Prince William and Harry bike in Africa
Prince William (pictured, right) and Prince Harry will after all take part in a dangerous 1000-mile charity motorcycle rally through South Africa.
Clarence House confirmed, “The Princes are looking forward to taking part in this arduous motorcycle ride.”
It will be an eight-day ride later this month in an attempt to emulate actor Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman who rode from John O’Groats to Cape Town in their TV series The Long Way Down.
Now we know the reason Prince Harry attempted and passed his motorbike test after taking an intensive course this summer. It was, it seems, Harry’s idea to raise money for charities, including his own Sentebale, based in Lesotho, and the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund.
This will not be an easy ride by any stretch of the imagination. The brothers will sleep rough as they cross some of the toughest terrain on the continent.
They will, of course, be accompanies at all times by up to six armed police protection officers.
The ride is being sponsored by Enduro Africa. Each participant will be provided with a Honda CRF 230s, a light 200cc trail bike easy to manoeuvre.
The organizer of the event, Simon Smith, says, “It’s going to be one of the hardest and most demanding things they will ever have done in their lives and at night they are going to struggle to get off their bikes as the pain will be so bad. At times they will be sitting on their bikes looking up at a 60 degree slope wondering how the hell they are going to get up it – not even realizing there is a deep river crossing to get through on the other side.
“It is a very dangerous route and they will undoubtedly collect a fair few bumps and bruises along the way.”
Harry recently returned from training in Canada to be with his girlfriend Chelsy Davy, who needed hospital treatment to remove her wisdom teeth.
William is currently working at the Ministry of Defence, before moving on to the SAS later in the year.
Perhaps it’s their last big bachelor hurrah before they both “settle down.” I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why Harry talked William into doing it. Of course, that doesn’t mean William’s relationship with Kate hasn’t faltered in the meantime.
By Dan on October 9th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
While I certainly admire Prince William and Prince Harry for their charitable endeavors, I can’t help wishing that the project was less dangerous. I realize that they are at the peak of health and strength, but the terrain, and area and the grueling aspects of the biking foray make this a perilous journey. Must everything they do be on the edge? My central nervous system barely survived Prince Harry’s service in the forward area in Iraq!
By Gigi on October 10th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Good news — I think we can now safely assume William and Kate are still very much “on.”
The three charities that W&H’s ride in Africa will benefit are:
Sentebale, Unicef and Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund.
Sentebale is Harry’s charity, but PW doesn’t really have a prior direct association with Unicef or NMCF, I believe.
However, Kate does, as she organised the photography exhibit benefitting Unicef and attended the NM benefit concert this summer.
I think this is almost as good as a confirmation from CH that the two are still together.
By alsgal on October 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Amanda Platell has a very negative article, in which she excoriates Charles for going on the trip to Japan, Indonesia and Thailand, skewers Camilla for coming home after Japan, and also severely criticizes Charles for his 60th birthday parties. Apparently she has an inexhaustible supply of venom because she dismisses the charity bike race of Prince William and Prince Harry as a gap year lark. Is she kidding?! What ails this woman and why is she so contemptuous of the Royals, taking pot shots at Charles, Camilla, Prince William and Prince Harry?! I am quite put out!
By Gigi on October 11th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Has the DM become anti monarchy? It seems that none of the members of the monarchy are off limits. (except maybe the Queen) I know that I used to read it online as a place to go to find out what was going on with them. Now, all you read are slams and negative press. I like Alsgal’s positive thoughts about William and Kate. I appreciate John trying to find out what is going on about them. I appreciate his efforts. Gigi keep up your defense of the royals. For myself, I keep waiting for a hint as to what is going on with the royal couple.
By kat on October 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I’m glad they have a military background for this gig. It will come in handy if they find themselves (doubtfully) in a survival situation. I hope they raise a great amount for their charities.
By Meg on October 11th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I don’t know if this is wishful thinking but I read that Rod Stewart is going to perform at one of Charles’s bashes. In the article it explains that there will be a dinner at Buckingham Palace the day before his birthday. In the articles it says that William and Harry will be there with their girlfriends Kate and Chelsy. If this account is correct either William and Kate are still together or she is going on her own.(I don’t think that this would happen.) It gives me hope that they are going strong. I do find it interesting that the press is leaving them alone or they just haven’t gotten anything to write.
By kat on October 11th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Clive Goodman has written a new article in which he says that Kate Middleton is working very hard at her parent’s company, and that “she wants to make William proud of her” Link:
http://tinyurl.com/3f2h8o
John, what is your opinion of Clive Goodman’s record for ‘getting it right’? Is he usually on the mark with his royal gossip and murmurings, or does he get it wrong most of the time? The article is in the Daily Star, which is Clive’s new employer since he isn’t with NoTW anymore.
I don’t think the Daily Star has the best reputation for accuracy, but what about Clive himself? If Clive is correct in what he’s saying in this article, then William and Kate are definitely still an item, (
which is what I think anyway whether Clive Goodman is correct or not.)
By mapleleaf on October 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Mapleleaf, Clive Goodman spent time in prison last year for tapping into the Royal Family’s phone voicemail. Presumably he doesn’t have that luxury now.
The Daily Star is owned by a soft porn publisher. Not many commentators pay much attention to its stories. This one doesn’t sound wrong though, I’m sure William and Kate are still good friends — I just have my doubts about a marriage unless it happens very soon.
By John on October 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Kat, stories are often repeated even when things change. I’ll be interested if Kate does go to the Buckingham Palace dinner. The latest is that Kate and Chelsy will be at Highgrove, but even that was claimed before the RAF announcement.
By John on October 12th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Call me an optimist, but I think if Clive Goodman writes an article like this, what with having spent time in prison, I think this means it might be more likely to be true because Clive Goodman knows what happens if he doesn’t play “fair.”
I know the NotW and Daily Star aren’t exactly highbrow publications but if we go back and look at a lot of the stories about Diana/Charles having marital problems, we can find many of them started at the lowbrow tabs before later appearing at places such as the Times or the DT. So, this could apply here as well.
Still keeping the faith that an engagement will either be announced after the 60th birthday festivities, or sometime during the end of the 18 months of PW’s training and once Miguel Head has completed his “revamp” of Kate as Career/Charity Kate.
By alsgal on October 12th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
It does seem that something is going on behind the scenes. It seems like both of them have vanished off the face of the earth.
No pictures are being taken. I haven’t heard or read of any news since the disco night and bike announcement. I do have a question. Where is the MOD located which is where William might be? I know that he is supposed to go to Africa. No date is being given for security reasons. We don’t see or hear of anything about Kate except she is working hard. It is very puzzling.
By kat on October 12th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
John, thanks for your weigh-in on Clive Goodman. I had forgotten about his time in prison! I presume that means he would be a bit careful about what he puts into print.
alsgal, I agree with the 18 month scenario myself. It just seems to fit, and I feel as if there’s a lot of logic to the idea. 18 months would allow more than enough time for a ‘revamping’ of Kate’s image with regards to the whole “waitey Katie” foolishness, and it would also allow plenty of time to put the puck in motion with regards to wedding preparations and living arrangements.
That much time means that they can go slowly in making their decisions regarding living arrangements, and take their time figuring out what will work best for them. It also means they can see each other without having to deal with the constant media cries of “will they won’t they”. Wills has effectively dispensed with all of that type of speculation with his RAF announcement. Now he and Kate can enjoy the same type of speculation free dating that Harry and Chelsy are able to enjoy.
If William and Kate make an announcement at the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010, they could have a wedding some time in the summer of 2010.
By mapleleaf on October 12th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Alsgal’s premise makes a lot of sense to me. Whenever everything falls silent, as it is now, something is going on behind the scenes, as Kat says. No matter how peculiar I appear, I have my fingers and toes crossed that Kate is present, with Prince William, at all the birthday celebrations for Charles, and that their relationship is a strong as ever. Advance, Kate and Prince William!
By Gigi on October 12th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I think it is interesting that PW (and PH) are able to go on this 1000-mile motorcycle ride for charity, and KM was prevented from doing the dragonboat race last year. Doesn’t seem quite fair, does it?
By Amity on October 13th, 2008 at 3:46 am
The Princes will be leaving for Africa on Wednesday , returning 12 days later.
By dagga on October 13th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Kat, the MoD is in Whitehall, almost opposite Downing Street, and about 100 yards from Parliament. So it’s right in the heart of Government.
I would have thought they’d have leaked a pic or two by now, but for some reason it’s all being kept under wraps. Strange.
By John on October 13th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Mapleleaf, Clive Goodman is no slouch as a journo. It’s just the Daily Star I worry about.
But it’s odd that nobody is touching this story right now. Gap in the market?
By John on October 13th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Gigi, Charles’s birthday should produce a few clues, but it could be that they are now just friends and the invitations having been made will still stand. Prince Charles and Camilla are said to be fond of Kate.
I, like you, hope that the Alsgal Theory is correct. She appears to have done some excellent number-crunching on it.
By John on October 13th, 2008 at 11:00 am
John, I keep thinking of some of the words of a favorite school song of Sir Winston Churchill–”The Snug Little Island.” Part of the song goes “…but snug in her hive, the Queen was alive, and “buzz” was the word on the island!” Of course, the island referred to is Britain, and the theme is the conquest and reconquest of the island by foreign armies, so my analogy is faulty. Still, I can’t help feeling that deep inside the bee hive that is Buckingham Palace, the courtiers are buzzing, making plans that have been carefully crafted by the Queen and which are as yet unleaked and unrevealed to the rest of us. Since bees make honey as they buzz, we may yet have the satisfaction of seeing Kate and Prince William married and leaving on a honeymoon trip! May it please Almighty God that all goes well in Africa and that our two Golden Princes return safe and sound to the “…snug little island, the right little, tight little island…” celebrated in the verse and song so beloved of Sir Winston Churchill!
By Gigi on October 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
John, the just-announced Nobel prize winner in economics, Paul Krugman, who is also an opinionator at the New York Times, writes in his column this morning that the Brown government is leading the world in rescuing the global financial system.
I hope David Cameron and his Tory friends don’t wither in the shadow of Brown’s apotheosis!
By Dan on October 13th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Yes, by nationalizing the Queen’s bank.
Everyone here knows that Brown is an old commie at heart and he is to blame for Britain being spent out going into a long recession. He will face the music at the next election.
By John on October 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
And the United States will never elect a black president. Let’s see which of our “sure things” (if either) stands the test.
Strange things happen in the run-up to an election.
By Dan on October 13th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I read today that Charles has, in the past year, apparently given “unprecedented” access to someone (can’t recall which entity) to do a video called “Charles the Passionate Prince” which is supposed to reveal the true person, what Charles really cares about and why he cares as he does. It is to air during the run-up to Charles’ 60th birthday parties. It will be interesting to see how this is received. It may be seen as helpful and useful or it may be viewed as just another attempt by Charles and his band of merry men to shore up Charles’ reputation and do more tub-thumping for the Heir to the throne. Either way it will be insightful, surely.
By Gigi on October 13th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Dan, I’m sure most Americans understand that, genetically speaking, Barack Obama is as much white as he is black. I think the race card is being overplayed a bit by an extremely fawning pro-Obama media, who seem to think any vote against Obama must be due to inherent racism, and surely cannot have anything to do with his policies or inexperience. (Although most in the media have not hesitated to point out Gov. Palin’s “lack of experience” and I will assume that has nothing to do with her race, either.)
It seems given the economic meltdown, many Americans might not be voting as much for Obama, as against McCain, who they associate with George Bush, two people who actually rather dislike each other.
I wonder who isn’t for “hope” and “change”? I also wonder how asking people who already work their arses off to assume even more of the tax burden than they already carry can be deemed “patriotic.” (Thank you Joe Biden, aka Neil Kinnock.) Someone who works likely 70+ hours a week already pays 45% of their income in taxes to the “guvment” in places such as New York City and will be asked to contribute even more under the Obama/Biden “Patriotic” tax.
Yet other people who typically don’t choose to work more than 40 hours per week are only asked to contribute less than 30%.
That should work beautifully — penalise those who have studied hard, taken on debt to go to the best schools, many of us without the benefit of affirmative action or quotas, and who have worked hard and sacrificed our time, social lives, and personal happiness in order to do so. Instead rewarding those who choose the easier path, or who make excuses for not having chosen the hard road, or choose to elect those who make excuses for them.
Sounds like communism to me.
By alsgal on October 14th, 2008 at 12:26 am
The Sun has pictures of Kate driving in Berkshire while talking on the phone. While of course it would have looked better if she weren’t on the phone, there’s something very distressing in the way the paparazzi has started to follow her around Berkshire! A few days ago it was the Daily Star with a picture of her covering her face… and now this! Can’t they leave this girl alone? Sure, driving while on your mobile can be dangerous, but stalking/following someone can be even more so.
By frands on October 14th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Perhaps Kate was calling security.
By Evelyn on October 14th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Dan, Obama’s colour is not playing at all here in Britain and Europe, but his anarchist and Marxist connections (ACORN, for example) are getting a lot of press and air time.
I think McCain will go all out on that aspect in the last two weeks of the campaign. After all, the Obama people and the outrageously-biassed media in the U.S. are going to town on Palin’s “Troopergate” — which seems so trivial.
By John on October 14th, 2008 at 9:31 am
It’s illegal to phone while driving here. If the Berkshire police see that picture, she’s in trouble.
By John on October 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
John, I admired Sarah Palin when she was first introduced to the public, but she has revealed herself to be a hate-mongering extremist with a long history of abuse of power - beginning with her days in Wasilla. With regard to Obama’s so-called anarchist “connections,” many respected Republicans worked closely with William Ayers on the Annenberg project as well, as Ayers had become a well-respected educator by the time Obama met him. The McCain smears have been universally discredited by every single nonpartisan source. McCain based his career on honor, and whether he wins or loses I believe that he will come to regret the ugliness of his campaign. While I was not initially an Obama supporter, my Republican husband and I have been impressed by Obama’s extraordinary dignity. In any case, it doesn’t matter what you or I say or believe, at the end of the day the actions of the candidates will speak more loudly than their (or your or my) words.
By Amity on October 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I have looked at the pictures. (2) Actually, it looks like Kate is pulled over to the side of the road.
By kat on October 14th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Alsgal,
You go girl!
By Madelaine on October 14th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Alsgal, I’m with you on this one. What I find disturbing is the way the liberal controlled media portrays Obama, like he is some kind of god. McCain hasn’t received a fair coverage in the media since day one.
By Marilyn on October 14th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Hard to tell on those photos if Kate was moving…but I’m sure the photographer did not care…He got his photos
The Charles documentary aught to be interesting…I would say it will have a profound affect either way, good or bad. I hope he chose well in his film maker for this exercise.
By Julie on October 14th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The BBC is doing the Charles film, so it should be professional at least. Prince Charles is very good at that type of production. The two-hour doc for his 50th was excellent.
By John on October 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
You folks obsessed with the “liberal media” clearly don’t watch Fox News, which ran a “documentary” last weekend about Obama’s history as a radical Muslim and his secret plan to overthrow the American government with his “domestic terrorist” cronies.
(Do most people know that William Ayers was named Chicago’s Citizen of the Year in 1997 for his work in education reform?)
McCain used to be so cozy with the media that he referred to the journalists traveling with him on the bus as his “base.” My friends, you can’t have it both ways!
You’re wrong, John, if you think Americans are treating Obama as anything else but a black candidate, which is fine. Biracial identity doesn’t register with most Americans, such that he would face serious opposition if he tried to present himself as a “half-white” candidate. Americans, for better or worse, are identified by skin color.
But perceptions of him are far more confused than just his race. At a town hall meeting last week a McCain supporter stated that she can’t trust Obama because “he’s a Arab.” Even McCain had to defend Obama against that ridiculous charge. (Not that being Arab-American, if in fact he was, should require defending.)
Unfairness, not to mention good ol’ fashion American stupidity, is evident on all sides, and we can’t blame the media for that.
By Dan on October 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
And one more thing!:
I have never heard a peep from the Obama campaign about “Troopergate.” The investigation began before anyone had ever heard about Sarah Palin, the report came out over the weekend that she had abused her power in trying to get her ex brother-in-law fired, and it passed with little notice. The results were reported, as they should have been, but few people are making a big deal of it.
By Dan on October 14th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
The report also exonerated her, but the press didn’t mention that in many cases.
By John on October 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
It reported that she abused her power, but there’s nothing they can do about it.
By Amity on October 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I don’t know what you mean by “exonerated,” as she wasn’t facing criminal charges, but the accounts I read and watched told the whole story. Like you, I never gave the “scandal” much weight. Her ex brother-in-law gave an interview to CNN and didn’t make a very good case for himself. I wouldn’t want him on my police force either.
The fact is, people always criticize the media when it doesn’t agree with their personal politics. If all you want from the media is a mouthpiece for your own views, THAT sounds like communism to me.
By Dan on October 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
As for today’s REAL story:
Perhaps I’m in the minority, but my problem with the media is not its political bias one way or the other, but its tendency (surprise!) to sensationalize.
No, Kate shouldn’t be talking on the phone while driving, but it hardly rises to the level of front page news.
If she makes a charitable contribution equivalent to the fine she might have received, the media will say she’s “spinning” a minor offense for personal gain.
By Dan on October 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Well said Amity and Dan! MacCain should propose his policies,instead of attacking Obama or blaming media.
By Mikado-watcher on October 14th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Apparently the citizens of Chicago don’t care if he bombed a buliding in his youth as long as he’s doing good works now? What a forgiving city…more forgiving than I could be. It’s not like the man ran a stop sign! Or said hurtful things…
Ok, atone for your misgivings, but to reward someone for it? Sounds wrong to me!
As for the media…1 station that does not have liberal bias but is more fair (45% of their viewers are conservative, 35% liberal and the rest independent/or no party) does not make up for the other stations that all run liberal.
Why am I commenting??? I don’t know! I am SOOOO tired of this political garbage and EVERYONE twisting things to imply or even state things that are not true…I won’t watch the news right now at all. I only get it online where I can read enough to know what’s going on and not get the commercials.
By Julie on October 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Everybody says they hate negative campaigning, but, sadly, it seems to work. John McCain’s supporters ask him at every rally why he isn’t “going after” Obama harder.
If Obama’s detractors are already calling him a secret Muslim extremist who pals around with terrorists—some loonies are calling him the Antichrist—how much harder can you get?
I hear Obama paying McCain respect all the time for his service to his country, but that, on the economy, he “just doesn’t get it.”
I would hardly call that a character assassination on Obama’s part.
By Dan on October 14th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Ayers has been quoted as having no remorse for the bombings. Obama conveniently decides not to be associated with Rev. Wright when running for president, after going to his church for 20 years. His wife now feels proud to be an American for the first time. I could go on and on, but won’t. My last comment about politics until the election is over
By Marilyn on October 14th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I think the reason some are saying that is because they are frustrated that Obama appears to do well when the person they see as a hero and good guy is not going after him. I think they should BOTH stick to the issues. I have no doubt that there are as many telling both sides to stop the negative stuff as there are those suggesting more aggression. I’m not sure when it became ok to attact with misleading ads but right now if I could vote for someone who was NOT doing that I would but they don’t exist. I wish both campains had kept their promise not to do that at all. And for the record, McCain often says respectful and positive things about Obama as well (not just the in response to the woman you mentioned.)
I for one am not calling Obama the anti-christ and I’m not giving McCain a halo either! But I do like what McCain has done in the past and I have some concerns about Obama…who despite the fact that some believe the Dems are a better choice in this economy has limited experience for all his ideas. I don’t think that because he is less rich than McCain he “get’s it.”
I wish that the candidates had to submit their data before a debate so that it could be verified and then we could get real info…but they both distort the “numbers” and make up a story. Part of the problem is that with all the pork and side deals associated with legislation these days, even if you vote for/against somthing, you may be voting something that has nothing to do with the primary bill (and therefore be voting for something that you do not support.) It happens all the time and it is used both ways.
Anyway, John…please tell me there’s something out therer that we can get excited about that has NOTHING to do with the election…PLEASE!!!
By Julie on October 14th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I agree that we ought to leave the election to the other 23 hours of the day. RA is our release valve.
Unfortunately, all there is to talk about on the Royal front is…
unfair media coverage! Ack!!
By Dan on October 14th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Here’s some non-news via TMZ:
Fergie, the Duchess of York, was taken aside and patted down at Los Angeles airport yesterday. Oh, for the days of yore!
By Dan on October 14th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Um, wow…what moron did THAT!!!
By Julie on October 14th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
She must have looked suspicious.
Actually, some airports have a continuous inspection process, meaning that as soon as an inspector is free, the next person in line gets the rubdown. This way it is completely random, and inspectors aren’t singling out “suspicious-looking” people on their own.
By Dan on October 14th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I do love when “they” take a celebrity and pat them down just like everyone else in order to make the point that they aren’t discriminating against anyone in particular. How useful, and it surely must make all of the 80 year-old Grandmas from Kansas feel better when they, too, are asked to raise their arms and spread their bare feet in the name of Homeland Security. (rolling eyes)
Meanwhile, how many of the 19 hijackers were red headed females of British descent.
And have they already forgotten Lockerbie? Less than 10% of commercial airlines cargo is screened properly, so while it’s doubtful anyone will try to hijack the plane, I am more worried about someone’s Snoopy alarm clock blowing up in the cargo hold mid-flight.
Meanwhile, I wonder if George W. will ever board a commercial flight again? Hillary? Bill? Obama? McCain?
No, the people who passed the laws and make travelling hell for the innocent and, in reality, poorly protected public go via private jet and charter. Nice.
By alsgal on October 14th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I can’t believe that every news outlet must have carried the story of Kate. I guess though that people get connected to them. Everyone is wondering the same thing. What is happening with William and Kate? However, that is no excuse for taking pics when she is at or near her home. How many stories do you hear of others doing the same thing? The answer is probably little or none.
I still wonder if anything is happening privately. I can only think that it is their business. With Prince William and Harry doing their motor bike charity they will be out of the country for almost two weeks. I guess we won’t hear anything for a while.
Commenting on the US election, I want a president who has enough experience to keep us safe. I want someone who if the phone rings does not have to call his Veep to ask for advice. I want a president who has enough experience to be able to make informed decisions. I want a president who has been tested. People have shown to want a likeable president. Is that now the important factor in electing a prsident. I hope not.
By kat on October 15th, 2008 at 2:18 am
I am following the elections from South Africa and must say they seem a lot more civilised and open compared to our elections & shananigans!
What person would like to become President & then get kicked out of office a few months before their second term ends?
Answer: One who seems to run their country from an aeroplane!
By Nikki on October 15th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Dan, I’ve never known Royal news so slow. What there is of it seems so trivial compared with the momentous financial and election news.
Kate using a cell phone in her car may be big enough for the Sun and Daily Star, but it isn’t for Royal Anecdotes — except in the comments, of course.
And William in the MoD under some kind of news blackout. Mysterious.
We do need some big themes now.
By John on October 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Hear! Hear! completely agree with you John
By Nikki on October 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Yes, wouldn’t an engagement just fit the bill? *Sigh*
By Julie on October 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
It would indeed, Julie, but lots of things seem to be in limbo right now. Nobody knows what will happen next across the board. Isn’t that exciting?
By John on October 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
John, about ten years ago here in the U.S., I heard that Prince Andrew’s daughters would lose title “princess” then becoming ” lady” at 18(or 21) for some reason ( the news said “downsizing”). Is it true?
By Mikado-watcher on October 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Mikado, both Princesses are 0ver 18 now and retain their titles. A birth Prince or Princess cannot have their titles removed because they are not given for merit but birth.
By John on October 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Is the family back from Balmoral? I generally ascribe the autumn Royal silence to the annual retreat northward.
By Dan on October 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The Queen held an investiture at Buckingham Palace yesterday. They’ve been back for a while now.
By John on October 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Thank you John for answering my question. “They are not given for merit but birth.” Princess by birth or Princess by marriage…..I got it.
By Mikado-watcher on October 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
A Princess by marriage who divorces has a different status, usually resolved as part of the divorce settlement. It can vary, but I think I’m right in saying she has the entitlement to use the title but can’t pass it on to subsequent children.
By John on October 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
No Princess, certainly not a Princess by marriage, can pass her title to her children, whether she stays married to her Prince or not. Titles don’t pass through the female line unless, like the Countess Mountbatten of Burma, the title was created with such a provision. Her title was originally her father’s, the Earl Mountbatten, who had no sons. The letters patent that created the title therefore allowed that he could pass his title to his eldest daughter. The title would die with her if she had only daughters, but she has a number of sons in line for it.
Divorced Princesses/Duchesses/Countesses in Britain can continue to use the title but lose the HRH. As in our Duchess of York.
I don’t know what happens if Prince Andrew remarries, thereby creating a new Duchess of York. Since, if Andrew marries anyone it will probably be Fergie again, we’ll never know how the situation of having two York duchesses running around is resolved.
By Dan on October 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
John and Dan, thank you for your insights. Speaking of Prince Andrew, how far can titles pass on ? Will PA’s grandchildren still be titled prince and princess?
By Mikado-watcher on October 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Children of the sovereign and grandchildren of the Sovereign born to the sovereign’s sons get the title of Prince and Princess. (Note that Prince Andrew’s children have titles but Princess Anne’s children do not.)
If Andrew had a son, that son would be a Prince, since he would be a grandchild of the current soverign. But that son would not pass the title to his child, because that child would be a great-grandchild of the sovereign. A current example of this is Prince Michael of Kent, who is a Prince by virtue of being King George V’s grandson. But Prince Michael’s son, Frederick Windsor, is not a Prince. He is styled Lord Frederick Windsor, but has no title otherwise (in other words, he’s not a Prince, Duke, Viscount, Earl, etc.)
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will not pass any titles to their children, although they may be styled Lord or Lady and will take a place in the line of succession.
By Dan on October 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Actually, Beatrice and Eugenie’s children will have no right to the style of Lord or Lady. Unless the Princesses marry Royalty (which seems unlikely) their children will have no titles or styles, the way Princess Anne’s children do not.
By Dan on October 15th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
One more clarification!
If Prince Andrew had a son, he would not be a Prince, but as the son of the Duke of York, he would bear one of his father’s subsidiary titles as a courtesy title, and then of course he would inherit the title of Duke of York. In the meantime he would be styled the Earl of Inverness, as that is Andrew’s subsidiary title. (He is officially Prince Andrew the Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, and Baron Killyleagh.)
Here’s a bit of trivia from the Wikipedia entry for Duke of York:
Except for the first time it was created in 1385, every time since then that the Dukedom of York has been created it has had only one occupant, that person either inheriting the throne or dying without male heirs. This has fueled the rumor that there is a curse on the title.
By Dan on October 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Wow! Thank you very much for your wonderful explanation Dan. The rules of the titles in the RF are complicated yet I understand that there is a sort of three generation rule. It will be away too much for the Queen to have so many princes and princesses.
By Mikado-watcher on October 16th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Dan - I am confused as to why a son of Prince Andrew would not be a prince? Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses so to my mind it would make sense that a male sibling would also be a prince. Or would ‘prince’ be considered a lesser title than one of Prince Andrew’s subsidiary titles?
I have to say, I do find the lack of consistency in titles a little annoying and confusing - for example - as part of the female line, Princess Anne’s children would not automatically get titles but were offered them and Princess Anne declined (a smart move on her part, I think).
Prince Charles’s sons are princes - that makes sense as Charles is first in line. One day he will be King so this is reflected in his children’s titles.
Prince Andrew’s children are princesses. They are relatively far away from the throne but they are also children of the monarch.
Prince Edward’s children are styled as children of an Earl. They are not Prince and Princess despite being grandchildren of the monarch. Was this a conscious choice by the Wessexes? Is it part of a move to narrow those with royal titles/princes of Great Britain? Is it a reflecton of Edward’s ‘lowly’ youngest child status?
The Danish Royal Family made a clear announcement when Prince Joaqim and Princess Alexandra divored regarding her HRH status and title as a divorcee and in the event that she should remarry. As far as I recall, the Britsh Royal Family did not do that and it sometimes gives the impression of things being made up as they go along.
By Abby on October 16th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Abby, Prince Andrew’s son could be a Prince if he chose to style himself that way. Although some of these forms, especially for the aristocracy, are encoded in law, most are not, and the Sovereign’s wish is — sovereign.
By John on October 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
So much for my clarifications, I confused myself!
You’re right, Abby, Andrew’s son WOULD be a Prince. It is Andrew’s grandson, who would be HM’s great-grandson, who would not get the title.
Still, even though he would be a Prince by birth, the son of Andrew would likely be styled Earl of Inverness, in honor of the hereditary titles bestowed upon Andrew at his marriage.
Sorry for the confusion. It was the end of the day!
By Dan on October 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
By the way (and I’ll try not to trip myself up again), the Earl of Wessex’s two children ARE Princess Louise and Prince James by law, and when they come of legal age they can claim their proper titles if they wish. How one is styled, and what one actually is by birth and law, are often two different things.
The Wessexes declined a Dukedom and have declined the Prince/ss titles for their children allegedly to give them a shot at a normal life. Like Anne’s children, it is perhaps expected that they will not carry out Royal duties.
It is my belief that, since Andrew’s children have taken up their Royal titles with evident alacrity, then they should live up to the titles and pull their weight in The Firm when they finish their education. We don’t need a couple of Princess Stephanies tipsying around London for the next 50-60 years.
By Dan on October 16th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Why would you decline a dukedom and instead be an Earl?
By American Cousin on October 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Remember that it has been arranged for Edward to become Duke of Edinburgh when Charles takes the throne. There was no reason to give Edward a new Dukedom, when it makes sense that he take over his father’s (Edward is very active in Philip’s “Duke of Edinburgh Award” project to help the world’s youth.)
This will complicate title matters further…
Will King Charles give ALL of Prince Philip’s titles to Edward (Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich), or just the Edinburgh title? If Edward is given all of them, he would be Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Wessex—which would become the new courtesy title of baby James, currently styled Viscount Severn.
We’ll see.
By Dan on October 16th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Should we be concerned that all the young Royals were at Whiskey Mist last night, William was chatting with a young blonde when Paris Hilton tried to get his attention (unsuccessfully), but there was no mention of Kate?
By Dan on October 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Sounds like William and Harry were at least smart enough to not hang out with Paris Hilton! Ha! Chels showed up but no Kate…hmmmmm? Worries me a bit!
By Julie on October 16th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Thanks for clarifying the Earl and not Duke. Makes perfect sense.
If PW ever gives Paris a second of his time, it’ll absolutely ruin his creditbility with most people. Paris only cares about being pictured with a Prince. PW, start acting like you’re a prince and don’t be caught with these trashy women. Like people have said on here before, we all know you want to be treated like a “normal joe” but you’re not, so stop pretending. If you do want to be a “normal joe” drop your title, otherwise, you’re born with it, act like you desrve it.
But I do hope KM and PW are still on…I thought he was in Africa.
By American Cousin on October 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Now that you mention it, I thought both William and Harry were in Africa. Weren’t they supposed to leave Wednesday?
Perhaps this night out was their delayed send-off?
By Dan on October 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Delayed send off with KM? Could prove John’s point on the breakup.
By American Cousin on October 16th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Delayed send off *without* KM….my mistake
By American Cousin on October 16th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Or are they just back? I had not seen anything from either for a bit recently.
By Julie on October 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I don’t think they’ve left yet, and I don’t think Kate’s absence is a good sign.
But it’s strange that none of the press accounts are noting Kate’s absence, especially since they note that Chelsy had been out with Pippa at an earlier party and arrived late to Whiskey Mist.
By Dan on October 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
And after the day they hounded her about the cell phone and driving. Is it really that big of a deal over there? I mean some states have no cell phone while driving laws, but its not like you would get HDQ if you did it! Seems the papers are taking it as the end of the world…how dare she do such a thing!
By American Cousin on October 16th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
There seems to be a media blackout surrounding Kate and the relationship as a whole and I’m wondering why??
By Fixx on October 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am