William and Kate: The Road Least Travelled
Some Royal observers are claiming that there appears to be another “turf war” between the rival courts and press offices of Buckingham Palace and Clarence House. This is an old story tracing back to the time of Diana, Princess of Wales, when the rival court was St James’s Palace.
Now it centres on the inexperienced figure of Kate Middleton, who must wonder why so much spite and bitterness is coming her way, not only from teenagers with a crush on her boyfriend, but from Palace sources.
Today’s little local difficulty is a symptom of a debate going on among some Palace courtiers, including close friends of the Queen. To understand it, you have to know something about the ancient traditions of Royalty.
Not so very long ago, it was regarded as a step down in Royalness for one parent to lack a Royal pedigree, even if the other was a Monarch.
For example, Prince Philip’s parents were both Royal, but the Queen’s were a King and an Earl’s daughter (a commoner). Prince William has the same “diluting” factor in his parentage, deriving from Diana, another Earl’s daughter.
While that may not matter a fig these days, the Middletons represent an even further diminution in Royal connections, including a link to a northern coalmining family on Kate’s mother’s side.
Many of the companions and friends of the Queen are much grander than she is in their personal attitudes and opinions. Some are known to be seething that William should even consider such a match, especially if they have an eligible daughter or granddaughter waiting in the wings.
Some have spoken to the press — Richard Kay has put it on record that he has been approached by a “close friend of the Queen” with anti-Kate sentiments.
It would be disingenuous to imagine that the Royal Family have not been affected by this febrile atmosphere, and even had doubts of their own.
The fact that William has stuck with Kate throughout all this is a good measure of his character. He has poignant memories of the long, vicious breakup of his parent’s marriage, which would add to his cautious approach to all things matrimonial.
I’ve written before that I think his, and Kate’s, lives would have been easier had he made his intentions clearer some time ago. Prince Philip’s advice, “Marry the girl or let her go,” was wise counsel.
However, William has used actions rather than statements to reveal his hand. Every invitation to a major Royal event for Kate speaks louder than words. That some people refuse to see that is a reflection on their own pig-headedness — or point-blank opposition to the match.
Royal Anecdotes received a strong tip some months ago that plans were being made for an announcement towards the end of William’s military training. It seemed good timing then, as it does now.
Perhaps while the Prince was yomping across wintry Dartmoor with a 60lb pack on his back, he saw Kate’s exposed predicament as good training for her future role. If she could survive that, she can come through anything.
One thing’s for sure, the final decision will emerge from as complex a soup of opinion, precedent, prejudice and resentment as any young couple have ever endured. It will truly be the road least travelled.
It falls to us here on this Royalist website to give them both the benefit of the doubt.
I’ve just returned from holiday where I may add the weather was awful around the Med, but not as bad as the cloud circling around these two very much in love couple.
How sad that people won’t leave them alone and even sadder that some people want an ill match with there own relatives no matter how distant for there own social climbing.
Our future King should be a happy King with HIS Queen at his side not a business partner to please the staff. Which is what Courtiers are !!
By james on September 4th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Hear hear!!
By gordon on September 4th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I’m from the United States, and I’ve been following the British Monarchy since my first visit to the UK when I was 18 yrs. old. I find it appaling that the Courtiers are trying to break-up another couple that appears to be so much in love.
Don’t they ever learn; they’ve made such blundering mistakes with Prince Margaret, Prince Diana and the Dutchess of York. They don’t seem to ‘get it’.
Leave William and Kate alone!
By Nancy on September 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
For those who want them to break up: You can’t fight fate. They will be together if they are meant to be together. I don’t know why people think they can interfere and change the outcome of something that really isn’t up to them.
By Meg on September 4th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Dear James, be assured I wouldn’t wish a match for William with any of my relations as I am actually rather fond of the boy!
I do agree that Kate will be William’s Queen, and that it is HIS decision who his Queen will be, not that of the courtiers.
John, those are fantastic and reasonable points you make. It really does appear this recent “campaign” if you will, is being driven by a few evil minded poeple who undoubtedly have an agenda of their own, and I believe it is likely (as you say) that some of these people are members of the Queen’s inner circle. The only thing that saddens me is, why does the Queen allow such snobby people to be around her?
I strongly feel that it is time for William to state his intentions as it is rather pathetic IMO that Kate is now reduced to defend herself (via friends) against these spiteful allegations in Hello magazine. Can the press department at Clarence House not work on Kate’s behalf behind the scenes? As Trudie pointed out, Charles did it for Camilla long before anything was “official.” I feel it is entirely in line and high time for William to speak up and do this for his Kate.
By alsgal on September 4th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I would say we’ve had a clear example of how poorly marriages for the common good work in this day when there is not love involved. Simply, under the intense view of the media and public eye, they don’t!
I would question why anyone would not see that true feelings of love, trust and affection are critical for success because if William and Kate can not turn to eachother for support, then all is lost. We would have another generation of disapointment and divorce in the RF. NOT a good thing!
On another note…John, great to have you back and I hope you had a great vacation.
Also, what is the photo above? I have to say, to the completely uneducated (England being one of the only countries that I have not visited, although the one I wanted to visit most…parents in control there) it appears that someone is being asked to leave and the guard is makeing sure they go! Ha!
By Julie on September 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Julie, this is a staged shot from — if I remember rightly — a book about a Royal servant arriving at Windsor Castle, which you can see right at the end of the mile-long drive at Windsor Great Park.
It was intended to be an amusing picture, but I’ve used it to make a more serious point.
