Should Charles III be a King-President?
I confess to a deep sense of foreboding as I write these words. For we are now being fed a picture of just how much the Monarchy will change under the reign of the present Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles holding a Kendo stick in Japan
Monarchies need to adapt and change, of course, and when a new personality ascends the throne it may be the ideal moment to introduce difficult and systemic changes into the old institution.
These innovations may come sooner than we think. There is a whisper going around that the Queen may pass the mantle of Monarchy to her son and heir when he is 65 — a mere five years from now. Last week we heard her refer to his future Kingship in public for the first time.
As if to drive the point home, a steady stream of leaks and suggestions is being released by credible media figures.
The country has been informed that Charles will keep his promise to drop the “Defender of the Faith” subtitle, for the looser, and therefore less-Christian, “Defender of Faith”. Any old faith will do, it seems, as long as you believe in something.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, spoke out recently against “destructive changes” being made to the old constitution, which has proved its worth over time. He clearly senses a disestablishment of the Church of England.
Last week, a close friend of the Prince, Jonathan Dimbleby, suggested that Charles could become an “active” King, speaking out on issues close to his heart, like climate change, education, architecture and conservation. The Irish and German Presidents were singled out as examples he may follow. Although they are neutral politically, they do get involved in day-to-day discussions on policy matters.
Prince Charles already boycotts Chinese leaders because of their treatment of Tibet. He once called them “appalling old waxworks”. Imagine the political fury if he refuses to attend a State banquet for the President of one of the world’s most powerful trading nations, as he has in the past?
The difference between the Queen and the Presidents of Ireland and Germany is that they are elected by a franchise of the whole population. They have legitimacy for activism — and therefore unpopularity — within their constitution.
British Constitutional Monarchs are expected to follow the convention that they can speak out in private at the weekly meeting with the Prime Minister and warn of future consequences. Other than that, the role is purely ceremonial, except as a last resort longstop against tyranny.
If a King Charles were to take on a Prime Minister directly, he would be swiftly marginalized by crafty and practised political infighters. He wouldn’t stand a chance. His humiliation would be complete, especially under a Labour government.
The Monarchy will not last long under those circumstances. Everything the present Queen has built up as the “unifier of the nation” would be lost. Politicians would begin by destroying what is left of our constitutional checks and balances — as Blair and Brown have gradually done for the past 10 years.
The package of measures Charles’s team of helpers are placing in the media, combined with the almost certain crowning of Camilla, could result in a serious dip in popularity for the Monarchy.
Other countries, over which the Queen now reigns, may decide to dump the Crown as well, leading to a crisis for the new King that could be impossible to contain.
His friend the 14th Dalai Lama was prophesied to be the last leader of Tibet. He is now an exile outside his country.
Will Prince Charles be the last Monarch of the United Kingdom, itself under threat from Scottish nationalism?
There are dangerous shoals ahead for the Prince. Shoring up what he has got may be a better path to Kingship than challenging the people’s representatives. In the end, influence is a more durable form of governance than power itself.
He currently enjoys “opinionator at large” status, since the role of Prince of Wales is defined by the title’s holder, as he recently repeated. He’ll find it difficult to be so public when he ascends, and I imagine the first firestorm he ignites as King—which will quickly be put down by the government, the press, and the public—will show him the wisdom of his mother’s ways. He can speak out about the ideals he supports without harping on those he does not.
As for the Chinese president, can he simply not invite the guy for a state visit, or does the government decide who gets a state visit?
I wonder how long it will be before the Obamas play the Palace. Won’t that be a sight?
By Dan on November 19th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
What is the feeling in the UK and countries that fall under the umbrella of King Charles as head of state regarding the succession of Prince Charles to King?
Will most of the countries that are affiliated with the Monarchy (Canada, Aus etc) decide to completely remove the Monarch as a head of state? If so, how does one country go about doing that, through some sort of election process? Is there a reason why it hasn’t been done already, or do people feel out of respect to QEII no one will change the status quo until after her titled is passed on?
The monarch is in a tough situation, they want to be taken serious and stay current with the times; plus they are all about making the monarchy “smaller” maybe reducing the countries that the monarch acts as Head of State is the right direction. I still think a British Monarchy (even if its just England, Wales and N. Ireland) will be just as respected as a monarch that is head of state of Canada, Caribean Islands, Aus, etc.
Thoughts?
By American Cousin on November 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Maybe this is why William has decided that he needs a proper job. He is afraid that he will never wear the crown.
By Grandma828 on November 20th, 2008 at 1:45 am
AC, they would normally hold a referendum, as Australia did (which was lost), but the actual schism would need to be by Act of Parliament in Britain.
In the event, it will probably muddle on with Charles and Camilla seen as temporary stopgaps for William and xxxx.
The real danger is Charles’s wish to make the throne a platform for his views. That could be fatal.
I hope he has some very good advisers now. He is going to need them.
By John on November 20th, 2008 at 11:21 am
FoxNews has a ridiculous story about Prince William possibly being behind Paris Hilton’s split with her boyfriend.
http://tinyurl.com/5hmqt8
Would William go to Australia to meet Paris for New Year’s?
By Dan on November 20th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I see the source of the “rumour” is the company itself, Bongo Virus. ‘Nuff said.
By John on November 20th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
That surely would be the end of the Monarchy, although Paris may wish to fund it privately for the duration of Her Reign.
The intermix of Monarchy with celebrity, even outlandish rumors, sends chills up and down the spine.
Then again, remember what Grace Kelly did for Monaco….
By Dan on November 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
LINK
this is the link to an Express article out today.
By london4704 on November 20th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
A basic summary of what happened in the past. If the current quotes are anything like true, it would show that the Middleton family is just as much in the dark as everyone else.
If Carole knew something we don’t, she wouldn’t be saying all that, would she?
By John on November 20th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
The now-famous picture of Kate has been removed from the Party Pieces website. Not only are the pieces of the puzzle NOT falling into place, but they’re disappearing.
By Dan on November 20th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Oops, never mind. It’s still there. My mistake.
By Dan on November 20th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I agree. More fluff!
By london4704 on November 20th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Is there any sort of official “POW Training” that Charles would have recieved at some point in his life? Or, is the concern that he’ll just do what he wants anyway at this point in his life when his turn finally comes?
Would he have any concern (or care) about any “damage” he may do for his son to inherit after he is gone?
I guess I don’t really know enough about his character to know where his priorities really are, so I’m sorry if this is an ignorant question! =)
By Claire on November 20th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
There is no official training, although traditionally the PoW makes at least a cursory study of the Welsh language. (Incidentally, Welsh was just made an official minority language in the EU. Representatives can now speak it in official EU business.)
As Charles himself has said, the PoW role is whatever the title holder makes of it. It was never a title that one was intended to have for 40 years or more.
Charles talks now of revolutionizing the role of the sovereign, but let’s see what happens when it falls upon his shoulders. Likewise, it will be interesting to see if he invests William as the next Prince of Wales. It isn’t mandatory, and hasn’t it become somewhat meaningless in the face of devolution? Duke of Cornwall makes more sense as the heir’s official title, since that’s where his fortune comes from.
By Dan on November 20th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Prince Charles is noted for his love and regard for tradition so I can’t imagine him *not* being concerned about how he preserves the throne for his first son and succeeding generations. It’s partly what he was raised to do. However, I *did* feel chills down my spine when I started to read reports of him wanting to be a more outspoken head-of-state. I don’t think the monarchy is strong enough to withstand the ruckus such a move would provoke. I know he sees himself as speaking for the nation against short-sighted, self-interested politicians –and there are many who appreciate that — but I don’t think the people’s regard is stalwart enough to support him doing much beyond what he does now as Prince of Wales.
I hope he has advisors who will guide him well and to whom he respects enough to listen. I’d hate to see the monarchy brought down because of his ego (regardless of his good intentions).
As for Commonwealth countries and their relationship to their Head of State, I know that Anglo-Canada 1) appreciates its traditional link to Britain and 2) views the monarchy as a more or less benign presence that doesn’t cause any trouble. Why on earth would we waste a bunch of money to bother with it and what great purpose would it serve? is the general view. (Except in Quebec, of course, which would vote to drop it in a second and prides itself on having severed some of Anglo-Canada’s stuffy, strangling colonial ties in order to bring it to the Modern Age ;).)
As someone born and partly raised in the British Caribbean isles despite the bad history the governments and much of the citizens maintain the links for economic and cultural benefits. (The thought of no longer being able to participate in the Commonwealth Games alone would garner a lot of protest — sports is big in the Caribbean.) My Mum is the kind of woman who got an African Names books to title her two children while treasuring her collection of commemorative ware for Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation. (I had to pilfer the key to open the cabinet when I was younger. She still doesn’t know.)
By Imani on November 20th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
ssshhhh…we won’t tell
By Julie on November 21st, 2008 at 2:06 am
Imani, the Constitutional Monarchy is very strong in Britain, but it would be significantly less so if it departed from that model.
After 11 years of a wretched Labour government, every institution in the land has been weakened, even Parliament is despised. Prince Charles would be wise not to weaken further the one he has real influence over. Otherwise, we could all go up in smoke.
By John on November 21st, 2008 at 10:32 am
Censored pictures of Prince William have popped in the web. Poor Prince William.
By Me on November 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
John,
I wonder why you say, “If Carole knew something we don’t, she wouldn’t be saying all that, would she?” I interpreted the article as a re-hash of old news.
The censored pictures of Prince William are really inappropriate and humiliating to anyone. I do wonder why there has been no mention of it in the press. The site that I saw them on linked you to a Gay Porn Site! Horrible.
By TeaTea/ Madelaine on November 21st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Thank you, Julie, I know my secret is safe with the RAers :D.
John, I’m glad to hear that as it is difficult to see for one’s self when one’s only exposure to Royal news is through the internet. (I have a few British friends but they’re either anti-Royal or indifferent so it’s hard to gauge with them…although perhaps it’s like Australia where a loud fuss may be made but when push comes to shove it sticks with tradition.) And yes, the Labour govt. does seem rather baloney these days.
By Imani on November 21st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
My dear John, I have read your admirable, though distressing, article regarding the intentions of Charles to materially change the scope of his kingship. We must, I fear, find the revelations credible, since the source is a man who is a very close friend of Charles’ and would hardly risk expulsion from the Royal Circle by revealing these details without the approbation and blessing of Charles. I agree with you that these ill-conceived plans, should Charles attempt to bring them to fruition, would prove disastrous for the British Monarchy. I dare say that Almighty God, who knows the inner secrets of all our hearts, has, in His wisdom and mercy, kept Queen Elizabeth hale, hearty and alive and, we pray, will continue to do so, to save us all from Charles’ nefarious schemes. My hope beyond that is vested in the fact that what Charles says and what Charles does are frequently two entirely different matters. I have only a faint, lingering hope that Charles will hear sage counsel and act upon it. Charles does not like to be told anything by anyone, especially if what he is told is contra to what he wishes to do. Neverthless, let us all hope that Queen ELizabeth II lives to the age of her beloved Mother, continues to reign until the moment of her death, and that Charles, who will by then be in his 80s, as is supposed, will have somewhat modified his plans. I recall the words of one of my history professors, many years ago, in reference to one of the Roman Emperors: “Beware the man with the fragile ego, for he will bring carnage down upon others to promote himself.” True!
By Gigi on November 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Gigi, it would be good if Prince William told his father he is going too far and would be grateful to have a throne to ascend to when his time comes.
Charles seems to have sided with the Labour Roundheads just as they are going fatally out of fashion. Modernism can only go so far in an ancient institution like the British Monarchy.
By John on November 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
John,
If PW did tell his father to put the reigns on his mouth, couldn’t his father say “coming from the son who stumbles out of clubs at 2am and gets caught with his pants around his ankles…”
Of course he wouldn’t, but the father is out spoken and the son seems scared to accpet his role as Prince, both of them need a cooling off period.
By American Cousin on November 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I agree with John that it would be most helpful if Prince William would summon all his courage and tell his father that he prefers the Crown be kept intact to pass to his hands in the fullness of time. Nevertheless, I think this an unlikely possibility. No one knows more clearly than our two Golden Princes what Charles is like when he is thwarted or criticized, or advised in a way that appears to fault his endeavors. My view of the behavior of the two young princes since the death of their mother, Princess Diana, is that they have been extremely cautious not to step on Charles’ toes or annoy him. There have been notable exceptions, surely, but as the Princes grow and mature, they appear to me to be determined to do all they can to assist in keeping Charles calm, collected and ungainsayed, if such a term is proper English, which I doubt. (Mrs. Neal, my fifth grade teacher, has just fainted dead away and that resounding crash we all heard was my very proper parents spinning in their graves.)
Of course, one ace-in-the-hole may yet be accessible if the formidible Duke of Edinburgh survives Queen Elizabeth II. While he will have no actual power over Charles, as rank is rank, the Duke will always be Charles’ father, and despite their serious differences and thorny relationship over the years, Charles will not wish to paint himself as a target of the thundering wrath of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Duke is often unpredictable and controversial, but he will move Heaven and Earth to prevent Charles from endangering the Monarchy, if such is Charles’ aim. Charles must recollect, for all our sakes. The Monarchy is a trust, passed from Sovereign to Heir down through the ages, a sacred trust between the Sovereign and the people of the realm, sworn to before and consecrated by God. It is not Charles’, even when he wears the Crown, to manipulate, twist and pervert as he wishes to increasingly empower himself and further his personal agenda. That way lies utter disaster. It is a great pity that we lost Lord Mountbatten too soon, as he was perhaps the only restraining hand which Charles’ would not fling off in a fit of pique.
By Gigi on November 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
John,
I think you are being unduly pessimistic. However “bad” a monarch King Charles III eventually becomes - I believe he will be fine - the monarchy will survive.
The British monarchy has endured despite some absymal characters as well as Oliver Cromwell. I think it can weather King Charles III expressing a few unorthodox opinions.
And, you never know - Charles may tap into strong populist feelings.
By Alicia on November 21st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The world and Britain have changed a lot since those day, Alicia. Even since the the Queen’s coronation. What was endured in the past may not be tolerated now.
By Evelyn on November 21st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Yes, it’s a bit much to compare the present to when Britain’s kings were *actual* rulers believed to be there by divine right to head not only government but the Church (in the days when it was an influential force in Britain).
Prince Charles taps into what populist feelings he enjoys now because he is seen as an effective philanthropist who has the unique privilege of being a living national symbol. The moment he tries to become a more “presidential” figure in this democratic age that will be instantly forgotten. As John said, presidents are elected figures, kings are not. Frankly, no politician with his and his sons’ exposed personal life could even dream of becoming a back bencher much less president. (Except in France.) In a battle between Buckingham’s PRs and and, say, the Labour/Tory governments, I’d bet on the political parties. And if he starts messing with Britain other Commonwealth territories will wonder which country he’ll want to “preside” over next.
Hoo! I don’t even want to imagine it. I’m sure Prince Charles will do the right thing (or as Gigi said, the Duke of Edinburgh will knock it (figuratively) into him).
By Imani on November 22nd, 2008 at 12:49 am
Forgive me to change the subject but I cannot believe the pictures of Prince William are on internet. I feel very sorry for him to face such embarrassment, but wouldn’t he know better that paparazzi are every where and these days any one can be one of them? Will CH take any regal action? However, it is almost impossible to erase the pictures from internet…
By Mikado-watcher on November 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 am
John, Australia did indeed hold a referendum on the Republic option. It was defeated because:
1. The proposed new model of government was not acceptable to any of us and;
2. Many felt that we should wait until the Queen was deceased (expecting HM to reign until her death).
American Cousin, it is expected that Australia will become a republic when “the event” occurs regardless of how good a King (or not) he may become. The Camila issue is also not helping. If the Queen decides to hand over to Charles on his 65th birthday, I expect we will become a republic soon after.
Our current Prime Minister and Opposition Leader are both Republicans.
I think that Australia becoming a republic is not such an issue for the UK really. But England without the Monarchy? Not a good move.
Mikado-watcher, I too can’t believe the images I have just seen of William, too much information!!!
By Cristina on November 22nd, 2008 at 7:31 am
I also agree with Cristina that Great Britain without a traditional monarchy will lose much of its mystique, its reputation for being the bastion of traditions which extend back thousands of years, and a role model–the sovereign–who, for most of my lifetime of 60 years, has been an incredible example to us all. If Charles cannot be that role model when Queen Elizabeth II dies, or if he does not wish to be that role model, let him step aside, for all our sakes. Princess Diana’s elder son, the Heir, will be that role model, and his Royal brother will provide strong support.
By Gigi on November 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Gigi, the pictures are a tasteless intrusion into his privacy, so I won’t link to them here.
However, they are easily found using Google.com.
By John on November 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Cristina, thanks for the update.
By John on November 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I am wondering if Gigi could help me with this query?
Charles is wanting to be the “Defender of Faith”. I have read that he is a man of strong (Christian) faith and prayer. Perhaps I am misunderstanding this statement as I am having difficulty in understanding how he can be faithful to God defending faith for other Gods.
Perhaps he has misplaced his bible or I just don’t get this statement. Can you help shed some light into this, please?
By Cristina on November 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Cristina, I believe that the belief is that there is only one God, and we all worship the same God under different names.
By Amity on November 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Cristina, Amity has answered your question but there is an interesting point to note regarding the title ‘Defender of the Faith’. The title was given to Henry VIII when he was still in the good graces of the Pope and as such, is a Catholic title. Henry retained the style when he created the Church of England.
I believe Prince Charles amending the title to Defender of Faith reflects his interest in all religions (although he is most definately still a member of the Church of England) and also his belief that having faith in something (or anything?) is important for all people. It would also be a reflection of the changing demographics of the United Kingdom.
Personally, I don’t see it as a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ idea but I do quite like it.
By Abby on November 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Amity, thank you for your reply. What you say is however not a Christian belief (hence my confusion). John mentions that “The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, spoke out recently against “destructive changes” being made to the old constitution”, I suspect he is also thinking along the same lines as I am.
By Cristina on November 24th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Hi Abby, thank you for the history on the ‘Defender of the Faith’, this is why I love Royalanecdotes! I am learning soooo much.
However, if Charles is still a practicing member (and The Head of) The Church of England he must honour its biblical teachings, otherwise he is misrepresenting the church. I wonder if he should just disassociate himself with the Christian Church and act as an “independent” if he does wish to proceed with his own flavour of things. It would be by far a more honest and honourable approach, do you not think so?
I’d still love to have Gigi’s input, pretty please.
By Cristina on November 24th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Cristina, if I were you, I wouldn’t presume to speak for all of Christendom - or to suspect that the Archbishop of Canterbury is one of your followers….
By Amity on November 24th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Like American politics, discussions about religion tend to get rather thorny. Perhaps we should just wait to see what Charles will do.
By Dan on November 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Cristina, as a devout Roman Catholic and a firm traditionalist, and also as a woman who was raised a devout Presbyterian and did not convert until 1989, I shall offer the following: I think, for Charles and for all of us, it is important and prudent for us to be careful about limiting the authenticity of religious sectarianism. By that I mean that there are many bridges between God and humankind, and no sect, no religion should claim that their mode of worship is more accepted or more valid than any other. Regarding the Christianity and how it compares to the Jewish Faith and the Moslem Faith, we must all recall that in the beginning, Almighty God made His Convenant with our common Father/Patriarch, Abraham. Orthodox Jews have kept faith with that Covenant throughout the ages, and there is evidence to suggest that the followers of Islam have done the same, since the Arab world are cousins of the Jews and since Islam takes as one of it’s major prophets our common ancestor Ishmael, the first born son of Abraham by the maid of his wife, Sarah. For the Christian world, Almighty God sent Our Lord Jesus Christ to provide another bridge to God, to reconcile all sinners to the Father, and so we Christians follow the New Covenant in Christ’s Blood, a Covenant that does not in any way supercede or invalidate the first Covenant. Every human ever born is the child of the one true God, loved equally by Him, afforded equal opportunity to establish a relationship with the Father-Creator and to live his or her life in accordance to the Divine Will of God. Only God can see into the hearts of humans and know where they miss or where exceed the mark. For the rest of us, we would do well to see to the health of our own souls rather than seek to judge the religious authenticity of the worship practices of others in the Family of Man. If Charles wishes to be Defender of Faith, across the board, I have no criticism to offer as long as his motives are to embrace the validity of the relationships with God of all in the Kingdom. As for the Coronation, it is a very ancient Rite, and, in my mind, need not be changed and should not. It is, from first to last, a sacred service consecrating the monarch and is an anointing, an oath-taking, a direct communication and blessing bestowed upon the monarch by Almighty God. It needs no revision by humans, in my opinion.
By Gigi on November 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Amity, I would never dare to speak for all of Christendom - or to suspect that the Archbishop of Canterbury is one of my followers. I know I am ill qualified to do so and heaven forbid that I should ever be so arrogant. I am sorry that I gave the impression of doing so. I take Dan’s point and thank Gigi for her post.
By Cristina on November 24th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
In other news… the Daily Mail is reporting that Zara Phillips and Mike Tindall have made an offer on a country home in the Cotswolds. Speculation is that they also may be planning a wedding for 2009.
By Evelyn on November 25th, 2008 at 2:29 am
I saw that also, Evelyn. We may actually see the two of them marry yet. I was greatly dismayed to see so many uncharitable and petty comments posted in response to the article. What in the world is the matter with these people posting these negative comments?! They need to recollect that Santa Claus arrives in a little more than a month and some of us will garner coal in our stockings if we do not mend our ways, and that right early. I am quite put out!
By Gigi on November 25th, 2008 at 3:13 am
It is interesting that young royals are tend to have longer relationships than their parents. Peter and Autumn had dated five years before they got married. Zara and Mike are dating for five years. William and Kate are also dating for five years, and Harry and Chelsy are together for four years. Is this just coincidence? I hope all the couples have very happy ending just like Peter and Autumn.
By the way, I think Zara and Mike’s potential house is lovely.
By Mikado-watcher on November 25th, 2008 at 4:42 am
I don’t think the long/longer relationships are limited to young royals - I think most people of that age group are in similar situations.
Using my peer group as an example - London based twenty and thirty something professionals - most of us are in long term relationships but not yet married. Those that are married have dated for a minimum of 4 or 5 years including a few years of co-habiting. Marriage has happened because the couples wanted to start families or because of visa and immigration purposes. There was also one case of a threat to ‘fish or cut bait’. (Incidentally, that is the marriage most people believe won’t last).
I think this is a trend across the UK (and Europe also) and that the younger royals are simply representative of their generation.
By Abby on November 25th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
That’s undoubtedly true, Abby.
The problem is, it doesn’t produce good storylines for any Royal publication or website. Whereas a definite wedding between William and Kate would probably bring the servers down.
By John on November 25th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I know you said you were writing about your own peer group, Abby, but as another 20 something London professional with a large group of 20 and 30 something friends, I just wanted to comment on this:
“Marriage has happened because the couples wanted to start families or because of visa and immigration purposes”
Of our group, most are in couples and I know lots of couples who are married, mostly after dating since meeting at university. So 4 - 7 year relationships. Not one has married for any other reason that being in love and nearing 30.
I think William and Kate may well be following suit.
By Rachel on November 25th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Well said, Rachel. I certainly hope that couples are not marrying merely because they wish to start families or because of immigration issues. Unless the marriage is based on a deep mutual love and commitment, the chances of failure are distressingly high. Further, the wedding service itself demands promises that each partner in the marriage contract (for such it is) will love and care for each other and be true to each other until they are separated by death. As for my own case, I married at the age of 22, the December after I graduated from college, and this December my husband and I will celebrate our 38th year of marriage. At the time of our marriage, although his university and my college were located in different states, we had dated for four years. I would add that, at the time my husband and I were entering young adulthood, most young couples seemed to find their future spouses during college years and marry soon afterwards. Nevertheless, custom or current fashion should not dictate the timing of marriage, which is one of the most important decisions a person will ever make.
I, also, like the photographs of the house Zara and Mike are preparing to purchase. Nevertheless I must wonder how they will ever get furniture up that narrow winding staircase! Let us hope there is a wider, more conventional service staircase somewhere in the house.
By Gigi on November 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Gigi, you’re right. There will be a proper staircase somewhere else. That would just be the “backstairs” for the servants.
By John on November 25th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Does every one know that theres a book about kate middleton coming out by Claudia Joseph on Kate middletons life its called “Kate Princess in Waiting” and its being published by mainstream publishing it will be published in 2009 and the cover is stunning!!!!!
By Samantha on November 25th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Samantha, I have a copy of William’s Princess by Robert Jobson, published in 2006. I think the new one is a heck of a gamble, probably commissioned at the time Jobson’s book came out.
Mainstream Publishing is an edgy Edinburgh outfit. It won’t be a conventional hagiography, that’s for sure.
By John on November 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Oh, dear.
Let us all hope that this new tome is not a mudslinging venture meant to appeal to the naysayers. The venom and jealousy of some people simply knows no boundaries!
By Gigi on November 25th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
We’ve been deluged with porn spam over the past few days. In clearing it out en masse some very recent comments appear to have been lost too. So if one of yours is missing, many apologies, but these things happen from time to time.
By John on November 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
oh, mine went but that’s all right. It was only a quote from Amazon, Gigi, to assure you that from the publisher’s description the new Kate book’s writer is sympathetic towards her subject rather than exploitative.
By Imani on November 27th, 2008 at 8:46 pm