The Queen and Google
The Queen’s Private Secretary has requested (”commanded” in the old parlance) a visit to Google’s London offices sometime in October.
HM particularly wants to meet the team that created a Royal Channel for her on YouTube, which is now owned by Google.
Staff say the Queen learned to use computers only two years ago to be able to email her grandchildren. She has also mastered the art of texting on her mobile phone and regularly keeps in touch with Prince William, Harry and Zara.
It’s believed Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie taught her how to use YouTube and Facebook and may even have suggested the Royal Channel idea.
Her Majesty is said to surf the internet a lot, and probably likes to see what people are writing or saying about her and her family.
I would think it more than likely that she reads Royal Anecdotes occasionally as we are often in the top four or five results in Google searches for Royal terms.
It would be good to know that HM approves of our combined efforts and, who knows, might even post a comment one day.
Sometimes getting hold of authentic Royal info can be as difficult as tickling for trout in a chalk stream in full spate. Any inside information would be most welcome.
John! A light begins to glimmer in the darkness! I suspect that the Queen is, indeed, reading Royal Anecdotes (as who would not?) and, further, that Her Majesty is posting under the name of (gasp!) DAN!! That would certainly explain Dan’s incredible grasp of all things Royal and military, history and genealogy. Until this matter is settled, let us all be very careful to respond to Dan’s posts with the proper respect and deference.
By Gigi on September 24th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Ha, ha, Gigi, nice try.
To spare Dan the embarrassment of being called the Queen, I can tell you that his email address is from a North American academic establishment — I won’t say which one.
He has already told us he’s “in museums” and we know he is well up on the history of art — shades of Kate.
So, no, it’s not Dan. I wonder if it could be Grandma828? The Queen is 82, after all and a grandma.
You heard it here first.
By John on September 24th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
John, thank you for maintaining One’s privacy. One is granted so little of it these days.
By Dan on September 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Ha ha. Not at all Your Corginess.
By John on September 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
LOL! Well, so much for the attempt to maintain deference and respect–”Your Corginess”?! I went a bit faint when I read that! Actually, I posted that in jest. I imagine that the Queen would post under an alias that made a well-chosen reference to something hereditary, at the very least. Further, even if the Queen was posting to RA, John, with his loyalty to the Crown, would never divulge this, which is only proper. We RAers shall have to glean in other fields of barley, so it would seem.
By Gigi on September 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
That’s true, Gigi. Grandma828 has an AT&T account so couldn’t possibly be our Monarch. Just jesting.
By John on September 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Nevertheless, I wish to make it perfectly clear that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will be our honored guest at any and all Royal Anecdotes Gala Teas. Your Majesty, we always have Balmoral Dundee cake, which hopefully will make Your Majesty feel right at home!
My dear John, please let me know what brand of champagne the Queen prefers so we may serve it at the next RA Gala Tea.
By Gigi on September 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Gigi, I believe a gin and Dubonnet would be very appropriate.
By John on September 24th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen, eh, Dan?
I feel certain someone as media savvy as the Queen has lurked a time or two on the various royal Internet sites. Why wouldn’t she? Unlike the tabloids, which typically print biased stories which tend to support whatever view the editor thinks will sell that week (and even those comment sections are censored as well
) the Internet provides the queen with a wonderful cross section of popular opinion. Unbiased and brutally honest, and definitely a far cry from what she will find in the BP Press Office, but undoubtedly helpful to the institution she must protect in the long term.
By alsgal on September 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
John, you do have knack for choosing photos…HM is beautiful!
And I do love this light hearted piece. Just what we needed!
It’s a wonderful thing that the Queen is staying so intouch with current technology. I do remember my daughter’s reaction when she first received a text from my father…she immediately called me to find out if I thought it might be a joke or if he really sent the message! Ha! Teach those young whipper-snappers!
By Julie on September 24th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
It would be interesting that the Queen posts her comment on the RA simply QE2 or EW.
I think her best feature is the skin. Since we cannot see any wrinkles on any magazine, her natural beauty is so refreshing. I wonder what her beauty secret is.
By Mikado-watcher on September 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Oh my! I was actually just thinking the other day if anyone of the royal persuasion was posting on here. This is why I wanted to know where everyone got such vast knowledge of the royal family.
If they do post (which in this technological and virtual-anonymity age, I wouldn’t doubt it) I think it’s neat and I’m so happy Her Majesty texts!
What a fun post, John. It’s a refreshing switch.
By Meg on September 24th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
By the way, could you imagine being one of the google guys and learning that you will be meeting Her Majesty?! I’m envious of them if this does take place.
By Meg on September 24th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
We should all be Googling this site as often as possible, so in the event she Googles the word “Royal,” the first site on the results page will be this one. Sites are ranked on Google according to the number of hits they receive.
Perhaps I should try it. Maybe it already is!
By Dan on September 24th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Curses! Royal Mail comes first on Google UK, then One’s own website! One must be Googling Oneself like crazy!
By Dan on September 24th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Dan, if you Google — kate middleton william — you’ll find we’re 3rd. if — kate middleton — alone, we’re 7th.
It varies from day to day, but we have been top on some topics.
By John on September 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Or we should just hit this site four times in an hour. I think with all of the people who read it, it would bump Royalanecdotes up a bit, no?
By Meg on September 24th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I wonder what she Googles. Perhaps all those people she’s related to? They all seem to have their own Wikipedia page.
I don’t imagine they’ll get her to sit down and do her own search. Studies have shown that keyboards, especially those used by different people, have more germs than some toilets. (I can see you all looking down in horror.
)
Of course, she’ll have gloves on, but germs stick to anything. And the “5-second rule” has been debunked!
Keep One’s hands to Oneself!
By Dan on September 24th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
A hearty second dose to kudos to John in his choice of photo for this post…its a gorgeous shot of Her Majesty, I love it when she smiles! We loved her visit to us here in the Commonwealth of Virginia last year.
I’m going to try and remember to start coming here by way of a Google search (rather than via bookmarks) in future, to help your rankings, John!
By Leslie on September 24th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
On other “Royal wedding” news… it’s being reported that Prince Albert of Monaco will announce his engagement to Charlene Wittstock very soon. A summer 2009 wedding is expected.
By Evelyn on September 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
You go, Al! Have a legitimate heir this time.
Oddly, his Wikipedia page says (as if in haste, because the entry is not grammatically correct) that he is to marry in September. If it means September ‘08, there’s hardly time to chill the champagne. If it means September ‘09, then at least we know it isn’t a shotgun wedding.
By Dan on September 24th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Let’s hope she’s half blind and/or their bedroom is dimly lit. Ah, to lie back and think of Monaco.
By alsgal on September 24th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
THANKS HEAVENS! I hope that Prince Albert of Monaco does, indeed announce his engagement soon and marries Charlene Wittstock! This is news indeed! A Royal wedding, and one that will, hopefully, secure the throne of Monaco without involving the children of Caroline of Hanover–superb!! The trick will be to pry Caroline’s possessive hands off her current position as official Royal hostess of Monaco, a position she is said to very much enjoy and guard with great jealousy. Let us hope that she behaves graciously to Charlene and cedes the position to her with the aplomb and poise we all hope she inherited from her Mother, Princess Grace. I confess that I am not favorably impressed with the children of Caroline and the late Stefano Casiraghi, and would much prefer to see a child born of a marriage between Prince Albert and Charlene ascend to the throne of Monaco in the fullness of time.
By Gigi on September 24th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Given the sad private lives the Grimaldi children have all endured in the public eye, I would think Caroline would be happy to spare her children the throne of Monaco.
Do she and her husband, Ernst August, live in Monaco or elsewhere?
By Dan on September 24th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Dan, they seem to divide their time between Monaco, Paris and Marienburg, the family schloss just south of Hannover. Caroline has been seen in and around the shops in Hannover a few times, and the family spends a few weeks every summer at a villa on Sylt.
I hope I am not the only one to think when Caroline married Ernst she was “marrying up.” He’s a prick, but his brother is said to be lovely.
By alsgal on September 24th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
She became Her “Royal” Highness when she married him. If she succeeds Albert on the throne of Monaco (which women can do since a change in 2002) she’ll be Her Royal Highness Caroline I, due to her husband’s title to the Kingdom of Hanover. Grimaldis have always been Serene Highnesses, the title allotted to ruling families of principalities.
By Dan on September 24th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
She could also be Her Grace the Duchess of Cumberland if ever her husband decided to reclaim his title.
Snobby old me, but I’d rather see that pair run the place than Chinless Wonder and the Swimmer. Princess Tiffani, anyone? Yikes.
By alsgal on September 24th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Cumberland and Teviotdale, actually. There’s a title worth reviving! Some say the titles should already be revived, since Ernst’s father had become a British citizen.
I suppose if there’s no estate attached, why bother going after it? There’s probably a “Title Restoration Fee” to be paid at the local Clerk’s office, and back taxes entailed!
Ernst does seem to have issues. I wonder what brought them together, besides status?
So much for Google visits, John. We’ve gone off the rails again!
By Dan on September 24th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
It seems that a royal wedding will distract us from any topic that might be presented. I just wish it were Prince William & Kate’s wedding.
By Evelyn on September 24th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I love Her Majesty’s red hat.
Very becoming.
By Meg on September 25th, 2008 at 3:19 am
The Guardian is reporting that Downing Street is working on reforms to the Act of Settlement, removing restrictions on Catholics in the line of succession. The article also says another change would reform the requirement that Prince William’s heir would be his first-born son; the first-born– son or daughter– would be his heir.
The timing of this has me wondering if it might be connected with an expected engagement announcement from Prince William. If changes are to happen to the “first-born son” tradition, it would be good to complete that before Prince William’s spouse becomes pregnant.
By Evelyn on September 25th, 2008 at 4:00 am
I agree her hat becomes her Meg. Even more, her delighted eyes and smile. Wouldn’t you just love to know what brought such pleasure to her face? She is such a remarkable woman.
By lionhound on September 25th, 2008 at 5:14 am
Actually, Meg we get up to 30,000 unique visitors a day so we don’t need extra clicks — but thanks for the thought.
The only cloud on the horizon was when Google penalized us for running text ads other than their own. They reduced us from a PageRank of 5, down to 3 — and that’s where we remain. It means we appear lower on the Google results page than we should for our traffic or relevance.
They can be quite ruthless, you know.
By John on September 25th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Well if HM does read Royal Anecdotes perhaps she can nudge her Loveliness into performing more work. Amazing Cammy is a support for not doing much and Kate is seen as lazy.
This is why I adore HM and PP even at their advanced ages their work far out numbers the younger generation Charles and Anne excluded.
By Trudie on September 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Evelyn, that’s a good point and gives us all a bit of hope this particular week. Have the politicians proposed removing this restriction from the Act of Settlement before, or is this something they have only recently started to debate? If the latter is the case, that would be a very encouraging sign, I would think.
If they do change things and William’s firstborn was next in succession, I am wondering what would then happen to the rest of the system in Britain — for example, in the case where the firstborn in a family is not a boy, would someone like Lady Tamara eventually become the Duchess of Westminster in her own right or would Hugh remain heir to the Grosvenor Estate?
It seems a bit messy, and I’m not so sure this wouldn’t lead to nasty lawsuits within families with siblings feuding amongst themselves (there’s plenty of that already.)
Dan, I do know who brought Caroline and Ernst together (Rosita Marlborough, the lovely and talented painter) but one can only speculate as to why they are together, as is the case with so many couples. Caroline is an attractive woman and Ernst is an incorrigible bad boy, which seems to be her preference.
By alsgal on September 25th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Evelyn and Alsgal, this has been brought up many times in the past by governments, particularly the Catholic question.
The reason we’re having it all over again is because Brown signed the European constitutional treaty against the wishes of the people. And with Harriet Harman as “Equalities” minister, she’s jumped on the bandwagon.
With an election likely next autumn, Brown and his Cromwellian midgets will be swept away. I doubt the Conservatives will linger long over these tiresome matters which would cause an upheaval in many areas not even considered by ignorant government ministers.
The Law of Unforeseen Consequences has dogged everything this government has done.
By John on September 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Ah, ruthless indeed, John!
And I do wonder, lionhound. Whatever it was, it’s a pleasure to see the joy on her face.
A Catholic in the family ascending the throne? Would that allow the still-living royals back into the succession fold?
And Miss Middleton isn’t Catholic is she? I was under the impression she was Protestant.
By Meg on September 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I wonder if changing the succession laws would extend to all titles in the Peerage. The Duke of Westminster could leave his millions to any one of his children, boy or girl. It is only the title, “Duke,” that must currently pass to the eldest legitimate son.
Some titles were created with remainders that allow them to pass to a daughter. When Charles’s beloved uncle, Louis Mountbatten, was assassinated, his title passed to his daughter, who became 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma, which she remains to this day at the age of 84. (Genderwise, she is the first Countess, but gender is not considered in the title’s number.)
I believe the remainder was worded, however, such that she must pass it to a male heir. She has one son who has given her one grandson (Nicholas Knatchbull, troubled friend of Prince William’s) so the title’s persistence appears safe.
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I believe a change in the succession laws would be retroactive, which would move Princess Anne and her children AHEAD of Andrew and Edward and their issue.
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
The change could be worded to begin with the next generation, Prince William’s issue.
When Sweden made this reform, they made it retroactive. The king was not pleased that his son, who had been crown prince, was thereby demoted. I would hope Britain would learn from this lesson.
By Evelyn on September 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
CORRECTION: The Countess Mountbatten has four sons, not one. A fifth son was killed along with the Earl in 1979.
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Evelyn, Since it is unlikely that Charles and both his sons (God forbid!) would be taken out of the line, everyone else’s “demotion” would be merely a fact on paper, and not have any serious implication. I agree the situation in Sweden was a bigger blow, since the heir became the spare overnight!
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Regarding the Queen’s request for urgent funding to maintain the crumbling Royal Palaces, I think the solution is to open more of them to the public, and for more than 2 months in the summer. I’m sure HM prefers to open Buck House only from July to September, when she’s not there, but increasing revenue from ticket sales is a better solution than asking for more money from the government in this economic climate. It was opening the Palace in the first place that paid for the rebuilding of Windsor after the fire.
Personally, I think the government ought to pay up, considering how many tourist dollars the Family brings in, but allowing the increased revenue from extended visitor hours at more locations (why not other palaces as well?) would give the Family the one-up on the short-sighted MPs standing in the way of upgrading the national heritage.
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Hmm. Never mind. I guess most of them are already open at least part of the year.
Plan B…..
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
gigi,
i had read somewhere that caroline is not thrilled at the thought of giving up the hostess duties of monaco and that she is not too keen on her soon tobe sister in law as she had aspirations for her oldest son..
By coni on September 25th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
At last, some court intrigue! More exciting than crumbling masonry.
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I thought the the Civil List was supposed to cover all Royal Household expenses and in exchange the profits from the Crown Estate were then put into the Exchequer? This constant nickle-and-diming of the Queen and allowing public monuments to fall into disrepair hardly seems fair.
I hope when Charles becomes King he will tell them, “To heck with the Civil List, instead simply give us all of the profits from the Crown Estate back.” I wonder if the thought of losing the difference of, I believe, around 100 million pounds per year in revenue would shut the MP’s up for once?
John, or Dan, could you please tell me why did the BRF ever agree to this arrangement in the first place?
By alsgal on September 25th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
King George III originally agreed to the surrender of the Crown in exchange for the Civil List. You know him, the one who surrendered the American colonies as well!
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
As for the other part of your question: The Civil List has been frozen for the past three years, not keeping up with inflation or deferred maintenance. Still, due to the RF’s cost-cutting, there is a reserve made up of surpluses from past years, but it is dwindling.
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Another CORRECTION: according to the Telegraph, it is the grant for building upkeep that has been frozen for a further 3 years, making ten years since an increase. Adjusted for inflation, Palace aids say, it has decreased 70% in real value.
Sorry. I’m no accountant!
By Dan on September 25th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Who cares what Caroline thinks!!! Until her father had the law changed in 02 if Albert had died without a legitimate heir the principality would have reverted back to France and this is something she grew up with. After 3 marriages how can she deny her brother happiness for her own selfish ambitions for her son.
By Trudie on September 25th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Thank you, Dan. Yes, that George was something else, wasn’t he.
Trudie, I’m sure it has less to do with her selfish ambitions and more to do with what makes the world go ’round (money
)
By alsgal on September 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Caroline, from early childhood, has had the characterisitics and actions of a rank opportunist. In my opinion, she is determined to remain center stage in Monaco because she is very self-entitled. Ironically, her choice of a first husband, the notorious playboy Philippe Junot, was a disaster, although it garnered her the attention she craved. That marriage was against the strenuous objections and advice of a distraught Princess Grace, who, it was said, wanted Caroline to marry the man she finally wed as her third and current husband, Ernst of Hanover! Whether the current marriage is a love match is anyone’s guess, but I personally feel that it had more to do with rank–she became a Princess, rather than a Serene Highness–and money, than it had to do with love. The Hanoverian heir is no role model, obviously. I will be very pleased if Prince Albert weds Charlene Wittstock and they have an heir to ascend the throne of Monaco. Far, far better for Monaco to have Albert’s child reign than any offspring of the egotistical, self-seeking Caroline.
By Gigi on September 26th, 2008 at 2:19 am
FoxNews is reporting that Kate has a problem—a leak, someone who is really close to her, is telling all to a celeb magazine.
The Fox writer, Neal Sean, says that “all will be revealed.”
Does anyone know what magazine is getting all the leaked info?
Here’s the link to the Fox story, although I’ve quoted most of it.
http://tinyurl.com/4xo7lh
(scroll down.)
By Dan on September 26th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
This wouldn’t be a stunt from her family would it? I have never heard favorable things about her family, and that may be my own fault when reading the news about them. Perhaps just one in the inner circle of friends.
By Meg on September 26th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Dan if he knew he would tell.
I suspect they’re picking up on our story and others and making more of it than is there. We know there’s always been a lot of mischief out there where Kate is concerned.
However, I suspect a lot of journos are ferretting into the reasons behind William’s RAF job.
By John on September 26th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
That article also talks about Keira Knightly playing her in a role? They look nothing alike!
By Meg on September 26th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Agreed, Meg. Both are slim, brunette beauties, but I don’t see any resemblance.
I’ve already brought this up, but even if it was Pippa who was “leaking” positive information which might have explained or defended Kate’s actions why would that be bad? For goodness sakes, it’s not like Clarence House seems intent on setting the record straight. Somebody has to, and it might as well be someone “close to Kate” as at least they’d know the truth.
The only niggling doubt I have if it is Pippa and somehow there was more to the lost camera story then we know?
It would be a great relief to see them out and about, as all of this is making for some pretty scary speculation.
By alsgal on September 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I am getting very tired of the blind quotes the media use to propel innuendo. I refuse to believe anything regarding Kate and Prince William unless the source is named, quoted accurately and is a credible, known person. That does not include any media people, who have no credibility with me after all that has transpired. It also does not include any of the hangers on with personal agendas. I cannot imagine that Philippa would have anything negative to say about her own sister, to whom she appears to be very close. I am also not going to take any strange photographs as gospel, because any photo can be doctored to look quite different.
By Gigi on September 26th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Gigi,
Those are wise words. There are only a few people who know the truth about what is going on with William and Kate. I would say it is only a handful. The newspapers are guessing as to what is happening behind closed doors. I don’t know if there is a “leak” or if the papers are on a fishing expedition. It is wise to take things said or printed in the media with a grain of salt and sometimes a large grain. I do forget this at times. That is why I come hear to get sources of information.
By kat on September 27th, 2008 at 2:29 am
I have to agree with the previous statements. Not going to lie, I’ve been reading everything that comes over the wire. It’s good to be reminded that things should not be taken at face value.
Well said, Gigi.
By Meg on September 27th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Why did my post about the new PP site not come through? They set up a charity and a new brand naming Kate as part of the team.
By Isana on September 27th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Isana, it’s not in the mod panel so you may have hit a surge of traffic and it slipped through a crack in the floorboards.
Try to post it again, but if it has more than one link it will automatically go for moderation.
By John on September 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Here’s the link to the new PP charity site. The picture of Kate and her mom is on the main site now.
http://www.partypieces.co.uk/cm/charity.htm
By Isana on September 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Ah, when you wrote PP, I thought you meant Prince Philip.
By John on September 27th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Incidentally, with all the interest in the U.S. elections and even the forthcoming one in Britain, let us not forget that Canada — of whom HM is Queen — has a Federal election on October 14.
Just thought I’d mention it as none of the newspapers are covering it.
By John on September 27th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Kate’s picture is at the bottom of the Cherrypicked collection on Party Pieces site. After looking at the Starlight website, I was thinking it would be cool if she were to do some serious photography work for this charity. Maybe create some promotional pieces for them
By dally on September 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
The text also says that Kate was instrumental in forging the connection between Party Pieces and this charity. It seems very appropriate for the company and for Kate. It would be great if she could visit some of the children’s parties, or be involved in other ways.
By Evelyn on September 27th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Where is this text? I couldn’t find it?
By dally on September 27th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Dally, it’s all in the About Us link at the very bottom of the website page.
It’s wonderful that Kate and the Middleton’s are doing this, although I’m sure the cynical folks out there will ask, why now, why after 20 years of being in business is this now on the front page of their website? (I’ve ordered from them over the years and this is indeed a new development; however, that should not negate the fact that they are interested in helping these charities, as doing something now is better than doing nothing at all.)
My only curiosity is now, who is behind the sudden public display of altruism? Was it gently suggested by the new PR team at Clarence House or was this Mrs. Middleton’s idea, perhaps something that occurred to her after reading one too many articles asking, “What does Kate do?” and “Why doesn’t she at least do something for charity whilst she waits?” If that was the case, IMO it is certainly an understandable reaction as what kind of mother would want to see her child continue to be attacked viciously in the (tabloid) press?
It would seem that if the CH PR team suggested this, that William and Kate are very much on, even if the wedding is delayed for the next 18 months. So, from my POV, there’s hope yet.
By alsgal on September 27th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
That’s a lovely picture of Miss Middleton. She’s very photogenic.
By Meg on September 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Thanks- I had to email them about the typo, “You’ll discover hundreds or inspiring ideas” . I believe they meant hundreds OF inspiring ideas. I wouldn’t want the press picking on that.
By dally on September 27th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
The press will undoubtedly find something to pick on. Either they’ll call it a PR stunt or they’ll accuse them of cashing in on their daughter’s fame and thereby her royal connection. I fear it will not be seen as the verification for the reports that she’s working for Party Pieces it actually is. The press has it so bad for Kate right now that I fear nothing she does or says will help really. Now she won’t only be Waity Katie but also a opportunist cashing in on her association with the RF.
By Isana on September 27th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
It is the press who have exploited her royal connection. She has never gained anything from it but criticism.
It is strange, however, that she is being criticized for doing what so many children of business people do: taking her place in the family business. She may, after all, inherit it one day!
By Dan on September 27th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Dan, I’m not sure she can run it and be Queen ;), so I imagine it will go to James?
By alsgal on September 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I just saw this article. If true we all will be a little more relieved.
http://tiny.cc/T5xiw
It is telling us what?
By kat on September 27th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Thanks for the link to the Telegraph article kat! Mandrake seems to have a fairly solid reputation for being accurate with his royal gossip. At least more of the things he’s said might happen have turned out to have actually happened, which means he’s got a better track record than some of the other ‘journalists’ who write royal gossip in the tabloids and the red-tops. (
I’m using the term journalists loosely here ) 
If Mandrake is correct this time, it means that Prince Charles and William are going to pay the cost of a protection officer for Kate Middleton, and that Kate is currently in the midst of the process of interviewing the protection officer. I hope Mandrake turns out to be correct!
If it’s true, that’s a sure sign that there is nothing wrong in William and Kate’s relationship. Also, the fact that Kate’s sister Pippa just recently attended a charity ball whose proceeds were given to the Prince Charles’ charity The Prince’s Trust, is an encouraging sign. The price was £700 per ticket; if at least 100 people attended that was a tidy piece of change for Prince Charles’ charity! I wonder if Pippa paid for her ticket or it was given to her. I think she probably paid for it, simply because the ticket price is in effect a donation.
By mapleleaf on September 27th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Guys (and gals) this from Mandrake is almost as good as a certain kind of official announcement from Buckingham Palace.
This tells me all I need to know! Why? Because two years ago, Kate was hounded even more by the press than she is now and neither PC/PW offered to pay for a protection officer then. What does that tell us?
1) an engagement announcement is due any day or early next year with a summer, 2009 wedding
(Molson’s, lawnchair on the Mall, you know the drill
)
2) the official engagement announcement is coming in time for a July, 2010 wedding, which should be right around the time William’s 18 month long training (beginning Jan, 2009) would be over.
That gives just enough time to bring in some Mark Bolland type to address the “Waity Katie” issue and then it’s onward ho!
By alsgal on September 28th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Yes, I agree it’s good news.
If they were ending their relationship, even if they were unsure, PC & PW would not be offering to foot the bill for protection. Let’s start the celebration!
By Evelyn on September 28th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Evelyn, I’m getting those thimbles out tomorrow, as the Mandrake column is usually correct. Tim Walker, Richard Eden and Laura Roberts do a fantastic job!
By alsgal on September 28th, 2008 at 3:41 am
The police protection story for Kate has been around a long time. At least a year ago we were told a squad had been set up under a named senior officer. That failed to materialize.
Then, after a skiing trip, it was announced that Charles’s own officer would protect Kate.
Now we hear that she is “trying out” officers, a bit like trying on shoes in a shoe shop.
Where will it end?
I agree though that there is a flurry of Kate stories emphasizing her involvement with the Royal Family. Someone is setting out to dampen down speculation that William has lowered her status in his life.
Incidentally, the Mail says that Kate and Chelsy will attend a private party at Highgrove in aid of Charles’s 60th. No mention of their attending a black-tie dinner at Buckingham Palace when the Prime Minister and other officials will be present.
That seems to contradict earlier reports that they were going to a party at the Palace. We shall see.
By John on September 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It doesn’t say that they are not going to the Queen’s party. They can go to both, of course. William and Harry will.
“Someone is setting out to dampen down speculation that William has lowered her status in his life.”
I am glad somebody is. There were eonugh of those who, for no reason really, jumped to dramatic conclusions a couple of weeks ago.
By dagga on September 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I still think that a surprise announcement that he was heading to the north of Scotland for five years, instead of settling down in London, was enough to make that speculation necessary.
Still is.
By John on September 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
John, if the recent Telegraph wedding dress sketch and bodyguard stories are not true and William has indeed bolted from Kate, I’m wondering why would she suddenly be featured so prominently over on the Party Pieces website? Why would her association with Starlight be touted on the front page of their website if she wasn’t effectively still auditioning/proving herself capable for the role of William’s wife?
I would tend to think if things were over between W&K, that her family wouldn’t be making this kind of effort to prove that Kate has been working hard and participating in charitable causes. If PW suddenly had a change of heart, I would think they would no longer have much reason to care what the British press or public would think of Kate.
By alsgal on September 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I’m not saying it’s over — I just don’t know. But William’s change of heart on his career has had a cooling effect on public perceptions. Clarence House is obviously trying to fix that with these stories.
Kate’s involvement with the charity may have nothing to do with it. It was clearly started some months before the RAF announcement.
By John on September 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
John, I’m just reading on what’s going on and I’m not suprised. I look forward to seeing her bring smiles to those kids faces in the hospital and I hope that she gets the secuirty that she needs. We can see that these two are very much on and everything is looking good. It would be good to invite Kate & Chelsy to both parties.
By Claudius on September 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I agree with you about that John; I also think Kate’s involvement with the Starlight charity was started before this month’s RAF announcement.
But I agree with alsgal as well; regardless as to when Kate’s involvement with the charity started, if Kate’s family were not trying to make a very solid point, they wouldn’t have placed the information on their web site in the manner in which they did it. It was made very clear in the Party Pieces newsletter that Kate was instrumental in getting their business(Party Pieces) set up as a corporate sponsor/partner with the Starlight Foundation.
It’s obvious that they want to leave the public in no doubt whatsoever that Kate is a working and important member of the Party Pieces business, and I think it was a marvelous thing for them to do. This type of support is just what Kate needed, and it totally negates what the naysayers have been saying about Kate Middleton not really working for the family business.
By mapleleaf on September 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I think that means Kate and William’s relationship is in the same place it always was, because if they weren’t together Kate wouldn’t need to prove anything; at that point it would be a totally moot point whether she worked or not because her life wouldn’t impact William’s life any more.
Also, I think William and Kate are both happy about the fact that the media won’t be able to speculate about an engagement happening right away. It gives them space and breathing room to enjoy their relationship together just like Harry and Chelsy do: without all the engagement speculation hanging over their heads.
Now William gets to have a break from all of that, and just enjoy his relationship with Kate the way Harry gets to do with Chelsy all the time.
Harry and Chelsy have been together since 2004 and William and Kate have been together since December 2003. Not a lot of difference in the dates, but a world of difference regarding engagement speculation and pressure from the media!
By mapleleaf on September 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
That’s right mapleleaf.
By Claudius on September 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I can see your point Mapleleaf but I have two thoughts, maybe three, and quite possibly four!
1) Kate’s early seemingly unclear career goals, with the exception of her year-long three-day-a-week Jigsaw job, unfortunately led to a great deal of speculation and many assumed she must have been waiting on something. And we all know what that something was!
Whereas with Chelsy, most have known about her student life and have seen her out and about, so no one’s been guessing what she’s up to or what her goals are for the next few years.
2) Harry and Chelsy were a bit younger when they met and perhaps because the press didn’t have the college sweethearts angle to promote, they weren’t taken as seriously as a couple.
3) William is the next King and Harry (barring some unfortunate event) is not, so there’s not as much riding on Harry’s choice of mate, at least not right now.
4) Harry has publicly stated his feelings for Chelsy, something the ultra-private William has not done with Kate. This has led to a lot of undue speculation as to the state of their relationship, whether he really cares for her, and so on. No, it’s not fair but we can see that it has led to increased speculation.
My tea leaves are telling me William and Kate are very much on, and Kate will spend William’s training period (January, 2009 - July, 2010) doing charitable work and more things for her parents business, two things which will not go away when the official announcement is made in perhaps early 2010. This gives time for the new CH Dream team to remake her “Waity Katey” image, and for William to establish himself as well. The Teapot Cottage is only an hour or so from where PW is likely to be stationed, so I imagine Kate will be spending many of her weekends there.
Just a hunch, but I’ll bet my lawnchair with the W&C intertwined logo that I’m correct.
By alsgal on September 28th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Error: I meant to post that William is the next King after Charles!
By alsgal on September 28th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I am wondering. Couldn’t the story about the protection officer for Kate be checked out? I am not sure how but there should be some way to verify it. Could it be that they are checking out these people so when they announce the engagement a team will already be in place? I know it is back to speculation. John have you heard anything about their status? It just seems that CH is finally getting envolved. It will be Oct. soon. Maybe, this is all the work of the new PR team? We haven’t seen Kate since the Disco night. To my knowledge I haven’t seen anything about William either. With recent events, I am hopeful that they still are together. With the Search and Rescue placement, I got worried about them.
By kat on September 28th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Kat, I think they are still happily quite “on”, and if we consider that William has perhaps instead provided his Sweetie and the new Dream Team with 18 months in which to revamp her image a bit, whilst he makes his own worthy contributions to the British people, I think this will all make perfect sense.
Logically, I just don’t see the point in Party Pieces’ admittedly rather proactive promotion of Kate if she and William were no longer an item. Pragmatically speaking, it just would not matter, so why would they bother to promote Kate’s charitable activities front and center if she and William weren’t headed for the altar?
So, I am content to read between the lines, and take comfort in the fact that Kate at the very least, has an extremely supportive family on which to lean on. God only knows how this would have helped William’s mother in her own marriage.
I would think it must also be rather welcoming and reassuring to William, to know that a family can be so loyal in the face of such antagonism. That should bode well for later on, when Kate and William hit the inevitable bumps that are part of every union.
Maybe these two are better positioned for success than many wish to give them credit? To my view, that is a very good thing.
By alsgal on September 28th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I think it’s nice for Kate that her family is supporting her in the face of the negative press she’s been receiving. I imagine that her family’s support is one of the things that gives Kate the backbone and strength to keep going in spite of being dragged through the mud by the media.
By mapleleaf on September 29th, 2008 at 2:12 am