William and Kate: engagement and relationship rumours and musings 2010

[muriel]

Oh, so if the link had already been posted, why did the member post the entire article?

I provided a link to the article and did not post the full article because of the copyright restrictions.

The Sunday Times and The Times are no longer free websites, and you have to pay to get access. For a limited time, they are allowing people to register and hacve free access. If any readers are interested in the article, I would suggest they register on the website and read it. I am already a Sunday Times subsvriber so have aferee online access.

 

[Mermaid1962]

For the record, I don't believe in living together before marriage or in having affairs during marriage--for anybody. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. The fact is, though, that the a great number monarchs and their families haven't lived by the standards that their church teaches. The last two centuries have been unusual in that there have been more morally-living monarchs than usual. From Victoria through to the present Queen, the only monarchs who really stepped out-of-line in terms of sexual morality were Edward VII and Edward VIII.

As much as I dislike seeing divorce in the royal family and co-habitation, I have to be a realist and see that these people are like people of their generation in terms of what they see as the normal way to live.

Well if he wants to be king - the defender of the faith, the head of the CoE, well shacking up with his long term girlfriend isn't good form..

 

[Sister Morphine]

This is why I think it's crucial to live together before marriage --

Would you buy a car without test driving it? Buy a house sight unseen? Sign contracts without reading them? No, you probably wouldn't and it would be foolish to do those things. If you're going to marry someone, spend the rest of your lives sharing a living space with them....you need to know as much about that person as you can BEFORE you do it. If you live together and realize....hey, this isn't working out....it's easier to break up than get a divorce. Everyone, including royals, should be as happy as they can be in a relationship and part of being happy is not feeling like there's mystery or things you don't know about the other person.

Sometimes it matters who showers in the morning and who showers at night. Or who is a night owl and who is a morning person. You'll never know these things and then avoid fights about it later if you don't actually live with them and figure it out first. Living with someone before getting married isn't the slippery slope to hell.

 

[AuntyTam]

Well if he wants to be king - the defender of the faith, the head of the CoE, well shacking up with his long term girlfriend isn't good form. It would be better form for them to marry. Call me old fashioned but it is such a conflict of interest and complete variance to what he is supposed to represent.

Agreed, Lighthouse.

As for the CofE, one of the linked articles here described it as "toothless", which seems a very accurate summary to me. Everyone is terrified to stand up for moral absolutes these days. It saddens me.

From a more prosiac view: will Kate still have enough "fertile" years when she finally walks down the isle? After all, if she weds William, there will be tremendous pressure to produce heirs. And if they split up, she will have spent all of her best childbearing years waiting for what never came to be. In my view, either way it is an injustice to Kate to delay marriage.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Women can have children successfully well into their 40s. The idea that a woman must have a child by some arbitrary date or else their biological clock will start shorting out is steeped in medical misinformation. My mother was nearly 40 when she had my sister and both her and my sister came through labor and delivery perfectly and my sister is a very healthy 23 year old woman now. Kate is only 28 years old.....she's hardly approaching barren spinsterhood. Crown Princess Victoria is going to be 33 next month and just within the last two weeks, got married. She may well be 34 or 35 by the time she has her first child.


Kate is not wasting anything. She's a big girl, she knows what she's doing. If she wanted to get married and have a family and William wasn't ready for that right now....they would have stayed broken up rather than reconciling as they did. Considering the advances that reproductive medicine is making by the leaps and bounds, Kate and William could get married when they're both in their 40s and still have healthy children.

 

[nascarlucy]

Coe

How many royal households practice their religious faith 100%. No one does even those that are religious. I'm sure that over the centuries that COE and other religious officals (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) have seen or heard royals doing things that they didn't approve off but I could hardly imagine them going to the King or Queen and saying well you need to talk to so and so about his or her behavior. The reaction to this would be to either mind their own business or this is a private family matter butt out.

Until recent times female royals were expected to live by a strict moral code (imposed by men who didn't live by it), but the male royals were not. A male royal may not have lived with someone before marriage, but that didn't mean that he wasn't intimate with a woman. It would have been odd if he wasn't. A female royal today still would pay a heavy price if they stepped out on their husband. In the past, they would also have paid a heavy price if they were caught spending the night with a man.
Today no one really cares as they are adults.

Thank God that Kate and William have not be forced or pressured to marry. If they had when they were younger, they might not have stayed married. Within the next couple of years they either will or will not marry.
What they do in their private life is none of my business.


In the 1950's couples were pressured to marry young (to avoid sexual immorality). The end result was bad marriages, stepping out and later divorce. My mother was pressured into marriage (society told her that at age 27 she was a nothing unless she had a man) and the end result was a bad marriage and a divorce. Had she not had this pressure or if she had lived with my dad, the two never would have married.

 

[angieuk]

Sorry everyone for posting the entire article. Please feel free to DELETE it all. And I will make sure I only post a web-link next time.
Thanks guys!

 

[CrownPrincess5]

For the record, I don't believe in living together before marriage or in having affairs during marriage--for anybody.

I agree Mermaid.
Call me old fashioned but I think that "living together" should be in the confines and sanctity of marriage. The idea of test driving a car, and testing a relationship are two different things. First of all, people are not cars and people are seriously not houses.. Second of all, I know lots of couples who lived together prior to their marriage and they've often told me that they should've waited. Thirdly, whatever happened to respecting ourselves. Lots of women live with these men and they expect more. Then they have the nerve to get upset when the guy they live with won't marry them. Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free??? I do not like the living together concept because it's not as simple and easy as it sounds. A lot of baggage comes from giving yourself completely to a relationship and to me, it feels like going against what God has designed marriage to be.

 

[Russophile]

She could always play hard to get. Worked for Anne Boleyn. *Russo shrugs*

 

[Idriel]

Sister Morphine, studies have shown that couples who have lived together before marrying are statistically more likely to divorce than those who waited, so that 'test drive' argument is weak at best.

And, yes, women can have healthy children at almost any age these days, but all the technology in the world will not change the realities of human biology.
Whichever you look at it, the more a woman waits, the more her pregnancy will be risky (increased occurrences of miscarriages, mitosis malfunctions, down syndrome, premature birth, etc) and the more she will be likely to need intrusive, emotionally and financially draining IVF to conceive.

We all know dozen of stories of women who had totally perfect pregnancies at 42 and girls in their 20s who had nightmare experiences, but statistics and medical opinion do not make a strong case for late pregnancies.

 

[Thena]

There is a debate going on about the state of Charles and Camilla's marriage.

Why Charles and Camilla are now living such separate lives

When you look at the role models that William has had when it comes to relationships, you start to worry a bit. Could this be making him wary of formalizing his commitment to Kate?

She could always play hard to get. Worked for Anne Boleyn. *Russo shrugs*

Though it didn't end so well for Anne.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

Sister Morphine, studies have shown that couples who have lived together before marrying are statistically more likely to divorce than those who waited, so that 'test drive' argument is weak at best.

Exactly, I like the statistic about the test driving thing.
It does not work.

I feel like Kate should forget about Will and marry someone else.
Especially if she's so hooked on getting married.
I don't know why, but I have a strange feeling that Will may never marry......
.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

This is why I think it's crucial to live together before marriage --QUOTE]

Sorry, but statistics (and I don't have any to post) show that the divorce rate amongst those who live together before marriage is higher than for those who do not.

The "bit of paper" makes huge differences in attitudes because it is an actual commitment...anything else is just an arrangement.

However, I am a live and let live person. I'll leave the judging to someone else.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

The divorce rate being high is not surprising...What else is there to look forward too?? When they do get married the mystery of being married is lost because they didn't wait to share that exclusively with each other. There is a special bonding in marriage that one does not get outside of marriage. In marriage, you make a commitment to love and accept an imperfect person, there is no commitment in shacking up. Whether we like it or not, men love a good challenge. Chances are, after shacking up with him, the girl in question is no longer a challenge (which is why she resorts to pressuring him to marry her before he realizes that he's "used" to her). Sometimes he will go to the "woman" who gives him a challenge. A woman who will do certain things only in marriage. I've seen it happen this way many times. People change, but the formula remains the same.

 

[Lavender]

Are these two even together anymore? I read that she is on "probation" because Prince William found out that either she or someone in her family has been leaking to the press where they have been and the most recent evidence was the suing of that photographer that shot pictures of her and her family at Christmas. This supposedly was the same guy that has taken family pictures of them over the years even though Prince William hates him because of how he treated his mother when she was still alive, which I do not blame him. Who would want to marry someone that cannot be trusted. I know there are quite a bit of people in here that like this Kate girl, but from what I have read about her, I just cannot help but ask why would he want to marry her? She doesn't seem to have anything to offer him other than sex at the drop of a phone line. He can do better than her. JMO.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

She could always play hard to get. Worked for Anne Boleyn. *Russo shrugs*

Hard to get and then . . .

 

[Russophile]

Hard to get and then . . .

