Kate Middleton flies out to join Prince William
Sparing Prince William the long flight back to Britain from the Caribbean only to fly back again for their August break, Kate Middleton has already flown the 6000 miles to their holiday spot, thought to be the island of Mustique.
Prince William and Kate Middleton at his Wings ceremony
A friend is said to have revealed, “Kate has missed him massively. She will be hoping her sailor has a little energy left in the tank for her. … She is desperate to see William and has been counting the days.”
A source close to William said, “As soon as he steps off the ship, he’ll be determined to change gear and put his feet up with Kate. They both agreed it was a perfect plan to enjoy two weeks together at their favourite spot.”
William’s deployment aboard the drugbuster HMS Iron Duke was action-packed from the start. Within days he was involved in an operation with U.S. Coastguards to apprehend cocaine smugglers off Barbados. Some £40m ($80m) of the drug was said to have been recovered from the armed bootleggers.
Following a major simulation exercise to practise the evacuation of an entire island threatened by a hurricane, he was again plunged into another successful drugs bust at sea. It was reported that Prince William is to receive a medal from the American Coastguard for his role in the first operation.
It is surely significant that after such an exhausting tour of duty, all he wants to do is spend two weeks alone with Kate in a remote holiday hideaway.
He will have a further week’s leave in London on their return and speculation is already beginning on the possibility of an engagement announcement. It would certainly clear the decks for action — something the Prince should be used to now.
Let’s hope they do announce their engagement.
I can barely contain myself anymore with excitement.
I am constantly scouring the newspapers for stories about the pair…. and our beloved RA, the only reliable source of course!!!
By james on July 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Thank you, James, we do our best to hold the line against the barbarians.
By John on July 29th, 2008 at 9:52 am
John,
Does William usually go to Scotland for the August break? I know last year he & Kate stayed with Charles and Camilla at Birkhall, but that was in November if I’m remembering correctly.
By lizzy on July 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
It’s great that they are reunited. Just to quickly add, John would it be a nice gift to allow William & Kate to spend their honeymoon on Her Majesty’s Yacht Britannia. Kate has never been on that Yacht and I think that would be the greatest gift ever. To be able to share such a special moment on a yacht that hold such fond memories. Talk to you guys soon.
By Claudius on July 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Lizzy, William loves it at Balmoral. He likes the vigorous outdoor pursuits, stalking and hill walking, and no doubt trail-bike riding too. In the past three years he’s not had much time to go there, so I expect he’s planning more visits next year. I think Kate likes it too.
By John on July 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Claudius, Britannia was decommissioned 10 years ago by the wretched Labour government. They sold it as a tourist attraction to Leith, a Labour council in Scotland, where she’s now concreted into the harbour.
They did not commission another Royal yacht. I have great hopes that when David Cameron becomes Prime Minister in a year or two, he will do just that.
By John on July 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
For the Royal Family of Great Britain, an island kingdom and intrinsically sea-faring throughout their long, storied history, to be without a Royal Yacht is not only outrageous, it is absurd!
Far smaller and less wealthy nations such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway have Royal Yachts for their monarchs, after all. I feel sure that Sir Winston Churchill has been rolling in his grave at the thought of the Britannia having been decomissioned these ten years gone and the Royal Family without a yacht. The Powers-that-be at the Admiralty ought to have put a stop to Labor’s idiotic idea before the deed was done. Someone seriously needs to recollect and mend their ways in Whitehall.
By Gigi on July 29th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
While indeed they were romantic icons of State, I doubt we’ll see any new Royal Yachts plying the high seas. The notion of a ship being built at public expense for use at the pleasure of a single family, even a Royal Family, is very 19th/20th century. This is a Family very conscious of looking outdated, pampered, or a financial burden to their subjects. It’s more likely they will charter an existing yacht, as HM has done and C&C have recently done, rather than build new.
Besides, judging from what new-built yachts for the wealthy look like nowadays, it would likely be rather ugly, not recalling the grand and stately liners of old.
By Dan on July 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Except, Dan, that Britannia was often the Queen’s base on foreign trips and British business leaders were allowed to invite local business people onboard to sign big contracts.
Britannia more than paid for herself. Her prestige alone was a major draw to overseas business.
By John on July 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Are there any shipbuilders left in Britain that could build a new yacht? I was living on Tyneside when Swan Hunter, the builder of the Mauretania and the Carpathia (minister-ship to the tragic Titanic), was in receivership. I understand it has revived itself with a few Royal Navy commissions and ship conversion as well as shipbreaking. But the Scandinavians, the French, and the Italians are the main builders of cruise ships nowadays. Can the British build ocean liners anymore? The Queen Mary II, allegedly a true ocean liner, was built by the French.
Talk about Winston Churchill rolling in his grave! And imagine how Queen Mary, spinning in her last repose, was not amused!
By Dan on July 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Dan you are so smart
By dally on July 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Can some one fill me in. Do all royal couples go on cruises for their honeymoon?
By dally on July 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
It’s the European Union, Dan. Everything has to go out to competitive tender across Europe, and the French and others provide sweeteners to their shipbuilders and others to win contracts. The leaden-footed British government doesn’t and loses contracts and jobs.
We’re not what we were in Victorian times, Dan, alas!
By John on July 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Well, I can’t wait to see the Queen’s new private jet. The Head of State shouldn’t fly around in a rented British Airways plane. It would be cool if she could have her own version of Air Force One- maybe Lilibet One
.
By Lizzy on July 29th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I thought the order for HM’s jet was cancelled.
By Dan on July 29th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I stand corrected.
I had heard about Gordon Brown canceling the order for a large aircraft, but had not heard about last month’s announcement of a compromise plan for a smaller executive jet.
By Dan on July 29th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I don’t care how modern we are getting or how cost-conscious. The Royal Family of Great Britain should have a yacht, not one they have to rent. I agree that Britannia more than paid for itself and so would the new yacht. If a company can build a modern yacht, they can also build a classic yacht, especially since the Royal Family archives everything. I am sure that the original design plans for the Britannia are well-preserved in the Royal archives and could be copied by any large boat builder. Of course I would prefer that the yacht be built by a British company, but if the French win the bid, all well and good. Let’s just build it and get it launched! Who do we have to elect as PM to make this happen?
By Gigi on July 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
gigi – while in theory i agree with you in these hard economic times the last thing they need is a yacht – just wouldnt look good. didnt the queen mother say during wwii that after the palace got hit she could look the east end in the face?? same type thing – while they can well afford it and not have the public absorb the cost just not good..at least not for now…
By coni on July 29th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Kate has been named one of Vanity Fair Magazine’s best dressed!
By Lizzy on July 29th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
As with Diana, the American media will faun over Kate as soon as the engagement is announced. There’ll be no criticism of her on these shores, just heaps of envy.
By Dan on July 29th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Although Britannia was described as a yacht, she was in reality a ship, much bigger than people imagined. She was used to evacuate hundreds of people from some emergency in the Middle East while on one of her last voyages, and she traditionally accommodated the Band of the Royal Marines to play out the Queen’s final departure from foreign, friendly ports.
Her problem was that she had thin plates by modern standards and her engines were underpowered.
I am sure something similar could be built using modern technologies with all the flair of the old design.
By John on July 29th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
That is an interesting point, John. What exactly is the difference between a ship and yacht? Is it the length, the draw, the size or type of engine? Does anyone on our dear RA site know?
By Gigi on July 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
The romantic in me would like to see a new, truly British ship built to represent the Queen (whether or not for her sole use), especially now that the QE2 is to suffer the same ignominious fate in Dubai that the Britannia suffers in Leith—as main attraction at a portside shopping mall, I believe.
But I don’t think copying an old design would fit with their “way forward” philosophy. All things Royal must honor history and tradition but also must speak to the future. The Family and its trappings must represent the vanguard, not the rear guard. That doesn’t necessarily mean it would have to be crass, ostentatious, and downright ugly, as most new ships are.
Having said that, I must sound a blasphemous note by saying that Ye Olde Yacht Britannia was not a great looker, in my opinion. There are a lot of other ships of her vintage that plied a smoother, sleeker line.
