Has the Monarchy become boring?
There is a powerful school of thought that the Monarchy is best when it’s boring.
Prince William and Prince Harry
I would prefer to say, it has a duty to be boring to the extent that boring doesn’t trip over the toes of politicians.
However, I don’t believe that boring should apply equally to members of the Royal Family whose job it is to help the Monarch embody and unify the nation. Boring and invisible are not known unifying forces.
At present the Royal Family is keeping a very low profile. Its future, the two 20-something Princes, are buried deep in the Armed Forces, except for occasional forays into charitable activities, which by necessity, are boring.
If you write about Monarchy and Royalty, as we do here, there are very few Royal stories around.
Kate Middleton has popped into a very black hole, possibly allowing her to fade from public notice with dignity. If she ever pops out permanently on the arm of Prince William, it will be deja vu all over again, as some wit put it. In other words, boring.
Chelsy Davy has reportedly had a few flings during her former boyfriend’s absence on flying duties. Holidays in South Africa without Harry, and a new job in a London law office beckon. Boring doesn’t begin to cover it.
Prince Charles and Camilla stagger from one overseas PR disaster to another, giving the impression of a ragged and disputatious marriage — which it probably isn’t. Well, not all of the time.
Oh, and Princess Beatrice has got a new plait on the top of her head. Hold the back page!
It couldn’t be more boring, could it?
This wholesale retreat from public life is said to be a way of sharing the public’s new-found poverty. Rightly, photos of drunken Princes swaying out of £100-a-shot nightclubs are strictly off-limits now.
The Princes’ new team at St James’s Palace can hardly be expected to come up with new publicity stories while the “boys” are in the military, training for future under-the-radar roles.
Has the Queen fallen into the same trap that caused such consternation when Diana died? Locking the family away in Balmoral, while half the country was heaving with grief, was understandable for an ordinary family, but not for Royalty. Monarchy needs to be visible at low points in the national life. Future popularity depends on it.
The new austerity is a wise choice, given the appalling attrition many families are facing across the country. But a bit of Royal magic would go down a treat now.
Thanks for writing something new, John. Can you think of any examples of “Royal magic” (aside from a Royal wedding) that would fit the austere Royal budget?
By Evelyn on April 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Well, Evelyn, there’s Trooping the Colour in June, but that may be pared down by the MoD. Appearances at the usual summer festivals of sport, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon etcetera, may also be low key, which will be a pity.
The Queen was right to go to Cheltenham in March to watch her horse run. It cheered up the occasion immeasurably. And Zara in a whacky outfit would be welcome too.
So, nightclubs, out; big social occasions, in.
I hope they will be very visible this summer and not mistake absence for duty.
By John on April 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
The Duchess of York seems like an admirable person who has recovered her self respect a great deal but am I the only one who thinks that she and her daughters (the wacky braided Bea) have a deplorably rumpled and sorry fashion sense. Maybe we could spice things up by arguing this angle for awhile.
I apologize sincerely to anyone who feels that the Prince Andrew ladies are truly chic and well dressed since I am not a credentialed judge however my eye knows when it feels offended.
By Claudia on April 9th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Let me be the first to re-weigh in on this one. I already wish I hadn’t brought the subject up because now when I read my above post I think it sounds unkind and mean.
However I still do think that Bea’s braid looks, shall we say unfinished.
By Claudia on April 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
John, they may be invisible over there, but the Queen was on every US TV station last week with Michelle Obama’s arm around her. Of course, that’s old news now.
The new generation does not appear to be working as hard (or appearing anywhere at all, for that matter) as the Queen’s and her children’s generations do, and I wonder if they simply aren’t interested. As I’ve said before, I wouldn’t be surprised if the monarchy was abolished before this young generation passes, not by revolution but by their lack of interest in perpetuating it.
Is there a provision in the constitution whereby the monarch can dissolve the monarchy by decree? Of course there would have to be a vote of some kind, but can the monarch introduce such a measure?