. . . then Henry got himself a lovely set of ginsu knives! But WAIT! There's MORE!!
Actually, there are pros and cons with living together. With Mr. Russo and I--we were blending families and we really needed to know all the "uglies" between us all and see if we could deal with it. We did.
With my first marriage if Russo would have lived with the jerkwad for more than a month my boys might not have been concieved. (But then again Russo wouldn't have had such a grand time throwing aforesaid jerkwad's artificial leg out the window. . . )
However! There are plenty of couples who have successfully resisted living together and are very happy with each other. We have friends who are currently pregnant with twins who did and have been married for almost 10 years now.

 

[Sister Morphine]

While I think everyone has the right to think/believe what they want, so I have no desire to change anyone's mind.......I'm sitting here shaking my head right now. Some of your opinions/ideas are rather foreign to me. I believe you should live your lives according to what makes you feel good, provided what makes you feel good doesn't hurt anyone else.....I certainly adhere to that.

I'm failing to understand in any meaningful or concrete way how William and Kate possibly living together, provided they both agreed to do so, is a bad thing. I'm looking at it objectively and coming up with nothing. Hell, I'm having a hard time understanding how any two people living together, provided both agreed to do so, is a bad thing. I couldn't imagine thinking that two people who have zero connection to me might be doing something I don't like, therefore I must label it and say that other people shouldn't do it.

I just don't get it. Which is fine, different strokes for different folks, as they say. I just......I can't.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

While I think everyone has the right to think/believe what they want, so I have no desire to change anyone's mind.......I'm sitting here shaking my head right now. Some of your opinions/ideas are rather foreign to me. I believe you should live your lives according to what makes you feel good, provided what makes you feel good doesn't hurt anyone else.....I certainly adhere to that.

Living according to what makes you feel good can have catastrophic consequences. The right thing in life will not always make one feel good. But nonetheless, if it's the right thing, it's the right thing. Regardless of feelings.

Everyone has their beliefs...That's the joy of humanity. I don't think the posters are bashing you. They're just saying their opinion on the matter.

I'm failing to understand in any meaningful or concrete way how William and Kate possibly living together, provided they both agreed to do so, is a bad thing. I'm looking at it objectively and coming up with nothing. Hell, I'm having a hard time understanding how any two people living together, provided both agreed to do so, is a bad thing. I couldn't imagine thinking that two people who have zero connection to me might be doing something I don't like, therefore I must label it and say that other people shouldn't do it.

No one is saying it's a "bad thing"...at least I'm not saying that. Not living together until marriage is a "better" thing. It's usually a better decision on a whole...statistically, physically, spiritually and emotionally.

 

[Idriel]

There is a special bonding in marriage that one does not get outside of marriage.

I strongly disagree with that.

There are plenty of people who are not married but have deeper commitment to each other (not to mention who have been together longer) than people who are or were married.
Just to cite two very famous examples: Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis who have been together for ages and have a solid family together and Angelina and Brad, whose relationship has lasted longer than any of their respective marriages.
Let's also not forget the many deeply committed homosexual partnerships that cannot be transformed into a legal marriage in most places on the globe.

I'm failing to understand in any meaningful or concrete way how William and Kate possibly living together, provided they both agreed to do so, is a bad thing.

Well there are the traditionalists who opposite it for moral reasons.

I for one was simply rebutting your argument that living together would increase their chances of having an happy marriage. There is no evidence that this works. Quite the contrary actually.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

You mistake me.
The bonds you're talking about is a bond from love, friendship, etc. But I'm talking about a "special" bond in marriage. The one that's so unique and special only within the sanctity and commitment of marriage. This type of bond is really unlike the others and very hard to explain.

I don't know if I would use Brad and Angelina as an example.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Living according to what makes you feel good can have catastrophic consequences. The right thing in life will not always make one feel good. But nonetheless, if it's the right thing, it's the right thing. Regardless of feelings.

Everyone has their beliefs...That's the joy of humanity. I don't think the posters are bashing you. They're just saying their opinion on the matter.

I didn't say I thought anyone was "bashing" me.

And what I meant by doing what makes you feel good as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else is, if living with your partner makes you feel good, do it. If getting your eyebrow pierced feels good, do it. I believe a person should live their lives with the sole desire of being happy as long as what makes them happy doesn't hurt someone else. I don't believe in deciding that because I don't do something and you choose to do that something, because I don't I'm somehow morally on higher ground than you. That I don't like. I don't like the idea or the execution of it.

 

[Idriel]

I'm talking about a "special" bond in marriage. The one that's so unique and special only within the sanctity and commitment of marriage. This type of bond is really unlike the others and very hard to explain.

Well, when you look at the enormous divorce rates, as well as the number of people who cheat, lie or are abusive to their spouse, I am dubious about the so-called 'sanctity of marriage'.

That bond is as sacred as a couple make it. And some couple simply don't need the sheet of paper to make that bond a reality.
No-one is going to convince me that two partners who have been together for decades, through illness and joy, and have built a family together are 'lacking' something compared to two people who are married.

I certainly hope William and Kate will have that sacred bond, whoever they end up with.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I don't think there is such a thing as a "sanctity" of marriage, especially when so many people, famous and not-famous, make a joke of it. The idea that in some countries gays can't get married but yet you can go to Vegas and get married by Elvis and then divorced the next day, does not make me think that marriage is some sacred, special thing that should be revered.

 

[4Pam]

Like they say "Love is grand but divorce is a hundred grand." Call me naive but I am all about fairy tales and happy endings. I love romantic gestures too.

I hate the fact that divorce is so rampant these days, it makes the sanctity of marraige look foolish. Living together before marriage is not for me but if it works for Kate and William so be it. Didn't Haakon and MM live together before they were married?

 

[Vanesa]

Sorry. But I don't approve that. If you loves someone..why woudn't you marry him/her? Are you afraid of your own responsabilities?

I never approve to live together without marrying in a commmon person, much less in a Royal. I'm tired of those young Royals - and some old ones too - that does nothing to have lots of money without any responsability. If they liked to be as all other people is, if they doesn't like to give any example, so let your Royalty aside, go to a decent work, work hard and live your life. But if you receives a check of millions month by month, jewels, you may visit the more exotic countries it could be, you eats delicate meals , goes to intesting celebrations, etc it should be nice you does a little more than going to some boring conferences about ecology and poverty in the world (that you knows, they wouldn't work for selfish bankers and phinanciere chiefs of the world are NOT interested in those issues), sky in winter expensive sky centers, do some yatching and appear in frivolous magazines just to say: "I'm awfully sad for there are countries in war around the world" to forget it only a minute after saying it.

Young Royals didn't marry. I forgot for ever that they should fall in love to other young Royals. They are allergic to them, it seems. But at least, if they are courting commoners, it shuld be nice by their part, that you married her/him. They are Royals, for pity sake, and must represent the soul of their nation. Since they are not alowed to rule any more, at least they must keep the external floklore of Monarchy. If not..what are their sense of being Royals? Are they like all of us? So, if they are, please go away. I'm sure there'll be commoners with more sense of their duties who would change their lives for Royal's one and wouldn't feel tyranized by etiquette. They should do their job without complaining and very grateful to be there, serving their nation.

Vanesa.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I was slightly confused by your post but I think I get the jist of it.
You think the royal couple should marry, because that's what royals do. And if they want to live together, they should give up there titles?

Don't forget that these two have already lived together for 2 years together at uni.
William and Kate, love each other, that's obvious. They are obviously happy the way they are, else they would have got engaged or ended the relationship.

You can represent "the soul of the nation" without getting married, or without talking about the problems this country has.
Reminding the british people how much debt they are in, how serious global warming is, then reminding them that people are dying in other countries, will just make the mood of the country worse, and that's not a royal should do. They shouldn't get personally involved in matters like you've suggest. They are there to represent the country, not to fight for it, that is the job of the PM. They do an awful lot for the environment, poverty and other charities and patronages they have.

They should be allowed to live together, before marrying. IMO they probably are already.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Sorry. But I don't approve that. If you loves someone..why woudn't you marry him/her? Are you afraid of your own responsabilities?

I'm sorry, what? Marriage is not a requirement. Believe it or not, there are people in this world who don't want to get married and are content just "being" with their partner. It has nothing to do with "being afraid of your own responsibilities".

Marriage is not for everyone -- it doesn't mean the love they share with whomever they're with is less than those who DO get married.

 

[Dierna23]

You may be right if you claim this concerning you, me and the majority of people here and there. But William is a Prince, he has to marry some day to produce a heir. So, in his case it has something to do with responsibility. Or am I totally wrong here?

 

[Duchess]

if the CoE doesn't approve of living together out of wedlock then i think it's wrong for william to do it. i don't have a problem with anyone living together out of wedlock but if he is one day going to be the head of the church then this would make him a hypocrite. if the church should change it's outlook on this issue then more power to the couple but as long it disapproves then i can't see how william should be allowed to do it.