Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Royal snub! Anne, Andrew, and Edward not invited Prince George's christening

Anne must be relieved.

Some senior members of the Royal Family have not been invited to Prince George’s christening this month because his parents want it to be an ‘intimate, family affair’, the Daily Mail has learnt.

Prince William’s aunts, Princess Anne and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, have been left off the guest list, the Mail was told last night. And although Buckingham Palace refused to comment, it seems George’s great-uncles, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, are also not attending the hugely anticipated event on October 23.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge want the Christening of their son Prince George to be an 'intimate, family affair'

William and Kate have already chosen to break with recent royal tradition and have their son christened at the Chapel Royal in St James’s Palace, because it is smaller and ‘more personal’ than Buckingham Palace.

Now the Mail has learnt that only the couple’s closest family and friends will be attending. The full guest list will not be confirmed by Kensington Palace until nearer the day, but it is likely to include great-grandparents the Queen and Prince Philip, and grandparents Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, as well as uncle Prince Harry.

Kate’s parents, Michael and Carole Middleton, sister Pippa and brother James are also due to attend.

Details of the six chosen godparents are also yet to be released, but names in the frame include William’s longest-serving adviser Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, best friend Thomas van Straubenzee and ex-royal nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke.

Instead of joining the celebrations, the Countess of Wessex, who is married to Prince Edward, will now undertake a day of engagements in the West Country, while Princess Anne is going ahead with an official visit to Canada. When asked whether either had been invited in the first place, a palace source said: ‘All I can say is that the christening will be an intimate affair.’

Kensington Palace refused to comment last night, saying: ‘We will announce the full guest list in due course when we are ready to do so.’ But a royal source added: ‘The christening will be a small, intimate and personal family affair.’ The couple’s decision to use the Chapel Royal as a venue surprised many when it as announced earlier this month.

Prince William, Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and Princess Anne were all baptised in the Music Room at Buckingham Palace.

William and Kate have already chosen to break with recent royal tradition and have their son christened at the Chapel Royal in St James's Palace The Queen was christened in the palace’s private chapel.

But the Duke and Duchess have long made clear they aren’t sticklers for royal convention. William ripped up the suggested guest list for his wedding because he ‘hardly knew anyone on it’ and the couple decided to release a family snapshot of Prince George taken by Kate’s father Michael instead of a formal portrait following his birth on July 22.

It is understood that William and Kate favoured the Holbein-decorated Chapel Royal because it is, in the words of one royal aide, ‘a small, very personal venue’.

The couple have a deep emotional attachment to St James’s Palace, where, until recently, their household was based.

In 1997, the body of William’s mother Diana, Princess of Wales lay before the chapel altar so her family and friends could pay their respects in private, before her funeral in Westminster Abbey.

And in April 2011, Kate chose the chapel to be confirmed into the Church of England before her marriage to Prince William.

A Palace source last night confirmed it would be a ‘fairly small and intimate affair’. By contrast William’s christening in August 1982 was attended by more than 60 guests.

Prince Andrew, who was serving in the Falklands War, and Princess Margaret, who was holidaying in Italy, were the only senior royals not in attendance.

by Anonymousreply 10910/13/2013

This is interesting. I think as time goes on and William asserts himself more and eventually becomes Prince of Wales and then King, he'll let his true feelings about his extended family become known.

by Anonymousreply 110/10/2013

The less special they appear, the less need they fill.

by Anonymousreply 310/10/2013

[quote] The future chav king and his arriviste in-laws are starting to get a little too 'of the people'

The queen has spoken!

by Anonymousreply 410/10/2013

A continuation of the new A and B-List Royal designation as seen at a recent stripped-down Buck House balcony appearance.

A significant generational shift which underlines William's importance to the brand of The Firm. Charles would never have been granted such latitude. He's now damaged goods, if tolerated, and of course important. William is thus far unblemished, one of Diana's representatives on earth, and the Windsors' best hope. Lucky them.

Re: the B-List. I can see Anne just getting on with her duties, wryly amused at life's shifts; Edward relieved at having not now to pretend to be of any importance or interest; and Andrew really quite disgruntled at his downgrading, and keen to re-assert his relevance and importance by any means possible. Not that that will help.

by Anonymousreply 510/10/2013

[quote]The future chav king and his arriviste in-laws are starting to get a little too 'of the people'.

Do you even know what a chav is?

by Anonymousreply 610/10/2013

[quote]Andrew really quite disgruntled at his downgrading, and keen to re-assert his relevance and importance by any means possible. Not that that will help.

Andrew's only hope with William is through his daughters. I think Wills still likes his cousins.

by Anonymousreply 710/10/2013

Princess Margaret didn't attend William's christening?

Of course why should the christening of the future king interrupt her holiday? She knew she wouldn't live long enough to see that anyway.

by Anonymousreply 810/10/2013

Has Georgie's penis been mutilated?

by Anonymousreply 910/10/2013

Why does the British press react with such shock and awe at any change to precedence. I mean the baby is being christened, it's not they are choosing not to baptize at all.

It is clear that William is always looking to mute the whole royalty-thing whenever he sees slightest opportunity, however he still shows just enough respect to the institution so as not to insult it. He's shaping a differnt royalty for himself, something practical, modern; essentially something he can live with because it's all on his shoulders now. His dad will just be a blip on the horizon.

by Anonymousreply 1010/10/2013

Will Anbe be openi g any Tescos while in Canada?

by Anonymousreply 1110/10/2013

He's really going to tell a lot of these people to take a hike soon, isn't he?

by Anonymousreply 1210/10/2013

This is the normal course of royal life. The attention follows those in line for the throne. Charles' siblings are too far away now.

by Anonymousreply 1310/10/2013

Anne has her feet on the ground and a hard worker, I like her. I don't think as highly of her brothers though.

by Anonymousreply 1410/10/2013

I wonder what he'll do with all the handlers and "Grey Men" who made his mother's life a misery? Will he have the power to trim their ranks too?

by Anonymousreply 1510/10/2013

Also, he's learning from the Scandinavian and Benelux royal families about how to be royal in a modern world. They learned these lessons decades ago.

by Anonymousreply 1610/10/2013

Anne's a hard worker, is she?

Does she bus tables?

Clean up diarrhea in a nursing home?

Control a classroom of kids all day long?

Stand on her feet in the OR, or deal with lunatics in the ER for 12 hours?

Drive a school bus?

Cook in a restaurant 6 nights a week?

Clean houses?

by Anonymousreply 1710/10/2013

No, R17, but opening Tescos is hard work.

FYI, hard work is not limited to physical labor.

by Anonymousreply 1810/10/2013

That's such a boring argument, R17. We get it. The working class are the real workers. They get their hands dirty. They sweat. Etc. Etc.

But Anne's a princess, right? She doesn't have to lift a fucking finger to do anything if she doesn't want to. But she's extremely active working with her charities and so on, travelling and attending this and that event. Meeting with hundreds of boring people a year. Raising awareness and money for those who need it. In that rare and privileged strata of society, she works harder than the rest of them.

She's not a nurse or a charwoman, no. But does her bit, considering her station.

So stop being a snob.

by Anonymousreply 1910/10/2013

I completely agree with r10 - Charles will be a blip. To me William is already the King, he is asserting his power as King as well.

He is well-liked and well respected by the world, both him and Kate have the world at their feet.

Andrew was cavorting with a pedophile, so he's not in the inner circle. His daughters are, they are close will the future King and his wife.

Anne is too far removed from them.

Really REALLY really like William & Kate. Charles is just a nothing, an old doddering fool. William is much more important.

by Anonymousreply 2010/10/2013

The fact is, this is Charles doing. He is the one asserting himself. Any opportunity he has to dis-invite his brothers and their kids to participate, he will do it.

His goal is to begin tightening up those Civil Lists, and he's going to do it by pushing them into the background more and more.

Andrew OTOH, has been pushing his daughters for years to stay close to Granny. But now Granny has stepped back. Though the girls are close to William and Harry, as Anne's kids are too, Charles wants to demonstrate that they have very little in the way of "official duties" and will not get their allowances from him once he's king.

The writing is on the wall. To the degree he can tighten the inner circle, and they are less visible, he wins. The Queen pretty much steps back from things more often than not these days.

Remember when they were on the balcony for the Jubilee fly by and no Andrew or Edward or cousins. Just Charles, William, and Harry and their respective spouses. And the Queen, of course. That's why Beatrice and Eugenie are moving to America and getting jobs and rich husbands. I've always liked them. They are sweet, fun dutiful royals, not at all like their Mum and not perverts like Daddy.

If it were solely up to William he gets on fine with his aunts and uncles and his cousins so there's no problem. But I honestly think palace intrigues aside, they wanted this to be low key. If they had it bigger then where do you draw the line?

I'd guess a lot of friends and family would want to be there so they're saying no, it's just going to be small and private. I bet they are doing it for Grandpapa. Philip is probably not too well disposed for company. He smells of poops and pee a lot of the time now.

by Anonymousreply 2110/10/2013

"He smells of poops and pee a lot of the time now."

