Liz Smith: “Commoner” Kate Weds Her Man (But Don’t Relax — Gossips Will Have Them Separated by Monday).

And more from our Liz: Jennifer Aniston’s New York state of mind … Elizabeth Taylor’s “Bluebird” back in circulation

“BEING A princess isn’t all it’s cracked up to be,” said Diana, Princess of Wales as her “fairytale” marriage to Prince Charles unraveled before our stunned eyes.

* * *

WELL, THAT was Diana’s story, and she stuck to it till the bitter, tragic car-crash end in a Paris tunnel — divorced, stripped of her HRH, without adequate protection, a reckless lover by her side, a drunken driver in the front seat, chased down by the paparazzi.

But today, Kate Middleton, of coal-mining stock, will become the “first commoner to marry into royalty in three hundred years.” (Actually, the late beloved Queen Mum, Elizabeth Angela Marguerite, though daughter of an Earl, wasn’t of royal blood; therefore, she was common. Well, that explains the hats!) Indeed, anybody below the rank of peer — i.e. Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount or Baron is deemed common. So, let’s just say Kate is the first coal miner’s great-great-granddaughter to marry a prince.

Kate is 29 to Diana’s 19 at the time of “Shy Di’s” nuptials. Middleton and Diana’s son William have lived together, off and on, for about seven years. She does not have to go her wedding bed a virgin, or even a woman who has known but one man (William.)

Kate is a beauty, and a tough cookie. The latter quality, Diana never quite mastered. She could be clever and manipulative, bright, sensitive, spoiled and endlessly giving; an emotional roller coaster with an eye ever fixed on the press that slavishly followed her every move. But she wasn’t tough.

Like Marilyn Monroe, who also died at 36 in the hot month of August, there was something fragile about Diana — the public sensed that for all the glitter and gleam, there was little to envy in her life. Except perhaps her two beautiful sons. (And unlike Monroe, Diana openly discussed her many issues. We found out about most of Monroe’s torments after she was gone.)

I’m sure what with the media-created frenzy over the latest royal wedlock, enough millions will tune in to watch the proceedings, to make the endless airtime devoted to the event worthwhile.

I wish Kate and William good luck. It’s not an easy life, despite the luxury. One is bound by a duty and fate that is inescapable — certainly for William and his brother, Harry. Kate has made a choice, with plenty of compromises. But they are starting from a much better place than did Diana and Charles. In the first place, they seem truly devoted. (Devotion aside, Kate has removed the word “obey” from her marriage vows. You go, girl!)

So long as Kate doesn’t suddenly discover that, “from the beginning, there were three of us in the marriage” as Diana famously confessed to Martin Bashir.

* * *

P.S. In the face of the devastating tornadoes that have taken at least 250 American lives and will cost billions of American dollars to rebuild and recuperate, will any news outlet “man up” and cover that story today, rather than showing an endless loop of Kate and William, being worshipped?

* * *

HMMM …. did one of our favorites, Jennifer Aniston, take the advice we dished out a while back? Get out of Los Angeles and away from the relentless, often negative vibe of a town invested only in celebrity, Starbucks, fashions and the red carpet. Come to New York, we said. Get a nifty apartment. Steep yourself in the cultural life of the greatest city in the world. Go onstage!

Well, the Daily News has reported that Aniston closed on a West Village apartment. Two apartments, actually. She intends to create a duplex.

We welcome Miss Aniston with open arms. New York is full of life, energy, art, music, fascinating people — a few of them are even men. And it’s a great place to re-invent oneself.

* * *

THE FOX Movie Channel has been running a lot of “Cleopatra,” the movie that almost sank the studio, back in the early 1960’s. Contrary to rumor, the film with Liz n’ Dick (and Rex Harrison) made a bundle at the box office. It just couldn’t recoup the then-astronomical sum of $40 million dollars!

FMC has also been airing one of Elizabeth Taylor’s latter-day oddities, “The Bluebird.” This very expensive Russian/American collaboration, released in 1976 was a real bomb. But it’s fascinating today to watch Elizabeth, Ava Gardner, Jane Fonda, and Cicley Tyson do what they can with the antiquated material and look at the Russian sets that appear to be made of cardboard, in New Jersey.

