Duchess Kate announced her second pregnancy this morning, explaining that she and Prince William were canceling their much-anticipated tour to Australia and New Zealand. Kate is not feeling well, so her public schedule is being cleared for the next year (probably more). William’s public schedule is being cleared in solidarity with his wife, and he announced the cancelations while on holiday in Africa with his ex-girlfriend Jecca Craig. St. James Palace confirms that Kate is pregnant with twins – twin girls that will be named Diana and Carole, after William and Kate’s mothers.
APRIL FOOLS.
Yeah… but it could totally happen. I’ve actually been waiting for something to “come up” so that Will and Kate must cancel their tour.
I was going to put something about Kate shopping for the twins, but that’s too close to reality. Kate did go shopping again yesterday, this time at Baby Gap. She shopped for Prince George (I’m assuming) and she picked up some items I’m assuming we’ll be seeing on George in Australia. There are some interesting details in The Daily Mail’s story:
Accompanied by no fewer than three bodyguards, the Duchess of Cambridge was yesterday spotted dashing into Gap to pick up some last-minute baby clothes for her family’s upcoming tour to New Zealand and Australia. And Kate made sure she travelled in style for her shopping trip, arriving in a Range Rover which had brought her all of 500 yards from her home in Kensington Palace. After her minute-long drive she took 20 minutes to browse the shelves of Baby Gap for her eight-month-old son.
The Duchess of Cambridge spent a total of £126.44 and queued behind other shoppers to pay for her purchases with a credit card. Among the items she picked up for George was a green checked bodysuit designed to look like a shirt costing £12.95. She also bought some denim shorts for £14.95, two navy and white striped babygrows for £14.95 each and a pair of grey and navy striped cotton trousers for £8.95.
On the way out Kate – who was dressed in knee-high leather boots, black tights and a short patterned skirt – couldn’t resist picking up two pairs of trousers for herself from the store’s women’s department.
Members of staff said the Duchess had become a ‘regular shopper at the store’ since becoming a mother. But Kate soon decided to leave through a side entrance and meet her driver, who had been waiting outside for her on a double yellow line with the engine running.
I love all the details about her bodyguards and the Range Rover and the minute-long drive. Kate really does love those royal perks, doesn’t she?
Speaking of, many people were talking about Prince George’s “GEORGE” sweater/jumper in the official portrait revealed over the weekend. Apparently, the sweater was cashmere, created by Corgi Hosiery, and the sweater was given to Prince Charles who then passed it on to his son and daughter-in-law. Yes, Kansas, all the royals accept freebies.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
OMG. I was totally fooled!! I even started to write a furious comment about the cancelling! LOL.
Got me. Got me good.
WOW! You really had me here.
You totally had me, I was googling before i even got down to the April fools part!!
I was just waiting for an April Fool and there it is! good one!
” William’s public schedule is being cleared in solidarity with his wife” – lost my sh!t at this part lmao
You had me! 🙂
As I was clicking on my Celebitchy bookmark, I was thinking “I wonder if they will do an April Fool’s article today?” And there it was! I kind of want the duchess to get pregnant again, though.
Got me. Good one.
Almost, Kaiser. Almost. 😀
I fell for it too and started rolling my eyes about how they need to get some GD jobs and show everyone what it’s like being a working parent if they want to rehab the Royal image.
Haha, Now yall know that would have been on every news channel and front page of every news paper if that was true. I was on the lookout for an AF’s joke, because I thought Kaiser almost had me yesterday with that Tom Cruise Title Heading.
Haha good one,but i didn’t get a chance to read the details before i spotted the bold ‘APRIL FOOL’. Anyways been meaning to ask have there ever been a royal baby born out of wedlock?
Hahahahaha if “normal” people do it then royals do it. So the question is not has it eever happened but proving it.
Haha yeah i am sure there could be ‘love children’ somewhere but i am saying with an ‘official’ girlfriend like Cressida getting pregnant right now?
It was rumoured that the late king Frederik IX of Denmark had an illegitimite child before his marriage to Ingrid of Sweden. And, according to my dad, Maersk once had an employee (a long, long time ago) that was a dead ringer for king Christian X (the father of Frederik IX).
Princess Thyra, the daughter of Christian IX, also had a child out of wedlock. It was a very sad story. The officer she had the child with killed himself, her child was given up for a secret adoption and she was married off to a German prince.
Before the 19th century, royal bastards were generally acknowledged and supported by their royal father. Even Queen Caroline Mathilde’s daughter Louise Augusta by Johan Struensee was “officially” regarded as a princess, a child of her insane husband Christian VIII though everyone at court knew her real parentage. Her brother, later king Frederik VI, protected her and arranged an advantageous marriage for her with the Duke of Augustenborg, which I have read was a love match. Louise Augusta’s daughter Caroline Amalie later became Queen of Denmark through her marriage to Christian VIII, who most likely also was an illegitimate child of Christian VII’s sister-in-law. Her husband the hereditary prince Frederik was rumoured to suffer from mental retardation and Christian VIII was apparently a dead ringer for a royal aide named Friedrich von Blücher.
And i suppose it was much easier to hide illegitimate children back then, it would of been a scandal had Kate gotten pregnant or any other royal before marriage in this day and age.
Illegitimate is a much better term than bastard in 2014, no?
Dame: Bastard does sound horrid even though it’s the technical term.
British (and European) History is littered with acknowledged illegitimate royal babies. Given titles, responsibilities and everything, though barred from the line of succession. Exception tudors who are direct descendants of a royal mistress and thus doubly usurpers.
Illegitimacy wasn’t such a stigma as it became over time, and now it would be difficult to prove if it happened and am sure the CoE and assorted pearl clutchers would make it tough for an illegitimate baby to be acknowledged. Major PR would have to be deployed etc etc and so forth.
That said, there is a very strong rumour that Princess Louise, one of Victoria’s daughters, had an illegitimate child that was given up for adoption.
The records about the relevant period of her life, and actually much of her life, are sealed at Windsor, and no amount of asking will unseal them, by order of Victoria herself.
The princess remained in close contact with the adoptive family and her child and left them a large legacy on her death under the guise of friendship.
Until the early late 18th century royal bastard (only from royal men!) were acknowledged and often given titles – usually their mothers were given titles as well, if they were aristocrats. The most notorious examples are Charles II and Louis XIV (both notorious womanizers). Louis XIV even had a official system of rank for various types of mistresses, which his great-grandson Louis XV used as well: the “maitress en titre” (i.e. the official mistress, who often wielded a great deal of political power at court). Fx Madame de Montespan who was a favorite of Louis XIV and later Madame de Maintenon, with whom he had a secret marriage. The most famous of Louis XV’s official mistresses are Madame de Pompadour, who was immensly influential, both politically and as a patron of the arts, and Madame du Barry. Besides the official mistresses the kings had a slew of unofficial mistresses.
Charles II only had illegitimate children as his queen, Catherine of Braganza, was infertile. His oldest son was created Duke of Monmouth. His children with Barbara Villiers and Louise de Kerouaille were given dukedoms as was their mothers. Barbara became Duchess of Cleveland and Louise became Duchess of Porthsmouth. The only one of Charles’ acknowledged mistresses who wasn’t given a title was the actress Nell Gwynne. Neither she nor her children were given titles – mainly because of class issues. She was a commoner while his other mistresses were aristocrats.
Christian IV of Denmark also had many mistresses and up to 23 illegitimate children. As far as I know, they weren’t given titles, because the aristocratic system was different in Denmark at the time. However, the all received the surname Gyldenløve (meaning golden lion) and was acknowledged as the king’s children. His children by the queen were princes and princesses, and his children from his morganatic marriage to Kirsten Munk received titles as counts and countesses.
Arthistorian: did you know that Fergie is a direct descendant in the male line of the Duke of Monmouth, CIIR’s oldest illegitimate son. Her family don’t have a title because her grandmother married an untitled gentleman. As women can’t pass on titles, that was that.
Similarly, many of the aristocracy with ties to the royals are descended from CIIR and his many illegitimate kids.
Doesn’t Prince Albert have a few children born out of wedlock?
Nick: yes he does.
LAK, no I didn’t – interesting.