Do you actually know someone who's been around him who told you this, or are you just guessing?

by Anonymousreply 2210/10/2013

There are enough of them that are in direct line for the throne now (including spouses and children) that that's a big enough group for family photo ops. They no longer need the Edwards and the Andrews and the Annes.

by Anonymousreply 2310/10/2013

Is this not the way it has always worked? As the heir's family grows, the focus on his or her siblings diminishes. Once the heir has two generations of offspring, all male, the great-uncles and cousins who are increasingly distant from the line of succession fade into the background.

by Anonymousreply 2410/10/2013

"Will Anbe be openi g any Tescos while in Canada?"

No, seeing as we don't have any Tescos here in Canada.

by Anonymousreply 2510/10/2013

It will be hilarious when Chuck dies before Lillibet and never gets to be king. Cams will croak before William most likely.

by Anonymousreply 2610/10/2013

You're right, R24. Charles and his family are now taking centre stage, as they should. Which makes sense since the Queen is old and won't be around too much longer. The focus should be on the future. If only that awfal Camilla wasn't part of it.

It's just that we're so used to seeing Edward, Anne, and Andrew since the Queen has been on the throne for so long and there's been so much drama.

But her aunts and uncles and cousins faded into the woodwork too once she became Queen.

by Anonymousreply 2710/10/2013

[quote] Charles and his family are now taking centre stage, as they should. Which makes sense since the Queen is old and won't be around too much longer

the Queen Mother lived to be 101, so I wouldn't count her out yet.

by Anonymousreply 2810/10/2013

[quote]the Queen Mother lived to be 101, so I wouldn't count her out yet.

She may live that long but I doubt she'll be an active monarch to that age. She won't abdicate, but Charles (and William to some extent) will assume most of her work. Charles will soon be king in all but name.

by Anonymousreply 2910/10/2013

It would be great if the Queen lasted till 119 or something and Charles goes before her.

by Anonymousreply 3010/10/2013

Its interesting that Americans think william and kate are popular. and therefore they matter more. But popularity fades. Celebrities are popular. Harry is more popular that these two put together and yet it doesn't seem to matter. Anne is respected but not popular and like the queen represents the old image of a public service monarchy. . The jubilee for the queen was a demonstration that people like a steady dedicated head of state.

by Anonymousreply 3110/10/2013

Except that the name, R29, is a big deal.

by Anonymousreply 3210/10/2013

But Harry's (the bisexual prince) still around, right?

by Anonymousreply 3310/10/2013

[quote]Harry is more popular that these two put together and yet it doesn't seem to matter.

Harry will never be the Prince of Wales or the King.

by Anonymousreply 3410/10/2013

[quote]Its interesting that Americans think william and kate are popular. and therefore they matter more.

It's not that they're popular. It's that William is heir to the throne. Whether he's popular or not is completely irrelevant. He's important.

Myley Cyrus is popular but she's arguably the least important person ever born.

by Anonymousreply 3510/10/2013

I wasn't paying that close attention at the time, but were Andrew, Anne and Edward friendly with Diana? Did they pile on her as she fell out of favor with the rest of the Royals? I know Diana and Fergie were kind of close at one point, but I think that went overboard too.

I have a feeling that if William could get away with it, the Queen and her consort wouldn't have been invited either. They weren't exactly kind to Diana, especially the consort.

by Anonymousreply 3610/10/2013

Wiliam and Kate are somewhat acting like assholes. Yes, sure they can invite who they want. But Anne, Andrew and Edward are still part of the immediate royal family and should be extended an invitation. If they don't want to attend, then fine they don't need to be there.

But this exclusion is just downright rude all under William's guise of "breaking tradition" or "it's only for close family and friends." Give it a break, Will. How often are entire families together anyway? That's what occasions such as these are meant to do especially when a royal family is supposed to represent 'family' to the country.

William apparently wants hardly anything to do with anyone.

by Anonymousreply 3710/10/2013

He should invite Sarah, Duchess of York, for snubbing her off the wedding guest list. Plus, she'd be fun at the christening. A hell of a lot more fun than most everyone who will be there.

by Anonymousreply 3810/10/2013

[quote] I can see Anne just getting on with her duties, wryly amused at life's shifts;

When Prince George was born, a journalist asked her about it and she said something to the effect of "That's nice for them, but what has it got to do with me?" That's why I mentioned that she must be relieved in the OP.

by Anonymousreply 3910/10/2013

[quote]I have a feeling that if William could get away with it, the Queen and her consort wouldn't have been invited either. They weren't exactly kind to Diana, especially the consort.

