Tom Parker Bowles: Camilla & Duchess Kate ‘get on fine,’ there’s no beef

wenn893275

Of all the royal scandals involving sketchy paternity and royal mistresses, I’ve always thought there was an untapped gossip story around Camilla Parker-Bowles’ children, Laura and Tom Parker-Bowles. Charles and Camilla fooled around for so many years, before, during and after Diana. While I believe Camilla truly loved her first husband Andrew Parker-Bowles, I’ve always sort of wondered if Andrew is truly the father of both Laura and Tom. Tom looks a like both his parents, but Laura? I don’t know. Anyway, I’m just throwing that out there, UK tabloids. Make up a good story about the paternity of Camilla’s children. I’ll give you bonus points if you work something in about how Charles set up some kind of trust funds for Laura and Tom (which I think really happened).

Anyway, for what it’s worth, Tom and Laura are generally not thought of as famewhores cashing in on their royal stepfather. Tom is a chef and he’s written a bunch of cookbooks and that sort of thing. Tom spoke to the Daily Mail Australia this week about his mom, his stepfather and step-brother’s wife (Duchess Kate). Step-sister-in-law? Yes, that’s it. Some highlights from Tom’s interview:

Tom says Camilla and Kate are fine: “They get on fine…I don’t think there’s any truth to [the rumours of tension]. Well, I can’t guarantee for sure, but I think that’s all bulls—t.”

Tom says Camilla “adores children and is the archetypal doting grandmother”: “She’s great, great fun.”

Camilla doesn’t cook: “She doesn’t really cook, to be honest, but she taught us to eat what’s in season and my stepfather is a huge fan of suet gaming pudding with pheasant. He wouldn’t dream of doing the paleo diet, what a lot of nonsense. And I wouldn’t dare tell them what to eat.”

Camilla hates flying: “They’re coming out in November to Australia. She doesn’t particularly like flying, it’s a long flight, but she’ll be all right, she’s excited about coming out. She loves Australia and and fell in love with it when they toured the country in 2012 for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. She’s very very excited about it, she’s fascinated by what goes on in the country.”

[From The Daily Mail]

The Mail used the “They get on fine” quote to regurgitate all of the long-simmering stories about how the Middletons have cut Charles out of his grandchildren’s lives. There’s one quote that I don’t remember writing about: “Catherine knew that her parents weren’t happy being seen as the more involved of the two sets of grandparents. Frankly, she felt it embarrassed them. William saw it, too. Everyone knew the Prince of Wales was quite hurt, not only on his own behalf but on Camilla’s as well. He’s as protective as ever of her role in the Royal Family.” That’s what I don’t really get: Camilla has a very “hands off” approach when it comes to her step-sons and for good reason – she would be blasted around the world if she ever tried to step up and “mother” William and Harry. The only reason Camilla would care at all about Charles being “snubbed” by William and Kate is if she’s just angry on Charles’ behalf.

Charles has long been wary of the “Middletonisation” of his grandchildren – nevermind William – and Charles is particularly upset with the way Carole stage-managed everything to do with the Cambridges. For what it’s worth, I do think Kate and William have been making an effort to include Charles in more stuff, although I also think it’s telling that Charles was not invited to George’s 2nd birthday party. All that being said… no, there’s probably not a beef between Camilla and Kate. The beef is between Charles and William.

wenn22586524

wenn22677051

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

147 Responses to “Tom Parker Bowles: Camilla & Duchess Kate ‘get on fine,’ there’s no beef”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. LAK says:

    A conspiracy about Camilla’s kids’ paternity is as ridiculous as Harry’s paternity. Both Kids look like Andrew and Camilla with Tom having more Andrew whilst Laura has more Camilla. You should google young Camilla pics.

    That said, every time people go on and on about the fall out of the Wales marriage and how it affected William and Harry and then go one to say and write vile things about Camilla, I always wonder where they left their so-called compassion for the kids in the case of Tom and Laura.

    I’m sure it wasn’t fun for them to read all the vile things people write about Camilla.

    Regarding an alleged beef between Kate and Camilla, I think that may have been fueled by the fact Kate stopped wearing a bracelet that Camilla gave her. It had a charm with engraved Cs to stand for Camilla and Catherine. She wore it often in her first year as a royal.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      “I’m sure it wasn’t fun for them to read all the vile things people write about Camilla.”

      Who’s fault is that? She made her choices, and people talk about her for it, and her children suffer for it. I feel a great deal of compassion for them, but that doesn’t stop me from commenting on the fact that Camilla behaved cruelly and heartlessly towards Diana. She sent Charles those stupid CC cuff links for Camilla and Charles right before his marriage so he wouldn’t forget her. And don’t list all of the things Diana did later that were wrong. I know that. But Camilla never gave Charles any space to have a marriage to Diana – who was, btw, 19 years old when this happened. Camilla was a grown woman who cared about nobody but herself – not Charles, not Diana, not the BRF, not her husband or even her children. I will never believe she’s anything but a stone cold self-absorbed climber who regretted her decision not to be Princess of Wales. Her reputation is nobody’s fault but her own.

      • bluhare says:

        First of all, LAK was talking about how it must have been difficult for Camilla’s *children* — who were also children at the time — to read what was being written about Camilla. I don’t know how anyone could not have sympathy for that. Camilla did it to them? That’s like Diana doing it to William and Harry by caling the press and recording the tapes that provided the basis for Andrew Morton’s book.

        Diana may have gone in with stars in her eyes but she contributed to this mess. And if you’re going to list everything Camilla did wrong, it’s not particularly fair to tell people not to mention the other side of the equasion!

      • Maia says:

        I agree with all of you here :) . First, I also feel sympathy for Tom and Laura, but my sympathy is tempered as I believe that they knew from early childhood what their parents’ marriage was about. Plus they seem to be quite robust climbers themselves. My sympathy has distinctly waned over the past couple of years as Tom has used his connections and Charles/Camilla’s name in the past for huge amounts of publicity for his endeveours, which my British friends frankly scoff at. So has his wife who has used Kate’s name a couple of times to get her name in the DM. Tom and his wife strike me as more unsavory and wily than the Middleton siblings, who, frankly are just naive. Tom and his wife are no less social-climbing and greedy than any of the others that are peripherally connected to the royals. Tom at some point was into cocaine, and Camilla was livid that Charles’ good friends the Van Custems outed him to the press. There was a huge kerfufle about that, which almost led to a falling out between Charles and the Van Custems. Camilla showed her true colors then and it was not nice to witness.
        Bluhare, one really cannot underestimate Camilla’s wile and shrewdness. She played a massive role in the failure of the Wales’ marriage and I completely agree with Goodnames that if she had given Charles the space he needed the marriage would have survived. He coddled, flattered and poisoned Charles enough to slowly drive him away from Diana. Diana of course was no angel, and had huge problems, but nobody is perfect. Marriage takes work sometimes, and if Camilla was not present the Wales could have hunkered down and done the work they needed. There was love in the early years and on and off. They needed the patience and committment to work through the very difficult times. But Camilla’s presence did not allow Charles to make that committment, which further exacerbated Diana’s problems.
        As for Kate not wearing the bracelet Camilla gave – she stopped wearing it around the time that Andrew Parker Bowles presented Camilla a framed picture of a topless and bottomless Kate (on the balcony of the French chateau) for Christmas. Or at least that is how the story goes. I did not believe it at all when the story came out, but I think that the distinct chillness between Camilla and Kate indicates that something happened.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “That is how the story goes”? Nope. Infusing some facts into this. APB did not do that. He presented her with an original cartoon by a respected political cartoonist who works for the Telegraph. The cartoon was drawn during heated debate about badger culls.

        Badgers were being blamed for everything from spreading plague to spreading tuberculosis, as an excuse to cull them. The cartoon was of a cow and a badger, holding a copy of Closer magazine, with the headline ‘Badgers blamed for spreading Kate photos’.

      • LAK says:

        GNAT: what Bluhare, Maia and Natalie said.

        I don’t need to rehash the sins of the parents to have compassion for the children. It seems you are quite happy to throw the children on the pyre for the sins of the parents.

        I can judge the children’s adult actions because those are on them as adults even if some of that behaviour is a result of what happened to them as children because they adults have agency to learn from what happened to them as children.

        Maia: i’m right there with you although I do think that the famewhoring was principally Tom in his younger days. Ben Elliot their cousin and his mother Annabel definitely use the connection to further their businesses in a very direct quid pro quo.

        Laura has never famewhored the connection and was very upset at all the media attention as a teen and as an adult.

        Tom seems to have settled down somewhat compared to the height of his famewhore 20s. More so after the wedding, but always throws in little reminders of who he is.

      • Maia says:

        Ahhh.. that makes a lot more sense nota – thanks for the correction !

      • bluhare says:

        You are missing the person who was actually in the marriage, Maia. Charles. It was Charles who should have told Camilla to get lost –and according to him he did until after Harry was born. Is that true? No idea. But I think it’s totally unfair to blame the destruction of the marriage on Camilla. Blame it on the two people who were in it. What Camilla did was contribute to it; she was not the determining factor. If you want to insert blame, we can also blame the mores of the time for not allowing Charles to marry someone who was not a virgin. It eliminated most of the women who Charles could have married, or the women themselves took themselves out of contention because they didn’t want the life. So Charles essentially had to make a dynastic marriage, which apparently no one bothered to mention Diana. Or if they did, she decided not to believe it, and the rest is history.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I guess you all missed the part where I said “I feel a great deal of compassion for them.” But yes, I blame Camilla for putting her children in the situation, not the people who comment on the situation.

        LAK, I rarely comment on the BRF threads anymore because the responses are so long and so aggressive. But I started it, so I’ll try to finish it. You accuse me being “quite happy to throw the children on the pyre for the sins of the parents.” While I admire your flare for the dramatic, that it the opposite of what I said. I’m not even sure you read my post. I’m not judging the children as adults or as children. What did I say to indicate that I was judging them? I really didn’t understand what you were trying to say, except that I’m cruel and throw children on pyres, which I assure you, I have only done once, and the children were especially annoying.

        My point was that Camilla put them, her marriage and her infidelity in the spotlight by deciding to continue an affair with Charles with no regard for the fact that he was married. Whether or not the affair was physical or just emotional doesn’t matter. I agree with Maia that it prevented Charles and Diana from ever forming a real bond.

        Bluhare, yes Charles is responsible for his own actions. So is Camilla. Why this protection of a woman who shows absolutely no concern for anyone but herself? While you can possibly say the same for Diana in the end, she was a CHILD when she married Charles. What he and Camilla did to Diana formed her character to a large extent. I don’t think for a minute she would have ever been unfaithful to Charles had he been even half-way decent to her. When I said don’t list Diana’s many flaws, I meant because I already know them. I wasn’t trying to be unfair. List them all you want.

        I’m probably leaving something out, but I have a life to live. I’ll have to remember not to comment on BRF threads again. It’s exhausting, especially since I care for all of you and don’t like to be at odds, but I also feel I should be able to express my opinion without being maligned.

      • bluhare says:

        Diana may have been childish and immature but she was 20 years old. Not a child. Diana’s upbringing shaped her character, not getting married at 20. Charles was 12 years older — a not insignificant difference at 20. Frankly I think they were doomed to failure (or living separately) whether Camilla was there or not.

        And I didn’t malign you. I disagree with your take is all.

        As far as the royal threads go, I take your point. I get a lot of crap for commenting about the royals, specifically Kate. All I’ve got is stick to your guns, and don’t let them wear you down. Unless they’re right, and then that’s a different story which is why I try to be nice because I might have to eat some crow which tastes better with sugar than salt. :)

      • bluhare says:

        PS GNAT, Too late to edit, but I definitely did not mean to imply I don’t think you’re nice. I was talking about me, and frankly how hard it is to be nice to people sometimes.

      • Maia says:

        @bluhare: Yes I totally accept that the bulk of the responsibility for the affair lies with Charles. Charles was an utter dolt, selfish, horrible horrible husband, with the emotional intelligence of a gnat. And I believe that Charles paid and continues to pay the price for his actions in various ways.
        But that still does not absolve Camilla. Camilla did act like a cold hearted manipulator of the highest order. By the time Charles married she had decided how much she would insinuate herself in the Wales’ marriage. Her intentions were bad from day zero – that has been documented in various ways. She pushed Charles towards Diana knowing fully well what she was about to do, because by that time APB had already started his own dalliances. I suspect, as GoodNames pointed out – she already regretted not waiting for Charles but having fallen for the completely unfaithful APB. I actually completely agree with Goodnames that Diana being the 19 year old ingenue that she was, had her character and world view shaped to a large extent by Charles’ and Camilla’s actions. She fought back and retained her spirit as best as she could. But was ultimately completely destroyed. Of course she went in to the marriage by her own choice, but how much does a 19 year old understand about the world, really ?
        Knowing all of their history I cannot possibly like Camilla’s character, no matter how much she tries to redeem herself and no matter how great her “sense of humor”. In all the time I have spent gossiping/reading about this I have concluded that she remains one of the most malicious mistresses there ever was. I find her to be utterly insincere. I watched her interview on Charles’ birthday and almost threw up. It was the most sacchirine asinine flattery of male ego one could possibly witness. Absolute drivel.
        Do you absolve Camilla, bluhare ? What is your opinion of what went down? Do you think that Diana Charles and Camilla played an equal role ?

      • Maia says:

        “Diana’s upbringing shaped her character, not getting married at 20.”

        I completely disagree with this. Character does not stop being shaped after one hits 18. We all evolved as individuals and continue to do so through our experiences. She may have grown to be a completely different woman had she experienced true love from Charles.

      • bluhare says:

        I put blame where it belongs. Camilla was responsible for her marriage; Charles his, and they’re both responsible for theirs now. I don’t need to absolve Camilla for anything; she’s never done anything to me. The person who could absolve Camilla, should she ask for it, is dead.

      • Sixer says:

        Not wading into the actual disagreement here, since i really don’t care which of Charles and Diana bore the brunt of the blame for their messed up marriage, and it always seems to me that all parties behaved in ways that meant I certainly wouldn’t have them in my circle of friends.

        But when these to and fros go on hereabouts, I always want to say – but what did anyone ever expect from an incestuous social circle that basically amounted to a bunch of swingers? It defies belief that Diana didn’t know what she was getting into: it had surrounded her for her entire life. British aristos swing. That’s what they do.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @bluhare – sorry, I was speaking generally about being maligned, sort of teasing LAK for saying I threw children on pyres, but it came right after I was addressing your items, so it seemed as if I was referring to you. I wasn’t. And I know you would never say I wasn’t nice just because we disagree. That’s not your style at all. There are so many people on here who are exceptionally well informed about the BRF, much more so than I will ever be, and it can be very enlightening and informative. The down side of that is that they forget sometimes that we will never know the answers to some of the questions. No matter how well informed a guess might be, it’s still a guess. Anyway, I guess I’m too delicate to post on these threads. Lol.

        I agree with Maia that your character continues to grow after you are a child. I changed very much between the ages of 22-28, almost into a different person. Though I agree with you that important parts of character are formed pretty early on. I think if Diana had been more mature and secure, she might have handled the situation differently, instead of the way she did, which only drove Charles farther away. Anyway, I suppose we will just agree to disagree if that’s ok with you.

      • bluhare says:

        Maia, I didn’t say that character stops developing. I do think that Diana’s upbringing shaped her character more than her marriage did. I think basic personality traits are shaped by age 20, although experience does change the way we look at things and behave. I don’t believe our basic personality changes, though. I’m still the same person, although I certainly see things a bit differently than I did at 20!

        Sixer, I agree!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Sixer, I have heard that before, and since you are British you probably know better than I do, but I have always thought that 1. your theory could have been true had Diana been a little older or 2. she knew he might have mistresses later on but did not expect to be humiliated by his being obviously in love with another woman from the very beginning. My impression of Diana is that she was not terribly educated or brilliant (I don’t think she was stupid by any means, but not very intellectual) and she got most of her information about romance from Barbara Cartland novels. She thought she could win Charles because she loved him and she was the pretty princess and love would conquer all, or something along those lines. It reminds me of Jackie Kennedy, who they say was perfectly aware that JFK would have dalliances just as her father had done, but was shocked and horrified by the sheer volume and complete lack of discretion.

      • Dena says:

        Sixer, I agree with you re: the swinger culture. That’s what it was and probably still is. And, like you, I try not to get into the Diana/Charles/Camilia marriage breakup thing cause them there are some shark infected waters & I know I can’t hang with the big boys on that one. So, I leave it alone . . . well . . . Ok, I lied. All three are culpable. However, for Diana, she had her romantic illusions & fairytale crushed by a reality the other two, much older & perhaps more jaded, had already accepted. That made her bitter, vengeful & dangerous. Matters are the heart can be like that. I’m now swimming back to shore (to safety 😚😄) as fast as I can.

      • aaa says:

        I question how pure Diana’s love was for Charles, I think she was more in love with him being the Prince of Wales and her becoming a Princess than the man himself. I think that fingers can be pointed at all three, Charles, Camilla and Diana, when it comes to bad behavior and questionable values.

        I agree with whomever said that Diana was not fully formed when she got married, but I don’t think that she was as naive and dazzled by love as she is often portrayed. Diana did horrible things to her nannies when she was a child, declared war on her step-mother when she was a teen, and then, after she and Charles started living separate lives, she took up with married men and harassed them and their wives.

        Given that Diana had personality and character issues before and after her relationship with Charles, it is not hard to believe that her personality and character issues did not also play a role in her marital problems and that the problems did not begin and end with the dastardly deeds of the older Charles and Camilla.

      • LAK says:

        GNAT: I read your comment. Several times. And I stand by my comments. Your response to my original comment was that you didn’t care AT ALL for the children because their mother was the devil.

        In many words, which included a list of their mother’s sins, you threw these children on the pyre.

        I’m not drawing conclusions, go back and read your own words because Bluhare had to explain to you that I was talking about *children*, NOT about Camilla.

        As for the Diana arguments, I think i’ve made it very clear on many occasions that although i’m not a fan of Diana’s person, I do admire her work ethic as a royal, but that wasn’t the topic of discussion of the post or my comments.

        If I wasn’t clear in my original post, I will be clear here, where is the compassion for children that were Tom and Laura? Are we (universal) so dazzled by royal titles that we can only show compassion for William and Harry?

      • FLORC says:

        aaa
        You’re entirely correct in your comment.

        Though, Charles courted Diana in a very famous “whirlwind romance”. For 6 months she was swept off her feet and wooed (sp?). Before the wedding she got nervous and her sister was of no help. Pretty much too late to pull out now type of comment… monograms? Anywho… She was naive and hadn’t really found her purpose. Diana and Charles did appear in love at various points in their marriage. Most notably around Harry conception/birth. Theiir was a spark and they couldn’t get enough of each other and being a family.

        And also agree. C, D, and C were all at fault. They all demonstrated poor judgement. Unfortunately the rules (**Correct Me If I’m Wrong**) for affairs are different in aristocracy. They can happen and do happen. They just can’t be aired as gossip and must be accepted by the wife?
        And I’ve asked before, but can’t remember the answer… As POW they can have mistresses, but having a mistress can never be used against them for cause of a divorce, right? Wrong?

        I remember reading of how Diana was someone who self harmed. The plane ride where she covered the jet bathroom after hurting herself to get Charle’s attention.. They didn’t know how to communicate in a healthy way to each other. Diana lashed out and Charles shut down. Sad, but no one can shoulder the whole blame.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        aaa, you made some good points that I had not thought of before. And I think I agree that she was in love with someone who really didn’t exist. Been there myself.

      • aaa says:

        @ FLORC,
        I don’t think that, prior to Charles and Diana, that a POW has gotten divorced in modern times. Were there any divorces among high ranking British royals between Henry VIII and Princess Margaret?

        I agree with the point that you and others made below that there were loving times between Charles and Diana. Also their “professional” relationship had many great moments.

        @GoodNamesAllTaken,
        Thank you.

      • Tracy says:

        Say what you want, Camilla will always be the lying, sneaking around, manipulative, conniving, two faced mistress of an equally lying, sneaking around, manipulative, conniving, two faced cheating married man. They caused a young, ernest, naive, loving young woman a boatload of pain and humiliation. Can’t stand either of them. I hope The Queen outlives her son so he never gets to be King, and I hope that event will see Camilla thrown out with yesterday’s trash. So there.

      • FLORC says:

        Tracy
        Too much of your statement is based in fiction and not fact. But it’s your opinion and no one can argue against an opinion like they can over fact. And for the record I dislike cheaters too. Charles, Camilla, Diana… All cheaters. All being the direct cause of ending anothers marriage. I’m stating fact not to trash Diana, but to create a more realistic image. It’s unfair to her memory to remember her as a fantasy. To remember a glorified image is to remember a false person.
        And promotion of ignorance never helped anyone.

        And 1 huge Ditto to all of Bluhare’s above comments. All of them. Nailing it today!

      • Maia says:

        Somehow I wonder how much Diana actually knew or thought of aristocratic marriages. Both her sisters had pretty normal marriages, am I wrong ? They seem to have raised children who chose normal marriages themselves. So it is possible that phenomenon of swinging among the artistocrats is not as prevelant as we imagine.
        As to character development, while I agree that some basic things are formed by 20, there are many facets that are not. And some of these facets are important in sustaining a marriage.
        As for things that Diana did as a child and teen : come on- that is redundant. I fought with my brother like a maniac as a child, I had huge arguments with my babysitter at one point that led to her quitting, I said a few very unkind things to my mother as a teen. But I turned out to be a very well-adjusted happy adult in a happy healthy relationship. What she did as a teenager should not be used as ammunition against her emotional state or ability to have a relationship. She was able to relate to people in an exceptional manner, absolutely exceptional in her people skills. You really think that if Charles had not been such a monumental asshat and if Camilla had not darkened their marital doorstep from day one Diana would not have found some way to win Charles over ? I think she would have. She would have been a much happier and able woman all around if she had not found herself mired in deep sadness from the very beginning. I do think that the initial years of her marriage left a devastating effect on her pysche. She did behave badly, and was a very poor communicator, huge over-reactor. But Charles and Camilla brought out the absolute worst in her.

      • LAK says:

        AAA: George 4 married Caroline of Brunswick when he was POW. Unfortunately, they *really* hated each other and barely lived together.

        They separated shortly after the birth of their *baby – named Charlotte – born within the first year of marriage. Caroline was rumoured to have taken lovers.

        Eventually she moved back to Europe where she remained until George’s coronation as King. However, George had her barred from Westminster Abbey on the day of coronation though she was acknowledged as Queen Consort.

        George tried to divorce her directly on grounds of adultery, but failed.

        He tried again via parliament ie introduced a bill called the Pains and Penalties Bill, essentially a parliamentary public trial of the Queen, which would have dissolved the marriage and stripped her of Queen Consort title, but again failed in that endeavour.

        The parallel between Diana and Caroline vs their husbands is uncanny.

        Caroline was as wildly popular in her time as Diana was in her time. Caroline drew similar public affection and hysteria as Diana did. And it was that affection that saved her from George’s actions against her. She was as wildly popular as her husband was despised.

        And their mutual enmity and separate lives were very public.

        * Baby Charlotte was a beloved princess and heir to the throne. By parents and the public. Unfortunately, she died in childbirth at 21 which paved the way for Victoria to become Queen.

    • Natalie says:

      One of the books about William from a few years ago referenced a fight with both Laura and William being upset. If I’m remembering correctly, Laura was furious with Charles for ruining her family -and I realized I’d never thought about things from the perspective of Camilla’s children and what they also must have gone through.

      • NotFromHere says:

        I think that is a very good point. Everyone went on about how bad is was for Diana and William and Harry but people just didn’t think about Camilla’s children.

      • cubfan34 says:

        Here kids were in high school when the worst of it was going on. It must have been terrible for them.

    • Jib says:

      I’m always amazed at how most people throw tomatoes at Camilla for “breaking up Charles’ marriage,” yet have Angelina Jolie, who “broke up Brad’s marriage” canonized as St. Angie. They are all adulterers, but Angelina has done good works since then, and Camilla seems to be a happy, warm person who makes Charles happy. So there’s that.

      The Daily Beast had the most sycophantic article about how Kate is “normalizing” they royal family by not inviting any of the royals to the party, and not doing any royal engagements, etc. Seems like Jason was a busy PR guy this past week. Not a mention about Wimbledon or the upcoming yacht races, though.

      • FLORC says:

        Really? There’s onlyAniston to support there was a seduction and alienation of affection on part and knowingly from Jolie. Calendars and locations don’t line up on top of a growing seperation within their then marriage. But whatever. Keep that torch aflame.
        And being a Dame is not literal. It’s honorary. She can’t be a dame not being a citizen.

  2. Eleonor says:

    The beef between Charles and William… if it’s true, it would be fun to watch what would happen if Charles stopped funding William and his wife lifestyle.

    • Betti says:

      Willy would chuck his toys outta the pram big time and would cut off access to the kids to the whole family – but that would bite him on the ass as there is an archaic law that gives the Monarch the power to become the guardian of the child(ren) against parents wishes (not that Charles would use it – i don’t think any royal has).

    • anne_000 says:

      I don’t know, because Charles gets tax write-offs for funding some of their things. And I think the BRF thinks that giving William stuff is one way of keeping him in (kinda) check.

    • Livvers says:

      I feel a little bad for Charles and his relationship with his sons. When I think of how Charles was essentially abandoned to nannies and tutors for the first decade of his life, and his mother never had time for him or made an effort to bond with him, but she DOTED on his younger brothers (especially Andrew), I feel bad that he had such a weird example of family bonds. I mean, I’m sure its no worse than a lot of families, but I know people who can only relate to their parents or kids based on what things they can give them or what money they spend, and it is an empty, precarious sort of love.

      • FLORC says:

        It’s understood the children of a certain age get sent off for schooling. It’s a way it’s done. It doesn’t mean they’re abandon.
        And it’s been noted while the Queen never showed much affection to Charles in public how they interacted outside of public eyes was different. They were very big on never breaking character in public as that was when they were on the clock. In private they could be a family.
        As far as other children being more loved… There’s a structure that is seen out in other families. You’re more strict because you want to make sure they turn out well. Or you’re not sure how to be a good parent. Maybe your parents were tough on you so you try the same method?
        People might pick this apart and disagree, but I stand firm.

      • Livvers says:

        I can’t find my source for the information, so I don’t mind if you discount it, but I had read that after Elizabeth succeeded to the throne when Charles was 3, her royal duties took her away from him–and often out of the country–for a significant portion of his childhood, and there was really very little uninterrupted family time. Only when Andrew was born had things settled down a bit for the queen and she was able to devote more individual time to her children.

      • FLORC says:

        I know what you’re talking about Livvers.
        I think I took your comment in incorrect context? Do you mean Charles missed out on what Andrew got because work had to be done?
        That time is often used to show a woman who prioritised work over her family in a way like she wouldn’t have been loving otherwise. If my wording makes sense? Like kids were a duty and unwanted from a maternal view.

  3. Loopy says:

    Are we suppose to believe that Charles would really not be invited to his grandsons birthday party, the same man that apparently bank rolls everything these two lazies do, some rumours are just ridiculous and unfathomable.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Right, how do we know he wasn’t invited. I didn’t get to read the post yesterday. Maybe he just couldn’t go?

      • Kay says:

        Yes, he and Camilla are on tour in another part of the country. So they’re working, and they’re going to see George on the weekend.

      • wolfie says:

        They had two years to schedule this party, but no.

      • The Original Mia says:

        He’s working and George’s birthday fell during the week. From what the DM is reporting, there was a small party and Prince Phillip attended. Charles and William will be back over the weekend and they’ll celebrate with George then.

      • Mixtape says:

        Also, it’s just a second birthday party? Presumably there will be other birthday parties, ones George has a much better chance of remembering down the road. The family just had a big all-in gathering for Charolotte’s christening, so I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal they couldn’t attend…

      • FLORC says:

        Wolfie
        Is there an axe that needs grinding?
        Charles has seen George. He continues to see George. And he keeps working. He’s missing a party set for a wednesday. This is hardly something that should be used against him.

        And do we know Charles wasn’t under an assumption like any normal person it would be held on a weekend? Maybe he was blindsided by this wednesday afternoon party where even William couldn’t be present?
        I don’t see the bfd here. It’s hardly a mark against either William or Charles. And gets a confused side eye to Kate on her scheduling.

    • kcarp says:

      Exactly. I think people make a lot of assumptions and when the idea is planted others run with it.

      I agree that I think the beef is with Charles and William. I think most of William’s stunts are digs at his dad.

      • wolfie says:

        Florc, do you have an axe that needs grinding today? My assumption (and that’s all we can make) is that William had to work, because he has a regular job and couldn’t get off, and if William wasn’t there – than of course, Charles would have to be busy as well. Simple!

      • FLORC says:

        Wolfie
        I’ve just making an observation. You seem hell bent against Charles and his lack of being at the party doesn’t seem like anything at all.

        So Charles isn’t there because he hates kids and because William isn’t there? “Simple!”? IMO it’s all reaching for justifications to attack Charles. Both guys are working. I won’t shade either for that. I hope another party or celebration is planned for The family members that couldn’t make it to the Wednesday party.

        We can all make assumptions. We can all have opinions. There should be more though.
        Still like you! And hope all is well :D

      • wolfie says:

        Florc, your assumptions about me are incorrect. I don’t think that Charles hates kids. I certainly am not hell-bent about anything at all! I’m a pretty mild personality. I made a simple comment that Charles had two years to make this plan, but no. That’s all I said. Yes probably William had to work, so Charles did too – so what? How is this attacking Charles, my lord.

      • wolfie says:

        Florc, your assumptions about me are incorrect. I don’t think that Charles hates kids. I certainly am not hell-bent about anything at all! I’m a pretty mild personality. I made a simple comment that Charles had two years to make this plan, but no. That’s all I said. Yes probably William had to work, so Charles did too – so what? How is this attacking Charles, my lord.

    • aaa says:

      @Loopy,
      I agree! I don’t see any indication that Charles was not invited to George’s birthday celebration rather it looks like he had a scheduling conflict. Great-Grandpa Prince Philip was seen driving up to Anmer.

      In my mind the Cambridges acquired themselves a big chunk of goodwill from Grandpa Moneybags when they named their daughter Charlotte, a variant of Charles.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is also a variant of Carole, as Carole is a feminine diminutive of Charles in French. They all come from the same root.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ aaa

        Pippa’s middle name is Charlotte.

        Kate and Carole’s middle name is Elizabeth.

        And as you know, William’s mother’s name is Diana.

        Princess Charlotte’s full name is Charlotte Elizabeth Diana.

        So (imo) the new princess’ name basically represents Pippa (Charlotte) – Kate & Carole (Elizabeth) – William’s mother (Diana).

      • aaa says:

        Uh huh, I did not say that Charlotte’s name did not have links to other family members. I think that her name was meant to honor both Charles and Carole.

      • FLORC says:

        aaa
        Enough classical/traditional names were used that we can only speculate what the intent was when choosing them.
        IMO safe choices to keep everyone happy. Diana though. Message received.

      • aaa says:

        I am speculating which is why I said “In my mind” in my first comment and “I think” in my second comment.

      • FLORC says:

        aaa
        Also speculating. I wasn’t trying to say you weren’t also speculating.

    • Red Snapper says:

      When Charles becomes King he will have the power to give the Midds the title Carole wants so very badly. I’m sure Carole is doing everything she can to suck up to him for that reason. I agree, the tension is between Charles and Will.

    • anne_000 says:

      I think the bankroll is to keep W&K from straying away too much. It doesn’t stop them from doing it completely, but it seems to be the only influence Charles has over them.
      ………………………..

      I think the issue about the b-day party is that the Middletons held the main b-day party in the middle of the week when both Charles and William are working, as most likely are the godparents, the parents of the invited kids, and these kids may have to skip school or daycare.

      According to the previous CB article, both Charles and William will be off work this weekend and will be in town, with Charles visiting for nearly a week. So the main b-day party could have been held this weekend when both sets of grandparents and dad would be there and it probably wouldn’t have put such an inconvenience on the other adults and children who were invited.

      It’s not like they couldn’t hold an informal b-day party on the actual b-day with just the immediate family members, but why hold the main b-day party on that day with all the invitees when everybody else might be working?

      Someone in the b-day post pointed out that W&K probably don’t keep in mind that other people have jobs, because they usually hang out with people who drop everything to be with them.

      Anyhoo.

      • aaa says:

        It’s not a given that Charles wanted to attend the main party, perhaps he’s fine with spending time with his grandchildren in a more intimate setting as opposed to being part of a kiddie party event.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ aaa

        Even if Charles didn’t want to attend a main b-day party, William was still on rota on Wednesday and off this weekend, when all the other adult invitees also, or most likely, been off work too.

      • aaa says:

        Is it a fact that William was working, maybe so but perhaps the party was scheduled before William got his work schedule and they did not see fit to change it.

        The Middletons are party planners and suppliers and probably get a kick out of planning and attending a kiddie shindigbut it’s not a given that other adults are similarly enthused.

        Again, perhaps the adults who were working during the week were fine missing the party.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ aaa

        I think Kate and Carole would know when William would be back to work and if they are professional party planners, they would know how to schedule a party on the weekend and/or on days when dad isn’t working.

        Regarding his work schedule this week, read the previous article on the Royals here on CB, which was yesterday, iirc.

        The article says that the invitees were godparents and children, which I presume would include the children’s parents too. So why set up a middle of the week big b-day party instead of waiting until the weekend?

        Whenever the party date was set, you’d think that Kate and Carole would realize that George’s big b-day party might be more conveniently held on the weekend for the sake of the parents of the other children and the godparents and the children themselves.

        They could have easily had an informal party on Wednesday, and held the main party on the weekend. One would think that if they are professional party throwers (which they aren’t, they just sell party stuff, not set the up), they’d know that weekends are usually more convenient for the guests, as they have to drive up to Norfolk to attend the party, leave work, school, daycare, etc.

      • aaa says:

        I am not going to assume that some big offense has been committed because of the scheduling of a birthday party, George was born on July 22 and a party was held on July 22,

        I am not going to assume that yesterday’s party was/is going to be the only acknowledgement of George’s birthday.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ aaa

        I don’t think you’re getting my point, but oh well. Anyhoo.

      • imqrious2 says:

        We do the same thing in my family.

        If the actual birthday is during the week, the immediate family (Grandpa, mom, dad, auntie (yours truly :-) ), and brother gets together for a family lunch/dinner. The kid’s party with their friends is on the weekend (and the family is there again to help celebrate… we like to party, what can I say ;-) )

      • Bridget says:

        A Weds afternoon b day party for a 2 year old isn’t weird at all – I’d imagine they’re inviting current playmates, which means that they’re either with a say at home parent or a nanny. It’s not like George is making friends at daycare. Folks are way over thinking this.

    • Megan says:

      Well they scheduled it on the day with the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall were on an official visit to Cornwall. At the very least, that seems like an unvitation.

  4. The Original Mia says:

    Paternity gossip? How about? No.

    Who cares if Waity gets along with Camilla? They are in each other’s company a handful of times. Usually they seem friendly with each other.

  5. Kiddo says:

    suet gaming pudding…👀

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Yeah, that sounds about as gross as it gets.

    • Sixer says:

      It’s just steak and kidney pudding with game meat instead of steak and kidney. Not a huge fan of suet myself cos it fills you up too quickly on the boring bit of the dinner (the starch bit) but the fillings to these puddings are usually really nice – just casseroled meat in a thick gravy.

      • Kiddo says:

        Suet is for the birds. Serving it to people makes you an utter tosspot.

      • Sixer says:

        Haha. Mr Sixer Senior is a lover of suet. I’m going to tell him you’ve called him an utter tosspot. He is of the opinion you save your dripping, shove some sunflower seeds in it before it congeals, and serve THAT up to the birds!

      • Kiddo says:

        BTW, this was a joke. Don’t get bloody mad!

      • Sixer says:

        I think you mean bloody p!ssed off. Do not soil me with your filthy Americanisms – mad = bonkers, not annoyed.

        Haven’t I taught you anything, woman?!

        (I’m still grassing you up to Mr Sixer Senior).

      • Kiddo says:

        *Slinks in shame. SHAME!*

      • Liberty says:

        …What I heard:

        “It’s just steak and kidney pudding with game meat instead of steak and kidney,’ she said with a toss of her British head. “Not a huge fan of suet myself cos it fills you up too quickly — ooh Harry you cheeky monkey, I didn’t mean THAT, my goodness we just barely got up and had our kippers, you naughty boy! and the ‘ettes may be anywhere with the nannies you brought, so, get off it, won’t you, plus I’m typing up this response to this daft gal I know who simply refuses to learn English, you know —- so I was saying, Miss K—– too quickly on the boring bit of the dinner (the starch bit) but the fillings to these puddings are usually really nice – just casseroled meat — ooh Harry, d’ya want another slap, you great pushy duck! — in a thick gravy — ooh is that big nice crusty bracelet for me, then, Harry, luv? oh okay, you devilish tosspot, one more quick game of Catch the Rhino, but only because Mr Sixer Senior is still at the shops buying his sunflower seeds, poor old dear! He does loves the birds. Oooh. yes, I know you do too, Harry!”

      • Sixer says:

        I feel honoured!

      • FLORC says:

        Some of the richer in iron organs are delicious! I know that’s gross to say, but i’m a lover of bone marrow too. It’s all the flavor people! You like it! You just don’t know you like it.

      • bluhare says:

        FLORC, with all due respect and you know I think the world of you, but BLEAGH! :(

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m with the yick side of the equation on this too. I sometime try to sneak a little organ meat into meatloaf or meatballs, because it is supposed to be healthy. It requires double the onion and garlic, plus a cup of ketchup/catsup per slice to get down.

      • FLORC says:

        Bluhare
        LOL!
        Really, Laughing over here!
        I thought so too, but then I tasted it. Tripe though…. there’s no saving that…

  6. Citresse says:

    The real question is what’s it like between Carole and Camilla? I would imagine not much, they keep their distance.

  7. aaa says:

    Not that there’s anything wrong with it but Tom Parker-Bowles referring to Prince Charles as his stepfather is what really caught my eye.

  8. Murphy says:

    I wish Charles and Cam had just gotten married to each other in the first place. Sigh.

    • MinnFinn says:

      Charles was such an immature, selfish jerk for so long that I wonder if he and Camilla would have gone the distance had they married when they were in their 20s. I definitely believe Diana breathed new life into the monarchy and very few ‘suitable’ brides for Charles could have done that, especially not Camilla.

      • Natalie says:

        Seeing as Charles and Camilla still don’t live together full time, we might have had a W and K type arrangement with periods of time apart but ultimately a strong though perhaps not entirely healthy bond.

        I think pr-wise they would have been generally fine once they had kids.

      • Murphy says:

        Charles was an immature selfish jerk…that sounds familiar….how long did it take him to grow out of it? Start the clock on William.

      • Dena says:

        William is more like his father than perhaps he recognizes. For example, they both have mommy wounds & to a certain extent daddy wounds. William seems more of an emotional tyrant then Charles. However, both can be petulant but in different ways. I wonder if Harry, being younger and perhaps even a bit outside of the Charles/Diana/William triad, looks at his brother & father and ever thinks ‘You got to be f-ing kidding me. You two are so exactly alike that it’s killing me. I’m gone. I’m out of her.”

      • Livvers says:

        @Dena Really enjoying your readings of family dynamics in this post. Can you tell me if you think Harry gives off middle child vibes? He seems a bit like a peacemaker/negotiator type, but youngest children don’t usually have to learn that role unless they are already inclined that way by character. Then again, British royal family dynamics seem unpredictable that way–Edward is a total middle child while Andrew is the indulged youngest.

      • Dena says:

        Hi Livvers:

        You know, it’s hard for me to tell simply because I have not seen C/W/H enough together as a trio. However, I suspect a few things:

        1. I suspect that Harry is easier to love than William–not that William isn’t loved/loving/loveable but simply there is less strain & tension around that with Harry (for a number of reasons).

        2. I also suspect that Harry is/was the tension-cutter within that dynamic (even when his mom was alive). I would also suspect that he’s locked into some sort of Harry the Scamp role that in truth it’s more of a tears of a clown thing.

        3. I think that with his Mom dead that he is the balancer between C & W. He has love/respect for his dad on one side and his love and admiration for big brother on the other. I want to throw in that video footage of C & H that I have seen from when Harry was little reflects IMO a little boy whose dad loved him & whose dad gave him his attention. Diana’s emotional state and co-dependent relationship with William could have pushed Harry & Charles, in some ways, closer together. Please know that I’m not throwing shade on Diana. She obviously loved her kids & strived to be a good mom to them & definitely a better mom than she had. I don’t think that can’t be disputed.

        4. I think as Harry spends more time out of Britian, away from his family, and gets more and more involved with more people outside of his circle (plain ole people, organizers (eg Invictus Games, movers & shakers)—basically getting some distance, perspective & more comfortable in his skin, I think he’ll first call BS on Charles for whatever (perhaps at times being a hypocrite?) and William last (for being an all around a-hole & douche). However, of the two, I’m thinking the latter will be hardest for him. As a big brother, Wiiliam may have some sort of hero status.

        For some reason, I also think that Harry has a certain type of pragmatism that William doesn’t. I don’t know why. I can’t quite put my hand on it but for some reason it just seems/feels that way to me.

        That’s my two cents. What are you thinking?

        😄

  9. Talie says:

    Oh, so it’s okay for her kids to talk to the media, but if the Middletons do it they are trash? The Mail would be ripping Carole, Pippa or James a new one if they spoke openly like this.

    • G says:

      thank you! im sick of the anti william/middlton campaign

    • Olenna says:

      If you read the original article, you’ll note that Camilla’s son was interviewed because he is a food critic and author, and filmed a cooking show in Australia. I guess he could have said “no comment” to the questions about his family but, at least, he’s not feeding the paps information on the sly.

    • Natalie says:

      Charles and Camilla have been married for a decade yet how much do we know about Camilla’s children? On the other hand, Pippa at the very least rushed to capitalize on the marriage right out the gate.

  10. Betti says:

    Not sure I buy that Carole and Mike are embarrassed/unhappy at being seen at the most involved grandparents – maybe if they (Carole) didn’t keep tipping the paps off to when she’s out with the kids then maybe i would cut them some slack. The birthday party is just more proof that her side of the family have better access and yes i do believe Willy is using his kids to score points against his father. This battle will damage the Monarchy as Willy has shown that he does things purely to piss people off – he will never grow up or out of that behaviour.

    • Olenna says:

      Agree. I think Carole (and Pippa) manipulate the press for coverage. I also think Carole may be behind some of the gossip that the tabloids pick up on about William and Charles’ relationship. Those pictures of her carrying George on her shoulders–I think those were staged and were a poor attempt (she looked so strained) on her part to evoke an image of Diana carrying her sons in the same way.

  11. Micki says:

    I don’t know why they shouldn’t get on “fine”. It’s not as if they have to share a place.
    I have a feeling that Camila is too busy being a wife and a grandmother to care much about Kate.
    Charles is another matter altogether

    • Mixtape says:

      Kate took a lot of the public pressure and attention away from Camilla. Kate’s the newbie and Camilla is the now the BRF old-timer. If I were Camilla, I would absolutely LOVE Kate.

  12. wolfie says:

    I wrote some of this yesterday; but it applies for today’s discussion:

    My theory is that Carole is a secret Diana fan, and now that William can access his mother’s records, he is getting the emotional support he needs to align with Diana’s feelings about the whole royal family. I know that publically this is not the face of it; but it could explain some of the distances created. Carole is nearly Diana’s age, and she is somewhat fixated on royals; and there were many on Diana’s side of the story. William would know better than any other, concerning his mom’s rage. The life that he is trying to provide his family has Diana’s imprint on it: she thought that she would have been happier with a ordinary life; although she gave all her heart trying to be a good royal.

    It seems normal to me that William would have residual resentments against his father; it would take great emotional maturity to feel otherwise. Of course, propaganda has Will on board with Cam, but much of what Diana left behind was major pissed offness with Charles. William has all the blanks filled in at this point.

    • Natalie says:

      Sadly, I think the Middletons are exploiting William’s unresolved grief and possible feelings of helplessness as a child as opportunities for themselves. It’s just not emotionally healthy for the Middletons to passive aggressively or outright aggressively aid William if he’s trying to settle old scores with his father. Like the saying, resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die. And William at 33, is unsettled, directionless, out of touch, and deeply cynical.

    • Dena says:

      And let’s be honest, it’s easier to be a Middleton, isn’t it? There are no real pressures there on William and no expectations. Carole and the Middleton family have created the family love fantasy that both he and his mother wanted. People often forget that Diana’s family and childhood was just as messed up as Charles’. As a matter of fact, Charles may have had more emotional stability than Diana given that his grandmother was around (if not always available and accessible).

      The closeness of the Middleton family almost seems clannish to me– protective, insular, untrusting, and suffocating. There is a healthy close and a not so healthy close. I think they dance on the razor’s edge just about every day.

      And, no, I’m not bashing close families or the Middletons for being a close family. That’s not what my critique is about.

      • Liberty says:

        Dena, I think what you’ve said here makes a great deal of sense.

        —> “it’s easier to be a Middleton, isn’t it?” <—- pretty much encapsulates the whole tableau for me, really. And the insular "closeness" you mention is the part that makes it seem so The Boleyns Part 2 to me. With all the ease, private plotting and planning too?

    • FLORC says:

      Wolfie
      Assumptions. When Diana passed William was still very angry with her. Diana and Camilla AND Charles were all on very good terms. Motives are another matter, but actions support this.
      And both WH have said in statements and actions they support Camilla and are glad their dad is happy. Also, Camilla has come out to support both boys.

      I think anything outside of this is propaganda. If Diana pet this fued to bed i’m not sure why it’s still going in her name. Wouldn’t it be better to remember a woman who was able to forgive and mature? Made mistakes, but evolved from them? Keeping this torch burning like it’s how Diana felt just seems like remembering a woman who was petty to the end and beyond.
      Still think you’re awesome Wolfie! We just see differently on this issue.

      • wolfie says:

        Florc, children of divorce have issues that extend way into their adulthood, and I wonder what Williams true feelings are. I am sure that he is very sensitive about it, and this would be very personal for him; but no less a factor in all of his decision making. I am well aware of the points you make, but because Diana is not here to make them, and Will does not express his opinion, you are making assumptions as well, according to your book of “how things should be”. Whether you think that I or Diana is petty, means nothing. How much “pettiness” William carries, I wonder. How things should be, really doesn’t matter in the world of emotion. Perhaps some people are as tidy as you wish, but that would be the exception.

        Human nature is not very forgiving; although it is possible to become peaceful with emotional maturity. Remember, I am not speaking about my feelings here, but William’s. How awful for him to be angry with her at the time of her death; so many wounds… Do you know how children deal with the divorce of their parents? I have a few children of my own who have gone through this ordeal, and could write an intelligent essay. I doubt that we will ever hear William speak about this.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “I have a few children of my own who have gone through this ordeal, and could write an intelligent essay.”

        Wolfie, you could write it from your perspective. You cannot write it from theirs. That seems to be the whole point of what you wrote, but you negated it at the end.

        What I continue to find interesting is the very different ways in which W&H deal with what life has dealt.

      • FLORC says:

        Wolfie
        Nota wrote a shortened version of what I would have responded with.
        Both brothers have handled things differently. Very differently from the looks of it.
        We could both write intelligent essays on the same topic with opposite perspectives and both would rest on the same facts, but different paths taken.
        Neither would be wrong, but possibly neither would be right.

        I make the assumption based on facts William isn’t secretly bitter and nursing his hatred of his father and Camilla since 1997. I make the assumption when he’s interacted and spoken of Camilla and his father he’s not fibbing through his teeth or needing several takes to swallow his anger.

        And I don’t think Diana was petty. You’ve missed my point I think. I think people assuming she was bitter about Camilla to the very end remember her as a petty person. She appeared to move on. Her actions towards Camilla and Charles were not petty imo. To think she would still be upset is imo to remember her as someone who could not move on several relationships and years later.

  13. What was that says:

    Sorry Kaiser..I have to correct you .It is my direct experience of him asking for a favour in the do you know who I am?? mold..I fact he said that..
    I cannot go further into it publicly but I refused .This was when his mother was not married to Charles
    On another aspect it apparently a thing for this upper class set to have roaming approval once the heir and spare have been produced….Not sure it applies to father but understand the mother once had the children can follow romance..I imagine it is much more planned or agreed upon in some households…

    • FLORC says:

      Going to have to state how you know this stuff and have something to back it up outside of this comment. Otherwise we can all claim things.

      • What was that says:

        I tell the truth ,whether you believe me is up to you..
        I have an insight that I personally have,though some time ago

  14. Kori says:

    In further gossip, Andrew PB was hot and heavy with princess Anne right up until he married Camilla. They’re still extremely close and this has led to rumors about them since he was widowed a few years ago. It’s all very incestuous.

  15. ArtHistorian says:

    Totally off-topic!

    I went to Frederiksborg castle today and saw the exhibit of Queen Margrethe’s dresses today. What a bounty! – her life charted from the christening gown to one of her most recent gala gowns. A sumptuous feast of silk zibeline, taffeta, velvet, organza and tulle! The centrepiece was her wedding dress, which, IMO, is in the top 3 of the most elegant royal wedding dresses ever (even without the front panel of antique lace that has since been removed to be used by other brides in the family). It is such a simple, elegant and classic design with a 5 metre detachable train, made by the eminent couturier Jørgen Bender! In fact, there were quite a few of Bender’s creations.

    http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.dk/2012/10/readers-top-10-wedding-gowns-10-queen.html

    • FLORC says:

      Jealous!!!!!
      And Ooooo! That’s my wedding dress (1st) silhouette, but half length sleeves and tea length hem. Replace the material with a high quality linen too.
      So, ofcourse I say very lovely and more super jealous!

    • notasugarhere says:

      I’m so glad you were finally able to get to this! I am incredibly jealous because Margrethe’s gala gowns must be something to behold in person. Her wedding dress is one of my favorites. The sweet touch of the family daisy brooch made it both sentimental and timely (era of the flower children).

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I was completely stunned. It is just soo very beautiful in its simplicity – even without the antique lace.

        I also love how the Danish royals have some very particular wedding traditions for the bride, that essentially honours the late Crown Princess Margareta of Sweden, whom Margrethe is named after. All the female descendants of Queen Ingrid (Margareta’s daughter) have worn the Khedive Tiara, an antique lace veil and a panel of antique lace fastened to the gown – all items that once belonged to Margareta. Ingrid lost her mother when she was only 10 years old under tragic circumstances. The Crown Princess died from septicemia whilst in her second trimester. It was something that affected Ingrid deeply and I find these wedding traditions very sweet and touching.

        The Khedive Tiara is owned by QMII’s youngest sister, the former Queen Anne-Marie of Greece. It is a beautiful tiara and I must admit that I find it a bit sad that it isn’t in the DRF’s ownership anymore, especially since Anne-Marie has a number of gorgeous and very impressive tiaras to choose from – and the DRF is a somewhat poor in tiaras when compared to the other European royal houses.
        http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.dk/2011/12/readers-top-15-tiaras-10-khedive-of.html

        The only non-royal who has worn the veil and the antique lace is CP Mary at her wedding – and considering the sentimental and symbolic value that these items have to Ingrid’s daughters, this was a huge compliment to Mary from QMII.

    • Betti says:

      Oooh – now that’s a vintage medieval dress, love the tiara and the daisy (i have a Georg Jensen daisy necklace which i adore). Would love to see it in person – one i will get to tour Northern Europe.

  16. Liberty says:

    imaginaryKitty: More tea? Afraid it stewed a bit while we was phone pranking Anne!

    imaginaryCammie: A ciggie and a wee drop of the flask helps the flavor, have a go! I say, how she screamed when we said we were the Sunshine and had photos of my old Andy in her rose garden, har! But she didn’t need to threaten us with the Yard and a whip once she snaffled on. Didn’t I tell you she’s absolutely the drears! Never a bit of fun, that gal, not even when I invited her to dress up and bring a chicken basket and a land mine out to old Spencer’s little island, har!! Well, that’s under the bridge, har! Now, at the moment, I worry she has her hooves deep in that vagabond Ginger Scamp!

    iK oooh, don’t I just know it! All this work work work of his, all this do-good games I can tell you just thinkin’ about it makes me nod right off in me exfoliation’ bath! An’ I can tell you, he won’t never return a call to me mum, when she knows Pips is at a loose end and just needs an arm for a party because the press lads will be waiting for a nice picture! And ‘ere I was thinkin’ he liked us! Or I tell you I wouldn’t never ‘ave sent ‘I’m our pants for a nice bit of fun when he was off in Naffghanistonia! He won’t even speak to me now, you know, ‘except to text me and say, “Oi, Cateyes, you don’t ‘old a little baby like that, it ain’t a Birkin bag!” Can you imagine!

    iC: Oh, I won’t even repeat what he said to me on the balcony once! I won’t, I told his future nibs I wouldn’t spill, silent as the tomb I am, just like me great-granny Mrs Keppel! But between us and the teapot, he might have said. I say, “I say, I think they say a hat like that killed me mum, you balls-faced old tosser!” Right out loud, there on the balcony! My awful mother in law absolutely made a sound like a snicker! Well! At least you and I have each other in all this business, eh, Kitty, my girl? So tell me, otherwise, dear, how are you getting on? Don’t you love it!

    iK: Ever so much! The Shops call me Ma’am, and I can get any boots I want fast as you can say, Knife! And I can just see a girl in a crowd and say, GIve me your hair, girl! and she must! and now, look at me! Better in every photo! And I just give a stamp, and I have another house! it’s lovely!

    iC: Oh it is lovely, isn’t it! I tell you, it’s also QUITE nice living in one’s own home while the Royal hubby is off living elsewhere, isn’t it? So restful and one can have a nice long soak and quite leave off the slap and VIrgin Airlines-made industrial girdle, har!

    iK: Oh but I love me slap! Yes, I do like the decorating, but I like it best to just look at my houses and visit ‘em sometimes, like they was shoes or babies or some caring group I am told to look at. But staying with me Mum is the best, really, she is so good to me, gives more time for me fashion work, too, of course, with all the magazines I must get through and my poses. Oh, Cammie, may I just say it to you, I shall hate this next month up in the Tower, though! So small! Working the till! really no closet space! And me mum can only stay at a hotel nearby and hoist perfume and things up to me on a quite long stick with a pulley! It’s so unfair!

    iC: Oh, pet, no worries! I had to travel with his old Nibs To Be out to Canada. You simply think you can’t live through it, but somehow, you do! I say, cheer up, shall we make a call to that smug prig Sophie! You say you’re a nurse what just found her Eddie in a dead faint in a dressing room in a too-tight Temperley gown, okay? Har! Oi, you’re like another daughter to me!

    • FLORC says:

      Liberty!
      Loved it all, but what’s a slap? I’m not reading it as the action of hitting something… Should I be?

    • bluhare says:

      I really want to be able to point to someone and tell them I want their hair. NOW.

    • Dena says:

      You say you’re a nurse what just found her Eddie in a dead faint in a dressing room in a too-tight Temperley gown, okay? Har! Oi, you’re like another daughter to me!

      ************************************
      Keep your friends close & your enemies closer!!! Those two might just be sisters under the skin. I love it!!

  17. anniefannie says:

    I’m not typically a royal watcher….but the inside
    baseball comments are off the hook!!!

  18. someone says:

    Does anyone actually see Prince Charles standing around at George’s birthday party while all the little 2 year old friends of George run around screaming? It seems more likely that Charles thought a peaceful weekend with George after the fact sounded much better than attending a normal 2 year old birthday party with piñatas and party favors.

    • anne_000 says:

      According to the previous article here on CB (yesterday, iirc), in addition to inviting other kids, godparents, and presumably the parents of the invited children, would be there too, as well as the Middletons. So there will be adults around and I’m thinking Charles wouldn’t be forced to sit at the kiddies’ table. Anyhoo, again, according to the article, William would be off work this weekend too. So it would have been a real family affair if this ‘big’ party was held off to the weekend, with a smaller, more informal party held on the actual b-day.

      But whatever. I still don’t get why anybody would hold a ‘big’ kid’s b-day party in the middle of the week instead of the weekend when it would have been probably more convenient for the godparents and parents of the invited children.

      Growing up, I don’t remember throwing a ‘big’ b-day party with invited guests in the middle of the week. Who could make it? Most everybody we knew had to go to work during the weekdays. We even waited until the weekends to hold funerals and memorials.

      • FLORC says:

        Anne
        Same. If my birthday fell on a weekday I got maybe a gift, some cards, and a cupcake with a candle. The weekend was the time for a party! And if my birthday fell on a saturday? That was double amazing! Bigger party!

        And correct me if i’m wrong, but when we hear of birthday or some Kate related party we always hear it’s “small”, “Informal”, and “intimate”.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ FLORC

        Are the terms small/informal/intimate used to make it sound like W&K are middle class/normal and not like pampered rich folks who throw big, fancy, expensive parties? I dunno…

      • FLORC says:

        Anne
        I think so!
        Remember that staff holiday party was billed as small before we knew the head count for 1 residence?

        Their middle class line is silly at this point. Family values is nice. All for them! That we must keep being reminded like it’s not easily apparent gets a side eye. I guess you have to keep practicing being middle class when you take a farmers land for your tennis court. Or you rush to renovate your mansion inside a palace on the money of the middle class and below because you favored purple over beige.

        I’m snarky in that. Bottom line. Their values do not seem middle class. You work hard. You keep close family values and hard work, and respect for those around you as pilars in your life. You earn your way. However that might be. And you act respectful and humbled by those who sacrificed for your ease of life.
        I am I off on middle class values? I know there’s a class system difference. Might also be called basic values/

  19. aurelia says:

    Speaking of paternity, Andrew’s father is the Duke of Porchester and Edward’s father is a peer called Plunkett. Both of these guys were heavily into horse racing. I think Porchie as he was known was a horse trainer for Liz. Phill wasn’t in Liz’s bed since Anne was conceived. He would not stop shagging Liz’s cousin Princess Alexandra! I saw an old photo of the 3 of them at an event in the 1950′s. The Queen was off to the side pretending to talk to some woman and about 5 feet away from them was Phil and Alex cuddled up. The dager looks Liz was giving was priceless. Anyhoo, yes its true Anne was totally on with Andrew Parker Bowles. Andrew cheated throught his marriage to Cam. Apparently Anne has picked right up with the widowed Andrew even now. Gosh this lot are disgusting.

    • Dena says:

      I’ve heard the Porchie thing but not the Plunkett rumor. Hmm. To put it nicely, Phil seems like a man of his times where all the “isms” are concerned (sexism, racism, ass-hole-ism, double-standard-ism, etc.).

    • Emily C. says:

      They’re aristocracy/royals. Of course they’re disgusting. It’s extremely rare when they’re not. And hey, at least they’re not allowed to get people who displease them in some way killed any longer.

  20. Caroline says:

    To go back to George’s birthday, he was a kid celebrating his 2nd birthday, was it not right that the main party should have been on his birthday? Regarding the royals and duties, they do certain things at certain times of the year or as planned. If I remember rightly Diana was coming back from the States on William’s first birthday. Does anybody know for certain there is a rift with Charles and William? Is it not a case of “a daughter is a daughter all of her life. A son is a son until he gets himself a wife”.

    Regarding the marriage of Charles and Diana, I think at one point, although not at the beginning, they did love each other. Diana would not have married Charles if he was not PoW. She was only chosen because she was deemed “suitable”. He wanted out before the wedding and went pleading to his father and even Princess Anne but he was deemed too late. He was too old for her, too set in his ways and too spoilt. I don’t think though it would have made any difference even although he was perfect. Diana was manipulative and neurotic. Having said all that, on public engagements, in the early years they were absolutely brilliant together. The perfect fairy tale.

    • FLORC says:

      Caroline
      That Daughter Daughter/Son Son saying. I’ve never heard it before ans it’s so cute!
      TMK There was no certain rift. Just a lot of speculation that never seemed to have rooted in truth.
      Seems both Charles and Diana didn’t want to marry, but were caught in circumstances outside of their control. Either could have ended it, but at the strong disapproval of their families. At least for a time they found some love in there. And in the end they were very friendly and could be social.
      For what it’s worth I always thought Diana found her purpose out of it. She took her platform and improved the life of others. Silver lining.

  21. SK says:

    I don’t understand how Charles is “not invited” to George’s birthday when in actual fact he has scheduled trips/events two years in a row on George’s birthday? If he cleared his schedule for it, I’m sure he’d be there! In any case, kids at that age don’t know the difference. It’s when they get a bit older that their birthday parties start mattering to them.

  22. Emily C. says:

    What’s with all the gossip rags caring about whether all these extremely wealthy women COOK? Of course they don’t, they have chefs! And why shouldn’t they?

    I had a teacher at school who happened to mention one day that she and her husband always bought dinner elsewhere, either in a restaurant or takeout. And a certain reactionary group of students were utterly scandalized. They were also aghast that she hadn’t taken her husband’s name and didn’t have children. The rest of us thought these students were absolutely ridiculous, throwbacks whom culture would leave behind in a decade or so. Unfortunately, they all seem to have grown up and become gossip columnists. And the world’s gotten more reactionary toward women in the intervening years.

    Cooking. JFC. I bet Charles doesn’t cook either, but no one even thinks to mention that.

  23. bored_01 says:

    If there were a question of paternity it would be kept quiet as the grave amongst that set. Good point of innuendo, though! Why has no trash tabloid ever gone with that angle? It’s a story as old as the monarchy itself.

    • msthang says:

      As beautiful as these tiaras are,just looking at them I feel a migraine coming on, I wonder how many of these royal ladies have to go thru gallons of aspirin all for the charade of being a royal!

  24. Caroline says:

    Just to comment on what somebody said earlier, the Queen did live in Malta full-time for at least a few months maybe even on two occasions in latish 1949 and early 1950. She did not just go there on holiday. I am British and have “always” known this. I have also just finished reading a biography of Edwina Mountbatten and the Queen staying in Malta is mentioned there. Prince Charles was not with her and I don’t even know if she spent Christmas 1949 or even Charles’s first birthday with him and this was before her father’s last illness set in. Anne was conceived in Malta. I think she mentioned this fact when speaking on TV about the Queen, maybe for her Diamond jubilee.

    I think somebody else also mentioned there were two or three years between Charles and Anne. There is not – only about 21 months. The same age difference as between George and Charlotte.

    I think Elizabeth has been a dedicated Queen but it has suited her to be and was in her nature. She was more interested in being Queen than she was a mother. I am pretty sure it was not a case that she longed to be a “proper” mother but had to put it aside for the crown. I think no matter what the circumstances as long as she had enough money to pay them her children would always have been brought up by nannies. She went on a gigantic world tour in, I think, 1954 that lasted for five months and did not see her children at all during that time. When Charles was there to greet her when she came back to England, I think I read recently she greeted all the dignitaries first and then patted him on the head. Now even in those days I really think it was taking it too far. Anne was her father’s darling and able to stand up for herself.