I’ve just started reading Antonia Fraser’s book on Henry VIII’s six wives – and I noticed that many of the were descended from Edward I.
LAK
Do you know of any rumors surrounding the parenting of Queen Charlotte?
Dame: I think I know why you are asking me this question.
After I posted that note to you, i’ve been researching both her sides to see where that came from.
It wouldn’t surprise me if I find moor blood somewhere. In the early age they didn’t care so much about such things.
As a distraction for you, until I find a definitive answer (or not) which i’ll post soon, enjoy the fact that one of the most revered Medici rulers of Florence (Allesandro de Medici) was a moor (unclear whether black or Arab, it was a catch all phrase). Ruled 1530-7 and was unashamedly called ‘il Moro’ AKA ‘the moor’. Imagine calling Obama that today!!!
LAK
Bingo! I knew I had come across some articles about him several years ago and couldn’t remember his name and it was bugging me. Now I can google him. I remember he was devilishly handsome, overindulged by daddy and died violently. I can’t wait to fill in the blanks lol. And yes, Now you’ve got me searching for bargain QCharlotte reads on Amazon! I am anxious to see what you unearth 😉
Fun Royal Fact:
William (through Diana) will be the first British Sovereign that is descended from Charles II.
Dame: re: the term Bastard. Richard 3 had an illegitimate son who was unashamedly known as John the Bastard. All official documents about him, including when he was put in charge of Calais refer to him as ‘John the Bastard’ even by his own father who was very proud of him and his achievements.
ArtHistorian: Nell Gwynne’s bastard by Charles was made Duke of St Albans; his descendants still hold the title but must walk behind the ducal descendants of Castlemaine’s son the Duke of Bedford, born first.
correction: He must walk behind the present Dukes of Richmond and Grafton (they are descended from mistresses)
but he’s ahead of Bedford, who isn’t a direct descendant of Charles’ mistresses.
But the ranking of all peers stems from the date their peerage was created.
Quote (see link below):
The precedence that any one peer has among those of his own degree (rank) is dependent upon the antiquity of the peerage in question. That is to say, the older the title, the more senior the title-bearer.
Link further explaining.
http://www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-peerage/ranks-and-privileges-peerage
That was sort of mean. Funny, but eeever so slightly mean.
I was thinking : “She’s pulling a Jessica Simpson!” Good one!
You got me!
Made me look! Good one!
Good one!! I was even pondering why the story wasn’t on CNN, etc. Happy April Fools! 🙂
Ha-ha got me too until the part of having twins. I think this was an easy get because this is what we would expect from these too do-nothing’s. Clearing their public schedules for a year. Too funny. Not like they have been very busy the first 3 months.
The Twins part is where I began to remember the date.
I’m on high alert today. No radio, or TV.
Got me too until I got to the twins part. Good one Kaiser. We all expect the lazy two to find reasons to bail on work so this April fools sounds real.
Wasn’t just the twins it was that they were going to be named Diana and Carole!
haha me too! I was all WHAT WHAT !!!!! then hit the twins bit. So busy at work today I forgot the date!
Lol, I totally bought it. I was already composing a scathing comment in my hand about how much they really just like shitting on their tax payers, but alas it was false. But this is totally something that could happen.
You soooo got me. I never click on posts about Kate (not really my thing), but the second pregnancy headline hooked me. And I believed it completely while reading it.
Well done, you!
Ha ha, nicely played. I worked it out before clicking on it but for a second I did think of googling it first!
Why on earth would they want to cancel this tour. It’s work but it’s not work, work. It’s a lovely scenic adventure with mild mannered adoring throngs, great food, lovely wine, proper beer. A restful idyllic night or two off even. The hometown rags will be filled with good-on-them, how lovely to see them headlines. What’s to cancel??
As for the Daily Mail story, I know this one’s a bit of a precious pain, but let’s be real here. Does anyone expect her to ‘walk to the shops’? Her driver was waiting outside on double yellow lines with engine running… what, like normal people do sometimes (though they are usually trying their luck)… at least she queued. Can’t we wait until she does something really annoying before piling on?
Feebee: what I find strange is that she took a driver when she shops on Ken High street all the time. On foot with her guards discreetly following her. Ditto her nearly daily Starbucks run though that hasn’t been as frequent as it used to be pre-PGTips.
