Kate Middleton criticized for lack of public personality

Kate Middleton criticized for lack of public personality

This is such an excellent Express article by Camilla Tominey that I must quote the entire thing (it’s a bit long, but a must-read):

    Just be yourself: Why we need to see more of the REAL Kate Middleton

    ISN’T it ironic that the most interesting photographs to have been taken of the Duchess of Cambridge Down Under were the ones you didn’t see? There were all those pictures of a hand-shaking, tree-planting, royal-waving Kate and yet it was the paparazzi shots of the Duchess on a day off with Prince George that proved by far the most insightful.

    The images, which the British press agreed not to publish on the request of Kensington Palace (despite them being all over the Australian media and great PR for the couple) showed a carefree Kate carrying her son on her shoulders, playing “row, row, row your boat” with the nine-month-old and even jumping up and clicking her heels together in mid air during a walk with William.

    The Duchess doing a Dick Van Dyke? Google it if you don’t believe me. Though I would not blame you if you did not because “heel-clicking Kate” is not the Duchess we often get to see. Instead we mostly get “official Kate” (let’s call her Catherine), the so-called “plastic” princess Hilary Mantel described as being “designed by committee and built by craftsmen”.

    “Catherine” is the coiffured, “nice to meet you” clothes horse who minds her Ps and Qs. “Kate” is the social-smoking, topless-sunbathing Master of the Arts whose reaction to being dumped by the world’s most eligible bachelor was to get papped outside Mahiki wearing her most risqué dress to date to show him what he was missing.

    Catherine looks like a Stepford Wife; Kate is anything but.

    So, will the real Duchess of Cambridge please stand up? While she reserves the right to have both a public and private persona, what complicates matters is the fact that so many young girls now see Kate as a role model.

    The crowds who turned out in New Zealand and Australia were not the middle-aged, monarchists of yesteryear but a new generation of wannabe princesses in plastic tiaras. While it may have been acceptable in years gone by for princesses to be seen and not heard, in the 21st century they need to have substance as well as style.

    Window dressing is all well and good but people are increasingly starting to wonder, what is Kate actually selling? Part of the problem is that we have heard so little from her, even since she married William in 2011. Indeed, the first time many people had heard her voice was when her exchange of vows rang out in Westminster Abbey.

    Despite being quietly confident in almost every other aspect of her life, the Duchess becomes a nervous wreck whenever a microphone is within easy reach. She fluffed her lines at a National Portrait Gallery Gala in February (some might argue because she used her Catherine voice rather than her Kate one) and as a result she leaves the oratory to William.

    Which is a great shame, because as her much lamented absence at a star-studded Ralph Lauren-sponsored event at Windsor Castle on Tuesday night proved, most people would probably prefer to hear what she has to say than her husband.

    For in between the Catherine-esque “have you come fars” and “what are you doing for Easters”, there were flashes of the real Kate on the recent tour that suggest she is far from the plastic princess of Mantel’s essay. Asking whether alpaca wool could be turned into a wig for a balding husband (“You need it more than me,” she joked) and flashing him an L for loser sign after beating him in a yachting race ranked among her highlights.

    The real reason we need to hear more from Kate though, is because it is she who is undoubtedly the power behind the future throne (not the Catherine once dubbed Waity Katy). Just as one gets the sense that it is Carol-with-an-e who wears the trousers in the Middleton marriage, when it comes to Kate, the apple does not fall far from the tree. What other kind of woman could possibly get a future king crawling back to her with his tail between his legs within three months? Moreover, as the Sunday Express reported last week, Kate has succeeded in making William a better man, mature, mellow and magisterial, the same effect fellow “commoner” Camilla has had on Charles.

    [Kate] has arguably played a supporting role for long enough. Forget being in the wings, it is time for Kate to spread her wings. She could do worse than taking a leaf out of the book of her Australian counterpart Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark, who is to royalty what Angelina Jolie is to celebrity.

    Also a combination of beauty and brains, this Tasmania-born daughter of a Scottish professor met Frederik, heir apparent to the Danish throne, at a pub in Sydney when the prince was visiting for the 2000 Olympics. Theirs was the original fairytale romance come true and they are now living happily ever after with four children in Copenhagen.

    Although like Kate, Mary had to give up her career once the prince had put a ring on it (she used to work in advertising), the 42-year-old has reinvented herself as a major player on the world stage.

    As well as working with charities in Denmark and Australia, Danish and French-speaking Mary has become patron of UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund and also has her own Foundation (rather than sharing one with her husband and brother-in-law, as Kate does).

    Last week Mary was made honourary patron of her alma mater as part of Tasmania University’s 125th anniversary celebrations. It would be good to see Kate doing something equally cerebral.

    Admittedly Mary celebrated her 10th wedding anniversary on Wednesday while Kate is only three years into the job but there is no reason why the Duchess could not carve out a similar role for herself.

    Intelligent, quick-witted, self-deprecating, attentive and compassionate, Kate’s USP is her likeability, a rare commodity not often found in beautiful women in the public eye. She has every reason to be a show-off and yet she isn’t one; the perfect female role model in this self-obsessed celebrity era.

    Yet despite the unassuming self-belief that has helped her to cope so admirably with the spotlight so far, there is still a sense we are getting to see only a fraction of what the Duchess has to offer.

    Behind the glossy hair, carefully applied make-up and haute couture clothes Catherine wears, it is the real Kate who could prove to be the jewel in the crown.

This is what we’ve been saying for three years–but with far less snark (but it’s not devoid of the snark; I definitely sense some snarky comments thrown in there). I’m shocked Camilla Tominey had the guts to publish such an article in a mainstream paper that slants toward the royals, but I applaud her for doing so. Usually, when someone criticizes Kate the way this article does, that person gets a ton of criticism–just look at what Hilary Mantel got for criticizing Kate. I’m hoping Camilla Tominey doesn’t get a ton of hate for this article, because she speaks the truth (I mean, hell, she even calls Kate out for her fake posh voice!), but even now there are some comments that are negative toward the article. I hope she doesn’t get too much hate; this article is so well done.

114 thoughts on “Kate Middleton criticized for lack of public personality

  1. we have seen everything we can of kate, workwise and personaly, and there isnt much or anything left in her, i personally find her , “fake, manipulative, wasted” and please do not EVEN try to compare mary and kate, mary is ten years older, has four yes four kids and does not need to follow her husband everywhere like a she goat to work or get approval, mary is hardworking and has won numerous awards for her work.

    1. All those reasons you mentioned why Mary is great, is why Camilla Tominey compared Kate to Mary in the first place. Camilla was saying that Kate should be more like Mary, not that Kate in any way compares to Mary right now (or should I say, when compared, Kate is found sorely lacking). Considering a number of us have made that same comparison–saying that Mary is awesome and works hard even with a husband and four kids–I think it’s fine that Camilla made that comparison; it’s something we do all the time.

  2. KMR…I’m surprised that you agree with Camila’s view. She’s saying that Kate has intelligence, wit, compassion, but she’s not showing it. Her point that Kate needs to show substance is based on her belief that Kate has substance, yet I’ve never seen one example of it. She says Kate had to give up her profession (as Mary did)…what profession would that be? And while I’m ranting…I’m so tired of people saying how amazing Kate was to “show William what he was missing” after their breakup. Encouraging jealousy and “looking good is the best revenge” are childish, immature games that have been around as long as people have been. And calling Kate “the power behind the throne”? I think I may throw up. Where’s the evidence of that? I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that this article is based on fantasy and Camila shouldn’t be criticized for slamming Kate because she didn’t…this is nothing more than sycophantic ass-kissing.

