William and Kate: engagement and relationship rumours and musings 2009

[muriel]

william is dull, not dutiful.

Without labouring any further on the "dull" bit, what would make William more "dutiful" than he already is?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Without labouring any further on the "dull" bit, what would make William more "dutiful" than he already is?

on the rare occasions he's out in public there is the impression that he'd rather be elsewhere and he sports the "refusal" attitude (i don't want to but eventually will have to) more than anyone else in royalty. ok, although i am not a psychiatrist it's quite clear where this and his disrespect for the media is coming from - but in the end it doesn't help convincing people to follow him and support him as their head of state.

But lets not forget that (Diana notwithstanding), it took Charles a long time to get to this point. Similarly, I think it is unfair to expect William to have developed and pursued his interests to a similar level at this stage of his life... he will get there.

i doubt he will be given a similar amount of time. we have already arrived in times where people will ask questions and not blindly accept any male as a head of state because his last name is wales. as soon as the house of windsor will produce a monarch who is unwilling = unpopular = useless in the eyes of the public the whole institution will be in jeopardy. being royal is not god-given anymore since any commoner can become queen or queen consort these days so in the future there must be more to it than just a legitimation by birth.

 

[muriel]

on the rare occasions he's out in public there is the impression that he'd rather be elsewhere and he sports the "refusal" attitude (i don't want to but eventually will have to) more than anyone else in royalty. ok, although i am not a psychiatrist it's quite clear where this and his disrespect for the media is coming from - but in the end it doesn't help convincing people to follow him and support him as their head of state.

Firstly, William is seen rarely seen in public as he is usually on duty, as a member of the armed forces. He is not skiving, merely "on duty"

there is the impression that he'd rather be elsewhere and he sports the "refusal" attitude (i don't want to but eventually will have to) more than anyone else in royalty

What mighty be a diffident public manner can hardly, IMO, be interpreted as not being dutiful. We are all entitled to form our own views, but "the impression", can only be an impression.

As regards his misttrust of the media, there is no doubt that in time he will start to manage the media in a more consummate manner. Its just a question of time.

 

[muriel]

i doubt he will be given a similar amount of time. we have already arrived in times where people will ask questions and not blindly accept any male as a head of state because his last name is wales. as soon as the house of windsor will produce a monarch who is unwilling = unpopular = useless in the eyes of the public the whole institution will be in jeopardy. being royal is not god-given anymore since any commoner can become queen or queen consort these days so in the future there must be more to it than just a legitimation by birth.

He has as long as it takes to become King. Sure, certain sections of the media will wrote him off, just as they wrote of Charlws. Eventually, it was Charles' good work that brought the larger media establishment behind him, and I am sure hat is what will happen with William as well.

being royal is not god-given anymore since any commoner can become queen or queen consort these days so in the future there must be more to it than just a legitimation by birth.

I am not sure how the actual mechanics of what you are suggesting work.

 

[Idriel]

I like the girl and I pity the way she lives her life right now, buried in Bucklebury when she had gone to university in the hope that one day the world would be open to her.

The World is open to her.
She has the money, the time on her hands, the independence. She has all the opportunities in the World and a thick Rolodex full of important names that would act as a sesame wherever she goes.

So it is obvious the way she lives her life is her choice and her choice only.
She is the one who chose not to have a career, she is the one who chose to put her boyfriend before herself (the reason she didn't want a demanding job -call that flexibility if you must- was because she wanted to be available for William), she is the one who chose not to pursue further education (now that would have been a non controversial, meaningful way to wait for an engagement, but she might have had to miss a couple of polo matches and club nights...), she is the one who is 'burying' herself in the country-side.
Even in the improbable case William asked that of her, could she not have grown a spine and told him she would live her life as she wanted and if he were not happy with that he could find himself another girl willing to deal with his baggage?

Chance is she loves her life right now and never had any other ambitions beside marry well, go on holidays a couple of times a years and occasionally look pretty at some social events. Based on what she has done (or rather didn't do) so far, it makes more sense than portraying her as a frustrated girl stringed along by her 'evil' boyfriend.

For all we know, the two of them could have some sort of private understanding at this point.

I am afraid a private understanding is worthless as it can be recanted at any time. Yeah, that would make William a cad but the first word that pops into my head when I think of him isn't gentleman.

1) Replacing the monarch as head of state with an elected president (the usual alternative!) is not perceived by most British people as a better alternative, else we would have had a republic by now.

As D of M rightfully said, the Monarchy will never be seriously challenged during Elizabeth's lifetime. Charles' reign will be short so I don't see anything happening there either. Let's wait and see what happens during William's reign...

2) The last aristocrat to marry into the royal family was Diana.... and we all know where that ended up!

And before Diana there was Philip and before that there was the Queen mother and before that there was Mary, etc.
Why put forward the one example of a disastrous royal/aristocratic bride and ignore the many examples of successful ones.
Diana was mentally and emotionally unbalanced. You can find women like that in any social classes.

I do believe in the importance of bloodlines if I was buying a prized pig, but when it comes to human relationships, IMO it is people that matter, not their ancestry. If Kate and Will are happy, and she has the "right" qualities, I am sure she will make a good consort.

Yes but we are talking about a system based wholly on the principles of heredity, bloodline, birth-right, class system and privileges.
They have to bring more to the table that just being nice, normal, happy people. There are plenty nice, normal, happy people around, they don't get bowed at nor live a life of tax-funded privileges.

3) As to comments about William and Kate being dull, I have to say that QE2 has probably been one of the dullest people on the public stage

People don't think the Queen is boring because they don't expect to be entertained by her.
She has never descended to the level of show-business stars with tell-alls, vindictiveness, public display of petulance, self-indulgence, drunkenness, abuse of her position, etc. She has never seek ' normality' and has always been utterly royal so is judged by other standards than her own son and grandsons.
Dignity, a flawless track record of public service and her ability of keeping an aura of mystery and mystique around her mean she has the respect and admiration of her people, so she can go on with her 'what do you do?' for another ten years without anybody complaining.

 

[muriel]

I am afraid a private understanding is worthless as it can be recanted at any time.

A lot of people tend to believe that in any relationship between two people, the understanding between them was more important than any public proclamation!

And before Diana there was Philip and before that there was the Queen mother and before that there was Mary, etc.
Why put forward the one example of a disastrous royal/aristocratic bride and ignore the many examples of successful ones.

True, but since Philip entered the BRF over 60 years ago, the world has changed, and so have British society and social norms. There is far more mobility between classes, based on personal achievement, so I remain to be convinced about the validity of your point.

Yes but we are talking about a system based wholly on the principles of heredity, bloodline, birth-right, class system and privileges.
They have to bring more to the table that just being nice, normal, happy people. There are plenty nice, normal, happy people around, they don't get bowed at nor live a life of tax-funded privileges.

The system may have been based on principles of heredity, but royal families have often married outside the Euro gene pool successfully. Not looking that far afield, the Queen Mother was not royal. Similarly, the European examples of Mary in Denmark, Leitizia and going a little further back in time, Silvia is Sweden are just examples of how commoners marrying into royal households can and have been received well, and have gone on to make good consorts to their respective husbands. All these women earned the respect of their people through carrying out their duties diligently and with an unwavering commitment.

People don't think the Queen is boring because they don't expect to be entertained by her.
She has never descended to the level of show-business stars with tell-alls, vindictiveness, public display of petulance, self-indulgence, drunkenness, abuse of her position, etc. She has never seek ' normality' and has always been utterly royal so is judged by other standards than her own son and grandsons.
Dignity, a flawless track record of public service and her ability of keeping an aura of mystery and mystique around her mean she has the respect and admiration of her people, so she can go on with her 'what do you do?' for another ten years without anybody complaining.

Absolutely, and that is what one would hope the consort of William, whoever she may be, will do. Applying that to Kate, I can't see how she has put a foot wrong. IMO, she has never "descended to the level of show-business stars with tell-alls, vindictiveness, public display of petulance, self-indulgence, drunkenness, abuse of her position, etc"

 

[Idriel]

A lot of people tend to believe that in any relationship between two people, the understanding between them was more important than any public proclamation!

That wasn't my point.
A relationship is easier to break-up than a marriage, especially when you are dating a future King.
He may love her for now (I am not convinced) but as long as she doesn't have a ring on her finger, her position isn't secure.

There is far more mobility between classes, based on personal achievement, so I remain to be convinced about the validity of your point.

I can't see how the principles of meritocracy apply to a Royal, but even if it did, what personal achievement can Kate claim to 'deserve' social elevation? (I know how it sounds, I am just stretching your point)

Not looking that far afield, the Queen Mother was not royal.

She was an aristocrat, she had a bloodline.

Similarly, the European examples of Mary in Denmark, Leitizia and going a little further back in time, Silvia is Sweden. -snipped- All these women earned the respect of their people through carrying out their duties diligently and with an unwavering commitment.

How well these ladies were received and how respected they are is a matter of opinion. Just browsing trough their respective threads here in TRF will tell you that much.

Applying that to Kate, I can't see how she has put a foot wrong. IMO, she has never "descended to the level of show-business stars with tell-alls, vindictiveness, public display of petulance, self-indulgence, drunkenness, abuse of her position, etc"

Actually many think she lives the typically self-indulgent lifestyle of a trust-fund baby, which is why she is more an object of derision these days than of respect.
Again, you are not just defined by what you don't do but by what you achieve too.

 

[sophie25]

I wonder if Feddie Windsor's engagement today will make William feel any added pressure to get engaged soon. I think Kate must despair at seeing the young members of William's family marring people they have been with for at least half the time that she has been with him.

