The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Prince Harry and Prince William

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2621  
Old 11-08-2010, 07:59 AM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsorgirl View Post
I just watched the TLC program, too, and was very surprised how much Diana figured into a show about Kate and William's relationship. It was even suggested that William would propose to Kate with Diana's engagement ring. (unlikely IMO). Also, a nitpicky error, they referred to Sarah McCorquodale as Diana's aunt instead of her sister or even William's aunt. Well, they got me to watch anyway.

They had alot of info wrong like stating that William was 29 as well there a few other I cought on too as well.They went to far with the look alike model in the wedding dress. not to nick pick but Kate is a UK size 6 (US size 2) not a very flattering look alike. lol.
__________________

__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
  #2622  
Old 11-08-2010, 08:04 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ****, Canada
Posts: 1,502
PW and Kate have many things going for them. They are both from the same community and culture; they share common interests;they are devoted to each other;they are discreet beyond their years;they have not made any mistakes so far;they appear sensible; and they are in love.The English will be blessed should they finally become "husband" and "wife"and come into their royal capacities to be of service to all...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2623  
Old 11-08-2010, 10:07 AM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
I think the bottom line here is how William feels about Kate not working. Although we don't know his personal feelings on the subject, we can see he enjoys having her nearby and available to spend time with. If she did have a career, not only would it present diffculty with her being able to effectively do her job with the constant media attention, it would prove to be difficult for them to spend time together with his military career.

The argument that "other" royals have managed isn't necessarily a valid point. As I have pointed out, the media attention on the House of Windsor is monumental compared to other Royal Houses. Whom William marries is of major interest. Kate is hounded by the Paparazzi, and it has presented a problem for her and is a concern to William since she isn't under protection of the Royal security. It's only when she is with William that she is afforded protection. I think for that reason, William prefers that she stays close to him.

As for the special last night on their relationship, it didn't present any new information that most of us here didn't already know, however it may have been interesting and informative to those that don't access forums such as this one, or follow the monarchy's activities. I do think the timing is interesting since it's the first program I have seen devoted to their relationship.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2624  
Old 11-08-2010, 11:33 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Wow, how cynical you all sound. Yes most of the continental CP's did meet their wives later however, Victoria and Daniel put in the hard yards for 10 years. And let's face it, with the media and forums being what they are, William is under tremendous pressure to "get it right".

The intimation that behind closed doors all (royal) imarriages are falling apart is not only cynical but highly unlikely. If you have any "facts" to substantiate such an assertion I would love to hear them. As it is it seems that on these boards a lot of members view the various royal couples as contestants in a reality game and treat their lieves with the same kind of caring attitude most often see in Gordon Ramsey's kitchen!
wow, i didnt mean to sound cynical. didnt read it through to see how it sounded.
i dont have any facts, i didnt claim to. thats why i wrote 'imo' at the end.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2625  
Old 11-08-2010, 02:50 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
I really don't think it would have been any different since she WAS of noble birth and therefore it wasn't perceived that she should have a serious career. Kate is absolutely being held to a different standard.
Well we're talking about a difference of nearly 30 years. Attitudes have changed, and if Kate has a title now, I would treat her the exact same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
My first point? You mean about Charles not giving Diana the time of day if she wasn't Lady Diana? But why would't that be true? He wasn't looking for love, since he was in love with Camilla. He needed to get married and was advised by "Uncle Dicky", his father and even Camilla on the type of woman he should consider. Diana fit that role since she was virginal, didn't have a past and had a impeccable pedigree. She may have encountered him, but virginal, untainted past or not, if she was Diana Jones of the Liverpool instead of Lady Diana Spencer, he would not have considered marrying her.
You don't know that. Which is my point, you can't say something would happen when it's in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Living at home
Kate isn't at home at the moment, she's living with William.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I think what makes a lot of people uneasy is that Kate seems to live the life of a Royal mistress not that of a future wife.
How that is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
I think the bottom line here is how William feels about Kate not working.
Now that I agree with you. But then if we all applied by that, we would have this forum.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #2626  
Old 11-08-2010, 04:35 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
Well we're talking about a difference of nearly 30 years. Attitudes have changed, and if Kate has a title now, I would treat her the exact same.

Fair enough. However, regardless of what she is doing now, if she marries Prince William (which is likely) she WILL have to pull her weight with Royal duties if she is to be on the civil list. There is too much scrutiny on the Royal family to do anything else. I am sure she is well aware of this and knows what is expected of her. She has been with William too long not to know. Fortunately, she will also be afforded security detail to make it easier for her to perform her duties.

You don't know that. Which is my point, you can't say something would happen when it's in the past.

I am going on what we DO know of why Diana was chosen and what the expectations and criteria were for him to choose a particular type of woman. We DO know that Diana was chosen based on that criteria. Fantasy has nothing to do with facts in this case.

Now that I agree with you. But then if we all applied by that, we would have this forum.

True :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2627  
Old 11-08-2010, 04:50 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 318
I was surprised to read in this forum that the Queen has to give permission for marriage (or the Privy Council) for all descendents of George II? That must be a very large number of people! At what point is a person too far a relation of the monarch to be considered part of the Royal Family any longer? Third cousin, fourth? Or is it that all descendents of George II are members?

Also, regarding the discussion of Kate and her middle-class background, wasn't the Duchess of Cornwall also born a commoner? Or am I mistaken? (very possible...) Perhaps I am wrong to say commoner, since Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was called a "commoner" when she married into the Royal Family, though she was, like Diana, the daughter of an earl, so perhaps commoner only means not royal, as opposed to not of the nobility or aristocracy (or without a title.)

As you can see by my rambling, I'm still pretty confused...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2628  
Old 11-08-2010, 04:55 PM
Sternchen's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: xxx, Germany
Posts: 1,282
Indeed, the Queen Mother and Diana were also considered commoners :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2629  
Old 11-08-2010, 05:16 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
I believe QE2 has to give permission to everyone who is a descendant. The definition of "commoner" has changed through the ages.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #2630  
Old 11-08-2010, 06:04 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
Fair enough. However, regardless of what she is doing now, if she marries Prince William (which is likely) she WILL have to pull her weight with Royal duties if she is to be on the civil list.
She will NOT be on the civil list. I believe the only ones that are on the civil list at this time are HM and the DoE.

From Wiki:

"Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Duke receives £359,000 per year. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family are funded from a Parliamentary Annuity, the amount of which is repaid by the Queen from the monies put into the Privy Purse from income from the Duchy of Lancaster. The money repaid by the Queen can be claimed against her personal tax bill however. Money from the Privy Purse also goes towards royal charities, including the Chapel Royal. Private personal expenditure is met from private sources of income. The Treasury has the power to appoint a Civil List Auditor under the Civil List Audit Act 1816 and under section 9 of that Act the Treasury is required to prepare a full and complete code of instructions for the guidance of the conduct of such an auditor. These instructions were most recently issued on 25 September 2005.[3][4] In late 2010 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that from 2013 the Civil List would be abolished and replaced by an all-in-one payment called Sovereign Support Grant, funded entirely from the Crown Estate.[5]"

I'm sure though that once William and Kate are married, she will be happily by his side at any function or event he should do. I really don't blame them one bit at all for trying to grab as much privacy as they can now. I don't expect them to announce the engagement either till that last possible moment acceptable for whatever wedding date they should chose.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2631  
Old 11-08-2010, 06:08 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
Fair enough. However, regardless of what she is doing now, if she marries Prince William (which is likely) she WILL have to pull her weight with Royal duties if she is to be on the civil list.
As she won't be on the Civil List (or whatever they call it at that time seeing as they have just announced a new funding formula giving the monarch a percentage of the income from the Crown Estates rather than a Civil List from 2012/2013) until William becomes King she has years to get used to it.

Currently only the Queen and Philip are on the Civil List.

Charles has the income of the Duchy of Cornwall estate to support himself, Camilla, William and Harry although William and Harry are independently wealthy thanks to their inheritance from their mother. Kate will therefore be supported directly by William from his inheritance and allowance from his father along with his air force pay during the present reign. When Charles becomes King she will be supported from the Duchy of Cornwall and only when William is King will she get anything from the government.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2632  
Old 11-08-2010, 06:14 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnEliza View Post
I was surprised to read in this forum that the Queen has to give permission for marriage (or the Privy Council) for all descendents of George II? That must be a very large number of people! At what point is a person too far a relation of the monarch to be considered part of the Royal Family any longer? Third cousin, fourth? Or is it that all descendents of George II are members?
That is all descendents except those descended from princesses who married into foreign houses which reduces the number considerably e.g. the other royal families of Europe don't ask as they are descended through princesses who married into foreign royal houses. There is no restriction on how close to the Queen one is in terms of relationship but descent is what matters.

The Queen's children, granchildren, niece, nephew, cousins and their children have all asked and been granted as have the Hannoverians but pretty much everyone else is exempted as they are descended from princesses married into foreign royal houses.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2633  
Old 11-08-2010, 06:22 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by cd_1 View Post
wow, i didnt mean to sound cynical. didnt read it through to see how it sounded.
i dont have any facts, i didnt claim to. thats why i wrote 'imo' at the end.
Sorry I was not only referring to you. It just seems the general tenor is not just cynical but really negative regarding Kate in particular as well as sly intimations that their marriage would be as sad and pathetic as presumeably both of Prince Charles', the Queen's, etc, ad nauseum.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2634  
Old 11-08-2010, 06:33 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As she won't be on the Civil List (or whatever they call it at that time seeing as they have just announced a new funding formula giving the monarch a percentage of the income from the Crown Estates rather than a Civil List from 2012/2013) until William becomes King she has years to get used to it.

Currently only the Queen and Philip are on the Civil List.

Charles has the income of the Duchy of Cornwall estate to support himself, Camilla, William and Harry although William and Harry are independently wealthy thanks to their inheritance from their mother. Kate will therefore be supported directly by William from his inheritance and allowance from his father along with his air force pay during the present reign. When Charles becomes King she will be supported from the Duchy of Cornwall and only when William is King will she get anything from the government.
Interesting....I didn't know that. Thank you for the clarification. :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2635  
Old 11-08-2010, 06:36 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Sorry I was not only referring to you. It just seems the general tenor is not just cynical but really negative regarding Kate in particular as well as sly intimations that their marriage would be as sad and pathetic as presumeably both of Prince Charles', the Queen's, etc, ad nauseum.

I didn't know that the Queen had a sad and pathetic marriage.

Whenever I see pictures of them there is clear signs of love there from both of them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2636  
Old 11-08-2010, 07:35 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I didn't know that the Queen had a sad and pathetic marriage.

Whenever I see pictures of them there is clear signs of love there from both of them.
I could be wrong, but I don't think she meant that the Queen has a miserable marriage. I perceived that she was pointing out the negativity regarding Royal marriages in general. Not that I blame people for having that point of view considering the history of some of the more infamous marriages.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2637  
Old 11-08-2010, 08:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
I could be wrong, but I don't think she meant that the Queen has a miserable marriage. I perceived that she was pointing out the negativity regarding Royal marriages in general. Not that I blame people for having that point of view considering the history of some of the more infamous marriages.

Had that been what was meant then why say
Quote:
their marriage would be as sad and pathetic as presumeably both of Prince Charles', the Queen's, etc, ad nauseum.
That clearly identifies two marruages as sad and pathetic and even emphasises the fact with the word 'both'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2638  
Old 11-08-2010, 10:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 981
It seems like there's speculation on William and Kate's marriage everywhere these days...in the Daily Mail, on TV, and when I go on MSN there are links to articles about Kate and William. If I hadn't read these articles I would think there was some reason for the sudden "William and Kate wedding fever" but after reading them, the only new development I can find is that the Middletons were at a shooting party with William and Kate.

I know the media is anxious for them to get married, but can't they find another story? I never thought seeing royal headlines everywhere would annoy me! William and Kate are going to get married when/if they want to...not when the media wants them to.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2639  
Old 11-08-2010, 11:05 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Had that been what was meant then why say.


It just seems the general tenor is not just cynical but really negative regarding Kate in particular as well as sly intimations that their marriage would be as sad and pathetic as presumeably both of Prince Charles', the Queen's, etc, ad nauseum.

[QUOTE=That clearly identifies two marruages as sad and pathetic and even emphasises the fact with the word 'both'.[/QUOTE]

Note the word "presumeably".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2640  
Old 11-09-2010, 12:09 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post

It just seems the general tenor is not just cynical but really negative regarding Kate in particular as well as sly intimations that their marriage would be as sad and pathetic as presumeably both of Prince Charles', the Queen's, etc, ad nauseum.



Note the word "presumeably".

I did.

Again when has there been any indication that the Queen's marriage is sad and pathetic - in order to make a presumption there has to be evidence.

That Charles' first marriage was sad and pathetic there is a lot of evidence, from Diana and Charles themselves, but I have never come across any from the Queen or Philip to put it in the same category and thus my question remains, - why say the Queen's marriage is sad and pathetic?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
William and Kate: engagement and relationship rumours and musings 2009 Warren Prince Harry and Prince William 2017 01-01-2010 11:18 AM
William and Kate: engagement and relationship rumours and musings 2005 - 2008 Duchess Prince Harry and Prince William 2208 05-11-2009 05:22 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:37 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]