Ken Wharfe: Prince William has ‘become arrogant, spoilt & very difficult’

There’s a strange feeling around the British monarchy these days. The feeling comes and goes, but it might have something to do with the Queen celebrating the longest reign in history, and people are feeling reflective and they’re looking towards the future of the archaic institution. The feeling is difficult to describe, but it’s like a mix of boredom, anxiety and schadenfreude. Like, people are sort of rooting for some royal figures to get their comeuppance. The above photo is of Ken Wharfe, Princess Diana’s former bodyguard. Wharfe has written books about Diana, and he’s chimed in on the royal family from time to time. He notably said some words about William playing at being normal with his air-ambulance job last year. And now Wharfe is saying more words about the monarchy in general and William specifically.

Jeremy Corbyn has an unlikely ally in the form of Ken Wharfe. The man who served as a royal protection officer for 16 years, most notably for the Princess of Wales, declares he is now so disappointed with the Royal Family he has turned from monarchist to republican.

Wharfe tells me: “When I was a protection officer for Diana I was a monarchist because I thought the royals were good for the country. But I’ve come to the conclusion that they’re not a very nice group of people.”

Wharfe, 68, who wrote a best-selling book, Closely Guarded Secret, about his time with Scotland Yard’s royal protection unit, fears that the image of some of the “more workshy, minor royals” may jeopardise the monarchy’s future.

“There’s a danger that unless the Family is seen to be achieving something then people like Corbyn and the republican movement will become every stronger.”

He believes the solution is that the monarchy should slim down to include just the sovereign, the heir and maybe two others.

“People like Prince Andrew and the Duke of Kent should go. Ultimately I see the British royals going the way of European monarchies, but I’m not certain that Prince Charles wants to slim the operation down that much.”

Not even William may be able to secure its future, says Wharfe, who now has little regard for the prince who he used to play with while William was growing up at Kensington Palace and Highgrove.

“He was always a sly little boy, and now he’s become arrogant and spoilt. I hear from people who work for William that he can be very difficult. I liked Harry better and I feel sorry for him because he was never really able to engage in his military career. But I think he’s the answer to the family’s longevity, and I bet if there was a vote on who should accede to the throne; the people would go for Harry.”

He concludes ominously: “I’m not sure the next generation will even care about the royal family at all. They may simply become irrelevant.”

[From The Express]

Well well well. Do I believe Wharfe has used his tenuous connection to Princess Diana for years to make a living? Sure. Do I believe that Ken Wharfe is still knowledgeable about the inner workings of the monarchy? Eh. Do I believe that he probably does have sources/friends that work for the Windsors/Cambridges/Waleses in some capacity? Yes. I do. And I have the feeling that the people who work in some capacity for William are fed up with temper tantrums and arrogance, and those people gossip about him. It’s very interesting, isn’t it?

wenn23251290

Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN.

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

217 Responses to “Ken Wharfe: Prince William has ‘become arrogant, spoilt & very difficult’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lisa says:

    Finally someone in the know said something. William is going to freak. Watch out Mr. Wharfe.

    • AtlLady says:

      Was just reading the article further down about Dolly Parton and her Coat of Many Colors movie. Can we send Dolly over to the UK so she can teach Wills and Kate and the Middletons how to be normal, regular folks and still get lots of work done for the betterment of all despite being famous?

    • Anne tommy says:

      Of course he is arrogant etc. That’s what happens when you are surrounded by people who bow and scrape and never contradict you. It has recently emerged that not only do granny and Charlie get secret state papers that elected politicians don’t get to see, but this bozo does too. It’s an affront to democracy. The British people should be ashamed of themselves for embracing this medieval tripe.

  2. Hudson Girl says:

    The other day, The Daily Mail posted a pic of young Will with Diana as a very young kid looking dour as all f—. There is SO much behind an editor’s photo selection. It cracked me up.
    I’m so excited to watch Will grovel for the next 6 months to regain ground with the press. Or will he??

    • Christin says:

      I think he looked less than angelic in many photos from that time. He had a reputation at the time as a little terror.

      • Suitable says:

        Just like George!!

      • FLORC says:

        Yea, and it’s cute until they grow u and stay that way.
        As a side comment I can’t stand it when parents or adults let that behavior go bcause they’re young and can’t do much damage. Then they grow up learning that behavior was accepted and become holy terrors.

      • wolfie says:

        You are absolutely right Florc – and I have been a teacher for 25 years. It’s such a fine line, between respecting our children, and holding them accountable.

  3. Christin says:

    A sly boy is code for a scheming brat, I assume.

    The next few years will be interesting, as the rate of these negative opinions seems to increase.

    • LAK says:

      Sly is a very bad thing to describe a child. it conjurs up so many negatives. my worst nightmare as far as children go is to come across one who is sly. And the parents are worse because often the child presents to them an angelic face, and the parents never see beyond that.

      • Christin says:

        Yes, a ‘sly’ child implies quite a bit more than a rambunctious one. That word really caught my attention.

      • Betsy says:

        It’s not at all a “spinable” word, is it, like “spirited”? I have known one or two truly sly children, and they are not anyone you’d want to make friends with.

      • Sixer says:

        I would shrivel up and die if anyone described either Sixlet as sly.

      • Citresse says:

        No, I was often described as “sly” as a child and I turned out A-OK :-)

      • LAK says:

        Citresse: based upon your comments on CB, i can’t imagine you having a sly bone in your body. you sound quite lovely. :)

      • Sixer says:

        I second LAK!

      • Citresse says:

        Besides, sly in childhood v sly in adulthood are very different. Some productive, some not.
        In USA, Trump was often described as a “sly” businessman as a young man and he’s only grown more “sly” with time IMO. Look at him now- leading the pack (GOP).
        But really, don’t you think his key to success all along was/is his hair?

      • Citresse says:

        Well LAK and Sixer, let’s examine all definitions of “sly”. It may be deceitful but it may also be playful only.
        If Wharfe is describing William as being “sly” in every way then the British Monarchy is doomed :-(

      • Green Girl says:

        Yeah, “sly” to me is as bad as being called sneaky. It’s not a word I would want used to describe me!

      • bluhare says:

        With you as their mother, Sixer? That’s funny. Sly and the Sixlets isn’t a bad name for a band, though.

      • Sixer says:

        Citresse – I dunno if it’s a cultural thing but “sly” really feels deeply derogatory to me. You are not sly!

        Bluhare – this would be a nightmare. Sixlet Major would demand lead vocals even though he is tone deaf.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Hence Slytherin (sly therein = sly be in that place) in HP?

      • Feeshalori says:

        Sly gives me the impression of putting a frog in your parents’ bed and blaming your sibling, all with a very angelic demeanor.

      • LAK says:

        OMG…..*shame face* i like to say that i’m a HP fan, but i never made the connection of the two words that make up Slytherin…….

        i’m off to show off somewhere with my new HP word association.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LAK, that is the only one I have for the house names. I don’t know if any of the others mean anything or contain hidden messages.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        This comment thread is terrifying me because I have a five-year-old son and I honestly think he is sly. Not in a malicious way, *necessarily*, but in the way that he goes about getting what he wants. The difference is I see through his BS and he knows it.

        Nothing is worse than the parents who think their precious snowflakes are perfectly angelic when everyone else can see that’s plainly untrue. I grew up with a girl bullying me terribly for years and her mother simply wouldn’t hear a word of it; she thought her daughter could do no wrong. So I am extremely sensitive to any sort of manipulation and as soon as I see even the slightest bit of it in my own child, I call him out immediately.

        At this point it is only stuff like, Mommy said no, he can’t have M&Ms before bedtime, so he goes and asks grandma, and tells grandma that Mommy said it was okay. Nonsense like that. But I’ve got his number and I will NOT let this crap escalate! This boy is going to keep me on my toes alright 😒

      • Bettyrose says:

        Charlotte, as someone said, I think it might be cultural. I don’t have quite the aversion to the term that others here do. To me it means clever, resourceful. Certainly it’s also deceptive but that could be in a Robin Hood sort of way.
        Having said that, clearly the reference to William is derogatory but context matters.

      • Sixer says:

        I’m thinking, like Bettyrose, that “sly” must have more negative connotations in the UK? It really feels like a mean word to me but clearly it doesn’t to lots of people here.

      • frisbee says:

        I equate sly with manipulative, I can believe that William is both and it’s enough to make me run for cover because they are qualities that confound me every time.

      • FLORC says:

        Should have read down 1st. Charlotte and everyone. So agree!
        That “sly” quality can only get worse if the child learns at a young age they are untouchable and can manipulate the constant adults in their lives.

      • Lucrezia says:

        From my experience: the American norm is “sly” as in crafty, like a fox; while the British norm is “sly” as in sneaky, like a snake.

        Does that match what you guys are thinking when you use the word?

      • LAK says:

        I think Lucrezia summed up the difference perfectly. Obviously there is a spectrum that goes from sly like a fox to sly like a snake, but I think the overall behaviour is quite negative. And it’s really bad if a child is like that and encouraged by their blind parents who think they can do no wrong.

        Charlotte15: the fact that you are looking out for this behaviour means he will be less likely to develop it.

        And I really feel for the bullied child that you were. I know a child whose older sister bullied her to the point of being physically abusive, and the parents never believed that it was happening. They thought the younger sister was a clumsy crybaby who couldn’t get it together.

        They were 7yrs and 5yrs old.

        The older child also loved to get her younger sister in trouble all the time, so she would make up lies or create scenerios and claim it was her younger sister. And the parents always believed her. They thought the older sister was an angel who could do no wrong. Her behaviour really slide into psychopathy, and I still worry about the younger child more than 15yrs later. I really hope that she’s OK and or found in way to get away from her sister because the parents were never going to help her.

      • Nikki says:

        Charlotte15, I wouldn’t be terrified by your son’s behavior. Children have their wants, but they don’t have adults’ power, so kids will often scheme to get their way. it doesn’t mean he’ll grow up to be Eddie Haskell! (My poor uncle had short term memory loss after an accident, and we cajoled him into taking us to an ice cream parlor twice in one day! My aunt found out and we were punished, but think back on stunts you tried.) But kids are often called out on stuff like this, and learn better ways of getting things as they get older. But William wasn’t called out on things, and grew up feeling entitled to things, so seems a spoiled, arrogant man.

      • FLORC says:

        LAK/Charlotte15
        The older pulling the wool over the the parents case is my Brother in law to FMORC. He would carve my husbands name into things and blame him. Or they would break something wrestling and it would be entirely his fault while the older brother was upstairs doing homework. No where near the crime.
        They accepted this, but once caught on some damage was done. Not to FMORC, but to my BIL who spent too much time thinking he could get away with a lot. At least they’re friends now. To contrast to LAK’s anecdote unfortunate results can go all ways.

        But as LAK said you are aware of it and that is more than many can say. Being aware is in many cases the hardest part.

    • Jib says:

      Yes, sly is very negative. It means sneaky, dishonest, lots of really bad connotations. I am sure that William was always difficult. I keep thinking of that picture from last week or so, with Kate and Wills going to some function, she had that tiara on. He looked really annoyed at something and she looked worried.

      Life with Wills is not a lot of fun, I bet.

      • Citresse says:

        Charlotte- don’t worry at all. Your son may just been well intended for the world of business (high finance) be very successful, and giving time, money (donations) etc to charities big and small. A child may be described as sly (playful) yet have steadfast care for others. Harry, is “sly” in that he planted a hand print on Edwards’s (the photographer) face. There was “sly” laughter from Harry. But I’m 100 per cent sure Harry didn’t have malicious intent. Diana liked Arthur Edwards.
        As for Edwards- not so sure he liked it at the time, but perhaps his mood was influenced by jetlag?

    • wolfie says:

      Children are at our Mercy! Yet nothing (Nothing!!!) can change the idea in our subconscious that God was Once a Woman – while we were nursing… After children can hit back, it’s too late – it’s difficult to become one’s own person – rule is, don’t hit children, and break their hearts, that is, don’t try and control what is wild – the beauty of a human being without resentment. The only point necessary is how to get along with others – because we love our children, and want them to be happy. What more could a mother want? Pure hearts are the treasure.

  4. Katydid20 says:

    Harry’s got my vote…….

    • Suzy from Ontario says:

      I agree. I think he’s right in that more people would want Harry for King if they had a choice. Harry seems much more genuine and compassionate than his brother. Maybe he was treated less “royally” because he was the “spare” and that enabled him to become more well rounded and “normal” but he seems so much less arrogant and snotty than William. I wonder how different William would be today if Diana had lived.

      • Anne tommy says:

        The point being of course that votes and choices don’t Come into it. Emerging from a particular uterus at a particular time is the only qualification required to be Head of State in the UK.

  5. Betti says:

    He always was, he’s only gotten worse as he’s got older. There are various reason’s why he’s the way he is:

    - Personality traits. As i said he’s always been like that, being difficult is part of his personality. He never really had any boundaries in his early years and always seemed to have been treated with kids gloves as no one in the family want to deal with his tantrums
    - Being protected far too much. He knew that whatever he did would be covered up by this family so it created a massive sense of entitlement and arrogance
    - Being spoilt. I think that both he and Harry were spoilt by the family (HM in particular) after their mothers death and it has affected him more negatively
    - Death of their mother. This will have had some sort of effect on him as a person
    - The Middletons. They have enabled his behaviour for many years, they allowed him to treat Kate like sh!t and Kate herself allowed this. They do whatever it takes to keep him happy and by their side and if that means treating him like the 2nd coming, so be it

    And am totally behind what he’s saying that the Monarchy is in danger of becoming irrelevant. If they want longevity the Buckets have to go and yes they will have to eventually slim down like their European counterparts.

    • Eleonor says:

      I am a bit over the “poor boy” who’s lost his mother, to me it’s not a valid reason to be an a-hole.

      • Jag says:

        My boyfriend lost his mother when he was eight years old, and he grew up to be a very generous, sweet, amiable person. Diana’s death didn’t cause William to be such a jerk – or it didn’t have to. I agree that it is no longer a valid reason to excuse his personality problems.

      • Mia V. says:

        How many people in the world lost a mother, a father, both parents? It’s sad and hard, but it doesn’t make you a “poor person”.

      • Suitable says:

        Well to be fair, there is one difference. His mother was hounded to death by paps, who also hound him and his young family. That makes for a twisted outlook, I’m sure.

      • Eleonor says:

        @Suitable: Harry lost his mother too, and he doesn’t seem an entitled brat.

      • FLORC says:

        Suitable
        Your facts are too misguided to be fair.
        William was well secured from paps and while Diana thrived with them he despised them. He couldn’t handle how she used them to her advantage either. He just disliked them outright. He also had blanket protection from them outside of controlled royal events or approved photo ops.

        IF William was caught in an unapproved moment (a stairwell quickie or peeing in a field for example) evidence is scrubbed best as possible and distraction stories are released.

        And Diana invited the paps into her life. She encouraged them to chase her around. And she dismissed her best line of defense against them. To make the old claim that they hounded her is to pick and choose what you want to use to create a truth from manipulated information.

        Also, his young family get hounded? They are so incredibly protected and the press does not step over the line unless they get a tip off to do so. Midds and Jason are the ones who benefit from this.

      • Original T.C. says:

        Hundreds of Thousands of children around the world have lost their parents due to violence, sometimes right in front of them, sometimes being forced to shoot them by rebel forces who later go on to rule their country. Somehow most of these kids manage to grow up without being brats, or a-holes.
        Ostensibly Wills and Kate meet some of these kids during their charity meeting. But for precious Wills we have to cuddle him and make excuses because his Mom was a famous glamour Princess. I’m sure he will be pulling the Diana card soon to deflect from this book. Just like they started doing all this charity work right before the book hit. Because people are gullible and it works!

    • Christin says:

      He seems to be the type of person who would complain if someone handed him a 20 (currency). He would want to know why it was not a 100. That’s just the personality I envision he has behind closed doors.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        Christin, yes! I think you summed William up in that one example. I know people like that in my own life and they are exhausting. You give up trying to please them, eventually, because you know that no matter what you do, it will never be “enough.”

      • Christin says:

        @Charlotte – My boss uses that example on occasion. There are just some people in this world who cannot be satisfied.

    • Charlotte15 says:

      @Betti this comment absolutely nailed it. I think you covered everything. Spot on, and I wish William and Kate could both read it!

    • wolfie says:

      Original T.C. – you lay it bare. I think of all the poor little children – and who the hell is Wills?

    • Suzy from Ontario says:

      I also agree that the Middletons, who are social climbers, have tried hard to manipulate William (and have succeeded) into thinking they are a normal, cozy, more middle-class family where he can just be himself. I’m sure there are no royal rules to follow and he act out whatever fantasy he has about living in a “normal” family and away from the responsibilities of the Monarchy, which he seems to despise. In turn, the more they turn Will away from the Monarchy, the more power they get…like Kate’s Mom basically running their home, hiring and firing the staff and being a terror (from what I’ve read) and difficult to work for. She is acting out HER fantasy of being royal.

  6. Meg says:

    DOn’t you think harry can be carefree and more fun than will because he knows he’s much further down the line to the throne than william? if harry was next after charles, wouldn’t he act like will does? and people forget, william doesn’t like the press because press had a huge hand in his mom’s death-yes her driver was drunk but they were being chased too. how those men aren’t in prison i have no idea. any one of us would’ve gotten in huge trouble chasing someone with our car who ended up dying in a crash.

    • Betti says:

      Actually William hated the press long before his mothers death, particularly how she invited them into their lives during the divorce battle. Apparently their last conversation was an argument about how she kept inviting the press into her life.

      • wow says:

        Only Prince William and Diana would know if that was true. Only they would know if that was the topic of their last conversation.

      • Peanutbuttr says:

        @wow I believe it. I remember during the hundreds of Diana retrospectives, they were discussing how William was getting very irritated with the press. Two clips stood out. One was when Diana and the boys were with Dodi in the Riviera, I think. The pics showed Diana playing in the water while a seemingly smiling William was circling her in a water scooter type vehicle. However, the footage showed that William actually looked miserable. Another was during a ski trip with Diana where William was acting very sulky and Refusing to pose for pics.

      • FLORC says:

        Wow
        It’s no secret William, indeed hated the press. We do know this. And no secret he did disagree with his mother broadcasting her relationship with them. When with his mother and dodi he looked like he hated everything.

        Was it the last conversation? We can’t know this for a fact. was he upset with his mother’s use of the paps? That is not at all a stretch with so many moments in history to support this and so few to deny it.

    • als says:

      Is that you, Prince William?

    • Deedee says:

      One could also say that as the older brother, future king and all, he could afford to be a more secure, settled and generous person, since he knows his destiny and identity from birth. It’s Harry that has needed to find his role and make a life for himself. William doesn’t like the press for lots of reasons, but mostly because he wants to do what he wants with impunity.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Very well put, Deedee.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        @DeeDee I never thought of it like that, but you are absolutely right.

        William cannot help the fact that he has certain personality traits, but had he been a bit different, you’re right, it could have played out exactly like this. Unfortunately I think William is just at his core an unhappy person.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Agreed, Deedee. That’s exactly what the situation was with the Queen and Princess Margaret.

      • wolfie says:

        Diana would have taken her hurt to help and empathize with others – she would have used her pain to inform – Will is sulky and selfish – not like his mother. He wants his mother’s teat, in the form of public deference. Way to be King, Willy! Way to go…

        Anyone who has been thru more childhood pain than he, has the right to rebel. There are so many babies crying, and Will is off the list of the needy. When an adult complains about a baby (the young George), there is a problem. I loved Diana – I adored her – but she is not the same as Willy – he belongs to himself – and the whole world will know he is “king”. Such a silly, silly boy! (Who needs to be put in his place for the good of all). How long before we listen?

        A good mother wants her child to be responsible.

    • Montréalaise says:

      If you look at pictures of both boys from a very young age, the difference is personalities is very apparent. William was usually scowling and petulant, while Harry had a much sunnier disposition. As for the paps hounding their mother – she used and manipulated the press, first to promote her image of a perfect princess, then later as a tool to get back at her husband and his family. Unfortunately, she discovered that media attention isn’t like a light switch that you can turn on or off at will.

  7. Senaber says:

    This would not seem believable if William didn’t support these ideas with his general bad attitude and disregard for his position. He definitely thinks he is a “sly boy” still.

  8. mariaj says:

    ” and now he’s become arrogant and spoilt. ” never got why so many people liked him, even when he was younger and somehow more attractive. Harry, on the other hand, always seemed more funny, to me, silly, sometime idiot , but more interesting anyway.

    Likely they have had different educations, i suppose Wiliam has had a more rigid one

    • Mayamae says:

      Something has stuck with me for years. I remember a scene where Diana is reunited with the boys after a separation. William comes running hard at her and she hugs him like crazy. Meanwhile, Harry comes in more slowly and kind of looks around, almost bored, waiting for his turn. When Diana hugs Harry, it’s much more subdued, and he shows nowhere near the joy that William did. At the time I was 100% team Diana – poor naive thing treated horribly by her cold selfish husband and the Rottweiler. I’m sure I justified it as William being the more sensitive and needy one, but Harry was just a little guy, and he really seemed over the whole thing. It makes me wonder if William got the majority of their mother’s attention because he demanded it, and he was given his way. If so, the adults in his life did him no favors.

      • Natalie says:

        In the book by the former housekeeper at Highgrove, she described how William would have dinner and watch tv with Diana in her bedroom while Charles ate alone downstairs and I guess Harry ate in the nursery with the nanny. I have wondered, didn’t that seem odd to Harry, that his brother was having dinner with their mother and he wasn’t.

      • epiphany says:

        I always had the impression that Diana favored William over Harry; not that she loved William more, but maybe she felt because he was heir to the throne, he needed for time and attention. Also, I think Diana saw a lot of herself in William, so felt a special bond with him. She made William her confidante through much of her troubles with Charles and the royal family, which certainly wasn’t healthy for William, but probably compelled Diana to keep William closer to her, as he undoubtedly knew her secrets and innermost thoughts.

      • aaa says:

        I think that William having more one-on-one time with his mother vis a vis Harry was initially due to William being older, Harry was a toddler when Wendy Berry, the Highgrove housekeeper, started working there, but it did ultimately evolve to William becoming Diana’s confidante and soother which was a totally inappropriate way for Diana to use William.

        The person whose favoring of William vis a vis Harry that was mystifying to me was the Queen Mother. She invited William, and only William, to spend time with her to supposedly coach him for his royal role but it is interesting that she excluded Harry since the two kings she had most exposure to, including her own husband, were both was a second sons.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        If she really made her teenage son her confidante during a nasty and public divorce, then she did a lot of damage to her son. It is quite possible that she had a co-dependant relationship to her eldest son. Don’t forget that she came from a deeply dysfunctional home – and that kind of familial damage can very easily repeat itself (perhaps in other patterns) unless it is dealt with directly. I get the impression that she was a deeply troubled and damaged woman. It was her misfortune that she married into a family just as dysfunctional as her own.

        I was never very invested in Diana and sometimes the “saintification” of her makes me gag since I very much doubt that her public image would be so positive if she were stil alive, considering her antics around the time of her death. She definitely did good things but her relentless self-promotion was off-putting. Charisma, beauty and an early, tragic death – all these factors have a tendency to myth that overshadows the real person.

        It always struck me that she so publicly advocated for William to succeed QEII instead of Charles, even when she knew that William would be a deeply reluctant king. I judge her very negatively here because it meant that her desire for revenge on Charles was more important than the feelings of her son – especially since she created a very strong public opinion that William ought to be king instead of his father. That’s quite a burden to put on a teenage child.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        All of these comments are things I’ve heard enough over the years to accept as true at this point. @ArtHistorian, I did love Diana, but I was in high school when she died and now that I’m an adult looking back on her actions, I agree with you 100% that if she was still alive, the perceptions of her would probably be very different.

        She was extremely manipulative and if what we’ve all read/heard about her making William her confidante during her worst years is true, that actually makes me feel sympathetic toward William because that is so wildly inappropriate to use a young boy in that manner and drag him into drama he had no business being a part of. I do think she loved her sons, but it seems she loved herself more, because she certainly didn’t take into account how her actions would negatively influence William for decades to come.

      • aaa says:

        @ArtHistorian,
        Great comment! My only quibble is that Diana sucked William into her drama well before he was a teenager and therefore well before the divorce. In fact William was being used by Diana even before the separation and prior to the War of the Wales being made public.

      • FLORC says:

        The slipping tissues under the door was William at a much younger age than teens.
        I can see Diana was a young bride, from a dysfunctional family, who felt she was trapped. But to take her eldest son as a therapist did him no favors. Charles and Diana were both so wrapped up in their own drama William just got sucked in being the eldest. IMO anyways.

      • LAK says:

        AAA: yep. The QM’s behaviour towards the two boys was mystifying. Then again, she was a very status conscious person. Nevermind history, William was an heir. She was going to favour him, in the same way that she favoured Charles although I think she made a genuine bond with Charles beyond his status.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Diana was never on my radar until the War of the Waleses so I don’t have any emotional investment in her. Besides, that intense emotional investments appears to me very much as an American phenomenon – I know I’m generalizing but that is how it appears to me.

        I must confess that my own experiences also makes me judge the way Diana dragged her child into her emotional drama very harshly. I myself have a mother who has consistently dragged me into her paranoid-schizophrenic world since I was a young child in an extremely manipulative manner, even using her suicide attempts as “punishments”. It has done tremendous damage that takes a lot of hard, honest work to put to rights. I know my experiences most likely is much worse than William’s but I actually consider using a child in this manner as borderline emotional abuse. I think he has some very serious issues that very likely aren’t being dealt with.

        Honestly, I think it is very likely that Diana suffered from a personality disorder. Her mood-wings and her behaviour was not normal and not healthy! However, she managed to spin her own narrative so successfully that her version of the story became the public truth for a very long time. She was young, charismatic and pretty – the opposite of the stiff and uncommunicative Windsors. That she died young under tragic and slightly mysterious circumstances just solidified her myth. A myth that I think has several elements in common with the myth of Marilyn Monroe. It would actually be a great topic for an academic paper. ;-)

      • FLORC says:

        AH
        *HUGS* So Many HUGS!!!

        And what Diana did to William IMO wasn’t boredline. It simply was. Unintentional, but absolutely was behavior that was emotionally devastating to a child that cannot understand what he’s being told at that age and level of life experience. And from his parents. The emotional supports for children.
        IMO

      • notasugarhere says:

        Whatever Diana did or did not do, I think it important to remember it wasn’t 24/7. Excusing nothing, merely pointing that out. The boys were at boarding school most of the time.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It doesn’t matter if she did something 24/7 or if her children were away. that kind of behaviour helps form harmful patterns of thought and behaviour that become so deeply ingrained that exist on a subconscious level. Patterns that can stay with you your entire life unless you consciously work to alter them, which is very hard and difficult work. The earlier these patterns are established, the harder they are to change.

        Diana was most likely herself a product of her dysfunctional family and it very much appears that she herself wasn’t much aware of her own harmful patterns and how they affected others. That’s the way dysfunctional patterns works across generations – the way they are “inherited”, so to speak.

        I don’t doubt that she loved her sons dearly and wanted the best for them. You can still do that and be a bad parent in certain ways.

    • wolfie says:

      Folks, i haven’t’ finished the commentary, but why does no one one say, this is toxic to human beings – the life which Billy Normal happens to be living. For no other reason than the simple fact of one human being – Down with the 1%’s.

  9. Citresse says:

    Hope Mr. Wharfe doesn’t own a motorcycle.

  10. Sid says:

    The thing is when these stories coming out, some people might be trying to explain to William to “get it” but he never will. Maybe this sounds wrong but I think a part of him enjoys this and then will act like a pelulant prat even more to annoy everyone. He’s one of those who never believes he’s wrong.

    • JulieM says:

      What really annoys me about Bill is how he has no qualms about throwing his loyal little brother under the bus when it suits him. As you stated, he enjoys doing this. And I don’t think he will ever not do it because he was so spoiled as a kid. Harry has his limitations, but I kind of feel sorry for him. Loyal to his brother but getting s##t on for his loyalty. The best revenge for Harry is to find a fabulous woman to share his life with, one who is not afraid to put herself out there and show up the dull Cambridge duo.

      • Cricket says:

        Totally agree about Harry. What is sad to also see now is how he seems to do the same to Kate and now George. Normal Bill knows no boundaries in his verbal take downs.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        @JulieM his treatment of Harry is vile. I don’t even know what else to say about it, it’s so awful. Luckily Harry seems well-adjusted and able to handle it, but I hope he meets a woman who is his equal and who he can have a true, supportive partnership with.

      • FLORC says:

        I could be wrong, but I’ve always viewed it as palace PR tossing the spare under the boss to save the heir. Not William personally doing it.
        I do think William could absolutely stop this and demand this pattern and defense be eliminated, but I doubt it will happen.

      • wolfie says:

        Florc, if Wm could stop it, and does not – isn’t he is the nightmare? And Harry, (bless his heart) trying his best to be the spare, (as Diana would have wanted) – aren’t we actually seeing Wm proving his character in truth? How many times do we need to see an asshole behaving like an asshole before we call him one? Character is not for sale, even to the royal family!

    • Charlotte15 says:

      @Sid, mostly agreed, but what sets William apart, IMO, is that even if/when even he believes deep down that he is wrong about something, he DOESN’T CARE. He doesn’t have to adjust his behavior accordingly the way the rest of us do. He just doubles down because he knows that nobody is going to stand up to him.

      • Azurea says:

        This is one of the biggest markers of a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Along with many of his other traits.

      • wolfie says:

        NPD is difficult – can we fault someone for being bereft of empathy? Perhaps when we, in merciful human justice, call upon their childhood to excuse their error, and blah, blah, blah. A spade is a spade, when called.

  11. Talie says:

    People forget, but Diana was probably similar in temperament to William — very moody. Some head issues. But she was also very charming and loved people/attention. Also remember that William grew up in some major instability with his mother crying her eyes out and he would comfort her. That tends to mess a person up.

    • Mayamae says:

      I agree about Diana’s personality. Her dedication to her charities was admirable, but it also fed into her need for adoration. I wonder if she secretly enjoyed stealing Charles’ thunder.

      • Elizabeth says:

        I don’t think the love of stealing Charles’ thunder was secret. It’s just that so many people were hoodwinked.

        I remember shortly after they married, Charles was asked to play the cello for a charity event (he was a pretty decent cellist in those days). In the middle of his piece, Diana got this funny little smile on her face, then walked over to a piano and started playing (not well, but quite loudly, apparently). And I don’t mean that she was accompanying him; she started playing a completely different piece of music.

        She always did whatever she needed to do to get the attention that should have been his. Many mental health professionals believe that she had borderline personality disorder.

    • epiphany says:

      Thanks, @Talie, you saved me having to make that comment. Diana and William have/had very similar temperaments. What saved Diana was her charisma and strong emotional intelligence when it came to dealing with her public. Privately, she could be very moody and difficult, just as William is purported to be now. Now, Charles is no ray of sunshine either, but he’s learned from Elizabeth to put duty ahead of emotions. Also, the fact that Diana used her eldest son as a confidante undoubtedly exacerbated an already impossible situation for William.

      • wolfie says:

        Diana was probably trying to accompany Charles in his cello – but no one will think of that, as she is dead. Diana, did have emotional intelligence, and accordingly, if we had spent time with her, we might have loved her too. Emotional intelligence does not mean that everything that flowed from her life would turn out – she had great darkness in the form of her husband and his ideas of being set apart – few mother can fight the belief of the boy’s father, and his “right” to rule. In the end, in real life – it is the victor of the battle that takes precedence in the short term.. People Love Winners! But the battle belongs to Us and Victory of our passion.

    • Tourmaline says:

      I agree Talie. I have respect for how Diana handled many aspects of her life but she definitely could be moody and petulant by all accounts. And Charles is also reportedly moody and petulant at times.

    • FLORC says:

      Diana’s childhood behavior was without question a nightmare.
      That did carry to adulthood.

  12. kaiko says:

    Will Windsor is a gemini, plain and simple.

    • Betsy says:

      That is not an answer. Millions of people were born between those days.

    • Belle Epoch says:

      Hey! Watch with the Gemini bashing! 😊

    • Suitable says:

      Wrong wrong wrong. He is a Cancer just like his mother. And a double one to boot. Yes there is the moodiness, but they can be leaders and they do have caring hearts, but they need to be self protective simply because they are sensitive.

      • littlestar says:

        William has natal sun opposite neptune and neppy conjunct his ascendant. Both would indicate a high probability of alcoholism and/or self-delusion ~ of being mentally and emotionally overwhelmed, then shutting down and escaping.

    • Bettyrose says:

      Whoa Nelly! Wil Windsor has a narcissistic personality disorder. Entirely unrelated to one’s astrological chart.

      • Azurea says:

        Actually, the chart would reflect & expose this…not CAUSE it.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Would a study of all babies born the same day as Will reveal similar childhood experiences leading to similar adult personalities? Or does the chart predict individual circumstances?

      • FLORC says:

        Chiming in!!!
        Bettyrose. I went for a complete chart up of my astrology/karmic number/palm stuff.
        There’s so much to take into account it can be personalized. The exact GPS location and time of birth down to the minute on top of other things.

        Also, we are all reading eachother from the wrong signs. I won’t go any further as fact as my mind is fady on this, but for a hit and miss example the astrology many of us go by/newspaper is say… a Sun sign. When a Moon sign is what reads our personalities. That’s just an example and might not be fact, but to detail sort of how we get it wrong a lot. Unless you’re (like me) born at a time when you’re hitting the same sign from luck of birth you might be wrong using the sign of gemini as what can detail your personality traits.
        Like Sun, Moon, Mars, Venus, Ascending, Descending, all have signs and all serve a purpose.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Your Rising Sign is who you appear to be, your Sun sign is who you are, and your Moon sign is who you REALLY are.

    • kaiko says:

      Sorry ladies, I should’ve explained myself a bit more but had a toddler hot on my heels yesterday! :) I really only meant, topically, just in looking at the sun signs, WW is almost a split personality much like the “twin” sign of Gemini. He’s got two distinct yet conflicting sides to his life, his public persona and his private life. And whenever I read an article about him it’s usually pertaining to his struggle to balance his public with his private life. And he certainly does seem to struggle, hence his waffling about career, charities, etc., and seems to be constantly searching for something new, something different, a way to make his mark. IMO his true personality is hard to pin down because he leads such a seriously fractured existence, whether you believe that is because of his astrological sign or not. Personally I believe every life on earth is connected to the sun, moon, stars, universe in some way…after all, as Sagan said, we are all made of “starstuff”.

  13. SamiHami says:

    “And I have the feeling that the people who work in some capacity for William are fed up with temper tantrums and arrogance, and those people gossip about him.”

    While this may very well be true, I have to wonder if he would get headlines if he said, “Will? Oh, yes. Lovely fellow.” In other words he has everything to gain by talking trash about him.

    Again, not saying it isn’t true, but I am saying look at the source and his motives before accepting what he says as absolute truth.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree. This guy has made a living off of his “inside” knowledge for long enough, in my opinion. I’m not saying what he says isn’t true, either, but it’s also not anything you need to be an “insider” to know. I could have told you that William was spoiled and difficult, and I’ve never met him.

    • Tourmaline says:

      I always think how it would mess with someone’s head to have so many people who were around you as a child write tell-all book about your parents.

      In William’s case it would include Ken Wharfe and quite a few others such as Patrick Jephson, who was Diana’s private secretary, Wendy Barry, the housekeeper at Highgrove (that book is an eye opener), James Hewitt, and who can forget Paul “my rock” Burrell.

      One can see how it would cause trust issues, big time. I think about that when I read about how William and Kate may be mistrustful of their staff or limit their staff. I believe William is indeed petulant and coddled but I have sympathy for this aspect of his life.

      • notasugarhere says:

        All of the royals deal with this to a greater or lesser extent. It doesn’t stop the rest of them from working.

      • wolfie says:

        Money buys comfort – I do not feel for Willy. Trust issues? – find a friend or counselor – there are NO excuses to be an ass. If he is real, and like the rest of us, then he is responsible for his Path.

  14. Sixer says:

    Ugh. And now we know that the PoW gets to see all the super-secret-squirrel cabinet memoranda* (ie laws before they are written), we know that the day is not far off when all this stuff is shared with Normal Bill the Sly but Stupid Tantrum Thrower and Well Known Duffer.

    Great. Just great.

    *Grauniad finally got the FOI answer they were after along with sight of the Black Spider memos.

    • LAK says:

      i’m not at all surprised by this news. i’m only surprised by the fact that this is news at all. A lot of the background history of POWs is that they always have govt info. exception Edward 7 whose mother Victoria actively wouldn’t allow govt to send him papers when he was POW. she didn’t think he was up to the job and so Edward was shut out of it.

      The other non news is the date they are saying he started receiving the paperwork. 1992. it’s not a secret that Charles has been taking over his mother’s role for decades now. It became more visible after the millenium, but i seem to recall conversations from back in day about Charles taking over backroom stuff which also included govt papers.

      As much as the royals try and hide stuff, there is always a leak somewhere, usually unnoticed until it’s dam spillage!!

      …..but of all the royal shenanigans, i hope the govt won’t give Charles the crown estate. that is a ridiculous thing to happen, but you know the idiots that govern us might think it’s a good idea.

    • Betti says:

      And am sure he will ‘leak’ things he doesn’t like just to cause an uproar – he seems the type that would enjoy the drama.

      As others have said he’s another Edward VIII – who was rumoured to have given state secrets to the Nazi’s. I wouldn’t put it past Willy the Sly to pull something like that as, you know, he knows better then everyone else.

    • Sixer says:

      I think the Grauniad have been remarkably inept in their pursuit of both this and the Black Spider memo stories. Until they can find a smoking gun of an actual specific policy influence, there’s nothing to see here, as you say LAK. They’d have been better sitting on it as back-up for when (if) a smoking gun does present itself.

      But I do think it highlights all the concerns we have over Normal Bill. At least Chuck has always been dutiful in a sovereign-in-training role. His twerp of a son has not and really, clearly, has no business being allowed even an observer role in affairs of state.

    • suze says:

      I should have read before I posted.

      Is this why WillKate have been trotted out so much recently? So we are talking about red dresses and happy children and not the fact that “confidential” papers are not really so?

      On the positive side, this has brought about the grand title of “Normal Bill the Sly” which fills me with delight.

    • anne_000 says:

      Because of the type of person I think William is… IF after he gets access to those cabinet memorandum, I wonder how very little amount of sweet talking and ego-stroking it will take from unscrupulous people close to him *cough* for him to blab something from the documents to show off his knowledge and importance? And if one of them uses the information for a new-found business enterprise, wouldn’t that be interesting.

      And then, if he ever found himself in trouble for what he did, would he give Harry the information afterwards and blame him for the leak? I’m not saying William hates Harry, but someone’s gotta be the fall guy, right? Because William must consider himself to be more valuable in his position than someone who isn’t going to be King one day. I dunno. Royal soap opera.

      • Tina says:

        Good point, anne_000. It’s like insider trading – people always think they’ve been so clever, but in reality it’s blindingly obvious. I fervently hope that someone close to William sits him down and explains to him how few people know this stuff and how obvious it would be that it was him if any of it came out.

    • wolfie says:

      Families are as sick as their secrets – I don’t know what else to say! No offense to the Brit’s, but at least we are able to weed out a Trump with a democracy.

  15. Emily C. says:

    A prince, arrogant and spoiled? Royalty being not very nice people? Gee what a shock. Millennia of history surely could not have prepared us for such a revelation.

    • Caz says:

      Hehe we don’t put up with that :) Very few monarchs are actually suited to their role. QEII is the last one. As an Australian I am not interested in Charles being our king let alone William. Neither bring anything to the table. The younger generation is not pro monarchy, looking ahead. there is no connection with these privileged, self entitled, unskilled people who are simply there because they were born into the right family.

      Australia will become a republic after QEII passes. There’s too much respect for her to have a referendum whilst she is alive. I don’t think the British Royal Family realise how tenuous their hold on the Commonwealth is. No amount of photos of the children & Kate shopping us going to change our minds.

      Are there any Canadians here…wondering what’s your view of the Commonwealth and the prospect of King Charles on the throne? Is there talk of Canada also becoming a republic?

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        I wish. For whatever reason, Canada clings to its situation.

      • FLORC says:

        Maybe not pro monarchy, but an easily distracted generation that doesn’t care to know much past this weeks buzz news might be enough to keep it going.

        For example. So many people months ago knew about Gaddafi, the capital ,the horrors, his family by name, beofre that Saddam. Now that info is replaced by new news to be outraged over. Much like any Monarchy scandals or purpose we a generation it only takes distractions. Writing this out made me really sad btw. Ugh.

      • Tina says:

        Canadians don’t want a republic because that means…dum dum dum…constitutional change. Which means dealing with Quebec (and the fact that it never signed the Constitution Act 1982, legally meaningless but symbolically significant). Which no one wants. Canadians would rather be a constitutional monarchy forever than open up that can of worms.

      • Daisy says:

        Tina’s right. The amount of fuss it would take to change the Constitution to disembarass us of the royal family would be monumental and the political negotiations just too delicate; there’s no point wasting all that effort on something that is, for most Canadians, pretty much a non-issue in day-to-day life. Our previous PM (Harper) was very jingoistic and pro-monarchy and made some controversial decisions with pro-royalty overtones, but the new PM (Trudeau) has already rolled back a couple of those changes.

        If someone actually ever manages to get all the provinces pulling in one direction on Senate reform (about the same time that pigs learn to fly) it’s possible that other changes to the Constitution might slide in at the same time, but I don’t see anyone with any appetite for starting up the anti-monarchial campaign, and there’d be too much of a risk that some interest group would use this relatively tiny issue to derail whatever larger issue is the actual problem.

      • Mary-Alic says:

        A huge number of Canadians have zero idea of what Quebec signed or not. And let’s not forget that becoming a Canadian takes all together just a few years, therefore a solid number of current Canadians know very little of Canadian history aside from the mandatory for the test, which is a pitiful spoon of info. Therefore, the truth is that Canadians don’t care, don’t know or both. Many don’t even register the fact we are a constitutional monarchy simply because it’s not in our faces all the time. Nothing willchange because no one is bothered by the status quo in Canada, or very few are.

      • d says:

        I’m kind of a monarchist as long as Queen Elizabeth is alive and after that, I’m done. I know she’s rich, etc., but QE *has* devoted almost her entire LIFE to this role, taking over from her father when he died, and I really do think she’s worthy of respect for what she’s done in her role. I don’t think she should be underestimated or denigrated just because one might not support the idea of a royal family (not saying anyone is, just saying I like her). For what she’s done, what she was tasked to do at the time of her life, within the constraints of her life, she’s gone over and above. I don’t feel like that about anyone else in the RF. As for Will and Kate, I’m hugely disappointed, although in hindsight, I suppose the signs were there. They seem to have not a strategic bone in their body regarding the royal family, beyond taking advantage of their status.
        But I agree, to change the relationship between Canada and the monarchy is a massive can of worms that shouldn’t be opened. The cost of which would inflame the many Canadians who are out of work now, not to mention those who are working, but struggling. The compromise is a stripped-down-to-the-bones royalty.
        I can’t help but wonder if Harry is being positioned to take over instead of Will, who doesn’t want the role’s responsibility if it means he has to work. Which makes me laugh, given the Middleton’s status-seeking. And I think Harry might be coming around to the idea, given what he may be observing from the inside.
        But, who knows, maybe there’s more to the role of kingship/queendom than doing charity work and public appearances and maybe he’s doing a lot behind the scenes. Still, the optics are bad and that’s what’s so mystifying…that they don’t seem to get it.

      • Tina says:

        Mary-Alic, you’re right that a lot of ordinary Canadians have forgotten (or never knew) about the constitutional battles of the 1990s. But the elites remember, and so you’re not going to see major politicians devote much time or energy to getting rid of the monarchy. This is different to Australia, where the new PM Turnbull is a proud republican who talks about it a lot.

    • rosiek says:

      These two (WK) need to figure out a “middle way” with the press, or the press will really tarnish their image. They serve the people but they need the press. The BRF is incredibly dysfunctional. Hopefully they get some psychotherapy along the way. What a life–under scrutiny your entire life, being sold out by people around you–it has to do a number on a person’s psych.

  16. Belle Epoch says:

    Sigh. Years ago he made little girls’ hearts flutter. I guess Kate kept hers fluttering with CPR longer than anyone else. Now he’s stuffy and bald and apparently petulant. Plus Harry seems to live with the press a lot better.

  17. Tiffany says:

    Become?…….

  18. Natalie says:

    To be fair, William flat out denounced Wharfe’s first book. There’s no love lost between the two of them.

    They’re all sly; switching away from the Civil List to a minimum guaranteed amount from the Duchies, changing the FOI Act right around the Jubilee and wedding. William stands out for having no work ethic but in terms of slyness he fits right in with the rest of the Windsors.

  19. Hejhej says:

    He’s not certain that Prince Charles wants to slim the operation down that much? That’s a bit of a mystery to me, as I think there has been quite a few stories suggesting Charles wants the royal family to pretty much only be him, William and Harry once he becomes the regent. At least that’s obviously what Andrew seems to think, since there are so many stories about his poor girls loosing their “role”.

    • Suitable says:

      Yeah, goes to show how much he knows.

    • JulieM says:

      Maybe Charles is having second thoughts about slimming down the operation because he knows how lazy and petulant his elder son is. Someone has to help him and Harry can’t do it all.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is following the model of most other European monarchies, where the younger siblings and their children are not working royals. Beatrice (and maybe Eugenie) could end up as Counselors of State at some point, but that’s it. They will not be working royals.

  20. Olenna says:

    Not at all surprised at Wharfe’s assessment of Willie. I’m more interested in the rationale for removing the first comment posted here today about a multi-cultural country being represented by his family.

    • Pinky says:

      Hmm….

    • Hudson Girl says:

      I think if enough people flag something it gets looked at by a moderator?

      Being Royal is a birth right thing so, I think that family has to marry into other cultures to evolve the current ethnic limitations.

      • Tina says:

        It’s not unheard of in the aristocracy – the Marquess of Bath’s heir married a black woman and they now have a son, who will inherit Longleat one day. I’m sure it will happen for the royals too, it will just take a while.

    • wolfie says:

      The idea of a “Commonwealth” seems strategic – (getting a few government’s in agreement) – yet not necessarily, appropriately, representative – which is the Struggle for Us, Olenna.

  21. potatopie says:

    The point that just constantly keeps aggravating me is how articles state that William and Kate want to live a “normal” life. They can’t – and won’t ever be able to. They’re NOT normal people – they’re royalty and you can’t have both. This isn’t something you can slide in and out of whenever the fancy hits you. They also need to separate themselves from the Middleton clan running the show. Now – whether anyone wakes and smells the coffee burning is another story in and of it’s self. Neither of those two (Will and Kate) are earning their keep.

    • Betti says:

      *puts on tin foil tiara* The fact that Carole/Mike/Uncle G is running the show is one of the reason why I think he will never see the throne. That family are a serious liability, Uncle G seems to think he will be right in there once Willy takes the throne. The same Uncle G has a criminal history with very dodgy connections – he sold drugs and ran a under age prostitution ring and this is what we know about. What else are the Mids desperate to hide?

      PS he didn’t show up to TQ’s annual xmas lunch at BP – apparently he had ‘work commitments’. Hmm wonder what ‘work’ that is? Kate went with Harry and George.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Most normal people I know do not have two free mansions, housekeepers, cooks, nannies, millions a year in allowance, and get away with only working 60 hour a year.

    • aaa says:

      Royals have been craving normal lives for generations, and if circumstances allowed they were able to pursue their version of a normal life except that when the layers were peeled off their brand of “normal” had to be bastardized for various reasons like security, privacy and creature comforts. Again William wanting and pursuing “normal” is not that unique, one of the key things that sets William’s brand of normal apart is that he pursued a civilian job as opposed to many of his predecessors who sought normalcy via the military.

      • wolfie says:

        His pursuit is for approbation – end of. If he could anything other than PR high jinx – he is not. What a stupid way to spend your life, Jason.

  22. wow says:

    “I hear from people that work with William”

    …is basically the same drivel as “a source says” to me. But I like this guy a little because he put action behind his belief and became a Republican. And he’s absolutely right about Harry.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They were his work colleagues, and the newer ones may turn to Wharfe for advice on dealing with their high-profile clients. To me, that gives him a little (not much) more cred then a random “royal source”.

  23. suze says:

    How has Wharfe spun a career out of this? Talk about sly…

    That said, I can believe Wills is difficult. Now that the Middleton contingent is there to take up the coddling slack I bet he is more so.

    Is this a distraction, though? News is out that confidential government papers have been sent to Charles, as well as the Queen, for review. For years. Are we being distracted with Kate in red clothes visiting happy children and odd little stories about Wills famous temperament?

    • Lulu says:

      I don’t actually think the papers are as big a deal as being made out. The Queen has always received such papers, because she’s the one that signs the laws into place. Given that it’s been stated for a while that Charles is being prepped to take over – and that must have been in place for decades, as the Queen’s longevity was hardly guaranteed – him receiving the papers as well is really only to be expected. I would think that it’s actually this news that’s more damaging. After all, William was supposed to be the golden prince, the groom of the wonderful royal wedding, one of the cornerstones on which the new image of the royal family was supposed to be built. If news about his unpleasant character is spilling out now, then the public’s got quite a while to decide that they don’t actually want such a toxic brat upon the throne – long before Carole finally fulfills her dream of seeing her daughter crowned.

    • LAK says:

      What Lulu said.

      Charles and HM receiving papers is not news though the guardian is trying to make it so.

      The only POW in history who never knew what the govt of the day was upto, was Edward 7. Victoria’s son. She actively stopped govt papers being sent to him, effectively locking him out of govt. It’s one of the things frequently mentioned in defence of Edward 7′s lack of work as a POW.

      It tells you how much the BRF’s image has been distorted that people believe this to be news, despite learning about it in history lessons AND or being updated about it via news cycles.

    • Sixer says:

      What LAK and Lulu said from me too.

      Also: people really don’t care about this woolly stuff. They will only care if it can be shown that a Royal has had a specific influence on a specific piece of legislation.

      • LAK says:

        Sixer: I take back everything I just say. Can say that i’m officially having vapours and need to lie down.

        The Cabinet office has just confirmed that William receives govt papers too.

        Something about apprenticeship for his future role and learning how whitehall works.

        I stand by my previous assertion that this is standard practice and nothing to be too riled up about unless one objects to the principle of it, BUT I strongly object to normal thick-as-two-planks Bill receiving govt paperwork.

      • Sixer says:

        Vapours? I’m going to need more than sal volatile. I think my head might explode.

      • FLORC says:

        Sixer/LAK
        Do you think William receives the papers with CliffNotes of them? Does he truly understand what is said? Given by his off the cuff speaking I can’t see that he does.
        And like with the Ivory he thought would be better destroyed I can’t help, but wonder if he’s easily manipulated to an extreme. To appease others after a few drinks. A “weak constitution”.

      • Tina says:

        Ha, FLORC! A weak constitution in more ways than one.

      • FLORC says:

        Lol Tina!

      • Sixer says:

        Haha @ FLORC!

        The other thing that occurred to me overnight is the stark comparison with the fact that this government is making moves to restrict the FOI legislation. So, under our dear leaders, Normal Bill the Idiot gets access but anyone who wants to hold the government to account does not. Nice.

    • wolfie says:

      I really do have to go lie down. Really.

  24. FingerBinger says:

    William has been told since he a baby that he was special. He’s known since he a boy that he’ll be a king. Of course he’s spoiled and arrogant. That’s not news.

  25. kri says:

    That dude has a face like a crab’s stomach and it’s freaking me out. I would not mind a Ginger Prince, though. As long as he puts out a calendar, I’m down.

  26. babs says:

    Arrogant, spoilt and difficult is code for William becoming his own man and doing things his own way and going against the iron rule of the establishment. They don’t like that kind of thing.

    • maggie says:

      I agree with you. This grumpy looking man is a member of the old boys club. They resent change. William is young and most likely wants to update the establishment moving forward. It’s almost 2016 after all!

    • Lisa says:

      Yes but not being empathetic in intolerable for someone in his position.

    • FLORC says:

      But he’s not changing much. If anything he’s only reverting it back to how it was. When Royals didn’t have to appease the plebs with charity work and offering to pay taxes. When they just had what they wanted and took it by force. Where the rules didn’t apply to them because they were blessed by chance of birth.

      For William to live off tax funds, accept freebies, and never refuse what is offered to him as his post of senior royal and heir to the heir is wrong. Both tactically and morally imo. He needs to prepare for his future roles and put in the work now for his current 1. Or he can take less perks if he insists on putting in less time devoted to his role. That would still allow him time to be a copilot, dedicated family man, and senior royal.

      • maggie says:

        Wrong! He can only do so much. He’s not the guy in power…. Yet. The queen has to go before anyone will see change. She’s old school. Don’t believe everything you read Florc. We don’t know what goes on despite what is written.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yet you presume to know more than FLORC as you’re labeling her “wrong”.

        They set their own schedules. He can choose to work more and take the burden off his elderly family members, but he chooses not to. He is free to step aside at any time if the burden of this existence is too much for him.

      • FLORC says:

        Maggie
        You have titled me as wrong, but offer nothing to support this.
        To add to Nota, William is in great control of his life and schedule. He can do as he likes short of claiming the crown. And he’s even been offered a few times the Duchy so he could have taken on POW duties early if he chose to.
        And yes. HM is “old school”. As in she keeps her head in the sand avoiding all confrontation until forced. A great example is all we see William doing and the Queen/Charles/Press appeasing him.

        And Maggie. I do not believe what I read at its own valuue. That’s where photos, videos, unbias and bias reporting all plays a role.
        Now, when an article that the facts discredit comes out I do notice you are here defending W&K’s actions from an alleged story like it happened. So, it’s possible everyone can learn to not believe all you read.

        I’ve said this many times. I always like to be informed by at least a few outlets, will accept facts that oppose my opinions if proven so, and can accept when I was wrong. Also advice we should all absorb ;)

    • Natalie says:

      The iron rule of the establishment that has given him two mansions, a tailor-made “job”, and life-long luxury?

      And how is he rebelling? By not working much?

      And what Florc said, William is a throwback not a modernizer.

  27. Tessd says:

    I’m just wondering what is he like as a husband with that moody and spoilt personality. What is it like for Kate to be married to him. Obviously, she’s known him for years but my guess is he just keeps her mouth shut. Remember when she joked out loud “William, how much do you love me” and he just wasn’t amused? I bet he is not a very easy man to be married to.

    • Charlotte15 says:

      @TessD I often wonder if Kate is different behind the scenes, more outspoken. She plays the smiling, waving, supportive wife role like a pro but I wouldn’t be shocked if, behind closed doors, she lets loose and tells William where he can shove it.

      She’s secure now, married with an heir and a spare, and she can speak her mind to him without worrying about being summarily dumped by him as he could do in their college years. Whether or not she does, who knows, but it would be interesting to find out. She seems like the type who can keep the fake smile plastered on her face as long as she needs to, but then rip into him as soon as they get home.

      • Tessd says:

        @Ollie – she is very obviously just trying to keep her dress from flying up from the wind :) Not a very good example.

      • FLORC says:

        I thought those images werre scrubbed out.
        Like the William taking Kate aside reportedly as a sore loser post sailing race. The press ran the story differently with new interpreation of the images. Much like Kate trying to catch George to discipline him vs the press stories of them playing a game. Needlessly so.

        IMO From the coverage we have well over a decade Kate reads like this to me.
        She worked hard to land a man of financial security. High profile enough where a divorce wouldn’t come easily for public perception. She let herself get walked over and her family laughed at for a ring. Now she has it and has cut all ties with those who laughed at her. Although her self respect took a hit. Now she’s the girl who needs to dump on others because that’s what the people who had what she wanted acted like.
        And with a husband who is gone often, but it’s accepted with retail therapy.

        She needs to find more. A purpose. When she finds this she will find respect and being that mean girl will be a thing of the past because there’s more to occupy her time and thoughts.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        @ Ollie
        I agree with you.
        William has a face like thunder and arrogant fury. Kate looks like a child who has received a very harsh telling and keeps her head down in defiance. A husband shouldn’t talk like that to his wife. She should be his equal.

      • Natalie says:

        I think so. In public, she’ll try to keep the peace -those photos of her at the last reception were a bit sad; she had this tense, shell shocked look on her face. But in private I doubt she puts up with it close to as muxh as she did in the girlfriend years.

      • Betti says:

        @ Natalie – i highly doubt this. William himself has said that Carole takes his side against Kate’s when they do disagree. Also, royal divorces are not uncommon and the scandalous thing they once were – 3 of the Queen’s children are divorced and he is the child of divorced parents. He’s capable of walking away and if he does he will keep the children as they are, by law, under the legal guardianship of the Monarch. Plus her family need the press protection that comes with him being the heir’s heir – Uncle Gary is dodgy as f*k (drugs, running an underage prostitution ring etc..) with criminal connections.The Mids themselves are very secretive of their finances we saw that they were in debt when they tried to get a mortgage on Buckleberry which was mysteriously with drawn and they paid cash in full for it (was something around £2mill) and then there was the dodgy security renovations done on the property that cost the taxpayer £1million (under the guise of protecting Kate, Willy and the kids when they visit). Waity’s family has a lot to hide and considering how unpleasant they have been reported to be (being rude and obnoxious to sales assistants, using RPO’s as their own personal security etc..) the press will have a field day with them. They need Sly Willy more than he needs them.

      • LAK says:

        It never ceases to amaze me how people can look at a picture of someone clearly being told off/yelled at and conclude that she’s simply holding her dress down.

        She may be doing that, but look at the very different expressions on their faces, his gesticulating hands, his face caught mid yell – definitely not mid laugh or cry, and then he storms off with than closed expression on his face, striding away, body turned away meanwhile even though she’s holding her dress, her posture is self protection, especially the picture where he is storming off.

        This was very definitely not a pleasant moment for both of them, even if Kate is holding down her dress.

      • Betti says:

        @LAK – i guess that brings a whole new meaning to the incident last week where he told her to stop flirting with the traders and the comment about her ‘embarrassing him’. If he’s making those type of passive aggressive comments in public, i can only imagine the verbal lashings she gets in private. He’s a bit of a bully – always has been.

      • FLORC says:

        This is behavior some people have. They flip a switch and get angry. For a pop culture ish reference Bull Burr a commedian on netflix specials. He speaks quite well about his temper and how it can be a point of shame. He doesn’t want to be that person and can’t understand why he explodes, but it’s like flood gates opening. If this is William he needs help. Real help and a real will to change.

        For a time FMORC was this man. And I reached a point a few months before he ended up proposing that I yelled back. That there was no purpose to yell at me like that and I didn’t deserve it. And that if he did it again I was gone. Which was hard because I was in love. He changed then. Not overnight, but got there.
        From the stories of Kate accepting his behavior, cowering, taking him back after terrible behavior, etc… I don’t care how different you guys can be in public. If he’s like that in public it’s not a mild issue. He’s done this a lot and we always get leaked photos of it.

        That William’s behavior is always protected by the press and his PR. With Kate always taking him back. He has no reason to change.

      • Jib says:

        Ollie,
        Those are the pictures I have been looking for from their Australia trip!! At one point, he was practically yelling in her face. I’ve looked and looked for those pics, and couldn’t find them anywhere. He was really angry at her, and she looked totally cowed, and that was after she had George, so she should have been very safe in her rule, according to some here.

      • wolfie says:

        Florc – We are good, because we love the good and the beautiful – it’s our banner of light and truth and what we defend to death, because we have no choice in this loving – it is who we are. Honery men can try to beat it out of us, yet that will always be our first love, and our real survival. I am 60, married thrice, and I hear you. You will never escape who you truly are – it saves you – I believe that it is the life force, call it God, whatever, it is our love, and you have so much to give. This force will not allow you to forget, even if it’s just sunlight thru leaves, or the wind in your hair.

      • Ollie says:

        Jib, i found them on this tumblr-page (seems to be some Mary/Kate hate site): http://lookagiraffe.tumblr.com/post/86640185351/im-guessing-this-is-why-prince-willy-was

        There are 3 pictures of this “little incident”. In the middlle pic he clenches his fist… at first i thought he “strangles” her arm…

      • Effie says:

        The pictures Ollie posted (thanks!) were taken just after Kate had flashed her bare bum. She is clutching her dress and will is stroppy with her because she just flashed her bits to the world. For the umpteenth time, she wore a flimsy dress without hem weights when she knew she’d be around a helicopter, and to make it even worse, she wasn’t wearing any knickers. That’s the context of these pictures.

    • rosiek says:

      I agree. She is earning her allowance every day with that guy.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        I know that we will never, ever know the answer to this, but I wonder if deep down, Kate regrets having gotten what she (thought she) “wanted” all those years.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        @ Charlotte15

        We will find out when Kate finds out: when getting regrets about marriage etc. then there will usually be a “third party”. Means: when Kate will start having serious regrets there will be a lover, possibly one for Kate and one for William.

        @ rosiek
        I agree. No need to envy her.
        There is a saying: “If you marry a man for his money then he will make you earn it.”

    • Caz says:

      The Middletons are indeed firmly tied to William. That was always their only plan. It doesn’t matter to them if she’s happy, if they get along or what type of person he is. They’re living the dream.

      If they had affairs and/or divorced imagine the media coverage…the Kardashians wouldn’t get media space for months.

  28. spidey says:

    Funny how Wharfe was a monarchist whilst they were paying him.

    Got another book out has he?

  29. Pondering thoughts says:

    I do think that the Middleton family did bring William’s worst character traits to the surface. They enhanced the spoiling and “you-are-always-right” even if it means that they have to overrule Kate in favour of William. He is their meal ticket and they please him.

    William and Kate are workshy and neither achieved anything despite having all the money and all the possibilities and connections to achieve a lot. They are spoilt and superficial and bloody disrespectful. Remember Kate laughing during Remembrance Day?

    Charles is seen as slightly mad: talking to plants. homopatic medicine. meddling in government business without being transparent about it (black spider memos), and “the Rottweiler” for wife.

    I am not sure Harry would be a good king. His unreflected enthusiasm for all things military is a wrong and very dangerous position and attitude. He lacks academic and empathic reflection on military action. He proved that when he compared killing enemy combattants in Afghanistan to playing video games. That war in Afghanistan is highly questionable and most Afghan people killed aren’t terrorists but civilians. Most current wars against terrorists are merely a smoke screen for wars over natural resources (oil) and additionally they breed a lot of civil wars in the middle east (like those stone age muslims founding ISIS). In other words: Harry’s deficits are on the academic side. I don’t like stupid kings or rulers. I am German and the last stupid king/emperor we had was a hooray henry soldier type like Harry and he started that horrible horrible event nowadays called WW1 and one could reasonably argue that WW1 was partly responsible for WW2 and the horrible evil racist fascist Nazi regime: in other words: even worse.
    Btw. that is what you get when you put stupid hooray henry soldier types into high positions of power.
    That being said I think I would still prefer Harry over William because Harry seems to be able to think about advice. Btw. The last German emperor did never accept advice.

    • Betti says:

      I think that given time Harry would be a good King – he’s visibly matured since the ‘game’ comment. All he needs is the right guidance and as he is reportedly close to TQ (closer than Sly Bill) I think he’s learning the ‘ropes’ from her. Its inevitable that William won’t be King or if he does take the throne he’ll end up walking away. He doesn’t want it and like everything else in his life he’ll play at being a working royal and when he gets bored he’ll walk away. He prides himself on doing the opposite of what’s expected of him – everyone expects him to be King, so am sure that plays a part with his sullen attitude about performing his duties. He’s always been a brat that had to be made to do things.

      Edward VIII (TQ’s Uncle – the one who abdicated) never took advice either, look what happened to him.

      • Chrissy says:

        Interesting perspective Betti. I too think William will not be King but is waiting for the Duchy of Cornwall money and then will walk away from it all. If he does this, i feel his entire line should also be removed and Harry become Prince of Wales. He would be a caring and popular King – empathetic, highly likable and willing to learn. He would certainly have advisers helping him and, of course, Charles would take him under his wing. Can you tell I’ve had it with William’s attitude, assholery and general laziness? I can’t wait for him, Kate and the Middletons to fade into oblivion. Imagine seeing Carole’s face when it’s announced.

      • LAK says:

        Chrissy, he is not entitled to Duchy money if he is not Duke of Cornwall. DoC is given to POW. if he walks away, even if he has been installed as the DoC/POW, it will be stripped from him and any monies from the duchy from that moment go to whoever is DoC. Waiting it out is pointless unless he intends to be DoC for a good many years so that he can accumulate a nest egg. the minute he signs the document that lets him walk away, money is cut off.

    • JulieM says:

      I doubt King William or King Henry could start a war. It’s now 100 years later and the Monarchy is strictly constitutional in the UK. Harry isn’t academically inclined; I’ll agree with you there. I’ll also agree that military service is not the answer to everything for everyone. It did help Harry mature, though.

    • LAK says:

      You make very good points until you repeat the lie about Harry calling killing a video game. He never said any such thing. Nada. Nope.

      The media, perhaps in an effort to create soundbites for primetime news put words into his mouth and ran with it.

      If you watch the slice of footage where he is supposed to have said it’s a video game, he doesn’t say that at all or to mean that killing is like a video game.

      You can watch entire unedited interview 45min interview on the British Army’s website.

      The interview starts by the journalist saying all the helicopter pilots spend their down time playing video games, cut to several pilots, including Harry playing videos games. Everyone agrees that Harry is very good at them.

      We then wonder off to other parts of his life on the base, quotes from other soldiers as to how he fits in.

      Eventually the journalist (and the viewer) is given a guided tour of the apache helicopter.

      Harry spends 10mins walking the journalist (and the viewer) through all the parts of the Apache. Eventually he comes to the stick (coz I can’t think of a better word to describe it) that drives the apache. What he says, is along the lines of ‘ the way it fits into your hand and how you control it is very similar to a games console. The buttons are very sensitive so you have to have very quick reflexes.’ as he is saying this, he shows the reporter (and the viewer) the different buttons of the stick and it’s shape and it does indeed look like a games console.

      From ALL of that, the media summarised it as ‘Harry says killing taliban is like a video game’. Seriously.

    • notasugarhere says:

      From what I remember, Harry has never said he loved war or the violence associated with it. He has spoken of loving the structure of military life, the order, being treated as just another soldier, and the ability to challenge yourself. I’ll take that over someone whose reactionary plan to deal with the ivory trade is to destroy a priceless collection of objects belonging to the people of the UK.

      LAK, the MOD made a big mistake in having the interview take place right when he came back AND in releasing it as it was. Not to overuse the term, but he was shell-shocked by his experiences and the trip home with the wounded soldiers. One week in Cyprus wasn’t enough to recover from that and give an interview that would be scrutinized heavily.

    • Mary-Alic says:

      He absolutely never said anything about kiling and video game! He did describe the controls and screen like the ones in video games and as someone who has actually trained helicopter control, albeit not even that modern, it does indeed look exactly like the combat video games! The joy stick is the same, the screen with moving dots and squares on it, the lines surrounding a target, all of it! Truth is truth – it looks the same.

  30. LAK says:

    -delete-

  31. wolfie says:

    This entire way of life is toxic to everyone! What does anybody need to figure out?

    • Deeana says:

      Can we talk about William’s hair? Or rather, lack thereof.

      Why in the heck would a very rich young man who began losing his hair while only around 25 not be getting the latest “hair therapy for men” treatments? These treatments are really improved and perfected nowadays. They do micro plugs which turn out really well. (I’ve seen them in real life.)

      Kate appears to me to have had her nose slimmed down a bit at the bridge somewhere along the way. Why would he not take advantage of modern cosmetic surgery?

  32. Suzy from Ontario says:

    My husband and I binge watched the first season of The Royals with Elizabeth Hurley last week and it makes me laugh now to read this article. If real life is even a smidgen like the family in that show, it’s a huge can of worms! (And I believe it is)!

    • Effie says:

      I love that show! So campy and wickedly fun. :-) I think they absolutely modeled most of the characters and events from real Royals and behind the scenes scandals.