By John on September 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Ah, now that I understand, it’s quite clever
Sorry to have to make you explain your subtle humor/point. The lack of understanding was all ME!
By Julie on September 4th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
If the Queen is all about “modernizing” the family, marrying Kate is a step in exactly the right direction. We aren’t in the 1500s anymore where you expect the heir to the throne to marry another blue blood. By marrying Kate, the royal family is saying “yes we want our family members to marry for love, not for who their parents are.” It’s the most modern thing the royal family can do, they are showing they aren’t bound by age old traditions when it comes to someone’s marriage…
By American Cousin on September 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
John, when you talk about courtiers and the inner circle, are you talking about Palace advisers and press officers (i.e., non-Royal), or is there a bevy of old aristos—dessicated offspring of dead dukes and earls—hanging around the Palace whispering in HM’s ear? That sounds very Elizabethan to me—that is, Elizabeth I!
Who amongst such a crowd of Lord-n-Lady harpies would have the audacity—some might say the nerve—to offer advice to their Queen about the proper way to marry off her grandson? I can’t imagine HM keeping company with such people, no matter how blue their blood.
By Dan on September 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Dan, the word courtier covers a lot of ground. Here I’m referring to Ladies in Waiting, Silver Sticks etcetera, who have the Queen’s ear because they are old friends and relations.
The inner Royal Family is known to like people who treat them normally and not as gods who can’t be approached, so I imagine all of them have broached the subject of Kate more than once.
Such conversations can be overheard by servants, or even relayed on by the courtiers themselves. There’s huge room for confusion in the process.
By John on September 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Do you think HM might actually prefer a Royal daughter-in-law to a commoner like Kate? After all, she found a real prince for herself.
But there were a lot of princes and princesses in those days—indeed, the days of the great Danes, “the in-laws of Europe.” They used to have so many marriageable daughters! Now, only sons.
If HM would prefer a real princess for William, I hope she remembers that she wasn’t just shrewd enough to marry a real prince, she was also lucky enough to be in love with him as well. Surely she knows that it was the love that was the key to their successful marriage, not his Greek/Danish title.
By Dan on September 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Dan, I believe the Queen is perfectly reconciled to Kate. The Monarchy survives by being more adaptable than anyone supposes and marrying relatives carries its own penalties, as George III proved.
Kate seems to have character and few hangups. William clearly appreciates that after his volatile childhood. And I’m sure the Queen will be grateful for a peaceful relationship for the ultimate Heir to the Throne, which she observes in Edward and Sophie’s marriage.
After the turbulent 1980s, this is a win-win situation for the Royal Family.
By John on September 4th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Agreed. And no matter what anyone thinks, all appearances are that the die is cast. Naysayers be damned.
By Dan on September 4th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I agree that the Queen herself seems to be all about modernisation, never mind if the few stuffy old guard types around the Palace are still wishing to get one of their girls into the family.
Just look at HM’s own son Edward, who married a wonderful girl one who has been a complete asset to the BRF. Sophie, who comes from , I believe, much the same sort of background as Kate, and if anything, was probably poorer?
One need only to look at the sad, failed marriage of Charles and Diana to see breeding can’t buy you love, no no no no! (ty to Lennon and McCartney)
I’ll stick my neck out here and predict that Kate will be fully accepted by all in the land. Once she is officially “in the Firm” and given the chance to interact with the public, I am certain she will be just as adored as the late Queen Mother was.
By alsgal on September 4th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
It is never a good idea to marry someone unless both parties are truly in love with each other. As for bloodlines and the aristocracy, “…When Adam delved and Eva span, who was then the gentleman?” Prince William is an intelligent, sensitive young man and he is wise to choose only someone he loves for a life partner. As Alsgal well remarked, the Queen Mother was greatly beloved, and her many lovely qualities and gentle breeding, kindness and gracious manner outshone many other highborn members of the Royal Family too numerous to mention! If the marriage of King George VI to a commoner is believed by some to have diminished the bloodline, they need to recollect. The Queen Mother is one of the best things that ever happened to the House of Windsor, genetically and in every other way imagineable. “Pretty is as pretty does,” my Mother used to say, and that is very true of the Queen Mother and of Kate Middleton, whom I discern to be a classic English beauty with many fine qualities. She will be a great asset to the Crown, mark my words.
By Gigi on September 5th, 2008 at 12:19 am
The picture is perfect! At first I wasn’t sure of the message. Coming or going? I was really, really glad to read she is, in fact, walking to the castle. Thanks for the explanation.
By lionhound on September 5th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Absolutely spot on, John!!
This is very well-written comentary and the reason I visit Royal Anecdotes.
From my visits here and other reading, I concluded that William was not fully committed to the 2007 breakup and that he “negotiated” a two-year waiting period (coinciding with his military training) and then a marriage. IMHO, he had to negotiate both with the palace and with Kate!
But, now the two years are almost up. And … guess what … all these negative articles about Kate appear, along with a great deal of aristo hand wringing about her suitability.
Of course, the worst part is the breathtaking cynicism of it all. While objection to Kate in court is almost surely rooted in her lack of aristocratic pedigree, their leaks to the press focus on her lack of a job, her supposed laziness. In short, her lack of working-class bona fides.
Unbelievable!!
By Alicia on September 5th, 2008 at 1:05 am
The Guardian has weighed in. One of their bloggers refers to CM as her “second favourite indolent arriviste”. What is THEIR problem?
By Ursula on September 5th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Thank you, Alicia and your comment is spot on too.
