As I said in a previous post, I was actually a little bit concerned that Prince William was going to “get away” with the Verbier ski trip following his marginally successful image-rehabilitation via a trip to Paris. The photos were good, and William and Kate looked busy, which is notable because it happens so rarely. Thankfully, William isn’t getting away with anything. The British papers ripped him a new one all over the place, mostly through opinion-pieces and columns. I previously covered the Daily Mail’s savage column, but many of you pointed out this brutal piece in the Sun, written by Damian Thompson. Some highlights:
Royal circles are complaining: “I also hear people in royal circles, or who have had professional dealings with the prince, complain about his haughty manner. Journalists are used to his hostility — to the cold-eyed stare that seems to imply that they are no better than the paparazzi who chased his mother to her death nearly 20 years ago. Of late, however, there have been whisperings that William is almost as rude to members of his staff who are insufficiently deferential, or catch him in a bad mood.”
Petulant and grand: “Both of them, Catherine as well as William, have become awfully grand,” says a source in the royal household. William is not as bright as his father, but he does have the armour-plated self- confidence you pick up at Eton. Was it really a good idea to send him there, followed by the picturesque snob factory of St Andrews University? “He’s turning into a mix of Norfolk squire and dim West London Sloane in red trousers,” says one social commentator. “Think David Cameron minus a few IQ points.”
Thompson also calls him lazy and lacking the human-touch of his mother, not to mention his little brother Harry. Thompson compliments Charles as being intelligent and enlightened, even though Charles sometimes comes across as petulant too, apparently.
I also wanted to note this excellent piece by one of my favorite royal-gossips/commentators, Tom Sykes at the Daily Beast. You can read the full piece here. Some highlights:
How William will react to be criticized for the ski trip: William will, instead of accepting any blame himself, simply gnash his teeth and bemoan the horrid media, the evil internet and the outrageous invasion of his privacy that is someone shooting footage of him on their cameraphone dancing appallingly in a nightclub. “He won’t listen to advice and hires people too scared to give it,” says one source, who adds that William tends to ‘see himself as the victim’ when these privacy rows blow up.
How the Cambridges & Harry see the media: “William, Kate and Harry have this delusional idea—encouraged by their press team—that they can be both private and public people depending what they are up to, so people have ‘no right’ to see what he is doing,” the source tells the Daily Beast, “Of course this is nonsense, but he won’t accept it. The irony is, it just makes them even more miserable because they will never be private citizens.”
The Queen “licenses” William’s lifestyle: The Queen is not entirely blameless in the PR mess that William’s public/private life has become. She calls the shots, and the miscalculation may be as much hers as William’s. As the royal historian and author “Majesty”, Robert Lacey said, that it is very clear that William’s current low-tempo public life “is licensed by his grandmother…It is clear that she has wanted to spare him the truncated family life that she suffered due to the early death of her father. People talk about the Queen not being maternal—Charles is on the record as suggesting it–but I remember interviewing Lord Mountbatten in those years and him telling me that the Queen’s favorite night of the week was Thursday because, “that was Mabel’s night off.” Mabel was the governess. And on Thursday nights, it was the Queen who bathed the children, read the bedtime story and put them to bed. She wants that for William, and she has very much enabled this arrangement of a family home and base on the Sandringham Estate to facilitate his work with the air ambulance.”
I think that’s an interesting read on the Queen’s place in The Problem With Work-Shy Will. Some gossips claim that she’s washed her hands of him. Some suggest that she simply doesn’t like confrontation, and she’s been-there-done-that as far as arguing with her grandson. I think it’s probably both options, honestly. The Queen has learned not to confront William because she doesn’t want to deal with his temper tantrums. She wants him to make his own mistakes and learn from them. But she also wants him to have some privacy and some semblance of a normal family life. The thing… it’s going to blow up in her face, and Charles’ face, in the years to come.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
This all getting very boring now. These 2 twits will continue as they are for the foreseeable future, TQ knows the damage that they are doing to the image of the institution but she won’t do anything about it and Willy boy knows it. The only way TQ will do something is if the press keeps up the pressure.
And as for this whole ‘family’ thing for him – he has shown repeatedly that he is not interested in his ‘family’ except for the PR it gives him. Its becoming more and more obvious how little time he spends with them.
One of these days he will come a cropper.
I can see why these two are getting the flack, including from dreadful “papers” like the Sun. But while it’s particularly annoying to see lazy people waste tax payers money, it’s kind of missing the point. The Sun is very pro the monarchical system. And that means you don’t get to audit someone’s character and suitability before they are anointed head of state. You get what comes out of the relevant womb. No choice. No say. In post until they go to meet their maker. These people bring the problem with the system into focus. But the problem is the system.
No. The establishment has removed Monarch’s before, the most recent is Edward VIII. The gov forced him to abdicate as he was unsuitable for the job and had strong Nazi sympathies. He was more interested in partying, hunting and holidaying with his then mistress, Wallis Simpson than he was in being head of state.
The act of succession can be changed by an act of parliament so his place in the line is not ‘secure’. Granted it would take a lot to remove him and his line but it can and has been done before. One of the perks of not having a written constitution. The system isn’t great but it does allow an unsuitable Monarch to be removed and he doesn’t actually have to be crowned to be removed. All they need to do is change the line of succession. Henry VIII did it more than once.
It is incredibly difficult. He abdicated because he wanted to marry a divorcee, unacceptable to the Church at that time. If he hadn’t wanted to do that, I am not at all sure that his other proclivities would have led to abdication. It’s a long time since Henry VIII. The country’s head of state should not be dependent on genetics. As is not infrequently the case, we may have to agree to differ.
It wasn’t the divorcee that was the problem though it made for a plausible and enduring PR coup that obsfucated the real reasons he was encouraged to abdicate.
He was offered a morganatic marriage to Wallis which he refused.
In the end he lost in anyway because in denying her HRH, their marriage was morganatic just as it would have been if he had accepted the govt’s offer when he was King.
LAK. I believe he would have accepted a morganatic marriage, but when the idea was presented to the Dominions, they refused. So the morganatic marriage ceased to be an option.
I always understood that Wallis and “David” would have taken the morganatic marriage, but the request was denied. Have I been wrong all these years?
Maria /Odette: You are right. The dominions refused that type marriage.
Wallis wasn’t a fan of abdication and tried privately and publicly to keep it from happening, but David was obsessed and pushed himself into a corner and that was that.
In recently unsealed letters she wrote to her ex, Mr Simpson, she discusses her regrets at divorcing him, her regrets at the abdication and the burden of keeping David in the style and status he was used to.
@LAK
so it looks like being a painful bratty grown up child to their women (and employees) seems to be a pattern for male windsors for ages.
@LAK – I hadn’t read about those letters but it confirms what i’d read from other sources in that Wallis didn’t want to marry him, she was content to continue being his mistress. Didn’t her biographers say that he was very hard work and possessive/demanding, following her around all the time?
Wallis has been too harshly judged by history, she was no saint but she was no devil either. I listened to an interview they both gave and it was quite fascinating, she came across as intelligent and witty and he came across as a bit of a pompous twit. I could see what he saw in her – she was someone you could imagine gossiping and having a great conversation with over some wine.
Link to interview mentioned above for anyone who is interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8u7Ntic5fo
Betti: Anne Sebba wrote a new biography based on the letters, here is a summary of what was in the letters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8713438/Wallis-Simpsons-secret-letters-to-her-ex-husband.html
And a documentary based on the letters
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j-lHGVuxNY4
@LAK – thanks for the links. I will watch it later with a nice cup of tea.
Even now the whole abdication crisis fascinates me.
@digital unicorn(aka betti)
the abdication to me looks like one of the best scam ever as it was disguised as one of the greatest love stories, and people believed it .
it gives a better look at the ability of the grey men to manipulate public opinion to their will.
but as a stylish never too thin never too rich intriguing woman wallis could be,she was still a nazi supporter.
the leniency and friends hitlerian germany found in some british aristocratic and royal circles is not a good look at all,and nothing to brush away
Betti: Thank you for that interview. I’ve always liked Wallis’s voice in the few interviews we have. There is a laughing quality to it that speaks of fun, fun, fun.
In a strange way, i’ve always thought that Audrey Hepburn talked the same way. Same voice, same accent, same laughing quality to her voice.
@nem – I have never bought into the great love story, Wallis was a victim of circumstances of her own creation. She got involved with a man child who would not let her go. The establishment used her romance with Edward as the excuse to get rid of him – he was the staunch Nazi supporter who the gov believed would have handed the UK over to the Germans in a heartbeat (amongst other things). Those stories of her having an affair with Von Ribbentrop were never proved and were likely media plants to discredit her and Edward.
@LAK – Now that you point it out, they do. I like that accent as its very easy to listen to. Its really sad how the RF abandoned Wallis after Edward died, she was basically a victim of that awful grubbing lawyer Suzanne Plum who ripped her off. Its a pity that woman was never held to account for what she and others did to Wallis.
I’d really like to know how much time he spends with Kate and the kids.
Tanna sometimes tweets about him doing things on his own, when the press was reporting he was being family man at home with Kate and the kids. PW seems very sneaky. imo
Well, Kate did say at an engagement that he wasn’t around much for the first 6 months after George was born.
Pics of the kids will hit the papers within the next week or two, and it’ll smooth everything over.
The press only give him a hard time when he keeps access away for too long. Then it’s back to sugar.
They’re royal reporters: If there’s no more royals, they’re out of a job. But if he keeps denying access they have no stories and are out of a job. It’s a fine line so they take a shot at him, then build him back up after he budges.
Don’t forget the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death. The comment sections will be full of “leave him alone” comments.
You’re right. Some of the sychophants are already making excuses for him on other sites. I’m sure there will be some pictures of G&C released soon or a pap stroll outing with daddy and mummy.
This will all be forgotten soon and the media will be back to handling him with kid gloves. The Queen should have kicked him into touch years ago.
lol you guys might need a hobby. The level of ‘Royal knowledge’ is bordering on obsessively neurotic. Jeez
Paying attention to the British royal family is my hobby, Lol. So glad you find that to be obsessively neurotic. I was thinking I was much too normal. Just the other day I noticed my facial tic was gone and my hair is growing back.
The BRF plays the very long game. Either William will come around or he won’t, but the fact is he likely has years to work it out.
As an American, I cannot forget the powerful movie ‘The Queen’. Seems to me the closes her Majesty has reached to being hated by her people was her friction with Diana. She does not want to go back to those days.
No matter what we say on the internet, any move the Queen makes to punishing Wills will backfire on her as he is Diana’s son. There will be pictures of little boy William and flashbacks to reports of how much the Queen hated his Mom and she’s taking it out on the poor baby! All she can do is let him dig his own grave.
If the BRF are playing the very long game they are playing it badly. Why?
Because William is showing no signs of improvement. I don’t think that him marrying Kate was a good idea as she supports his worst traits and habits. And the BRF didn’t try to help William when Carole “forced” him to marry Kate. They should have foreseen that William would get into a position from which Carole could shove him to the altar.
The Spanish Royal Family made sure their son studied a few things related to governing a country. As did the Swedish Royal family.
The RF of the Netherlands actually enabled their son to meet a woman in Argentinia and he married Maxima.
I don’t think that William did ever get out of his comfort zone. And even worse: whenever problems arouse they were solved for him. When he changed his subjects at uni the uni made sure that that would be as easy as possible for him: from history of art (humanities) to geography (mostly natural sciences). (or the other way around). Those subjects aren’t exactly closely related, are they?
But somehow the “Grey Men” overlooked the Kate problem.
Look at the difference in reaction to this and to Harry’s naked pool playing in Vegas. Harry was letting his hair down before he went to Afghanistan, and William should have cut his trip short for the Monday service. However, William is getting a pasting. Harry, while embarrassed, did not get the same treatment if I recall correctly. In fact, some in the military got naked with him. He had a lot more public support. Imagine if William had more public support. He’d be ribbed to be sure, but it would have more of an affectionate tone, and dads all over Britain might have posted videos of their dad dancing!
at one point William would have got the same treatment but he has squandered any public goodwill that he had. He is a senior family member and that come with certain responsibilities. He can still be a country family man all he needs to do is step up and do a bit more than he does now.
Harry was in his 20s, wasn’t married with two kids, and was not yet a full time working royal. Plus, the brilliant marketing line “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,” makes the public more accepting of drunken antics when they occur in Vegas.
William isn’t getting a pass because he and his wife are full time working royals and there are expectations they will show up for key events, like Commonwealth Day on the eve of Brexit. If they had shown up for few hours of work none of this would have happened. He brought it on himself.
Part of the reason is imo is that Harry was never phoney, he seems more authentic to the public and is sort of upfront about who he is and people sense it, even when he’s messing up. Also he was a single Prince who went to Vegas, got naked, embarrassed himself, the Monarchy, but he didn’t make excuses, He came back faced the music, took the ribbing with a smile, said he was stupid and sorry.
William seems guarded hidden, projecting a false image and angry when the curtain opens up and shows a side that doesn’t equate with his public relations persona.
I agree with your thinking, lavnbb.
And I agree with your last paragraph, Megan. He should have cut the trip short and been at the Abbey with everyone else.
But that’s sort of my point. I don’t begrudge him a let your hair down weekend. It was not showing up for an important event — important to *his* future. And because William has been a whiny baby, no one is cutting him any slack.
That is so true, bluhare.
First of all: Harry works, he does a lot of charity, he has created the Invictus games, so obviusly people are ready to forgive him.
Second and even more important: he doesn’t throw tantrums. I remember the Vegas mess, his first public speech started with “Everybody knows I’m not shy”.
End of it.
There’s a lot of difference.
I think another issue with William is that he is all, “Oh, I want to be a family man!!” and then went hunting when Kate and George went on George’s first trip with her family, and went to Jecca’s wedding on Easter weekend, Charlotte’s first weekend, BTW. And so on and so on. He claims to be a “family man” when it serves him, but certainly doesn’t act like it very much.
Both he and Harry despise the press. Come on, folks, let’s be honest – Harry was VERY aggressive against the press in his statement released about Meghan. He is also rumored to have been angry at the press at the wedding, as opposed to not into Meghan anymore, and that is why he had such cold body language. Imagine having to deal with such a petulant brat who sulks and won’t touch you because the paps are taking pictures? Both William and Harry are spoiled dilettantes who want things their way, or they will stomp their feet and make threats.
I’m thinking the whole lot of the men in that family are children: racist Phillip, petulant William, sulking Harry, tempermental Charles and HORRID Andrew. I’m glad we can vote our idiots out in a few years.
When Harry went to Vegas at most he embarrassed himself but he didn’t skip any important royal duties. Nudie pics, oh my.
When William went partying he skipped the important royal duty which would have been a huge gain for Britain due to Brexit. You could say that William did let down his own country. When soldiers desert in times of war they get shot. And they have a more valid reason to desert because they might die in a war they don’t consider necessary. William deserted Britain and then complained about the press being intrusive.
“One of these days he will come a cropper. ” To trip or fall, right?
Yes. I think it comes from falling off a horse, but it just means something will go horribly wrong. In Bill’s case, I’d say pride comes before a fall, you fool.
@digital unicorn, thank you for posting the fascinating interview. I listened to it in its entirety and thoroughly enjoyed it. While often vilified and sometimes reviled they come off as very down to earth and extremely aware or as we say “woke” in this interview. I could appreciate his consideration of the poor. I also could agree with his reasoning for not wearing medals while he was in service. Quite an honorable and sombering response to such a widespread and devasting, not to mention, difficult war.
Although not without his faults, it would have been curious to see how the monarchy would have changed had they allowed him to be king. He was definitely “with it” and ahead of his times.
So Will was briefly a ‘student’ where I work – rumor has it he was denied a full place by the board of admissions, and was allowed to take a ‘course’ as a courtesy to the former Chancellor (the Duke of Edinburgh). He demanded that he was taught private lessons by the head of department, and did not attend any classes with the ‘regular’ students. I believe he matriculated at the ‘royalist’ College – I’ll let you guys figure out which one (but not the same one as Charles). Apparently, his magic made for Wills course also did not include any kind of assessment, and he did not, ultimately receive any certification. this is all rumors…of course 🙂
So yeah, I’ll go with the ‘he’s a bit dim’ and up his own arse thing.
Ah, the famed estate management bespoke course.
Perhaps this version took?
He’s been on quite a few over the years.
I feel for anyone who derives a living from the Duchy of Cornwall. It will one day be under the management of a dimwit who doesn’t take advice.
Yep, Megan. And it’s a shame because you can’t really argue over Chuck’s handling of the duchy (well, you can as I do, in the sense that it should be in the public estate proper, not that of the BRF, but given the state of play, Chuck has done a great job). Normal Bill will, almost certainly, be its ruination.
As someone who once lived in the duchy, i have a soft spot of praise for Charles handling of the duchy if not his attempts to grab it for personal ownership.
Pretty much how I see it, LAK.
Would someone please explain what it means to “derive a living from the Duchy”? I thought they were just titles.
Nola: Some titles come with land attached. These tend to be the hereditary titles. Their ancestors were wily, smart or sucked upto the right monarch to be granted estates, land and, in some cases, towns for their personal wealth. Or they married a suitable heiress who came with land as their dowry.
Regular folk either rent or buy or are employed by the land owner in various capacities. That’s what we mean by ‘derive a living from the duchy’.
Unlike most landed titles, the duchy of Cornwall was and remains a govt property. The heir to the throne (notice no names) manages it and keeps the profits, but they can’t sell it or change many things therein without govt approval.
LAK, so if Harry becomes Duke of Clarence and married say a very wealthy woman can they create a Duchy out of it called the Duchy of Clarence?
No, Kitty. Landownership is now established. The lands associated with the royal duchies (Cornwall and Lancaster) are now owned by the British state but the running of and revenues from them go to the Prince of Wales and the monarch respectively. They are separate in this way from the Crown Estate properties.
It’s hard to explain the concept of the Crown to Britishers, let alone non-Britishers. But it’s not the same as the monarch his or herself. It’s not private wealth or land. It’s public wealth or land, like a trust which the British government gives to the monarch for maintenance. If we ever became a republic, the holdings of the royal duchies and the Crown Estate would not go with the departing royals as part of their own private fortunes.
No other peerages in the gift of Her Maj come with royal revenues.
Oh Sixer thanks for explaining that for me.
@Sixer, you would not believe the efforts to which I have gone, to explain this to people (both here and elsewhere). It’s like the word “Crown” renders them incapable of understanding that there can be things called the “Crown” which do not belong to the royals.
Tina – it’s hard, isn’t it? And that’s before you even start with legal arrangements, where the “the Crown” in the UK is “the People” in the US: an abstraction of the nation or the body politic.
When I tell people that the State Opening of Parliament and in particular the Queen’s Speech symbolises that Parliament is sovereign and the monarch is below it, not the other way around, they flat out refuse to believe me!
“But she has to read out what the Government tells her to read out, that’s the whole point!”
Claree, thanks for the tea 😉 Wow, I can’t believe he demanded private lessons. No wonder we didn’t hear much about it afterwards, if he did so little and then didn’t even receive a certification. And didn’t he take that hunting trip in the middle of it with Jecca?
Yep.
I also heard he took the train “home” one night for show, then spent the rest of the week in town away from Kate and babies.
Well, the magic course probably didn’t have very many ‘contact hours’, to be fair, most courses don’t. And, the University doesn’t normally issue ‘certificates’ for courses (there are 2-3 exceptions, and I believe he was not accepted to those courses because he didn’t meet the requirements), so I guess we can’t really blame him for that?
My opinion is, he took the ‘course’ as a PR tool, rather than to learn anything. Conveniently it wasn’t long after he received the Dukedom…lol.
Hunting trip with Jecca followed 1-2 weeks later with 10 days in the Maldives away from the 8-month-old baby.
@notasugarhere
he deserves oscar nod for father and husband of the year,lol!
this detached and absent way of parenting may be recipe for disaster as charles and himself are living proof of this.
they should reflect seriously on the jordan method where they choose among a pool of crown heirs instead of primogeniture .
haha Deedee – more tea. I now remember hearing about him ‘taking the train’ oh he was so ecofriendly, so normal. Now to hear it was just 1 night? Claree – yes, yes, that’s right, his dukedom was right around that time. So many pieces of the puzzle coming together. Notasugarhere – the Maldives trip…boy that looked amazing, it was their ‘2nd honeymoon.’ blah blah blah
Anyone remember, Kate took a ‘cooking course’ at that time too, but we were told she had been cooking for him all those years they were roughing it.
There is a former german politician who once had a Phd.
Then it turned out that his Phd thesis was plagiarized and then it turned out that he apparently didn’t know that his Phd thesis was plagiarized (roughly 40-60% plagiarized text). The suspicion is that he didn’t write his Phd thesis himself which explained why he didn’t know about the plagiarism. 😉
I wonder how William managed to get his university “homework” done.
Wow they are really going after his intelligence. Calling him a jerk is one thing; repeatedly calling him a dumba$$ is another.
Maybe the truth is coming out about him. I always believed that much of William’s image was false and press created to play on Diana’s goodwill.
More and more journalists talk about his dimwittedness.
Arrogant, hauteur, temper, convinced of his own intelligence, surrounded by yes men, and a dimwit.
It would be difficult for anyone, who has been cosseted from birth, and surrounded be people who never tell you you are wrong, who agree with everything you say, to not believe in their superior intelligence, in their own arrogance. I supposed he never failed a exam, either at Eton or at St Andrews. Who is going to give a failing mark to the future King?
@Maria – I believe both he and Harry received very average marks at Eton – I’m pretty sure he got at 2.1 at St Andrews – which isn’t terrible, but is also not a First. As I said above, he wasn’t accepted to Cambridge through the usual admissions route – so certainly there is a history of ‘average’ here…not failing, but certainly average.
I tend to give Harry a pass on his school results because he is dyslexic and that wasn’t diagnosed until he his final years at Eton.
He made up for it with his army career where he consistently received top marks in army exercises and earned his apache pilot licence on merit rather than being a prince.
Could be a way to try to explain why he insists in making the same obvious mistakes again and again: that he’s not very bright, but I think his lack of skills fall more into the emotional intelligence side.
Because he does not listen, and he thinks he is right.
The royal family are not known for their intelligence – nice but dim is a usual description.
