William and Catherine have conducted their relationship in the public eye. They've shared their royal wedding with us. Now that St James's Palace has confirmed the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have left for their honeymoon, you would think they deserve some privacy, right?
Apparently not. People magazine has revealed their location as the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Africa. They're reportedly staying in a secluded villa on a private, unspecified island.
Duly noted. Can we leave them in peace now?
Not so fast. Their luggage just became a whole lot heavier. I'll bet that William and Catherine didn't realize they were bringing us with them on their honeymoon, did they?
The intention to give them privacy seemed too good to be true. After all, we were supposed to learn lessons from Diana's death, right? To cover ourselves we pay lip service to her memory. History couldn't possibility repeat itself? It's not as if the couple will be driving through any dark tunnels. They're on honeymoon, harmless stuff. Besides it will all be worth it when we see pictures of Catherine in a bikini.
Unlike their wedding I have yet to read complaints about the cost of this jaunt. Yet. Why would there be when there are royal babies to be made? If we could, I'll bet we would set up cameras in their bedroom, giving us exclusive reports by the minute. How else will we know that William and Catherine are trying?
According to a spokesperson from Clarence House: "The couple have asked that their privacy be respected during their honeymoon."
After eight years William and Catherine should know better than to expect privacy. And we should know better than to think we're capable of giving it to them.
© Marilyn Braun 2011
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
At the risk of sounding as though I'm missing something, I don't understand the issue with Princess Angela of Liechtenstein. I rec...
A new royal year begins. Thankfully every British royal survived 2016 and we royal watchers can all go back to our daily lives without worry...
Invariably labeled 'slow', 'backward' and a 'lunatic', his memory is destined to be clouded by mystery. Considered u...
Other than Jennifer Aniston and Gwen Stefani, has any woman in the public eye been pregnant more often than Kate? If...
Jerramy Fine has an unerring knack for provoking skeptical questions. Such as.. Did she really go to London to find her prince? Can ho...
Hard to believe that it has been 18 years since Diana's death. I will never forget where I was when I heard she had been in an accident....
Never in the history of royal watching have we ever been so fascinated by another woman's skirt. Yes, we talk about the length and color...
In July we will be heading to London. My husband and I have been there twice but this will be a first time for our children. While we are ...
- ► 2016 (17)
- ► 2015 (35)
- ► 2013 (27)
- ► 2012 (53)
- Does blogging about Catherine make me a hypocrite?...
- The Royal Report for Sunday May 29, 2011 - Prince ...
- Calling all royal bloggers - The Royal Blog Commen...
- Royal Review: BBC - The Royal Wedding DVD
- Going once, going twice, sold!! A brief history of...
- The Royal Report for Sunday May 22, 2011 - Does Pi...
- Fergie's back, and she's feeling sorrier for herse...
- The Royal Report for Sunday May 15, 2011 - Royal W...
- The Curious Case of Catherine's Womb
- To wipe away your tears of joy...
- William and Catherine's strange bedfellows
- The Royal Wedding Report for Sunday May 8, 2011
- Brace yourselves Middleton family, this is just th...
- How long have you been out here for?
- Whatever you do, don't go to sleep!
- I'm in London, baby!
- All about the dress
- ▼ May (17)
- ► 2010 (102)
- ► 2009 (97)
- ► 2008 (126)
- ► 2007 (132)
- ► 2006 (58)