Kate Middleton Update
Kate Ringing the Changes – Daily Star
Royal bride-in-waiting Kate Middleton seemed to have a new ring of confidence about her as she joined Prince William for a rare public outing – and showed what a gem she is. Kate, 27, got tongues wagging when she went to bizarre lengths to swap two rings around on her fingers as she supported the prince at a charity polo match…
Kate’s chance to show her stiff upper lip – Independent.ie
And now, in the footsteps of Diana and Fergie and their assorted issues, comes the skeleton in the family closet of Kate Middleton, the girlfriend of Prince William, who has hitherto managed to rise above all the media sound and fury with a certain, well, nobility, even if she is a commoner…
Kate Middleton’s mother warns family to keep heads down – Daily Mail
Kate Middleton’s mother has launched a damage limitation programme to protect her family’s reputation after the storm over her drug-taking brother Gary Goldsmith. The Mail on Sunday has been told that Carole Middleton held a summit at the family’s Berkshire home last week to decide how to deal with the crisis…
Will the Middleton Men tarnish Kate’s Crown? – Sunday Express
While she may be worried recent events will cast a dark shadow over her Highlands visit, the whole sordid saga is more likely to bring her even closer to her prospective future in-laws. For if there’s one thing the Royals can empathise with, it’s being caught in the centre of a scandal…
Let Kate Middleton have some fun – Telegraph
I have always rather suspected that there is more to Miss Middleton. She must have something about her to have attracted the most eligible bachelor in Great Britain, if not the world. Certainly, if her relatives are anything to go by, there is an element of fun in the Middleton gene pool…
July 26th, 2009 05:35
I don’t know what she was doing with her hands when she was talking to Mr Pinkerton. I noticed it when the pictures came out and I also noticed that Pinkerton kissed her on the cheek. Maybe HE proposed! LOL.
July 26th, 2009 06:59
Clearly, Mr. Pinkerton has great affection for Kate Middleton. Hang in their Kate, you’re a terrific gal.
July 26th, 2009 07:28
Clearly, she just had a manicure done and was showing off her PW nail art.
July 26th, 2009 07:46
sojourner,I love it! I wonder if they can get the royal crest to fit on a fingernail?
July 26th, 2009 09:11
Kate has proven herself to be pretty cool under pressure, it seems. Promoting her parents’ party line was probably the worst she’s done personally, and even that wasn’t so bad. Just one of those catch-22 “working royals” issues that they all have at one time or another.
As long as she doesn’t go on reality TV, I think Miss Middleton is ready to be an HRH. She’s got enough personality to be a popular royal without being a ‘Fergie’.
July 26th, 2009 09:57
Does anyone know who has Princess Diana’s engagement ring? Prince William? Prince Harry?
As I recall, it was a huge saphirre surrounded by diamonds that PD chose herself. If PW, do you think he will give that ring to Kate? It DID represent a happier time in PD’s life w/Prince Charles….
July 26th, 2009 10:18
It looks like she is wearing two rings on her right hand. I zoomed in on a pic where she is leaning against the car with a water bottle at the polo match. There is a glare , but it sure looks like it to me
July 26th, 2009 11:02
Harry at Womad this weekend.
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/4512687.Perfect_Saturday_afternoon_for_Wiltshire_s_WOMAD/
I LOVE the fact that Harry was able to enjoy Womad in relative peace. I LOVE the fact that pictures of him were not plastered all over the papers this weekend speculating on who his latest femal companion. I LOVE the fact that it maybe that he is no longer being used as a sacrificial lamb.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/sport/sportresults/MotoGP/2009/July/jul2609-prince-harry-on-two-seater-desmo/?R=EPI-117088
Prince Harry rides his Ducati.
July 26th, 2009 11:27
Until a major tabloid gets the juicy inside story.
July 26th, 2009 12:39
Keysmom, no I don’t recall who has Diana’s engagement ring. What I do know is that those royals who inherit jewellery sometimes have them cut or reset into different designs. But I don’t know if that is what will happen to the engagement ring.
July 26th, 2009 13:15
Good Morning to all. I love reading everyones post. According to People Magazine” The Royals Their Lives, Loves and Secrets” Princess Diana’s ring now belongs to Prince William, who asked for it as a keepsake after she died.
July 26th, 2009 13:18
Thanks Tamara!
Hale,
I did not know of this tradition of royal jewelery resetting. Do you know why they would need/want to do this?
July 26th, 2009 14:34
Well, here’s something to talk about.
Not too long ago, my Mother located a long lost relative of ours in Scotland. They are mirror images on the family tree- their great-grandfathers were brothers. One immigrated to the US and the other stayed in Scotland.
My mother and some other relatives just got back early this morning from a trip to Scotland to meet her. A few hours ago, my mother was telling me about the tours they took of Balmoral and of Glamis Castle. It was amazing to hear first hand accounts!!!!!!!!!
Is it very common among the British also to take tours of places of residence of the Royal Family, as popular as say, going to the Grand Canyon or Graceland? Have any posters taken a tour like that? I’d like to hear some other tour stories if anyone else has any.
BTW, I asked my mom if she had heard anything about the UG scandal while she was there, she said she hadn’t, but wasn’t really looking for it.
What is the ring-changing story about? I can’t use the link for some reason. She took one ring off and put on another, or is wearing a new ring?
July 26th, 2009 14:47
Sojourner,
Many of the royal family’s jewels are very versatile. Several of the tiara’s you see the senior royal women wear can be easly turned into a necklace. Diana wasn’t a fan of brooches so she would have a diamond attached to some pearls and wear it as a chocker. She really got creative with the jewels she had.
I believe William has her engagement ring but I have no idea if he will give that to Kate as her engagement ring. He may have the diamond made into a necklace or a brooch, it all depends what he choose to do with it.
July 26th, 2009 15:32
Thank you Hale & Tamara for the info!
July 26th, 2009 15:36
NBC Today Show (Video)
Will Prince William pop the question?
http://www.getback.com/video/will-prince-william-pop-the-question-/3129616
July 26th, 2009 16:04
No problem! Anytime.
July 26th, 2009 17:34
Judy Wade says none of the engagement rumours, nor the Balmoral meeting are true.
It’s a mess.
July 26th, 2009 18:05
Judy Wade made it known awhile back that no engagement will come this year but early next year. That’s no new news for me. That’s why I have been saying that I don’t expect anything to come this year.
July 26th, 2009 18:08
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/fashion/beauty/2555768/Copy-Kate-Middletons-immaculate-make-up.html
July 26th, 2009 19:07
Hmm. I really love the claim of the Daily Mail that it knew all about this Middleton “family conference.” As if the “conference,” if it took place, was attended by any DM or other tabloid reporters.
The DM looks stupider by the day.
July 26th, 2009 20:34
Indeed. I don’t expect anything to come this year. I don’t know muchabout Judy Wade. Does anyone have any info.
July 26th, 2009 21:11
Judy Wade is a royal correspondent for Hello! Magazine and she is also
July 26th, 2009 21:15
Sorry I didn’t finish what I was saying,
Judy Wade is a royal correspondent for Hello! Magazine and she is also a royal editor for Ok! Magazine. She has been covering the royals for many years and she is the person that I look to for info on the royals. She also knew Diana, William and Harry personally.
July 26th, 2009 21:27
The late Princess of Wales’ engagement ring was, to put it mildly, rather ostentatious, and I say that despite the fact that in February of 1981, I had just received a sapphire and diamond engagement ring of my own.
If I were Ms. Middleton, I’d want my own ring, not my deceased mother-in-law’s. A stone from the royal collection, reset for for Ms. Middleton, would be lovely, but I don’t think the late Princess of Wales’ ring would be at all appropriate, given the fate of that marriage. That ring didn’t come from the royal collection in any case, but was, I believe, chosen by Lady Diana Spencer from a selection of rings presented by Garrard.
July 26th, 2009 21:37
I agree about the ring. I also cannot see Kate wearing such a large ring given how small her fingers appear to be. When it comes to jewelry,I think Kate goes for smaller and more simple. Probably something in the area of about 5 carats with a simple setting. Diana’s ring was 18 carats. I hope the ring is either custom made or a stone from the royal collection reset for Kate.
July 26th, 2009 21:48
I get the feeling that she will get her own ring.
