Royal fertility and DNA tests
Now here’s an intriguing question for the weekend.
We received an email about Royal fertility tests for women intending to marry a senior Prince. I think it merits some careful consideration.
It’s known that this practice has traditionally been part of the process of the marriage ritual of heirs, or very near heirs, to the Throne. Diana had to undergo a medical examination and we know that it was successful.
What, though, if someone failed? These days the hurdles are much higher than even 20 years ago. It’s not just a Yes/No verdict that’s available. DNA testing can throw up a mass of probability data over a wide range of genetic diseases.
Where does the fail point lie: a one in ten chance, one in 100, one in a million? Most people would probably fail if the criteria were set too high.
Now here’s the rub. How would the Palace handle a situation where a young women was generally fertile, but who had a mild to medium chance of producing children with some genetic disability?
Obviously, they wouldn’t splash it all over the press. If some journalists discovered the truth, editors would be very wary of putting private medical information into the public domain. There might even be general agreement across the media not to publicize it at all.
And how would this play into the current situation of both the heir’s heir and the spare’s long-term girlfriends?
This is a hypothetical question, but one which will make life very difficult in the future for the Royal Family and pose a variety of ethical and practical questions in an age of maximum media exposure.
Does the prince also have to undergo medical examination to make sure he is fertile? Did Prince Philip have to undergo medical examination before he married Elizabeth in order to check his fertility? I think not. Is it women only that have to undergo this procedure? If yes, totally wrong in today’s world and totally sexist. If the Royals want to modernise that has to go.
By Fixx on November 1st, 2008 at 11:00 am
Fixx, I disagree. The heir can’t be changed, but the marriage partner can. Political correctness plays no part in Royal succession.
I’m not sure about Prince Philip — I would expect he did have to undergo the rudimentary tests they had in 1947.
By John on November 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am
I imagine it is the spouse (male or female) who undergoes the test, since the Royal has surely already been tested for just about everything imaginable.
We all know that William was treated for an undescended testicle. So much for medical history being kept privates.
I mean private.
By Dan on November 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
My dears, let us recollect. In the past century or so, many kingdoms of Europe have suffered difficulties because of genetic defects in their Royal heirs. The most famous of course is the Russian Royal Family, the Romanovs, whose heir, Alexis, was born with hemophelia and this illness nearly drove the Tsarina demented and in part contributed to the downfall of the dynasty and of Russia itself. That gene was inherited from Queen Victoria, whose granddaughter Tsarina Alexandra Feodorova was. The gene was also present in the daughter of Queen Victoria, Vicki, who became the Empress of Prussia and the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm, but his problem was not hemophelia, but a defect that crippled his arm and also, he was, arguably, a manic depressive personality. Many of his flaws can be said to have caused WWI. From Queen Victoria, this gene which caused hemophelia spread to the Royal Family of Spain, where the bearing of sick male heirs destroyed the brief happiness and fidelity of the marriage of Queen Ena and her husband, the King of Spain. The gene appeared in the Battenberg line as well when Queen Victoria’s youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice, married Prince Henry “Liko” of Battenberg and two of their children were hemophiliacs, with their daughter (Spanish Queen Ena) being a carrier. Unless things change radically, women will always bear the children, and in that role, their health and genetics will always be significant and must be investigated so that there can be a well child, especially an heir. In this matter, privacy, sexual politics and perceived equal fairness to the sexes must take a back seat. When an heir is born and becomes of age, he/she knows that his/her life must be dedicated to the service of his kingdom and its people. To marry a consort who cannot bear a healthy heir is both irresponsible and a violation of the public trust. In the past, it has also been dangerous and even fatal. Prince William must not make that mistake because to do so is to court disaster.
By Gigi on November 1st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
The concept of genetics’ role in royal history is thought provoking. I remember reading a biography of Henry VIII that speculated Anne Boleyn might have been Rh -. Which, of course, blew me away. IF Anne Boleyn was in fact Rh - that would explain why their premature but healthy son wasn’t carried to term and instead met fetal demise. It would also explain why she was never able to carry a child to term after Elizabeth (because of the antibody conversion). If Anne Boleyn lost a healthy son (at least one) because of her blood type it changed the course of history for western civilization. Queen Elizabeth would have never climbed the throne. Her brother would have. No Elizabethan Queen Elizabeth? Unthinkable, nonetheless it might be an example of the importance genetics may play in royal history.
By lionound on November 1st, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding what is being said. John, has some sort of information turned up that points to either William or Harry’s girlfriend(s) as having an hereditary genetic disability?
If so, which girlfriend has this possible condition?
By mapleleaf on November 1st, 2008 at 11:15 pm
It looks like this might be a topic for discussion. He doesn’t state this is is fact, only the implications that might occur for royal girlfriends generally. In Kate’s or Chelsey’s case it could be another concern to address before an engagement or marriage.
By lionhound on November 1st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Is there a word cut off for postings? One posting left for moderation a couple hours ago and the other went straight to the board.
By lionhound on November 1st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I find it difficult to believe in any kind of “fertility tests” done to royal brides to be. But if it is true, then it is.
But I wonder - with my own experience - what kind of medical tests they include? It is possible to test if a woman is ovulating or not. But to know if her “tubes” are open - well that is not so easily done.
Endometriosis, for example (a medical condition often linked with infertility, though not always) is a tricky thing. A doctor _may_ feel it manually or then not. The only 100% sure way to diagnose is to go though laparoscopy.
Plus even if everything was OK.. physically.. it is not said that the baby will come.
I must say that all kinds of superficial “fertility tests” (i.e. normal gynecological examination) are pointless. There is no certainty.
When it comes to Diana, it is all very weird indeed. Prince Charles has 2 brothers and 1 sister, so what was the big problem? Children or no children, it is not like the end of the Windsor dynasty.
I guess these kinds of fertility tests (!?!) are not done in other European countries, for it is a known fact that Prince Joachim of Denmark and Princess Alexandra (his now ex-wife) had to wait for years to produce a child.
Sometimes it is difficult to know what is true and what is not when it comes to the Windsor-family. For example this “Charles-had-to-find-a-virgin-bride” - I am not sure if I buy that. Virgin??? In 1980s? But you hear that all the time.
By Peg on November 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 am
I predict Beatrice becomes Queen in her 70s after William and Harry fail to produce heirs.
By ClassyCanuck on November 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 am
Harry and the wife will surely pop out half a dozen, although I’ve always had a hard time picturing William as a father. Even though he looks very sweet when he’s with children, he always reminds more of a doting uncle type.
As for the infertility issue, well, it’s true procreation is the main duty of an heir, but in the BRF they have supposedly dealt with fertility issues before, so I would doubt this would be an issue at this point.
Besides, William could always give up his position for the woman he loves.
By alsgal on November 2nd, 2008 at 1:52 am
Alsgal, the British Royal Family cannot sustain another abdication crisis, trust me. The first one nearly brought down the monarchy altogether. We will have no Queen Mary to put Humpty-Dumpty together again, and we will have no Queen Elizabeth, the Consort of King George VI, to sustain and strengthen everyone until things stabilized. We also will have no Queen Elizabeth II, a nonesuch whose excellence will never be equalled, because by the time this crisis occurs, she will be in Heaven. Abdication is a recipe for catastrophe.
Lionhound, insofar as I know, there is no word limit for postings. I think I am on an accurate footing when I say that I have posted some of the longest comments on this site and although some disappear into cyberspace, I am sure it is not because of the length of the post.
By Gigi on November 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 am
So what happens if the heir to the thrown (through either of the princes) is genetically effected with something like a mild form of retardation or autism? Are they still able to ascend if they can perform mentally enough, or does it go to the next in line? What is the rule on something like that? It seems that with autism on the rise (at least here in the US) the chances that a royal being born with it is high.
By Meg on November 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 am
The Mail on Sunday has a piece on Prince Charles’ 60th celebrations. Now there is to be a third party– a brunch on the actual birthday– because some less notable people are invited only to drinks the night before, not dinner. Those not included in dinner include Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Prince Michael of Kent’s family. That would suggest that Kate will not be included in dinner that night. Those invited only to drinks are to be on the guest list for the brunch.
The article does state that Kate has been invited to the Highgrove party the next night, and will be there. It says W&K have “had a wobble” after the disco night, but all is well now.
I find it curious that, while the author of the article says “I’m told” several times, I don’t see any name for who actually has written the piece.
By Evelyn on November 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Thanks, Evelyn, that comes from Katie Nicholl, so it must be right [Background shrieks!!!].
It sounds true to me, so those readers who have been suffering from Kate withdrawal symptoms — including RA — can relax, at least until the next “wobble.”
I think, though, that the decisive removal of the Middleton presence for nine weeks was more to do with the astonishing decision by William to spend the next six or seven years in various remote spots flying choppers in all weathers.
You can almost hear Kate’s voice on the wind: “What am I supposed to do in the meantime? That’s very selfish.”
That’s a good question to which we deserve an answer too.
By John on November 2nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Mapleleaf, absolutely not. As the piece says, it’s a hypothetical question, although it had an outside chance of being true.
The very next day we get leaked info that Kate will be at Highgrove, and there was a spat, almost certainly over the SAR decision, and that William was not best pleased to see his girlfriend spreadeagled across the red-top press in hot pants.
Result!
It’s called flushing out your fox.
By John on November 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Lionhound, thanks for the original email posing this question.
In terms of comment length, there is none as far as I’m aware, although in a period of high traffic you stand a better chance if your comment is short.
If you do post a long comment, it’s better to compose it in a separate, plain-text editor (like EditPad Lite — available for free download), then paste it into the box. That ensures you’re not time-outed or caught in a surge.
By John on November 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
John, I believe that many will agree with that last point and will also ask themselves what is Kate supposed to do in the meantime but I can assure my fellow posters that I think we already know the answer to that: Kate will wait.
I think she will wait for William to finish his training over the next 18 months without hesitation. He would then be in the oft-quoted and golden 28-30 time frame for marriage that he stated he wanted to wait for. (Of course, being only 22-23 at the time, that may have been his way of saying, I’m getting married but not for a long while, please.)
I also believe that if the 18 months passes, and there is still no proposal, Kate will then agree to accommodate whatever other
assignment is thrown her way.
It is clear that Kate is in this for the long haul, a fact that should reassure us all, and like a lighthouse, she is always there under all kinds of weather. Like a lost ship, William seems to find his way back to her eventually.
No offence to Her Majesty, but God Save the Kate.
I think this proves once again that she has the tenacity to be one heck of a Consort.
By alsgal on November 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
And I agree with your last point, Alsgal.
Incidentally, it occurs to me that it’s possible that the Duchy of Cornwall has an agreement with the RAF to allow them to buy out William’s commission after one tour of duty — three years.
Whether they will pay the full £400,000 ($660,000) amortization cost of his training for the remaining three years, is open to speculation. It’s a relatively small sum for the Duchy.
It would be good to have a definite date for his leaving the service.
By John on November 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
John, forgive my sloppy writing whilst posting, as I think most intelligent posters would agree with ALL of your points — or at least they should!
Interesting idea about the Duchy, in effect, possibly paying William’s way. It would seem the sensible thing to do, at least given the current economic climate. Is it certain, or rather merely assumed, that he will be eligible for a three year assignment once he finishes the initial 18 month training portion?
If, for whatever reason, he might not “make the cut” or even if he simply has a change of heart, it would seem like a marriage to Kate at the end of the 18 months might provide an effective out should things not turn out as well as he (and we) hope training wise.
By alsgal on November 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
It’s not a shoo in, Alsgal. He has to pass the training tests, but he’s been called “a very talented helicopter pilot,” so I would imagine he’ll be alright.
By John on November 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
This post will look off topic because we’re back to Kate Middleton again. And I’m very relieved we are. It’s just that genetics and British royalty is interesting. British royalty has had such an influence on history. I read a biography where the author speculated Anne Boleyn might have been Rh-. That thought blew me out of the water because of its implications. If Anne Boleyn was Rh- it would explain why she could carry no infant (including at least one normal son) to term after Elizabeth. The twist; if she was Rh- and had instead been Rh+ the course of history may have been changed. The world may never have had Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth wouldn’t have climbed the throne. Her brother would have. What would history be with no Queen Elizabeth? Something we’ll never know but a thought that indicates how something as small as genetics in royalty could change the course of history.
By lionhound on November 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Oh my! Please forgive my double post. I missed my own posting! Maybe I need to check my own genetics before I worry about those in royalty! Sorry for the duplication.
By lionhound on November 2nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Thank you for explaining that John, it does seem as if a response of some sort was put forward as soon as the article regarding genetic disabilities was printed!
As the source was Katie Nicholl, I’m not sure I actually believe she knows what she’s talking about, but although the explanation of a “wobble” possibly fits the circumstances, I’m of the opinion that William wasn’t upset with Kate about the photos of her fall on the floor at the roller-skating charity party, and why would he be?
Any sane person would be aware that a person can’t control an accidental fall on roller skates, and fortunately Kate had the good sense to wear tights under her shorts for just such an eventuality. I believe William is sensible enough to have realised that Kate had no control over the fall, and was not upset with HER about it. The media’s exploitation of Kate’s fall is a different story though. I do believe it’s possible William was upset about the way Kate’s fall was portrayed in the media, if anything.
By mapleleaf on November 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
As Katie Nicholl’s story, the question that comes to my mind is: “how the heck can we trust information from Katie Nicholl about any “wobbles” between Wills and Kate?” Katie Nicholl has gotten things wrong many times before. I feel that it’s very possible William and Kate have spent time together since the roller disco charity party, and we (the public) haven’t been made aware of it because they decided to keep their movements and activities extremely private. The unvarnished truth is that the media was unkind towards Kate after the roller disco party, and public opinion was definitely against Kate. I think maybe because of the negative public reactions, William and Kate were advised by his new PR handlers to keep a low profile and remain low-key whenever they were together for a little while, until the negative reactions had died down somewhat.
This situation is not without precedent; Kate has been out of the public eye for weeks at a time before. The most notable time was at the beginning of this year, when Kate was only seen 4 times in a 12 week time period, and none of those 4 times was with Wills. From the end of December 2007 until Kate went skiing in Klosters with Wills 19 March, she was only seen on 4 separate occasions, and Wills was missing from each one of those 4 occasions. Yet they turned up in Klosters in March, very much together.
I’ve also maintained all along that William was only going to be with the RAF SARF for a maximum total of 4 and a-half years, just as the Prince of Wales’ website said, and I’m quoting
“The Prince will begin his 18 month training course with the RAF in January 2009 and, if successful on the course, would become a fully operational Search and Rescue pilot in 2010 with one of the six UK-based RAF SARF flights. Once operational, a typical tour for a pilot in the SARF is 30 to 36 months.”
That quote is from the Prince of Wales’ official website.
By mapleleaf on November 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Mapleleaf, a tour of duty is not the same as length of service. Soldiers go on many tours of duty during their service career.
As it stands, William will be committed to 7.5 years of service if he passes his training period. That is the minimum length of time it takes to “pay back” the cost of the training.
I was idly speculating that the Duchy may have negotiated the possibility of buying out William’s commission after one tour. That would give him an extra option, but he may not want that.
By John on November 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Mapleleaf, as the Diary Editor of Britain’s top-selling, midmarket Sunday newspaper, Katie Nicholl will have access to the Pres Offices at Clarence House and the Palace. Don’t dismiss her stories out of hand just because her editor or subeditor has written a stupid headline to get a piece onto the front page.
Princes do change their minds, so if you go out on a limb with something, the rug can always be pulled from under you.
I believe William was cross about the pictures of the rollerskating — with Kate for putting herself into that situation. Let’s face it, a midnight dayglo rollerskating party is not exactly the kind of event a future Queen should organize, is it?
But that wouldn’t have been a deal-breaker. The SAR signup would be, from her point of view.
By John on November 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
If either Prince William or Kate have decided to call it a day, Kate will not be at any of the three 60th birthday celebrations for Charles. Let’s wait and see if she appears. Further, if Kate Nicholls’ information is accurate, I find it worrying that Charles has empowered Michael Fawcett to the extent that he has. Did I read that article correctly? Does it really say that Fawcett is furious that Queen Elizabeth II, his sovereign and the ruler of the United Kingdom, dared to ask a friend of hers (with whom Fawcett does not get along) to host a brunch for Charles’ 60th birthday because Fawcett had excluded the Prime Minister and his wife and the Queen’s cousins, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and their children, from the dinner party? First of all, it is declassee for Charles or any of his staff to give offense to the Prime Minister over a social event. It does not matter what Charles may or may not think of Gordon Brown, the absolute and wise rule of the Prince Consort was that the Royal Family must be above politics and show no political preference. To exclude the Prime Minister and his wife from the banquet and invite them only for drinks is beyond the pale! It is also totally declassee to deliver the same snub to the younger brother of the Duke of Kent and his family. These people are cousins of the Queen, and one does not sub members of the Queen’s family, whatever Fawcett’s ego has lead him to suppose. Happily, these acts of lese majeste were brought to the Queen’s attention and she moved swiftly and appropriately to right the problem. For Fawcett to storm and rage over his prorogative being usurped is outrageous. He has no proprogative! He serves at the pleasure of Her Majesty the Queen, albeit among the minions of Charles and the sooner Fawcett figures out who is master and who is servant, the better for all our sakes. I am staggered by the arrogance of that man! I am impressed neither by his social graces, which I have seen nor by his credentials which I have not!
By Gigi on November 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Hi John, I have been reading on what’s going on and it’s good to hear that William and Kate is fine and going to the party. I look back at rollerskate party and I think it was a great event and it raised money for a worthy cause. Now Kate could have worn something else but there is no way she could have controlled that fall. The press made to big of a deal about that and totally over looked that she was doing something great for a late friend. There is no way William could have gotten mad over that and their friends was there to support her.
By Claudius on November 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I agree with you, Claudius, and if Prince William did make heavy weather over that uncontrollable incident, it makes me think less of him, not of Kate. We have all seen Prince William behave in ways that ill-behooved a prince, let alone one who will be King in the fullness of time. Through it all, Kate has stood by him and Prince William would be well-advised to return the favor.
By Gigi on November 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 pm
The part of KN’s story that William was supposedly upset over the photos from the roller disco event was the only part of the wobble theory that I didn’t buy.
I think the SAR announcement had more to do with it — perhaps Kate was surprised he was actually going through with it, or perhaps she expected him to propose marriage so that they could live on base together, thus solving the somewhat daunting logistical challenge they now face, particularly as Kate is dedicated to her new job at Party Pieces. It seems she is somewhat stuck there and is now forced to wait things out, as she cannot think of “shacking up” with William in the middle of nowhere without a job or the benefit of marriage.
If this SAR wobble occurred, I’m sure she got over it and was back to her normal, patient and forgiving self in no time.
The $ 64,000 question is, did William take the SAR position in the hopes that Kate would get fed up and leave and cure him of his seeming ambivalence once and for all?
I say ambivalence because I do not know of many happily married men who needed 5+ years to make up their mind about whether or not to marry their GF.
They looked so happy together all this year, that I find it hard to understand what is holding William back. He has known her for 6 years, and dated her for perhaps 5 of those years. This somehow all does not compute, at least not in Alsgal’s walnut sized brain.
That said, I do believe Kate will be at Highgrove on Nov. 15th.
By alsgal on November 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
John I respectfully disagree about the roller-disco charity event, I think a midnight dayglo rollerskating party was absolutely a fun idea as a fund raiser for children’s charities! The roller-disco was for the young and the young-at-heart, and the money went to 2 different children’s charities.
John I know you’re familiar with the story of Kate Middleton’s friendship with Sam and Tom Waley-Cohen, and Tom’s courageous fight against osteosarcoma. Many of William and Kate’s friends were on the committee for the roller-disco charity event, including Sam Waley-Cohen, Tom Van Straubenzee, Jamie Murray-Wells, Holly Branson, Suzanna Warren (Guy Pelly’s girlfriend) and others. They all wore day-glo colours and many of the girls wore outfits that included tights and very tiny shorts.
I can’t see where anything was wrong with that setup, and with so many of William’s own friends participating and attending, it doesn’t seem possible that none of them (including Wills himself) said anything about it being bad idea beforehand if they felt that way. The fact that they participated shows that they all thought it was a good idea. As I said before, I seriously doubt if William was upset with Kate. I think that if anything, he was upset with the media and their treatment of Kate, and possibly dismayed by the public’s response to Kate’s fall, which could have seriously injured her by the way.
I think William’s PR people decided to keep William separate from any backlash of negative public opinion by having both William and Kate to keep a discreet and very low profile together in the subsequent weeks after the roller-disco party. After the day-glo party, neither Wills nor Kate was seen or heard from until the middle of October.
My thought is that the new PR guys stepped in and took charge of the situation, and both Wills and Kate disappeared. We didn’t see Kate herself until the paparrazzi photos taken of her behind the wheel of her car in Berkshire surfaced in the media.
And after the mobile phone photos surfaced, there was a total absence of any new mentions of Kate Middleton anywhere in the media for two whole weeks. I don’t think that was a coincidence at all, I think it was deliberate, and I don’t think it was related to William being upset with Kate or vice versa. I think it was related to image management, image control, and PR.
By mapleleaf on November 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 am
Hm, I like that theory. And the good news is that we won’t have to wait long to test it
By Julie on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 am
The SAR position will be good for Prince William in many ways– serious military service, good opportunity for a future king, time for his father to finally complete his prolonged midlife crisis.
But I would like to see William & Kate marry while his grandparents can still enjoy the celebration.
By Evelyn on November 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 am
Mapleaf, you don’t hold a children’s party at midnight, not here at least. Every contact I know ridiculed it as another opportunity for the boozy Boujis crowd to live it up and get drunk. I don’t know anyone who thought it was a good idea — “infantile” was a common reaction.
If I were William I would have been annoyed too. It may have gone down well in North America, but I can assure you in Royal circles here there was disbelief, especially as when Kate fell there was no need to hold her legs wide open while cameras snapped (and they weren’t mobile phones). Those picture will be published again and again during the run up to any future marriage — it’s a hostage to fortune.
On the other hand, it’s Kate fury over the SAR signup that caused the major split. Not a good episode all round. It’s still not clear if they can overcome these last weeks and make it up the aisle at some distant time.
By John on November 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 am
It wasn’t a childrens party it was to raise funds for childrens charities - and I don’t know anyone who thought it was infantile. I was reading Tatler this morning and there is coverage of the event without photos of Kate’s fall (although it does mention some of the people that fell over and she was not the only one, one guest left in an ambulance). I think it is great that the potential future queen is living like anyone else her age (I should know, I am 4 days older than her) and spending some of her time at least organising and attending charity events.
By Rachel on November 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Rachael, outside the Pixie Geldorf crowd, it played very badly. And William was annoyed — you can imagine the stick he got from some of his relatives.
That one picture could stop her from marrying into the Royal Family. It won’t be stated publicly, but it could come to that.
Kate doesn’t need to try so hard to please, she has a lot going for her, and when she’s her normal, calm self, she’s very impressive.
By John on November 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Whether or not William was annoyed, I don’t know, as I don’t know him. I would also think it sad if that was what prevented their marriage as it seems so short sighted. That said, I may be their age but I am not in their position so I can’t really comment.
In the Tatler piece, which is not aimed at the Pixie crowd, it (the roller event) comes across as a fun and entertaining party which raised funds for childrens charities. Nothing more.
By Rachel on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Okay, fair enough, Rachel.
By John on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Didn’t Kate seek advice from the CH before she put her name as one of the organizers of the charity?
By Mikado-watcher on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
She may have done, Mikado, but did they know what it entailed and how risible it was?
By John on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
If Clarence House gave their blessing to the event, as is supposed, and then scorned the results afterwards, the fault lies in Charles’ band of little men for not doing the research for which they are so well paid. I do not admire the Royal Family and their minions for this testing procedure that non-Royal bride candidates must endure, nor do I admire their lack of loyalty and support when something goes amiss. This process has served Charles ill and damaged his reputation in the Kingdom and indeed the world for lo, these many years. One would hope that by now he, and his son, had come to the realization that their lack of chivalrous behavior does not play well with their subjects.
By Gigi on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
John, I guess they didn’t have any clue what would “a charity for children at midnight” be. Doesn’t PW have a PR consultant for Kate? Or he has one ( that’s why we don’t see her recently).
By Mikado-watcher on November 3rd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Well, my previous post disappered into Long-Winded Land it appears.
So, we now have pictures of Kate strutting in lingerie on a catwalk (at St. Andrew’s) and spread-eagled at a roller disco. Both events were for charity, but tights or no tights, is that noble fact enough of a positive to outweigh the negatives? Are these the sort of images the senior members of the BRF and their advisors want other Kings, Queens and Heads of State (not to mention the British public) to have of their future Queen Catherine?
There was also her IMO ill-advised charity association with the Sisterhood and their leader Emma Whatshername, the “high society adult sex parties organiser” which led to bad press as well.
It’s hard to know what exactly is considered a dealbreaker for a potential BRF member these days, and why some aspects of Kate’s unfortunate associations have not been “vetted” properly by William’s so-called advisors at CH. Are we asleep at the wheel?
My goodness, who among us did not see “Roller Disco charity event” and think “Ooops!” well ahead of time? These men and women aren’t doing a very good job of protecting the brand it seems, at least in terms of Kate, IMO.
By alsgal on November 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
(”Disappeared” ^ along with my spelling ability.
)
By alsgal on November 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Well, I thought, there she goes…looking like a normal young woman and being human…I was impressed that she would not be so vain as to be too cool to be silly occasionally. To me that makes her real. I also thought that others will make something negative out of the whole thing, and it made me frustrated that she could not be a normal young woman without someone twisting something fun. It’s not like she did anything disgusting…she dressed for the theme of the party and fell down. She dared to be light hearted about falling. If she had jumped up and looked embarrassed they would have had things to say then as well. Sigh…who can win here?
By Julie on November 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Not all in the media were negative about the Roller disco, the Sky Showbiz slideshow of the event springs to mind, not a spread-eagled photo in sight! If you look at the photos of the night on Rex Features Kate wasn’t the only young lady to fall. It’s amazing/scary how the media can twist a story…
By Siobhan on November 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I think that if William and Harry can get by boozing out of clubs at 3:00 am, smoking pot, “playfully” groping women and what have you, a little modeling contest and a spill at the roller-derby should be pretty easy to overlook for a long-time girlfriend. It’s not as if Kate is some fly by night chick suddenly picked up. Considering *all* the heavy media attention she and her family has endured through the years, much of it negative through no fault of her own, it would show incredible disloyalty on the part of William and CH to make her charity party any kind of “deal breaker”. It would certainly make other women think twice of dating William — which he found out after his and Kate’s first major break-up.
Anyway, it is all guesswork and I prefer to think the best of William. He seems to be an understanding sort.
On another topic there was a great article about Charles, Prince of Wales in the Telegraph to commemorate his 60th birthday. I know that he has something of a mixed reputation but I can’t help but admire him greatly for all the great charity institutions he has helped to establish. http://tinyurl.com/55fvbq
There was also a little article on the BBC about Charles and the Duchess’s visit to Brunei. Apparently Harry served with one of the country’s military units in Afghanistan and they awarded him a special honour because he impressed them so much with his leadership and his ability to boost their morale. That made me feel very proud of him and sad that such remarks won’t be publicised as heavily as his next bar trip.
By Imani on November 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I agree with Imani on the boys can come out of clubs drunk or pictures of them gropping girls at parties, yet KM does some a charity event and has a mishap, it’s “no queen for you.” There is a major double standard here. The Princes want to be treated as regular guys, yet they can dress up as nazis, have a picture of them grabbing a girl, etc and everyone says “well that is a shame, but what do you expect.”
Meanwhile, KM does a charity event, doesn’t something less daunting than the boys and it’s “she is not fit for a queen.”
Why does KM need to act like she can do no wrong when the boys can get away with it. And if the reply is “well they are royal princes” then they need to start acting like it. KM doesn’t know if she’ll end up with PW, so she shouldn’t spend her life looking over her shoulder, meanwhile her boyfriend is out chattign with up Paris Hilton.
By American Cousin on November 3rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
while the arguement of her behavior is subjective…the lack of material with regard to the SHORTS! is not… she knows the media is there and I noted other guests were not so skimpily dressed. same with getting out of the car! how many crotch shots do we have of Diana?
By london4704 on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Sadly, there is a double standard but, by virtue of birth alone, Prince William and Harry don’t need to audition to become members of the BRF like Kate and other future royal spouses have to.
Kate has, for the most part, showed good judgement and behaved impeccably IMO. As I’ve posted on another site, I do not blame Kate for wanting to do good, I merely question why PW or his team at CH don’t seem to be vetting Kate’s charitable endeavors as thoroughly as they should, if things are as serious between them as we’ve been led to believe.
No, they don’t need to function in the same way as paid PR advisors would be expected to, but they certainly could have given her better advice. And advice is free.
By alsgal on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I agree with london- The shorts were too short. I think the rest was fine and fun, but seriously short shorts!! She would have been better off in a fun pair of pants or skating skirt.
By happydally on November 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
“how many crotch shots do we have of Diana?”
These sort of photographs are an entirely new phenomenon and are directly proportional to the upsurge of 24 hour celebrity blogs and one or two loose female celebrities who did their best to break down that barrier. Nowadays the paparazzi deliberately do all that they can to these kind of lewd shots and if a heavily photographed woman doesn’t devote her life to knee length skirts and 100% error free entry and departure into cars, one day the paps will get their prize. It even happened to poor Emma Watson on her 18th birthday even though her purse was firmly attached to the hem of her dress, legs together. (Thankfully, her reputation remains pristine because Emma is obviously not *that* kind of celeb.) No one is safe and celebrities have complained about them before.
I do expect the Princes to be dealt with more kindly than Katherine simply because they are princes. I do not protest that; it is the privilege of their position. I only wish for William to show some loyalty when a long-term, long-suffering, devoted girlfriend who was not born into public life and has no retinue of PR staff makes a mistake or two. Especially when that mistake is decidedly inferior to the mistakes *he* has made in the past. That is, of course, assuming he hasn’t done so already; I fervently hope so.
By the by, happydally, as one familiar with skating skirts I assure things would have been disastrous if she had worn one and taken a spill.
alsgal, I think your position is entirely reasonable.
I’m not sure how it is with CH and Kate — it is reported to give advice on some of her public events and not others. I cannot tell what criteria CH uses to decide whether or not to intervene.
I do look forward to John’s full recovery and subsequent up-to-date post on the Royal family’s doings. There is so much that is going on with the others and I’d like to be distracted from Will & Kate’s situation for at least an hour or so.
By Imani on November 4th, 2008 at 12:19 am
John, I wish to congratulate the American people on their new President, and their first black President. It is truly historical.
So now what will happen that’s new and different, I am wondering? Now a majority have voted for hope and change but what exactly is that?
Everyone gets free health care, which is good, but who will get their jobs back? Do the American people think if Obama and the Democratic Congress vote to raise corporate income tax that companies will stay in America when they can easily move offshore? Haven’t enough American manufacturing jobs already been lost to the Chinese? Why do people think raising taxes on American corporations will bring these jobs back? I haven’t figured that one out yet.
Is Obama is going to slap tariffs on Chinese imports? Good, so your $ 8. Wal Mart t-shirt that was made in Asia now costs $ 12. but you still don’t have a job to pay for it. A company has little reason to stay in America, and build that factory to give you one.
Why should a single company stay in the US when it can move to a less-taxed country? Lots of US companies have already delisted on the New York stock exchange and moved to places like London already. So those New York fat cats like taxi drivers and doormen and waiters can kiss their jobs goodbye as well. Ditto for the teachers when the state can no longer draw on the Wall Street tax base. Oh, and did I mention when Wall Street firms perform badly, so does a teacher’s pension, which is serviced by an asset management firm? Yep, the only way to get a 8% annual return on your pension is to invest in the stock market, as bonds just don’t yield that much over time.
Already states and cities have been forced to slash the budget, and doesn’t anyone understand that nobody wants to do business in a place where they will raise their taxes?
So, now this hope and change means that the 40% of Americans who already do not pay any income tax will be subsidized by those who will be taxed even more than before. A man in New York City earning over $ 250,000. a year will spend the first six months of the year working for the government. The other six months worth of wages he can keep for himself. Why work?
BTW that is a higher total taxation rate than the top rate of many socialistic countries in Europe, once social security, Medicare, state and city taxes are factored in.
Can someone explain to me what incentive someone now has in America to earn more than $ 250,000. ? Or is it $ 200,000.? Or maybe Bill Richardson is right, and they really mean $ 120,000.?
If you think socialism and spreading the wealth works, why not visit Cuba and see how well things are going? Venezuela? Or North Korea? Or go back and ask yourself what happened to a place called the USSR.
People say it’ll be OK because things under Bill Clinton were OK — but they are forgetting that Bill Clinton had an old-style Republican backed Congress that cut spending. US government tends to work best when the two parties are forced to keep each other in line.
I’m all for hope and change, and ending racism, but dreams don’t pay the rent.
By alsgal on November 4th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Alsgal, I must say - I LOVE YOU. And here I thought you only knew your Royalty…..
God Bless America.
PS It isn’t over till it’s over……
By Madelaine on November 4th, 2008 at 1:20 am
I agree Alsgal. According to the press, no one needs to vote. It is a done deal. I should not go to the polls and vote tomorrow. But then again, that is what they want. What is going to happen to oversight of a press that is already so bias for one candidate. Will they speak against him as so many wanted them to speak against our current president? I guess we will truly continue the policies of this administration no matter what. I am ready to vote tomorrow. I do so for the candiadate who has expereince and has been the agent of change for many years.
By the way, I don’t think that the princes should be treated any differently than Kate. If high standards are expected then they should be for everyone. I think that most people are resigning themselves to the fact that they are going to break up. If they do, William and the RF will be the big losers in the situation. I believe that Kate has tried to be there for William. She has loved him and supported him all of these years. I am hoping still that they love each other and that love will get them through the bad times as well as the good. I want both to be happy. I would not be routing for them unless I believed that they belong together. Here is me still keeping my fingers crossed.
By kat on November 4th, 2008 at 1:21 am
“These sort of photographs are an entirely new phenomenon”. These sort of shots are most certainly not a new phenomenon, what about Fergie and the toe sucking pics? the Paps have been taking these shots for years. I think that Kate ( based on polling views of her actions/in actions) has made an attempt to rectify her public image by engaging in more charitable events. I am simply saying that in such a position one should chose clothing (aka pants) with care. Celebrity has been a no holes barred personal interference since the invention of technical media reporting. And while i believe the press can be unfair, one certainly ascertains a comfortable lifestyle in exchange….dresses, holidays, VIP passes. I think that both William and Harry have been judged just as harshly in the past. I believe, aside from chronological maturity that is some of the reason behind both of their career and charitable moves. I did not mean the statement as a crass observation… but clearly we can show examples of similar media attention over a decade! what about the squidgy tapes? I have lived in London long enough to hear most of it. While i agree that previously Kate has handled herself well, I do believe that yes, in such a position you watch your every move. I think perhaps a little overconfidence in status may be more to blame than sense. As history has dictated, none outside the royal bloodline are afforded such a courtesy and can be dropped as quickly as they are picked up.
No matter the real person. I feel that all may have done Kate a disservice by not allowing her to have a voice or personality. This has allowed the media to make of her what the royal family and photography will. Her voice may be a saving grace…
By london4704 on November 4th, 2008 at 1:39 am
40% of American’s don’t pay taxes? 40% is nearly half.That’s new to me. Where can I find that information documented Al’sgal?
By lionhound on November 4th, 2008 at 4:08 am
Alsgal you make it seem as if the world will come to an end IF Obama is elected. It wont. Also, when it comes to taxes and jobs being outsourced, most corporations in the US pay less than 2% in federal taxes or nothing at all due to all of the loopholes. The tax issue is only an excuse to outsource jobs. Look at a company like Wal-Mart who made more than $374 billion in sales, but paid less than $7 billion in taxes worldwide. I wish I had a tax rate that was less than 2%.
Moving on, when it comes to W & K, I am just going to wait on John’s update after the 60th birthday celebrations for Prince Charles. I trust his JUDGEMENT as he has been proven correct in many matters concerning the Royal family. Happy Election Day to all my American friends!
By Jan on November 4th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Happydally, it was suggested by some commentators that Kate’s shorts at the Dayglo event were designed “to show William what he will be missing” if he headed for the hills for seven years.
The problem is, it showed the rest of the world what he will be missing too.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Just to connect this thread with the topic of the site, let’s not forget that America is voting today for a King as well as a politician.
The President is Head of State, like the Queen, as well as Head of Government (with variations), like the British Prime Minister.
I don’t envy whoever wins. The world today is about as unstable as it was in 1914, 1930 and 1939.
Let’s not also forget that Barack Obama is probably the least experienced candidate since Mr Deedes went to Washington.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Intelligence and the ability to choose and listen to wise, experienced advisors is more important than experience, in my opinion. No one can have all the experience needed to make every decision on one’s own in this complex world.
By how his campaign has been conducted, I seriously question McCain’s judgment and wisdom.
By Evelyn on November 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
WHAT? Experience matters? Ha! Looking forward to voting
I had that thought as well John, I don’t envy the winner in this election either way. It will be a tough situation. Like Biden said, if Obama wins he’ll be tested early and who knows how that test will come. If McCain wins he’ll be up against a Democratic house and senate. Not easy either way. I’m thinking switzerland…maybe for more than vacation
Just kidding of course.
By Julie on November 4th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Oops, John could you please fix my link — if you think we might be permitted to go off topic today — I am only stating this in response to Lionhound’s query
LINK
Many thanks.
By alsgal on November 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Alsgal, there’s no stopping Americans talking about the election today (and tomorrow, I’ve no doubt). We’re generally just as interested over here in Britain, even if it has seemed to go on forever.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
William and Kate where at Birkhall this past weekend.
By Me on November 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
WHAT? Where did you hear that? Are there photos? Birkhall you say?
By Julie on November 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Yes, Daily Express. I don’t know how to link but they where there.
By Me on November 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
It is important to note that 40% of American’s pay no INCOME taxes, because their income is too low. In other words, they are POOR. That so many people live in poverty in the richest nation on earth is a shameful.
Those people earning below the lowest income tax threshold pay sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and FICA like everyone else, and these taxes represent a larger percentage of their income than for those of us who are better off. They are regressive taxes, while the income tax is progressive—those who can afford more should pay more, not less.
I’m happy to pay more taxes if it means my country can finally pay its bills. We can’t spend our children’s and grand-children’s money forever, no matter what rich Republicans promise you.
Yes, I voted. We’ll see how it goes.
By Dan on November 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Hello is also reporting.
After reports suggesting their relationship is under strain, the Prince and his girlfriend have shown they are still going strong after they were seen together for the first time in eight weeks entertaining guests at Prince Charles’ Highland Birkhall retreat.
I don’t know how to link, sorry.
By Me on November 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Dan, when I was working my way through college earning $ 9. per hour in the summer I was told by a woman in the projects (whose 15 year-old son was the illiterate product of the US Democratic-backed public school system that already pays out more money per pupil than any other nation in the industrialised world) that she would be happy to take a job, if they paid her at least $ 15. an hour. I asked her what her skills were. She said she could answer the phone, but had no switchboard experience. I asked if she had gone to community college, which was free. She claimed not to have the time, which I found interesting, as she received aid for her dependent children (several kids, multiple fathers, none of whom were around) and had no job. I suppose a Republican held a gun to her head and made her have all of those children, which she required the state to support? I can assure you she paid no poperty tax on her Section 8 housing.
It is the lack of personal responsibility and sense of entitlement that must be addressed before the US can pull itself out of second world status. When an unskilled, uneducated factory worker can make the case as to why he should be paid $ 15. per hour for work that a man in China, Indonesia or Brazil will gladly perform for $ 5. per hour, and not use the illogical argument that he is entitled because simply because he is an American, then people can perhaps begin to understand why American cannot compete globally.
Ditto for all of the people who felt entitled to borrow a ridiculous amount of money for an overpriced home that they have suddenly realised, they simply cannot afford. I’ve seen a Countrywide mortgage contract, and it states very clearly what happens when the loan resets. If someone is too stupid to undertstand this, they should probably not be buying a house, which is an investment that requires using smarts and taking a great deal of personal responsibility. Most people assumed the value of their home would keep going up, and were willing to take that risk. These people who now say “other people” should bail them out for making a bad decision were certainly not sharing their profits with “other people” when the value of their house was going up. So, why is their bad decision my responsibilty?
Obama will win, because he has promised them it is not their fault, and don’t worry the government will take care of everything.
And so the Great Leap Forward has begun.
By alsgal on November 4th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Sorry, London, Blogspot links are not allowed as people promote their own blogs here.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Also, take what the Express reports with a pinch of salt. I’m not saying the Birkhall sighting is not true, just that the Express has paid out two massive sums recently for making stories up.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Here’s the Hello link: LINK. It’s just an old Wings-day shot with a para added, probably snitched off the Express.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
good to know : ) thanks
By london4704 on November 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Not being a big union man, I also disagree with the notion that an “unskilled, uneducated factory worker can make the case as to why he should be paid $ 15. per hour.” (Although nowadays $15 is kind of low.)
But I also disagree that an overeducated—yet apparently still unskilled—CEO should be paid hundreds of millions of dollars (and pay relatively few taxes on it) in order to run a bank or a corporation into the ground.
Giveaways for the rich are no better than giveaways for the poor.
By Dan on November 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I agree Dan! What I think we as Americans have to realize that in a global economy it is going to be hard to compete because companies can go overseas and hire workers who will work at lower wages while at the same time are more educated than us. In addition, companies no longer have to worry about providing health benefits, pensions, 401K plans, and keeping labor unions happy when they setup shop outside of US borders. The Bush administration has given tax cuts to the corporations and they are still leaving. Currently, the trend is now to outsource professional job functions like accounting not just manufacturing. I think Obama understands this more clearly than McCain, and he is willing to give more tax breaks on top of the ones they already receive to those companies who keep jobs here in America.
By Jan on November 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
If the unskilled are able to convince someone that they are able…let them try and pay them whatever they negotiate for a wage. (At the top or the bottom.) When if are unable to complete their job responsibilities they should be let go. The difference is that those at the top have managed to get contracts that pay them for FAILING! THAT is not fair…I don’t care what you pay a CEO if they do their job, increase profits for the company and the stock holders (i.e. bonuses for verifiable success) but paying them to leave is NOT OK! Work out the bonus plan and tie it to success, not failure. But the companies who set up these contracts that pay for failure should be allowed to fail if that is the result. Then other companies will learn and change their policies. Going forward there should be no more bail outs, or loans or whatever you call them.
asagal…I agree with you on what you said…it’s tough to pay taxes for those who won’t put in the work themselves and believe they are entitled. I would say that until we figure out a way to stop rewarding that behavior we will continue to grow the number of people who don’t pay taxes. We’ve seen a bit of welfare reform in my state but not enough.
I myself am looking at Obama’s tax plan and wondering how hard do I work to get up to that line but not cross over it…or…how many years/raises will it take to make it over the hump where I come out ahead? Or should I go along working harder and seeing no benefit so that the government can spend my $ for me (and I’m sure MUCH BETTER than I ever could!) CAN I even get ahead so that the extra effort is worth it? Does Obama understand that I WORK HARDER AND LONGER TO GET THERE? Why should I pay more taxes when I have EARNED what I WORKED for? I already pay my share and get no help for my children’s college, or qualify for any loop holes or anything like that…I pay the full rate that the forms say I should and deduct only my home, children & charitable contributions. Woe is me, I’m doing well…so sad…I KNOW that I am blessed. I started at the bottom and worked my way here with very little help and no freebies…I take nothing and pay my way. Why should I give more? Did I not earn this?
Ok, end of rant!
By Julie on November 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Clarification: the majority of people who do not pay income taxes in the US are not sitting at home waiting for a handout. They do work, but they simply don’t make enough to reach the lowest tax bracket. That includes single-parent households (not all of which are women who sleep around and squeeze out kids!), and two-parent households working minimum wage jobs or unable to find jobs.
Not all the unemployed are lazy do-nothings. How many manufacturing jobs have been lost over the past eight years of Republican “pro-business” policies?
By Dan on November 4th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Reading your comments here, I’m struck by how alike our two countries are. The same arguments play out here too, perhaps not with the same vehemence, except in the media.
All the woes listed above, we have too, all the gripes and grumbles, ditto. It’s almost as if we have the same government. Maybe we do.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I hear what you are saying Dan…I was one of those single-parent households (2 daughters) and I can tell you that I did not get where I am today the easy way. I’ve been laid off, I’ve been unemployed and I’ve had to work minimum wage…but I did not stop working to improve my lot. Ever! For years I did not make enough to pay taxes. And I also don’t know ANY person who does NOT have a job that put in the same effort to find a job that I do working mine. And when I did not have the job I wanted…I searched until I had a better one. I started with NOTHING and got everything I have myself.
There are those who have medical reasons not to work but that is the only excuse that I can see for not changing your life if you don’t like it. In this day there is no reason that you can’t learn a new skill, language or whatever is necessary to change your lot. It’s all about attitude and effort. Until just recently, I would say that anyone who wanted to work and was able did. But, knowing what it takes to change things…I don’t have a lot of patience for those who can and don’t. Some can’t and God bless them but most can.
By Julie on November 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Thanks for the link Alsgal. I thought it said 33% pay no taxes which is quite high. Alarmingly high when you consider these people can’t afford to pay taxes. Unless one believes they choose to be poor. I quickly read the article but I don’t think it specified why 33% pay no taxes. The implication from the way the article is structured is we have 33% living under the poverty line which is hard to believe but probably true. In my world, nearly every transaction I make involves looking in the eyes of a person struggling under the poverty line. Buying groceries, eating out, getting gas. And, what about the NCA’s cleaning bedpans and answering patients’ needs in the critical care unit I run? Working 50-60 hrs a week to bring home, hopefully, $2000/month to support their children. Not a lot for a single parent when it must pay rent and feed children. Although we may live in a society of learned helplessness as you imply, I’ve not met anyone who has chosen his (or her) intellectual capability, which has a part in driving success. I’ve heard a mother’s screams when she heard her only daughter was killed in an auto accident on her way to visit her in ICU. I’ve met frantic parents in another state as they try to get to Atlanta to be with their unstable daughter pried from a car by the jaws of life. I’ve learned although we sometimes act like money is our God, when it comes down to it, it isn’t. We also are in a tax bracket that is likely to take a hit. I think it’s forecasted to be 3-4%. Will we feel that? Yes. Will we share more? Absolutely, with pleasure if it will help. My biggest concern is what the government will do with the increase. Personally, I’d like to see it go just about anywhere other than yet one more war. We are a capitalist society which is driven by profit. Until the past 8 years it has served us well (except maybe for the corporate welfare thing it fostered). The damage is already done, as many of us are well aware from our portfolios, and it’s hard to believe one person could change the core of our culture. At this point I believe whoever wins will have a lot to do to unify and build trust because nearly 50% of the population will be against him from the start. My point? We, as a nation, have more to account for than taxes. We are a nation of people as well as corporations and profit.
By lionhound on November 4th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Greetings from Chicago!
I thought that some of you on the other side of the pond might be interested in understanding what exactly makes the Obama campaign different than any other run by a US Presidential candidate.
The outstanding organizationing that many prominent Republicans call “scary” because of it is like nothing that they’ve ever seen before. Even during the very first primaries for the Democratic nomination, Obama’s campaign outworked, outmanouevered, and out-strategized all other candidates in both parties. Here are some examples of the efficiency of the Obama “machine” from a RA fan who has been involved with it from Day 1:
1) During the primaries, the Obama team studied all of the rules and idiocincracies of each state’s primary or caucus rules for choosing a nominee. This was done because the Democratic nomination process is not like the Republican process, nor does it resemble the electoral college process of the general election. Democratic delegates for choosing the nominee are allocated proportionately within a state. The Obama camp understood that in states where there were a low, even number of delegates could make a difference, while the Clinton camp ignored this fact. For example, in a state with 4 delegates that are allocated proportionately, Obama only had to win 40% of the popular vote to split the delegates 50/50. This results in a net gain of zero for either side and was a good strategy in some of the smaller, blue states. In traditionally Republican states, the Obama camp worked hard to secure an overwhelming majority of votes while Clinton ignored these states up until early Feb. This allowed Obama to win a sizeable number of delegates (which is all that matters) and states (for bragging rights) and the popular vote (also just for bragging rights). Once he developed this momentum, many of the 20% of the delegates are “super delegates” who are prominent party officials (most current or former elected officials to governorships and Congress) had enough cover to be able to come out in support for him. Both Obama and Clinton understood that these delegates voted based upon their choice, not based upon the results of constituents. However, those constituents play a huge influence, so if you’re a superdelegate from a red state that voted 80% for Obama in a primary, it was difficult to cast your superdelegate vote for Clinton.
Another example: The Obama campaign understood that delegates within a state are allocated by district based upon the voter turnout for Democrats in 2006 and 2004. This means that a district in a mostly rural state like Iowa could have one delegate for a much smaller number of voters than the one delegate for a more populous area. So, the Obama camp focused on swaying just enough voters in the rural areas to win their full delegate. This helped them to run up the score. Furthermore, since Obama does well in most urban areas and with young and college-eduated voters, he also focused on these groups initially. Call it a path to least resistance - they were more willing to accept the idea not only of voting for a black man, but voting for significant changes in policy and rhetoric.
For money matters: Obama created a website like no other with the help of the founders of Facebook and Google. It created a grassroots organization of millions of voters who could all be contacted as needed to inform them of upcoming events, to ask them for small donations (over 90% of the donations during the primaries were for less than $100), to link them to fellow supporters in their area and to make them aware of ways to become involved in the campaign. That involvement ranged from hosting house parties to discuss the election process and raise money, debate watching parties (Obama participated in 23 debates), etc. It also linked voters to volunteer opportunites. However, the biggest thing that it did was get those voters involved and keep them informed by communicating Obama’s message over the din of Republican (and Clintonian) falsehoods and misleading spin/accusations.
Okay, this message is getting too long, so let me jump ahead: to attend an Obama rally or join the website, you had to provide your name, email address, home address, phone number and postal code. This information was inputted into a database so that the campaign could follow up with all likely supporters prior to their primary/caucus and prior to the general election, particularly in swing states or hotly contested areas. Each voter was assigned a bar code to their name. When Obama volunteers would contact the voter in person or by phone, the volunteer would check off the boxes on the sheet of voters that he/she was contacting in order to indicate whether: the voter was at home; if they were voting for someone other than Sen. Obama; if they planned on voting early or if they had already voted; if they might be willing to volunteer and/or drive people to the polls who needed a ride; to validate that the voter knew where to vote and what ID might be required (this has changed a lot since 9/11); to confirm that the voter is registered to vote in their district; etc.
After every successful/unsuccessful attempt to contact the voter, the information gleaned was then inputted by scanning the bar codes and information collected. Once a voter voted early, their name was removed from the list. On election day, a credentialed Democratic poll watcher is seated next to the Board of Elections employee who checks off voters’ names as they receive their ballots. A member of the Obama campaign (as well as a Republican supporter) sits next to the official and notes the names of people casting their ballots. The Obama poll watcher passes this information along every so often to a supporter outside of the voting precinct, who then checks off the voter on a voter list. The list has the bar codes for the voters and is scanned into the Obama database, which then removes the name of the person who has voted. Throughout the day, voters who remain in the database because they have not yet voted are contacted in person or by phone to encourage them to vote. If the campaign cannot reach them at 11 am, then they call back a couple of hours later, etc., until the person has voted, which removes their name from the voter list.
Additionally, the Obama campaign has enlisted the assistance of thousands of attorneys and credentialed poll-watchers across the country to address any challenges by Republicans to a voter’s right to vote (i.e, challenging a name that is missing a middle initial, or someone who has moved within the same county, but to a different precinct, etc). Unfortunately, the Republican party in several states is working hard to challenge voters in traditionally Democratic areas, especially in swing states. The Obama campaign has made it a strict policy that it will not contest any voter’s rights to vote because this is viewed as an attempt to suppress the rights of all Americans. (On a side note, as for the allegations of ACORN registering names of non-existent voters, while this is a problem, it has been vastly overstated and is much more of a problem in terms of bureaucratic costs for a board of elections than a threat to voting results. Why? Because if Mickey Mouse registers to vote, he only commits voter fraud if he actually turns up at the polls and presents his ID). Indeed, there have been no convictions or findings of voting fraud in most states as this is exceptionally rare. However, the purging of legitimate voter registrations has been a serious problem. One way that Republicans challenge voting rights is by sending out postcards to registered voters that they believe are likely Democrats. The postcards are sent with the indication to return to sender if the person has moved and to not forward. The Republicans then use the returned postcards to contest the legitimacy of a voter’s right to vote in his/her precinct. Unfortunately, though, if a person has stopped or rerouted their mail temporarily (i.e, while on vacation or away at university), the postcards are still returned and can end up disenfranchising the voter. Furthermore, in most states, if a person has moved prior to election day but has not changed counties, then he/she can still vote at their registered voting location, even if their voter registration has not been updated to their new address.
This is really just a glimpse of the Obama campaign - an organization of 3000 paid employees, a few hundred thousand well organized volunteers and over 3 million contributors. It is an organization with a “dream team” of the nation’s top economists, including at least 2 Nobel Prize winners from the University of Chicago (the home of Milton Freidman and conservative/monetarist economics) as well as including some of the best business and public policy experts in the world. (FYI- I am an economist who works as a management strategy consultant to global companies, so I am well acquainted with their work).
If an Obama administration is run even half as well as as the Obama campaign, then I have enormously high hopes for my country, even in the face of the greatest economic challenges it has faced in over 70 years.
John - Sorry for the long post. I know your educational background includes a degree in economics. Please trust me on this one because the US is in the midst of a liquidity trap and a grave credit crisis that only fiscal policy through government spending can fix. Cutting taxes will just cause people and businesses to continue sitting on the sidelines while prices fall, unemployment rises and not only our economy, but that of the rest of the world sinks into a perilous place.
By Lisa on November 4th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
You do make some good points. It is sad that so many are struggling day to day. I’m not convinced that this can’t be changed and as a survivor and a proponent of tough love…I believe it works. Even with my own children I see that they appreicate more what they have earned and I think that is a critical part that is missing in a lot of our social reform. It is tough when those emergencies happen and helping people at times like that is not a bad thing. I just hate to have the government so involved in all of it. I’d rather that private enterprises did more. That’s why I give so much of my time and money.
You say 3-4% as if that’s nothing…for most people that’s their raise for the year so that’s a step sideways rather than forward and will it end there? Or will other taxes increase as well? Personally, I’d rather not build any more bike paths or subsidize any more arts projects. Or maybe not take care of the whole world.
As for the wars…some of that fits into the “take care of the whole world” thing but some of it is about our security as well and I have no problem spending money on that…but I would say that line is not always clear. But as the mother of a Naval Officer, I’m not likely to agree with some on that subject. Yes, my eldest daughter is a Naval Officer.
By Julie on November 4th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
John, cyberspace must not like the conservative pov, as three of my comments have now been lost.
Good luck, Obama supporters, and let’s hope everything turns out as wonderfully as your Dear Leader has promised. Let’s hope these amazing new programs will manage to be more effective, less bloated and underperforming than other mostly pro-Democratic entities like Medicare, Social Security, AFDC, the UAW, the Teamsters, the INS, IRS, the US public school system (btw which public school is Obama going to send his daughters to in the disaster that is the Washington, D.C./Democratic union backed public school system — or will they go to private school with a bunch of rich Repblicans? ;)) just to name a few.
I agree they have a super team on hand — and maybe Obama’s new rumoured Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel can explain why Wall Street fat cats like himself were paid $ 18 million over 3 years for making bad decisions as investment bankers, as he was?
Lisa, does Obama understand that “spreading the wealth” directly contradicts the economic principles of Milton Friedman and capitalist economics?
Let’s hope they keep Democrat Barney Frank on board, too, as he’s done such a brilliant job with the US Postal Service, Amtrak and keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from becoming corrupt and fiscally irresponsible.
By alsgal on November 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Lisa…my reply was intended for lionshound…but I got too wordy and dropped in after you
I hear your points as well and I wish I had the time to respond but right now I’d better get back to it or I won’t be getting that raise this year
By Julie on November 4th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
You sure you want that raise. With your boy as President, you’ll be making less money then before!
Any chance we can restore the monarchy here?
By American Cousin on November 4th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Boy? I don’t think any in this election qualify…although if one did, relatively, I’d say it would be Obama, not McCain.
By Julie on November 4th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Alsgal, I can’t find your three lost comments.
BTW, if you put more than one link in, the software will zap it assuming it’s spam — they always have lots of links.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
AC, I was just thinking that our Monarchy is easier to run than your Presidency. When a Monarch “leaves us,” it’s “The King is dead. Long live the King.”
Much simpler.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Thank God for Google and Al Gore — so, the Obama girls go to the University of Chicago Lab School, at a cost of $ 20,000. per kiddo. So, I think it’s great that while demanding, like all Democrats, that US public education should remain a government monopoly with no competition allowed, Vladimir and Michelle are sending their cuties to private school instead.
Kind of reminds me of Bill and Hil who also wouldn’t dare send Chelsea to a D.C. public school, and sent her to Sidwell Friends instead. Or those cute Gore kids, also private.
Let’s not forget a potential Obama ambassador Caroline Kennedy who so admirably volunteers for the NYC public schools whilst sending her girls to $ 35,000. per year Brearley.
Liberal elite thinking at it’s best? Anyone else find this hypocritical?
Oh, and how much oversight can Americans expect Obama to have over his cabinet or the government when he didn’t even know his beloved Auntie was here illegally? Can the INS be eliminated now, seeing as it’s useless?
By alsgal on November 4th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
TY, John for checking.
I think Aristotle was right — monarchy IS the best form of government.
On a happier note, at least the Canadians have made a sensible choice with Stephen Harper, imo.
By alsgal on November 4th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I hate to butt in, but I come to this blog for commentary on the royal family, not politics. I can read that, listen to that, argue that, watch that, and live that ad nauseum, ad infinitum all day every day. I come here for a break from that!!
By Kris on November 4th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Kris, our American contributors are very caught up in their election. It will pass. By tomorrow the excitement will be over and we can get back to contemplating Kate Middleton’s hot pants.
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
But I think Kris has a point. Can we please try to avoid overtly political commentary as many people are allergic to it?
By John on November 4th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Great point Kris. So, do you think William is an Obama man?
Actually, that brings up a great topic which I’d like to learn more about: are the Queen’s political views considered more to the left or right, even though she is officially considered to be above politics? I seem to recall hearing that she is not a big fan of Lady Thatcher, although is that perhaps more to do with personality than politics?
Wasn’t Macmillan a favorite? I won’t even ask about the D of E’s leanings, as I would assume he is rather conservative.
By alsgal on November 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Let’s not contemplate Kate Middleton in hot pants? Let’s contemplate her in a wedding dress at a still reasonable young age!
By lionhound on November 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Thank you, Kris and John, for being the voices of reason. I, also, come to this site to get away from the defeaning, divisive shriek of American politics and I would greatly prefer discussing some aspect–any aspect– involving the Royal Family! I wish Charles had been born on the 4th instead of on the 14th so we could surround ourselves with analysis of the details of his birthday fetes! Patience is a virtue (possessed by few.)
By Gigi on November 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
John, class warfare knows no political borders. But class warfare is better than plain ol’ warfare! We can be grateful, on both sides, that we live in democracies where we can be critical of our leaders and not be shot or imprisoned for it (of course, we can still be shot or imprisoned for other reasons, right and wrong, but that’s freedom for you. :0 )
When our leaders fail—irrespective of party—we can vote them out.
Not every citizen of the world is so fortunate.
By Dan on November 4th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
The way the American election has taken over this site is getting downright imperialistic. Pretty soon we’ll be pining for Kate’s roller disco days!
One is starved for Royal news!
By Dan on November 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I vote yes on a change of topic BACK to the RF
Happy to follow that lead…
By Julie on November 4th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
The people at the Tatler who voted Pippa Middleton most eligible single must have faith that W&K are still on target for a wedding. Without the tag of “Royal sister-in-law to be,” she hardly deserves the title.
(I know, I’m pulling at straws, but it’s SOMEthing else to talk about!)
By Dan on November 4th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
John,
If I seem too partisan, then I apologize. The US is so often compared to Britain because that is our heritage. However, it is really the British legal system that we inherited, not its political system. The two are vastly different, and actually, I would argue that in several ways the British Parliamentary system is superior to the US political system. I am a fan of the Constitutional monarchy and indeed, am also one of HM’s subjects, as I am also Canadian, and also worked in the House of Commons under one of the former Prime Ministers. Indeed, when fellow Americans claim to have the best political system, I point out to them that in pretty much of all of the foreign governments that the US has helped to establish, particularly after WW2, we have have chosen Britain’s parliamentary system as the architectual model, not our own.
Anyway, since so many RA readers appreciate both the similarities and differences between our counties, my point was to describe why this election and the accompanying process is different from an operational perspective and why the US election process is so odd and complex. My apologies to any who were offended.
By Lisa on November 4th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
No worries, Lisa. I just would much rather discuss whether Gigi is planning to host one of her wonderful RA teas for Charles’ birthday. We must have a proper celebration, and no one throws a party like Gigi!!
By Kris on November 4th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Kris - Thanks. I’m just hoping that Gigi will be serving her delicious red velvet cake, if I’m lucky enough to garner an invitation!
By Lisa on November 4th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
No one’s offended, Lisa. Your informed comments are appreciated here, by those who agree and disagree.
We’re an enlightened bunch.
By Dan on November 4th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I agree…all opinions welcomed
Especially those who have real thought behind them…tho I may not agree 
So, Gigi - Will you play hostess yet again? Please? I’ll help dust in prep or decant something or whatever…assuming of course that I too am invited. Hint, hint
By Julie on November 4th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I think that I’ll be glad to watch what is going on in the RF. I hope that those who voted for Obama will not be disappointed. However, I suspect that they will come to realize that not all that glitters is gold. Enough of politics from me, I could fill columns. Go Kate and William. I was glad to hear that they were together at Birkhill!!!!
By kat on November 5th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Quite right, Dan, quite right! Lisa, continue to enlighten us because while we all have our own opinions, we are, in the aggregate, a group of kindred souls who learn well from each other and I hope we shall continue to find each other’s opinions to be an opportunity for our own personal growth.
Dear Julie, Lisa and Kris, I shall, of course, be pleased to host a special Royal Anecdotes Gala 60th Birthday Tea in honor of the Prince of Wales! I shall hold this fete on the very birth day, November 14th, and of course red velvet cake shall have it’s place on the tea table! All our dear RA clan are welcome and invited and I shall, indeed, be most grateful if Julie will assist me in serving on the day. Anyone who has a specific request for an item for the menu, please let me know so we can accommodate as many as we may. Charles is known to dislike chocolate pudding and nuts, so along with our tea table favorites, we shall include a cocoanut cake for our birthday Prince. Everyone who worries about calories has a few days to shed some pounds, as I fully intend to go hog wild (metaphor!) on the richness of the ingredients for the cakes, and the champagne shall flow like the Thames at high flood.
By Gigi on November 5th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Excellent plans, Gigi! If possible, the food should be organic, in honor of Prince Charles. Anything you plan will be fabulous!
By Evelyn on November 5th, 2008 at 5:45 am
As I understand it, one legitimate reason the children of U.S. presidents go to private schools is because of security reasons.
By Evelyn on November 5th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Thank you, gracious Gigi! I do so enjoy your parties and sumptious treats
I’m heading to the gym tonight to prepare.
I’m thinking a butter creme with raspberries would be wonderful….I can hardly wait!
I had the best Apple martini last night and I’m thinking I’ll have to learn how to make them for everyone.
By Julie on November 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Um, Dan…did you notice that they do that wihle denying others the same opportunities So, they pay twice while others have no choice…that’s better?
So, back to the RF…has anyone seen any photos that show Kate/Will toghter this weekend?
By Julie on November 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
while…sorry
By Julie on November 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“I’m surprised no other outlets have picked up the Birkhall story. A blackout at the reputable papers seems certain to be in place.”
Yes…does anyone know (John, Dan?) what this could signify, if anything?
By Claire on November 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
To bring this back to the RF, I’m watching the BBC production of the Royal Family over the course of the year. Pretty interesting so far, but nothing that really is standing out. I was a little dissappointed that the first disc spend the entire time about the Queen’s visit to the US. After 10 minutes I got the idea a lot goes into a state dinner, but would like to have had a more behind the scenes look at things. Her talk with Blair was interesting as you got a slight glimpse into what they discussed.
I guess what I was hoping for was a more of a history/tradition of why certain things are in the Royal Family or a more personal look at the Queen.
By American Cousin on November 5th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I’ve deleted Dan and alsgal’s endless political comments — despite asking everyone not to post them. They have been barred from the site.
Sorry for the irritating disruptions.
By John on November 5th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Gigi, Dan, Julie, Kris, et al,
Many thanks for your kind understanding.
I was fortunate enough to receive tickets to the inner area of the Grant Park for the celebration in Chicago last night. While there, I thought of my fellow RA and Royal Family fans (true!). I tried to think of any type of historic event here or abroad that might compare to not only the euphoria in Chicago, but the visual of seeing so many people in every corner of the globe sharing in the same celebration. The only comparison that I could think of, was watching the celebrations in the UK and worldwide for the wedding of Charles & Diana (I recall getting up at 3 am to watch the festivities with baited breath - one that I believe is still the event most ever watched on TV).
I cannot properly describe the atmosphere of last night - the sense of history and a sense among all that no matter the world’s problems, this was a moment to celebrate. I feel that I have a much better understanding now of what a wedding between William & Kate would really be like. And, if that day comes, then if it is even half as joyous of an occassion, it will be too spectacular to possibly miss. So, I’ll keep rooting for Wills & Kate because I can’t wait to book my reservations to be in London for that day.
By Lisa on November 5th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Oh, my…well, they did go on but I’ll miss their insight on RA topics as Dan especially seemed well informed regarding the RF.
I’m feeling bad because I did push back and maybe instigate?? My apologies if I exacerbated the situation.
Thank you John for the reminder that we do have a focus here…so again, back to the RF..
Over the last few days I’ve seen a few articles (but as said above not in the big papers) indicating that Kate and William spent the weekend together. I’m wondering if anyone has proof from a reliable source? Does KN count?
By Julie on November 5th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Oh, dear. I apologize for complaining. I, too, enjoyed Dan and Alsgal’s non-political posts.
By Kris on November 5th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I think Alsgal and Dan contributed a lot to this site and I’m sorry they were banned.
By Miss Marple on November 5th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Hmm…I must have missed Dan’s more recent political posts? I only saw his posts lamenting that American politics had overtaken the RA board? I agree that alsgal went on a bit with her views, but she’s entitled - and I also agree her non-political RF input were quite valuable. Alas, it is a shame to lose both of their voices….
By Amity on November 6th, 2008 at 2:49 am
John, many are in agreement that Dan and alsgal were valuable contributors to RA. We’ve all had occasions where we’ve gotten off-topic. Might it be possible to give them a reprieve, with the understanding that they must control their non-Royal Family comments in the future?
By Evelyn on November 6th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Amity, nobody is “entitled” to drench this site with off-topic comments. Many sites and forums degrade into anarchy because no-one exercises editorial control.
I had intended anyway to reinstate Dan and Alsgal once everybody recognized we are not an overtly political website.
While I allowed some leeway because of the momentous nature of the events in America — which most of us were fascinated by — it just got too much in the end, especially the long screeds obviously copied verbatim from party political literature.
Dan and Alsgal will find they will be able to comment now — if they want to — but, please, everyone, let’s keep on topic.
I realize there’s not much Royal news around now, except for standard engagements, but it will pick up for Charles’s 60th and other occasions thereafter.
By John on November 6th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Ohhhhh, John! You used the word engagement in your last sentence and I got all excited until I read it in context instead of just scanning the paragraph.
Deep breath and back to waiting.
By Abby on November 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Ok, Abby…that’s funny
Hope Dan and Alsagal join us again…
So, William was at the Lord Mayor’s end of year celebration and he looked so handsome in the photos! And aparently he’s “down to earth”…compared to???? Snobby I guess, well that’s a good thing right?
By Julie on November 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
First, let me take the opportunity of this reprieve to apologize to John, our gracious host. It has always been my intention to contribute, not to preach or offend. I confess that I, like many, got caught up in a story that made everything else pale in comparison, particularly in the face of Kate’s press blackout.
I have always seen this site as being not a computer screen with a scroll of impersonal posts, but as a gathering, perhaps in a little- used but aptly appointed reception room at Frogmore. (Well, more likely huddled outside the gate around a roaring fire in an upturned trash bin, Gigi gently stirring a cauldron of Jim Beam, John distracting the guards while Claudius picks the lock.)
Amongst such a bawdy group of conspiritors passions run high, particularly when world events distract, but indeed we must keep our eyes on the prize.
Claudius, hurry up with that lock!
By Dan on November 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
DAN!!! He’s baaaack! Bwahhh-ha-ha! Missed you already!
Do love your way with words…I too have felt in the the relatively short time that I’ve been here that I gained you all as, dare I say it…friends
Although the imagery of your view is wonderful…I was thinking something more like a coffee or tea shop where we could keep an eye on things perhaps with opera glasses or such taking turns peering though the curtains and reporting back (fewer elements to deal with but basically the same concept although not so poetic ;).) And hopefully less likely to be arrested 8).
By Julie on November 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Although…on second thought only if there is a liquor licence
By Julie on