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

[Jo of Palatine]

Jo, I would never want to see William and Kate in a romantic scene in public - just not done you know! I just can´t see the eye contact and body language of people in love, but I don´t think that because the public likes a royal wedding, or wouldn´t it be romantic to see the young couple married that they should go up the aisle.
It is all very well saying she would be a good wife for William, we just don´t know and I think the Queen, whose opinion he has been brought up to respect, and whose consent is necessary for any royal marriage is going to make all the difference.
It is a matter of wait and see but my opinion is that if he is not going to marry her it would be kinder to break it off now.

I see your point but I see the eye contact and the touching, especially on pictures when he is a bit tipsy and so is not as controlled as he is normally.
Okay, there were these pics when he seemed to be interested in other women but I have seen my first husband behave like that and he really loved me and nobody else but me and so it didn't hurt me, as I put it down to male instincts...

But if he loves Catherine or not depends I think if he is able to love at all - feel and give the kind of love women crave but not all men can deliver. i mean, William is a member of the cold-fishy clan Windsor and his mother - well, if she loved somebody at all for real, it was herself. So maybe William is not able to really feel a love that convinces you.

And I guess if he has found in Catherine the woman who is able to nurture him, then she will stick to him through better and worse. That is not everybody's romantic ideal but it's a constellation which is not very uncommon. There are women who strive on being the giver in a relationship and there are men who are prudent enough to recognise this characteristic and both together build sucessfully a family.

IMHO Camilla and Charles are a good example here - Camilla had to need a very good reason why she lived through years of public hostility when the chance was close to nil that she could "reap" a legitimate place at Charles' side. Still she was there for him, through better and worse, even though she could have had a lot of other chances after her divorce, for she has been of a good family, well-connected, had proven her reliability and always had that form of sex appeal that doesn't die with aging but is rather increasing. Still, she chose Charles and stick to him because I think in him she found the troubled soul she wanted to nurse and was rewarded by his love in return. If it was only for Charles, she needed never to have a moment's anguish about her looks, her style, herself. I think she dresses for him and because of his position, but for him she will be beauty incarnate because that's the beauty of his deepest love.

Back to William: the danger of such a "comfortable" relationship is always that the blaze of love strikes and one of the two falls for somebody else and acts on instinct, destroying all in the wake of this Amour Fou. Sorry, but I don't see this happening to William. He will never, ever compromise his position, family, the monarchy because he waits for an Amour Fou (Pre-marriage) or gives in after being married. Even if he is his parent's son.

 

[Menarue]

Well one thing(and perhaps a lot more than this) I agree with you completely about is that Camilla really loves Prince Charles and will stick by him thick and thin, in fact she already has.
I am not so sure that the BRF are that coldfishy, I think that from a very early age they have been trained, or trained themselves not to show any emotion in public.
I also agree that Prince William will never compromise his position or the monarchy, and that is where my doubt begins about this romance.

 

[ysbel]

They don't have to put themselves on Kate's side; they could just point out (with or without the crocodile tears) how Kate is perceived by the royals as being less worthy of a proper ceremony than Diana. And I'm afraid that the recession will be another of those things where whatever they do is wrong - an elaborate wedding will be seen to be insulting toward the poor struggling people, but a low-key event will just be an excuse for the royals to insult Kate. I hope I'm wrong, but I think that on current forum the tabloids will find a way to attack both the royal family and Kate regardless of what they decide to do.

Yes, Elspeth, I suppose that's possible. I'm thinking though that the papers main form of attack is finding someone's side to take so they can build up some righteous indignation.

If they decide to attack both the Royal Family and Kate, I think they'd have to find someone or something to act enraged about so that they can whip up public opinion. The Royal Family insulting Kate doesn't look like fertile ground for people to get enraged if public opinion is rather wishy-washy on both of them.

 

[ysbel]

I really see the only possibel place to hold a weddding is Westminster Abbey - if you had it a St George's Chapel it would be compared to Peter Phillips and i mean no offence to him as he is a grandson of the Queen but William is a really important royal and public figure and they will want as many to see the happy couple in the streets and on the balcony as possible - having it at Windsor just doesnt allow this

William and Harry should have their wedding at Westminster Abbey followed by the traditional balcony appearance but the other grandchildren including Beatrice and Eugenie should have it at St Georges

I actually prefer St. George's Chapel over Westminster Abbey. The interior of the church has a good combination of grandeur and intimacy; whereas Westminster Abbey has more the grandeur than the intimacy. Also Westminster Abbey is in the middle of London with a bunch of high rises around and so the processions to Westminster Abbey lack a certain something. Whereas the processions to St. George's Chapel are breathtaking.

Westminster though does have more intimacy than St. Paul's. I thought St. Paul's was a very cold and uninviting place to have a wedding.

I think not having a balcony scene would definitely look like an insult to Kate. Only the people who only started to follow royals because of Diana would compare William and Kate on the balcony to Diana and Charles but those of us who followed royals before saw Anne and Mark Phillips on the balcony and saw archive footage of the Queen and Prince Philip on the balcony, as well as the Duke and Duchess of York (George VI and Queen Mother Elizabeth) so for a lot of people the balcony scenes are not just imprinted in our minds as a Charles and Diana thing.

 

[Menarue]

Surely the balcony appearances are a royal tradition. In fact I read that the balcony was built precisely for these royal occasions, so I doubt that it would be possible for any royal bride not to appear for the people to see and admire. I think there would be complaints from all quarters if they missed out on this tradition.

 

[Little_star]

However, I would be really cautious with the source quoting Harry; I seriously doubt Harry would speak about his brother's love life, or indeed about any family member to a complete stranger in a bar. I just don't imagine that. Most probably, the story was invented to sell papers.
As for the camera... Well, no one has seen the pictures, so you can't really say what was on it.

ITA. I think it's highly unlikely that Harry would ever discuss his own or William's private life in such a reckless and public fashion.

 

[avrilo]

Will's Career Move A Relationship Killer?, Where Does Prince William's Decision To Become A Search And Rescue Pilot, Leave Kate Middleton? - CBS News

This aired today on CBS

 

[wbenson]

Whereas the processions to St. George's Chapel are breathtaking

The problem with that is that there wouldn't be as many places for the public to watch. They'd have to throw the masses a bone and send everyone out into town at least once.

Personally, I prefer St. Paul's. It has the added benefit of allowing most of the guests to at least see a little bit of the ceremony, as opposed to St. George's and Westminster where it would be hidden away in the quire.

 

[Duchess]

i think, regardless of the economic situation if and when there is a wedding, it will be a very big and grand affair. i don't think that people want to see a scaled back royal wedding - they want the festivities and the celebration to help them forget all the negative things that are happening. if it were scaled back HM would be accused of being cheap. of course there will be some that will complain about the expense but i think on the whole, people want a big elaborate wedding.

 

[ghost_night554]

ITA. I think it's highly unlikely that Harry would ever discuss his own or William's private life in such a reckless and public fashion.

It may have slipped, I've done it tons of times, but what's weirder is they don't name the lady's name. I really hate when they do that. Anyways back to William, I guess no one can really tell William's intentions and if he's really in love with Kate but I don't consider William stupid, so if he didn't love her I don't see why he'd be with her especially for so long.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, Elspeth, I suppose that's possible. I'm thinking though that the papers main form of attack is finding someone's side to take so they can build up some righteous indignation.

If they decide to attack both the Royal Family and Kate, I think they'd have to find someone or something to act enraged about so that they can whip up public opinion. The Royal Family insulting Kate doesn't look like fertile ground for people to get enraged if public opinion is rather wishy-washy on both of them.

Poor, wronged, perfect Diana....

 

[pinkie40]

Westminster Abbey is gloomy. It's more of a tomb and funeral venue, imo, than glorious, roomy, bright St. Paul's. I also would like to add I get a good laugh reading about Kate's somewhat cheeky siblings. Nowhere near as naughty as Princess Margaret (imo) was so we are good to go in that department.

 

[Menarue]

I remember Princess Margaret being criticized for dancing the can can. Later on in life as a woman who had been married for some years she did have some scandal attached but I can´t remember anything about Princess Margaret as a young girl carrying on like, what you call Kate´s cheeky siblings, but other people may describe this behaviour as other than cheeky.
There is something else to remember, Princess Margaret was a royal princess, daughter of a king and a long line of royalty, she had that behind her whereas someone who is not of such an illustrious line may attract more attention especially when a member of their family is hoping to be accepted into the BRF.

 

[ysbel]

Poor, wronged, perfect Diana....

Well in that case, don't you think the papers would have much more to be enraged by if the Royals staged a lavish wedding for Kate?

They'd be more apt to compare every single detail to Diana's wedding which definitely was extravagant and point out that its not as good as Diana's and that the large wedding is just another way that the Royal Family is trying to push memory of Diana out of the picture and start fresh with a new, very different princess because from the very look of it, Kate, if she becomes princess, is going to be a very different princess than Diana.

 

[ysbel]

Westminster Abbey is gloomy. It's more of a tomb and funeral venue, imo, than glorious, roomy, bright St. Paul's. I also would like to add I get a good laugh reading about Kate's somewhat cheeky siblings. Nowhere near as naughty as Princess Margaret (imo) was so we are good to go in that department.

I attended an evensong in Westminster Abbey and it was quite intimate and enchanting, no gloomy thoughts there. I still prefer St. George's Chapel though because its more light and airy.

St. Pauls is too cold and inhuman, its like being married in the Capitol's rotunda. Its more of a theatre than a church IMO and is built for spectacles. If the Royal Family want to stage a big show without any of the tender emotion that is evoked by the exchange of wedding vows, then they can.

I certainly hope, however, that when William gets married, he sees his wedding as more than just a really, big show with which to please the masses and that's what a wedding in St. Paul's reminds me of.

 

[Elspeth]

Well in that case, don't you think the papers would have much more to be enraged by if the Royals staged a lavish wedding for Kate?

They'd be more apt to compare every single detail to Diana's wedding which definitely was extravagant and point out that its not as good as Diana's and that the large wedding is just another way that the Royal Family is trying to push memory of Diana out of the picture and start fresh with a new, very different princess because from the very look of it, Kate, if she becomes princess, is going to be a very different princess than Diana.

Well, you know some of these tabloids; they'll manage to do it regardless of the facts they're presented with. It depends whether they're just trying to make Kate look inferior to Diana or whether the idea is to have another swipe at the Queen and royalty in general. I think they'll have a bit of a job, though, unless they've been very successful in making people cynical in the meantime, because people do tend to like royal weddings.

 

[mrsbugman]

Well it would have to be grand because of who William is.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Well it would have to be grand because of who William is.

At the moment he is only the second in line to the throne therefore a more "low key" wedding could be justified IMO. Of course there would be massive speculation by those who are disappointed, ie blaming the economy, Kate's social background etc. From the moment William becomes the CP I don't think anything could justify a low key wedding. A massive media event simply comes with William's then-status and the status of the BRF.

 

[Skydragon]

ITA. I think it's highly unlikely that Harry would ever discuss his own or William's private life in such a reckless and public fashion.

Oh My, we are in perfect agreement again.

 

[Skydragon]

Westminster Abbey is gloomy. It's more of a tomb and funeral venue, imo, than glorious, roomy, bright St. Paul's.

Perhaps one of the Welsh Cathedrals, as his father is Prince of Wales and this might be a title William will hold in the future!

 

[mrsbugman]

Duke of Marmalade - your are right. Oops!

 

[ghost_night554]

Maybe it's just me but I don't think that just cause he's second in line he shouldn't get a big wedding,bearing in mind for me I'm talking about if the wedding takes place in the next few years. Again it's just me, but then again I'm a bit bias cause I've always pictured William having a big wedding.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

Maybe it's just me but I don't think that just cause he's second in line he shouldn't get a big wedding,bearing in mind for me I'm talking about if the wedding takes place in the next few years. Again it's just me, but then again I'm a bit bias cause I've always pictured William having a big wedding.

Totally agree - lets recall 1986 when Prince Andrew married i mean it wasnt exactly low-key and he was 4th inline to the throne - he had Westmintser Abbey. Also 1960 when Princess Margaret married in the Abbey as well

 

[Incas]

Eventhough Prince Andrew was 4th in line, he was the second adult male. William was barely old enough to pull of page duty and Harry was too young to attend the church part. Also, there were a lot more interest in Andrew because of his service during the Falkland War as well as player image.

 

[ghost_night554]

But I don`t get what Andrew being the second adult male has to do with why he got a fairly large service. Not sure alot about the Falkland war so I can`t really comment on that.

 

[Mermaid1962]

With Andrew being the second son, there was the possibility that he might be regent to a very young King William if Prince Charles didn't succeed his mother. Also, he became the Duke of York upon his marriage, which is a grand old Royal title. Perhaps Edward would have had a grander wedding had it not been for the divorces of the 90s and his and Sophie's own desire for a smaller wedding. Even Anne, who had virtually no chance of becoming monarch, had a grand wedding.

But I don`t get what Andrew being the second adult male has to do with why he got a fairly large service. Not sure alot about the Falkland war so I can`t really comment on that.

 

[ghost_night554]

Oh, I kinda get it so Andrew would have sorta assisted William had he been King at that time when he was still young, I'm just trying to figure out what regent is that's the only part I'm confused by.

 

[Incas]

If Prince Charles had succeeded the throne and then died or incapacitated before William turned 18, a regent would have been appointed as a guardian because the presumptive King William would have been a minor.

It's similar to any guardianship required for minors to inherit in any ordinary situation.

 

[ghost_night554]

Oh I understand now thank you^

 

[kimebear]

So that just reinforces the idea that if Andrew, as possible regent for a future king, got a very large pomp and circumstance wedding, William as a future king would definitely get one, IMO.