Prince Harry & Chelsy Davy go on Secret Dates
The London Paper reckons that Prince Harry and Chelsy Davy have been going on secret dates around west London. The paper claims that the couple have been meeting regularly at a friend’s flat so that they are not spotted out in public…
The paper’s source says;
They have been spending more and more time together. She doesn’t like the pressure of being in the limelight when they’re together, so they have decided to keep it low key.
They made an agreement not to meet at big West End nightclubs so they don’t get spotted.
July 30th, 2009 05:51
Oh No!
July 30th, 2009 06:26
Seriously
July 30th, 2009 06:38
ON-OFF
ON-OFF
ON-OFF…
Who cares?
July 30th, 2009 07:01
Chelsy looks so young in that photo, as if she is about 12. Must be a play of the light, camera, etc.
July 30th, 2009 07:13
Posters
We may have more trouble to come alright. UG had a blog. One of the posts said I’m not royal but I should be. UGh that’s all I’ve found so far via RT but I’m worried about what else might be on there.
July 30th, 2009 07:14
http://www.spotlight-forums.com/showthread.php?t=51395
July 30th, 2009 07:16
http://www.spotlight-forums.com/showthread.php?t=51395
Take a look. Ugh
July 30th, 2009 07:18
This is one of his other posts
It’s actually called La Masion De Bang bang and its a private home.
The owner Gary is kinda cool . . a London boy done good.
The sign is a copy of a tatoo he has . . . all a bit tonge in cheek . . its what sammy davies jnr, said about frank sinatra.
anyway . . thanks for the interest. Maybe catch you in the marlin this summer
nice….
July 30th, 2009 07:20
You HAVE to have at least one in your family!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/black-sheep-even-the-best-families-have-one-1761481.html
GG Black sheep factor: 5/5 (JMO)
July 30th, 2009 07:20
THis is another one posted in April this year
Its a great name people and better than the other ones i had in mind
Im not royal but should be
there this weekend hosting a hen party . . . I know whats that all about
happy easter all
GG
July 30th, 2009 07:41
how true?
July 30th, 2009 07:50
Sorry JJ but were all are able to read what’s on the blog. No need to feed the others forums like you do. It’s unexpected from you. We have had enough of this story, you said you had enough too but it’s not the case, you drag the web to find something juicy. You really are just like the NOTW, in french “tu fais les poubelles”
July 30th, 2009 08:11
my guess is right !! they comeback again !! i knew both of them still love each other but harry behaviour make all relationship are broken he..he..my feeling are they are soulmate or marriage partner forever cause they faces is same!
July 30th, 2009 08:11
jj,
Are you being ironic? These posts/blogs you posted seem so innocuous as to be… boring. Yes, we all have boring members in our families. We also have boors. KM happens to have a boor that is boring — a boring boor, or a boorish bore.
July 30th, 2009 08:30
I do believe that those awaiting future blog entries by Gary have quite a wait in store for them.
July 30th, 2009 08:49
United Against Censorship
Why not use your username? United? no, sorry but just speak for yourself and yes I’m for free speech, but you can not do everything in the name of free speech. If you were concerned I’m pretty sure you wouldnt want stories to go around the web and to be know and read by your relatives, your employer, etc… and people relating them without even thinking about checking the infos or about the implication for others, because the most important thing is to entertain you and not to ask if there is any evidence in it and if it hurts anybody. You think it’s fun because it doesnt concerne you. Some of you recognised that the NOTW was trash and it was able to do everything to hurt and make money. JJ just put a link towards a blog without checking the truth and reality of the information. Everything is possible even create a false blog with wrong dates. Isnt it curious that when the NOTW dit their inquest, they did not find anything on the web, and that the story emerge on the 19 July and the blog just today (the time to create it and put wrong dates and wrong posters???). I have a blog and I am on facebook and I just can manage the dates as I like. You can do too. I m really sorry because I thought in this site, more than in any other, there were rules and ethic and moral, and I just found that this site is becoming out of control
July 30th, 2009 09:00
nyxisnight.livejournal.com/
** BRW – I’ll leave this here (minus the link) because someone else referred to it further on in the conversation. **
July 30th, 2009 09:03
Dear Everybody,
thanks for the link… it is very funny. Also a little sad: clearly the world is no longer GG’s oyster.
It also clears up the Maison de Bang Bang question — it was not the “official” name of the property at the time, but was added later, probably to keep up with expectations GG had already built.
July 30th, 2009 09:04
I meant to say: at the time of the visit by PW
July 30th, 2009 09:11
Lisa as per post No.16. I quite agree. Hopefully, if he has any blogs what have you he will now commence to delete them on good sound advice.
Sorry to hark on about this, but when exactly did RPO’s start running security checks on this guy, I wonder?
July 30th, 2009 09:16
Rosalie,
The posts are innocuous. Really. GG has an outsize personality, but seems like a reasonable, if immodest and perhaps somewhat, should we say, “vulgar” guy when not on drugs. Wow. Go figure.
The dates that appear on Censorship’s post are funny, though. While these entries where originally posted in 2006 (see everybody’s link ot original site) some appear in this link August 4, 2009 — talk about back to the future!
July 30th, 2009 09:23
Hale,
it is the question to ask!
I still think that this was a known situation, that pained all involved (well perhaps not GG, who seems a little self-centered) but did not have an easy resolution, as anyone involved with such a relative would know.
I also think it shows PWs commitment to the relationship as it is, though it does not necessarily suggest future outcomes for it.
July 30th, 2009 09:24
I meant, to the relationship with KM
July 30th, 2009 09:47
sojourner, a known situation since when approximately ?
With the information I have, it was known since only 2007
July 30th, 2009 09:56
Hale,maybe at the time William and Kate were with GG he was not into what he is into now. I wonder if the sins of GG were uncovered in a final security sweep of the Middletons before the announcement, a sweep that would be far more intensive if Kate is about to become a royal bride?
July 30th, 2009 09:57
Hi @ 18,
That blog is not updated, the information is very old, thow it reminded me that the next birthday will be our dear Prince Henry.
I also noticed that blog promotes the royal lie (truth). Have you read there posts ? I have seen that they say a lot of theories and discuss it as if it where actually or happened in the past, incredible !
July 30th, 2009 09:59
Rosalie
Take a chill pill, I’m well aware that everyone on this sight can READ. I’m not inflaming just debating information which I came across just like everyone else. Anything of mine which you don’t like feel free not to read and move on. I’m an KM supporter and will be whether she makes it or not. This site is a good one and will continue to be one, but if you can’t handle the heat simply get out of the kitchen instead of complaining about the heat in the kitchen you walked into.
Thank you
July 30th, 2009 10:02
Me
I agree many of the posts which I read on that site are extremly negative and outlandish and full of hatred but I still go on there to make my voice heard whether they like it or not. There are very few Kate supporters on that site or people with an objective opinion but I still go on there to be heard.
July 30th, 2009 10:03
Hale and Lisa,
This was a known situation. Did you read the interview with the fiance of UG? Her concerns about drug addiction and other behaviors began before invites to Ibiza were extended to Prince William by Carole, Kate, and the Middletons.
We need to accept that this UG is a troubled soul.
July 30th, 2009 10:03
Me,does that surprise you? If you read the theories they have, Charles hates Kate,Harry hates Kate, the Queen and PP hate Kate as do all the courtiers and William is not too fond of her either. It’s really quite amusing to read. I totally look forward to lurking there the day the announcement is made to see what new and exciting theories are offered. LOL.
July 30th, 2009 10:06
Clover,
Has anyone said that GG isn’t troubled?
July 30th, 2009 10:09
Clover, no doubt that GG is a messed up dude but in all fairness, we don’t really have an accurate timeline on his activities and we cannot go by information given by third parties.
Now in regards to GG “recreational” activities and why the RPO’s did not know about it etc…consider this…what do you think goes on at these fancy clubs like Bouji’s and Malhiki etc? Hard to get away from these sorts of things when you run with a rich crowd like they do. I suppose as long as they do not partake,the RPO’s look the other way.
July 30th, 2009 10:14
No Clover, I took the word of his ex wife. He recently HAD an ex girlfriend, not sure if she was mentioned as the ex fiance.
July 30th, 2009 10:15
Indeed Lisa
An article was written not so long ago about the “activities” which happen at these high rent places which PW & PH frequent. I’ll try & find it later if I have time. I’m currently stuck in Miami airport.
As long as they don’t get involved then they should be ok.
July 30th, 2009 10:16
JJ, dont want to be rude or harsh, but when we chat on the web we must have in mind that people we take about (and the middleton in this case) have not a right to defend themselves or to answer. Si it’s very easy to drag informations like we do without thinking about the consequences. we must censure ourselves about certains things just to be fair because we do not have person in front of us to respond and hit back. So we are in a very easy situation, we found informations, we share and we dont check, we dont care, I love this site, but we have to follow rules and ethics.
July 30th, 2009 10:17
If you reread what the ex wife supposedly said to a friend, whom is the source to the DM, mid 2006 when she met him he was clean, 9 months later they got married, in the process, she says UGG got “sucked in” the Ibiza lifestyle.
W&K went to Ibiza June 2006.
July 30th, 2009 10:19
Now I do not have any other back up, so If we want to pretend that UGG had a problem before that given date by the press, I’ll read along the “theories”.
July 30th, 2009 10:22
Lisa, as per post#26, totally agree with that.
Sad to say this has become one of those ‘What If’ situations.
Can you imagine the president of the USA being allowed to stay at a place called ‘Le Bang Bang’? I think the security detail would have spotted that one immediately and all the connotations it implies.
If the RPO’s had used there heads, then William would not have stayed there and then perhaps it would have greatly assisted in a mental dis association.
Clover agree with you.
jj.. I found the links interesting. If I recall, it was either the NOTW or the DM article which mentioned a blog. But I was so depressed over the story at the time I forgot about the blog.
Judging by the links posted, he wasn’t posting for long, and then he was only talking about his house. It seems people were curious about it and began asking about the house. Clearly GG got to hear about it and responded.
I don’t think anything GG says in the forum is bad. I happen to think the guy shows he has a sense of humour. Nothing wrong with that.
But I do agree with Lisa. Anyone expecting him to post again will have a very, very long wait.
July 30th, 2009 10:26
To get back to Robin Nunn’s book, if you go on the Barnes & Noble site it says release date as Sept.1, 2009. If you look on google then the name of book release date- Amazon is saying release date is Sept, 1, 2009. Indep. publishing company agree with date of publication as Sept. 2009.
July 30th, 2009 10:27
One more thing JJ. Usually I love your post, but it’s not a reason if I found something I dont like not to tell it. I dont understand your answer. You prefer to ask me to go and not thinking about the problem I underline in my post. That’s not discussion. And I’m a great fan of Kate and if we keep on dragging these kind of infos, we dont serve her, we just allow Katie nichos to do a copy-paste in the next sunday mail.
I’ll keep on posting on this site because I love it, it’s meaningfull and kiet. Dont forget english is not my first langeage and that my way to explain things is quite abrupt because of lack of vocabulary, but in no mean I want to be rude but just to make sure people can understand my post. And I repeat, I really love william and kate to marry. I’m a verry, very pro-kate, as much as Rman is.
Have a nice day. Rosalie
July 30th, 2009 10:31
kat,thanks for the research. I am crossing my fingers that this book is released finally and does,as the publisher promised,go hand in hand with the celebration of the engagement of William and Catherine.
July 30th, 2009 10:32
Rosalie, you make good points. But there is also the other side of the coin. Take my country England. Sometimes I feel information has been suppressed. Perfect example, our armed forces serving in Afghanistan.
The lies our politicians have told you would not believe. As for the press, they didn’t even bother asking questions. They merely printed what they were told. I am wondering, has the internet made them lazy?
But the army has its own forum. Anyone can join. It is thanks to that forum, which our government and the press cannot censor that the truth has been outed.
So, whilst I agree with your principles and yes there is a downside to forums and internet. Be aware there is also positives.
July 30th, 2009 10:37
Hale, in regards to our president staying at le bang bang…I can think of quite a few US presidents that would fit right in there! LOL.
July 30th, 2009 10:43
He was honest to declare to the world that he smoked cannabis.
July 30th, 2009 10:57
Lisa – I agree w/post #44!!!
July 30th, 2009 11:25
Hale,
Thanks! Glad you agree!
July 30th, 2009 11:49
Lisa,
Great, witty response, I’m still laughing.
quote:
“He was honest to declare to the world that he smoked cannabis.”
Yes, but Clinton also said ”He did not inhale”
Just for the record, we loved Clinton in England. He had a novel way with cigars.
July 30th, 2009 11:54
Barack Obama “inhaled” and look at him..the self styled King of the world!
July 30th, 2009 12:06
I adore William Jefferson Clinton. He left office with a huge surplus which Georgie boy promptly pi$$ed away.
No comment on his novel use of cigars.
July 30th, 2009 12:07
But Clinton exhaled…
July 30th, 2009 12:15
Either way, we did like Clinton and quite a few us cheered when he wasn’t impeached.
The thing to remember here is, GG is not one of life’s victims. Yes he got sucked into the hedonistic lifestyle of Ibiza but the man has millions. GG doesn’t have to deal in order to earn his next fix. He doesn’t have to procure ladies of the oldest profession either.
Never forget what he said, ”my company delivers anywhere in the world, £43 per gram.”
So if there are those who wish to feel sorry for him, go right ahead. I choose not to.
July 30th, 2009 12:30
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/royals/
The above link comes courtesy of a poster on RIF. This poster is brilliant at finding information.
The link is about Diana and the press. Every article on it is a gem.
As a child I loved history. I suppose it comes from the time when I first went to Hampton Court. I was about 9 yrs old, I think. Since then, Tudors & the Elizabethan age remains my favourite era.
But my interest in how the press covered the royals I think began shortly after the Diana era, and it produced a different perspective. One I had not given much thought to until after the wedding of C & D.
So for those who enjoy history or anything to do with Diana, do peruse the above link. There are some intelligent articles.
July 30th, 2009 12:34
To be technical,Hale, Clinton was impeached. He just did not leave.
July 30th, 2009 12:58
He was impeached by the House of Representatives, just not convicted.
July 30th, 2009 12:59
Lisa, please explain. As you know I am not an American. I always assumed that if your impeached it means you are kicked out of office.
If not, what does impeachment mean? We have never had that sort of thing here. What happens is, either a prime minister steps down because they no longer have the confidence of their party, (internal party wrangling) or if they loose say a no confidence vote in parliament that results in an election.
July 30th, 2009 13:19
I am not the most computer literate. But here’s a video I should like to watch about engagement. Can anyone fix it.
http://channel.pandora.tv/trafic.ptv?con=UK
July 30th, 2009 13:26
Clinton was impeached by the house of representatives but that needed to be confirmed by the Senate. The two thirds majority vote was not achieved by the Senate, therefore he was acquitted on both charges and could serve out the remainder of his term of office through January 2001. We have a checks and balances system where you have many levels and branches of government. This is to try and ensure fair practices and to ensure accountability of government offices.
July 30th, 2009 14:09
maddie, I think I understand. Only, I did watch it on CNN and I recall the Senate voting against. So, what you are saying is it requires both houses with a majority to impeach a president.
Thank you very much for explaining this to me.
July 30th, 2009 14:42
“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Article I, Section 2, U.S. Const.
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” Article I, Section 3, U.S. Const.
Impeachment is only the process of bringing charges, as an indictment in a criminal proceeding. The Senate actually tries the charges, as if it were the jury in a trial. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides as judge.
July 30th, 2009 16:12
The confusion comes with Nixon and Clinton
Nixon was never impeached. He resigned after the House Judiciary committee voted to impeach him but before it received a full House vote and went to the Senate. General thought at the time was he would have been impeached by the House and found guilty by the Senate.
Clinton was impeached by the House but aquitted/fount not guilty by the Senate. He stayed stayed in office
July 30th, 2009 16:14
And that concludes the U.S. Government lesson for today
July 30th, 2009 16:40
this is an easy breakdown of the process.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/guide.html
July 30th, 2009 16:53
To put it simply, the House of Representatives(one house of congress) has the power to impeach the president. That means they vote whether there is enough evidence to indict the president of an impeachable offense much like a grand jury hears evidence and can bring an indictment. The trial is conducted in the Senate with the chief justice of the supreme court as presiding judge. The evidence is presented and then voted on by the senate. With Pres. Clinton he was tried but found not to have enough votes to convict him of an impeachable offense which are high crimes and misdomeanors. That is very simplistic but I think that is the gist of it.
July 30th, 2009 16:58
Civic Lessons, MJ, maddie and kate. Thank you all very, very much for taking the time out to explain this to me.
July 30th, 2009 17:51
The latest on Gary Goldsmith.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/421699/Not-such-a-vice-day-for-Gary-Gary-Goldsmith.html?ATTR=News&OTC-RSS=
July 30th, 2009 18:09
Don’t anyone here believe any link from “Nyxisnight.” That nic is a MAJOR Kate hater who has millions of ANTI-KATE MIDDLETON videos up at You Tube, and who also posts at a MAJOR Kate Middleton Hater blog.
These people showing up here under all of these screen nics are nothing but Kate Haters attempting to stir up trouble here.
Steven (BRW), please put a stop to it. These Kate-Hater TROLLS are trying to cause trouble here at your ssite.
Everyone else, DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.
July 30th, 2009 18:18
Wasn’t Chelsy just in Portugal. She looked real happy with Dominic. Leave Harry alone.
July 30th, 2009 18:24
UG looks like he’s about to cry.
July 30th, 2009 19:57
Thanx Hale!
Actually, Phoebe, I think it is a good picture of GG. He looks like a regular bloke (even casually posh… is that cashmere he is wearing?) The white stubble also makes him look more respectable. All in all, an improvement over unseemly underpants, belly and cargos!
July 30th, 2009 20:30
I don’t think it’s a bad picture either. I don’t think he looks disheveled, as the NOTW calls him. He also looks very young, but that could be his “please don’t hit me again” expression.
July 30th, 2009 20:35
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/2564470/Pair-admit-to-stealing-intimate-pics-of-Prince-William-and-Kate-Middleton.html
update
the guy who steal the pics of km and pw in their private moments….
July 30th, 2009 20:45
rman how is the book about robert nunn
July 30th, 2009 21:23
Interesting… thanx bluefire.
However, isn’t this old news? Weren’t these the pictures of that Mystique trip 2 yrs ago? Or has Pippa lost another set of photos?
July 30th, 2009 21:28
Well, the byline is Friday, July 31st. They probably had their criminal case disposed of.
July 30th, 2009 23:46
Last years Mustique visit, they where also pictured boat riding, Kate water skiing.
July 31st, 2009 05:23
http://www.google.com/translate?u=svenskdam.se/2009/07/prinsessan-madeleine-far-42-miljoner-for-skvallret/&sl=sv&tl=en
Wow! Madeleine gives money to charity..love it!
July 31st, 2009 05:52
3 cheers to Madeline. Hip! Hip! Horay!
July 31st, 2009 06:19
KM, take note! I have one Australian magazine in mind…
August 1st, 2009 12:00
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203627/How-Chelsy-Davys-father-Chinese-gangsters-ruthless-Mugabe-henchman-linked-vile-trade-thats-driving-Black-Rhino-extinction.html
August 5th, 2009 01:51
So they did the set up of the Goldsmith uncle to try and lessen the impact of LuLu’s link.
Didn’t work for me.The Davy family is a mess.
** BRW Edit **
I hope the ditzy daughter stays with Dominic.
August 5th, 2009 11:32
I am totally confused. Wm4King you mentioned 2 things . First that is why the Queen chose William to represent her. At What or where? Did I just not understand the reference. Secondly, why would someone go to all of the trouble to set up Kate’s uncle to lessen the impact of Chelsy’s dad’s dealings. Please let me know or am I again way off base? Thank you for any clarrification that you could give to me.
August 5th, 2009 14:58
Hey Kat
William was rep for HM on Memorial Day in NZ a couple of years back and has taken her place at several fairly minor events.
It’s done all the time in the Brit press.Set ups I mean.
August 5th, 2009 15:06
Thank you for clearing those things up for me.