How Royals resemble their distant ancestors
The Daily Mail has an interesting piece on how Princess Beatrice seems almost a reincarnation of the young Queen Victoria (pictured below).
There is certainly a remarkable likeness.
The article also reproduces a whole series of stunning pictorial comparisons with present Royals and their predecessors, some going back centuries. Check out the one between King Edward I (1239-1307) and Prince William. The old King comes to life before our eyes.
My favourite though, is Louis Frederick Prince of Wales (1707-1751) and Freddie Windsor. Frederick was the eldest son of George II and father of George III as well as the Great-Grandfather of Victoria. He died before his father, allowing his son to succeed to the Throne.
Lord Frederick Windsor — spookily bearing his lookalike’s name — has very individual eyes and a face that bears few comparisons. Until now.
I saw that and thought it was interesting how genes persist down the generations.
As an aside the Telegraph has a little piece about the Queen’s frugality and how we should all emulate it: http://tinyurl.com/yzq5dod
P.S. Glad to see you posting again, John!
By NCKat on October 27th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Thanks, NCKat. It’s been a busy summer.
By John on October 27th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Also wanted to say the likenesses that struck me the most were the ones between Queen Mary and Prince Harry as well as the one between King George V and Prince Michael of Kent.
By NCKat on October 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Excellent article in the Telegraph. Informative and witty, but above all, perceptive about Royal psychology.
By John on October 27th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Interesting article, John and thanks for the Mail link! I loved seeing the photos and agree with the striking resemblances, all of which I find to be wonderful! The comments posted on the article in the Daily Mail are annoying and appear to be written by sophomoric, ill-educated individuals who are jealous of the Royal Family and evidently feel the need to broadcast their deficiencies by posting ill-conceived, poorly written, and totally illogic comments filled with spelling errors and shocking syntax!
By Gigi on October 27th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
I am reading that there is a rift between Chelsy and Kate. I am also reading that PW has been sidelined to promote England’s bid for the football world cup. I wonder if any of it has even an element of truth?
By Cristina on October 28th, 2009 at 2:16 am
I saw that gossip about Kate and Chelsey and it was so mean-spirited, I did the sensible thing – deleted the news item from my rss news reader – it was too unbelievable.
PW sidelined from what? His military career? It can’t be from Kate because they are definitely said to be planning an after-hols trip abroad.
By NCKat on October 28th, 2009 at 2:35 am
What on earth would Chelsy and Kate have a rift about to begin with? This whole things sounds pretty half-baked to me. Even if it is completely baked, did the author offer any support for these news items? Quotes from credible persons? Anything?
By Gigi on October 28th, 2009 at 4:51 am
I think both credibility and creativity of Chelsy and Kate news is very poor. If they don’t have anything to write, then don’t!
By Mikado-watcher on October 28th, 2009 at 11:31 am
There are stunning pictures of Windsor Castle in today’s Mail, including a Royal banquet: Here.
By John on October 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Thank you for the link, John! Simply splendid photos of the pageantry at Windsor Castle for the visit of the leader of India! No other country on earth can produce such pomp and ceremony! Exquisite! I believe that the tiara the Queen was wearing for the State Banquet was the tiara set with the rubies that were a gift to Queen Mary when she visited India with King George V. If so, it is a typically gracious compliment of the Queen to wear those magnificent gems during the India State Visit. Windosr Castle is breathtakingly beautiful!
By Gigi on October 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Yes, I saw this article (or rather the comparative pictures) in the Daily Mail and really enjoyed it/them.
Is there any news on Harry and Chelsy? Are they really back together?
By miki on October 30th, 2009 at 6:50 am
KM has just returned from a break (2 days) at Birkhall. She was seen at the airport, alone it seems… PW must have stayed behind I guess.
And yes Miki, I think Harry and Chelsy are back on, isn’t it exiting? Latest articles are saying that Harry is not happy with the company she kept at a recent outing, but considering he was away with friends himself, I expect this is just more gossip.
By Cristina on November 1st, 2009 at 9:50 am
If Kate Middleton was on a two day break at Birkhall, the former residence in Scotland of the Queen Mother, now the property of Charles and sacred to him because of it’s association with his beloved Grandmother, I would say Kate has found total acceptance within the highest circles of the Royal Family. During the lifetime of the Queen Mother, when Charles used to see a piece of furniture or china or object d’ arte in a shop or a gallery that seemed perfect to him, gloriously beautiful, he would describe it as being “…very Birkhall.” Charles would not, in my opinion, invite to Birkhall any person for whom he did not feel a deep affinity.
By Gigi on November 1st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
I believe Kate has been to Birkhall before. Where were the shooting photos taken?
I subscribe to Kate Middleton news via Google, and 99.9% of it seems to be rehashed news from the past. I think I’d only get excited if there are real news, not just items about vacations and weekend getaways.
Right now I’m finding the Harry/Chelsy saga far more interesting!
By NCKat on November 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
About KMs airport pictures… We do not really know where she was coming from. I would need to see pictures of her stay in Scotland, or other credible first hand sources, to buy what is otherwise just another extended tabloid caption to slightly puzzling pictures. (Why is she so alone — no family, protection personnel or more to the point, just regular airport patrons around her? How did these pap find her in such an odd place? Etc.)
By sojourner on November 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 am
Exactly, Sojourner. She could have been at the airport to meet someone, who knows? As for the lack of security detail, I wonder if it’s quietly been withdrawn especially as she’s living with her parents. I never see a photo of her with security men about, except when she’s with William.
William would not have stayed at Birkhall but have gone back to his base to resume his military duties. He’s still in the RAF, after all.
By NCKat on November 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 am
“The Australian” reports that William’s visit to Australia is confirmed for January 2009. Kevin Rudd, our Prime Minister, has made the announcement. PW made the request to our government (for the visit) on the pretext that he would like to get to know our country (and its people) better.
By Cristina on November 2nd, 2009 at 4:37 am
That article also says that *if* Prince William & Kate were to announce their engagement this Christmas, she could possibly accompany him. That certainly would be interesting!
By Evelyn on November 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Beautiful photos of Windsor. It’s my favorite castle. Good to see you back, John!
By Leslie on November 2nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
In whatever manner the plans unfold, the year 2010 is going to be an extremely significant time for Royal Anecdotes! I shall be very interested to see what transpires at Royal Christmas Court at Sandringham. I hope we shall all be very merry!
By Gigi on November 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
The Sun has an interesting article on Prince William’s New Zealand and Australia tour. A “senior palace official” has said, “William has put this tour ahead of his helicopter training. This is a sign that he is coming to accept his priorities will have to change in the medium term.” It goes on to say that PW is realizing that he will be called on to help relieve the Queen’s workload, and because of that may not be able to finish out his 5-year commitment to the RAF.
By Evelyn on November 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I really don’t see the pressing need for William to “relieve” the Queen of some of her duties. Isn’t this Charles’ responsibility before William’s? Sometimes I think the media forgets who the actual heir to the throne still is.
I think it better that William establish his military bonafides rather than settle into a routine of ribbon cuttings and walkabouts. The Queen has more than enough support on that front—her own four children, her cousins the Kents and Gloucesters, etc., all of whom are younger than HM. True, they don’t all share William’s star power, but they represent the family nonetheless.
As I’ve said many times, it could be twenty years or more before William takes the throne. I fear if they nail him down too soon, he will tire of his role long before he actually takes it.
By Dan on November 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Aye, Aye Dan! That has always been my feeling too. Charles is likely to have a long life ahead of him still, and unless he plans a complete rearrangement of the RF, there are lots of “personnel” so to speak to pick up any slack created by HRMs diminishing activities.
By sojourner on November 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
The Telegraph chimes in on this story:
http://tinyurl.com/yfwbrc2
The rationale being that William is simply vastly more popular than his father and stepmother. Sure, I get the point, but I don’t think he should be rushed ahead of his father simply by popular opinion. (I believe this particular trip to Australia and New Zealand has more to do with keeping those nations in the fold.)
The Canadian opinion that Charles is “out of touch” is plain daft. From the organic food revolution that he practically pioneered (remember when we all chuckled about Charles talking to his plants?) to climate change, Charles has proven himself to be way out in front on many issues people care increasingly about. That’s called leadership.