 

[Skydragon]

Again, you are not just defined by what you don't do but by what you achieve too.

IMO, you are defined by the person you are, not what you have/haven't done!

 

[Duchess]

...3)...I would be inclined to go for dull and boring rather than exciting!

i whole heartedly agree. we see where "excitement has gotten us in the past. i would much rather have someone that is quiet and discreet.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Exactly. A severely handicapped person can still love and be loved and therefore have a worthwhile life.

There seems to be a creeping meritocracy where Miss Middleton is concerned.

IMO, you are defined by the person you are, not what you have/haven't done!

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, completely. I don't think that the Windsors are in need of a "superstar." They need someone steady and stable--someone who can set a course and maintain it. This is something that I think Kate has in spades.

i whole heartedly agree. we see where "excitement has gotten us in the past. i would much rather have someone that is quiet and discreet.

 

[Luv2Cruise]

IMO, you are defined by the person you are, not what you have/haven't done!

You beat me to it Skydragon. Hitler did quite alot, didn't he??

 

[Mermaid1962]

I suppose, but he had to be an evil man to begin with to "accompish" what he did.

You beat me to it Skydragon. Hitler did quite alot, didn't he??

 

[kimebear]

Let's leave Hitler out of this please.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Gladly.

Let's leave Hitler out of this please.

 

[Menarue]

Yes, completely. I don't think that the Windsors are in need of a "superstar." They need someone steady and stable--someone who can set a course and maintain it. This is something that I think Kate has in spades.

Well she has certainly showed she can wait, let us hope she doesn´t continue to be a doormat all her life, ready to be used when convenient.
Very convenient for William but not really the life anyone would want for a pretty, well educated girl like Kate.

 

[muriel]

A relationship is easier to break-up than a marriage, especially when you are dating a future King.
He may love her for now (I am not convinced) but as long as she doesn't have a ring on her finger, her position isn't secure.

YOu are right, a relationship is easier to get out of than marriage. That siad, as I have previously said, I just do not see many 26-27 year olds get married these days, despite them having been together for 5-6 years. Couples these days tend to wait till they are around 30, though I suspect these two will probably get engaged next year.

She was an aristocrat, she had a bloodline.

Sure, she had a bloodline, though it may not have been a terribly regal one!

How well these ladies were received and how respected they are is a matter of opinion. Just browsing trough their respective threads here in TRF will tell you that much.

My view is that as a member of a royal family, your time horizons are slightly longer than those of say, politicians, who typically devote a lot of time and resource to managing the media on a daily basis. As long as the respective members of the royal families are doing their duties well and consistently, IMO one can't shouldn't be getting too excited by what some poeple on an internet forum are wittering on about!

Actually many think she lives the typically self-indulgent lifestyle of a trust-fund baby, which is why she is more an object of derision these days than of respect.
Again, you are not just defined by what you don't do but by what you achieve too.

And people are entitled to their opinions. The only point to make here is that there is little real information of what Kate does in the public domain, and those forming views should be aware that they are basing their opinions on imperfect information!

Again, you are not just defined by what you don't do but by what you achieve too.

I think a number of posters have already reacted to your statement above. The only point I would make here is that again, we are not really aware of Kate's achievements at Party Pieces, so any reactions based on achievements are unlikely to be based on sound information (GI-> GO!)

 

[Idriel]

IMO, you are defined by the person you are, not what you have/haven't done!

It is impossible to separate the two.
Who you are will determine the choices you make in life and thus your actions. Similarly, some of the decisions you take will help shape your character (those character-defining moments).
People do not exist in a limbo, our minds and personality are indeed shaped by what we choose to do with our lives.

However, since I feel the discussion is veering towards whether Kate is a good person, I would like to point out that it's irrelevant to me whether she is sweet and friendly and normal, as I expect more from Royal, as I already have explained at length.
For the record, I have nothing against her as a private citizen.

They need someone steady and stable--someone who can set a course and maintain it. This is something that I think Kate has in spades.

May I ask you what make you think that?
I don't think she has committed in a long term to anything since graduating.
She couldn't even commit to a part-time job, what make you thin she will commit to a lifetime of service?

 

[muriel]

I don't think she has committed in a long term to anything since graduating.
She couldn't even commit to a part-time job, what make you thin she will commit to a lifetime of service?

In terms of commiting long term, above all else, even the most avid of Kate haters would admit that she has remain committed to her boyfriend of a few years.

 

[Skydragon]

It is impossible to separate the two.
Who you are will determine the choices you make in life and thus your actions. Similarly, some of the decisions you take will help shape your character (those character-defining moments).
People do not exist in a limbo, our minds and personality are indeed shaped by what we choose to do with our lives.

With all due respect, you are wrong. I have had the privilege of helping with disabled children, many of whom will do nothing with their lives, according to your definition. Thus they would be defined as non beings I suppose, however to many people with their laughter and little successes, they bring a lot to the world.

So I stand by "you are defined by the person you are, not what you have/haven't done".

Going out to work, studying, none of these make you better equipped to marry into the Royal family, neither do they make you a better/nicer/kinder/more worthwhile person.

 

[Idriel]

In terms of commiting long term, above all else, even the most avid of Kate haters would admit that she has remain committed to her boyfriend of a few years.

I was talking about something tangible.

If being in a long-term relationship was any indication of your work-ethic or ability to commit to a cause or a role, people would write about their love life on their CV.

With all due respect, you are wrong. I have had the privilege of helping with disabled children, many of whom will do nothing with their lives, according to your definition. Thus they would be defined as non beings I suppose, however to many people with their laughter and little successes, they bring a lot to the world.

You cannot possibly compare the situation of severely disabled people, most of whom will never achieve independence and thus won't have many opportunities in life, with that of perfectly healthy and normal people.
My point was a general one and not meant to encompass extremes examples.
I too stand by my statement.

Going out to work, studying, none of these make you better equipped to marry into the Royal family.

Here we will have to agree to disagree. You obviously have different standards and expectations than I have, which is just fine by me.

 

[avgi]

To be fair, our ability to commit to something is parallel to how much we enjoy it.

I mean, not everyone is professionally ambitious and most jobs are just jobs, not careers. I have a job and I'm not committed to it. I'd quit tomorrow if I wasn't committed to having four walls and a roof over my head.

Kate may not be career-oriented, and that's not a bad thing.

Or maybe she is, and her one year Jigsaw job was a sort of apprenticeship so she can run Party Pieces some day.

We don't really know, do we?

Besides, if there is indeed a royal wedding in her future, not having professional ambitions of your own can only be a good thing.

 

[4Pam]

Maybe Kate will inherit the family business one day if she doesn't marry William. So now would be a good time to learn how to run the business. And who better to teach her than her parents?

 

[Mermaid1962]

That is one perception of Kate. I wonder how the lady feels about being called "a doormat" and "used when convenient." Given the amount of time that she's invested in her relationship with William, I doubt that she sees herself this way. She's reported to have said "He's lucky to be going out with me." I can't imagine a woman with such a healthy sense of self ever consenting to be a passive hanger-on in a relationship.

Well she has certainly showed she can wait, let us hope she doesn´t continue to be a doormat all her life, ready to be used when convenient.

 

[Skydragon]

You obviously have different standards and expectations than I have, which is just fine by me.

Yes I probably have different standards, there are many that do not live up to mine. But I also believe that unless I meet the girl or her full details are released by her parents and indeed Kate herself, then I would prefer to believe she is working away, in private, just like the private citizen she is.

It strikes me as a terible thing, to judge someone harshly just because 'you' are not privy to what they are doing out of the spotlight. (The you is ubiquitous).

 

[AuroraB]

You cannot possibly compare the situation of severely disabled people, most of whom will never achieve independence and thus won't have many opportunities in life, with that of perfectly healthy and normal people.
My point was a general one and not meant to encompass extremes examples.

Sorry, but I did not interpret Skydragon's post as referring specifically to severely disabled people. After working (during college) with the Special Olympics, it's very rewarding to work with young adults who are trying their best to accomplish something that would take the average person only 1/5th of the time to learn. Success is not always measured in leaps and bounds, but one small step at a time.

 

[Mermaid1962]

She appears to be very, very committed to William.

I don't think she has committed in a long term to anything since graduating.
She couldn't even commit to a part-time job, what make you thin she will commit to a lifetime of service?

 

[Mermaid1962]

I concur, Skydragon. I hope that Miss Middleton never reads this thread, because some of the characteristics attributed to her are appalling.

It strikes me as a terible thing, to judge someone harshly just because 'you' are not privy to what they are doing out of the spotlight. (The you is ubiquitous).

 

[muriel]

I was talking about something tangible.

If being in a long-term relationship was any indication of your work-ethic or ability to commit to a cause or a role, people would write about their love life on their CV.

Lets just work through the facts, to the limited extend they are in the public domain.

After Kate graduated from St Anrdews, she worked at Jigsaw for, I am guessing, about a year. She then moved back to Berkshire to work for her parents business, and I am guessing she has been working there for a couple of years. There is no credible information in the public domain that I am aware of that suggests that there have been extended gaps in her CV. What seems to be the perceived lack of commitment here?

My sense is that you have taken a view that you don't like Kate or consider her unsuitable for the potential role as consort to William (a view you are perfectly entitled to), and are using the limited facts to suggest things about Kate that do not stand up to any level of scrutiny. I am happy to be corrected if you can corroborate your points with specific, credible information that can be backed up.