What is PGtips? Prince George? Combined with PippaTips?
There are reports of heightened security for QEII due to specific threats. If that’s true, that would explain heightened security for Kate and why she was driven 500 yards.
I’m with you- she’s a future Q of E- and as such is a potential target- security is a must. She waited in line like a regular person, so why so snarky?
She’s always low key when she shops. All the shop assistants say when she goes into any shop, she’s always waits in line.
Totally agree, Tig.
Exactly – I’m sure there’s some kind of security procedure that has to be followed, no matter the distance.
Double yellows? Is that a no parking zone? Do they also get to park/stop in handicapped spots?
When my niece was 10 years old she told her little sister there was no Santa but on Christmas Eve decided at the last minute to leave milk and cookies just in case.
This was my reaction a split second before I clicked the link.
Lol.. I was looking forward to the diatribes from the usual suspects
Kaiser knows her royaloonies and plays us like a violin!
Diatribe? Nothing bitter from the usual suspects.
Hahaha good one.
I don’t get why she would want to go to the trouble of a 20 minute shopping trip. If I were her I would shop for fun, for hours at my leisure. If I really “needed” a few things for a trip I wouldn’t run out real quick and make a baby-clothes pit stop in a rush, I’d send someone to do those un-fun shopping ventures and only do the indulgent all-day shopping trips personally.
I’d be a worse royal than her! I would probably spend my days eating bonbons and reading on the couch lol
Yes, why trouble yourself to shop at Baby Gap? You can see all the stuff online. Send a lackey to pick stuff up in the sizes you need and you can look through them/try them on George at your leisure.
I still can’t get over the fact that she has no female friends to shop with. Where’s the fun in that?
Aahhh! I announced it proudly to the bf, even expressing my sincere hope for a little princess. D’oh!
Hahahaha! You got me! Good one!
Bwah! I was prepared for an Aniston pregnancy April Fool’s story, but you totally got me with this one!
You got me for half a second, but you went too far with them cancelling the trip. Cancel an exotic trip?! (To this American, Australia & New Zealand are exotic!) Those two?! As for the DM article on the shopping excursion, ooh, a bit of snark, eh? And here I was thinking Pippa who was gifted with the George sweater, but now we see it was Charles. I get it, people want to give cute things for the baby, but really, when you’re stinkin’ rich, should you accept these? Maybe say thank you very much & pass it along to a shelter later, possibly with the donor’s name? Just a thought.
I hope it’s TRUE that she shops at the GAP!
Yep, you got me – because that twins story has been floating around on tabloids that are inferior to Celebitchy in every way!
It was genius to include the twins angle, because the tabloids are always working that one.
I’m not sure why on earth the media is so invested in her having twins, but it seems to be the thing!
Sooner or later, every female celebrity whose tabloid narrative is hearth and home is accused of being pregnant with twins.
I don’t understand why it’s a big deal that she was driven. Would the future Queen really be expected to walk to the Gap even if it’s nearby? As an American it seems like the equivalent of someone like Sasha Obama walking from the White House to the Gap, which would never happen, even with bodyguards.
It’s not a big deal. Of course she was driven. I would be, too, if I were her. Of course she has body guards, of course they park on the double line to get a space.
There’s things you can legitimately gripe about regarding the royals, but this is not one of them. It’s small tea.
The Daily Fail is just trolling for snark here.
It’s not a big deal. I’s for security sake. Although, I did wonder why she didn’t just order it online unless she was out for something else too.
And is future “Queen” used correctly? She couldn’t be Queen if William was to pass or divorce her.
Technically, *potential* future Queen Consort, right?
…..but she shops on Ken high street and Ken church street all the time. with guards trailing her. On foot.
Ditto Harry.
Most of the time when they shop there, because they are on foot, they blend in with the crowds better and no one realises they are in the store.
And here is the kicker, the side entrance she used is almost directly in front of the DM offices!!!!!
I’m not surprised they got pictures. Talk about a sitting duck!
Directly in front of the DM offices? The plot thickens.