By Dan on November 2nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
While I understand that in some areas and with some people Prince William is more popular than Charles and certainly far more popular than Camilla, I do not at this time perceive that such a preference is widespread. No matter what is said or written about Charles, he is the Heir, the Prince of Wales, and barring a horrific tragedy, he will be King. The people of the United Kingdom have a history and a tradition of forgiving almost any failing in their Princes of Wales, the one exception being the Prince Regent who became King George IV, who was detested by his subjects across the Kingdom, almost without exception. Charles will never enjoy the lasting star power of his Mother, the Queen, nor will he have the megawatt effect on people that Princess Diana had and he may not exude the youthful warmth and charm of his sons, but he will always be among the top three preferred members of the Royal Family to appear at public functions and events. The British people may change in some ways, but in their loyalty and devotion to the Heir to the Throne, they remain steadfast.
By Gigi on November 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 am
Why do you think William is representing the Queen on this visit? There was no invitation issued to any of the royals by Australia. This visit was initiated by the request of PW and as far as I can see the postings on the articles published here are not favorable to him. This visit is seen as either an attempt by PW to try and get the Governor-General position (as previously attempted by his father) or to get a tax-payer holiday. The republic debate ignites again. He will be in Australia for 3 days on the pretext that he wishes to know the country and its people better, you should see the sarcastic comments that alone has exited!
The news of his visit has been featured in Australian papers, but not front news. No TV.
I think he should have come here on private holidays first, before an official visit. The Australian public might have been less critical of this visit.
By Cristina on November 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 am
Actually, as I understand it, PW’s official visit is to New Zealand, where he will open the new Supreme Court building. It is there that he has been asked by the Queen to represent her. He will have several other engagements in New Zealand, in several cities, during his time there.
His visit to Australia is not an official visit, so he did need to request it. He’ll be spending three days in Sydney and Melbourne, including the area that was in February’s fire. It could well be that PW or the Queen is paying the expenses for this unofficial visit.
By Evelyn on November 3rd, 2009 at 3:46 am
I’m not adequately in tune with Australian sentiment about the Queen being its Head of State. I know there are rumblings about going Republic, but how likely is it that Charles will never reign over Australia? (I think I have heard that Australia will not rebel against the Queen in her lifetime, but they likely won’t stick around when Charles becomes King.)
Could William’s official visit to New Zealand be an attempt to use his popularity to keep New Zealand Royal in the event Australia goes?
By Dan on November 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Dan, Australia voted against becoming a republic 10 years ago. With socialist Kevin Rudd now in charge that’s set to be repeated, although there’s a chance the result could be reversed.
It may be that New Zealand can be diverted from that course of action. It is, after all, a smaller country and with a long tradition of loyalty to the Crown.
We shall see.
By John on November 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
The Prince’s own website reports that he and Camilla received a “rapturous greeting” upon beginning their Canadian tour in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The stadium was reportedly less than a third full, but how many rapturous people can there be in Newfoundland and Labrador?
By Dan on November 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Every year there are thousands of requests for appearances by the Royal Family, within and without the UK. The Queen’s incredible energy and stamina, along with her stalwart sense of duty and her very genuine desire to be close to her people has created a tradition of Royal attendance at as many of these events as is humanly possible. The Duke of Edinburgh, like the Queen, is tireless in his work on behalf of the Kingdom and Charles has lent his own strong support. When the Queen dies (too horrid to contemplate), and when the Duke of Edinburgh dies, Charles, Camilla, Prince William and Prince Harry must step into the breach and fulfill the demands of duty to the superb standards the Queen has set and maintained since her ascension to the Throne. Just the thought of the labor and time this will require is daunting and I only hope that such standards can be met. It is going to take a dedicated and determined Royal posse to replicate the work product of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. I have no doubt that Princess Alexandra and others among the Royal Cousins will lend their assistance, but the majority of the heavy lifting must be done by Charles, his Consort and our Golden Royal Princes, Prince William and Prince Harry. It is useful to have them train on now and adjust themselves gradually to the duties of the Crown. The burden is not light, nor will it ever be.
By Gigi on November 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I don’t think it is too soon for Prince William to be taking on some official Royal tours and engagements. By the time his grandmother was PW’s age, she already was the Queen.
I’m not against the princes’ military service, but that should be balanced with some amount of Royal responsibilities. If we only ever see them taking time off for parties and vacations, that would send the wrong signal about their future roles.
By Evelyn on November 3rd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Dan,
I can only guess that “rapturous” describes the sentiment of those present, and not their numbers. One would expect that the stadium fills up some times, unless the builder heard that famous phrase “Build it and they shall come…”
By sojourner on November 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Interesting commentary on the Royals’ visits in Reuters:
http://tinyurl.com/yz8zna6
By NCKat on November 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Dan, you are right in saying we don’t want to stick around for Charles, that sentiment is indeed strong here. The Queen (and indeed Princess Ann) is generaly well respected in Australia (by those who know of them) but the republic referendum was rejected due to its proposed model, a very flawed one if I may say so myself. Many say that it was done deliberately to ensure its negative result.
Although Australians love the Brits, the RF is not considered relevant to us. Much more interesting as part of England’s charm and history. Something we can appreciate more as tourists…
William’s visit is getting no press here. I am curious to see if anyone will turn up to see him. At this stage, comments on early articles are still getting bad responses, mostly those who are furious to be considered as his subjects. Your comment about Charles “ruling” over us would ensure the republic agenda be brought forward if it was uttered by any of the RF.
NCKat, your article is spot on about us I think. I expect we will be a republic within the next decade, and I wouldn’t be surprised if New Zealand followed soon after.
By Cristina on November 4th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Correction, PWs visit got a mention on one of our commercial channels this morning. It was a breakfast show.
By Cristina on November 4th, 2009 at 8:08 am
My question about whether Charles would ever “reign” over Australia was merely a shorthand (and historical) allusion to a King’s role as head of state. I meant no slight against the Australian people or a suggestion of their subjugation.
What does a King do? He reigns over his Kingdom. What does a President do? He (or she) presides over his or her country. It will be up to Australia to decide if it wants to be reigned over or presided over, however minimally ceremonial the current reigning actually is.
What is the practical difference between these ceremonial heads of state, a president or a monarch?
If an Australian president were given real powers, that would be different. But if not, and they simply swapped out a ceremonial Queen with a ceremonial President, the difference is all self-image, I suppose.
I assume there would be a citizenship requirement for any new Australian president?
By Dan on November 4th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
My freshman year at college, two sisters, native Candians, were lounging around with others in my room one evening. I asked them if they would teach me the words to “God Save the Queen.” Both of them stood up, placed their hands over their hearts, and sang the following anthem:
God save our gracious queen!
Long live our noble queen!
God save the queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the queen!
Dan’s figure of speech was appropriate when referencing the relationship between the Queen and any country lending allegiance and loyalty to the Crowned Head of Great Britain, which still, at this writing, includes Australia and New Zealand and, I believe, Canada.
By Gigi on November 4th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Dear Dan, I understood you the first time around but thank you for your explanation. Just as our Governor General is now expected to be an Australian citizen so would be the President I am sure. This is why none of the RF would be considered for the GG position. That they should even try is a thorny issue here and seen as arrogance on their part.
Gigi, regardless of the legalities of Australia being part of the Commonwealth the reality here is that most of us DO NOT see her as our Queen (although, I say again, she is well respected – by the way this respect does not extend to her husband) and would not act as your Canadian friends did. This allegiance was, after all, forced on most of us and considering the behavior of senior military personnel during WWI and II we see that we are not held in high regard. This resulted in Australia switching their military alliance to the US which is still current and very strong. “Convict stock” I believe we are referred to by, still, many in England.
I think Australians are more interested in being allies with Britain than being their “subjects”. I guess self image is an issue and an important one.
By Cristina on November 5th, 2009 at 12:07 am
I am floored that any British citizen would refer to an Australian as “convict stock!” Not only is it very bad form, but it is counter-productive. I cannot imagine any American citizen referring to a citizen from the state of Georgia, here in the USA, as “convict stock,” even though the state of Georgia was founded as a convict colony by Oglethorpe and was largely populated by convicts. I certainly understand your feelings, Cristina. I should also say that the experience I described with my two Canadian friends took place in the Fall of 1966. Perhaps Canadians feel differently today. At any rate, if one wants to earn the allegiance and respect of another person, one does not insult them or their lineage. That is what I meant when I said such behavior was bad form and counter-productive.
By Gigi on November 5th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Thank you Gigi for your understanding, one of the reasons we like Americans, you can empathise with us!
By Cristina on November 5th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Cristina, even the British are not “subjects” of the Queen now. The nationality laws were changed a long time ago, making us citizens.
Also, the only people I’ve ever heard describing Australians as “convict stock” are Aussie comedians. It’s never used here and would be regarded as very bad form indeed. Most Brits envy Aussies and vast numbers have emigrated, including around 20 percent of my extended family. My parent did at one stage, then returned. I spend two years in Oz working for the ABC.