One wonders if the big musical number between Elizabeth and Ava, cut from the final print, might be found, now that there is renewed interest in all things Elizabeth. It was a hoot! (Hell, people are still searching for the lost three hours of “Cleo”—Joe Mankewicz had intended his epic as a two-parter. But Fox had had enough and slashed the film to a cumbersome three hours.)

Oh, and as to the rumors of a 14-year-old Elizabeth giving up a baby born out of out of wedlock. Really? The girl was one of MGM’s most promising properties. Even if she’d become pregnant — as if her mother ever left her alone long enough for such a dalliance! — the studio would have arranged an abortion. Elizabeth herself admitted the driving reasons she rushed into marriage with Nicky Hilton was to escape her parents and … have sex!

But expect plenty more of this kind of thing now that La Liz is in that big Chasen’s in the sky, ordering endless bowls of chili, and a lot of cold beer.

50 comments so far.

  1. avatar Baby Snooks says:

    Whoever told you that Diana and the Queen Mum were “commoners” has lost their mind. Both were of the peerage. They were daughters of an Earl. Daughters do not  inherit the title. The elder son does. But the daughters and the other sons are allowed the privileges of the title. 

    Diana was to the manor born as they say but had tasted the “common life” and apparently liked it and so in that sense she became a “commoner” and the problem was she  wasn’t able to find her way back to the manor so to speak.  But speak she did.  About things she had no place to speak of. She knew the rules.  She forgot them. She was reminded of them. And still broke them. Believing she had the right.  Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself. That Kate will obey the rules. But apparently she doesn’t intend to.  Having removed the word “obey” from the vows. That ring indeed appears to be a portent of what is to come. 

  2. avatar Baby Snooks says:

    And no more Kate! She’s now Princess Catherine. Not Princess Kate.

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear Baby…but everyone knew her as Nancy. (I’ve been listening to The Beatles White Album too much.)

      I don’t think Princess Catherine is going to fly, media-wise.  She’ll be Kate.  Perhaps not Shakespeare’s rowdy Kate, but kissable, all the same.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        You’re probably right and Buckingham Palace will ignore the improper “Princess Kate” the way it ignored the equally improper “Princess Di.” Propriety ain’t what it used to be.

        Someone commented elsewhere they were moved to tears listening to “God Save the Queen.” I suspect quite a few in Westminster Abbey were as well when they looked over at Charles. And Camilla.

      • avatar Claudia Marek says:

        Actually, Catherine is not Princess Catherine – her title would be The Duchess of Cambridge or HRH Princess William of Wales. She is the equivalent of a Mrs. Prince — as she was not born a royal, like for example, Princess Anne.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        What she is or is not or when she will or will not be whatever she is or is not apparently is hasn’t really been determined. The only sure thing is that when Queen Elizabeth dies, Prince William becomes the Prince of Wales when Prince Charles becomes King Charles. And commoner or not she becomes the Princess of Wales and will have the title HRH Catherine, Princess of Wales. And will be referred to as Princess Catherine.  She will become the Queen Consort just as Diana would have. Wives of a king become the Queen Consort. Husbands of a queen become the Prince Consort.  A wife who is of royal blood becomes Queen. The last Queen was Queen Elizabeth’s grandmother Queen Mary who was Princess Victoria Mary of Teck when she married George V.  Which brings us to Camilla again. Since the Church of England does not recognize the marriage she cannot become Queen Consort. She is not really married to the king. Not in the eyes of the Church of England.  So if he assumes the throne, it will be interesting to see what she will become. He cannot merely declare her anything. The rules.  It will be a mess.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        It has long been rumored that there was an agreement when Queen Elizabeth agreed to the civil marriage that Charles would allow William to succeed her but the indicatoins have been he does not intend to do so. Even if he agreed to do so. And there appears to be nothing that would stop him from becoming king. But Camilla is another matter.  And that is where the matter is going to become messy with regard to the Church of England. They both should have left well enough alone and allowed Camilla to  become the Mistress Consort. For her to become Queen Consort the Church of England would have to regonize the marriage and the Archbishop made it clear to everyone that the Church of England would not do so. At any point.

  3. avatar crystalclear says:

    What a beautiful wedding today!   Both the bride and the groom looked happy and calm.   Even the Queen seemed to enjoy the wedding.   I was moved when I heard that the Queen gave Kate her diamond tiara given to her at the age of 18 by her father.   Good vibes going on!!

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      I have a friend who realized I didn’t have a television so I couldn’t watch who called a repairman to come fix it and he called yesterday morning and I told him to call me Monday. I really don’t miss it.  TCM had become “reruns” and I certainly don’t miss the screeching banshees. So I missed the repeat of “Charles and Diana.”  But am wading through the photos. The hats are always fun.  The British really love their hats!

      I cannot believe so many people got up in the dead of night in order to watch. I also cannot believe so many people got up in the dead of night in order to attend.

  4. avatar Richard Bassett says:


    Oh God! This wedding!!! I either don’t remember or there wasn’t as much news coverage for Charles and Diana’s marriage in 1981. Or maybe that was the first royal wedding I remember watching. I worked the 11pm – 7am shift in a Los Angeles based hospital so it was on television just because the television was on. In between tending to ER patients, we caught glimpses of it. And Prince Charles is closer to becoming king than Prince William! Then and now. So, no more. Who cares? Over the years, Diana approached life one way; Kate will approach life in her own way. Jennifer Aniston is as free as a bird, and has to answer to no one. I truly believe that she, though burned once, embraces this lifestyle. Headlines HAVE to be made up about her, because nothing really is ever going on with her…or so I read (smile). I’ve never seen “The Blue Bird” but during production in Russia (1975) it did give Elizabeth an acute form of Amoebic dysentery just prior to her final reconciliation with Mr. Burton. Henry Wynberg (who was the beau that was with her in Russia) was given a solid gold Rolex watch and sent back to America, while Richard and Elizabeth remarried in October 1975. Now, is “The Blue Bird” done in Russian with English subtitles? This, I do not know. I do not even remember a theatrical release of the film but Elizabeth working with Ava (though they were playing outrageous characters) would have made it worth seeing. Elizabeth’s baby ay 14? I heard that she was 8 and wanted to keep the baby. It would have been impossible then (LOL)

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear Richard…”The Bluebird” had a gala premiere in Washington D.C. (while ET was still dating Mr. Zahedi, Iran’s Ambassador to the U.S.)   It opened at Radio City Music Hall.  It did not linger long. 
       
      Miss Taylor looks quite lovely in her various roles. Abstinence from drinking (the dysentery!) always did Miss Taylor good.

      • avatar rick gould says:

        Hi–
        I remember Rex Reed’s hilarious account of the behind the scenes of “The Blue Bird.”
        If they had filmed the chaos behind the scenes, it would have been a smash, instead of a “Boom!”

        It was also one of the first interviews I read that really showed Elizabeth Taylor’s humor and tenacity. The film’s first ever US-Soviet co-production was a dream of Mike Todd’s, so I am sure that attracted, along with an all-star cast and direction by famed “women’s director” George Cukor. The clips I’ve seen are unbelievably amateurish. But ET tries and looks terrific, so this bomb is not one set off by her!

        Speaking of “Boom!,” Mr. wOw, I just ordered the soundtrack by John Barry (who did all the Bond movies). I have always loved the music from that movie and was amazed to find it was rightly praised and available on Amazon! I only wish I had an intercom system so I could walk around the house and turn it on and off at will like Sissy/ET does in the movie ;)

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear Rick…”Get the Witch of Capri.  Tell him I need to see him.  Urgentisimo!  Urgentisimo. Like everything else this summer.”

        Sissy Goforth is not going forth.

      • avatar rick gould says:

        Like a lot of Liz’ best work, that quiet, rueful line reading is Taylor at her best, though amusing is her comically caterwauling, “Shit on your mother!”

        I’d love to see Olympia Dukakis’ doing this on Broadway right now. Highly underrated play… And dare I say, so is the film version…

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear Rick…

        Something about the way she says that particular word.  I like it best in “X Y and Zee,” dishing her rival:    “She’s always a little breathless and sees beauty in everything.  Especially in shit.” 

      • avatar rick gould says:

        The whole bedroom/bathroom argument between Liz/Zee and Michael Caine is fricking hilarious, each getting each other’s goats.
        When she’s walking down the hallway and he’s following, berating her, and she’s smirking and twirling the tassles on her robe…Liz should have done more comedy. And I believe she caps the row with that word: “Frankly, Scarlett, I don’t give a shee-t!”

      • avatar Dan Patterson says:

        A good friend and I saw BOOM when it first came out. We were both enchanted. We agreed no one we knew was going to like it, but we did. I hadn’t seen it again in 40 years until a couple of months ago, when I watched a DVD, and I fell in love all over again, with Taylor, with Burton, with Coward, and especially with the soaring language of the play. A problematic film and play, no doubt, but strange and (to me at least) captivating.

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear Dan…my favorite moment in “Boom!” comes after a wild over-emotional  monologue by Miss T.  Noel Coward (the Witch of Capri) has looked on silently.  As ET ends–clearly not knowing what the hell Tennessee Williams’ words even meant–Coward remarks:  “You seem quite wrought up dear.”

        When I saw the film in 1968, I fell out of my chair.  Nobody picked me up, because there was nobody else in the theater. 

      • avatar Dan Patterson says:

        Mr Wow, Coward was brilliant casting, wasn’t he? My only regret is that there wasn’t more of him in the movie. A great scene-stealer, of course. The music for this movie is terrific, too. This makes me want to see other forgotten Tennessee Williams movies. I vaguely remember The Seven Descents of Myrtle was filmed with James Coburn and Lynn Redgrave (or am I hallucinating again?)

      • avatar rick gould says:

        I can’t wait for Universal to get E.T.’s “Boom!” and “Secret Ceremony” out on DVD. Both are strange and uneven, but have much to recommend them, beyond obvious camp value.

        Though I prefer “Secret Ceremony” as a film, “Boom!” is has many redeeming qualities: The haunting score, the inventive photography, that wonderful villa (I’d live there in a heartbeat!)…and though not top Tennessee, it’s a real meditation on what HE was going through at the time, and there’s some great lines. Burton and Taylor are both extremely miscast, Burton more so, I think. Liz, though too young, at least had much else in common with Sissy: fame, wealth, husbands and death. Burton was never a beautiful, otherworldly boy. But neither of them walked through it, as critics complained. And Coward is the cherry on this overlavish float.
        “Boom. The shock of each moment of still being alive!”
        Indeed ;)

  5. avatar HauntedLady says:

    Wasn’t Diana Spencer referred to as a commoner? Her father held the title of Earl, not his children. Anyone here who, well, knows about the peerage and commoners and, well, such? Maybe someone from the UK?

    Kate is far more mature than Diana was when she married Charles. She and William have had the leisure and some privacy and time in which to get to know one another. Rather like regular folks. Charles and Diana were sort of forced on each other, not realizing their lack of commonality until too late. I remember someone asking me if I wasn’t envious of Diana and I said I wasn’t because that girl’s life would never be her own again. It takes someone with steel to live that way.

    While I wish William and Kate happiness and health, I don’t envy them and I’ll be glad to see the last of the wedding coverage.

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      Diana Spencer was Lady Diana Spencer. She was not a “commoner.” Not by birth anyway.

      • avatar HauntedLady says:

        By some definitions, she was an aristocrat and a commoner, as was the late Queen Mother. Since Diana was the daughter of a peer and not one herself, some definitions consider her a commoner. It’s confusing which is why I wondered if someone from the UK could provide any clarification.

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear HauntedLady…definitions and clarifications are numerous and conflicting.  Especially on this side of the pond.  And maybe even over there. 

        Diana, because she was “Lady Diana” was never referred to as a commoner.  Not that I recall, anyway.  Kate (Princess Catherine–sorry!) was.  Who the hell cares?  Not even even the Queen, at this point.  She has perhaps gotten the message—everybody’s “common.”

        They looked nice together.  She is no fool. 

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        The hereditary title is passed to the elder son. The other sons the title of “Sir” and the daughters the title of “Lady.” It is a life title and not passed in turn to their sons and daughters. So if Lady Diana had married Pete the Plumber her sons and daughters would have no title. But if she had married Baron Plumber, her first son would inherit the title of Baron and her other sons would become “Sir” and her daughers would become “Lady” but not through Diana. Through Diana’s husband.  The British peerage has its own rules set forth by the English monarchy. The English monarchy ended with Sophia of Hanover.   In the 1700s as I recall.

        And Queen Elizabeth is not head of her own house. A German prince is. And that adds to the confusion about the rules. Baby Snooks is having a bad afternoon or I would bore everyone to tears but it’s worth goggling the line of succession from Sophia of Hanover.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        And adding to the confusion n is the matter of Princess Catherine. She is actually the Princess of Wales. But, well, Charles is the Prince of Wales.  So she doesn’t really become the Princess of Wales until William becomes the Prince of Wales.

        I think Mr. Wow is probably right about Queen Elizabeth nor really caring at this point.  Just the matter of Diana and Fergie and what they were or were not following the divorces probably made her wonder why the hell she took the job to begin with.  

      • avatar Sandy B says:

        Camilla is the Princess of Wales. She is also the Duchess of Cornwall and that is the title they use because it is less offensive to the people. But she holds both titles.

        Catherine is Princess William, or the Duchess of Cambridge. But people will call her Princess Catherine anyhow.

  6. avatar elaine s says:

    I watched the royal wedding this morning and thought it was a lovely and meaningful service.  I was impressed that the officiant asked for everyone’s ongoing support as the couple live out their life together.  He urged William and Catherine to go the distance and always stay true to one another; to strengthen each other so they can become their best selves.  

    These are the ideals most everyone strives for in marriage, although I don’t recall having heard them stated this well before. 

    I am in the autumn of my life and have fallen short of these ideals, but watching today made me realize I still believe in them. 

    I hope for all the happiness in the world for Prince William and Princess Catherine.  I imagine for many who watched this wedding, it was a “triumph of hope over experience”, and we need hope in this sad and troubled world.  I am grateful they shared their day with us.

    • avatar Briana Baran says:

      I didn’t watch William and Catherine’s wedding, and I didn’t watch Charles and Diana’s wedding either. I am not much of a romantic. I do remember finally seeing a video of Diana’s perfectly ridiculous wedding gown, and thinking, quite clearly, “WTF?”.

      I do wish the newly wed Prince and Princess (or whatever their titles may be) all of the best. She is a lovely and seemingly capable woman, and William, who still wishes to serve as a military helicopter pilot on active duty, is no low-grade moron like his simpering baboon’s butt of a father.

      And I personally think people should cease and desist their glowering, dire predictions about the Ring being some sort of veve ill-omen. Does it never occur to anyone that William loved his mother deeply, and lost her when he was still little more than a child…Royal or not…and that the ring is a symbol of her, and her devotion and love for him, and his for her…not of her failed marriage to his ponce of a father? She didn’t live to see him find love, success and hopefully, happiness. Perhaps he gave Kate the ring to honor both his mother’s memory, and his devotion to the new woman in his life. He has grown up, and seemingly done it well.

      After reading elaine’s post on this thread, I looked up the officiant’s words…and I thought they were sincere, hopeful and had the ring of truth and sound, heartfelt wisdom. And I am delighted that Kate, now Princess Catherine, chose to remove the word “obey” from her wedding vows. I hope that she and William can grow together as partners, as lovers, as friends, and as leaders, not as master and chattel, and present a united front to the citizens of their country.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        Now, now. Keep in mind that Charles makes a lovely tampon. If  I had been Queen Elizabeth when Diana managed to get that leaked to the tabloids may I assure you Willam and Harry would have become orphans.

        The vows. In a strange way they are vows taken with the people and the “consrort” vows to obey the monarch. I twould be interesting to see if the word was omitted when Elizabeth married Phillip. No way does she obey him. Or anyone else.

      • avatar Briana Baran says:

        Ah, well, Camilla certainly makes a perfect, mmm, receptacle for Charles, in his royal hygienic product mode, I mean. She has always so reminded me of the rather more lowly breeds of her beloved equines (as I love horses dearly, that is probably an insult to them…they are much more graceful and lovely). Odd that Charles never could ride worth a damn…

        I never was enchanted with Diana’s public persona, Baby, and I think that there was enough mutual acrimony and lack of respect in the marriage to satisfy the scandal rags for generations. The marriage was an epic fail. But it is clear her children adored her, and they lost their mother, not an image, or an icon, or a failed wife or princess, or a scandal…and they lost her tragically, in a manner that could not have possibly made sense to them at the time. I say leave William, his choice to give his bride-to-be his mother’s ring, and his determined and, I think, very savvy wife, alone.

        As for all of the fuss and bother about propriety, and English Royal Rules, Regulations, and Rot…I am aware that when one marries an Heir to the Throne, one marries the Nation…and I don’t think that Kate, or Catherine, was being defiant or subversive regarding her role as Princess (or title-du-jour). It’s my intuition that this was her statement to the world that she is William’s partner, there to love, support, respect, and help him as husband and leader, but not by being either his public nuisance…or his doormat. She’s flying not just in the face of creepy Charles, but also tawdry Fergie and emotional wreck Diana by saying–I am strong, I am capable, I am aware of my role, and I will do this without interfering, but also without becoming a persona non grata. It’s about time, too. England needs a kick in the pants…and we could use one as well. Where are our truly strong women?

        O, disclaimer for all of my detractors: this is only an opinion. I’ve never even been English.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        When Charles and Camilla came to America several noted her “bawdy” sense of humor. According to some, well, she would have made Elizabeth Taylor blush.

        The rules. What have kept England, and the rest of the empire, together for over 1,000 years now. Don’t like the rules? Don’t play the game.
        The monarchy will survive the death of Queen Elizabeth. The royal family, however, may not.  Parliament cannot dismiss the monarch but it can limit the public role and the public support of the royal family. Many suspect that is what is coming.

  7. avatar crystalclear says:

    William resembles his mother, Diana.   I loved the ceremony and witnessing these two lovely young people pledging their lives to one another.   Yes, Elaine, we need to see this in this day and time when being politically correct is also a way of minimizing christianity.   The choir was beautiful and meaningful.

    When Kate and William were out on the balcony waving to the crowd then turned around to go back in….Kate turned back to the crowd and smiled.  

    Glad I had time to watch it in its entirety this a.m.

  8. avatar calgal says:

    According to The Guardian (British newspaper) Kate will not be Princess Kate, nor will she be Princess Catherine. She will be Princess William.

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      That s incorrect because she will become the Princess of Wales.  And will be referred to as Princess Catherine.  Just as Diana was referred to as Princess Diana. But she isn’t the Princess of Wales yet. Diana still is. Which is why Camilla is not. The hazards of divorcing and marrying the mistress. More than likely the title of Duchess the title until Charles becomes King.  And Kate will be referred to as the Duchess of Cambridge. Although formally it will be Prince William and Catherine the Duchess of Cambridge. Just as it is Prince Charles and Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall. If it sounds confusing it will probably become moreso when Charles becomes King Charles.  Camilla the Queen? Even over the Queen Elizabeth’s dead body I doubt that will happen.

      As for Kate and what she will or will not be and when, who knows? Queen Elizabeth makes the final decision. I don’t think there has been an “official” listing by Buckingham Palace. She stripped Diana of all royal titles. But Diana is still listed as the Princess of Wales.

      • avatar Sandy B says:

        Camilla IS the Princess of Wales. They chose not to use that title for obvious reasons.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        The Church of England does not recognize the marriage to Camilla. They were married in a civil ceremony. It presents some problems as they say. It will probably produce some fireworks upon the death of Queen Elizabeth.

        And Diana is still listed on the offical lists by Buckingham Palace as Diana, Princess of Wales.  She was listed that way upon the divorce. They merely dropped the “HRH.”

        Some believe that was the decision of Queen Elizabeth who knew that Charles would eventually marry Camilla and who did not want Camilla to become  the Princess of Wales and needlessly cause a confrontation with  The Church of England which , again, does not recognize the marriage and would not recognize her as the Princess of Wales. 

      • avatar Sandy B says:

        You are partly correct Baby Snooks. Dianna became Lady Dianna, Princess of Wales on her divorce. It became merely a name she was entitled to use- but she lost the “rank” the HRH of being a real princess.

        The marriage is not recognized by the Church but Camilla still holds the titles. She is HRH Princess of Wales. It’s easy enough to look this up.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        You need to goggle “Official Website of the British Royal Family” which I would provide the link to but wowOwow doesn’t like links.  The website is maintained by Buckingham Palace.  The “biographiies” constitute the “official list” which list sthe titles of each member of the royal family.  Per Buckingham Palace.

        If you read the bio for the Prince  of Wales it is quite clear that Diana is still the Princess of Wales and will be until Charles becomes King and Williarm becomes the Prince of Wales and Catherine becomes the Princess of Wales. 

        If you read the bio for the Duchess of Cornwall it is quite clear that she is not the Princess of Wales. And never will be.  

        Buckingham Palace has not added Kate, whatever she may or may not be, to the list .

        But at some point in the past year they have added something interesting to the bio for the Duchess of Cornwall. When Charles becomes king, she will become the Princess Consort. Not the Queen Consort.  Which may or may not be parr of angreement with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

      • avatar Sandy B says:

        I invite everyone to look it up on a variety of sources. The site you mention does not refer to it regarding Camilla at all. They have chosen to emphasise her Duchess titles. Diana is still referred to as Diana, Princess of Wales. Camilla is HRH Princess of Wales and chooses not to use it. It is clearly hers along with the Duchess of Cornwall- which by your logic she shouldn’t have either. And the Duchess of someplace-else as well.

        King Henry the 8th is still called King- and so are all the other Kings and Queens called by their titles after they are dead. That does not mean no one else gets the title.

        There are many websites that cover this. Start by googling Princess of Wales. Or Camilla’s titles etc. I remember it very well when it happened. Also, as I recall Camilla will use the title consort as a choice Legally she could use “Queen” but again sensitivities to the British public have had her choose the other. Many Brits do not want to see a Queen Camilla.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        Buckingham Palace has “updated” the website  and the list and the bio for Prince Williaam has been removed and replaced with a bio for The Duke of Cambridge. And a bio has been added for the Duchess of Cambridge. And that is that becase of course the palace lists what Queen Elizabeth has decided the titles will be. And so Catherine is not a princess. She is a duchess. She is not Princess Catherine. Or Princess William. She is the Duchess of Cambridge. There is only one official website. Apparntly you do not understand what “official webiste” means.
        If you have a problem with what Queen Elizabeth has decided, argue it with her. 

        She also decided obviously that Camilla will be the Princess Consort. If she’s anything at all. Some may oppose Charles becoming king on the basis of the divorce and subsequent remarriage to Camilla.  Maybe this “well, she is but we’re going to be polite and respectful” is merely a polite way of avoiding the subject.  And the subject is the Church of England. Which does not recognize the marriage between Charles and Camilla.  That is a major problem since Charles will become the head of the Church of England if he becomes king.  Can’t be king when you hav violated canonical law. Which he did when he married Camilla in a civil ceremony.

        Go read what you want where you want ot read it. The Queen has spoken.  Catherine is the Duchess of Cambridge. Period.  

      • avatar Sandy B says:

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4252931.stm

        Believe what you like. The royal website does not give the full info. For example Camilla is also the Duchess of Rothesay- a title she always uses in Scotland. That isn’t mentioned on the site either- and yet it’s still true. And the Archbishop of Canterbury sees nothing wrong with Charles marriage either- as the above article points out.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        For those interested the official website is royal “dot” gov “dot” uk.

        The bios clearly state who is a prince or princess apart from the title conveyed upon them by Queen Elizabeth or conveyed upon them by succession. Princess Anne for instance  became the Princess Royal upon the death of Princess Margaret.  If you ain’t on the list as a princes you ain’t a princess. Camilla is not a princess.  Catherine is not a princess. Catherine will become a princess. Camilla will not. She will become the princess consort. But only because that is what Queen Elizabeth will allow. She may possibley become The Princess Charles. But not Princess Camilla. She will be the fist wife of a king that I am aware of who will not become the Queen Consort. Says a lot. I doubt in the end Queen Elizabeth cares that much for what the public thinks. I suspect she cares a great deal about what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks.  

        There is still a bio for Diana, Princess of Wales.  The “The” was dropped along with “HRH” upon the divorce since the “The” is part of the royal title. It was not dropped ot to allow someone else to become the “The.” With or without the “The” Diana is the Princess of Wales. Until William becomes The Prince of Wales. Then Catherine will become the Princess of Wales.  “The” Princess of Wales.

        As for for the whole mess, well, as I said if I had been Queen Elizabeth the Princes William and Harry would have become orphans after Diana and Charles and Camilla were summond to the palace and then all three accidentally fell down the staircase on their way out. And the “friends” of Diana and Charles and Camilla who relished leaking all the juicy details of ”who is sleeping with whom and where” would have been told to leave the country before they accidentally fell down a stair case as well.

        But Queen Elizabeth knows the rules and plays by them. No doubt having warned all thee of what would ensue. No matter what.  And that included a marriage that is not recognized by the Church of England.  Which meant Camilla would never become Queen. If Charles becomes King. That apparently she is leaving to the Archbishop to deal with.

      • avatar Sandy B says:

        Also check BBC articles at the time of Charles’ wedding. I can’t put the links it seems- Feb 10 2005- though I may have the date wrong as I don’t still have the article up. The official website gives incomplete info. For example Camilla is also the Duchess of Rothesay- and uses that title in Scotland. ALL THE TIME. But that isn’t on the list. Many Royals have multiple titles. The BBC article also mentions that the Church of England allows divorces and explains in detail the complications and that the Archbishop of Canterbury is for the Charles/Camilla wedding.

        The Royal Website says none of what Baby S is saying regarding the marriage not being recognized by the church.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        The BBC no doubt is referring ot her as Princess Catherine. Even though she’s not.

        The Church of England allows divorce. But not remarriage while the previous wife or husband is alive.  Charles became a widower when Diana died. But, well, Camilla was divorced. And her previous husband was very much alive. So no wedding in the Church of England. Think Wallis Simpson if that helps.  And while the Archbishop of Canterbury performed a ceremony of blessing following the civil ceremony, which Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh did not attend, although they offerered a nice polite excuse which seems to happen a lot with regard to Camilla, ceremony of blessing was not a formal recognition of the marriage. The Church of England does not recognize the marriage. Honestly, who cares?  They are both quite dreadful.  Both wear a nice big red Scarlet A and always will. Princess Anne by the way ran into the same problem. She solved it by getting married in the Church of Scotland. But of course she was not the Prince of Wales who would become head of hte Church of England. Whicih refused to allow hiim to marry Camilla in the Church of England. Eventually you will get it. Maybe.

        William and Catherine, whoever they may or may not be according to the BBC or some other website, have begun their honeymoon. And the new in-law, Miss Pippa Sexystockings-and-Low-Cut Gowns, has taken her disco balls and her boobs back to the streets. Another not-so-good portent of things to come.   

  9. avatar Baby Snooks says:

    You have to hand it to Queen Elizabeth. It’s been a rough ride as they say.  First denying her sister the right to marry the man she loved followed by her divocring the man she probably didn’t but married anyway. Some say it was really the Queen Mum’s decision. Followed by the matter of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Which most agree was not the Queen Mum’s decision or they both would have been bureid in France. The her own children. First Anne divorces. Not a good thing. Then along came the Twins of Terror.  Diana and Fergie.  And then Camilla So she’s have three daughters-in-law she probably wished she had pulled the royal “no” on to make sure they didn’t become daughters-in-law. And Phillip.  Well, at least he’s been at her side all these years. And of course the adventures in America.  At least the last time she decided to mingle finally. And those who were lucky enough to be mingled with found an utterly charming woman who despite it all is really just an ordinary woman with  job that really isn’t ordinary at all. And it is a job. 24/7.  She’s done a damn good job too. Held her head up when probably didn’t want to. And held her tongue when she probably didn’t want to.

    She probably did want to scream “Enough. I quit” when she found out the bridesmaid was not only wearing white but wearing an even lower neckline than the bride, who probably should have wearing “off-white” since she’d been having a honeymoon for a long time already, and who wanted to turn a state ballroom at Buckingham Palace into a disco complete with disco balls.  Instead she held her head up, held her tongue in and decided to carry on a little longer. 

    They are dancing.  She is probably on the phone with the cousins.  Laughing at some of the hats.  She is the last of her breed. And probably really the last monarch.

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      Oopps. I meant the maid-of-honor. William’s new sister-in-law. The family of course are “event planners.”  After the disco balls, I don’t think they will be planning anything else at Buckingham Palace. But of course will be swamped with other business.

  10. avatar RollTide says:

    Ms. Smith,

    Thank you kindly for your gracious acknowledgment of the disastrous conditions here in Alabama. Images of the royal wedding juxtaposed with those of the destruction and loss here are indeed difficult to reconcile. Just this once, out of gratitude, I will say this: “Hook ‘em.”

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      The world took a day off from the reality of the world.  Part of the reality is the arrival of Spring.  And the weather that accompanies its arrival.  And the pictures of the destruction its arrival brings all over this country.  And for many it is followed by the arrival of Summer. And the hurricanes.  But the worst are the tornadoes. The warnings. The ominous clouds. And then suddenly, it’s there. Without warning.  Despite the warnings.  And everyone is suddenly completely helpless. And all we can do is count our blessings amidst the destruction and grieve for those who were in its path and didn’t survive its fury. 

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        And beyond the images an estimated 10,000 buildings destroyed in Alabama with thousands homeless.  Truly a disaster beyond comprehension.