By Dan on July 29th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
She must have had some endearing qualities, Dan, because Queen Elizabeth II was at the decommissioning service and was said to have gotten as emotional as she gets in public. Further, had the Britannia not been a very attractive vessel, she would never have been selected as the venue for the cruise portion of Princess Diana and Charles’ honeymoon. No expense was spared to make that wedding and that honeymoon fit for the heir to the throne and his bride, believe me. Perhaps the Britannia had hidden qualities and talents.
By Gigi on July 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
John,
What does it mean when it is said Prince William will be running the Sandringham estate? He’ll be a Whitehall civil servant during the week and then be the estate manager on weekends? I hope I don’t sound completely ignorant it just sounds like it would be a lot doing both jobs.
By lizzy on July 30th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Gigi, all of the Yacht’s best qualities—certainly the qualities Her Majesty and the Family enjoyed most, and where the memories were made—were all on the inside. 99% of Britannia’s life was at sea, much of it in darkness, where no one could see it. That was it’s allure for the family. Being cut off from the curious world at last!
I think Royalty is a quality that shines best from the inside out, not vice versa. If they can live up to it, you could put them in a rowboat and it would do the job. They shouldn’t need—indeed, they don’t need—an expensive yacht to project their power.
By Dan on July 30th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Britannia was a great ship built in the Edwardian style. She was called a yacht in an understated English way, which Americans always found baffling: “Have you seen the size of that “yacht”?”
Inside she was as sumptuous as a small Palace, yet she was manned by 240 Royal Navy sailors and an experienced RN captain. She was no gin palace, like those around today, but a fully-functioning little bit of Britain abroad.
It’s very hard to describe what she was for to socialists and republicans who base their thoughts on resentment. You have to be fully subscibed to Britain and its history to really “get” Britannia. Needless to say, we do.
By John on July 30th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Going back to, “THE engagement” do you think John, there is a chance they will announce it in August upon their return ?
Also will the announcement come from Clarence House or Buckingham Palace?
By james on July 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility, James, but there are no tell-tale signs as yet.
I would imagine the announcement would come from the Palace, although with the main people at Balmoral, it would probably have been prepared in advance.
By John on July 30th, 2008 at 10:57 am
A very silly, presumptuous, yet niggling question I have: assuming the eventuality of William and Kate’s engagement, upon becoming officially engaged and actually wearing her engagement ring, when will the curtseying to her begin? When she actually becomes engaged to William I’m sure it will be surreal to her family and close friends her metamorphous from commoner, ordinary girl, to one to whom others will eventually bow. I remember Camilla, upon her engagement, remarking how it was a bit unsettling everyone “wobbling” before her. I would think the first time that happens for a bride is a metaphor for how life has changed forever.
By Positive on July 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I wonder what they engagement ring will be like?
I don’t think he will use Diana’s engagement ring, as she herself described it as slighty vulgar later on in her life.
I actually think Camillas engagement ring is by far the nicest I’ve seen on a member of the RF.
By james on July 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Kate will not be curtseyed to until she legally becomes his wife and becomes HRH.
By Trudie on July 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
james,
We think alike. I loved Camilla’s engagement ring. It was a big diamond but not too big. Diana’s sapphire was not very pleasing to the eye to me.
Positive,
The curtseying is something I had wondered about too! Can you imagine your mother all of a sudden having to bow to you? Surreal.
By lizzy on July 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Lizzy, no-one HAS to curtsey or bow to the Queen or Royalty. It’s purely a matter of choice. And family memebers would soon get fed up with it.
Cherie Blair wouldn’t curtsey to the Queen although she did to the King of Norway. Bizarre lady!
By John on July 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
The engagement ring Charles gave Camilla was a ring he inherited from the Queen Mother, who had been given the ring by her husband, King George VI, to mark the birth of their first child, Princess Elizabeth, who is now Queen Elizabeth II. I don’t know if he designed the ring, but he chose it, and King George VI had outstanding taste in jewelry. He gave his two daughters and his wife exquisite gifts of jewelry for their birthdays and for holidays, sapphires, diamonds and rubies in particular.
As for Cherie Blair having the temerity to courtsey to the King of Norway and refusing to courtsey to her own Sovereign, that proves beyond all doubt that the wife of the Prime Minister had a skewered personal agenda. Very bad form, to say the least. Thank heavens we need see no more of that person, whom I fear set most of our teeth on edge!
By Gigi on July 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
What is the curtsying situation? Do most people do it when they see the queen or is it happening less and less now?
By dally on July 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“fully subscribed to Britain”….
John, are you suggesting that there is something un-British about those of your countrymen and women who would not support a new yacht for the Queen?
That sounds a lot like Republicans in the United States who say Barack Obama is not a true American patriot because he doesn’t support an endless war in Iraq.
Nationalism that divides rather than unites is an oxymoron.
By Dan on July 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Dan, “subscribed” as opposed to signing away the country to a foreign power, as Blair and Brown did recently with the EU constitution, against the wishes of a large majority of the people and ratting on the promise of a referendum.
It couldn’t happen in America, but in Labour’s elective dictatorship it can. There’s nothing modern or liberal in that. It’s dictatorship pure and simple. To oppose it is not “nationalism” simply preserving your own integrity and the country you were born to.
By John on July 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Agreed John. As for jewelry, do we know of any specific items passed to William that we may see on his fiancée’s finger some day soon?
Do we know what happened to Diana’s wedding and engagement rings?
By Dan on July 30th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I think it would be very special if PW used on of Diana’s rings for the engagement ring, but it would also be interesting to see something new designed since they are so modern.
Totally off subject but I just got a new job and it includes a BIG raise. I think I should put that $ towards traveling to UK for the first time
By dally on July 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Dally, I hope your big raise is not in dollars! It will go fast on the streets of London.
But Britain is definitely worth it. I’ve been fortunate to visit many times. In Autumn 1986 I was walking alone in Kensington Gardens just after dawn when a helicopter flew over me. I followed it, and watched it land in the grounds of the Palace. Then, to my astonishment, I was the sole witness from the other side of the fence as Charles, Diana, and the two very young Princes emerged. After hugs and kisses all around, the Prince and Princess of Wales boarded the helicopter and flew off. Then Harry disappeared into the house while William remained behind, staring into the sky until the helicopter could no longer be seen or heard. I remember thinking that, if something were to go wrong, William knew it instinctively, then and there. (I know, it’s a silly notion, but he seemed to have such an air about him, even at that young age.)
Later that day, I learned on the news that the Prince and Princess had departed on their first tour of the Middle East together.
That’s the kind of thing that can happen in London when you least expect it. It’s my favorite memory, although I’ve seen almost every senior member of the Royal Family since then.
By all means, go!!! It’s only money!
By Dan on July 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
You’re right, Dan. I had a similar experience around that time. I was at Waterloo station waiting for my commuter train home when a whole series of black Daimlers drove past the platform on a special track leading to the Royal train. They contained every member of the Royal Family from the Queen and Philip, the QM, Margaret, Charles etc, etc.
Strangely, the only face I can remember clearly was that of Princess Margaret. She was a very good-looking woman.
By John on July 30th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I meant to point out they were all headed to Balmoral for the annual holiday.
By John on July 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
On that same trip, I was with two friends standing outside Buckingham Palace for the first time. We were staring at the windows that had lots on, hoping to spot someone looking out, when suddenly the gates opened. Shortly thereafter, I saw a similar parade of black cars emerge, carrying every member of the family I had ever heard of. It turns out they were all headed to Royal Albert Hall (as I recall) for the Remembrance Service. I had no idea of it, I just happened to be there at the right time.
It was damp and chilly, but November turned out to be a very good time to be there! One should definitely plan a trip at a time when the Family is at Buckingham Palace, not Balmoral, Sandringham, or elsewhere. And watch the Court Circular for daily Royal engagements.
By Dan on July 30th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
London seems like such an exciting, cosmopolitan city. If these gas prices here in the U.S. ever go down I might be able to save up enough to make the trip across pond. Not just to see the city either. There are beautiful estates like Blenheim or Chatsworth around the country. They look amazing in photos & must be pretty special seeing them for yourself.
By Lizzy on July 30th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Lizzy, I’ve been to a lot of them in France but not so much in Britain, despite the weeks at a time I’ve been there. I can recommend Culzean Castle (pronounced Cul-LANE) on the west coast of Scotland, perched on a cliff overlooking the Irish Sea; and Cragside, in Rothbury, Northumberland, the first home in the world to be lit using hydroelectric power. They are out of the way, but spectacular. You can Wikipedia them to learn more.
Blenheim and Chatsworth are high on my to-do list, especially the latter, which houses one of the world’s finest print and drawing collections. Of course, I doubt they would let me paw through them! But the house and its setting, which you can see in the recent “Pride & Prejudice” movie (Mr. Darcy’s home), appear sublime.
By Dan on July 30th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
The Associated Press is reporting that a Canadian has paid 4,500 pounds at auction for a pair of Queen Victoria’s bloomers.
Off with his head!
By Dan on July 30th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
What on earth could possibly have motivated anyone in possession of Royal undergarments to sell them?! Also–how on earth did such an item escape the possession of the Royal Family? I thought those types of things were packed away in warehouses.
I am appalled. 
Someone may very well be struck by lightening since Queen Victoria has been a partaker of glory in Heaven since 1901. If you think that she cannot throw a blot of lightening, think again! (And duck!)
By Gigi on July 30th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Is it possible that Kate is already receiving her princess training but it’s being kept very quiet? At first I thought there’s no way to keep that a secret. Now… There were no leaks about her being at the Garter or Lady Rose Windsor’s wedding. It’s not out of the question.
By Lizzy on July 30th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I guess anything is possible Lizzy!!
It’s a testament to whoever is in charge of handling William that appearances have been kept so quiet with regards to Kate attending events. IMO this year they have conducted themselves in a very private, secretative and low key manner. Whether they had to get rid of a few “friends” who were leaking things to the press, to achieve this I don’t know. But the situation changed dramatically from last year & for the better! Kate working for her parents has definitely helped, as well as them not making as many visits to the night clubs this year. The events they are attending are charity events and polo matches instead of rolling out of Mahiki and such at 2:00AM in the morning. I’m all for having A LOT of fun but I think the new approach is working!
By Jackie Mccoy on July 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The bloomers (50-inch waist, “open-crotch style”) and other samples of what the AP is calling the Royal drawers were owned by a family in western England whose ancestor was a lady-in-waiting to Queen Victoria. (Not a very trustworthy one, apparently.)
QV’s chemise, with a 66-inch bust, went for $8,000, and her nightgown went for $11,000.
I hope the same Canadian didn’t buy them all. I blanch at the thought of what might be done with them.
By Dan on July 30th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
The Sun has a new article out that Kate flew to Barbados on British Airways to meet up with William, and she insisted on being treated as a regular passenger.
The article says that they offered to upgrade her ticket to first class, and she declined the offer and kept her regular ticket. I call that first class behaviour! Here is the link to the story: http://tinyurl.com/5v7yew
This is a nice story, I certainly hope it’s true.
By mapleleaf on July 31st, 2008 at 12:27 am
That’s very humble of her if true. I don’t think I’d ever pass up an offer for an upgrade to first class… especially not for an 8-hour flight!
By frands on July 31st, 2008 at 1:37 am
John,
I hope that the NOW magazine is not a blog. It is saying the same thing as the Daily Star said. Here is the link
http://tinyurl.com/68gl34 If it is not allowed, please remove it.
By kat on July 31st, 2008 at 1:50 am
Mapleleaf, the Sun quotes British Airways staff, so it seems true to me.
The interesting bit was that she asked cabin crew, “Please call me Kate.” So that answers the K/C question once and for all.
By John on July 31st, 2008 at 8:40 am
Kat, NOW mag is part of a group that includes Country Life and Marie Claire. It’s strange they quote the Daily Star, though. Maybe Richard Desmond has bought them up too.
Basically, they’re just taking a punt based on general gossip around, maybe even RA’s speculation about the one-week window in August. They certainly don’t know whether it’s true or not, but it makes a Royal story with a Kate Middleton tag.
Anyway, it’s not a blog.
The reason we’re now discouraging links to blogs is not just that they usually repeat press material, but that the owner comes on here and repeatedly links to them for free advertising and Google juice.
I noticed very recently that one particular blogspot blog was being linked to many times for very thin stories. Go figure.
By John on July 31st, 2008 at 8:51 am
It does, definitely, settled the “Kate” question, John! Good to know that at long last!
By Gigi on July 31st, 2008 at 10:49 pm