Agreed. I think Pippa has the better deal between her life and Catherineās. Much better for the children as well.I have to disagree with you there, honestly there is no amount of money and privilege that would make me "be a royal", constantly badgered, critiqued, your every move publicised and you can't do right no matter what. I'd much rather make my own money or marry a millionaire
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Perhaps. I think Pippa landed where she is because of Catherine. She may not have landed such a wealthy lifestyle without the royal connection.
In the run up to Pippas wedding she approached anyone not local in Bucklebury to ask them if they were journalists. She sounds incredibly up herself.
Sorry, but I donāt think Pippa ālandedā where she is because of Catherine. She had dated James before they rekindled their relationship.
I am also aware that a previous boyfriend was fully investigated by Buckingham Palace and given clearance by his work (ie no wrong doings) in order to date Pippa.
If sheās aloof itās probably because they are constantly on guard of being hounded by the press
Just my opinion
I am also aware that a previous boyfriend was fully investigated by Buckingham Palace and given clearance by his work (ie no wrong doings) in order to date Pippa.
If sheās aloof itās probably because they are constantly on guard of being hounded by the press
Just my opinion
Iād say the Middleton sibling with the best set up is James. As a man, he was never subjected to the same scrutiny as Pippa and whilst he has obviously had his own struggles, seems to have an ideal set up now living in the country, wife and baby on the way, surrounded by dogs - what a dream!
They may have immense privilege and money but they must be on guard all the time, worried that even a passing comment to someone at the school gate will make its way to the press. Iād rather have my comfortable if not affluent life any day
It has to be frustrating that just because your sister chose to marry a prince, youāre now under scrutiny. I mean donāt get me wrong, they have obviously both benefitted from it too, but not to particularly excessive levels.
They may have immense privilege and money but they must be on guard all the time, worried that even a passing comment to someone at the school gate will make its way to the press. Iād rather have my comfortable if not affluent life any day
It has to be frustrating that just because your sister chose to marry a prince, youāre now under scrutiny. I mean donāt get me wrong, they have obviously both benefitted from it too, but not to particularly excessive levels.
I think it was well known in their uni circles that Pippa was a lit of a social climber bur she got what she wanted in the end.Sorry, but I donāt think Pippa ālandedā where she is because of Catherine. She had dated James before they rekindled their relationship.
I am also aware that a previous boyfriend was fully investigated by Buckingham Palace and given clearance by his work (ie no wrong doings) in order to date Pippa.
If sheās aloof itās probably because they are constantly on guard of being hounded by the press
Just my opinion
Although Vogue Williams is her sister in law...
Pippa got into the aristocratic set which led to her meeting her husband by attending Marlborough. I went to Edinburgh University too. There is a large "yah" contingent who tend to socialise amongst themselves. Coming from a public school got her into that set. Her sister in law is Vogue Williams hardly a Royal.
I think it's so funny that Kerry Katona has a (distant) link to Will and Kate
Vogue was step-mum to Kerry's kids and is now sister in law to Pippa
You might be interested in the documentary James Matthews did, "Finding Michael" If you like that kind of thing its very interesting - mainly fronted by Spencer but about the Matthews' and about the brother who died on the ascent of Everest...
What happens if George is gay? Can he have a husband under COE? What then happens to line of succession? Is surrogacy allowed?
I would like to think that the BRF have prepared for scenarios such as this
No to both questions. After him then Charlotte and her potential kids.
I'd like to hope by the time George is on the throne CoE might have come around on the issue of same-sex marriage. After all, it's only a couple of generations since a monarch wasn't allowed to marry a divorcee with a living former spouse.
We've had gay kings before, just not a gay king with a spouse of his preferred gender.
We've had gay kings before, just not a gay king with a spouse of his preferred gender.
They would also have to change the rules around illegitimate children. If George were gay but had a child with a surrogate that was biologically his, that child would be classed as illegitimate as he wouldnāt be married to the mother? I think?
Donāt ask me why but Iāve always had a feeling George would end up abdicating to Charlotte and we would end up with another long reigning queen. Itās something Iāve āfeltā for years but Iāve no idea why
If it ends up happening Iāll start playing the lottery
Donāt ask me why but Iāve always had a feeling George would end up abdicating to Charlotte and we would end up with another long reigning queen. Itās something Iāve āfeltā for years but Iāve no idea why
If it ends up happening Iāll start playing the lotteryIsnāt it something to do with the laws of inheritance ā¦ a surrogate child in that instance would have to be formally adopted and an adopted child cannot inherit a title?They would also have to change the rules around illegitimate children. If George were gay but had a child with a surrogate that was biologically his, that child would be classed as illegitimate as he wouldnāt be married to the mother? I think?
Donāt ask me why but Iāve always had a feeling George would end up abdicating to Charlotte and we would end up with another long reigning queen. Itās something Iāve āfeltā for years but Iāve no idea why
It's all so confusing. It's like a woman not being able to hold or inherit a title in her own right. The problem of course is that these issues are actually much wider than just the royal family, am I right in thinking that should Charles want to change that, it would impact every title-holding family in the country? I presume there would be a way for him to grant a title to a female in her own right without changing the law, but then that would open up a can of worms - there are plenty of title-holding families in the UK whose oldest child is a daughter but the title will go to the younger brother who would and wouldn't want the rule to change
There are a number of titles that can go through the female line ā¦ a lot of the Scottish ones do and definitely the Mountbatten one was remaindered to the female line and held by Lord Louis daughter, Patricia Knatchbull ā¦ it just depends how they were initially set up.
The adoption issue is bigger than anything Charles could personally change. Like a lot of things, the law hasnāt caught up with medical advancements. I assume itāa because it regards adoption as taking in someone outwith the blood line ā¦ so they canāt inherit because they are not related (adoption the other way carries as normal ā¦ so if say the heir to the Westminster dukedom was adopted by the butler, they would still inherit the dukedom at the appropriate time). The thing with surrogacy is that even if it was, for arguments sake, Georgeās sperm used so the blood line is uninterrupted the baby would still need to be adopted ā¦ and thatās where currently the law doesnāt differentiate and thatās heck of a lot of legal unpicking and reknitting.
(A bell is ringing that itās an issue that the Marquess of Bath has taken up because their second son was born via a surrogate).
I do find it all so interesting and stuff like this makes you realise the concept of abolishing the monarchy isn't as simple as just waking up one day with a president instead of a King. It would, in my opinion, take a generation to sort it out. A headache I think very few could be bothered to deal with
There's a reason most defunct monarchies were abolished... swiftly, shall we say.
And why I donāt think it will happen here. I think increasingly people are indifferent to the RF but the chaos that would come from getting rid of them means there is no incentive to do so.
- Status