You are so right. When Harold Nicolson was asked to write a biography about George V, he refused, claiming that the only thing the king did was shoot birds and stick stamps in his album.
it ‘s becoming a real problem when such high profile public figure isn’t conscious of his own limitations.
his position put him in the spotlight without the respect his granny inspires, the leniency duke of edimbourg is given because of his age, the efficient PR his father benefits from, the complete maternal protection andrew has, the popularity harry worked for.
Wow the first picture… look at Kate the “Art Historian” 😉
Ha! The second one, which I’ve subtitled “Duh”, is pretty interesting, too.
haha I had to take a second look. Kaiser picked some funny pics.
Thought it was just me. So, are the press no longer photo touching or are they trying for baby # 3.
i m so pissed she was given a vip tour there, without waiting queue for this i don’t give a s… about chefs d’oeuvres in link with my studying cursus look as a result.
the musée d’orsay is magnificient but has racist and classist policy.the new ceo profits from the royal visit to whitewash its image.
there have been a polemic about harassment from musée employees in order to expel poor surburbs high schoolers and their teacher. they made false accusations of disturbing behaviors.
but it will be red carpet treatment for royal uninterested people when their official mission is to educate.
Hard to believe it’s the same person sometimes! You see one picture of her one day, and she looks great: great skin, great hair, great everything. Then the next day, you see other (unretouched) photos, and it’s like, what the hell happened?!
What fascinates me is that people are continuously surprised that he’s not a great person, maybe not even a good one.
What did he do to qualify himself as a leader, role model, head of state etc? Oh right, he was born. Monarchy is a complete joke and has zero logical backing. Yet people are amazed when the royal family isn’t comprised of outstanding citizens. If you give someone a position simply for being born you can’t clutch your pearls when they suck.
Can’t wait for the monarchy, such as it even is anymore, to completely fade away.
Well, you need to clutch your pearls at some people who were voted into Office too. . . . . . .
Just saying 🤥
He reminds me in a way of JFK Jr. People expected great things of JFK Jr. because of who his father was, and throughout his life we kept hearing that soon he was going to run for office, that soon he was going to spearhead important causes, that soon he would take on his father’s mantle of leadership. People wanted him to be a reincarnation of his parent who was so beloved by the public.
But the last few years before he died, I started realizing, “Hey, this guy is basically middle-aged now, and he really has not done anything other than be a wealthy playboy with his vanity magazine enterprise and his string of starlet girlfriends, and he does not seem to want to be a leader or even to be terribly smart.” Of course, then he died tragically leaving the empty space upon which everyone could continue to project all of the leadership fantasies about what might have been, when, even if he had lived, it would likely never have happened.
Oh my, you are completely right. John John. He had one failed business after the other and failed the bar like 3 times but they kept calling him the next big thing. I mean he was easy on the eyes but really did not accomplish much considering all his resources and hype.
At least JFK jr had the charm. It’s amazing what people will overlook if you are charming.
He wanted to be an actor
But JFK Jr. was NEVER RUDE and always gracious. He also spent part of his youth going to impoverished areas helping people. He also was did a lot of charity work On his own. I don’t think William’s personality is close to JFK Jr .except both had famous mothers. John Jr may not have been an intellect, but he was always kind to those around him. I never heard one rude word about JFK Jr from people who knew him and I met him and saw him around NYC just out and about, He could not have been nicer or more of a gentleman in person.
@Nn it ‘s funny one of his nieces is given the choice he was refused by his snobbish mother.
when Obama was officially supported by the kennedy family ,it seems to me like he was the dream political heir that they wish jfk jr had been like.
Except that JFK, Jr. gave a powerful speech at the Democratic crowd 1988: a shining moment that lit the crowd, with his charisma, and potential for leadership and the ability to inspire and motivate the crowd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRKkxJKG7gM
Given that John Jr was only 39 when he died (and just five years after his mother’s passing), I don’t think he really had a chance to find his own best public niche. He really never had to do a thing, given the wealth he inherited.
As others point out, he was pleasant and down to earth in interviews and videos of him living his life in NYC. He admitted he wasn’t a legal genius in a very self-aware manner, never rumored to be petulant as an adult in the public eye.
I’m not clutching my pearls but I think William does have a huge expectation that he’ll have some sort of relatability due to who his mother was. We don’t hear much about him, as a person, and when we do get to peek through the knothole in the fence it is a bit disappointing.
Here’s my honest view of this mess:
HM simply can’t cope anymore about what has happened. She grew up during a time when the Head of the family was obeyed without question and she can’t handle her out of control grandsons.
For one reason or another, William has gone off the rails and HM can’t figure out how to get him back on track and is too old to handle a spirited, out of control young man who can’t be reasoned with. He’s like a prize horse that has been ruined from a lack of proper training and too much indulgence. He can’t be fixed and so I think William is going to be allowed to self destruct and only then can he get back on his feet.
It’s a shame how he had so much promise and now he’s essentially ruined. Even just ten years ago he was still at the top of his game and had a limitless future, but now he’s plain ruined. He is clearly uneducated, he can’t do an appearance without everyone secretly knowing that he is doing this only because he has no choice, and I am certain he hates how he is in a sham marriage with a woman who was supposed to bring a solid marriage to his life.
It’s a real pity no one really put him to the grind, but foolishly let him get away with shirking and dangling between ‘normal’ mainstream life and the royal life that is outside the mainstream. Certainly, it’s not like he fits in either one fully and it’s too bad he stupidly didn’t see what his friends/family saw in the Middletons that he refused to face. He’s a modern royal blockhead of the first order.
As for Kate, well, the less I say about her the better.
It just speaks to me of how weird and anachronistic the whole monarchy is now. Of course many heirs to the throne have been dim and snobbish and entitled. The whole point of an aristocracy is to be entitled. But the institution persists although peoples’ attitudes have changed.
I think that, at her age, HM is just tired of all the family drama and is leaving it to Charles to deal with. This woman is almost 91 yours old and the thought of her having to “deal” with her almost 35 YEAR OLD grandson is too much. Charles is Willnot’s father and really he should have dealt with Willnot’s bad attitude, entitlement issues and bad attitude long before it got this bad. Soon he will be King and in the position to, not only remove the Middletons from any influence, but also force Willnot to accept his role or retire into exile once and for all.
This reminds me of the stories about how Charles and Diana failed to discipline William as a child. Apparently they were more amused than concerned about it. He got so bad that the Queen stepped in and ordered them to discipline William!!!
If you extrapolate thst story from it’s cute origins, i don’t think Charles can ge relied upon in this instance. It will have to come from HM as it did in his childhood and the Balcony last year.
maybe the problem is in giving the education of an aristocracy upper class frat boy to a future sovereign and religious leader?
he wants the life of his friends when this century and the precedent one have shown it is not possible anymore.
Diana was a very young mother but charles should have known better.
I think Wills also enjoyed the protection of his grandmother. It is kind of when you have the one bad apple in your family. There is always one family member that sticks up for him or her no matter. They believe they have a different relationship with this person, i.e. the person will always listen to them and never disrespect them like they have done COUNTLESS others. But that all changes when the person inevitably ends up hurting the one person who always had their back. In some way maybe HM is at that point with Wills. If so, good. But even still, I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of Charles and his seething anger towards him and the Middletons. But I will truly enjoy the gossip of watching it unfold. 🍿
I thought the Queen and William had become close after Diana’s death. Didn’t he go to Windsor from Eaton every Sunday afternoon to discuss things. Apparently she was interested in his friends, and would ask about his studies. He would also get a lesson in constitutional history from her, from what I understand. He was better as a teenager than he is as a grown man. I had hopes for him then. What happened? He is becoming more like uncle David, who was quite the charmer in his twenties and failed to grow up.
I think turning a blind eye is also happening with Charlotte and, especially George. From what I read, he’s turning into a real brat too. Is history going to repeat itself?
Maria; What happened since constitutional history between the Queen and her royal grandson, is the *Middleton’s*. They have used their knowledge of Diana and her perceived hardship to separate him from his father, and even the Queen, (a la Diana’s POV). Back in the day, it would have been natural for Carole to take Diana’s side in the Wales-Wars.
He can be Normal Bill, the private citizen, if he wants, but he will have to walk away from all the perks and riches. Someone needs to tell him it’s time to grow up or get out.
Wow, Kate doesn’t look good at all in that first photo.
Plus, I think she starts looking like her mom.
Her mom looks better. It seems like all the Middleton’s age at an accelerated rate, but a bit of extra weight would sure help Kate not look so drawn.
William looks youthful next to her, which is crazy because he’s not exactly aging well or slowly either.
My first reaction when I saw that picture was that she looks unhappy, and disappointed. Of course it’s only one pic and she could have been tired. Or maybe her feet hurt.
I thought it was lack of photoshop. This is what she actually looks like? I don’t think I’ve seen pics before of such obvious bags and lines in her face. Perhaps the stress of dealing with Wills is getting to her.
@lady D
it has been some years now , (badly applied?) botox and strict diet have messed up with what was a really nice face.without filters it is hard.
Maria, again, …perhaps we have had a glimpse of her sadness…
I would tell her to just go ahead and enjoy her royal stature, without William. She has her children, homes, and so many opportunities! There are so many men who want to d**k a woman – she needn’t be lonely. In my opinion, she needs to be realistic.
This is the first time I’ve seen a photo of her and thought, wow, she looks so much older than her age. I agree that the stress of living with her man-child husband is aging her — but perhaps it’s all a little bit of “be careful what you ask for”? She wanted to be married to a prince, she wanted to give birth to the next heir to the throne, she wanted to someday be queen… Well, she got what she wanted, but what she didn’t understand was how much work would be expected of her. She’s trying her best not to do a lot of work, but it still must stress her out to know that her reputation is tarnishing because of it.
Man, some of the royals must be horrible people behind closed doors. Guess it can’t be hidden anymore in those “Internet times”.
sometimes i wish i was british so i would appreciate the snark on RF stories better
I will probably get yelled at for saying that, but I am pretty sure both Will and Harry (to a less degree) got their sense of entitlement from their late mother. Diana, albeit charming, was very manipulative. She always wanted to have her cake and eat it too with the press. Will just lacks her charisma (for the lack of a better word – I for my part, have never found her even remotely interesting or attractive).
Hang on a minute – you aren’t supposed to criticise the Sainted Diana, everything wrong with the sons MUST be the father’s fault!!
And don’t I know it… But all kidding and snark aside, she was a real piece of work. People tend to forget that. Not trying to belittle her achievements and her involvement with charities (why couldn’t Will inherit her work ethics?) but her private life was a mess of her own making, yet there was always someone else to blame.
I find myself defending her MORE even though i couldn’t stand her because her positives are increasingly downgraded in order to sell William AND Kate as better people.
You see it in news articles and from WK fans.
Yeah, I don’t get the whole “Will-not is destroying the RF” thing. If the RF are destroyed after QEII dies, it will be because of changes in society and the fact the monarchy are an outdated institution.
Will-not’s actions certainly don’t help, but being workshy and lazy is really not comparable to smuggling journalists into the palace so you can do an expose on how terrible the RF are, or stalking married men to the point you have to be “spoken to” by police, or actively waging war against the RF, or any of the other stuff Diana did. She did a lot of wonderful stuff too but the good doesn’t erase the bad.
Perhaps people don’t remember or aren’t old enough but she really did bring the RF to their knees – look how unpopular even QEII herself was after Diana’s death. Will doesn’t really make anyone but himself (and Kate) look bad, and if anything makes others in the RF look good.
Fluff, there’s a difference between a married-in soon-to-be-ex princess and the second in line to the throne. Married-ins can always be removed, but the one in line for the throne acting Throne Idle and entitled in this day and age is damaging.
Sorry duplicate post.
Agree.
After her death people forgot the many problems Diana had dealing with the press and focused on her successes, making her out to be a genius PR person. In reality she messed up a lot and brought a lot of her bad press on herself. She’d get some good press with her charity work or a sad story about her marriage, and then she’d almost immediately shoot herself in the foot. Around the time of her death she’d really pushed a few things too far, there were a lot of negative stories coming out and she was completely failing to counter them.
Her ‘strategy’ with the press only ever worked for a while because she was charismatic and people did feel sorry for her. And she was pretty, which also helps. William’s dull, unlikeable, unattractive and sympathy for his mother’s death is finally running out. That he thinks he can act like his mother and have it work at all just shows how deluded he is about how people see him.
A tragic and untimely death always bestows a halo effect on the deceased. Flaws are forgotten and the positives are emphazised.
I think we’d all have a very different view of Diana if she was still alive – and had continued on the course she was on when she was killed.
Diana came from her heart – for good or ill. Though some might call her flawed for being on a war path against the entire British royal institution, perhaps that speaks more of her courage. How many females would be willing to take that institution on with her heart on sleeves? She won. Fair and square.
However, that does not excuse Willy’s behaviour.
In my opinion, William needs more than indulgence by the Queen; or feeling censorious toward his father, and therefore rebellious. What William needs, is the full-on dedication, like his father to be relevant, and his mother’s devotion to what she deemed as her duty to the crown, although perhaps not the failings the people so crowned. I sniff an ideal, that we all search for, in their madness. William has no duty but to himself, and his poor pitiful moods.
Care to explain how she was manipulative? Charles was manipulative and used Diana.
Jesie just summed it up perfectly – see her comment. And I don’t think Charles was manipulative, just weak. He did what he was expected to do as a Prince – marry, have kids, sweep his feelings under the carpet. He didn’t want to marry Diana, but bowed to the pressure from inside the royal circles (and his mother and grandmother, probably). I think he was just as unhappy as she was, just more discreet about it.
Being manipulative and being used are not mutually exclusive.
@LAK I’ve never said they were. But she used him as well. Diana wanted all the perks of the position, in that respect she was not much different from Waity (or vice versa). She also never shied away from using the press to get what she wanted. As i’ve said – she did a lot of good, but painting her as a saint helps to perpertuate the narrative about two poor kids who lost their mother, because the press hounded her. And that’s just not true.
Diana lobbying for Charles being bypassed as king on national television is incredibly manipulative. especially considering that she knew how much her son abhorred the prospect of being king. She wanted to stick it to her ex-husband so bad that she was willing to overlook how her actions could effect her son. In essence, she put her need for revenge over the psychological welfare of her son! If that isn’t manipulative then I don’t know what is.
Then there are all the accounts of her crying on William’s shoulder and confiding her troubles to him. I don’t know if they are true or if she deliberately promoted that narrative. However, as someone who has been put in the position of being the confidante of a parent at a very tender age – I can tell you that it is a very emotionally manipulative act that no parent should subject a child to (teenager or not). It is incredibly damaging.
Tanguerita: i was responding to Kitty. Should have made that clear. I agree with your comments.
Arthistorian: For me, the Panorama interview crystalised so much. I cringed (anf still do) at the obvious manipulative presentation where she is deliberately wan, big kohl-ed eyes, sniffing throughout like she’s on the verge of tears, meanwhile she’s saying the most awful things about Charles and the family and presenting herself as the victim.
The entire Panorama interview that she did in 1995 was one giant exercise in manipulation. She played the victim admirably, it was always someone else’s fault. She admitted to her adultery with Hewitt, and suggested that her husband wasn’t fit to be king. I think it backfired on her, she even was said to have regretted it.
So your saying Diana wanted to be Queen more than anything and wanted the perks and lifestyle as a royal?
Off topic but was Diana a religious woman? Did she believe in God?
Kitty, I don’t know who you are replying to in your post. But, in answer to your question, I think more than anything she wanted Charles to be bypassed by William, so she could be the mother of the king. She said she never wanted to be queen, only of people’s hearts. I truly think she connected with people, and they to her. As far as being religious, I think she was spiritual, kind of roll your own, not following any kind of organized faith. She believed that her grandmother was watching over her, stuff like that. I believe she was devastated when the Queen pushed for a divorce. And the Queen did that following the Panorama interview because she’d had enough. Very poor judgement on Diana’s part.
Maria, I think I read she was into physics and the Islam faith, ect…
Kitty,
You are right about the Islam thing. I think she was ready to convert because at the time she was seeing that Doctor Isnat Khan and was madly in love with him. I respect him because unlike the others he had never given an interview about Diana. (Not that I know of anyway, unlike that awful James Hewitt who is still giving interviews 30 years later).
That whole Panorama interview but especially when the the interviewer asked what she would like to be and she did the whole looking from under the eyelashes like a toddler would and said “I would like to be the queen in people’s hearts”
Pass the sick bucket please. And went on the trash the father of her children in public.
The Panorama interview really changed my opinion of her. It just put a spotlight on how manipulative she was and I don’t have much respect for that.
Panorama interview:
The problem with passive-aggressive behaviour and sticking it to your family is this:
at some point the conflict will increase to a level where such open warfare as that Panorama interview is necessary to defend oneself. Let me explain:
There are precisely two ways of dealing with enemies:
Kill them or make friends with them.
There is no third option. Because if you fail to kill an enemy and don’t make friends with him then he will rise against you later.
With Charles and Diana that was the problem. They didn’t find a way to become friends or to get back to civilised relations. Their conflict escalated and then such things like the Panorama interview happened.
It is really a no-go to trash your partner in public.
If anything I find Charles more charismatic
Haha, thank you! Someone’s finally said it.
Whilst Charles does seem to have a poor version of a backbone when it comes to his son, I think people forget that Diana had a sizeable input with him and Harry before her death. More so William due to age, and I think that is quite telling.
@Tanguerita – This – I was waiting for someone to get to it. There’s a difference between being shrewd and highly intelligent. She was poorly educated and I suspect suffered from narcissistic personality disorder, which is particularly difficult to treat because the sufferer always thinks the problems are someone else’s fault. They are also notoriously charming, often charismatic, and believe their own lies. People forget how ghastly Diana’s home life was, and she and Charles were dreadfully mismatched. So while not defending William’s petulance, or the monarchy itself, I wonder if the truth is, William never had much of a chance. Harry presents better, I’ll give him that, but I’m not at all sure that he isn’t much better of a deal. I totally get Markle the 35 y.o. D-List actress figuring she’s better off with a new career as an HRH – but, really, sometimes I want to send her a note saying, “Don’t go there . . . ” The family strikes me as impossible. Only someone as obsessed with social ambition as Carole Middleton could have been so eager to subject her daughter to its snares . . . .
When it comes to the Windsors I’d say “Run for the hills”!
I’ll yell at you, but only to say, “Yes! You’re completely right on all points!”
She was completely needy and unstable. I dislike Charles’ treatment of her but I think he saw her antics for what they were and thought she was just too immature and a little girl.
Well yes, she was barely 20 when she married Charles and her upbringing didn’t exactly help her mature. Her mother married an older man (Diana’s father), too, and divorced him later. Diana’s father remarried so Diana had a stepmother at age 15 / 16.
Add a typical upper-class aristo upbringing to that which means that girls don’t learn much at all because they are supposed to marry and become obedient (inferior) wives. Children are sent into boarding schools at a rather young age and many of them seem tough but simply try to suppress all feelings and emotional needs. I find that children at boarding schools don’t really “learn to handle their emotions” but they just suppress everything to appear tough.
(There are some videos on youtube on the matter, look out for more critical reports on boarding schools.)
Poor Diana. She would have become a great lady if only she had married later or married a different man.
Did you ever think William might have taken after his mom and have some mild mental issues? Also did you ever wonder if all of this is Charles trying to make William look worse so that people will not be calling for Charles to abdicate for William?
Too many people gave William a pass for too long even long long after his mother had died.
That is the problem.
I can’t imagine working for them. Dealing with William’s temper tantrums, babysitting Kate all day long and then there’s also control freak Carole – no thanks.
Can any of the British people translate this: “He’s turning into a mix of Norfolk squire and dim West London Sloane in red trousers.”
What is “Norfolk squire” and “West London Sloane”? What do red pants have to do with anything?
Google says he is a mix of:
Definition of squire
1: a shield bearer or armor bearer of a knight
2 a : a male attendant especially on a great personage
b : a man who devotedly attends a lady : gallant
3a : a member of the British gentry ranking below a knight and above a gentleman
b : an owner of a country estate; especially : the principal landowner in a village or district
–
Definition of sloane
A fashionable upper-class young woman/man, especially one living in London.
Think “country gentleman” versus “trust fund baby” who’s only thought is getting drunk and having a good time. The point is Willam wants to give the impression he’s a mature family man while partying with his friends and making a fool of himself and the RF. All the while not doing the duties he is expected to do to earn his keep.
Norfolk squire = Person (male) from the county of Norfolk.
Norfolk is rural, so in this context, implies that William is a rural, out of touch with the world country person.
West London Sloane in red trousers = posh, upper/ upper middle class person who lives in West London as close to Sloane square as they can afford. The male of the species tends to wear red or yellow trousers. Sloanes are generally thought to be quite dim, but with family money that gets them through life until they marry and move back to the country pile with a labrador for extra company.
He’s a mixture of a puffed up local property owner, and not-too-smart trust fundie who had had everything given to him, thinks he’s all that and a bag of chips with nothing to show for it. And if red pants is Brit-speak, it means red underwear.
Red trousers. Not red pants/underwear (if you see someone write “red pants” they are American). Red trousers are a thing that is strongly associated with that rare bird, the rich posh twat.
Normally I wouldn’t be so judgemental but it’s a good rule of thumb that any adult man wearing red trousers is a whopping twat.
There is an east-coast American version called Nantucket Reds. They are the favored warm-weather trouser of the old-money sort that summer on the islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. The kind that had beach houses there generations before the tacky new money folk moved in. Originally a brick-ish red twill, they’ve faded over decades of wear and washing to become a salmon pink color. The more faded they are, the more prestige they have. You can buy them pre-faded these days, but no one worth their WASP-y, Mayflower Society. old money credentials would be caught dead in those.
The google tells me that red pants are symbolic of an upper class garden party. I guess the equivalent of madras shorts? https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/fashion/men-in-red-pants-stuck-in-old-cultural-baggage.html?_r=0
Hahaha. Apparently my red underwear guess was a bit off!!
It’s not restricted to garden parties. They is sloane version of smart casual trousers. Red or yellow.
An amusing article in defence of the red trouser wearing gentleman.
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/country-life/in-defence-of-red-trousers-83921
Thank you all for the explanation!
Add a boater to the red trousers, and you’ve got yourself an Oxbridge toff.
The best thing would be to abolish the monarchy after the Queen or Charles is gone but yeah, I know, that won’t happen.
Dumb question: What’s a Norfolk squire?
Person (male) from the county of Norfolk.
Norfolk is pretty rural, so there is an implied pejorative about rural, out of touch with the world country folk.
Just a squire who happens to klive in Norfolk, as he does! No different from any other squire:
” man of high social standing who owns and lives on an estate in a rural area, especially the chief landowner in such an area.”
Norfolk is a weird one to explain. There are two separate sets of negative/pejorative associations and stereotypes attached to Norfolk.
One is of basically being inbred, ignorant hicks. I have a friend from Norfolk and he’s always saying,”High five! Or as we say in Norfolk, high six!” Imagine the stereotypes that exist about somewhere like Appalachia, or parts of the south that are considered ‘redneck’ or ‘hillbilly.’ You know, “he slept with his sister because the sheep could run too fast.” (This is not me saying it – people from Norfolk are lovely and as intelligent as anyone else – just that’s a stereotype that exists.)
The second is that Norfolk is a popular place for wealthy Londoners who want to live out a delusional fantasy of bucolic rural living to buy holiday (vacation) or weekend cottages. They buy cottages, get interior designers in from London to do them up with all mod cons, then drive down on a Friday night with a car full of expensive groceries, spend the weekend watching TV or reading the newspaper or eating and drinking and then drive back to London on Sunday, having not interacted with locals or the area in any way and having done nothing they couldn’t have done exactly the same in London. In doing so actual locals get priced out of their own area, and homes are bought and left empty most of the time which has a knock-on effect on the entire area.
So Norfolk Squire is one or possibly both pejorative stereotypes in one. Basically they’re saying he’s thick as a plank and an out of touch elitist.
You could have stopped at Norfolk is a weird! 😆
This is getting liking shooting fish in a barrel.
What is a little surprising is that history is repeating itself. The Queen tried to intervene with Charles during his marriage problems with Diana, but was also hands off at times when he really stuck his foot in it.
Charles and William seem to be classic narcissists, so who can get through? The public and the family looks to the Queen because that may be the only one they would listen to. But once someone has turned into a narcissist, there isn’t much that anyone can say to them.
I think in the end TQ told them to get a divorce and get it over with. She wasn’t keen on Camilla coming into the family officially but Charles stuck to his guns and made it clear he wasn’t giving her up this time and TQ finally realised she had to accept it. I actually think that on a personal level they get on well.
I agree, TQ had to tell them to just rip the Band Aid off. Yeah, it does seem like they are friends, but she has that bolt hole to get away to. Can’t blame her.
…. their PR team must be like bees in a hive .. I hope they don’t wheel the children out for a photo opportunity to calm the waters.
So are you saying that’s HM knows William does not want to be King?
He’s made it pretty obvious. She probably thinks he’ll outgrow it.
But she and Charles must know that will never happen.
Who knows what the world will be like in 30 years. For all we know, William might abdicate in 2047 and by that point no one will care…
I live in West London.
Don’t ever come to Putney bish or we’ll eat you alive.
Putney’s SW and common (used to work there) as opposed to, like, W11, where you are likely to find famous Brit actors and their families.
Don’t know Putney well but SW13 (Barnes) is super posh and very celeby. More so than Chelsea, actually.
I don’t have kids but I often hear grandparents treat their grandkids differently from their own kids. Maybe the Queen gave Willnot more leeway than with Charles, and since she is not into confrontation, this is one of the consequences.
Moderators ate my comment about The Sun. Wow. Maybe I can get away with saying google them. Context is everything.
Don’t take it personally, it happens to mine regularly even when they are totally inoffensive.
Yeah not offensive at all. It’s happened to me before as well. You’re definitely not allowed to say too much about how the showbiz gossip game is played. I get it.
The Sun is hot garbage and not respectable at all though. That needs to be said.
And don’t criticise the article!
A couple of months ago, Lola from the love Lola blog had a very vague comment about how she was hearing King Henry might not be the most far fetched scenario after all. She wouldn’t go into sources (obviously) or any more detail but she clearly was hearing stuff behind the scenes.
Now look at William press vs Harry press. And the assignments Harry is getting. And Meghan is definitely being rolled out, not just by her PR people, but clearly with the blessing of Harry’s people.
I know, I know, all the LABELS that say she could never be queen (actress, divorce, American, etc) but I’m not convinced the powers that be don’t see her as a possible asset in multi-cultural UK. The monarchy ensures its own survival above all, and they play a very long game.
Can’t wait for the push back on this comment, but it’s interesting to think about, no? And those that say Carole would never allow it, Carole nor William for that matter, are a match in power for the apparatus of the state.
Carole is completely irrelevant in all this, despite what people think. She has no say in the matter.
She could do with giving PW a bit of advice about the work ethic, something I don’t think she herself was ever short of.
I think Carole is seen as the person William listens to, and more importantly, whose advise he is most likely to take.
The theory is that since Carole’s goal is to be the royal family matriarch, the power behind the throne if you will, nevermind Kate or her grandkids, she will not allow William to step away from his royal destiny.
She will work to ensure he never walks away no matter how unhappy it makes him.
The fact that technically she has no say in the matter isn’t the point, her perceived power lies in her alleged position as his no 1 advisor.
I’d say she’s behind Jecca. Not even Carole can stop William from choosing Jecca over the Middleton family when he wants to.
Hashtagwhat, so do you really think HM and Charles are working on a plan to make King Henry happen?
Not a chance. They’re all for tradition. Breaking tradition could also mean it would be ok not to have a monarch at all in the eyes of quite a few.
Cookiejar, I disagree. The Queen knows anything is possible especially her huge belief in God.
I could see an alternate succession plan put together quietly as a backup. (Charles might not even know about it.)
This scenario is so sad. Harry won’t be king. Wiliam will just be poor at the job, like DT. There really is no other option, however, we might wish. William is just going to screw over the UK like the Donald is doing to the US – simply by being elected (or in line for the throne).
Stop wishing. Give Harry a life, apart from his brother’s tantrums!
wolfpup, I disagree. I sincerely think Harry will be King.
Perhaps the Queen is giving William enough rope to hang himself with it?
At some point the public and the political establishment and the other establishment will be too miffed at the prospect of William becoming king. And then they might have some ace they can play against him.
Remember Wallis and Edward? It was Edward’s younger brother who became King George.
I can imagine that Britain’s polticial and other establishment would pull such a stunt again if William proves to be an equally bad royal prospect as Edward.
I think Ms. Meg is kaput !!!
“William will, instead of accepting any blame himself, simply gnash his teeth and bemoan the horrid media..”
Well doesn’t that sound… familiar
It’s an unflattering angle but Kate’s face looks terrible in that first pic–droopy, tired, and ten years older. Yikes.
Sad is sad – and there is nothing wrong with being (or looking like) 10 years older….
As much as I was a huge Diana fan a lot of this is due to her delusional viewpoint that her children could have ordinary public and private lives. I recall her confronting reporters on the ski slopes or on tropical vacations with the princes demanding they “”Respect their privacy.” Had they been reared to believe the only privacy they can rely on is behind closed doors with their closest family and friends (albeit with staff always around) then perhaps you wouldn’t here or see this train wreck Catherine and William are now!
That is a fallacy. She didn’t raise them to be normal, she tried to raise them to respect their royal role while letting them do everyday things like get sweets at the corner shop. For all she did against it later, Diana was a big believer in the monarchy at the beginning. She was also first in line using the kids as PR weapons against Charles, with photo ops skiing, water park photos, etc.
Quit blaming a woman who had the guts to stand up to a monarchy. We may disagree with her – but what ovaries!!!
William is solely responsible for his direction of duty.
A year ago or so British press sort of respected Willy’s media ban of photos of him and his family during their so-called private time. And when a photo did get published, Willy’s lawyers aggressively pursued the publisher and/or photographer.
So what has changed? Why was British press willing to publish these Verbier photos when they would not have done so a year ago? And why aren’t Palace attorneys aggressively threatening Daily Mail, The Sun and other British press who published the photos?
wasn’t there a story about wills using too much the royal attorneys?
if i remember well they aren’ t paid but benefit from the prestige of the firm.
but it seems he was attacking everyone for anything and exhausting their goodwill.
have they put limits to involving them in his bratty lost cause?
There was a documentary regarding the press and the cambridges about a two years ago I which said the press were getting fed up of having strict access to them. Especially when they were in Australia in the programme a journalist with limited access, said on camera, I am not confortable with this
I think that basically they got fed up with him behaving like a mega douche to them. They bite back every once in a while to remind him of what they can do.
In this case they could argue that it was in the public interest to know about the trip as he skipped out on a big Royal event to go get hammered. Esp now as with Brexit the UK will look to strengthen economic ties with the Commonwealth nations and then there is his new ‘role’ as a Brexit Ambassador. Its an event that’s important to his future role and he should have been there – his uncle Prince Andrew, who was in Verbier at the same time, came back early to attend.
Sometimes I think that he is playing Diana, with far, far less finesse.
Wow … Duchess Duckface can even make Chanel look like sh*t!
Even like this ,it s still one of her best looks as a royal spouse.
the photos of her next to the older classy stylish beautiful british ambassador wife were the shadiest thing to release.
french posh style continues to rule!
Anne Llewellyn was understated and classy. The color of her evening gown wasn’t a favorite of mine, but the style was great – AND she has the personality to wear it. The shorter dress she wore earlier seemed somewhat girlish to me but even still, she had the confidence and personality to pull it off. The following day she was in a peachy colored coat and looked great. It’s all about attitude, and she clearly is OK with her role as the ambassador’s wife. PLUS, her hairstyle is perfect for her. You didn’t see her running her fingers through her hair, clutching her crotch, or slouching – like Kate usually does. And there weren’t the manic crazy open mouthed guffaws that we see from Kate. UGH.
Kate always looks “Sunday-dressed” to me. To her, being royal seems to mean a bit better stitched than all the other parishioners. However, I do not see that, or labels, as fashion, simply the Sunday church parade.
@ vava – I thought it was hideous.
The first photo of Kate is really unfortunate. It makes you think if this was a really really bad angle or how much her other pictures are photoshopped. She’s only in her 30s!
I think you’ll find, this is her. sad, lonely and wondering what she’s got herself into marrying the man child.
Don’t cry too hard for Kate. Lots of women have unhappy marriages and yet they still have to go to work every day, take care of the kids, and worry about the rent.
Kate has two beautiful children, nannies, a palace, a country house, and millions and millions of dollars.
Yes – totally agree, PennyLane! She should be very, very happy, with or without. She managed all of this so she should now cut losses – and go forward with happiness in the strength of her position! She can do anything she wants – just like Willy!
She is looking tired and worn-out and desinterested.
It would be clever for Kate to leave William soon: she would get alimony for quite a while as the kids are still small and hopefully keep a title or two and probably even the rooms in Kensington Palace.
But Carole won’t allow Kate to divorce William.
Even Pippa’s marriage depends on Kate, I believe. Pippa’s market value would sink if Kate and William were to divorce.
It’s her resting face. I guess I’d rather see that than the crazy over-the-top facial expressions she typically employs.
What it needs is for the D of E and Charles to get him by the ear, drag him into the study and let him know in no uncertain terms that his behaviour is not acceptable and has to change NOW. And shout loudly so it can be heard by the eavesdroppers leaning against the door.
Does anyone else think the whole “skipping Commonwealth Day” thing is being blown out of proportion? I just went back and looked at coverage of the past two years’ ceremonies, and it doesn’t seem like the entire royal family is ever there. In 2016 it was just HM, Philip, Will, Kate, Harry and Andrew. The year before that, it was HM, Philip, Will, Kate, Charles and Camilla.
Granted, Will and Kate could have picked a better year to sit it out, but I highly doubt it would have become a “thing” on its own. Nevertheless, the columnists are all retroactively clutching their pearls about it. Seems a bit cynical if you ask me.
The royals that attend ate the top 6 in the line of succession. Plus their spouses. Edward and Anne are just supporting family.
That said, when they skip the event, they are usually attending to some royal duty on the same day, and if not, tend to lay low.
The Commonwealth has become increasingly important to Britain as an economic trading block and the govt has been doing it’s best to suck up with each successive year.
In this year of Brexit, that is more important than ever.
Btw: this service is followed by a reception. The attendees tend to be a cross section of Commonwealth ambassadors and diplomats. Soft diplomacy.
As Great Britain wants the Brexit they need to keep their remainin allies: the Commonwealth.
Make no mistake: Brexit will be an economic downer for the British economy: because many EU trade agreements become invalid with the Brexit and have to be re-negotiated and that will take a few years because of the sheer number of such agreements: several hundred.
also: if Great Britain wants trade agreements with the EU or access to EU markets then they will have to pay for that. the reason is that keeping up trade agreements requires services that need to be paid for and usually the costs are split 50:50 between both trading partners. Also there are taxes and other costs. The EU has such trade agreements with Norway and Norway pays several hundred million Euros for that.
Bottom line is that Norway simply accepted many EU regulations and standards.
See wikipedia here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93European_Union_relations
Quote:
“The EEA EFTA participation is hence on an equal footing with EU member states. The total EEA EFTA commitment amounts to 2.4% of the overall EU programme budget. In 2008 Norway’s contribution was €188 million. Throughout the programme period 2007–2013, the Norwegian contribution will increase substantially in parallel with the development of the EU programme budget, from €130 million in 2007 to €290 million in 2013. For the EEA and Norway Grants from 2004 to 2009, Norway provided almost €1.3 billion.[8][9]”
I doubt that either William nor Kate understand what the Brexit really means for GB. I even doubt that they care about the consequences of Brexit. As long as they get to live a pampered life they are fine even if things get worse for the majority.
Sure, I understand all that. But what’s your conclusion? That by not attending the event, William and Kate *endangered* the UK’s post-Brexit economic future? Come on. I highly doubt Britain’s success in maintaining trade relations with Commonwealth countries will be that dependant on which relatives of their powerless figurehead chats with some ambassadors once a year. Realistically, Australia isn’t going to go, “Well, we were GOING to sign a historic and mutually profitable mining agreement with you guys, but the Queen’s son’s son didn’t show up at that thing, so EFF THEM!” The goddamn Queen and Prince Charles were there, so to say the welcome was insufficiently royal is a bit much, no?
The Queen has the obligation to rule her Royal Family. That is what being Queen is about. So it shouldn’t matter if she likes his temper tantrums or not she must deal with him. He is the 2nd in line to the throne and currently he is a problem.
As for a private life:
Most people work part time or even full time and still manage to have a private life / family life. I don’t see how working part-time at best would interfere with William having a private life / family life.
William wants the Royal perks without doing any kind of work. That is all he wants. But he doesn’t get that no king and no princeling ever had the perks without doing the work. He really should read a bit more about his ancestors.
Speaking of which, anyone read the article on the BRF that Kathy Benjamin did for Cracked. A ton of the comments are the usual “I hate monarchy etc etc”. But even she mentions how notoriously lazy Will is known to be. Somebody in the comments said they hadn’t heard anything like that, and her response was basically to detail all the receipts. http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-british-royal-family-has-more-drama-than-any-cw-show/
And this came out before Commonwealth Day.
WendyNerd, Disfunction, function what’s your junction??