What you’re describing is what used to be termed “cultural cringe”, and its reaction — a totally Australian phenomenon, unknown in Britain.
Your resentment of the Monarchy is odd, since there has never been a day in Australian history when the British Monarch has not been Head of State. It sounds like a convenient punchbag to blame all your problems on.
By John on November 5th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Honestly John, we don’t care about the legalities of it (otherwise I guess we would be a republic by now). The fact is that the Monarchy is not so much resented as it is considered irrelevant and the “cultural cringe” is laughed at because it is ridiculous but it is alive and not confined to Australia. I am happy to hear that you have not experienced it, but I have. Even then, who cares! It is comments made by people with narrow minds and we all have those around.
I don’t know what you mean when you say that my “resentment of the Monarchy is odd, since there has never been a day in Australian history when the British Monarch has not been Head of State,” so I can’t comment on that.
As for the punchbag… I do feel a problem coming on… But not the Queen or Princess Ann, the rest, yes indeed, it is OPEN SEASON! Oh, OK, and maybe not Prince Harry, he is such a cute larrikin!
By Cristina on November 6th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Cristina,
I think I understand where you are coming from… In my experience, perspectives on Monarchies in former/current colonies are seasoned with a long simmering broth of irreverence and “surely you jest!,” sprinkled with some righteous reproaches, and colored with a dash of morbid fascination.
But I am curious… What is made of your “own” Princess Mary (of Denmark)?
By sojourner on November 6th, 2009 at 3:28 am
The Huffington Post (a lefty blog in the states) has posted a slide show of Kate’s fashion sense. It even includes John’s favorite roller disco outfit.
There’s nothing new here, but heck, it’s Kate’s name in (virtual) print!
http://tinyurl.com/yjef9rv
By Dan on November 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Thanks for the link, Dan! I must say, I think Kate looks marvelous no matter what she wears. I love the navy blue outfit she wore to the Garter Ceremony especially, although she looks equally well in tweeds. Her conduct, too, is quite admirable. She appears to me to be poised, well-mannered, mature and appropriately measured and discreet in her reactions to people and events.
I cannot help but compare her to Camilla’s recent photos while at an event with Charles in Canada. Camilla’s immature and unseemly over-reaction to the guns firing is both un-Royal and inappropriate and that mop of brassy blonde hair flopping in her face is not the hallmark of a well-bred, well-groomed lady whose husband is the Heir to the Throne. When Charles is crowned King, she will be queen, but I cannot see her making a success of it. I simply do not believe that she has what it takes to be a dignified, inspiring and proper consort. I hope that I am wrong, but at this point, I do not perceive that Camilla is trying to grow into the role.
By Gigi on November 6th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Gigi, exactly how did Camilla react to the guns? I haven’t seen any news stories about such an incident.
If it was a breezy day, then I’d defy anyone to keeep their hair from flapping about. I don’t like her but I do cut her some slack regarding her hair as opposed to her wearing fur. I don’t Camilla particularly cares about what people think even if CH does.
By NCKat on November 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I actually think Camilla’s “down-to-earth” manner may help her. I don’t think the British people would let her get away with being imperious or putting on Royal airs. She’s more likely to succeed being humble and unassuming, although her wardrobe occasionally runs against it. There was a slight kerfuffle about her wearing rabbit in Canada the other day.
“The Monarchy at Work” series ran on public television in my area last Sunday. I only caught a few episodes, but I thought Charles and Camilla looked at home on the visit that was documented (on a farm in Scotland, I think) and they appeared to be well-received.
By Dan on November 6th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Well, Dan, the Huff is big in the US, and is followed by quite a few over here. Good to see Kate getting an outing, even if it’s what I call a speculative punt.
By John on November 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
The Telegraph notes that Prince Harry will represent his traveling father when laying a wreath at the Cenotaph during Remembrance services, and because he’ll be representing the heir to the Throne, he will precede William in the wreath-laying. It isn’t often that Harry precedes William in anything official.
By Dan on November 6th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Hooray for Prince Harry! The second-born in most families would enjoy being ahead of an elder sibling occasionally. There are so many things that the older sibling would naturally do first. I’m sure Prince Harry will use the occasion to gently rib Prince William.
By Evelyn on November 6th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
So long as the ribbing does not take place during the ceremony!
It is a solemn one, and I’m sure both William and Harry feel it deeply, having lost fellow soldiers in war.
Veteran’s Day will be especially sad in the States this year, after the month we’ve just had in Afghanistan and the madness in Texas yesterday.
By Dan on November 6th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
The Daily Mail has an article on Prince Harry and Chelsy at a rugby game. From the photos, the romance is definitely back on.
By Evelyn on November 8th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Getty Images has random photos of Remembrance Day 2009, but none of the Royal Family at the Cenotaph.
Has anyone seen any photos of the Queen or Princes William and Harry presenting the wreaths of poppies at the Cenotaph?
By Gigi on November 8th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Gigi, go to: http://www.bbc.co.uk and click on the top story at left. There’s a video of the Queen and others laying wreaths. Also other links around the site.
By John on November 8th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Thank you, John. That was just what I wanted to see! The video is very touching and inspiring, with the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince William and Prince Harry laying the beautiful wreaths of poppies and paying their respects to the fallen heroes of the British military. Why did not Gordon Brown bow after laying the wreath, does anyone know? If the Queen of England, the Sovereign of the Nation, bows, as indeed she did, so should all who are not in military uniform, who, of course, salute in tribute to the fallen. Is Gordon Brown simply ill-informed regarding what he is to do on behalf of the Government, or does he believe himself higher than the Queen? John, I am sorry to be so critical, but I find this person (GB) to be increasingly annoying and even loathsome. He is the epitome of bad form.
By Gigi on November 8th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Gigi, loathsome is the right word for Gordon Brown. I don’t know how much Americans know about this, but Britain has just been swallowed whole by the European Union against the wishes of its people, having been sold out by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who both promised a referendum on it.
When they realized that it would be lost by a large margin, they ratted on their promise and signed the treaty using the powers of medieval Kings to bypass democracy. It’s probably the greatest betrayal in history, and people here are seething with resentment.
This story is going to run and run and those of us who don’t accept this settlement, including the Tories, who will come to power in May, are preparing to fight to the end to overturn it.
The 20th century is beginning to repeat itself, alas.
By John on November 8th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
PS: You can see perhaps why I’ve not been focused too well on Royal affairs recently.
By John on November 8th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I didn’t see former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the Remembrance Day ceremony at the Cenotaph. Was she there and I just missed her, or is she ill?
By Arthur on November 8th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Oops! I just found pictures of Baroness Margaret Thatcher watching the Remembrance Day ceremony from a window overlooking the Cenotaph. I’m happy Baroness Thatcher is not ill.
I also noticed that most individuals wearing poppies wore the flower on their coat, except for Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex. They both wore the poppy on their hat. Is there some significance to this or is it just a style choice?
By Arthur on November 8th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Arthur, where did you find the photographs of Baroness Thatcher, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and the Countess of Wessex? I’d love to see those.
John, I had no idea what skulduggery lay behind the EU treaty beign signed for the UK, without referendum, and against the will of the British people.
This is an infamous abuse of the power granted Gordon Brown and I do hope that it can be overturned. How long must we wait before the Tories are returned to power?
By Gigi on November 8th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Gigi, the pictures can be found on Getty Images. Search for Remembrance Sunday, 2009.”
By Arthur on November 9th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Thank you, Arthur!
By Gigi on November 9th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Gigi, the General Election has to be held by the first week in June, but it looks like the first week in May has been pencilled in. Then we can finally draw a line under the worst government in modern times.
By John on November 9th, 2009 at 7:40 am
There’s yet another story circulating (I found it on Google News) that Kate is moving to NY in January to work for photographer Nikolai von Bismark.
The Queen is an avid photographer. Why not intern for her?
HM knows everything Kate has to learn.
By Dan on November 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Thank you for that helpful information, John. I would rather not wait until May-June, but if we must, we must.
Dan, after the infamous ill-treatment mercilessly inflicted upon Queen Victoria’s beloved eldest daughter and her husband, the Crown Prince and Crown Princess of Prussia, by Prince Otto von Bismarck, the great great great grandfather of Nikolai von Bismarck, I would prefer that no one even remotely connected with Britain’s Royal Family associate with a von Bismarck, but perhaps time heals all wounds.
By Gigi on November 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
John, I hate to dig too deeply into the politics of the occasion, but hasn’t future Prime Minister Cameron also u-turned on his promise to put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum?
Gigi, let’s hope the Bismarcks have tamed their ways, at least in the presence of comely young interns.
By Dan on November 9th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Dan, Cameron is not Prime Minister and the treaty has already been ratified. To hold a referendum on it in, say, July next year would be bizarre because it cannot be retrieved now. The U-turn was by Blair and Brown, who forced it through Parliament by majority and whipping. A shameful exercise in deceit and betrayal.
As for the Bismarck story, that’s been current for some months. It may well end up in the same bin as the Tom Ford story.
By John on November 9th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
wasnt kate suppose to be moving to nyc a few years back to work for testino? guess if there is nothing to report “they” need to make up something…
good to see william and harry taking on royal responsibilities (as time allows)
good day to all!
By coni on November 10th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Yes, Coni. First it was Mario Testino, then Tom Ford, now Nicholai von Bismarck.
Who’s next, I wonder? President Obama?
By John on November 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
do we know if kate is still working for her folks? seems like the “safest” play for now..until she and william formalize their plans…if she were to try and seek employment elsewhere she would be chased down the street constantly (believe this was the case when she was at the clothing store) and would be critized for taking advantage of her royal connections…she cant win either way….
By coni on November 10th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
There was a report that she had stopped working for Party Pieces, but like all these things, it’s hard to tell without direct information.
If she’s not, she must be keeping a very low profile somewhere.
By John on November 10th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
The Obamas will host their first State Dinner on November 24th. I can’t find a report on who the guest of honor is. They must want to keep Kate’s arrival hush hush for security reasons.
By Dan on November 10th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
The first State Dinner for any President is always the most important and whom they choose as Guest of Honor often sends a signal. For that reason, I doubt that Kate would be chosen as Guest of Honor, although she might be included in the guest list for the dinner if the Obamas want to meet her. The invitations are already out and the names on the guest list have already been vetted, so we should hear something fairly soon about this.
By Gigi on November 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
According to my son, who lives and works in DC, the Guest of Honor at the State Dinner on November 24th is Prime Minister Singh of India.
By Gigi on November 10th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Somehow I knew this forum would provide the news I couldn’t find elsewhere.
Gigi, are you sure the invitations have been sent out? Funny, I haven’t received mine.
By Dan on November 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Yes, I am. There is a rather rigid time frame and precise protocol for State Dinners, as you can imagine. If you haven’t received your invitation and really expected to be invited, call the White House Social Secretary and inquire about it. She and the Office of Protocol have the master lists. Dan, if you are invited and if you attend, please post a VERY detailed account of what the State Dining Room looked like (flowers, table appointments), all the guests and what everyone wore! “She wore a blue dress” is not the detail we are requiring here. We need this type of detail: “The First Lady wore a cobalt blue and gold hand-painted silk chiffon floor length gown by (designer), accessorized with (jewelry) and (shoes, bag) and (a detailed description of her hair do). ” The White House has a number of historic sets of Presidential china, several of which still have the number of pieces required for a State Dinner. Please describe the china in detail so we can identify which set they used and we need a detailed description of the floral arrangements.
I know this is a lot to ask, but firsthand details are hard to come by at these very fancy events!!!
By Gigi on November 10th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
How am I supposed to see all that through the lampshade on my head?
By Dan on November 10th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Oh dear. Dan isn’t hitting the sauce again, is he?
Gigi, I just adore you!
By Leslie on November 10th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Oh, dear. Dan, we have to have a little chat before you leave for the White House. I fear that the Secret Service and White House staff are not as tolerant as we are during our Royal Anecdotes Gala Teas. We don’t want you ending up in jail because you developed a symbiotic relationship with a moist magnum of champagne! Whatever you do, do NOT put one of the White House lampshades on your head! When Mrs. Kennedy was redecorating the White House, she was paying $200+ for handmade silken lampshades so heaven only knows what the replacements cost now with inflation! We don’t want the Chief of Protocol to pass out in a dead faint. Also, the White House staff is somewhat territorial about White House furnishings and the Secret Service is cranky even in the best of circumstances. (I fear they are not eating enough Balmoral Dundee cake to soothe their frazzled nerves, as our own dear John is wise enough to do.)
Thank you, my dear Leslie, for those very kind words! Someone must be found from within the ranks of our own trusted RA family to accompany Dan to the State Dinner at the White House, to protect him from the pitfalls of over-indulgence! Dan, do make inquiries about an appropriate RAer to accompany you to the White House.
By Gigi on November 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
*Hic*
By Dan on November 10th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Well, I do live just a mere 110 miles South…
By Leslie on November 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
dan – i have a close friend in “government security” in case you run into trouble!
By coni on November 10th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Leslie and I shall give a full report from under the piano in the East Room!
By Dan on November 10th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I should never have menioned President Obama. I blame myself …
By John on November 10th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
we’re all crackers!
tee hee
By coni on November 10th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
“…from under the piano in the East Room.” LOL!
By Gigi on November 10th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
John, we are all adults, and thus responsible for our own Stolis… I meant follies, OOPS!
By sojourner on November 11th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Well said, Sojourner. My dear John, we merry RAers are quite capable of getting ourselves into all kinds of mischief all on our own!
In fact, I believe that I am and have been the architect of my own catastrophe since early childhood! That’s my excuse, anyway, and I am sticking to it!
By Gigi on November 11th, 2009 at 4:06 am
Today is Veterans Day in America, and because the Fort Hood Memorial Service was yesterday, this annual holiday of remembrance and respect honoring all those who serve and have served in the US Military is all the more poignant and solemn, fervent and sincere. My blessings and my deepest gratitude to all the men and women of the US Military and my prayers for those who served and have gone before and for those who made the ultimate sacrifice. “Great God of Hosts, be with us yet. Lest we forget, lest we forget.”
By Gigi on November 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
It’s Armistice Day here too, Gigi. The Queen attended a big memorial service in London this morning, with all the politicians and ambassadors there. A splendid occasion.
By John on November 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
John, I watched a video of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh praying during the service at magnificent Westminster Abbey–very touching, very stirring. How difficult it must be for the Queen, as C-in-C, and for Prince Philip, who served in battle with the Navy during WWII, to be at these services and have painful memories renewed of loss of family and comrades during the war years. How well the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh represent all that is best, shining and true in service to the UK, and what a splendid example they set for all of us! They are such a blessing!
By Gigi on November 11th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
How sad this year especially, now that the last surviving veterans of the so-called “lost generation” of WWI have all passed on.
By Dan on November 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
well said gigi…nancy pelosi was here in san fran for a ceremony at one of our local miltary cemetaries. on memorial day our local boy and girl scout troops (and those of us who just show up) put flags on the graves..its especially meaningful for me as my uncle was killed in the koren war – i never knew him…but its with great pride that i place a flag on his grave
wonder why this is not done on veterans day as well….
By coni on November 12th, 2009 at 1:31 am
It’s done here where I live, Coni but then I live in the South which is still very traditional regarding remembering our war veterans.
By NCKat on November 12th, 2009 at 1:33 am
It is done here, too, Coni, but then Texas is arguably the most patriotic state in the Union and has a large percentage of people serving in the military.
By Gigi on November 12th, 2009 at 3:44 am
I have ties to Texas myself, having a grandfather who was born and raised in Cameron, TX. He joined the navy during WWI and met my grandmother in London after the war. They stayed in London until my mum was born and then moved back to the US. It’s a romantic story I enjoyed hearing my nana tell when I was a child.
By NCKat on November 12th, 2009 at 4:05 am
The NY Times this morning has an article about Charles’ and Camilla’s trip to Canada, touching on his future role as Head of State.
http://tinyurl.com/ylkuojp
As you might expect of Canada, there seems to be a collective shrug about it, and no eagerness to change the constitution.
By Dan on November 13th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Thanks for the link, Dan. I somehow feel that if the visit to Canada had been made by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh rather than Charles and Camilla, the reaction of the media and the people would have been far more enthusiastic. I am a devoted monarchist, especially devoted to the Royal Family of Great Britain, and have been all my life, but I confess that I wouldn’t raise the blinds on my window to see Charles and Camilla. The Queen is an entirely different matter! When she came to Austin, Texas for a brief visit some years ago, I was nursing a very badly sprained and swollen ankle and foot but that did not deter me! My husband drove me downtown and let me off as close to the area as possible and I painfully limped the rest of the way to be in the front line of the large group of very excited Texans who were ecstatic to see the Queen, even for a few moments. It remains one of my outstanding memories! The Queen is irreplaceable, in my view, and Charles has done nothing to make himself a worth successor and has done quite a lot to make himself less worthy. If people in Canada or anywhere else find the prospect of Charles as King of England to be uninspiring or even unpalatable, he has no one but himself to blame. Charles is now and always has been the architect of his own catastrophy.
By Gigi on November 13th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I see him in a somewhat softer light than you, Gigi, but I agree his star doesn’t shine brightly in the firmament.
At least in loyal Canada there is no rampant republican fervor such as we expect Down Under.
By Dan on November 13th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Oh egad, my typos proliferate! I meant to type “worthy” not worth and “catastrophe” not catastrophy. This really is the limit!
By Gigi on November 13th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
On the risk of receiving tepid tea during the next celebration… I myself, while not wishing any ill towards the Queen, look forward to a Charles kingship when, in the fullness of time, his turn does come.
(Just joking about the tea: Gigi, the consummate hostess, would never stoop so low
)
By sojourner on November 14th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Trust me, sojourner, the tea shall be hot, the champagne shall not (be hot)!
The only thing that will be as hot as the tea will be the Apple Charlotte, I shall swear.
By Gigi on November 14th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Things must be really slow re: PW and KM news. The DM has a piece saying that nothing is decided yet – PW still hasn’t proposed to KM – but couriers are definitely talking about a wedding, possibly in 2012:
http://tinyurl.com/yk6grpd
Piece is written by Kate Nicholl.
By NCKat on November 15th, 2009 at 1:08 am
The Daily Mail also has a piece on Chelsy Davy and Prince Harry. Chelsy has completed the law course she has been doing in London, is deferring her work experience for a year, and plans to travel the world. The travel will start with Christmas and New Years in South Africa, with Prince Harry joining her.
By Evelyn on November 15th, 2009 at 2:48 am
I don’t wish to sound cynical, but how often have we heard the words “pencilled in” over the past five years? There are always masses of smokescreens surrounding William’s plans and intentions.
I hope it’s true. It would make 2012 a fantastic year. And David Cameron will be Prime Minister. How good is that?
By John on November 15th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Well, John, I was rather thinking it sounds like it was timed to counteract the recent spate of “news” going around that Kate would be off to New York to study photography. But that isn’t likely, is it?
By NCKat on November 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Again, it’s an old story, and may be a smokescreen, or not, as the case may be.
Only when the Palace, St James’s or Clarence House announce something can we fully believe it.
By John on November 15th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I must admit, the timing (2012) would be ideal! Also, it gives us time to get rid of Gordon Brown and rid ourselves of the bad taste he has left in the mouths of everyone! David Cameron as Prime Minister will be an immense improvement in every way imagineable. The day when the Queen asks him to form a government cannot come to soon to suit me!
By Gigi on November 15th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
You speak for me, Gigi.
By John on November 15th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I was seriously considering having a Royal Anecdotes Gala “Don’t Let the Door Hit You As You Exit” Tea for when Gordon Brown slinks away into the night, but that might be a trifle declasse, to say the least! Instead we shall have a Royal Anecdotes Gala Welcome to David Cameron and the New Tory Government Tea when that happy day arrives to bless our lives and soothe our tortured psyches!
The champagne shall flow like the Thames at high flood stage! Let us hope that Dan ingests a full course meal prior to the festivities, for all our sakes!
By Gigi on November 16th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Gigi, that will be a joyous and …er … very tipplesome occasion indeed. Roll on May 6 (expected date of election).
By John on November 16th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
have been away for a few days – hope i havent missed gigi’s “hit you on the way out” tea!!
have heard the talk about “the wedding” for 2012 – have turned a bit leary of the supposed “inside sources”
By coni on November 16th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Gigi, I thought you might be interested to know that C-SPAN will be providing live television coverage of the State Opening of Parliament and the Queen’s Speech this Wednesday, November 18th, at 5:30 AM ET, 4:30 AM CT. I know this is a bit early in the day, but you can always set your VCR/Tivo and watch the ceremony later, at your leisure.
By Arthur on November 16th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Thank you so much, Arthur! I shall certainly tune in! I really appreciate you letting me know!
By Gigi on November 17th, 2009 at 4:45 am
thanks arthur – will set the tivo
By coni on November 18th, 2009 at 12:13 am
I had a chat with my friend and heard about historian David Starkey who made a rude comment on the Queen. Who is he?
By Mikado-watcher on November 18th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Please don’t let him be related to Richard Starkey, aka Ringo Starr, who would never say anything rude to anyone, let alone the Queen!
By Gigi on November 18th, 2009 at 3:55 am
I think Ben Elton’s remarks were outrageous – I read he’s moving to Australia – not sure he’d be welcome back in the UK..
By NCKat on November 18th, 2009 at 11:19 am
What did Ben Elton say and what did David Starkey say? Would someone provide a link so that I may be aghast as well?
By Gigi on November 18th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Gigi, Ben Elton’s tasteless comments on members of the Royal Family can be found HERE.
David Starkey is a TV historian, but is a waspish old queen who likes to criticize the real Queen for her occasional liking for a Gin and Dubonnet. He really shouldn’t be taken seriously and I too have no idea what he said this time.
By John on November 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Thank you, John and I just drank two cups of strong, scalding tea right down to try to recover from reading Elton’s acidic and totally inaccurate attack on the Royal Family! Whoever is this tasteless, outrageous, vitriolic person?! If the Queen is a “sad old lady” then I am at death’s door! As for the remarks he made regarding Prince Philip, Charles, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, I shall treat those comments with the contempt they deserve. I am thrilled that this clod is leaving for Australia but I prefer he not delay his departure until the end of the year. I shall personally escort him to the plane. Now would be just grand.
By Gigi on November 18th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Gigi, Ben Elton is a comedic writer who wrote the best four series ever on the BBC (IMHO) – the Blackadder series starring Rowan Atkinson and Hugh Laurie (whom we Americans now know as Dr. Gregory House on “House.” Mr. Elton is a brilliant writer but a monarchist he is not. Fortunately for the UK monarchists, he has decided to move to Australia, where his wife is from.
Mr. Elton is well-known for his very liberal political opinions.
By NCKat on November 18th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Thank you, John “a waspish old queen” tells me all about David Starkey. I guess he may have a queenly rivalry against Her Majesty.
By Mikado-watcher on November 18th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
According to the Mail, Kate stepped out to the movies last night. Let the feverish wedding rumors run wild again!
By Dan on November 20th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
The Mail piece is just a report on Kate’s visit to a cinema with Holly Branson, plus a reprinting of Katie Nicholl’s report on Sunday, most of which was backroom chatter by Palace courtiers who admitted they didn’t really know, but …
Hard facts are impossible to come by. Maybe that’s because there are none.
By John on November 20th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
i’m with you john..think all this “chatter” is just that..chatter..with no hard facts…i’ll wait for the “formal” announcement….assuming there will be one…
thoughts
By coni on November 21st, 2009 at 12:36 am
So, now KM is performing quantum feats! There are several twits, oops, I mean tweets
that report simultaneous sightings in very different locations — rugby and High Street
By sojourner on November 21st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
According to Kate Nicholl, PW has deliberately timed his trip to NZ and Australia so as not to miss KM’s birthday this time around (he’s missed it the last two years). Kate also reports that the Queen has scaled down on her visits to her subjects during her Diamond Jubilee year and has asked other senior royals to step up to the plate. It’s not that she’s feeling ill; it’s that she’s probably starting to feel her age.
Here’s the link to the article: http://tinyurl.com/ylhm2xd
By NCKat on November 21st, 2009 at 10:45 pm
So, the holiday season is approaching again. Many of us regular people will find reason to over-indulge in our favorite treats (which is why we should keep an eye out for Dan *and* the liquor cabinet
). KN and other royal fantasists over indulge in their vices: imagining they have a clue about PWs future (which the young man himself may very well not have too clear either 
By sojourner on November 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 am
Not PW-KM news but just as fascinating, nevertheless: According to The Telegraph, when King George VI’s health started to deteriorate after the war, the Duke and Duchess started to plot from afar how to take over the throne and divert it away from Elizabeth. The implications are too horrible to contemplate, but it does make for interesting “what-if” speculation?
The story can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/y9952rn
By NCKat on November 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Arghhh – I meant to key in “the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.” Without that “Winsdor” bit that item read like a question from “Jeopardy.” My apologies!
By NCKat on November 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Interesting article, NCKat. Thanks for the hat-tip.
By John on November 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
That story of blind ambition demonstrates how hedonistic the Duke and Duchess of Windsor truly were, and how ruthlessly self-entitled. It is especially sad to read that they and the poisonously meddlesome courtiers feared the Mountbatten influence. Lord Mountbatten of Burma, a Naval hero and the Great Grandson of Queen Victoria, considered the Duke of Windsor to be his best friend all his life. Evidently their friendship was not returned in full measure by the selfish, egocentric Duke. As for the premise that Lord Louis Montbatten and his nephew were plotting to be the power behind the throne, that is utter rubbish. Lord Louis was ambitious and sometimes spoke out of turn, but Prince Philip knew his uncle well and knew when to distance himself from his uncle’s’ ambition. Prince Philip did, indeed, distance himself from his Uncle Dickie Mountbatten after Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II and this act deeply disappointed Lord Mountbatten and was said to be the reason that he constructed a close relationship with Charles, the Heir, which was sustained until the untimely and violent death of Lord Mountbatten at the hands of IRA assassins. Anyone who doubts that God loves and blesses Great Britain, recollect! All Britannia was blessed when Queen Elizabeth II was proclaimed and began her reign. Those blessings continue to this very day.
By Gigi on November 22nd, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I guess the old saying “love is blind” was true in the Duke and Duchess of Windsor’s case! I also have to say they deserved each other. I have read that they bored each other in the last years of their marriage (wouldn’t surprise me in the least) – they certainly proved themselves to be rather selfish creatures, don’t you think? If you are as self-absorbed as they seem to have been and don’t care about others, you certainly don’t lead a very satisfying life. (IMHO that is)
By NCKat on November 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I love the latest articles that say Prince William wants “no bowing and scraping” during New Zealand, Australia trip. My understanding is that he will not be getting any bowing and scraping regardless. He will, I am sure, be made to feel welcome and be well looked after as a (paying) guest so there is nothing to be concerned about.
I wouldn’t pay much attention to the Ben Elton incident. The show is very funny and is well know for going over the top with comments. He would be in line with all the other participants. This is the media making a bid deal out of it. Nobody who regularly watches the show would take any of it seriously.
By Cristina on November 23rd, 2009 at 6:02 am
My understanding is that he will not be getting any bowing and scraping regardless. He will, I am sure, be made to feel welcome and be well looked after as a (paying) guest so there is nothing to be concerned about.
Cristina, you sound like a republican. That’s rather a grudging way to speak of our future King, if not yours.
By John on November 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
The Telegraph has done it again – a well-thought-out article regarding William and Harry adjusting to their new roles and how they are setting up their futures. I must say that William comes across as more canny than his father at the same age.
The link: http://tinyurl.com/y863xfb
(John, this would be a very interesting feature for you, methinks!)
By NCKat on November 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Thanks so much for the link, NCKat! I found the article fascinating, not the least because it gives me great pleasure to see the Golden Princes moving smoothly into their roles in the Royal Family. The author did make one error when he said that not since the time of Queen Victoria has there been a healthy heir and a spare at the death of the reigning monarch. On the death of King George V, his four sons, the Prince of Wales (who became Edward VIII and abdicated, living out his life as the Duke of Windsor, the Duke of York, (who became King George VI and the father of Queen Elizabeth II), the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, (who married Princess Marina of Greece and died tragically during WWII in military service) were alive and in good health. As for who gives the best and most reliable advice to Prince Willian and Prince Harry, I would say that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh can be depended upon to steer their steps on the proper path. Charles always has an agenda which favors himself and none other.
By Gigi on November 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
John, yes I am, but for Australia only. I do not speak for other countries and indeed would not wish for the removal of the monarchy in England. By the way, I was one of the voters who rejected the republic a few years back.
Very interesting article NCKat, thank you for the link.
By Cristina on November 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
John, I am sure the article, and Cristina, were both referring to pedicure choices, and not, horror of horrors, proper protocol and deference to a foreign dignitary / political figure, whether or not guest of the state.
I of course, treat all guest, whether paying or free-loaders, with the out most grace.
By sojourner on November 24th, 2009 at 4:31 am
It is very bad form to be rude or dismissive to a guest–Royal or commoner–in either your home or your country. I would hope that none of us would behave in such a mannerless fashion. It really isn’t done, truly it isn’t.
By Gigi on November 24th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
I’m afraid I saw very little from my vantage under the piano in the East Room at the White House, and not a single canape hit the floor, to the chagrin of my rumbling stomach. Must be austere times indeed if this is what passes for a State Dinner these days!
There was a horrible racket out on the lawn. It must be harvest time in the garden. How does anyone get any sleep in this place?
By Dan on November 25th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
to all in the states – happy thanksgiving to you and yours..
gobble gobble
By coni on November 25th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Oh dear, Dan, I am sorry that your vantage place was not a success and I am sorry that you were hungry while on surveillance! I watched the guests process into the East Room last night on the computer (Politico 44) because I wanted to see all the beautiful gowns and saris and I hoped to catch a glimpse of Dan and Coni under the grand piano. Mrs. Obama’s gown was beautiful, although I thought she wore too many bangle bracelets. I did not care for the garish apple green table linens but the place settings, a combination of three china patterns from three Presidents, were elegant and heavily banded in gold. The flowers looked lovely. The menu sounded delicious and appropriate, but the music did not appeal to me. As Dan hinted, it was too loud. My dear Dan, this dinner was at the White House and the guests were among the most cultured, sophistocated people on earth. Did you truly expect them to drop canapes on the floor of the East Room?!
That would be almost as ghastly a faux pas as dropping a canape at Buckingham Palace in the presence of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh!
I spent today picking up my fresh turkey, arranging roses for the center of our Thanksgiving dinner table, baking my pies and cutting up the bread which will be made into stuffing tomorrow morning! A Happy Thanksgiving to all our dear American RAers, and may we all pause to give thanks for our many blessings, wrought by Almighty God, whose mercy endures forever. Gobble, gobble, dear Coni!!
By Gigi on November 25th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
We don’t know when he will marry, we still wonder how and where it will be done, and to many, even the who is matter of great debate. Yet here goes the Daily News again, talking about laws of succession, without any inkling of a impacted heir in sight!
Talk about carts before donkeys… Or just plain old *donkeys*
http://tinyurl.com/yf5afpl
PS There is of course, lots of impacted hair on our dear PWs head, too bad for that
By sojourner on November 25th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Gigi, did the tea to celebrate the publishing of John’s book happen? Or am I just not remembering it?
By Evelyn on December 4th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Thank you, Evelyn. I’ve been rushed off my feet since the launch of the book. I made the mistake of selling it off the websites, now my office has turned into a packing department and half my day is spent stuffing Jiffy bags, sticking stamps and queuing up in crowded Post Offices. If you do buy it, please use Amazon.
By John on December 4th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Thanks for the reminder, Evelyn! Dear RAers, we are today celebrating the publishing of the book by our own dear John, which, I hope and in fact confidently predict, will FLY off the shelves of Amazon and all other bookdealers! We shall now celebrate with a festive tea to honor our very worthy John. My dear Evelyn, if you will pour, I will pass the tea sandwiches. If our dear Coni will help us by serving the Balmoral Dundee Cake and also the Yule Log cake, I will be most grateful. We are also offering gingerbread men and gingerbread women, a seasonal treat. If our redoubtable Dan will serve the stronger libations without incident (!!) at the sideboard, I believe we are ready! Dear RA friends, please come to the table, our festive Royal Anecdotes Gala Congratulations to John upon the Publication of his Book Tea is served!
By Gigi on December 4th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Oh, goody I am the first one to arrive! Since Dan is not here, I’ll just volunteer for champagne duty until he arrives. First round served!
Congrats to John; may the customers be many, and the post lines short. Or at the very least diverting…
By sojourner on December 4th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Thank you, Gigi. I’ve just downed a very large vodka and tonic after a very busy week. Your hospitality is always perfect.
I fear Dan is away with the fairies already, as I may be before the night is out. Perhaps I should stick to Balmoral Dundee cake.
By John on December 4th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Can I pour tea for anyone?
Gigi, I noticed that several websites are reporting that Sarah Ferguson and her daughters were at the US premier of “Young Victoria” in Los Angeles. You may want to start checking movie theaters in your area.
By Evelyn on December 5th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Another article I’ve seen says that “The Young Victoria” will be in US theaters on December 18.
By Evelyn on December 5th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Per the Telegraph, the senior Royals will now use legal means to prevent paparazzi from taking photos of private family situations, even if the photographers are off-property with telephoto lenses:
http://tinyurl.com/ykwj62z
I say it’s about time even if there is an avid interest in the Royal’s private lives.
By NCKat on December 5th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Again from The Telegraph – no announcement yet but it seems that PW and KM now have a wedding planner:
http://tinyurl.com/yfd9y8j
John, how reliable is this source?
By NCKat on December 5th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Never mind – the planner was hired as a lady-in-waiting to the Countess of Wessex. I really must read beyond the headlines!
By NCKat on December 5th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I finally got around to reading the Telegraph’s article on the Queen and paparazzi. Of note, the article says that neither Kate Middleton nor Chelsy Davy will be at Sandringham this Christmas.
By Evelyn on December 7th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Yes, I saw that – they certainly seem to state it very firmly, don’t they? I supposed it’s to help quelch some of the speculations that Kate or Chelsy would have been invited there.
By NCKat on December 7th, 2009 at 4:32 am
Well. the Telegraph is now speculating that the odds for a Christmas announcement of an engagement have just increased due to the more stringent paparazzi control:
http://tinyurl.com/yhxq3or
I will be ironically amused if it turns out to be an announcement of Zara Phillips and Mike Tindall’s engagement.
By NCKat on December 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
You may be right, NCKat. That relationship seems ripe for an announcement.
Zara is thought to be buying land in Portugal to develop an equestrian centre. She’ll need a big strong man like Iron Mike to help with that.
As for the William / Kate aspect. Here we go again. Kate is said to be going to a placement in New York after Christmas. She would hardly announce an engagement then jump into the lion’s den. The paps would be all over her.
As always, let’s wait and see. Yawn!
By John on December 7th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
It really could be the engagement announcement of Mike Tindall and Zara Phillips! That makes the most sense to me, since she has the Olympics behind her now and it is clear that both Mike and Zara want to marry each other. A Christmas engagement leading to a summer wedding would be perfect! At last, at last, we may have a Royal Wedding!
I do not think that the engagement announcement, if indeed one is contemplated for this Christmas, will be for Prince William and Kate Middleton. Royal Engagments are seldom for more than a year’s duration, and I find it difficult to believe that the Royal Wedding of the Decade is being planned for either this summer or Christmas of 2010. There is no Royal Wedding more significant than that of a reigning monarch (as Queen Victoria was when she wed Prince Albert) or of a Prince of Wales, (as Charles was when he wed Princess Diana), or of a person high in the line of succession, as Prince William will be when he weds Kate Middleton, as we are lead to suppose. The pomp and circumstance, pageantry and protocol will be unsurpassed, as will the elegance of the fetes preceding the actual nuptials. I am seriously considering ordering the champagne now, in advance of the Gala Royal Anecdotes Royal Wedding Tea, in case proper quantities of the desired brands are in short supply as the date of the fetes approaches. Heaven help us all if Dan finds the supplies of champagne, however. I must endeavor to store the wine in a secret hideaway! 
By Gigi on December 7th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
*Hic*
Is the State Dinner over already?
They don’t throw parties like they used to, but at least they’re easier to get into.
By Dan on December 7th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Gigi, I certainly hope we can have a Royal Engagement Tea, whenever that prospect becomes a reality– regardless of which Royal is engaged!
By Evelyn on December 8th, 2009 at 6:57 am
My dear Evelyn, indeed we shall! If one cooperative Royal will just announce his or her engagement, we shall celebrate the event forthwith!
By Gigi on December 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Oh, dear! Will someone near to Dan please pour him a large cup of very strong, hot coffee and keep pouring it until he recovers from the State Dinner? I fear he may need a keeper!
By Gigi on December 8th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
that dan needs to be watched every minute!
ho ho ho!
By coni on December 9th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I’ve just dug myself out of what the local weathermen are calling the Storm of the Century. (Hardly that, but you know how local weathermen are!
)
As luck would have it, I discovered a bottle of Bailey’s in the bottom of the fridge. I felt like Napoleon, stranded in the alps with a trusting and well-equipped St. Bernard at my side.
On other matters: While I still doubt Kate is moving to NYC, I wonder if she would face the same paparazzi frenzy that reigns in London and elsewhere. NYC paps are a jaded lot, and may not hound a would-be British Princess as much as we might expect. Indeed, that may be one reason why she might consider the move. Celebrities move around NYC with a fair amount of anonymity.
Also, Kate is not nearly as well known in the US as she is in Europe. Of course, an official engagement would change that very quickly.
By Dan on December 10th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Oh, sadness…I missed the tea
Sorry, I’ve been under the weather but hopefully better now!
So, more buzz about Kate painting NY, Zara’s engagement, W & K at Christmas…apparently I have not missed much other than the tea…sigh! I do wish something would happen to add some excitement. Although the new moritorium on private photos does add a little question mark on things…although I don’t think I’ll bet the house one any speculation around that
Glad to be in the land of the speculating
By Julie on December 11th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
There are some updates being reported in the Telegraph on Prince William’s plans. Next week he’ll attend Centrepoint’s 40th anniversary. In January, he’ll receive his wings as a helicopter pilot, and then go to New Zealand to represent the Queen, and Australia. Upon his return, he’ll move to Wales for the next phase of this training, in Sea Kings. He’s expected to spend three months in the Falklands next year as part of his training.
By Evelyn on December 12th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Katie Nicholl at the Daily Mail is chiming in with the “news” that William is slated to become the “Shadow King,” and there is a possibility that Charles may abdicate in William’s favor (which I highly doubt):
http://tinyurl.com/y9vono2
In any case, it looks as if William is ready at last to take on some of his responsibilities and that plans are being formulated to highlight Kate Middleton’s charity work in preparation for her role. It also seems that Camilla is not too happy about travelling about the world with Charles (although one wonders if she knew what she was signing on for when she agreed to marry Charles.)
By NCKat on December 12th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
HRM may not be thrilled with her eldest choices in the past, but she has always shown true loyalty to him, and lately, I would say, evident affection. She will not be skipping him outright. If there is concern over awkwardness, it will be handled with the utmost subtlety.
By sojourner on December 13th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
*sigh* “choices her eldest has made” is what I should have written.
By sojourner on December 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
If Charles agrees to abdicate in favor of Prince William, I shall be the most surprised person on the planet! Charles has been impatiently “waiting in the wings” for sixty-one years and he is said to have many ambitious plans to change the monarchy and influence the government. I believe that his desire for kingship is intense. His chosen consort, however, is another matter. Camilla appears to be far less enthusiastic about fulfulling Royal duties, which does not bode well for the future, when, as Queen, she will be expected to carry a very heavy daily schedule of Royal engagements, including travel to uncomfortable climes. I do not entirely dismiss the possibility that Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, may desire Prince William to be the next King instead of Charles, because neither the Queen nor the Duke of Edinburgh are confident that Charles can be trusted with the Crown. Nevertheless, no one, including his Royal parents, has ever been able to coax or force Charles to do anything he didn’t want to do and I doubt anyone shall be able to wrestle the Crown from Charles’ eager hands.
By Gigi on December 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Gigi,
Where do you see evidence of HRMs mistrust of PC?
By sojourner on December 13th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Sojourner, there have been hints and rumors of this for years. Charles and I are the same age and I have been very familiar with the incidents of his life since I was in elementary school. Charles has been a disappointment to the Queen and Prince Philip since his days at Cheam, where he did not demonstrate the personal discipline and “toughness” which Prince Philip so admires in his grandson, Peter Philips, and which both the Queen and Prince Philip feel are requisites for any monarch. Within the Royal family, Charles was compared unfavorably, from the days of early childhood, with Princess Anne, now the Princess Royal, who is more intelligent, more energetic and far more of a self-starter. Charles’ dawdling for years in a bachelor state set the nerves of both the Queen and Prince Philip on edge, and the spectacular failure of his marriage to Princess Diana, and his part in that failure, furthered the erosion of confidence. They did not approve of Charles marrying Camilla and Camilla has not demonstrated an ability to be the type of consort Charles will need when he becomes King. The flaws in Charles’ character, (a tendency to self-pity, a stubborn, blind insistence on having his own way, and his strong sense of self-entitlement) would be serious flaws in a normal person. In a Prince of Wales who will be King, these flaw may well prove fatal. This does not mean that the Queen and Prince Philip do not love their elder son, nor does it mean that they take no pride in his achievements, such as his creation of the Prince’s Trust. The material point is whether Charles will make a hardworking, reliable and inspiring Constitutional Monarch and Defender of the Faith. At this point, it appears as if the Queen and Prince Philips harbor doubts about Charles’ abilities. This point is a very significant one for the Queen, because Duty and the faithful fulfillment of her Oath is everything to her, and she feels obligated, to God and to the Kingdom, to do all she can to pass the Throne to an able and worthy successor. Even so, I believe that it would take a catastrophic event for Charles to abdicate in favor of Prince William. Queen Victoria, a much more powerful monarch than Queen Elizabeth II, did not feel that her son, who became King Edward VII, was fit to be King, but he did, in fact, become King. She did nothing to prevent it, and she certainly had the power to do so. I cannot imagine a situation so disastrous that would prompt Queen Elizabeth II to remove Charles from the line of succession, unless Charles himself wished to withdraw. Knowing Charles, I am certain that he will never do so.
By Gigi on December 13th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
agree with all above – camilla just does seem to be “into” royal duties..must be difficult to come into a hectic schedule later in life while the rest have grown up with it all or married into royal life at a younger age..
has anyone seen “young victoria’ its finally showing here in san francisco plan on seeing it next week
happy holidays to all!
By coni on December 14th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
“Young Victoria” supposedly opens December 18th but no theater within 20 miles of Austin will be showing it.
By Gigi on December 15th, 2009 at 12:52 am
One of the recent articles mentions that Camilla and Charles are not popular and that there were demonstrations in Canada against the Monarchy during their recent visit. It is also mentioned that it may be why William is being sent to Australia in the hope that he will be better received. Testing the water it seems…
Does this mean that they are afraid that the Monarchy is in danger if Charles does become king? I would certainly agree that William will be better received here than Charles but I think it has little impact on the republican debate in Australia. Does it make any difference to the RF or the British people if Australia, NZ and Canada vote for a republic? Do they think that if they bypass Charles they have a better chance of keeping us or the favor of the British public? Is this what it’s really all about or is it just media speculation?
By Cristina on December 15th, 2009 at 3:57 am
I personally believe that the issues are closer to home than in Australia, New Zealand or Canada. I believe that there are serious concerns, which are not by any means baseless, that if Charles and Camilla come to the throne, they may bring about the end of the monarchy. No one knows Charles better than the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, and they certainly are well-qualified to assess his weaknesses and strengths. I believe that that the former greatly outweighs the latter. Nevertheless, those negative factors which I perceive, as an outside observer, may in the end signify nothing. The crux of the matter is what the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh know to be fact and their fears for the future of the monarchy.
By Gigi on December 15th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
The Palace says the Mail on Sunday story about the Queen passing on some of her duties to the next generation is “total and utter fabrication,” and that William’s focus will continue to be on his military career.
By Dan on December 15th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Let us wait and see!
By Gigi on December 15th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Dan,
I am not surprised by this statement. I think, while honest and with the best of intentions, talk about passing over PC only undermines the entire Monarchy in the end.
Can you imagine a similar discussion about Henry VIII’s women troubles? 8-(
By sojourner on December 15th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Speaking of Charles, the Daily Express is reporting that Charles used a private jet to transport him to Copenhagen, where he spoke at the Climate Change Conference. Evidently, according to the article, this choice of transport is the very reverse of the green lifestyle Charles promotes for others and claims to follow himself. Matt Drudge has the link on his Drudge Report, which means everyone everywhere has seen it. I can only imagine that the Queen is twirling her wedding and engagement rings around on her finger, which she does when she is seriously displeased. I doubt that the Duke of Edinburgh is being so self-contained.
By Gigi on December 16th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Going back to the topic of wedding announcements… Has anyone thought that perhaps Chelsy and Harry may be the ones taking the step?
By Cristina on December 16th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
While I think Prince Harry & Chelsy have a strong relationship, I don’t believe Chelsy is ready to take that step yet. After all her education and work experience, I think she wants a professional career for a few years before she gives that up to marry Harry.
By Evelyn on December 17th, 2009 at 4:34 am
Does she really have to give her career up? Surely it will be possible for her to continue her work if she wants to. After all Harry will be working in the army, will he not? In any case, there are plenty of royals in the family to do ribbon cutting and so forth. It would be such a waste of talent!
By Cristina on December 17th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I expect there would be all the talk of Chelsy’s firm getting more business because of her connections to the Royal Family. Depending on what kinds of law she practices, there could be conflicts of interest. Perhaps she could work for the Royal Family itself….
By Evelyn on December 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Queen Elizabeth II is photographed taking the regular commuter train at King’s Cross to King’s Lynn for Christmas at Sandringham! She is an example to us all!
By Gigi on December 17th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
What an excellent idea Evelyn! And she would not be short of work!
By Cristina on December 18th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I just saw the report of heavy snowfall in the UK. I hope all of our dear RA clan who live in Great Britain are safe and warm and that their holiday plans are not in jeopardy due to the heavy snowfall!
By Gigi on December 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
On the other hand, Sandringham must be beautiful under a blanket of fresh snow.
By Dan on December 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Gigi, the snow is mainly confined to the East. Here in the West, it’s been a gorgeous sunny winter day with no snow forecast before Christmas.
My niece, who lives in Milton Keynes, has her children at home because the schools are snowed in. Naturally, they love it.
Thanks for asking.
By John on December 18th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Sandringham is beautiful in any season, any weather. I am not worried about the Queen, because with a large staff of servants, she can cope in any condition. My concern is the comfort and safety of those who may have to cope with snow-clogged streets, cancelled flights, late trains and power outtages due to inclement weather. I do beg that everyone take precautions. Meanwhile, our son, who is scheduled to fly here from Washington DC for Christmas this Sunday, reports that a heavy snowstorm is due to hit DC tonight. We hope his travel plans are not disrupted by the storm.
By Gigi on December 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
You are welcome, John! I am glad to hear that all is well in the West! Stay warm, everyone!
By Gigi on December 18th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
We’ve had a lot of snow for my area – 6 to 9 inches – yikes!
To keep warm:
The Telegraph on why we should be listening more to Prince Charles: http://tinyurl.com/yeh359y
The DM: Prince William will be the tallest monarch but Harry isn’t that much shorter: http://tinyurl.com/ygwzt4e
DM again: Harry and Chelsy may be back together (and they made a uber-cute animated Xmas card) but not all is plain sailing for the two: http://tinyurl.com/ylezot7
By NCKat on December 19th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
It’s HOT over here…
By Cristina on December 21st, 2009 at 10:14 am
We had about six inches of snow here in WV on Saturday. It’s all starting to melt now, though.
By Jacque on December 21st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
gigi – hope your son made it safely…also, saw “young victoria” last week..very sweet film and think you will enjoy it. hope it comes to a theater near you..
a very merry christmas to all!
By coni on December 21st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
In Minnesota, we’re under a winter storm watch for Wed-Thurs-Fri. The early forecast says we may get 12-18 inches of snow, probably with drifting. We all may be staying home for Christmas.
By Evelyn on December 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 am
“News from Sandringham House has confirmed that only the Royal household will gather for Christmas this year. No girlfriends or boyfriends are allowed, which effectively cuts out Kate Middleton, Chelsy Davy and even Zara Phillips’ boyfriend Mike Tindall.”
Well, that’s it then, no engagement at Christmas for anybody it seems.
By Cristina on December 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 am
I saw that, too. Of course I’m not Royal, but I find such a decree to be lacking in the spirit of the holidays, which are to be spent with loved ones. Perhaps it is difficult for the older generation of Royals to accept that the younger generation’s circle of loved ones is still expanding while their own is at best static, but inevitably contracting.
The Queen is saying, “spend Christmas with me, not with her.” Or, in Zara’s case, “of course you love him, but we’re your Family.”
I prefer to believe the rumors are wrong, and HM doesn’t really turn Christmas into a Royal duty like any other.
Regardless, the spouses-to-be have their own families far from Sandringham’s prying eyes, and probably prefer to have the day off.
‘Tis the season of joy, not one for mixed signals.
By Dan on December 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 am
We’ve had no snow at all here in Devon, but, on the other side of the country, some in my family are practically snowbound.
In fact, it’s a warm, sunny springlike day here. Can’t ask more than that.
By John on December 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Dan, every Christmas we get the Kate has been invited story, then it’s proved false. I can’t imagine her turning down the Queen’s invitation year after year.
Perhaps the Queen is just making the situation clear, so that the same rash of stories don’t occur this year. We also know that Mike Tindall likes to spend Christmas with his folks in Yorkshire.
The usual follow-up is for BFs and GFs to meet up on Boxing Day. A very good arrangement, I think.
By John on December 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Everyone wants to spend Christmas with their own families, so I agree with John that this arrangement seems ideal.
By Gigi on December 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
John, I know I tend to circle a point to the point of losing it, but what you said was my point. The Queen knows that the presence of spouses-to-be only fuels the press, and that they need to be with their own families anyway.
I wonder who starts the rumors that they were invited in the first place? I also realize that England is of a size that the younger members can hop in a car and meet up with a loved one within a few hours drive after HM has turned in for the night.
By Dan on December 23rd, 2009 at 5:18 am
I hear the BlackBerry network has gone down in the States. Mine has just conked out here in the UK.
Has anyone with a BB got any news if this a worldwide problem?
By John on December 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm