England’s most useless Monarch
English Heritage has just run a competition to find England’s most useless Monarch. The result was never going to be a surprise because the “winner” could only come from a handful of stinkers and duffers.
In the end they alighted on that bulbous, wasteful drunk George IV, who was so corpulent he was known as the Prince of Whales before he became King.
George was totally self-obsessed, unlike his sweet-natured father George III, who had the misfortune to suffer from the genetic disease porphyria, which made him increasingly insane.
The younger George was also nasty and brutish to his rather ugly and unhygienic wife Caroline, and scandalized the nation by gross over-spending in very hard times. The baroque dazzle of the Brighton Pavilion in no way compensates for his extravagance, indeed it neatly sums it up. The Monarchy has rarely been as unpopular than it was under King George IV.
However, my own choice is the same as historian Andrew Roberts’s — King Stephen. Here’s his assessment of this odious man:
“King Stephen usurped his uncle Henry I’s throne in 1135, outmanouevring both his own elder brother Theobald and the rightful heir, Henry’s daughter the Empress Matilda. He seized the Treasury, crowned himself, gave Cumbria to the Scots to buy them off, paid Danegeld to appease the Danes and then plunged Britain into a series of four civil wars between 1138 and 1154. These left the country ravaged, impoverished and weaker than at any other time before or since.”
Anyone who has watched the British TV series, Cadfael, or read the books by Ellis Peters which are set in these civil wars, will have some idea of the privations of the period.
Andrew Roberts is right too when he says Britain is passing through a golden age during the reign of Elizabeth II. Let us hope she will soon be served by better politicians than now and for the rest of her time among us.
I agree with you about Stephen–a lower rogue never existed in the British Monarchy. George IV was no shining example of duty and responsibility, and for setting an example of morality and ethics, Henry VIII was horrific also. I also agree that Great Britain is living through a golden age, a shining time inspired and lead by the magnificent example of wise and good Queen Elizabeth II. Long may she live and reign in health and strength!
By Gigi on July 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
john – thanks for the history lesson..
By coni on July 16th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
If George IV was so bad, it’s strange that there would be a George V and VI. True, George V was only taking his real first name, and George VI (whose first name was Albert but his fourth name was George) was only honoring his father after the debacle of Edward VIII’s abdication.
Is it assured that Charles will reign (if he reigns) as Charles III? The first two Charleses weren’t great models: they executed number 1 and tirelessly turned a blind eye to the excesses of number 2, who died with only illegitimate issue. History being thus, might Charles follow the example of his grandfather and take his fourth name as well, reigning as George VII? Or does our celebrity culture, in which we feel intimately acquainted with our Queens and Kings, prohibit the ceremonial changing of name for anyone but a Pope?
An interesting bit of trivia: Diana descended from one of Charles II’s illegitimates (as does Camilla), meaning that William will be the first British monarch descended from Charles II. Perhaps he’ll revive the Stuart family name!
By Dan on July 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
It is a fascinating subject indeed, John!
I was also wondering if it is true that nearly all of the descendants of Charles II currently make up the majority of modern aristocratic families in Britain?
By alsgal on July 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Many are. In addition to Diana, Camilla, and the Duchess of York, all of whom descended from Charles II, there are also the Dukes of Buccleuch, Grafton, St. Albans, and Richmond–all direct-male line descendants. So too might have the Dukes of Cleveland and Northumberland, but they died out. (the Dukedom of Northumberland was recreated in 1766 for Hugh Percy, whose male line has followed to the current 12th Duke, presumably to be followed by the future 13th, George Percy, friend of Pippa Middleton.)
By Dan on July 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Dan, thank you for answering my question. I had no idea and thought perhaps it was just a rumour or incorrect information — some of the historical specials I’ve seen on the television don’t appear to be very accurate. Makes one wonder what is truth and what is fiction! Your knowledge is most impressive.
By alsgal on July 16th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
In the end they alighted on that bulbous, wasteful drunk George IV, who was so corpulent he was known as the Prince of Whales before he became King.
It appears Queen Victoria was not the only British Monarch who wore size 50 bloomers.
By Arthur on July 16th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
My dear Arthur, let us remember that Queen Victoria gave birth to nine children between the years 1840, when the Princess Royal (who married Fritz, Crown Prince of Prussia) was born, and 1857, when Princess Beatrice (who married Prince Henry “Liko” of Battenberg), was born. That alone is enough to swell the waistline. Further, recreation and weight-management techniques for women were far more restricted during Victorian times. Queen Victoria went sea bathing in the Isle of Wight, and she rode when younger, but as she aged, except for taking walks and carriage rides around Balmoral and Windsor Great Park, her exercise was somewhat limited. Victorian era meals were huge, the food was very rich, and the styles of the times decreed that women of Queen Victoria’s generation wore voluminous crinolines, hooped out enormously, and layers and layers of ruffled silk petticoats. I have never quite believed that the Queen was as overweight as some biographers claim. For one thing, Queen Victoria was quite short, which made her look heavier than she actually was. The photography and the fashions of the time did not flatter her. When the Queen died in 1901, her children refused to allow an undertaker because the Queen did not wish there to be one. Her own sons, the new King Edward VII and Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, lifted the Queen’s body into her coffin and both were astonished how light she was, in comparison to her perceived girth.
By Gigi on July 16th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I remember the first time we took our beloved Weimer to the vet how surprised everyone was at her fullness of girth, yet lightness of weight, so Gigi’s theory makes sense to me.
By alsgal on July 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
John,
I’ve been thinking about something for a few days now & I wanted to get your opinion. There is still a class system in England, yes? And it does appear that most of Prince William’s close friends & associates are from other aristocratic or upper class families. Or if not they’re very wealthy. Holly Branson fits into that category. The exception seems to be Kate. Her parents are well off, but the Middletons aren’t billionaires or in the same league socially as the VanCutsems and people like that. I know that times have changed a lot, but do you think there are those in that set who look down on Kate and her background? Maybe some still believe a royal bride should be a blue blood?
By lizzy on July 17th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Yes, lizzy, William should not marry a commoner. That, far more than Charles III, is a danger to the House of Glücksburg.
By ClassyCanuck on July 17th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Dan, Charles did muse about being known as George VII and even prepared his Coronation annointing oil. It’s all a bit presumpuous though — better left till the time comes.
By John on July 17th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Lizzy, the class system in England has changed in that top celebrities now hold more power than the old aristos, probably more wealth too. Young Princesses fawn over film stars and models these days, just like everyone else.
There is a lower order of social-climbing would-be aristocrats who are far more snobbish than the great Dukes and Royalty. The daughters of these folk resent Kate for “encroaching on their territory”, as they see it. William seems to ignore them.
By John on July 17th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Charles II fathered a lot of children on the wrong side of the blanket. His offspring’s genes now litter the upper reaches of the aristocracy.
By John on July 17th, 2008 at 8:45 am
John you are as always so spot-on about the whole class issue in England. One of my friends who seems to know quite a bit about the snootie classes in England (he worked as a butler and then as a hotel party planner, no his name is not Paul
) told me last night that the wives of the Duke of Bydford? and I think that Duke Dan mentioned, Northumberland, are both middle class girls much like Kate Middleton.
So, this information really does make me think the whole doors-to-manual bit was nothing more then the gutter press making a mountain out of a molehill, as they are wont to do, and as many foolish people seem to want to believe is true. Which it isn’t.
It really does make sense that Kate and her siblings have already been welcomed into William’s group, and will no doubt be embraced to a even stronger degree once the engagement is announced.
By alsgal on July 17th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
John, Alsgal
That’s good to know. I hated to think that Kate may not be fully accepted because of a few snobs. It’s nice to hear that things have really changed & it is not so much the real aristocracy who are the problem, but the pretenders who have their noses up in the air.
By lizzy on July 17th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Lizzy, it’s mostly the unemployed or barely employed teenies still living off their parents who post snobby and negative comments on some of the royal forums and at the Sun/Daily Mail, etc. about Kate’s work ethic or family credentials — I’d certainly like to know what kind of families some of these posters hail from. Surely they are the pride and joy of the council estates where they reside! Thank goodness a few people have alerted the comments department at the various tabloids and Party Pieces about this rather hateful little group. I pity poor Kate and all she has to put up with — and she’s not even an official Royal yet.
The only people who seem worried about Kate’s status are the wannabees, and as for her working or not, well, I’ve been a working gal all my life, wish I hadn’t had to, and now have begun to enjoy a bit of retirement. All I can say is, work isn’t everything!
By alsgal on July 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Gigi, I wasn’t casting aspersions against the good Queen Victoria, I was simply making reference to a recent, ridiculous story in the British press of someone trying to auction off a pair of Queen Victoria’s size 50 bloomers. If anyting, Queen Victoria should be applauded that she lived to the ripe old age of 81, having indulged in such a rich Victorian diet and getting little exercise.
By Arthur on July 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Class warfare has littered Europe far more than Charles II’s genes, and laid far more bloody waste to the populace.
For myself, there’s something unsettling about all this talk of genes “littering” the aristocracy. Inbreeding, the habit for which aristocrats are so easily mocked, causes its own genetic embarrassments. I’d hate to imagine what William and Harry would look like (let alone think or act like) had Charles married within his rank, as his parents and ancestors did. The blood may be Royal, but the gene pool goes stagnant if it is never refreshed.
Around the world, class prejudice is a scourge best left to the dustbin of history. They should all marry for love, wherever — and from whatever class of society — they find it.
By Dan on July 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Well said, Dan!
By alsgal on July 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Dan, if either William or Harry were to marry Princess Madeleine of Sweden, the gene pool would be improved immeasurably!
By Arthur on July 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
A marriage to Crown Princess Victoria would certainly improve the Windsor trait of receding chins.
But seriously I would think Kate’s fresh stock, if you will, can only add beauty and good health to the line. Her Majesty, horse breeder that she is, must know more then anyone how important it is that the lines not get “too precious” or inbred.
I am seeing between these two offspring of an almost Casiraghi-like physical attractiveness.
By alsgal on July 17th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
If “Crown Prince” William married Crown Princess Victoria, we would have serious national sovereignty problems on our hands. William and Victoria as the King and Queen of Britain and Sweden both?! Far from a good idea, I bet that both parliaments, to say nothing of their respective subjects, would forbid it.
I far prefer the current Danish model. There’s no more attractive or refreshing Royal couple in Europe than Frederik and Mary of Denmark. (Perhaps it’s my own scourge-like prejudice, but I’m not as charmed by Felipe and Letizia of Spain.) In my eyes, the Danish Crown Prince and Princess are the Charles and Diana of the 21st century. They are lower profile, as is their country, but they could charm the world if they wished.
Of course, William and ____ will eventually eclipse all others. In the end, there’s no Royalty like British Royalty, for whatever reason. Denmark’s is older, Monaco’s is of a longer direct line, but Britain’s still reigns supreme.
By Dan on July 17th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
A fellow Maryite are you Dan! Indeed they make an attractive couple, and I do agree that, at least until W&K are official, F&M are probably the premiere Royal couple of the last 100 years. I do believe they eclipse even Charles and Diana as a royal couple because well, Charles is just not in the same league as Handsome Fred — at least to these macular degenerative eyes!
I’d have to agree with you in regards to Felipe and Letizia as well. She has a harshness, an edge that I just don’t find pleasing. Plus, she appears to be only half his height, so that makes even getting a photo of them together all the more difficult. I seem always to only see the feathers at the top of her hat! Let’s hope that reign in Spain stays mainly on the plane because I have no wish for these old bones to stand in the humidity to see them.
But that Mary … if it weren’t for a certain Royal Wedding I am saving up for, I’d be on my broom in a heartbeat — headed for “Dan”mark
By alsgal on July 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Prince Carl Haakon & Mette Marit are a favorite of mine. They’re such an attractive couple. I was surprised to learn they were friends of Charles and Camilla. The Crown Prince and Princess were one of the few European royals who attended the wedding a few years ago.
By Lizzy on July 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Haakon and Mette-Merit are friends with C&C? Lizzy, I did not know that! The cynic in me would say, now watch out Haak, Charles likes a big blonde lady, and that’s what you’ve got in your Mette but the idealist in me says, well, at least it’s good to see the generations “mixing it up” … no harm in that!
By alsgal on July 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I suppose there are many who would tut-tut Mette-Merit for having led a “wild life”— and having a son out of wedlock — before becoming a Crown Princess. But such is the modern age: all are redeemable. (Did I say “modern”? I believe the promise of redemption was championed, oh, about 2000 years ago.)
As we have drawn from the history of George IV, pure Royal blood does not promise greatness. Some of us eagerly cast scorn at the feet of the Grimaldis of Monaco, yet I think that is owing to the current lot rather than those past. Princess Stephanie aside, Princess Caroline could be taken to task for her marital choices, yet with her you can argue both sides of the coin o’ the realm. Casiraghi was hardly more ne’er-do-well than her current husband, Prince Ernst August V of Hanover, despite the latter’s impeccable Royal blood. He is the senior male-line descendant of George III, yet also a notorious public figure in his own right.
Point of trivia (and who am I but a fount of trivia?): With a nod of her head, Queen Elizabeth could restore Ernst August and Princess Caroline to their rightful place as Duke and Duchess of Cumberland, a title that was stripped from his great-grandfather for supporting the German side during WWI, but can be petitioned for restoration by his heirs.
By Dan on July 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Actually, the title would be Duke and Duchess of Cumberland and Teviotdale.
They probably prefer the titles they have. If Prince Albert II fails to issue legitimately, Ernst and Caroline will rule two of Europe’s most “August” principalities. (Remember that Hanover also gave us Victoria.)
By Dan on July 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Happy Birthday to the Duchess of Cornwall! Not a big fan of Camilla, but I try not to be cruel or mean about her.
By Lizzy on July 17th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Can it be coincidence that she appeared on her 61st birthday wearing the identical outfit—from suit to shoes to jewels—that she wore on her 60th? What are the chances? Do you suppose the whole ensemble is stored in the same garment bag? Maybe she’ll make a tradition of it.
I give her credit, she generally looks quite smart in what she wears.
By Dan on July 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Dan and Lizzy, I like the fact that she is frugal — even “green” if you will, because she is one for recycling the clothes and I guess one could say, also the jewellery. Not her biggest fan either, but for the plus+60 set she is a sartorial inspiration up there with the likes of Helen Mirren!
As for Mette, well I’m not one to sit on my high horse because my son also got into trouble with the law due to possession of a certain contraband substance and has served time in a California state prison — so who am I to judge? All I’m saying is that Mette being a rather attractive blonde might not be the very best choice to hang out with Charles, given his love of all things blonde — if you know what I mean ; )
By alsgal on July 17th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Questions for our title experts: Will Prince William receive multiple titles from the Queen? & What will be his style? For example, if he is created the Duke of Cambridge and Earl of Chester-
1.HRH William, Duke of Cambridge, Earl Chester. or
2.HRH, Prince William Duke of Cambridge, Earl Chester
Or maybe I’m completely wrong on both counts.
By lizzy on July 18th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Dan, the English Monarchy goes back to the 900s to Edgar, and that’s only the official date. You can trace the lines back much further. The joint Monarchy with Scotland is only around 300 years old.
By John on July 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am
The Danish monarchy goes back that far as well, at least to Gorm the Old (reigned about 900-940), and is frequently dubbed Europe’s oldest. I suppose historians argue about it. Whichever, I’m glad the names of Kings have improved!
As for William’s potential titles, that’s perhaps to be decided. Charles is officially “HRH The Prince of Wales” in England, yet in Scotland he is “HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay.” Prince Philip got to keep his name in his title — he is officially “HRH Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh” — yet Andrew is simply “HRH The Duke of York.” The use of “The” in front of “Prince [so-and-so]” is also scattershot.
The problem may lay in an absence of standardization, something not typically associated with the British monarchy.
By Dan on July 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Sorry, there’s no “the” before “Duke of Edinburgh.”
By Dan on July 18th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Forgive me to ask a silly question. While other princes of the first on the throne are called “crown prince” why isn’t Prince Charles called so? The Prince of Wales is as crown prince for the British monarch?
By Mikado-watcher on July 18th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Yes, The Prince of Wales is the title for the crown prince in Britain. Unlike crown princes in many other countries, the title isn’t automatically given at birth.
By Evelyn on July 18th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
To my knowledge, Britain has never used “Crown Prince” or “Crown Princess” as a title. I don’t know why. The male heir to the British throne has been created (or invested) Prince of Wales since King Edward I, the monarch who first conquered Wales, made his son (later Edward II) the first Prince of Wales in 1301.
When Princess Elizabeth became heir to the throne upon the abdication of her uncle, Edward VIII, in 1936, there was some clamor to have her created Princess of Wales, as Henry VIII had done to his eldest daughter, Mary. Yet in the intervening centuries, the custom had been that the title “Princess of Wales” did not exist in its own right, but was reserved only for the wife of the Prince of Wales. Also, it was still possible (however remote) for Elizabeth’s parents, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, to bear a son who would take precedence over Elizabeth as heir, and thus require the title. Elizabeth’s title remained Princess Elizabeth until she and Philip Mountbatten were created Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh upon their marriage.
By Dan on July 18th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Here’s a question for you, John:
If “Duke” is a lesser title in order of precedence to “Prince”, why are Princes and Princesses addressed by their Ducal titles when they are created? When Prince Andrew was created the Duke of York, for example, why wouldn’t he continue to be addressed by his senior-most title, Prince Andrew? It’s rather like being demoted!
By Dan on July 18th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Perhaps the HRH in front of the Ducal title elevates it to a higher position in the order of precedence than Prince or Princess? Just a thought, Dan.
By Arthur on July 19th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Thank you Evelyn and Dan, for answering my question. It is interesting that title ” the Princess of Wales” is only given to the wife of the Prince of Wales, not to a female heir. Will it be changed if Prince William had only daughters or will be kept as the custom?
By Mikado-watcher on July 19th, 2008 at 1:55 am
I believe the topic of changing the laws of succession to be gender-neutral comes up in Parliament every few years. After it’s discussed briefly, it slips off the table again. Could one of our RAers in the UK explain (again) why that keeps happening?
This would be the best time to make a change, before Prince William becomes a father, before it becomes an issue.
I remember reading that when Sweden changed their succession, it did cause a stir in their Royal Family. The king already had a first-born daughter and a second-born son who was assumed to be heir to the throne. But now they have Crown Princess Victoria.
By Evelyn on July 19th, 2008 at 3:31 am
HRH before the title “Duke” signifies a Royal Dukedom, the Enlgish equivalent of Europe’s Grand Dukes.
Most of the other “ordinary” Dukedoms are associated with descendants of William of Normandy’s Lords. It’s a bit of a minefield and probably only members of the College of Heralds know the full story.
By John on July 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Evelyn, the gender thing is only being pushed because of obsessive equality laws arising in Brussels and being gold-plated by Harriet Harman and others in Britain.
The Queen is batting them away because it would create a huge upheaval in people’s settled positions and for no particular reason. Women have dominated the Throne over the past 500 years. Why change now?
When the politicians realize the implications of meddling in the Monarchy, they always back off. It would create a furore from many quarters and provide no political capital at all.
Ancient rule of thumb: only those who love an institution can properly reform it. Those who hate it, destroy it. Labour resents the Monarchy. They would be wise to leave well alone.
Of course, they’ll be out of office in less than two years, so we can all start breathing tentative sighs of relief.
By John on July 19th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Mikado-watcher, it is the custom for the heir to the Throne to be The Prince of Wales. Crown Prince, like morganatic marriage, is a European usage, not British.
By John on July 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Dan, if Elizabeth had been made Princess of Wales, her husband would then become Prince of Wales, a title which by custom would make him an heir to the Throne. That would have meant Elizabeth and Philip becoming joint monarchs, like William and Mary. Long experience teaches that when men marry a Queen, they can take over the Reign, so to speak. Which is why there are differences in treament. Women get the better deal because they are considered more likely to follow custom than men.
When Diana became Princess of Wales it signified that one day she would be crowned as Queen, but not in the line of descent, except by association with the King. Complicated.
By John on July 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
If “Duke” is a lesser title in order of precedence to “Prince”, why are Princes and Princesses addressed by their Ducal titles when they are created?
Dan, there are Princes and there are Princes. An ordinary Prince, without a place-name following the title, is the lowest in the pecking order of Royalty. A Royal Dukedom, like York, is much higher in the order of precedence, and often signifies the third in line — not now because of Prince Harry.
The Prince of Wales is the highest title below the Monarch, although the Monarch’s spouse takes precedence at Royal occasions, as with the Duke of Edinburgh.
That’s why, when a common or garden Prince marries, he’s usually given a Dukedom.
By John on July 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I have to say I hope that law is changed in England so that the first born child, regardless of gender, is the rightful heir. It just seems very unfair in this day and age for a girl to be passed over for her younger brother. Queens Victoria & Elizabeth II have proven women make excellent monarchs. About William and Kate’s plans for August- does anyone know if they plan on staying at Balmoral or do they have plans to vacation outside the UK?
By lizzy on July 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“Kate Middleton attended her second royal wedding of the year without Prince William.
Lady Rose Windsor, who is a relation of the Queen, married George Gilman at the historic Queen’s chapel, near St James’s Palace in central London.
Miss Middleton arrived at the ceremony with two girls, wearing a knee-length satin dress, a duck-egg blue jacket and a black fascinator. ”
from the Press Association. Unfortuantely without any pictures (yet).
By Isana on July 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
It is complicated, John, and the origins of these rules which govern these titles are shrouded in the mists of time. We are all grateful that you understand this labyrinth so well and that you provide us with such excellent explanations! I understand your point, lizzy, but I doubt that Great Britain will follow the lead of other countries who have changed their laws to allow a female to reign if she is the firstborn. For one thing, Royal traditions are very important to the British. For another, Britain has not had a significant crisis involving the fitness of the heir to the throne which would necessitate such a reversal. Nevertheless, we are living in times of great change, so it may eventually come to pass.
By Gigi on July 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Thanks for the tip, Isana. The Sun Online has a photo of Catherine.
By Evelyn on July 19th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Link to the Sun : http://tinyurl.com/6qlsna
By Ash on July 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Here is the link to the Sun article with the photos:
http://tinyurl.com/6qlsna
By mapleleaf on July 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Kate looked very good at the wedding today and it lets us know that her Big Day is not that far off. I’ve noticed that Princess Anne wore the same dress today that she wore to Charles & Diana’s wedding back in 81. Now it just goes to show you how fit she is and she still looks good.
By Rman on July 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Big Day=Big Excitement in these parts, Rman!
They all looked so spiffy in their outfits, and while Anne’s was a bit dated JMO at least she is thrifty and looking nice and trim as usual.
By alsgal on July 19th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
John, Do you or anyone else know of a site on the computer where you can check the genealogy for the royal family. I am looking for data back to King Edward III and all his descendants female included. Everything that I have found is very hard to follow and seems to drop off after a couple of generations. I am a genealogy buff and am aware that his female descendants married into many different families.. I seem to get lost in following things.
By Grandma828 on July 19th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Grandma828, get on Google and type in “Philippa of Hainault” who was Queen Consort to Edward III. Click on the Wikipedia link and scroll down to the list of her children who survived infancy, 9 of 13, I believe. It is a fairly good write-up and the information on the siblings is, while not scholarly, accurate, I believe. More information can be found by typing in the individual names of the children of Edward III and Philippa on Google, and following the links provided. To my mind, the most interesting of all their children (and my personal favorite) is John of Gaunt, who married three times, first to Blanche of Lancaster, by whom he had a son and two daughters; second to Costanza of Castile, by whom he had one daughter; and last to his former mistress, Katherine de Roet, who was the widow of one of his knights, Sir Hugh Swinford. Prior to John and Catherine’s marriage, they had three sons and a daughter together, who were known as the Beauforts and who were legitimized by King Richard, John of Gaunt’s nephew, after he came to the throne. The offspring of John and his three wives went on to become significant members of the Royal families of many of the Ruling Houses of Europe. A further interesting detail is that Catherine de Roet Swinford, who became Duchess of Lancaster by marriage to John of Guant, Duke of Lancaster, was the younger sister of Philippa de Roet Chaucer, the wife of Geoffrey Chaucer, the author of The Canterbury Tales and many other medieval literary works.
By Gigi on July 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Princess Anne is definately an enigma. It’s one thing to wear a twenty seven year old outfit, to show that you have maintained your svelte figure, but when the outfit is the same one worn to one of the most disastrous weddings of the 20th century, that’s just rude. Princess Anne must have known people would recognize the outfit from Prince Charles’ and Lady Diana’s wedding and certainly comment about it, and not in a positive way. Lady Rose Windsor deserves more respect on her wedding day from a senior Royal like Princess Anne. I suppose we can expect to see Princess Anne wearing the same outfit she wore to Prince Andrew’s and Sarah Ferguson’s wedding when Prince William and Kate Middleton marry. At least Princess Anne brought her current husband to Lady Rose’s wedding and not the one she had twenty seven years ago.
By Arthur on July 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I really wasn’t expecting Kate to attend the wedding. She is certainly one step closer to her own wedding. Hopefully, everyone will know see Kate is part of the family (not just a girlfriend).
By maddie on July 19th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Where is everyone seeing these photos of the wedding? I have only seen the three photos on the Sun online site. Where did you find the photos of Princess Anne and other Royals at the wedding of Lady Rose Windsor?
By Gigi on July 19th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
My thought was that Catherine may be attending all the Royal weddings she can right now, to get used to Royal wedding protocol and have more ideas about what she’d like for their own wedding. Granted, there are big differences between weddings of more minor royals and the wedding of the second in line to the throne, but there would be similarities as well.
Yes, I wondered about what decade Princess Anne’s dress was from. If that’s all the better she can do, she maybe should have just stayed home, IMO.
By Evelyn on July 19th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Gigi, The Daily Mail has an article with more photos. I’m guessing that more will appear as other newspapers make their Sunday articles available, usually by midnight GMT.
By Evelyn on July 19th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
In the Daily Mail Gigi. Yes it does seem that Kate is now part of the family fold. She has the greatest pair of sexy legs and she looked so happy. I’m just glad to see her there and counting down to her big announcement.
By Rman on July 19th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Thanks Gigi, I’ll have fun looking.
By Grandma828 on July 20th, 2008 at 1:17 am
“Women have dominated the Throne over the past 500 years. Why change now?”
John, I’m surprised at you! You argue that women’s behind-the-scenes roles should not be properly recognized, and instead they should merely continue to prop up the men? If a woman is good enough to be heir to the throne, then she is good enough to be invested Princess of Wales in her own right. Anything less is merely throwing a biscuit to old men and old ways of thinking. We have seen what happens to this Family when it gets mired in old ways of thinking.
If William wants his first-born, a daughter, to be Princess of Wales, he need only say the word. There is no constitution to deny King William what he wants. Besides, King Henry VIII gives him ample precedent. When she marries, her husband can be Prince of Wales. There’s nothing constitutional that says the Prince automatically outranks (or equals the rank of) the Princess merely by being her husband and bearing the title.
I’d like to see it happen. I’d like Queen Catherine to be behind it.
By Dan on July 20th, 2008 at 1:18 am
And if Anne is indeed wearing the same outfit that she wore 27 years ago (almost to the day) it is a credit to her physical fitness, but not to her as a human being. Surely it is not too much to ask of her to demonstrate a little thoughtfulness, if not kindness, for a relative on her wedding day? Were she not such a caricature of a churlish princess, she might better represent her many charities in public. Were I Save the Children, I wouldn’t put this mutton dressed as lamb on my website.
Anne does a lot of good in her life, but I have a feeling the goodness is a credit to her office staff, and not generated from the gristled heart of the woman herself.
By Dan on July 20th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Thanks, Rman and Evelyn, I just finished perusing the photos on the Daily Mail site. I am a bit perplexed as to Anne’s motivation for wearing that outfit, which I did not find attractive on her when she wore it 27 years ago. She may like vintage couture, but this outfit does not really fall into that category. I also admit that I am not impressed by Autumn Philip’s sartorial selection. Those colors and that particular pattern do not flatter her. Sophie, Countess of Wessex, looked impeccably and attractively dressed as usual. It was nice to see a photograph of the very pretty Lady Gabriella Windsor and her brother, Frederick. Of course, Kate was the star once again, looking so fresh and lovely in her very attractive and chic outfit.
By Gigi on July 20th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Well, I don’t remember what Princess Anne wore at Charles & Diana’s wedding (I was still in college), but I’ll take your word for it. Having grown up with those fashions, I don’t think I would have thought it an attractive dress then, and certainly not now. I hope she doesn’t put it back in her closet. I wonder if she could be persuaded to give it for a charity auction. Of course, if it didn’t sell, that would be embarrassing.
By Evelyn on July 20th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Hello! has a few photos of guests at Lady Rose Windsor’s wedding, including one of the bride and groom leaving the chapel.
By Evelyn on July 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hello! has a few photos of guests at Lady Rose Windsor’s wedding, including one of the bride and groom leaving the chapel.
By Evelyn on July 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Lovely wedding, lovely bride (and lovely future bride)! I hate to jump the gun but seeing Kate in occasions like this makes me dream about her and William’s own special day. I think she would make one breathtaking bride!
By frands on July 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
It is very enjoyable reading the Kate haters utter disbelief that she was at Lady Rose’s wedding! Some of them have finally gotten a clue & realize that William intends to marry Catherine. But there are still a few holdouts offering up any excuse they can think of as to why she was there. Sad, very sad. Lady Rose was such a gracious and beautiful bride, and Kate looked lovely as always.
By lizzy on July 20th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I wonder, does the venue for a Royal wedding have any influence on who will attend the nuptials? I’m struck by the lack of senior Royals attending Lady Rose’s wedding at The Queen’s Chapel. Queen Elizabeth wasn’t there, nor was the Prince of Wales, Prince Andrew, Beatrice or Eugenie, no members of the Duke of Kent’s family, a very poor showing overall. When Lady Helen Windsor, daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Kent, married at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, the late Queen Mother, Prince Charles and Princess Diana, the late Princess Margaret, Princess Alexandra were all in attendance. Lady Rose, as the daughter of a Royal Duke and great-grandaughter of King George V and Queen Mary, has the same status as Lady Helen Windsor, but very few senior Royals were present for Lady Rose. I’m very surprised the Duke and Duchess of Kent and Lady Helen Windsor Taylor were not at the wedding. Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were also no-shows, although their son and daughter, Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella attended. Lady Rose’s engagemnet was announced last November and the Royals don’t usually have “work” engagements scheduled over the weekend, so what could explain the absence of so many family members? They can’t use Hello! Magazine as an excuse, because the bride and groom turned down a lucrative offer for a photo spread of their wedding. It’s just so puzzling, at times, trying to figure out what makes the Royal family tick.
By Arthur on July 20th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Arthur,
Maybe it has to do with the importance of the person. Not all of the senior royals were at Camilla’s birthday, Princess Eugenie’s 18th birthday party, and of course William didn’t attend Peter’s wedding. Unless it’s the Queen, Prince Charles, or Prince William then it seems like attendance is optional.
By lizzy on July 20th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
More Pictures of the wedding.
http://tinyurl.com/54pnc5
By Rman on July 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I imagine they must work out who will go, who is there to represent other members, etc. I don’t believe the absence of senior Royals is a snub. What would be the point of that? The more senior the guests, the more formal the occasion would have to be. It may be that Lady Rose preferred a more “low key” wedding where her parents could be King and Queen for a day. Although I guess Anne was the senior member in attendance. The Countess of Wessex doesn’t “outrank” Anne, does she?
By Dan on July 20th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Yes, Dan, I believe she does, for official occasions. The Queen can and has changed the order of precedence for private occasions, however. The official occasion is ordered in this way, apparently.
The order of precedence for males royal is:
The king (or prince consort)
The sovereign’s sons
The sovereign’s sons’ sons
The sovereign’s brothers
The sovereign’s father’s brothers
The sovereign’s brothers’ sons
The sovereign’s father’s brothers’ sons
The order of precedence for female members of the royal family is:
The queen (regnant or consort)
Queens dowager (most recent first)
The sovereign’s daughters-in-law
The sovereign’s daughters
The sovereign’s sons’ daughters-in-law
The sovereign’s sons’ daughters
The sovereign’s sisters-in-law
The sovereign’s sisters
The sovereign’s father’s sisters-in-law
The sovereign’s father’s sisters
The sovereign’s brothers’ daughters-in-law
The sovereign’s brothers’ daughters
The sovereign’s father’s brothers’ daughters-in-law
The sovereign’s father’s brothers’ daughters
By Gigi on July 20th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I may have been wrong about the legality of a first-born daughter being made Princess of Wales in her own right and being guaranteed her right as heir. Britain is still a “cognatic primogeniture” state, in which sons have preference over daughters no matter what order they are born in. Sweden changed its constitution to adopt absolute primogeniture, which favors the eldest regardless of gender. Since Britain has no constitution, it would be interesting to see what control a monarch could wield in favor of his or her first-born. I imagine something parliamentary would have to be done in her favor were there to be a son born after her.
By Dan on July 20th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
The Daily Mail has a story up about Princess Anne’s “recycling” of the dress worn to Charles & Diana’s wedding, with pictures from 27 years ago and yesterday. She wears different necklaces, but the same hat/fascinator.
By Evelyn on July 20th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Gigi,
So that means Princess Anne will outrank Kate? I always thought as William’s wife she would be the third female royal in rank. The Queen and the Duchess of Cornwall being first & second.
By lizzy on July 20th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
It looks like the women’s order would be:
Queen Elizabeth II
The Duchess of Cornwall
The Countess of Wessex
The Princess Royal
Princess William
Princess Harry
Princess Beatrice
Princess Eugenie
Lady Louise Wessex
… I’m not sure where the list would go after that.
By Evelyn on July 21st, 2008 at 12:25 am
I am SO happy Cathrine/Kate was there. She looked lovely as usual. Thank you Rman for the link (you always have good links!).
Lady Rose Windsor’s dress was simple and beautiful.
By dally on July 21st, 2008 at 2:10 am
Quite right, Evelyn, and of course, after Charles ascends the throne, Prince William becomes Prince of Wales and his wife would then be Princess of Wales and would be second in the line of precedence for Royal women, right after Camilla, who, although she prefers the title Duchess of Cornwall, would be, by tradition, Queen. Prince Harry would fall right behind Prince William and his wife would fall just after Prince William’s wife. Everyone else moves down in precedence, behind them.
Lizzy, it appears that while the Queen reigns, her daughter, the Princess Royal, outranks any wives of the Queen’s grandsons. She does not, however, outrank the wives of the Queen’s sons, as you can see by the list. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, outrank Anne, the Princess Royal because they are married to the sons of the Sovereign.
By Gigi on July 21st, 2008 at 3:41 am
Thanks for your excellent instruction, Gigi.
Here’s another question: Would Autumn Phillips and Zara Phillips be anywhere on this list, or– since they are not “royal”– do they not figure into the order of precedence?
By Evelyn on July 21st, 2008 at 3:55 am
Arthur, cost may have come into it, and personal preference for a low-key occasion.
Many of the lesser Royals are not well off at all and struggle to provide Royal standards of hospitality — look at Peter Phillips, for example.
But, hey, we’ve had two Royal weddings in a year. Who was it who said it couldn’t happen?
What price weddings for William and Zara next year?
By John on July 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I don’t know if anyone has seen this yet but it is an interview with Belle Robinson, who with her husband founder Jigsaw. She talks a little about how she met Kate and how the her job there came about. It seems rumors of the Robinson’s being friends with Kate’s parents are untrue.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/54utoe
By Ash on July 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Absolutely, Ash, the truth is always more flattering to Kate than the reports we get secondhand.
And did you notice she called her Kate, not Catherine? As an employer, working with her, she would surely have used her preferred name.
By John on July 21st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Kate/Catherine/Catherine/Kate — who is to be trusted more on this issue, James Whitaker or Belle Robinson? Tough call, as James is one of the more reliable royal reporters (which I know, is not saying much!)
Ahhh, this name business is getting so confusing! Thank goodness at least with her sister the name is always Pippa, although some people call her Orangie and I’m not sure why? Does she eat a lot of fruit?
John, what’s your call on the whole CM/KM dilemma? Maybe I should just call her Miss Middleton from now on — perhaps that would be the safest solution.
By alsgal on July 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Alsgal, one report suggested that she would want to be called Catherine if/when she is Queen. I don’t trust that report, although it sounds feasible. The problem is, it also sounds presumptuous at this time, so I’m fairly sure Kate wouldn’t fall into that trap.
We know that Pippa (orangie because of her constant florid tan) calls her Kate, as does just about everyone else. If you Google Catherine Middleton, you get lots of other people, but try Kate Middleton and you get 1,200,000 results relevant to her. The world knows her as Kate, the search engines know her as Kate, so Kate she is.
It’s too late to change until she is crowned, when I expect Queen Catherine to emerge from Westminster Abbey many years from now. 
By John on July 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Great article on Kate working at Jigsaw and thanks very much for the link, Ash. John, I agree with you that if Belle Robinson, Kate’s former employer at Jigsaw, calls Catherine Middleton “Kate,” then Kate it is. She would definitely be more credible on this point than James Whitaker, who has not worked with Kate, nor, presumably, had extraordinary access as Belle Robinson has had.
Evelyn, I am sure the order of precedence goes further, but I am not sure exactly what it is. Regarding Autumn and Peter Phillips, and Zara Phillips, they, as children of the daughter of the Sovereign, will fall below their cousins whose fathers are the sons of the Sovereign, because Royal rank favors male heirs. When Prince William marries, the invitation list will be published, either in the Court Circular or in the Times, I believe. It is always listed in order of precedence, so that will be something that we can look at and see where the Phillips fall in the order. Peter Philips has no title and neither does Zara, but I still think that they will be listed in the order, as will their spouses. John, am I right about this?
By Gigi on July 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Gigi, everyone has a position in the Order of Precedence, and you’re right that Peter and Zara will be below that of their Royal cousins. I haven’t got access to the list right now because I’m unable to use the office for a while, but try Enclycopaedia Britannica online, it’s much more reliable than Wikipedia.
By John on July 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
John, thank you for your prompt answer — this sounds like it might be similar to the Prince Harry (formally christened as Henry) name situation.
As for the Orangie moniker, Pippa doesn’t look orange to me but rather tan, thin, healthy and outdoorsy looking — really the perfect sort of girl to play tennis with!
By alsgal on July 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Am I the only one who finds the comments Belle Robinson makes sort of insulting to both William and Kate? She makes it sound like Kate drops everything and runs whenever William clicks his fingers. She is “dictated when she’s needed and when she’s not needed”?!? What’s that supposed to mean? This makes Kate sound like she’s on call and not in a good way. I’m sure Belle Robinson meant well – maybe she was misquoted – but, IMO she shouldn’t have said a word to the press about Kate and certainly not about her relationship to William.
By Isana on July 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Are we certain that the nickname “Orangie” refers to Pippa’s tanned condition? When I first heard the nickname, I thought it referred to her real name, Philippa, which is a Flemish name and therefore the reference might be to ancestral ties to William of Orange, who left Holland in the 1600s for England. Philippa of Hainault, after all, was Flemish and came to England as the bride of Edward III.
By Gigi on July 21st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Isana
I would have assumed that she would have let Kate know that she was going to be interviewed. I don’t think that the comments that Belle Robinson makes are insulting. The statements are merely fact. Her life is dictated to by William’s schedule and she probably does have to change things a lot according to what he is doing. It’s part and parcel of dating a royal, or anyone really who is in the public eye i.e tennis player, politican, actor etc….. If she isn’t happy with that sort of life style, she is free to walk away at any point in time. …..
By Jackie Mccoy on July 21st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Why should Kate having to arrange her life be any different from any other woman with a working b/f? Millions of couples manage to both work and still see each other. William’s military schedule back in 2006/2007 was much more consistent than it is right now and he didn’t have very many public angagements to attend. He was on duty during the week and had time off on weekends. So I do not understand the idea that Kate would have needed to be flexible and available to a degree that would not allow her to work regularly. What did she need to adapt her timetable to? To me this makes it sound like William is a damanding, clingy b/f who can’t handle a woman with a regular job and like Kate was on his beck and call. That’s not the impression I have of them at all.
By Isana on July 21st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
To a certain extent, Prince William is not in charge of his schedule, either, Isana. The senior members of the Royal Family lead lives dictated by duty and service to others. They do not always have the luxury of choosing what they will do and when. It is true of the Queen, Prince Philip, their sons and daughter and to a lesser extent, their grandchildren. Courtiers, schedulers, Palace staff are busily cooridinating the schedules of the senior Royals to meet the demands of the public and the duty the Sovereign and her family are expected to have toward their country and other nations important to Great Britain. When it is appropriate or desired for Prince William to attend an event, such scheduling is decided and achieved by others for him and if it is also deemed appropriate that he be accompanied by Kate, that is scheduled through the Palace or Clarence House. It is not as if Kate can say “Uh, 2PM on Tuesday isn’t good for me, let’s reschedule for 4:15 on Friday.” Prince William can’t even say that in most instances! The term “working Royals” is not just an expression, it is a reality, and an exhausting one at that. I am glad that Kate quit her job at Jigsaw to provide a little more time for herself. As she enters to a greater extent the arena of the Royal family, that time will decrease significantly, and after she marries, it will be further limited to the summer respite at Balmoral and a few precious holidays a year. Life in the Royal Circle is not for the faint of heart. One must be robust and have tremendous stamina to keep up with the Royals!
By Gigi on July 21st, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Isana,
I think Prince William is demanding but not in a really negative way. He may even be somewhat old fashioned in his thinking. Ms. Robinson should have used a different word- dictate is too harsh. I’m sure he didn’t order Kate to quit her job or not work. However, he may feel it’s best for her and for for him if she didn’t. The photographers aren’t able to harass her like they did at Jigsaw, and she will not be put in a situation similar to Sophie with the fake Sheik. William wouldn’t be wrong if he preferred Kate to be with him rather than chained to a desk in some office. We don’t have access to Kate’s finances, but it doesn’t look as if she is suffering any hardship.
By Lizzy on July 21st, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I, too, felt a bit uneasy after reading the article. As Lizzy said, Belle Robinson could have used gentler words, as I’m sure neither Wills nor the RF totally controls Kate’s schedule. But it does bring a certain sadness because it reminds us of the sacrifices one has to take when one is bound to the RF. If being a royal girlfriend means losing much privacy and liberty, what more if princess? It can be a difficult life ahead for Kate and Wills, as I believe there’s some truth in the phrase “prisoner in the palace” that Diana and Fergie desperately wanted to break free from. In the end, I just hope it’s worth it.
On one hand, Belle Robinson seems to imply that Kate has qualities that befit a princess — she’s grounded, down to earth, loyal, and handles the press with grace and maturity. Now if people would just stop bashing her for every this and that! Anyone can point a finger, but I think it takes a very special person to put up with all the demands of being a royal girlfriend.
By frands on July 22nd, 2008 at 1:21 am
frands,
The bashing by the anti-Kate people online will never stop. These are jealous, bitter people with no life of their own. They feel William and Kate should live up to their personal standards & live their lives in a way that makes them, total strangers, happy. But these few do not represent the mainstream or majority view of Kate. I agree with you that Kate is a keeper. William has finally come to his senses and realized it too!
By lizzy on July 22nd, 2008 at 2:34 am
I think that there are things Kate has to fit into her schedule that we don’t know about. I don’t think the reason why she quit her job was to be available for Willam 24/7. The article didn’t say that. I think she has been getting ready for her new “job” for a while now. I think she has been in some kind of training at CH/BP. This would never be public and would have to take place without us knowing about it.
Well, that’s my theory. A better theory than the one that says that William is such a demanding and clingy person.
By dagga on July 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 am
I agree that Kate is a keeper, and thank goodness PW now seems to understand that. Think of it, a girl that loyal, that willing, to give up the pusuit of a promising career, just to be with him when he has the time for her, and not vice versa. I would argue that she has sacrificed quite a lot, and I hope that in due time, William does the right thing and will, for a lack of a better term, “make it up to her.” “Tis better to give then receive,” and I do believe that in Kate, William has found a very patient woman who has shown she is a giver.
By alsgal on July 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I hope William & Kate can find the kind of lasting love that eluded his parents, the kind exemplified by his grandparents the Queen and Prince Philip.
By Evelyn on July 22nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Evelyn, I believe they stand a good chance. First, they met young, just as William’s grandparents did. By all the accounts I have read, the Queen knew right away that Philip was the one for her. I think Kate’s devotion shows that she, too, knew right away that William was the one for her. Lastly, they’ve already been together, save for the odd spat (which all young couples have), for five years now. That is something.
By alsgal on July 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
How times have changed since William’s parents’ ill-fated marriage. Remember all the fuss about Charles’s bride’s required virginity?
Thank God those days are over. Then again, I hope I haven’t spoken too soon.
By Dan on July 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
To put it vulgarly, you wouldn’t buy a car without driving it first, and you wouldn’t buy a house without seeing it on the inside, so you know, I think the virginity requirement has, thankfully, become an outdated concept for most young couples today.
By alsgal on July 22nd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Prince William has paid tribute to his late mother The Princess of Wales in his crest.
http://tinyurl.com/5q6zor
By Rman on July 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Here are some clips from Lady Rose’s wedding and it included Kate. It was very nice that she tried to give the press a couple of smiles.
http://tinyurl.com/5oddlu
By Rman on July 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Many thanks for that link, Rman! I am very, very pleased that Prince William has chosen to pay tribute to his mother in the design of his Garter crest! This tribute is extremely significant because, as the article says, it is rare for members of the Royal Family to honor maternal heritage in their crest designs. I am terribly proud of Prince William for choosing to pay tribute to the late Princess Diana in this manner. Well done, very well done, your Royal Highness!
By Gigi on July 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Yes Rman
She did very tactfully give a few smiles to teh press without looking like she was trying to get attention!!!
By Jackie Mccoy on July 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
All those clips and still no audio of Kate talking
I don’t know why I’m so curious about that
By dally on July 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
It’s wonderful for Prince William to honor his mother’s memory this way. It got me to thinking about William reinstating Diana’s HRH title. I’ve read that he plans on doing that, but he does have to be King to do so right?
By lizzy on July 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Dally that is funny that we don’t know what she sounds like.
Her voice continues to be a mystery. lizzy, I think he will have to be King to do that but I hope he gets a chance to do it. It’s only right.
By Rman on July 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I very much hope that Prince William restores Princess Diana’s HRH title, also, as soon as he is King. Actually, as soon as Charles becomes king, Charles should restore the HRH title for Princess Diana, out of consideration for the wishes of Prince William and Prince Harry, and to honor Princess Diana’s memory. But he won’t.
By Gigi on July 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Arthur, cost may have come into it, and personal preference for a low-key occasion.
Many of the lesser Royals are not well off at all and struggle to provide Royal standards of hospitality — look at Peter Phillips, for example.
Last Saturday’s wedding of Lady Rose Windsor might have been a very different occasion if the fickle finger of fate had pointed in a slightly different direction.
Imagine for a moment that King Edward VIII was allowd to marry Wallis Simpson and keep the throne of England. If events remained true to history and Edward VIII and Wallis had no children, Prince George, Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942, and Prince Albert, Duke of York died of cancer in 1952, then the next in line to inherit the throne upon the death of Edward VIII in 1972 would be Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. “King Henry’s” reign would be short, as he died in 1974, at which time his son, Prince Richard, would have been crowned King. “King Richard’s” and “Queen Birgitte’s” daughter, HRH The Princess Rose, probably would have had a grand wedding in Westminster Abbey last weekend attended by many of the crowned heads of Europe. How’s that for a twist of fate!
By Arthur on July 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Arthur, you have amazing insight, and you are right. One never knows what life will bring. People don’t always stop to think about it in those terms. I just hope the newlyweds have a bright and loving future together. Your post puts one in a very reflective mood. Also, I am glad for whatever forces brought William and Kate together. They both deserve a long and loving future together.
By kat on July 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
Gigi, I believe Charles will if William & Harry tells him to. Their marriage didn’t work but he also lost a very important person in his life and after all that happened, he knows that would be the best tribute for him to give her.
By Rman on July 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
Gigi: Don’t count on Charlie to restore Diana’s HRH Because of him she lost it and to be sure Cammy wouldn’t stand for it. Sorry if I seem to be MIA alot I’m busy with work and the grandkids.
But Lady Helen Taylor was at Lady Rose’s wedding as was Lady Sarah Chatto. Although I appauld Anne for being able to fit into the same dress 27 years later, She could have worn the dress and accessorized it differently instead of the same she wore years a go.
By Trudie on July 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 am
I respect a lot of the things Charles does for his country and the charities he supports, but sometimes he has bad judgment. I still cannot believe that he really insisted on Camilla attending Diana’s memorial service. It is to be expected that William and Harry invited her- they were being polite. I don’t think they ever anticipated her actually accepting the invitation, even if they do like her. It just wasn’t appropriate for her to be there. The fact that it took weeks of bad press for Charles and his aides to realize that only gives ammunition to those who feel the Prince of Wales is out of touch and shouldn’t be king.
By lizzy on July 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 am
Well many did say that Charles & Camilla was mad at each other because he thought it was her duty to pay tribute to his former late wife and she was scared to do so. These people have moved on in their lives and to continue on with what happened in the past is just silly. William & Harry did want her to go but the public said no and she listened. That was the day for all to remember the late Princess of Wales and not a day to stir up old stuff.
By Rman on July 23rd, 2008 at 5:15 am
Gigi, I don’t think those who banter nicnames around in nightclubs are as erudite about history as you are.
In pictures, Pippa always has an orange tint to her heavy, probably artifical, suntan. I could be wrong, but I’d bet a few quid that’s where she got the name from. 
By John on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:20 am
It’s certainly true that if you live as part of the Royal Family you will be caught up in a relentless calendar of activities year round and be expected to fit in, as even the Queen does. I’m sure Kate realizes that and has accepted it.
Belle Robinson is only seeing it from the outside, so probably regards it as an authoritarian regime. But Kate has chosen to do it, so must presumably be happy with her lot.
By John on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
The Royal standard was draped over Diana’s coffin, signifying that her HRH title had been restored by the Queen, albeit in death.
The title was removed for a very good reason: she personally and publicly attacked the heir to the Throne as unfit to hold his position. In former times she would have lost her head for that.
By John on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Daily Mail article on “orange” schoolchildren.
http://tinyurl.com/5axrww
By John on July 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
John I read when Diana died that HM offered to restore the HRH and Earl Spencer turned it down. So it was not restored although it was Charles who had the standard draped on her coffin but now that time has passed and he has remarried the mistress she will block any attempts to restore it.
By Trudie on July 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I don’t think Camilla would interfere in anything related to Diana. She appears to be quite canny in that regard, whereas Charles is not. As in the case of her desire to skip the Diana memorial, she knows when to lay low.
By Dan on July 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Trudie, I thought I had read everything that was published about Princess Diana’s death and aftermath, and I don’t recall reading that the Queen offered to restore the HRH, nor that Earl Spencer refused. Do you recall where you read that? Also, if it is true that it was Charles who ordered the Royal Standard draped on Princess Diana’s coffin, he could not have done so without the Queen’s approval. Such honors are the Queen’s prerogative, not that of the Heir, I believe. I also believe that one factor of Princess Diana’s funeral that was improperly managed was the immediate supposition that Earl Spencer should be designated principal mourner and therefore entrusted to make the funeral decisions for his sister. Princess Diana had two sons living, and their wishes should have come first. Because they were minors, Charles ,of course, would have guided the process, but to have Earl Spencer be so prominent in the funeral arrangements, was, to my way of thinking, incorrect. That the funeral turned out to be such a moving and appropriate tribute to Princess Diana was nearly miraculous.
By Gigi on July 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
At the time, I applauded Earl Spencer’s speech at the funeral, believing Diana had been horribly treated by the family (some of which, to be fair, she brought upon herself), but the Earl certainly has not lived up to the principled figure he cast himself as. What a mess he’s made of his life ever since—hardly the role model for the boys that he suggested he would be.
By Dan on July 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Are William and Harry even close to Earl Spencer now? Lady Sarah McCorquodale was at William’s wings ceremony. She was sitting with Kate. I’ve also seen a photo of her with William and Kate at a charity event of some kind. So Prince William is close to at least one of his Spencer aunts. However, the Earl Spencer seems to be persona non grata with both princes.
By Lizzy on July 23rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Lizzy, there was a reconciliation with the Royal Family last year when the Queen attended the opening of that ghastly Diana Memorial “fountain” (read “drain”) in Kensington Gardens. Earl Spencer met and spoke with the Queen, but I’m not sure William and Harry have forgiven him for the reference to “their blood family” — meaning him, at the funeral.
By John on July 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
John,
They probably resent him for trying to make it seem like he was Diana’s protector and was so very close to her. Earl Spencer strikes me as a user. Look at how he has behaved towards the women in his life. The man doesn’t deserve William or Harry’s respect. Maybe one day William will be able to take Althorp House from him. He’s a Spencer too. He & Kate could use it as a country place.
By Lizzy on July 23rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Like it or not, Althorp is firmly in the hands of the 9th Earl Spencer and will pass to his son, Louis Frederick John, currently styled Viscount Althorp, in due course. Earl Spencer appears to have upped the estate’s attempts to bring in more cash with parties and weddings, but he’s hardly alone in that business. These landed families are hard up to maintain their holdings.
By Dan on July 23rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
That remark about “blood family” struck me as being vindictive and provocative. It was also inaccurate. The Royal Family are also Prince William and Prince Harry’s “blood family” because Charles is their father. Since it is Royal blood, it may be blue, but it is blood, nonetheless! Understandably, Earl Spencer was angry, and presumably he was also experiencing grief and shock. However, no one was grieving more than Prince William and Prince Harry, and Earl Spencer should have considered them first when he prepared his remarks. Funeral services are specifically designed to remember the dear departed and to assist the grieving family to cope with the loss of their loved one. Taking potshots from the podium at a funeral, in the house of God, (which is considered holy ground), is entirely inappropriate and even reprehensible. Viewed in light of those parameters, how were those remarks remotely helpful? As for Earl Spencer’s character, or lack thereof, his behavior speaks volumes, none of it salutory. Perhaps he may have attempted to have a relationship with his Royal nephews after Princess Diana’s death and was rebuffed by Clarence House or even the Palace. Somehow, I doubt that such an attempt was made. Earl Spencer appears to me to be quite self-centered and has certainly been a poster boy for bad behavior in his treatment of the women in his life. He is most assuredly not an appropriate role model in my opinion.
By Gigi on July 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Sorry for the double post, John. But I’ve just seen yet another opinion piece, this time The Telegraph, criticizing Kate for not working. This really angers me to no end. It’s the type of militant feminism that runs rampant these days. I’m all for women having equal rights & having choices. But now it seems like a woman has to make a certain choice, live a certain kind of life in order to be considered modern or worthy of respect. These people arrogantly make the claim that Kate is wasting her life! Why? Because she chooses to support Prince William and is happy doing that. Because she wants to help out the family business a few days a week instead of being harassed by the paparazzi or risk being set up by a DM reporter at a “real” job? There are some women who want to be doctors, lawyers, or politicians. Good for them. If Kate is not one of them she shouldn’t have her life choices belittled by a few wannabe suffragettes.
By Lizzy on July 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Yes, I think a lot of people supported him in his speech when he gave it—it echoed many people’s mixed emotions of grief and anger at that terrible time—but in retrospect it doesn’t seem to have been the mature, well-reasoned, supportive thing to do. One can hardly criticize him for lashing out then—he had just lost his sister—but he has earned very little goodwill since.
By Dan on July 23rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Lizzy
I completely agree…. BUT as John has been saying for a while there is a very simple solution to this problem, which would be to announce the engagement as soon as possible. Kate is in a very difficult position she is damned if she does and damned if she does not. William could end this but for his own reasons he has chosen not to do so yet…. Hopefully by March of next year this will all have been sorted out…
By Jackie Mccoy on July 23rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Jackie,
It was very unwise of Prince William not to clarify Kate’s status sooner than he did. I would also add it was insensitive to invite Kate and her mother to his passing out parade only to break up with the girl weeks later. Then go back to her soon after realizing the big mistake he made. I hope John raked him over the coals for that one. However, that is in the past. They aren’t officially engaged yet, but everyone and their grandmother knows by now that he and Kate will marry. Kate’s job now is supporting William and the royal family. That’s why she was at the Garter, stood in for the prince at Peter’s wedding, and attended Lady Rose Windsor’s service last week.
By Lizzy on July 23rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
True Lizzy, she is supporting him and the family even though she’s not married to him yet. I realize that since royalty is a thing of the past and people are taking less time to understand how royalty works, they just can’t get pass the thought that being royal is not easy and being part of their circle is not easy. We also got to realize that the media will write silly stories and if you ignore it like Kate does then it will fade into the background like a lot of the past silly stories.
By Rman on July 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Gigi, I also remember media reports of an 11th hour attempt, on the day of Diana’s funeral, to restore to her the title HRH. Apparently, the Queen’s private secretary and Diana’s brother-in-law, Robert Fellows, approached Earl Spencer with the bequest and the Earl turned him down. Earl Spencer believed it was just a publicity stunt to quiet some of the criticism the Royal family had received for their behavior during the week leading up to Diana’s funeral.
As far as Earl Spencer’s eulogy is concerned, I agree with Dan. The speech was filled with emotion from a brother who was grieving the loss of his sister. If some people in the Abbey were uncomfortable with the Earl’s remarks, it’s becasue the remarks were true. With respect to the phrase “blood family,” the Earl was speaking directly to Diana and I don’t believe it was a shot fired at the Royal Family, as some have interpreted it to be: “…And beyond that, on behalf of your mother and sisters, I pledge that we, your blood family, will do all we can to continue the imaginative way in which you were steering these two exceptional young men so that their souls are not simply immersed by duty and tradition but can sing openly as you planned. I suppose Earl Spencer could have said “we, your non-Royal family,” or “we, the Spencer family,” but the intent would have been the same. Diana was the one with the common touch who exposed William and Harry to what life was like for the people over which William would one day reign as King. Diana brought the boys to hospitals to visit the sick, they waited in line at McDonalds, they went to amusement parks and rafting down the Colorado River, things Prince Charles or the Royal Family would never have done. Diana believed this was an important part of her sons’ upbringing and would better prepare them, as adults, to relate to people the way she did. Earl Spencer was simply pledging to Diana that her family would try to continue exposing William and Harry to life in the real world, in addition to the Royal world.
When we see William and Harry performing their Royal duties today, their success has a great deal to do with Diana’s influence. I shudder to think how William and Harry might have turned out had they only experienced the type of sheltered, formal Palace upbringing Prince Charles had as a child.
By Arthur on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Having said that, Arthur, many would argue that, whatever the Earl’s intention, the Royal Family were in need of a good shot across the bow. (Perhaps not at a funeral, but…) Diana’s last years did not find very many of them at their best.
Most of them have vastly improved their game, and their value to the Kingdom, since then. However imprudent the Earl may have been, I think his remarks helped catalyze a marked improvement in the Family to the benefit of William and Harry. Remember how worried we all were at the thought of them being raised by Charles?! He certainly rose to the occasion in a way none of us dared hope back then.
By Dan on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Arthur, high-born aristocrats like Spencer don’t make mistakes over words like “blood family”. Blood is everything in their world and Spencer was trained to be precise in the media — he had a TV career in America. It was a cheap shot by any standards, and from a man who first blamed the paparazzi for her death.
Diana let her family down by almost destroying her son’s father — the Prince of Wales — then racketing around with anyone who would look at her until she became a joke in the press. Finally, she exposed herself to the kind of death she ultimately attracted.
By John on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Hi everyone, I’m new but I have been on other royal websites so some people may recognize me.
I think part of the reason that Diana ended up “attacking” or going against Charles in the press was that he had had a mistress and there was the whole big issue of Camilla. We cannot forget that Charles did have the affair first, which may have pushed Diana to do so. I do not excuse Diana’s behaviour but that may have been what she was thinking at the time.
By B on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Take no prisoners, John!
There was plenty of blame to go around. Thankfully, those dark days are in the past.
As for Diana losing the HRH, some called it petty and unnecessary, but isn’t it the rule in a Royal divorce that the spouse loses the style? It wasn’t a slap special to Diana, was it?
By Dan on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Fergie also lost the title, Dan.
As for Diana, she received a State funeral with all the trappings and with the Royal standard draped over the coffin. If Spencer did block the HRH, she was certainly buried as one.
Go figure.
By John on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
John
Those are VERY harsh words about Diana. In my opinion it takes two people to make a marriage work and two (or three
) to destroy it. Yes some women & men can become destructive after divorce & yes she could have conducted herself in a discreet manor but I don’t think that she “attracted” the death that followed. I don’t think that that is fair. You often sound John as if you didn’t like Diana at all?
By Jackie Mccoy on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Quote from Wikipedia:
In the United Kingdom, Letters patent dated 21 August 1996 state that a style received by a spouse of a member of the Royal Family on their marriage ceases at the point of divorce. For that reason HRH the Princess of Wales, when she and Prince Charles, Prince of Wales divorced, ceased to be HRH, and was styled Diana, Princess of Wales.
Well, given the date of the Letters Patent, exactly one week before the divorce was made final, I guess it WAS targeted at Diana.
By Dan on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
There are always people who want to stir things up. As for William and Kate, these same people profess to only want to look out for William’s best interest. They don’t stop to think about what he wants or how he feels about Kate. They don’t want to acknowlege the signals which he has been sending by having her at all of these events. These people only want to see Kate and William break up. I would like them to put themselves in William’s place. Instead of finding fault with everything that Kate does, one would think about the fact that this is the woman that William has chosen. They should be able to trust his judgement. I am not saying that they shouldn’t have an opinion. However, they keep saying that Kate should get a job. She has one working with her parents and brother. I guess one shouldn’t go into a family business. I do hope that William comes out and makes a statement about Kate. I really wish that he would make an official announcement of an engagement. It would go a long way to putting an end to all of this negative press that Kate has been getting.
By kat on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Jackie, the average chap in England regarded Diana as the wife from hell.
It was the women who piled in behind her.
Okay, I respect that, but I can only give my point of view.
By John on July 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
All this talk about those years and failed marriages makes me wonder:
What is the rush for William to marry, other than to silence his girlfriend’s detractors? He’s not likely to become Prince of Wales for at least 10 years, and not likely to take the throne for 25 years. While none of us would like it, isn’t it possible, maybe even likely, that William will wait? After all, waiting is his primary function, as it was (and still is!) his father’s.
True, if Kate is going to be attending all these Royal functions, she ought to benefit from the protections of the Palace, but other than that, what’s the rush? Many people prefer to wait until their 30s nowadays.
By Dan on July 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
My goodness, John, what a sweeping generalization! Do you know of your own personal knowledge what the average chap in England thought about Diana? However could you? From what I have read, just about every man who ever met her went weak at the knees in her presence. She was loved and admired by millions of people, many of them extremely discerning. Among those many thousands of people who watched her funeral on TV or were present along the funeral route or in the church itself, were many men, many of them average chaps in England, many of them weeping and all of them clearly and obviously mourning her death. The final and unassailable proof of Princess Diana’s sterling worth is her two sons, our golden Prince William and Prince Harry. The “wife from hell” could not have brought up two young men with their shining qualities, compassionate natures and infinite possibilities. Princess Diana did that. Let us give her proper respect–and credit–for that as well. Britain is in her debt for the manner in which she loved, nutured, and raised her sons. Whatever he may say in public, Charles knows this to be true.
By Gigi on July 23rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Mistakes was made in the past and it hurt a lot of people. But to carry it on and on after the Princess past away and Charles moved on is just wrong. Charles is not a heartless person, he and Diana made a couple of mistakes that they couldn’t handle themselves and it tore their marriage apart, it’s sad but it happens to alot of people. They just went through it with the world watching. The only two people that bridge the gap between the Spencers & Windsors is William and Harry and they are doing a good job at it. It just makes me sick when people bring up those old hurtful stories of what happened to Charles & Diana. Two people who loved each other, brought two great gifts in this world (William & Harry) and did a great job as a team of being The Prince & Princess of Wales and it just sad that people over look that because the marriage didn’t work. Harry put it best when he said in his speech at the memorial service that there was a time that they was graced by the presence of both their mother and father not what all hapened to the marriage because it’s just not important to go back to that again.
By Rman on July 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Very well said as always Gigi!! I often am very envious at how eloquent you are!!!
By Jackie Mccoy on July 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Thank you for your kind words, Jackie McCoy, I appreciate it very much!
By Gigi on July 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Both Charles and Diana weren’t good for each other that for sure. But they were good parents for William and Harry, and I think that is enough. We need to move on.
By Mikado-watcher on July 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I had read in several books such as the day Diana died by Christopher Anderson and in The recent Sally Bedall Smith book that Charles was very vocal and argued that Diana deserved to be treated in death in a manner befitting her. It was Charles who insisted on going to Paris on a royal aircraft to bring her home and it was he who brought the royal standard and insisted that she rest in the Chapel Royal. It was said he would not be swayed to do otherwise. My guess is Charles not only felt guilt it was said that he was afraid he would be blamed but I think this was done for William and Harry, Especially as no mention of her was made in church that morning and Harry asked if they were sure Mummy was dead. As much as I detested the way Charles treated Diana in life he at least did the right and decent thing when she died.
By Trudie on July 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Mikado-watcher,
Well put. Charles and Diana were just not meant to be. They had different personalities, different outlooks on life. It’s sad that their marriage deteriorated the way it did, with so much pain. They both made mistakes and should have handled things better for the sake of the boys. But all was not lost. William and Harry are fine young men & great representatives for the monarchy.
By lizzy on July 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
John,
Your critique of Diana surprised many here. It is never advised to speak ill of the dead, especially if, as you have indicated previously, people with close connections to the deceased may become aware of the comments … I agree with Mikado-watcher that it would be best to move on … and eagerly anticipate one of your insightful new postings!
By Stephanie on July 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
And Diana never liked anyone to talk bad about Charles. Her friends often say that she would get very mad when someone said something about about him and would say “It’s alright for me to do it because he’s my husband but okay for anyone else” So no Charles is not a bad guy and was very upset that he lost her like that. Although he has moved on, Diana’s death hurt him badly. But people don’t want to hear that. It satisfies them to say he’s heartless and didn’t love her. Very true Trudie, he did all these things not just because it would look good to the media but because she was his former wife and mother of his children.
By Rman on July 24th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Gigi, over the years since Diana’s death I’ve spoken to, and corresponded with, many people about it. While around 50pc of women are enthusiastic supporters of her, and another 25pc give guarded approval, for men it’s a different story. Around 50pc say they fancied her but would hate to have married her, some 10pc (very roughly) are total fans, and the rest — about 40pc — express strong disapproval.
I’ve also noticed that after the inquest, disapproval has risen dramatically, so has general indifference. I think a scientific poll would be quite close to my anecdotal estimates.
The largely untold story of the funeral was that, while there was a huge outpouring of emotion from those who were there, around 60pc of the population (the silent majority) were aghast at the scenes. This isn’t generally told in the accounts because it’s not as sexy a story as what happened in central London that day.
I always try to give a balanced and fair picture of these great events. I think the outcome of the inquest bore out most of our commentary and opinions here — which were much criticized at the time.
Now, once again, let’s move on from the Diana Story — which will be retold many times down the centuries. I’m back in our offices today after building work, so it’s business as usual.
By John on July 24th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I have to say I was shocked at John’s comments about Diana. We ALL have our faults, hers was to love a man who was never in love with her. I’m sure he loved her, but was never in love with her, there lies the difference. What chance did it have?…….None.
I know some of the things she did towards the end of her life where slightly puzzling, but she was a good mother. We shouldn’t forget that.
My own mother says,”You should never speak ill of the dead,” and I have to say I agree.
By james on July 24th, 2008 at 10:47 am
One addendum to that: it’s noticeable that William, who bore the brunt of his mother’s problems in his early years, has chosen a calm, even serene, girlfriend, who is a steadying influence in his life. Dare I say “his rock”? Clearly, he’s learned the lessons of those years.
That’s why I’ve been such a staunch supporter of Kate in the years since they left university. She is just what he and the Monarchy need right now.
By John on July 24th, 2008 at 10:50 am
James, a Royal website deals with people who are dead all the time. It goes with the territory. In any case, I wasn’t speaking ill of her, just assessing the facts. There are very few people who don’t believe she willfully exposed herself to the fate that ultimately consumed her. Let’s call it Nemesis.
I’m surprised you’re “shocked” — I’ve said all this before many times to try to inject some sense into the whole sorry mess. I was not attacking Diana, but assessing what went wrong. Charles was virtually forced into marrying at that time and chose the wrong girl — that’s the nub of it. They sank together in a morass of their combined inadequacies.
How good it is to see William and Kate learning the lessons and presenting a very different face of the Monarchy.
By John on July 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I don’t think John should be critized for his words about Diana. While she was not the monster some would like to paint her to be, she was not a faultless saint either. She was human. I think much more of her “human-ness” and her personal struggles have come out to the public after her death, which was not there when she died.
We have no idea what the future might have held for Diana, had she lived, and what direction her life may have gone…but that’s true for any of us…none of us know how much time we have.
By Claire on July 24th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
John,
Absolutely right about Kate’s influence on Prince William. She has assets that he doesn’t have, such as the way she handles the press. She knows there’s nothing she can do about it so she just smiles & goes on her way. I think she’s finally gotten through to William and he seems to have changed his attitude about being photographed.
By lizzy on July 24th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
There is always a chance that in the future everyone will get fed up with the intrusions of the photographers and the laws will change to restrict their access. It is already happening here, in California (of all places), apparently brought about by surfers getting irate when the paparazzi infringed on their privacy and space while trying to snap pics of Matthew McConaughey, who was also surfing. While things got pretty overheated and tempers flared, McConaughey was the only one who kept his head! Go figure!
By Gigi on July 24th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The photographers won’t stop until they no longer can make money at it. Editors have to stop buying celebrity photographs for their magazines and the Internet, and that means we have to stop buying their magazines and surfing their websites.
Paparazzi are like crack cocaine. The problem won’t stop until the demand dries up. And now everyone has a camera (even video!) in their cellphone. We’re all paparazzi now.
If you saw Ms. Middleton walking down the street, would you hesitate to snap her with your cellphone?
By Dan on July 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Did anyone else come across this article with quotes from a friend of Chelsy. First they are leaking photographs of her all over the place and now this one is trying to insinuate that the Place told him to back off. I think she needs to find some new friends: http://tinyurl.com/5sbnmh
By Ash on July 24th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Dan, if I walked past Kate I would have a good look but would otherwise pretend I didn’t know who she was and I guarantee you I would not try to photograph her either for publication or for my album!!!!!
In Ireland we suffer from the illusion that we are as good as anyone else and we wouldn’t lower ourselves to seem in awe of them!!!!!
By Eliza on July 24th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Take that story with a grain o’ salt. I doubt the Palace would have gotten involved with any of Chelsy’s partymates, even indirectly. Also, at the end of the article, it says Harry visited Lesotho during his gap year between school and university. Um, which university did Harry attend?
By Dan on July 24th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Ash,
No, no. Chelsy is an INDEPENDENT WOMAN. She doesn’t plan her life around Harry or choose her friends to please him. She doesn’t want to be the Jane Bennett type like Kate is. I’m being sarcastic here. But can you imagine the outrage if Kate had done half the stuff we’ve seen from Chelsy? I know Chelsy is young, but she needs to think twice about the friends and associates she has chosen. It’s bad enough they sell photos of her. Now they are starting to talk to the press as well.
By Lizzy on July 24th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Completely off topic but I just watched on you tube the Sarah and Andrew and Diana and Charles weddings. They were both beautiful weddings. I was too young to appreciate them when they actually happened but I can’t wait until next year and hopefully Kate’s wedding!! That will be something to be seen!!! I really want to try to come home to watch the wedding…
By Jackie Mccoy on July 24th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Eliza, it’s a fact, not an illusion. The Irish are just as good as anyone else!
By Arthur on July 24th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Well said, Eliza, well said Arthur. What is the old saying? “Every Irishman is a King’s son.” This craze for taking snapshots of Royalty and other famous people when they are out on their own is entirely out of hand. It is inappriate to take a photograph of anyone without their express permission and to do so is not the court of a well-mannered person. When a well-known person, whether celebrity, statesman or Royal, cannot walk in public without being accosted by strangers, I must say we all need to take a refresher in proper deportment.
By Gigi on July 24th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Does anyone else think that perhaps Prince William and Kate are already engaged but are holding off an announcement until later in the year? Princess Anne did a similar thing if I’m not mistaken- she was engaged for several months before making it public. If I am wrong on that then someone please correct me. We should get more information when William returns next week.
By lizzy on July 25th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Well here’s a Foxnews info about William & Kate.
http://tinyurl.com/5k7dn6
By Rman on July 25th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Ash, that’s the Times of Zambia, not London. I did a piece on that story a while back, but what makes the newspaper story sound false to me is the line: “Buckingham Palace approached me indirectly. It’s a long story,” he said.
It’s a tall story, more like.
By John on July 25th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Chelsy is an INDEPENDENT WOMAN. She doesn’t plan her life around Harry or choose her friends to please him.
Lizzy, if she treats a long-term boyfriend like that, Prince or not, she won’t remain with him long. Nobody can have it both ways except in a very casual relationship.
By John on July 25th, 2008 at 7:57 am
I don’t believe the Fox story — it would be all over the British press were it half accurate. The blog just repeats the dodgy info as if true.
By John on July 25th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Oh don’t worry John I don’t for one minute believe that the Palace contacted this man, directly or indirectly. What I do believe is that Chelsy Davy is in need of a few new friends and a little common sense. There is nothing wrong with having a good time with your friends but the fact these photographs keep appearing all over the Internet should tell her something about her friends and now they are using their association with her to get themselves some press attention, time to wake up Chelsy.
By Ash on July 25th, 2008 at 10:11 am
When the time comes and the UK needs to crown a new monarch, what is the current feelings towards Charles becoming King? Would people rather go from QEII to Prince William in hopes of continuning a golden age of monarchy? Is there a chance that Charles will step aside or is he dead set on becoming King?
By American Cousin on July 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I’m sorry John but I know for a fact that Fox News would not gossip or lie on something like this. They are the ones that broke news that Kate is now being groomed and having a makeover. Fox news tells factual stories and it’s what we turn to everyday to get out news so the teeth whitening may not be true but I know that the British people will celebrate big next year.
By Rman on July 25th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I simply cannot imagine that Charles would willingly step aside and relinquish the throne to Prince William. Charles has been chafing at the bit for nearly 60 years, waiting to be king. He has a number of changes he intends to implement and apparently is already planning certain elements of his coronation. Unless unforeseen circumstances intervene, I feel certain Charles will be king in the fullness of time. Therefore, I continue, with sincere fervor, to invoke the hymn and anthemn, “God Save the Queen!”
By Gigi on July 25th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
No disparagement to Fox News, Rman. They invited me on their Diana 10th broadcast, so they must be good.
But this story has all the feel of a London reporter chatting in a bar to a Palace servant and getting his/her take on events. Most of it is supposition that almost certainly will be true — a wedding next summer, for example, and Kate being groomed by Clarence House. We’ve been saying that here for months.
By John on July 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
American Cousin, Gigi is right. Charles will probably become King in his 70s unless he really gives up on the job. Imagine William and Kate as a youngish married couple with a few adorable children. The public will be gagging for them, not poor old Charles and Camilla.
By John on July 25th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I suppose I’m in the minority here, but I can’t overlook the fact that Charles, whether you like him or not, is the best trained, best prepared heir to the throne in British history. He’s respected by government leaders around the world, almost as a peer. While William and Kate would capture the imaginations of royalophiles the world over, they would be treated as mere tourists in the halls of power. They have star power, but very little gravity at their age. True, Elizabeth was young, but she got to the throne the old-fashioned way. Pushing aside the experienced Charles in favor of the glamorous William would make a mockery of what is the bedrock principle of monarchy itself: the line of succession.
The throne should not be treated as first prize in a personality contest. It is serious business, however symbolic. Charles is prepared to be King; he should be and will be, God willing.
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Soo true John.
By Rman on July 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I would add that Elizabeth II, like Victoria before her, was unusual in coming to the throne at a young age. Whether or not it suits this age of celebrity, freshly-minted Kings and Queens are not generally so freshly-minted in life. George V and Queen Mary were not picture-perfect teen idols. Neither were George VI and his Queen Elizabeth. But we’re glad they had their time in the big chair, aren’t we?
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I agree with you about Charles, Dan. He will be King, barring accidents. And, yes, he would be a splendid King technically.
His building schemes, like Poundbury, are leading the way in sustainable housing development in this new age when everything has to be eco-. He has a lot of strings to his bow. But, inevitably, he will be seen as a caretaker Monarch for King William, who may develop into a formidable character with time and experience.
By John on July 25th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
& as much as I would love to see a young Willam and Kate on the throne, it will give them time to have their family and settle into Royal life before dealing with the demands of the throne.
By Jackie Mccoy on July 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I know Charles and Camilla will never shine the way William and his bride will, and most of us will simply be watching the clock while C & C mind the shop. I have no doubt that William will grow into the role in his time, but I also believe he will benefit from his time as Prince of Wales in his own right (one presumes he’ll be invested in due course), and will best learn the ropes as Charles III’s heir.
Besides, while we look forward to William’s reign, we can also look forward to some good years with a dashing and romantic Prince and Princess of Wales filling the spotlight.
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Sooo true, Dan.
By John on July 25th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Incidentally. Our apologies again for the delay in coverage of Royal news. We’re only just back into our splendidly reconstructed “new” offices, so we’re having to plug everything back in and get it working again.
Normal service will resume this weekend — promise!
By John on July 25th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Not to worry, John. The conversation always seems to get back to your initial posting. We’ll all have our opinions about where Charles and William in their reigns will stack up. Surely, we hope, well above George IV and King Steven. (Should he be blessed with a long reign, our assessment of King William, alas, will have to be aired on the great RA website in the sky!)
By the way, there is a new video clip on the BBC website showing the State Dining Room of Buckingham Palace. The table is decked out with George IV’s table service. It was expensive, but it has stood the test of time. At least he did something right!
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I think William will be a fine Prince of Wales & a very good King. I see him following QEII’s example and not meddling in things he shouldn’t, like Prince Charles. Although I’m sure the Queen does express her feelings on certain matters, but she is discreet. That’s the key. Charles will almost certainly become King unless Queen Elizabeth outlives him. But he won’t have a very long reign, and he’ll only be keeping the seat warm for his son.
By Lizzy on July 25th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I saw that footage, Dan–splendid! Do, all of you dear RAers, go to the BBC website and watch the video clip which shows several of the splendid drawing rooms of the Palace and the State Dining Room, with the tables sets with priceless antique gold plate and incredible gold centerpieces, from the reign of King George IV. Naturally, everything is kept in mint condition and gleams and shines!
I also admit to looking forward to Prince William being Prince of Wales. It is a marvelous, storied rank and title, splendidly endowed by the vast revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, and it’s attendant responsibilities and duties are superb training for kingship. By that time, as is supposed and devoutly to be wished, Prince William and Prince Harry will have wed, and Prince Harry and his bride will bear the rank and title Duke and Duchess of whatever the Queen chooses, while Prince William and his bride will be Prince and Princess of Wales. God will be in His Heaven and all will be right with Britannia! Very exciting and inspiring times are in the near future!!
By Gigi on July 25th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Now the Mail, in a story about Harry getting his cellphone swiped while clubbing in Lesotho, is also writing that Harry spent some time in Lesotho during his gap year between school and university. Did Harry attend university and I missed it? Don’t they mean between school and the army?
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I saw that article, too, Dan. I find it both annoying and incredible that Prince Harry can’t even do very worthwhile charity work in Lesotho without someone stealing his cell phone! Fortunately, it appears as if the contact information was not compromised, so that is a relief, at any rate. As for the mention of university, that may have been an unconscious slip on the part of the author, as Prince William was at university prior to entering the military.
I also want to mention, in reference to an earlier comment of one of our dear RAers, that Queen Elizabeth, while she did, indeed, come to the throne as a young woman, was most assuredly not typical of her age or gender. Queen Elizabeth was then and is now a nonesuch. Mature beyond her years, serious, dutiful and extremely conscious of what was expected of her, Queen Elizabeth II has demonstrated throughout her reign a purposeful dedication to her role that few, if any, monarchs have shown in the past. Tempered and tested by the war-torn years of her adolescence, inspired by the incredible sacrifices made by her countrymen and by her truly marvelous parents, guided in part by the example of her formidible Grandmother, Queen Mary, to whom duty was almost a religion, Queen Elizabeth has become a legend in her own time because of her diligence in mastering the difficult duties of diplomacy and the labyrinthian labors of statecraft. She was fortunate to have as her first Prime Minister the remarkable Sir Winston Churchill, himself a legend in his own time. Elizabeth II is now and will remain in the future a shining example of what a Queen should be. I hope rather than believe that we shall ever see her like again.
By Gigi on July 25th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
What is the consensus on whether HM would ever abdicate? I know the idea sounds absurd now, given her apparently robust health, but if she lives as long as her mother, she is likely to grow infirm rather than ill. Given how seriously she takes her position, doesn’t it seem likely that she would abdicate rather than outlive her capacity to do the job properly?
Heaven forbid any of this, but I do wonder.
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
My own beief on that, Dan, is that the Queen will honour her Coronation Oath and reign to the end. If she becomes infirm, others will stand in for her. I doubt she will ever desert her post.
By John on July 25th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Would abdication rank with desertion, or might she see it as serving her country best by allowing it to have a vigorous monarch? It would be sad to see her in a state akin to John Paul II. And as Dowager Queen, she could serve honorably and be beloved, as Queen Mary and her own mother were before her.
On the other hand, Allowing Charles to ease into the role, serving in his still-living mother’s name, might be a more palatable transition than going straight from Queen Elizabeth II one day to King Charles III the next. I don’t envy him standing in her shoes on that day.
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Dan,
I’m not an expert on these things like John is, but from everything I’ve read about Queen Elizabeth it doesn’t seem likely she would ever abdicate. Unless it was something really serious that affected her mental health, like the onset of Alzheimers, I just don’t see it. But if its just a matter of old age then Charles and William can take up the slack.
John,
Could the Queen ever make her official residence Windsor Castle instead of Buckingham Palace? I mean is there anything in the law or constitution governing where she has to stay as the monarch?
By Lizzy on July 25th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
If I were the Queen, I should never wish to leave Windsor Castle, which I understand is her favorite Royal residence. What an exquisite place, so full of treasures and history, beauty and echoes of the past! I agree with John that it is extremely unlikely that the Queen, to whom the taking of the Coronation Oath (which, after all, was made in good faith before her people and to God) is sacred, would ever abdicate. I simply can’t see her contemplating such a thing. In her lifetime, albeit her childhood, her Uncle David abdicated and his desertion of his post forced her Father, King George VI, on the throne, for which he felt unready and unqualified. He was neither and made a splendid, courageous and very worthy monarch, but the strain of the Abdication and of WWII undeniably shortened his life. That entire episode was so devastating for the Royal Family that I imagine the mere word ‘abdication’ is pure anathema to the Queen. I cannot foresee a scenario in which she would agree to abdicate. Whatever happens, Queen Elizabeth II will serve until the end of her life, I feel certain.
By Gigi on July 25th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Other than the Queen, who does William have to inform of his wish to propose marriage? How far in advance of the actual wedding day does this need to happen? If there was to be a wedding next summer, (keeping fingers crossed) when would a proposal be made and announced?( That’s if one hasn’t been made already.)
By kat on July 25th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
It’s true, the last abdication was a right Royal mess, but it’s one thing for a King to quit in order to marry an American divorcée, and quite another for a much loved Queen to yield her throne in old age to a very well-prepared heir better able, physically and/or mentally, to perform the role. I don’t think it would be considered a dereliction of duty.
Mind you, she vowed that her whole life would be dedicated to the nation’s service. She didn’t vow to be its queen until her final breath. HM seems a very practical, pragmatic, no-nonsense individual; not the type to cling to a position she could no longer adequately serve. If the time comes when all she can do is lay in a bed by the window, I can imagine her stepping down with honor, dignity, and the love of her subjects intact.
I know—how did I get off on this awful subject!! Let’s hope it’s a long time before we have to face such events.
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
As for Lizzy’s question about official residences, there’s no law. But Buckingham Palace is not THE official residence. They are all official residences; BH is her official residence in London. Windsor would be far too inconvenient to be her full-time London area residence.
St. James’s Palace remains the senior Palace of the Sovereign, which is why HM’s court is still called The Court of St. James’s.
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Good question, Kat.
John, does Parliament have to grant some kind of ceremonial permission for William to marry?
I can’t recall the process Charles and Diana followed. I recall the Prime Minister got involved when Edward VIII wanted to marry that American divorcée, but I don’t know if that was in an official capacity, or merely advisory.
By Dan on July 25th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Burning questions:
1) Who determines what the royal wives do after they marry? Using William and Kate as an example- would it be Prince William and his staff making the decisions or would they allow Kate to have input as to her engagements and patronages?
2.) What last names do the royals use? Again using Kate as the example- Catherine Mountbatten Windsor, just Catherine Windsor, or, if William receives the title Duke of Sussex, Catherine Sussex?
By lizzy on July 25th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
The DM has a rather silly article about what positions the royals (and girlfriends) would be able to get in the real world if they weren’t well royalty. It’s fun reading!!! They sent fabricated CV’s under fake names to several companies.
By jackie Mccoy on July 26th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Royal wives take the last names of their husbands, unless they are the Queen or unless they hold a separate rank. The Queen is of the House of Windsor. Catherine, when she marries Prince William, will take the name of his rank. If he is granted the title Duke of Cambridge, then she will be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. When he becomes Prince of Wales, she will be Princess of Wales. Just as the press often refers to the Countess of Wessex as Sohie Wessex, Catherine could be referred to as Catherine Cambridge, if that is the title given to Prince William. The Princess Royal is not known as Anne Windsor nor as Anne Laurence, but as the Princess Royal or Princess Anne, because, as the daughter of the Sovereign, she holds her own rank.
By Gigi on July 26th, 2008 at 3:10 am
John, does Parliament have to grant some kind of ceremonial permission for William to marry?
No, but the Prime Minister must be consulted. In Kate’s case, as a very long-term girlfriend, conversations would have been had at the weekly meeting between Sovereign and PM in (usually) Buckingham Palace.
If, as I suspect, this is a done deal, so too would the PM’s consultation.
By John on July 26th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Lizzy, Royal wives have a lot of freedom to choose. Diana chose a lot of unusual causes for a Princess. I’m sure she discussed them with someone, possibly the Queen, but they were her choice.
As for names, if William becomes Duke of Cambridge, Kate will not be known as Kate Cambridge. Apart from the comic alliteration, the form — as with Sophie Wessex — is a familiar one used only by those of equal rank or very close friends. The press should not bandy this about as they do.
Kate would become Duchess of Cambridge and that would be it. She would either known as Kate (as Diana was mostly), or The Duchess of Cambridge.
You never see Camilla called Camilla Cornwall, or more properly, Camilla Wales — for she is The Princess of Wales by law. It would be an impertinence to do so.
Republicans sometimes use the form to make a political point.
By John on July 26th, 2008 at 11:50 am
By the way, Duke of Marmalade is running in the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes at Ascot this afternoon. I shall be watching with interest.
By John on July 26th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Well, here is news indeed!! Please post the results, John! I am very interested in the Duke of Marmalade’s success in these races!
By Gigi on July 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Gigi, you will be delighted to hear that the Duke delivered his fourth Group One victory of the season — a phenomenal performance of great class. But what else would you expect from a Marmalade.
It was his first race over a mile and a half, so we didn’t know he would get the distance. He was headed by Papal Bull 200 yards out, but fought back to win in great style.
I’ve been following Aidan O’Brien and his Ballydoyle team all season and had an incredible run. The Duke may now go for the Prix de L’Arc de Triomphe at Longchamp in France. How wonderful if he won that too.
By John on July 26th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
For some reason the photographs of Kate at her parents house felt a little creepy. Especially after the recent Brad and Angelina arrest of photographers who were dressed in camouflage to get the pictures. I wonder if that photographer did the same? Regardless I hope that the pictures of her actually moving boxes and mucking in will help to silence nay-Sayers who complain about her not being employed…
By jackie Mccoy on July 26th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I’m sure it won’t, jackie. They will certainly dismiss it as a PR stunt to improve Kate’s public image regardless of the fact that the pictures have not been published in any British paper (as far as I know).
It does look like they were taken on the Middleton’s business estate. This doesn’t look like a public street. Someone must have been trespassing or they wouldn’t have gotten those clear shots, I guess.
By Isana on July 26th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Great news!! Thanks for posting the results, John! Well done, Duke of Marmalade! I hope someone gave him a sip or two of champagne after the victory lap, as they do here, for the winner of the Kentucky Derby!
By Gigi on July 26th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Please note: we don’t allow links to blogs here as they merely regurgitate “news” from other sources.
The major news outlets at least make an effort to get first-hand information, even if they are not quite as kosher as they seem.
The Kate business pictures are extremely suspect so please don’t link to this kind of site.
Thanks,
John
By John on July 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
John,
I’ve been reading up on Prince William’s expanded role for the monarchy next year. But why does the News of the World refer to these plans as being secret? The Telegraph is reporting these plans will be made public by Clarence House. I’m also confused by the NOTW stating that because of William’s increased role he won’t be able to marry Kate next year. Most other accounts have stated the engagement would come later this year or early next year.
By lizzy on July 27th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Point taken apologies….
By jackie Mccoy on July 27th, 2008 at 3:19 am
For our British royalists on the site, how reliable is the Daily Star? I’ve just read something that makes me want to do a happy dance. The Star is reporting William prefers St. George’s Chapel! That’s what I had suspected. The article goes on about how they are discussing the plans with the proper officials and everything. So… can I do my happy, happy, happy dance?
By lizzy on July 27th, 2008 at 4:31 am
John, I’ve been busy lately but I’m reading what you guys are saying and I’m watching the news for a announcement. Keep up the great work with the site.
By Claudius on July 27th, 2008 at 5:59 am
If the News of the World is right ( well there’s a first for everything…) I think the plans for William are great. But for Kate they are hopeless. When is she going to have the chanse to start learning? At least William has been a royal for 26 years. Kate must start “from scratch”. So let her start please. Can’t they do a lot of this together? I don’t like the thought of what the press will do to her if she has to wait another year or two.
By dagga on July 27th, 2008 at 8:20 am