« Last post by mirrormaze on Today at 06:40:03 PM »
Aw, has everyone left? I only check in occasionally since it's pretty quiet. I'm glad people are still posting news and updates though.
I just think it is a pretty sick article in that it maintains the myth that a good woman can cure a screwed up man. It elevates Kate on a pedestal and we know what they do to people on pedestals - raise em up to rip em down. It is a DM fantasy perhaps inspired by either the royal summer doldrums or a nudge from KP after all the bad pr of late. It is unfair to both Kate and Will in that it creates impossible expectations for Kate and portrays Will is a very negative light. It also portrays the RF in a very negative way. If one is an admirer of Kate and Will I just do not see how you could find this article something positive.Jecca is a mystery object ... we don't know how she feels or what she is up to ... other than that ... she puts herself in the middle of the Will/Kate drama vacationing with the man in Spain and God knows how many other times we don't know about without his wife there ... Jecca isn't fooling me I will keep an eye on her LOL ...
I do not buy the Jecca stuff - there was no impediment to Will marrying Jecca if he wanted to - unless of course Jecca did not want to marry him. Which I suspect is the truth of that matter - Jecca was not interested. She is now engaged to someone else and appears quite happy about that. Even if Will had the hots for her when he was 19 - people do move on. I'd bet Jecca is now a non story. It seems a shame to me that people drag her into the whole Will/Kate drama.
As for the ring - if I had been Kate I would have gently suggested an alternative ring. It has too many negative connotations and invites comparisons between Kate and Diana - which Kate is said to dislike. It is a large stone - every time you see Kate you see that ring and it reminds one of Diana and Charles. But since Will loved his mother I doubt he gave Kate that ring because he was too cheap to buy her another - he gave it to her because it meant something important to him.
There was a lot of criticism of Kate during the courtship in the tabloids in part because she did not work and seemed to just hang around waiting for Will's beck and call. That is I think a legitimate criticism of Kate and is undeniable.
I hope that the two of them have a happy life - but if there is a divorce - Will would find someone new just like Kate. Will's inadequacies are not because of Kate - they are because of Will.
This author Levin is capitalizing on someone's elses tragedy to make money - shame on her for such sensationalism.
Why do you assume that because of your hatred that others including the royal family must agree with you? You say no one will miss her her children will. That is assuming any of this is even accurate. You say it was a business deal but you don't have the telepathy to be able to know what they are thinking. As it says in the bible first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eyeApart from the fact the nanny is raising them ... I don't get it ... how would the children miss her if they ever divorce?
“That’s something they may not understand, but to be a servant is not to be servile … it’s to be proud, to want to serve, to have a passion,” he told the Press Association.
“I was proud to serve the Queen and Princess Diana. I hope they’ll get something of that from me.”
Asked whether he finds it difficult to talk about Diana, who died following a car crash 18 years ago, he said: “I think it’s part of my life and I think when you lose someone dear to you, no matter who it is, you carry them with you for the rest of your life… a piece of them stays with you.
“I was lucky to be with the Queen and Princess Diana, and because of Princess Diana’s tragic passing, I still carry some of her with me, and I carry what she taught me with me.
“They are inspirational human beings. I was lucky to stand by an icon of our times, so for me it’s an honour and a privilege to be able to speak first-hand about someone I knew so well.
“I don’t have a problem with that, other people might, I don’t. You know, I think it’s time someone did stand in Princess Di’s corner, she’s been gone 18 years.”
He said he was “passing on knowledge” of her to a younger generation, adding “so that’s a privilege”.
After being named the best dressed young royal for the second year running, it's no surprise Denmark's Crown Princess Mary stayed true to her sense of style when she stepped out on official duties this week.
On Monday, the Australia-born royal continued her sartorial winning streak as she graced the Global Goals Campaign at the Eigtveds Pakhus in Copenhagen.
The 43-year-old Princess was ethereal in a white figure-hugging dress which she teamed with a pair of nude designer Louboutin heels as she attended the inspiration meeting of the 'Women Deliver'.
she wasn't part of the RF at the time of her death, except as the mother of Will and Harry. She was part of her own Spencer family
The origins of Britain’s involvement with the transatlantic slave trade lies in the late seventeenth-century and form, oddly enough, part of the struggle between crown and parliament.
Royal African Company (1660 – recharted 1672 see logo), headed up by the Duke of York became a family business designed to enrich Charles and James. Both brothers had somewhat expensive tastes and both hated financial dependency on Parliament.
Charles II would have been delighted to rule like his neighbour Louis XIV, without let or hindrance, and without continual reference to a parliament. He was equally keen to avoid his father’s decapitation. The Restoration of 1660 did not resolve England’s constitutional future, merely deferred it, and the long term relationship between monarch and parliament remained unclear. Had the secret terms of the Anglo-French Treaty of Dover (1670) become generally known, another revolution would have been the likely result. Imagine if, at the height of McCartheyism in the 1950s, President Eisenhower had done a secret deal with the Soviets, allowing him access to a secret slush fund that would enable him to conduct his own policies without congressional oversight, in return for promising to promote communism in the United States. Yeah – that level of scandal. What the Crown wanted (and what the Crown still wants, for that matter), was a healthy and continuous income stream beyond the purview of parliament. Slavery offered to provide that (or some of that).
Royal Insight Forum is not responsible for the content of external sites