Aha! finally, a motive for this strange little outing. could not understand why she wouldn’t just look on the website and send an assistant out to collect the items if she wanted baby gap so urgently. this makes sense.
I hoped it was all in good fun! I don’t like mean or cruel April Fools pranks. I’m sort of flabbergasted by all the people who didn’t know it was a joke when I said William was in Africa with Jecca Craig. HA.
This is what we’ve come to expect from William.
Cancelling appearances and hanging out with his ex gf.
Joke or not. It’s believable because it’s happened before a few times.
I knew it was a joke of sorts because BP announce at 11am GMT when they have announcements to make and as it is past that time when you posted……
Kaiser!!! Note this for future reference!
Nah, I knew if was a April fools. I had a baby same time she did and being pregnant again, right away like that, well, it would be hard work. And we all know how she feels about hard work….
You totally had me going. 🙂
Totally got me! Lol
Yup got me too! Lol
Good one! I gasped
Illigitimate royals.. interesting. Bears mentioning Henry Vll (the founding father of the Tudors) was rumored to have been illigtimate. Some posit as a result the current monarch is not the true Queen. A Youtube documentary is on this, it was researched and interesting to watch at least. Queen Elizabeth ll: Not the rightful Heir to the throne of England is the you tube title. I love royal drama! The guy who hosted it was the Time Team host, Tony something or other. Time Team is another fabulous show availble on You Tube for Brit history freaks.
OT: Kate in the first picuture: Her mugging and hand gestures seem affected, so mean but there it is. Something about her reminds me of Howdy Doody.
That face and gesture she’s giving makes me think of Wendy “How You Doin'” Williams
yes! I see the resemblance now haha
Whether or not Henry 7 himself was legitimate or not, his claim to the throne had no merit to begin with as it was derived from illegitimacy via sons of John of Gaunt from his mistress, Kathryn Swynford (sp?).
His claim to the throne might have been shaky, but he won it at swordpoint. In the game of thrones might often trumphs right.
John of Gaunt’s children with Katherine Swynford was later legitimized, before he married their mother, who then became the third Duchess of Lancaster. It was something that was possible within canon law of the medieval church. So they would be considered legitimate after the proper papal dispensation.
Henry VII was legitimate – in fact, Jasper Tudor was so anxious to secure his marriage with the wealthy heiress Margaret Beaufort that he consummated his marriage with his 12-year-old bride (something that was not common at that time). She gave birth to Henry at age 13, and she was so damaged by the birth that she never produced any more children through her 4 marriages.
In the case of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford’s marriage, the legitimacy of their Beaufort children was confirmed by an Act of Parliament in 1397, which meant that they had legal rights as their father’s heirs. Thus, Henry VII’s claim to the throne weren’t legally invalid, just removed because there were closer claimants, such as Richard III. It should also be remembered that the contentions of Henry VII’s claim to the throne was born out of the 30 year long civil war – the War of the Roses. Richard III, who Henry ousted as king at the Battle of Bosworth, was a Yorkist king (the white rose) while Henry, descended from the Beaufort line, was aligned with the Lancastrian side (the red rose). The Tudor rose (white and red) that Henry adopted when he married Elizabeth of York symbolized the end of the civil strife.
The stories of the Tudor illegitimacy can most likely be traced back to Owen Tudor (he was Welsh and adopted the name instead of his original and very long Welsh patronym). He was descended from the daughter of a Welsh prince, but his claim to fame rests with his secret marriage with Catherine of Valois, the widow of Henry V. She married Owen Tudor secretly in 1427, but no documentation has survived. The marriage might not have been legally valid as they didn’t have the king’s permission to wed. However, they weren’t met with repercussions and Henry VI created his half-brothers as Earls, so the marriage was most likely considered legally valid during their lifetime.
Arthistorian: John of Gaunt’s children were legitimised on condition they didn’t claim the throne. For themselves or their descendants.
The battle of Bosworth was a hollow victory for Henry 7 because the entire tudor line had to fight off their illegitimate origins from John of Gaunt, not Owen Tudor. They based their claim on their Lancastrian claim. And actually, if you think about it, they were the junior branch of the royal tree since The York’s branch of the tree was higher up if you think of birth order of the sons of John of Gaunt.
Kudos for their propaganda which included removing all documents that proved the truth, unfortunately, ambassadors tended to send copies of official documents outside England which is where copies of these documents are to be found.
The Tudors managed to smear and kill ALL legitimate claimants whilst painting themselves the victors and it’s unfortunate that they were successful to the detriment of everyone.
However inspite of all that, they recognised that legitimacy was an issue, no matter how much they whitewashed themselves and point out their own victory by sword, and acted on that recognition.
1. Whitewashing Elizabeth of York’s background so there was no doubt about her *legitimate* York blood. To be fair this wasn’t her fault entirely as her father’s bigamous marriage was only announced AFTER his death, who knows what the priest who swore to it was paid. BUT! Henry7 had all copies of the examinations and Titus regulus (sp?) destroyed. Only one copy exists, and it was discovered long after the tudors.
2. the principal reason Henry 7 held onto Katherine of Aragon so tightly both as a choice for Arthur AND after he died when it would have been simpler to send her back to Spain. she was a direct descendant of *legitimate* lancastrian blood from John of Gaunt’s first marriage. All the documents that attest to this are in the Portuguese and spanish archives, and it was Richard 3 who first made enquiries for a bride (and groom for Elizabeth of York) for himself after when his wife died. The tudors merely picked up where he left off.
History as written by the tudors talks about the military/diplomatic advantage of spain/England which is a reasonable point, but completely obscures this other salient point. There was no other *legitimate* Lancastrian blood in England.
There is a lot of misdirected history directly ordered so by the tudors, but they were the victors. Sucks to everyone else.
Titulus Regius
OT a little: I just finished Elizabeth’s Weir’s book “Elizabeth of York”. Long but so so very well researched. She is detailed and it really goes into the daily life of the monarchs and even details about their clothing:) Which I loved. By all accounts Elizabeth (Henry Vlll’s grandma!) was well loved and had a good marriage, affectionate bond with Henry Vll. I must return to England to visit the spots I missed and definitely to see Hampton Court.
LAK,
I didn’t know that particular detail about the Beaufort legitimacy.
Regarding the Tudor propaganda – it is a very interesting debate. However, I’m just too tired to get into that right now. Perhaps tomorrow.
Cheers
@new here – you mean Alison Weir, right? An excellent historian with a readable style. I’ve read most of her stuff but particularly enjoyed the ones about the princes in the Tower and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Also, the Anne Boleyn one is pretty good.
@ArtHistorian – I can confirm what LAK says about Richard II’s legitimising of the Beauforts being conditional on exclusion from the succession.
Sixer: Eleanor of Acquitaine is my favourite royal consort of ALL time. Favourite historical woman royal and non royal. She had gumption. i’ll tell you that.
It was always my understanding that the Tudors used various arguments to substantiate their claim to the throne. They were ‘legitimate’ (conviently forgetting that they were barred from succession), won on the battlefield (so conquerors), and ‘endorsed’ by Elizabeth of York and regirgnjng in her stead (Henry VII liked this argument least of all), depending on the argument presented.
Regardless, the Tudors were masters at propaganda and fudging historical facts to suit their purpose. Elizabeth (my favourite ruler of all time) choose to ignore her probable illegitimacy (ignore and punish others). And Shakespeare has become the greatest enabler of the Tudor’s rewriting history.
I’ve never heard the legitimate Lancastrian connection in regards to Katherine of Aragon. Where’s you stumble across that gem @LAK??? And I think both the Yorks and Lancasters (Plantagenet) had a decent number of heirs (and heiresses) around — even with the Tudors killed off a great many.
I’m about to read The Lady Penelope by Sally Varlow and Penelope apparently is descended from Henry VIII’s illegitimate daughter with Mary Boleyn. Apparently, the author of the book contends she found evidence that at least one of Mary’s children was, without a doubt, was Henry’s. Penelope also had Plantagenet heritage as well. So the Tudors didn’t kill everyone off.
Three cheers for the last Duchess of Lancaster! Wahoo!!!
Isn’t it true that but for Mary Q of Scots we would not be able to trace QEII back to the Plantagenets?
@LS – John of Gaunt’s first wife was Caterina of Castile. Their daughter went on to become Queen of Castile and Katherine of Aragon was her granddaughter or greatgranddaughter (can’t remember which). I’m pretty sure Katherine of Aragon was thus third or fourth cousin of BOTH Elizabeth of York AND Henry VII.
I was obsessed with the Wars of the Roses when I was a kid! Yorkist corner here.
LS: what Sixer said. I’ll add that they had another daughter who became Queen of Portugal. Her female descendants were also considered as marriage projects when the issue came up for Richard 3 and eventually by the Tudors.
The tudors didn’t kill off all the plantagenets. They killed off ALL the *legitimate* plantagents. That’s the difference.
That said, I think the last *legitimate* plantagenet was Arabella Stuart.
I’m obsessed with the 100yrs war which includes the war of the roses and the repercussions across Europe. It’s amazing what you find in Europe that was removed from English archives because it doesn’t suit which ever English ruler at any particular time.
Dame: EIIR can be connected all the way to William the conqueror irrespective of which way the line meaders and steps sideways.
LS: Catherine Knollys and Henry Carey, Mary Boleyn’s kids are thought to be Henry 8’s issue. No one can prove it conclusively and damn the tudors and their propaganda and fudging the facts to obscure them.
What is known is that they apparently looked like Henry 8 and had his colouring, but everybody at court, whilst suspecting or knowing the truth, pretended they were simply beloved cousins of the Queen.
@LAK – yes to archive censoring. Also, because English rulers were also rulers of parts of modern-day France, often the relevant archives aren’t in England anyway. For example, IIRC, the archives suggesting Edward IV’s illegitimacy were all at Rouen cathedral, because that’s where Richard of York was based at the tail end of the 100 Years War. Have I remembered that correctly?
Sixer- that is correct.
It’s too bad that history as a whole or even particular events, is taught in a vacuum instead of the wide world tapestry that it is.
The connected dots aren’t so apparent.
Tell that to Michael Gove!
The history GSCE syllabus at the school I’m a governor studies two conflicts (they generally choose WWII and Vietnam) and one topic throughout recorded history (they generally choose medicine). I think the latter is designed to address what you’re talking about, but, well, you can see how it DOESN’T!
Isn’t that a poverty-stricken approach? Before GCSE, they’ve generally done the Romans and the Tudors and that’s about it.
And it all flies in the face of clear public interest. Historical programming is among the BBC’s most popular. Historical books – both fiction and non-fiction – fly off the shelves.
Sixer,
Historical fiction is the 2nd biggest selling genre in my country, after crime fiction!
I’m a history geek as well, that’s one of the reasons why I did my post-graduate work on 19th century history painting in relation to cultural memory. Those images were in many respects much more efficient than historical research in shaping how societies remembers their pasts. The same applies for historical fiction and film today. I really is a fascinating study. One of the paintings that I focused on was a national icon in my country, it is still in all the schoolbooks (after more than 100 years) and it still creates fictitious memories. It depicts a Danish king that was deposed and imprisoned – in the painting he is shown in squalid surroundings walking around a table, that, according to myth, he wore a groove in. To this day, people still remembers having seen this table even though it never existed.
You had me right up until the “ex-girlfriend” part!
I confess I didn’t buy it; mostly because I’d just looked at the DM website and there wasn’t a word about it.
You know what a good one would have been? Angelina Offers to be Surrogate Mom for Aniston and Theroux! Or LeAnn Rimes and Brandi Glanville Bond Over Shopping for the Boys!
Bluhare!
What are you doing here! It’s your 1st day back at work!
I had half an hour before I had to leave. 🙂
My baby nephew George was born 6 days ahead of Prince George, and everytime I see a pic or hear about this Royal baby, I think of my little pumpkin who is now crawling and now recognizes me via Skype (doing so with squeals and his happy leg dance).
Yeah, I didn’t buy it either, Kaiser. Sorry. Those two don’t have the authority to drop a tour, pregnancy or not.
Can we talk about shopping at the Gap? Is that viewed as higher end than it is here? I grew up with some “old money” types and they looked down their noses at Gap. I was surprised that she goes there.
Gap is a bigger deal in the U.K. than it is in the U.S. Brits love American stores for some reason. They also love Osh Kosh B’Gosh, and Nine West. I had relatives visit a few years back. They also went crazy for Corningware and Correlle dishes. I think it’s vice versa with the Brit stores and us as well.
1 countries trash…
I do love those dishes and the Gap, but Correlle is my casual, kid friendly set.
Not the guest set or even the china. A dish set for every occasion!
I wonder if the stores carry different items for regional purposes? They must!
Florc,
In Japan they just carried different sizes but the clothes and the stores looked almost identical to an American one.
Ooh FLORC what is your pattern? We’re doing Wedgewood now (India). Maybe Noritake in a few years. My family always did Royal Albert but I am so over that lol.
There just aren’t nearly as many GAP stores so it’s a bit of a novelty.
I’m living in Australia, and it was a big deal when Zara opened a few stores here, just because it was something we didn’t previously have access to without getting on a plane. Same deal when Krispy Kreme first opened here.
The reversal is kind of funny. I am amazed that people in the US consider H&M a fashion store. In England it’s one of the shops you run into to buy socks or underwear cheap when you’re about to run out and have no time to do laundry.
Good one, Kaiser! You had me until the last sentence. I knew there was no way they would know it was twins yet, and then when you said twin girls I knew I had been had!
Sadly for them, this all sounded plausible, lol!
Lol, my jaw dropped for a second. I was like all the hype leading up to the big tour only to cancel! Happy April fools!
i love her crazed look in the red dress picture. haha
Nice one. Almost got me. For me the giveaway was “Carol.” (Hereby I admit that it took me till the end of the story for the red flag to go up!). NO WAY a Royal baby would ever be named Carol. JustNoWay.
Good one! You had me until the naming of the twins! Sad thing is, the last minute canceling & Wills dropping responsibilities seemed totally plausible.
As far as Kate’s shopping… I don’t mind that Kate shops at the Gap & I don’t mind that she had a security detail & a running car waiting curbside. But to put them together just seems soooo f@ckin’ BLAAANND!
The Gap is where I shop on my lunch break. People stop by the Gap after work or pop in on their way to running another errand.
Kate has all day to shop, anywhere in all of London, with a chauffeured car & a sizeable budget too. It seems like a waste of ALL of that just go to the Gap. Like a really bad lack of imagination or motivation on Kate’s part.
Kate shopping where I shop doesn’t make her look more relatable to me. It just makes me wonder why a Duchess doesn’t have anything better to do.
Awesome April Fool’s Joke! you got me
I hate April Fools. I always fall for them.
Too easy! 🙂
Ha! I fell for it hook, line and sinker. It’s scary to think that this seems totally plausible and not totally ridiculous.
So, Charles accepted a freebie, and the company got free advertising. Are they being more blatant about it than in the past? Wendy Berry’s book (C&D’s ex-housekeeper) described the tons of stuff given to them as gifts, lovely furniture etc., so much of it that they stored it on the premises and later burned it (instead of donating it). All round, it’s just tacky given their status and wealth.
The only reason I can think of for using a car such a short distance is that this was just the beginning of Dolittle’s shopping spree. I don’t know much about babies, but I would think Georgie would be rolling in clothes unless they are only used a couple of times and tossed. According to the post, she’s a weekly shopper.
Yep you had me too! As a kiwi, I realized then that I don’t even care they’re coming – so thanks for helping me clear that up. 😀
HILARIOUS! I bought it right up until I read “APRIL FOOL’S!”
Sucker everytime… SMH
LOL!
– Kelli
Ha!! Only April Fool’s joke that has gotten me (yet) today! You had me until the part about the twins. It would be way too early to know it was twins, LOL!!
You had me…because for me in Australia, it’s the 2nd of April.
It’s why I detest April Fool’s.
I try to avoid every media publication on the 1st April for this reason.
why cant she walk, i have seen lots of pics of european prince and princess walking walking in other cities, oh so george will be locked up in KP and wont learn about the other world, how the real people live, kate is just lazy and fulll of excuses, we have seen pics of her numerous times shopping, if they want to, they can do that, anyway who wants to kidnap her!?
that was good one