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

[Menarue]

That is all true but not the point: some of you are talking about an active change from a monarchy o a republic. As I tried to point out, the argument of lineage does not count for many people, they have heard about Silvia, Diana, Maxima of the Netherlands, but have no idea where these ladies are from and if they learn about it, they don't bother.

But to change the system you need the willingless of the majority of people plus the willingness of the politicians to chose something else and to accept all the risks and difficulties this includes. And I seriously doubt the topic of "Royal bloodlines" could ever be the reason why people want to face the difficulties of a change of their whole country.

Perhaps not, obviously some people would like to ignore what royalty is and would like to reduce them to equality with their people, but isn´t the point this, why should the tax payer fund someone who is just the same as him/her, why should that person have special privileges when really most of the RF doesn´t do much more than entertain, inaugurate new enterprises and travel to promote trade etc? If he/she is not royal why shouldn´t a perhaps more qualified person do this? On the whole I think that the people of Britain respect the royal family for exactly the reason that they are royal, and as royals represent their country and have done so for over a thousand years. It is no mean feat that a family, or bloodline, has kept power all these years and it would be a pity if this coming generation lets it dissipate.

 

[Skydragon]

No matter what the lineage is, they all look the same when dissected. Red blood, same organs etc.

The RF and all aristocrats got to the top purely on their ability years ago to scheme, murder and defeat other people who wanted the job.... ordinary people who in many cases were glorified thieves. My own ancestry can be traced back to a landowner who decided to support one such person, (probably because he had a bigger army or was threatened with ruin), who was then rewarded by the monarch for his support.

I'm afraid the mystique and aura of the RF was destroyed in the 80's, so does it matter if Catherine is not a royal or an aristocrat, not IMO. All that matters is that whoever William marries, it is because he loves her and feels able to spend the rest of his life with her, royal descent or not!

 

[Menarue]

Aye that is the rub. Does he love her enough to marry her?
__________________

 

[Skydragon]

Ahhh, that we will have to wait and see.

 

[Little_star]

No matter what the lineage is, they all look the same when dissected. Red blood, same organs etc.

Quote of the day?

 

[sophie]

kate and william don't want to get married right now. they are too young and right now i don't thank they are ready for marriage, they just want to have fun right now.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is an excellent post, Skydragon and very much puts into words what's been going on in my head lately re Royals marrying commoners. Royals aren't Royals because of something special in their DNA, it's because they inherited titles or married people with titles that originally might have had very murky origins. Perhaps commoners bring positive things into Royal Families. Would George VI had been such a well-loved king had he not been married to a woman who could related to "ordinary" people so well. Granted, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the daughter of an Earl; but as is often stated in this forum, aristocrats are considered commoners in the UK.

No matter what the lineage is, they all look the same when dissected. Red blood, same organs etc.

The RF and all aristocrats got to the top purely on their ability years ago to scheme, murder and defeat other people who wanted the job.... ordinary people who in many cases were glorified thieves. My own ancestry can be traced back to a landowner who decided to support one such person, (probably because he had a bigger army or was threatened with ruin), who was then rewarded by the monarch for his support.

I'm afraid the mystique and aura of the RF was destroyed in the 80's, so does it matter if Catherine is not a royal or an aristocrat, not IMO. All that matters is that whoever William marries, it is because he loves her and feels able to spend the rest of his life with her, royal descent or not!

 

[branchg]

William is a future King and has to produce an heir. Let's not forget the Household and the courtiers, who have immense power over the monarchy. He may not be allowed to marry a middle-class girl because she has no bloodlines.

That's just the way it works. But we'll have to wait and see.

 

[zembla]

They could use some "middle-class" bloodlines...it would improve the general appearance of future generations.

 

[Menarue]

If it were only appearance I would fully agree, but it isn´t. There is more to it than that and you can´t equate an Earl´s daughter to middle class. Commoner, yes because she wasn´t royal but the Queen mother was of royal descent and was welcomed into the RF as was the late Duchess of Gloucester.
If Princess Diana found the courtiers snobbish how would a middle class girl find them? Like it or not they do have power to wield.
Like Leicester and Drake to Queen Elizabeth I, they are the Queen´s eyes and ears.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

If Princess Diana found the courtiers snobbish how would a middle class girl find them? Like it or not they do have power to wield.
Like Leicester and Drake to Queen Elizabeth I, they are the Queen´s eyes and ears.

I bet she's met quite some of them over the years. As if William was not surrounded by them and talked to all the time by those who felt themselves to be important and wanted to point out their opinion to him.

When I think of that: not much difference to reading this forum in some parts I guess.

BTW - I'd have hoped the time gap of 500 years between EI and EII led to a different kind of courtier's POV but obviously you see it differently. Poor EII, then. Such olde, olde eyes and ears.

 

[Menarue]

The more things change the more they are the same!
Obviously I have to point out whatI meant was something quite different to that which you understood. The Queen has to rely on her courtiers opinions on some subjects and she will listen to them, which doesn´t mean necessarily that she will act on them.
BTW no one thinks that Leicester and Drake have miraculously survived and have reached such a ripe old age lol. I am sure there are some young courtiers about at least younger than that.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

BTW no one thinks that Leicester and Drake have miraculously survived and have reached such a ripe old age lol. I am sure there are some young courtiers about at least younger than that.

Slowly it is grating on my nerves that obviously today I'm not able to word my posts in a way others can understand.

Of course I didn't want to imply that the advisors of Elizabeth I. (who died in 1603) are still giving advise to the current queen. My point was that I hoped that the current advisors of the queen think differently to these guys of 500 years ago and have a different POV (which translates to Point of View).

Back to the warm fireplace as there is quite a bit of cold winds coming up from the Alps via the lake, Jo

 

[Menarue]

I knew what you meant Jo, just a strange sense of humour sometimes. Keep warm in front of that fire, in a few weeks I will probably be doing the same.

 

[Picmajik]

QEII more flexible than thought

While this is certainly true, I think the most recent royal marriages show that the Queen is more concerned with making her children happy than with issues of who is "right" for the role. I'll never forget when I heard that Charles was finally going to be allowed to marry Camilla -- I couldn't believe the Queen would give her okay, given the history of the pair. But I think she's more modern and more flexible than most of us would imagine when it comes to happiness in marriage for her family.

I have always thought she was more modern than she's been given credit for. Traditional and conservative yes, but not head buried deep in the sand. She's aware of trends, evidenced by her WWII service and tv interviews/access starting mid-60's. I always thought the main hold-up with C&C's wedding was the Queen Mum, she would not have approved of the heir marrying a divorcee based on her family's experience with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as well as the dictates of the C of E the majority of her life. Had Camilla been a widow that might have changed things but no sense speculating on what might have been. I must say I didn't like Camilla at first either (no reason, I just didn't know her) but I've been impressed at her dedication to her duty as well as how relaxed and happy the couple are around each other. None of the tension and hi-jinks of being upstaged by spouse on a regular basis for attention has made the Prince of Wales a new man in my opinion. The Queen doesn't live under a rock, she will support whatever decision William makes and I am sure she will advise as sees fit based on experience.

 

[Picmajik]

I LOVE "Keeping up Appearances"

I think we will have to disagree. I am a strong believer in the individual, and the suitability of individuals for their partners and for the roles they take on - personally or professionally! I don't believe that royal lineage makes one immediately suitable for marriage into the royal family. In the nicest possible way, your views on this topic remind me of the character Hyacinth Bucket in the hit 1990s comedy series, "Keeping up Appearances". Has anybody else on the forums seen the show?

Daisy and Onslow are my favorites, the old Major as well. Hyacinth always gets her comeuppance. PBS stations in the US often run "Britcoms" as they tag them: Are You Being Served, To the Manor Born, The Good Neighbors (The Good Life), Are you Being served again (Grace and Favor), Fawlty Towers, many more.

As for "breeding" it's not just bloodlines that will win out as much as upbringing. This is the age-old argument of heredity vs. environment. I've seen what would be considered "white-trash" behave better than debutantes so that's not enough for me by itself. What will matter is can this young woman cope with the demands of her position as well as being able to work on the relationship that is also important. Diana obviously wasn't able to cope (please take all arguments/discussions about D to her thread if you want to rebut this) so I think that Kate is weighing her choices as well as the RF--is this something she wants in the first place and if so, how long is she willing to wait? Is this what William wants? Again, we do not know what discussions have been made in private.

Finally--on the roller disco outfit: At least she had the foresight to wear tights. Flesh colored to be sure but even with the crotch angle shots her unmentionables were NOT visible, folks (or anything else that shouldn't have been seen) unlike a certain trashy pop-star who's privates were splashed all over the media. Score points for Kate there at least.

 

[Skydragon]

Slowly it is grating on my nerves that obviously today I'm not able to word my posts in a way others can understand.

Of course I didn't want to imply that the advisors of Elizabeth I. (who died in 1601) are still giving advise to the current queen. My point was that I hoped that the current advisors of the queen think differently to these guys of 500 years ago and have a different POV (which translates to Point of View).

Back to the warm fireplace as there is quite a bit of cold winds coming up from the Alps via the lake, Jo

I can understand you! Some of the advisors to HM have either retired or been replaced. Others have grown older and a little more mellow. They will also be aware of the bad press they got after the accusations made by Charles' ex, of their interference. In this case, lessons have been learned.

 

[branchg]

The Queen had no intention of allowing Charles to marry Camilla. In fact, she was just as opposed to it as her mother was. The only reason she agreed was Tony Blair and the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded her it was better to bring the relationship into the realm of formality to remove the doubt surrounding the monarchy.

She accepts things when necessary, but it's foolish to think HM is going to change a lifetime of tradition and duty to accomodate her grandson. His duty is to marry appropriately and produce an heir until it's his turn to be King.

That's the way royal life works.

 

[gabby_windsor]

I've been thinking about this. I think if they were to marry, she will have a much harder time than any previous royal wives and it will eventually be the death nell for the royal family.

The British press would be relentless with her, anything she did would be dissected in terms of her previous experience. For example, she begins the round of charity events, picks up a few patronages and yet I think the fakeness would be all too real. Her mediocreness would shine through. Like William himself. If he does love her, than don't generally people choose similar minded people to themselves to have a relationship with.

Historically, a royal family was ousted by another family taking the throne for themselves. These days, this isn't going to happen. But a royal family can self implode by becoming less and less relevant. Indifference is worse than love or hate, it means you have no importance. I don't think she would be the star that many people (media especially) would hope for.


With the very deep recession that Europe and the US can expect to be in for the next few years (at least), I think the royal family need to tread quietly as so as not to raise the ire of peoples that are going to be living in very difficult economic times.


I don't know if any of that made sense. It made more sense in my head...

 

[Menarue]

It certainly made a lot of sense to me. This is definitely not a "girl meets boy" situation, it goes much deeper. There is a sense of mediocreness about this couple which would make going very hard for her as mediocreness sometimes appears in these circles but is overlooked in a King or Prince because of the royal blood line and tradition.
Good post.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The Queen had no intention of allowing Charles to marry Camilla. In fact, she was just as opposed to it as her mother was. The only reason she agreed was Tony Blair and the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded her it was better to bring the relationship into the realm of formality to remove the doubt surrounding the monarchy.

Can you please give a source for that statement about the queen's intentions?

 

[Charlotte1]

It certainly made a lot of sense to me. This is definitely not a "girl meets boy" situation, it goes much deeper. There is a sense of mediocreness about this couple which would make going very hard for her as mediocreness sometimes appears in these circles but is overlooked in a King or Prince because of the royal blood line and tradition.
Good post.

It's precisely the 'mediocreness' or 'ordinariness' of the current crop of spouses to heirs of the throne that make them popular. Mary. Maxima, Mette-Marit, Letizia. Not to mention 2 other commoners who are very successful queen consorts, Sonja and Silvia.

The fairytale aspect of royalty is even more so now, any little girl can dream that she one day will be a princess, even if she's born in Australia or Argentina. It's not a fairytale when only an exclusive number of people can be princesses, and if you're not born one then ( in the past) you had no hope of being a princess.

Prince Philip whose royal lineage was even more blue blooded than the woman he married ( the daughter of a mere aristocrat) he was descended from both Queen Victoria and the Imperial Tsars, even so he was treated very badly by courtiers. Also at the time of his courting of the Princess Elizabeth there were those who were actively trying to discourage the 2 of them seeing each other. "How dare she marry a foreigner?" That's where all those "Phil the Greek" insults came from, the courtiers wanted her to marry 'a nice British aristocrat' the younger son of a Duke would do, and several were pushed in her direction.

The same arguments that are being used to say why Kate and her family are unsuitable were used to state that Philip and his family were unsuitable. On the other hand Diana was seen as the 'perfect' bride, aristocratic background, no arguments against Charles marrying her. And the effect was a disasterous marriage, Elizabeth and Philip had detractors to their union and it's proved to be a successful one, more than likely the same will be the case for William and Kate.

The matching of blue bloods didn't even work in the past. Eg Queen Juliana and Prince Berhard, they lived separate lives living in separate wings of their palace from the 1950's and he fathered 2 illegitimate daughters. Publicly though he played the part of consort. Italy's King Umberto and Queen Marie Jose, had a very unhappy marriage, their escape was when they were sent into exile they were able to separate only coming together at family events. King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia, he had a 16 year relationship with another woman, so well-known that even the serious papers mentioned it. That relationship has ended and Sofia doesn't look so strained, but she too plays the part of the perfect consort.

Prince Felipe during his dating years had many of Europe's eligible princesses pushed his way hoping to 'catch his eye' Top of the list was Princess Tatjana of Lietchenstein, she even lived in Spain for a short time to learn Spanish. She eventually left and when the Spanish media came after her wanting to know why she was leaving and was she marrying Felipe. She told them bluntly "I don't even like your prince!"

Royals are real people they're not like dogs with the right pedigree, put them together and hope they'll mate!

 

[Sarrie]

With regards to Ms. Middleton, there were various instances in which I was a bit taken aback. I doubt that there ever was a crown prince's girlfriend so much in the spotlight. And I'm not referring to all the paparazzi waiting outside her house only. I mean even the way they are doing things. For example, what was the business of Ms. Middleton attending the wedding of Mr. Phillips instead of Prince William. She is neither his fiancee nor his wife to represent him. I found it really shocking. The whole situation was weird. Family and duty comes before friends and ex girlfriends and so Prince William should have attended his cousin's wedding even if he had committed himself elsewhere.

And in the case (as it happened) of Prince William choosing his friends then Ms. Middleton should not have tried to cover his absence by being there.

When one looks at other Princely Couples, of Denmark, of Spain and the Netherlands behaviour before they got engaged it was exemplary. The girlfriend used to attend friends' weddings but she was never put in the limelight or given a role in any way. Neither did they attend to ceremonies with their Prince whatever the occasion. Once the engagement is announced then yes, the soon to be Crown Princess would be able to make such appearances.

 

[Charlotte1]

It was the media that came up with the statement that Kate was 'representing' William. It fits in that nice scenario that they want to push that a wedding is imminent. Nowhere was there any accurate statement that she was 'representing' anyone, she in all likelihood was invited in her own right. The same when she attended the wedding of Lady Rose Windsor, Kate is obviously in the same social circle as at that wedding she attended with a group of female friends. The recent wedding that Kate and William attended in Austria, the sister of a former university friend, also at that wedding was Lady Rose's sister Davina and her husband. That upper class social circle is a small one, Kate is in the circle and made her own relationships within it.

"Representing William' is nothing more than a media line, doesn't necessarily reflect the facts.

 

[ysbel]

It's precisely the 'mediocreness' or 'ordinariness' of the current crop of spouses to heirs of the throne that make them popular. Mary. Maxima, Mette-Marit, Letizia. Not to mention 2 other commoners who are very successful queen consorts, Sonja and Silvia.

The fairytale aspect of royalty is even more so now, any little girl can dream that she one day will be a princess, even if she's born in Australia or Argentina. It's not a fairytale when only an exclusive number of people can be princesses, and if you're not born one then ( in the past) you had no hope of being a princess.

But it's not a fairytale if the royals start looking more middle class themselves. Then the dashing prince starts to look like some overpaid rich guy with a cushy job. Sonja and Sylvia were successful because they married into families that were still very royal and acted like it and they aspired to match that standard.

If the royals start acting like a normal middle class family, then the commoner brides have nothing to aspire to and they just look like rich families with perks.

Also if anyone can become a Queen, people may well start asking why can't just anyone be a King. If the royal families start looking middle class, a lot of normal ordinary people can start to say, well, I could do a better job than they do and a lot cheaper.

 

[Isana]

For example, what was the business of Ms. Middleton attending the wedding of Mr. Phillips instead of Prince William. She is neither his fiancee nor his wife to represent him. I found it really shocking.

Apparently the Windsors may be more open when it comes to accepting long-term girl- and boyfriends than others - Mike Tindell (sp?) and Chelsy Davy were at Peter's wedding as well so Kate wasn't the only non-engaged partner to attend. To the contrary it would have looked weird had she been the only one not to go and would probably have resulted in another row of articles questioning her and William's relationship.
Sophie before engaged to Edward was even invited on a cruise with HM on her yacht. There is, IMO, nothing to indicate that the Royals do not include girlfriends in their family life like any other family would. Only with prior fiancés the relationship was virtually non existant before the wedding. How long did Diana and Charles "date" before the engagement - a year? definitely not much more. If I remember the same goes for Fergie. So the royals didn't have much of chance back then to include them in anything prior to the engagement really, doesn't mean that they wouldn't have if the dating period would have been longer.
Didn't Prince Philipe of Spain once attend a royal wedding even with one of his ex-girlfriends he was obviously not engaged to? That blond model - I am sorry I cannot recall her name. I do not think that there is something like protocol dictating that non-spouses are not allowed to acompany royals at private occasions like weddings (even royal ones). They may not be allowed to be seated together in church but that doesn't mean they can't attend.
In a way the Windsors are now in the lucky position that all of Her Majesty's grand-children are in stable long-term relationships starting at rather young ages (undoubtedly a relief to her after the debacle her children had with relationships). Harry was 20 when he started dating Chelsy, William 21 when he started going out with Kate, Zara about 23 since she's with Mike, and Peter who only married recently must have been about 24 when he found his wife. I doubt anyone in the family sees this as a problem. They are surely happy that the young generation especially William and Harry has committed themselves rather than living up to the playboy image the press would so love to stick on them.

 

[Menarue]

So you are calling the foreign princesses mediocre? I would never do that. The word was meant to mean uninteresting not middle class.
What you have said is exactly that, people want a fairy tale, whether they get it or not is another thing.
Some Queens have acted royally and accepted outrageous behaviour from their spouses in a very dignified way this dignity is called by some "breeding".
A young middle class girl living the fairy tale life of being a princess may not accept this so willingly.
I don´t want to bring names into this but there was a recent case in a royal family where the person found this behaviour unacceptable and left.
Any person, royal or otherwise, can be unstable, or unbalanced and this can be hidden quite successfully for some time. This can´t be said to be anyone´s fault.
The main objection to Prince Philip at the time of the marriage was not that he was a foreign prince but his sisters´ husbands, as one of these was closely linked to the Nazi regime and the WWII was just recently ended.
Luckily these objections were ignored and we have a happily married Queen to a Royal Prince.

 

[Isana]

... so what is your point then? You do not consider Kate Middleton intersting - fair enough but I do not see why that should be a reason for William not to marry her if he really loves her. He needs to find a partner for life, not a cash cow for the press.

 

[Menarue]

Kate Middleton was invited to Peter Philip´s wedding so of course she attended whether in representation of Prince William or not is another story. Minor royals can marry whoever they like, we are talking about Prince William the heir to the throne.
Both Sarah Ferguson and Diana had lived closely with the royal family all their lives so they were no novelty the royal family knew them both well, or thought they did.
About the Queen being happy that her grandchildren have long term relationships, well that is another story, only the Queen knows that.
By the way it is Zara´s 2nd long term relationship.

 

[Sarrie]

The recent wedding that Kate and William attended in Austria, the sister of a former university friend, also at that wedding was Lady Rose's sister Davina and her husband. That upper class social circle is a small one, Kate is in the circle and made her own relationships within it.


Can someone pls guide me as to where I can see pictures of this wedding?
Much obliged.