Is Cressida Bonas being forced to go through the palace’s ‘princess boot camp’?

FFN_Bonas_Cressida_FFUK_exc_121013_51285047

I’m so happy that Cressida Bonas has started getting pap’d on the reg. I know that’s somewhat passive-aggressive of me (who would wish the paps on their worst enemies?), but I just want new photos of Cressida. More Bonas! Huzzah. Anyway, these are some new pics of Cressida from Tuesday – she was out and about in London, presumably doing some Christmas shopping. Maybe she was shopping for her lover Prince Harry, who should be home soon enough after his Walking with the Wounded South Pole trek.

Will Harry and Cressida get to spend any time together on Christmas day? Will Harry propose over the holidays? Will we call her Princess Cressida? Well, even if they get married, she probably won’t be Princess Cressida because that will turn Duchess Kate into The Incredible Hulk. It’s more likely that if and when they marry, Harry will get a new title, something like “HRH the Duke of Puffenstuff” and Cressida will become HRH Cressida, Duchess of Puffenstuff (and we’ll end up calling her “Duchess Cressida”). Perhaps the title would be “Earl” something, like Earl Ginger-Biscuit and Lady Ginger-Biscuit. Sorry… I just get super-excited talking about titles and such. I’m putting the cart before the horse, I know. I mean, Cressida hasn’t even had “princess training” like Duchess Kate needed. But according to Life & Style, Cressida’s “princess boot camp” has already begun. My Daily UK has a funny take on L&S’s story – I think L&S was basically like “Cressida needs to stop drinking and wearing scrunchies” and My Daily took it to a funny level.

Hold the phone – Cressida Bonas is going to princess boot camp, Life & Style magazine claims. The young socialite is no Kate Middleton in the royal family’s eyes and they’re apparently keen to put her through her paces before Harry gets down on one knee.

According to reports, Cressida has already been forced to give up her career as a dancer and find herself a stable, more princessy profession. Perhaps something in the accessories department at Jigsaw a la K-Middy? But, just three days a week, mind – she’s got to have plenty of spare time for her prince. The Palace are said to pretty put off by Cressida’s party-loving antics, and we imagine princess boot camp is a bit like rehab for the blue-blooded meets the military. The Princess Boot Camp program likely includes:

1. Alcohol abstinence training
It would be entirely dubious and highly embarrassing if a princess were ever to get squiffy, so one must educate one’s self in the art of champagne preservation. The aim? To ensure one crystal flute of bubbly lasts an entire evening, dear.

2. Posture practice
There shall be no slouching in the royal household. Therefore, twice daily shall one complete an obstacle course strewn with corgis through which one must avoid stepping on while balancing a copy of Horse & Hound atop one’s head.

3. Waving endurance exercises
If one is to become a real princess one must strengthen one’s wrist. One shall wave continuously for three hours and 45 minutes per day. While smiling.

4. Scrunchie burning
Princesses do not wear scrunchies, or dungarees, or any other Nineties retro garments. The aforementioned will be burnt and one has to watch without crying.

5. Russle & Bromley, Hobbs and Whistles appreciation
As one ascends into the heavens royalty one may only wear the previously noted high street fashion brands. Learn to love them or suffer the consequences (remember that time your dungers ended up on a bonfire?)

[From My Daily UK]

Basically, Cressida will need to abandon all of the little things that make her who she is, like the scrunchies and the years of dance training and the drinking out of wine bottles. Is she ready for that? Eh. Here’s my fear – that Harry (and the Palace) will scare her off. We shouldn’t be using Middleton Criteria for Cressida’s Princess Lessons. Kate had her eye on the prize since she was like 18 years old. She spent years “training” to get the ring and live this life, and one day, it will all be hers. Meaning, Kate will be Queen (unless the monarchy is abolished, which… I mean, it could happen). Cressida is different and different things will be expected of the girl who married the spare. Cressida isn’t going to have to give up everything, you know?

FFN_Bonas_Cressida_FFUK_exc_121013_51285061

FFN_Bonas_Cressida_FFUK_exc_121013_51285059

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

153 Responses to “Is Cressida Bonas being forced to go through the palace’s ‘princess boot camp’?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Suze says:

    More Bonas – ha!

    Frankly, I don’t know who would want this life. There are so many dreadful aspects. Someone like Cressida could marry some wealthy guy and live her life in prosperous privacy.

    • Secret Squirrel says:

      Yes but its Harry she’s planning to marry…
      Harry, the “my bro has all the pressure and stress and I get to have fun fun fun” one!

    • Spooks says:

      I don’t know why they keep putting these women against each other. First Kate against the York girls, now Kate against Cressida. I’m sure they’ll all get along just fine. For the record, I like Kate better.

      The only reason I would ever want this life is for the opportunities it brings to help people. Look at what Diana was able to do.

      • Suze says:

        I can’t say that I like either one of them, particularly, although, who knows, they could grow into productive royals in the future. People expected nothing out of Lady Diana Spencer back in the day.

        True, royalty does give you a platform. But you can do a great deal of good as a private citizen as well.

        I know I would be annoyed if paps photographed me going about my business.

        I do think she’s more prepared for them now. The last few photographs have shown her dressed much better.