    1. I guess I read it differently. I read it as Kate is a shitty duchess who doesn’t do much work and when she does she never has anything intelligent to say and isn’t that great at small talk and keeps repeating the same tired lines over and over (asking every damn person what they were doing for Easter, then asking them what they did for Easter). Camilla doesn’t gloss over the fact that Kate is a smoker (which is something reporters usually do). Camilla is saying that what Kate is now, is not something to be admired. The Kate we see now is not a good role model for all the young girls that could look up to her. Camilla is saying that Kate is just a clothes horse and that just being a clothes horse is not good enough. Camilla doesn’t back off from saying that Kate is a terrible public speaker (a fact that a lot of reporters overlook). And she mentions Kate’s “Catherine voice” which I took to mean that Camilla recognizes that Kate’s posh accent she uses now is fake. Camilla also takes a dig at Kate when she mentions Mary’s foundation–a foundation that’s all her own, while Kate just piggy-backed onto Will and Harry’s. At least that’s how I read that.

      Do I agree with everything Camilla said? No. But I like that she’s not afraid to say that Kate needs to step up her game. Usually the reporters come to Kate’s defense, in earnest, when stuff like this is lobbied at her–like they did when the Hilary Mantel stuff came out. They keep making excuses instead of saying she needs to improve. This article says she needs to improve.

      The power behind the throne bit is a bit much, but it’s not unheard of for a woman to be “the power behind the throne” (I’ve heard stories about the Queen Mother and how she played a big part in Edward’s abdication). There is still a debate over how much power Kate really has in their relationship (and we’ll never really know). I don’t think Kate is “the power behind the throne”, though. I think Kate gets to wear the pants whenever William allows her to wear the pants. I do think she has more control than we give her credit for, but William always has that “I’m the royal” card to pull and crush whatever plans Kate has, and he uses it often I’d bet. But I understand why Camilla would make that leap. No doubt Ma Midds wears the pants in that relationship, so it’s not hard to think she would have raised her daughters to be the same way. So I understand why Camilla would go there. I don’t agree, though. Like I said, no matter how much power Kate plays at having, William will always have the upperhand and will easily stomp all over her.

      I 100% agree that it is a stretch to think Kate is some super intelligent person. But I kind of glossed over it when Camilla said that, because in my mind Kate making an effort and “showing who she really is” has less to do with her intellect (which I don’t think she has) and more to do with her playfulness and having a joy to life that she currently doesn’t show. She showed a playfulness when she was doing those sports activities, and I’ve said for a long time that those are the only activities where she really shines and she should do more of them. Is Kate intelligent and compassionate? I doubt it. She has never shown herself to be intelligent or compassionate. But she has shown she can be playful and not a maniacal smiler when she wants to be. So I read Camilla’s article as saying that Kate needs to actually show a personality (not necessarily an intelligent one) because right now she doesn’t show anything. Right now Kate is a Stepford Wife who lacks any sort of personality at all.

      One does not need to be an intellectual to be charming. So Kate could improve her public persona and be more charming even if she’s not that intelligent. Is she ever going to hold a conversation with Elon Musk? No. But she could have fun with her duties and be more likable in general.

      The problem I see with Kate, that the article doesn’t bring up, is that I don’t think Kate cares enough to change the way she does things. That’s the biggest thing, Kate needs to care in order to change. She needs to realize that there is a problem and care enough to fix it. I don’t think she even realizes there is a problem, and she certainly doesn’t give enough shits to get out there and change it. That’s Kate’s biggest problem, the fact that she has no drive to improve herself.

      So do I think Kate could improve and be an awesome Duchess? If past actions are any indication of future actions, then no. But I give Camilla credit for saying that a change needs to happen, because most reporters don’t.

      To mention a few other things you mentioned: yes, the insinuation that Kate had a career to give up is total BS. The “show him what he’s missing” thing, yeah that is immature and a sign that you’re not over it. If you were totally over it then you wouldn’t have any shits to give about what he thinks of you anymore. But Kate did play that game, and it worked for her (and it’s now something we criticize a lot). Clearly Camilla Tominey isn’t an anti-monarchist, or even an anti-Kate person, but for someone who has shown to be very pro-Kate, this is criticism. Is it perfect from our anti-Kate point of view? No. But it’s better than nothing, you know. At least that’s how I see it.

      I hope I’ve explained myself and my thought process. The article could be read either way I think, depending on what one focuses on. It could be a sycophantic, “Kate is such a great person if only she were allowed to be” article; or it could be a critical, “Kate really needs to step up her shit because right now she’s crap” article. I guess I chose to read it as a critical piece; that’s how it came off to me anyway. But I understand why other people wouldn’t necessarily read it that way. And that’s cool; that’s what forums are for, to get other people’s opinions.

      PS. Sorry this comment was super long.

      1. I enjoy reading what you write, the longer the better, and I always learn something. I see what you’re saying…the article really can be interpreted in several different ways, and for that it’s very well done. A point you’ve made here and in the past is that Kate doesn’t seem to care enough to try to make any changes…and I think that may be the main criticism of her.

        1. I hadn’t even thought of interpreting it in any other way, so I’m glad you brought it up, it made me rethink my own interpretation. I like that, so thank you.

          I have to wonder if that was done on purpose, so that it’s critical to those who want to read it as critical, but hopeful and praising to those who want to read it as hopeful and praising. That way the author sneaks in the criticism while not alienating those die-hard Kate fans.

          Kate doesn’t seem to care, and I have to wonder if she even realizes that there’s a problem.

      2. I, like Dag, enjoyed your “thesis”. 😉 Actually, I understood the article in a similar way to you, i.e. it was more critical than supportive.

  3. It’s a critical piece, but criticism isn’t necessarily bad; it can be a roadmap to improvement. Do I think Waity or her handlers in Buckingham Palace will pay any attention? Of course not. We also must keep in mind that Frederik and Mary are the Crown Prince and Princess; Willy and Waity are not yet. It’s normal they aren’t front-and-center yet, because they shouldn’t be. Rank is important, especially to the Windsors and I think Waity has been shown that; when Willy doesn’t accompany her, she takes precedence after the Princesses of the Blood Royal and must curtsey to Beatrice and Eugenie, which is another reason I’m sure they loathe each other. Comparing them to heirs-apparent is a tad unfair; I don’t really have a problem with it, b/c life’s not fair. Even so, the Windsors unlike other monarchies (Denmark comes to mind) are totally non political and neutral. So it’s normal that Waity has nothing remarkable to say besides how “nice it is to be here” and “Can you tell the smell by smelling it?” yada yada. She’s an empty vessel and Willy isn’t much better but that’s all that’s needed. All Willy has to do is say “Approved” after every fifth or sixth law that’s read in the Privy Council and it approves the whole batch. All they have to do is show up to the State Opening of Parliament, to the Chelsea Flower Show, to Royal Ascot and Trooping the Colour. It’s not as if they not being there makes any difference. They’re there to provide continuity and stability.

    1. I kind of agree re comparing the Cambs to the Crown Princely couples of Europe, but unfortunately there is no other corresponding couple to compare W&K to. In Sweden, the person in the same position as Will is a 3-year-old; in Denmark it’s an 8-year-old. And given that the Crown Princely couples are in the same age range as W&K, it’s a natural comparison.

      While I understand that Kate can’t get political, she could show more personality. Saying she likes sports or a certain sweet treat or something isn’t political. Hell, what she should be saying is something about the charities and other places she visits–how important they are, what they mean to her–but she doesn’t. Something as simple as saying why she cares about a charity–in her own words while doing the visit, not via her publicist in a pre-approved statement to the press–would be enough to show personality, and that wouldn’t be political at all and would be in support of the things she’s supposed to be supporting.

      1. Very true. Even so, the royals are supposed to be a bit boring. Look at HM, who’s the gold standard for continuity and stability. Not as boring as Waity and Willy perhaps. I agree with what you say below to Adam; Willy is far more boring than Waity. He was supposedly “exciting” (I don’t know to whom; to me he’s been a brat for years) before he announced he was marrying Waity, I guess b/c some imbecilic harpies had a flimsy fantasy that he might want to marry them so they could be a fairy tale princess. Please don’t make us THROW UP!

  4. this kate is a really exhausting woman, does she remind us everyday of like parents bringing up their children and always hoping for a change……….BUT the problem kate is a grown woman , a duchess and future queen, kate the brand is not worth anything ,or interesting, or usefull, unless you add william or george william has made kate who she is today, and she knows it, thats why she clings on him for her dear life, who is kate without william???

    1. It is true that William has made Kate what she is today–if you’re talking about being a royal–but I would argue that William is just as boring as, if not more boring than, Kate. Kate may be a crappy duchess, but she does hold some interest (both positive and negative), while no one really seems to give a crap about Will. I say this only as someone who runs a blog where posts about Kate get visits and comments, and posts about William don’t. That’s not to say that Kate is all that interesting, it’s just that it’s been my experience that Will isn’t interesting either.

      1. Same here. I don’t blog about William specifically, but I do blog about other public figures and those posts only get a fraction of the traffic that Kate posts do.

        1. There was a time when William was very interesting – I think if the internet and blogs were as prevalent as they are today, there would be alot of traffic and websites specifically for him. But I think people started to get turned off when they saw what a spoiled brat he was i.e. the pub crawls, stealing the copter, etc

          1. He’s become quite boring and Waity has also become quite boring. Marriage has not changed them for the better!

  5. KMR, Adam & Dag I agree with everyone! I expect Kate have people social skills, just like 90% of the population. She does not have to cure cancer . She all the help at her reach & i have no idea why she is not helping herself? Her family should have made her grow up along time ago! There might be a disorder that the middleton family does not want us to know about, i am not implying it is the middleton family fault that Kate is this way! I have read that waity might go to the ceremonies in august to commerate the the people died in the 1st world war? Is Kate ready to represent the british people? If she does go will it be a embarrassment for royals? Princess Mary of Denmark would do a great job if she goes! I do not by the excuse that Kate is married to the 2nd heir! I’m clueless about this situation?

    1. I agree that Kate should have basic social interaction skills. She doesn’t have to be a brain surgeon or a philosopher, she just needs to be able to interact with the public and show some warmth.

      Re helping herself: I don’t think she realizes that she has a problem. She can’t get help, or change, until she realizes she has a problem.

  6. WOw!!!The article was great and the comments posted just as good. When I read the article I took it from the prospective that Kate has the potential to do better and should be doing better. Why that isn’t happening is the question. Is it Kate or the RF? Also if Kate needs someone to look to, Mary would be a good example. I really don’t know much about Mary but from the article and the comments written I would agree that she would be a good example for Kate. I always say give Kate time, because I believe she will find her way, it’s just taking to long for some. Most women really come into their all in their early 30s.

    1. I have to agree with you, CrazyAMG. I was a much different person at 32 than I was at 22! And quite a bit of that had to do with working, and learning to live independently of my family. I am sympathetic to some of what Mandel says about Kate Middleton, but one has to wonder about the role the royal family is playing in all of this.
      Who is to say that they are the ones that is controlling Kate’s public persona? She may have contrived that mostly by herself–based on what appears to have been a long-term goal of marrying a very lofty title.

      1. As far as her public persona goes, I think it was probably a combination of both her own ideas and her people telling her she needs to be as noncontroversial as possible. This need to be as noncontroversial as possible is why she seems to lack a public persona.

    2. Yes, I think Mary is an excellent example of what role Kate could craft for herself. I don’t expect her to immediately be that, but she should be working toward that–and she needs to start right now, no more “maternity leave” and “redecorating” excuses. I think Kate has the ability to change (I think anyone can change if they really want to change), but the problem I see is that Kate doesn’t realize there is a problem. She won’t change if she doesn’t think there’s a problem. Everyone has probably been telling her to be as noncontroversial as possible, and by doing that it has caused her to lack a public persona. And Will is probably telling her to follow his lazy lead (because while we all criticize Kate, William doesn’t work all that much either and when he does he doesn’t seem into it). I think Kate probably takes her cues from William, and he’s a bad role model.

  7. Ummmm. I don’t think ANY of Kates is a decent role model. “Intelligent, quick-witted, self-deprecating, attentive and compassionate”? Hardly…

    My feeling from this article is that the journalists are trying the water. They are still careful not to criticize Kate directly, but the tide is slowly turning…

    1. I agree. This is the first article to really criticize her in any way. And while there is still that sense of “she’s really great, she’s just not showing it”, I think the criticism is there (and accurate). The reporters can’t send the castle tumbling down yet, but they can throw the first stone, you know.

      1. That was my take on the article, too. Journalists have always treaded lightly, the formula has always been to report that others are saying unflattering things but the writer believes the criticism is unjust. This is really one of the first mainstream attempts at addressing the bigger Kate issues that are freely expressed in the Comments section by non-journalists while trying to avoid a visit from the pitchfork and torch mobs that have been hanging out on Hilary Mantel’s doorstep.

  8. I was offended by the Express article. I’m tired of hearing that she’s still so young (32!!) or has only been married three years (a decade in the inner royal circle!). What the hell did she think she was walking into?

    Kate Middleton is a dunce and a chameleon, adapting and changing to fit the world around her – a base self centered survival mechanism. Who knows what her character or personality truly is? But her age and length of marriage have nothing to do with it. Lack of motivation, arrogance and no small measure of stupidity by her entire family play a large part.

    If most of us met a very high profile potential spouse at a university in our twenties wouldn’t we have been preparing in some way or another for a leadership role? We would have been pulling at the bit to roll up our sleeves and get down to the business of making a difference. I’ve gone back through old articles on another site. They are quite critical of her even years ago so she was exposed as a sham almost from the start.

    What kind of person sets their crosshairs on the crown without considering what it might entail and the outcome?
    A fool. Even worse, a smug fool acting like a silly girl, not a mature educated woman.

    These reporters need to push the envelope a bit more and stop being so tentative. That is their job and it takes balls. She is a dividing force and a WAG and the printed media have to step up and name it for what it is.

    Grrrrrr…….

    1. Thank you Chesire Raccoon – Kate could do way better. You are right in saying that she set her aim at the crown and didn’t plan anything for after that. It did take 10 years and Carole intervening for something to happen so maybe Kate JUST does not have it in her to do anymore.

      I do wish that people would stop using lack of a brain as a reason why Kate is failing. Diana was not bright but she still managed to charm and show interest in people. Maybe Kate is a one dimensional cut out? If she is a paper cut out doll then can I suggest that she does not get left out in the rain?