You are right Fiametta, Diana had to choose her own ring from a big selection of rings from Garrard’s. When Charles proposed, he didn’t present her with a ring so she had to choose her own. Charles later commissioned a matching Prince of Wales signet ring for Diana.
People think Diana’s engagement ring is full of doom but the main reason why William took the ring is because it’s a token of his parents love.
July 26th, 2009 22:23
Here’s a ITN Source video and interview of William on the Fell Climb.
http://tinyurl.com/mr64mk
July 26th, 2009 22:23
i was told by mom pd rings to wills
July 26th, 2009 22:31
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202370/Wheelie-Rider-Prince-Harry-dons-red-leathers-taken-motorcycle-race-track.html
update
July 26th, 2009 22:38
Thanks Rman fir the Judy Wade info. PH is a Daredevil!! He looks like pretty hot stuff in that biker gear!! Kate if she makes it should get her own ring.
July 26th, 2009 22:39
so rman Balmoral meeting are not true this august ..
July 26th, 2009 23:03
Well bluefire, I don’t know if it’s true or not. If they go, I hope they have a good time but if not, then I look forward to seeing them on the Sandringham estate later this year. We do know that during the fall, the couple go several of the royal estates to vacation and entertain so hopefully we will get some pictures or hear about that later.
July 26th, 2009 23:09
Doesn’t she look pretty in that photo that Steve (BRW) published of Kate with Mr. Pinkerton.
I have played that game (hand and finger exercise) with the hands, trying to separate first the pinky, then pinky and ring finger together whilst the remaining fingers stay in a V shape, etc. it enhances hand strength, coordination, finger independence and fine motor response.
July 27th, 2009 02:14
It is a new news week, lets start it with a scary example from the royal family of Netherlands:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/24/1082719678105.html
July 27th, 2009 04:14
Hi Me,
It’s a great shot, and I agree, she looks very pretty.
Here’s the whole sequence of shots of Kate at the Chakravarty Cup last week if anyone missed them;
http://tinyurl.com/muv792
July 27th, 2009 04:34
Yes, she looks sparkling. The calm before the storm…
July 27th, 2009 07:43
The story from the Netherlands is scary, but especially when you consider that the Prince’s new bride is works for a Human Rights organization. She works; does something eminently worthwhile and yet is still considered ‘unworthy’ royal material because of some tenuous connection to a drug dealer in the past. Kate hardly works, does very little worthwhile and yet is still thought by most to be perfect to be a future queen. I have no doubt that she is a lovely young woman, but she really should be using her talent & undoubted intelligence to some end. It seems that she could take a leaf out of the new Dutch royal bride’s book. She proved her own ability and viability before she took the plunge into Royal duties: I only hope Kate does the same.
July 27th, 2009 08:00
Another perspective on the Dutch case:
I have heard from a Dutch friend that many did not like the fact that the Princes young wife’s work was too political: her support of immigrant rights quite vocal, among other very liberal issues. To my friend, connection to the drug lord seems to have been used as an excuse.
July 27th, 2009 08:16
Sojourner If Kate gets engaged to William and stories about what she did while single appear – and I have an almost certainty it has to do with charity related to the family business firm, plus who knows what with the courses, seminars, and out of the blue, etc. I bet it will be called PR spin.
In today’s time and age, people are expecting a 24/7 royal big brother.
July 27th, 2009 08:58
I finally see a picture of her from that day with two rings on one hand.
http://tinyurl.com/lhfg6q
July 27th, 2009 09:15
Sojourner,
Thanks for bringing another perspsective to the House of Orange issue. Interesting!
July 27th, 2009 09:34
I think people ignore the fact that Diana was just a nanny before her marriage, she wasn’t the superwoman that we came to know later on. Once everything is official, you are allowed to explore your interest and you are guided by royal advisors about what charity or organization you can get involved with. Also I’m sure at this time Kate is involved with certain things behind the scenes.
July 27th, 2009 09:38
Rman,
One correction that really matter. Diana was an aristocrat who worked as a nanny before marriage to a Prince, this is in no way shape or form or even remotely similar to Miss Middleton’s status.
There is no comparison any level.
July 27th, 2009 09:40
Wow! I need spell check badly.
I wanted to say Diana and Kate come from completely different worlds and they can not be compared in terms of employment before marriage.
July 27th, 2009 09:41
There’s another Hello! issue coming out soon. It talks about how William is Kate’s rock and showing his support for her.
http://www.hellomagazine.co.uk/
July 27th, 2009 09:42
You always learn something new. So, Prince Johan Frison, the second son Queen Betrix, married without approval of the Dutch governmet, giving up claim to the throne (third-in-line then) – for love. Bride’s ex was a “drug lord”. And this happened in Holland in 2004? Isn’t it a little bit rough?
July 27th, 2009 09:53
Yes I know that Clover, but what I’m saying is we cannot expect Kate to be a superwoman at this time. I think she has been encouraged to enjoy her private life while she can and later after things are official, she will allowed to explore her interest.
Diana went through the same thing, once she became the Princess of Wales, she had some help in finding what her interests were and that’s how her engagements started.
The Countess of Wessex is doing a good job as a royal but her interest in charity work didn’t really start until after her marriage. The first charity she became involved with and became president of is Brainwave, a charity that supports disabled children. So at this time Kate can’t do much without the system behind her. If she did too much now, people would excuse her of putting the cart before the horse.
July 27th, 2009 10:00
That’s just one of the reasons why people people put Kate down, they expect her to be a working royal before she become a working royal. They put too many expectations on her and when she don’t match up to those expectations, they are pretty much ready to throw her in the garbage. We have to learn how the system works before we judge her so harshly.
July 27th, 2009 10:05
Though the Spencers had an earldom, Diana was not an aristocrat. She did not have a title of her own. Moreover, her family was in shambles, and considered very problematic (her brother continues to work hard to uphold that reputation). My parents remember how her father married Barbara Cartland’s daughter, and was pretty much a laughing stock at the time.
Lets face it: whatever we say about the Middletons, the RF can comfortably top. They are quite the bunch. The Middletons bring stability, as PW has so clearly understood and appreciated.
July 27th, 2009 10:09
Thanks, Rman!
July 27th, 2009 10:19
That’s right Sojourner, Diana’s family was in a mess since she was a child. Kate comes from a stable background and loving home. That is something Diana wanted in her marriage but didn’t get it. Now William has found someone who brings some stability to the table.
Here is an artical from WD and they have added their own twist to Kate’s family problem.
http://womansday.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=841574
This is all entertainment for the tabs.
July 27th, 2009 10:22
I don’t know why I’m providing these crazy links but here is New Idea’s twist on the story too.
http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/newidea/26031/this-week-in-new-idea/
Entertainment once again.
July 27th, 2009 10:30
Judy Wade is associated with WD?
I guess we can expect the same story from Hello! in the coming issue.
July 27th, 2009 10:36
Sojourner,
Why was Diana called Lady Diana?
Rman,
All of Kate’s supporters have given her a pass on the employment/charity issue. It doesn’t matter to those who support her, so what is the issue?
July 27th, 2009 11:35
“Kate’s Australian relatives give an exclusive interview”? Cant’ wait!
These tabs really embroider the tale, but anyway: TOO MUCH COVERAGE!
July 27th, 2009 11:48
Clover what issue?
Well Diana did come from an aristocratic background and her family was associated with the royals for many years but my point was that Diana only worked as a nanny before her marriage, she didn’t have any patronages or charitable organizations under her belt before her marriage. That stuff was only expected to come after her marriage in her role as Princess of Wales.
I just think it’s important to point out that royal girlfriends aren’t expected to do much until they are officially a member of the firm. If that wasn’t the case and royal girlfriends was allowed to do whatever, I would have a problem with Kate not doing any charity work. Kate did help raise money for Unicef, cancer and she supports William’s & Harry’s causes, she just do it by the sidelines.
Point is the girl is just not in the position to do what many of us think she should be doing.
July 27th, 2009 12:06
Rman,
I said that those who support Kate do not have an issue with her for any reason, the title, no job, no charity work.
So the point is that you support Kate and you are not alone. You have enough people who think that Kate is just fine as she is now. There is really nothing to argue for, you have support for your position – which is that Kate is perfect as she is.
On the Diana issue, I stand by the belief that Kate and Diana are from two entirely different worlds with very different ways of being in the world. For me, comparing Diana to Kate is like comparing a pineapple to a banana. That is all I meant.
Here we will have to agree to disagree and move on.
July 27th, 2009 12:27
You know my POV as a person who supports the relationship is that I don’t have enough information or all the facts to chastise a person for their choice to work, not work or work for their parents, so I choose not to state any opinion on the subject. The ratio of factual information to non factual information in this situation is far to great to really form any educated opinion beyond the fact that William and Kate are a couple. Most of everything else we know is fed from tabloids,rumors and other unreliable sources. One piece of factual information comes out and from it dozens of other pieces of garbage are born.
July 27th, 2009 12:32
Let’s not forget that Diana entered the Royal foray nearly 3 decades ago, which in my opinion, makes comparisons between her and Kate almost irrelevant. Diana was a nanny, a dance instructor, and even cleaned up after parties and such, which was in some ways, more than what was expected of her aristo background (regardless of whether or not the family was in shambles, she was still a member of the peerage). Also, the late 1970s and early 1980s were at the very tail end of the sexual and feminist revolutions that brought women into the workforce.
More relevant is comparing KM to today’s royal brides, ranging from the Countess of Wessex (who may not have done much charity, but not only had a successful career in PR but started her own firm) to Queen Rania (who, as I have mentioned before, worked for both Citibank and Apple), to Emma Pernald, who has focused on her own career and growth all through long relationship with Carl Philip.
To be honest, running to mummy and daddy when the press harasses you for being work shy is not fostering your employment ambitions. If her desire all along was to help her parents with their business, I’m sure she would have studied something that would have aided her in that end such as business or computer science, or even vocational photography.
July 27th, 2009 12:37
Clover,
Diana was indeed an acknowledged descendant of kings (because, as we well known, unacknowledged descendants of aristocrats are many among us), but according to our lovely class system, she was a commoner.
While many are more versed in this than I (growing up republican and all) Diana was a commoner herself, though her father was an earl. She did not carry royal title, rather an honorific one. The Queen Mother had a similar situation, not being royal until her marriage.
Yes, KM’s world was very different than Diana’s — KM grew up in a tight-knit, deeply devoted, loving and supportive family.
Diana grew up in a dysfunctional cauldron of narcissists, with an absent mother and a very peculiar step-mother.
Again, when it comes to aristocracy and family, the less said is better.
July 27th, 2009 12:39
Rina,
Good post!
July 27th, 2009 12:40
Countess of Wessex successful career, not.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1200621/Sophie-Wessex-1-7m-business-debt–won-t-pay.html
A succesful career wouldn’t have bad debt. She left a bunch of people with unpaid invoices.
July 27th, 2009 12:45
Rina,
are you sure the Queen shares your view of the advantage of Sophie’s career? I think it has been nothing but a headache. Shameful that RF women’s careers come second? YES! Reality that in current media climate, any life at all is a liability? Yes.
Moreover… I should think that what a person chooses to study, and later do with his/her life is still their choice to make. Kate is in very numerous company in choosing a job or even a career that seems tangential to their university studies.
July 27th, 2009 12:49
Ok, so I want a clarification from someone who understands this better than me.
Diana was a “commoner”: that is a fact.
Was she also a member of the peerage? I thought that while her brother/father might be, she was not.
I insist on this because at the time, Diana status as a non-aristocrat was commented about, and not always kindly.
July 27th, 2009 13:27
I think your correct Sojourner. Anyway I found this helpfull.
http://www.gaelenfoley.com/archives_history6.html
July 27th, 2009 13:27
Well it really don’t matter if Diana was an aristocrat or not, the fact is that Diana worked as a nanny but lived in a flat that her parents paid for. Kate lived in a flat that her parents paid for too and people criticized her for it.
Of course we can agree to disagree on this but I guess it just bothers me that people think working for your family’s business means nothing. I have always dreamed of setting up my own business and having my children work for the company. I really like the idea of a family firm.
July 27th, 2009 13:51
Sojourner,
The Peerage is a system of titles of nobility in the United Kingdom, part of the British honours system.
If an individual is neither the Sovereign nor a peer, he or she is a commoner.
Peers are of five ranks: Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron (in descending order of hierarchy).
Diana’s father was born Viscount Althorp, therefore Diana was born and baptised, The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer.
When her father become Edward John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer on 9 June 1975, Diana became The Lady Diana Frances Spencer.
So please explain to me how Diana is a commoner?
Rman,
It is okay if Diana’s background has no more meaning for you beyond the the fact that she worked as a nanny and lived in a flat paid for by her parents.
Let’s be clear that it is your personal choice to ignore all the things that some people believe make Kate and Diana very different people who come from two very different worlds.
I just think it is interesting that you argue that “it really don’t matter that Diana was an aristocrat or not.” Interesting!
I think it is great that you want to have a family business. I really don’t think the people who criticize Kate for not working have a problem with family businesses in general, that is really not the main issue IMO.
July 27th, 2009 14:33
Exactly Clover, the issue is not the family firm- the Middletons are running an extremely successful company, but let’s be honest, Kate didn’t choose to work for her family out of her volition, but somehow found a position there when she got harassed for not being gainfully employed. I think that is the matter here.
RMAN, I too believe that family firms are great, and I, even though I am a medical student, do help out with my father’s real estate business every now and then. I have no problems with them or anything.
July 27th, 2009 15:42
Kate still remains unmarried. The same is said year after year and no engagement comes. It is a mess now.
July 27th, 2009 15:51
Well she is doing something Rina. I honestly never understood what the broo ha haa over her working/not working was. If you work there are problems. Sophie got into all sorts of problems. Emma Pernald (carl philip’s ex) was bashed for getting a PR job and the Swedish royal family were not happy at all with her choice of career (note to Kate don’t go into PR it doesn’t work for royal girlfriends) Others have successfully worked and maintained their relationships with their princes BUT if you look at when they met their princes they were already involved in a successful career when they met them i.e. not in college or fresh out of.
If Diana was an aristo (which I am not sure she was) it just goes to show that being an aristo doesn’t give you any better guarantees to making it within the royal family job before hand or not. Having a job before you enter the family does not guarantee success once you enter into the firm. So all of the quibbling about whether Kate works or not is meaningless to me. I have always believed it’s a personal choice same as using your education, sex before marriage etc etc. Who am I to tell someone else what to do with their lives. As long as it’s not illegal get on with it because there are no guarantees with the amount of time we have in life. Here today gone tomorrow so enjoy it while you can.
July 27th, 2009 15:59
This is the timetable I have of KM
JJ, I don’t get either the broohaha.
Beg. November 2007 quits Jigsaw
End. November 2007 Photography Charity
Mid. December 2007 Family Holiday Barbados
January 2008 – Actual July 2009 Party Pieces
Quote
Belle and Kate’s working relationship ended last November (2007) when Kate quit her job, saying she needed “some time to herself”. There were no hard feelings and Belle would never criticise Kate for not wanting a full-time job. SHE SAW FIRST HAND THE DEMANDS MADE ON HER – she jokes that her own girls would never want to be a royal girlfriend.
Unquote
July 27th, 2009 16:25
Okay you guys got me all wrong. I did not say that I don’t care about Diana’s aristocratic background. I have always enjoyed reading about The Spencers and was happy to learn awhile back that Diana was born at Park House, on the Sandringham Estate. I have never had a problem with that.
The point I was getting to is that Diana worked as a nanny because she loved working with children and she enjoyed her job. Infact she was sad that she had to leave it once her engagement was announced. Despite the press following her before her marriage, Diana lived a very private life and wasn’t doing any charity work to make it look like she would be a good future Queen.
Kate is in the same boat. She is living her life the way she wants to while she can, she is working in the field of photography at her family’s business and I think that’s great. The problem is people expect her to be on some kind of crusade to save the world so she can at least look like a future Queen. She is simply not in the position to do that just yet and we shouldn’t put her and her job down because of it.
That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to compare Diana & Kate but Kate is dating a prince just like Diana once did and due to that Kate has to follow the same rules like Diana did. No official engagements until you are a royal.
July 27th, 2009 16:33
Clearly then, I should not assume that everyone views royal relationships in the context of the history of the monarchy. Nor should I assume others view how the media have reported on those royals and their relationships in the past, present and future, in the context of royal reporting history. I shall therefore, attempt to clarify.
When the engagement of Charles & Diana was announced, the whole of England was rejoicing. Diana, was young, vibrant, shy and very beautiful. All the media were proclaiming what a perfect match this was. We were bombarded with pictures of when she was young, her home, her brothers and sisters. We were told how fun loving she was, how well versed Diana was to royal circles. Diana having been born near the Sandringham Estate. How much she loved children, how she made Prince Charles laugh, how very much they were both in love and how perfect they were for one another .
The wedding took place at St Paul’s. Who can ever forget the closing words of Archbishop Runcie, ”this is the stuff of fairytales.” The reception was at BP.
We all watched C & D leave the palace, board the train for Broadlands where they spent their first official night together. Then we read they were spending their honeymoon sailing on board the Royal Yacht Britannia.
The Monday following the actual wedding, the Daily Mail ran a series of articles. It began to question whether this shy young girl was the right match for Charles. They referred to the 13 year age gap. They also noted that Diana wasn’t as well educated as she might have been. Diana liked pop music, Duran Duran was one of her favourite bands. Prince Charles, on the other hand preferred classical music. Charles was an intellectual, Diana a bit of a dunce. The Daily Mail implied , that Diana wouldn’t be able to socialise within Charles’ circle because of her failing intellectual ability. Diana wasn’t worldly, Charles was and although Diana was the daughter of an Earl, the royals were far more formal than what Diana was used to. The list was endless.
In other words whether they be celebrities or royals, unfortunately in England the media have this thing whereby they love to build people up only to drag them down. Diana, wasn’t someone with a past. The most scandalous thing in her family in the 20th century was her mother and fathers acrimonious split. That too was detailed in the media, despite the fact Diana’s parents divorced 12 years earlier, but because Diana’s father won custody of the children the press were not exactly kind to Diana’s mother.
The point is here, the press were really scraping the barrel in order to hurl things at Diana, only a few days after C & D were married. That is the British press for you.
When Diana died and her body was interred at St James before the funeral, my mother and myself got up early, and made our way to KP, BP then St.J’s to place flowers at each of those areas. The thing that struck me about all those places was, regardless of the throngs of people was the sheer silence. Honestly, you could of heard a pin drop. I was upset, my mother was beside herself.
I watched the funeral on television. When I saw William, I recall saying to myself, ” Diana can never die and that’s because we have William. He looks so much like his mother. I thought then, he has inherited his mothers face, and I truly believed he had inherited Diana’s heart and soul.”
I sobbed through the whole funeral, but cheered at Earl Spencers speech.
When, William went to Canada with C & H. I remember how many girls had turned up and how much they screamed at him. Why? They greeted William as if he was a pop star. Why?
Several years on, we have an extremely sad situation in the form of Kate’s uncle. Something which isn’t going to go away no matter how much people want it to. I for one question how it is being handled by the Palace PR. Not very well to date. This situation will keep on resurfacing
Therefore, how to combat it? Can it be combated?
So in my post at #107 under the Harry & Lily thread, what I was endeavouring to do was: Show how over the course of years the Queen has established herself in the hearts and minds of the people. I then attempted to do the same for Charles. Despite his Jekyll & Hyde character, and despite his personal life forever remaining a minefield, Charles to a degree has established himself in the public’s eyes through the Prince’s Trust, and it is through his work with the Prince’s Trust that Charles developed some counter balance against his critics. Although that doesn’t mean, when he becomes King, former aspects of his personal life shan’t also re-emerge and once again be hurled at him.
William on the other hand, has yet to established himself in the hearts and minds of the British public at large. The fact that hundreds of girls greeted him like a pop star in Canada has not been repeated for some time. That doesn’t mean people don’t turn up to cheer him on official visits. Of course they do, much in the same way people turn up to cheer Charles. Frankly, there’s very little difference.
William also does his bit for charity, as ALL the RF family do, and when we do see William doing good works, he does it extremely well. No question about that. That’s when I cheer him, “that’s what I want to see my future king doing, ” every time. However, because of William serving in the S&R, we don’t see a great deal of William. We don’t really know what he is like. He is a bit of a mystery to us.
I happen to thing, valuable time has been squandered in introducing William to the public. Time, which if he had established himself early on could also have helped Kate to repel her detractors. I happen to think that William is under the misguided opinion that if PR can make Camilla acceptable to the public, then PR can make Kate acceptable. The point here being, Camilla has not been accepted, Camilla is tolerated. Big difference.
So, providing Kate stay’s quiet and keeps a low profile everything is going to be okay. I happen to think William isn’t being very kind to Kate. I happen to think William takes Kate for granted. I also happen to think William could do a lot more to squash criticism of Kate. But he does zero, and that is why I am becoming critical of William. I don’t like the way he treats Kate, he reminds me of his father.
Therefore if William or his PR team are under the delusional belief that William can do anything he likes because he is the son of Diana, he is very much mistaken and he/they are taking his mothers legacy for granted also.
I now ask what is on the table here? What future for W & K? What has been done so far?
What has been done is the Palace have through their contacts with the press have fielded out how everyone has a black sheep in the family. The press meanwhile, has in my opinion deliberately edited many of their comments. For proof of this, I suggest to all take a look at the comments under the NOTW story which triggered off this mess. Many comments which were originally posted have now been removed. Also, it should be remembered how fickle the press are. The Times for example also ran a, ‘everyone has a black sheep in the family’, story. I myself have not forgotten, that is was the Times who several months ago ran a particularly vile and abhorrent story entitled, “Kate Middleton, Man Pleaser”. The press will do anything to sell their junk, and will write anything regardless of how hurtful or untrue.
If W & K marry whilst W is still serving in the S&R. Well, neither W or H are in receipt of monies from the civil list, but their security is paid for by the taxpayers. So it is only natural that Kate shall also have her own security. Kate will also become public property. Yes, she shall have the palace PR behind her, and it is in her best interest that she starts to do things to combat the fickle press
coverage. But is that fair on Kate? William shan’t be able to be by her side every time she completes an official visit. He will still be in the S&R, so Kate will have the palace support but Kate shan’t have the emotional support of William.
If W & K marry after William leaves S&R, then they both shall have each other. However, the ugly question remains. What happens if further stories emerge about uncle GG? The palace PR cannot manipulate the press forever. The press isn’t a charity, they are a business, they do what it takes to sell newspapers.
So in closing, it maybe that people do find my opinions shallow and superficial, but by the same token and for those who ignore the realities and practicalities I to find their thinking shallow and superficial. I have never nor ever shall buy into the ’stuff of fairytales’. History has at least taught me that.
Indeed, let us agree to disagree.
July 27th, 2009 16:35
I agree JJ. I just think it’s wrong to put the girl down for working with her family. Many people work for their families and people have no problem with it, Kate works for her family and suddenly it’s a crime. That’s something I just don’t get and that’s why we always end up at each other’s throats on the subject. Of course I don’t want to argue with anyone on here but putting down the Party Pieces job bothers me.
July 27th, 2009 16:49
Hale I enjoyed reading the first parts of your post.
The one thing I don’t believe in is fairytales. Royalty in the real world has no fairytales attached to it.
What I do believe is that William & Kate will be okay and if they marry while he’s serving in the SAR, I think things will workout. I think for awhile, the couple will do their engagements together so we may not see Kate doing official engagements by herself for while. They will have to split them up at some point but we may not see that for awhile. They will make a great team.
July 27th, 2009 16:51
Hale,
Another excellent post!
July 27th, 2009 16:55
People who criticize Kate for having an ‘unacceptable’ job are ignorant and small minded.
July 27th, 2009 17:14
Hello! I wasn’t going to discuss all those articles about kate’s uncle. But now I have to confess that this situation made me a bit worry. Hale, my opinion is absolutely the same as yours #74. I couldn’t say better.
July 27th, 2009 17:41
Britt, If we are talking about private citizen miss Middleton than her job is fine. Her family owns the firm and must be counted nicely with respect. So as Kate herself doing important part of needed work for the family business. But try to understand, if we are talking about future consort of the king those standards are not quite the same. Ideally that would be perfect for the future princess to work as a teacher, a doctor or even a volunteer for some charity. Those professions were, are, and will always be noble. Those people’s work is in serving to other people while business frankly is for money or for ambitions. And nobody is comparing Diana and Kate. I don’t criticise Kate for her choice of job because it is her choice, and must be reasonable.
July 27th, 2009 17:54
No need to worry First time, everything will be fine. We just have to stop making making such a big deal about that GG situtation.
As I can see, Kate is working hard for the business and even went to an Online Marketing show so she can help PP even more. She seem to be doing great.
July 27th, 2009 18:02
Hale
I don’t find your comments shallow or superficial however I want to know what the alternative is. If he dumps kate now and tries for a better fish there are no guarantees that the new person won’t have equally if not worse problems. If he marries someone he doesn’t love to protect the monarchy we run the risk of anther Charles/ Diana situation (would that be any better). I agree that more should be done to help Kate. If further revelations come out they will have to deal with it. What if more videos come out of that girl the Freddie Windsor is marrying? What are they going to do??
I agree at some level the palace has to be worried about another big splashy nasty article but I just feel as if in life their are no guarantees. I think given William’s personality and all of his baggage it MAY be (not impossible) difficult for him to find someone else who is going to want to take him and his family on and that will pass the test & who is going to be able to deal with the press as I think it would be even worse for another lady to jump in at this point. The press would be relentless. I just don’t know that that is the correct answer here.
I agree that you can only manipulate the media for so long and that PW should have made some different choices. I’m not of the mind the S&R was the right path for him to go down but…..
July 27th, 2009 18:05
Clover, First time and Rman….Thank you.
Rman…..”The one thing I don’t believe in is fairytales” OH….NOT YOU…..surely.
July 27th, 2009 18:07
JJ,
He is currently 32nd in the line of succession to the British Throne.
July 27th, 2009 18:08
JJ,
I should have written, Freddie Windsor is 32nd in line of succession to the British Throne.
July 27th, 2009 18:12
I understand that Clover but still it doesn’t look pretty to have someone who is involved with at member of the royal family dating a porn star. It just sounds awful typing it…
The other point to note is the palace have known about GG for a while what were they to do?? What actually can be done? The only thing they could have done was made sure there was no contact with PW and GG. That’s about it. They can’t control him or his activities much as I am sure they would like to. They tried to warn him to behave himself but that’s about it. It wasn’t that they didn’t know about the existence of GG there just wasn’t much they could actually do about him IMO?!?!?
I think it’s safe to say to that most families have an uncle or aunty GG to varying degrees (probably not so severe) so the question is do you take a chance on a younger model who may have equally if not worse problems or problem relatives??
July 27th, 2009 18:36
All I can say is so far Kate has past the test. That is what make her so intriguing to the media and even public, this girl never seem to put a foot wrong. The most interesting part is that William has remained by her side since they left college. This guy has made it known that he wants her and I think that’s great. It’s good to see Britian’s future King in love instead of being setup with someone.
July 27th, 2009 18:46
Welcome to the forums, First time!
I think you have a point when saying that the king’s future consort ought to have higher standards. But as of Kate’s current job (working for her parents at Party Pieces), I really think she’s in the right place. Remember that Kate worked in London at Jigsaw, but it didn’t last very long. It was during that time when the media followed her daily activities, when she was splashed over the papers for the smallest details, and also the time when she had that temp split with William in 2007. In short, I believe that Kate’s decision to work for her parents and stay low was and is fully supported by William. If the RF found it overly detrimental, they would have persuaded her to do something, and I believe Kate would have followed their advice. After all, she and her family have already sacrificed so much for this relationship. But no… Kate continues to work for PP, around the privacy and loyalty that only family members can provide. Her charity work remains connected with PP and remains mostly private. Of course she also supposedly supports various charities that William and their friends organize. Still, she can’t be a public figure. Not yet. When she did the Time to Reflect charity event for UNICEF in 2007, some people accused her of campaigning for princess, saying her efforts are too late. Perhaps it would have been easier if Kate had started all these activities before she became the prince’s girlfriend. But remember, she and William met at university! Diana was already a teacher when she started dating Charles. The other royal wives had already established their careers before they met their princes. Moreover, these princesses had either dated their princes for a significantly shorter amount of time or simply didn’t get the public interest Kate received. I believe it was a much harder road for Kate in terms of establishing herself professionally. It’s easy to point a finger, but she simply doesn’t have the liberty private citizens have. This is why I believe PP in Berkshire is absolutely the right place for her. And I hope she stays there.
July 27th, 2009 19:07
Hale, post #74 was fantastic and I totally agree with you. Life happens and situations change and just because one was for something before, does not make them shallow or dishonest, for changing their minds. I too like Hale have found myself in a postition where although I have been a Kate supporter I believe one can not help but think her Uncle is not going to help move them closer to marriage. Yes, we know the RF has their skeletons too, but they are royal and different standars are made for them, swept under the rug, whether right or wrong, that is how it is. Kate is not a royal or from a titled family so she is put under more scruntiny as we still don’t know how much more GG will/has revealed if any. No one will be perfect that’s for sure, but the 7yrs that Kate and William have been together have given the press alot of amunition to go against her where if he were to marry in a relatively quick manner most of this stuff would not have hit the press. IMO.
July 27th, 2009 19:13
Clover,
Diana is a commoner as long as she herself does not have a heritable title. So, her title was a courtesy title of “Lady.” But she herself is not a peer. As Hale pointed out, the fact Diana’s pedigree (distinct from being a peer) was not aristocratic enough (!) was seen as a draw back.
Our class system is quite charming when looked at closely, wouldn’t you say?
July 27th, 2009 19:26
Here are more pictures of Kate at the polo event.
http://tinyurl.com/m4ulm2
Gracie I have noticed a longtime ago that Kate is not in a easy position. This girl has no voice of her own and all she can do is take the beatings she get from the press and even the popular internet world. Sometimes I feel like they are really trying to reach down the girls throat, snatch out her heart and slap her in the face with it.
Gracie I think the whole GG situation has made the couple more closer than ever, I hope William will soon acknowledge Kate in a big way and I hope he really appreciate this girl because she goes through a hell of a lot for him.
July 27th, 2009 19:31
Diana was not a “commoner” as that word is genuinely understood. She was a member of a noble/aristocratic family and therefore an aristocrat. Camilla is a commoner, even though her mother was not.
July 27th, 2009 19:38
I never seen these pictures before but here are a few of Kate talking to Miguel Head.
NEWSPIX2210920_Kate_Miguel_Head.jpg
NEWSPIX2210918_Kate_Miguel_Head.jpg
NEWSPIX2210921_Kate_Miguel_Head.jpg
July 27th, 2009 19:41
Sorry for the broken pics. Here is the link.
http://tinyurl.com/kq99×5
Notice Miguel Pointing at the photograhers.
July 27th, 2009 19:44
How’s this for Royal PDA?!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202532/Prince-Charles-gets-playful-pat-Camilla-medal-ceremony.html
Whether genuine definition or not, Diana was not seen as quite up to snuff at first, either, and the word commoner was used to describe her. Of course, by definition, only a Princes would be on equal standing to a Prince. But they are few and far between, and have not captured the RF’s men’s imagination.
July 27th, 2009 19:45
Rman,
your links are not working!
July 27th, 2009 19:53
Yeah I know, but the link in my #94 post is working. I had never seen Kate and Miguel Head together before. Seems like they was having a nice chat. It seems like William’s team was there for her.
July 27th, 2009 20:00
To me, Diana did a excellent job as Princess of Wales and yeah people thought that she wasn’t good enough for the job but she proved them all wrong. I often wonder what she would have been doing today?
July 27th, 2009 20:05
Sojourner,
You are right about the legal use of titles.
You said “Diana was not an aristocrat. She did not have a title of her own.”
One definition of aristocrat (there are several) is “a person who has the tastes, manners, etc., characteristic of members of an aristocracy.”
1) Diana had a title since birth, a courtesy or social title that children of peers are given is still a title.
Why do you think that children of peers where given courtesy/social titles?
2) Diana is by definition an aristocrat.
Socially, there is a distinction made between someone who is a commoner, a person who is not of the nobility, who is without a legal, social, or courtesy title, and someone who is the child of a peer, who is the child/wife of a noble, and also holds a courtesy or social title.
Wallis Simpson was referred to as a commoner by members of the British aristocracy.
Do me a favor and attach a link illustrating how members of the British nobility refered to Lady Diana Spencer in writing as a commoner. I really would like to see that. You said Lady Diana Spencer was criticized for being a commoner when she married Charles. I would just like a copy of it to discuss with my friends who study this sort of thing.
Thanks.
July 27th, 2009 20:16
More pics of Kate and Jamie.
http://tinyurl.com/l2k88a
July 27th, 2009 21:07
Britt,
It’s not about the pp job being “acceptable” or not, its about the circumstances under which she took it on. I really hope you’re not trying to insinuate that I am small-minded or anything, because without knowing me, that really is a harsh judgment. I, unlike KM, am not under the microscope or the limelight
!
Rman, your unwavering faith in K+W is admirable, I feel like such a pessimistic debbie downer in light of your optimism LOL
!
@ the Freddie Windsor comment, LOL, I do think it is hilarious that you lose your claim to the throne for marrying a Roman-Catholic, but get to keep it for marrying a pornstar (no matter how soft or hardcore it is!)..
July 27th, 2009 21:13
Also, she could have done more in college as well, if we are making the argument that most gfs and brides had already established themselves in their careers upon meeting their princes.
Many of my peers are involved with campus charities such as Darfur Aid, Doctors Without Borders, Unicef, student councils etc, and dedicate hours each week as though these charity posts were their fulltime jobs. KM, as reported in the media, led a quiet academic career at St. Andrew’s, and only started a drinking society for women.
Even before her relationship with PW, I do believe there were many doors open to her.
July 27th, 2009 22:00
Rina,
then why, out of all the girls at St. Andrew’s, all the aristocratic girls in the UK (and the world) did PW choose Kate?
I think it is precisely for her willingness to fly under the radar, and maintain her serene poise. No politics, no demanding career, just a nice, close knit family and unwavering loyalty.
We might not like it — I would never agree to it — but there is strong evidence that she is exactly what this guy wanted.
Which is not to say it is what he will always want — and since they are not married yet, no foul for changing minds.
July 27th, 2009 22:19
LOL, thanks Rina but let me tell you what happened. When Kate was working at Jigsaw, she was being harassed on a regular basis by the paparazzi. The photographers that chase you now it’s not the well established photographers but street paps and they can get very aggressive.
They chased Kate from the time she left her flat to go to work, to the time she went back home. You can look back at some of those old pictures that Kate at times appeared very stressed and it really became a problem. I think she, William and her family discussed this problem and decided to pull her out of that situation. She stopped working at Jigsaw and the media flew into engagement talk. Not knowing that Kate went on to work at PP.
They came up with the idea that Kate stopped working at Jigsaw because she was going to get engaged. The engagement didn’t happen and that caused people to jump to conclusions that Kate had put her life on hold for William and prayed to God that he would propose.
I personally think that some statement should have been made saying that Kate couldn’t take the harassement from the paps any longer and went on to work in a safe environment. But that didn’t happen because I guess royal advisors didn’t think they had to explain Kate’s problem.
I don’t think for one minute that Kate put her life on hold, but the situation she was in could have gotton a lot worse if she wasn’t pulled out of it. She works in peace now and I’m happy for her. Just my opinion.
July 28th, 2009 00:06
Hello,
Sorry posts are brief but time these days time is of the essence but I do attempt to at least skip through most posts.
Hale , your post at 74 was to your usual standard with most bases covered.
However, there is one possibility not yet seriously mentioned;
Although PW has asked that members of the RF refrain from comments and interference in his ‘arrangement’ with KM it is not clear if that applies to HM,PP or PC.
What if HM herself, not her advisors, deems that recent, previous and possible future revelations, and believe me there may well be many others , could be detrimental to PW or even PC ’s eventual succession?
Would PW accept it if HM asked KM to release him from any promises or commitment made prior to these revelations to ensure the future of the monarchy or would he take the path that his great uncle took?
Has this request already been made and refused by PW and is this why PH’s profile has gradually been increased recently with reports of his many charitable events? Did it indeed have any bearing in the PH/CD break up? That happened very suddenly!
There is so much that we do not know about the inner workings which may already be planning for years ahead.
I think that in future more ‘car park type’ releases may well happen which in fact could well be a pointer to the attitude and decisions that PW has already made or may well be considering to show that he will not accept interference in his relationship with KM. In this he does have the precedent of his faqther who stated that his affair with Camilla was not up for consideration on any terms.
July 28th, 2009 00:27
Hi Ked,
I think the Queen, Prince Philip, and Charles respects William’s private life and have come to know Kate during their years together. I think there has been a lot of unnecessary drama built up in the media about the whole situation. From the pictures I posted up at #94 and #100, I think it’s pretty clear that William is sticking by Kate and will help her get through her private family problem. Just by those pictures, I can tell William’s team is behind her.
Ked I sometimes think the longer this relationship drags on, the more dramatic things will get. I pray that next year this wedding will happen. I’m keeping my fingers crossed on that.
July 28th, 2009 01:03
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/5919167/Princes-favourite-boy-band-Blake-goes-solo.html
July 28th, 2009 01:46
Hello Rman,
There is no way there will be a wedding until PW finishes in Armed Services. With helicopter crashes, lack of maintenance and replacements the possibility of an accident increases day by day.
If married then without doubt children will be expected very quickly, it’s the accepted development of Royal weddings and KM as a dowager mother of a future sovereign would be a disaster for her especially after the way her youthful life has been restricted so far.
PD was a divorced mother of a future sovereign so had a little more room for manoeuvre but KM would be subjected to a more severe and restricted existance should the unforseeable happen .
KM has already suffered more than enough since PW entered the Army with his reported nefarious activities albeit in the past so it surely will not be in her best interest to risk all until PW takes up his accepted birthright as a future Prince and King. At 27 he should now accept his responsibilities and release the pressure on the elder members of the RF. His actions appear to be very selfish and wilful and it is surely time to accept that with privilege comes responsibility to his family, his country, his future subjects , his heritage and above all to a loyal partner.
July 28th, 2009 02:04
We shall see Ked, We shall see.
July 28th, 2009 03:32
i do not think that this scandal has damaged kate in the way i originally thought it would. the public in general seems to be supporting her and the ones who are not appear to be people who are simply questioning her background. in response to her background i think that the monarchy has evolved so much in the last three decades that its not reall an issue anymore that she has not come from an aristocratic background. kate has played her hand perfectly. she has always maintained a dignified silence on her relationship with william even in the wake of their split in 07. i think it is her deep sense of composure and never wavering elegance which has won not only a vast majority of the ublic but even some of her doubters. she herself has never put a foot wrong. even carole middleton is not being slated as much as i would have thought. the general concensus would appear to be that we all can have a black sheep in the family and UG would appear to be theirs. as for the royal family they are not exactly innocent but yet it is deemed acceptable for them to have ‘”indescretions” as they are aristocratic so to speak.when harry made blatent racial statements it was forgiven rather quickly as it was not intendd in an offensive way. if it ad been any of kates family who had done such a thing it would never be forgiven as it would only cement the belief that they are too common for the royal family. the middletons are being held to a much higer standard than seems fair. if we should be judging the family on anything it should be the way kate has been impeccably well behaved and that she is IN MY OPINION orthy of he comparisons to Diana as she as been scrutinised for a lot longer than diana was before even an engagement andhas IMO yet to put a foot wrong.
July 28th, 2009 04:01
gracie…, loved your post.
July 28th, 2009 04:33
Good post,Danielle. Apparently alot of people share your thoughts.
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/journal-business-news/2009/07/28/don-t-visit-uncle-sins-on-kate-51140-24250943/
July 28th, 2009 04:55
Look at her right hand !?
http://www.purepeople.com/media/kate-middleton-marche-seule-dans-les_m241179
July 28th, 2009 05:29
er,citb?… I have seen this pic before, if you zoom in on it what you shall see is some sort of signet ring. It has a black flat stone.
July 28th, 2009 05:48
ked, with regards to your posts at 105 & 108. I may not have voiced it, and I am not the most articulate of posters but what you have suggested was at the back of mind.
I remain, first and foremost a monarchist. My views have not changed.
As for defence cuts which are creating problems for the maintenance of hardware. That to is very much at the back of my mind.
In addition to that, my husband informs me that at his unit the word is further and severe defence cuts are on their way.
With regards to Harry.
You may or may not have been aware, that Britt informed us before the press that H would be at the Womad musical event this past weekend.
It has always been my belief that Harry in the past has been used as a sacrificial lamb. So following the revelations of GG, I was curious to see what would following with the next Harry story.
To my surprise and great delight, there was nothing sensational about the next Harry story. It appears he had a great time at Womad and enjoyed his time at Donnington. Brilliant.
If you recall, Harry’s video incident came at the time when W & K had returned from Birkhall at engagement speculation was high.
I always had my doubts how the NOTW came by that video. Their are all kinds of stories and I don’t know which one to believe. But I do understand that the person who sold the video to the NOTW did not profit from this. Instead the monies went to charity. This is what Jobson said in a TV news item.
It’s very possible, there are those who felt that video should be aired and got out of the way.
As for the break of H & C, personally I always felt that was engineered by men in grey.
However, the men in grey are far to subtle to pounce straight away. They have a way of letting things run their course first, before moving in. eg: Andrew & Koo.
July 28th, 2009 06:05
This is driving me nuts. I have always gone with the standard statement that royals do not comment on their personal lives. But, I do recall an incident involving Prince Edward.
This was when PE was dating a musical actress by the name of Ruthie Henshall. The thing is here, I distinctly recall that because of the media attention it generated, PE actualyl sent a letter to all the editors asking for privacy during his relationship with RH. Does anyone else remember that? Or was it PE and another female companion? I recall seeing this on the news, but am having difficulty in providing a link and therefore proving it.
I mention this because, I cannot understand why William or his PR team cannot do something similar. That would in my opinion be a better way of showing support instead of arranging rendevous in car parks.
July 28th, 2009 08:18
Don’t we all have better things to do with our time than to comment on what Prince William and Kate Middleton does or doesn’t do with their lives. So what if Prince William is of royality, excuse me there is famine going around the world, in kenya lions are being poisoned to death, rain forests are disappearing from our planet and most of all we need to start loving one another so the next generation can grow up to love each other and not kill each other. Well I’m sorry to say I have some laundry to hang up on the line, for it’s a beautiful day here!
July 28th, 2009 08:37
So wait Hale
What that would essentially mean is one of two things, either someone who was very wealthy who don’t want they to marry procured the video and released it, or this is the work of the grey coats to get the bad news out of the way before the good??
Am I reading you right at #115??
July 28th, 2009 08:51
Don’t let Jobson fool you. The charity angle is intended to make his publication look better and nothing more.
Has anyone given thought to the possibility that the video was shot by royal security to flush out GG in order to control a situation they already knew about? because I would bet anything you put on the table that they knew all about uncle Gary for quite some time.
This story would have a much bigger impact if it hit shortly before the wedding or even after.
If you look at the overall press reaction following this story it is almost orchestrated in Kate’s favor,especially the car park kiss the very day after. Pass the godiva
July 28th, 2009 08:52
Morning,
JJ all I can say that William’s grey coats team is behind Kate and they showed it at that polo match. So yeah this my be the case of getting the bad news out before getting the good news out.
This girl is in it for the long haul.
July 28th, 2009 08:59
One thing is for sure,any announcement will wipe GG right off the map and people will go into full royal wedding swing.
July 28th, 2009 09:24
Ooooh, Lisa, I like it!
I am sending Godivas as we speak
July 28th, 2009 09:25
And before anyone gets too excited…
yes, we are trying to be funny and have some good, clean fun.
July 28th, 2009 09:37
The US perspective on the UG scandal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072702665.html?hpid=artsliving
July 28th, 2009 09:47
What I find amazing is that William’s message is very often ignored. This future King don’t seem to care about class and is with Kate because he loves her.
I can’t wait to see this girl in action.
Yeah we are having fun.
July 28th, 2009 10:15
Good scoop, Clover.
However, when a major, liberal US newspaper compares any bias with US racial attitudes, it cannot be a good thing
July 28th, 2009 10:17
jj, the video which was sold to the NOTW and the one I am talking about is the P*** Video featuring Harry.
The GG video, that was done by the Sheik. The Sheik was the one who secretly recorded Sophie.
This will give you an idea about The Sheik (MM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazher_Mahmood
July 28th, 2009 10:18
Rman,
you are a sweety.
Yet, I am afraid, as I have said before, that is precisely KMs lack of “action” and willingness to remain “inactive” that has made PW so fond of her. And there is nothing wrong with being the best girlfriend/spouse you can be. (Well, it’s not enough for me, but then, I am not up for the post) double LOL
July 28th, 2009 10:19
girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse… good for goose and gander
July 28th, 2009 10:27
Sojourner,
Thanks for the compliment!
Rman,
I am sending a shower of little hearts to rain down on you. I always have images like this when I read your posts! LOL!
July 28th, 2009 10:51
This so called fake sheik is no savior delivering criminals to justice. He is a mole for hire, selling his goods to the highest bidder. He seeks out scandal, entraps his prey and peddles his goods to the tabloids. Lets not make him out to be some UK version of John Walsh because he is not. Same goes for those two at the WOTW. Hidden cameras and concealed microphones…very low class. The thing I love the best is good ole Jobson, who will be party to this sorted episode that embarassed Kate and her family and could have had the potential to damage her relationship with William and he will be the first to release a book about the royal couple when the announcement hits. Hypocrite at the worst level. This dude has been lining his pocket at the expense of William, Kate and her family for years now.
July 28th, 2009 11:06
LOL, you guys are crazy.
Lisa I agree with you.
sojourner, I guess you are right. But I just can’t wait to see this girl behind her prince officially.
July 28th, 2009 11:17
Lisa, you have lost me. What’s Jobson got to do with W & K. The video I was talking about was the one that showed Harry giving a talk to his comrades. You know, the video where Harry says (pretending it to be the Queen) “and God save you.”
Of course I don’t want to repeat the other stuff. As far as I am aware the sheik was not involved in that video incident.
Hey!, is the party still on.
July 28th, 2009 11:19
WOTW, was that a mistype meaning NOTW or is WOTW another publication?
July 28th, 2009 11:21
Hale,Jobson plays both sides of the coin. He is involved with NOTW and he also writes books (2) about Kate and William and you can guarantee he will write another one when the engagement breaks.
Anyway,yeah the party is on. GG and his drama can go away any time now.
July 28th, 2009 11:27
Well
Mr. Mamood has a mixed portfolio. Somethings are admiral like exposing immigration problems, however a lot of his work is exposing celebrities/politicans for having affairs which is entrapment for monetary gain. I just can’t support that. One thing is crystal clear in my mind. He better make sure he is clean as a whistle because one of these days someone is going to make it their priority to take him down and if he has been up to no good they are going to take great pleasure in exposing him. That same let he who is without sin cast the first stone phrase comes to mind. I don’t know how he can sleep with himself at night ruining peoples lives for money. It’s disgusting. Aren’t their laws in America about entrapment or does that just pertain to court cases? There should definitely be some laws made in the UK because it is disgusting some of the things he is doing..
July 28th, 2009 11:33
Lisa, you will get no arguement from me with regards to the press. They are in it for the circulations figures, the journos are in it for the money AND the fame.
They love you one day, say your the greatest thing that has ever happened then the following day your some new virus.
Great the party is still on. Is everyone okay if I bring some music? Stone Roses, Pixies, Streets, Springsteen, Oasis.
Oops, forgot to mention it, believe it or not I am also a country fan. Steve Earle, Joe Ely, Keith Urban.
July 28th, 2009 11:43
jj, there are laws in England. As yet he has not to my knowledge breached them. Although I have to say I am not familar with all his cases.
jj, don’t feel sorry for our politicians. Trust me on this, they are not worth it.
I could say a lot more about our government ministers, but hey we’re having a party.
Who has the cheese and onion crisps?
July 28th, 2009 11:56
Please, take note I was talking about the British press.
July 28th, 2009 12:28
By the way I agree with Ked. I think it’s time for PW to give up this S&R deal and get on with his life. He won’t be flying helicopters for a living and is really just wasting time and risking his life. I don’t necessarily think that PH should be flying helicopters either. It’s just not safe.. But then again the Swedish prince races boats and motocars so who knows. Young royals are allowed to do all sorts of dangerous activities now a days.
July 28th, 2009 12:47
From today’s Telegraph:
Queen snubs Bermuda’s 400th anniversary:
As Bermuda celebrates the settlement of the island 400 years ago, one dignitary will be absent from the festivities
Queen and Philip are old and I don’t expect them to travel overseas anymore. But she has four children and William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie. I think the Firm could have done this better…
July 28th, 2009 12:56
curious,
I think HRMs oversees trips will be very few and far between. I also imagine (with fair certainty) that several other islands will be celebrating their anniversary during the upcomming years. So it would seem that one trip to visit all of them, rather than individual trips to visit each is a more likely scenario.
And I think them wise not to send Andrew’s young ones. As for PW and PH, who knows what’s coming up for them?
July 28th, 2009 13:01
The rumors keep swirling about these two….
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/thelondonpaper/celebrity/the-buzz-in-london/are-prince-harry-and-chelsy-davy-back-on
July 28th, 2009 13:02
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/07/nacho_figeuras_thinks_prince_h.html
Another positive article about Harry… Interesting…
July 28th, 2009 13:26
Don’t we all have better things to do with our time than to comment on what Prince William and Kate Middleton does or doesn’t do with their lives. So what if Prince William is of royality, excuse me there is famine going around the world, in kenya lions are being poisoned to death, rain forests are disappearing from our planet and most of all we need to start loving one another so the next generation can grow up to love each other and not kill each other. Well I’m sorry to say I have some laundry to hang up on the line, for it’s a beautiful day here!
July 28th, 2009 13:30
jj, I believe that H & C have managed to stay friends.
By the way, I loved the article you posted at 144.
July 28th, 2009 15:16
jj@143, possibly if I am to follow facebook wall messages.
July 28th, 2009 15:37
Isn’t Kate in the Carribean? They could send her to the festivities in Bermuda
July 28th, 2009 15:46
Has anyone seen the recent issue of Hello!
It states that Kate is leaving for the Carribean on Friday, July 31st.
It also clears up many rumors that have circulated recently.
July 28th, 2009 17:34
Clover, I haven’t seen the issue yet. What other rumors does it clear up?
July 28th, 2009 17:37
maddie,
I only glanced at a copy and I will try to get my hands on a copy today.
I wanted someone who had a copy to summarize the main points.
July 28th, 2009 17:45
I think it says no marriage or engagement this year and no meeting with the Queen at Balmoral… Nothing new there…
July 28th, 2009 18:10
Thanks JJ! You could do better than that.
I got a copy of Hello! and here is my summary:
Hello! Magazine (No. 082/20, July 27, 2009)/ Judy Wade
1. Prince William and Kate Middleton are facing a tough new test of their relationship.
2. Sources close to the couple quash rumors that they are poised to announce their engagement.
3. William not joining Kate in Mustique/Carribean.
4. William leaves for RAF Shawbury in Shropshire, some 250 miles from Kate’s Berkshire home, entailing a five-hour drive when they want to meet.
5. Source says that William will be work hard for the next five months to finish his course and will have little time for a social life.
6. Contrary to press reports, he and Kate will not visit the Queen at Balmoral Castle during her annual Highland holiday. The rumor has been circulating over recent weeks prompting the latest round of speculation about an engagement announcement.
7. One fanciful story even claimed that Kate and William betrothal might be announced on August 31st, which is the 12th anniversary of the death of William’s mother, Princess Diana. This idea is at odds with William and his brother Harry’s known preference for staying out of the spotlight on what is a day for mourning for them. An August engagement would also interfere with William’s vital last term of training and would suggest that the couple would have a winter wedding – not a likely prospect, as most royal nuptials in recent years have been held in midsummer.
8. The only vow William plans to make this year is to pass out the RAF flying school as one of its best helicopter pilots and it seems that there is every chance he will be able to achieve this.
July 28th, 2009 18:10
“Commoner” status confuses a great many people. They cannot understand how someone with a title can be described as a “commoner.”
However, anyone who is not royal or a peer is a commoner, and Diana was not a peer. Her father was, and now her brother is, but she held only a “courtesy title.” And courtesy titles are exactly that, awarded merely “by courtesy” to the wives, daughters, and younger sons of peers. Think of it this way: in the U.S., a woman who marries a high-status man may benefit socially from his status, even though she’s done nothing to earn it. She can acquire a social position, as “Mrs. Doctor John Doe,” though she is not a doctor. Her children, as the offspring of a doctor, may receive more respect and deference than the offspring of supermarket cashiers, even though they are not doctors either and couldn’t join the AMA.
Strictly speaking, ANYONE who doesn’t hold a peerage is a commoner, meaning that Prince William himself qualifies as one. In practice, this technicality is ignored.
But no, the late Princess of Wales was a commoner before her marriage. And as I said in an earlier post, merely holding a title — even a peerage — says nothing about your character or suitability to marry into a royal family, given the historical reasons for which titles were usually awarded. Having a title doesn’t make you “special” or superior. It’s an accident of history.
July 28th, 2009 18:26
Clover as I said before, I don’t think anyone should expect an engagement to be announced this year. I do believe that the announcement will come next year. This year everyone is getting down to business. I wish William luck on his training.
July 28th, 2009 18:28
Fiametta,
People with titles, the blood relatives of peers are not “described” as commoners as you claim. They are described as aristocrats and those who are not OF the Nobility are described as commoners. Nobles do not refer to each as commoners. Why do you think that is the case?
A coutesy title is not an “ONLY.” It is highly signficant title in the context of a system of nobility. The British System of Nobility is in no way shape or form similar to marrying a doctor in the United States. LOL!
What are the children of doctors called according to your theory?
Nobles do not view Prince William as “merely” a commoner as you claim.
If Lady Diana was considered a commoner by all people before her marriage to Prince Charles, then what made her suitable for marriage to the future King of England?
“Merely holding a title – even a peerage – says nothing about your character or suitabilty to marry into a royal family” you said.
Titles do matter in the modern world and they are used to determine “suitability” still and are perceived by some as very “special” and, in some cases, “superior” to having no title at all.
I am sure there are many people in the modern world who care very, very much about titles and what they stand for.
If you read the literature on Lady Diana you will see why she was selected to marry Prince Charles. I think you will be shocked by what you discover.
You don’t have to like an existing system and you are also free to criticize it and view it as unfair, but I think it is hard to argue that it works in an “accidental” way and has no meaning or value in the modern world.
July 28th, 2009 18:49
Thanks Clover!
July 28th, 2009 18:50
I have never heard Diana described as a commoner.
July 28th, 2009 19:21
I have read articles that described Diana as a commoner in the media (brief glance at the internet will get you a bunch). As has been said here before, most kings for the last 300 yrs. had been marrying foreign women in order to marry someone who was actually royal — the daughter or granddaughter of a Queen (which of course PP was, grandson of Victoria, that is).
July 28th, 2009 19:33
I really don’t get into these man made titles but I have never considered myself a commoner because I am a child of God and that alone makes me more noble than any noble person on earth.
It’s very possible for many people to marry into the royal family, commoner or not.
July 28th, 2009 19:51
Maddie,
You are welcome!
Rman,
Recognizing/accepting that a system of nobility exists in England is not intended to say that monarchs, aristocrats, and nobles only marry each other. It is simply not true. Of course it is possible for anyone to marry into the royal family.
July 28th, 2009 20:40
Well said Rman. They are only given this title on
Earth. We are all the same in the eyes of OUR father.
July 28th, 2009 21:31
yeah i dont think an engagement could to better this year all us we can do i do is wait…
July 29th, 2009 01:16
How often will Kate get to see her family when they marry?
July 29th, 2009 08:46
Well I think she will see her family as often as she can. William & Kate won’t become full-time working royals for some time so I don’t think there will be a big problem for her to see her family.
July 29th, 2009 19:05
With Ked’s comments re. the possibility of death of William and kate left with a royal son…makes me wonder…if william wants to put off any real commitment as long as he can …maybe he is scared by his parents that way and if everyone is saying that is the only way he won’t be pressured to marry maybe that is one of the reasons he is still in it…but i think he likes it too
August 5th, 2009 01:22
Maddie- Until Wm becomes the Prince of Wales she will see them pretty often I think.The prince just below the Prince of Wales has a lower profile and less duties.
August 5th, 2009 10:35
thanks for the info. I wasn’t sure what her family connection would be like once they are married and eventually when Kate is Queen.
August 5th, 2009 12:39
Just a bit of info here. In 1917, the Royal Marriages Act was changed, allowing for the first time members of the Royal Family the right to marry non-royals and non aristocrats.
The reason for this is because,during the first world war a number of the populace pointed out that the royal family was in effect German.
Feeling being so high, that George V changed his surname from Saxe Coburg to Windsor. Then instructed other members of the royal family to do so also. Hence Battenberg became Mountbatten.
Up until 1917, it was expected that members of the RF should mostly marry other princes and princess’, which usually meant the British RF relied on the German gene pool, so to speak.
Hence the reason for changing the Royal Marriage Act.