Some feel good news for many today, the engagement has been announced between Prince William and Catherine Middleton, it will be strange hearing her called by her given name instead of the shortened version.

The wedding will either be in Spring or Summer 2011. Presumably avoiding the anniversary of his parents' wedding which was in 1981.

I wish them all the best.
I have a question though.
If you were newly engaged wouldn't you want a engagement ring of your own and not one that was part of a unhappy life and marriage?

I had the same thought.

I believe the ring was given and received in tribute to Diana, the loving mother and "People's Princess."
If that's OK with the prospective bride, there is nothing more to be said.

Not a bad bit of bling, either.

ren -

I believe that particular piece of bling has some very bad mojo that accompanies it. I understand the sentiment behind the gift, but I think the ring is a tad creepy.

Forgetting about the ring's history for a moment, the setting reminds me of the "deluxe" version of the mood ring that was sold for a year or two.

I don't come from a family where handing down jewels from one generation to another is a tradition (we don't have any!) but William does. I guess that, although his parents' marriage wasn't a good one and his mother died young, he has happy memories of Diana as a fun and loving mother - and it's that aspect of her which he sees in the ring. What the rest of us see doesn't really matter. Even if he could afford to buy Kate some sparklers all of her own, lol.

I was more interested in hearing her speak... and more particularly in discovering that she could speak at all - we'd never heard her voice before!

He said it was his way of keeping his mother close, and she said she was privileged to wear it.

Wasn't the ring new for Diana?

Love the voice - she is so gloriously Sloaney!

Yes! says here they bought it from Garrard for £28,000.
http://engagementrings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Princess_Diana's_Engagement_Ring

Yay! We'll get the day off for the wedding. Party time.

Oh dear I guess my comment sounded awful and I didn't mean it to.

I am pleased that William has found someone who is so perfect for him and they look happy together.

The ring did look good and it seemed to suit her.

I also understand Diane told William that she wanted him someday to give his future bride the ring so he kept his promise to her.

I just hope the Press will not hound Kate like they did Diane.

Now that William is to marry will this put pressure on Harry to be next or do they care?

Marrying into that family could be a bit of a poisoned chalice but I hope they beat the odds.

I hope William is not a chip off the old block like his father. The Camilla Parker Bowes mistress still causes issues for any moral person. Especially someone who will one day be head of The Church Of England.

I didn't think it sounded bad. I agreed with it. And the ring was bought new for Diana.


I don't think Royal morality has ever matched mainstream morality. Royals have generally married for political or breeding purposes or both, but never let that get in the way of their chosen relationships.

Camilla Parker Bowles was there first, and Diana was the usurper, selected for him by his family as being of good breeding stock. He followed protocol, just like his Aunt Margaret did, and did as he was told. And now Camilla and Charles are married, which is right, because it's what they should have done in the first place.

I'm probably a bit weird but I've never really understood why so many people hate Camilla with a passion (despite not ever having met her in person). I don't see her as a "scarlet woman". I just think it is a shame that Charles didn't have the gumption to marry her decades ago when he had the chance. Obviously their relationship was meant to be, having lasted so long, despite marriages to other people. If they are happy now, good luck to them. I am sure life is not that easy for them living in a goldfish bowl.

As for Charles and Diana, when it comes to marriage, no-one ever really knows what goes on behind closed doors. There are three sides to any story - his side, her side, and what really happened. I am sure Diana contributed just as much to the breakdown of that marriage as Charles did. I was never a fan of Diana. She struck me as being extremely manipulative, particularly of the press. I reckon she was probably hell on wheels to live with.

With respect to the ring, given the history, I probably wouldn't want it if I were in Kate's shoes, even though I am not superstitious. However, having said that, when Maynooth proposed to me, he asked me if I wanted him to buy a ring or did I want the family heirloom, and I said the family heirloom without hesitation and without even seeing it because I love antiques. Luckily it is a beautiful ring! It could just as easily have been a monstrosity (LOL).

No, because it looks like you think the same as me. Unless I'm a bit weird too.

I believe that Diana told William that she wanted his wife to have her ring. That was presumably after the divorce - she probably wasn't expecting to die before he got married. She was the only person to wear it though, so it's not really a full-blown heirloom, yet. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if a few generations had had it; and maybe Kate will take it off when nobody's looking, and they'll both breathe a sigh of relief.

Diana may not have been manipulative when she was 19, but wasn't she a fast learner.

They'll always be Wilts and Kate.

Kate and William were friends long before they were "anything else". They've known each other for 8 years. As far as anyone knows, she wasn't originally "hand-picked" by "whoever" is supposedly in charge of that sort of thing. I think that bodes well for them. For those who "worry" that William might be a "chip off the old block" (I'm assuming they're referring to Charles' playboy reputation when he was younger), there has been no evidence of that so far. Even though William is partially "protected" from the BRITISH press, I'm pretty sure something would have turned up somewhere from other "news" sources.

With Diana, Charles married a complete stranger (as did she), not to mention a woman much younger than him and as such, unlikely to find much common ground with. In my opinion, it was "doomed" from the start. I think it's wonderful that he finally told his family on no uncertain terms that he intended to marry his best friend the second go around. They seem to be very happy and if some people don't like it - so what? As for the comments about "guardian of the Church of England"... um puhleeze, there would be no "Church of England" if Henry VIII could have found a different way to divorce his first wife lol. Furthermore, if Elizabeth lives as long as her mother, Charles is very unlikely to become King.

I was never a "fan" of Diana. I think public opinion of her might have been much different had she lived out a normal lifespan. However, I DO think she was a devoted mother, one of the toughest "jobs" on earth, perhaps more so when you're in the public "eye".

I haven't even looked to see when the date is! All I know is that it is soon. May they have a long life together and hope everything works out for them.

It'd be something if it fell on Elizabeth's birthday.

The wedding date is Friday April 29th, which coindentally, is St. Catherine's Feast Day (as well as the day Adolph and Eva got married lol). It's also going to be a "bank holiday", which means there will be 3 consecutive weeks in which many British folks get at least one "day off" (due to the fact that Easter falls late this year and the first Monday in May is a "normal" holiday).

The current Queen's actual birthdate is April 21st, but the "celebration" day varies according to which commonwealth country you happen to live in (either May or June).

I knew Elizabeth's birthday was April 21 (I think she will be 85 this year), and they always celebrate it in June. On a side note, she is about to move into 2nd place in the list of longest serving monarchs in England, behind only Victoria.

Their wedding date will be easy for me to remember as that is my mother's birthday.

And here in Western Australia we celebrate the Queen's birthday at the end of September. We already have another public holiday in June and by celebrating Lizzie's birthday in September, it spreads out the days off over the year a bit.

Queen's Birthday in Canada is the closest Monday (I think) to May 24. In my part of Canada, it's traditionally the weekend to put in your vegetable garden, as the chance of a hard frost after that is fairly small.

Whereas here in the Old Country we don't get a day off for it at all!

Actually, civil servants get a "privilege day" for it, i.e. a day off in addition to their normal leave and bank holidays.

Since most civil servants don't work on Saturdays any more, most departments tag the day on to the Spring Bank Holiday at the end of May.