      • Florc says:

        Spooks
        Kate vs York girls has some coincidental truth behind it at the very least and the tabs aren’t fanning that fire as much as they could.
        And William has a few ex’s that are heavily involved with charity work while being private citizens.
        Cressida is good friends with the Yorks and it’s been rumored for years and years that not many inside the aristo circle and RF liked Kate or her family. They might get along, but more for the sake of peace keeping

      • Spooks says:

        I know you can do charity work as a private citizen, but being a royal gives you much more publicity and a bigger platform, that’s what I meant.
        Could it be that they dislike Kate and the Mids ( I don’t really get why people hate them, they seem perfectly nice) because they’re commoners?

      • Suze says:

        Spooks, someone who knows more about British society will chime in, I’m sure. It’s my understanding that they’re all commoners – Cressida, Kate, even Diana was a commoner. I don’t think being an aristocrat or having a title makes you less of a commoner in royal eyes. It’s all a bit eye-rolly for me, though, being a Yankee from the new world.

        I think Cressida has a more aristocratic background than Kate – somehow. Maybe through her mother? Otherwise, they are all rich commoners. Obviously to me they are all the same.

        I don’t think being a “commoner” makes you disliked in royal circles, though. Sophie Wessex is big favorite, as is that rugby lug Zara married (sorry can’t think of his name), and they are both from fairly humble backgrounds.

      • Florc says:

        I’ve made that commoner mistake too. Peerages and such.
        Kate and Pippa (allegedly since this was all whitewashed post engagement) have been caught being mean to the York sisters. Pippa making a scene at a fashion show demanding the York girls give her their seats. Kate at her roller kate fundraiser invited Bea, but didn’t tell her it was a costume party. Bea was in tears in the bathroom having been teased. She was young at the time.

        In regards to the charity and private citizen. I knew what you meant. My point was that Kate never really took an interest in charity work if a party wasn’t involved. William’s exs made it a passion of theirs. Kate seems to only do the minimum. Her events only seem to pick up pre vacations. She wanted the perks and the man, but not the platform that came with it. To her credit she is improving, but the bar was dead and buried ages ago for her.

      • cgpc says:

        Ooh maybe I can help!

        Diana definitely wasn’t a commoner – her father was the 8th Earl Spencer (and Viscount Althorp), and so she was titled ‘Lady Diana’ in her own right before she ever met Charles. The Spencers have had the earldom since the mid-1700s so whilst it’s not one of the oldest peerages it’s not one of the newest either.

        Cressida is the granddaughter of an Earl, so whilst her mother is titled ‘lady’ in her own right, Cressida isn’t (because her father doesn’t have a title). So she is in the peerage, but not as aristocratic as Diana. That earldom is about 100 years newer as well, which does make a difference.

        (No idea how I know this. Evidently they put something in the water in the UK….)

      • bluhare says:

        Diana was considered a commoner as well. Aristocratic commoner, but commoner nonetheless.

      • Maum says:

        Kate has no aristocratic background whatsoever- just rich parents.
        Diana was titled and Cressida’s mother is. It does make a difference in royal circles or at least it did traditionally.

        As far as Kate goes I think the ‘dislike’ stems from her attitude rather than background.

      • LadySlippers says:

        *Raises Royal Loonie Standard*

        Diana was INDEED a commoner. True she is from the nobility/aristocracy but only the title holders are not considered commoners (in Diana’s case her father and brother became peers only when the became the next Earl Spencer). All the rest hold their title as a courtesy only. In the UK the law is clear that only the Sovereign and the peer or peeress suo jure are not considered commoners.

        So that means Harry, Anne (and her children), Sarah (and her children), Sophie (and her children) are ALL technically commoners. Royal ones but still commoners because all these people hold their titles as a courtesy only. Btw this includes Kate and George as well.

        The peerage consists of:
        Duke / Duchess*
        Marquess / Marchioness*
        Earl / Countess*
        Viscount / Viscountess*
        Baron / Baroness*

        *Females have to hold the title in their name (definition of suo jure is ‘in her own right’) and not be the wife of a peer to be considered not a commoner. A courtesy peeress has benefits of a peer but only while married to a peer. She is (per British law) able to retain her title as long as she wishes — even after remarriage (custom dictates she uses her new husband’s title but not required).

        ETA: The Earl Spencer’s title are relatively new yes. BUT they are descended from the same Spencer clan that started from the Earl of Sunderland and Baron Spencer before that. Which also happens to be subsidiary titles of the Dukedom of Marlborough. The Spencer’s have long been players in English/British politics.

        *Lowers Royal Loonie Standard*

      • blue marie says:

        @ Lady Slippers.. that is fascinating. So these titles are courtesy only? Then why give a title at all? Does it have to do with how much land you hold? I know relatively nothing about this but have always felt too dumb to ask.

      • Decloo says:

        @LadySlippers. Please consider penning a concise how-to book for us entitled something like “British Nobility for Dummies” or “English Titles Made Easy.” WE definitely need something like that on this site if we are going to be discussing these swells.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Great question! (And ask — how else do we learn if we don’t ask???)

        British titles evolved partly in order to ‘keep up with the Jones’ in the rest of Europe. Wayyy back in very feudal England (when the King & Queen were ‘of the English’ and not ‘of England’) the only titles used were King/Queen and Baron (not sure about Baroness). Important fact, Scottish titles are somewhat different and are often more egalitarian too. The Scots still use ‘of Scots’ vs ‘of Scotland’. There is an important distinction and it escapes me just now.

        :-/

        In Europe entire families are ennobled so if Diana were a European noble — she would have been a countess. But I think the British system evolved to emulate the European one with key differences.

