Prince Harry and Chelsy Davy Current Events 2: May 2008-January 2009


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Poor Chelsy, that photo is awful. The little pun was funny though. "Too much break-up make-up"
 
Chelsy must be a bright girl, more than some of us have given he credit for. If she wasn't happy with the prince or the attention, it's better that she should move on now.

And if Harry's commitment to his military training was a contributing factor as his friends have said, that's a good sign, too.
 
Its always sad when two people break-up, but rather now than two or three children later. Harry and William both have some growing up to do----who knows what the future holds
 
This thread will remain open for a day or two longer then be permanently closed. In the meantime, please keep in mind it is a Harry and Chelsy thread.
What Chelsy Davy may or may not do in the future has no relevance to the British Forums and is best discussed in Members' Corner.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator
 
another one ending up in the "royal ex-girlfriends" thread. my guess is that she'll finish her studies in leeds and than goes back to a place where it's warm and sunny :flowers:
 
Yes, we're quite ruthless with the exes. :)

At the moment I wouldn´t mind being sent somewhere warm and sunny, here it is as cold as the reception an ex-royal girlfriend gets....:whistling:
 
another one ending up in the "royal ex-girlfriends" thread. my guess is that she'll finish her studies in leeds and than goes back to a place where it's warm and sunny :flowers:

The Independant mentioned that she would start at a City law firm; quote:

But before Davy, who completes a Master's in law at Leeds University this year before taking up a job at City law firm Allen & Overy, walks off the public stage altogether, allow me to venture an opinion.

Hit & Run: Chelsy – just too good to be royal - Hit & Run, People - The Independent
 
It's always interesting to see history being re-written before our eyes...
from the article in Avicenna's link:

Sarah Ferguson, meanwhile, was never skilful at managing her own PR, but showed glimpses of the common touch before she was hung out to dry by the Palace machine.

Strange, I thought it was Sarah Ferguson's own actions and (mis)behaviour which left her "hung out to dry".
 
:previous:

I agree completely, of course it was her behaviour that was behind her divorce.
I found the rest of the article interesting, so Chelsy is said to have thought the Windsors were unwelcoming. I suppose they were as we never saw her actually with any of them besides the two Princes.
 
I found the article by Andrew Morton posted by Zembla very interesting.
It made me remember Princess Margaret the fun Princess and the Queen who was always the serious one. It was amusing to hear his comment on the two girlfriends (one now an ex) that judging by appearance the studious one would seem to be Kate and the purely party girl Chelsy.
Perhaps, when reading this article we notice that he is right, both William and Kate Middleton are very boring, so perhaps they would make a good couple. :whistling:
 
:previous: Menarue you are awful,not just boring but "both very boring"? What an inditement!

As to Harry? Well, he seems condemned to follow the "Heir and Joker" role model. Elizbeth and Margaret, Charles and Andrew, Willam and Harry! The Jokers are not known for their sucessful love lives.

I think maybe we should all be greatful that there hasn't been a repeat of the David/Edward and George/Albert situation. Mind you, I think the "name-change" situation would be enough to give anyone an identity crisis! :D
 
Last edited:
What do you mean Marg : think maybe we should all be greatful that there hasn't been a repeat of the David/Edward and George/Albert situation. Mind you, I think the "name-change" situation would be enough to give anyone an identity crisis! :D ????
 
To my mind, boring is good. Boring is stable. Think George V and Queen Mary.:flowers:

I found the article by Andrew Morton posted by Zembla very interesting.
It made me remember Princess Margaret the fun Princess and the Queen who was always the serious one. It was amusing to hear his comment on the two girlfriends (one now an ex) that judging by appearance the studious one would seem to be Kate and the purely party girl Chelsy.
Perhaps, when reading this article we notice that he is right, both William and Kate Middleton are very boring, so perhaps they would make a good couple. :whistling:
 
I agree, Mermaid. Boring sells fewer papers, but it certainly does seem to be better for the monarchy!
 
What do you mean Marg
think maybe we should all be greatful that there hasn't been a repeat of the David/Edward and George/Albert situation.
The situation I am referring to was that Albert (the younger) was straight as a die (boring), whilst David (the elder) was the playboy (joker).
Royal Fan said:
Mind you, I think the "name-change" situation would be enough to give anyone an identity crisis! :D ????
Both became King and neither was called by his "own" name! :eek:

David was King Edward and Albert was King George! And if that's not enough to give someone an identity crisis I don't know what would! :D
 
The situation I am referring to was that Albert (the younger) was straight as a die (boring), whilst David (the elder) was the playboy (joker).
Both became King and neither was called by his "own" name! :eek:

David was King Edward and Albert was King George! And if that's not enough to give someone an identity crisis I don't know what would! :D
Who made the decision not to use their own name?

They did themselves.

No one forced them to decide to be King Edward and King George rather than King David and King Albert - that was their individual decisions alone (of course Edward VIII's first name was Edward and not David).

What is the difference between the present Queen who was called Lillibet by her family but uses the name Elizabeth as Queen - she knows who she is and doesn't have an identity crisis (as far as I am aware).
 
What is the difference between the present Queen who was called Lillibet by her family but uses the name Elizabeth as Queen .
:ermm: I don't think you will find "Lillibet" on her birth certificate. It is, of course, a diminutive of "Elizabeth".

http://www.behindthename.com/glossary/view/given_name.[/quote said:
A diminutive (or pet name) of a given name is a short and/or affectionate form. Often they are only used by friends and relatives.
There is absolutely no comparison.
 
:ermm: I don't think you will find "Lillibet" on her birth certificate. It is, of course, a diminutive of "Elizabeth".

There is absolutely no comparison.

Of course there is - one is the name by which they were known in their family - David, Bertie (not Albert by the way) and Lillibet whereas the other is the name by which they chose to be known on becoming monarch - Edward, George and Elizabeth. Had Elizabeth wished to be known as Queen Lilibet there is nothing that says that she couldn't. The monarch doesn't have to use one of the names on their birth/baptismal certificates. They can chose any name they like.

They could have chosen to use, as their regnal names, whatever they wanted to and they chose. The names they did chose were different to the ones by which they were known within their families and private circles but that was their choice and therefore wouldn't have contributed to any identity crisis.

My point is that any changed name between the more commonly used name in private, and the official name, was made by them. They were still called by their pet names at home and only used the official name in official capacities.
 
As the Harry and Chelsy current events thread has now veered way off topic
it is the appropriate moment to close this chapter.

¤ ¤ ¤
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom