The Queen is probably annoyed by all this unnecessary publicity for a wedding that already happened.

My understanding is that they're charging 25 bucks a pop and using the money for repairs to the palace. For that much money, she could have been a little more gracious!

Or two!!

Actually that's what is called healthy figure as opposed to what U.S. citizens are used to as the obesity rate is insane here. Kate is the perfect figure for someone within their height and weight standards for military service. Time to log of the computer and work out...and eat a decent meal...or 3 if you think she's too "skinny".

Why?? Just because most americans are obese slobs, that doesn't mean she should be one too.

maybe they could take some of the money they steal from the people and buy something to eat

meow!!!!!

Where is the news on that?

In the UK papers, where they actually care about what Air Miles Andy is up to this wk. It doesn't affect the US, & therefore, not news here. The UK papers don't report on US internal affairs, so why would US papers report on UK internal affairs? It's not like Andrew died; that might be worth a worldwide obit. Might be on nineMSN, tho, as that's Australia, part of the British commonwealth; try looking there.

This, however, is just a fluff fashion piece, not a political one, & doesn't need to have politics dragged into it.

I am sure the Queen had better things to do today, like count her jewels

Well, then you would also be sure the queen would not be at Buckingham Palace to do so, as the Crown Jewels are kept under lock & key at the Tower of London.

What?? Take some grammar classes. Yikes!!!

Rebecca-3785799 I might need to take some grammer classes but Kate is an angle on earth.

Definitely acute angle.

sjh8403 - thanks for a couple of really good laughs!

Thanks! I needed a good chuckle.

An ode to nuance......

Is that why the gays want them? :P Call the Press!

Ill with STRESS perhaps?

That's what I thought as well. But, her shoulders look so weird with her body because they are so wide. I really hope the stress doesn't thin her out too much. It'd be a shame. :(

She may be eating sandwiches, and is a Bulimic, another Eating Disorder. Should I describe what Bulimia is, is?

Ick---she is stick thin, thus must look like a skeleton when unclothed. Is that sexy?----Eating Disorders rot your teeth, cause Osteopororis at a young age, and is hard on every organ in the body---below 87 pds. women will be hospitalized for Anorexia or other eating disorders. Lots of pyschiatric problems addressed, along with the disorder.

As the saying goes, "One can never be too thin, or too rich"!---This is Kate's literal interpretation of that old quote.

BTW: A human head weighs ten pounds, so she is even thinner on the mannequin!

Yes, I know what bulimia is and I hope it isn't true of Kate, but she has plenty of opportunities to get help, unlike many others. Maybe the media should stop trying to make her the next Diana.

And the exhibit IS creepy. HM has that one nailed.

Hawaii2, could that be why a headless mannequin was used? LOL

Queen Mary? Who are you talking about? There hasn't been a "Queen Mary" in England in over 300 years. Queen Elizabeth II is the current monarch.

George Vs wife was Queen Mary (originally Mary of Teck). He was king b4 their sons Edward VIII (who abdicated & became the Duke of Windsor) & George VI, who was the current queen's father. Therefore, Queen Mary was Queen Elizabeth IIs grandmother. Neat feat if she was 300 yrs old when she pulled that trick off. Queen Mary was rather a sourpuss who laced tightly to give herself a tiny waist, unlike Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, who apparently just doesn't eat.

What are you talking about?

Nice try: Mary of Teck was not the sovereign Queen of England. She was CONSORT TO the sovereign King as wife of King George V.

The last actual SOVEREIGN Queen Mary, (Bloody Mary), reigned 300+ years ago....just prior to Queen Elizabeth I, (The Virgin Queen), both of whom were the daughters of Henry VIII; Mary by Catherine of Aragon; Elizabeth by Anne Boleyn.

Nice try.

Mary Tudor, AKA Mary I, reigned nearly 500 yrs ago, not 300. She died in 1558. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when you claimed 300, b/c....

The last actual sovereign was Mary II, who was co-monarch w/ her spouse William III (which is why she gets a number); she died in 1694.

Yknow, that whole Glorious Revolution thing of 1689? James II & his ungrateful daughters? Not ringing a bell?

Give it up, you just don't have any idea about the history of the British Isles & it's becoming more & more obvious w/ ea *correction* you attempt to make.

Again. nice try. You pick & choose the semantics and context you try to push.

"over 300", "300+", indicates "greater than". And identifying her reign is additional confirmation of her era....

Perhaps if you studied the history of the English monarchy instead of seeking your, uh hum, "facts" via a Google search, you'd have a better understanding of how anemic your statements are.

Again. nice try. You pick & choose the semantics and context you try to push.

No. You're wrong.

"over 300", "300+", indicates "greater than". And identifying her reign is additional confirmation of her era....

Again:

The last actual sovereign was Mary II, who was co-monarch w/ her spouse William III (which is why she gets a number); she died in 1694.

That is the monarch to whom I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in your "over 300 yrs", not Mary Tudor, as Mary Stuart's reign would be a much closer era to your timeframe than the Tudor era, which ran from 1485-1603.

It's becoming increasingly plain that you just cannot admit when you're wrong, as your projection of "You pick & choose the semantics and context you try to push" seems to apply to ignoring the *fact* that Mary Tudor is not the only Queen Regnant named Mary in the history of the British Isles, yet you clearly stated she was the only one.

So, everything in history is "over 300 yrs ago" to you? That's like saying the Norman Conquest was over 300 yrs ago. It's essentially *true*, but it's not even in the era's ballpark. Neither is over 300 yrs for the ballpark of the Tudor era.

Perhaps if you studied the history of the English monarchy

I've been studying it for 40 yrs. Perhaps if you knew that there's more to NV than MSNBCs "The Scoop", you'd *get* that.

instead of seeking your, uh hum, "facts" via a Google search,

I don't need to buddy up to Mr Google. I merely suggested you may want to try that b4 *correcting* others when they are correct, or presenting incorrect info for public consumption. If you were truly a student of the English monarchy, then we wouldn't be having this disagreement b/c you would've known to whom Gary was referring in his post, & you would also have known there were a pair of Queen Regnants called Mary in England's history.

you'd have a better understanding of how anemic your statements are.

They're far more robust than yours, b/c they're factual.

Done here. Some ppl just don't care to be educated.

and others just think they are. you have way to much time on your hands. how about helping me with a habitat for humanity house?

Touche' oldgirl-3791844! Sign me up for HFH!

~:-)

Hi Parker,

Old Queen Mary was quite a Queen in every respect. As my grandfather used to say, she could haunt a house of 8 and never rattle a chain.

Again you mention "Queen Mary". Really, should one so ignorant be so quick to judge another's physical appearance? Better you reflect on your own "intellect" before you commenting on another's looks. Critique yourself before criticizing others.

Twice you made the same mistatement & didn't catch it..........

Mary of Teck was Queen Mary. I guess you could say twice you made the same false accusation. Maybe you should go reflect a while. I'm just sayin...

Queen "consort" ---- HUGE difference. Your turn to reflect.

Twice you made the same mistatement & didn't catch it..........

That would be you.

Queen "consort" ---- HUGE difference. Your turn to reflect.

No one runs around calling wives of kings "Queen Consort Mary". Is the current queen's husband called "Prince Philip" or "Prince Consort Philip"? In the recent Norweigian news articles, is King Harald's wife referred to as "Queen Sonja" or "Queen Consort Sonja"? Hmmm, there doesn't appear to be the term "consort" inserted there.

They don't do that b/c most ppl know who they are talking about simply by virtue of context clues. Did Gary not reference George V & Edward VIII? Even Mr Google could've told you how Queen Mary was related to both these kings.

I didn't notice where Gary implied Queen Mary was a ruling monarch. You just *assumed* that. Your *assumption* was incorrect.

Just sayin'.

O & BTW, calling other posters "ignorant" (or any other names) is a violation of Newsvine's CoH.

Again you attempt to justify your OPINION with semantics. Again, you fail. Sorry to disappoint you but FACTS outweigh OPINIONS and CONJECTURE every time.

Questioning the intelligence of one making such an erroneous statement is not "name calling". Hence no violation. In your own term, note the CONTEXT of the message before you ASSUME an understanding or PRESUME to comment.

And BTW, if you have time to police every comment made in Newsvine then by all means do so. Quesioning of posters' intelligence goes on everyday on every story and is miniscual compared to some of the horrendous things said by folks in here. If, your (incorrect), interpretation of the context of a message not even directed to you is so disturbing to you....you are going to be mighty busy. And most definitely need to get out more.

Read the CoH. Pay particular attn to #1. It applies to everyone. If you tell someone they're ignorant, as you did, it is a violation.

Quesioning of posters' intelligence goes on everyday on every story and is miniscual compared to some of the horrendous things said by folks in here.

Perhaps in your experience; not in mine. MSNBC is not really NV.

A lot of times sm violations do slide by. But that's when posters are offering commentary that is otherwise knowledgeable, factual, & correct, & contributes greatly to the discussion rather than derailing it, so if often gets missed when their demeanor is reasonable, respectful, & polite.

However, blithe dissemination of very basic yet very wrong historical information; insulting those who are dispensing the correct historical information when one is appallingly incorrect; *assumptions*; attitude; fantastic hyperbole; neglect of spellcheck; & egregious use of all-caps rather than an actual pt does tend to make others frown & hit the ! button to report CoH violations more frequently.

Again you attempt to justify your OPINION with semantics. Again, you fail. Sorry to disappoint you but FACTS outweigh OPINIONS and CONJECTURE every time.

Your *facts* are wrong. Mine are not. Neither were those of the poster you called ignorant for his Queen Mary reference.

It's not *fact* to state there hasn't been a queen called Mary in over 300 yrs. That's a misstatement of fact.

It's also not *fact* to state there's only been one reigning queen called Mary, ever. That's a misstatement of fact.

It's also not *fact* to state Mary Tudor reigned 300 yrs ago (circa 1711). That's a misstatement of fact.

See, *opinion* & *conjecture* is just what falls out of one's mouth, while *fact* is something that can be proven to be correct. Which I did. There have been two Queen Regnants of England called Mary. Irrefutable fact.

This contradicts your insistence that there's only been one Queen Regnant, Mary Tudor, as you seem to have no knowledge of Mary Stuart's reign.

There have also been two Queen Consorts called Mary, one of England (Mary of Modena, 2nd wife of James II) & one of the United Kingdom (Mary of Teck, wife of George V).

The correct print form (ie, newspapers, books, etc) of address for a royal spouse is either to:

• identify them by their maiden name or place of familial origin (ie, Elizabeth Woodville or Eleanor of Aquitaine);
• their title (ie, Duke of Edinburgh or Duchess of Cornwall, never w/ their given name preceding it as journalists frequently & incorrectly do, ie, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, as that's the correct form of address for a royal widow, not a wife; it's also incorrect to refer to a non-royal-born princess by her given name, ie, Princess Catherine or Princess Diana, as titles & addresses are taken from the royal spouse);
• or, as is the case of a wife of a reigning monarch, by simply calling her by her given name preceded by her title of queen (ie, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, Queen Isabella, Queen Adelicia, etc); prior to that she would be addressed as Princess of Wales, or b4 that distinction was made in the 13th century, by her husband's highest-ranking title;
• the husband of a reigning king is a Prince Consort & may be properly addressed as such (ie, Prince George, Prince Albert, Prince Philip); the sole exception is made if the Queen Regnant grants her spouse the Crown Matrimonial, like Mary II did w/ William III as, being her 1st cousin (his mother, Princess Mary of Orange, was the older sister of his wife Mary's father James II, children of Charles I), his claim to the throne was equally valid & may have even superseded it w/ him being a male & from the elder Stuart sibling albeit via a female line of descent

The form of address (Queen Mary) used by the poster w/ whom you split hairs was entirely correct usage for a Queen Consort. Everyone else who responded knew exactly what he was talking about b/c he employed correct usage. It seems apparent you're unfamiliar w/ basic forms of royal address & didn't understand his reference.

If he'd been speaking about a Queen Regnant, the form of address is not the same, as they are referred to as simply "the queen" (it's assumed everyone knows who is the monarch) if currently occupying the throne, or they are identifed by their ordinal (ie, Queen Mary II, Queen Elizabeth II, etc).

The only way a Queen Regnant would be identified w/o a *number* would be if she were the only one of that name (ie, Queen Anne, but everyone would still *get* that it was a regnant queen b/c her name wouldn't be followed by "Boleyn" "of Cleves", "of Denmark" to ID her as a consort). Until the current Elizabeth's succession, Elizabeth Tudor did not have an ordinal as she had been, up to that date, the only reigning Queen Elizabeth.

if you have time to police every comment made in Newsvine then by all means do so

When I stumble across gross misinformation presented as *fact*, I shall. As stated, that does make the violations contained therein more apparent.

your (incorrect), interpretation of the context of a message not even directed to you is so disturbing to you

It's quite disturbing to see vague info & opinion presented as graven in stone factual knowledge w/ which there is no rm for argument, & even more disturbing to see that presenting the facts is viewed merely as *opinion* or *conjecture*. My *interpretation* is quite correct & very factual.

I've found that when I'm not cognizant of the subject matter under discussion, it's better to not comment at all than to have someone come by & point out that I have made a *facepalm* error in basic factual information.

And most definitely need to get out more.

If you'd like to venture outdoors & experience heatstroke, feel free; I'm enjoying the a/c. I've lots of history books to peruse until it cools down. Try it. They're great for learning things.

Dear God: Please give this sad, little person a life.........

Amen

What stress does she have. She married into a wealthy family and will never have to worry about losing a job, no place to live, no medical coverage. Cut me a break. Some one needs to feed her several 6 course meals already!

I think Kate looks great!

Karen I see you're another bitter one; maybe someone fed you too many 6 course meals a day...

Put down your magazines and join us in the real world...

Weather she is 97 lbs. or 200 lbs. I don't think she would *ever win, people will always be critical

I think she can *weather the criticism

No doubt in my mind as to whether she can weather the criticism. She's an elegant and beautiful Duchess. God bless the young couple.

HA!!! Thanks for the laugh!