William and Kate: engagement and relationship rumours and musings 2005 - 2008


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, this is the Daily Mail, after all. Anything to sell copies. I mean, obviously when he's a serving officer and living in Army accommodation, he won't have as much time for socialising as he's had until now. No surprise there. Doesn't mean he has to either get engaged or end the relationship.
 
He will have a lot more free time than he did at RMAS. Forces houses are only available to married couples, but there is nothing to stop him getting a hireing or purchasing a flat/house nearby. There is nothing in army regs that stops him from living with his girlfriend wherever he wants, as long as he is able to walk/cycle/drive to the base. He doesn't have to live on the base.

As Catherine does not receive protection at the moment (from what we know), it would only be necessary if and when they become engaged. Just another daft Mail story, IMO.
 
even if this story were true, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson on pressing for a proposal after the disaster that was charles and diana.
 
Duchess said:
even if this story were true, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson on pressing for a proposal after the disaster that was charles and diana.

But the thing is that for the press, especially the gutter press, like the Daily Mail, Charles and Diana were not a disaster. The papers wouldn't have gotten half as much material or anywhere near as many cover stories out of a happy marriage with both the Waleses spending weekends pottering around at Highgrove. Ironically, Diana's death, probably caused by the paparazzi, has led to still more newspaper sales.

Wait until William and Kate do marry (and I don't think there's much doubt they are planing to, but I'm glad they're doing it in their own time, that shows an admirable strength) papers will be pushing them towards babies, affairs, arguments, divorce, for the sake of cover stories and sales, just as they always do with the royals.

Disastrous royal marriages are what newspapers want. If they could have had William engaged to Paris Hilton at 19 they would have been ecstatic. Since he obviously has better judgement than that, they're trying to take control of this relationship instead.

PS why do some people on the board refer to Kate as Catherine? It's my understanding that she doesn't use the full name, herself. (?)
 
Princess_K said:
PS why do some people on the board refer to Kate as Catherine? It's my understanding that she doesn't use the full name, herself. (?)
Don't worry Princess_K, you're not the first to ask this question. Here's an answer.
 
Most of us wish Kate and William all the best, but... Just wonder, I hope that they doesn't break up because of all these rumours and growing pressure for them.
 
Well, if they do plan to eventually marry, it's better for Kate to get used to the immense media pressure now, rather than later.
 
branchg said:
Well, if they do plan to eventually marry, it's better for Kate to get used to the immense media pressure now, rather than later.

I'm not convinced there will be "immense" media pressure if they marry. I think there's extra interest at the moment because William is Diana's son and the idea of a new fairytale princess and fairytale wedding appeals to some people, particularly the media for whom it was such a great money earner for them the last time.

If Kate and William just go about their lives performing their duties quietly and otherwise leading "boring" lives, I think the media will calm down.
 
branchg said:
If Kate and William just go about their lives performing their duties quietly and otherwise leading "boring" lives, I think the media will calm down.
Diana after marring Prince Charles wanted to go out to the store for sweets. The press followed her and the queen ask the news media for space. I don't think it happened.

What do you think will ot going to happen to Kate?

I don't think the press will go away!!!!:ROFLMAO:
 
That was rather hilarious on the Queen's part. HM said, "It's rather a bind when the girl can't even go to the shop for some sweets", to which a journo replied, "Well tell her to send a footman out for the sweets then". The Queen lowered her spectacles and said, "What a silly thing to say". He apparantly needed several gins to restore his confidence after that.
 
It occurred at the meeting with newspaper editors whom HM had summoned to request they allow Diana some privacy and space.
Her response to the "send a footman" retort was allegedly a cutting "I've never heard anything so pompous."
Needless to say, the story was leaked by the other editors who quite enjoyed their rival's discomfort.
 
Perhaps the RF needs rules to protect them from harassment, along the lines of those that we have about approaching whales and dolphins. Surfers and whale-watching boats are not allowed to approach within a certain distance. Perhaps similar rules should apply to journalists when their quarry is out and about doing ordinary things as opposed to attending official functions.

I've just finished reading Sarah Bradford's book about Diana. Some of the photos and descriptions in there are horrendous. No-one deserves to be hounded like that. If the journalists - and I use the word in its loosest sense - and photographers won't restrain themselves, perhaps they need external restraint.
 
Posts discussing the culpability of the paparazzi, magazines, and magazine readers in the death of Diana have been moved to the Inquest into death of Diana thread.

Warren
British Forums moderator
 
Warren said:
It occurred at the meeting with newspaper editors whom HM had summoned to request they allow Diana some privacy and space.
Her response to the "send a footman" retort was allegedly a cutting "I've never heard anything so pompous."
Ahh if only the reporter had been White House correspondent David Gregory. Let's just say his followup to the Queen's remark would have been fun to watch. And there would have been a response. He makes sport out of skewering our head of state and his lackies.:flowers: I love watching royalty from afar and am a fan, but her remark deserved a response. We American savages, what can I say. :) LOL
 
Warren said:
It occurred at the meeting with newspaper editors whom HM had summoned to request they allow Diana some privacy and space.
Her response to the "send a footman" retort was allegedly a cutting "I've never heard anything so pompous."
Needless to say, the story was leaked by the other editors who quite enjoyed their rival's discomfort.

I just love QEII...what an hilarious thing to say:lol:

The press without doubt knows nothing...they will say and print anything to sell newspapers. William will marry when he is ready and not a moment sooner. I am sure his father, Charles, will encourage him to not fall for the pressure.
 
You're right. But the Queen, to whom people curtsy, calls someone pompous??? :lol: Even as an American, I would happily curtsy to her, but her calling someone pompous is like the pot calling the kettle black.:lol:
 
Not to get off totally off topic but I respectfully disagree.

If anything, her comment puts everything in perspective. Send a footman to get candy....how snobby and presumptious of the reporter. If she had said something like that, she would be accused of being out of touch with her people. Instead it just further illustrates that sometimes its not just the rich and wealthy who have class issues and/or insecurities, but the lower classes as well.
 
I strongly suspect the reporter was being flip.:flowers: But I'm probably wrong, and your point is well taken. :flowers:
 
Luv2Cruise said:
I strongly suspect the reporter was being flip.:flowers: But I'm probably wrong, and your point is well taken. :flowers:
It wasn't a reporter, it was THE editor of one of the major British newspapers. Considering the circumstances, telling the Queen that members of her family should "send a footman" if they wanted sweets from the local shop is pompous indeed.
 
I've been thinking about this "send a footman" comment - thinking rather than commenting so far because my initial reaction was something similar to the newspaper editor's, and because of the reaction here I decided I should probably think about it for a while before commenting.:rolleyes:

But I have thought about it for a while now and on this point I'm still on side with the editor. Diana started toying with the photographers from that day on the riverbank when she directed attention to herself by hiding behind the tree and watching them with a mirror; I've never understood why she did that. She continued to attract their interest throughout the courtship. Then on the eve of her engagement announcement she was whisked away from reality into the safety of CH, and then there was all that hype and build up and then The Wedding that was watched by millions of people all over the world, myself included.

Diana became a fairytale princess and fairytale princesses are larger than life. I don't think you can reasonably expect people to swallow all the hype and watch your televised wedding and call you "your Royal Highness" and flock out to see you on parade and bow or curtsy to you, and still expect to be able to nip down to the corner shop for a bag of sweets without attracting the attention of the same cameramen whose attention had been intentionally diverted towards you by the RF's publicity people on such a grand scale.

I am not surprised the naive fairytale princess might still have expected to have things all her own way, but I'd be a bit surprised if her Majesty genuinely thought it was reasonable for Diana to want to keep doing such things. Although, of course, her Majesty has always lived in a world detached from that which is reality for most of her subjects.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to live in the rarified world of Royalty, or show business celebrity, you must expect people to be interested in what you do. After all, you have a symbiotic relationship with the media; you need media attention and invite it in respect of some of your activities. You have to compromise and sacrifice some personal freedom and try to come to a satisfactory, workable relationship with the media. Some people - probably most - manage that, but a few individuals don't.

If you are particularly interesting for some reason - like Diana and Nicole Kidman (I don't think Kate will ever be in this category) - the photographers are going to chase you taking photos, and as long as they and the magazines they work for keep getting away with it and don't have restraining orders made against them or get sued for trespass or assault, they'll keep doing it.

They don't behave like gentlemen. They chase you and run in front of you with their cameras aimed at you, and camp outside your door and chase your car on motor bikes and pester you with questions when you are on your way to your car.

Since they won't play fair unless made to, I think they need to be made to. Hence my comment about rules about distance like whales and dolphins.
 
Warren said:
It wasn't a reporter, it was THE editor of one of the major British newspapers. Considering the circumstances, telling the Queen that members of her family should "send a footman" if they wanted sweets from the local shop is pompous indeed.
Warren, I just gotta disagree on this one. The Queen because of her role deserves respect yes, just as my president as head of our state deserves my respect if I met him personally but the entire idea of bowing to another human being because of their birth is pompous. Now mind you, if I ever met the Queen or any of the heirs to the throne, I would curtsy even though as a non-subject I am not required to, but it is a bit high-handed to accuse someone of being pompous because they make what I see as a cutting/sarcastic remark.

I view her reaction as pompous to even take seriously the EDITOR's ridiculous suggestion. I guess I'm used to politicians who make careers of deftly handling rude or hostile questions and/or suggestions. :lol: Finesse... over and over again I see that is something that is lacking in the Queen's camp and that has caused them problems. Yes I know...the Queen is not a politician.:flowers: Rather than expecting everyone to bite their tongue in their presence as if people are children is the height of arrogance and is just unreal in this day and age. A little sense of humor or learning how to good naturedly handle rude remarks in stride goes a very long way.
 
Prince William will marry Kate Middleton 'on July 19' - Don't worry, you have not missed the announcement! :ROFLMAO:

A PUNTER from Kent will collect more than £2,000 if Prince William gets married to Kate Middleton on July 19.
Jason Bolton went as far as to name the date when he put a £30 bet on the heir to the throne getting hitched in 2007.
 
Luv2Cruise said:
I view her reaction as pompous to even take seriously the EDITOR's ridiculous suggestion. I guess I'm used to politicians who make careers of deftly handling rude or hostile questions and/or suggestions. :lol: Finesse... over and over again I see that is something that is lacking in the Queen's camp and that has caused them problems. Yes I know...the Queen is not a politician.:flowers: Rather than expecting everyone to bite their tongue in their presence as if people are children is the height of arrogance and is just unreal in this day and age. A little sense of humor or learning how to good naturedly handle rude remarks in stride goes a very long way.

I don't think Warren implied that the Queen expects reporters to bite their tongue when they're around her but are you implying that the Queen should bite her tongue when reporters make an obviously stupid and sarcastic remark? Pardon me, but that belief seems even more pompous.

The reporter's remark was pompous; the remark doesn't become any less pompous just because the Queen says it.

Actually I believe that the Queen's popularity among her subjects is at the highest its been in some time so the politically inept old out of touch woman must be doing something right.
 
Laviollette said:
As I'm posting this link I'm just wondering where are all the tough questions about why William is seemingly being pressured to get engaged and marry at 24/25 years old?:sad:
Plenty of members have commented on the media "pressure" (or impatience) for an engagement announcement. Do the media pass the self-interest test? :D
There's no evidence or suggestion of pressure being applied by others close to Prince William or Ms Middleton.
 
25 years old seems like a good, mature age to marry. He isn't 18.

They seem to be under no pressure from what I can see. I don't understand why you are so against Kate, LaV. This is a university romance (itself an excellent start - almost by definition they are intellectually suited to each other) which has survived several years post-university. A great many of my friends married under just such circumstances and are still married. Surely college is the best place to pick up a mate, your brainpower aligns and there's none of the mismatching we saw with Charles and Diana.
 
Doubt

Don´t think William marries until he´s about 28 or so. Don´t even think Kate will be the one. So to me all this speculation about his relationship with his actual (and not last) girlfriend is a little boring.
 
On the radio today it was saying that the bookies have stopped taking bets on the wedding being on the 19th of July because it seems so certain. Seems a bit early to me unless someone from the royal household or a friend has blabbed:flowers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom