General News & Information for Prince Albert and Charlene Wittstock

[Nadine]

Oops, gotta correct you there, William and Kate have been living together in sin far longer than Albert and Charlene have. For the former at least 10 years (assuming they were bonking each other's brains out from the get go at university where they shared a flat), whereas Albert and Charlene at least since 2006, five years ago, when she became his girlfriend.

By the way, I don't agree with premarital sex, I'm a strict Catholic. Neither couple impresses me in that regard.

 

[NGalitzine]

Oops, gotta correct you there, William and Kate have been living together in sin far longer than Albert and Charlene have. .

WOW, didn't realize people still used that expression.

 

[Nadine]

Lol, I decided not to be politically correct, oh my!

 

[KittyAtlanta]

WOW, didn't realize people still used that expression.

Yes, we still exist in legion.

 

[melina premiere]

Prince Albert will wear the uniform of carabinier which is white in summer, it is the us of the country, there is no other army, and Prince Albert is the colonel of this (army), for the carabiniers, it will be an offense if he would not wear their uniform. White uniform is beautiful,

 

[Nadine]

Thank you for the explanation, melina premiere, I had never heard it before.

By the way, I meant no offense, just thinking out loud again. Not only that, I had this pic in mind: http://www.highsocietybridal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/rainier_grace_wedding.jpg

To me it is unusual to see a man marry in white, in fact I think it will be my first time seeing so, therefore my curiousity.

ps: HAPPY EASTER SUNDAY EVERYONE, HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A GREAT ONE!!!!

 

[Renata4711]

Well, at least we will be spared the sight of Prince Rainier III with his dubious collection of medals !!

However, it's still unfortunate that PA cannot wear dark blue, as white is a no-no for him. Let's hope he has tried to slim down a bit....

 

[Renata4711]

You're right, Kitty, and society would be better off if a modicum of restraint was applied !!

But, sadly, there's no way we can halt this train.....

 

[NGalitzine]

Perhaps, but it frequently seems that those people who comment on others peoples supposed sins forget the Biblical admonition about` judge not, lest ye be judged``.

At any rate the Grimaldis have not exactly lived traditional, conservative, Catholic lives over the last 100 years so I doubt they would ever cast the first stone at anyone, and I am sure very little shocks their subjects. Monaco is a very sophisticated little place.

 

[Sofiero]

Now it is official that Albert and Charlene will attend to the British wedding. The link is here. Selected Guest List for the Wedding Service at Westminster Abbey

 

[NGalitzine]

Now it is official that Albert and Charlene will attend to the British wedding. The link is here. Selected Guest List for the Wedding Service at Westminster Abbey

Not unexpected but good to see. It will give them both a chance to review their own wedding plans and see if any little changes might be wanted. It will also give Charlene another chance to meet the royal mob again and get accustomed to such grand events.

 

[Sofiero]

Oops, gotta correct you there, William and Kate have been living together in sin far longer than Albert and Charlene have. For the former at least 10 years (assuming they were bonking each other's brains out from the get go at university where they shared a flat), whereas Albert and Charlene at least since 2006, five years ago, when she became his girlfriend.

By the way, I don't agree with premarital sex, I'm a strict Catholic. Neither couple impresses me in that regard.

No Roman Catholic priest will accept that a marrying couple will sleep and live together before their wedding ceremony. My opinion is that Albert and Charlene has lived and slept together during their journeys. How about the interview from Vancouver. It was made in a bungalow they was living together.

 

[NGalitzine]

No Roman Catholic priest will accept that a marrying couple will sleep and live together before their wedding ceremony. My opinion is that Albert and Charlene has lived and slept together during their journeys. How about the interview from Vancouver. It was made in a bungalow they was living together.

No sensible priest would ever ask the question. I would find it very odd in this day and age indeed that any couple would go to the altar without first having been between the sheets. Does anyone really expect 2 adults to go to their wedding bed as virgins? Really?

 

[Madame Royale]

By the way, I don't agree with premarital sex, I'm a strict Catholic. Neither couple impresses me in that regard.

I personally couldn't care whether or not they have or haven't slept together. It's none of my business. Mind you I'm sure they have, but they are two consenting adults and I have no right or reason to allow my prejudices, religious or otherwise, to condemn the actions of another just because I may not choose to undertake a certain act of intimacy.

Live and let live I think. It's not me they are answerable too

Problem with the world is everyone has too much to say about issues which don't concern us...lol.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Very different...the whole look and vibe is very different...with W&K you are looking at 2 young people, similar in age and educational background starting their lives together. A&C are not similar in age or educational background and have been living together for years...

William and Kate have been living together for years as well,longer than A &C,and even though they have similar educational backgrounds and Kate comes from a wealthy family, she is NOT a product of the aristocracy and will need to learn the very real differences between being a Royal and simply being rich and privileged.

I don't think KM will necessarily have a big problem doing that, but she IS in for some big changes, IMO.

BTW...yes NGalitzine...I know quite a few of my friends who happily waited until marriage to sleep together....my own sister was twenty-nine and she waited!

It's a myth that you MUST have pre-marital sex or the marriage is doomed to failure, imo.

Some people feel it's more special and meaningful to wait...and I am one of them. It's rare but it does still happen.

 

[Madame Royale]

Quite true

I think it's a matter of whatever works for the couple. There's no right or wrong in my opinion.

It's a myth that you MUST have pre-marital sex or the marriage is doomed to failure

Confess I've never even heard of that one...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Madame Royale, the fact that it shocks some people that not everyone sleeps together before marriage confirms my point that conventional wisdom now says it is necessary to do so.

In previous generations where many people waited and it was almost unheard of to live together first, the divorce rate was MUCH lower.

Now, most people live together first to "test" the relationship...and yet 50% of all marriages today will end in divorce.

That right there tells me something important.

 

[Nice Nofret]

I wish people would look more after there own faults and failures than looking into the bed's of others - I deeply feel, that's a personal matter, and concerns only the people involved.

I'm Roman catholic too - but I feel offended by all these old men meddling, where they have no business ...

in former times only well to do people married - because there was need for heirs; a lot of "common" people never did - but had sex left and right; when they hoped together over a broom - it counted as married - when one of them moved away and hoped again with another partner ... well, no one cared

 

[Madame Royale]

In previous generations where many people waited and it was almost unheard of to live together first, the divorce rate was MUCH lower.

Because the stigma of shame was so heavily associated and to be honest, I don't see it as having been a sex related issue, myself. Not at all.

It was about personal shame and shame in the broader sense that your actions would bring your family's name into disrepute. The number of marriages which remained legally intact but were void of love would be incalculable.

Remaining party to a marriage is no sure sign that the marriage itself was/is happy or worthwhile. My very own great grandmother noted on the death of her husband of 70 years that the best thing he ever did was, well, move on to "greener pastures".

She neither sought comfort from another man nor did she even contemplate divorce, yet the connection between the two was near non existant. A loveless marriage, but to divorce would have been social suicide. Even an aunt of mine didn't divorce her husband for fear of what shame it would have brought upon my grandparents and their good name.

Be it that the example of my great grandparents is not representative of most, but you get the meaning I'm sure.

The point is that people divorce now and more frequently because acknowledging when something isn't right no longer holds them hostage, socially. As people have evolved, so too has the contemplation of religion to an extent and social values. For better or worse, the fact is they have changed and to remain ignorant of change or even disregard it is, I think, rather unfortunate for that person.

If an emtoional detatchment is present in a marriage, then it's all over. Whether the marriage is ended or remains purely due to convenience, it is over. And in the event intimacy continues, it's little more than a natural inclination to do so. Our most primal instinct is to engage in sexual relations.

And quite honestly, no one deserves to be in a marriage which leaves them looking for validation.

I'm sure Albert and Charlene will have a great marriage, in every way. I'm sure hopefull that will be the case anyway.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Excellent post Madame Royale, and I am certain what you say is true.

I also know that financially women were more dependent upon their husbands...they were more likely to have foregone education and work experience early in favor of marrying and starting families..so they had no choice but to stay in the marriages.

But perhaps it is also true is that people in the past were not quick to throw in the towel at the first sign of serious trouble or failure?

Marriage was seen as a lifeteme sacred commitment, and not a situation that one could bail on when it "no longer works for me".

Divorce seems to be the option now for example simply if one's "self-esteem", validation or PERSONAL fulfillment needs are not being met within the relationship.

The concept of what it means to be truly and completely married to another person no longer means the same thing that it meant fifty years ago.

And that makes me sad, it does not make me ignorant or resistant to change.

 

[Madame Royale]

I also agree with you re financial security. Be it that job options for women have only really come into their own the past twenty or so years.

But perhaps it is also true is that people in the past were not quick to throw in the towel at the first sign of serious trouble or failure?

Definitly. I think the differences we see today can be attributed to a sfift in social values. As we "evolve", so does the way we perceive everything.

Furthermore, we live in a very self orientated environment nowadays. Everything is about the inadvidual and their needs before all else and all others. And to an extent I agree with this. But of the fundamental charity and selflesness which is now lacky from society and relationships, I find it quite disheartening.

And that makes me sad, it does not make me ignorant or resistant to change.

There's a difference between someone who can acknowledge social change, and someone who point blank doesn't want to know about it. Evidently, you are not the latter and it was to those who I refer.

 

[Renata4711]

Social change is a fact of life. None of us are immune from it.

 

[Nadine]

Solipsism at its best, or worst, as the case may be.

 

[Nadine]

How come Albert & Charlene weren't at the beatification of Pope John Paul II this past Sunday? Other Catholic Royal Houses were (please read the thread over in the Belgian Forum). This makes the House of Grimaldi appear in a bad light imho.

I at least expected to see Princess Caroline there. After all Pope John Paul II granted her annulment to her first husband in 1992, thereby legitimatizing her 3 children, though he was upset about her getting pregnant before marriage to Stefano Casiraghi, and even had a private sitting with her. Still, she didn't learn, and once again became pregnant before marrying Prince Ernst.

Anyhow, I'm disappointed in the House of Grimaldi, please set a better example as high profile Catholics. Thank You.

 

[melina premiere]

Stefan Bern said during the wedding of Prince William that Prince Albert are preparing the open of the Princess Grace exposition which will take this week at Sao Paolo.
Prince Caroline is separat of her husband Ernst August of Hanvre and we cannot speak about Princess Stephanie.
There were the first ministre of Monace with Mgr Barsi who represented the principauty of Monaco.
I think it was enough, it was only the beatification of a the pope Jean Paul II, not the funeral nor the crowning

 

[Nathalie Cox]

I don't know, i think they should have been there...i mean, they weren't there, but they will have a meeting in 2012 with the Pope.
I don't think it was enough, there's a reason why all Catholic royals were present. Barsi is not enough, imo.

 

[Renata4711]

Sanctification is the higher one of the ways of creating a new saint.
Beatification is the lower option. Perhaps that is the reason for absence.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I don't know, i think they should have been there...i mean, they weren't there, but they will have a meeting in 2012 with the Pope.
I don't think it was enough, there's a reason why all Catholic royals were present. Barsi is not enough, imo.

I am disappointed. There are enough Grimaldi's for at least a handful of them to have been there. Even if Albert and Charlene were not there, Caroline, effective First Lady of Monaco, should have been there, at a minimum.

 

[melina premiere]

the children of Caroline could attend to this event but that the Grimaldi family would not be there, it is not the matter. It is not useful for the royals to be there, there were Mgr Barsi and First minister who attend this event, for me it is enough,Who see that the family of Monaco was not there? Nobody . We did not see the royals at the tv and the pope is now a saint.

 

[Nathalie Cox]

There are pics of Letizia and Felipe, Alois of Liechsteing, Maria Teresa of Luxembourg...even Berlusconi.
I don't know why wouldn't Albert and Charlene be there? Beatification might be lower, but the other royals were there, no matter how "lower" that can be. Plus, this occasion could have been useful to Charlene to show people that she is catholic now, as well as to go to Easter Mass with Albert, wich she didn't.
But all right, if it's ok for most of you, i have no problem. I just see no valid excuse for the Monaco royals, that have strong catholic ties to the Vatican.