Prince William rules out early marriage
Robert Jobson, author of the excellent 2006 book, William’s Princess, wrote in yesterday’s News of the World:
Prince William has ruled out marriage to girlfriend Kate Middleton next year because he is too busy.
Instead, he will step up his role as a roving royal with two ground-breaking official tours to South Africa and Australia.
The prince is also determined to complete his tough helicopter training course, to become an RAF search and rescue pilot.
His hectic schedule means Kate and Wills — both now 27 — could be approaching 30 before they wed. One high-ranking Palace figure told the News of the World: “All this talk of a wedding next summer is wide of the mark.”
William’s trip to Australia is expected to take place early in the New Year.
He will travel to South Africa in June, where he will carry out a series of engagements and attend the World Cup in his role as President of the FA.
While there he will also promote England’s bid to host the 2018 tournament.
I won’t comment on the sourcing of this information, merely point out that it fits with what I’ve been writing here for two years.
Another year, another excuse.
I have this feeling that William in all probability will take the throne sooner rather than later and marriage will not be in the cards until he has more training under his belt. I don’t think the Queen wants a repeat of Charles.
By Trudie on August 10th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Well John, right as usual…but we can be a little sad as we were hoping for a wedding sooner rather than later…but maybe now people will just simmer down about the whole thing and let them be for a while…(myself included.)
By Julie on August 10th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
In a way I feel sorry for Prince William. Plenty of people his age don’t get married at all these days. It’s just that he really doesn’t have that option available to him. So why drag out the inevitable? If he doesn’t see himself marrying Kate then he should break up with her & work on finding the right girl he can settle down with.
By Lizzy on August 10th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Lizzy, your comment makes the unfounded assumption that the reason they’re not marrying yet is that he doesn’t see himself marrying Kate ever. There’s no way of knowing that at all, and to suggest that is the case is to basically call him a cad. To your initial point – many people his age don’t marry at all or until much later in life, and that option isn’t available to him. But it’s entirely likely that he and Kate have an agreement and that includes not marrying FOR NOW in order to keep the mayhem to a minimum for as long as they can. While she’s certainly subjected to a fair bit of “fishbowl” now, that’s nothing compared to the chaos that will ensue once the ring is on her finger and her face on the tea towels. While she’d then be eligible for protection, that protection would come with a tremendous loss of freedom. If they’re happy as they are, and in no rush to start a family or to work full time for The Firm, why on earth wouldn’t they contiune as they are and put off the 3-ring circus that will ensue with an engagement and wedding?
By Leslie on August 10th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Another thing to consider is that Kate may have short-term plans of her own in her family business. These are two young people who — for all we know — have joint plans for the future, but first want to see what they can accomplish on their own.
Isn’t this what everyone said that Kate SHOULD do if she ever wanted to be taken seriously as a serious career woman and not merely a social climbing princess wannabe?
As for William, he may feel a bit sheepish becoming the head of British armed forces with no real experience under his belt.
As I’ve said all along, I don’t think a few more years of waiting is any sign of a deal-breaker.
By Dan on August 10th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
They’ll tie the knot in 2-3 more years. There is no law that says they have to marry now. In my opinion, they are fine as they are. Contrary to my opinion over the last few years, I’d like to see them wait a few years longer before tying the knot and being immediately expected to bear heirs.
When they do become engaged and marry, the paparazzi’s treatment of Kate will make their treatment of Diana seem like a day at the beach.
By Positive on August 11th, 2009 at 5:00 am
John’s last parapraph rings true to me.
By Cristina on August 11th, 2009 at 8:47 am
You’re right, Cristina. What William is saying (if these are anything like his own words) is that the football World Cup in South Africa is more important than his marriage. The trip to Oz in January doesn’t affect it at all.
What message does that send to Kate? Is he deliberately trying to shake her off?
That’s how this particular statement seems to me.
By John on August 11th, 2009 at 11:28 am
John, you obviously hear stuff we don’t, but since you can’t share it openly, I can’t comment on it. On the face though, I disagree with your last comment, and don’t see the basis for it. He’s still in training and will be for some time. Their time together would be limited, and once their relationship is formalized, her freedom to work for her family will vanish. That leaves her to 1. get pregnant (and deal with all that very much on her own), 2. muddle her way thru her first couple of years as a Royal with very little support from William since he’ll have his military job, or 3. get engaged but put off marriage leaving her in limbo and stifled and the target of even more complaints than she gets now. It makes far more sense to me for them to continue as they are, if they’re happy to do so, and wait to formalize things when William is ready to be a full-time (or far more full-time) Royal so they can do it together. It would be far more kind to Kate to do it that way.
By Leslie on August 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Well, Leslie, she’s going to have to get pregnant and muddle through her years as a Royal sometime.
Even her friends say she’s treading water at the moment. How long can she go on doing that? She must feel that her life is slipping away.
And don’t forget the influence of gruesome Gary. Could this briefing to the press be a response to that? Is William going into bolthole mode?
We don’t know, but just follow the timeline and it seems very possible, if not probable.
By John on August 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Of course she will but my point is that it would probably be a lot easier to do that WITH William rather than mostly on her own while he’s still on active military dutry. As much as I’d like to see a royal wedding, I just don’t see what the rush is about and why every development is an opportunity to cast aspersions.
By Leslie on August 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Hello everyone. I’m pretty new to the site, but I’ve been following the story like everyone else. I was with my boyfriend for almost nine years before he proposed. It didn’t bother either of us, and we were leading a very happy, very full life together. Just because two people are married, or even engaged, does not mean that they are not happy, or that they are not planning on getting married/engaged in the future. The day that my fiance and I get married with be our ten year anniversary. They say that you can’t judge a book by its cover, and in the same tradition, you can’t judge a relationship (commitment) by a ring (or lack of one).
By Jacque on August 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I meant just because two people aren’t married. Oops, sorry. My fingers got away from me.
By Jacque on August 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
You surprise me, John. To say that William’s “Official Tour” of South Africa is merely evidence that he cares more for a few football matches than he does his girlfriend is to dismiss everything the Royal Family does as mere trivial distraction. Was HM’s tour of Africa as a young princess merely evidence that she cared more about sightseeing wild animals than she did her father’s poor health? How could she leave her ailing father just to take a vacation?
I don’t think William’s official engagements are trivial, nor do I think they are scheduled in order to provide him with joyriding escapes from his marital responsibilities, or worse, a social-climbing girlfriend. He’s the future King. His personal relationships and eventual marriage will ALWAYS take second place to his Royal duty.
This my comment that both William AND Kate may be in agreement on this schedule, and it may have been their plan all along. (Let’s be honest: there never has been any official word that an engagement was imminent or that a marriage was destined for summer 2010; that was OUR plan, not theirs.)
Both William and Kate know that she is destined to be a second fiddle in a fishbowl. Perhaps neither one of them is ready for that.
By Dan on August 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Sorry, toward the end I meant to say “Thus my comment,” not “This my comment.”
By Dan on August 11th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Dan, he was in South Africa last year, as was Harry. This is not a Royal engagement but a bonus for being President of the Football Association.
Had he planned to marry, it would be unthinkable he would have given football priority. The SA visit will hardly be like the Queen’s in 1953.
Either, no such wedding date was “pencilled in” (they must be running out of pencils in Clarence House), or that the Gary affair has scuppered any plans.
It’s going to be another lonely year for Kate.
By John on August 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I’d have to agree with John about William’s engagements not being all that demanding. From what I’ve read about Prince Charles when he was around PW’s age his royal duties seemed a lot more substantive. But I don’t feel sorry for Ms. Middleton. Kate is almost 30 yrs old. She should know better than to stay in a relationship with a prince and not have him show her some kind of commitment to the world. If not an engagement then living together or something like that. I think Mike Tindall has gotten better treatment from Zara!
By Lizzy on August 11th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of the late President John F. Kennedy, passed away this morning at the age of 88. Eunice and her husband, R. Sargent Shriver, dated for 7 years before they married. Sarge proposed several times; however, Eunice turned him down because she wasn’t ready to get married. The two finally married when Eunice was 30 and Sarge was 36. They had a happy, 58 year marriage with no infidelities on either part.
What is wrong with William and Kate dating for 7 or 8 years before they marry? They are both only 27. If they truly love one another, they will wait until the time is right, for both of them, before they walk down the aisle. One only has to look at the marriage of Prince Andrew and Sarah to see what happens when a newlywed bride is left to fend for herself, in a lonely Bucknigham Palace apartment, while her Prince is away on military duty. Add to this the pressure on Kate to immediately produce an heir and this might not be something Kate wants to do without William by her side. For all we know, Kate might be the one putting on the brakes to slow things down a bit. If we have learned anything over the years, it’s that royal life is not all glitz and glamour. Once Kate gets that ring on her finger, life as she knows it will never be the same. A few more years of a semi-private, peaceful life might be something both Kate and William will appreciate.
By Arthur on August 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Arthur, I take your last point: “For all we know, Kate might be the one putting on the brakes to slow things down a bit.”
I’ve often wondered if Kate has told William she simply doesn’t want to be Queen. Understandable, perhaps?
By John on August 11th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
That was my point as well. They may have mutually agreed to make something more of their single lives before embarking on a marriage. As for “another lonely year for Kate,” let’s ask Sarah Ferguson or (if one could) Diana Spencer whether they were lonelier before they married their princes or after.
Why shouldn’t William and Kate learn from his forebears’ mistakes rather than repeat them?
By Dan on August 11th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I forget at the time who it was, but someone in my family asked me why I was living with my boyfriend (now fiance) before marriage. The answer was simple. How can you know if you are going to be able to live with a person, until you do? How are you going to know if you can get along with that person, and see that person day in and day out, for the rest of your lives, if you don’t try it out first? Isn’t it better for William and Kate to be sure that they can be together, before they get married? In previous generations this was frowned upon. You wouldn’t see William’s parents, or grandparents, living together before they were married. But then again, look at what life has taught them. I can’t blame William, or Kate for that matter, for wanting to make sure before they took the plunge. It will save us all in the long run.
By Jacque on August 11th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Princess Madeleine of Sweden, 27 years old and my personal choice of a royal bride for Prince William, is officially off the market. The Swedish Court announced Princess Madeleine’s engagement this morning to 30 year old Mr. Jonas Bergstrom. Their wedding will take place in late Autumn 2010, or early Winter 2011, following the June 2010 wedding of Princess Madeleine’s older sister, Crown Princess Victoria.
Both Princesses began dating their respective fiances in 2002 and will marry them 8 to 9 years after they began courting. It appears Prince William’s and Kate Middleton’s timetable for dating and marriage is not that unusual after all. William and Kate seem to be in lock step with William’s cousins/peers on the Continent.
By Arthur on August 11th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Many said that Prince William won’t have time for Kate when his RAF training started. But he has been managing his time for the training, royal duties and Kate. Besides how long will he stay in South Africa(I think it won’t be longer than two weeks) ? This article is just another speculation, like “they will announce engagement soon”.
By Mikado-watcher on August 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
am sure william and kate are on their own “timeline” as far as engagement/marriage are concerned. also, if the relationship was not to head toward marriage i would imagine it would have ended..
By coni on August 11th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
If not Kate, I fear we have one of two possibilities:
1) He’s another Prince Charles.*
The pathology indicates a general disinterest in intimate relationships and in marriage specifically. Will marry when pressed, with little regard to whom (so long as the reigning monarch approves), but will make a mess of it. To wit, as much as Charles has rehabilitated himself with environmental and charitable causes, his marriage(s) will always be the asterisk beside his name.
* William carries the gene for this disability.
2) He’s another Albert II of Monaco.*
The pathology indicates a general disinterest in marriage combined with a deep-rooted misogyny toward (perhaps indicative of a general disinterest in) women. Won’t marry when pressed, but will prove his manhood, with little regard to whom (regardless whether the reigning monarch approves), and will still make a mess of it. To wit, as much as Albert has rendered himself invisible—”unspeakable” is a harsh word—vis à vis the distinction of his name, his unimportance to history will always be the asterisk beside his… um…
Sorry, who was I talking about?
* William may carry the gene for this disability.
If not Kate, who? If not in three years, when?
I’m comfortable with three more years with Kate by his side as a loyal girlfriend. If he tosses Kate over, and then starts over, I fear for his reign.
Then again, perhaps it’s his reign that he’s trying to put off, or even upset. Getting married will seal his Kingship. Like the last Prince of Wales, maybe he’ll do anything to avoid his fate.
By Dan on August 12th, 2009 at 3:38 am
Your last point is interesting Dan. It would fit the unexpected decision he took to train and serve some more (did we forget that?).
It does seem to me that he is delaying something, if not marriage perhaps Kingship might be the thing.
By Cristina on August 12th, 2009 at 6:25 am
A very interesting thesis, Dan. Have you submitted it to the university yet?
One thing you forget is that Charles had dozens of girlfriends, recommended by that useful idiot Mountbatten. When things got too close, the chosen one was found wanting in some measure. No wonder he got confused as he approached his 30s and settled for a safe married woman instead for a longer-term relationship and an arranged marriage.
By contrast, William has had one steady girlfriend since college, although the bond between them seems almost infinitely extensible.
I believe the problem is one of Kingship rather than intimacy. Unlike his father, William was brought up by a Whig mother, the seed of a family of rebels against the Crown. His father was routinely mocked by her, even denounced on television.
The anti-Monarchist streak in Diana — by which I mean the lack of respect for it — has been passed on to William, who now flinches from full immersion in it, except for the occasional set-piece.
The SAR adventure does not mean he’s emulating Albert, or his father, who, after all, has longed to be King for decades, but that he’s under the spell of a Whiggish distaste for all things Royal — except, of course, when it’s to his personal advantage.
He’s going to have to overcome all these influences if his reign is to gain any traction at all. He needs a sensible girl by his side, one who understands the world he comes from. The big question, for him and us is, will Kate prove up to that onerous task?
That’s to say, is she another Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon?
PS: I’ve already submitted this to Oxford University.
By John on August 12th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Does Harry have the same Whiggish distaste as William has? What would be the remifications if William decided not to be king? I wonder, does he expect or hope that the Monarchy will be no more (or at least have a different format) by the time he is expected to take the throne?
Aaaah, just get Ann to do it!
By Cristina on August 12th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Cristina, Harry has a buoyancy of temperament that shields him from most influences. Whereas sensitive William is like blotting paper, Harry jokes his way around them.
Does that mean he will be a better King? I don’t think so.
George VI was a better King than his brother Edward VIII. A starry personality can lead people astray more than a quiet, plodding one.
By John on August 12th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I don’t expect that any modern 27-year-old man relishes the idea of taking up his grandmother’s job. Once he’s older and the job has passed through his father, he’ll perhaps be of a more “settled” temperament to take it on.
Edward VIII was never up to the job; George VI was at an age, of a temperament, and settled enough in his personal life to bear the extra burden of the crown gracefully. William will as well, I expect, and I trust him to know the right time to throw himself into all the stages that his fate requires.
The time will come. Not fast enough for all of us, but in due course.
By Dan on August 12th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Is gigi on holiday? Seems like ages since we’ve heard from her she’s always so thoughtful in her comments
By coni on August 13th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Perhaps delaying marriage might slow things down appropriately and enable William to “be ready” for the crown and perhaps marriage? It won’t hurt that this delay (yes, another one) will allow the royals to watch the Middleton family some more. Unfair for KM in many ways I think, but if she is in on the plan (I have my doubts here) it is fair. I guess she always has the option of walking…
John, do you know if Harry is attempting a reconcilliation with Chelsy?
By Cristina on August 13th, 2009 at 9:23 am
There are some reports, Cristina, that Harry has been meeting Chelsy secretly, but it may be that they just bump into each other. After all, they share the same social circle and were together for a very long time.
I think Chelsy has decided she wants a professional life, not a Royal one. She’s probably seen enough of what it does to people.
By John on August 13th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I think the idea of delay in marriage = delay in kingship makes a lot of sense given that, as I have said before, we have a rather full RF — more than enough to satisfy all duties if they all took their jobs as seriously as the better known examples.
In a similar vein, what if it is not PW but “The Firm” that is not interested in having a married second in line? This would make KM inconvenient to the RF in a major way: PW settled on her too early. The decision to wait until 30 to marry might have been initially his (in the abstract) but perhaps is his no more. It certainly is a more generous assessment of PW’s relationship with KM than theories that suggest he “isn’t that into her” but always comes back for more (an “infinitely extensible” relationship, as John so eloquently described it) It also does not necessarily make the RF into the baddies: as any corporate body, they have a duty to preserve the entity over and above the interests of individuals. And lets face it, KM and PW are afforded much more privacy with this arrangement.
By sojourner on August 13th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Oh, and I forgot to ask…
John, why would you think NotW, even through Jobson, would be privy to anything PW thinks after making public the GG situation? The barrage of supportive press pieces suggests to me that this was not simply a spontaneous outpouring of press sentiment in favor of KM but rather orchestrated. Unless the Middleton’s have hired serious PR people I can only assume the response was organized and even supervised by one of the RFs offices. And I would guess it would have been the Princes office.
Logic/factual corrections requested
By sojourner on August 13th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
i believe any self respecting woman in a public position such as Kate would not have ‘a understanding/arrangement’ more than likely she is more in line with ‘take whatever i can get’ I think that they care about eachother but he doesn’t want to commit. The fact that their relationship has carried on for so long unresolved as it were, only adds fuel to the media frenzy. Diana’s hounding was in part her own doing. She often got herself involved in sticky or controversial situations and even called the press on occasion to let them know where she was. I stand behind the mindset that making an honest woman out of her after so long would be the right thing to do if he wanted that. If he doesn’t know after 7-8 years then its probably not going to happen or will as a ‘might as well’ scenario. Jacque, I understand your position and it makes sense…. but you are not Kate nor in her position.
I certainly don’t think Kate’s serious family business plans are holding her back…
By london4704 on August 14th, 2009 at 12:55 am
London,
without animus to offend… but what is self respecting about “take whatever i can get”? That would be the opposite of self-respect: shameless self interest or Wag-gery (with apologies for the neologism).
By sojourner on August 14th, 2009 at 1:42 am
I meant WAG-gery (can’t even coin my own terms properly
)
By sojourner on August 14th, 2009 at 1:43 am
I agree, Sojourner – I don’t see KM as a WAG – she certainly hasn’t shown any WAG-igh behavior as far as I can tell, aside from the old propensity to frequent clubs. In fact she has exhibited an amazing degree of self-restraint, IMHO. I do think she seems to have realized it’ll be a long time before a wedding to PW, if ever, and has decided to make the best of things working for her parents’ company. I can think of far worse things to occupy her time!
In fact, I do think that by learning how to run a business, etc., she will be far better prepared to help William as his consort than Diana (or even Camilla) were.
By NCKat on August 14th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Thank you John for the up-date on Harry and Chelsy. Clever girl!
By Cristina on August 14th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Sojourner, Robert Jobson will have made a lot of solid-gold contacts through writing that book. He’s also an experienced journalist with a name in Royal affairs. The NotW is buying that name, having made a hash of things in the past.
We shouldn’t rule out, of course, that he’s making a very intelligent punt, maybe based on an unconfirmed snippet picked up by someone close to you-know-who.
By John on August 14th, 2009 at 9:29 am
NCKat, I agree. Being involved in a family business is much better than being a drone in a corporation.
Ask Charles Spencer, who once worked for one of the big US TV corps — NBC, I think. He now runs a family business based on Diana’s memory and centred on Althorp.
By John on August 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am
John,
he, he… though that is one Charles I am more than happy to forget about. Ugh!
By sojourner on August 14th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Beautiful pictures of Kate at a friends wedding, published by DM. Harry seems in fine spirits. No picture of PW smiling…
Oh no! What can it possibly mean?!
(We will be hearing all possible and impossible explanations for the next fortnight, for sure).
By sojourner on August 14th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Sojourner, I agree, Kate looked lovely at the wedding…it’s so nice to see her in colors other than black and white!
Off topic a bit, but how on earth do young ladies get hats/fascinators to stick to their foreheads, like Kate did at the wedding? It always baffles me…
By Leslie on August 14th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I still think that part of PW&KM’s delay in announcing their engagement is that Prince Charles does not wish to be completely overshadowed by the next-in-line, which is likely to happen when a new “golden couple” arrives at the world stage. And not too long ago there was a feeling that the throne should skip Charles and go straight to William. Though I think that’s unlikely, a married PW likely would be more popular than PC.
By Evelyn on August 15th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Oh, I don’t know, Evelyn. With these things there’s more than a bit of “Long live the King” sentiment — whoever is in the throne has quite a bit of support. And if anything, Charles has worked very hard during the last ten years to become his own man. He might be a late bloomer, but “lessons learned” and all.
Of course, I happen to find Charles quite likeable.
By sojourner on August 15th, 2009 at 3:18 am
She’s getting thinner every time I see her. Could the long wait be bringing on anorexia?
By John on August 15th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Yes, John, I thought she looked too thin too. I think the stress from the NotW scandal probably caused her to lose weight. She smiles and keeps up appearances in public but I’ll bet the shock about her uncle left her unable to eat when she was behind closed doors – hopefully, it was only temporary and she’ll get over it and move on.
By Amity on August 15th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I think they were just awkward pictures. Typically we see her very poised, almost sexy, but given her recent bout of bad press, the editors have selected photos that support their premise that all is not well in Kateland. Next we’ll get the “cellulite shot” that is a DM specialty.
Don’t diagnose disaster on the basis of a few photos.
However, I feel the need to say that the whole outfit is not her best foot fashion-forward. It’s too matchy-matchy, and the headgear on these women is just silly.
By Dan on August 15th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Well, guys, the outfit and her fitness have both received rave reviews elsewhere in the press. I do think this hat thing has got to go, but so did Diana sailor dresses (for what I have seen in pictures). Every decade has a regrettable fashion fad. Maybe ours is the fascinator.
For more pictures
http://tinyurl.com/pl7et3
Not included here is one in which PW bestows a royally rude gesture upon sneaking paps.
By sojourner on August 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Did a royal designer create KM’s outfit? It is elegant but very regal.
By Mikado-watcher on August 15th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Kate Nicholl is now saying that William will be able to take a break and go off on vacation with Kate (there is no indication of where they will be going). She also is reporting that Zara Phillips and Mike Tindale are pressuring BP to announce their engagement as there can’t be two as the same time per Royal protocol:
http://tinyurl.com/q59u2r
If this is true, things must be moving along!
By NCKat on August 15th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Sorry, I meant “Mike Tindall,” not “Mike Tindale!”
By NCKat on August 16th, 2009 at 12:13 am
NOTW is speculating that Zara & Mike will wed in 2010, William & Kate in 2011, so they all can be on the palace balcony for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012. I know NOTW is not a great source, but the timing does make sense.
By Evelyn on August 16th, 2009 at 4:45 am
oh dear… anorexia has taken over! she looks older and sick! she must be under stress… this is sad. I see another Diana
By london4704 on August 16th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Sick? I think not – a bit thinner, yes but not overly so. I think the cut of that frock coat makes her look thinner.
Besides with the stress surrounding the news about her uncle I’m sure that has been taking a toll on her. But is she emoting all over the place and falling out of cabs? Thank goodness, no.
By NCKat on August 16th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
I don’t think she is capable of ‘emoting’! : )
sick, it’s a matter of comparison over the years. I just feel compared to the rosey girl she was she now looks unhealthy.
By london4704 on August 16th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
NotW’s last article with explanation and timeline for PW and KM’s possible wedding when they are both 30+ sounds more logical than any other article I have read of late. They also mention that she is in on the plan (and has been promised marriage), which explains why she is still hanging on and willing to take on all this stress.
Ridiculous hair accessory to be sure, but I have seen worse. The tan looks good though. The photo of her stepping up (to the church?) is disturbing. Perhaps her holiday with PW will reassure her and enable her to relax a little. Let’s hope this means she will eat more.
By Cristina on August 17th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Once a journalist decides a wedding will happen — for whatever reason — a lot of other things naturally fall into place. The first is that the bride-to-be knows what’s going on.
There are many similar points that can be made in the near certainty that they will be right.
However, if the basic assumption is wrong — in this case that William has decided on a wedding with Kate — then the rest of the story collapses in a heap.
We’re assuming that Jobson has some insight into William’s and/or Kate’s minds. He may not.
Back to square one?
By John on August 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
We have returned from our travels just in time to see the wedding photos! Lovely! I am playing catch-up ball with the posted comments. Of course, John, you may very well be correct in your suppositions. It may, conversely, be true that NOTW is correct and that an agreement between the Prince and Kate has been in force for lo, these many years and that the engagement and Royal Wedding will take place prior to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, which would be very appropriate. One thing is certain– we shall have to bide our time and see what transpires. I must say, however, that the photos of the Prince and Kate at the Van Cutsem wedding are marvelous and that they seem to be a very happy couple. Kate is beautifully and appropriately dressed and did not seem unhealthily slim to me. Prince William, is, as always, very handsome, as behooves our Golden Prince Charming! Prince Harry appears equally handsome and his jolly, smiling self. Delightful! I am very pleased.
By Gigi on August 17th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Welcome back, Gigi. I trust you went somewhere spectacular?
It’s true the Diamond Jubilee is casting a long shadow backwards. It would make sense to get all the pending nuptials done and dusted by then.
They all seem to be playing such a long game. I’m not sure I could stand the suspense.
By John on August 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
welcome back Gigi! your input was missed..once you get settled back in lets have tea
By coni on August 17th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Welcome back, Gigi! Hope your travels were marvelous! I’m with Coni, if we may impose once you’re settled back in??? Tea would be lovely!
By Julie on August 18th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Was it ever determined if the Prince of Wales second marriage to Camilla was in fact legal? I remember hearing something about different laws governing the royals.
By Lizzy on August 18th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
lizzy…i believe the marriage is legal – also, i beleive in the eyes of the church charles is a widower since diana’s passing…
By coni on August 18th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
The NotW story about W&K’s marriage in time for HM’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 has been picked up in the States by CBS News. I don’t know if this gives it more credibility, but for what it’s worth…
CBS News did describe it as speculation.
By Dan on August 18th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Actually I don’t think it was Charles who had the “questionable” status; it was Mrs. Parker-Bowles who was a divorcee that made it questionable in the eyes of conservative members of the CoE. However he got around the objections by doing the civil ceremony first, followed by the blessing, if my memory serves me right. Please feel free to correct me.
In any case, any brouhahah seems to have died down – after all as future King, he could marry pretty much anyone he wished to.
By NCKat on August 18th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I realize it is rather early in the USA, but in the UK, it is right around tea time, and we have not had one of our teas for some time, as our own Coni mentioned recently. Therefore, dear Coni, if you will pour, I shall pass the tea sandwiches and tea cakes. We have scones with Devonshire cream and strawberry jam and to favor our own John, we have Balmoral Dundee cake. We are also offering double chocolate layer cake, and I would be grateful if dear Julie would be kind enough to assist me in serving the cakes. I am certain we may rely upon our own Dan to preside at the sideboard, where stronger libations are offered. It is nearly the end of the summer doldrums, a good time to celebrate with tea! Dear RA friends, please come to the tea table, Royal Anecdotes Gala End of Summer Tea is served!
By Gigi on August 19th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Thank you, Gigi. A right Royal repast if ever there was one.
With the Royal Family at Balmoral, a smidgeon of Dundee cake is very appropriate and much appreciated.
I’m off to the wilds of Cornwall again soon, hoping for that elusive Indian summer, which is always promised but rarely materializes. However, here in the West Country, September is often the best month of the year.
Cheers, to you all.
By John on August 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I hear Cornwall has great coast lines. John, are you a surfer?
By Mikado-watcher on August 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
thanks Gigi – that cake is to die for
By coni on August 19th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Mmmm….chocolate cake is delicious, and I believe given the day I’m having at work here, I may need to trouble dear Dan for something a bit stronger with which to lace my tea! Thank you for a lovely tea, dear Gigi. I’m so glad you’re back among us once more!
By Leslie on August 19th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
A surfer of the net only, Mikado.
By John on August 19th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Very nice, John. Me too.
By Mikado-watcher on August 19th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
*Hic*!
By Dan on August 19th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Oh, dear. I would be grateful if whomever is nearest the sideboard would go rescue Dan, who appears to be in desperate need of some tea cakes and tea sandwiches. Will someone make sure that he eats and Coni, would you please pour Dan a cup of strong, hot coffee? It might be better to pour the coffee directly into Dan, if such a maneuver can be managed with grace.
By Gigi on August 20th, 2009 at 12:19 am
My apologies for my tardiness…shall I wake Dan up? I do believe that’s him snoozing in the corner??? Coffee, you say?
As always, thanks for the wonderful repast!
By Julie on August 20th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Are there any leftovers for the latecomers?
By Evelyn on August 20th, 2009 at 4:28 am
Oh, dear! Was that Dan I just stepped over?
By Cristina on August 20th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Yes, Dan, you’re going to have to get this habit of yours under control. Tea parties are meant to be genteel affairs, not opportunities for drunken rowdyism.
By John on August 20th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Now let’s be fair: Dan’s a quiet drunk, not rowdy!
By Leslie on August 20th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Zzzzzz…
By Dan on August 20th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I can’t believe Dad fell asleep, even with industrial strength hot coffee! He must be working too hard.
Dear Evelyn, of course there is plenty for latecomers! Do help yourself to the chocolate layer cake and the tea sandwiches while I pour you a cup of tea. Everyone please tiptoe about so that we don’t disturb Dan, he looks so angelic. 
By Gigi on August 20th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Oh good grief, yet another typo! Of course, I meant to type “Dan,” not “Dad.” Give me shelter!
By Gigi on August 20th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Freudian slip, Gigi?
By John on August 20th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
It’s hard to type accurately with a large, purring cat on your lap.
That’s my excuse, anyway, and I am sticking to it!
By Gigi on August 20th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I better cut myself off here…I’m beginning to giggle
Great champagne though 
By Julie on August 21st, 2009 at 12:16 am
A good thing Dan (or Dad) was asleep, I am wearing a dress albeit a maxi… No matter, it isn’t likely he would remember anything anyway.
By Cristina on August 21st, 2009 at 12:36 am
No one can say that we don’t have hilarious times on Royal Anecdotes! LOL
By Gigi on August 21st, 2009 at 5:35 am
its taken me two days to recover!
By coni on August 21st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
It’s taken me several days to recover, also, Coni, and that includes going to the gym every day! Did Dan wake up or is he still comatose? That champagne must have been more potent than I thought! It can’t have been the cake, I’ve been making it the same way for years, using my Great Grandmother’s recipe.
By Gigi on August 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 am
Whew…almost back to my usual slef…um, self!
By Julie on August 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 am
Now that everyone’s recovered from one of Gigi’s famous teas and I have returned from a minibreak, I offer you a link to an interesting article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
http://tinyurl.com/nnlcs8
The Mirror says that PW and KM are now on holiday again in Mustique and Kate Nicholl over at the DM is saying that KM *is* going to leave Party Pieces and take up photography – gosh, this one has got more legs than a spider!
The Telegraph is saying that PW took a quiet holiday to Cornwall and KM was not there but Lady Natasha Rufus Isaacs was (“Lady Nats”).
Of all of these items, I think our American one makes the most sense!
By NCKat on August 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
NCKat, the article gets most of that right, but we British know the reason: 12 years of a Labour government which got itself elected three times on a false prospectus full of lies and fakery.
That will soon be over. David Cameron’s Conservatives have got an Everest and a Matterhorn to climb, but given a good run in office, they can do it. We just need to keep the Labour party out for at least a generation … and even longer, if possible.
On Kate, we shall see. Nathan Kay’s piece in the Mail today (under Katie Nicholl’s byline) seems a little speculative, especially as Annie Leibovitz is all over the papers as on the brink of bankruptcy. An opening for Kate? Watch out for the von Bismarks.
By John on August 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I thought this bit was a bit harsh:
‘”The British Army, for which I have so much respect, which has such a history of success in counter-insurgency, has not done everything right in Helmand province, did not do everything right in Basra. It needs to think hard about those lessons,” he told the New Statesman and Society. And, giving new meaning to their funk, he also said their “standards of personal hygiene” left something to be desired.’
But doesn’t personal hygiene fall by the wayside in the midst of batter and boredom anyway?
By NCKat on August 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Gah, I meant battle not batter!
By NCKat on August 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Exactly, they’re fighting in heavy battle kit, in the desert with temperatures up to 120F, and for weeks at a time without returning to base. How can they maintain personal hygiene under those conditions?
By John on August 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
That is the most absurd and ill-informed statement I have ever heard regarding the military! Hygiene in battle?! He must be mad! My Father fought in the European Theater of Operations during WWII in forward areas and he told me that his unit felt lucky if they found a stream where they could wash their hands. When they fought in Belguim, conditions were far worse. As John says, in climates like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, cleanliness is a luxury which cannot be provided. These men are fighting for their lives in very hazardous, even gruesome conditions, against an implacable foe. If journalists are going to comment on our military and their theaters of operation, I would be grateful if these journalists could at least approximate some semblance of accuracy!
By Gigi on August 23rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Thank you NCKat for your link, interesting article. In my opinion, the comment on hygiene was far too general and should not have been included. Of course Hygiene is compromised, but surely this person (who made the statement) must have had particulars in mind? One would not expect him to be an imbecile and be completely unaware of what is going on in the battlefront…I hope.
Regarding PW and KM, I think they are on another holiday and that is all.
By Cristina on August 24th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Why are some journalists making such a big deal about Kate being on Mustique for a second time this year? She evidently vacationed with her family and now she is vacationing with Prince William. What on earth is wrong with that? When I was a child my family went to the lake for an entire month every summer and I never heard anyone criticize us for it. I would be grateful if the media could manage to be more positive.
By Gigi on August 24th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I’m with you Gigi – its my understanding that many in Europe take August off on holiday…the media just wants to have “something” to report being that there isnt any “real” news…
By coni on August 24th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I’m not sure the Caribbean is where I’d want to spend any time in August. Balmoral sounds like cool heaven to me.
By Dan on August 24th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Besides, Prince William was supposed to be in training for all of August. So Kate made the wise decision to take a vacation with her family, instead of just waiting around for ??? When the surprise time off became possible (due to better than expected flying weather this summer), it turned out that W&K could take a vacation together. Last summer, William went on vacation with Kate and her family. Had timing worked out, he might have done so again this year.
Just because someone has time off, that doesn’t mean they’re sluffing their work. I know that when I go on vacation, no one covers my work– it’s all there for me when I return. I suspect the same may be true for Kate.
By Evelyn on August 24th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Coni using capital letters, that must be the story of the day.
By John on August 24th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
hmmm … its not that she is taking a i second holiday that is shocking, i think that is perfectly fine. I suppose people may huff at it because she seems to be in a constant state of flux between holiday and down time. I suppose she is working for her parents and sadly if she tried to promote her work activities it would be considered a front. So i suppose she is damned either way… not fair, i agree! I think if Wills is so besotted and taken as he should be after this time and all that they ave gone through…. THEN HURRY UP AND SHOW IT!!! stop with the excuses and put offs! She has had several years to prepare and I think by now she is well informed and ready… what might she do a worse job than Harry and William have in the past? doubtful! she carries herself well enough, even with all the horrid press
By london4704 on August 25th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Good point london! How long does it take to prepare for the job? A decade? Never?
It’s the same old theme: Sure he loves her, but he may still be wondering if he loves her enough…
By Cristina on August 25th, 2009 at 9:00 am
john..i must have been feeling a bit ‘formal’ yesterday
gigi – what are the chances of you sharing your grandmothers cake receipe??
as far as kate taking a second holiday this month – if given the oppty i cant imagine many would turn it down..
happy day to all!
By coni on August 25th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
The Sun is reporting that Prince William & Kate have returned from Mustique.
By Evelyn on August 28th, 2009 at 3:56 am
The brief story has an odd angle, focused on the Audi William drove from the airport. He’s had that car for a while now. Kate was pictured leaning against it at a polo match in July:
http://tinyurl.com/ne3uzj
How’s this for non-news news? Boy, it’s a slow end to summer.
By Dan on August 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I was just looking at lovely photos of Princess Letizia of Spain with her children and thinking about Princess Mary of Denmark, Princess Maxima of the Netherlands, and Princess Mette-Marit of Norway and their beautiful children. These women appear to have adjusted to their royal roles and seem to be doing well (Am I keeping up?). Following their examples, why couldn’t Kate Middleton also become a contemporary European princess with grace and style?
By karen on August 29th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Dan, those pictures show a near-anorexic woman who doesn’t quite seem part of the crowd. She also seems very eager to please.
William has been through this before with his mother and it may explain his reluctance to commit to her. Why do I not see this going anywhere?
By John on August 29th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Kate often stands apart from others closer to the polo action because she’s allergic to horses. I don’t think she looks anorexic.
By Evelyn on August 29th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
John, I take issue with your hinting at Kate’s anorexia. Unless you know this is absolutely true, you shouldn’t make those kinds of accusations, because that’s how rumors start (even if it were true, this probably isn’t the proper forum for such gossip anway). I especially take offense, because it’s something that I have been accused of (even by my closest so-called friends who should know better), when nothing could be farther from the truth. For the record, Kate does not look anorexic at all to me. Very trim, yes, but unhealthy – no.
By Jennifer on August 29th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Princess Letizia of Spain looks thinner to me than Kate Middleton.
By karen on August 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I don’t see any society woman who is over size 6 (American) regardless of their hight.
By Mikado-watcher on August 29th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Despite all the back-and-forth in this ongoing discussion, I always come back to one essential belief: the absence of an engagement ring does not equal a reluctance to commit. A man suffering from commitment issues goes from girl to girl, like Albert of Monaco. Has there ever been a hint of William seeing anyone else in all these years?
Let’s face it, marriage is not what it once was — the ONLY possibly course for a couple who have committed to each other. One could argue that, in the old days, people married too quickly, before they even knew each other. (There was much talk over the weekend of Ted Kennedy’s first marriage, to a woman he barely knew, to satisfy his parents’ ideal of “what a good Catholic boy does.” Look how that turned out?)
I am reminded of the poem that Diana’s sister Jane read at her funeral:
Time is too slow for those who wait,
Too swift for those who fear,
Too long for those who grieve,
Too short for those who rejoice,
But for those who love,
Time is eternity.
The idea that a committed couple is on the clock — “get her to the church on time” — is from our grandparents’ day.
How many times have I said this?
By Dan on August 31st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Well said, Dan, and I agree with you.
By Evelyn on August 31st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
You have said it many times, Dan, but it is well worth repeating. Things ARE different today, without a doubt. I am certain that there will be a Royal Wedding for Prince William and Kate Middleton at a time of their choosing, which is the best way, as we have seen. I believe it is a mistake to pressure young people to adhere to someone else’s agenda, someone else’s timetable. That way lies disaster, as was amply proven by the tragic consequences of Princess Diana’s marriage to Charles. They are only young once, this handsome Golden Prince and his lovely Lady Fair. Let them enjoy their final carefree years in peace without the unrelenting pressure of our expectations. “Gather ye roses while ye may…”
By Gigi on August 31st, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Ah, Gigi, I hestitate to correct you, but it is “rosebuds.” While I understand your sentiment, the rest of the poem would prove opposite your (our) point:
“Then be not coy, but use your time,
and while ye may, go marry….”
By Evelyn on September 1st, 2009 at 2:32 am
True, the end of Herrick’s poem doesn’t support our cause (or Kate’s), but he was writing in the 1600s, when a single Kate at 27 might be considered a hopeless spinster. Times (and life spans!) have changed.
Kate has not past her prime yet. I would argue that a woman (or a man) of 27 has not yet reached it. Personally, I was happy to leave my 20s behind and thoroughly enjoyed my 30s. (The jury is still out on my 40s.
)
I would not suggest that Kate wait until 40 to marry, but she can safely, and maybe even wisely, wait until 30.
By Dan on September 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I think she would gladly have married at 21, if William had been game. Now it’s in his hands, not hers.
By John on September 1st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I don’t recommend that anyone marry before they’ve graduated university.
And I think it is more accurate to say that the fate of a couple’s love is in THEIR hands, not one or the other’s. If it is as you say, John, and it is not a true partnership, then William is doomed to repeat the mistakes of his parents no matter who he marries.
By Dan on September 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Egad! I have transposed roses and rosebuds! Thank you for the correction, dear Evelyn. Dan, I also feel it is unwise for a person to marry before their education is completed and before they are established in a career. For one thing, the carefree life of the student has far fewer pressures and responsibilities than that of the workaday world. It is best for young people to make that transition, adapt to the relentless schedule of the work week, prior to marriage. In the case of Prince William, military life and the expectations of his role within the Royal Family provide significant pressures. None of us can know if Kate would have wished to marry at 21. Not all young women want to marry at that age, even if they have formed a relationship with the man of their dreams, as Kate has. It is apparent that Kate and Prince William have their own timetable, have agreed to marry at a time of their mutual choosing, and that we shall have to be patient and trust that all will be revealed at the proper time. I am perfectly willing to do that, Heaven knows, but I do beg that the timing of the announcement will provide me sufficient time to prepare Royal Anecdotes Gala Royal Engagement Tea. It is not the work of a moment, afterall!
By Gigi on September 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
*hic* is our last tea party over?
I must say, your sideboard’s got a lovely underside.
By Dan on September 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
LOL! Dan! Next RA Tea we aredefinitely getting some food into you before we let you near the sideboard! I dare say sobriety as well as propriety demand such actions!
By Gigi on September 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 am
So long as all you can remember is the underside of a sideboard Dan, all is well…
By Cristina on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:46 am
i agree with waiting to marry post college, if you should want to do something professional with said degree, but they have LONG since graduated and she has sort of floated from job to … so I don’t think the college wait or the professional aspirations are holding things back…
By london4704 on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 am
Hence why John says that it is in his hands not hers…
By Cristina on September 3rd, 2009 at 6:29 am
There are other reasons to postpone marriage than education and career, as we have often noted. Some people simply want to wait. Marriage brings with it many responsibilities that are better met with wisdom and maturity.
I don’t know anyone in their 20s who is eager to marry, but perhaps I know a certain kind of people: urban, artsy, outgoing (and going out
). Marriage has a “household” aspect to it that young people, many of whom have only just left their childhood homes, want to postpone in order to be on their own for a while. Both William and Kate still live in their childhood homes (poor William will never get away from them) and perhaps are not yet ready to set up a household of their own. There could be a million reasons of which we have no idea.
I know people in their 30s who are in committed relationships, some even living together, but simply don’t want to marry (yet).
Who knows why, but what’s wrong with it?
By Dan on September 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I have a friend who has two daughters in their twenties, both of whom married this summer…she is in dispare as neither seems to have made a good choice right now…waiting is better!
Sideboard, cardboard…all looks the same when you’ve had too much. Sounds like you’re fine Dan
Ha!
By Julie on September 4th, 2009 at 1:54 am
The Daily Express has an article by Richard Palmer, saying that it’s unlikely Prince William & Kate will marry next summer, since the run-up to the wedding would overshadow the UK’s general election. The Queen has had to change plans for things like state visits to Commonwealth countries because of elections. Palmer believes that the wedding will be summer 2011.
By Evelyn on September 4th, 2009 at 4:22 am
I wonder how long the engagement will be. I don’t recall the length of Charles and Diana’s engagement.
The lead up to a Prince William/Kate Middleton wedding will be an enormous event in itself. So for a summer 2011 wedding the engagment might be early that year? Or fall 2010? (Must know when to have my clothes ready for the parties, of course.)
By karen on September 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Zara Phillips placed 22nd at Burghley Horse Trials, riding Glenbuck.
By Evelyn on September 6th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
That doesn’t seem to be a high ranking, does it? Zara must have other things on her mind. As for variables, what a weathercock Prince Harry is. One day he and Chelsy are an item, them they are not an item, then they are both dating others, now they are back on again. He makes me dizzy!
By Gigi on September 6th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
On the same day, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph had articles that said the exact opposite things– DM that Harry & Chelsy are back on, but the Telegraph saying that Chelsy starts her work experience this month and has no time for Harry. I don’t know what to believe, Gigi.
On the good side, it doesn’t sound like Zara & Glenbuck had any falls or injuries. What I read said that the course was tricky (designed by her father).
By Evelyn on September 7th, 2009 at 3:30 am
I would like to point out that while I rank the DM above the Daily Express and The Sun, I think the Telegraphi is more reliable in terms of news. However let’s look at this logically – both men are in training, presumeably – when are they going to have time to go out with Kate or Chelsy? It’s been a very slow news summer and I’m sure the papers are printing whatever they can to spice things up.
The biggest (and real) Royal news right now is the Freddie Windsor/Sophie Winkleman wedding which happens this week.
By NCKat on September 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I am looking forward to the photos and write-ups of the Windsor-Winkleman wedding! I am also looking forward to seeing “The Young Victoria” if it is ever in the theaters here in America! Goodness what a long time this is taking to get out of post-production! I just read that it was selected as the closing offering at the Toronto Film Festival and that there is an Oscar buzz about it. Very exciting! Here it is Labor Day and I am preparing our traditional Labor Day Holiday dinner. Happy Labor Day, American RAers!
By Gigi on September 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
OK I just saw an item in the Telegraph saying that “according to reports” Harry is to reunite with Chelsy – guess that means they’re not 100% sure, either!
By NCKat on September 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
According to the Daily Mail, the most senior royal confirmed to attend the Windsor-Winkleman wedding is Princess Eugenie. Princes William and Harry were expected, but reportedly have declined.
By Evelyn on September 8th, 2009 at 2:31 am
The Chapel at Hampton Court holds 300 people and Princess Michael has invited 450 guests, most of whom have accepted?! This wedding could be just a bit crowded, to say the least!
By Gigi on September 8th, 2009 at 4:02 am
I imagine the more senior royals were concerned that the invited guests could not be expected to respect their privacy.
By Amity on September 8th, 2009 at 11:24 am
The Royal Security Officers would have been faced with a nightmare, protecting the Senior Royals in a sea of 450 guests, wait staff, photographers and the Bridal Party. Princess Michael should have trimmed her guest list to a reasonable number before issuing invitations. That quote from “Father of the Bride” comes to mind: “Weddings are either held within the bosom of the family or held in Madison Square Garden!”
By Gigi on September 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
The Mirror is reporting that the Queen has invited Kate to spend Christmas Day at Sandringham.
Here we go again. The new speculation season begins!
By Dan on September 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
How reliable is the Mirror, does anyone know?
By Gigi on September 8th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Gigi, the Mirror is a left of centre red-top tabloid that is no friend of the Royal Family. I wouldn’t trust its judgement, although if it had a pure news scoop I think it would handle it professionally.
By John on September 8th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Thank you, John. How was your recent holiday in Cornwall? Refreshing and resftful, I hope.
By Gigi on September 8th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Wet, windy and wonderful, Gigi, as Cornwall always is.
By John on September 8th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I am glad to hear it, John! Here it is hot, dry, and everlastingly summer.
By Gigi on September 8th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
The “Windy Winky” wedding seems to have the Mail at both ends. On Sunday it made it sound as if all the Royals were attending, now on Tuesday it says only Eugenie among the senior Royals will be there.
Is this another occasion of everyone guessing?
By Dan on September 8th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
read somewhere that kate has been invited to christmas lunch by the queen – has anyone else heard/read anything on this – i always question these “reports” – just like kate was suppose to have a private lunch with the queen at balmoral – did that ever pan out???
By coni on September 9th, 2009 at 12:59 am
There are now plenty of stories about that Christmas lunch and as always we will have to wait and see. Just today I read something about a “feud” between Zara and Kate regarding them wanting to beat each other to the alter! Ha! Ha!
My favorite is the Harry and Chelsy back together, I hope that one is true.
By Cristina on September 9th, 2009 at 7:15 am
I myself will make sure to attend Fred and Sophie’s bash. With so many invited, who is going to be counting … waitresses? I am sure they will be grateful for all the help they can get. The waitress angle also has the advantage of being gentler on the wallet. These are hard times after all…
By sojourner on September 11th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Sojourner, take a Balmoral Dundee Cake with you and they’ll welcome you with open arms! With 450 people, they will need the extra food!
By Gigi on September 11th, 2009 at 2:35 am
There’s still a little room in this ventilation shaft for anyone who wants a front row (or at least front vent) view of the blessed event. So far, the church mice have been very accommodating!
By Dan on September 11th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Budge over, Dan! I’m coming in!
By Leslie on September 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Sojourner, if you join Dan and Leslie, take some cheese with you for the church mice so they won’t attack either the cake or you!
Here in America, we observe with sorrow for the victims and honor for our heroes the Eighth Anniversary of September 11, 2001, the terrorist attack on America. May God bless all who died, and may we continue to cherish the memory of all who perished.
By Gigi on September 11th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Dan and Leslie,
I am still sporting a bruised hip and some random chipped teeth from my last ventilation vent fall. No more high jinks for me. I will be firmly on the ground, thank you. If you send me a sign, (dangly cob web, or such) I can make sure to keep you well libated during your stake out.
By sojourner on September 11th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Thank you, Gigi, for remembering all those whose life ended on September 11, 2001, and all the loved ones who they left behind, lives for ever altered. Indeed, let us take a moment to remember all victims of terrorism, and hope for a more peaceful and just future.
By sojourner on September 11th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
The Windy-Winky wedding seems to have gone well, according to the newspaper reports and photos the newlyweds have released.
Dan and Leslie, how was the view from the vent?
By Evelyn on September 13th, 2009 at 3:36 am
I saw a few photographs on The Mail and thought the bride looked really beautiful in her breathtaking gown! Princess Michael’s gown was a color which suits her especially well. I hope HELLO Magazine has more photos later this week, or perhaps Getty Images. Are Dan and Leslie still in the vent?!
By Gigi on September 13th, 2009 at 4:46 am
I have finally seen the film “Young Victoria” and highly recommend it!
By Cristina on September 13th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Reports I read were that Hello! Offered the Windsors a million pounds if they could do a photo-article similar to the Phillips wedding, but Freddie & Sophie decided it keep the event more private. So we won’t be seeing that kind of extensive coverage.
By Evelyn on September 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Oh good, Christina, where did you see it? The UK or in America? I am dying to see that movie! I am glad to hear that you recommend it.
By Gigi on September 13th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Since Princess Eugenie was the only member of the Queen’s immediate family to attend the Windsor-Winkleman wedding, I think Freddie and Sophie should have accepted the offer from HELLO to photograph the nuptials. I’m sure the newlyweds could have used the nest egg to get started on their new life together.
By Arthur on September 13th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
I agree with you, Arthur, but there is a sort of code of loyalty to the Queen, even among the extended Royal Family, and I am sure that Prince Michael did not want his son and daughter-in-law displeasing or embarrassing the Queen as Princess Anne’s son and his wife did. All of the Kents have always been very supportive of the Queen and have done everything they can to demonstrate that support and loyalty down through the years. My guess is that with Lord Frederick Windsor’s career path earnings and with Lady Frederick Windsor’s earnings in LA, they should do rather well. I am still somewhat surprised that Peter Phillips fell prey to the lure of the magazine money, because in Royal Circles, such things really aren’t done.
By Gigi on September 14th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Gigi, “Young Victoria” has been showing here in Sydney (Australia) for a little while but I only managed to see it last Friday. It is well shot, fabulous costumes, and likewise directing…and I have to say producing as well (Fergie is one of the producers).
Great cast with the inclusion of Beatrice for about a second or two during the coronation scene.
It was lovely to see a royal marry for love and have a successful marriage despite all odds against them.
By Cristina on September 14th, 2009 at 2:45 am
I can’t WAIT to see it! Thanks for the review, Cristina! Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, is a personal hero of mine, and he was a great blessing to the Kingdom and to Queen Victoria. She showed great confidence and strength of character in marrying the Prince, because nearly all her advisors were against the marriage of a Queen of England to a basically penniless second son of the Duke of a relatively insignificant Duchy. Fortunately, King Leopold of the Belgians and Baron Christian Stockmar were more successful in asserting influence than even the adored Lord Melbourne where marriage to Prince Albert was concerned. It was one of the most remarkable marriages in the history of the rulers of European kingdoms. The tragedy was that the Prince died at age 47, a tremendous loss to all.
By Gigi on September 14th, 2009 at 3:36 am
John, what is this bit I heard about Zara unable to marry her man of 6 years until William and Catherine set some sort of tentative wedding plans? Does she really need to wait for the prince to wed first?
I have missed all the chatter I guess from being away from your site for a while. Alas, I am back to stay informed.
I hope you and fellow readers are well.
By Meg on September 14th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Gigi, a movie info website I checked says that “Young Victoria” will open in the US on November 13, 2009. It’s listed as “limited” engagements, but should be somewhere in your area if you keep a look-out.
By Evelyn on September 14th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Thanks, Evelyn! “Limited” engagments generally mean the large-market cities like LA, NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia and Houston, but I’ll hope for the Austin venues to show it at some point.
HELLO Magazine and Getty Images both have lovely photos of the wedding of Lord and Lady Frederick Windsor. The online HELLO has far fewer photos and less text than the hard copy, naturally, so if any of our UK RAers gets a hard copy, I would be grateful if you would post anything of interest you might read regarding the wedding.
By Gigi on September 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Gigi, I’m a bit out of the loop at the moment. I have a two-week deadline on finishing my book if it’s to be out for Christmas, plus regular coumns to write. I have to say a minor Royal wedding is a bit down my list of priorities.
There was a brilliant film on BBC4 last night about Balmoral, its history and way of life. If you get chance to see it, do.
By John on September 14th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Thank you, John, I shall look for it! How exciting that you have a book coming out at Christmas!
By Gigi on September 14th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Meg,
I have not read anything to indicate Zara must wait for Prince William and Kate to marry before she can marry. I suppose it is complicated, however.
By karen on September 14th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Karen, there are a few stories running with that theme. Try and google Kate Middleton and Zara.
By Cristina on September 15th, 2009 at 6:16 am
Happy 25th birthday, Prince Harry!
By Evelyn on September 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Actually, I am not too pleased with Prince Harry just now. In my view, the wedding of a cousin (Lord Frederick Windsor) should trump meeting Chelsea Davy for drinks and hijinks, birthday or no birthday.
By Gigi on September 15th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
As Prince Michael is (allegedly) a favorite of the Queen, I can only imagine that the Family’s absence at the wedding was agreed upon by all sides. As with the wedding of Peter and Autumn, I imagine attendance by the family would have required wholesale Buckingham Palace and Clarence House involvement in the planning. It would essentially have to become a BP/CH event, which clearly was not anyone’s wish.
I don’t think any snub was intended or perceived. However, it would be good of the BP and CH press offices to issue a statement to that effect before the press insinuates all manner of discord.
By Dan on September 15th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
What I read is that any senior royals attending the W-W wedding would have made security a real nightmare. Hampton Court Palace’s staff wanted to handle the security themselves; if senior royals had been present, that simply would not have been possible.
By Evelyn on September 15th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
It was only a few years ago, 2004 to be exact, when the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince William, Prince Harry and Kate Middleton attended the society wedding of Ed Van Cutsem and Lady Tamara Grosvenor. Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles were also scheduled to attend; however, Charles threw a hissey fit when protocol dictated that Camilla could not be seated with Charles and the Queen, as Charles and Camilla were not married at the time. For this reason, Charles ultimately declined to attend the wedding even though the groom was Charles’ godson.
I bring this up simply because security didn’t prevent the most senior royals from attending a society wedding of a couple who are not “family.” I’m sure the security at the Windsor-Winkleman wedding was sufficient for either Prince William or Prince Harry, or any one of the Queen’s children to attend.
Lord Freddie and Sophie announced their engagement last Valentine’s Day. That should have been sufficient notice to have someone from the Queen’s immediate family pencil in the wedding date on their calendar. I understand the Queen is at Balmoral, so that would prevent her from attending, but that’s no excuse for the failue of at least one of the Queen’s children from representing Her Majesty at her cousin’s wedding.
By Arthur on September 15th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I did wonder if Sophie Winkelman’s less-savory ties had anything to do with the senior Royals not attending. I’m sure there were CH courtiers totally aghast at the marriage. What say you, John?
By NCKat on September 15th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I agree with you, Arthur. I am appalled that Prince William and Prince Harry did not attend the wedding, and while I am at it, Princess Beatrice, Prince Andrew and the family of the Princess Royal should have managed to attend. Nothing but a fatal and/or contagious illness should keep one from attending the wedding of a family member, immediate or extended. I am QUITE put out!
By Gigi on September 16th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Gigi, we’re not privy to the Royal’s insider information, so I really don’t see any reason to be put out by their not attending the wedding. I really didn’t expect either William or Harry to be there as they are (one presumes) busy training in the RAF, and I certainly didn’t see the Queen or PP attending, either, and I most certainly did not expect Anne or Andrew to attend. I was thinking Edward or Sophie might have gone but of course they didn’t. Charles and Camilla were the ones I thought should have at least made an attempt.
So who did that leave but Beatrice or Eugenie.
By NCKat on September 16th, 2009 at 2:23 am
And Beatrice was at a different wedding with her boyfriend.
By Evelyn on September 16th, 2009 at 4:01 am
I hope this non-attendance at the wedding by the Senior Royals was not orchestrated to demonstrate their disapproval of Princess Michael. It is not Lord Frederick’s fault, nor is it the fault of his bride, that Princess Michael has not found favor with the Queen amd her immediate family. I frankly do not approve of social snubs, although some may feel they have their place. Within the circle of the extended family, however, that particular style of reprimand should never be employed.
By Gigi on September 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
As I said, I have heard that the Queen is fond of Prince Michael. However she may feel about Princess Michael — or either one of them for that matter — she is too gracious to snub her own cousin or his children.
I prefer to believe that everyone agreed that mass Royal Family attendance would simply complicate the occasion (and they would certainly overshadow the bride’s family!), and I imagine that the Family’s best wishes were probably extended privately.
By Dan on September 16th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
A side note: the Windsor/Winkleman wedding differs from the Phillips/Kelly wedding because Princess Anne is a senior Royal, Peter Phillips is the Queen’s first grandchild (not a second cousin) and the wedding was held in a private Royal Residence (Frogmore) that is controlled by the Royal Household.
A more interesting question is why they chose Hampton Court Palace in the first place, since it ended up not being large enough anyway.
By Dan on September 16th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I wondered about that, too. Hampton Court is beautiful and romantic but I was surprised that they chose that as a venue. Perhaps they were not offered Frogmore as an option. It also sounds as if the guest list got a bit out of hand. I have never heard nor read that Prince Michael of Kent was a favorite of the Queen. Everything I read about Prince Michael seems to emphasize that the Senior Royals don’t like his wife. I have often read that Princess Alexandra of Kent, who married Angus Ogilvy, is a great favorite of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. The current Duke of Kent is very supportive of the Queen and they evidently are on excellent terms.
By Gigi on September 16th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I can’t document where I read about the Queen’s fondness for Prince Michael. It was probably speculation anyway!
He and his wife have certainly given fodder for misgivings. I just Googled an old Daily Mail story about the Michaels throwing a champagne reception at Kensington Palace on the day in 2002 that the Queen Mother’s lying in state began.
Tut tut!
By Dan on September 16th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I remember reading about that party at Kensington Palace–impossibly ill-timed and quite disrespectful to the blessed memory of the Queen Mother, not to say the grief of the Queen. But, since that item appeared in the Daily Mail and nowhere else, I was unsure as to whether that was accurate. It is certainly unlike Prince Michael of Kent to not be sensitive and attentive to Death Rites. I cannot imagine that he would have had anything to do with such an appalling misstep. Does anyone know if that reception actually took place on that day?
By Gigi on September 17th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Just a quick correction– the Phillips wedding was at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle. The reception was at Frogmore.
By Evelyn on September 17th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Indeed, my mistake, but St. George’s Chapel even better suits my point. There’s no logistical problem with massive Royal attendance at an event at Windsor Castle. That’s kind of what it was built for!
By Dan on September 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
People of the UK reports that the PW and KM wedding date will be June of 2012 when William is 30 and finished with his RAF training. This date slipped out, according to the story, because of contact with a boyband named Blake that may play at the wedding. June 2012 is a long time off if true. But I recall PW being quoted previously as saying he would wait until age 30 before marrying.
Also, interesting in the Sunday news, if true: Prince Charles and Camilla are opening Highgrove for weddings. This is from Britain News.net. No idea how reliable. It seems odd to me. Would they really do this?
Then there’s all the stuff about Princess Diana’s letters to the Queen Mother being burned. Princess Margaret was involved, according to several sources. The Telegraph ran an article about “the burning question,” considering the implications of burning letters of royals and staing personal letters do not belong to the public.
And then there’s news of Paul Burrel, saying he will be speaking out to set the record straight on Diana once again. Oh my goodness, again? I thought perhaps he had learned a lesson and gone quiet.
By karen on September 20th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Very interesting, Karen! Unless the law in the UK is vastly different from the law here in the US, I believe all letters are the property of the person to whom they were written/sent, and remain so while they are alive. At their death, the letters become part of the estate of the deceased, whose heirs would then own the letters and control what was to be done with them. If, as the article says, the Queen Mother was alive but could not see well enough to read the letters and sort through what was to be disposed of, and if she empowered her daughter, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, to do this task for her, there is no legal remedy to be applied, and no legal fault. Almost the same thing happened when Queen Victoria died. Her youngest child and youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice (Princess Henry of Battenberg) edited all the Queen’s journals, which was a great loss to history, but which she was bidden to do by her Mother, Queen Victoria. Historians and biographers had the vapors, but there was nothing to be done about it. As a result, most of what we know about Queen Victoria’s relations with her children, her half-brother and half-sister (the Leiningens), her various Prime Ministers and, indeed, her husband, Albert, Prince Consort, we know from letters she wrote to relations, which they kept and the contents of which have passed into history. Some of what Queen Victoria wrote in her journals remains, but a great deal was excised by the dutiful Princess Beatrice.
By Gigi on September 20th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Hi Gigi,
Loved your posting about Queen Victoria et al. How very fascinating on so many levels. I am a history buff and have read about the British monarchy, but mostly items related to various wars, religious movements and the evolution of Parliament. Would you (or fellow RA followers) have any suggestions on any a good book about Queen Victoria?
Thanks,
Lisa
By Lisa on September 21st, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Lisa, I recently finished reading “Albert and Victoria” by Edgar Feuchtwanger. Some say the book doesn’t really add anything new about the couple, but since I didn’t know anything about them really, I still got a lot out of the book.
By Jennifer on September 21st, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Lisa,
One of the most revealing books about Queen Victoria is titled Beloved & Darling Child: Last Letters between Queen Victoria & Her Eldest Daughter 1886-1901. Editor is Agatha Ramm. Publisher is Sutton, 1998.
The letters show Queen Victoria’s contradictory attitudes about her role as a wife and mother. They also provide much daily detail about affairs of state. Given that the letters were written in the last 15 years of Victoria’s life, they are especially provocative.
In response to Gigi, it seems the line between private and public is becoming more complicated because people believe they have a right to know more about royalty and celebrities in general. And then there are all those who continue to feel it’s their obligation to “set the record straight” –often for money.
I wonder where the media and the general public cross the private/public line in the pursuit of information about Prince William and Kate Middleton.
By karen on September 21st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
As I’ve not had time to read the new biography of the Queen Mother, can I steer our readers to Michael Gove’s assessment in The Times (London). From what I’ve read of it, this sounds about right.
Michael Gove’s review
By John on September 22nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
In today’s modern society, it is difficult for some to understand how different were the mores and lifestyles in the 1930′s, especially in England, especially within the Royal Family. Today no one thinks anything of divorce, or of putting oneself first and foremost, of living a completely hedonistic lifestyle, heedless of the needs or well-being of others. In the 1930′s such self-absorbed behavior was still seen as being un-English and very un-Royal, as well as utterly reprehensible. As much as some latter day historians and commentators would wish to whitewash the Duke of Windsor and his wife, the former Wallis Warfield Simpson, both of them were utter hedonists, caring only for themselves and pursuing headlong a rigid agenda which centered on whatever made them feel happy and important. Money and power were at the center of their world. By swiftly choosing, (upon his accession to the throne), to marry Mrs. Simpson, who still had two former husbands living, King Edward VIII, though still uncrowned, flew in the face of the Church of England, and would have been unable to take the Coronation Oath, let alone to be Defender of the Faith when he was shattering some of the key Commandments. With no thought whatsoever for anyone but himself and Wallis, he abandoned his birthright, his Kingship, and foisted the enormous load of responsibility on his next younger brother, the Duke of York, who was in poor health, often depressed, highly nervous and suffered from a severe stammer. Moreover, unlike King Edward VIII, the Duke of York had received no training nor preparation for kingship. Nevertheless, the Duke of Windsor abdicated, shaking the UK to the core, endangering the stability of the Crown and left for France to marry Wallis Simpson. Their entire lives were ones of frivality, incredible excess, and a blind determination to live a very lavish life at the center of Parisian society. Meanwhile, with the incalculable help of the Duchess of York, who became his Queen, the Duke of York was crowned King George VI and took up the immense burdens of kingship, which included the horrendous strains of the swiftly approaching Nazi menace and WWII. It is an indisputable fact that these strains lead to the early demise of King George VI. If Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, harbored resentment, even hatred, for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor because of this, few could blame her. She was a splendid Queen, a wonderful woman, and an excellent wife and mother. If she was also human, that should be no great surprise, since saints are hard to come by these days. Regarding the spurious claims of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor that Queen Elizabeth was jealous of Wallis because she was secretly in love with the Duke of Windsor and was upset that he chose to marry Wallis instead, I shall treat that statement with the contempt it deserves. I have only ever heard two people make that claim–the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. I find neither of them to be credible. Queen Elizabeth II keeps her private life private, but we know that she and her sister, Princess Margaret, adored their Uncle David (King Edward VIII) and loved seeing him during their pre-Abdication childhoods. Both princesses were intelligent and both were known for their independence. I feel it is significant that after they were grown and running their own lives, neither of them reached out to their Uncle David and his wife. Not until the Duke of Windsor was basically on his deathbed did Queen Elizabeth relent and visit him in France. Prior to that, she had only seen him at family funerals. That is not a coincidence, in my view. The members of the Royal Family are born and raised with a virtue inculcated–that of duty to the Crown and to the people whom they serve. The Duke of Windsor violated that code of duty and in doing so, imperiled the Crown and the life of his brother. If the Queen Mother hated him for it, and hated his wife, I cannot blame her. To rewrite history at this late date is absurd, in my view.
By Gigi on September 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Gigi, Thanks for the very interesting discussion of the Queen Mother in light of the new biography and the Michael Gove review.
By karen on September 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
The Telegraph and the Daily Mail both have articles on Prince William’s strategy with charities– bringing them together to share ideas and work. It was great to hear about Centrepoint and Mountain Rescue working together on a mountain hiking expedition in July was brilliant. I know of a similar effort in the US that for 50+ years has been making a difference in the lives of disadvantaged young people, giving them an opportunity to grow more confident through wilderness adventure trips.
By Evelyn on September 24th, 2009 at 2:27 am
The royal news today is about Prince William wanting to be more than “a royal ornament.” He wants to do more than show up and cut ribbons he says.
He gave a wonderful speech at the opening of the Darwin Center recently. (I saw it online) I was very impressed by his poise. He has much to offer the country, ornament or no.
By karen on September 25th, 2009 at 1:00 am
The DM has two items about Kate and Pippa Middleton — the first is a charity event Kate hosted that was attended by her family as well as Willam – she was lovely in a grey grown, with nary a hot shorts in site – it all seems very decorous and sedate.
The second item concerned Pippa and how she is being pursued by Alexander Spencer-Churchill, son of the Duke of Marlborough and a distant relation of Sir. Winston Churchill.
Both items can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/yexlw8k
By NCKat on September 28th, 2009 at 3:41 am
After the charity event, Prince William, Kate, and the rest of the Middleton family all joined Prince Harry at Raffles nightclub.
There also are reports that PW&K’s new favorite restaurant is Dans Le Noir, where there is no lighting– the whole restaurant is pitch dark, which is supposed to enhance enjoyment of the food. It seems that Prince William likes it because no one stares at him. The couple reportedly have been to the restaurant several times.
By Evelyn on September 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Thanks NCKat and Evelyn! I saw those items in the Daily Mail and the photos. Kate Middleton looks lovely in her grey gown and Prince William looks suave in black tie! Ali Spencer-Churchill is certainly a handsome fellow, isn’t he? An alliance with the House of Marlborough would be quite suitable for Philippa Middleton. I love it when things are going smoothly and all the planets align.
By Gigi on September 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Kate looked wonderful at the benefit. Very modern and elegant! her mother on the other hand!!!! spice girls try outs before the event Carol? I think this was a great event that shows Kate in a good light.
However at 27….stop worrying about the vegetable patch and MOVE OUT KATE!
By london4704 on September 30th, 2009 at 1:26 am
I don’t know how worried Kate is about the vegetable patch – it is amazing how the press invades the Middletons’ privacy and makes a news story out of the most mundane non-events in their lives. If I were Kate, I would live at home too – at least she doesn’t have to worry about being mobbed by paps on the way to work or coworkers selling false stories about her to the papers.
By Amity on September 30th, 2009 at 7:36 am
I to, think she looks amazing, and that they have set there OWN timescale for their wedding plans.
It has been very quiet on here lately, we need some new stories fast to keep up our addictions!
By james on September 30th, 2009 at 10:32 am
James, so you know about this site?
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/whats-new
The daily updates include links to articles about royalty around the globe. It’ll help with your addiction.
By Evelyn on September 30th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I saw the photos of Mr. and Mrs. Middleton. She certainly looks far younger than her years and she has a lovely figure. Her gown was a little more bright than I would have selected for myself, and more darling, but I thought it was within the bounds of propriety. It looked very attractive on her, I thought.
As for Kate, she has splendid taste and always looks simply wonderful! I can’t wait to see what bridal gown she chooses for her wedding and how beautiful she looks!
While we are waiting, can’t Zara get married? The suspense is almost unendurable!
By Gigi on September 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
i thought mrs middleton’s dress was fine – in reading headline you would have thought it was cut much shorter than it actually was – and kate looked lovely as always…nice that william could attend – i do think this couple is on their way down the aisle (in their own time)
seems odd if what we read is true that zara has to wait on william’s plans before she can wed..
By coni on September 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
The Guardian/The Observer has an interesting article: “In princes we trust…to do absolutely nothing useful”, by Catherine Bennet. Although a little harsh it does bring up that ever present issue of “significant employment” and how it really is necessary for anyone’s self esteem and respectability.
I think this is really the biggest dilemma for PW and KM and possibly at the top of the list of the reasons why they are not yet married.
By Cristina on October 2nd, 2009 at 4:24 am
Prince William is a military officer and is also training for his full-time future job of supporting the Crown and then being King of the United Kingdom. If that employment isn’t significant enough for Catherine Bennet, I suggest she do something more useful and far more ‘significant’ with her life than write articles full of balderdash. As for Kate Middleton, she is working for the very successful company owned by her family, significant employment because she does it well, evidently enjoys the work, and is a contributing member of society, as proven by her recent leadership role in a charity event. I am very tired of these journalists who make their living by writing tripe-filled tomes casting aspersions on persons in the public eye who are far more worthy than they.
By Gigi on October 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
i’m with you gigi – seems like kate cant catch a break with this silly so called “journalists” if she had a “regular job” she would be seen as taking advantage of royal connnections to get it – and since when is working for your family business not a real job…
guess when there is no real news to report that have to hash and re-hash whatever they can pull out of their….hat!
By coni on October 2nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Although what they currently do may be enough for some, it appears that it is not enough for the rest of the community. PW himself has recently said that he does not want to be an ornament and seeks to create a more significant role for himself (and presumably KM?). I expect that Ms Bennet is merely highlighting the current state of affairs (that PW seeks to change).
By Cristina on October 4th, 2009 at 5:53 am
I expect that Ms. Bennet is trying to make money for herself by casting members of the Royal Family in a bad light. I doubt that Ms. Bennet speaks for anyone but herself, let alone the rest of the community. I further doubt that there is a significant percentage of persons in the UK who feel that Kate Middleton and Prince William are not significantly employed. As for Prince William wanting a more significant role for himself, this is the natural plight of a Prince whose Grandmother still reigns and whose Father is the Prince of Wales and is in his hale and hearty 60′s. Prince William has a long while until he assumes the Throne, or has any position of real power and responsibility. Meanwhile, he will support the Crown and continue to train for Kingship. “They also serve who only stand and wait.”
By Gigi on October 4th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Aren’t there any other interesting people in the RF or the Aristocracy besides PW and KM?
By Cindy on October 4th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
It would be nice to hear more about Peter Phillips and his wife, but I never see anything about them in the online media. I guess it is all quiet on the Royal front!
By Gigi on October 5th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
At Google News, I saw a link to a story in the Telegraph that said the Queen’s lawyers are trying to bar paparazzi from Sandringham, perhaps in order that Kate may visit at Christmas without being caught by the press. But when I clicked the link to the story, I got a “sorry,” the link doesn’t work.
The failed link is to a story by Gordon Raynor dated October 2. Did anyone read it in the Telegraph?
By Dan on October 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I missed that, Dan, but if you find it again, I’d love to read it. I am a bit puzzled about the Queen having to request her lawyers to bar the paparazzi from a private residence, which is what Sandringham is. Sandringham was purchased (the property) by Queen Victoria and Albert, the Prince Consort, and given to the Prince of Wales (who became King Edward VII) as a wedding gift. The Prince of Wales (Albert Edward, called “Bertie”), built Sandringham House and he and Queen Alexandra always spent Christmas and the shooting season there. At Edward VII’s death in 1910, it was bequeathed to his heir, King George V, but Queen Alexandra was given the right to live there for the remainder of her life. King George V and Queen Mary spent a great deal of time at Sandringham, also, as King George V loved it above all other Royal residences and referred to it as “…dear old Sandringham.” After that, things got complicated. King George V naturally left Sandringham to his heir, David,, who became briefly King Edward VIII. However, when he abdicated and became the Duke of Windsor, he retained ownership of Sandringham, among other properties left to the Heir to the Throne, and in an infamous piece of near-extortion, the Duke forced his brother, the new King George VI, to buy back Sandringham and other properties which were always left to the next King. King George VI left Sandringham to Queen Elizabeth II, and it remains her residential property. My point is that it was purchased as a private residence and is still a private residence. The Queen should have no problem barring anyone from trespassing there, especially the intrusive paparazzi! (Off with their heads!!)
By Gigi on October 5th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Perhaps she hopes to keep them from storming the gates or the parapets. I can’t tell from Google Maps how protected the estate is from nearby roads. The house and grounds (well, perhaps not the private apartments) are open to the public, but only April to November.
By Dan on October 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
This is the only tidbit I can get from the Telegraph’s website:
The Queen has instructed lawyers to issue a strong warning to newspaper and magazine editors not to use paparazzi pictures of the Royal family during their annual stay at Sandringham in Norfolk.
By Dan on October 5th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I read the story and as I recall, it was regarding a stern warning to the press not to use paparazzi shots (shot with a telephoto lens) on the grounds that it was an invasion of privacy.
I wonder why the story was removed, though??
By Leslie on October 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I did read the story a day or two ago. Trespassing on the property isn’t the problem. They use telephoto lenses to get photos of the Royals hunting. Last year they got a few photos of Kate out with Prince William and friends hunting before Christmas. And there was a lot written about the photos of Prince Edward hitting a “gun dog. And other similar photos of the Queen in recent years’ hunts.
While the photos have been of a variety of Royal family members– sometimes show in a bad light, sometimes just hunting– there is speculation that this year it’s because Kate has been invited to join the Royal family for Christmas Day. I hope that part is (finally) true!
By Evelyn on October 5th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Thanks, Dan and Evelyn, for the information and details! I forgot about the telephoto lenses.
No wonder the Queen called in the lawyers, although it is a shame that she is forced to go to such lengths to have some semblance privacy at Christmas. These photographers are shameless! Have they no sense of the sanctity of the Christmas holidays?! Their behavior is not merely rude and reprehensible but very un-English. I would snarl but I have a sleeping cat in my lap and I don’t want to put him into cardiac arrest. 
By Gigi on October 5th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Well, Gigi, I doubt all of those photographers are English. In fact, I’d say that many of them would be foreigners who would attempt to take such photos and flog them to the highest bidder amongst the tabloids. Money is the paramount motivator, not the meaning of the holiday.
In fact, I’d venture to say that any time the Royals gather at Sandringham there are paparazzi trying to get those photos, not just at Christmas. This is nothing new in journalism, but the intensity and speed of publication is new because of the internet.
By NCKat on October 5th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Also, I just read an item by Kate Nicholl in which she states that Harry and Chelsy are planning to go to South Africa for Christmas. It seems that he’s trying to get back on track with her.
By NCKat on October 5th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
NCKat, the article I read says that Chelsy plans to spend Christmas with her family in South Africa. The holiday with Harry must be after that. Perhaps Prince Harry plans to join the Royal family at Sandringham for Christmas Day.
By Evelyn on October 6th, 2009 at 12:41 am
What has happened to this site? It seems like it has turned into a place where you read things about the royal familly on other sites and come here to discuss them.
By karen on October 10th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
You’re right, Karen. I’ve too much work on right now, writing a book (nearly finished) and pushing a new business.
Apart from that, there’s not much important Royal news because they are keeping a low profile in the current economic climate. In the circumstances, it’s hard to build up a head of steam about it.
That may change soon when things pick up.
By John on October 10th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Nil desperandum, my dears! Let us recollect that news moves in cycles, which, like the tide, ebbs and flows. Chelsy Davy and our own golden Prince Harry are evidently planning a Christmas party for their friends and are at present selecting the venue from among a few of their favorite elite clubs. I would infer from this that they have reunited and are a couple once more. This rekindled romance should provide some news as we move into the holiday season. Even if the Queen and the Royal lawyers are banning the paparazzi from the site, Christmas 2009 shall be considerably enlivened by Kate Middleton spending the holidays with the Royal Family at Sandringham. If Zara and Mike get engaged at Christmas, such glad tidings portends a very Happy New Year, for them and for us! Wait on, RAers, I foresee great events to be celebrated in the not-too-distant future! Royal Fetes! Gala RA Teas! Perhaps even (dare I say it?)…Royal weddings!
By Gigi on October 10th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
good luck with the new business john! we can talk “amoungst ourselves”
By coni on October 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I second Coni’s good wishes for John and agree that we can, indeed, carry on with the discussion while John is otherwise engaged!
By Gigi on October 12th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
A boookie website is offering odds on whether Prince Harry will propose to Chelsy this Christmas.
4 to 1!
http://tinyurl.com/yglbqo5
By Dan on October 13th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Well, here is news indeed! I do wish that the great events in the lives of the Royal Family were not being subjected to the vulgar speculations of the gambling world, but, nevertheless, it appears that someone with their ear to the ground has heard something! It may be a rumor or a whisper and may also be totally and utterly erroneous, but it is interesting.
By Gigi on October 13th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Now that would be exiting!!
By Cristina on October 16th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Now just to turn our attention to an earlier generation of the Royal Family … The Telegraph has published a previously unknown portrait of a 23-year old Queen Victoria, and she was a beautiful young woman.
You can see it here: http://tinyurl.com/yj7zf48
By NCKat on October 16th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Hi everyone.
New post on Royal Anecdotes: Apologies for disrupted service.
Normal service resumes on October 26.
Best wishes
John
By John on October 16th, 2009 at 5:05 pm