        Anyhoo — gradually more titles filtered in. And it’s very hierarchal (true for patriarchal societies). Barons are the lowest in the rung and used to report to Earls. Earls had several barons underneath them and were accountable to Dukes. Dukes were few in number and answered directly to the King. That continued to evolve some more. Earls that had to guard the borderlands wanted to be recognized for their more difficult job and thus the Marquess was introduced. Viscounts were created as stepping stones between Barons and Earls.

        If your visual and American think of it like this:
        ~Baron: town
        ~Viscount: city
        ~Earl: county (European earls are called Counts)
        ~Marquess: metropolis — especially a border one
        ~Duke: state
        ~King: country

        Marquess and Viscount don’t fit as neatly as Baron, Earl, Duke, and King do but I did try! Lol

      • blue marie says:

        Thank you Lady Slippers, I appreciate you taking a little to explain it to me.

      • Florc says:

        Lady Slippers
        Where do you store this info? Do you link up with LAK? Very helpful Thank you for setting us straight.
        But your name is Lady Slippers… Do you ike Orchids or are you from Maine? You’ve mentioned loons before too so I was just curious.

      • LadySlippers says:

        You are so very welcome! I’m always happy to share my passion with history and Royals with others.

        As for a ‘Royal for Dummies’ book, lol, I actually have a Royal blog on tumblr that I don’t frequent much anymore because my even handed approach, coupled with A LOT of knowledge didn’t make me a favourite (anyone surprised???). Kinda hard to create drama and vitriol if not everyone wants to play (it’s very nasty there and as you can see — I’m not a nasty person at all)… Also I’m pretty clueless on how to upgrade my blog but I’ve long thought about jumping back in. *sigh* So a book, eh? Hmmm anyone want to teach me more about blogs???? Lol

        As for the commoner vs aristocratic background. Coming from the aristocracy opens a lot of doors that cannot be opened through talent alone. The phrase ‘It’s not what you know but who you know’ really emphasizes this. Harry’s best friend, like Cressida, is a grandchild of an earl (Jake is also a nephew of one) and Jake has met the Queen. His family connections made that happen. If he wasn’t an ‘aristo’ his life would probably be very different.

        Kate and Sophie, until they married in, had nothing like that. Even Sarah had better connections and was more apart of that world than either Kate or Sophie. And just to be clear, Sophie has busted her A$$ to be well respected in the family and in the aristocracy. Nobody handed anything to her on a silver platter.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Florc, I have been a Royal/History nut since before my 12th birthday when I found out that Elizabeth I of England and I share the same birthday (7 Sept). It was literally, game over for me. I read. And read. And read some more and have been doing this for almost 3 decades now (since I’m 41). I forget some stuff and look it up. No biggie. :-)

        English & Royal History are what I know best but I’m trying to increase my knowledge about the rest of the world’s reigning families. (I do know a fair amount but I still know others that can run circles around me).

        Ella from Mad Hattery & A Tiara A Day is on tumblr (Royalty with Ella) and she also knows her stuff. Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor is another smart Royal blogger. And I try and learn from the best. I’m ALWAYS learning!!
        (Confession: I seriously fangirled HARD when I first interacted with Ella. Like super embarrassingly bad. Lol. I know very few people that I’d fangirl over and Ella is so one of them. Lol)

        I’m from Minnesota. Minnesota’s state flower is the Pink and White Showy Lady Slipper. Hence my picture is exactly that. The state bird for Minnesota is — you guessed it — the Loon. I don’t live in my home state anymore but am very much shaped by it.

        LadySlippers & Loons! :-D

      • Florc says:

        LS
        Wow. Great answer. You got it all.
        Maine has loons and Lady Slippers so I thought it was a possibility. No longer in my home state either, but carry it with me.
        Side comment since we’re so off topic anyways. Loons and freaking scary at night… Red eyes and screaching.. Stuff of nightmares you guys. Nightmares!

      • G. says:

        @Ladyslipper

        I knew as soon as you put the loon but in that you were from Minnesota too! I miss Minnesota so much. I can’t wait to be back for Christmas even if it’s gross and cold out.

      • mayamae says:

        I’ve always read that the Spencers have a more pure British family line, whereas the Windsors are actually more German. Have no idea if that’s true.

        I’m assuming Harry will be an earl or duke someday. What are they waiting for? Marriage?

      • Snarkweek says:

        Does anyone besides me adore the Plantagenets?

      • LAK says:

        Snarkweek: I adore the Plantagenets. It’s my favourite period of English history.

        mayamae: That’s true hence the German royal family jokes/snark.

        In terms of English blue blood, the Spencers ARE more blue blooded based upon their lineage which includes all the best blue blood families whilst the Windsors are hampered by the fact that until WW1, royals only married royals. Since the only other royals were continental, that’s where they married which diluted their English blood lines.

        There was a poster on here several months ago [justme IIRC], who posted the lineages to demonstrate the difference.

        Seeing that we can be a xenophobic lot sometimes, Diana was considered to have married down as a result.

      • bluhare says:

        Add me to the Plantagenet fan club please!

      • LadySlippers says:

        @G: YAY for displaced Minnesotans!!! :-)

        @Florc: Yes, at night Loons are a bit creepy.
        :-/ {{HUGS}}

        @SnarkWeek: Adore the Plantagenets! Especially the last Duchess of Lancaster. I’ve thought about writing a YA novel with her in it. Also like the War of the Roses. Fascinating time period.

        @LAK: Have you read the Spencer’s Family history Charles Spencer wrote? (Note to others he’s the current Earl Spencer and was Diana’s brother). I’m almost 3/4 thru it but got stuck on Father Ignatius’ chapter. Charles apparently finds this man FASCINATING. I however strongly disagree. I much prefer Georgiana or Diana. Sadly he doesn’t touch on Diana but goes into some detail about Sarah Churchill.

        From up thread (cannot remember name but I think it was SnarkWeek): Women were actually a lot more interesting than what people think and know. Women’s stories aren’t often told unless they are a Georgiana (the famous Duchess of Devonshire) or Sarah (the infamous Duchess of Marlborough). In the Spencer book AND in the book To Marry an English Lord you can see that women were much more colourful than most know. :-)

        As for Diana, in order not to appear xenophobic, yes, her ancestors were much more solidly British (with some American thrown in — Frances Work — to be precise). And her grandmother Cynthia (daughter of the Duke of Abercorn) really upped the Spencer pedigree by a lot.

        As for the BRF, I think most Royals are kind of their own country as many never had actual ‘common’ ancestors since when their line started. So yes, a lot of German/Prussians Royals married into the BRF but were they really Germanic in origin??? I don’t know.

        But LAK is right. The snark about the Windsors being German is fairly well known. And Diana was WELL aware of it too. I think after awhile, she too thought she had married down (when things got nasty).

        ETA: I do think Harry will become a Duke upon marriage. It’s just how things are done now. The popular opinion (on tumblr) is he will receive Sussex as his title. I vote for Albany but there are issues with it (but a flower can dream people! Lol).

        An interesting contrary opinion comes from Ella (Royalty with Ella). She believes Harry, like Edward, will initially ask to become an Earl in order to deflect some of the spotlight off his children. His children, regardless of his title, will be Lord/Lady until Charles ascends unless HM repeats the Letters Patent issued to make William’s children Prince/Princess. But as Diana’s future grandchildren I’m not sure how much good any deflecting will do….

      • Suze says:

        I wonder if Kaiser and CB knew what they were doing when they opened up this little corner of Celebitchy for royaloonies? Maybe they’ll open a satellite site for us – hey, guys, can you hear that?

        Just chiming in to say that I don’t know that Harry will ever be able to be as low key as Edward or even Andrew. For one thing, he is Diana’s son, and that light shines bright. For another, he is one of the most popular members of the royal family. I would say that he is the most beloved, even though those half-ass Daily Mail polls say that Kate/William are. Plus, Harry really does work hard for his country. He is a huge asset to the monarchy. They would be crazy to farm him off to a semi-private life.

        If he marries Cressida there will be a ton of publicity. While I don’t think she’s a classic beauty, she is young, blonde and rich, and fetched up right, she will look very, very princessy. I bet they could have gorgeous kids.

        So – I think the public gaze will be on Harry for a long, long time.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Suze, I’m in total agreement that the spotlight will always be on Harry regardless. I just wanted to show another’s point of view. It is interesting to think about.

    • kelsey says:

      Your comment is spot-on and I could say the same about Kate — she could have married one of the wealthy, good looking dudes from her social circle and gone on to lead a life of privilege (and leisure!!) WITHOUT all of the scrutiny and restrictions she faces now. Seriously Kate, William is not much of a catch once you take away his wealth, status and connections.

      • Grace Under Pressure says:

        Kate isn’t much of a catch either. I didn’t know she had so many offers from men waiting to marry her…

        Honestly, who would have wanted to marry a woman who spent the better part of a decade doing absolutely nothing but publicly waiting for a Prince to marry her?

      • Florc says:

        Not to mention the public humiliation she endured from William. He was awful, but as the story goes Carol encouraged her daughter to keep going after him.

      • Snarkweek says:

        Grace
        I beg to differ on this point. For centuries man in the aristocracy precisely did not want their wives or girlfriends or mistresses to have led much of an involved or interesting life. It is true that things change but I’m not sure how much this is changed. People may or may not like Kate has done what many women with similar goals and aspirations have done for many many years. Of course there are wonderful exceptions but not many, especially within the British royal family.. And Cressida doesn’t seem to be much of an exception.

    • Snarkweek says:

      One day I will own a t-shirt that says “Handmade by ed”
      Plantagenets forever lol

  2. LAK says:

    That article is the best piss-take evah!!

    ……the shade thrown at Kate therein……….

  3. Suze says:

    I just want to know what she has around her neck. It’s so insanely cold here I need one in my wardrobe, stat.

  4. Patricia says:

    It seems incredibly mysoginistic that she would have to give up her passion for dancing if she were to become Harry’s wife. God forbid a woman in the royal family express herself physically! That makes me angry.

  5. Anaya says:

    Cressida looks so young in these photos. I love her coat. I’d like to see her out more with Harry once he’s back. They make such a cute couple. :)

  6. kibbles says:

    I can’t imagine an empty vessel like Kate becoming Queen. Look at Queen Elizabeth and imagine Kate ever become a tenth of the person the Queen is now. Maybe she’ll surprise us as she ages? Eh, I doubt it. I don’t have much of an opinion on Cressida, but she also doesn’t have the gravitas of the Queen. All of these women come off spoiled socialites. I did like Chelsy Davy the most of these three and that’s not even saying much. It’s obvious that both William and Harry don’t go for the intellectual type.

    • Alina says:

      To be fair the Queen Regent has another status as some Queen Consort. Consorts come and go with little impact. So, neither Camilla nor Kate will ever have the chance to come near The current Queen. Charles and William have to do it and i don´t see that working. I don´t think the monarchy will survive TheQueens death very long… She represents the old style empire, the once greatness of the UK.
      Charles and William will fade away in her shadow. No one wants a “modern TV monarchy” with boring, colourless celebrity-royals. A monarchy cannot be modern. People want old time grace.

      • ncboudicca says:

        Aw, that made me feel a little melancholy about the whole thing.

      • Bubbles says:

        Really? Melancholy about the great empire, about colonialism? Really?

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh you don’t know your history. True SOME consorts don’t make much impact but please don’t paint every consort with the same brush strokes. There are NUMEROUS consorts that have made a huge impact on the land their spouse reigns over. Albert, Philip, and Elizabeth (QM) are just some more notable British consorts. I haven’t even dug through history books or looked at other counties to see the impact other consorts have made. Rania of Jordan is ‘just’ a consort and is doing wonders for women and families all over the world.

        Sorry — that really bugs me when people make some very uneducated ‘guesses’ just because they may not like someone today.

      • Suze says:

        A Queen Consort can be a strong force for change.

        Maxima of the Netherlands promotes micro-financing for the alleviation of poverty both at home and in third world nations. She has a dazzling and brilliant intellect.

        Now – her hair and clothes jump on the crazy train on occasion, but the woman is an incredible asset to her adopted country.

        I really don’t think the British royals could handle a Maxima or a Rania. Or a Sheikha Mozah!

      • LadySlippers says:

        Suze, I agree. A consort (I expanded it to all consorts whether male or female regardless of spouse’s title) has the potential for enormous power and influence. At one time, some Queens (consorts) led their own armies.

        And look at the power of Diana. She too, was a consort and was a tremendous force during her life. (Princess of Wales is, by tradition, a consort’s title)

      • Maria says:

        I’m a bit late with my comment but…people do want a modern monarchy. Just look at the Swedes or Dutchmen. Most people really respect their royals in those countries.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Maria, I think it depends on the country TBH.

        The Scandinavian Royal Families (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) have been *very* progressive in recent years. As have both the Dutch and the Belgians Royal Families.
        However, the British Royal Family (BRF) have not been known to be particularly progressive. Same can be said of the Japanese Imperial Family (in fact they are the complete opposite of progressive), the Monegasque (Monaco) Princely Family, the Luxembourgish Grand Ducal Family and so on.

        Reigning
        Families reflect the country they ‘reign’ over.

        ETA: The Dutch Royal Family (DRF) also have the added benefit of the press respecting their Royal Family. The DRF is written in a completely different manner than say, the Spanish Royal Family (SRF). Both the BRF and the SRF are the subject to very vindictive and nasty press which the DRF doesn’t have to deal with. Makes ALL the difference in the world for public perception. All the difference.

  7. Karen says:

    Kate was hardly shy of drinking and partying prewedding.

    Why can’t Cressy have some fun pre wedding? If there is even one in the future.

    Can they stop trying to pick a fight between these two? Have they even met? Looks like Cressy is this generations Fergie.

  8. marie says:

    i refuse to believe this article is real

    • LAK says:

      It isn’t real. It’s the type of article you find in private eye magazine.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Agreed LAK. As I said up thread, this ‘story’ has numerous holes and outright contradictions to the stuff published post-engagement on Kate (but eerily similar to stories published pre-engagement).

        Maybe LAK we can start to show people the BS (or myth) that surrounds the BRF. Because many are snugly wrapped up in BS.

      • Grace Under Pressure says:

        Definitely this article is not real. But some of the stuff published about Kate Middleton from 2002 – 2010, probably has truth to it. The phone hacking scandal has shown that the British Royals were big targets and often successfully hacked for information. If they got into Chelsy Davy’s phone, imagine what they found in Kate’s.

        William still has his unofficial press-ban in place to protect his and Kate’s secrets.

  9. Miss M says:

    One day the tabloids are calling Chelsy needy. The next day that Cressida is being forced to go through the palaces princess boot camp. Please… Cressida would force herself into it.
    Team Chelsy forever and ever!

    • HH says:

      There is definitely something going on in Cressida’s camp. Ever since that massive barrage of stories months ago that she had “gotten used to” the idea of marriage (LOL – that phrase gets me every time), any time she has been pap’d she looks put together. Prior to, it was hit or miss, with A LOT OF MISSES.

  10. Eleonor says:

    Princess of England Bootcamps that’s a reality show I would totally watch!

  11. Tulip Garden says:

    I just can’t muster any enthusiasm for Cressida. I will say that she looks better here to me than she usually does. Meh, I was hoping that Harry would find a partner that I could get behind even though I was (and am) disappointed that Chelsy Davy didn’t work out.
    As far as the the determination of tabloids to make whoever Harry’s partner a “versus Kate” situation, I think that would happen regardless of who is chooses. It just sells. Most people will naturally like one woman more than the other and the tabs will play on that. Personally, I think it is detestable as both Kate and Harry’s eventual partner will have enough criticism to deal with without a tabloid contest determined to pit them against each other.

  12. LadyL says:

    Force? Require maybe but “force”…. Did men in black trench coats dragging her off the street? If I was going to join the Firm I’d want some prep.

  13. Celeste says:

    I want her coat! I wish her good luck.

  14. Garrett says:

    I just don’t see this as a good match up. Do I think they will last? Probably not. But only time will tell. Something is telling me this girl has a hidden agenda.

  15. lower-case deb says:

    speaking of royals…. can we talk about the new christmas videos and pictures of The Swedish Crown Princess family?
    http://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamiljen/aktuellahandelser/aktuellt2013oktoberdecember/julhalsningfranhagasefilmhar.5.4ea495e313c19c119aad920.html

    can we have one of George? please?

  16. BooBooLaRue says:

    Love and need that coat! However, she is dull as ditchwater.

  17. Lark says:

    Seriously, who would want to go through all of this (except Kate obviously lol). Chelsy has a career as a lawyer, is independent wealthy, and doesn’t have the press breathing down her neck….I can see why she ran from this mess. And I do think she did “run,” because Harry said something rather telling about needing to find a woman who “wants” it in some interview once….I wouldn’t be surprised if Cressida ended up being it for Harry…she has the “pedigreed” family and all.

  18. Grace Under Pressure says:

    Cressida is pretty, but she’s very young. I think she looks girlish, even childish. As the loyal royal watchers on here noted on other threads, Charles and William both sought a mothering woman who would dote on them and be at their beck and call. With Diana, Charles married a child when he wanted a mother and the results were disasterous.

    I worry about everyone’s favorite Ginger Prince. Harry seems attracted to women unsuited to his world. Chelsy was very independent, confident in her ambitions, and in possession of a happy-go-lucky personality. All of these characteristics likely made her attractive to Harry, but in the end, she was too independent for a royal life. Cressida seems to be at a crossroads in her own life. Having completed her dance education, its likely the reality has struck her that there is not much work for professional modern dancers, so she’s not really “giving up” much career opportunity. She probably doesn’t know what she wants her next steps to be. Becoming more serious with Harry is a “purpose.” However, I do not think she is mature enough to make the decision to move into the royal world. It’s more of a timing thing for her. She’s looking for something, and Harry is filling in the slot for now.

  19. RobN says:

    Harry’s going to cheat like crazy on whomever he finally marries, so I’m not sure that I’d wish him or that life on anybody, and other than being pretty, I can’t figure out why anybody is enthusiastic about Cressida doing anything. She’s certainly never done anything that shows any substance. She’s a pretty rich girl who doesn’t work and spends her time shopping and going to fancy parties. Which is fine, but let’s not pretend that she’s somehow superior to Kate because Kate waited around for her Prince. What it comes down to is that William and Kate met young and Cressida met Harry when he was getting closer to settling down age.

    • Suze says:

      The only thing that will differentiate the two of them is what they do with their royal lives once they have them. We shall see what unfolds.

      Or maybe Harry will surprise everyone and not marry her. But whoever he marries will have the same issues.

    • bluhare says:

      Harry hasn’t been much of a cheater, has he? Inappropriate, yes. But cheater? Not so sure.

    • LadySlippers says:

      We don’t *know* he will always cheat. I’m not saying he’s perfect but we only know him from one relationship and they were on an off AND young.

      (William apparently is better known for this)

      • Florc says:

        With the bad press Harry has to take I would suspect he would have been outed as a cheater if it was true. The press has already tried while he was with Chelsy. True or not stories never really took off or seemed credible.
        Meawhile, William has a press ban, but is a known skirt chaser. I wouldn’t doubt Harry has cheated in his life, but he ust have been crazy careful. And he’s not lucky when it comes to the press looking to cut him down. Just can’t see it.

    • LAK says:

      Harry has never cheated on any of his girls/women. Harry as a cheater was a story made up by the tabloids complete with pics taken out of context. He sued and won, but the damage was done and people think he is a cheater.

      Do you know who is a cheater? William. It’s the recurring theme given by every single girl who has crossed paths with him romantically, Kate included.

      • LadySlippers says:

        LAK, I left open the possibility because he might have at one point (he is human afterall). But it’s certainly not true of him overall.

        LAK is again showing how the spin on William and Harry affect our perceptions of the two. Diana and Sarah had the same issue and neither woman was really a villain or a saint. Please try and read through the BS, it takes time but it can be done.

        LAK, I didn’t know Harry sued in this case — did he? I remember the fuss because a few of his friends cried foul and talked about how the bar pics were taken during one of Harry and Chelsy break up times. Not while they were dating.

      • Grace Under Pressure says:

        I’ve heard William cheated on Kate regularly during their courtship. Several times with coeds at St. Andrews. There was an American girl he visited Anna something or other, and then of course he was pursuing Isabella Calthorpe (Cressida’s sister) for quite some time, even going to far as to officially and publicly dump Kate for her.

        I would not be surprised to hear there are more recent examples, but since the wedding I haven’t heard any.

      • Mare says:

        You have no idea if either one of them has ever cheated or not. You don’t know them and you’re just choosing to believe gossip about William and ignore that about Harry because that fits in your view about them. You have no proof of them cheating or not and certainly can’t say things like “Harry has never cheated on any of his girls/women”. You don’t know.

      • LAK says:

        Ladyslippers:

        Here is a postscript to the entire episode:

        http://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/aug/16/pressandpublishing.privacy

        http://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/aug/21/pressandpublishing.royalsandthemedia

        BTW: notice this extract in the guardian story:

        “”But while the three-sentence apology appears on page six, a new story about Prince Harry – “Is Harry the wildest prince in history?” – is flagged up on the front page and covers the centre spread with photos of the prince drinking, smooching and giving a one-finger salute.”"

        Who is going to notice a small apology on pg 6 when the front page banner is trumpeting how wild he is?

        ps:- i agree about never saying never. We are all fallible.

      • LAK says:

        Mare: I comment on the publicly available information, not the private information. Occasionally i make an assertion based on what i know privately. You retain the right to believe me or not. *shrug*

      • LadySlippers says:

        Mare, I disagree. LAK as a Brit has for more access to the actual papers than I do. True for most non-Brits too — so Brits often can see a lot more day-to-day stuff than others. Plus, most long-time Royal watchers (like LAK) can spot trends once you got some time under your belt. These stories are often ‘cut and paste’ one person’s name for another. The press was extremely harsh on Kate as no one thought she would really marry in. And a lot of that stemmed from how shabbily William treated Kate. The press know A LOT more than what they publish (for example see Harry’s Vegas scandal).

        Another example of a story is Sarah — she is not the worst Royal in the history of the UK but you wouldn’t know it if you read the vitriol around her. Most of that was created by the press to create a better image of the (then) future King & Queen of the UK. Her being bad (as was/is Andrew’s antics) was/is used for contrast. I’m not saying she didn’t screw up but the papers made sure we never forgot.

        My point is most serious and good Royal watchers point out trends. I don’t have a huge preference for William or Harry but do feel the need to stand up for Harry when he’s trashed to bolster his brother’s image. LAK, Sachi, BluHare, Florc, and Tulip Garden (among many other Royal watchers. If I’ve forgotten your name — my sincere and humble apologies) are NOT nasty or vindictive when bringing up some of William’s faults. He is human after all. But I see us as trying to remove the ‘story’ and myth that surround many of these people. They are people. Just people. Surrounded by BS.

        ETA: Thanks LAK for the links. And I agree, people can choose to believe whatever. *sighs*

      • Florc says:

        +1 LAK
        You’re not one here to make crazy assumptions and always support your statements. Many of us can’t say the same. Maybe we can’t find our links or have our facts wrong from time, but still make our claims. I know i’ve been guilty of this.

        Mare Harry may have cheated. Who knows really. William has been a known cheater if his ex girlfriends and photos of him grabbing girls in bars are to be believed. And his ex girlfriends had nothing to gain from telling this. They’re successful and lead private lives. I think William was dating another girl during the Kate fashion show strut too. Timelines always overlap with William.

      • LadySlippers says:

        OMG it’s the Sun.
        The veritable hallmark of informative journalism.

        *coughBullSh!tcough*

        *eyes water*

        So sorry! Obviously something in the air choked me (like trying to assert the Sun equates to good journalism).

        ;-)

      • LAK says:

        Ladyslippers: If the Sun says Harry is a cheater, it must be true, but obviously if every other more reputable paper says William is a cheater whilst naming names, it can’t be true.

      • Snarkweek says:

        William is most certainly a cheater and I suspect he will try to do so in the future at some point. However, it bugs me when people are quite adamant about the fact that he cheated on Kate with Isabella. He developed quite an interest in Isabella and approached her at a charity event. He was with Kate and Isabella was with her boyfriend and she basically shot William down. Kate was humiliated and they broke up afterwards. William saw that as an opportunity to make a legitimate play for Isabella. She again shut him down and this time in no uncertain terms. So then William had no choice but to win back Kate. But Isabella has said in interviews that although she understands that it is the job of the media to create the stories, unfortunately, she can not substantiate them. She truthfully stated in an interview that she never even went out on a date with William. I know it makes this whole Cressida more titillating but if Kate doesn’t get along with her it is more likely because she is good friends with the York sisters.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I seem to have outed myself as a serious British royal family follower and I absolutely am. With that said I have a question for others who have the same inclination: When one calls Harry a cheater then obviously that is within a girlfriend/boyfriend situation as he has never married but what about William? Are we talking pre- or post- marriage cheating? I do believe that there is a difference and it would help me to formulate a more concise view of William if I knew. Also, I have always thought that William probably cheated on kate at some point pre-marriage. I have to say that I have always thought that Harry cheated on chelsy too. Of course, neither assumption has been proven that I know of. My opinion is just based on certain troubles that both couples seemed to undergo at some point….and yes I have been following them all for years…pretty damn closely at that.
        @LAK and @ Ladyslippers, as much as I have read which is an insane amount as I became fascinated during Lady Di courtship days and have remained steadfast since then (I’m 42 btw) if that gives you an idea of how into all of this that I am but you ladies still teach me a thing or two and I love it :) . BTW any blog one of you starts will soon have me posting. Lastly is there presently a decent forum to discuss this stuff along with other more esoteric royal info that might bore others here? Would love to find one. The ones I have seen,while entertaining, don’t seem to show the breadth of knowledge that you two do!
        Oh I really hope that you all check back in (sigh)

      • LAK says:

        Tulip Garden: I am sorry that i can’t recommend any royal forums. I find most of them really juvenile, shrill and full of mini van types. Which ever side of the debate they are on. The few i’ve stumbled across will not acknowledge a different perspective from the one set out by the forum owners. It can deteriorate very quickly into a horrendous slanging match if you challenge the dictats. They definitely don’t care about any pertinent facts except as they fit into their opinion of any royal.

        i tend to visit blogs that are dedicated to specific things/people eg tiara a day blog [drool!!!], The royal order of sartorial splendour [more drool!!!] and vintage royalty blog[funny and interesting facts]. For your particular era of interest, i’d recommend B.R.G tumbler. She’s stopped posting, but the blog is still up. Loads of information about Diana and Charles. pictures and video etc.

        BTW: though she’s dead, my interest in modern royals began with Wallis Simpson. Specifically when her jewels were auctioned off in 1987. I thought that was the most romantic story ever at the time. Now i think it’s a horrendous story.

      • bluhare says:

        Agree with LAK re the blogs. They’re usually hater/fan blogs and other opinions aren’t tolerated. One of Kate’s fan blogs is really trying to be more even handed, and I post there, but it’s strictly Kate with no room for much off topic discussion. Also agree about the ones she likes. Another one that’s fun, but not really a comment blog is Gin O Clock, although it looks like the owner’s got some iTV thing going on now, as the last blog update was when George was born.

        But I’m with you re Wallis, LAK. She was an interesting story to say the least. And the royals were really awful to her.

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare – how can i forget Gin O’Clock?! it’s hilarious. I don’t visit it often enough because she doesn’t post on a regular basis. Definitely one of my favourites.

      • Florc says:

        Snark
        Isabella was always upfront as having never dated William and he was not shy about his interest in her. I’ve never heard it spoken of where William cheated with isabella.
        Tulip
        Wasn’t there talk that William was taking more trips away from Kate post marriage? She was often at her parents while he was having a boys only vacation? And by boys only I mean his friends without their wives and gf’s, but still some entertainment *cough*. Or that extra week he took at the falkland islands early in their marriage after sending Kate back home. He’s certainly had opportunities I could go one. I would not be shocked if it’s later outed these were times where he cheated. Meanwhile Harry is always where he says he’ll be.

        In regards to Blogs. I used to frequent them. Some were fine until the crowds were either praise blindly or hate blindly. This is a balanced site. It’s the only decent one I can find that’s active in new stories.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @ Tulip (any others looking for Royal blogs):

        I sorta like tumblr but as others have stated — it’s VERY divided and it’s hard to remain on an even keel. People want you to declare ‘sides’ and most (not all) are teens and/or 20′s so they are fans of the _celebrity_ of the Royals (especially the BRF) but not the history and the details. Plus, it can get really petty and there are honestly more bad blogs on their than goods ones. And then up the high school drama with anonymous bullying. It’s a toxic recipe. But there are some fantastic blogs — there really are.

        Let me know what ‘flavour’ Royal blog you’re looking for and I’m happy to add to the list above. If you want my blog, I’ll post it too *gulp*. I do know a lot of the people behind the better blogs so that helps (including BRG). I can also steer you aware from blogs that are only trouble.

        I agree with LAK, some threads on the various Royal Forums are decent but boy, the vitriol is enough for me to carefully select threads. It’s just as bad as tumblr. *shudder*

        @Florc, et al: William I don’t think ever stopped taking trips. So it’s hard to ‘increase’ what never changed. Add to it when he was in Wales and Kate with her parents…..

        @LAK: Wallis is fascinating. I think several key women in British history have been vilified in order for the men to get a free pass (often happens the women gets the blame when the men are usually at fault). I think Wallis fits that bill perfectly. We blame Wallis while completing ignoring what a spoilt brat David was. Any thoughts on the theory that they almost gave the throne to George (DoK) bypassing Bertie (DoY)?

      • LadySlippers says:

        Please forgive any and all grammar mistakes.

        :-(

        Their should be there*

  20. bettyrose says:

    Run, girl, run! Harry ain’t worth living like it’s 1799. You’re young, filthy rich, well connected, and a skinny blonde. The world is your playground and the royals want to steal that from you.

  21. Mel says:

    Earl ginger biscuit?! I literally LOL’d

  22. Inconceivable! says:

    She is the last person I’ve ever seen photographed or in person wearing a “scrunchie”. I wish she would have held on to it for a few more pics… Just for giggles! And hey, it’s not a put-down to the scrunchies, I just always thought it was her signature thing.

  23. Inconceivable! says:

    Anyone else think Cressida and Kate have the same looking mouth??

  24. bluhare says:

    And Harry made it to the South Pole today!

  25. Decloo says:

    Would somebody please tell me how her last name is pronounced? Is it really “BONE-ess”? I can’t with that. Even the super-triple-hyphenated name would be better.

  26. Alexandra says:

    I love love love that jacket!

  27. cjean says:

    ‘It’s so weird my arms body and neck are so warm, but my legs are SO cold…..’

  28. Stormsmama says:

    Lady Slippers
    Thanks for a fascinating read
    I literally could not stop scrolling down
    Not only did I learn about royalty and the hierarchy, I discovered a new exciting field to explore a study. I never knew I cared about England as much as I do!
    This really is the most surprising gossip blog. The commenters are generally thoughtful, intelligent and passionate. I don’t always agree but I’m always inspired to see things in a different way.
    Thx

    • LadySlippers says:

      Thanks StormsMama! *blushes*

      I absolutely adore British history. I find that it helps me understand Americans and American history as our roots firmly go back to the UK (no pun intended). It’s mind blowing how many customs and traditions started back in the UK (specifically England). Including the tradition of people to demand rights from their Soveriegn (thank you to the Barons of England for that). Also, England & Scotland were a republic before being a republic was even cool.

      It is a huge passion of mine and I’m always delighted to be able to share it.

      Thanks again!

  29. EscapedConvent says:

    Sometimes I daydream about what things would be like in the Royal family if Harry had just happened to be the first born. Everything about William & Harry the same—just reverse birth order. What fun!

  30. tmbg says:

    Cressida, run! Save yourself before it’s too late! She still has style, which will be deleted after going through the Palace reprogramming. Not even Harry is worth becoming a robot for.

  31. Girl_please says:

    So… Am i the only one who still doesn’t believe they’re a couple? I mean if their relationship is as serious as the tabs say it is. I’d be higly dissapointed. Someone who walkts to the south pole and does so many amazing things can’t possibly be interested in a girl whos probably never worked a day in her life.