Lets take the plebs minds off the mess the government sin and get Lizzies name out the frame ...A WEDDING .The fools will love that and they'll be so delighted they'll forget about everything else ...even the cost of it . REALLY!! is England so gullible ?
If I was Beatrice and had landed a nice Italian millionaire I would be looking at a wedding in Italy. Lots of wonderful locations and the food would be superb.
Of course people go to see them Annie the schools troop them out all provided with their wee union jacks ..I know this for fact because my friend went ape at her daughters school for it ..As a republican and Nationalist the last place she wanted her daughter was waving jacks at Lizzie and co .They will have to ask parental permission IF they decide to do it again .
I think the timing of the announcement has rather more to do with deflecting attention from Prince Andrew and his "alleged " sexual misconduct than from BJ The Government or Parliament !
she hasn't just grabbed him. They have been together for a couple of years it's just been kept quiet
It's a bit hard to accept this statement, when he has a 2 year old son with his former fiancee. Calling him her "long time boyfriend" is a bit of a stretch of the imagination when he was still living with the fiancee until a year ago.
More divisive drivel from paddyann, as a Scot myself, I know and am proud to belong to a different Scotland to the one she portrays. She speaks only for herself.
Don't agree with paddyanne. I too am a Scot, have no great love for the monarchy but don't want independence especially with the SNP whose track record over the last 12 years is abysmal. The first thing I thought of when the engagement was announced was 'didn't Beatrice help to break up his last relationship with a 2 year old involved'. If I remember correctly his ex partner was pretty oblivious.
I'm absolutely amazed that some still believe the ordinary rules of marriage and relationships still apply to the upper classes and the RF in particular. This wouldn't be the first relationship that started whilst one of the parties was married to someone else would it? He is reportedly a family friend and the relationship was first acknowledged in Sept 2018.
trisher are you saying that amongst the "lower classes" no relationship is started when one, or both, parties are already married or in a relationship? How does that account for all those who divorce because of adultery?
The "upper classes" and RF are still human beings with the same weaknesses as the rest of us.
OMG if something really rings true and you don't want to admitt it try deflection. The subject being discussed in the RF and the announcement of an engagement. Someone has posted the relationship couldn't have begun 2 years ago because the fiance was married. And I commented it might have. The marital relationships of the lower classes are not under discussion. But as far as that goes I thing they are probably a great deal more honest about who is f***ing who.
Apologies Oldwoman70 I did. Annie if you can think of a more appropriate or succinct term which describes the group of moneyed and aristocratic people who mix socially with the RF I would be delighted to use it. Meantime 'upper class' just about encapsulates it