Are Kate Middleton and William still on?
It’s about time we revisited this almost ancient storyline which was once so huge, but now just perks up a tad on the few occasions they are spotted together.
Prince William and Kate Middleton’s relationship is now so low key that it survives in the public mind only on the memory of what happened more than two years ago. Nothing of substance has been added since then. In fact, Carole Middleton’s negative comments appear to have downgraded it further.
Despite that, some journalists still call Kate “William’s girlfriend”. Could that be because no other girlfriend has been in evidence?
Richard Kay’s comment on Channel 4 that Kate has become a kind of smokescreen, allowing William to play the field, begs some questions.
If they are “just friends” it would be to her advantage to go along with it and remain in the Prince’s circle.
Publicly, Kate’s status is non-defined, neither one thing nor another. That’s not a good place for a bright 27 year-old to be.
Wild speculation has now given way to yawning apathy. For William, that’s not a good situation either. He will need a store of popularity to perform his role in future years.
Has his new publicist team decreed a Trappist-like existence for the Prince? Or is it William’s decision to stay out of the spotlight?
As for Kate: if a particular species of bird becomes rare, then not sighted at all, in most cases it’s become extinct.
That would be a pity though.
A pity indeed!!! Well said, John!
By Julie on March 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
A most interesting summary, John, of this ongoing enigma. If details become veiled to a greater degree, it might well constitute a Miss Marple Mystery!
Superb photographs in HELLO! Magazine of the Queen, looking lovely in powder blue and cream colored suit and hat and of Prince Philip, looking hale and hearty and at least 15 years younger than his age! Commonwealth Day seems to agree with both of them, to say the least. I was a little startled to see the Church Prelates robed in striking blue, since this is the great Season of Lent, for which the liturgical color is violet. They look wonderful, however, in that royal blue.
By Gigi on March 10th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
In the Episcopal church, which is part of the Anglican Communion, they have the option to wear blue, as opposed to purple. It’s unusual.
By Bear on March 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Addendum to the above: I’ve only seen or heard it used during Advent.
By Bear on March 10th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Blue is unusual only if you’re a Catholic. It goes way back in the Anglican church, although it is most often a blue with purplish tendencies.
The bright, some might even say garish, purples and violets one often sees these days are a modern intervention. It is supposed to be a penitential rite, after all, not professional figure skating.
By Dan on March 10th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Testing on BlackBerry.
By John on March 11th, 2009 at 12:13 am
LOL! Dan, you are hilarious!
By Gigi on March 11th, 2009 at 1:02 am
My observation after seeing the recent “lunch” picture- I am still friends with my ex but we would not go out to lunch if there was a possibility of us being photographed (that is if we were famous). We would just stay in touch by occasionally chatting on the phone. Why would he be eating lunch with her? Just don’t quite understand those two.
By happydally on March 11th, 2009 at 3:48 am
No whispers from the ranks yet John?surely you have just a Tad bit of news for us waiting to hear.
By london4704 on March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Is Kate the only friend William wants to go out with for his precious off time from RAF training? There is no surprise that their relationship is low key since William’s training has started.
By Mikado-watcher on March 11th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
After all of our suppositions about Charles wanting all the limelight, it is interesting to read press speculation that he is annoyed at his “work-shy” son, whose official engagements number in the single digits. As William is a full-time officer, I find it hard to believe Charles considers him lazy.
By Dan on March 11th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
i hadnt heard that dan but i also cant imagine that charles would consider his sons lazy – after all they are both full time officers – i think the media is frustrated that there is nothing to “report” as they are both hard at work and maintaing a low profile…just saw somewhere that Paul Burrell wants to mend fences with william and harry – cant imagine that would ever happen -
By coni on March 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Coni, I agree with you regarding Paul Burrell. If he really thinks that Prince William and Prince Harry will want to have anything to do with him after he exploited Princess Diana, he is seriously deluded. Dan, regarding the stories that Charles is upset with Prince William and feels that his son and heir is lazy, I really hope that story is not true. If it is true, then I feel that Charles is trying to discredit his own son to make himself look better by comparison. Not only will that tactic backfire, but such infamous behavior by a father toward a son is a base betrayal and will be viewed as such by the public. In my view, there is nothing more odious than a parent who is jealous of his own child. Further, anyone who seriously believes that a serving military officer is “work-shy” should don the uniform, train on and stand a post. Charles served in the miliary and should know this, but Charles should know many things of which he is woefully unaware.
By Gigi on March 11th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
i honestly think its just one of those stories the media comes up with to stir things up – i cant imagine charles being jealous of his sons –
gigi – being that they’re a bit of a lull in royal news it may be time for one of your infamous teas…..what can i bring
By coni on March 11th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
According to the Daily Mail a French magazine has the scoop on Kate and Williams engagement “soon.” Supposed to be from a reliable source? John do you know anything about this mag???
“Point de Vue, which has impeccable contacts within royal families across the world, boasts about its front page scoop, saying ‘nobody knows it in the British media.’
Society journalist Antoine Michelland” from the Daily Mail.
By Julie on March 11th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Julie, I’ve read the French mag’s article and its main claim that an engagement will be announced within a month looks to me like another punt, like the recent Australian one.
However, I’ve had a whisper today, from a reliable source, that an engagement may come eventually. No date is put on it, but it’s said to be “a good bet” — and may not be too far in the distant future.
Make of that what you will.
By John on March 11th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Such a brief engagement would be in the tradition of his parents’. Let’s hope it’s true! This world needs a pick-me-up.
By Dan on March 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
As for Charles apparently thinking William is “work shy”, I believe this is a garbled version of the “Kate is work shy” story that has been punted for years.
Frankly, if I were work shy, the last job I would sign up for is as a search and rescue pilot in the RAF, which must be one of the most arduous jobs there is.
I don’t believe this story at all. More mischief.
By John on March 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I’ll keep on top of that hint and report back if I get more. With William, though, there’s always a lot of smoke and mirrors.
By John on March 11th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
hmmm….john perhaps you source is correct that eventually there will be an engagement perhaps the reason for the low profile….???
By coni on March 11th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Coni, this source is normally spot on. So, although I’ve had my doubts about this relationship getting a hole in one, I’m now into a 50/50 holding pattern.
By John on March 11th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
So far the media is making Charles and William as rivalry father and son. Then one day Kate becomes William’s princess will she be rivalry daughter in law of Charles or Camilla?
John, even before you have doubt about William and Kate, you rarely said anything about their engagement. But you said it today!
I hope the announcement is near so Kate will have proper protection in any meanings.
By Mikado-watcher on March 11th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I hope this magazine is on the up and up. I would love nothing better than to see William marry Kate. However those pictures of them coming out of a restaurant after lunch showed that Kate didn’t look too happy and followed at a distance. Maybe an announcement was postponed but I don’t think neither one like having their life and possible marriage being dictated by the Palace.
By Trudie on March 11th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I am cautiously optimistic but doubtful. Too short of an engagement, I think. But I’ll just wait & see! Very exciting!
By Positive on March 12th, 2009 at 1:00 am
John,
what a tease!! Argh, and just when I was ready to forget about engaement, marriage, RF, all of it 8-0 !!!
How did this juicy, if microscopic, morsel come about? Did your source contact you to drop a hint? Did you contact them, hoping for some news, and they passed on the potential good news?
By Sojourner on March 12th, 2009 at 2:20 am
-sigh-
I long for a real life romantic story to end happily. I hope something happens soon. I love royal stories.
By Meg on March 12th, 2009 at 2:41 am
Well. I am excited now! I think that would be wonderful and she certainly has put her time in. I hope we hear soon : )
By london4704 on March 12th, 2009 at 3:36 am
John,
I am curious – why the silence?????????
By Madelaine on March 13th, 2009 at 12:26 am
The Daily Mail has an article on Prince William’s latest patronage– Child Bereavement Charity. Princess Diana helped launch the charity, which seeks to help parents who have lost a child and children who have lost a parent. It includes an “exclusive”– Prince William’s words about his own grief after losing his mother.
It seems there is a serious effort to help Prince William find royal patronages and engagements that will be meaningful. The founder of the charity is right– his mother would be proud.
By Evelyn on March 13th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Evelyn you are right there seems to be a serious effort to find engagements. Coming on the heels of his being called lazy it appears CH in an effort to help his image is playing the Diana card. I’m sorry but he has had many opportunites to speak from his heart about his mother and his words so to speak ring as hollow as the word Mummy now seems hollow to him. IMO that one word to him should now be even more sacred.
To answer Positive What is wrong with a short engagement they have been together 7 years much longer than his parents who had less time and a short engagement. I really hope this time it is not speculation but William and Kate will marry.
By Trudie on March 13th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Could it be “a short notice ” engagement? I do hope this time is real for both of them(and us) .
By Mikado-watcher on March 13th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
It’s very possible that several wedding contingency plans have been worked up over the years, so putting the wedding together may not take as much time as usual. With Charles, plans could not be finalized earlier, because no one knew who the girl would be. With William & Kate, courtiers have had many opportunties to figure out what would suit the bride and groom. Plus, according to the French magazine, William’s official proposal happened in January, so two months of real planning may have already happened.
By Evelyn on March 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I should be careful with the French magazine, Evelyn. The article lacks substance and is clearly a ploy to drive up sales.
They appear to have taken a gamble on a summer wedding and worked backwards to guess the timetable of events.
My respectable source thinks it won’t be so soon, so may be next year, or even out of season. I’m still not entirely convinced, except that the source has been correct before, against the odds.
By John on March 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Incidentally, the Queen’s excellent young horse, Barber Shop, is highly fancied for the Cheltenham Gold Cup this afternoon. The nation will forget the depression if it wins.
By John on March 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
i don’t believe an official engagment happened in January. I truely believe that although they love eachother, William has been on/off. This is not uncommon considering they met so young. Kate and her family have more than likely been keeping a low profile due to the uncertain circumstances. No matter how long they have been together i think a marriage would take at least 6 months to plan. I also find that Kate seems to be missing the glow that she surely would have after such a long wait if they were engaged. Women may even speculate that an engagement is coming in anticipation, but whether or not that happens is something entirely different. I hope that they are and that we hear something soon…. I’m just waiting for something more concrete. Perhaps John can offer that : )
By london4704 on March 13th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
London, it was widely thought that Edward waited so long to make an honest woman of Sophie because he was “hoping someone better would come along”. No one did, so he “popped the question”.
Could William be trapped into this mindset? It’s interesting to speculate why he hasn’t had any other girlfriends since Jecca Craig, just on/off encounters. Obviously he’s rather choosy, but also finds it difficult to make up his mind.
The longer a relationship goes on, the easier it is to walk away. I think he did that two years ago when they split up. I also think they got back together as friends. However, he’s running out of options. His contemporaries are mostly fixed up — or look like hippos — and to dump Kate for someone much younger will look very caddish.
His flight to the RAF is obviously designed to avoid a decision and give him cover to wait a little longer. It may be he now realizes that no one better will come along in the right age group, like Uncle Edward did.
By John on March 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Well, that’s a depressing view and not very flattering to Kate. I sincerely hope you are wrong on that bit!
By Julie on March 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
No, but after seven years, she has no status, except as an occasional lunch or dinner date.
By John on March 13th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I suppose you are right at this point. I wonder if they are going to give her “Girlfriend” status back (as was implied earlier.)
By Julie on March 13th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Let’s hope they skip that and go onto the next rung.
By John on March 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I’ll vote for that!!!
By Julie on March 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
John, when you say that Edward (and, perhaps, Prince William) were “hoping someone better might come along,” I am assuming you mean someone with a title, either nobility or royalty? If that was what Prince Edward hoped, his hopes were presumptuous, given his qualities and his situation. In my view, Prince Edward, now Earl of Wessex, was very lucky to marry the excellent, beautifully brought up Sophie. The advantage of the match was entirely on her side, not on his, despite his Royal blood. Prince William, who is very handsome, charming, and blessed with his beloved Mother’s qualities, may dare to hope for an “equal” match, should there be a princess available in Europe who is attractive enough to tempt the prince and who is, by birth and breeding, good partis for him. Nevertheless, if he has not dated anyone but Kate for seven years, that speaks volumes. I would hope that Prince William realizes the singular importance of marrying for love, as marriage is a sacrament wherein vows to God are taken and must be kept.
By Gigi on March 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Looks like the Queen’s horse, Barbers Shop, did not finish in the top three in the Cheltenham Gold Cup race. BBC says 16 ran. Can anyone in the UK tell us more about how the Queen’s horse did?
By Evelyn on March 13th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
gigi – you always put things so beautifully…
By coni on March 13th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Seventh.
By Bear on March 13th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Thanks, Bear. Well, seventh is in the top half– a respectable showing, I’d say.
By Evelyn on March 13th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Thank you, Coni, that is most kind of you to say!
By Gigi on March 13th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
John why all of a sudden you seem so cynical that Kate is not going to marry William? Don’t take this the wrong way but only a year ago you were all hyped about Kate and would not allow disparaging remarks that were posted on other boards here. I believe William promised marriage to her because they would not have gotten back together after that very public split.
I also doubt Edward kept Sophie around because he hoped someone better would come along They seem to have the Happiest marriage next to HM and PP.
By Trudie on March 13th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Again, seeking historical precedent…
What was the longest of Charles “public” relationships before Diana . Obviously DC was in the picture, but not marriageable for long. Any others?
By Sojourner on March 13th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I believe that Lucia Santa Cruz, of Chile, is a candidate for that designation, but it may also be Lady Jane Wellesley or the Guinness heiress, whose first name escapes me at this posting. John, what is your own opinion?
By Gigi on March 13th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Gigi at this point does it matter the fact is Charles did date some girls for a long period but once it was over it was over. William did go back with Kate so I won’t count her out or become cynical about her status.
OH BTW the Guiness heiress was named Sabrina. Also that was considered a real relationship she was even invited to Balmoral and sat for his innane Craigowan Test.
By Trudie on March 14th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Once again, I am of the same mindset as John. Blow hot, blow cold, on and off, time and time again… This is not the behavior of a man very much in love!
It is interesting that she appears to be still ‘available’ to him (and her life on hold). No new career direction, no happy outings on her own (or with her friends). She must be still hopeful of a future with William even if there isn’t a new (yet again presumably) understanding between them as yet.
I too note that images of her that I have seen lately are not happy ones. I suspect that this a show of frustration at her situation perhaps.
Yes indeed, an engagement would not surprise me, what would unfortunately, would be that they were very much in love.
By Cristina on March 14th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Now why would being very much in love surprise you Christina ? this is not the Victorian age where marriage was arranged. The way I see it no one is holding a shot gun to his head. If he marries her after all this time there surely has to be some feelings of love on his part. This is not exactly a dynastic marriage in the making.
By Trudie on March 14th, 2009 at 1:35 am
I would think we would ALL rather that they took their time and made sure than that they made a mistake. At this point, hopefully they are sure.
As for recent photos of Kate and William, I would say that I have not seen any where they wanted to have their photos taken. MAYBE they are trying to stay under the radar and they are not thrilled to be seen? Obviously just a theory but it could happen?
By Julie on March 14th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Definitely, Julie. I think Prince William wants his life to be about more than his wedding day. He’s doing some serious service to his country, taking a larger role in supporting charities, squeezing in official engagements. Sounds to me like he wants to be taken seriously before all the wedding frenzy that will ensue.
By Evelyn on March 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Where do you find any new pictures of Kate?
By Judy on March 14th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
The DM has a piece about PW leasing a lodge for a break at Klosters and Kate is to be there, too. Link here:
http://tinyurl.com/dmhr3o
By NCKat on March 14th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Maybe they are just really good friends who are trying their best to help each other get through something private? The photo on the front of this widely talked about French magazine does not portray a happy Prince William. Whether it’s because he’s tired of being snapped by photographers or for more private reasons is always up for speculation. But something about it said things are not as they should be.
If he did propose to her, and there was to be a marriage this summer, what are the chances of everything being done in secret and having a more public affair later on when the economy is on the upswing? Would it be in the best interest of the Royal family to have a private/secret wedding and make them an honest couple? Or would this irk people and decrease sentiment with the Royal family?
At this time, I can only believe what John says and hope something solid comes out soon. Suspense only lasts so long and then people get jaded. Or is that the whole point of this constant game of questioning the relationship?
By Meg on March 14th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
The reason I asked the question earlier is because I simply wondered about PW “exit strategy” — assuming he has one. Either way, the handling of the relationship seems needlessly complicated. Clearly, we are long past “Clarence House (or whomever) does not comment.” So I wondered how his father handled his breakups in his early life — acknowledging that the later breakups are rather (and sadly) better known…
By Sojourner on March 15th, 2009 at 12:36 am
The photo on the cover of Point de Vue is from last September, when the pair were at a friend’s wedding in Austria.
The Mail on Sunday article says that Charles will not be going to Klosters this year. William & Kate will be going with friends, including Pippa.
By Evelyn on March 15th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Prince William is in the news again, this time for hosting a 40th anniversary dinner at St James Palace for Centrepoint, for which he (and Prince Harry?) are royal patrons. PoW Media has an article, photo, and his full speech. Other photos can be seen at Getty Images.
It seems that Prince William’s staff is working hard to fulfill Her Majesty’s desire that the royals focus on charities that help those in need.
By Evelyn on March 15th, 2009 at 2:00 am
PW is busy to carry royal engagements recently like a full time royal that he was expected to be. How about his training at the RAF? Is he taking leave or his plan has changed?
By Mikado-watcher on March 15th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Trudie, I think that William may possibly love Kate but in love? I think not. His behavior has not been altogether loyal, consistent and stedfast over the past 7 years. I think John’s suggestion that William’s options being rather limited may be the reason for a future commitment from him is more logical to me. Considering that he has the freedom of choosing his own wife, his deciding to marry because there are no better options would be a disappointment.
Naturally, this does not mean that the marriage will not succeed, and that is the up-side. However, her lack of independence and seemingly self respect is cause of real concern for some of us. Kate is not, in my mind, a good role model for young woman. However, it is possible that once she is married, she may finally dedicate herself to great works for good causes and the benefit of the under privileged? It could be that she may prove herself to be a great asset to the royal family once she realises her wish to be Williams wife.
Please don’t think that I am saving all my aggravation towards her alone. I initially was very much frustrated with William when he was seen photographed with girls having his hand strategically placed on one of their breasts, whilst he was still with Kate! (And this is just one example, let us not get into the marriage promise debate) I think he has made life very difficult for Kate and has done so for a long while now… But what has she done about it? And what about what her family have had to put up with?
After the unexpected announcement of his intentions to commit to fly, and her ‘response’ to that, I lost most of my sympathy for Kate.
By Cristina on March 15th, 2009 at 5:08 am
I needed a laugh today.
By Positive on March 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Here’s a theory to explain the low-kay nature of the PW/KM relationship of late: they are keeping a low profile due to security threats. I saw an online March 15 article from the Sunday Express about heightened security around the Princes due to IRA terrorist threats. If this is true, maybe the young royals and girl friends are keeping out of sight for a while. Perhaps the Chelsea and Harry breakup is just a cover, who knows?
I have a feeling there are more complex issues involved. When things don’t add up, look for less obvious variables.
By Karen on March 16th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Thanks for the link, Karen. From the sounds of it, this could be one of the unspoken reasons why some expect Prince William & Kate to announce their engagement imminently. If Kate were put on official footing, that would give her a security team.
By Evelyn on March 16th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Would they target girlfriends? And without any aristocratic backgrounds? Wouldn’t Kate as a fiance be all the more reason to became a target?
Keep laughing Positive ?.
By Cristina on March 16th, 2009 at 5:26 am
Sorry Positive, that question mark was meant to have been a love heart, but somehow it turned into the offending “?”.
By Cristina on March 16th, 2009 at 5:27 am
I must say that the news of Prince William booking expensive and exclusive accommodations for himself and Kate at Klosters has filled me with cautious optimism. I cannot believe that the Prince, mindful of the Queen’s instructions, would make such an expenditure in this faltering economy except for a truly special occasion and person. Might this ski chalet be the scene of the actual engagement? It is my dearest wish that Kate emerges from this ski vacation with an engagement ring on the third finger of her left hand which glistens far brighter than the snow-capped mountains of Klosters! Snowblindness should be the least of our worries, and “blinded by the light” must take on an entirely new meaning! My dear John, have we a man in Switzerland? Could such a man be found to give us the news at an early date? I realize that the weather is somewhat inclement to have one’s ear to the ground, but no sacrifice is too great for Royal Anecdotes, after all!
By Gigi on March 16th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Oh, Gigi…I had the same thought myself but I was afraid to voice my wish…thanks for being brave!
By Julie on March 16th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Actually, I hope that the engagement announcement comes before the trip to Klosters. It would be better for the announcement to come while they’re still in the UK. Kate would have better protection while she’s on the slopes, especially since she probably would do some skiing separate from Prince William (last year he “loaned” his protection officer to her at least once). And then the trip, with friends, could be a big friendly engagement party.
By Evelyn on March 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Actually, Gigi, there was a long illustrated article in the Sunday Times magazine supplement yesterday about Emma Sayle and the “swinging” sex clubs she runs for well-heeled, upper class (AB) people. Lots of descriptions — and some pictures — of orgies and other unsalubrious activities.
Kate Middleton was mentioned as a friends of Emma Sayle — you may remember she wanted to take part in the dragonboat run and was asked to participate in the naked tennis and basketball games. Clarence House nipped it in the bud as soon as they heard.
I think this article will go down very badly at the Palace. Being associated with someone like that will almost certainly rule her out of becoming a Princess of Wales.
By John on March 16th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
There is a link to that article: LINK
By John on March 16th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
John, Do you really think that one article associating Kate with Emma Sayles would actually rule her out as Princess of Wales? I find that kind of hard to believe, given Kate’s years of loyalty and not talking. Who ever could be the Princess of Wales?
By Karen on March 16th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Wow…have to say I’m glad I’m not held accountable for everything that a friend might do! That’s some crazy stuff though. Would it seriously matter what someone who used to be a friend did?
By Julie on March 16th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I thought the Sayle issue came and went last year, after Kate dropped out of the dragon boat Channel crossing. Despite its excruciating detail, this article, with its gratuitous mention of Kate, seems like old news to me.
By Dan on March 16th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Well said, Dan and well said, Julie. Further, shame on the Times for including Kate’s name, hoping no doubt to increase their market share and rake in the revenue.
By Gigi on March 16th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
I seem to recall that KM joined the Sisterhood at the invitation/urging of Alicia Fox-Pitt, who is her friend. I don’t remember Emma Sayle ever being mentioned as KM’s friend. I think their only association was through the SH.
By Bear on March 16th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
how well is this sking holiday going to sit with the public – granted he has the money to do as he likes..however..does the taxpaper absorb the cost for security – also, thought the queen asked her family to take the holidays down a few notches…thoughts
By coni on March 16th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I worried about that, too, Coni. That is why I very much hope that this Kloster’s trip is for a more brilliant purpose than merely a vacation. I believe that the Kingdom is so anxious for the Prince to be settled that they will forgive anything that results in an engagement and leads to a Royal wedding! Nevertheless, Prince William is not the only Royal who appears to have flown in the face if the Queen’s ruling regarding expenditures. Charles and Camilla are playing 300,000 pounds sterling to charter a luxurious yacht to take them and their staff on a junket trip to South America. That news alone should have set the Queen to spinning her engagement ring at high speed, which, I understand, is a sign that she is in a state of high irritation.
By Gigi on March 16th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Oh dear, more typos.
I meant to say “…flown in the face OF the Queen’s ruling…” and also “…Charles and Camilla are PAYING…” My once-nimble fingers are now not so nimble. 
By Gigi on March 16th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
It won’t help the economy if every vacation spot on the planet goes bankrupt. A complete cessation of spending is part of the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION. If nobody spends, then nobody works!
Forgive me, I’m suffering from AIG fatigue. I never want to hear the words BONUS and BAILOUT again as long as I live!
By Dan on March 16th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
dan – those of us who are able should try and spend to keep the economy going as long as we have savings incase we get a pink slip..but an extravant holiday while there are those who cant afford to feed and house their families is not wise…i hear you on the AIG situation…i’m beyond agita !
By coni on March 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Seems to me that all the people working at luxury resorts have families to feed too??? No?
By Julie on March 16th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I agree, also, Dan, and with Coni, too. The situation, however, is that the Queen, always sensitive to the mood of the people of her Kingdom, has decreed that her own family must retrench, a good and sound policy since a large portion of the Royal Family ‘s expenditures are paid for by the public. There is at least one historical precedent detailing a Royal House being brought down by the mood of the people. In France, the excesses of Queen Marie Antoinette so enraged the poorest among her subjects that the Queen and her family were guillotined. That will not happen in the UK, obviously, but thrones have fallen for lesser sins than perceived excessive spending, and they may again. Regarding AIG, I am gnashing my teeth as well, to the utter despair of my dentist.
By Gigi on March 16th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Coni, even in a strong economy, there are always those who can’t make ends meet. What then? No one should ever take a vacation because of how it might appear to the less fortunate? Who does that serve?
We can’t live our lives (or NOT live our lives) driven solely by appearances, whether they be of frugality or extravagance. It won’t do anyone any good if we all went around in sackcloth and ashes. It will just make this depression more depressing!
We look to the Royal Family for the fairy tale, not the cautionary tale. Why do you think Hollywood is having one of its best years ever? At times like this, we need dreams as much as jobs.
The last thing I want to see is rich people pretending to be poor in order to make us poor people feel better. That’s some pretty weird psychology if you ask me, and it doesn’t benefit anyone.
So ski away, W&K, so long as we get pictures!
By Dan on March 16th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Those who criticize William and Kate’s possible sky vacation are the same people who religiously nagging them whenever they can.
I really hope Kate comes back from the vacation with a shiny smile on her face and a sparking diamond on her ring finger!!!
By Mikado-watcher on March 16th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Spending is good, but chalet workers do not get paid more because guests choose to stay at a chalet whose price for a week is what few workers can hope to make in a year. Indeed, a family of four could eat for a week on what one bottle of champagne can cost. Don’t want to nag, just keeping it real.
I am all for keeping people at work — so announce the **** wedding already, and you’ll soon see all kinds of people employed in preparations, celebrations and other secondary markets.
By Sojourner on March 16th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
well stated sojourner!
thanks for the backup
By coni on March 16th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
re: champagne….
not the one I drink, of course, which is tres plebeian, but certainly any served at such an accommodation.
By Sojourner on March 16th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Kate seems to be a friend of Emma Sayle, possibly they both went to Marlborough School. There’s no doubt the association will cause a stir in the Palace.
By John on March 17th, 2009 at 8:23 am
I don’t understand why this would cause a stir now. Wasn’t this known a long time ago, and part of the reason she didn’t participate in the rowboat fund-raiser?
By TeaTea/ Madelaine on March 17th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
If indeed Kate went to the same school as Emma Sayle, that does not mean that they knew each other or were friends. Further, if the Palace wishes to use such a vague association to cast slurs on Kate Middleton, I shall offer in rebuttal the name of Guy Pelly as a friend of Prince William, and, further, dipping into the past, the name Michael Parker as a friend of Prince Philip. All of us know persons who march to the beat of different drummers, but that does not mean that we fall into step with them. I am beginning to suspect that someone with an agenda called in a favor to induce the Times to put forward this line of character assassination by suggestion.
On a more positive note, Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! To honor this wonderful Saint, I have prepared Royal Anecdotes Gala Saint Patrick’s Day Tea! My dear Coni, if you will be kind enough to pour, I will pass the Shamrock shaped tea cakes, the scones and Devonshire Cream, the Balmoral Dundee cake, without which our own John cannot face the morrow, the double chocolate lace cookies in the shape of Irish harps, and the shortbread cookies which are, today, fashioned in the shape of Irish pipes! Dan, we have libations stronger than tea on the sideboard, if you will be good enough to serve them for us. My dear Royal Andecdote friends, please come to the tea table, Royal Anecdotes Gala Saint Patrick’s Day Tea is served!
By Gigi on March 17th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
gigi – i would be happy to pour
thanks for the lovely spread.. these double choc lace cookies are divine….
By coni on March 17th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
*hic*
By Dan on March 17th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Mercy Maud, our own Dan appears to have drunk two for each libation he poured! For the sake of his constitution, someone nearest him (by the sideboard) take him some tea sandwiches and a slice of cake to restore his chemical equilibrium!
Thank you, dear Coni, I am pleased that you enjoyed the double chocolate lace cookies.
By Gigi on March 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Fresh after knighting Ted Kennedy, HM has made Republican Senator from Virginia (and former husband of Dame Elizabeth Taylor) John Warner an Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.
How do we feel about that?
By Dan on March 17th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Gigi, you have made my day. Thanks once again for your marvelous hospitality!
By Kris on March 17th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Dan, Brown seems to be splashing the honours around political America right now, although Warner doesn’t seem to be one of his Cape Cod pals. Isn’t he a Republican?
Obama is really losing ground now in Britain. He seems to be trying to push us into a European superstate, as well as the failing euro currency. I can’t tell you how many enemies he’s making over here, since the vast majority of British people despise the European Union.
If he values British support — which he doesn’t seem to — he should re-evaluate his team’s Euroism. The “special relationship” is looking very rusty right now over here, and the “honeymoon” is well and truly over.
By John on March 17th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I’m absolutely angered by the lack of respect Obama has shown our closest international ally, the UK. However, I can’t help but remember that the Financial Times endorsed him. I wonder now if they’ll finally see the light and regret ever doing so!!
By Jennifer on March 17th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
The AIG debacle is getting very ugly here, and the support for the bailout appears to be eroding rapidly. I am worried because Obama appears to be more interested in photo ops with Hollywood types than he does in solving the real problems of the nation. I am aghast that he is going to appear on Jay Leno, a misstep I fear may be injurious to the dignity of the office of President. I, too, am infuriated with the cavalier and insulting way Obama is behaving towards Great Britain. As for John Warner, although he is one of the oldest, most powerful and revered members of the Senate, and although he represents our most patrician state, Virginia, I am puzzled that he was selected for the honor of Knight Commander. What is Gordon Brown up to, anyway?
Thank your for your kind words, Kris and I am delighted that you enjoyed our Royal Anecdotes Gala Saint Patrick’s Day Tea! I was going to serve carrot cake, as well, but I fear the Duke of Marmelade got a case of the munchies and ate all the carrots.
By Gigi on March 18th, 2009 at 3:16 am
Pity I missed your Irish Tea, Gigi. I love green cake.
By John on March 18th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Jennifer, it was not only the FT that supported Obama, many other senior commentators did too. William Rees-Mogg, for example, and the whole of the liberal-left press.
As for AIG, these calamities seem almost normal now. Any one standing alone in calmer times would have been viewed as a disaster.
By John on March 18th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Maybe we should take a leaf out of George W. Bush’s book and give the President a chance. Never thought “W” could be so classy.
By Bear on March 18th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Warner is indeed a Republican senator, but highly respected on both sides of the aisle.
I’m eager to see how Obama is received during his pending visit to Britain. Let’s admit, he was never going to be the darling of conservatives
. Now that Britain is moving right just as America has moved left, we’ll see how the throng responds. I don’t imagine it will rival his Berlin experience.
Do we think pictures will be released of his private meeting with HM?
By Dan on March 18th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Dan, I think he would have been received well by all sides. However, if his views on Britain’s role in Europe are widely reported, there will be a lot of antagonism, especially as a new BBC poll shows a substantial majority for withdrawal from the European Union altogether.
He’s obviously not getting good advice. A Tory Government is almost a certainty, and could be in place as soon as June of this year. David Cameron is a true Eurosceptic.
We’ll get pictures of the Queen and Duke greeting the Obamas at Buckingham Palace, but probably not sitting down to tea.
By John on March 18th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I still think he’ll be received well by all sides, if only to show him how to properly stage-manage the “special relationship.”
Still, I hope he doesn’t come home as Sir Barack.
By Dan on March 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Getting back to the subject of the original posting, John have you heard anymore from your source about the possibility of an imminent announcement?
We all know that we could do with some good news at the moment, and that would cheer me up no end, with endless postings about the wedding!!
By james on March 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Royal-hater Andrew Morton opines on a possible wedding in the Daily Beast:
http://tinyurl.com/dmqrs6
By Dan on March 18th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
My, my hasn’t he changed his tune on the royals.
By james on March 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
This trip sounds extravagent! Skiing at $70,000!! I certainly hope that this is an engagement event, otherwise this will be one more insulting slap in the face for the hard working ( if you are lucky enough to have a job) Public. I see it as a bit over the top regardless. Kate is teetering on the edge of weakness/apathy beyond any era I have known. What in the world is going on here? I am beyond fed up with this “call girl” status being thus far maintained. There is no reason beyond shear dallying and desperation. I am sure good sources are thinking that a wedding announcement will come soon, and while I will hold that i want this to turn around, I am starting to believe that people are almost willing it to happen. Nevertheless, some serious behavioral modification will be needed if Kate wants to be taken seriously. Charity and lots of it!!! ( turn the light bulb on…)
By london4704 on March 18th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Gone for two days and look at all the fun you have without me!!!
By Julie on March 18th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
What on earth has gotten into Andrew Morton? That is a very unpleasant tone he has adopted in that article, one for which I do not admire him. If he wants to discuss the unfortunate trait of male-pattern baldness, he would do well to look in the mirror at his own seriously receding hairline before casting slurs on Prince William.
Regarding the ski trip, Kate is a guest of Prince William, so he and not Kate is responsible for the venue and the expenditure. I agree that $70,000 seems steep but at least that sum quite pales in comparison with the 300,000 pounds sterling Charles is squandering to charter a luxurious yacht to transport himself, Camilla and their staff to South America on yet another junket. Charles is entirely out of hand.
My dear John, I, too, am sorry that you missed our Saint Patrick’s Day Tea, but we will have Easter Tea shortly and if and when the engagement occurs, we shall surely have the Gala Tea to surpass ALL Gala Teas!
By Gigi on March 18th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I particularly like the blurb about the author at the bottom of Morton’s article. Do you suppose he wrote it himself? His “groundbreaking biography” of Diana is a MODERN CLASSIC?!
When was the last time anyone picked it up, do you think?
By Dan on March 18th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
James, not yet. The info apparently refers to something down the line a bit, which leads me to wait and see. People do change their minds over time, as they have done in the past.
This one will run and …er… stall occasionally.
By John on March 18th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Thank you forbringing that blurb to our attention, Dan, I had not noticed it when I read the article. It is absurd, suspect and even nausea-inducing. Someone needs a serious (and immediate)reality-check!
By Gigi on March 18th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Dan, you’re right, the blurb was written by Morton — it’s part of the deal. It shows what he thinks of himself. I beg to differ.
I have no problem with people spending their own money how they will. The trip will be paid for by William’s inheritance from his mother and great-grandmother, plus his pay in the military. Freedom does extend to the Royal Family, does it not?
As for his view of Kate, it’s widely shared in the media. My interest is in how William tolerates that.
By John on March 18th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I think William is of the mindset to ignore the media entirely, which may not be to his — or Kate’s — ultimate benefit.
By Dan on March 18th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
William was on leave from the RAF training last week or so, and he’ll going to ski trip with Kate next month. Is he going to leave RAF and becoming a full time royal ?
BTW, I do really hope both William and Kate (
and every one) wear helmets no matter how good they are.
By Mikado-watcher on March 18th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
After the tragic aftermath of Natasha Richardson’s fall, which at first appeared to be minor, I also very much hope that Prince William and Kate will wear helmets. I agree with John that Prince William has the right to spend his own personal funds as he sees fit, which is the same right granted to lesser mortals. As for Andrew Morton, his ego is simply outrageous! If he should seek advice regarding his writing, I, for one, would strongly advise him not to write.
By Gigi on March 18th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
John, I’ve read your postings for about a year or so, and I have to say I really appreciate the views (royal AND political) you’ve shared here over time. So nice to see that I’m in good company (may I live vicariously through you once Cameron and the Tories do take over in the UK?)!
By Jennifer on March 19th, 2009 at 1:24 am
I couldn’t agree more london4707!!!
By Cristina on March 19th, 2009 at 5:00 am
You certainly may, Jennifer. It may be as close as June this year — with any luck.
By John on March 19th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I must say that I have to agree with the main thrust of Morton’s article – that Kate has done herself no favors by waiting and waiting without any visible career unlike Chelsy. I’m afraid that even when they do marry (and I’m hoping they will), anything she does from that point on will be ineffectual because of this long period of inactivity. She won’t be seen as having the experience to handle her duties, at least not for a time – comparisons will inevitably be made between her and the early Princess Diana.
By NCKat on March 19th, 2009 at 10:53 am
If KM does marry PW, I’m betting that she will shine and all the heretofore unpleasantness will be forgotton….obviously more nastiness will develop but we don’t need to borrow trouble. Many left for dead have made spectacular recoveries…consider Bill Clinton after impeachment, Camilla herself, the Duchess of York etc.
On another matter, I really really wish we could avoid politics entirely on this site. I see that that’s not the case and it has made me steer away more and more from RA since before the US election. I happen to love Obama and I feel very lonely and sidelined on RA now because of my perspective. There is politics 24/7 all around me and I know where to find it when I really want it. I am in fact a political junkie and could spar with any negative Obama comment made here, there are many perspectives in politics. I turn to RA for a fun diversion and often I just feel sad that a politician I like is being trashed and it makes me just want to pack up and leave.
By Claudia on March 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I agree with you, Claudia, but sometimes it just creeps in and you automatically respond.
I’ll try to do better in future. Will everyone else?
By John on March 19th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I agree, politics can be sticky…although the fact that people are passionate and versed is in and of itself a pleasantry considering the majority of youths apathy in that area.
As far as Kate goes, ‘heretofore unpleasantness ‘ was created by Kate herself. She had a majority vote at first as people found her to be pleasant and hard working. Her behavior or perhaps the act has since worn off. She now has little interest in real work and her behavior has become more of a show. She has had several wardrobe malfunctions, and while a slip up here and there can be excused, full on displays and fall outs are just crass.
I don’t have a problem with William spending his money. I just think that in these times of economic hardship one would be well advised to perhaps limit your private indulgences to just that, private. A smaller chalet this year perhaps? Is too much to ask for this immediate period out of respect. One might argue that the very institution of the Crown is one of public place, servitude and example. I think it would have been wise PR to refrain for a year. I fear that if William marries due to pressure we may see problems down the road. I don’t think he should be pushed into marrying, but I don’t think he should tag Kate along in such a public manor without the respect of a proper place.
By london4704 on March 19th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I should think the whole world would be put off skiing just now. What a tragedy we’ve seen.
As for politics, I will hold my tongue (er, fingers?)
It is everywhere nowadays, and need not be here!
By Dan on March 19th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Claudia, you are not alone where you stand. In the past this site has remained wonderfully nonpolitical in respect to the Queen who remains steadily nonpolitical (how does she DO that?). And, in fact, that is what I’m determined to do. It’s just that I’ve been visiting regularly and today was thinking many postings on all sites seem to be more and more negative as we struggle with our politics and economy. It seems even when we stay on topic we are more negative regarding Kate, PW, the PR, and the state of the Royalty. Many of us want a romantic fairytale wedding for relief. I suspect Kate and PW would like that as well. Can I share some sanity I learned at work yesterday as food for thought? The jaws of life still pry teenagers out of cars and they live (hopefully this doesn’t apply to anyone on this forum), we disagree on politics but when it comes down to life we pull through for each other in unbelievable ways and, I noticed, Gigi continues to pour her delightful teas with invitations for toasts in spite of some of our misguided ways. It brings us back to why we’re here. To celebrate. After all, that wedding we so want may well happen after all. We need to be ready.
By lionhound on March 19th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Well said lionhound….I’ll make a concerted effort to say out of politics!
By Julie on March 19th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Thanks to all, I’m cheered already!!
By Claudia on March 19th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I promise to avoid political remarks as well, and I feel sad that we depressed our own Claudia and very nearly forced her to leave our close-knit clan! For those of you who are more recent RAers, I shall make an RA historical reference. Several years ago, during a thread regarding the Royal Family (I believe it related to Princess Diana), the discussion grew so heated that the postings became thick with personalities and pejoratives. After John’s gentile and polite requests for even-tempered and collegial postings seemed to yield no moderation, I decided that we all needed to have tea together, to remind ourselves that we were, first and foremost, friends. Thus, the Royal Anecdotes Teas had their genesis, and somewhere along the way, (I believe it was at the time of the Queen’s Jubilee) we went whole hog (metaphor!) and decided to host Gala Teas (with champagne and other festive libations) to celebrate special events in the lives of the Royal Family. All of us have had fun with the RA Teas, with many RAers suggesting menu items, being kind enough to pour tea, assist with serving cakes and sandwiches, proposing toasts (our dear John), opening and serving bottle after bottle of champagne, and I know not what all. At one point, John, semi-aghast at the ravages wrought by the high fat and sugar content of the tea items, declared in despair that if I did not moderate my baking ingredients, our only option was to serve the tea on the Queen’s immense and very sturdy dining table at Windsor Castle, to which, of course, we had no access. Somehow we got past that culinary crisis and now we all diet and exercise before and after the teas, so that, thus far, we appear to be none the worse for the indulging.
I am pleased to report that, despite the weight of the massive tea menu items, the RA Tea table has yet to collapse!
By Gigi on March 19th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
*hic*
By Dan on March 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
LOL! It may be that our own Dan has not quite recovered from the ravages of our Royal Anecdotes Gala Saint Patrick’s Day Tea!
Has he been sidetracked by the sideboard? 
By Gigi on March 20th, 2009 at 1:52 am
I do not understand how anecdotes and comments about the British royal family can remain unpolitical. The Princes are in the military. Prince Harry fought in Afghanistan. Anti-monarchists abound. Some people doubt the monarchy will survive beyond Prince William. Many question the order of succession. Security issues involving the royals are fraught with gravity. Prince Harry makes politically atrocious remarks from time to time. And then there’s the sinking economy threatening the national well being and the royal family’s reaction to the politics of fear and lack.
So it’s no wonder, this site has difficulty keeping its toes out of politics and remaining focused on Kate’s clothes and career path, lovely tea cakes, and royal wedding fantasies. Is this fantasy land or something more relevant?
By Karen on March 20th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Karen, I do not think anyone minds discussion of British politics, where relevant, and when such can be addressed with civility. The issue is that some would prefer that no discussion of American politics seep into the threads, since this is, after all, a site dedicated to discussion of the Royal Family of Great Britain. We do, traditionally, attempt to maintain a collegial and positive attitude in our postings on this site, which is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why this site is so popular. This positive and, indeed, gentile ambience, was inculcated by our own Royal Anecdotes leader, John, who feels that information sharing and discussion is far more entertaining and didactic when a pleasant tone is maintained. I have found this site to be quite relevant, pleasantly so, and I do hope you will concur as well.
By Gigi on March 20th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Genteel, not gentile.
By Bear on March 20th, 2009 at 3:45 am
I wonder what discussions we would be having if Princess Ann were the one to be crowned queen? She impressed when she was here (Australia) for our surviving fire victims.
By Cristina on March 20th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Cristina, Princess Anne is one of the most dependable of the senior Royals. I can’t imagine anyone would disagree if, by some strange quirk of fate, she became Queen.
Would she be as popular as the Present Queen? Probably not — she would come to it a bit late in the day to make fresh impact — but I believe she would attract the loyalty of the vast majority of people and be a brisk, no nonsense Monarch.
However, we do need a King next, not just on Buggins’s turn, but Monarchy is essentially about Kingship. Too many long-living Queens tend to dilute its effect — which may or may not be a good thing, depending on circumstances.
King Charles, followed by King William will be the succession, whoever William’s Queen turns out to be.
By John on March 20th, 2009 at 9:24 am
That would be a bit awkward, if somehow the Princess Royal became Queen, since she purposely chose to exclude her children from Royal titles and from duties supporting the Crown. I frankly do not see how Princess Anne could become Queen. In order for that to occur, Charles and both his sons would have to die or to abdicate, which seems highly unlikely. Beyond that, Princess Anne doesn’t fall in the line of succession until after her three brothers and their male offspring, so Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prince Edward Earl of Wessex and his young son, all of whom come before Princess Anne in the line to the throne, would have to die or abdicate. The abrupt removal of all those male relations would constitute far more than a quirk of fate, it would require a national disaster.
Thanks for the correction of my typo, Bear. I need to stop posting while watching television, as the most absurd typos appear as a result.
By Gigi on March 20th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Gigi, I do enjoy the “collegial and positive attitude” of the site. I wish I had more time to visit it. It seems, though, that when discussions get interesting, there’s a pull back from the crux of matters.
John, you can’t be serious with the statement “Monarchy is essentially about kingship. Too many long-living Queens tend to dilute its effect.” My goodness, if that’s not provacative. Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria–dilluting the effect of monarchy? One could write a book on that topic. Both women were accused of acting like men at times, for starters.
By Karen on March 20th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Gigi, the Princess Royal falls in the line of succession behind her brothers’ female offspring as well, not just the males. We would have a Queen Beatrice, a Queen Eugenie, or a Queen Louise before a Queen Anne. (Although of the Earl of Wessex’s two children, the younger James takes precedence over the elder Louise.)
I’m sure you knew this; just clarifying.
By Dan on March 20th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
John, you do love to stir the pot!
But, clinically speaking, you are correct, if by “dilutes its effect” you mean the male bloodline, which is (or was) the founding principle of monarchy. By their natures, Queens bring new male blood to the pool, “diluting” the old (it’s a quaint concept now — the notion that one blood is more divine than any other — but it is the tradition nonetheless.)
It is also how Royal Houses come to an end, as Tudor and Hanover did when their reigning Queens passed.
While none of us will live to see it, one wonders if a future Queen will maintain the House of Windsor, or take her Prince Consort’s name. Prince Philip’s adopted Mountbatten name has been appended to Windsor, but it’s an awkward courtesy that hasn’t been taken up with any consistency. (And shouldn’t it be Windsor-Mountbatten, with the wife’s name first?)
Regardless, the Wessexes have not adhered to the form prescribed, and styled their daughter Lady Louise Windsor. This despite the fact that the Earl of Wessex is due one day to become Duke of Edinburgh! One would have thought his children would be styled in a way that honors their grandfather.
Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me if this styling was Prince Philip’s idea. He perhaps most of all would not want to see the House of Windsor “diluted” in any way.
By Dan on March 20th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
One more thought about the Princess Royal.
I have always had the feeling that she is the least monarchist of any member of the family. She serves her mother, and indeed the British people, tirelessly and heroically, but she is so matter-of-fact that I could almost imagine her true feelings to be that this whole idea of Royalty is a load of Olde-fashioned twaddle. Everyone gets up in the morning, puts their boots on the same way and gets on with it. The rest is pretension and extravagance. She serves, but because it’s her duty, not because it’s her birthright.
That might be why she kept her own children out of it.
By Dan on March 20th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Gigi, I was trying it on for size, indulging in a bit of whatiffery?
I know it’s virtually impossible for Anne to become Queen, however, in our long history, stranger things have happened.
By John on March 20th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Karen, we’ve had some great Queens, no doubt. Traditionally, though, Monarchs are military leaders and one couldn’t imagine either Queen Victoria or our present Queen riding into battle.
Elizabeth I did (partly) and her stirring speech, “I may have the body of a weak and frail woman, but I have the heart of a Prince …” etc. Luckily, she didn’t have to engage the enemy directly, as Drake defeated the Spanish Armada for her.
By John on March 20th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Mind you, I don’t personally espouse the thoughts I’ve put into the Princess Royal’s head! I’m just wondering aloud about her world view.
We really know so little about her, beyond her tireless work.
By Dan on March 20th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
My dear John, the early stages of inhabitation in Great Britain are so shrouded by the mists of the time that you may not realize what Americans well know. Because our pioneers hacked a way through the wilderness a mere 300+ years ago and felled logs to make homes, we are keenly aware that the female of the human species is equal to any man, especially if sufficiently endangered or provoked. By inclination and design, women are nest-builders, while men are food gatherers, hunters and so on, But believe me when I say that the most dangerous thing any man can do, individually or collectively, is to threaten the safety of a woman’s home or children. The family histories of the oldest inhabitants in America are filled with true stories of brave women, often alone in the wilderness while the men foraged far from home fires to find food. These women protected themselves, their children, their cabins and livestock and killed invaders without mercy or hesitation. As for Queen Elizabeth I, the fact that she survived at all to mount the throne, in the atmosphere of murderous intrigue which characterized Tudor England, is proof of her worth, her strength and her raw courage. Had not Sir Francis Drake been available to captain her fleet to defeat the Armada, I have no doubt that the Queen would have been equal to the task. The Queen’s speech was stirring, but spoken with diplomatic purposes in mind. If Queen Elizabeth I truly had a ‘weak and frail body’ then the rest of us are at death’s door!
Let us recollect that, after all, it was Queen Boadicea who decimated the encamped Roman Legion in Roman Britain, not a King.
By Gigi on March 20th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
John,
No King of England today could ride into battle today. Even prince could only stay in Afghanistan a short time.
By Karen on March 20th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Karen, our Army is so short of funds, in an real emergency it’s possible to imagine Prince Charles, William and Harry riding horses into battle.
By John on March 20th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Even though the Princess Royal and Zara Phillips are the more accomplished riders!
By Dan on March 20th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
I would be surprised to learn that the Princess Royal and Zara are more accomplished riders than Prince William and Prince Harry, who play polo. Their riding skills are different, of course, but polo, like equestrian event competition, requires the highest standard of equestrian competence–and incredible daring.
John, military materiel is so expensive that in a real emergency, I theorize that all of us will be mobilized and may be fighting in the streets, engaged in hand-to-hand combat, and throwing rocks at the enemy! Horses, of course, require feed and care, which is also extremely expensive, and acquiring mounts suitable for battle, and training them, is even more expensive.
By Gigi on March 20th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Daily Mail has an article about Prince William’s treatment at RAF. There are some explanations but not good for PR.
By Mikado-watcher on March 21st, 2009 at 3:42 am
By Gigi on March 21st, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Gigi, Mikado, the piece is very small on an inside page of today’s paper version.
It starts off suggesting he’s getting special treatment, but then explains that since he already has his pilot’s Wings, there’s a natural gap in his training. He’s just taking some of his 30-days a year leave, that’s all. It’s totally above board.
In terms of him living in an officer’s house off base, that’s fairly normal too, for officers with the means to do so. Since the house will also have to accommodate his protection officers, it doesn’t seem excessive.
By John on March 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
is there a link to this article? I am from London but live in New Orleans now and we don’t get British papers here : (
By london4704 on March 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Do we know for a fact that KM is in the Alps with PW? I am assuming we know for a fact PW is…
By Sojourner on March 21st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
London, here’s the link: LINK
By John on March 21st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Sojourner, they are travelling back today so that William can see the Wales-Ireland rugby match in Cardiff.
By John on March 21st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
John, I have a feeling that the article is more insidious than you believe it to be. For one thing, many people read the online version, not the paper version, so the size and placement are not a mitigating factor. For another thing, if there is nothing amiss with Prince William’s time away from duty and his off-base quarters, why write the article at all? As a journalism student, I well recall being taught that key points must be made in the first and second paragraphs, because few people read further. I suspect that the author made the points he wished to make in the beginning of the article. The truth was added at the end of the article because it had to be, but the innuendo will not be discounted by everyone.
By Gigi on March 21st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
thank you for the link! i will read it now…
By london4704 on March 21st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
not good! i have to agree with one of the comments below the article…’that William seems to be out of touch with the rreal world’ i think he is a very bright young man and i am sure he understands his actions. It makes me wonder if he just doesn’t care… which in his position could prove to be a dangerous game at very least leaving he and Kate very unpopular.
Still no engagement !?
By london4704 on March 21st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I saw PW there… Looking MUCH better than in other recent pics. He’s been doing something, for sure.
By Sojourner on March 21st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I meant to say I saw picture of him there… LOL, if only I were in Cardiff, without or without the Prince!!!
By Sojourner on March 21st, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Sojourner, you’re Irish! Yes, it was a wonderful game and the better team won.
By John on March 21st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
The DM has two pieces about Kate Middleton – one reveals that the Middleton family fortune is the result of over two hundred years of hard work and canny investments in the Middleton lineage, not all from Party Pieces as is commonly supposed. The other by Kate Nichols is just an item about Chelsy not liking Kate’s advice to look at Harry’s escapades with other women with a more tolerant eye. (really, how does KN know what KM advised to CD? Inquiring minds want to know if she’s bugged the local tea shops!)
By NCKat on March 21st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Well, yes, John, all is eventually revealed
Not impressed by the supposedly positive piece in the DM. Seemed very contrived. About Hatey Katey’s piece, the less said the better!
By Sojourner on March 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 am
I want to preface my comments by saying I support Kate. After all these years, I hope William will do the right thing and marry her. However, if these claims about Kate’s conversation with Chelsy are true, then that’s an interesting development. John, perhaps your theory is true that Kate really is a smokescreen to cover William’s other activities. I really hope this isn’t true…
By Jennifer on March 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Jennifer, that’s true and it makes sense.
However, the smokescreen comment was made by the Mail’s Richard Kay who has known William since a child.
By John on March 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
NKat, sounds like Katie Nicholl has been talking to Chelsy, who spends weekends in London.
By John on March 22nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I really question the significance of all this, John. If the genealogist who traced the genesis of the Middleton fortune is correct, I must wonder that the Palace was unaware of these details. Why, then , the snobbery and the criticism, the petty name-calling and innuendo? Regarding Richard Kay, he is not the only person who has known Prince William since he was a child. Long acquaintance, especially with Prince William, does not mean deep knowledge of what the Prince is doing or thinking. More than any other Royal I can ever remember, Prince William keeps his own counsel. Regarding Chelsy, I am struggling to understand her motives. She chose to break her relationship with Prince Harry. Why, then, is she blaming other people for this? Kate Middleton befriended her and advised her, true, but Chelsy chose to accept Kate’s friendship and advice. If, indeed, the relationship is irretrievably broken, Chelsy must accept the role she played in it’s failure to thrive rather than blaming others. If Chelsy is going to be an attorney, she would do well to recollect the legal premises of responsibility and remedy and apply them to her own life.
By Gigi on March 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Well, Gigi, remember the snobbery over a young Princess Elizabeth’s marriage to Lt. Phillip Mountbatten? How courtiers were overly patronizing with him, explaining the history of Windsor Castle like he was a kindergartener… With him ultimately responding, “Yes, I know. My mother was born here.” With this Palace snobbery, I guess their attitude is the heir will almost always end up marrying down and will constantly remind the future spouse of it, too.
By Jennifer on March 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I do remember that, Jennifer. The reason the courtiers got away with such outrageous behavior toward the man Princess Elizabeth was going to marry was because it was well known that neither King George VI nor Queen Elizabeth liked or approved of Philip, so no heads would roll. Therefore, I must assume that the snobbery and vicious remarks being made about Kate by Palace staff and courtiers must be somehow ‘sanctioned’ or perhaps encouraged by the knowledge that a very senior member of the Royal Family, someone powerful enough to protect the courtiers, wishes Kate to be discredited publically. My query is the identity of that person, and the motivation behind that person’s agenda. None of these things are accidental, nor are they random.
By Gigi on March 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
The Australian publication of New Idea (well know here for publishing fabricated stories) reports that Kate was behind prince Harry taking her friend home after a club outing recently. If this is true (um, probably not) than perhaps it may have encouraged Chelsy to speak out (er, unlikely).
By Cristina on March 22nd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Gigi,
What you suggest is intriguing, and now you got me thinkin’.
I always assumed that KM did have significant support in the RF — at least from PC, who she has vacationed with more than once. (I am aware of course of scenarios that see PC as having a reverse Oedipus with his son, but discount them as overly complicated.)
I have read about the supposedly strained relationship between KM and PA daughters. Is there any truth to such rumors? Would these girls even have the power to protect mischievous courtiers? Or would it have to be someone significantly older and higher in rank?
By Sojourner on March 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 am
Gigi,
Cui bono?
By Bear on March 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 am
That is the problem, Bear, until and unless we know who is behind this–if indeed anyone is–we don’t know how they or anyone hopes to benefit by discrediting Kate Middleton. It may be someone who is determined that Prince William needs to make an equal marriage with a European princess who would be good partis for him, for the sake of the Blood Royal. Or it could be someone who hopes to free Prince William so that someone they know or are related to can be the next candidate to date the Prince. Or it might be someone who has a personal grudge against Kate or her family, or, has no grudge but is simply jealous. Or, failing any of those things, it could be someone who resents the influence Kate may or may not have over Prince William and wants to free Prince William from that influence. The other possibility is that I may be watching too many mystery movies involving intrigue and conspiracy.
By Gigi on March 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 am
Or someone who doesn’t want to see Prince William married at all.
By Bear on March 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Gigi,
Regarding your statement: “Prince William needs to make an equal marriage with a European princess who would be good partis for him, for the sake of the Blood Royal.” It’s interesting that the other young crown princes of Europe have not married into royal families. I’m trying to think of one who has recently.
I still fantasize about PW taking up with Princess Caroline’s beautiful daughter, but she seems to have plenty of Mediterranean boyfriends.
By Karen on March 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
John, what are you hearing about Kate Middleton’s picture appearing on her family business’s brochure for a line of “Princess” party gear? She’s being accused of capitalizing on her “girlfriend” status.
By Dan on March 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Here’s a link to the News of the World story:
http://tinyurl.com/c8asln
It’s a grasping-at-straws linkage between the picture of Kate and her mother on the PP website with the fact that PP sells products tagged “Princess”: tiaras, magic wands, etc. How could they successfully cater to little girls without selling such items?
The surprise to me is how supportive of Kate the readers’ comments are.
By Dan on March 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Dan, it seems she doesn’t care any more. What does that tell you?
By John on March 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I guess we can’t consider this a new development. Her picture has been on the family’s website for months now. The “princess” items are not recent additions either. Someone at News of the World has simply taken a very long time to rake the muck together.
By Dan on March 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Thank heavens no one found a photograph of Kate from childhood, using a Princess line telephone, or she would be accused of capitalizing on her status in that way, also. This is really the height of absurdity. The media is entirely out-of-hand!
By Gigi on March 23rd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Dan, I think the reason that the comments are supportive of Kate is because of the fact that what the NOTW is trying to accuse Kate of is total rubbish and everyone knows it. Even those with the greatest dislike of Kate had to admit it. Every little girl at some point has a princess themed party or a princess themed room and the readers know it. I’m sure the company, that was founded long before Kate and William ever met, has been selling princess themed supplies since the beginning. They wouldn’t be much of a children’s party supply company if they didn‘t.
By Ash on March 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Saw some pictures said to be of the Royal Alpine Skiing Expedition
:-p
Could have been my Aunt Millie with my cousins and their neighbors.
Any one found anything clearer?
By Sojourner on March 24th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Sojourner, security must have been extremely tight if there have been no photographs published of the ski trip. I saw the photos of Prince William at the Six Nations game, so evidently photographs were not forbidden there. There is just something so mysterious about all of this. Where is Sherlock Holmes when we really need him?
By Gigi on March 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Re no photos of ski holiday: I think security issues are the reason things seem bogged down currently.
Security, however, doesn’t account for the bad-spirited agenda regarding KM. Is palace intrigue really so complex and malevolent in this day and age? I think the desire to sell papers accounts for the churning out of all manner of stories about the royals. Perhaps I’m naive about the palace pr machine.
By Karen on March 24th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I for one am happy that the paparazzi are loosing the battle, how annoyed they must be!
By Cristina on March 24th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
There are pictures on other sites which clearly show KM and PW. Both looked decidedly displeased.
I am becoming of John’s opinion, sort of. I think that the situation was either presented to KM as a choice between her own family and the RF, or that was the way she saw it, and chose her own family. I don’t think there will be any wedding in the near future.
By Bear on March 24th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Bear… can you please send me the link to the photo’s? I would love to see some. I can’t find any : (
By london4704 on March 24th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
There are several other blogs for which I cannot post the links, I imagine. The Royal Forums has a bunch. BRW has a couple. All of these came from a site called “Mr. Paparazzi”. Don’t have the link for that either. The conclusion on these other sites is the photos were taken by private citizens skiing at Courchevel, and not professional photographers.
By Bear on March 24th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
To get to the relevant Royal Forums (there are a couple out there), Google “internet forums”, and click on the first site on the list. On that page, on the left there is a link to the Royal Forum. You can go directly to the Prince William forum. Go down to the “Prince William and Kate Middleton skiing at Courchevel” discussion, and the pictures are right at the top.
By Bear on March 24th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Thanks, Bear.
Re: KM choosing family sides
Everything seems needlessly complicated. Which then leads me to believe that it isn’t. Which then leads me to conclude with John that “they’re just not that into each other.” But can’t seem to let go. Boring, and too bad.
Which leads me to hope for a different outcome, which leads me to keep reading the posts…
!!!!
By Sojourner on March 24th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Your last post has got me laughing Sojourner!
By Cristina on March 24th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
If Prince William and Kate are not truly interested in each other, why on earth have they dated exclusively for seven years? I admit we are hopelessly mired in a dearth of conflicting clues and media misinformation, but all the experience of my 61 years are confounded if it turns out that this is a charade. I simply refuse to believe that love and romance have changed to such an extent that riding the merry-go-round is more important than the gold ring.
Sojourner, you are absolutely hilarious!
By Gigi on March 24th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I am not convinced that this is all a charade, clearly there is something there, however I have issues with the “in-love” scenario, I think they are well past it. I am now cynical about this relationship and entertain ideas of players being ambitions, perhaps fearful or complacent. It could just be plain old habit, I don’t know but IN LOVE? (In my mind) NOT likely.
I am happy to be totally wrong or course.
By Cristina on March 24th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Thanks for the heads-up on the skiing photos. I don’t think W&K look particularly grumpy– just not putting on a smile-show for the paps.
If Kate had been asked to make a choice between her family and the Royal family, they why would W&K invite Pippa and James to join them for this holiday? I think there has been a healthy balance of spending time with both families and all siblings.
Most couples lose that “in love” look after 7 years together. I think this has matured into a healthy long-term relationship.
By Evelyn on March 25th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Evelyn, we know that two years ago William said the relationship is “no fun anymore”. Now they hardly see each other from month to month, it’s not going to get any better.
My “snout” (source) believes Kate is on hold for a marriage of “friendship” when they’re both older and William will be under pressure to marry. Unless, of course, Kate pulls out in despair.
This is not one of life’s Great Romances. Maybe William prefers that, and Kate is going along for the ride.
By John on March 25th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Why is William still going on vacations with (Kate and her family), since he has no intention to marry her? Doesn’t he have other friends to spend his limited time off together?
By Mikado-watcher on March 25th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
That’s why I still believe the relationship is on, Mikado-watcher. I don’t think Kate’s family would play such a prominent role in so many of their holidays if he wasn’t serious about the relationship.
John, I hope Prince William has the sense to know that a long-lasting, loving “friendship” would be better than the relationship his parents had.
By Evelyn on March 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I have to agree with the others on that the relationship is still on. You don’t invite an ex-gf on skiing trips, to family estates because you’re on good terms. The simplest answer is in front of us, they are still dating.
Sources, moles, pictures all mean nothing because all they do is make this relationship so elobrate that in no way, could these two still be in love. It is the 21st century, people in their 20s do not get married right away, they wait for 5 years, 7 years, 10 years or whenever until they are ready.
By American Cousin on March 25th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I agree, AC. Certain members of his family, Prince Philip in particular, would not stand for William carrying on a very public yet platonic “friendship” with a woman he had no intention of marrying. I feel certain that the Family knows when, not if, this wedding will happen. But if the timeframe is years, not months, no public statement will be made until the date is 5-6 months out. This doesn’t help Kate’s position in the near-term, but she has probably agreed to it. There are no long engagements for heirs to the British throne. 5-6 months, tops.
I wonder if summer 2010 is out of the question, now that the Swedish RF has called it. Can two future monarchs marry in the same season?
By Dan on March 25th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Thank you all for giving me a clear answer! I think things are going pretty well for William and Kate!
By Mikado-watcher on March 25th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Well, I must be a hopeless romantic. I want the couple to be in-love as well as be friends. I want them to be absolutely dying to see each other!! Yep, even after all these years. I must also be aiming too high to expect the couple to be independent and consciously contributing to the community.
Clearly, I must stop reading Jane Austen novels.
By Cristina on March 26th, 2009 at 12:20 am
It is very odd that Prince William spends so much time vacationing with the Middletons. It’s 3 holidays we know of – last summer (Caribbean), some sort Christmas get-together, and now the skiing trip.
This is a young man who could be jet-setting around with royals, aristocrats and assorted celebrities – yet, he hangs out with the Middletons.
While I agree with John that the relationship is simply Kate hanging on (for reasons we have already discussed), I can’t help wondering if there’s something else going on.
Perhaps, a surrogate family situation. One interesting parallel is that the on male side of the Middleton family, the family business was law – the boys all tended to be attorneys. Except Kate’s father (or grandfather) broke tradition and became a pilot.
Now, we have a reluctant prince, who’s bored with royal duties and wants to be pilot.
Odd.
By Alicia on March 26th, 2009 at 12:55 am
John,
The problem with KM “just hanging on” is that it looks like PW is expending significant resources (monetary and otherwise) to keep her and now even her family in that position. Which is just uncool. And reflects pretty badly on him.
So, if I want to think well of the Prince, I must distrust this narrative. Even if the case may be compelling.
By Sojourner on March 26th, 2009 at 2:25 am
The one thing you’re all forgetting is that last year the Palace was preparing for a wedding this summer. William’s abrupt acceptance of the RAF SR role knocked all that for six.
As I’ve said before, William looked marriage in the eye and recoiled from it. He obviously didn’t feel enough incentive to take on the enormous burden of a Royal wedding, the hysteria and the subsequent responsibilities of married life.
Since then Kate has been “hung out to dry”. As a supporter of Prince William, I have to say it wasn’t his finest hour.
I think they have a private arrangement whereby Kate will be a close part of his circle, i.e. parties that go on holiday together plus occasional dates, but marriage remains undefined.
There may come a time when he is under great pressure to marry, as his father was. Better then to have a long standing female friend to “fall back on” than pluck some woefully inexperienced and unprepared “English rose” from the heart of the old aristocracy.
To my mind, that’s the psychology of the current situation, like it or not.
By John on March 26th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Some days when I think about all this, I have to realize that it’s all just speculation. None of us really knows what goes on in the minds of these two people. They could, as John says, be good friends and holding onto each other for comfort and a for a later day. They could also love each other dearly and feel that it’s not our business. I know that as people grow out of childhood they change and these two may have decided that it’s really best to avoid all displays of affection etc. to keep the press out of their lives. Over all, I would say if that’s the case, it’s working fairly well.
If they’re just friends…and they want a marriage down the road, more power to them. I married my best friend and I have never had a regret.
By Julie on March 26th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“The one thing you’re all forgetting is that last year the Palace was preparing for a wedding this summer. William’s abrupt acceptance of the RAF SR role knocked all that for six.”
That’s the key, right there. This explains the relationship with Kate – and, yes, I can certainly see some sort of arrangement evolving.
But how to explain holidays with the Middletons — it seems that under this scenario her family would not be particularly welcoming of him. This is very odd, indeed.
However, until an official announcement to contrary is made, I am firmly in aggreement with John.
By Alicia on March 26th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
If we don’t speculate and only take the facts when considering William’s actions, then can we even know a wedding was being planned?
Is that not just another gossip circulation? I don’t remeber reading any concrete information that the wedding was planning. That changes things in my mind for the middletons. If a wedding was not in the works then fair is fair. The middleton’s are doing what any family would. If however a wedding was planned and broken off then the Middletons seem a little more ‘hanger on’ despite what this does for Kate’s image.
This is not a normal relationship. Outside of feelings there is a lot at stake for the Middleton’s socially. I think that after this long they will hold out for any hope of a gesture that secures the Middleton’s place in British society.
By london4704 on March 26th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
There were lots of signs that dates were being pencilled in, London. Servants do chatter to hacks in bars around the Palaces and they will have known what was going on.
There were also reports that the Palace was “taken completely by surprise” by the RAF decision.
By John on March 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
london4704 –
I don’t see the Middletons as hangers-on. They can be mollified by a few invitations to minor events if their concern is secure to their place in society.
The issue here is that Prince William is actually vacationing with them. He’s spending precious time off with them; not just Kate or Kate and Pippa.
This is very odd. Maybe Kate is a smokescreen for his relationship with Ma and Pa Middleton.
By Alicia on March 26th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Wicked, Alicia.
Actually, it’s only the traditional Middleton Caribbean Christmas break that William occasionally spends with them.
By John on March 26th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I hate to be so stubborn (well, not really
), but I don’t see how a decision by William to join a branch of the military can take the whole family completely by surprise. Surely he consulted Family members, and didn’t just go down to the SAR recruiting office on the corner, introduce himself as Billy Wales, and sign up. This would suggest a singular disregard for his father and his grandmother, not to mention the monarchy itself, and all those Royal wedding planners who had all but picked a date. 
I don’t believe “reports” from “inside sources” (essentially the chatter of servants) because they have so often been proved wrong. Servants are unreliable, as so many turncoats like James Hewitt and Paul Burrell have proved. I continue to believe that the SAR sign-up may even have been encouraged by HM, as that was the early married life she and Philip so enjoyed. But I think William has to get himself acclimated to his job (and his destiny) before he brings a bride into it.
Call me hopeless, but I want proof before I give up on this couple, not “reports” from “inside sources.”
By Dan on March 26th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Dan, you are completely entitled to your “hopelessness”.
By John on March 26th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Thanks, John. I’ll be here, sitting on my warm manure pile, waiting for the good word when it finally comes.
By Dan on March 26th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Hasn’t William started his “traditional”break with the Middleton just before making decision to join RAF? And since then he has spent three vacations with the Middletons in little over six month. For a 26 years old man vacationing with another family is not just the traditional but significant.
By Mikado-watcher on March 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Mikado….I agree…it seems to me that he HAS to have at least one other friend that he could choose to vacation with if relaxing with friends was the goal? Has he had a vacation without her??? In years?
By Julie on March 26th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
He’s had fewer trips with Harry in the last year than Kate. I only remember the South Africa motorcycle adventure, the pre-Christmas shoot (with Kate, too), and Christmas at Sandringham.
By Evelyn on March 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I’m with Dan and Gigi!!!
By Claudia on March 26th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Now the rumor is that Harry and Chelsy are back together. (Of course, I pay no heed to rumor.
)
If you ask me, they are the dithering ones, not W & K. It’s strange, because Chelsy is often held up here as the purpose-driven one, yet on this subject she can’t make up her mind whether she wants in or out. Kate, on the other hand, seems determined to stay in, no matter what.
By Dan on March 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
“Now the rumor is that Harry and Chelsy are back together…”
Really?
Maybe Chelsy was wise to take a stand.
By Alicia on March 26th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Mikado-watcher,
“For a 26 years old man vacationing with another family is not just the traditional but significant”
It certainly is odd.
By Alicia on March 26th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
John, any further thoughts regarding the reports and polls recently published regarding changes to the succession and discussions between the Queen and the PM?
(Currently the headline story on bbc news website)
By Abby on March 27th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Abby, this is another Brown smokescreen. With a likely-to-fail G20 coming up next week, he’s trying to stir up a can of worms to deflect attention.
It would have to be passed by around 17 Parliaments — the countries of which the Queen is Monarch — and would present a constitutional minefield in Britain.
Also, there will be a Tory Government soon — maybe even by June of this year — which will not be at all ideologically “correct”, so, as I’ve said many times before, this will not pass.
It doesn’t help either, that Brown has put in charge a lapsed Anglican vicar who appears in his underpants on sex websites.
Puleeease! This is not serious. It’s an insult.
By John on March 27th, 2009 at 11:44 am
John, the BBC story says that some constitutional experts acknowledge a “moral obligation” to consult other Commonwealth parliaments, but that they do not have veto power. If they didn’t like the reform, all they could do is remove the monarch as their head of state, a decision over which, likewise, the UK would not have veto power. Ultimately, the Commonwealth is a bunch of independent countries which can do as they please, the UK included.
As for the Tories, David Cameron backs the reform, according to the story. Polls suggest it is supported by most of the British public as well.
By Dan on March 27th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The Sun has now copy-catted the Emma Sayle sex club story, calling her Kate Middleton’s “best pal.” It reprints a picture of the two of them rowing last year’s dragon boat.
It is a sign of desperation in the red-top press when a year-old story gets recycled as an “exposé.” Once again, the comments skew in Kate’s favor.
No harm done.
By Dan on March 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Dan, this is not going to happen. The Tories will have more important things to do when they get into power. So also should Gordon Brown.
If you want my view of the whole subject, John Redwood, Member of Parliament for Wokingham, puts it perfectly: Queens, Kings and Churches
By John on March 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Dan, The Sun is a sister paper of The Sunday Times (Murdoch group, which includes the Wall Street Journal). I too think Kate is unhealthily close to Emma Sayle, but that’s a matter of opinion, of course.
By John on March 27th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
John, I believe the Crown and the Church will separate, thereby mooting the “Catholic question,” probably under Charles if not sooner. He’s on record of preferring to defend “faiths” rather than “the faith.” That statement alone undermines his future viability as Supreme Governor.
My question about the Kate-Sayle story is just how close they really are. Have they been seen together since the boat race last year? Even then, were they “best pals,” or merely in the same boat, so to speak? Being acquainted with someone is not the same as being associated with someone. David Cameron and Gordon Brown know each other VERY well, yet one hopes the relationship does not doom either’s chances.
By Dan on March 27th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Are people upset about the face of the Church and Crown or the royal successions? A King or Queen is suppose to represent God and how can a King or Queen represent God if that King or Queen is catholic, the Pope may have something to say about that! I hope they don’t mess with the religious aspect of it.
As for the royal succession, its time for a change.
By American Cousin on March 27th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
America had that failing for many years, too, John, but we finally pulled ourselves out of the bog and rose above that prejudice in 1960, when John F. Kennedy was elected President. I think it would be appropriate and helpful for Great Britain to rise above past restrictions and move forward, but perhaps the time is not right for such enlightenment. As my Grandmother would say, it will all come around right at at time of God’s choosing.
I agree with Dan that just because Kate knows someone does not mean they are friends, close friends, or even that they see each other on a regular basis. Guilt by association has to be carefully gauged on an individual basis and judged with exact knowledge of the facts, data which neither we nor the media have in our possession.
By Gigi on March 27th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Isn’t Great Britain or England a majority Catholic country now? What would happen if a Catholic Cardinal were elected Pope?
By Alicia on March 27th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
American Cousin, Kings and Queens, at least in Europe, are no longer perceived to represent God on Earth. The British monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England (a ceremonial role only) because it was a divorcing British monarch, Henry VIII, who broke off from Rome and established the church. It is a sign of how modest today’s monarch’s role actually is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior spiritual head of the Anglican Church, is appointed by the Prime Minister, not the monarch. Separating the Crown from the Church would be a simple, albeit perhaps controversial, thing indeed. We should also note that the Catholic and Anglican Churches are not as irreconcilable as they once were, and the schism may yet be healed one day. (Not tomorrow, perhaps.
)
Gigi, I noted with a chuckle a reader’s comments at one of the tabloid sites, which said that a Catholic could not be a head of state because Catholics answer to the Pope, and it would make the Pope the de-facto head of state. Some people haven’t read their history!
This would be big news to many Catholic heads of state around the world!
By Dan on March 27th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Dan, the Prime Minister acts for the Queen in the decision. The Queen could disagree and choose her own candidate.
We’re all waiting for a PM we can respect and look up to. One who truly represents this country to its core and not one who promotes the lowest common denominator. That could come sooner than many think.
By John on March 27th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The appointment is made by the Prime Minister “in the Sovereign’s name,” but again, that is a ceremonial distinction. It’s the PM’s choice, and only in a grave situation would the Sovereign intervene. In such a case, I don’t believe the Sovereign could simply choose his/her own candidate. The appointment would still have come from the PM, and the holder of that office would not simply rubber-stamp the Sovereign’s veto. At the very least, consensus between them would have to be reached.
In this and other decisions, one often wishes she would intervene!
By Dan on March 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Dan, do you think if the Queen disagreed, Gordon Brown would insist? He’s too caught up in his own self-interest to risk that.
The British Constitution is all about convention, at least at this level. It doesn’t become legalistic until the PM’s neck is at stake.
By John on March 27th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Do we ever hear of the disagreements between HMs and PMs? Surely there have been some, about which books could be written, if the secrets of these “special relationships” were not locked for eternity in the vaults of Windsor and Frogmore.
Seems to me this Queen’s convention is to appear in public to be seamlessly unified with her PMs. If she didn’t like the PM’s choice for Archbishop, the disagreement would be resolved long before a single public utterance of His Grace’s name.
Do you think she also decides what can and cannot be written into “The Queen’s Speech,” which the PM (or his staff) writes for her to recite at Parliament’s opening?
By Dan on March 27th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
With a Conservative Government it will be quite different for another generation.
Labour will find it hard to recover from this particular disaster.
By John on March 27th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Dan, the most recent sovereigns I can recall whose arguments with their Prime Ministers were known to the public were Queen Victoria, (whose initial dislike of Sir Robert Peel eventually dissipated, and whose dislike and distrust of Gladstone never altered), and the uncrowned King Edward VIII, who during his mercifully short reign, shared a mutual antipathy with Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. There was no ill-feeling between Baldwin and King George VI, nor between the King and Sir Winston Churchill, with whom the King got on so splendidly that their ability to see eye-to-eye was said to have greatly assisted critical decisions for the defense of the UK during the war years. Sir Winston was Queen Elizabeth II’s first Prime Minister, and he thought the world of her, and she of him. There were a number of Prime Ministers after Churchill, none of whom appeared to clash with the Queen, to the best of my recollection. I recall hearing rumors of some slight disaffection between Queen Elizabeth II and the “Iron Lady”, Margaret Thatcher, but the Queen is too well-bred and dedicated to allow her personal feelings to interfere with her professionalism and her duty to the nation and commonwealth. There is, of course, the movie starring Helen Mirren which portrays a less-than-congenial relationship between the Queen and Prime Minister Tony Blair, but I never believe anything I see that is produced by the clowns in Hollywood. Those dreadful people will say and do anything for money and have a nearly non-existent relationship with the truth.
By Gigi on March 27th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
“Those dreadful people will say and do anything for money and have a nearly non-existent relationship with the truth.”
I thought that was the Daily Mail.
By Bear on March 27th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
LOL Bear, you are hilarious!
By Gigi on March 27th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I wonder if possibly Kate feels under pressure from her mother not to break up with him. That would make her situation awkward, given that she works in the family business (and lives at home?) and hasn’t carved out her own niche yet. Leaving PW might mean leaving her home in every sense, and maybe she’s not ready to do that at 26.
They look like a couple who have got stuck together out of apathy. It’s very sad. The press are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their attempt to say something new.
By miki on March 30th, 2009 at 9:52 am