Duchess Kate only had one other boyfriend before she got with Prince William?

The Daily Mail has a sprinkling of newish details about Duchess Kate and Prince William. You’ll remember, it’s The Mail’s Katie Nicholl who has a new book about Kate, but The Mail (in general) has very good (re: Middleton) sources. Unfortunately, Katie Nicholl sort of gave away the biggest conspiracy early on, the one about Kate meeting Prince William before university and how Kate had basically stalked William for two years before he finally noticed her. So what other gems does The Mail have? Hint: it involves Kate’s attempt to mean-girl anyone related to Isabella Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe. And it involves wigs. Some highlights:

*When William and Kate broke up in 2007, William tried to make Isabella Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe his new girlfriend, but she wasn’t into it. William was said to be quite taken with her and that worried Kate. When Kate and William got back together, Nicholl says Kate “made it a condition that William cease contact with Isabella.” I think this is also the reason that Kate seems so anti-Cressida. Cressida is Isabella’s half-sister. Awkward!

*Before Kate and William got engaged, back in 2010, they wore “Day-Glo comedy afro wigs” to watch Toy Story 3 in Wales. It was for charity…? A source told The Mail: “They turned up in fancy dress and wore big afro wigs. Prince William’s was purple if I remember rightly. No one knew they were coming until they turned up, and they said they were wearing the wigs for charity. Although they were trying to be incognito, people recognised them instantly — but no one would have dreamed of taking a photograph. That’s just not the way things are done on Anglesey.”

*Remember this? “William openly shared the [Anglesey] house with Kate even before their marriage, although she retained her London pied-a-terre for the sake of appearances.” I remember that. I always thought that was one of the main reasons why William decided to propose – because the Queen was not pleased that William had asked Kate to move in with him in Anglesey and the Queen was trying to shut it down.

*Local Anglesey resident Lesley Matthews, 65, recalled: “I saw William jogging on his own several times near our farm. He would wave and say hello, even though he must have run for several miles. He and Kate would go pheasant shooting once a month, when he had a day off. My grandson would regularly see them there. They were always very friendly, asking how we were.’

*Will and Kate’s Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace has been “filled with some of the choicest antiques from the Royal Collection (the Queen gave her granddaughter-in-law carte blanche to borrow whatever took her fancy).”

*Kate shops at a store called Homebase: “Among her most recent purchases were a £9.99 red felt cushion with the word ‘Love’ embroidered across the front, a £22.99 faux leather letter tray and a £10.99 magazine file.”

*Kate does her own fish-shopping: ‘She liked a bit of salmon fillet or cod loin,’ observed one shopkeeper. ‘She always asked what was fresh that day, and always about the price. I got the impression that she was quite careful with her money.’

[From The Mail]

Katie Nicholl has also been telling outlets that Kate only really had one big romance before she and William started up – apparently, the guy’s name was Harry (hm!) and he dumped her just before her last year of high school (prep school or whatever). She was apparently “devastated” and she swore off men. Except that timeline makes it sound like she was devastated and so she decided to throw herself in Prince William’s path over and over. And Nicholl also claims that William was the first guy she dated at University, but wasn’t the Official Middleton Line that Kate had a boyfriend her first year and that William pursued her before her relationship was over? Funny how these stories keep changing and changing.

Since Will and Kate are pretty much moved out of their Anglesey home now, photographers and newspapers are finally publishing photos of their little rental cottage. I’m including some pics below.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and PCN.

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

130 Responses to “Duchess Kate only had one other boyfriend before she got with Prince William?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kkhou says:

    This all seems like not a big deal. Who cares how many people she dated before? They waited a long time to get married, so it’s not like they rushed into anything.

    • Florc says:

      It’s not that her only having 1 bf before William is a big deal. It’s that there’s a slow leak of info and stories given t us to slowly change our perception of Kate. Like the bit at the end of her grocery shopping…She would always ask what’s fresh that day and was always concerned about cost. This is to counter the evidence that she shops almost daily at expensive boutiques. By listing the cheaper items she bought is a trick.

      Also, the stories are changing all the time. No one can get their timelines straight.

    • Chicagogurl says:

      This is a huge deal, MASSIVE! 10 years later, its not wonder people have concentrated on anything else in this time. I get most of my celebrity “facts” about the royal couple from OK magazine, but there was a Lifetime movie called William & Kate that accurately depicts how everything went down. They spent a significant amount of time showing how HE persued HER, not the other way around. Lifetime is never wrong about these things.

  2. Spooks says:

    Christ, so what? They make it sound like he was some mindless moron without free will. I don’t even like the woman, but let’s shame her for not working enough NOW, and not stupid things from her past.
    Get a republic, Brits, seriously.
    And the small cottage is huge.

    • Andrea says:

      I agree. I also think everyone wants her to be the next Diana and it’s not going to happen. She’s pretty self involved and seems to be so totally into him. I’d like her way more if she a) actually put on some weight and acted like a normal new mum b) didn’t seem to be so interested in pleasing her man.

      • anosy says:

        So you rather she isn’t interested in her man? uhh strange…. how do you know how she is as a mom? i also think she doesn’t want to be the new diana and it is a very different time with the internet and the press, diana was very manipulative with the press not to say she didn’t do good things.

      • Florc says:

        Anosy
        The choices are not black and white. She can live without living solely for William. And Kate has been seen more with nannies doing all the care for George when she still has an empty schedule. And yea. Diana wasn’t awesome, but she worked.

    • anosy says:

      what a load of BS, “nannies doing all the work”, you have seen her with a nanny one time ONE time. nobody knows how much time she spend with her child or not. and diana was next in line with charles and will and kate are not, so they are in very different circumstances.

      • bluhare says:

        While I agree no one knows how much time WC spend with their child, they did have a part time nanny before he was even born. The job advert for their now cook had a laundry list of duties, one of which was part time child care. Since he was born, they’ve hired William’s old nanny. I would think that means the housekeeper is no longer responsible for any child care, or it’s been bumped down to when the main nanny isn’t able to take care of George. She’s supposed to be part time too. Or maybe two part time equal one full time. No clue, but to imply to everyone they’re really hands on is a bit of an oversell.

      • Florc says:

        Bluhare

        I tried counting their nannies. For a while they had 2 nannies that were listed as jack of all trades. I suspect if there’s a housekeeper that is also listed as part time wet nurse/nanny/baby related assistant it’s a nanny. And these are the staff members listed as their own. Who knows how many there are is Charles is footing a bill.

        Anosy
        These 2 are not the fairy tale package that’s been sold to many. The evidence is there. If you decide to ignore the facts that’s fine, but it’s not BS because it contradicts your image of Will and Kate.

      • bluhare says:

        Florc, the people I’m thinking of are (a) the Italian woman who’s their housekeeper/cook. That’s the advert I saw where part time child care was mentioned. And (b) William’s old nanny who was just photographed with Kate and the baby.

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare – not forgetting the mother’s help type person they had installed at Middleton manor immediately after the birth together with the Italian jack of all trades lady whose duties included childcare.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK, can’t believe I’m going to do this (gulp), but the housekeeper is the Italian woman they took to Bucklebury. There were photos of her on her way there. She’s the one who was teaching Kate Italian cookery.

        So, in the nanny pool, I’m sticking with two. One regular (William’s old nanny) and one back up (housekeeper).

    • Linda says:

      FLORC
      I agree with annoys. How can you say “nannies do all the work”. You are so quick to believe every distasteful thing about Kate. You can criticize her for her poor work ethics but I think criticizing her as a mother is a low blow coming from you . I am not a fan of Kate and I am not under any illusions about her but ur comment was uncalled for. Unless you have concrete evidence to support your claims, that’s a new low even for you.

      • deeda says:

        Ok I’m going to open mysel up to ridicule I know, but my problem is not the amount of household help they may or may not have, but rather the amount of lying and subterfuge they seem to engage in.

        I’m a single woman with no kids and I have a full time housekeeper, a part-time butler/handyman, a gardner and a personal stylist. No I’m not a millionaire (seriously not at all) I’m an executive who works and travels a lot and lives overseas where manual labor is relatively affordable. When I have kids I will definitely have a nanny and I feel no shame about that. I also however understand that this life is not “normal” and I certainly wasn’t raised in a household with that much help even though there were 4 kids!

        My issue with W&K is that they don’t embrace being royalty *enough*! If they would just own the lavish lifestyle they live then people wouldn’t care as much because its not unheard of. But to claim that you ask about the price of fish in rural Wales, but are then seeing taking multi-week trips to private islands like Mustique- to that I say give me a break…

  3. Joy says:

    I just cant warm up to Kate as hard as I try. She just sounds like she was raised to “marry well” and she has spent the last decade trying to make that happen. And she strikes me as a snob. I cant stand Will either, he is charming on camera but I think he is as shallow and removed from reality as his wife.

  4. Emily says:

    >> ““Among her most recent purchases were a £9.99 red felt cushion with the word ‘Love’ embroidered across the front, a £22.99 faux leather letter tray and a £10.99 magazine file.”

    Ewww!

    • eliza says:

      Ewwww is right. Those purchases don’t make me think she is just like us. They remind me of people who have so much, they just start buying junk out of sheer boredom.

    • DailyNightly says:

      I doubt these items are going to blend in well with the vast amount of the Queen’s antiques that are now adorning their apartment. Can you picture the Queen’s face if she is served her tea on a faux leather tray while resting against the plush red cushion?

  5. aims says:

    I had no idea she was so relentless with Will.

  6. The Original Mia says:

    The way they made the “cottage” sound I though it was a 2 bedroom ranch with a kitchen and bath. They made it sound as if they were roughing it. I can’t with these people.

  7. n m says:

    Does anyone seriously care who she dated in highschool? She’s 32 and married with a baby. To the future king of England. What a stupid non story! ! !

    • Zombie Shortcake says:

      I agree it’s stupid, though it’s widely believed the Middletons themselves are Nicholl’s sources. For some reason, Kate’s family feels compelled to flesh out her biography, which is a little strange at this point.

  8. Emily says:

    Also: I’m SURE that Kate had a boyfriend at the start of University, but I don’t remember his name. (LAK, can you help us out?)

    • LAK says:

      Rupert Finch.

    • anosy says:

      She dated Rupert Finch *spell? for a year at st andrews, katie nicholl just adjust her story for the narrative about stalking, otherwise her story wouldn’t add up. She is a daily mail reporter after all.

      And those stupid stories about her stalking him are so old. Also he has a mind of his own, he choose her end of.

      • LAK says:

        KN also never mentions the woman he was dating at the time he was started messing around with Kate, Carly Massy-Birch. She has been written out of the story completely because it’s not good story that both of them were cheating on their SO.

      • Emily says:

        What I don’t get is why she is trying to make Kate sound all stalkerish. Wasn’t she originally Team Middleton’s mouthpiece?

      • Green Girl says:

        Oooh, I totally forgot about Carly. I remember reading in some unauthorized biography a year or two ago that Carly got tired of dating Will because it became a PITA.

      • bluhare says:

        OK, I have read that Katie Nichol book and have a couple of comments.

        First, don’t waste your money unless you enjoy fluffy saccharine overloads.

        Second, she does mention Carly and Rupert Finch, and implies Kate dated him for most of their first year.

        She glosses over a lot of stuff, though, including the William chasing. It was just pure coincidence everybody!!

        DISCLAIMER: I hacked into bluhare’s account. bluhare would *never* spend good money on fluffy pieces of fluff. 😀

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare : Aha! 🙂

  9. Annie says:

    I believe it. She started dating Will when she was very young, so yeah, why not.

    At this point they’re trying to find secrets and scandals surrounding Will and Kate but something tells me these two will be quite chill (boring even?) and they will remain pretty likeable for a while. And to those who think they don’t contribute to their country and do absolutely nothing, while you might be right about the second part, you should also know that big part of the touristic allure of England is the monarchy. Their mere existence draws millions of tourists a year to the UK. The UK is not getting rid of that any time soon. Very few countries have such likeable national personalities that the entire world adores. Presidents are usually disliked, celebrities don’t count.

    I just wish they did more. Especially William. I can’t believe he has the nerve to say he’s taking a year off.

    • Emily says:

      I’m not entirely convinced by the tourism argument. The French ditched their monarchy and they don’t seem to have any problem attracting tourists…

      • vava says:

        I don’t buy into the tourism thing either – except the HISTORICAL royal stuff is interesting, the castles, the jewels, etc. But the current royal family? No, they aren’t that much of a draw for tourism from what I can tell.

      • Maria says:

        I agree that the royals are not really a magnet for tourism. As was stated, look at the tourism of the French. So much rich history and that is what people flock to, not a bunch a free-loaders.

    • Sachi says:

      This tourism excuse is so tired and weak, since they’re so many reports coming out of the UK about tourism and very little of the revenues come from the current monarchy’s “appeal”.

      Top 2010 tourist attractions:
      http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/feb/23/british-tourist-attractions-visitor-figures

      – Only Kensington Palace made the list of sites still used by the royals, and it was very far down the number of visitors compared to the 5 million who visited the British Museum.

      The main draw are the historical artifacts, sites like the Stonehenge and Roman Baths, and the culture and heritage of the UK, not the monarchy and royals per se. 100 years from now, when (hopefully) monarchies are no more, people will still visit the the UK to experience UK culture and see their history. Royals aren’t needed for that kind of tourism.

      Versailles is still a massive tourism draw and France has been without their royals for 100 years now. So are Churches and castles in Germany, Austria, and Russia. China and South Korea’s temples and Palaces are still big tourist attractions despite not having imperial families anymore.

      Also, Washington gets tons of tourists every year not because of the Presidents but again, the history of the country archived in the museums, the White House, and the libraries. Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson’s estates generate big money…and they’re dead.

      • bluhare says:

        I can vouch for the British Museum. I was in London this year for a few days and picked two things I wanted to do. Westminster Abbey and British Museum. It was incredible, absolutely incredible. I can see why Greece wants the marbles back. 🙂

        And the Pompeii and Herculaneum exhibit was the best I’ve ever seen, although I haven’t seen Tut.

      • Sachi says:

        bluhare – the British museum is the best I’ve visited, and I’ve been to a lot. My family likes to travel and it’s the museums that we always visit. 😀

        The King Tut exhibit came to Toronto a couple of years ago, but I was busy with Uni and couldn’t go. I was only 2 hours away, too. I’m still regretting it today.

    • T.C. says:

      Tourists come to see PAST history, not for the current monarchy. They will never see the Queen, Wills or Kate in person. Same reason tourists go to France, Japan and the USA for past history.

      • bettyrose says:

        True but Japan does still have a monarchy. They’re just really low key about it and the family is held to rigid standards of behavior. In either case the royals are not why I’ve spent so much time in both places.

    • Lauren says:

      @Annie

      Bavaria lost its last King Ludwig III in 1918. Ludwig II (died 1886) before him (sometimes called the Fairytale King) had quite the interest in architecture/ culture and built some of the most beautiful Castles and Palaces in all of Europe. His Castle Neuschwanstein is his most famous. Bavaria is now the richest in all of Germany for the amount of money/ tourism Ludwig’s castles bring into the country. The Monarchy has been gone for almost 100 years and yet around 55 million have visited this particular castle to date. Just proves to me that you don’t need a King in the Castle to demonstrate the culture or even to keep the peoples interest in history.

      I have nothing against the Monarchy but I am tired of hearing about how they promote tourism. Like another poster said the French got ride of the Bourbons and people still visit Versailles. Ludwig II even visited this Monarch vacant Palace in his reign to get ideas for his designs.

      I think people who visit these sites at least from my experience are more interested in the history/ culture. The reigning Monarch may represent these two things but at the same time I don’t think they are things which have to be mutually exclusive to the other.

    • Kate says:

      The history of the royal family is a draw-card (one of many), however the current royals are actually preventing more tourism dollars being made. Turf them out of the palaces and you can open them up to the public completely, and therefore charge more and increase opening hours.

      Millions visit Versailles every year, despite it being outside of Paris and therefore a day trip. Far fewer people visit Buckingham Palace (in 2007 it was only around 50,000), even though it’s so quick and easy to do if you’re in London. That’s largely because there isn’t much to see, what with all the good bits closed off to the public, and often you can’t actually do anything other than stand outside the gates because it’s totally closed due to the royals hanging about. Buckingham Palace isn’t even one of the top 20 most visited attractions, in fact nowhere currently inhabited by the Royals rates.

      The only living person who actually draws in huge numbers of tourists is the Pope. Tourists don’t decide to go to the UK to see the Queen, because it’s not going to happen. They go to see Stonehenge, The British Museum, the amazing churches and the beautiful estates that are open to the public. Everything that draws people to the UK would still be there without the current royals.

  10. Lila says:

    That’s their cottage? It’s huge. It blows my mind that there were stories that they just didn’t have room at the cottage for the baby too. Just like they didn’t have room for the baby at their two bedroom house at Kensington Palace. What is with these people and needing so much space? Their new apartment has like 11 bedrooms. I get that he’s a prince but can we stop pretending that they are just normal people living a normal life in a normal house?

    As for the rest of it, Kate sounds like someone without any purpose. Instead of collecting or buying books or the like, she buys random things.

  11. kibbles says:

    Not that it matters, but since the world is so obsessed with this woman, I always thought that William was the only man she’s slept with. Even during their break-ups, I don’t think she would have ever risked the chance of losing William by sleeping with other men. On the other hand, I doubt Kate is the only woman William has been with since meeting her in college.

    • anosy says:

      uhmmm she had a relationship for a year with a guy at uni , i think maybe it went further then kissing?

      • kibbles says:

        If it is to be believed that Kate and her mom wanted to go to St. Andrews just to target William, then there is a good chance that whomever else she was dating at the time wasn’t serious. I’ve known people who have been in 1-2 year college relationships and didn’t have sex. They weren’t religious either. There are still young people out there who wait a while before deciding to do the deed. Waiting is more common than we think, especially among those who focus a lot on their studies (or in Kate’s case, other goals such as nabbing the future King of England) and don’t want to run the risk of getting pregnant or contracting an STD.

    • Tara says:

      Really? Wild horses couldn’t drag me to the point where I think about Kate’s sex life but do you think having a boyfriend in college automatically equals doing the do? It doesn’t.

  12. LAK says:

    Why or why can’t a reputable biographer put out the truthful story instead of these conflicting or wierd half truths or lies or whatever.

    Personally, I don’t care how these 2 came together or how they maintained and continue to maintain their relationship.

    What I do care about is the whitewash and the lies to sell us the romance of the century and by extension William and Kate as the best royal role models for the young ones to emulate. Have you ever known a public figure to lie so much when we can all verify the truth so easily??

    • Aeryn39 says:

      ITA!!!

    • Florc says:

      It’s insulting to some of us, but others take it as gospel. So, the whitewashing worked enough. That’s the amazing part to me.

    • vava says:

      I agree…..the truth will eventually get out, so why they play these games is very puzzling. I don’t think either of their “pasts” are all that interesting, but the books that will be written in the next ten years regarding the status of their marriage WILL be!!! I’m looking forward to reading all about it – and there are going to be some trashy stories I think.

    • Dal says:

      Your commenst are always spot on LAK- I love your posts…

      Only with this- I think reputable biographers, prefer to write about reputable people who are noteworthy. It would be hard for a good writer to find enough substance about people who do so little.

    • The Original Mia says:

      Well said. My mother almost bit my head off when I told her the truth about these two. She was highly offended. I had to tell her not to kill the messenger and that people truly didn’t care about the stalking, it was pushing the ridiculous fairytale about them that had people up in arms.

    • Tara says:

      On what planet does anyone ever write honestly about public figures? People stubbornly stick to the version they are most comfortable with and for their own reasons – and that’s how it should be.
      I, for one, refuse to believe that Kate is a maniacal, cunning she-devil whose family coldly, relentlessly pimped her out to a poor, unwitting prince. I also refuse to believe that this was a poetic, sweeping royal romance that ended in the wedding of the century. The truth is always in between.
      I am getting bored with the extreme Kate-hate and I am tired of the media sprinkling magical fairy dust and glitter over all things Will and Kate. There are many sides to the truth and usually you don’t get the facts until years later. Look at Charles and Di.
      If you don’t like the Middletons just admit that you will probably never approve of anything they do or say. And if you believe in fairytales just admit that you will never believe a negative word about the royals.
      But I would be thrilled with a little more balance, less whitewashing and less nasty insinuations.

      • LAK says:

        I’m not naive enough to think public figures don’t lie nor am i asking for a hagiography on these 2.

        A balanced, book with as few porkies as possible please.

        We got there in the end with the other members of the family.

        Good or bad, it’s ridiculous the porkies that are told to sell these two.

      • Tara says:

        True. But is porkie UK slang for a lies? Across the pond we say whoppers lol. I’m going to force a conversation with someone today so I can say porkies!

  13. Green Girl says:

    In that top picture, is the white house actually three smaller units side-by-side? Or is it all just one big house?

    That being said, I think it’s really odd that Kate tried for years to throw herself in Will’s path. And then, of course, all those years she spent just keeping him by her side.

    • LAK says:

      It’s one big house.

    • Karen says:

      They originally said it was a 5 bedroom cottage. So I assume 1 unit not 3.

      • LAK says:

        I don’t think they ever said how many bedrooms, but repeatedly called it a ‘cottage’ so that people assumed it was a cottage by the standard of regular people, not a mcMansion.

        A reporter finally admitted that it was 5 bedrooms, but still maintained that it was a ‘cottage’.

        Mind you, for the landed gentleman who owns the land, this IS a cottage compared to the ‘big/main house’. It’s what is considered a cottage when you main home is a palace or a house like Hogwarts!!!

  14. susan says:

    She and her mum DEFINITELY STALKED william, i kind of feel sad for him, he was not given a chance to meet a wonderful woman, out of 10 l rate waity at just 3, LOOK AT HOW HARDWORKING THOSE EUROPEAN ROYAL WOMEN ARE, the queen needs to retire and leave this stupid bunch alone, she should stop babysitting them, !!!

    • anosy says:

      please stop with this stupid storyline that she stalked him. he has a mind of his own and he married her and now they have a child and have been together for a long time now, 11 years or something like that. who cares how they met? the fact that you use “waity” says enough, very juvenile and outdated because nobody is “‘waiting” anymore.

      • vava says:

        We are all waiting for the Duchess to actually do something worthwhile besides shop, primp, and produce children.

      • bluhare says:

        What I don’t like is when people tell others to quit posting their opinions, anosy. And if you haven’t figured it out yet, they are all opinions, not facts. They’re based on what people have read just like yours.

      • TheyPromisedMeBeer says:

        Okay, Kate didn’t stalk Will, she coincidenced him.

    • Florc says:

      Susan
      Susan from KM criticism? Ugh.

      Anosy
      Please refrain from feeding the trolls and stay behind the yellow line for your protection.
      Sometimes the posters here that are critical of Kate have reason and facts to support their criticism. Sometimes the posters just like to hate with a passion and give the rest of us a bad name.
      This poster has ruined other Kate blogs with her caps lock and hate filled rants.

    • anosy says:

      i personally think she does what she is told to do. she is in a very different position as diana before her and so is william with his father, they are not next in line, don’t you think that charles has nothing to say about outshining him before he becomes king. if they, will and kate would do much more they will be much more popular and i bett that charles doesn’t want that.

      • Florc says:

        Maybe/Maybe not. Maybe she lacks a work schedule and often caught shopping so she can make Charles look great. It doesn’t make the future generation of the monarchy look great.

        It’s been said Charles wants to trim down the working royals to Himself, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, and later Harry’s spouse. If Charles does this and still doesn’t want Kate to outshine him he’ll be working against himself. That will make no sense.

    • Tara says:

      “Not given a chance” to meet a wonderful woman?
      Hahahahaha…..and you’re serious.if this is true the future king is a spineless wimp. If this is not true the future king’s subjects see him as one.

  15. blue marie says:

    yes, that’s exactly what springs to mind when I read “little rental cottage” it’s pretty though..

    I don’t think I ever realized how much she pursued him. Was marrying him her only plan?

    • Florc says:

      That’s where the bit in the book about Carole taking William aside and asking what his intentions are…Marry my daughter before she’s 30 and less desirable…

      If Kate had carved out a career path for herself I would think her only goal wasn’t to marry William and be financially set for life.

      • anosy says:

        i don’t believe that her mother took him aside, he is a grown man and very strong willed from everything we hear about him. and how would nicholl know anyhow, was she there? BS stories to sell a book ….

      • Green Girl says:

        I always thought the bit about Carole pulling Will aside was more of a way to nudge him to propose to Kate. Like, “What are you waiting for?”

      • bluhare says:

        anosy, it has been reported many times that carole took William aside and asked him about his intentions. Many times. And it makes some sense. You’re a mother with a daughter dating someone for an inordinate length of time and nothing is happening. If I were her mother I’d have told William not to waste her time as well.

      • Florc says:

        Anosy
        The author gets inside scoops only the middleton family could give.
        William will always be painted in a positive light by most publications because he is a future king. Those publications will also set aside publishing negative articles about him. Even if those negative ones are very true.

      • mayamae says:

        I wish someone had told me years ago that all it took to marry a wealthy prince was to have my mom pull him aside and suggest it.

        I actually dreamed last night about Kate, William, George, and Harry, which is strange because I spend very little time think about them. Ironically – in my dream, they were just “normal” people. Guess the PR is working.

      • Tara says:

        But this same author also said that Will had to reassure Carol and Michael that they would be a welcome influence in their grandchildrens’ lives before they threw their support behind the engagement. If this is a porkie(thanks Lack) it is an interesting one. If it is true then the Middletons weren’t ruthlessly pushing them down the aisle as reported.

      • bluhare says:

        Tara, the royal family is famous for cutting in laws out. The Middletons could well have been concerned about that. This is one area where I don’t blame them. I’d want to see my grandchildren too.

  16. HiHa says:

    Thats what they all say.Any man that asks his wife with how many she has been before him, the answer is ALWAYS 3, 2 are 1.And no,im a girl!

  17. Dumbisthenewblack says:

    Dude…am I tripping or are her eyes usually blue and they are brown in several pics here. Paris Hilton style contacts?

  18. Yelly says:

    I’m willing to bet that Prince William has a tiny wang.

  19. bettyrose says:

    But stalking Wills was like a national pasttime right? So I do still wonder what made her the prize winner.

    • LAK says:

      An endurance test of sorts where she was the last one standing?

      It doesn’t mean that he didn’t have any feeling for her, only she was his only option who had endured beyond any tests whether they be his cheating, media spotlight, family approval etc. As NBC (I think) put it, it was the longest job interview ever.

    • Zombie Shortcake says:

      Of what I’ve read, she was the only one he went for who didn’t turn him down. Like the Katie Holmes of the Tom Cruise wife auditions: She was the last of a long list of candidates, and she said “yes.”

  20. Susei says:

    wow nice little “cottage”… no more words.

    IMO Kate is really into William, he is her dream. But William… he seems to love her as a save partner and friend, but he´s not madly in love with her. He never was. Look at all the (old and new) photos and videos of them. Their whole relationship is and was nice, but passionless and dull. William choose a stable relationship over passion in hope it lasts.
    I mean he has no “i can´t live without her”-love for her. He dumped and cheated on her. He came back to her because she and her family are his “safe haven”. And that´s sweet, but should he ever madly fall in love with another woman…

    • bluhare says:

      Some armchair psychologists theorize that William loves Kate’s family as it gives him that “normalness” he craves. Well, as long as he doesn’t have to give up his non-normalness as well, that is. 😉

      • bettyrose says:

        I’ve always liked this explanation because I understand it. She wanted to marry his family and he wanted to marry hers. That’s not terribly uncommon even for normal folk.

    • Tara says:

      This is the middle ground that probably represents the truth, I’ve always thought. But if Will finds his Camilla I doubt Kate will lose her shite like Diana did.

  21. anne_000 says:

    I don’t think they have ever been in love w/ each other. I think she viewed him as a prize & he viewed her as the safest choice.

    • Zombie Shortcake says:

      +1

    • Kitten Mittens says:

      It sounds more like she viewed him as financial security and the best man to father her children. He showed her right away he would cheat and had a reputation of not staying faithful to his gf’s. She was a safe bet for him. A relationship, ideally, should be a partnership. There’s nothing of that here.

  22. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    Why is Kate having one serious boyfriend before William a surprise? I’m surprised Carol didn’t tell her to save herself for the Prince!–But honestly, she was what 19, 20 when she met William, and she’d been going after him ever since. It doesn’t make much sense to date someone else, while pursuing the Prince of Wales—it makes him look like an asshole who likes to seduce other people’s girlfriends away.

  23. Zombie Shortcake says:

    I laughed at the bit about Kate having “carte blanche” from the Queen to borrow whatever antiques she wants: Months ago when Kate was spied antique shopping, posters on Royal Gossip or The Royal Dish were commenting on how her in laws have castles packed with priceless (and ancient) family heirlooms, but Kate has to go out and buy her own antiques. I find it hilarious Nicholl directly addressed that.

  24. Marigold says:

    The amount of bullsh*t people that comment on Kate stories “know” about her is frightening. I mean, all this background info takes work to find out. And I don’t mean a tidbit here and a morsel there. Some commenters *think* they know every little detail of this woman’s life and then proceed to crap all over her, assuming their facts are correct. I don’t mind gossip; in fact, I love it but there’s such a thing as being obsessed, which is humorous considering many of these same commenters accuse Kate of being such with regards to William.

    • bluhare says:

      As I say to anyone with an opinion such as the one above, please tell me why I am wrong. I used to love Kate but people who told me some information to counter what I thought changed my mind. It can still be changed back. But as of yet, none of you has even tried, just continue to chip at the commenters instead. SMH

      • Tara says:

        Relax. None has to prove you right or wrong. It’s gossip that makes media moguls filthy rich. Have fun with it – everyone has an opinion.

      • bluhare says:

        I’m plenty relaxed, Tara. Perhaps you missed the point of my post which was people with some opinions would rather insult posters with other opinions rather than defend their position.

    • Suze says:

      “Crap all over her”! So charming…

  25. Fue McCormick says:

    I live in a “planned city” in America, and honestly, the cottage, to me, looks quite small. It’s very unassuming and I wouldn’t think for a second that a member of the royal family lived there, which is maybe why they chose it. I’ve seen the pictures before and only remember thinking, “wow … boring…”

    • Kitten Mittens says:

      Fue
      The cottage is truly a large home. It was reported on sundays they would get invited to the main house for dinners. The Cottage underwent many security upgrades that extended to cosmetics. Kate was seen more in London or her parents home than at the cottage with William while he was showing up at times to put in his minimum flying hours.

  26. Kitten Mittens says:

    SamiHami
    If you don’t understand why a thread is about a specific topic or that it’s not a topic worth discussion it’s not a thread for you. I personally hate the Kardashian/Miley/Cumberpatch posts and can’t figure out why they’re so interesting. I simply stay away.
    It’s your place to speak of course, but my life got easier when I stayed away from the threads and conversations I found trivial.
    I do enjoy your posts if you are the one with an avatar. Aside from this post of course.

  27. Suze says:

    How can you tell that the mystery George is adorable? Have we seen any photos of his face?

    Other than the fact that all babies are cute, of course.

    • SamiHami says:

      I’ve seen a couple of pictures where you can see his face. But really, I agree with you that babies are adorable in general.

  28. moon says:

    okay, so Kate dislikes this Isabella multiple hypenated woman, and anyone related. Who actually likes their husband’s/boyfriend’s ex-girlfriends?

    • bettyrose says:

      Feeling threatened by an ex is a bad sign, especially by a wife and mother. These aren’t college kids.

  29. Deedee says:

    All this information being leaked to this Nicholl woman and to the press by the Middletons makes me wonder–if it was all wine and roses for Kate and Will, why the need to spread these little tidbits before us? Shouldn’t it be obvious that they are in love? Why do we have to be told at every turn? And this strange story changes to suit the mood. Even the story of how they first met has several versions.

  30. teehee says:

    So what- this is no longer the 1900’s and people are not waiting until after marriage- and those who DO, that is their choice; and those who have only a few select and serious relationships rather than 100 crap relationships- what is their to not respect about that? There are so many notions floating around abotu what is good and right for people to do— when at the end of the day, it is our hearts and minds that have to decide, and our hearts will also tell us after the fact, whether we made the right decision. Screw what the majority thinks, its your life and your happiness.
    Long live the queen! LOL

  31. Violet says:

    Didn’t Katie Nichol write about Kate’s earring (From William) being swallowed by her dog (pre-engagement/ pre-Lupo)? Only to be rebuked later, with the the report that Kate didn’t actually own a dog? Not sure about KN’s credibility, or why the Middletons would trust her with their propaganda. If she was the Middletons’ PR machine, she seems to do more damage to them than endear them to the public.

  32. Vulgar says:

    Katie Nicholl was fed story about Otto , by someone screwin with her who had been a source.