 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / April 2007Prince William Splits With Girlfriend, Kate Middleton
<http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007170373,00.html> Probably a Good Thing. Kate tended to run to fat and would probably not have made a Proper British Queen Consort. She seems unable to understand Prince William's Duties as second in line to the throne and might well have turned out to be just as bad a choice as was Diana. Kate seems entirely too IMPATIENT as well -- and evidences a naïveté with respect to Established British Royal Prerogatives for heirs and spares. Men must do Military or Naval Service -- no question about it and no pogueish quibbling Perhaps she feared being treated as was Camilla by Prince Charles -- a Royal Mistress, but passed over for potential Queen Consort by a younger, virginal woman. William has shown Good Judgment here. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Deus Vult | <http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007170373,00.html> | [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | | William has shown Good Judgment here. Man you Americans lap this shite up don't you! You don't actually think that the majority of British people give a rat's arse about William and his family do you ? It is FA Cup semi final weekend, 3 English teams are in the semi's of the Champions League and the Cricket World Cup is in progress. We are also experiencing freak weather conditions for April, it is like mid July and every bugger has taken to the great outdoors. Que some Royalist clad in tweed skirt and lambswool jumper and pinstripe shirt, to pull me up right now.  SignatureCount Baldoni > You don't actually think that the majority of British people give a rat's > arse about William and his family do you ? We were treated to occasional glimpses of her on our cable channels. I know nothing of her breeding, but she had a nice gait, good withers, and cleaned up well.... Whether she could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch ball has not been widely disseminated as yet. TMO An excellent example of Vintage American Vulgarism... As well as Vintage British Vulgarism. Vide infra. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas ------------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------------------- >> You don't actually think that the majority of British people give a rat's >> arse about William and his family do you ? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > TMO In article <4621609f$0$5605$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX mumbled > > You don't actually think that the majority of British people give a rat's > > arse about William and his family do you ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Whether she could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch ball has not been > widely disseminated as yet. I suspect that bit of intel was NOFORN.... -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." >> You don't actually think that the majority of British people give a rat's >> arse about William and his family do you ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Whether she could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch ball has not been > widely disseminated as yet. Of more importance to Hines and his ilk - I would think - is the just reported death of Don Ho of "Tiny Bubbles" fame. - nilita In alt.talk.royalty Baldoni <anthonyb@amalfi.org> wrote: : | <http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007170373,00.html> : | [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] : You don't actually think that the majority of British people give a rat's : arse about William and his family do you ? British people have a DUTY AND OBLIGATION to WORSHIP William and his family,and shame on all who do not!! : Que some Royalist clad in tweed skirt and lambswool jumper and pinstripe : shirt, to pull me up right now. I'm afraid I cut ahead of the distaff side, but if a lady wishes to upbraid you as well... -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > In alt.talk.royalty Baldoni <anthonyb@amalfi.org> wrote: > : In news:3ObUh.29$X05.338@eagle.america.net, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to WORSHIP William and his family,and shame > on all who do not!! Actually the Royals have a duty and obligation towards serving the British people. Some have come way short of doing that well in recent years. As for worshiping them that is ludicrous. Have you come from the 17thC in a tardis or something? Allan >> In alt.talk.royalty Baldoni <anthonyb@amalfi.org> wrote: >> : In news:3ObUh.29$X05.338@eagle.america.net, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > worshiping them that is ludicrous. Have you come from the 17thC in a tardis > or something? Louis is alt.talk.royalty's resident loon who frequently leaks into rec.heraldry, but this time, with the aid of DSH, his unusual views have been more widely disseminated. I think he advocates absolute monarchy or something like that, but generally ignore him. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <allan@noemail.co.uk> wrote: :> In alt.talk.royalty Baldoni <anthonyb@amalfi.org> wrote: :> : In news:3ObUh.29$X05.338@eagle.america.net, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] : worshiping them that is ludicrous. Have you come from the 17thC in a tardis : or something? The inalterable nature of Monarchy was perhaps better understood by the likes of Filmer than it is by today's self-important proletarians,but it can't change any more than that collectivist "fiction" could really exist as anything but an excuse for oppressing the real persons it purports to refer to. No earthly power has the right to hold a Monarch to account. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <allan@noemail.co.uk> wrote: > : [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > No earthly power has the right to hold a Monarch to account. No matter how many daft souls one comes across in these newsgroups there is always another one to come along and top the lot. I'll let you get on with the worshipping whilst I rejoin the real world. Allan In sci.military.naval Louis Epstein twisted the electrons to say: > No earthly power has the right to hold a Monarch to account. Charles I tried that argument ... It didn't do him much good ... SignatureThese opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... In alt.talk.royalty Alistair Gunn <palmersperry@yahoo.com> wrote: : In sci.military.naval Louis Epstein twisted the electrons to say: :> No earthly power has the right to hold a Monarch to account. : : Charles I tried that argument ... It didn't do him much good ... He was right,no matter what crimes were committed against him by those who were in the wrong. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. snip > British people have a DUTY AND OBLIGATION > to WORSHIP William and his family,and shame > on all who do not!! Wow, what school did 'Louis Epstein' attend? According to the manufacture's handbook (AKA The Bible); - "... You shall not bow down to them or worship them ... " -Ten Commandments; see various translations. Humanity only has a "DUTY AND OBLIGATION to WORSHIP " the deity. SignatureBrian > snip > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > translations. > Humanity only has a "DUTY AND OBLIGATION to WORSHIP " the deity. Which one? Hal >> snip >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Hal Both of us, of course! Eugene L Griessel Always remember to pillage BEFORE you burn. In alt.talk.royalty Brian Sharrock <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote: : snip : [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : translations. : Humanity only has a "DUTY AND OBLIGATION to WORSHIP " the deity. But a Monarch is a god in miniature: the creator and unmoved mover of all things political and juridical within his or her realm, just as God is of all things spiritual and material. A law can only derive validity from the Monarch's will being above it. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > But a Monarch is a god in miniature: > the creator and unmoved mover of all things political and juridical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A law can only derive validity from the Monarch's > will being above it. "God in miniature" -- what crap! Louis, you have absolutely no rational basis for such a belief. The ruler can only rule with the consent of the governed. When consent is withdrawn, a monarch can only resign the headship of the state; the alternatives are death or flight. Grow up and join the 18th century, FFS. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) On Apr 19, 10:27 pm, "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: > > But a Monarch is a god in miniature: > > the creator and unmoved mover of all things political and juridical [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO > (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) I would suggest that Sir Robert Filmer (in response to whom Locke wrote his Second Treatise) is authority for Mr. Epstein's position. Rationality is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. > On Apr 19, 10:27 pm, "Andrew Chaplin" > <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > wrote his Second Treatise) is authority for Mr. Epstein's position. > Rationality is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. I have never read Filmer but, frankly, anyone who was a supporter of Chas. I and who died before the Enlightenment doesn't cut much ice. Locke, however, I have a lot of time for -- "Salus populi suprema lex esto". SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) In alt.talk.royalty Andrew Chaplin <ab.chaplin@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: :> On Apr 19, 10:27 pm, "Andrew Chaplin" :> <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] : and who died before the Enlightenment doesn't cut much ice. Locke, however, : I have a lot of time for -- "Salus populi suprema lex esto". They fed us Locke in school, but St. Charles,King and Martyr, was more logical... -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. In alt.talk.royalty Andrew Chaplin <ab.chaplin@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: :> But a Monarch is a god in miniature: :> the creator and unmoved mover of all things political and juridical [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : "God in miniature" -- what crap! Louis, you have absolutely no rational basis : for such a belief. The ruler can only rule with the consent of the governed. Government derives EFFECTIVENESS...not AUTHORITY... from the consent of the governed...it acts FOR THEIR BENEFIT,not ON THEIR BEHALF. : When consent is withdrawn, a monarch can only resign the headship of the : state; the alternatives are death or flight. Grow up and join the 18th : century, FFS. The nature of Monarchy is like a law of nature; popular misconception can not change it,only ignore it. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > British people have a DUTY AND OBLIGATION > to WORSHIP William and his family,and shame > on all who do not!! Well no. We sorted out the 'obligation' and 'worship' stuff in 1649 and the duty stuff in 1660. We pay for their guards, they promise not to try and escape... Only Edward VIII cheated us... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. In alt.talk.royalty William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: :> British people have a DUTY AND OBLIGATION :> to WORSHIP William and his family,and shame [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : We sorted out the 'obligation' and 'worship' stuff in 1649 and the duty : stuff in 1660. 1660 saw the criminals of 1649 punished; unfortunate that their indefensible ideas were not properly repented of but there's no time like the present. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > In alt.talk.royalty William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > : [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > were not properly repented of but there's > no time like the present. 1688 saw the tables turned, and the result still gets cited in constitutional courts, even in Canada. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) In alt.talk.royalty Andrew Chaplin <ab.chaplin@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: :> In alt.talk.royalty William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: :> : [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : 1688 saw the tables turned, and the result still gets cited in constitutional : courts, even in Canada. As I have said before... ten thousand years of parliaments devoting their every waking moment to passing laws declaring the Monarch to have no powers whatsoever, and ten thousand years of completely convinced Monarchs signing them, could not diminish the next Monarch's inalienable right to abolish Parliament and all its works at will by one iota. No matter WHAT defiance of a Monarch's will one ESCAPES PUNISHMENT for, it can never be one's RIGHT to do so. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. Richard wrote: > ..And there are some members of the Landed Gentry that are > considerably more aristocratic the many peers.. Sacha responded >There are certainly those who consider themselves so. A friend of mine with >ancestry in Cumbria and Devon and who called his ancestors yeoman farmers >would have scorned a Bleerage. Who would you say were the grandest non-peers these days? Scropes, Luttrells..? Richard >Richard wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Who would you say were the grandest non-peers these days? Scropes, >Luttrells..? How about the Wake Baronets? Apart from the possible descent from ""Hereward the Wake", who may or may not have existed, they are certainly descended from the Wakes of Blisworth and Deeping, collaterals of the 13th century Lords Wake, which gives them a solid male-line gentry descents back at least to the 12th century. They are also female-line descendants of the Clares and the Beauchamps of Warwick. The mother of King Richard II's mother, the "fair maid of Kent" was a Wake. Then there are the Bacons, who still hold the first baronetcy to be created in England (1611). SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" On Apr 19, 10:29 pm, "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: > > In alt.talk.royalty William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > : [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Canada does not have any constitutional courts. > On Apr 19, 10:29 pm, "Andrew Chaplin" > <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Canada does not have any constitutional courts. Actually, all courts are constitutional, since the Charter can be invoked in any provincial court and their judges can rule on such matters, but the most frequently used are the Federal Court of Canada, since that is where provinces typically start arguments when the government of Canada has done something _ultra vires_ the division of powers provisions in the Constitution Act, 1867, and the SCC certainly is, since it can hear appeals from the FCC and consider constitutional questions referred to it by parliament, e.g. the marriage reform bill in the 38th Parliament. Parliament also has the powers of a constitutional court of last resort, as do the provincial legislatures, when it comes to the invocation of the notwithstanding clause. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) On Apr 25, 6:58 pm, "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: > <wm.k...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Your reply that "all courts are constitutional" flummoxes me. Did you suppose I was asserting that the courts of Canada are all UNCONSTITUTIONAL? You may be unaware that some countries have courts whose mandate is to interpet the national constitution. (I believe Germany is one of them.) However, in Canada and the U.S., the meaning of the constitution is developed and interpreted through its application to cases which come before the courts in the ordinary course. Although I suppose the procedure by which the Government of Canada can ask for a decision on a constitutional question by way of reference to the Supreme Court of Canada makes that court a "constitutional court" on a small number of occasions. However, the reference procedure - and general notion of a constitutional court - is controversial as many think that a constitution is better fleshed out (like all statute law) by its application to cases that come before the courts in the ordinary course. >On Apr 25, 6:58 pm, "Andrew Chaplin" ><ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >out (like all statute law) by its application to cases that come >before the courts in the ordinary course. The Canadian procedure was modelled on that available in the UK by reference to the Judicial Committee for an advisory opinion under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. This procedure was last used in 1957, when, on the recommendation of the Committee for Privileges, the House of Commons referred the question of whether Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, relating to the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament, had been impliedly repealed by the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 (the Committee found that it had not). The section allows "any matter" to be so referred; there is no restriction to strictly legal questions, although in practice only such questions have been referred. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" >| <http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007170373,00.html> >| [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >shirt, to pull me up right now. > The only cup that counts is the NEXTEL CUP! As for the love life of The Prince? Life in a fish bowl sucks. Even for a super rich & good looking Prince. If the tv show the "the Bachelor" is any indication of what choices he has available? He will have ladies lined up for miles to take Kate's spot. Hmmmmmmmm... DSH --------------------------------------------------------- The Daily Mail tabloid reported, that after passing out of Sandhurst in December of 2006, Prince William was told that if he wished to pursue an Army career, Kate Middleton could not travel with him on Army time or live with him on base unless they were married. According to the article, the couple were told that since Williams's professional obligations, such as charities and public engagements, were likely to increase, along with his military duties, they either needed to get engaged or cool the relationship off for a while, an anonymous security source reported. Prince William himself has stated that he does not intend to marry until he is at least 28. In March 2007, the Daily Mail also, for the first time, painted Kate Middleton in an unflattering light. The article claimed that Middleton had started to use her status as Prince William's girlfriend to her advantage, that she had accepted free gifts, such as a £1,000 Burberry Manor bag and a £300 handbag from Melissa del Bono. According to the Daily Mail, Audi (a company making vehicles that both Prince William and Harry drive) gave Kate a discount after she bargained with them for a new car. Another claim was that she had argued with a parking Warden upon receiving a ticket and used front doors (after fixing her hair and makeup) to leave night clubs instead of private exits, allowing the paparazzi to take photos, even though she had threatened legal action against photographers in the past. Finally, the article suggested that Middleton had had little contact with her university friends since becoming involved with Prince William. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Middleton> Hmmmmmmmmm... IF TRUE this sounds exactly the way I laid it out in a previous post in this VERY thread. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas --------------------------------------------------- End of the Fairy Tale -- Don't String Kate Along EXCLUSIVE By Ryan Sabey News of the World PRINCE William's five-year romance with Kate Middleton was dramatically killed off at a secret royal summit when the Queen said: "Don't rush down the aisle—we don't want another Diana." Very WISE of The Queen if she did indeed say something like that. -- DSH Her Majesty issued the shock advice around 10 days ago after William sensationally confessed his doubts at a top-level family conference. Very WISE of William if he did indeed confess his doubts. Kate could turn out to be even WORSE than Diana. After all, she has Diana as a model. -- DSH The prince told other royals, including Prince Charles and the Duke of Edinburgh, that he didn't want to commit to marriage in the near future and preferred to put his Army and state duties first. As he JUSTLY SHOULD. -- DSH The final death blow to Wills' relationship with his university sweetheart was delivered by grandfather Prince Philip. He declared: "You can't string her along for ever." Very WISE of Prince Philip if he did indeed say that. Kate probably would NOT make a proper Royal Mistress and stay discrete -- so why not dump her now? -- DSH It was felt by senior royals that after five years, the couple really ought to know if the relationship was going anywhere. They were very young when they met at university and it now seemed to have run its natural course. INDEED. William lost his virginity and had the sort of experiences every young man needs to have. Time to move on. -- DSH The high-powered meeting of the family's most senior members— often known as the Way Ahead Group— was called at Windsor before Easter to discuss Wills' future and the important constitutional role he will play over the next few years. Good Way to deal with these sorts of problems. -- DSH ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Furious But when the young prince arrived for the pow-wow he had already had a heart-to-heart with Kate following a spate of stories in which he was pictured in nightclubs cuddling or groping other girls. Feisty Kate, 25, who famously said of Wills: "He's lucky to be going out with ME"—was furious and demanded to know where she stood. Sounds like a "witch". -- DSH When the prince told her he was not ready to give her any more commitment they both realised their whole relationship was in jeopardy. William, second in line to the throne, had also confided in his father the Prince of Wales, who assured him he would stand by any decision he took. GOOD for Prince Charles -- IF TRUE. -- DSH But in the end it was the ever-present ghost of Wills' mother Princess Diana—plus the fear of yet another failed marriage and ‘annus horribilis'—that galvanised the Windsors into action. This August sees the 10th anniversary of Diana's death but the outcry caused by the tragedy still haunts the royal family. And within minutes of the summit meeting starting the conversation turned to William's worries about Kate. The gathering listened intently as the prince candidly described how SHE wanted more from their relationship, then admitted HE didn't know which way to turn. He told the meeting: "I don't want any more commitment, I don't want to get married just yet. What should I do?" That's when the Queen told her grandson straight that she didn't want him to rush into anything he felt he would regret later. She led the discussions that followed and calmed the young prince. She made it clear the family must learn from earlier mistakes that cast them in such a bad light and urged caution so that history did not repeat itself. INDEED! -- DSH A senior courtier last night told the News of the World: "The meeting went straight to the issue of William's feelings for Kate. What he said came like a bolt out of the blue. William explained how he's been enjoying life in the Army and the freedom it gives him, and that he doesn't want to be tied down at the moment. "Within the royal family the Queen acts as head of the country and Prince Philip is the head of the family—so it was he who then gave William a fatherly talking-to. He told him frankly that he has to ‘put up or shut up'. He either commits to Kate now or he walks away. He stressed that he couldn't mess a woman around and treat her badly. RIGHT! So, break it off cleanly now -- write it off as simply a College Romance that ran on too long. -- DSH "The Queen had thought Kate could be the future of the monarchy, the future Queen even. She liked her a lot and every time they met they got on extremely well. "But she had to put her grandson's interests first and sadly for her that meant doing what is best for him and the future of the monarchy. "If a marriage had gone ahead and ended in tears the Queen simply didn't want to still be the reigning monarch in 10 years time and left wondering why she let it go ahead. It wouldn't bode well for the royals or look good around the world. "It's clear the Queen doesn't want William to go through a carbon copy rerun of his father, marrying the wrong woman." Staff at Clarence House were told about the split seven days ago. William, 24, and Kate have both been out with pals in recent days, trying to forget their upset over the end of a love affair that first blossomed as they studied together at St Andrews University. William was partying at top London nightclub Mahiki on Friday. And on Thursday night Kate—an accessories buyer for fashion chain Jigsaw—shared the news with close friends at a dinner party. A source at the meal told us: "At first when Kate walked in the room it wasn't apparent there was anything untoward going on. "Halfway through the evening the conversation turned towards relationships and boys and everyone had their say. But as calm as anything, Kate turned round and said she was no longer going out with William. ‘It's over,' she said. "Everyone's jaw just dropped to the table. There was a huge sense of disbelief, nobody could quite take it in. But Kate put on her British stiff upper lip. It was apparent she wasn't going to break down in tears. In fact she was very calm throughout the whole evening." She might have guessed the writing was on the wall two years ago in Klosters when William admitted to reporters: "Look, I'm only 22 for God's sake. I'm too young to marry ...I don't want to get married until I'm at least 28 or maybe 30." Sexy Things still looked rosy last December when lip-readers at Wills' Sandhurst passing-out ceremony spotted Kate saying her man was "so, so sexy" and later added: "I love the uniform." The downward spiral started around the prince's initiation period in January and February at Combermere Barracks, Windsor. Kate only lives a 20-minute drive away from the base but Wills preferred to watch football on TV rather than see her. One local said: "I saw him in the pub next to the barracks and he was enjoying himself playing pool and watching the Champions League. He just wanted to be one of the boys. "I didn't even see him check his phone to see if Kate called or left a message." Last month the couple were pictured enjoying close moments on the Swiss ski slopes in Zermatt. But back home, William has been based in Bovington, Dorset, on a troop leader course. There have been occasions when he could have driven to meet Kate but, again, he preferred to stay with his fellow officers. Then a fortnight ago came his night on the town in Bournemouth which sparked a ferocious row. "A source said: "Kate absolutely blew her top. She didn't know whether she could trust him any more." A friend of the couple last night said: "William would often just want to crash in his room after being on exercises rather than travel to see Kate. It's very sad what's happened but as time went on they spent less and less time together. So they've decided to end it while they were both on good terms. "They've drifted apart because they want different things. "But somehow I don't think this is the last you'll see of Kate. She's a beautiful young woman and maybe there still is a future for the two of them—but not at the moment." Additional reporting: JAMIE LYONS ------------------------------------------------------ DSH |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.