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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Contact Form
Featured Post
If being royal is so extraordinary, why do the royals want to be ordinary?
Being royal is clearly not all it is cracked up to be. Gilt here and there. Liveried footmen abound. Church bells ring on your birthday. Red...
Search This Blog
Popular Posts
-
Y'know, I don't have a problem with artwork. As a matter of fact, I go to the museum at least a couple of times a year to make mysel...
-
When Princess Charlotte is christened on Sunday July 5th, she will traditionally be given five or six godparents/sponsors. Prince William ha...
-
"Diamonds are a girl's best friend", and so the song goes. But royal engagement rings are somewhat different. Despite some fab...
-
Periodically you will see a variation of this question in media articles, usually when there's no news to report. However, by asking thi...
-
It was so close I could have touched it. Dress by Catherine Walker Circa 1992 I didn't but I could have. One of the famous dresse...
-
She was born on April 25, 1897 in Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee year. Queen Victoria called her "My dear little Jubilee baby...
-
Diana, Princess of Wales has recently been named on Time Europe magazine's issue 60 Years of Heroes. Personally I was quite surprised at...
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(130)
-
▼
May
(16)
- 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
(16)
No comments:
Post a Comment