Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The guests did have to get to the Abbey a couple of hours before the ceremony. It can't have been fun for any of them!

Share this post


Link to post
There is far to much concern regarding this minor celebrity wife of David Beckham.

Here is film of her at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13237480 exhiibiting quite normal expressions to my mind.

Thanks for the clip and the information, leonid. It looks like I was too hard on her. "Judge not, lest . . " How does that go again? :blink:

Thanks for starting the thread, dirac. At our house we watched the proceedings with scones and clotted cream!

Share this post


Link to post
There is far to much concern regarding this minor celebrity wife of David Beckham.

Here is film of her at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13237480 exhiibiting quite normal expressions to my mind.

Thanks for the clip and the information, leonid. It looks like I was too hard on her. "Judge not, lest . . " How does that go again? :blink:

Thanks for starting the thread, dirac. At our house we watched the proceedings with scones and clotted cream!

How English. Do hope you enjoyed the event.

The thought of scones and clotted.them makes me want them now, but I shall have to wait until tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post

Haven't watched a but did catch the photos and some of the blogging in the NY Times. So I know what atm711 means, as follows.

Oh! those awful hats :speechless-smiley-003: I hope it doesn't catch on to this side of the Atlantic....

I also noted photos of something called "fascinators," a few of which reminded me of the kind of thing poor Ophelia stuck in her hair for her mad scene.

"Fascinating" to whom or to what? Is there a history to this strange fashion statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Victoria Beckham was most noticeable -- her beretta was perched almost in front of her hairline

Does the woman not know how to smile, even on a joyous occasion? I thought her sulk, or whatever it was, made her look ridiculous.

Perhaps her condition had something to do with it.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/david-victoria-beckham-wedding-fashion

Not to mention those heels she was wearing.

In any case, I'll defend Posh since opinion in this thread is against her. If I were she, I'd say to you all: "I was there. You watched it on the teevee. Suck it up, nobodies." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Loved the wedding dress, but thought the train should have been longer and more tapered.

I thought the relaxed manner of the Princes and Catherine, denoted their contemporary personalities, which did not conflict with the movingly austere solemnity of the cathedral service and for me, added a touch of their well sought out normality, whilst living in an often seemingly well protected hothouse environment.

leonid, I think there was a deliberate effort to make things less elaborate and I suspect that included the dress and the train, lest the economically hard-pressed populace come out waving signs less friendly than Union Jacks bearing the image of the happy couple. I think it worked well; I liked Grace Kelly's bell-shaped gown and it looks lovely in this more daring contemporary version. Much better than Diana's dress, which made one of the world's great beauties look like the Meringue that Swallowed St. Paul's.

I tend to agree with those who object to the royal brothers' most unprincely shuffle. Especially Harry. Geez.

I don't know how normal their lives will ever be but as Mel Brooks observed, "It's good to be king."

Prince Harry was in "Dismounted Review Order" according to my ex Household Cavalry RSM brother-in-law when swords would not be worn.

Thanks, leonid, good to know.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh! those awful hats :speechless-smiley-003: I hope it doesn't catch on to this side of the Atlantic....

According to one guest, the wife of the director of one of Prince William's charities, who was interviewed after the ceremony, hats and dresses were required for ladies. I think many women chose the fascinators to avoid blocking the view of those around them. Her husband said there were small TV screens used by the guests who did not have a direct view of the ceremony.

I was just thrilled to see so many men wearing so many beautifully tailored suits.

I remember watching the broadcast of Prince Charles' first wedding a second time, just to hear Kiri Te Kanawa sing, a big performance in a very different kind of wedding, a much bigger show, but also the wedding of a musician and a great music lover. (CBC said that Prince Charles gave Kate Middleton musical selections which she played on her iPad, whereas Prince Charles would not have needed any help.) The most the style of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's wedding ceremony could have supported would have been a solo by one of the choir boys. A solo by one of the greatest non-Church singers in the Commonwealth would not have fit.

orked well; I liked Grace Kelly's bell-shaped gown and it looks lovely in this more daring contemporary version. Much better than Diana's dress, which made one of the world's great beauties look like the Meringue that Swallowed St. Paul's.