By Dan on April 9th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Another event just around the corner is Easter. I assume the Royals will be at Windsor, as has been the case in recent years. Any guesses as to who will accompany the Queen to church services? If I remember correctly, Peter & Autumn were there last year, before their wedding.
By Evelyn on April 9th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
That is a very well-written article, John, and I agree with you. I confess that I am puzzled (and not a little worried) at this latest “news black-out” of the Royal Family. If anyone knows how essential a part the Royal Family plays in bracing the public when times are trying, it is the Queen. I realize that she dropped the ball when Princess Diana died, but I think she was betrayed by the shock and the suddenness of the tragedy. Also, the Queen is not comfortable when confronted with highly emotional situations, so the reaction of the public proved daunting for her. Trained from infancy to show no emotion, and caught off guard by the scale of public grief and angst, the Queen retreated, unwisely. Nevertheless, this current economy and international crisis is one which can be greatly helped by the Queen and her family showing their faces and supporting the public with those displays of Royal pomp and circumstance which the English do so brilliantly. I am floored at the silence, at the absence of the Royals. The Queen is either being given very bad advice (always a possibility), or she is guilty of bad judgement. I prefer to believe it is the former, since the Queen’s judgement is generally excellent. I suggest that someone nudge Zara Phillips and suggest that she get herself engaged, as swiftly as may be managed, to Mike Tindall. John, are you close enough to nudge Zara? I would entrust the Duke of Marmelade with such a commission but he is up to his ears in oats and barley at present and is further engaged in having his mane braided and his hooves polished.
By Gigi on April 9th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Dan, no, they can abdicate personally, but the Monarchy belongs not to any one individual but to the country.
However, if they had a sympathetic Prime Minister in charge, with republican leanings (Labour, obviously) it might be a different story. I believe, though, they would never get it past the electorate.
By John on April 9th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Gigi, when the Conservatives get back in there will be a new atmosphere around. It won’t be extravagant — the depression isn’t going away soon — but they won’t have to tread on eggshells.
By John on April 9th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Gigi I have to agree with you that when Diana died HM totally dropped the ball. From all I have read about that HM was badly being advised from Fellowes who was told by another member of staff to impale himself on his own flagpost on down all because she was trying to protect her grandsons who just lost there mother. As for the present situation however, HM likes to lead by example and in these bad economic times I think she would rather be seen less in pomp and more day to day engagements. Boring yes but in this terrible recession who really has the money to be anything less? As for this weekend being Easter you can be sure there will be plenty of photos of the royals going to Church lets hope they and all of us pray for better times ahead.
Happy Easter to everyone? Gigi if you are planning a tea save me a lavender colored egg please.
By Trudie on April 9th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Trudie, you’re right. The Queen was out presenting the Maundy Money to pensioners this morning. And a splendid occasion it was.
Happy Easter to you too, and to everyone else who happens upon this site.
By John on April 9th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I would guess that Prince William and Prince Harry will not be training over Easter weekend. I hope they spend the holiday with the Queen.
Or that Prince William spends the time with Kate Middleton’s family.
By Evelyn on April 9th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
John,
I think your post was quite funny. It was also important, and deserving of careful consideration. I have it them a couple of times, and come up with this.
If interesting is the opposite of boring, to be interesting would mean that something or someone has to have an intrinsic quality that is un-common. This distictiveness attracts, puzzles or is otherwise worthy of extended attention. Someone or something can also be “interesting” because they are unusual in the sense of being new/ novel. In general, an element of intrigue and mystery is decidedly part of interest, at least to me.
When we then consider the Royal Family, its ability to remain interesting — understood as intriguing, mysterious — is challenged by several factors:
1. The publics appetite for access to information related to the RF (for if you know everything, there is by definition nothing new)
2. The expectation that the RF show more of a common touch, (which often becomes confused with the RF becoming “more like common folk.”)
3. The lifestyle of members of the RF who apparently desire so called “normal” lives — though obviously only in comparison to other privileged individuals
4. Perhaps more importantly, the difficulty of reconciling the upholding of tradition with the creation of novelty.
I can see why those who are most committed to keeping the RF deeply steeped in tradition would feel that making the RF less accessible to the common, prying eye might help increase/return its intrigue and mystery. I am afraid that option might face resistance given that for well over a decade the RF opted for a rather different option, trying to keep itself interesting by introducing new faces, and new lifestyle possibilities.
Of course, the real simple solution would be to bridge the transition from openness to greater circumspection by having a nice royal wedding that sets a standard for circumspection while re-engaging the public curiosity and potentially maintaining it.
I confess to having a one track mind…
By Sojourner on April 9th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I meant to say I have read it a couple of times, and came up with … that horribly long post.
By Sojourner on April 9th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Sojourner, the tension between those two poles is what creates the fizz for the Monarchy right now. Just as you can’t put the cork back in a champagne bottle, so the Royal Family is stuck with its half-in, half-out role.
The answer is to make the best of it, as I’m sure the Queen would agree. At present that requires a little more than drawing back behind palace walls.
The problem is that the two stars, William and Harry, have both opted for a minimal public role for years ahead, and that’s a real problem. By now they should be producing more little Royal faces for us all to write about.
The Monarchy needs its two sturdy sons out there paving the way to its future. Mortality will ensure that will arrive sooner than many suppose. They can’t all be centenarians.
By John on April 10th, 2009 at 8:52 am
John,
If HM does not agree with the current retreat/return to circumspection, isn’t there something she can do about it? Because if not, what good is it to be queen after all?
By Sojourner on April 10th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
John while I agree the monarchy needs it’s two sturdy sons out there paving the way. I can’t help but think recently it is back to the same sick games by the CH offices promote the heir while leaking misfortunes about the spare, especially with the problems Sentable is having which I might add has a better chance now that changes have been made in banks and CH advisors who would IMO love to see Harry fail.
On a side note as I stated earlier HM would rather be doing her normal engagements such as Maundy services and Easter which we all know symbolizes hope then dealing with Pomp and ceremony during these trying times. This is why HM commands the respect she receives.
By Trudie on April 10th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
That was troubling, Trudie, when Clarence House seemed to be promoting Charles and Camilla while they were the source of negative stories about Prince William and Prince Harry. I have yet to figure out who instigated that PR fiasco, let alone what the motivation might have been and who sought to benefit from it. I must feel that there were only losers in the aftermath of that fandango. I choose to believe at this writing that there is good and sufficient reason for the Royal Family behaving as they are, i.e., retreating from public view, and that the Queen in her wisdom has a worthy rationale and plan which will soon be revealed. As for the inevitability of mortality, God in His infinite mercy granted a very long life to the Queen Mother, doubtless because He knew that the UK needed her inspiration, her sterling worth and her shining example. Let us all pray that God will grant her most excellent daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, continued health and strength for many years to come, for the same reasons. It would also be a blessing if He allowed Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, to remain among us, active and strong, as the Duke seems to be the only one who can manage the mischief created by some members of the Royal Family who constantly scheme to promote their own agendas over that which benefits Crown and country. In my view, the future of the monarchy, and by extension, the UK, is dependent upon the extension of the Queen’s life, health and strong resolve.
By Gigi on April 10th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Gigi they are not just promoting C&C but William too at the expense of Harry. Read the papers online and you can see it. William doing an engagement here and there, C&C doing engagements making a big deal that Cammy is doing something but Harry lets see the big news attending a party with Natalie Pinkham as a friend, wearing nail polish on his left hand possibly an army prank and the biggest deal was being out and supposedly set up with a friend of Kate Middletons on a date. But what was somewhat hidden was his training and him doing a solo flight why? I think because he takes his duty seriously and soloed before William who was as usual on a holiday skiing.
Not to be mean but both Pinces should be given proper credit for their military work and charity work instead of dutiful older prince and playboy younger Prince. Like it or not they both are the future of the monarchy and until William has an heir there is always the possibly that Harry could in deed become a King.
By Trudie on April 11th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Wrong, Trudie, I’m afraid.
William “soloed” last year. Remember his Wings ceremony?
Because of that he’s had a lot of time to spare while other trainees catch up with him.
Harry failed his written exam, so has had to be tutored by a senior officer to sit it again. He’s not being given the same publicity because the news isn’t all that good.
By John on April 11th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Sorry John I forgot about William soloing but still Harry I feel is being hung out to dry. Harry has done a lot of good but you hardly hear about it. Harry has alot of PP in him he may make a gaffe but His colleagues all say good things about him. Take Ben McBean for instance he and Harry have become friends. At an engagement Harry was at to rehabilitate soldiers Ben was there and had to get to the top of a wall or rope. Harry yelled to Ben it he made it to the top he would buy him a beer. Ben made it and the next day Harry had a case of beer delivered to Ben. Harry relates better to ordinary people. His encouragement to Ben who was severely wounded and on that same plane that brought them both home shows the Harry that doesn’t forget his fellow soldiers who came home severely changed and challenged.
By Trudie on April 11th, 2009 at 11:08 am
While I completely understand the impulse to root for the underdog, Harry would not be “hung out to dry” it he weren’t wet in the first place. Yes, the focus on his charity is perhaps unfair. Such enterprises are complex and in today’s economic climate all charities are suffering.
However, the bra wearing (while drunk, again), the fingernail coloring (which then he tried to hide), and other even more unfortunate “gaffes” (of which I have already expressed my opinion) are all his own doing. Choices, choices.
By Sojourner on April 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I simply cannot perceive our own handsome, winsome Prince Harry as an underdog. Prince Harry is a very charming young man who is blessed with his dear Mother’s quality of being able to relate in a kind and sincere manner with people from all walks of life. In this quality, he also reminds me strongly of the beloved Queen Mother, who never met a stranger and was gracious and welcoming to all she encountered. While it may not signify to the myopic mavens of the media, these very qualities have saved the Royal ship from sinking long ‘ere this and will do so again, I shall swear. Working in tandem, as they will when Prince William becomes King, our two golden princes will “cover all the bases” as we say here. Prince William will be the restrained, responsible, dutiful monarch, who, like Queen Elizabeth II, mindful of constitutional requirements, holds personal opinions within. Prince Harry will offer strong support to his Royal brother, mingle with the people, charming and disarming one and all, and will provide the valuable assurance that the monarchy is mindful of the lives and needs of the people. All is going to come around right and these two handsome, gifted and engaging princes will be a blessing to the Kingdom and a great credit to their Royal lineage. I am as certain of this as I am certain that day follows night while God is in His Heaven!
By Gigi on April 11th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
So What Sojourner William partied in a feathered boa and went to a party dressed as a Bond girl in a bikini. And lets not forget him partying in a toga when he turned 21. The difference is most of what William does gets covered up and Harry gets all the bad press. Such as the unfortunate Nazi costume Harry wore with Williams encouragement as they got their costumes together. Now wouldn’t you think William being older and supposedly brainier would have known the significance of that costume and encouraged Harry to wear something else?. As you said choices, choices and both Princes have as part of youth have made some memorable and unfortunate choices.
By Trudie on April 11th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
The Mail on Sunday is reporting that Lord Freddie Windsor and Sophie Winkleman will marry on Sept 12 at the Chapel at Hampton Court Palace. It’s said that they’re trying to keep costs down– a “credit-crunch wedding.” They want a big party, but not a hugely expensive one. Her parents will be paying.
Hopefully they won’t be selling the story to Hello! to help foot the bill….
By Evelyn on April 12th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Ofcourse her parents will pay the Michaels of Kent have done nothing but cry poverty for years. But then the Princess has always been ingenious about getting freebies throughout the 80s they were known as the Rent a Kents.
By Trudie on April 12th, 2009 at 2:01 am
A most joyous and blessed Easter to all our dear Royal Anecdote clan! In celebration of this wondrous day, I invite all of you to partake of our Royal Anecdotes Gala Easter Day Tea. Dear Trudie, if you will be kind enough to pour, I will pass the scones and tea sandwiches. Although it is the Sabbath, we have stronger libations on the sideboard, which I hope our own Dan will be good enough to serve for us. Hot cross buns, traditonal for Maundy Thursday, are being included in our tea menu today, along with tea cakes in the shape of Easter bunnies and Easter baskets. We have marzipan, shortbread and a double chocolate cake in the shape of an Easter egg. To favor our own John, we also have Balmoral Dundee cake, and to favor the Easter Bunny, we have carrot cake.
Please come to the tea table, dear friends, our Royal Anecdotes Gala Easter Tea is served.
By Gigi on April 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Gigi, you have timed it to perfection as 4 o ‘clock is the traditional time for afternoon tea here in England. It’s now 4.56, a sufficient gap to put an edge on our appetites.
I’m calculating that it’s probably morning coffee time in Texas and early lunch for the east coast.
Don’t these time difference play havoc with one’s digestion?
By John on April 12th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
The Telegraph has an article about the Queen and her family attending Easter services at Windsor Castle:
http://tinyurl.com/ckapt5
None of the members of the younger generation showed. They show a picture of the Princess Royal wearing her Easter bonnet, and I must say it reminds me of The Sound of Music!
By NCKat on April 12th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I must also comment that the hat reminded me of the episode of “Keeping Up Appearances” in which Hyacinth Bucket (“Bouquet”) wears a hat with plums on it, and the plums get nibbled on by a dog. Naughty of me, I know….
By NCKat on April 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
NCKat, Princess Anne’s headgear reminds me of a beekeeper. I’m sure Hyacinth would approve.
By John on April 12th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Thank you, John, I am glad that the timing of Easter Day Tea is convenient for our dear RAers in the UK. Happily, Americans have trained themselves to enjoy food at any and all times of the day (and night), so a loaded tea table would present no problem to our US Royal Anecdotes contingency.
I have just finished doing the dishes after Easter dinner here at home and I hope all of you have enjoyed a luscious repast with your nearest and dearest to celebrate Easter Day!
By Gigi on April 13th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Slightly… OK largely off topic. My children love hot cross buns. I tried making making some yesterday, but even though I am usually successful in the kitchen, this time I failed miserably. I shall blame the recipe.
Any recipe suggestions from tea drinkers or servers?
By Sojourner on April 13th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
gigi -so sorry i missed your easter tea – am sure it was delicious as usual. was on a hike in beautiful san francisco
hope all had a wonderful easter!
By coni on April 13th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Sojourner, my Great Grandmother never wrote down any of her recipes (to the wails and lamentations of every female in my family), so my hot cross bun recipe is right out of the “Joy of Cooking” cookbook. I noticed that the recipe that was in the Telegraph yesterday, with the photograph, is identical. Are you sure that your yeast was fresh, and therefore active? Nine times out of ten when there is a baking failure in a recipe that calls for yeast, old yeast is the cause. Try again with fresh yeast and I shall wager the results will be excellent.
By Gigi on April 13th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
If you type Kate Middleton into Google News, you get a story about how she is worried about the health prospects of bearing children past the age of 30. I can’t gauge the story’s reliability, although it’s certainly a common enough concern that it could be ascribed to almost anyone (by almost anyone
). Were Kate to become the future Queen she would be assured the finest health care the world can offer, so she probably has little to worry about, unless such complications run in her family.
HM was 33 when she bore Prince Andrew and 37 when she bore Prince Edward. (Some may be inclined to use them as examples of precisely the problem to be avoided at all costs
, but any problems they may suffer (or make the world to suffer) cannot reasonably be ascribed to the age of their mother when they were born.)
By Dan on April 13th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
i saw that as well dan – think when there is no real news out there the media has to come up with something to say to keep the interest going….
was a bit surprised that none of the queen’s grandchildren – with the exception of edward and sophie’s children were at the easter gathering – even charles and camilla were absent…
By coni on April 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Hmm. Daily Star? Says it all.
By John on April 13th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Evidently Charles and Camilla spend Easter in Scotland, a curious custom of which I was unaware until I read it in the British news yesterday. I, too, was disappointed that all the children and grandchildren of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh did not gather for Easter. There are only two major religious holidays in the calendar year, after all. One would think they could manage to be present for both of them.
As underwhelmed as I was by the hat the Princess Royal chose to wear to Easter services, I was even more disapproving that Crown Princess Letizia chose to wear form-fitting white slacks to Easter Mass in Spain. Queen Sophia is clad regally and properly in a red church dress, Crown Prince Felipe in a dress suit and their two little daughters in blue print Easter dresses–and their mother wore slacks to Easter Mass?! Pass me the smelling salts, please.
By Gigi on April 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Gigi, standards for Sunday dress have gone down even here in the Southern US – we have a lot of people who normally wear jeans on Sunday but I didn’t see any at the Easter service. I was shocked to see two little boys wearing shorts and t-shirts and flip-flops playing in front of a church on the way to mine. I wonder if their parents were dressed in their Easter best or if they,too, were dressed-down.
By NCKat on April 13th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Here in Texas we often see inappropriately casual dress at church, also, but I certainly was surprised to see the Crown Princess of Spain inappropriately dressed at Easter Mass in Spain when the rest of the Royal Family, with whom she was pictured, was appropriately dressed. Like you, NCKat, I did not see any blue jeans or flipflops (thank heavens) at Easter services this year. I realize that Crown Princess Letizia was not born Royal, but surely she can learn what is expected of her as Crown Princess by observing Queen Sophia and others in the Royal Court. If she must wear slacks to mass, it is not too much to ask her to wear a dress or a skirted suit twice a year, to Christmas and Easter masses, in my opinion.
By Gigi on April 14th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Perhaps the Queen’s grandchildren are trying to set a precedent that they will spend Christmas with the Royal family, and Easter with their in-laws. Of course, we don’t know where most of them were. Peter may have been in Hong Kong. Eugenie was in Thailand, if I remember correctly. I suppose none of them went to Easter worship, or the media would be reporting on where they were spotted.
By Evelyn on April 14th, 2009 at 2:12 am
It could be that PW was laying low – according to the DM, he grounded a jet after flicking the wrong switch and ‘overcooking’ the engine during his pilot training.
By NCKat on April 14th, 2009 at 2:16 am
The Telegraph mentioned that Prince William’s mistake has also happened to other “better” pilots.
I also see that Zara is at an equestrian event in France. The Queen certainly will understand that.
By Evelyn on April 14th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Gigi,
In Spain, the princesses royal (las infantas, in any case) often do wear slacks. Letizia is known for doing so. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think this was necessarily a departure for her.
I guess it is not strictly protocol, but I would rather see slacks than royal knees and thighs — bare or stockinged — at church.
By sojourner on April 14th, 2009 at 2:29 am
We are in 2009, surely pants are not inappropriate. As Sojourner points out, what may be inappropriate is the exposure of thighs, belly buttons and so on…
This is much like the debate on what colours Mrs Obama wore to meet the Queen. Not important, in my humble opinion.
By Cristina on April 14th, 2009 at 4:06 am
If I may weigh in on this weighty topic:
I don’t think it’s the idea of slacks at Easter that is the problem here; it’s the style. They look like skinny jeans –albeit in white — and together with the platform stilettos she is wearing she looks like a WAG on her way to the clubs. Definitely a disconnect with the occasion.
Following on her round of plastic surgery last August, I reckon this 36-year-old is not fond of looking her age. Unfortunately, when you try too hard to look young, you draw more attention to your age, not less.
By Dan on April 14th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Good point, Dan, well said. On another matter entirely, I was quite relieved that Prince William was not injured during the mishap with the plane he was piloting. Regarding another member of the Royal Family, I am very happy that we may confidently look forward to the September wedding of Lord Frederick Windsor, the son of Prince Michael of Kent! Lately when there are news stories about Zara Phillips, there is no mention of Mike Tindall, so I assume that their engagement is not looming on the horizon. I wish the younger members of the Royal Family would refrain from taking so many chances with their well-being. Piloting aircraft and jumping horses in competition are perilous endeavors. My central nervous system, which has never recovered from Prince Harry serving in a forward area, is fluttering once more.
By Gigi on April 14th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I am confused. When I read the piece in the Star, I ended up with the impression this plane incident happened LAST
year. Why is this “news” now when it is literally quite old?
Or maybe I misunderstood the story… I have been working late
By sojourner on April 14th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
And not to argue Letizia to death but…
I thought she looked lovely. Maybe I am missing something, but while the jacket was burnished gold (no chintz, or glitter or or the like), the outfit was almost demure, with no T or A in sight. WAGish? I think not!
It turns out I have some Spanish in me after all
By sojourner on April 14th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Since much of William’s military career happens behind closed doors, details from past and present trickle out and are tarted up as news.
Since this incident is indeed old news just coming to light, I’m surprised the press isn’t crying cover-up: “Prince William pressed the wrong button in a plane! Nothing happened! Military and Clarence House in a conspiracy of silence!”
By Dan on April 14th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
LOL Dan, you are hilarious!
By Gigi on April 14th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Dan, I thought Letizia only had surgery done to her nose due to breathing difficulties?
By Cristina on April 15th, 2009 at 2:21 am
That sounds right, Christina. Crown Princess Letizia is too drop-dead gorgeous to need cosmetic surgery.
By Gigi on April 15th, 2009 at 4:12 am
As I keep saying, Sojourner, beware of the Star.
By presenting this story as current, they turn it into a real gaffe. But William had not gone solo then so was a real novice. Did they never hit the wrong pedal when they were learning to drive?
By John on April 15th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Letizia had her nose, chin, and eyes done.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
By Dan on April 15th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I only read about the nose op to correct the good old “deviated septum” that so plagues the not-quite-beautiful-enough-yet set. Maybe Dan has befriended her surgeon
If anyone is WAGish, is dear old Eugenie. She looks beautiful in the latest pictures to hit the press, though in other ways said images are, umm, unfortunate
By sojourner on April 15th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Whatever alchemy the surgeon worked on Crown Princess Letizia, she looks terrific!
By Gigi on April 16th, 2009 at 1:25 am
I agree with Sojourner about Eugenie. Couldn’t she do something worthwhile during her gap year rather than vacation constantly? I think she should be working to deserve her taxpayer-financed security detail. Perhaps if she wasn’t always frolicking half-naked in the seedier sides of town, she wouldn’t need police protection.
The entire York family needs a good repurposing.
By Dan on April 16th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
To more important matters than Eugenie’s semi-clad frolics:
On Saturday, Prince Philip replaces George III’s Queen Charlotte as the longest serving Consort to a British Monarch.
More tomorrow.
By John on April 16th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Saturday might be the perfect time for Her Majesty to bestow the title Prince Consort on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
By Arthur on April 16th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Arthur, what a delight to read a comment posted by you! It seems as if it has been a long time since you posted. I agree with you regarding Prince Philip. It is curious that the title Prince Consort has not been bestowed upon him long ‘ere this. The Queen clearly values his advice and support and has made no secret of her gratitude for his assistance during her reign. If the Queen does choose to bestow this well-deserved honor upon the Duke of Edinburgh, I shall host a Royal Anecdotes Gala Tea to honor him. John, please be prepared to offer the toast, if the event one is needed.
By Gigi on April 16th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Thank you, Gigi. I have not posted for a while; however, I’ve been monitoring Royal Anecedotes from afar. It’s good to be back!
By Arthur on April 16th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Happy St George’s Day everyone.
By John on April 23rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm