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

[Duchess]

Before any one's imagination gets carried away... I will reiterate, Prince William and Miss Middleton are absolutely not tied to one another.

Miss Middleton was allowed to be invited under special circumstances.


-Karagiosis

while you have no proof of this, neither do any of us have proof otherwise. however, you say they are not tied to one another....would they take the risk of being photographed together if they weren't tied to one another? obviously they have some sort of relationship...beit friendship or romance. as you originally said....we'll see what the next couple of weeks brings.

 

[Menarue]

I really don´t think that the photographer was that close to them, it would be far too dangerous for a pap to get so close to Princess Diana´s son when he was holding a gun...

 

[karagiosis]

while you have no proof of this, neither do any of us have proof otherwise. however, you say they are not tied to one another....would they take the risk of being photographed together if they weren't tied to one another? obviously they have some sort of relationship...beit friendship or romance. as you originally said....we'll see what the next couple of weeks brings.

Perhaps you misunderstood me... I never said I had no proof. I simply stated a fact without elaborating on it any further... all of which is still true by the way



This has obviously displeased quite a few. That's fine... although it has never been my intention to cause offense or fluster so many by posting something that is still unfamiliar.



-Karagiosis

 

[muriel]

How do we know they are still a couple? Sorry those pics dont prove it IMO all it proves is that they are still friends at the very least. What if they have indeed called it a day, but still remain friends with benefits?

How likely is that in the real world?

 

[Duchess]

Perhaps you misunderstood me... I never said I had no proof. I simply stated a fact without elaborating on it any further... all of which is still true by the way



This has obviously displeased quite a few. That's fine... although it has never been my intention to cause offense or fluster so many by posting something that is still unfamiliar.



-Karagiosis

i'm not sure how you can have proof without, as you said in post #1761, "no confidences have been betrayed as a result of my little post" and in post #1778 "What I have said is based on a complete knowledge of the fact; but to be clear, I am not writing on any one's behalf nor in any official capacity".. unless william/catherine have personally told you something to support your post then you have no proof. if they have told you then you would be betraying their confidence. personally it makes no difference to me whether or not your have personal knowledge so it hasn't displeased me at at...just pointing things out.

 

[Kezza]

How likely is that in the real world?

Very likely and just as real as an engagement or does that seem to be the only real conclusion to some that he will end up married to her? Because some swallow the press speculation.

 

[Isana]

There's middle ground between being engaged and being "just friends" and that is being in a relationship with each other which they have been for 5 years now.

 

[Ella Kay]

Amen, Isana.

This whole are they/aren't they conversation is getting a bit silly, IMO. What evidence do we have that they were ever having problems, aside from tabloid speculation and the hopes of some that William would dump Kate? I don't understand why some keep pushing this line about a break up, except that they want them to break up, and it's that "if you say it enough it will happen" logic.

A couple of things are clear to me: Kate almost certainly attended the Highgrove birthday party last month, and this weekend she was invited to one of the Queen's royal estates by the man she's been dating for years. The absolute most logical explanation for that? Nothing has changed in the relationship; they're neither engaged nor separated, no matter what any of us wants. They're just together.

 

[muriel]

Very likely and just as real as an engagement or does that seem to be the only real conclusion to some that he will end up married to her? Because some swallow the press speculation.

No point in jumping the gun, luv! Don't know of many couples who split up after years of being together, and a short while after they split, one agrees to spend a weekend at a house party at the home of their former partner, and that too, smiling.

I am not suggesting they are getting engaged - I never have (I think its to premature for that, and the earliest engagement would be at Xmas 2009 / early 2010, with a wedding in the summer of 2010), but then nor have I suggested that they have split up. This is just the tabloids trying to fill column inches, and IMO, a few gullible people lapping it all up!

 

[muriel]

Nothing has changed in the relationship; they're neither engaged nor separated, no matter what any of us wants. They're just together.

Quite right!

 

[Warren]

Miss Middleton was allowed to be invited under special circumstances.

The mysterious "allowed to be invited" and the unstated "special circumstance" eh?
So cryptic, and so designed to tease. Yet you wonder why members are cynical.

...it has never been my intention to...fluster so many

No? OK then, what is your intention?
Let's cut to the chase and stop the game-playing. What exactly are you saying and why are you saying it?

 

[Menarue]

The mysterious "allowed to be invited" and the unstated "special circumstance" eh?
So cryptic, and so designed to tease. Yet you wonder why members are cynical.

No? OK then, what is your intention?
Let's cut to the chase and stop the game-playing. What exactly are you saying and why are you saying it?

And so say all of us........

 

[MARG]

This has obviously displeased quite a few. That's fine... although it has never been my intention to cause offense or fluster so many by posting something that is still unfamiliar.

Yeah right!

I'm with Warren and Menarue on this one.

 

[Idriel]

I might as well add what I've already said on another forum... I have no interest in posting gossip or speculations.

Which is why you post on a Royal forum in a thread called: William and Kate: engagement and relationship rumours and musings. Makes sence.

Having said that, I do find it incredible that the very suggestion of any thing outside of the scope of the collective imagination of "royal observers" is immediately shunned. Anything not within the acceptable range of possibilities is dismissed .

That thread is filled with fantasist scenarios and out of the wood suggestions. You obviously haven't been paying attention. And what would 'collective imagination' mean? Are you suspecting us of Borg-type hive thinking?
Your posts are discredited, not because people don't like what you write (I, for once, would love it if you were right), but because you bring no real insight, you contradict yourself post after posts and after and when your theories are proved wrong by facts you come up with a very convenient insider knowledge tidbit with retro-active effect.

Now, I am fully aware I am giving you exactly what you want: attention. And I won't be doing that again.
Have a nice, long, delightful life.

The absolute most logical explanation for that? Nothing has changed in the relationship; they're neither engaged nor separated, no matter what any of us wants. They're just together.

Absolutely.

 

[karagiosis]

The mysterious "allowed to be invited" and the unstated "special circumstance" eh?
So cryptic, and so designed to tease. Yet you wonder why members are cynical.

No? OK then, what is your intention?
Let's cut to the chase and stop the game-playing. What exactly are you saying and why are you saying it?

Have I really been so unclear? I think I've been abundantly clear in stating a fact without elaborating on it . I believe it's more the fact that I will not provide details that displeases so many.

Because it is still unfamiliar to the general public many prefer to dismiss me and I really don't mind in the least. It seems it's much preferred that everyone remain on the same footing or general level of ignorance while posting... So much more democratic that way...

As far as public opinion is concerned, how do so many even come to the conclusions they hold?

Many rely completely on their observations and the bits of information that are doled out at random intervals in the press or in biographies. These odds and ends of incomplete information are arranged into colourful theories, almost impressionistic in nature because of all the layers upon layers of assumptions that are taken for much more than they are - namely assumptions and guesses.

Fine. That's the point of a public forum and it is one kind of public discourse. I am simply saying there is more here than meets the eye.



-Karagiosis

 

[karagiosis]

i'm not sure how you can have proof without, as you said in post #1761, "no confidences have been betrayed as a result of my little post" and in post #1778 "What I have said is based on a complete knowledge of the fact; but to be clear, I am not writing on any one's behalf nor in any official capacity".. unless william/catherine have personally told you something to support your post then you have no proof. if they have told you then you would be betraying their confidence. personally it makes no difference to me whether or not your have personal knowledge so it hasn't displeased me at at...just pointing things out.

I have never contradicted myself. I've been very careful with what I've said. And contrary to what some may perceive as proof of anything, there has been no "evidence" to disprove what I've said.


-Karagiosis

 

[Odette]

Dear Karagiosis, I have no opinion about this relationship so could you just enlighten me about what you are trying to say??
There was a two week deadline about "news" that did not come forth. They were photographed together shooting some poor birds or something.......
I do not believe that this relationship however casual or serious it may be, it is there to cover something else although I suspect this is the suggestion you are trying to make.
BTW is the Karagiosis of the Spatharis fame??

 

[kimebear]

For some reason, I'm reminded of the story about the boy that cried "wolf".

 

[Idriel]

I have never contradicted myself. I've been very careful with what I've said. And contrary to what some may perceive as proof of anything, there has been no "evidence" to disprove what I've said.

Gosh! I hate myself for always taking a bait but: you said they were not linked romantically or I quote 'otherwise'.
Cue pictures of them together. They may be just friends, but that would be included in 'otherwise' no? That would be called a contradiction.
And yes, you have been very careful to say nothing that is verifiable.
At this point, if the Telegraph announced their slip on first page tomorrow, I would just think you had a lucky timing, nothing more.

 

[Ella Kay]

Have I really been so unclear? I think I've been abundantly clear in stating a fact without elaborating on it . I believe it's more the fact that I will not provide details that displeases so many.

Because it is still unfamiliar to the general public many prefer to dismiss me and I really don't mind in the least. It seems it's much preferred that everyone remain on the same footing or general level of ignorance while posting... So much more democratic that way...

I think you're missing the real issue ... when someone comes on to an internet forum and claims to have insider information, that person is almost always doubted. This is an anonymous form of communication, and when you claim to have the kind of knowledge that you're claiming, there's always going to be a healthy amount of skepticism.

Plus, framing it the way that you're framing it -- this "I know something exciting and big, but I'm not going to tell all of you exactly what it is, and if you don't believe me, you're being ignorant or dismissive" business -- isn't really going to convince a lot of people, IMO.

 

[Duchess]

I have never contradicted myself. I've been very careful with what I've said. And contrary to what some may perceive as proof of anything, there has been no "evidence" to disprove what I've said.


-Karagiosis

but not careful enough. you said that you you have complete knowledge of the facts....if you have complete knowledge of the facts then you could only have "complete" knowledge if it had been told to you by either william or catherine...otherwise it would be heresay...and then you would be betraying a confidence (which you said you haven't). if you have been told by either william or catherine that they don't have a relationship (which has obviously been disproven, at the very least they're friends) and you're on a public forum telling people about that confidence, and you are supposedly believeable, then one/or both would have given their blessing for you to make that "intimate" knowledge public, in which case you would be speaking in an official capacity. you also say that there's no "evidence" to disprove what you've said. there is indeed evidence to disprove it....as we saw in the photographs this past weekend there is a relationship. perhpaps if you have 'complete knowledge" you should posting in the current events thread as this thread is for rumours and musings. perhaps your choice of threads is correct though since you give no evidence to support you posts thus making those posts rumours and musings.

 

[karagiosis]

Dear Karagiosis, I have no opinion about this relationship so could you just enlighten me about what you are trying to say??
There was a two week deadline about "news" that did not come forth. They were photographed together shooting some poor birds or something.......
I do not believe that this relationship however casual or serious it may be, it is there to cover something else although I suspect this is the suggestion you are trying to make.
BTW is the Karagiosis of the Spatharis fame??

Odette, I only wrote that for what it's worth, in a couple weeks or so it will become apparent on a wider scale. That's all.



While I do not provide any tangible evidence, I also think many take their own observations as proof enough of their own assumptions. I hope this will make sense.




-Karagiosis

(

Happiest of Holidays to all...)





P.S. Nothing to do with Spatharis... I'm independent

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that you're playing a game with us. Games without resolution one way or another become quite tiresome.

Odette, I only wrote that for what it's worth, in a couple weeks or so it would become apparent on a wider scale. That's all.



While I do not provide any tangible evidence, I also think many take their own observations as proof enough of their own assumptions. I hope this will make sense.




-Karagiosis

(

Happiest of Holidays to all...)





P.S. Nothing to do with Spatharis... I'm independent

 

[Odette]

Odette, I only wrote that for what it's worth, in a couple weeks or so it will become apparent on a wider scale. That's all.



While I do not provide any tangible evidence, I also think many take their own observations as proof enough of their own assumptions. I hope this will make sense.




-Karagiosis

(

Happiest of Holidays to all...)





P.S. Nothing to do with Spatharis... I'm independent

I am as confused as I was before but at least you have a sense of humour....
Happy Holidays to you as well

 

[Smiley Girl]

It would be a bit unromantic to announce the engagement now i mean isnt he running off with the navy next year?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I want to start off by saying I am not pointing fingers directly at anyone here but....

Does anyone remember playing a game as a child which something like this ...'I have a secret and I am not telling you - ha, ha, ha'.

This game came to mind over the last day or so while reading this thread.

I might add my friends and I stopped playing it about 3rd or 4th grade. Do kids that young still play it?

 

[muriel]

but not careful enough. you said that you you have complete knowledge of the facts....if you have complete knowledge of the facts then you could only have "complete" knowledge if it had been told to you by either william or catherine...

..... unless "karagiosis" is one of william or kate!

 

[Menarue]

Thanks for the link! Is she holding one of the dead pheasants in that photograph? I can't quite tell.

As long as it isn´t a dead peasant

 

[Warren]

I am simply saying there is more here than meets the eye.

You're actually saying nothing.
Putting lots of blank lines into your posts to make them appear much larger does not disguise the lack of substance.

I note that you have failed to "cut to the chase" as requested. Your game is becoming tiresome.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As long as it isn´t a dead peasant

That reminds me of a wonderful tongue twister that we used to practice in the playground (well there was one version for the classroom and another for the playground - I will give you the classroom version and you can work out the playground version yourselves I am sure).

I am not the pheasant plucker
I am the pheasant plucker's son
And I'm only plucking pheasants
Till the pheasant plucker comes.​

​

I hope that no one will take offense but it certainly helped some of the class you had trouble with the 'ph' and 'pl' sounds.​

I am sure that many of you have also heard it before.​

A pheasant plucker was a peasant (later a farmhand - remembering that pheasants are shot in winter so the farmhand could supplement his income and probably they still do where pheasants are shot - I can't imagine the Royals plucking their own pheasants) whose job was exactly what it sounds like - to pluck the feathers etc from the shot pheasant before it was cooked or stored.​