I agree with you that a timetable was fixed after the break last year, which is why neither party has seemed particularly bothered by all the fuss and controversy. They have kept a low profile as RA advised them to do at the time.
By John on September 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Ursula, no more viperish people exist on earth than the Guardianistas when targeting something or somebody they don’t like.
By John on September 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I’m confused about what all this debate is about. Didn’t John say that an engagement will be announced at Christmas? If this is the truth then what good will bashing Catherine do? Why havent I heard about this engagement in the news?
By Celeste on September 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Rest assured the old snobs at the palace will make Kates life a living hell as they did with Sarah because she does not come from a grand family. It has always been said even by Sarah and Diana that the courtiers are far more grand than the family they serve.
I just hope that unlike Charles or Andrew, William will have the guts to stand up to them and back his wife.
By Trudie on September 5th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Trudie, I can only hope you will be wrong about this. Let’s hope things at the Palace will be different this time around, and it’s hard for me to imagine it will be that bad for Kate. Why? Well, put simply I doubt William would allow it, or at least I certainly hope he wouldn’t. Let us hope for Kate’s sake — and for the sake of the British public — that when it is necessary he will put his foot down (if not up into someone’s orifice!) if the need arises.
He owes that much to Kate, who is quite obviously the love of his life, and will undoubtedly continue to be. He must also not forget how difficult it was for his mother, also an outsider in a way.
Watching “Elizabeth R” again last night, I was interested to learn more about Sir Bob Fellowes, who was private secretary to HM and the brother-in-law of Diana. It turns out he is from an old gentry family, and is suprisingly enough, a cousin of Sarah Ferguson. I always thought he was one of those infamous “grey men” at the Palace who caused Diana and Sarah so much heartache, and yet it doesn’t make sense as they are all kin to each other?
It alarmed me a bit to think, if it was so hostile between people who know each other, what must poor Kate be in for when she’s not even a distant relation? It’s a good thing her own family can support her, as “friends” like these in the Palace must be quite ruthless to deal with. I am glad she is strong, and that William adores her so much. She will certainly require his support.
By alsgal on September 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Alsgal, Robert Fellowes is actually married to one of Diana’s sisters. I believe he did what he could for her at the time, but his ultimate loyalty was to the Monarch he served. It must have been a great clash of interests for him.
As for today, Kate has the support of Prince Charles’s court at Clarence House, and Charles is clearly aware of the deficiencies of the system in Diana’s day. He seems to be very supportive of Kate, having learnt the lessons of those days.
He has also lined up a complete press and advisory team for both William and Kate after the engagement, which is funded by his Duchy of Cornwall. With the support of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh as well, Kate should have a near-invincible Pretorian Guard around her.
You heard it here first.
By John on September 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
John, I’m always amazed at the contacts you must have. Thanks much for this bit of encouraging news.
By Evelyn on September 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
That is a good point, that Robert Fellowes first loyalty was to the Monarchy, as well it should be.
Evelyn, sometimes I wonder if John doesn’t have an HRH before his name, or at the very least, His Grace. I don’t think I’m alone in having these suspicions, either.
By alsgal on September 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Alsgal, as Gigi is the Duchess of Marmalade so I am the Duke of PottedShrimps.
By John on September 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
John,
Also appreciate your insight…what is your job actually! How do you have connections to the royal court?
By American Cousin on September 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
American Cousin, I own and run a media company, Syntagma Media, which operates this website and others, and provides specialist information to corporate clients. I’m also an author and journalist. My new book, Mediate Yourself should be published next year, with two others following closely.
In terms of connections, I have a fair number of links with people in London who keep their ears to the ground.
A lot of so-called “information” is simply not true, so you have to apply a great deal of knowledge and plain intuition to get near the truth. Which is why only about one percent of what I hear gets onto this site.
By John on September 5th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Potted shrimps, eh? John you wicked devil! That only proves that my suspicions are correct.
American Cousin, someone of John’s caliber would never reveal his connections, that is just not done. I need only to look back at John’s extraordinary “hit rate” to see he is obviously connected to someone pretty high up. Let’s leave it at that, shall we?
I see Mr. Fifty Fifty (aka Richard Kay, who is only right about half the time it seems) is reporting that William and Kate are due at Balmoral, and their visit might be coinciding with that of Gordon Brown.
That would almost put the October announcement we’ve been speculating about into play, as it seems likely the Queen will want for the PM to meet Kate prior to an announcement being made?
Also, this ties in beautifully with the appointment of the new Dream Team press officers, who I believe are set to start in October as well. Any thoughts?
By alsgal on September 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Alsgal, it seems Gordon and Sarah Brown are due at Balmoral this weekend.
Richard Kay says that “below-stairs gossip” suggests that William and Kate — who are expected sometime — will be there this weekend too.
That is very significant because the PM has to give approval of a Royal marriage at this level, and he has never met Kate.
The pieces of the puzzle are falling into place, although whether the meeting will result in an immediate announcement is open to question. As ever, the golden couple are keeping their plans close to their chests.
By John on September 5th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
If William will have press staff sometime in October, I wouldn’t expect an engagement announcement in September. They may even want to give the new staff a few months to settle in before the onslaught begins.
By Evelyn on September 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
True, Evelyn. Just after Christmas, from Sandringham is still our best bet.
By John on September 5th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Excellent analysis and reporting as usual, John! Nevertheless, I insist that your rank and title be more illustrious than mine, as is only fit and proper, since I suspect (and have for long) that you are of Royal blood, however distant the connection. Therefore, we must find a rank and title for you and since I am a duchess, you must be a prince. Prince of Shrimps Potted sounds a bit mundane, so let us discover where the best place in the UK is for shrimping and use that locale as part of John’s title. I believe that location to be Cornwall, if I am not mistaken, but since Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, we must not trespass. Is there a specific part of the Cornish coast that is famed for shrimping? UK Royal Anecdoters, help me out here, we must settle John’s title.
By Gigi on September 5th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Gigi, you are awful.
Actually, I do have connections with the beautiful cove of Lamorna in Cornwall, so I will — with appropriate reluctance and due deference — accept the title of Prince of Lamorna.
And that’s the last time I’ll show my face there.
By John on September 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Thanks all for making me smile today! That’s all…
By Julie on September 5th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Is there a link to the Richard Kay piece? I can’t find it, Google search and all.
By Dan on September 5th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Yeah! I knew John was a Prince
By dally on September 6th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Alsgal Sir Robert Fellowes was indeed one of the grey men and yes he often took Sarah and Diana to task if a news piece was less than flattering.
John I don’t care how much CH backs Kate ultimately it is BP she would have to answer to and HM’s court. And if the court has an agenda believe me there is not a thing CH would be able to do about it. Andrew and Sarah were deeply in love but even that love was not strong enough for Andrew to stand up for Sarah. I seriously doubt that William to would stand up to HM’s courtiers however, he has been known to stand up to Charles advisors but I believe if William learned anything growing up he would be the man his father and uncle were not and stand by Kate. Lets hope he does not dither around like his father and the way he is now with Kate and nips all this negativity in the bud now before and engagement is announced.
By Trudie on September 6th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Dan, the website only has Richard Kay’s column up to the 4th. The piece appeared yesterday, the 5th. I saw it in the paper version.
By John on September 6th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Trudie, you perhaps forget that Diana and Fergie behaved outrageously in the early years, such as illegally impersonating police officers and going out on the town in London. They also jabbed people from behind with their umbrellas at Royal Ascot — which constitutes an assault.
Palace officials were right to slam them for it. Imagine the wreckage if the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York were held in police cells overnight and had to appear in court on a serious charge the following day. It would have torpedoed the Monarchy below the waterline.
The pair of them were very immature and craved constant stimulus. I believe Kate will be much calmer and better behaved. There will be no need for the Palace to reprimand her over anything.
By John on September 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
John is right, there really aren’t many true comparisons between Kate and Diana/Fergie. She’s better educated, more mature, and evidently more self-confident than either of her predecessors, and her relationship with William has had far more time and privacy to grow into something real, as opposed to something merely camera-ready. I don’t believe Charles or Andrew thoroughly knew, understood, respected, indeed truly loved the girls they were marrying. All evidence suggests William is not making the same mistake. Although Kate is not Royal, she and William have far more in common (pun intended!), they have matured together and have nearly ten years of shared history that will make a better seal to their relationship. While nothing is 100% certain, William and Kate appear to have done right for themselves while permitting minimal prodding and jostling from both the interlopers and the naysayers. It is always refreshing to see the lessons of one’s forebears learned without repeating the same mistakes in the process. Let’s hope for a union truly blessed to kick off the next generation.
By Dan on September 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I really think it will be neat to see William and Kate, undoubtedly taking a great deal from the remarkable example set by Kate’s side of the family, setting out together to write a brand new chapter in the RF marital relationship book. I think we can look forward to calm, smooth waters ahead, with a minimum of the drama and personal fuss that plagued the family from Margaret through to Charles and Camilla.
As Dan put it so well, theirs is not a love that is merely camera ready. It is real life ready, and it is all good.
I think it’s very telling that theirs is not a love for show, with a ridiculous amount of slobbering and snogging in public like a pair of cheap Hollywood film stars. It would appear they have taken a page out the the Quuen and the Duke’s book, and have decided to play it low key. I don’t believe I am alone in applauding them for that. Dignity trumps display every time.
By alsgal on September 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Excellent comments by Dan and Alsgal. The mistakes of the past have been well absorbed. William and Kate will not repeat them.
And that’s great news.
By John on September 6th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
There is an article in the News of the World about William and Kate attending a wedding together. Interesting info saying that it will be another possible 18 months to an engagement. However, I do think that John has his sources which indicate a much closer engagement. The article has pictures. Kate was looking radiant and William handsome. What an extremely good looking couple they are!!! Another statement that says that I love this woman on William’s part.
By kat on September 6th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Sorry for the double post but I am trying to create a tiny url for the site.
Please try this:
http://tinyurl.com/65nysv
I hope it works!
By kat on September 6th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Thanks, Kat. I guess this means W&K aren’t at Balmoral this weekend, meeting the PM.
By Evelyn on September 7th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Kat, I was also over at the other site where you posted the link as well and thank you for sharing the link with us.
I agree with you, what a fantastic looking couple they are and such sweet and happy photos of them enjoying Chiara’s wedding there in Salzburg. I do believe that the”not for 18 months” engagement story is a bit of a red herring to throw us off the scent a bit, but fortunately — unlike many of the NotW readers, we have John, so we know that will not be the case!
It says Chiara Hunt is the sister of Olivia Hunt, a friend of theirs from St. Andrew’s. Does anyone know who Chiara married and why it took place in Salzburg? It is a lovely location but one wonders if any of the von Trapps are involved!
By alsgal on September 7th, 2008 at 1:00 am
There is always Prince Charles’s birthday party! They could at least be introduced. Just a thought-Could Kate and the PM have met at the concert for Mandela? They were both there. If memory serves me correctly, they sat in the same section?
By kat on September 7th, 2008 at 1:05 am
I have a feeling that “meeting the Prime Minister” is more serious than just being introduced to the PM in a social setting. If the PM has to give some kind of approval to W&K’s marriage, it must involve a sit-down chat about how their marriage will strengthen the RF and enrich the UK.
By Evelyn on September 7th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Kat, thousands of thanks for the link, as I am still purring over those wonderful snaps of the Beautiful Couple! Just looking at them makes me feel so happy, so hopeful. It seems to me as if Prince William and Kate are deeply in love, secure and mature in their relationship, know where they are going and when, and will become engaged and marry on their own time schedule, no one else’s. What is the old saying? “The dogs bark, but the caravan passes on…” Well, in this instance, the media dogs may bark and growl, snarl and whine, but Prince William and Kate will steer their ship into safe harbor nonetheless. I feel a tremendous sense of pride in this young couple, in whom I place complete confidence. The Kingdom will be safe in their hands, when, in the fullness of time, they mount the throne and lead Britannia to a new Golden Era. In the meantime, we have the advantage of the sources and resources of our very own John, Prince of Lamorna! Life is good, dear friends!
By Gigi on September 7th, 2008 at 3:35 am
I see that the posters on another forum think that the photos from Austria show an old-looking, bored and far from good-looking couple. Kate’s outfit is awful, nobody else her age would ever wear something like that,she is too thin but not around the middle….. He is bald and therefore totally unattractive.He does not want to be there with her. He is so bored. She is grinning though. They look like an old married couple. They should be ashamed of themselves really.
Think I must spend the day getting new glasses.
By dagga on September 7th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Well, dagga, I happen to think they’re a handsome couple who looked perfectly content in the pictures. And mind you, I have perfect vision
By frands on September 7th, 2008 at 9:03 am
John the whole thing with Diana happened because Charles kept asking her why can’t she be more like Fergie. Before Sarah came on the royal scene Diana behaved impeccably. It was also after Ascot that Diana stopped trying to be like Fergie. But the point I am making here is these people work for the RF not the RF working for them but for some reason if, the courtiers have an agenda against someone the RF listens and does not stand up to them. IMO at that time Diana and Sarah were rebelling against them especially as it must have dawned on them especially Diana that she was only used as a brood mare by a husband who needed heirs and a beautiful arm decoration at engagements.
By Trudie on September 7th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Dagga, I’ve never seen them look so good together or so close, for that matter. I suppose your attitude colours what you see. The people on the other site must despise them in that case. Mysterious.
Actually, they could have flown to Balmoral immediately after the wedding and been there in time for dinner with the PM. Their presence in Austria doesn’t rule out spending the whole of Sunday with the Prime Minister.
As for all the preparations, they have been going on for some time. If we’re looking at a Christmas announcement and a May or June wedding, there are four months before the first, and nine or 10 months before the second. Ample time.
The “Senior Royal source” — who could be almost anybody, is either damping down speculation or is relatively junior and doesn’t know.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not infallible.
By John on September 7th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Trudie, Charles’s comment was a big error of judgement and showed early on what a yawning gap there was between the couple.
By John on September 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Yeah John and he still makes big errors in judgment. lets look at the last 3 years to be precise.
By Trudie on September 7th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I just reread the NOTW article. It quotes the senior source at saying the wedding could be 18 months away. The wording of the article is more tentative than definite. It might be wishful thinking on my part. It was great though that William could arrange for Kate’s seurity while at the wedding. I think that it says a lot about about the love that he has for Kate.
By kat on September 7th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Kat it has a lot to do with the love he has for Kate. But look at the internet sites where deranged posters really hate her. It’s real sad that she has to have security for herself when out with him to keep her from being harmed simply because she is his GF prospective fiancee it he ever gets it together and proposes. I still cannot understand why she is hated considering these people do not know her and are unlikely to meet her unless she is married to him and does the ritual walkabouts.
By Trudie on September 7th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Before anyone starts to question, “But what about the British taxpayer?” I would like to ask if it’s not possible that PC’s bodyguard Dominick was actually looking after William, and as Kate was there with William, there was no “extra” protection needed? Somehow I think PC and PW are too smart to get themselves in trouble by using a member of the Royal Protection Service to guard someone who is technically not a Royal. (Although Kate is already a Royal in many of our hearts here at RA. :))
I thought Kate and William looked a) adorable NOT middle aged and b) were dressed rather appropriately considering they were at formal church wedding, also one in a conservative country like Austria. Those silly people who complain constantly about Kate either claim she dresses like a forty five year old or a panty showing prostitute. How they figure Kate pulls both looks off at the same time is beyond me (pls. insert rolling eyes smiley here.)
I’ve been trying to navigate through the Austrian Air website and it appears John is (once again) absolutely correct in saying that they could easily fly back home today to meet the PM. Unless they choose to remain in Salzburg and go shopping for some Mozart’s Kugeln to bring back home.
By alsgal on September 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
This is, yet again, a case of the Green-Eyed Monster (jealousy) rearing it’s ugly head. As infuriating and unfair as it is and has been for Kate to be subjected to these slurs on her character, intelligence and appearance, perhaps we would all do well to remember what our Mothers taught us and “consider the source” and treat these naysayers with the silent contempt they deserve. I suspect that much of this constant and frantic negative commentary being posted ’round the clock are pathetic attempts to gain attention. Let us confound their efforts by subjecting them to being utterly ignored, rejected and repudiated. I am very tired of these extremely ill-bred people and their shocking behavior, which, if I may say so, is most un-British.
