, John… coded it incorrectly… don’t know how to fix it…
By frands on May 26th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Frands, fixed it now. It’s actually much simpler to go to tinyurl.com and shorten the link there.
By John on May 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Here’s a question totally off topic, but it’s the weekend, so what the heck. Several months ago, it was reported that Lord Snowden was writing a book about his life/marriage to the late Princess Margaret. Since then, I haven’t heard anything more about the book. Does anyone across the pond know when the book will be published and what juicy secrets might be contained therein?
By Arthur on May 26th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
As far as titles go Dukedoms aren’t given to only the sons of the Sovereign. Queen Victoria gave Dukedoms to Edward VII’s son’s Prince Albert Victor was the Dukes of Clarence and Albany and George was the Duke of York. I believe the Queens father was given the title Duke of York before he married as well as George Duke of Kent and Henry Duke of Gloustershire not sure I spelled that right. So there is precedent For HM to grant William a Dukedom before Charles ascends and Harry too.
By Trudie on May 27th, 2008 at 1:42 am
The letters patent by George V were the major revision, in 1917. So the dukedoms Queen Victoria gave were prior to the revision, and not a precedent for current practice.
The Queen’s father was created Duke of York in 1920, after the revision of the letters patent by his father, and when he was the son of the reigning monarch. This was the year that he met Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon; they were married in 1923.
I think Kent and Gloucestershire were inherited dukedoms (inherited from their father), though I’m not sure I’m sorting that out correctly. If someone has better info, please feel free to correct me!
But, as others have said, the Queen has many options within her gift. Perhaps she won’t wait for a wedding or engagement (as happened with her own father), and will give Prince William an appropriate title sooner.
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 3:54 am
On other news… the Telegraph has an article on Sandringham. Prince Philip has given a tour of the estate to Country Living, with the first photos ever oublished from inside the Queen’s retreat. Several are included in the Telegraph article, more are promised in an upcoming issue of Country Living.
Unlike the Hello! wedding article, I gather Prince Philip is the only royal pictured, the photographers were supervised during the entire photoshoot, and I’m sure no payment was received. However, the cover of Country Living promotes it as an “exclusive.” Will that raise more concerns?
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Evelyn, if a fee was offered, it would be given to charity, just as the profits from Prince Charles’s Duchy Originals do.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Greetings John!
I live in the States and I love reading your website! Thanks for all of the great information!
If you don’t mind, could you please answer these two questions?
What is the protocol for meeting the Queen (esp. as in the case of Kate/Chelsey/Autumn)? It seems as if a lot needs to take place before that can happen.
Also, what is the protocol for announcing a royal engagement? Is there a long process involved?
Thanks,
Anne
By Anne on May 27th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I hope that Peter & Autumn give at least some of their Hello! fee to charity.
Is charitable giving among all people encouraged in the UK? I assume that it isn’t only the wealthy(iest) who support charity work.
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Some charitable giving is tax-deductible, Evelyn, which rather destroys the spirit of it. It does increase funds to charities though.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Here in the US, charitable gifts only provide a small reduction in the actual taxes paid. Most of the gift still comes out of our own pocket. Is it different in the UK?
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I’m not a tax accountant, but I believe the relief is around the standard rate of tax, now 20pc.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Hello Anne, thanks for dropping by.
In answer to your two questions : Lots of people meet the Queen as she goes about her daily engagements, but to be formally presented to her (presented at court, as it used to be known), you need to have a specific status and a suitable occasion has to arise. A long-term girlfriend of a Prince attending a Royal wedding at Windsor — as with Chelsy — is just the job.
Royal engagements have traditionally been announced by pinning a sheet of paper on the gates of Buckingham Palace, usually around 5 o’ clock, in time for the 6 o’ clock BBC news.
Nowadays, all the broadcasters are alerted beforehand, maybe with an embargo until 4 or 5 0′ clock so they can clear the decks and send camera crews to the Palace.
It will usually be a day on which there’s little political activity, perhaps when Parliament is not sitting.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Thank you John!
By Anne on May 27th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
So… since Parliament is in recess until June 2, announcing an engagement sometime this week would be a possibility!
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
It would indeed, Evelyn. But don’t breathe a word to anyone.
By John on May 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
The next Parliament recess is scheduled for July 22-October 6. So that would offer a possibile time frame that would follow Prince William’s attachment to the Royal Navy.
By Evelyn on May 27th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
who cares about it all…..
By tony on June 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm