Queen Mother memorial unveiled
An impressive memorial to the Queen Mother was unveiled by the Queen today on The Mall, directly before and below the statue of her husband, King George VI.
The Queen was accompanied by her children and grandchildren, the Prince of Wales with the Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Anne, Princes William and Harry, and the Duke of York with Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.
Prince Charles gave a dignified personal tribute to his grandmother, to whom he was particularly close.
“At long last my grandparents are reunited in this joint symbol which, in particular, reminds us of all they stood for, and meant to so many, during the darkest hours this country has ever faced.
“All of us gathered here today will, I know, miss my darling grandmother’s vitality, her interest in the lives of others, her unbounded courage and determination that allowed her — incredibly — to continue her official life to the age of nearly 102; her perceptive wisdom, her calm in the face of all adversities, her steadfast belief in the British people and, above all, her irresistible, irrepressible sense of mischievous humour. How blessed we were to have known her and her generosity of spirit.”
It was the kind of occasion that put last night’s Channel 4 documentary, The Problem Princes in perspective.
Excellent!! The statue is marvelous and very like the Queen Mother! I could not be more delighted!! Why were not Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Sophie, Countess of Wessex in attendance, John, do you know? I am so pleased that the statue is of such quality. This is really splendid! That magnificent lady was one of the greatest gifts Scotland ever gave the United Kingdom. There will never be another like her, and, as is so often true with blessings from Almighty God, we had Queen Consort Elizabeth when the country needed her the most. My parents often said that her influence was incalculable and that her strength and amazing courage braced the entire Kingdom.
By Gigi on February 24th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Gigi, both Edward and Sophie were there. The Daily Mail has pictures of most and commented on the Countess’s figure hugging dress.
It was quite a show of family unity after that Dispatches program last night. I called up a clip of it on YouTube and quickly turned it off.
By Dan on February 24th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
John, the King of Sweden has announced the engagement and forthcoming marriage (summer 2010) of Crown Princess Victoria! We have a Royal Wedding to look forward to!
By Gigi on February 25th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Victoria’s husband will be dubbed Prince Daniel, even though that is apparently his middle name.
Yet another Princely confusion I’ll have to endure!
By Dan on February 25th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Yes, Your Royal Highness, it’s tough at the top.
By John on February 25th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I’m humbled and honored in my duty to support the Crown (whoever’s.)
Finally, something cheerful to talk about, even though it’s in Sweden (a stunningly beautiful country I’ve had the good fortune to visit. Stockholm, particularly the Old Town ["Gamla Stan"] around the Royal Palace, is glorious and not to be missed.)
Is there a protocol regarding who from other Royal Families would attend the wedding of a Crown Prince or Princess? Since she will one day be Queen, it would seem appropriate that the wedding be attended not by currently reigning monarchs, but by other future Kings and Queens. In this case, would that mean Charles and Camilla or William? William is closer in age, but if Charles is still “heir apparent,” as presumably Victoria will be, in the summer of 2010, it ought to be he that goes, isn’t it?
Or doesn’t any of this matter?
By Dan on February 25th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
My guess is that Charles and Camilla will attend this wedding in Sweden. If the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh attend it, that will signal an extraordinary importance in the relationship between Sweden and the United Kingdom. Of course, the former Queen of Sweden, Queen Louise, was the sister of Lord Mountbatten of Burma, and therefore a cousin of both Prince Philip and of the Queen. Queen Louise was the second wife of the former Swedish King, whose first wife, Princess Margaret of Connaught, died young after giving him children. Princess Margaret of Connaught was the daughter of Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, a younger son of Queen Victoria, so the Swedish Royal Family is related to the British Royal Family through the matrilineal line. Nevertheless, I still believe Charles and Camilla will attend rather than the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. I expect the Crown Prince and Princess of Denmark to attend, the Crown Prince and Princess of the Netherlands, and the Crown Prince and Princess of Norway. It will be interesting to see if any of the Battenburg family attend–now Mountbatten.
By Gigi on February 25th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
We’ve got nearly a year and half to “Batt” this one back and forth. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I see the Danes are going to the polls soon for a referendum on the line of succession. The question will be whether to approve absolute primogeniture, in which the eldest born, regardless of whether a Prince or Princess, becomes heir apparent.
I thought Denmark took care of this already — allowing Margarethe II to take the throne in 1972 — but apparently that law only allowed a Princess to take the throne if she had no brothers. Previous to that change, no woman could rule, and the Crown would have passed to her uncle Knud.
In Sweden, The reigning King and Queen’s son, the second-born Prince Carl Philip, was heir apparent for the first year of his life, until the Swedes approved absolute primogeniture, and the first-born Princess Victoria took his place in line. Imagine if he had been old enough to care!
By Dan on February 25th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I have to say it was nice to see the RF turn out for the unveiling of this memorial. It is a more fitting memorial than the Ditch Diana was remembered with.
Now that Crown Princess Victoria has become engaged after a long 7 year courtship I wonder if William and Kate will soon follow.?
By Trudie on February 25th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I’d still like to know what would have happened if William and Victoria had fallen for each other and tried to marry. Would either parliament have allowed a King and Queen of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Sweden?
Queen Mary I married Prince Philip, later Philip II of Spain, Making him also King of England and Ireland, but they had no children, and she died only two years after he took the Spanish throne. Oddly (so he must have thought) Mary’s successor, Elizabeth I, had no interest in marrying him. Sending his armada to win her heart famously didn’t work, although the war he began to get England back would go on until after they both were dead.
By Dan on February 25th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Trudie, I agree with you about the total inappropriateness of the Princess Diana Memorial. I suspect that the senior members of the Royal Family did not want a statue of Princess Diana in London. However, I have high hopes that when Prince William mounts the throne in the fullness of time, as is supposed, he will remedy this slight on his Mother’s memory. I want to see a beautiful lifesized or larger than life statue of Princess Diana, in bronze, in a very prominent place in London. I doubt it will happen in Charles’ lifetime, for obvious reasons, but I am pinning my hopes, as ever, on Prince William and Prince Harry.
It is rather ironic about Charles. In my opinion, the one thing Charles could do to drastically improve the opinion people have of him would be to initiate a large and beautiful statue of the Mother of his children. It is the only thing for him to do, in order to achieve this end, and yet he will never contemplate doing so.
By Gigi on February 27th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
in due time am sure william with remedy the proper to memorial to this mother – cant imagine that the seniors royals believe that by not have a proper memorial to diana she will “fade away”
By coni on February 27th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
The Diana memorial committee was chaired by the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown — then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Members included Diana’s sister and Paul Burrell (before his disgrace), so Diana was well represented on it. They chose the ditch and the Diana Nurses scheme.
It wasn’t the Royal Family that did this, indeed I believe her two sons were disappointed with the outcome.
By John on February 28th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Those members alone–and the result of their ‘labors’–demonstrate that Princess Diana was not well-represented, in my opinion. Nevertheless, the Princes, I hope, will remedy this slight on Princess Diana’s memory as soon as they are free to do so. I feel very deeply that none other than Princess Diana’s sons can be trusted as ‘keepers of the flame’ and I do believe that the events of the years since the death of the Princess have proved this supposition to be true. In the atmosphere where so many factions are competing to control the legacy, all but her own dearly loved sons are agenda-driven.
By Gigi on February 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Has will Crown Princess Victoria’s annoucement of a summer 2010 wedding affect Prince William and Kate Middleton? If they were planning to marry at the same time, will it now have to postponed so there aren’t multiple royal weddings during the same season?
By Jennifer on March 1st, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Apparently, Crown Prince Felipe of Spain and Crown Prince “Fred” of Denmark married within a few weeks of each other, so it doesn’t need to be a stumbling block.
I wonder why such a long engagement. Perhaps the King is still not convinced.
By Bear on March 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 am
Sweden has severe winter weather for a large portion of the year, making the summer the only practical time for a Royal wedding with Royals of other countries traveling long distances to attend. Crown Princess Victoria is the Heiress, so this will need to be a full-blown state wedding, an event that takes far more than a few months to plan, so the summer of 2009 is not a possibility. That leaves the summer of 2010.
By Gigi on March 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 am
Long distances? This isn’t the 17th century.
By Bear on March 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
They wouldn’t pick the same Saturday in June, but beyond that, I don’t believe a Royal Wedding in one country would affect the timing of another. It’s not as though there aren’t plenty of family representatives to fill the banquet tables.
I don’t believe a British Royal Wedding has ever been announced a year-and-a-half previous to the event. Perhaps that’s a Swedish thing, or simply the timing the couple prefers. Britain’s seem to be 6-8 months from announcement to the event itself.
Maybe they’re preempting the “Waity Katie” treatment for Victoria’s fiancé.
By Dan on March 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
When Royal Family of one country travel to another country for a Royal Wedding, it involves many months of planning and endless arrangements, involving scheduling, protocol and security. It has nothing to do with what century this is, it has to do with the complexity of the schedules and the beaurocracy surrounding the monarchs of various countries. Even small changes to the schedules of the Queen, Prince Philip, and Charles involve more time and courtiers than can be believed!
By Gigi on March 2nd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I was initially deflated that we were going to have to wait until the summer of 2010 for Crown Princess Victoria’s wedding, but if that is what it takes to muster all the pomp and circumstance, splendor and elegance, I shall deign to wait!
It is not really an outlandish amount of lead time. Here in America, people who are planning a semi-lavish traditional wedding begin more than a year in advance. Such an advance is necessary to secure the church, the venue for the wedding reception, the musicians and to order the bridal gown and bridesmaids gowns. Further, traditional weddings include parties (sometimes dances) given by the bride’s parents to announce the engagement and then a similar event hosted by the groom’s parents. There are bridal showers to be scheduled and very often, close friends of the parents of the bride and parents of the groom host dinners, cocktail parties, barbecues and luncheons in honor of the bridal couple. It takes a year or more just to accomplish the planning and execution of all those social events, and the wedding, which involves a rehearsal, rehearsal dinner, bridesmaids luncheon, bachelor dinner, the wedding service and the wedding reception, plus a post wedding brunch for family and other out-of-town guests. This is QUITE an undertaking! 
By Gigi on March 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
All true, Gigi, when you’re talking about a typical wedding. But Royals have a lot of people to manage these plans quickly and efficiently. Charles and Diana announced their engagement on February 24th, 1981, and married just 155 days later, on July 29th.
Most of us have to juggle the plans, often tackling them consecutively, checking them off one after another down a long list. The Royals have batteries of aides assigned to each facet, thereby accomplishing the plans simultaneously. As we have commented often, they know how to throw a party
.
By Dan on March 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
That is true, Dan, but all Royal families of whatever country also are working Royals whose calendars are filled with official engagements. To schedule in all the events for an official Royal wedding is not the work of a moment, and no Monarch would want to cancel scores of long-scheduled engagements with his or her public to accommodate a wedding. That, in my opinion, is part of the reason why the Royal wedding in Sweden is being scheduled for the summer of 2010. In the case of Charles and Princess Diana, time was of the essence because the Queen and Prince Philip were extremely anxious for Charles to marry and begin a family for the sake of the succession. I doubt that the Royal Family of Sweden has the extreme sense of urgency that existed within the private apartments of Buckingham Palace when Charles married.
By Gigi on March 4th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
If HM and Prince Philip thought it was so urgent for Charles to marry and have children that they whipped up the Wedding of the Century in a mere 5 months, they Royally miscalculated their own longevity
!
By Dan on March 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
John- PM Brown spoke this morning before both houses of the US Congress and announced that HM will be bestowing an honorary knighthood to Senator Ted Kennedy for his work on the 1998 Good Friday Peace Accord for N. Ireland and for promoting US-British relations.
This is a nice time for the recognition, since Sen. Kennedy is fighting brain cancer. Do these types of knighthoods from the queen involve any type of ceremony (private? public?) or is it simply something that is announced?
Thanks – Lisa
By Lisa on March 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Brent Scowcroft, Bill Gates, Rudy Giuliani, and Steven Spielberg have also received honorary knighthoods. It’s an interesting mix!
By Dan on March 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I watched the speech live on TV, Lisa. In terms of the Knighthood, it will be conferred by the British Ambassador in Washington at an agreed date.
Here, it’s normally presented by the Queen or the Prince of Wales at Buckingham Palace or Windsor.
Ted Kennedy is an old friend of Brown, so he’s pulling few strings for him I guess.
By John on March 4th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Also Stormin’ Norman of Gulf War 1, Dan.
By John on March 4th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
The Honorary Knighthood for Ted Kennedy is one proposal of Gordon Brown’s which Queen Elizabeth II should have refused, firmly and decisively. All this does is discredit the Knighthood itself, and by extension, the Queen, because she agreed to it. I am of Irish lineage and I am Roman Catholic, and I oppose absolutely any honor for Ted Kennedy, in any country. The fact that he is suffering from a fatal form of brain cancer and is a friend of Gordon Brown’s does not entitle him to an Honorary Knighthood, nor should it. Will someone please get the Labor Government out of 10 Downing Street while there is still a United Kingdom left to be governed?!
By Gigi on March 4th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
While I am not equally indisposed as Gigi toward the Kennedys, I do find it an odd suggestion from the Brown camp. He must have known how it would rile the Conservatives and went ahead with it anyway.
I don’t think it ever looks good to confer such an honor when the recipient is gravely ill. It comes off as gratuitous, not to mention macabre.
I wonder if W. will ever get the honor? I suppose he has as much chance as Tony Blair has at the Garter.
By Dan on March 4th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I agree, Gigi. Those of us who read about these things remember Chapaquidic (?) and Mary-Jo Koppecni (?). On the Daily Mail site, the poll about this shows 90 percent against.
BTW, the Queen does not oppose the PM’s political choice of honours by convention.
By John on March 4th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Dan, the Bushes are friends of the Queen, although I think “W” would spare her from reaping the whirlwind by presenting him with an honorary Knighthood.
Incidentally, I think he’s a better man that he’s often portrayed.
By John on March 4th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Did Ronald Reagan get a knighthood? HM was very fond of him. I wonder if heads of state are typically left off the list for fear of appearing too political. Have any foreign heads of state been knighted? Roosevelt? Eisenhower?
FD Roosevelt was one of Prince Michael’s godfathers.
By Dan on March 4th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
how does one qualify for a knighthood – honorary or otherwise?
By coni on March 5th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Apparently, the qualification, in part, hinges on the political and social aspirations of the Prime Minister, Coni. At any rate, I do not dislike all the members of the Kennedy family, Dan. I greatly admire Eunice Kennedy Shriver and her daughter, Maria Shriver Schwartzenegger. I do not admire, nor do I respect, Ted Kennedy, and I neither liked nor respected John F. Kennedy nor Robert F. Kennedy. My opinions were formed from many years of observations and research and have nothing to do with political affiliation, nor, obviously, religious affiliation or national origin, since I am Roman Catholic and of Irish lineage.
I agree with John regarding former President George W. Bush. Despite the bleeting naysayers who scorned his every word and action, George W. Bush is an intelligent, decent, Christian and compassionate man whose morality and ethical code the naysayers would do well to follow.
By Gigi on March 5th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Gigi – You are a wise woman
By Julie on March 5th, 2009 at 2:09 am
In answer to my own question: both presidents Eisenhower and Reagan were knighted by the Queen. Colin Powell has also been so dubbed.
That’s probably the only thing that those men have in common with Mick Jagger.
By Dan on March 5th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
George W. Bush may be decent and Christian, perhaps compassionate, but I think he was in way over his head as president. He seemed to be missing in action in the last two years of his second term.
His “moral and ethical codes” will be big subjects for historians, especially regarding the use of torture, the treatment of prisoners, the war in Iraq. In the mean time, I think the U.S. made a strong statement in the last election regarding the Bush presidency. At the end of his term, less than 20% supported him.
I’m not saying I liked Clinton any better by the way. Regarding Kennedy getting knighthood–very odd and unfortunate.
By Karen on March 5th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I think the knighthood for Kennedy was an attempt by Gordon Brown to win friends and influence people. There was an audible cringe when he called him “Sir Edward Kennedy” in his speech to Congress.
Surely Brown knows that only British knights take the title.
By Dan on March 5th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
The Kennedy Knighthood has had a bad press over here too.
Dan is right, lots of top Americans have been knighted, including Ronald Reagan, deservedly so in most cases.
By John on March 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Well, yesterday President Obama called him Sir Ed, but rather than the august (cringe-inducing) applause it prompted in Congress, it received the laughter (however respectful) that it deserves.
Nothing against the gift from the Queen, but perhaps she ought to argue against Brown’s next attempt to curry favor with foreign governments.
By Dan on March 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Interesting article in the Telegraph yesterday, John, in which the author likens Michelle Obama to Lady MacBeth. The American media is beginning to show signs that the honeymoon is over, also. I can never remember the disenchantment occuring so swiftly as it has in this instance. I was also dismayed at the treatment of Gordon Brown by Obama. The fact that our Congress gave Brown’s address 19 standing ovations means nothing–they fawn over mindless movie stars to the same extent. The work of the nation virtually came to a standstill because Brad Pitt arrived to see Obama earlier this week. Brad Pitt, by the way, is the fourth film star or Hollywood mogul with whom Obama has met in the Oval Office in the less than two months Obama has been President.
Regarding the Knighthood for Kennedy, I am sure that Kennedy and his staff pushed very hard to make this happen, although I imagine Gordon Brown was quite willing to comply. Regarding the treatment of Gordon Brown by Obama during Brown’s official visit, I am greatly displeased. I do not like nor do I admire Gordon Brown, but when the Prime Minister of Great Britain comes an an offical visitor representing the United Kingdom, he should be treated with the proper respect and honor which is due Great Britain. If Obama thinks that 25 DVDs are an appropriate gift for a Prime Minister, he may not be ready for prime time. Such sophomoric inattention to gracious hospitality and protocol demonstrates a disdain for the dignity of the office. When a President of the United States entertains a Head of State or a Prime Minister, he entertains in the name of the entire nation, representing as he does the interests of America, not his own feelings or prejudices. These signs may be subtle, but they are also significant. If the snub was unintentional, our president wants training. If the snub was purposeful, I foresee real trouble ahead.
By Gigi on March 6th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Yes, Gigi, star quality is one thing, but Obama now needs to make a real difference to America’s economic situation. Spending vast quantities of money is one thing if you don’t care about the youngsters who will have to pay it off, but if you do, it’s a terrible legacy to leave.
Brown has today started printing money here in Britain. It will be used to finance government debt. It’s a bit like a snake eating its own tail.
By John on March 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Hmmm… It seems receiving a knighthood has little to do with a person’s character flaws or their past misdeeds. Neither Rudy Giuliani or Mick Jagger would have gotten one if that were the case. As for President Obama and his wife, they are both very popular from what I’ve seen of the opinion polls here in the United States. I’ve seen commentary in the press suggesting Mr Brown’s supporters hoped appearing with President Obama would help his own political position back home in Britain. I’m looking forward to the president meeting Queen Elizabeth next month! They are so different it should be pretty interesting watching them interact.
By Lizzy on March 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I believe the Brown visit was downplayed because the Obama administration saw it for what it was: an attempt by Brown to suck off a bit of the Obama glow. But in the end it was always intended as a working visit, not a State Occasion. The only “hospitality” that Brown may have wanted that he did not get was a stand-up press conference with the president. He was fed a proper lunch and I’m sure it was gracious indeed.
The First Family’s honeymoon may be over in Texas —let’s be honest, the confetti was never flying high there to begin with — but elsewhere in the country the bloom is not yet off this rose. We may not all care for the celebrities who represent causes like famine and disease relief in Africa and who seek a solution to the atrocities in Darfur, but they are urgent causes just the same. Just as many, if not many more, celebrities are received by HM herself on a regular basis.
I anticipate an enormous outpouring of British goodwill when the Obamas arrive for their audience with the Queen.
By Dan on March 6th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
any feedback for those of you in the uk on the film on a young queen victoria? i believe sarah ferguson was involved in the production – am hoping it becomes avail here in states
By coni on March 6th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I haven’t seen it yet, Coni. I think Princess Beatrice actually has a part in it.
It seems to be getting some good reviews, although I saw one that rated it as dull.
By John on March 6th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Coni, the film has not been made about British Royalty or nobility that does not take the US by storm. Stateside, we eat that stuff up. It has been said that Americans love Royalty and nobility precisely because America does not have them.
By Dan on March 6th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
John, how is the sliming of Mandelson playing? George Bush could teach him a thing or two about how to duck. Although a couple of shoes are easier to dodge than a bucket of green muck.
By Dan on March 6th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I am Texas girl myself, but I agree with Dan when it comes to Obama. With that being said, I hope we can just talk around the politics of the day and not go off on tangents about PMs and Presidents. I think John may have made a statement to this effect on last November during the U.S. Presidential election.
By Jan on March 6th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
i’m with you jan- think we go off topic when nothings going on with the royals…
By coni on March 6th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
As always, politics and faith get the converstaion going…but I’d rather not…as I have strong views that usually just get me in trouble with this group
Best to not go there for me…
By Julie on March 6th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
The Mail on Sunday (Nathan Kay) is reporting that Prince Harry and Chelsy had an “overnight reunion” in London last weekend.
By Evelyn on March 8th, 2009 at 1:16 am
The Sun has him out last night with another blonde and taking her home to Clarence house @ 3 am! I’m wondering if last weekend did not go so well???
By Julie on March 8th, 2009 at 2:43 am
It was at someone else’s apartment, Evelyn.
As for the other blonde “lookalike”, she’s nothing like Chelsy, and happens to be a close member of William and Harry’s circle, plus a friend of Kate Middleton. She probably just did a little escort duty for the occasion.
By John on March 8th, 2009 at 11:53 am
John, I am not sure what “escort duty” means in the UK, but here in America, it conveys something tawdry, which I am sure was not your intention. At any rate, it certainly seems as if some journalists are so frustrated by the lack of news in the lives of the golden Princes that they appear to be manufacturing their own stories out of whole cloth. I, for one, would appreciate the return to reporting of news stories which are true and balanced. Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect lesser publications and their staff to adhere to the sterling principles and journalistic practices of our own dear John and Royal Anecdotes.
By Gigi on March 8th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Further, I cannot decide with whom I am more disgusted–Charles’ former girlfriend Ms. Jenkins, who has placed for public sale her love letters from Charles, a truly declasse thing to do, or Hello Magazine, for flinging journalistic integrity to the four winds and publishing a feature on the sale. What are these people thinking!? I realize that the motivation is money, money, money, but is a sense of decency, good taste or well-bred behavior no longer extant in the UK? This matter is utterly abhorrant and so are the participants. I am seriously displeased and semi-aghast!
By Gigi on March 8th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
In case anyone is interested, check PW and KM out having an apparently quiet lunch at tinyurl.com/c8rmdx. The photo is dated 3 March. I just tried the address myself and it worked for me.
By Claudia on March 8th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Thanks for the link, Claudia. The date on that photo is March 8 (08-03…).
By Evelyn on March 9th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Thanks, Gigi. It’s true reporting standards are lower now, mainly because wild rumours spread on the internet, and editors make a story out of just reporting them. This then adds to the credibility of the rumours.
By John on March 9th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Claudia, they are clearly still close friends, as I’ve been saying all along. William though has separated himself from her for a very long time. That can’t bode well.
By John on March 9th, 2009 at 8:54 am
am leaning towards john’s thinking of william and kate moving their relationship to a close friendship – unfortunately for them when they are seen in public together its stirs up the “couple” chatter….whatever their status we wish them the best….
By coni on March 9th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I would not be shocked if that were true, however I hope not for Kate’s sake, since I don’t think she does herself any favors by leaving appearances that they may be together if they are not.
By Julie on March 9th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Coni, they have hardly been seen together since the split. When they got back together it was all very discreet.
I now think they got back together as friends and have behaved that way ever since.
By John on March 9th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
John
Think our little group has accepted willam and kate’s move toward friendship just don’t believe the public has caught up with us (we are so ahead of everyone else
.
By coni on March 10th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I have thought John to be on track with his friendship theory and believe Julie also with the statement that this does not help miss middletons position. Although it is nice that they remain friends, the lack of stating so is all a bit weak. It makes Kate look like she might be holding out and William look like a ditherer. This may be far from true, but as Harry,s escaped often show, in the public eye appearance is everything.
By london4704 on March 10th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Please excuse my blackberry typographical errors. I meant escapades!
By london4704 on March 10th, 2009 at 12:56 am
John, I know I sound like a die-hard romantic, but I must view this situation through the lens of my own experience. My husband and I dated for four years, while we were attending universities which were in entirely different states. We lived on letters and phone calls. People who were unaware of our relationship thought that we were apart, and some girls in my sorority thought I wasn’t dating anyone at all! When my husband and I got engaged, one of my sorority pledge sisters was so stunned that she blurted out “How long have you known this fellow?!” My point is that there are people whose relationships are strong enough to sustain lengthy periods apart, if necessity requires that they do so, and Prince William and Kate may be two of those people. At any rate, my hopes are pinned securely to that scenario.
By Gigi on March 10th, 2009 at 5:19 am