I loved Princess Diana's dress. It was for a much bigger venue at a much bigger occasion. It was of its time, for a 20-year-old they insisted be a virgin, almost inconceivable now, and very '80's. I think she looked great in it, very much herself.

The Duchess of Cambridge would have looked silly in a dress like that, but it's a different time, and thankfully, they have been allowed to have a different relationship: her dress allowed her to be within two feet of her future husband, and the slim silouette made them look like partners. She looked great, too, and very much like herself.

Share this post


Link to post

I loved all the crazy hats, very um.. entertaining.

The highlight for me was the procession from Westminster back to B. Palace. The horse drawn coaches were straight out of a fairytale. I especially loved the open carriages with the little bridesmaids and pages. What fun for them. Oh, and all those beautiful horses!

Share this post


Link to post

Prince Harry was in "Dismounted Review Order" according to my ex Household Cavalry RSM brother-in-law when swords would not be worn.

My actual point was that had they wished to preserve the image of the Groom's Supporter as Champion, another Order, another Regiment or even an entirely different Service could have been chosen. In thirty years of wearing the uniform, I had only three occasions when I had to wear full-dress/diplomatic order, with chapeau-de-bras, full epaulettes, and M1860 field-and-staff sword. One only one of those occasions did I have to appear while mounted in this uniform, calling for the replacement of the former sword with a horseman's saber. The latter weapon is exceedingly ungainly to walk with, and provides a great reason why they would have foregone the wear of the Household Cavalry Sword, which is about 2 cm longer than its earlier US counterpart, evocative picture notwithstanding.

But the sword is not really an important detail, and its exclusion is a quiet way of saying, "We don't DO that anymore!"

Share this post


Link to post

orked well; I liked Grace Kelly's bell-shaped gown and it looks lovely in this more daring contemporary version. Much better than Diana's dress, which made one of the world's great beauties look like the Meringue that Swallowed St. Paul's.

I loved Princess Diana's dress. It was for a much bigger venue at a much bigger occasion. It was of its time, for a 20-year-old they insisted be a virgin, almost inconceivable now, and very '80's. I think she looked great in it, very much herself.

The Duchess of Cambridge would have looked silly in a dress like that, but it's a different time, and thankfully, they have been allowed to have a different relationship: her dress allowed her to be within two feet of her future husband, and the slim silouette made them look like partners. She looked great, too, and very much like herself.

I agree Diana's frock suited the occasion and the era, although not in a good way. I expect that if Middleton had truly had her own choice without the constraints imposed by the occasion, she probably would have chosen something less conservative with a sleeker look, although the V-neck is very Kate.

She may lack Charles' musical tastes but if she also lacks some of his dottier notions the monarchy will do very well. If she makes it to the throne, she will be the first queen with a degree, and one hopes she'll bring some IQ points into the gene pool of a family that all too often seem to need them.

Also noticed in passing that the Queen looks more like her Hanoverian forebears with every decade. The yellow was very becoming. And the grandsons could learn a great deal from their paternal grandfather's posture, even at his advanced age.

Share this post


Link to post

Prince Harry was in "Dismounted Review Order" according to my ex Household Cavalry RSM brother-in-law when swords would not be worn.

My actual point was that had they wished to preserve the image of the Groom's Supporter as Champion, another Order, another Regiment or even an entirely different Service could have been chosen. In thirty years of wearing the uniform, I had only three occasions when I had to wear full-dress/diplomatic order, with chapeau-de-bras, full epaulettes, and M1860 field-and-staff sword. One only one of those occasions did I have to appear while mounted in this uniform, calling for the replacement of the former sword with a horseman's saber. The latter weapon is exceedingly ungainly to walk with, and provides a great reason why they would have foregone the wear of the Household Cavalry Sword, which is about 2 cm longer than its earlier US counterpart, evocative picture notwithstanding.

But the sword is not really an important detail, and its exclusion is a quiet way of saying, "We don't DO that anymore!"

The modernisation of the Royal Family has been actively sought by Her Majesty since the time when Prince Andrew was allowed to see active service in the Falklands War and Prince Harry also having the experience of service under fire. Prince Charles has set enormous and often unwelcome precedents by raising his head above the parapet in areas which the Royal Family had avoided in the past, as did the high profile activities of Princess Diana and other Royals, e.g. Anne the Princess Royal with her highly publicised equestrian activities.

It would appear that both Prince Charles and the Queen agreed to Prince William and Prince Harry's precedent of the absence of swords, the other precedent in the 21st (and 20th century) appears to be the wearing of a red uniform by a member of the Royal Family at his wedding (the non Royal Captain Mark Phillips also wore the red uniform of the 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards when he married Princess Anne.)

I also consider tradition important in most walks of life as well as having military links in my family going back almost 200 years. I understand your point regarding tradition, however the question of the absence of groomsman's sword carrying whilst noticed, did not offend me given the panoply of tradition being exhibited in the formalities and the glorious church service on a happy British occasion.

Share this post


Link to post

I also consider tradition important in most walks of life as well as having military links in my family going back almost 200 years. I understand your point regarding tradition, however the question of the absence of groomsman's sword carrying whilst noticed, did not offend me given the panoply of tradition being exhibited in the formalities and the glorious church service on a happy British occasion.

Quite so; I heartily agree, and the careful selection of uniform was simply one more attractive feature of an event which blended features of the past, present, and the beginnings of the future at once. Congratulations and best wishes to the happy couple, their good families, and a great nation. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post

The modernisation of the Royal Family has been actively sought by Her Majesty since the time when Prince Andrew was allowed to see active service in the Falklands War and Prince Harry also having the experience of service under fire. Prince Charles has set enormous and often unwelcome precedents by raising his head above the parapet in areas which the Royal Family had avoided in the past, as did the high profile activities of Princess Diana and other Royals, e.g. Anne the Princess Royal with her highly publicised equestrian activities.

And (since the subject of the royal family's "modernization" has been raised - I'd not be mentioning the following in this thread otherwise) the Queen has deflected some of the bad publicity her family have been getting over the past few decades by actually paying some income taxes and kicking some of the most notably useless of her relations off the Civil List.

Share this post


Link to post

The modernisation of the Royal Family has been actively sought by Her Majesty since the time when Prince Andrew was allowed to see active service in the Falklands War and Prince Harry also having the experience of service under fire. Prince Charles has set enormous and often unwelcome precedents by raising his head above the parapet in areas which the Royal Family had avoided in the past, as did the high profile activities of Princess Diana and other Royals, e.g. Anne the Princess Royal with her highly publicised equestrian activities.

And (since the subject of the royal family's "modernization" has been raised - I'd not be mentioning the following in this thread otherwise) the Queen has deflected some of the bad publicity her family have been getting over the past few decades by actually paying some income taxes and kicking some of the most notably useless of her relations off the Civil List.

Quite so.

Share this post


Link to post

Mercifully the demise of the gent in the turban has cut short the saturation coverage of the RW in the UK media.

What is regarded by the rest of the world as a first class spectacle is far less enjoyable to those of us paying for it through our taxes.

Share this post


Link to post

Mercifully the demise of the gent in the turban has cut short the saturation coverage of the RW in the UK media.

What is regarded by the rest of the world as a first class spectacle is far less enjoyable to those of us paying for it through our taxes.

Like many English born British Subjects and many overseas born British Subjects as were seen on TV coverage, I am happy to pay for Royal Weddings as the Royal Family give the British Isles a particular status unmatched anywhere in the world. Especially as Prince Phillip Duke of Edinburgh spent almost the entire Second World War on active service, the Duke of Kent had a military career lasting 21 years, Prince Andrew Duke of York saw active service in the Falklands War,Prince Harry served in Afghanistan for several months,the Late Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester served in the army and was wounded in the Second World War,

Prince Michael of Kent served in the army. It is this kind of example of showing what it means to be British, that makes the Royal Family of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland much loved by its inhabitants and admired across the world.

Share this post


Link to post

And further the goodwill engendered by such events as the Royal Wedding shows up in the form of increased revenue to the nation from overseas, not only from investment, but also from tourism and other travel outlays by other than British subjects. To my surprise, I heard a left-leaning economist estimate that the event would pay for itself by the end of this year, and go on generating benefits for a long time after. I was surprised not so much in that it might be true, but that the result would happen so quickly!

Share this post


Link to post

And further the goodwill engendered by such events as the Royal Wedding shows up in the form of increased revenue to the nation from overseas, not only from investment, but also from tourism and other travel outlays by other than British subjects. To my surprise, I heard a left-leaning economist estimate that the event would pay for itself by the end of this year, and go on generating benefits for a long time after. I was surprised not so much in that it might be true, but that the result would happen so quickly!

Thank you Mel.

The Queen costs each of her subjects the equivalent of the price of two pints of milk a year (ie £0.70p) and the income from Royal tourism brings each British subject £2.60 per through taxes.

It is certain that more British people enjoyed the Royal Wedding than those sour pusses who do not understand the role of the Monarchy on the UK and world stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Like many English born British Subjects and many overseas born British Subjects as were seen on TV coverage, I am happy to pay for Royal Weddings

I’ve a feeling you’re in a minority there. As for assorted war records, a few of them have made themselves useful, but royal weddings and the like are still the modern day equivalent of bread and circuses.

Very few Brits I know are happy to be considered as 'subjects' by the way: it is to most a derogatory and anachronistic term.

Share this post


Link to post

Prince Michael of Kent served in the army.

Until you mentioned him, I even wondered whether the Kents were there, given that they moved to France for fox-hunting privileges (or at least acc. to the princess). I suppose so, therefore, and perhaps his own service makes up for some of her less-than-savoury past, in terms of her father's rather different military alliances, viz., a Nazi Party member. I can give her credit for informing us (in one of the 2 lectures I attended) of the quarter-mile-or-so--or more even, took 15 minutes--long walks they had to make at Windsor Castle after dressing for events they were invited to there, despite the exaggerated 'woman-of-the-world' persona which is a touch crass. So they were there in 1981 as well, I guess? I read that they don't get to do as many of the royal ceremonial things as they used to, and that she complains about this. But there's an early CD of Kiri in which it's called a 'royal command performance'--and it really is a 'command performance by Prince and Princess Michael of Kent!'--but which I thought would be what we usually associate with the term, that is, a command performance before the Queen, which Kiri obviously did as well (is 'command performance' a term that applies to all royals? I suppose so if it applies to 'our Val', as I remember the Queen amusingly referring to this rather more handsome than fairy-princess persona.) I read in the last year that they were having to give up their Kensington apts., for which they paid university-student dorm rents for. Accused of plagiarism a number of times, her last words at the lectures were 'purchase the book', but I didn't.

Yes, this is definitely an improvement from the Kents' rent-controlled apt.:

In 2008, it was announced that to continue living from 2010 in their previously-subsidised Apartment 10, Prince and Princess Michael would be required to begin paying rent of £120,000 a year, the market rate of the five-bedroom, five-reception flat and many times more than the nominal amount of £70 per week they had been paying for the previous seven years. Queen Elizabeth II had previously been subsidising the £10,000 a month cost for the Kents to use their flat. Members of Parliament on the palace's committee had demanded the change after the Kents' rent had come to light. The Kents have lived in the apartment since 1979, only paying their utility bills prior to 2002.

THIS is equally interesting. The Queen actually offered to give up the Royal Yacht about 40 years ago as a cost-saving measure, but was refused! I would have never imagined this. This is an article from 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/uk_confidential/1735555.stm

But she was turned down amid concerns that the move would be deeply unpopular with the nation.

Times may have changed and become simpler, but I doubt many know the Queen tried to give up the yacht so long ago to help the nation this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Like many English born British Subjects and many overseas born British Subjects as were seen on TV coverage, I am happy to pay for Royal Weddings

Ive a feeling youre in a minority there. As for assorted war records, a few of them have made themselves useful, but royal weddings and the like are still the modern day equivalent of bread and circuses.

Very few Brits I know are happy to be considered as 'subjects' by the way: it is to most a derogatory and anachronistic term.

The particular sourness of your comments makes me ask if you are unlucky enough to have a very small number of acquaintances and are they all po faced about the Royal Family when the rest of the UK respects them and their status.

I ask this because I come from a large family all of whose members have a large circle of friends like me and there were many British town and county gardens full of celebrants welcoming the Royal wedding.

Throughout London there were street parties as there were also taking place in cities and towns throughout the UK. That British, popular institution. "The Pub" did roaring trade the length and breath of the UK with large screens on all day,

As to international recognition of the event, estimates exceeding 2.2 billion watched the wedding such is the world wide significance of the Royal family which included 38% of the Canadian populate, 23 million Americans were estimated to watch the wedding,24 million Brits were estimated to be watching the wedding on television at home.

The Queen's subjects, Her Majesty's subjects, etc., continues to be used in British legal discourse, citizen is now used (since the 1980's) more commonly used, the definition of citizen however, is a person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation and of course the Queen is our Head of State. Being of a certain age I am quite happy to belong to the tradition of being called a subject of the Queen and feel no diminution of my status as British as a result.

The government of the UK is "Her Majesty's Government and I have never heard of any large popular republican movement wanting to change this.

Perhaps universal happy occasions are really only for happy people.

Share this post


Link to post

When you stated,

"In 2008, it was announced that to continue living from 2010 in their previously-subsidised Apartment 10, Prince and Princess Michael would be required to begin paying rent of £120,000 a year, the market rate of the five-bedroom, five-reception flat and many times more than the nominal amount of £70 per week they had been paying for the previous seven years. Queen Elizabeth II had previously been subsidising the £10,000 a month cost for the Kents to use their flat. Members of Parliament on the palace's committee had demanded the change after the Kents' rent had come to light. The Kents have lived in the apartment since 1979, only paying their utility bills prior to 2002."

I am happy to inform you that the above statement was not only innaccurate, it was refuted publicly.

The actual situation was, "When it was claimed that the couple pay a rent of only £69 per week (although other sources state the figure as £76) for the use of their apartments at Kensington Palace, a committee of British MPs demanded they be evicted.[11] The British Monarchy Media Centre, however, refutes these controversial reports and states that, "The Queen is paying the rent for Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's apartment at a commercial rate of £120,000 annually from her own private funds... This rent payment by The Queen is in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding."

Come on, a bit of leeway here regarding Princess Michael. What was your point in mentioning her fathers Nazi past. Whatever else she may have been responsible for, she was not responsible for that.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post

This is the site I was quoting from, I just quoted one paragraph. I had said that they 'lost the apartment', but that was probably incorrect, and they just pay for it now. Your quote differs slightly, but both mention the Queen's 'private funds', I just couldn't figure out whether it became necessary for them to start paying themselves, or that they just weren't using it, probably the former:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Princess_Michael_of_Kent

The couple have the use of a grace and favour

Grace and favour

A grace and favour home is a residential property owned by a monarch by virtue of their position as head of state and leased rent-free to persons as part of an employment package or in gratitude for past services rendered....

apartment at Kensington Palace

Kensington Palace

Kensington Palace is a royal residence set in Kensington Gardens in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London, England. It has been a residence of the British Royal Family since the 17th century. Today it is the official residence of The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and...

. On their behalf, The Queen is paying the rent for Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's apartment at a commercial rate of £120,000 annually from her own private funds. The rent goes to the Grant-in-aid, provided by the Government for the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces. The rent is based on the current rate for commercially rented properties at Kensington Palace, and is recorded in the overall figures for commercial rents, in the Grant-in-aid annual report. This rent payment by the Queen is "in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding," according to a statement released by the British Monarchy Media Centre.

In 2008, it was announced that to continue living from 2010 in their previously-subsidised Apartment 10, Prince and Princess Michael would be required to begin paying rent of £120,000 a year, the market rate of the five-bedroom, five-reception flat and many times more than the nominal amount of £70 per week they had been paying for the previous seven years. Queen Elizabeth II had previously been subsidising the £10,000 a month cost for the Kents to use their flat. Members of Parliament on the palace's committee had demanded the change after the Kents' rent had come to light. The Kents have lived in the apartment since 1979, only paying their utility bills prior to 2002.

That was just a fact about Princess Michael, I don't hold it against her. You were talking about military service of the Royals, and I actually enjoyed both of her lectures. She's very smart and very attractive in a formidable way. Others are more upset at her having married Prince Michael than I am. In other words, it's the same sort of fact that yes, the Queen now pays taxes (although I didn't know when she started, it was announced in the early 90s, I believe), and I think I recall that the monarch paying taxes was voluntary, that some had and the Queen hadn't until rather recently. That's why her generosity about offering to give up the yacht was of interest to me--I wouldn't have thought the monarchs who didn't choose to pay taxes but did offer to give up their royal yacht would be the same person. And also that people were talking about the 'more useless royals', etc., which I thought might mean the Kents, even though I believe some of the actual princes like Edward were no longer on the Civil List.

Share this post


Link to post
And further the goodwill engendered by such events as the Royal Wedding shows up in the form of increased revenue to the nation from overseas, not only from investment, but also from tourism and other travel outlays by other than British subjects.

Uh, I think many people prefer the term “citizens,” these days. :) I’ve read differing estimates on how much financial benefit the nation actually receives and a lot seems to depend on how those doing the estimating deploy their math. I suppose it’s possible to view the royals simply as expensively maintained national mascots intended to prop up the tourist industry and sell tea towels. Mashinka has a point about the "bread and circuses" aspect of last weekend's happy event. It’s really up to the British public, of course, and as long as a majority of them are apparently happy with the arrangement then that’s that, I guess. However, I don’t know what would happen to my local PBS station, which seems to devote half its airtime to documentaries about various Windsors.

Mercifully the demise of the gent in the turban has cut short the saturation coverage of the RW in the UK media.

It wasn’t very different on this side of the water, I think. The networks returned to normality reasonably quickly but the cable news channels went bananas, with the exception of MSNBC which after a point returned to their regular weekend broadcasting involving life in maximum security prisons and disappearances of pretty white girls. I benefited from the saturation coverage because I wasn’t about to get up in the wee hours to watch the wedding live, but it was all a bit much.

But let us return to less vexing topics than economics. What did people think of Pippa Middleton's dress for the wedding?

Share this post


Link to post

This is the site I was quoting from, I just quoted one paragraph. I had said that they 'lost the apartment', but that was probably incorrect, and they just pay for it now. Your quote differs slightly, but both mention the Queen's 'private funds', I just couldn't figure out whether it became necessary for them to start paying themselves, or that they just weren't using it, probably the former:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Princess_Michael_of_Kent

The couple have the use of a grace and favour

Grace and favour

A grace and favour home is a residential property owned by a monarch by virtue of their position as head of state and leased rent-free to persons as part of an employment package or in gratitude for past services rendered....

apartment at Kensington Palace

Kensington Palace

Kensington Palace is a royal residence set in Kensington Gardens in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London, England. It has been a residence of the British Royal Family since the 17th century. Today it is the official residence of The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and...

. On their behalf, The Queen is paying the rent for Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's apartment at a commercial rate of £120,000 annually from her own private funds. The rent goes to the Grant-in-aid, provided by the Government for the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces. The rent is based on the current rate for commercially rented properties at Kensington Palace, and is recorded in the overall figures for commercial rents, in the Grant-in-aid annual report. This rent payment by the Queen is "in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding," according to a statement released by the British Monarchy Media Centre.

In 2008, it was announced that to continue living from 2010 in their previously-subsidised Apartment 10, Prince and Princess Michael would be required to begin paying rent of £120,000 a year, the market rate of the five-bedroom, five-reception flat and many times more than the nominal amount of £70 per week they had been paying for the previous seven years. Queen Elizabeth II had previously been subsidising the £10,000 a month cost for the Kents to use their flat. Members of Parliament on the palace's committee had demanded the change after the Kents' rent had come to light. The Kents have lived in the apartment since 1979, only paying their utility bills prior to 2002.

That was just a fact about Princess Michael, I don't hold it against her. You were talking about military service of the Royals, and I actually enjoyed both of her lectures. She's very smart and very attractive in a formidable way. Others are more upset at her having married Prince Michael than I am. In other words, it's the same sort of fact that yes, the Queen now pays taxes (although I didn't know when she started, it was announced in the early 90s, I believe), and I think I recall that the monarch paying taxes was voluntary, that some had and the Queen hadn't until rather recently. That's why her generosity about offering to give up the yacht was of interest to me--I wouldn't have thought the monarchs who didn't choose to pay taxes but did offer to give up their royal yacht would be the same person. And also that people were talking about the 'more useless royals', etc., which I thought might mean the Kents, even though I believe some of the actual princes like Edward were no longer on the Civil List.

I believe people were upset when they married as Princess Michael was of the Roman Catholic faith which meant Prince Michael had to give up his succession to the throne which upset some traditionalists, but not me particularly.

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×