They are also his grandparents and Diana's been dead a long time. He was raised by Charles. I doubt William cares about gossip that the Queen was mean to his mother. And no one likes Phillip anyway.

by Anonymousreply 4010/10/2013

Camilla in a druken rage tore up her and hubby Charles' invitation, again called Kate a low class bitch.

by Anonymousreply 4110/10/2013

[quote]both him and Kate have the world at their feet.

OH MY!

by Anonymousreply 4210/10/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 4310/10/2013

[quote]They are also his grandparents and Diana's been dead a long time. He was raised by Charles.

He was 16 when Diana died. Almost an adult. I think it's fair to say he was raised primarily by Diana.

by Anonymousreply 4410/10/2013

That gauche little bitch. I have lineage!

by Anonymousreply 4510/10/2013

He was actually raised by nannies and then shuffled off to boarding school. Neither parent raised him or his brother.

by Anonymousreply 4610/10/2013

Sounds sensible. I barely know my aunt and uncle myself.

I don't think William ever really wanted to be king or a prince.

by Anonymousreply 4710/10/2013

William and Harry surely have learned by now who was (and wasn't) kind to their mother.

Do not underestimate the bond between mother and child.

William is going to settle some scores.

by Anonymousreply 4810/10/2013

I wonder why so many here are stating as fact that William hates his grandparents and father? There has never been any hint of it anywhere, they seem to be very close indeed when photographed candidly.

I haven't spoken to anyone in the UK that gives a flying fuck what any of them do - maybe the people I've met here are not the right age group to care, but it seems like it's only the tabloid press that are interested. The minutiae of royal life isn't coffee room gossip where I work.

by Anonymousreply 4910/10/2013

William is in a tricky position in a lot of ways. He has been pretty candid that he doesn't enjoy the public side of being a royal and he is happiest away from the press. But he also knows that he can't look down his nose too much at the public side of monarchy as he is the one tapped to lead it one day.

He has legions of Diana fans who adore him and also has traditional royalists who adore him. Within his own generation, he knows he has to hit the right note of "king-in-waiting with the common touch" or else the younger generations won't feel connected to the monarchy.

The younger generation has a different view of authority than previous generations and they don't connect to remote leadership for the most part. They want to feel connected to a modern monarch who mimics a lot of how they live their own lives. (William drove his wife and baby home from the hospital like any new dad of his generation and he'll be a hands-on dad changing diapers, sharing in the childcare duties, etc. unlike Prince Charles who likely didn't change diapers.)

I would imagine that the queen's generation of 'subjects' is the last one to really look up to the monarchy and feel a deep sense of kinship with the royal family. The boomer generation that Prince Charles grew up in, and certainly the generation that William grew up in, are much more detached from/apathetic about the monarchy.

The greatest 'danger' to the monarchy is apathy and each generation cares less about what some would call an outdated way of life that doesn't fit in the 21st century. William is charming enough to make it work; He'll be very protective of his father and not want to make Charles feel overlooked.

Charles has the hardest road to walk on some level. He will not become King until he is in his late 60s or 70s likely and not in the prime of life. He has been overshadowed on every level by his mother, his former wife and his son. And who would ever want to follow an act like the Queen? Only Diana or William have her "star power".

by Anonymousreply 5010/10/2013

Beatrice and Eugenie are moving to America? This is the first time I've ever heard this.

by Anonymousreply 5110/10/2013

Wouldn't Beatrice and Eugenia need green cards to live and work in the United States?

I don't quite picture them swimming across the Rio Grande.

by Anonymousreply 5210/10/2013

Um, I think they might have some connections, Brainiac.

by Anonymousreply 5310/10/2013

Princess Eugenie is now working for a British-based auction house in NYC. She'll work there for two years and then return to Britian.

Neither Eug or Bea are settling here, in fact, Bea isn't even moving here.

by Anonymousreply 5410/10/2013

William is a spiteful little cunt and Kate's a worthless doormat, so of course they're going to find a way to come off as assholes.

By the way: Harry is the real deal and it'd be awesome if he ended up as king by some strange twist of fate. He'd probably have the balls to initiate the dissolution of the monarchy too...

by Anonymousreply 5510/10/2013

[quote]William is a spiteful little cunt and Kate's a worthless doormat, so of course they're going to find a way to come off as assholes.

R55. Thanks for your perfect description. I've been looking for a way to describe those two. The family should be invited to the christening. It's a couple of goddamn hours. Extend an olive branch even if you don't speak to some famiy members again until the next wedding or death. You don't exclude immediate family members from a gooddamn christening when there plenty of room for everyone.

In addition, Will and Harry are friends with Beatrice and Eugenie. Why be so fucking spiteful to an uncle?

Abolish this bullshit nonsense if you're going to be a spiteful little cunt about everything you do. That's not the point of the monarchy in modern times.

by Anonymousreply 5610/10/2013

What about the Diana side of the family? Are they excluded too? Do we know if the Princes keep in touch with Diana's brother and sisters?

by Anonymousreply 5710/10/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 5810/10/2013

"Charles and his family are now taking centre stage, as they should. Which makes sense since the Queen is old and won't be around too much longer."

This was the first year that Charles and Camilla walked behind the Queen and Prince Philip at the state opening of Parliament, a signal by the Queen that she is preparing the public for Charles' monarchy and her inevitable decline and reduced role in public life.

"No, seeing as we don't have any Tescos here in Canada."

The Anne opening Tescos lines came about because a poster who is viewed fondly, The Voice of the Night, often made jokes about that being her main royal duty on the "official" Royal Baby thread. It showed a lighter side of his personality not often displayed in his other posts.

by Anonymousreply 5910/10/2013

I hope the Duchess of Horsewall kicks it soon. There would be a great celebration, the witch is dead!

by Anonymousreply 6010/10/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 6110/10/2013

The line of succession is not a popularity contest, there is no 'star power' requirement or public relations battle in ascension to the throne. It is perfectly cut and dry, Queen E will not abdicate, Charles and Camilla will lead a regency allowing the Queen to continue to recede gracefully as the reigning monarch until her death, at which time Charles will become King, (and will possibly be styled as 'King George the somethingth' as opposed to King Charles) and yes, Camilla will most certainly be styled in some manner as his Queen. Upon Charles death William is King and Kate is styled as Queen in some manner as well.

Whether anyone likes or dislikes any of these individuals is of no importance; public opinion has no impact on succession. If either of Charles or William are held in low esteem by the public well they certainly don't get to 'quit' being Royal; they will simply recede deeper into their royal bubble and live wonderful lives of privilege surrounded by other supportive royals. Their wealth and status is immeasurable.

It is Charles that is currently restructuring the 'family firm'. He is quite rightly reducing some family members from prominence and civil list and promoting visibility of others. I doubt there is much surprise in any of this amongst his siblings, he is the Crown Prince, they are not. They have all grown up with this knowledge.

And his speculation that William has an axe to grind with Camilla with respect to his mother Diana is tabloid nonsense.

William has his own ideas about how he wants his family (Kate and his son) to be presented, as well he should. He and Kate want a small baptism, then so be it, I doubt it is meant to separate aunts and uncles, or cousins. I think that he and his wife simply want an intimate occasion, and Charles, in his restructuring capacity, is more than happy to give that his blessing.

Oh, and Harry will always be prominent Royal while alive. He is the son of one heir to the throne and brother to yet another. He wears it well.

by Anonymousreply 6210/10/2013

It is ridiculous to make the christening of a presumed Defender of the Faith appear to be anything other than an inclusive, joyful family celebration, and in usual terms that means invitations to all close relatives. Grand aunts and uncles and their families are close relatives.

Why are they downplaying this christening, especially at a time when Philip and even the queen are in the twilight of their times? It seems rather perverse.

(Although of course Anne is nothing if not perverse. Were William and Harry not invited to the christenings of Edward's kids, for that matter?)

by Anonymousreply 6310/10/2013

As always, I love how strongly DLers feel about the members of the royal family and the supposed rightness or wrongness of their various actions.

by Anonymousreply 6410/11/2013

[quote]'King George the somethingth'

The Seventh. Queen Elizabeth's father was GEORGE VI.

by Anonymousreply 6510/11/2013

According to the DM, the Queen has invited the Middletons to Sandringham over the Christmas holidays.

This is huge on some level, even though it may seem totally normal to the rest of us. In-laws are usually never invited to join the royals during the holidays.

While I doubt we'll see Carole Middleton, et al. walking with the royal family to church on Christmas morning, I'm guessing the family will arrive for Boxing Day, etc.

This shows how much William and Kate want the Middletons to be included in Prince George's life. Again, this is completely normal for the rest of us but a big shift for the Queen to allow 'outsiders' at royal holiday events.

I am fascinated to watch the walls come down and have non-royals included... William is definitely setting a new precedent on how in-laws are handled.

by Anonymousreply 6610/11/2013

Charles seems like a real prick. I can get why he wants to slim down the royal family and get them off the civil list, but this is a very public snub against his own siblings.

by Anonymousreply 6710/11/2013

I remember hearing that Anne is actually much smarter and better suited to the throne than her younger brother, Charles. Doesn't matter - after what QEII went through with her father and uncle, she'll die on the throne and Charles will be King of England.

When informed of George's birth, Anne asked "what's it got to do with me?" which seems odd. William has clearly forgiven his grandparents, his father and Camilla for their treatment of Diana. Anne and Andrew may not be so lucky. No one cares about Edward and Sophie or those hideous girls Andrew and Fergie spawned.

by Anonymousreply 6810/11/2013

Never mind. I heard that the real issue is how Anne and Andrew always end up fighting over the weenie bites at these things, and William was afraid that Kate's hollow bird bones would be damaged in the usual Hanoverian melee. Therefore, no invitations.

The person who "heard" that Anne is smarter and better suited to the throne - what a rare source of information, to have access both to IQ tests and personality analyses of this sort.

Anne is a cunt of the first water who revels in being spiteful and saying nasty things. She has spent her life as a spoiled, vicious bitch protected by her titles. All the anti-Charles shit (and he's a boob, of course) misses just how dreadful the rest of them are. Andrew is a child fucker - he likes them young (plenty of news stories on it). Edward lives a lie. Anne is a cunt. So Charles at least has tried to live for a few things outside his hauteur.

by Anonymousreply 6910/11/2013

[quote]The person who "heard" that Anne is smarter and better suited to the throne - what a rare source of information, to have access both to IQ tests and personality analyses of this sort.

Oh fuck off, you appalling and absolutely phony ponce. It was merely a comment and hardly an original thought. It's something that I've heard for decades. Everyone's heard it, idiot.

It in no way negates the *other* things I've heard, which actually support your opinion of Anne's behavior, Andrew's lack of character, etc. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Have another gin and lighten up, dear.

by Anonymousreply 7010/11/2013

Even though she's matronly as fuck, Anne is younger than Charles. Why do people always assume she's the oldest and getting sidestepped due to primogeniture?

by Anonymousreply 7110/11/2013

As R71 said, Charles is the oldest. Anne may be hard working but she's also an unpleasant, arrogant cunt. Charles isn't as bad as he's painted, the whole lot of them are academically challenged, there's none of them could have a professional career if they were born into a different family, but at least Charles has tried to do something with his life with Poundbury and the organic farming initiatives. He's done a lot more than the appalling Andrew or Edward.

by Anonymousreply 7210/11/2013

Charles will be the last Victorian. What I mean is that he will be the last of the line of monarchs completely out of touch with normal people, with arrogant airs and people at arms length. William doesn't appear to have a snobby tendency at all and I think the British monarchy will become warmer, more like Norway or Sweden.

by Anonymousreply 7310/11/2013

Exactly. Charles had been taking his cues from the Scandinavian and Benelux royals in terms of modernizing the monarchy. But he himself had a very traditional Victorian upbringing. So I'm not sure hid much his heart is in it as much as his head is.

William, on the other hand, is truly a modern royal. Charles won't reign for very long so it's William who will truly drag British royalty into the moden age.

I don't know of Anne is a cunt so much as she isn't really comfortable being a woman. Her manner and approach to life has always been very manly.

by Anonymousreply 7410/11/2013

Anne has always been Prince Philip's favorite son.

by Anonymousreply 7510/11/2013

agree with r73 and r74 re Charles. And r75 too lol so true.

This is all a tempest in a teapot re this christening. St. James is a small chapel. Think about it, if William invites his paternal aunt/uncles and cousins, then Kate has to be able to invite hers AND William will have to invite all the Spencers (there's a potential couple dozen people right there). I don't think William and Kate are snubbing anyone, they are being practical and holding the number of invites down in keeping with the size of the venue.

When my sister's kids were born she didn't invite our aunts, uncles and cousins to their christenings. It was pretty much immediate family only. There's nothing strange in what William & Kate are doing. As was mentioned here, the core Royal Fam is already being modified and downsized to be the Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, his sons and their families. The rest are being phased out in terms of public profile.

by Anonymousreply 7610/11/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 7710/11/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 7810/11/2013

Charles is the one bent on changing things, and he will. King Charles will be so interesting to watch.

by Anonymousreply 7910/11/2013

It'll be interesting to see who's invited to the christening of Anne's grandchild by her daughter Zara, to be born in a few months.

by Anonymousreply 8010/12/2013

I bet it's the same as with Will and Kate, immediate family and the Queen and Prince Philip.

Neither Charles and Camilla or William, Kate or Harry attended the christenings of Peter Philips's two daughters.

by Anonymousreply 8110/12/2013

Was that picture at r78 handled by the Kardashians' in-house airbrusher or something?

by Anonymousreply 8210/12/2013

R78 there must have been about 200 outtakes in that session to come up with that one good picture, and the airbrushing and soft filtering is VERY generous.

by Anonymousreply 8310/12/2013

[quote] Neither Charles and Camilla or William, Kate or Harry attended the christenings of Peter Philips's two daughters.

One of Peter's daughters was christened the weekend before William's wedding. So I can see why it was a small christening. And honestly could you see Prince Charles and camilla going to the christenings of children named Savannah and Isla? I feel badly that the Queen had to attend

Prince George is going to be King of England one day. Everything about him is a big deal. He's third in line to the throne. Savannah and Isla Phillips are thirteenth and fourteenth in line to the throne

by Anonymousreply 8410/12/2013

according to The Globe, a notorious tabloid, Charles and Camilla are getting a divorce. She's trying to squeeze 350 MILLION out of him or she will open her toilet mouth about him, in which she will address his sexuality. Charles is challenging Camilla and refuses to be blackmailed by her. The Queen hates her very much. Charles won't become King unless he dumps this drunken twat who is always having alcohol fueled tirades. The Queen may very well try to bypass Charles and make William the King if she decides to abdicate because of declining health. The Queen knows that most of the UK dislikes Charles highly and he would not be a stellar example of the monarchy. Anyway, Camilla was photographed topless on a yacht in France recently. She and Kate Middleton hate eat other as well. Camilla had better not be driving in any tunnels in Paris or London in the future.

by Anonymousreply 8610/12/2013

Handsome woman or hansom woman?

by Anonymousreply 8710/12/2013

Out of 80+ posts, only R37, R55, R56 and R63 have manners? Pointless bitchery aside, I (for some odd reason) expected better manners from DL; excluding aunts, uncles and cousins from a once in a lifetime event like a christening is just crass. Let Anne, Edward and the rest decline but to fail to send an invite in the first place? Classless behavior disguised as wanting to keep the event simple.

Won't be surprised if the entire Middleton clan and a smattering of Spencers are there in full force.

by Anonymousreply 8810/12/2013

Hang on the gossip r86 posted was GOOD.

Does anyone remember that recently the Queen stopped Harry from taking Cressida to the USA on his goodwill USA tour? I thought that was odd, especially given that Harry, well Harry & Vegas come to mind. But whatever. He's still with Cressida and they're now engaged & will be married.

I think him & William are very very close and Harry wants what William has - family, children, stability.

by Anonymousreply 8910/12/2013

Streamlining the royal family for economics and practicality is one thing. Being rude and excluding members of the royal family to a christening is rude and acting like an asshole.

Charles and William are douchebag spiteful cunts. Is Will going to exclude his cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie, out of some sort misplaced sense of privacy and douchey behavior even though he and Harry have been friendly with them for nearly the entire lives?

by Anonymousreply 9010/12/2013

Sorry, R86 but Chas and Camilla are probably the happiest married couple of the English royals. He will probably fight for her to have the title "Queen Consort" when the time comes.

by Anonymousreply 9110/12/2013

unfortunately r91 is correct. The only way Charles or Camilla are leaving each other is in a pine box.

There's nothing odd about excluding the older members of the Royal Family from this event. As I posted upthread, the chapel is small. And if William invites the older Royals, he then has to (to be polite) invite the Spencers and all of Kate's larger extended family. That will double or triple the number of invitees. They only really have to invite who they want to have there.

[quote]Does anyone remember that recently the Queen stopped Harry from taking Cressida to the USA on his goodwill USA tour? I thought that was odd, especially given that Harry, well Harry & Vegas come to mind. But whatever. He's still with Cressida and they're now engaged & will be married

Harry & Cressida are engaged? When did that become official. I don't see them getting engaged any time soon. Please -the Queen didn't stop Harry from taking her to the US, he was never going to, it was an official tour done on the taxpayer's dime, they don't pay for Royals to bring along their gfs. It would be utterly tacky being as it was a working trip. Harry didn't want to bring her and wouldn't have.

by Anonymousreply 9210/12/2013

Please stop posting the absurd shit from The Globe. They print something every week about the imminent divorce of Charles and Camilla, or Camilla's cancer, or Charles' senility. Ridiculous.

The boys like Camilla very much. Camilla has been kind to Kate, and encouraging to her. Camilla likes to drink but is not a drunk. Elizabeth likes Camilla and always has. (She never liked Diana, who was never the down-to-earth type that she and Philip prefer.) Elizabeth has no power to bypass Charles, which she would never do anyway because he is her son (remember, dumbies?) and because she believes he deserves his shot. William would never countenance his father being bypassed, because he doesn't want to be king any time soon and because he loves his father. (remember, dumbies?) Got it? Good.

by Anonymousreply 9310/12/2013

R84 "going to the christenings of children named Savannah and Isla?" Isla is a traditional Scottish name and Charles loves all things Scottish. I would doubt that he'd care what the children were named though.

by Anonymousreply 9410/12/2013

[quote]he is her son (remember, dumbies?)

Oh, dear!

[quote]because he loves his father. (remember, dumbies?)

Really? You're that much of a DUMMY you'd post the same mistake twice?

by Anonymousreply 9510/12/2013

Ooops am wrong. I mistakenly read they are married. Here's an article on Cressida & Harry from OK! which addresses the rumors. Interesting too.

by Anonymousreply 9610/12/2013

OK! is a tabloid and not reliable at all. Harry isn't getting engaged any time soon. And this girl is only 24 or 25, no way will he marry her right now.

by Anonymousreply 9710/12/2013

Prince Charles said that when he is king he wants to move the Royal Household to Windsor Castle full-time. Does anyone think that a downsized monarchy would allow Buckingham Palace to become a full-time museum? That is what has become of the huge royal palaces in Spain and the Netherlands. I read somewhere that when Elizabeth became Queen, she and Phillip wanted to stay at Clarence House instead of moving to Buckingham Palace, but the prime minister poo-poo'ed the idea.

by Anonymousreply 9810/13/2013

It's possible R98. BP can be the "working palace" where there are government events and investitures, without the royal famous actually living there. It could then be opened up even more than it currently is for tourist revenue. The Netherlands has a similar setup; two of the palaces which were formerly residences are used for audiences and receptions and one houses the office space for the King and Queen and their staff, but the monarchs live elsewhere in a different palace. I don't see anything wrong with it. I can also see Charles shutting down Kensington and St. James's palaces for good and evicting the residents, creating either government office space, museums or, in the case of Kensington, a hospital type space or school.

by Anonymousreply 9910/13/2013

[quote]Hang on the gossip [R86] posted was GOOD.

Not really. Just wishful thinking from Diana fans who keep clutching at straws hoping something will stop Camilla's inevitable rise to Queen Consort. They've been ridiculous rumours from Camilla's impending death from a mysterious cancerous tumour, to the Queen not wanting Charles to be King to Willam hating his father and blaming him for her speeding through that Paris tunnel with an Arab lover and a drunk driver. For the record, Charles is very close with his sons and they respect his wife.

by Anonymousreply 10010/13/2013

R98, they (the Queen & Prince Phillip) hate Buckingham Palace. Evidently it's falling apart. The Queen's favorite place is Windsor Castle. She goes there every weekend she in in London

by Anonymousreply 10110/13/2013

With all their money, why can they renovate and modernize BP?

by Anonymousreply 10210/13/2013

I doubt Charles will shut down Kensington Palace...it'd be a PR nightmare since the Cambridges spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in recent renovations.

by Anonymousreply 10310/13/2013

"With all their money, why can they renovate and modernize BP?"

Oh, my aching sides...

Actually USE their own money???

by Anonymousreply 10410/13/2013

Doesn't Charles prefer living in the country? Is this move more to accommodate his love of rural living or is it economically more feasible?

by Anonymousreply 10510/13/2013

[quote]The only way Charles or Camilla are leaving each other is in a pine box.

English oak, surely?

by Anonymousreply 10610/13/2013

I hope not. I love Queen Camilla. She gets a bum rap.

by Anonymousreply 10810/13/2013

Have to agree with r103 here, KP will likely remain a living space for heirs and extended Royals for some time, mixed in with office space as it is now.

I can see Charles however perhaps using Clarence House and St. James for other purposes though. And BP is too costly to renovate for royal use alone. I can also see him consolidating operations out at Windsor, perhaps keeping offices in the City at BP or St. James.

by Anonymousreply 10910/13/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.