      1. I think I said the same thing in some comment above, that Kate doesn’t need to be an intellectual to be charming. Kate needs to show some personality, but she doesn’t have to be a brain surgeon or philosopher. Harry isn’t that bright either but he has buckets of personality. Kate needs to take a lesson from him (lord knows she’s not going to learn personality from Will since he’s a wet mop himself).

          1. Supposedly Kate believes the biggest misconception about her that she isn’t passionate about her causes. Isn’t that a hoot? I laughed and laughed. Btw, that was two years ago. I wonder if maybe she doesn’t know what “passionate” means. Maybe she thinks it means “apathetic”.

    2. Kate didn’t want the duties and the “getting down to business and making a difference” part, she just wanted the lifestyle and luxury that comes with it. That’s all she focused on. And clearly Will never set her straight or anything since he himself is doing everything he can to avoid his duties for as long as possible.

      Re the article, I think it’s a start. They can’t go overboard if the public is only going to push back against the criticism. They need to start small and get the public on their side in order to not get backlash when they really start bringing the castle down. This was probably a test to gauge public response; being critical but still hopeful for improvement. At least it’s not some sickly sweet article that doesn’t even criticize her at all.

    1. I know right. Charles is a badass when it comes to foreign tours. W&K did about 45 engagements in 19 days on theirs.

  9. This past weekend Princess Estelle of Sweden went with her parents to an official engagement. The two year old was very well behaved! Estelle smiled & waved to the crowds. The toddler was in a good mood, she did not ask silly questions or throw temper tantrums! If a very young child can it, Why can’t billy & lazy? waity is 32 not 2, billy will be 32 next month! What in the world is wrong with this stupid couple? Honestly i would die of shame if little tot could behave better than me! I am not putting children down!

  10. Although the author of the article brought up the usual “this is what Kate could aspire to” type of argument, increasingly the presmises behind such writing falls upon silent ears. It smacks of justifying or making excuses for Kate’s behavior. When Kate is 45 and doing not much: what will the excuses be at that time ? Perhaps by then Prince William will have remarried and Kate will have moved back home with Mummy to remain an eternally maladjusted teenager forever. PS: “The power behind the Throne” is a laughable statement to make. Kate is not as skilled as The Viper in terms of manipulation.

    1. Girl please, you know Ma Midd won’t let Kate back in if she loses the title. In all seriousness, I would like to hope that at some point the public will really start pushing back against W&Ks lazy crap. The more the public turns against them, the more the press will, too. And vise versa. The press has the power to change public opinion, and they could change the public opinion of W&K if they wanted to. While this article has it’s flaws, I would like to think it is a starting point, a gauge of public opinion to see what envelopes the press can push in their criticism.

  11. I think Katie’s just lazy. She has some academic chops; unlike Willy, she stuck with and graduated from St. Andrews with a 2:1 honours degree in art history. Willy switched to geography and still didn’t learn enough because eleven years later he returned to study it at Cambridge. She’s just lazy. If someone would pay me a million dollars a year to put on a suit and go stand in a reception line, then make small talk over cocktails once a week, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Why have to do work? Why have to do laundry, cook, clean, shop, change beds, get petrol at a service station, etc.? Nope, she’s just lazy, which still infuriates me.

    1. I think so, too. And I don’t think there’s anyone really telling her that she’s in the wrong. Charles is probably telling her to cool it so she doesn’t overshadow him; Will is probably telling her to cool it so she doesn’t overshadow him. And I really wouldn’t doubt that Kate would much rather be a stay-at-home mom, just redecorating and shopping and taking care of the baby (or rather, playing with the baby and then having the nanny do the rest). The thing is, if Kate wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, she should have married a billionaire, not a prince.

      1. Definitely that’s probably part of it. Remember the video during the Queen’s Jubilee when they were getting on the royal barge? Waity tried to walk in front of Charles and Camilla and Willy gestured angrily and called her a “b—h” or something similar. Everywhere she goes, she’s the star, just like Diana was with Charles. Heck the idiotic press calls Georgie “heir-to-the-throne”. Won’t they be “confused” when Charles is crowned and not his 10-year-old grandson? Apparently someone (I don’t know if it was the Queen, Charles, Christopher Geidt, or someone else) told Willy and Waity to curtail their public engagements in 2012 so the focus could be on the Queen for her Diamond Jubilee. Definitely there needs to be more focus on the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh besides when they go into hospital (the Queen is THE QUEEN for a reason, also she’s the one reason I like the royals), the Prince of Wales and the Queen’s other children: on the Princess Royal, the Duke of York, the Earl and Countess of Wessex, rather than what the hell Katie wore to a ball six weeks ago that they run file footage of b/c she hasn’t done anything else to use.

      1. The UK’s system of university degrees has two course distinctions. You can get an “ordinary” degree but most choose honours. Honours degrees are ranked in order of highest to lowest:
        First class (1st)
        Upper Second Class (2:1)
        Lower Second Class (2:2)
        Third class (3)
        Ordinary (Pass)

        About 15% of British students achieve 1sts. 2:1s are the minimum to begin postgraduate study at a university in Britain.

        Informally, the US/UK comparison (If you’re from the States med4kmd) would be:
        1st (3.68-4.00)
        Upper 2nd (3.33-3.67)
        Lower 2nd (3.00-3.32)
        3rd (2.5-2.99)
        Ordinary (2.00-2.49)

        It’s a rough comparison, but it’s the closest there is. Willy achieved upper second class honours, which for the royals, is a real honor, given that his father Bonnie Prince Charlie and Uncle Edward both graduated with lower 2nd class honours (They also were only the third and fourth British princes to attend and graduate from a university. Prince William of Gloucester, who was the first heir to the Queen’s Uncle Henry and died in a plane crash in 1972 as well as Willy’s namesake, was the first I think and his brother Prince Richard, the Duke of Gloucester was the second. All from Cambridge University). While it is prestigious in a way that Willy graduated with such distinction, he took it in geography, which I really don’t think is as rigorous a subject as History of Art, which is what Katie graduated with (and Willy started but switched b/c it was too hard). I graduated in History and Political Science, which is more rigorous than either Art History or Geography, I can assure you. 🙂 You’re welcome for the help. 🙂

        1. Thanks – but you already beat me to it with your “your welcome.” Yes, I’m actually a born and bred Chicagoan, but I did go to med school in Poland and graduated some years back. I had the best years of my life in Europe, as I had the opportunity to travel and visited most of the major European countries. But as you are aware, there are/were differences between countries, and I almost always found it fascinating to (try) to learn & understand them. Because of this, I also tend to have liberal leanings when compared to many in the US.
          So really, this 2:1 is something like carrying a B average, if I am understanding correctly. Not too bad for the both of them, but I can’t help thinking these scores were more or less gifted to them. Just my opinion. As far as geography as a major goes, my brother got his undergrad degree in geography, and honestly (at least here in the States), it wasn’t a breeze. Lots of courses in weather forecasting, soil analysis, etc. He went on for a Masters in Land Development for which he needed the geography major. That was even more difficult, but he enjoyed it and got through it with good grades with a special certification. I can’t speak for a Art History degree. I am sure someone can correct me, but at least here in Chicago, I always heard that was kind of a” throwaway” major, one someone gets when mommy & daddy pay for everything and the student will never really be expected to use it. I am sure there are some with this degree who take it very seriously and have great work as a result. I do not mean to insult anyone with such a degree. I just don’t have enough experience with someone having this degree.
          BTW: A degree in history and poly sci – sounds fascinating. I am a history buff and am intrigued by some politics (if it’s smart or thought-provoking – hard to find in the States 🙂 ).

          1. I didn’t mean any offense about geography majors. I absolutely agree with you about art history. At my college, art history had the reputation among us history majors as being for people who couldn’t stomach studying “real” history. Upper second class honours would be the equivalent of cum laude or magna cum laude depending on the school in the US. First would summa cum laude or magna cum laude. There is also a rarer “Double First”, which is essentially a double major first class honours and a rarer Starred First or even rarer Double Starred First, which are for higher distinctions within programs, at Cambridge and Oxford. Apparently though there is also a good deal of grade inflation at British universities. Awards of first class honours have TRIPLED since the late-1990s.

          2. Oh no, Seth. I did not take any offense about geography majors. I understand a lot of people don’t know what’s involved with the major, and until my brother did it, I admit I knew nothing about it either.
            I’m glad you mentioned the increase in honors degrees within Britain. Though I am not sure about other countries, it just seemed everytime I read an article about a British citizen’s background, someone working as a receptionist, attendant, etc, some kind of honors degree has usually been mentioned. Again, I don’t mean any offense to anyone, but it just seemed a bit unreal for all these people with honors level degrees who are in entry-level jobs with poor salaries.

          3. Good. 🙂 It’s the same here in the US. There are a lot of people who majored in humanities or social science degrees cum laude, magna cum laude, etc. who are baristas or waiters. A college or university degree just doesn’t mean as much anymore. They’re becoming as common as a high school diploma was fifty years ago. You have to get one in order to have any realistic shot at almost any job, if you don’t have years of experience in the field, and even then, I’ve found experience is needed as much as the actual degree. Unless you’re a duke and duchess who have £20 million legacies from their parents and grandparents and a 20-room suite at a palace. Then experience and college educations don’t mean that much.

          4. I have to take offense at this conception of the Art History degree. Granted, there are people who just wander along, but it can be just as rdemanding as any other academic degree, it all depends the amount of work you put into it and how creative you’re about your research. I have three degrees in art history, and focus mainly on issues of cultural memory and national identity, while branching out into visual culture. There’s a lot of complicated theory involved and several levels of analysis – including the production and reception of the work of art. How it is used, what people and communitties invest in it, etc. Furthermore, art history really demands knowledge of both English, German and French at the least, as well as other languages according to specialty. I focus on Scandinavian art, which means that I also read Danish, Swedish and Norwegian.

            This is simply a long-winded way of saying that the rigours of the field are well-defined but also that the resultant work is dependant on what you put into it. It isn’t enough to follow a course outline, you have to go the extra mile – and that is what separates the serious academics from the dilletantes – in every field.

          5. Art Historian-I was not directly intending to insult art history; simply give my interpretation of it’s (rather poor) reputation among the history majors at my university. Obviously art historians are going to have a different opinion, just as history majors, geography majors, chemistry majors and every other academic concentration considers itself to be as important as any other. There are rivalries within them all. Physicists versus geologists. Chemists versus biologists. Historians vs. art historians. Psych majors against sociology. Rivalries abound in academia. 🙂

          6. Seth
            I understand that you didn’t mean offense – but this perception of Art History as a fluff field has often come up in connection with Kate Middleton. I’m just really, really tired of encountering these kind of opinions, especially because it is usually foreigners that espouse them. Maybe because of differences in educational systems. All I can say is that my field are more demanding in my country than in England, where I also took a degree. The English MA took only 1 year, and while intense and focused, it was less comprehensive and I could see that I had a more solid foundation in my field than the rest o my class mates. The Danish MA that I took was 3 years and one of the demands for the thesis was original research. In Denmark, it is also normal for art history students to have revelant student jobs within the field. As a student I worked for the National Gallery (Statens Museum for Kunst) as a guide, The Royal Academy of Fine Arts, The Royal Reception Rooms, the University and as a curatorial assistent at a small museum.

            I don’t know what the system is like in the US. In England, you got a lot of respect for doing a MA (which I found baffling because it is par for the course where I come from – nobody does just a BA in University). I got the impression that, in general, the undergraduates in England where a rather wild bunch and perhaps less serious. There was a LOT of partying and the bars and clubs really targeted the students with Happy Hours on Monday nights, etc. So you get the picture. One last thing, unlike in England and the US, education is free in Denmark and every student gets a government stipend. That was, for me at least, part of the motivation to work hard – when the government invests in you then it’s the least you can do: you best.

            I don’t know where you’re from but there aren’t these kind of rivalry between history and art history where I come from. It is more general in the sense of the natural sciences against the humanistic ones.

            The great thing about Art History is that you really get the opportunity to draw on many different fields in yourresearch. I draw on history, anthropology, cultural theory, political science, etc. I know some people that draw on mathematics, geometry, even chemistry.

          7. I’m from the United States, where I can assure you, students are generally less serious than even in Great Britain. The public university I attended has one of the highest rates of sexually transmitted disease in the COUNTRY and is on the list of top “party schools”.

  12. Think that some billionares would not want to marry waity! Please look at it from this angle, she lived of her parents never wanted to work. There is nothing wrong with her physical & mentaly, Any rich would end up hating & resenting her. If it got to marriage there would be a divorce & nowadays
    women are not leaving with large settlement children or without children! I know of one case when the wife got a large settlement, because the wife has m.s. and the husband is wealthy! For the life me i do not know the middletons did not raise their kids to be better adults! I am not a hypocrite, i do not have children. If i had children i would die shame i they turn out like this! I am very suprised that the middleton parent are not doing a thing to fix these problems?

    1. I never said a billionaire would want to marry Kate, I was implying that if she didn’t want the duty that comes with marrying a Prince, she shouldn’t have married one and should have looked elsewhere for someone to pay for her lifestyle.

  13. Some very interesting views here. I have been thinking about a couple of things re: Kate that I want to run past y’all. First, why is it that Kate acts so nervous and timid when out in public, yet, in all the years prior to her wedding, and including the ceremony itself, she was the epitome of confidence?
    #2) I am starting to get concerned about all the drinking they seem to do. I mean, I was surprised to see the next “Royal Duty” for May 25 is to a distillery in Scotland. How can that seriously be considered a “Royal Duty?” It seems in almost all their outings, there is alcohol involved. Remembering just how smashed they used to get going out to the pubs, I wonder if this is something of a problem, or just a routine part of their duties.

    1. If you ask me, part of it may be Willy’s verbal abuse and possibly whoever told her to “cool it” and not distract the press from the “issue” of the day, ie. what the engagement is about, or upstaging the Queen or Willy. Definitely she’s been brow beaten by someone, which is why she escapes to Bucklebury so often (Anyone else remember it being reported that the Palace was so infuriated that Willy, Waity and Georgie were in Bucklebury so long that they were practically ordered (by someone) to return to London? I know I didn’t dream that up).

    2. Kate rarely drinks anymore. She’ll have a glass of wine or two every now and then, but she doesn’t really enjoy it anymore, it’s a control/calories thing. Wills still drinks, Kate tells him he shouldn’t. He made her give up smoking, I imagine the liquor thing is a passive-aggressive revenge tactic on her part. I suspect this distillery event is a little fu from Will. Their passive-aggressiveness with each the is probably the most normal thing about them as a married couple.

    3. I think the distillery is more because the palace needed to find something for them to do, so why not throw a distillery at them (that’s much more fun than a children’s hospital, don’t you know). The royals sometimes attend the most random places for “royal duties”.

      As far as being timid now, that’s a good question. I would guess that it has something to do with being criticized for how she acts. Not by us, because we all know our criticism doesn’t sink in, but by Will or the palace or someone. The palace probably told her to be as noncontroversial as possible and not to overshadow other royals and such. Will probably yells at her frequently. That type of stuff can beat someone down. But it also may be a case where once she was out in public so much she realized she didn’t like it and has shut down when in public in order to cope.

      1. Yes, KMR – you made an interesting point when you said, “…it may be a case where once she was out in public so much she realized she didn’t like it & has shut it down …in order to cope.” IMO, this may be a bit more of here problem because I am not sure how much the RF/TPTB would criticize her for her previous actions. I mean, she never talked much to the public, the things they could bring up to her would be the “flashing”, her laziness, and her frequently forgetting protocol, i.e. forgetting to curtsey to the Queen & Philip, PC & Camilla, the Yorks, etc. Otherwise, she hasn’t really done much, enough to be criticized, at least within the
        public eye.
        She seems to have not anticipated the level of need and expectation of her from the public. What I am seeing is a gradual retreat from any activity that involves her being needed. Not only her Royal Duties, but even when it comes to taking care of her son. Yes, people can say she needs the help of a FT nanny in preparation for taking on more duties, but there is no evidence of her increasing her workload. Also, I am a little surprised at the “complaining” her & PW always seem to do about PG. I mean, they make a lot of little “snide” comments about his crying, his eating, his activity. It seems she thought having babies was like having an accessory – something to enhance her “look” but at the same time does not require any work or upkeep. Overall, I guess she doesn’t like the feeling of being truly needed.

        1. In addition to the above, I forgot to mention her lack of charity visits/support for charity of almost any type – certainly an area of great need.

        2. Oh heavens yes, med4kmd! I’m glad you wrote it. She and Willy definitely see Georgie as an accessory. They’ve done their “duty” by “securing” the line of succession and now they hand him over to his nurse or nanny. I’ve always thought it peculiar that the royals feel the need to “secure” the succession line. There are several thousand people in the line of succession, including all the other royal families of Europe. If the entire official titled Royal Family was wiped out today, Peter Phillips would immediately become King. Savannah Phillips would be next in line followed by her younger sister Isla, then her aunt Zara and cousin Mia. Then it would be David, Viscount Linley, the Queen’s nephew and the late the Princess Margaret’s son, followed by his son and daughter, then his sister Lady Sarah Chatto and her two sons. If all the collateral lines down to Zenouska Mowatt, #51 in line, who I THINK is the Queen’s second cousin twice removed (but don’t take my word for it), were to be wiped out somehow, David Lascelles, the 8th Earl of Harewood and cousin to the Queen through her aunt the Princess Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, would become King. So I don’t really see why it is so important that Willy HAD to have a child. Ugh. Royalty.

          1. Well said. There are a crap ton of people in the line of succession, because they need to know who would be monarch if the worst should happen, but it’s seen as a failure when they have to go up and over in the family tree instead of straight down. I’m not sure why that is, the only thing I can think of is that a sibling may be related, but it’s not the same blood bond as a child, you know. A man wants to pass on his crap to his child, not his brother. It’s like having to share the toy on the playground or something. You don’t want your sibling to take your toy from you. But growing up and passing that toy down to your kid is fine. That’s not a well written response, but that’s the only thing I can think of.

        3. Buyers remorse. She probably thought it would be one way, and she wanted that badly, but it turned out to be not as great as she expected. that happens with other celebs, they want the fame, but then they get it and it’s not all it’s cracked up to be and they break down.

          I don’t get the complaining about George. Is it that they just are terrible at small talk so they say those things? But if all they needed was cute anecdotes about the baby, why say things that are complaining rather than an actual cute anecdote? Maybe another case of buyers remorse?

  14. Another point- have you seen the article released in the past few days about Amner Hall. That Kate is expected to use the next several weeks to see it to completion – while using the rest of her MATERNITY LEAVE. I actually was kind of ticked off seeing this used semi-officially as an excuse for Waity’s continued work-shy ways. She definitely is milking it for all she can. For what it’s worth, she’s had what – less than 5 charity visits this year – but can claim time on maternity leave while at the same time spending millions on decorating her second house (actually her third, if you consider her “apartment” at Bucklebury with her parents). Yes, I know she just came back from 18 days with the Royal Tour, and prior to that had 4 outings related to duty. So, 22 days work for close to 150 days. And her summer schedule is just as bad, if not worse. It’s no wonder we are starting to find her lifestyle & lack of work questioned in the media. They are starting to run out of excuses.

    1. Her one year would be up as of June 13, I imagine that’s why she’s in a rush to get preggers again so she can get another nine months off claiming morning sickness and then take another year off for maternity leave, handing the kid over to a nanny. You know, the whole Modern Approach which is really figuring out a way to professionally do nothing. What a role model for women, spend your husband’s and the tax payer’s money and squeeze out a couple of kids if it means not having to show up for work.

    2. Ugh, yes I saw that. I’m really annoyed as well. The press pack claimed Kate would have a busy summer, but now there’s an article about how she’s going to spend the next month decorating? UGH! I can’t wait for her maternity leave to be over. I still can’t believe women over there get 52 weeks of maternity leave.

  15. Kate is the most popular Royal. Hate her or love her the public is more interested in everything Kate! Having said that, does anyone believe the RF isn’t threaten by this simple fact? PC couldn’t handle Diana’s popularity, do you honestly think he is happy with Kate’s popularity. Don’t get me started on where Camilla stands on this issue. She and PC just conducted their own Royal Tour ugh somewhere??? PW just attended an event without her and the host had a tantrum because he was there without Kate!!! Maybe there is an effort by members of the RF to keep Kate in check. As for Kate, she needs a speech coach. This would help her with his nerves as well…why doesn’t she have a coach, ask the RF. She has made numerous mistakes, but why???I don’t understand how the RF hasn’t figured out how to integrate new members into their family. Kate’s performance thus far is a direct reflection on them! The bottom line, the public can call for more duties/appearances by Kate, but the RF will not let it happen! They are afraid that she will gain the publics favor! Sounds familiar??? I am not including HM. I believe she is allowing PC to make these decisions. I believe Kate when she said in her engagement interview that she wanted to help and make a difference. Poor Kate she had know idea that the family she was marrying into would be her biggest road block.

    1. I continue to find this scenario highly unlikely. She basically did not work for a decade. The “job” at jigsaw, the “job” with her parents (when her own sister was unable to tell a reporter what her sister Kate actually did for the company). Her only ambition was to land the prince, not the man, and that took 100% of her efforts for a decade.

      The BRF is not holding her back. She sets her own schedule, as clearly stated on the record by Palace officials. The BRF desperately need to increase their popularity, and it is decreasing the lazier and lazier William and Kate appear.

      This ridiculous notion of them splitting their charity work so they can be of more influence? Please, they are still doing 1/5 of the rest of the family. It is just another excuse for their lazy, work-shy, entitled behavior.

      If she showed up to work on a regular basis, multiple times per week, the focus would eventually shift to the work (and away from her clothes and hair). She has no charisma, she is clearly going through the motions not caring deeply, so she will never rival Diana in those ways.

      They both need to get to work, learn on the job as the other royals have said is necessary, and stop hiding away. Absence is not making the heart grow fonder, it is making the taxpayers even more likely to toss the BRF out when HM passes.

  16. Ok she waited 10 years to marry the man she loves, it’s not a crime. We may have done things different, but she chose this course. At some point the 10 years has to be a moot point. He married her and that’s that. Why is she making her own schedule??? The RF should be run with the proficiency of a corporation! I agree they need to get to work, however I don’t believe Kate is in control of this as some would have us to believe. Clearly they (RF) are a disaster waiting to happen!

    1. I never stated there was a crime in waiting, did I? I go with the theory that she would wait as long as it took until he caved. He eventually caved. I’m not seeing “in love” with these two, I’m seeing a college relationship that ran the course and should have ended when they graduated. They have enabled each other to remain stunted as their 20 year old selves, rather than growing and maturing as they would have if they’d gone their separate ways soon after college.

      She chose to wait a decade, but she also chose NOT to work during that time. She could have learned multiple languages, done charity work, made something useful of herself. She was not required to sit around twiddling her thumbs, and if she was working for charity, the idea that she was “trading on her royal connections” would at least have seemed like she was trading on them for the good of humanity.

      She had a decade to show that she cared about more than shopping, her hair extensions, and landing William. If we set aside that decade of uselessness, we have three years in which she has done less than the bare minimum, continually lied to the public, and spent the taxpayers money like water. She’s proven she doesn’t care about buckling down and making a difference in the world, either pre or post marriage.

      As other members of the BRF have stated, HM stands back, lets you make your own mistakes, then come to her when you realize you need help. She is a big one for learning from experience. HM is waiting for them to realize what enormous mistakes they’ve been making. Trouble is, I doubt they’ll understand that until the tide of both the media and public opinion has turned irrevocably against them.

    2. For me the ten years is reflective of a woman who has no self-respect, she wanted to be Mrs. Prince William so badly, she allowed herself to be treated like a doormat. Or The Mattress, as Wills’ Secret Service coined her which the media caught onto. He would treat her very badly and then decide in the middle of the night he wanted pleasuring, so he would booty call her and she would come running each and every time, literally running so she could have the honor of servicing him so he wouldn’t find someone else. I react more emotionally to that because I’ve worked with victims of physical and psychological abuse and that is a major warning sign. I have a college friend who was a battered woman, that’s how her relationship started out, sadly I’ll never see her again because when our friends rescued her from her home in the middle of the night, she had to disappear with no one knowing where she ultimately went so her husband couldn’t follow a bread crumb trail because if he found her, he would kill her. I worry that women will think this kind of emotionally abusive treatment is okay. I have another friend who pulled a Waity, I begged her to please understand how unhealthy her relationship was, she was changing her personality to be with a man who didn’t deserve her. She didn’t listen and he dropped her, the devastation that she wasn’t rewarded for her “loyalty” and always running to see him in the middle of the night so she could service him sent her in a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. That’s my concern, not only for reinforcing this kind of bad behavior in her now spouse but making other women think they’ll get the magic fairytale which we all know doesn’t actually exist if only they hold out long enough. Usually these women wind up being beaten, they don’t wind up a Duchess.

  17. ANY woman william married would still have been popular because willy will one day be king, but unfortunately he picked kate, and yes he shouldnt have gone back to her in 2007, he was and is still very young he could have found an amazing woman, he didnt owe kate ANYTHING, and i believe this marriage will end up in divorce, because william is already looking strained and tired of having to deal with a lazy goldigger whos looks are gone , answering to the RF and public why his wife is MIA, hes young he doesnt not need all this DRAMA

  18. Sorry I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, I was just stating a fact that it wasn’t a crime. She waited 10 years, I just don’t like to continue to dwell on that (just my personal thought on that issue) I agree with you on the lack of work ethic now that she is a member of the RF, I’m just not sure what control she has on that matter. With all due respect to HM I don’t understand letting members of the RF fail. How they are perceived by the public will determine their longevity. PW and Kate are in a unique position. He isn’t the next Monarch yet expectation are that they contribute to that level. I am not sure CH/KP knows how to handle the public demands on them…. Very sad and I continue to struggle with why they haven’t figured these things out! As far as PW and Kate’s relationship, I believe they are in love with each other, it’s just that we rarely get to see displays of affection, which I believe is the norm
    in the RF.

    1. IMO you can see the affection between HM and Philip, Charles and Camilla, and Edward and Sophie. PDAs not required, but it is easy to see the respect and affection those other couples have for each other. I do not see that affection, enjoyment, respect etc. between William and Kate Middleton in they way they look at each other or the way they act/react in public.

      Outside the BRF, you can look at the Spanish Royal Family which has more formal traditions. The open love and respect between Felipe and Letizia is clear, even if there are no PDAs in public.

  19. I think Carole Middleton’s goal of Kate marrying William actually began 30ish years ago when they both were babies. It might have been sort of a “joke”, as in, “here’s my sweet baby girl, someday she’ll marry Will”, but nevertheless, she knew Will was going to have to marry someone…why not Kate? And then she drew Kate into her plan. Does anyone recall that during their gap year Will went to work in Chile? Some time after that Carole enrolled Kate in the very same program and Kate went to Chile. Granted, they weren’t there at the same time, but wouldn’t it be great to be able to talk about it if Kate ever met Will? And for college, I’m pretty sure Kate was originally enrolled in a different school and only transferred to St. Andrews after Will enrolled there. She did everything possible to get to meet him, befriend him, bewitch him, and, finally, outlast all other competition. I read that the British girls who would be considered “appropriate” were all either married or engaged to be married to Will’s friends, or, they didn’t want to marry into the Royal Family because they knew what life would be like. I think Jecca Craig fits this category. I believe she and Will are soul mates and now that Will realizes the colossal mistake he’s made, he’s angry at himself and at Kate. His anger is manifested in sullen and emotionally abusive words and behaviors.

    So, Kate was not-so-silently ridiculed by his “group”, but was everyone else’s darling…she was a commoner, but with no real baggage or scandal, pretty, unoffensive (because she never said anything)…what could KP have against her? She had total support and encouragement throughout the engagement and fairytale wedding, then real life set in. Will grew distant and she started hearing criticism of herself, the Queen made her curtsy to the Yorks, Will grew mean…and Kate began to withdraw. I also believe that she is lazy and uninspired, so she’s probably content to withdraw and do nothing. So, that’s my too-long response to the person who commented that she seems different than she was at the beginning. I wish I knew enough about KP to know the dynamics of who decides how many engagements and what are the acceptable excuses for doing nothing.

    1. I’m not sure I agree that Jecca and Will are soul mates, but everything else is very well said.

  20. i dont believe these two are in love and so are many others, i have NEVER seen a pic of them being affectionate with each other for thirteen years, even the wedding was just dull, those were not faces of a happy couple, how about in france when waity was flashing the whole word, once again willy never bothered with her and it goes on, we couild have seen a pic or two its just weird!!

  21. K.M.R. I’m sorry i misunderstood you! A rich man cannot waity her position that is what she and her family wanted! I have read that billy did not his family he was engaged, the royal were very shocked that he proposed to kate! When reporters asked billy’s dad about the engagement he said” well they have been practicing a long time!” the middletons new before the royals & the has state that lazy makes her own schedule! km is not the victim here. the royals & the british people are. billy never asked
    the queen’s permission to marry waity! The reason is that the queen would have said no, because the royals new she is greed, lazy and entitled to the royal lifestyle! She has caused a lot of trouble! Kate put put doubt on an innocent child. What kind of woman does that to a baby? Constantly bad mouthing her supposed baby, i ask you now!

    1. I’m afraid you’re wrong. The Queen was asked by Willy for permission to marry Katie under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 and Privy Council consent was granted:
      “Elizabeth R”

      21st April 2011
      reads: “NOW KNOW YE that We have consented and do by these Presents signify Our Consent to the contracting of Matrimony between Our Most Dearly Beloved Grandson Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales K.G. and Our Trusty and Well-beloved Catherine Elizabeth Middleton. The ninth day of February Two Thousand and Eleven in the Sixtieth year of Our Reign”.
      Otherwise Willy would have been removed from the line of succession and any children born to them would be illegitimate. Sorry. Nice try.

      1. Yeah Kate is “beloved” by HM!!! There are a few comments posted on Kate’s love for PG. IMO she loves him with all her heart, just like most mothers. Her comments about PG at appearances are due to her inability to carry a conversation and/or small talk. She needs training or time. It’s not as easy as one would think and for a lot of people it is a terrifying experience.

  22. There are a few pictures of them holding hands. Than there’s that moment at the wedding when Kate’s brother is reading and PW looks at Kate. She seems to be lost in thought but he catches her eye, the moment she looks at him she smiles, he returns a smile that would light up the world if it could. I think that would be a display of affection and love.

  23. Sorry I am not as great of a writer as KMR, Lola Heart and med4kmd (there writing tends to transport you to some place in time)
    but if you watch that moment from the wedding video you will understand. Hollywood couldn’t create that moment… It was beautiful!

    1. Hollywood has done much better, with more real emotions imo. You see what you see, others see what they see. I do not see “in love” with them. I do not see respect and love between them, either in they way they look at each other or in the hand-holding on queue that just “happens” to be caught by the cameras. I certainly saw nothing stunning or breathtaking during that lengthy dirge that was the wedding.

  24. i am sorry there was nothing beautiful about the wedding , smiling, holding hands , did u watch princess madeleine and chris wedding thats a guy whos nuts about his wife chris was just spontaneous, with willy smiling and holding her hand is like a job, and it rarely happens,i believe he loves waity BUT hes not in love with her!!

    1. I think he gained a lot of support in Sweden that day. Before that moment he’d been seen by many as cold and emotionless, but he couldn’t control the tears when he saw her heading down the aisle. Starts around the 6:00 minute mark for those who haven’t seen it before. http://youtu.be/NknW0-KkiyQ

          1. Thank you for another beautiful wedding video. The bride was so elegant and beautiful. The jewels on display..WOW. Finally Daniel’s speech, spoken from the heart and enduring! I am now a fan of the Swedish RF and eager to learn more!

          2. I love the boat trip parts. An advantage of having a capitol city based on a series of islands. I wish I could find the video that showed Victoria and Daniel being rowed along next to a US navy ship. Even though it wasn’t their country, the Americans were out on the deck, in uniform, at attention as they went by.

            Some others you might enjoy:

            Felipe and Letizia
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P5JZFKacDY

            Willem-Alexander and Maxima – crowd cheers during the vows
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLPpjEbRTsc

    2. Sorry Adam, most chicks dig weddings in general. We’ll watch a lizard marry a rooster and declare it beautiful, we don’t care. It’s very strange, I’ve never been one of those girls who dreams of her wedding her whole life, I’ve taken a few passes on being a Mrs., but I find wedding dresses and bouquets oddly mesmerizing.

      1. “We’ll watch a lizard marry a rooster and declare it beautiful” — HA! That’s funny, and pretty true for most women.

  25. In some ways, Christopher Hitchens was correct. A Royal Family is taking ordinary humans, putting them on a cliff and expecting them to stay balanced and above it all. If you are successful, like Queen Elizabeth II has (arguably) been, you are feted. If you crack up, like Diana or the Princess Margaret or Mark Phillips, you’re pushed over the edge to the jagged rocks of ostracism and ridicule below. It is a wholly artificial existence and ridiculous in this supposed democratic era. It’s even more so when they have little practical political power, as virtually all western monarchies are constitutional and ceremonial.

  26. Thank you. I support the monarchy out of historical continuity, and like Queen Elizabeth II, who seemingly shares many personality traits with me. But I am also a liberal-minded person, so I simultaneously dislike monarchy and privilege. It may sound weird to other people but that’s my take on it.

    1. I’m kind of in the same boat as you. I like the monarchy as a historical tie to centuries past, but I also don’t think they are “above us” in any way and therefore don’t see the point of them–there is nothing to make them special and deserving of living off the taxpayer in palaces.

    1. Not a problem. It would have been more fun if Willy hadn’t gotten the Queen’s permission to marry Waity. The public outcry of young girls and their mothers (in 2011, back when a lot of people still liked them) would have been heard in Hong Kong from London. In a way it would have been easier. That way Waity could spend her days as an adolescent with Mommy and Daddy, with none of the responsibilities of being Queen, and Willy could have played at being a soldier for the rest of his life instead of being a “responsible” royal and King. Then Prince Harry would be next in line. He seems to be more responsible and level headed than Willy, as well as having much higher emotional intelligence. Shame. The “spares” almost always seem better equipped to be an “ideal” monarch than the heir. Prince Alfred over Edward, Prince George over Prince Eddy (he died at 28 anyway and George became heir after all), Prince Albert over Prince Edward. Prince Andrew over Prince Charles is about a draw.

  27. If the British people continue to put up with the wicked scandalous Windsors and the outdated monarchy, then they deserve what they get. I believe the world is sick of monarchy. There are no royal people on this planet, all are equal. It is not the parasitic institution of monarchy that is the problem. The PROBLEM is the people who put up with it century after century. That is where the real issue lies. You pass this monarchy thing on to your children and grand children and on and on, year after year, decade after decade, century after century. So, really you should not complain about what these idiots (Windsors and Middleton’s) do. Do something about it. End your misery, get rid of these useless, stupid people.

    1. People already are. The Republic movement is a thing. But it’s not that easy. The monarchy is an institution that has stood for over 1,000 years, and it would take a lot of maneuvering and government upheaval to get rid of it. People are trying, but it’s going to take a while. The people complaining about it is a start, so don’t bash the complainers. The Republic movement needs the people to complain, and to be on their side, instead of being idle and/or fawning over the monarchy.

      Also, I really hope you’re using the pronoun “you” in it’s generic form, because I am an American, so I do not belong to the “you” of the British people.

  28. I understand and can see all of the points and opinions given, but to me- Kate seems like a lovely girl still learning about her role and wanting to be a good mother and wife.
    I believe she will do more to become the Dutchess we can look up to.

    As for capturing Wil the way you all say she did – immaturely… – he obviously loved her as well or not matter how sexy she dressed, he wouldn’t have married her and wanted her to be his life long companion.
    Everyone has their own opinion and that is fine – but we also don’t see everything that goes on in private with their affection and happiness. In public I don’t seem to see any of the Royals displaying tremendous affection. That’s ok.
    I don’t want to get all kinds of hate comments back – this is just my opinion and I appreciate the chance to share it. ~ thank you

Comments are closed.

Back To Top