By Gigi on September 7th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Gigi It is not just the British there are alot of anti Kate people from around the Commonwealth.
By Trudie on September 7th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
This Canuck is not one of them, Trudie.
Kate will make an incredible PoW (Princess of William, get it?
)
and eventual Queen, it is now only up to us to be patient and for the workings behind the scenes to take place. There are steps that need to be taken, Royal protocol to be followed, and that simply takes time, as John has told us.
There’s a great advert that used to say, “If you’ve got the time, we’ve got the beer.” Be rest assured Trudie, that I will be out there at least three days prior to the Royal Nuptials on the parade route with my lawn chair, and lots of beer.
I regretted not seeing Charles and Diana’s wedding in person, and I have made a vow not to miss William’s. I have been waiting for his wedding since June 21, 1982 and still have the People magazine edition with Charles and Diana coming out of St. Mary’s, cradling their newborn son.
Yes, to paraphrase that sad surgical mishap that is Michael Jackson, I’ll be there, girl, I’ll be there.
By alsgal on September 7th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
My dear Trudie, I know what you say is accurate. The point that I was making is that such ill-bred behavior is un-British. Ever since I can remember, the British have set the standard for civilized, well-bred and gracious behavior. People all over the world, of all backgrounds, have sought to copy this behavior, to their own benefit. Therefore, when anyone from any ethnic background or any nationality behaves in an uncivil, ill-bred, even heinous manner, I characterize that behavior as un-British.
By Gigi on September 8th, 2008 at 12:21 am
I hate to say this Alsgal but I am really starting to lose patience with the whole thing. I just wish those two would hurry up and get married. I know there is protocol to be followed but it seemed to me in the 80’s it was a lot faster. Since I live in the States I doubt I could book a flight to London for that event. I was up at 3 am to watch not only Charles and Diana’s wedding but Diana’s funeral too. And you can believe I will be up at 3am when William and Kate Marry so I don’t miss one minute of the wedding. I also saw Annes first wedding in school they showed it via closed circuit TV and Andrews and I have a tape of Edwards. No one does a wedding quite like the royals. I just hope this time there is a happily ever after.
By Trudie on September 8th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Ok Gigi thanks for clarifying this I misunderstood you but I still can understand why on alot of these boards the same people embrace Cammy and bash Kate who had done no harm to anyone?. Apart from the fact many think she is work shy Cammy puts her in the shade with no work ethic. Can someone explain this ?.
By Trudie on September 8th, 2008 at 12:59 am
BTW Gigi what kind of wedding cake will be served?I’m torn between a decadant red velvet or carrot cake.
By Trudie on September 8th, 2008 at 1:01 am
It is really amazing how many websites are following the News of the World article in reporting the same 18 months. The last time that I heard 18 months was back when it was said that William would leave the millitary in that time. That was so he could take on royal duties and I thought get married. I am truly hoping that the announcement comes way before then. That is a long time for Kate to be in limbo. I am from the US so I do not know of all the traditions and protocols that go into a royal wedding. I am hoping that the Royal source is mistakem.
I want them to be sure of what they are doing. I do want them to hurry up and be sure and get everything together.
By the way Trudie, how about half and half for your cake?
By kat on September 8th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Well if I was planning to announce an engagement, I’d try to throw the press off at first as well. Who’d want such an announcement to be totally expected - date and all? I would try to make it a surprise.
By Isana on September 8th, 2008 at 5:22 am
And, as I’ve said before, most of the anti-Kate types we get in our mod. panel have U.S. ISPs. It’s sad but this seems to be a universal phenomenon.
Perhaps some PhD student should write their thesis on the topic. It could make a publishable book in the aftermath of a Royal wedding.
By John on September 8th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Well spotted, Isana.
By John on September 8th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Kat you settled the cake problem. Gigi what do you think for the RA wedding party? Kat anymore idea for the over the top celebrations that will be going on here the day of their wedding?
By Trudie on September 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am
As much as many of us adored Diana when she was in her early twenties, for those first few years there were those in the press, despite her many charitable endeavors, who complained she wasn’t doing enough and that she was essentially an airheaded clotheshorse. One can look back and re-read the articles of 1982, 1983 to get a sense of the dismissive tone of much of what was written about her. It took a few years of hard work and steady devotion to her charities, for the public perception of Diana to change, before people began thinking of her as a more substantial figure.
I predict the same will happen with Kate, as she finds the causes which resonate with her, and which she can develop a passion for.
As for Camilla, I’m not in the UK so I can’t really get a sense of whether or not she has been accepted by the majority of the public (of course the Establishment has accepted her — as she is the wife of the next head of the Establishment it could be no other way.). I have read the criticism that she doesn’t do enough, while others say, the poor old dear is 60+ something, so don’t expect much.
Reading on this side of the Atlantic, it seems many feel that she may very well only be Queen (or Princess Consort) for such a limited period of time that whoever William marries is fa ar more important issue. What are the RA readers thoughts, I wonder?
By alsgal on September 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Well this is sticky because no one knows how long Charles would reign or if he or Cammy would dies before the Queen. It is important who William marries but only IMO this is more on the support she provides for him and being able to speak intelligently with dignitaries as well as rearing the next heirs to the throne.
I think Kate has it together on these issues the problem right now is that she is in limbo and cannot really show what she is made of. Like Diana in the early years she was thought to be nothing more than a thick clotheshorse even though she was newly married and busy providing the heirs. Diana proved once Harry was born that she was made of just the right stuff to be Queen it was just a pity her husband and his friends thought differently.
By Trudie on September 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
John, would it take anything more than letters patent to change the tradition by which a commoner wife who marries a prince must bear his name (i.e., Princess William?)
Prince Philip was a prince of Greece and Denmark by birth but he was created a Prince of the UK at his wedding. Couldn’t letters patent be issued by which William’s wife could be called a Princess by her own name? It seems a small adaptation for the times, and not something that would threaten the Realm.
This way, they could avoid reviving some old Dukedom that would only hold a place until they become Prince and Princess of Wales, and would allow the bride to be called Princess so-and-so, instead of so-and-so, Princess of Wales.
Whether or not you would agree with such a change
, would it require more than letters patent to do it? Would Parliament have to pass law(s)?
By Dan on September 8th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Dan, when William and Kate marry they will be granted a Royal Dukedom by the Queen. That is long established tradition. York is not available so it will be something not familiar to a younger generation. We’ve speculated a lot about it so best wait the result.
It’s possible another route has been planned which will precipitate them into a different situation, but I’m not going to get into that now. It’s too incendiary to talk about until it happens.
By John on September 8th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Trudie, I agree Kate obviously has it together, she is a bit in limbo at the moment (who wouldn’t be in her position?) and it can be assumed she is intelligent given her level of education. Unlike some, she didn’t have personal connections to land her a spot at her boarding school or university. I am more than certain she can speak to dignitaries when the time comes.
Seriously, her biggest trangression appears to be having kneeling photogs snap her getting out of the car in a short dress. Hardly up there with adultery or theft is it? The poor girl cannot win either way, for if she wears a long dress she is roundly booed for looking matronly beyond her years. I’m glad she doesn’t listen to the yammering of a fickle public and a few annoying self-absorbed fashion writers.
By alsgal on September 8th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Actually John the Late Princess Alice Dowager Duchess of Gloucester was born Lady Alice Douglas Montegue Scott the daughter of the Duke of Bucclech I probably am not spelling this right but any way on the death of her husband she asked the Queen for permission to be called Princess Alice as her title so as not to confuse her with the current Duchess. So really Dan is not so far off the mark.
By Trudie on September 8th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Perhaps Kate could be titled “Princess Catherine of Wales” to go along with “Prince William of Wales.”
I do wonder, John, about your comment that another possibility would be “too incendiary.” I wish you would share it!
By Evelyn on September 9th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I doubt Kate would get a Princess title of her own when Camilla doesn’t use the one that belongs to her. Wouldn’t that look like Kate “outranked” Camilla even though she should be behind her?
Yet when William and Kate are once known as Duke and Duchess wouldn’t that make it difficulet for the public to later get used to calling them Prince and Princess of Wales? I know that this is like it’s always been but the press loves to stick to certain names so I fear once a Duchess always a Duchess.
By Isana on September 9th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Trudie, the Queen can grant personal requests of that kind, but they are rare. In the case of someone of William’s seniority I would be staggered if they didn’t get a Royal Dukedom.
Isana, Camilla is officially the Princess of Wales, even if she doesn’t use the title. It defines her rank.
A plain Prince or Princess — as in Princess Eugenie — is the lowest form of Royalty. Being Princess of Something, or Princess Royal, is very senior indeed.
I doubt very much that Kate will end up as Princess William. That would be a slap in the face. The Queen will do something special for them.
By John on September 9th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Kate is the best thing that ever happened to the “modernized” monarch. It’s such a shame how her own countrymen (or women, I should say) say lies about her just to feed their selfish desires. She’s a smart woman…and I believe that she’ll make a better job of carrying the roles of a princess or queen than the late Princess Diana (although I’m a huge fan of Diana!). I can’t wait for them to get married…
By geia on September 9th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Is there a good link that lists the titles and who out ranks who? A “Duke” is higher than a “Prince?” What are some examples and why is Prince Philip mostly called Duke of Edinburgh? I would think being the Queen’s husband, the Prince title outranks the Duke title?
Just curious, as the Duke/Prince and the ranking of titles and what not.
By American Cousin on September 9th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
American Cousin, “Prince Philip” is a common or garden title that recognizes his Royal birth, nothing more. Duke of Edinburgh is a conferred Royal Dukedom that easily outranks his Prince one. It’s the equivalent of “Grand Duke” in continental Europe.
Only a Prince of Something is a high-ranking title.
By John on September 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
John, there are Royal Earls (Wessex) and Royal Dukes (York) but is there any reason they seem to bypass the Marquess title?
I’m also wondering what you might have meant by another possibility being “too icendiary.” I can only speculate that might involve a jump in succession, something I cannot see Charles agreeing to as he has spent his life waiting to be King, and seems quite eager to assume the position. Unless MI5 has a nasty gardening accident planned, I assume Charles will be next up?
By alsgal on September 9th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Alsgal, “Marquess” is used more on the continent than in Britain, where it ranks below a Duke and above an Earl — which is the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of a continental Count or Compte, in French.
In terms of “incendiary” scenarios, we can only wait for Charles’s 60th birthday in November. There’s a bit of chatter going around at the moment, but it’s hard to say at what level and with what accuracy.
I prefer to wait until I get a hard signal — which may never come.
By John on September 9th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Thank you, John for explaining the differences in titles and as always, I’m sure if anything is to change in the status quo for the PoW we lucky readers of RA will know first. Keep up the good work John, ’tis much appreciated!
By alsgal on September 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Nasty gardening accident? Oh, my!
Certainly Charles will reign for a while if his parents’ health is any indication he should be here for a long time.
Has a monarch ever chosen to skip the first in line and passed the crown to the #2? But even if it has, I would think that common sense would demand that succession be guaranteed (i.e. W & K having an heir) before any major decisions regarding anyone deciding to “retire” or pass the crown (as it were.)
Please excuse my complete lack of knowledge and understand that I am just speculating as I have NO clue.
By Julie on September 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Julie, in the old days that happened, but nowadays it’s controlled by Acts of Parliament, which means Charles will reign if he’s alive when the time comes, unless he abdicates in favour of his son.
However, his recent outburst to Jeff Randall over GM in which he used the phrase “Count me out” a number of times, has raised eyebrows in some quarters and unleashed speculation about his willingness to preside over European changes in the law. The EU constitution, or Lisbon Treaty, may have pushed him to the brink.
By John on September 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Thank you for explaining the current situation/context. I wonder if Charles would take it on to facilitate change or walk away in protest? Or is he not supposed to try to create change politically (only socially as in all the charity work?) He certainly does not seem to me to be the type to remain comfortably apolitical.
By Julie on September 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
One problem with the tradition of Royal Dukedoms (Clarence, Sussex, and Albany are examples) is making sense of the association.
William can be created the Duke of Clarence (as the last King William had been), but Clarence is now just a House on the Mall.
(Duke of a house?) Sussex would appear arbitrary (What has Sussex got to do with William, and vice versa?) and Albany is another title that would make people scratch their heads.
In fact, the tradition already exists that sons of peers take their father’s subsidiary titles as their own, i.e., the Duke of Gloucester’s son is styled the Earl of Ulster, the Duke of Kent’s son is styled the Earl of St. Andrews, etc.
Following that lead, the Prince of Wales son should be styled Duke of Cornwall (indeed, the Prince of Wales is the Duke of Cornwall, just as the Duke of Gloucester is the Earl of Ulster, but the secondary title is born by the son as a “courtesy title,” not as his own outright.)
Unfortunately, because Camilla does not use her proper Princess title out of deference to the deceased Diana, we would then have two Duchesses of Cornwall. One solution is to go one subsidiary title down. Currently Charles is Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, Earl Carrick (Scotland), Baron Renfrew.
Since any title William is given upon his marriage will be discarded for the Wales title when his father takes the throne (although he will have to be invested Prince of Wales; it won’t
happen automatically), why create a new throwaway title? He and his wife should follow long standing tradition and take one of his father’s titles as a courtesy title.
I present to you William and Catherine, the Earl and Countess of Chester!
Yes, Chester.
Just an idea…
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Dan, the Duchy of Cornwall is entailed on the Prince of Wales because that’s where his income comes from.
I would be puzzled if William were made an Earl, which is a lowly rank for a man a heartbeat away from the Wales title and another from the Throne. There are a number of Dukedoms out there, and the Queen could simply create one as she created an imaginary Earldom for Edward — Wessex no longer exists in any form as a place, outside of Thomas Hardy novels and distant Saxon history.
We won’t know until the day arrives, although Duke of Cambridge was mooted a while back.
By John on September 9th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
My point is that it wouldn’t be a creation, but follow the long tradition of a noble son “using” one of his father’s subsidiary titles as what they call a “courtesy title.”
It’s a point of trivia, but in fact the well-known Viscount Linley is not the true Viscount Linley. His father, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, former husband of Princess Margaret, was created Earl of Snowdon and Viscount Linley upon his marriage. David, their son, takes the subsidiary title as his courtesy title, just as William could one of his father’s subsidiary titles.
I don’t believe this tradition has ever been followed by Royal Princes, but it could be, therefore avoiding the creation of throwaway Dukedoms that don’t mean anything, and would be discarded in due course.
But this leads to another question. If William does get created Duke of Clarence (or some other), would that persist as one of his subsidiary titles when he is invested Prince of Wales, or are the PoW titles inscribed in stone—Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl Carrick, Baron Renfrew?
Once created, a title persists until death or dishonor, does it not?
Sorry for the esoterica, but I feel we’ve exhausted our engagement speculation for now, until more news dribbles out.
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
The Duke and Duchess of Middleham might be nice as Kate wouldn’t have to change the monogram on her luggage.
The idea of using one of Charles’ courtesy titles is also very appealing. Using the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay would be a friendly nod to Scotland, where they first met.
Although I suspect it will be Cambridge, as John suggested.
By alsgal on September 9th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Well, he couldn’t use Cornwall or Rothesay, since Charles and/or Camilla each use those. She is the Duchess of Cornwall (not her proper title but the one she goes by) and they are both the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay when they are in Scotland (Charles is not called the Prince of Wales in Scotland, he’s called the Duke of Rothesay.)
If my plan were to be followed, Chester is the seniormost title available for courtesy title use.
Cambridge doesn’t make sense to me, since it is a name most associated with the University, and William has no association with the University. As I’ve said before, it would be like dubbing a Harvard man Duke of Oxford.
If my ingenious plan is NOT put in place, then Duke of Clarence makes the most sense. Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews makes even more sense, since those were the titles of the last King William—and the associations are there: William lives in Clarence House and actually attended University in St. Andrews. (We already have an Earl of St. Andrews, but there are plenty of precedents for having Dukes and Earls of the same place. They are usually held by the same person, but no matter. Who’ll complain?)
Thanks, John, for the new post. My “titles” case rests!
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Dan, I would think the Duke of Clarence and Avondale would be out due to the Cleveland Street scandal, but who knows?
By alsgal on September 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm