William and Kate: an everlasting loop
So Prince William and Kate Middleton attended a polo match over the weekend and *gasp* he put his arm on her shoulder in a gesture of affection (pictured).
This is a couple who have been in and out of “going out” for so long, you almost have to be of the Queen Mother’s generation to remember when it all began.
Nowadays, they are spotted together two or three times a year, usually at polo or shooting parties. Their public appearances go round in circles without ever getting anywhere. It’s a bit like watching one of those everlasting film loops on the 24-hour news channels.
What is the real story behind this sporadic romance that would never make the pages of Mills and Boon? Sometimes I think even they don’t really know where it will end. They act like a couple whose early romance has spluttered out, but are so comfortable with each other, they can’t bring themselves to end it completely.
When the Prince finished his military training last year, it was generally assumed he would settle down and help out the family firm, especially his elderly grandmother. Visions of a glittering Royal wedding became the norm in the media and beyond.
Then, William surprised everyone, including Kate and his minders, by signing up for a long stint as a helicopter pilot in the RAF. Incredibly, his brother, Prince Harry, also sank his future in a similar role with the Army. We now have the second and third-in-line to the Throne training to fly helicopters in hazardous circumstances for years to come.
While I can understand Harry wanting to see action, it doesn’t make sense for his elder brother also to seek harm’s way. The Armed Forces can’t be that short of helicopter pilots that a whole generation of Royal heirs have to be drafted in.
While the Queen is sensibly rationing her daily workload, and the Prince of Wales — now the oldest occupier of that title in history — is not the sprightly youth he once was, it is inexplicable that the Monarchy’s future, the younger Princes, should absent themselves when the Queen needs them most.
This loop will run and run. I suspect most of us are bored stiff with it already.
William should take care that the public don’t forget about him entirely, hardly recognizing the man when he finally ascends to the Throne, a stranger to his people.
William will get his way, no matter what, I think. I suspect he really doesn’t care at this point if he’s remembered or now and he certainly doesn’t seem to feel any great sense of urgency to produce the “heir and a spare.” I wonder if his parents’ marriage in the glare of publicity has anything to do with it. I know that most people get on with life after a horrible tragedy and muddle through but then again most of them don’t do it in the continuous glare of the media.
By NCKat on May 13th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Gah – that should be “remembered or not.”
By NCKat on May 13th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I agree, NCKat, there’s definitely a psychological element in William’s actions. He seems to be shying away from any Royal commitment. Only time will tell if he’s right.
By John on May 13th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
John – I suspected that an article might be why you were silent on this subject
Does anyone else feel that John is more concerned with the much more important things going on in Britan right now?? And who can blame him?
I certainly agree that this goes on and on!
By Julie on May 13th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
John, if they aren’t seen together you are claiming the relationship is over and they have been friends for years. But now we have more evidence they are still a couple you think their romance is sputtering?
Your comment of “They act like a couple whose early romance has spluttered out, but are so comfortable with each other, they can’t bring themselves to end it completely.” Has to be one of the least well thoughtout ideas you’ve written. How do they act like a couple whos romance has ended? By not being photograph and therefore upsetting the media that they can’t get that perfect picture or by not commenting on their relationship, just to appease the same paps who are quick to praise them one day and destroy them the next?
Every post regarding Wills and Kate is turning more and more anti each time with little regard to any actual information besides “sources.”
When they do get engaged I hope we get a mea culpa, but expect to get “he was bored and felt the need to settle down.”
I enjoy this site, but the posts on Will and Kate give the feel of some sort of agenda here against them.
By American Cousin on May 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Julie, what’s going on in Britain right now is as history-making as your recent Presidential election. Coupled with the economic slump, it’s a life-changing situation for us all.
It’s nice to get back to simple Royal issues, although I do wish there was something more exciting to write about.
By John on May 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
It’s called an honest assessment, given what we have, AC. Wishful thinking is not an option for me. I’ve always hoped they would get hitched eventually. I just don’t see they are on that trajectory right now.
Even Richard Kay believes Kate is a distraction from other parts of William’s life.
If you don’t have any hard evidence of this progressing, it’s difficult to see where you’re coming from, apart from hoping for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Panglossian!
By John on May 13th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I’m on the fence about all this. On the one hand, the Royal Family has a duty to serve the people, and yet they — some members more than others — often seem to hold the public interest in contempt, as if being Royal is a royal pain and they would prefer to be rid of the responsibility.
On the other hand, they must be allowed their private lives, just like the rest of us. Yes, William has a duty to marry and produce an heir, but it must also be a relationship he can be certain of and committed to. No one wants to go back to the days of loveless arranged Royal marriages (and all the infidelities that go with them
) Therefore he must be prudent, careful, deliberative, etc. He more than most Royal princes knows the heartbreak and tragedy that can come from making the wrong decision about marriage.
One can argue William’s postponement of his Royal life both ways. (Yes, he should gain military experience; no, he should be a “working Royal”; yes, he should marry and have children; no, there are already enough Royals, young and old, to work the lines.)
One thing is certain, the lack of Pomp & Circumstance amidst this economic gloom has us all in a bit of a snit!
By Dan on May 13th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
The Associated Press has a story up about Prince Harry’s upcoming trip to NYC. To clear up the confusion (which may already have cleared
) this will be his first visit to the US since his mother died.
Here’s a link to the story. I’m not sure if you have to register with the NY Times to open it.
http://tinyurl.com/pjqn2h
By Dan on May 13th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
A crowded and interesting schedule, Dan. I’m sure Harry will charm everyone in sight and enjoy himself hugely. Let’s hope they don’t take him to a nightclub.
By John on May 13th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Fie, John!
Prince Harry should at least be allowed to hoist a few at a few NYC bars while he is here. That is only fair. I am sure that no matter what happens, he will be a huge success. As for Prince William and Kate, I fondly believe and totally trust that we shall see them walk down the aisle, in the fullness of time. Until then, both Royal Princes seem to be doing their best to stay out of their Father’s limelight, perhaps by design. As for the Queen, if it was her desire that her two grandsons should spend more time supporting her, I am certain it would happen. Prince William may be stubborn, but I doubt that he would refuse a command from his Royal Grandmother. Let us hope, at least, that Charles is the only Royal with the gall to declare that his agenda is “non-negotiable.”
By Gigi on May 13th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
i agree Gigi – if Harry and especially William’s miltary training/careers were an issue the queen would certainly step it and settle the matter…as for william and kate…only time will tell…
By coni on May 13th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Like I said John…with good reason…I agree that it’s important and I understand why you might be focused on something a BIT more exciting than some more, will he, won’t he…
But I must say, it’s great to have some positive news/photos to view!
By Julie on May 14th, 2009 at 1:03 am
All I can say is that the one or two of the pictures at the polo match were truly beautiful. If this couple ends up marrying, the one of them walking to the car, shoulders touching (very reminiscent to me of the one taken last year, at PW graduation) will become a classic.
PW is working hard at improving his image; and the string of casual appearances he has recently made is clear evidence. If things are indeed over with Kate, and yet he still seeks her out in very public venues, he would be muddying the waters all over again. I can only assume that he knows this well and that by now he knows what he is doing.
If he doesn’t, well someone needs to give him a big clue-a-rooni, and pronto.
By sojourner on May 14th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Not saying, of course, that I think I know for sure what’s going on between K and W, but I’m not too far removed for their ages that I can’t remember romances that sputtered out and then the guy and girl kept in touch as friends. (Been there myself.) Frankly, one of the first things that crossed my mind when I show these photos is that this was possibly the first time in a while that they had hung out with each other and were happy to be together for a while, and having had distance from each other may be able to feel some of what they felt when they were more romantically involved. William, I thought, seemed more relaxed around the press this time because he knows that their taking photos isn’t interrupting anything serious and there won’t be a lot of opportunities in the future for them to take snaps of the two, in any case.
As I mentioned, I’ve been in the same situation myself–I’ve gotten together for a party of picnic with someone I’ve been once romantically invovled with but no longer. It would feel good to be together for a while with that person, but I would know there was nothing left than a casual friendship. But on the other hand, there would be people at the gathering that would be convinced we were about to get married because we both looked happy and relaxed.
By Ameilia on May 14th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Exactly, Ameilia.
By John on May 14th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Yes, fond casual friends they may be, with the pressure off . . .
By Ameilia on May 14th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
They where also photographed together in March when they went on their skiing trip to Klosters. It hasn’t been that long since they had last seen each other if we where to assume they hadn’t seen each other at all since then. I wonder if we are all to jaded and just think worse case scenario.
By TeaTea/ Madelaine on May 14th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I think the whole Royal Family is laying low to avoid looking like Marie Antoinette in a time of financial upheaval. The money-for-manure scandal rampaging through the British Parliament right now has only made matters worse. Buckingham Palace and Clarence House hasten to tell us how almost every Royal activity is being paid for, Harry’s upcoming NY trip included (HM is footing the bill.)
They’re all trying to look “Responsible” rather than Royal—just look at the way Charles proclaims to be bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders—and I wouldn’t be surprised if the moritorium on Royal Spectacle continued throughout HM’s remaining reign. The next large-scale Royal event we see may very well be a State Funeral, the demand for which would come from the impoverished public, not the Court. No one will complain then if no expense is spared.
After that, and an appropriate period of mourning, the public will rally for a major event to cheer them up, and the announcement of a Royal Wedding will come.
I hate to cast a literal pall over our discussions, but I still believe the idea for William’s SAR career came from HM herself, to give him Royal training, substantive gravitas, and something responsible to do for an extended period of time while the RF works to boost public affection.
I hope I’m wrong and simply over-thinking the matter.
We’ll see!
By Dan on May 14th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
hmmm… I agree John… what a boring non-event! Perhaps they have both been labotamized and are simply walking puppets incapable of doing anything requiring much character or spontinatity while together… Kate seems to be a dulling agent to William. Amidst all this excitement it would seem Kate is simply waiting for her mail order walker…wait and age… wait and age
By london4704 on May 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Let’s remember how young they both still are. Many of us will not live long enough to see them enter their fifties. Indeed some of us will not live to see William take the throne even, let alone witness their Royal Walkers arrive in the mail.
By Dan on May 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I am 28…
By london4704 on May 14th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Married with children by now, I hope!
I ought to be around long enough to see William crowned, which I imagine to be 25 years off, barring extreme circumstances (theirs and mine
). I guess that’s why I don’t see any rush for him to marry. Charles and his siblings are still the main players in the RF (besides HM and the Duke, of course), and there’s no urgent need right now for more heirs and spares. Of course, if Kate is to be the mother of William’s children, she can’t wait until she’s fifty, but she can wait until she’s thirty. Perhaps by then a Royal Wedding will not seem so discordant with the times.
Mind you, I don’t agree that Britain or the world would complain if they had a wedding now, but I sense the Family is not behind it.
By Dan on May 14th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Prince William strongly resists being pushed, a fact which leads me to believe that it does not matter to him who is behind or not behind the wedding. I feel strongly that he will follow his own course, observe his own time schedule on this, and everything else. I do not believe that Prince William can be “managed,” not by Charles, and most assuredly not by the palace courtiers. As for life’s greatest adventure, I had my precious children at age 31 and age 33, with no difficulties whatsoever. My darling Mother was 40 when I was born, reportedly with no setbacks. Kate, who seems to be a remarkably healthy and resilient young lady, can afford to wait for marriage and to have her children, a situation which I view with a mixture of relief and gratitude. Despite what John has stated and what others surmize, I still cling to the belief that I shall yet have the joy of gathering roses to fill the rose bowl for the Royal Anecdotes Gala Royal Engagment Tea for Prince William and his lovely Kate! In my tendency to cling persistently to my point, I resemble nothing so much as an Army mule, and a British mule at that!
The Duke of Marmelade is attempting to overlook this unfortunate blemish in my character. Someone please pass him the carrots. 
By Gigi on May 14th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I am with Dan on the SAR.
.
As I have said often here, what good is it to be Queen if you can herd your cats every once in a while? Surely she would have a lot to say about this decision.
Which is also why I think that even if the Queen is far from dictating any RF relationship choices, such decisions cannot occur with complete autonomy. William might be independent minded, but by definition, a heir to the throne cannot be totally “his own man” (despite what Roger Daltry might think
)
http://tinyurl.com/qwj5ty
They owe themselves at least in part to an institution which is part of a nation (or several, depending on your views…)
By sojourner on May 15th, 2009 at 2:11 am
oooops,
“what good is it to be Queen if you CAN’T herd your cats” is what I meant.
Sovereign of the keyboard I am not. Yoda and out.
By sojourner on May 15th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Well one thing I am certain of, she will wait! Well into her thirties and beyond… So why should he want to marry now when he knows this? I expect he is more relaxed, happy and comfortable around her in the knowledge of the power he has over her (and her family I assume).
He has his own Camilla, only better, this one will not have a life of her own and is not going anywhere to marry.
For this relationship not to end in marriage (eventually) PW would have to meet someone else who would be willing to take on KM in her determination and his complacency… History repeating I fear.
I’ll go one better than John, their relationship is even past boring!
I am sorry I am being such a sour grape. I have just watched a report on “Tent Cities” in the US and am very upset.
By Cristina on May 15th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Did anyone else notice that PW is looking down, not at the camera? Is this the best shot the press could get? Was he looking down at the ground the entire time? Not a good sign, in my opinion.
By miki on May 15th, 2009 at 8:20 am
There are lots of photos at Rex which show the same day, same event, with Prince William and Kate together and both are smiling and happy. I have no idea why the publication chose to use the snap that they did, but it is not indicative of anything except that the Prince apparently looked down at some point.
By Gigi on May 15th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Gigi, you go girl!!
Not to mention the photos of the two of them getting into his car and driving off together when she could have left with her sister who was also there!!
Then there are the reports (whatever they are worth) that she spent the night with him!!
As are many of you I am weary of all of the endless speculation and will be most happy when the obvious actually becomes obvious!! Either an engagement or shots of PW with another.
Gigi and everyone, for better photo viewing check whu.teamhighgrove.com, you may have to set up a password but it’ll be well worth your time, you could be looking for days!!!
By Claudia on May 15th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Thanks, Claudia, I did, indeed, access, as you suggested, the whu.teamhighgrove.com site and registered for free in a user-friendly process that was simple and quick. The pictures are terrific and there appear to be an endless quantity of them! Wonderful!
By Gigi on May 15th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Great!!
Not to sound bossy, but you can click on the first picture in a category to enlarge and begin a slide show!!
By Claudia on May 15th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Kate, as always, is hanging in, not letting go. I’m sure she turns a blind eye to his other romantic activities, hoping that when the time comes, he will marry her.
The only way a breakup will occur is if it is initiated by him; that will only happen when he meets another girl and the relationhsip is intense enough that he’ll banish Kate, probably at the girl’s request.
Poor thing — she young, beautiful, well-educated and could do a lot with her life. But, because she met him when she was very young and he probably made promises to her, and he’s the future King of England — she’ll hang in because nothing else compares to the possibility of being Queen.
Any one not think that – given his behavior – he would have been sent packing a long time ago –except for the fact that he is heir to the throne.
By Alicia on May 16th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Photo alert: The Daily Mail has some lovely photos of the Wessex family at Royal Windsor Horse Show, including good photos of Lady Louise and James, Viscount Severn.
By Evelyn on May 17th, 2009 at 3:27 am
Alicia,
Re: PW “would have been sent packing a long time ago –except for the fact that he is heir to the throne.”
If only! Whatever you might think about KM, the fact is she is no different than many other people who in the name of romantic love accept what to others appear unacceptable circumstances. If anything, what is disappointing is how banal the relationship seems to have become.
But, I keep reminding myself that, as they say somewhere in the world… only those stirring the soup know what’s in it
Here’s to hoping KM and PW know exactly what they are doing.
By sojourner on May 17th, 2009 at 3:47 am
Alicia, I think you may have a point in this case. Normally one would expect at least the family to be exasperated by such a situation but in this case, they appear to support it (with recent holidays together). Yes, I think it possible that W being heir may have a good deal to do with it.
By Cristina on May 17th, 2009 at 6:58 am
[Theory of the Week]
I sometimes wonder if William regards Kate as a sort of mother figure, someone who is always there for him. Remember, he did lose his mother young.
If that’s the case, he may find it difficult to marry her, and may not even see it that way.
By John on May 17th, 2009 at 11:54 am
If PW sees KM as a mother figure, one wonders why she puts up with it. If memory serves me right, the same was said of Camilla.
On a related note, the Telegraph is reporting that the book launch for KM’s unauthorized biography was called off – wonder if her attorneys prevailed? She has been trying to stop its publication, it seems.
By NCKat on May 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Maybe Kate doesn’t want to go back to the “Queen-in-waiting” role which a biography would push.
By John on May 17th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
John — I have always thought that — remember many men marry mother figures.
That could also explain his propensity for “hanging out with the Middletons”
I also suspect he is closer than is usual to Pa Middleton. The whole Pa Middleton doesn’t go into the family legal business to become a pilot, seems to be mirrored in Will.
As for Kate — she’s hanging in until the bitter (or joyous) end.
By Alicia on May 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Oh a facetious note — given how the Middleton son, James, is not interested in the military or flying — “Will Middleton” might be filling in some unrealized family expectations.
By Alicia on May 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I see nothing sinister or negative about Prince William having a close relationship with Kate’s family. In fact, I see this as a positive factor. A marriage is the blending of two people, and hopefully, the families will become one unit. While this is far more difficult when one marries into the Royal Family, I see Prince William interacting warmly with the Middleton family and I believe that this is very good for all concerned. What is wanted is more warmth, not less. If Kate and Prince William can construct a strong, loving, extended family unit for themselves, it bodes very well for the future.
By Gigi on May 17th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I agree with you, Gigi. Given the twists and turns that may happen with Prince William’s relationship with his own father, having a father-in-law from whom William can receive support might be helpful. And I’d certainly rather have William asking for advice on marital relationships from Kate’s father (who has a long and stable marriage) than from Charles.
By Evelyn on May 17th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
John, is it she (KM) or is it he (PW) who would stand to benefit most from the cancellation of the book launch? As I understand it, the book is not controversial, so she would not be harmed and I can’t think of a reason why she would object to being seen as the “Queen in waiting” as she IS holding on for it. The way I see it, he stands to gain if he wishes to delay the marriage matter. I expect he doesn’t want any more attention to be drawn to the possibility that he is stringing her out.
By Cristina on May 17th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I can sort of see PW’s logic in not marrying her. Kate will always be there no matter what so why bother elevating her position? I don’t see marriage happening with these two. They will have been together for years as nothing more than boyfriend and girlfriend when he finishes up his military career. Not to mention Kate will be almost 30 by that time. The royal family will probably want a fresher face to present to the public as their future Queen.
By Lizzy on May 18th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Age 30 is still young to be married. This couple has plenty of time. I believe they are conducting their relationship very sensibly and maturely. I admire William and Kate for their reserve and their tenacity. When they were out partying every weekend, people were screaming bloody murder at both of them. Now they have disappeared from public view, William with his duties, Kate working with her family and out of London, and their splitsville or William is selfish for not marrying her.
I was one who believed they would be engaged by now. I was wrong. Big deal. I still believe that they are very much a loving couple and will marry over the next several years. I am very content to wait. I am firmly in the camp that the longer they remain together, unofficially, the better. They need to be able to enjoy their youth without the crushing expectations and obligations of duty, marriage, and heirs every single day for the next 70 years. If they don’t marry well into their 30s, that’s fine with me.
I do believe they absolutely will marry. They aren’t even 30 years old yet. There is plenty of time for them to marry and begin a family. Where is it written that he must marry her now? So what they’ve dated for 6 years. My sense is that Kate is also resisting because she doesn’t want the pressure to start a family yet. I wouldn’t either if I had her figure.
Kate and William should be free to enjoy their lives now, while they are young, without rocks being thrown at their decision to take their time and be sensible. I really wish people would cut this couple some slack.
By Positive on May 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Having a relationship with your sweetheart’s family is to be encouraged! How else can parents advise or support a marriage aged child? Once your son or daughter marrys, that person is now in your family and assuming you want to have your child around…seems like a no brainer to me!
Mother figure? Hm, mother of his children, more likely. Seems to me he is trying to keep their relationship private and protect her from the media. Just because that’s not exciting to us, well, that’s our issue. jmho
By Julie on May 18th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I have a feeling that Prince William and Kate have a definite time table for their relationship and forthcoming (as is supposed) engagement and marriage. At present it appears that they and only they are privy to this time table, but, be that as it may, I feel sure that they know exactly what they are doing and have definite plans. Therefore, the only way we who wish to be in the know may achieve our ends is to employ a mindreader to divine the intentions of the Prince and Kate. Does anyone know any reliable mindreaders? Egad! That sounds even more intrusive than the paparazzi! That won’t do at all. Forget I mentioned it.
By Gigi on May 18th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Forget what????
By Julie on May 18th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
LOL! Cute, Julie!
It’s appalling that no one has a working crystal ball anymore. They are very useful, or so I am told. 
By Gigi on May 18th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I’m enjoying everyone’s comments!!
For those who like to see photos I have another site to delight. This one is Getty Images. Look under editorial and type PW or KM etc. The great thing about this site is that you can make the pictures larger and then do the slide show. Not as stingy as Rex but not as up to the minute as Teamhighgrove.
Enjoy!!
By Claudia on May 18th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
On a tangent, the Queen is getting drawn into the constitutional crisis over … er … the cash-for-breathing affair. She may have to pressure the Prime Minister into calling a General Election. I’ll do a piece on this soon.
How lucky you Americans are that you don’t have constitutional crises.
By John on May 18th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
John, do you think she would ever exercise her one remaining power, to step in and dissolve parliament?
By Dan on May 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I don’t blame the Queen for being “deeply troubled” (veiled language for ‘shocked and appalled’) at the recently revealed irresponsible expenditures of some of the Members of Parliament. (I hate to use the abbreviation MPs because here that means “Military Police.”) Taxes are high in Great Britain and it is dreadful that tax money is being squandered on gardens and houses for those fortunate few who govern.
By Gigi on May 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
We may not have to endure a constitutional crisis , however, we now have to endure never ending presidential campaigns!!
The American blogging press is full of Republican horse race positioning bloviating ALREADY!!!
By Claudia on May 18th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Bloviating? O’Reiley fan? ha!
One could argue that there are constitutional crises here as well with some of the decisions made by ALL!!!! Although admittedly not to the degree that you are facing in Britian. It’s very scary! But we could be next.
By Julie on May 18th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I don’t think campaigns ever end anymore. That’s why no one compromises and nothing ever gets done. Members of Congress are already talking about filibustering President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, and he hasn’t even nominated anyone yet! But members of both parties know that if they don’t oppose, oppose, oppose, the other party, then the political machines will destroy them in the next election. It doesn’t matter that the next election is almost 2 years away.
It is hard to believe that Justice Antonin Scalia, the most conservative member of the US Supreme Court, nominated in 1982 by Ronald Reagan, was confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 98-0 (two members were absent). It was unanimous!
That could never happen in today’s political climate. People used to be able to disagree without being disagreeable (to use an Obama applause line.) That’s when parties worked together and accomplished things. Now it’s nothing but grandstanding, bluster, and slash-and-burn politics. (With an unhealthy dose of corruption thrown in.)
Oops, forgive my rant! (Note that it is a bipartisan rant.
) But at times like these, it’s great to have a Queen to look up to.
By Dan on May 18th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Dan, never underestimate the Queen’s will to do her duty. If it comes to it, I believe she will dissolve Parliament. She already has Britain’s next Prime Minister (David Cameron) on board.
By John on May 18th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Clarification: Scalia was nominated in 1986, not 1982. In the 98-0 vote, both absent senators, Barry Goldwater and Jake Garn, were Republicans. All 47 Democrats voted to confirm Scalia, clearly based on his ability, not his ideology.
Like I said, that would be impossible now.
By Dan on May 18th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Does it have to be a formal declaration from the Queen herself? In other words, must it have her fingerprints on it, or might Gordon Brown do it in his own name and spare her the implication?
When (if ever) has a monarch done this before?
By Dan on May 18th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I can absolutely see Queen Elizabeth II dissolving Parliament, if she feels convinced that such action is in the best interest of the Realm. Behind the Queen’s lovely appearance and her cultured, kind and gracious demeanor there is a steely determination to perform her duties to the highest standard. She inherited those qualities from both of her wonderful parents. Should she falter (as she does not like unpleasant confrontations nor controversial stances), I have no doubt that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh will support her, as he has always done. However, it is my belief that she will not falter. She wears the Crown, which she received when she took the Coronation Oath. That oath is sacred to her, thank God.
By Gigi on May 18th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
From my cursory search, I see George V dissolved Parliament in 1922….
I gather it happens whenever an election is due, but rarely in response to a scandal. I’m sure HM would consider this action a last resort, but I’ve no doubt she would do it for the good of the country.
By Dan on May 18th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
HELLO Magazine has a lovely photo of the Queen, in an attractive green coat, presenting Charles with a coveted medal for gardening! There are also lovely photographs of the Chelsea Flower Show.
By Gigi on May 19th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Julie, I am the farthest thing from being an O’Reiley fan, banish the thought. In fact I’ve never seen a full show of his, only snipets. He must have borrowed the ‘bloviate’ term from somewhere in cyberspace.
My deepest apologies for inadvertently initiating American political talk on my favorite BRITISH royal site after I made such a fuss about it in the past!
By Claudia on May 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
That’s okay, Claudia, we’ll forgive you this once.
By John on May 19th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
There’s a story floating around that Princess Eugenie wants to study History of Art at Williams College in Massachusetts (not Connecticut, as the Sun erroneously reports.)
I’m very familiar with that program and can answer any questions she may have!
It would be interesting to see what might become of her protection detail (the main subject of the Sun story.) Students at Williams are not allowed to live in apartments off campus, and dorm rooms aren’t big enough to accommodate bodyguards.
Given Andrew’s insistence that his daughters require round-the-clock security, that may be the dealbreaker for her American education.
And Williamstown, MA contains not one single nightclub!
By Dan on May 19th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I am not certain that Williams College is the best choice for Princess Eugenie of York, but I feel certain that should she decide to matriculate there, the College and community will move Heaven and earth to accommodate her. As for the absence of nightclubs, at Williams, where the academic requirements are very strong, Princess Eugenie will have precious little time to devote to anything but a tenacious concentration on her studies.
By Gigi on May 19th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Having experienced high-profile students at a number of places (I was at a certain Ivy League school at the same time Olga of Greece was there, for example) I can tell you that those communities are not easily intimidated — certainly not by Royalty, which has its fair share of detractors — and they would not “move Heaven and earth” to accommodate a Princess. Far from it. Indeed, she would be the one expected to prove her mettle, and that she didn’t get accepted to the top-ranked liberal arts college in the US because of her Family ties. As I said, the sacrifice of VIP status and perks may be the dealbreaker.
Williamstown is also home to many celebrities already: they have a theater festival that draws big names from Broadway and Hollywood every summer. Many big names have houses there. They conduct themselves like regular folks, just as Eugenie would be expected to do.
Frankly, if she’s as publicity-shy as the rest of the RF, she may find the anonymity and the low-key routine refreshing. Williamstown is a VERY small town in a valley in the middle of nowhere, an hour’s drive from the small city of Albany, NY (It’s the state’s capital, but by no means a metropolis!) It probably does have a couple nightclubs, but no, she would not have a lot of time to spend in them.
A member of my family will be a junior (third-year student) there this Fall and she has been selected to be a Junior Advisor to incoming Freshmen. She would be happy to show Eugenie the ropes.
By Dan on May 19th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Clarification (if anyone cares
):
When I say I rubbed signet rings with Olga of Greece back in the day (actually I never met her, but I heard about her), I don’t mean Queen Olga (1851-1926) or Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark (1903-1997). I mean a subsequent Olga of Greece (equally bereft of a surname), the daughter born in 1971 of Prince Michael, one of Queen Olga’s grandsons. My Olga married some Italian Prince in Russia a few months ago.
So much for my name-dropping!
By Dan on May 19th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
When you have to explain who they are, they aren’t much of a celebrity, Dan. Princess Eugenie of York has a international profile as the granddaughter of the reigning Queen of England. I still say that if she needs accommodations for full-time security officers, she will be able to have those amenities at Williams. When Harvard and Yale started accepting Hollywood actors and actresses with dubious academic credentials as students, it was clear that the gates of Academia’s hallowed halls were open for anyone with a name and a big bank account.
By Gigi on May 19th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Clarification (honestly, does anyone care?)
My Olga married the Duke of Aosta, disputed heir apparent to the House of Savoy (and her second cousin) NOT a few months ago but in September 2008. She gave birth to their first son, Umberto, on March 7th.
Do you think I might have a thing about Royal Families? And clarifications?
By Dan on May 19th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
You’re too cynical, Gigi! And you haven’t spent much time lately on New England college campuses.
And I can assure you one thing, most people, certainly in the US, have no idea (or even care) who Eugenie of York is. William and Harry, maybe, but not the rest.
It’s not as if she’s Britney Spears!
By Dan on May 19th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I believe Princess Eugenie’s life in the US as a student will be a lot quieter and peaceful than Chelsy Davy’s life in the UK.
By Mikado-watcher on May 19th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
True enough, if only because the paparazzi would not be allowed to stake out on Williams’s campus, and the campus is pretty much the whole town. Main Street cuts the campus in two.
Plus, the press would be bored to death. The only bar in town burned down a couple years ago and hasn’t been rebuilt yet.
By Dan on May 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Dan, you are definitely in the upper echelons. Your connections with Princess Olga are impressive, if tenuous. But it’s better to have connections than not.
Eugenie seems to be the wild one of Andrew and Fergie’s brood. Par for the course, I suppose, for the younger daughter. In the present mood of the country, she could find herself without a protection squad should she wash up at William’s campus.
By John on May 19th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I wonder if that’s why such a move is being considered. If they have to cut the security, then it’s a good idea to stash her away out of sight. The campus is extremely remote, tight-knit, and already quite secure. She’d be safer there than in some off-campus flat in a city (i.e., Chelsy Davy’s situation), where a security detail might be better justified.
But from what I’ve seen of her social life, she may find it a bit…. boring. There ain’t nothing to do there but study.
By Dan on May 19th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
As someone who grew up near Williamstown, I think it would be a huge deal at first for having a royal attend, but once the hoopla dies down, she’ll be nothing more then another college kid.
Plus the lack of nightlife won’t be the same, no huge bars or clubs! But the Amherst vs Williams football game is always a bunch of fun…she may want to brush up on American football
By American Cousin on May 19th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I would think that if American Royalty such as JFKs children where able to attend Radcliffe and Brown without much ado, so would someone whose celebrity status is not fully known or acknowledged in the US. Of course, it was their desire to blend in. If Eugenie wants to stand out and be recognized, I am sure she will catch some attention.
By sojourner on May 19th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Whether or not the college would decide to accommodate security would be another matter altogether. Maybe some lucky protection officer gets to pursue a degree in fine arts as par to the deal…
By sojourner on May 19th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Maybe the security detail could rent a house in Williamstown and work the actual security in shifts. It will be interesting to see how it all works out, if, indeed, the Princess decides to go to Williams.
By Gigi on May 20th, 2009 at 1:17 am
And btw…
has anyone heard anything new about the status of the Robin Nunn book? For all I know, these changes in pub. dates happen all the time… I am just curious.
By sojourner on May 20th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Aaahh Dan, what would we do without you on this site?
Perish the thought; you put a smile on my face.
By Cristina on May 20th, 2009 at 3:36 am
monstersandcritics.com claims that Prince William is telling friends that he and Kate will announce their engagement in 2010, and marry in July at St Paul’s. Usually they just re-hash articles found in other publications, but I haven’t read that bit elsewhere. But… I hope it’s true!
By Evelyn on May 20th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Evelyn it also claims that the couple were photographed holding hands… Where is that photo?
By Cristina on May 20th, 2009 at 5:54 am
The Morung Express claims that: ‘Britain’s Kate Middleton is set to lose her royal police protection. The girlfriend of Prince William has enjoyed tight security – costing more than £25,000 a year…’
By Cristina on May 20th, 2009 at 6:01 am
The word I get from the Williams campus is that they’ve heard the same story about Princess Eugenie, but of course, no one knows the details.
The more I think about it, the stranger it sounds. She could go anywhere. Why a tiny mountain town in western Massachusetts?
True, the art history program at Williams is legendary — producing not merely myself
but a slew of the country’s top museum directors, like MoMA and the National Gallery in Washington — but if I was a Prince and could go anywhere I would want to be closer to some of the world’s top art. Williams is 3 hours from Boston and 5 from NYC. It has the Clark Art Institute, known for its cache of Renoirs, but that’s about it. The museum at Williams has an indifferent collection and is known mainly for its exhibitions of borrowed contemporary art.
She would get a top-notch American education — and she would be very secluded! — but otherwise it’s an odd fit.
Perhaps she has a friend who plans to go there as well? (and I don’t mean a bodyguard!)
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Cristina, I don’t wish to belittle the Morung Express, but why would it have access to information that papers on the spot don’t? Perhaps they should change the name to the Moribund Express.
Sounds like they’re confusing Kate with Princess Eugenie.
Also, the monstersandcritics.com punt on a 2010 wedding follows many others trying their luck. If it comes off, they gloat about it, if it doesn’t, no-one will remember they said it.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Incidentally, the Queen story is fast moving, so it’s tough choosing the right moment to write about it. The Chief Whip has Twittered (yes, Twittered) that the election will be called a few weeks after the new Speaker is installed on June 22.
What a way to run the country. The Queen should be told first, not millions on Twitter.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Monaco’s Prince Albert graduated from Amherst in Massachusetts. Not sure of his major–economics, maybe? He, too, of course, could have gone to many other schools, except perhaps one in the states gave him opportunity to explore his American roots.
Various members of Greek and Spanish royal families have attended Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
By Ameilia on May 20th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Coverage of the scandal is increasing in the American media. Who can resist a story about a government-subsidized private moat cleaning? Not to mention taxpayer reimbursment for hiring someone to change your bathroom lightbulbs.
The Queen, having spent years keeping her publicly disclosed expenses down and still seeing them ridiculed in the press, must be fuming, on the one hand, yet enjoying a degree of vindication on the other. A bit of Royal schadenfreude, if only for a private moment!
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Dan, regarding the art masterpieces and their accessibility, I think that it is safe to say that Princess Eugenie has been raised with excellent access to some of the world’s finest art. Thanks largely to Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, who made major purchases and completed important collections during his lifetime, Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and other Royal residences have magnificent art–rooms filled with paintings, engravings, sculpture of tremendous worth an artistic importance. No doubt it is the academic reputation of Williams College that attracts the Princess, and, as you say, the isolation of it as well. The climate will be not much different from Britain’s, and the ocean is not so far away. My English penpal, with whom I have been corresponding since elementary school days, has told me that the British languish if they are forced to live too far from the sea air. It is a romantic idea, but one which seems quite logical to me. Dan, as soon as your spies in Williamstown confirm that Princess Eugenie is on campus, please let us know! This will be news indeed!
By Gigi on May 20th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Gigi, yes, the old goat will be given a peerage for services to Gordon Brown, nothing else. It’s another scandal but we’ve just got to sit this out until the Scotia Nostra is thrown out.
And, it’s true about the British and the sea. I live by a river which is 6 miles from the sea. Looking out of my office window I can see swallows and seagulls. Not a bad combination, I think.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Williams may be in Massachusetts, but there’s no sea in sight! It’s in a valley in the Berkshire Mountains. (Yes, that’s Berkshire. Might she have been confused about the location of this little college?
)
The Green and Housic Rivers are more like streams, and that’s it for water. That is, until all the snow melts!
As for the other story, I am under the impression that this is an “equal opportunity” scandal casting a pall over MPs of all parties. The man who had his moat cleaned, whom the press has dubbed “the unhappy icon of this scandal”, was Douglas Hogg, a former Conservative cabinet minister.
The Conservatives will certainly win the next election, but it will be a vastly different lot, I expect.
I have not heard of David Cameron’s expenses being questioned. John, are they still being painfully trickled out?
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Williams footnote: the deadline for accepting Williams’ offer of admission was May 1. Hence, I suppose, the Duchess of York’s alleged visit on April 22, which may have been a final dealmaker or breaker. Whatever Eugenie’s decision, it is a done deal, awaiting only confirmation from the Palace or the press. The college will not officially disclose that information.
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Dan, I’ve heard that he only claimed mortgage interest on his second home, which he is entitled to do because his constituency in Oxfordshire is a long way from London. He intends to give the taxpayer any profit if he ever sells his second home.
I don’t think there’s very much to complain about there.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
There’s also the Tory MP who billed the taxpayer for trimming the hedge around his helipad, but I suppose some would deem that a justifiable “second home” expense as well. Abuse is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
We’ll see what the people think. Hogg apparently still has the backing of his local association, although a poll suggests that 70% of Tories nationally would like to boot him out.
The sensible David Cameron has suggested that a decision will be made which of his party present a liability and ought not to stand at the next election. He’s no fool.
Mind you, I’m not trying to “tit for tat.” My point is that none of the three parties look particularly noble right now. Being less of a bum than the other guy is hardly great praise, and perhaps time has come for a clean slate.
On both sides of the Atlantic!
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Dan, Douglas Hogg is standing down from Parliament, as is Anthony Steen.
The Conservatives who have gone over the top are very few compared to the vast mass of Labour ministers and MPs who have indulged in property speculation at taxpayers expense and claimed for anything in sight.
The system was created by Gordon Brown and his puppet, Michael Martin.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
…and Oxfordshire is a mere 60 miles from London.
I guess “long way” is in the eye of the commuter.
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
You obviously have never commuted to central London from rural Oxfordshire, Dan. It’s a nightmare.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I still think David Cameron is wise not to rationalize the excesses (however few) of his own party. As soon as you grow complacent in castigating your opponents while tolerating similar in your own ranks, it’s a slippery slope.
But is now the right time for an election? Shouldn’t there be time for things to calm down a bit?
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Cameron has been the most assiduous party leader in dealing with excesses on his side. Two very senior MPs have gone this afternoon.
In terms of the election, we need it now. Gordon Brown and his mafia are at the heart of all that is wrong with Britain, from the economy to the constitution. We need a new Government, and only David Cameron can be trusted with it.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Now word comes that Nick Griffin, of the British National Party, will attend a garden party at Buckingham Palace.
John, what’s your take?
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I don’t believe it.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
According to the Mail, he’s not been invited himself, but will attend as a guest of Richard Barnbrook, who’s been invited along with the rest of the London Assembly.
Will he get past the gate?
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Dan, I didn’t say that Williams College was within sight of the sea, I said the sea is not so far away, which it isn’t, in Massachusetts. Of course, it is all relative. The Gulf of Mexico is four hours away from us, but it’s an easy car trip, so it is near. South Padre Island is much further, but we think nothing of going there by car, so it is also near, rather than far. The only friend of ours who is a Williams College graduate went sailing every weekend in good weather throughout his four years there. It has never been satisfactorily explained how he had time to sail so frequently and excell academically, which he did. Perhaps an investigation is in order!
By the way, John, my sister and her husband were in London recently and stayed at Claridges, which they enjoyed very much. When they returned to the US (they went on an extended trip to India, Dubai and a few other locations), they sent me a tea kit from Claridges, with their signature tea. Lovely! They are in the Galapagos Islands now and I shall wait and see what they bring me from there. I hope whatever it is, it doesn’t slither, crawl, bite, hiss or sting! HA!
By Gigi on May 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Definitely not. The other fellow’s invitation will be recinded.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Pardon me, but who’s Richard Barnbrook?
By NCKat on May 20th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
How dare Richard Barnbrook invite a person to whom the Queen has not extended an invitation?! What a breach of protocol and an utter wanting of manners! That is tantamount to showing up at someone’s wedding with a person in tow who is a total stranger to the hosts and has not been invited! John , I hate to sound rude or stuffy, but it appears to me that a few people who have not been properly brought up have infiltrated the government in the UK.
By Gigi on May 20th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Gigi, there is a lake in nearby Pittsfield, MA, that provides decent sailing. It’s beaches cannot compare to those in Thailand, but it’s located near the Berkshire Mall, which will be Eugenie’s only shopping opportunity!
The prospects only improve!
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Gigi, I think the Queen’s invitations are made to an individual and a guest of their choosing.
But that may change now!
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Richard Barnbrook is a rather nice-looking British politico who represents the BNP in the London Assembly, NCKat. The only other thing I know about him is that he wants manners, if, indeed, he invited Mr. Griffin, or anyone else, to the Garden Party at Buckingham Palace, without the Queen’s permission. I simply cannot imagine anyone doing that. At the White House, no one can get in without an appointment, an invitation, and idnetifying credentials, which are scrupulously checked at the gate by the Secret Service. I know this for a fact because I was a guest at the White House during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. I am sure things are much more secure now, in these post-9/11 times.
By Gigi on May 20th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Egad! Yet another typo! I meant to type “identifying” but I suddenly found I had a cat in my lap.
That is my excuse, anyway, and I am sticking to it!
By Gigi on May 20th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Gigi, voting for these new assemblies that Labour has foisted on us is by proportional representation, which means individual candidates don’t necessarily have to have many votes, or actually win. The BNP has got in that way, but this member is pushing his luck.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
In terms of the BNP, I would count myself a British nationalist, as would most Tories. But the BNP is a Nazi party with ghastly views on many things.
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
He most certainly is, John, and it is too bad to behave in such a mannerless way. There is no excuse, none whatever, for such rudeness. Mr. Barnbrook needs to recollect the moral of a little sage lesson our grandmothers taught us, which warns about minding the company we keep. What Mr. Barnbrook has done by this action is to reduce himself to the level of Mr. Griffin, which can hardly be what he wishes. The whole matter is absurd.
By Gigi on May 20th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I think it’s his ideology, not his manners, that bears minding. Adolph Hitler had impeccable manners.
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
No, he did not, Dan. Hitler threw well-documented temper tantrums, screaming, shrieking displays of unreasoning wrath, in public, in private, at social events and in business settings. That, behavior, to my mind, does not constitute manners, let alone impeccable ones.
By Gigi on May 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I stand corrected, but my point remains.
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
dan are you from the Berkshires? I grew up there, absolutely love it and do miss the fall foliage. Boston can’t compete with the beauty of the Berkshire Hills.
When was the last time an election was held in the UK?
By American Cousin on May 20th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I am not from the Berkshires, but have spent a fair amount of time there.
Tony Blair and his Labour Party were re-elected in 2005. When Blair stepped down as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown took his place. Therefore, Labour has not yet stood in an election with GB as their leader.
I gather a British nationwide election must take place every five years, which is why it has to happen before summer 2010. A sitting Prime Minister typically calls for an election at a time that s/he knows a win is certain. Most likely Gordon Brown will not see that kind of opportunity in the next year.
Labour could oust him in favor of someone with brighter election prospects, but to my knowledge, Jesus Christ is not available to lead a New New Labour.
Susan Boyle, perhaps?
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Gigi, here’s a quote from the London Times:
“A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said that he could not confirm individual invitations. He said: “A number of organisations and bodies receive an allocation of tickets for the garden parties so it is a matter for those organisations who they invite.”
Neither the Queen nor Buckingham Palace vets the guests of Garden Party invitees, so the mere act of inviting a guest without HM’s permission is not a breach of protocol. Indeed, it is the proper protocol, at least up to now.
It is a blatant act of impertinence to purposely select a guest who would never be invited on his or her own merit. This “bull in a china shop” will test the protocols going forward.
It will be interesting to watch how this matter is dispatched.
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
It is always a breach of protocol to invite someone to the Palace a person whom the Queen would not choose to invite herself. When those tickets are allocated to organizations, those organizations know that they are responsible for the probity and reputation of the persons they include as part of their party at the event. I hope that someone gets reprimanded for this, and that Griffin is not admitted, no matter who invited him. This is in simply dreadful taste.
By Gigi on May 20th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I would be surprised if he got past the gate. The British National Party advocates, among other atrocities, the return of “corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals.”
I wonder what they consider a petty crime. A little public flogging, anyone?
By Dan on May 20th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
The Palace is now saying that the invitations to the Garden Party have not yet gone out. These BNP members will not get through the gates.
Oh, and Boris Johnson, Mayor of London is weighing in behind the Palace.
It won’t happen!
By John on May 20th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Wasn’t Mr Barnbrook formerly a prominent Tory? Or do I have him confused with someone else? I only say this because he could have his own connections to the Queen that might withstand a change in party affiliation, and thus be the root cause of this confusion.
By sojourner on May 20th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I have clarified my own questions by reading the Daily Mail’s piece. I guess I had Mr. Barnbrook confused with Mr. Griffith’s (the unwanted guest) father.
http://tinyurl.com/polend
By sojourner on May 20th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
DM has an article about Prince Charles as “king of wardrobe recycling” . It is kindly written as well as comments.
By Mikado-watcher on May 22nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I think the press has gone from a cheerful disliking of the Prince to a reluctant liking. That often happens with people who prove to be ahead of their times. They used to mock him for “talking” to plants, only to have his philosophies of organic gardening and locally grown and raised food become the 21st century’s most popular trends.
Even his penchant for “old-fashioned” architectural styles has won grudging respect as the worst of modern architecture (the “projects” that blight most cities) is finally accepted as being brutally unlivable and damaging to the social fabric.
And it doesn’t hurt that he’s always impeccably turned out. Classic British tailoring never goes out of style. Or rather, always comes back in style.
His ultimate victory after more than a decade of rehabilitating his reputation and regard will be to crown his Queen when the fateful day arrives. I predict that there will be none of this “Princess Consort” equivocation.
Charles has always had a way of “calling it what it is,” even when no one else saw it that way. Relinquishing the “Princess of Wales” title was a rare surrender to the clamor of the crowd, one that he won’t repeat.
By Dan on May 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Dan, Prince Charles is commonly regarded as an amiable eccentric who tends to be right about a lot of things, but overdoes it on occasions.
Incidentally, Boris Johnson, Mayor of London is threatening to have Richard Barnbrook’s invitation the Palace garden party rescinded, as we said.
By John on May 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
While I agree that no BNP flack should be invited past the gates of the Palace, there is PR danger in a disinvitation. It connotes a bit of fear. Ostracizing the opposition allows them to maintain their status as outsiders, untainted by the Parliamentary status quo. It may be better to show that the Palace has no fear and will stare down even the worst in British politics.
Better to disarm your opponents than embolden them. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
By Dan on May 22nd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
It’s not the Palace, Dan, it’s the Mayoralty that will alter the block invitation for the Assembly.
By John on May 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I see also in the Mail the comment of a Palace spokesman who says that “no official invitations had been sent out yet and that the list of submitted names was still subject to approval.” This contradicts my previous statement that, once invitations went out, BH didn’t vet them.
Does this mean that what the Assembly has received is not invitations to a garden party, but in fact invitations to add one’s name to a list, which is then scoured by the Palace?
This makes more sense. The Palace certainly should have some say over who gets to come as a “guest” of an invitee.
But I imagine Boris will step in and prevent the Palace from having to do the disinviting.
By Dan on May 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
It is regretful that this invitation, which is not yet an official invitation, was leaked to the media and has become such a contentious, unseemly issue. I am glad that the Mayor of London has the good sense and the prerogative to rescind the invitation to Griffin, and while he is in rescind mode, I do hope that he rescinds the invitation to Richard Barnbrook, as well, as John has indicated.
Here in America, we are beginning the Memorial Day Holiday weekend, when we honor and remember all those who have died in the service of America in wars. Patriotic organizations will place American flags on the graves of the honored war dead and families will place flowers there. Everyone will be decked in red, white and blue and many picnics, parades, barbecues and family gatherings will take place. My family tradition is to have marinated, grilled flank steak, potato salad, corn on the cob, chilled melon and old-fashioned devil’s food layer cake. And so we shall! Happy Memorial Day to all our American RAers!
By Gigi on May 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Back at cha, Gigi!
By Julie on May 22nd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Happy memorial day to as well Gigi and to all our America RA’ers. I’ll be at the crack of dawn tomorow placing those flags on the graves at my local military cemetery….so many forget what this holiday is really about
By coni on May 22nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Well done, dear coni! I am so very delighted that you are doing that! I was terribly touched one year, when my family and I were back in my husband’s and my hometown of Pittsburgh, PA, tending the graves of my dear parents’, to see uniformed Boy Scouts moving slowly and reverently among the tombstones of the cemetery, placing American flags, and then kneeling to say a prayer at each stone, my Father’s among them. I was in control emotionally until we passed an obviously new gravesite, where we saw two uniformed Marines visiting the grave of either a fallen comrade or a friend/family member. One Marine was kneeling, the other stooped with his arms embracing the gravestone, both weeping. It was a very touching moment and I was grateful that I had a box of kleenex in the car to use to dry my own tears. “Great God of Hosts, be with us yet/Lest we forget, lest we forget.”
By Gigi on May 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 am
According to the Telegraph, even the senior management at the BBC is convinced that a Royal engagement will be announced soon and will be ready to go when it is announced: http://tinyurl.com/qawpgn
By NCKat on May 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
NCKat, now that really is intriguing, although it might still be just covering a possibility. The BBC does have shiploads of money to spend.
However, it must be regarded as green shoots in this affair. Maybe, just maybe an end is in sight.
But how often have we said that?
By John on May 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Well, at the very least, it looks like the BBC is responding to public interest in this couple, hopefully based on some actual data (wouldn’t want any public funded organization spending money without good reason). However, I almost feel that the news would have been more meaningful if it had been about a documentary/story on PW himself, and that Clarence House was collaborating.
By sojourner on May 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I say the above only because while Clarence House will probably not be commenting on KM until after the announcement, a documentary on PW might be interpreted as a build up on his public persona.
I don’t know, it just a hunch.
By sojourner on May 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Well, thank you NCKat!! This is news indeed!! After all, the BBC is not Woolworth’s. Their sources are generally reliable, and if, in this economy, (and with the media losing market share so dramatically), they are investing in a program about the courtship of Prince William and Kate, I must believe that someone very close to the couple has tipped the BBC that an engagement is definitely going to occur. Lovely!!
By Gigi on May 24th, 2009 at 3:48 am
A cautious note on my part – I only see this as an indication that something *may* be in the wind, not an absolute. I have the highest regard for the BBC news service (if not their radio programming a la the Jonathan Ross/Russell fiasco) so I can see CH giving them a heads-up. But the BBC isn’t infalible and as Sojourner says, it’s possible they’re exploiting the high level of interest in PW/KM to up their ratings.
By NCKat on May 24th, 2009 at 4:05 am
I understand your caution, NCKat, but the fact that they are investing the funds to do a feature on this makes me believe that they are pretty certain about it. Money is really tight in the media networks right now and no one can afford to make a feature that becomes unmarketable because of iffy leads. That is my hope, anyway.
By Gigi on May 24th, 2009 at 4:23 am
Oh I know – if there is an annoucement soon, I’ll dancing in the street!
By NCKat on May 24th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Now the Sun has a similar story — almost identical, really — but it adds a quote, supposedly from a Clarence House source — “Its too early to put champagne on ice.” Cryptic, and more than a little wrong, since nothing in this relationship is early anymore
!
By sojourner on May 24th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
That may be PW speaking.
By NCKat on May 25th, 2009 at 12:14 am
That is a very interesting comment by Clarence House which confirms, rather than denies the story! One puts champagne on ice the very day of the reception, so all that comment implies is that the wedding is not today!
We shall drink champagne toasts to the happy couple yet, I shall swear!!!
By Gigi on May 25th, 2009 at 12:16 am
And the prize goes to NCKat, for best one-liner
By sojourner on May 25th, 2009 at 1:38 am
Here, here…
What is the prize? I know, entry to the event itself?
Now, don’t hold your breath waiting for it NCKat, we need you.
By Cristina on May 25th, 2009 at 5:46 am
And for all those conspiracy consumers out there (yes, even you there in the closet
), a midday snack:
Richard Kay’s column accusing PH of promoting certain brand was pulled from the Mail’s site…
Of course, it could just be a technical glitch.
By sojourner on May 25th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I meant to say “brands.” Sadly, I don’t remember which. As of minutes ago, all you could see was the headline.
By sojourner on May 25th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Hm … I find it interesting that I’ve seen mention of the BBC plans for an on-the-spot special airing if there should be a certain announcement in virtually every online news avenue except here in the US and the Daily Mail as well as The Times.
It’s become sort of like that old game of “Gossip” – the original item in The Telegraph has morphed into a “BBC reveals knowledge of engagement” in the Indian press. No wonder PW would be feeling the pressure! I imagine there’ll be a repeat of the famous “You had better marry the girl…” line that Prince Phillip said to Prince Charles when the media frenzy broke out over Diana. I’d bet anything it’ll be Phillip who says it again, too.
By NCKat on May 25th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
sojourner – you mean this one?
http://tinyurl.com/poly9k
By NCKat on May 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
OK I have read the column and it looks as if he was given the shirt by his cousin Zara Phillips who gets money from promotions – it seems to me that BP needs to have a talk with both of them, not just Harry.
By NCKat on May 25th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Actually, if you look at the picture of the fleece Harry is wearing, it’s got the Sentebale logotype on top.
Clearly, these companies are sponsoring Harry’s charity in Lesotho. I don’t think that breaches any serious rule. It might if the companies were dodgy, but they are all blue-chip British.
It’s Richard Kay’s text that’s a little offside.
By John on May 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I’m still trying to get some positive confirmation of the Wills/Kate story. So far, no luck.
Mary Kenny mentions it in her Telegraph column, and points to a Hello! piece on the subject.
Is this another turn of the loop, or the real thing this time?
We shall see.
By John on May 25th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
This thing seems to be taking on the form of a mobius strip.
John, that Mary Kenny refers back to the Mandrake column so there we are, back at the beginning!
By NCKat on May 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Ok, I’m dizzy now…going round and round! But at least we’re chasing a positive story…yes! I’m quite hopeful! But then, I’m a glass half full kind of chick.
By Julie on May 25th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
This story has only made a small section in a local (Australian)paper, the engagement possibility doesn’t seem to be taken too seriously at this stage.
I wonder why John hasn’t heard any rumours of arrangements, etc.
I hope this is the real thing, even if I am not altogether happy with the match, it would be nice to move on.
By Cristina on May 26th, 2009 at 12:18 am
By Gigi on May 26th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
gigi – thanks for your kind words regarding my flag placement project – my uncle was killed at age 20 in the korean war – before i was born – so in memory of my grandmother i take flowers on memorial day – had always wanted to do the flag placment so i called and they said just to show up – was put in with a girl scout troop and was even given a badge at the end!
as far as william and kate are concerned i will certainly be waiting for your tea in celebration! as one who works in the media in these times i cant imagine the bbc going through all this if they were not “tipped” off in some way….
By coni on May 26th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Re Prince Albert not marrying the woman swimmer he appears to adore–I have wondered about this also. Could it be that he wants his sister’s oldest son to be the next ruling Prince of Monaco?
By karen on May 26th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Or could it be that Prince Albert’s previous liaisons have left him with a fertility problem? He might have decided it’s better to have to talk about “why no wedding?” than later to face the “why no children?” questions.
By Evelyn on May 26th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Karen and Evelyn, your points are well-taken and highly interesting. I am puzzled by Prince Albert. He surely has proven that he can sire children–albeit illegitimately–and there is no reason to presume that he cannot still do so. In Monaco, where the issue of “Serene Highness” is a very sensitive subject, the Royal Blood of one’s father (linear descent to the throne) matters a great deal. I would be surprised to learn that Prince Albert, whose Father, Prince Rainier, was of the Blood Royal, would not also want the next Prince of Monaco to descend from a Royal Father, i.e., himself. Princess Caroline of Hanover, his sister, is as Royal as Prince Albert, but her elder son’s father, Stefano Casiraghi, was not Royal, which dilutes the Royal Blood of all three of his offspring. Prince Albert said in the interview that no future Princess of Monaco (he meant Consort of the reigning monarch) can compete with the memory of his Mother, Princess Grace, but I find that a less than compelling reason for him not to marry. What is he up to, anyway? He keeps saying that he intends to “…follow my own path.” Well, fine, but at some point, a refusal to marry, even to marry the woman he obviously loves, becomes stubborn, pointless intransigence, not stalwart self-determination. Did Prince Rainier push his son too hard to marry and sire an heir? Did Princess Grace attempt, as she did with Caroline, to match her son with someone who would be good partis for him, and he rebelled, as Caroline did? Prince Albert is a mystery to me.
By Gigi on May 26th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
gigi – i totally agree with the whole “royal blood line” thing…perhaps he does plan on marrying the woman he is seeing (sorry cant recall her name) but from what i recall she is a much younger so perhaps he feels he has time on his side with regards to producing a legitimate heir…
thoughts
By coni on May 26th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Re Prince Albert of Monaco
I believe that Prince Rainer did a great thing for his kingdom (and clearly for himself) in marrying Grace Kelly. Prior to this, this Royal Family was highly, um, picturesque. Grace brought significant stability. Not surprising, things have not been as, um, serene, since her very tragic death.
Prince Albert clearly has his issues. At this stage, with his clear and present reluctance to marry, I really am not sure I would wish him on any woman — so bachelor Albert is fine by me!
The citizens of Monaco seem happy with their Prince and his choices, so, ces’t la vie.
While I understand the concern about Royal dilution, I don’t find it is such a compelling argument today. There is lots of dilution taking place already in Royal Houses all over Europe.
And I don’t find any problems with any of Princess Caroline’s children inheriting (though I am terribly partial to beautiful Charlotte). Until about 10 years or so ago there was a clause (or something) stating that the principality could revert to France if their was not a legitimate male heir. I am 99% certain that was resolved during Rainer’s life — which leads me to believe he foresaw the current situation, and moved to protect the existence of the kingdom.
Finally, Princess Caroline’s youngest daughter is of very blue blood — Hanover no less! This means the Garibaldi’s could choose to skip the three eldest and move to the youngest. Though I would not see that choice as being fair.
By sojourner on May 26th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Prince Rainer moved to protect the existence of the principality, that is.
Does anyone know more about this situation between Monaco and France, and can clarify?
By sojourner on May 26th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Maybe it is she who will not have him… Um, seen any recent photos of him??
By Cristina on May 27th, 2009 at 5:52 am
The Associated Press is reporting, and the Palace has confirmed, that the Queen did not receive an invitation to next week’s 65th anniversary commemoration of the D-Day landings.
Whose diplomatic oversight is this?! Brown, Obama, and Sarkozy will all be there, but not Britain’s Head of State? the only Head of State who can actually remember the event?!!
Heads must roll!
By Dan on May 27th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
It’s a real mess, Dan, and a huge insult to the Queen. I blame Brown for not pursuing it. If he were a gentleman, he would have offered to stand down in favour of the Monarch.
By John on May 27th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Apparently Sarkozy planned it as a “Franco-American” event. He’s not a fan of Britons and is desperate to bask in President Obama’s celebrity glare.
Sarkozy is a media whore, plain and simple. Apparently, the British and Canadian heroes of D-Day do not rank on his celebrity A-list.
By Dan on May 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
In a bit of good news for the Queen, Nick Griffin, the head of the British National Party, has announced he will not attend the garden party at Buckingham Palace after all.
In an attempt to take the high road, he says he has no wish to embarrass the Queen.
By Dan on May 27th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
What monkeys they all are.
By John on May 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I’m curious to see how Washington reacts to this D-Day fiasco. We Americans take our alliance with Britain, and our shared sacrifices, very seriously. We have no interest (I hope!) in snubbing the British people in the name of some half-baked scheme to boost Sarkozy’s celebrity status.
By Dan on May 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
It’s very weird to us too, Dan. Sarkozy seems to be out of touch, but I wouldn’t put it past Brown and Miliband to be involved as well.
By John on May 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I’ve just sent an e-mail to the White House urging them to make a statement of regret at our participation in a ceremony that snubs our British and Canadian D-Day partners so that Sarkozy can get his picture taken next to Obama. (Which will only exaggerate how small the runtish little jerk really is.)
I’m sure my diplomatic intervention will rectify the matter in the Queen’s favor.
By Dan on May 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Thank you, Dan. Or may that be Sir Dan sometime soon.
By John on May 27th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I agree that this is a Brown misstep as well, and he’s bound to look the worse for it. He reportedly engineered his own invitation, but he is not attending the same ceremony as Obama and Sarkozy. He’ll look like the guy who tried to crash the party but only made it as far as the neighbor’s garden.
I feel for HM and the Duke. They are so closely connected to the veterans of WWII and there will not be many more opportunities to salute them like this. The 50th and 60th anniversaries were heart-wrenching but also galvanizing events in our shared histories.
The veterans who participate in this ill-conceived ceremony will feel cheated as well. I will say again, how can you exclude the only Head of State who actually remembers the event being commemorated?!
By Dan on May 27th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Not merely a Head of State who actually remembers the event, but a Head of State whose Father was the British Monarch during the war, and further, the Queen was in uniform during WWII! This is a dreadful gaffe by Sarkozy and I, like John, am aghast at Gordon Brown for getting himself an invitation and not taking care of arrangements for his Monarch. What an ill-behaved dolt! Sarkozy is also behaving very badly. It is utter nonsense and extremely bad form to choose to celebrate this anniversary as a “French-American” alliance. France would have ceased to exist entirely had it not been for Sir Winston Churchill and King George VI and their firm resolve to support Charles DeGaulle in his heroic efforts to rally the Free French against the Nazi scourge and Vichy. What a disgraceful way for the French to behave! Let us all hope that Dan’s email to the Obama White House is effective.
By Gigi on May 27th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
gigi – i totally agree…while i doubt the white house should/will get in the middle of this – its just shows what lightweights both sarkozy and brown are…
john – am not sure how govn works in the uk – cant brown be re-called/voted out..something….?! not for this particular issue but from what i understand he’s not been effective…
thoughts
By coni on May 27th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I’m now reading that the French have reversed themselves and are saying that the British royals can attend the festivities. To me this is akin to saying “Oh all right, you can come too, if you want,” which is even more insulting. Pah!
By NCKat on May 27th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Le Sark truly outdid himself in buffoonery this time!
I propose that in honor of D-Day, and the French Gaffe (my term of endearment for the Sark), we refer to him as Monsieur Grenouille and have us a round of tasty from legs at the next RA Tea
By sojourner on May 27th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Coni, the Prime Minister can call a General Election any time within a five-year Parliament. Normally they go after four.
But when, as now, they are trailing badly at the polls, they hang on till the last minute. That means we could have a little more than a year of this wretched failure of a government.
There are powerful forces at work though pushing him to call one early, and the Queen could step in and dissolve Parliament, thus precipitating an election. It’s all very uncertain right now.
By John on May 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
The New York Times has picked up the D-Day snub story, albeit on page 6:
http://tinyurl.com/ouhmmy
(gotta love that tinyurl. Oh my!
)
It contains nothing new, but it ought to prompt a response from the White House, which cannot wish to participate in Sarkozy’s snub of HM and British and Canadian veterans. At the very least it calls for an official statement of respect for our fellow D-Day partners, if not regret at Sarkozy’s (and Brown’s) mishandling of the event.
The timeframe may not allow any recourse. How sad not to see Her Majesty there!
By Dan on May 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
That just about sums it up, Dan.
I also think the Queen has brought up the subject of an early dissolution of Parliament with him.
Brown is a small man who will soon be gone. But the Queen will sail on (almost) forever.
By John on May 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
No one could reasonably call me a Conservative (although I’m no bleedin’ heart Liberal, either
) but I agree that it’s time for Brown to go. The current raging scandal has touched all parties, but somehow it all reflects worst on him.
Since he probably won’t go on his own, the Queen ought to force the issue.
By Dan on May 28th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Dan, the government is going to get slaughtered in next week’s Euro and local gov elections. Labour could easily come 4th behind some of the smaller parties. Brown will probably be forced out then.
Here’s hoping. Although the Conservatives want him to stay because they regard him as a great asset to their cause.
By John on May 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Very much like the Democrats in the US, who are more than pleased to have Dick Cheney serve as the face of the Republican party. With enemies like these, who needs friends?
By Dan on May 28th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
All eyes on NYC: Prince Harry arrives tomorrow.
By Dan on May 28th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
See Drudge Report for a link to an excellent article and lovely photos of our own handsome Prince Harry, placing a beautiful wreath of yellow roses, white peonies and wide white satin ribbon at Ground Zero in NYC, bowing his head in silence, meeting Firemen who lost comrades on September 11, 2001 and speaking with families who lost spouses, sons and daughters on that dreadful day. He is winning golden opinions here and his speech has been much applauded, along with his gracious and charming demeanor.
By Gigi on May 30th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Lots of great pictures of PH in the Children’s Zone (getty images). He seems to be having blast playing with the youngsters! With his hair in the current style he prefers, he did look adorably goofy and carefree.
By sojourner on May 31st, 2009 at 1:45 am
It seems Prince Harry has had a very successful first state visit to New York City. After a fun visit with the children, his team also went on to win their polo match which drew many celebrities as well as much needed donations for Sentbale. The American media have just been doting over him and for good reason.
By Jan on May 31st, 2009 at 4:15 am
Prince Harry, did, indeed, take New York by storm. This is no small achievement, because nearly every famous celebrity and notable person visits NYC or maintains a home there. Therefore, New Yorkers are quite used to seeing world renown persons, almost on a daily basis. I am delighted that Prince Harry scored such a marvelous success in NYC, where his charm and genuine warmth were very much in evidence. Even the jaded, suspicious, ready-to-pounce American media sucuumbed to his considerable ease of manner and winsome ways Well done, Prince Harry!
By Gigi on June 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Dan, you’ the man! You clearly have the White House’s Ear
NYTimes “White House Seeks a Proper Invitation for the Queen”
http://tinyurl.com/lw6gmb
By sojourner on June 1st, 2009 at 10:20 pm
The Telegraph.co.uk reports that: “The wedding last weekend of Fergus Boyd and Sandrine Janet in an idyllic village in the Loire Valley was expected to be one of the biggest and most joyous reunions of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s fellow students since they graduated from St Andrews almost five years ago. The second in line to the throne and his girlfriend had accepted, but Mandrake hears that, late in the day, they reluctantly decided not to attend. ”
It seems that they fear betrayal from friends… If this is so, then perhaps there is something to tell (sell)? If there are wedding plans in the making it would explain their decision to withdraw…Mm, I wonder…
Naturally, it could just mean that HE wants the whole marriage thing to go away darn it!
By Cristina on June 1st, 2009 at 10:30 pm
When I read that piece, based on a leak, and noticed
all the innuendos included along with the information, I thought to myself: they were right not to attend!
By sojourner on June 1st, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Dan – do you have the White House’s ear on other things, too?!?
One thing that we can probably all agree upon in this forum is that at least the US President has a proper sense of respect for the Queen. An excerpt from his news conference with PM Brown in April:
“There’s one last thing that I should mention that I love about Great Britain, and that is the Queen,” Obama said. “I’m very much looking forward to meeting her for the first time later this evening. And as you might imagine, Michelle has been really thinking that through because I think in the imagination of people throughout America, I think what the Queen stands for and her decency and her civility, what she represents, that’s very important.”
Sarkozy – are you paying attention?
By Lisa on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 am
Well, I probably shouldn’t take credit, but I will.
Here is the transcript of the White House press briefing from June 1:
Questioner: On Thursday, Buckingham Palace announced: “Neither the Queen, nor any other members of the Royal Family will be attending the D-Day commemoration on June 6, as we have not yet received an official invitation to any of these events.”
And my question: Since Queen Elizabeth is the only living head of state who served in the armed forces during World War II, President Obama believes she should surely be officially invited, doesn’t he?
MR. GIBBS: He does. And we are working with those involved to see if we can make that happen.
Questioner: Wonderful. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: Lester, will you please pass that directly to the Queen for me?
Thank you.
By Dan on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
A bit jocular, Dan.
Prince Charles is now going. It would be embarrassing for the Queen to go under such circumstances. But Brown will not be forgiven for this.
By John on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I can promise you that I shall forgive neither Sarkozy nor Brown for this outrageous slight of the Queen. Charles may go or not go, but his presence is no remedy, in my opinion. I wish Obama would decide not to go, just to slap down Sarkozy and Brown, but that would be seen as an insult to the brave men and women who fought in WWII and even moreso, those who died in that conflict. We are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, as they say.
By Gigi on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I’m comfounded at the sheer stupidity of Gordon Brown in all this. Is there not someone on his staff who could have pulled him aside and said, “Look … we need to make sure The Queen is formally invited?” If no one attempted to advise him, he’s got a pretty shoddy staff. If someone did advise him and he didn’t listen, well… that’s just absurd.
Say what you will about President Obama, but I think he does think about details. And he does listen.
By NCKat on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
What a ridiculous predicament.
On a lighter note, I read somewhere that today is the anniversary of the Queen’s coronation. Gigi, may I impose upon you to pour us each a “cuppa” in the sovereign’s honor?
By Kris on June 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Excellent notion, my dear Kris! If you will be good enough to pour, I shall pass the tea sandwiches, and the tea cakes, which, today, to honor Queen Elizabeth II, are in the shape of crowns, and are double chocolate and vanilla. Dear coni, will you be so kind as to serve the strawberries and cream? I shall rely upon our own Dan to preside over the sideboard and serve the champagne and stronger libations. We have also, to accommodate our own John, Balmoral Dundee cake, and I hope that we may rely upon John to give the Loyalty Toast. My dear RA friends, please come to the tea table, our very own Royal Anecdotes Anniversary of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II Gala Tea is now served!
By Gigi on June 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
God save the Queen!
*hic*
By the way, I also think the D-Day thing is a no-win, but Charles’s solution helps. HM should be there, but she cannot attend a ceremony for which she was originally — and ridiculously — considered an afterthought. Charles cannot quite fill her shoes… but then again, that is his fate. And when time comes for the 75th and 80th anniversaries, Charles will be the only choice.
If indeed this solution was of his own devising, he deserves a nod for it.
God save the Prince!
*hic*
By Dan on June 2nd, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Thank you, Gigi. A most gracious hostess, as always.
God save the Queen!!
By Kris on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
To those who enjoy random speculation with their tea: how many more hours will the current Prime Minister remain in power?
By sojourner on June 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 am
Thank you for those kind words, Kris! God Save the Queen, indeed! As for Gordon Brown, he cannot step down soon enough to suit me. He has done so much damage but this last gaffe is the straw which broke the back of the proverbial camel. Great Britain deserves far better than this, a Prime Minister who is unworthy of the people he serves. This slight to the Queen is unforgiveable in my view and indicative of base behavior by a man who is clearly very badly brought up. I am quite put out!!
By Gigi on June 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 am
Doesn’t HM technically still have the power to dissolve Parliament? I would be willing to bet that even the staunchest republicans would praise the Queen if she were to expedite Mr. Brown’s departure!
By Lisa on June 3rd, 2009 at 4:36 am
I am glad that the Queen gave Michael Sheen the OBE.
I am also quite interested in the coverage of the implosion of the Brown government. The ship is sinking more profoundly every day as offical after official resigns. Will Brown resign his office? What do you say to this, John?
By Gigi on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
gigi – another wonderful tea
you are such the gracious hostess…
am i correct that the queen’s honors list come out at the end of the year for the following year – if not, how does this all work…
thoughts
By coni on June 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Thank yu, Coni, most kind of you. I believe that the Queen’s Honors List comes out at New Year’s. Then, throughout the year, at a time convenient to the Queen’s schedule, the presentation is made to the honoree. I believe that Michael Sheen, the actor who portrayed Prime Minister Tony Blair in the movie “The Queen” just received his OBE medal at the hands of the Queen within the last week or so. His daughter, Lily, was with him. If I am not in error, it is my understanding that the honors the Queen bestows, all save the Garter, are given to honorees chosen and recommended to the Queen by the Prime Minister. The Order of the Garter remains the sole honor in the Queen’s gift and only hers, I believe.
By Gigi on June 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Interesting to read in the Sun that Harry is having difficulties with the theoretical side (the math and science) of his aviation training. Perhaps he’s simply being humble. It would be a shame if it didn’t come off in the end. What would he do that would satisfy him?
By Dan on June 3rd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
thanks gigi for the clarification – i did recall that new years list but wasnt sure…..
By coni on June 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Dan, my understanding is that Harry has always had challenges in the academic side of his life. There was even a report hereabouts that he cheated in Art. Some royal commentators have called him dumb but I rather think that he is far too care free to conform to any school system rather than being unintelligent. Certainly I have always thought him to sound more articulate than his brother when giving interviews or even speeches.
By Cristina on June 4th, 2009 at 12:42 am
If it wasn’t for the brave old soldiers, and if I had any influence with the Queen, I would have persuaded her to send Fergie instead of Charles. Ha! What an event that would be.
By Cristina on June 4th, 2009 at 12:47 am
I just hope Sarkozy and Brown don’t do something stupid and embarrass Charles. Neither Sarkozy nor Brown are dignified men, neither is entitled to wear a military uniform, and they are both determined to grab the limelight. This could be a PR disaster in the making. Whatever transpires, Charles and Obama will behave properly and with the reverence which befits the occasion, but Sarkozy and Brown are loose cannons.
By Gigi on June 4th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Cristina,
Of course, utterly innappropriate for the occasion, but I cannot resist imagining Smarm-man Sarkozy trying to get it on with our duckiest of Duchesses.
re: Fergie — BRILLIANT!!!!
By sojourner on June 4th, 2009 at 2:41 am
Sarkozy and Berlusconi are cut from the same sheet of tissue paper. I’m surprised the latter wasn’t invited. There’s no reason to believe that either knows that their countries fought on opposite sides.
And who cares about the past? What matters to them is their own self-image. (Standing next to Obama for the cameras, of course.)
I hope the American president keeps the little jerk at arm’s length for the ceremonies.
By Dan on June 4th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Commentators over here are placing the blame firmly on Gordon Brown. He’s getting more than one kicking, deservedly so.
What is it with politicians? I except Obama from that. He seems to be a real gentleman.
By John on June 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Parish Pump:
We’ve moved this site onto a dedicated server now, so it should perform much better. Those of you with Windows and IE8 will notice a slight blip on loading, but we’ll fix that soon.
Normal posting will resume before long, once we’ve launched our new megasite: Devon & Cornwall Online.
By John on June 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Agreed, although I — perhaps ignorantly — blame Sarkozy for the original slight against the British (the D-Day invasion was a “Franco-American affair”??!)
I blame Brown for his fecklessness in not rectifying the matter swiftly and behind closed doors, before the press took hold of it.
Sarkozy will embarrass himself out of office in due time. It’s time for Brown to go now.
By Dan on June 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Big elections today, Dan: Euro and County Council. Labour’s poll rating is 16pc the lowest in polling history for a sitting government. Brown could be gone by Monday.
By John on June 4th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
John, can you give us the brief explanation of how County Council votes affect MPs? In America, the party running county governments, even states’ governments, have no direct effect on who controls the national government. For example, both houses at a state level of government, as well as the governor’s office, can be controlled by one party, yet that state’s representatives in Washington can still be of the other party.
Must a person running for Parliament in Britain have the endorsement of his County Council?
By Dan on June 4th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Dan, County Councils are entirely separate from national politics, except that they are run by the same parties.
If, as now, the Conservatives control most of them, that means Labour loses the ability to campaign on the ground for Parliamentary elections. Money moves to the Tories and Labour tend to be flattened until the electoral cycle spins round again.
If you are an MP — and constituencies don’t follow country boundaries — it’s nevertheless very helpful to have the Council run by your party.
I think it’s very similar to the US system, excepot that the names are different and, until recent devolution, we didn’t have a sort of State system on top of the others.
By John on June 4th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Ah. So that means that it is theoretically possible to have one party dominate the County Councils and the other party run Parliament, but very difficult and highly unlikely.
So long as Labour hasn’t driven the country into the hands of the BNP! (Radicals of any stripe are never good at governing.)
By Dan on June 4th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I hate to sound pessimistic, but I will be stunned and weak with relief if Sarkozy and Brown do not behave like total fools at the D-Day observations. Charles will know how to keep these two clowns at arms’ length and still maintain protocol and decorum, and I hope Obama can distance himself from Sarkozy and Brown’s evident plan of basking in the light of Obama’s star power. I agree that neither Sarkozy nor Brown will be in power for long but I do lament that either of these unprofessional incompetents came to positions of power at all. This developing fandango is highly distasteful.
By Gigi on June 4th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I look forward to watching the choreography, as little Sarkozy squeezes his way in between President Obama and Prince Charles, while somewhere Gordon Brown is at the wheel of a Renault rental with a map in his hand, unable to understand the French from his GPS and asking of any local he can find, “ekskoozay mwah, ooh ay lah plojj?”
By Dan on June 4th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Didn’t I read somewhere that Charles is a friend of Sarkozy’s? So I can’t see him distancing himself very far from him although I’m sure they (Charles, Obama and Sarkozy) will all be trying to stay far away from Brown! I expect Brown will stand out as the dour outsider.
By NCKat on June 4th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I say the bigger question will the height of Sarko’s height enhancing shoe inserts… He looked sooo tiny next to Obama last time!
By sojourner on June 4th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Just for the fun of it:
Sarkozy: 5’6.25″
Brown: 5’11″
Prince Charles: 5’11″
Obama: 6’1″
One wonders if they will line up by height? The possibilities are endless. I do admit to being a wee bit disappointed that Brown isn’t shorter than Prince Charles.
By NCKat on June 4th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Testing. I tried posting a few days ago, but it never showed up. Perhaps it was lost in the change to the new server?
By Evelyn on June 5th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Well, perhaps Sarko’s plan to maximize his photo opportunities with Obama are backfiring even more. Per the French press, the Obamas declined an invitation from the Sarkozy’s for dinner on the eve of the D-Day anniversary as a pay back to Sarko for snubbing the Queen. Not sure if this is really true, but I would be absolutely delighted if the American president were to jet over to England that evening to pay his respects to HM and all that both she and Great Britain did for France and the world during WW2.
Perhaps I am hoping for too much, but perhaps, Dan, would you mind passing that idea along to the folks at the White House?
By Lisa on June 5th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Per the Times, Sarko also insulted Obama in private after their last visit. Word got back to the President that Sarkozy had been complaining to others that Obama hadn’t fully grasped climate change.
Lisa, I like your idea. Perhaps the Obamas could meet the Queen at one of the departure sites of the D-Day soldiers– a port or an airfield?
By Evelyn on June 5th, 2009 at 3:59 am
Well, this is shaping up to be a pretty little diplomatic misfire!
By Gigi on June 5th, 2009 at 5:30 am
News in Aus says that UK has now lost 5 ministers and counting… The is also a mention of an open letter from James (latest departing minister) to Brown asking him to resign. Commentators are saying they think Brown will not go on his own accord. He will be forced they think, so you may all get your wish, and it sounds like it will be soon.
By Cristina on June 5th, 2009 at 5:48 am
I suppose I should tone down my comments on Sarkozy’s physical height. I don’t wish to insult all “height-challenged” people. My problem with him is his smallness in every other regard.
I haven’t heard whether President Obama is going to speak at the D-Day ceremonies. If he does, he will most certainly acknowledge the valor and sacrifice of British and Commonwealth allies.
I don’t expect there will be any impromptu visit to the UK, if only because protocol would require a courtesy call at 10 Downing Street. The US President does not want to be seen as
endorsing anyone (or cynically “used” for that purpose) in the current political maelstrom in Britain.
I think ceremonies should have been planned on the British side of the Channel — HM, the Duke, and the President standing side-by-side — in honor of those brave men who left their lives behind in the name of King and Country.
With apologies to the French idiotocrats, the D-Day invasion was an Anglo-American affair, by which the Republic of France is eternally humbled and for which they should be eternally grateful.
By Dan on June 5th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I agree, Dan, that the D-Day Invasion was an Anglo-American assault on the Nazi menace, one which saved France. Sarkozy’s absurd mishandling of this anniversary has Sir Winston Churchill, Montgomery, Eisenhower and DeGaulle spinning in their graves! I am glad that the White House has declined the invitation of Sarkozy to dine with them in paris. I also wish that ceremonies had been planned on the British side, with the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the American President. I just saw a photograph of Obama laying a single white rose on a commemorative tablet during his current trip. I feel that the tribute should have included a wreath of flowers, as is customary, not a single rose. When Prince Harry quite recently paid his respects at the Ground Zero site in New York City, he presented a beautiful wreath of yellow roses and peonies.
By Gigi on June 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Politico is reporting that the Obamas turned down an invite to dine with the Sarkozys because the White House is annoyed about the Queen Elizabeth snub.
By Claudia on June 5th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Gigi, a full wreath is more official, but the single rose carries the personal sentiment he was hoping to express. Obama doesn’t like his gestures to appear manufactured by staff, as a wreath must be.
As for Sarkozy, I can only imagine what President Obama really thinks of the little runt and his soft-porn trophy wife.
Oops. Sorry. I told myself I was going to stop.
By Dan on June 5th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
In the photos I saw all the officials including Ms. Merkel held single roses to be laid and I thought it had a solemn elegant aura.
By Claudia on June 5th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
I only saw the photo of Obama, there were no other photos with other officials. Where did you see those photos, Claudia? Dan, I lay wreaths of flowers on family tombstones and send wreaths of flowers to funerals and none of those offerings are manufactured by staff, nor do they appear to be. They are what I intend them to be–personal gestures of mourning and respect. How do we know what sentiment Obama was hoping to express, unless you spoke with Obama personally and he told you that information?
By Gigi on June 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I am with “single over wreath” crowd. That might be because I see wreaths are terribly overused and a little stuffy. A single rose is traditionally placed by a family member of the deceased on the casket or tomb, making it most personal. Indeed, I think that this interpretation is shared rather broadly, though clearly not necessarily by all.
By sojourner on June 6th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Prince Charles and Gordon Brown properly placed wreaths at the D-Day Ceremonies, I am pleased to see. The newspapers are having a field day regarding Obama’s cold behavior toward Merkel and his refusal to have dinner with Sarkozy and Carla Bruni and Obama’s refusal to have a joint press conference with Sarkozy. This is shaping up to be a very interesting European trip! I am disappointed to see that Brown refuses to step down and insists he will carry on and rally the Labor Party. If he honestly thinks that he is what is best for Britain, he is seriously mistaken.
By Gigi on June 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Gigi, Brown is really cracking up. He seems to be close to a breakdown. His whole worldview about his superiority is crashing around him. It’s pathetic to see.
When the Euro results come in tomorrow, with Labour at under 20pc, the knives will be out on Monday. He may not survive till Tuesday.
Unfortunately, he lacks self-knowledge so may stick it out regardless. The Tories would love him to stay. He is their greatest asset.
By John on June 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I agree that Brown lacks self-knowledge, but he also appears to over-compensate for his lack of character by constantly refreshing his overactive ego. He has to go, for all our sakes, and soon. Is there no end to this man’s failure to do his duty? Brown insults the Queen, his cabinet members have lived like Pharaohs on the taxpayers funds, and his dubious programs are an utter failure. Will no responsible person put an end to this debacle? I understand what you say regarding the Tories, John, but what is wanted is responsible government that works for the good of Great Britain. Someone must step to the plate, as we say here.
By Gigi on June 6th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
For those who seem not to believe the photos Claudia speaks of, I saw actual news coverage of the ceremony and all of the officials including President Obama did lay a single rose on the memorial.
By Jan on June 7th, 2009 at 2:24 am
I don’t disbelieve it, I just was interested in knowing where she found those photos so I could see them.
By Gigi on June 7th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Interesting Telegraph piece about how it all went wrong for Sarkozy: http://tinyurl.com/kwfbdy.
The Daily Mail had some lovely photographs of the ladies – Mrs. Obama, Mrs. Brown and Carla Bruin. Madame Sarkozy and Mrs. Obama looked similarly elegant in cream outfits but I thought Sarah Brown looked a bit frunpy in her checked suit. But she certainly displayed a nice touch in interacting with the vets on site and via Twitter.
By NCKat on June 7th, 2009 at 3:27 am
Gigi, the “single rose” ceremony with all the leaders has been played and replayed on American television and on every news outlet on the Internet. Perhaps FoxNews doesn’t want you to see it, but it is available everywhere else.
As for wreaths: anything that requires at least two service personnel to help you place it on the stone is NOT a personal expression of anything. Wreath-laying is an official action of State, which clearly was not the purpose of the visit to Auschwitz.
I was happy to see President Obama sitting shoulder to shoulder with Prince Charles at the ceremony honoring our D-Day veterans, with Sarkozy at the opposite end. So much for the Franco-American affair.
Brown’s most glaring gaffe came when he referred in his speech to Omaha Beach as “Obama Beach”. One could tell whose glory he really had on his mind.
As for MPs living like pharoahs, I would remind our esteemed contributors that Parliamentary bodies have dropped like flies from both the Labour and Tory parties with embarrassment spread well around. To acknowledge the mendacity of one side and not the other is to sow the seeds of the next party downfall. Labour has now had its latest cliff jump, and it lies with the Tories to avoid its next. Let’s hope they aren’t still reading from the John Major-Michael Howard playbook.
If the Tories currently had better standing among the British people, no one would be speaking a word about the BNP. Perhaps they will yet clear the dead wood from their own ranks and seize the day.
One final point: President Obama held a sit-down press conference with Sarkozy, precisely the same as he did with Brown. (Gigi, you should watch these events on C-Span: no bias, and no commercials
)
It’s safe to say the US President is not casting his lot with either Brown or Sarkozy. I await his treatment of Prime Minister Cameron (or Prime Minister Miliband
) when the event unfolds.
By Dan on June 7th, 2009 at 3:43 am
I’ve seen the telecasts of the event at Buchenwald and found it all very moving. I’d far rather see personal displays of remembrance than overwhelming wreaths – the camps of Buchenwald and Auschwitz call for somber reflection.
It seems to have been an agreed-upon gesture from all of them, which is a contrast to the fuss surrounding the D-Day festivities that Sarkozy organized in favor of France.
By NCKat on June 7th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Now let’s segue back to the original topic of this thread. The Daily Mail’s got an item stating that 1) Chelsy Davy secretly wants to get back with Harry and 2) Kate Middleton has been going to local pubs instead of clubs because Prince William thinks the lesser publicity will tone down the marriage rumors. I’d say the cat’s out of the bag in both instances.
I’m thinking it’s all a big nothing at this point.
By NCKat on June 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Well, then, moving away from “the big nothing” of PW/KM (as stated so eloquently by NCKat )
, I am curious what posters, and of course John, make of the state of all the monarchy reforms Brown et al. seemed intent on instituting. I say this because I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that some (thought not all) were being supported by Prince Charles.
By sojourner on June 7th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
So much for moving away from KM/PW
Pictures of this afternoon’s polo charity event attended by the young royals and posted on the Getty Images site include several images of KM being followed by a (as of yet) unidentified man. Posters on other sites have suggested this man is security…
By sojourner on June 8th, 2009 at 3:05 am
You know, I think it’s interesting that we’re now seeing snaps of Beatrice and her American boyfriend Dave Clark. I wonder if things are becoming more serious there? He seems a nice enough young man.
By NCKat on June 8th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Regarding changes to the monarchy, I was wondering last night about the future of the State Opening of Parliament once Charles takes the throne. As he is so eager to express his own opinions, I cannot picture him sitting on the throne, a crown on his head, reading in One’s own name a speech written by the PM of the day.
I wonder if that tradition will not survive, and the PM will read his or her own speech in the King’s name while the King looks on, stoicly, whether he agrees with the speech or not.
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
NCKat, I’ve been seeing photos of Beatrice and Dave Clark for quite some time. I think we saw fewer during the school year because the princess was more focused on her studies. I wouldn’t expect them to marry before she finishes her degree. But after that, it seems likely.
By Evelyn on June 8th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Sorry about this but I keep tying and this site won’t accept so I’m experimenting!
By Claudia on June 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Gigi, check ‘Barack Obama in Buchenwald’ on youtube and watch the films of the roses!
Also here is something very interesting!!! If someone can verify this (calling John) according to The Lincolnshire Free Press and Spalding Guardian PW and KM attended the wedding of Diana’s niece Laura Fellowes. There is even a photo of the two of them with PW in tails. I saw it myself. I ggogled Laura Fellowes and news and followed the link to the papers web site. If this is true then PW and KM have a life together away from our prying eyes!!
By Claudia on June 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
That’s more than possible, Claudia. She also attended Camilla’s daughter’s wedding a few years ago. After seven years around William it’s perhaps not surprising she would know a lot of his relatves and form friendships with some of the younger ones.
As for the problems with the site, this piece has 260 comments, many long ones, so is a little sluggish in posting them. I need to get a new piece in — time is the only problem.
By John on June 8th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Dan, I don’t think Charles would break with convention on the King’s Speech. Judging by the 16pc Labour got in the Euro elections, there will be Conservative Government for decades ahead.
By John on June 8th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
John, you have such a knack for turning the most potentially positively intriguing news into doubtfullness!!!
We’re always talking psyco-drama stuff here so here goes my latest version! KM showing up with PW at an intimate family wedding is significant. It has to be or these two are out of their minds, plain and simple. PW WOULD not be bringing Kate to this wedding simply because after 7 years she has struck up a friendship with Laura. I realize we each one of us here have a story line bias as to what is going on but that would be a bridge too far, psyco-drama speaking. Otherwise next we’ll have KM as a stalker!
I believe we’ll see a wedding between these two yet and if anything is holding PW back it’s the rational fear of the huge, out of control a media frenzy that an engagement will produce.
By Claudia on June 8th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
John, I read that Labour lost a lot, but the Tories only gained a little, with the UKIP and the Greens benefiting more from Labour’s losses. The government will certainly go conservative, but how conservative? David Cameron and the UKIP are not exactly cozy.
Then again, once a party finally gains prominence, people discover whether or not it can govern responsibly. As the lesser parties gain seats, they have to prove they can govern, and not just hurl brickbats from the fringes.
Nobel prize winning (and liberal) economist Paul Krugman weighed in on Brown’s fortune in his column in the NY Times this morning, saying that the financial meltdown would have ruined whichever party was in power, and that, in fact, Brown and the Conservatives espoused similar deregulatory policies toward the financial markets as the housing bubble expanded. Essentially, neither party would have prevented the financial crisis, but because the bubble burst on Brown’s watch, he is being blamed for it.
http://tinyurl.com/mmg6us
John, I have a feeling you’ll disagree.
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
By the way, for those of you uninterested in British politics:
Once William and Kate do something more than show up at a Polo match, I’m sure the rest of us won’t care about politics either.
But I do have one Royal question that I can’t find the answer to: Did the Queen mark the D-Day invasion in some public manner on Saturday, or did she stay completely below radar?
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Dan, the Tories did exceptionally well in the Euros, winning Wales for the first time since 1918, and seats in the North that they hadn’t won since Margaret Thatcher got in.
In a General Election, the European issue will not figure and UKIP votes will go their way. Also many fringe voters and abstainers will pile in behind them.
I expect Labour to become the third party and the Lib-Dems, Her Majesty’s Official Opposition.
By John on June 8th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Dan, Krugman is a Brown groupie. The Conservatives would never have spent so recklessly on the public sector as Brown did and we would be in a much better situation as regards public debt.
The nation hasn’t faced up to that Herculean task yet. It will be Brown’s parting gift to George Osborne and David Cameron.
By John on June 8th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The Associated Press is saying that the miserable returns for Labour may in fact help Gordon Brown soldier on, because the party requires 70% support for a challenger to depose him, and no one wants to be the Labour PM who loses the next election. In other words, they’d prefer that he remain the face of the doomed “New Labour.”
Word is that he’ll call the election in May 2010, the last possible moment, hoping an improved economy will better his chances.
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
It takes 70 MPs, or one-fifth of the Parliamentary party to call a challenge. That’s certainly available right now, but who would become the sacrificial lamb going to the slaughter.
By John on June 8th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I am delighted about the poll results which show that of all deceased celebritiest Britons most want to meet Our Lord Jesus Christ, and secondly, Princess Diana.
John, I am delighted about the results of the election and I agree with you about Krugman.
By Gigi on June 8th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Actually, I don’t think Krugman likes Brown so much. Brown is too far to the right!
But if the financial meltdown would have happened anyway (after all, we Americans caused it, not Brown
), are you saying the Conservatives would have let the banks fail rather than bail them out?
Most economists agree that a recession requires increased government spending, although they disagree how much, and whether or not to allow particular aggrieved companies to fail (GM, AIG, etc.)
Allowing the British banks to fail does not seem an ideal option to me.
As for my other question, did the Queen mark D-Day in any public way?
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I don’t think the Queen would upstage her son on such a day, especially as he was representing her. She proably had a service in a private chapel.
As for the banks, the Conservatives would not have split the Bank of England’s wise regulation three ways, as Brown did, so no-one knew what the others were doing.
I believe the crisis would be much less if Brown had been absent from the scene.
By John on June 8th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
So now (or at least, once Brown is gone) we will have on both sides of the Atlantic a fiscal crisis left behind by a past administration to be remedied according to the opposing economic philosophy — the liberals in the US and the conservatives in the UK.
Economists, take note, your theories are being put to the test. See you at the finish line!
I suppose HM’s presence at any event on D-Day would simply draw a line under the fact that she was not where she ought to have been.
We can look forward to seeing her at the 70th anniversary ceremonies, and then again at the 75th, if Prime Minister Cameron secures her an invitation!
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
William and Kate have attended the wedding of his cousin, Laura Fellowes.
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Also it’s hardly big news, but Kate’s picture has disappeared from the website of her family’s business.
See, aren’t British politics more interesting right now?
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Golly, I guess I’m talking to myself here….
It turns out that after her husband returned home, Michelle Obama crossed the Channel to London after all, daughters in tow, and met with Sarah Brown at 10 Downing Street.
Might tea with the Queen be on offer? I bet she’d like to meet the Obama girls.
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Dan,
I guess you are John’s substitute blogger for the time being since he is too busy for us these days.
By Jan on June 8th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I can’t fill his shoes, but I can trawl the web for news.
And I guess I’m an amateur poet!
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Link to brief snippet and photos of William and Catherine at Laura Fellowes’ wedding (allegedly.) Can anyone confirm whether this is accurate?
By Leslie on June 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I’m wondering about the protocol of Michelle Obama’s visit to London. Does she announce her pending visit, in the event that the Queen would like to invite her to tea?
If she calls on Sarah Brown but not the Queen on her visit, how is it not considered a snub of the Queen? If Michelle passed through Paris and did not call on First Lady Bruni, there would be tabloid chatter about it.
There must be a protocol or tradition of paying one’s regards to the Queen when one passes through town, even if no face to face visit is made, perhaps through the Ambassador’s office.
By Dan on June 8th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Dan,
The removal of Kate’s picture from the PP website might be a reaction to a very petty article in the Mirror, criticizing Kate for selling ad space for her family’s website.
http://tinyurl.com/myd6hy
As we knew all along: d#*% if she does, d#*% if she doesn’t.
By sojourner on June 8th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Oh gosh, must everything be seen with political overtones? Dan, Sarah could have simply proffered an invitation to tea while everyone was in Paris – it was not an official business and I certainly don’t see the Queen getting involved in it.
By NCKat on June 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
One thing we know for certain…
KM and PW are definitely back on!!!
Aaaaaagh!
John, is there still no news of an impending marriage? Surely, if they are in the process of planning, they cannot possibly hide everything?
Dan, I agree, Mrs Obama would have been better off not calling on Mrs Brown. Even if it was well intended, it may look otherwise.
By Cristina on June 9th, 2009 at 1:09 am
NCKat, I don’t consider Mrs. Obama’s trip to London political. However, courtesy is courtesy. If you were in her shoes as the American First Lady, would you make a well-publicized visit to London and not pay respects to the Queen?
Indeed, I imagine that Mrs. Obama’s regards were conveyed to the Queen through diplomatic channels with ample time for HM to respond with an invitation or a simple “enjoy your visit.” If for no other reason, this is why we have a British Ambassador. (When former Vice President Walter Mondale was offered the Ambassadorship to the Court of St. James’s, he declined, saying, “I prefer to pay for my own vacations.”)
Of course, US Ambassadors to countries like the UK do personally finance a lot of their party-making. That’s why they have to be rich.
By Dan on June 9th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Richard Kay also has reported on PW&KM at Laura Fellowes wedding last month. It’s good that the prince was able to be at his cousin’s wedding. Hopefully all is well with his relations with his mother’s side of the family.
By Evelyn on June 9th, 2009 at 4:22 am
The Fellowes wedding appearance is now on Hello’s website as of this morning, so I guess it’s true.
It certainly sounds promising!
By Leslie on June 9th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Kate and Prince William are clearly visible in the photo! I am assuming that Prince Harry was also invited to the wedding of his cousin. Does anyone (John?) know if he attended? I am very pleased that the young princes are maintaining connections with their Mother’s side of the family! I am even more pleased that Kate and Prince William were together at the wedding.
By Gigi on June 9th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
The wedding took place May 30th, at a parish church in Snettisham, about 3 1/2 miles north of the Queen’s Sandringham Estate.
By Dan on June 9th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Gigi,
I thought the wedding was the same weekend PH was in NYC… do I have the dates mixed up?
By sojourner on June 9th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Right you are, Sojourner! Thank you very much for reminding me about the date. That, of course, explains Prince Harry’s absence at his cousin’s wedding, and very nicely, too!
By Gigi on June 10th, 2009 at 2:23 am
gigi – i think its a good sign as well – one doesnt take an “ex boy/girlfriend” to a family wedding..send all kinds of mixed signals – i think these two are on track and on their own timeline – the upside is gigi will give you more time to plan the most fab tea in the history of “ra”
By coni on June 10th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
By Gigi on June 10th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Happy Birthday to Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who turns 88 today!
By Dan on June 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Anyone know if there will be a family celebration (for PPs 88th, I mean?)
By sojourner on June 11th, 2009 at 2:04 am
I’m a little surprised their wasn’t some kind of Palace announcement. But most likely at the Prince’s request, it has been kept decidedly low-key.
By Dan on June 11th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Happy Birthday to Prince Philip and many more!
By Julie on June 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I am not surprised that there was no Palace announcement, because Prince Philip dislikes any fuss being made over him. I am also not surprised that, on his 88th birthday, he fulfilled five engagements oh behalf of the Crown. It is very like him to do that. It has never been satisfactorily explained how Prince Philip, especially at his advanced age, has been able to take on such a huge amount of work, but perhaps it is genetic. The Mountbatten family, especially Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma, who was Prince Philip’s uncle, and Princess Victoria of Hesse, who married the elder Louis Mountbatten, were known for their high-energy, vitality and dedication.
At any rate, I also offer many blessings and best wishes for the 88th birthday of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and my hope that God will continue to sustain and strengthen him in the years ahead.
By Gigi on June 11th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
See the Mail today to view the incredible 9ft by 140ft sandcastle a very talented group of people sculpted out of sand to mark the Queen’s first visit in 50 years to Weymouth, Dorset! The detail is truly impressive! The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were delighted with it. Evidently the supplies of sand in Weymouth are virtually inexhaustible!
By Gigi on June 11th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Prince Charles has struck another blow to modern architecture in London. He has persuaded the Qatari Royal Family to back out of a plan to erect a housing block designed by famed British architect Sir Richard Rogers adjacent to Royal Hospital Chelsea, designed by that other famed British architect, Sir Christopher Wren, in the 17th century. Charles would prefer something more Classical in design.
The Modernists will criticize him and tell him to butt out, of course, forgetting that the best of British architecture through the ages has come at the command of Royal patrons.
By Dan on June 12th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Absolutely right, Dan. Richard Rogers has created some of the most ugly buildings in the world, including the Pompidou Centre in Paris, and the Lloyds Building in London, both characterized by having their innards on the outside. Not a pretty sight.
By John on June 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I wish the Duchy would update their progress at the Harewood Park estate. I’ve seen the Craig Hamilton designs for the main house the Duchy has planned (two options, actually, one big and one small, which may or may not be the future home for William and his bride) but I’ve not heard if construction has gone forward.
http://tinyurl.com/4rg28x
I’m not overly fond of the rigid Palladian design of the smaller version— particularly when viewed in the context of the renovated buildings already on the estate — but I always wait until a building is finished before I judge it.
By Dan on June 12th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
That link didn’t work. Try this one:
http://tiny.cc/S835Z
By Dan on June 12th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Then again, here’s a perfectly suitable estate for a young Prince and his Princess, and it’s only about 7 miles from Highgrove.
http://tiny.cc/qgFqq
(Sorry, I love looking at real estate
)
By Dan on June 12th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Speaking of Royal house-hunting, not sure what to make of this one: http://tinyurl.com/knc6to
Are they talking about PW and KM actually looking at real estate in the US?
By NCKat on June 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I wonder what the delay is at Harewood. John, I agree with you that Rogers creations are dreadful. I am very glad that Charles somehow convinced the powers-that-be not to ruin the classic and historic area near the Royal Hospital.
I find it very difficult to believe that Prince William is house hunting in Malibu. If the Prince, as we are lead to believe, craves privacy, he will find precious little of it there. The Hollywood people with beach property there can’t even set one toe outside their homes without being hounded and photographed.
By Gigi on June 12th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Well, I wouldn’t say they’d never do it, but I did do some more research on the writer and she seems to be a celeb real estate gossip writer. I never thought of such a thing but I guess in today’s world of “celeb worship” it makes an odd kind of sense.
I noticed she labelled Kate an “Heiress.” *snorts* As if to put her in the same class with inanities as Paris Hilton!
By NCKat on June 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Hmm, I’d like to see a 2nd-source confirmation on W&K’s Malibu visit. That doesn’t seem likely to me.
How could they do that with only a real estate agent finding out?
By Dan on June 12th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I can imagine them being able to quietly slip into this country without advance press or any fuss but I can’t imagine the security detail going unnoticed. I think this piece is full of innuendo and is trash.
By NCKat on June 12th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Well, I have also heard there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale… Maybe they stopped to check that one out too?
By sojourner on June 12th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
The future King is not moving to America. The question still stands whether Eugenie might be coming here for school in the Fall. That would solve the security problem that is again at the top of the Mail’s website.
She would not need two bodyguards on the Williams College campus, no matter how much her father insists on it!
By Dan on June 12th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
If PW bought a house in the US (and that’s an awfully big if) it’d be for a getaway, not a residence. I’m wondering if a couple of people who looked like our couple looked a a house and so started this rumor. It’s pretty fishy to me.
By NCKat on June 12th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
And Dan, Eugenie might not get her security if dear old dad can’t pay for them – the UK papers are saying that the Metropolitan Police are asking for more funds for the protection officers or there will be cuts in the number of young Royals with police protection paid for by public funds.
By NCKat on June 12th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
i cant imagine william and kate buying property in the u.s. – what would be the point?? also, saw where there is a big twirl about the cost of protection for younger royals….protection for william and harry yes – andrew’s girls…perhaps not..needs to be cut off somewhere – peter and zara phillips seem to be getting on fine…
By coni on June 12th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Aren’t Peter and Autumn Phillips living in Canada? She is a native Canadian and I doubt there would be much risk for them there. For one thing neither Peter nor Zara are Royal. They have no Royal title, as their cousins do. Zara has Mike Tindall as a companion, and I have a feeling that were there a hint of serious threats to Zara, Mike could give a pretty good account of himself. As for Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, they have the Royal title which places them in the spotlight and makes them more vulnerable. Also, despite Dave Clark, neither of the Princesses have companions. I, for one, would like to see them receive as much protection as possible. No one thought the elderly Lord Mountbatten of Burma would be a target, either, but the IRA blew him to bits all the same.
By Gigi on June 13th, 2009 at 5:08 am
The Queen looks absolutely beautiful in the photographs of Trooping the Color!! That color blue is perfect for her. I hope HELLO Magazine has more photos tomorrow, as the ones I saw in the Times were small and could not be enlarged. I simply love the pageantry of British traditions!
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh looks terrific, too. He and the Queen rode together in the carriage, and Charles and the Princess Royal were on horseback. The Queen took the salute, the article said, while other Senior Royals watched. There was a photo of Prince William saluting while riding in a carriage beside Camilla. I didn’t see a photo of Prince Harry but I am hoping HELLO will have more extensive coverage.
By Gigi on June 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I meant
time and type of service are of course an issue… my mind must be running much faster than my fingers these days!
By sojourner on June 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
The above quote only makes sense if you can see the post that came before it… But it did not make it through moderation….
By sojourner on June 14th, 2009 at 1:13 am
It seems to me as if that moderation filter is more restrictive on the weekends. Does anyone else have that same sense? Anyway, sojourner, what was the gist of your post that didn’t appear?
By Gigi on June 14th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Gigi, Getty Images has over 200 pictures of the Queen’s birthday parade. Type “Trooping the Colour 2009″ in the search box and it should bring up all the pictures.
By Arthur on June 14th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Thanks so much, Arthur!
By Gigi on June 14th, 2009 at 2:43 am
The Telegraph is reporting that Michelle Obama and the two Obama daughters saw Her Majesty while they were in London: http://tinyurl.com/lwcsab.
By NCKat on June 14th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Gigi, I think Peter & Autumn Phillips are living and working in Hong Kong, not Canada.
By Evelyn on June 14th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Right you are, Evelyn! I have absolutely no idea where I got the impression that they were living in Canada.
By Gigi on June 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pm