Defending Kate

I don't know about you but I'm furious that someone photographed the Duchess of Cambridge naked, and that a magazine published the pictures. Kate is someone who has worked hard to do everything right and with royal dignity.  She has every right to sunbathe topless at a very private and remote villa in the South of France.

Obviously this brings back shades of Princess Diana, hounded to her death by paparazzi  Clearly royals are public figures and as such cannot expect the same degree of privacy as the rest of us. Every time they go out they are fair game and their behavior is on display to be judged. But in the privacy of their own home? No way. What will be next..super long distance lenses catching them in the bathroom or bedroom?

This comes after the Prince Harry scandal, again pictures of him at a private party, in a private suite, leaked by someone at the party, obviously for mucho bucks. He wasn't very wise, I agree, but he is a young single man and at the time he wasn't on official royal business. In fact we now know he was getting ready to fly back to duty in Afghanistan with his regiment, where he will be facing danger daily flying Apache helicopters. So he had a good reason to let his hair down.

This sort of thing didn't happen to royals at the time I write about in my Royal Spyness series. Although the press knew about the affair between the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Simpson they were asked by the palace not to mention it. So it didn't become public knowledge until he announced his intention to marry her. They remained silent for several years while Edward pursued her more and more openly (or rather she pursued him). Can you imagine any newspaper doing that these days?

Why do we feel we have a right to own celebrities? I know that A list people like Tom Hanks can never eat out, walk through a park, go to a movie without being mobbed. Fame comes at a hard price.
Writers like me experience this in a small way when we go to signings and conventions. It's not easy to be standing in line for the rest room and have the person next to me say loudly, "I just love your books. When is the next one coming out?" when all I'm thinking about is the need to pee.


So I feel for poor Kate. In fact I think it's about time the royals employed bodyguards who were instructed to shoot to kill invaders of privacy. What do you think?

A Rather Different Royal Wedding

Rhys Bowen, your royal correspondent reporting in on the latest royal wedding. Princess Anne's daughter, Zara Phillips married English rugby player Mike Tindall in a church in Edinburgh, Scotland. And it couldn't have been more different. Where Kate and Will's wedding was dignified pageantry, this was definitely one step down--with the guest list including TV celebrities, sportspeople and pop stars. Of course Zara is only thirteenth in line to the throne and she doesn't even have a title. Plain Miss Phillips. And rugby players are not known for their suave elegance on the whole (I speak wherof I know. Our nephew is a professional rugby player who has played for England. I am waiting to hear whether he attended the wedding, actually)

So it was rather low key, apart from the number of royals, who tend to raise the tone of any wedding.

Zara is a low key kind of girl--outdoorsy, top level horsewoman who hopes to make the Olympic team next year. So it was no surprise that they were snapped leaving their hotel the next morning in scruffy old jeans and sweat shirts. But she looked lovely and traditional for the actual ceremony and I'm sure her mum heaved a sigh of relief.

The Duchess of Cambridge, aka Kate, made sure she was dressed in a way that did not steal the show. It was actually a recycled dress she had worn several years ago. And her dress for the reception was the one she wore recently in LA. A thrifty girl is our new duchess, setting a standard for the times.

But will someone please tell me why all hats have to perch precariously to one side of the head these days?

At least Princess Beatrix looked reasonably elegant and... well, normal, after the ridiculous attire for Will and Kate's wedding.

One undertstands that Will and Kate had a really good time and that the reception included Will's impersonation of Bon Jovi.

King William?

New royal definition: abdicate-- to step down from the throne in favour of William and Catherine.

Just in time for Royal gossip Monday, a rumour has surfaced that the Queen is considering abdicating so that William will have a chance to be king before he's too old -- that if his father doesn't live to 100.  Of course many people would like Charles to step aside and let William become the next king, but I can't see that happening.  After all, the poor man has spent his whole life in waiting for a certain job, and it would be cruel to deny it to him when his mother dies or abdicates.

Personally, I'm not sure that the Queen would consider abdicating.  Duty has always been a primary motivating factor and I think she will consider it her duty to remain on the throne until her death.  But she is now approaching 90 and the poor woman does deserve some free time from a very hectic schedule.  I never appreciated how hectic their schedule was until I did my first book tour.  Events all day new city each day, it's exhausting.  I did it for two weeks but she does it every day of her life.  Anyone who doesn't think the Royals earned their money ought to try this -- always on always cheerful, always having to eat someone else's food and appear interested in the most boring things. It's not an easy life.
Oh and the other piece of news is that the Royal China has been unveiled-- you can have a teacup.  Or rather what they call a tankard for $55. But it does have cute little doves on it.

Rhys, still typing with voice recognition software and a broken wrist, and now battling a cold as well.

Will William be different?

Its royal gossip Monday and the first thing I saw on the news this morning was the engagement pictures of William and Kate Middleton. They look so happy that I'm hoping things will turn out differently for them than for Williams parents, and that William won't follow the age-old tradition of the heir to the throne keeping a mistress. Apparently that's one of the things that Charles said to Diana -- I refuse to be the first Prince of Wales, who doesn't have a mistress.  Not the sort of thing or wife wants to hear.
 Of course, in the old days, Royal marriages were business propositions, linking two nations , two economies.  Love did not come into it, although some royal couples became fond of each other.  So it was considered normal, but once the wife had done her duty and produced an heir, the husband could play elsewhere. Charles obviously followed that tradition, as did his great, great grandfather , King Edward VII and his great uncle, King Edward VIII.  Although not his great grandfather, George V, who was devoted to Queen Mary. This in a way was amazing as Mary was originally engaged to George's older brother, the Duke of Clarence, who died at the age of 28. Mary was then passed along to the next in line, who was George and they lived happily ever after.

I'm sure she was much happier married to George, who was a stable and simple chap, rather than his wicked and wayward older brother. In fact the whole country heaved a sigh of relief when he died, supposedly of influenza. Rumours flew for many years about whether he had died of natural causes or whether he had been helped to his death, leaving the way to the throne open for the more sensible George. I play with this scandal in my book  Royal Flush.

Let us hope that William and Kate can live without any scandals, although scandals do provide such good material for books, don't they?

Royal Wedding, Royal Scandals

Since I'm heavily involved with royal personages in my life--albeit not living ones--I shall be following with great interest the build up to the wedding of William and Kate (or Katherine as we are now supposed to call her).

So visit this blog every Monday for latest snippets of royal gossip, royal scandals from the past and juicy details for royal watchers.

I'm starting off with a couple of really juicy details to share: the first were the comments made this weekend by the Bishop of Willesden, in North London. (blogger note--I didn't even know they had a bishop in Willesden. he must be a very minor one!) Anyway this clueless guy posted on Facebook that he thought the upcoming royal wedding was a ridiculous waste of public money and that the couple would be divorced within seven years. He went on to compare it to the lavish celebrations for Charles and Diana, whom he refered to as Big Ears and the porcelain doll, reminding people what happened to them. He could not have been more offensive and said he'll be in France on the day, celebrating with other republicans.

Note this is a Bishop of the Church of England, the head of which is...THE QUEEN. He's attacking his employer, essentially and IMHO should be out of a cushy job, standing in an employment line. That will make him rethink his views on republicanism!
Anyway, he's apologized today, or been made to apologize. How stupid not to think that the world would pick up his Facebook comments.

There have been outcries about the cost in UK, but the complainers don't stop to think that the wedding is projected to bring in 260 million in additional tourist pounds for the event. It will make a profit, however expensive it is to the tax payer, and both the queen and Charles have already said they plan to foot a good part of the bill.

So do you think it's a waste of money?

And one other juicy tidbit for today... Kate's great grandmother worked in a jam factory. I told you it would be juicy, didn't I?