Prince Harry celebrates 10 years of Sentebale + funny mistake on Will and Kate’s website

Prince Harry celebrates 10 years of Sentebale + funny mistake on Will and Kate’s website

Does anyone care about a solo Prince Harry?  What about a solo Prince William?  I’m genuinely asking because we may not see Kate for a while and both Harry and Will have solo events coming up this month, but usually a solo Harry or William post doesn’t get as much traffic (unless that solo William post includes Jecca Craig).  Because of that, I may have skipped this post about Harry’s Sentebale dinner, but there is something interesting I want to bring up.  Also, there is a funny mistake on one of the royal websites I’ll talk about later in the post.

Prince Harry celebrated the 10th anniversary of his charity, Sentebale, last night with a dinner party at the Dorchester Hotel in London.  Sentebale is the charity Harry founded with Prince Seeiso of Lesotho to aid AIDS orphans and disadvantaged children in Lesotho, Africa.  Here is their website and twitter page if you’re interested.

The Dorchester Hotel is part of the Dorchester Collection which owns 10 properties around the world.  The Dorchester Collection is owned by the Brunei Investment Agency.  Recently, there has been a boycott of all things Dorchester because the sultanate of Brunei recently increased the punishment for homosexuality from a 10-year prison sentence to death by stoning.  This boycott has the backing of people like Richard Branson, Ellen DeGeneres, and Jay Leno.  Some people were wondering why Sentebale and the sponsors picked the Dorchester to host the event given this boycott.  I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say maybe they didn’t know about the boycott when they picked it, but then again Harry has shown he doesn’t give a sh-t about vacationing in human-rights-violating countries as long as the trip is free, so why would he give a sh-t about a boycott of a hotel?

Speaking of boycotts of countries with a ton of human rights violations, the Maldives is on this list—and included in the Telegraph article.  You know, the Maldives where Waity and Billy took a week-long pre-tour vacation without baby George.  I usually don’t use those names to describe the Cambridges, but I just can’t with their names when they associate with a country that sentences a 15-year-old rape victim to 100 lashes for “premarital sex”.  Disgusting.

Back to the Sentebale dinner, Joss Stone performed. Joss is an ambassador for Sentebale.  She’s has been in with the Princes for years.  She even got to go to the wedding in 2011.  I can’t imagine she is actually good friends with either of them, seeing as she is rarely seen hanging out with them, but sure, they’re friends.  It’s kind of like how David Beckham went to the wedding because he’s such good friends with Will, except he’s not and they’ve probably only met a handful of times.

Other interesting attendees:  Peter Phillips and his wife Autumn—Princess Anne’s son, and Harry’s cousin.  Also: Jecca Craig.  Yes, that Jecca Craig.  That Jecca Craig who kind of has terrible posture.  What’s up with Will and his affinity for girls with bad posture?

By the way, I want to bring up Prince Harry’s speech-giving skills.  I pick on Kate all the time (well not all the time since she rarely gives a speech, but every time she gives a speech) for the head-bobbing and whatnot; I’ve since picked on Will for his terrible head-bobbing while giving speeches; now it’s Harry’s turn.  The last time Harry gave a speech, it appeared as if he had his speech memorized and didn’t even need cue cards or anything, a bunch of people were congratulating Harry on this, but I pointed out that he had teleprompters to the sides of the podium that he was reading off of and that if he didn’t have those he would have been looking down.  Well, guess what, I was totally right.  Because this time Harry didn’t have teleprompters, he had cue cards (or a piece of paper, doesn’t matter) and was constantly bobbing his head up and down looking at his notes.  He pretty much just read off the paper and barely looked at the crowd.  Gah, why can’t the royals bother to memorize a speech!?!?  It’s not even like this speech was super long, it was only a few sentences going by the transcript in the articles.  No wonder Kate doesn’t give a crap about preparing for her speeches, neither William nor Harry do either.  She’s just following their lead.  Set a better example for your girl, Will, come on!

Here’s that funny mistake I mentioned earlier.  I was looking at the website, trying to find information about future events for the Royal Holy Trinity, when I happened upon an error.  On the Focus page, the first section is about Prince George, and the blurb before the “read more” link says, “Prince George was born on 23rd October 2013”.  Yeah, George was born on July 22.  He was christened on October 23.  Whoever designs their site mixed up the dates in that one spot—his correct birth date is shown in other sections.  It’s kind of hilarious.  It’s just so stupid that they would get that wrong.  I tweeted a photo to Clarence House and sent in a comment through their Contact Us box, but as of the time of posting I have not received a reply and the mistake is still up.  Go here ( if you want to check it out for yourselves.

Prince George's Wrong Birthday

Links: Getty Images pictures. Mirror. Express. Daily Mail. Hello mag. Telegraph about the boycott.

67 thoughts on “Prince Harry celebrates 10 years of Sentebale + funny mistake on Will and Kate’s website

  1. I’m glad you pointed out the worsening standards the RF – especially the younger ones have for dealings with people & countries that are horrible for human rights abuses. You’d think with all the time W&K have on their hands (Harry, too), they couldn’t be learning about these things – but then again, look who I am talking about. If not them, then what good are their advisors? Just for fashion advice (not very good, BTW!)? It would have been most appropriate to pull out of the Dorchester, even if it meant delaying the event. I have NO WORDS for the Kazakstan ski trip – and wasn’t aware of the HR abuses in the Maldives (thanks for bringing me up to date on that). Sorry – but I have to say it – I think Diana would be so disappointed her boys don’t think about these things. I think when she died, she hadn’t yet finished teaching the boys, and so they are now too confused – or maybe they really don’t give a darn – as long as they personally get something out of it.
    Too funny about the B-day slip up of Prince Grumpy. I guess my question above about their
    advisors has just answered themselves – they are not good at their jobs! It was nice of you to bring it to their attention. Hopefully they’ll fix it soon and give a shout out to you.

    1. I’m so glad you brought up Diana. I agree that she would be disappointed. I think she made a tremendous impact on her boys while she was alive, but since then they have not had a selfless, compassionate role model. And they were still quite young when she died. When Diana was photographed visiting sick, disabled people, her genuine concern and sympathy was apparent. She may have made these visits as part of her royal duties, but that doesn’t detract from her sincerity. Kate doesn’t seem to care. In fact, she seems to be barely tolerating the obligatory visit. (This is also a reply to your comment below.)

      1. I am not a hard core Diana Fan, but I must agree that she was sincere in her desire to help others and bring attention to human suffering. She was a good person who obviously put other people before herself. It was not all Me, Me, Me like Willy and Waity.

        1. Yeah, I really try not to make too many Diana comparisons – though I am a fan of hers hard core, though). Sometimes it is hard not too, but I try to put myself in Kate’s shoes before commenting – and really, it’s not fair to her. However, I think we can all see how her handlers make these comparisons without necessarily using Diana’s name, especially when it comes to her hospice charities. Anyway, I do try very hard to limit myself to those comparisons as those are some very big shoes to fill – but is also comparing a different time with different circumstances.

          1. Sorry, my cursor is jumping all over the place, resulting in missed words and misspellings. I meant to say I am NOT a hard core Diana fan.

          2. I try not to make the Diana comparison also. It really isn’t fair to compare her to Kate. Diana was Princess of Wales, married to the heir, more was expected of her because of her high-ranking position. Kate is a duchess married to the heir’s heir, there wouldn’t be as many expectations placed on her as there would have been with Diana. I think Camilla should get all those comparisons because she is in the same position and should have the same expectations placed on her. Camilla is severely lacking when it comes to royal duties. She only does about mid-200s when she should be doing more. Sophie does mid-200s, for comparison, and she isn’t the Heir’s wife, you know.

            Having said all that, I do think Kate has tried for that comparison for years. She does things, wears things, to specifically draw that comparison so people will label her “the new Diana” without doing the work. Also, I for sure think her people picked her charities for her, so by throwing the children’s hospices thing and claiming it is so important to Kate, her people are gunning for that comparison as well.

    2. I too think Diana would be disappointed in how her children turned out. She would hate Will using her memory as an excuse not to do anything. But then again, Will has always been an a-hole, even while she was alive, so if she didn’t or wasn’t able to stamp that behavior out, maybe she would have excepted Will to act like an a-hole as an adult.

  2. I went to the link above to W&K’s website and I just HAVE to bring something up. I find it very telling the kind of pics and videos they put up on the site regarding Kate’s work and commitment with children’s hospices. If you look at the home page to get into her hospice work – there is not even a pic of her interacting with the children. Once inside, any pic with her with children show her receiving something – there are no pics/videos of her actively listening/participating/hugging children UNLESS she is receiving something from them. Otherwise, it looks like she’s just there for a photo op. The one pic that annoys me the most is the one with her in the blue dress, sitting in between children in wheelchairs with severe disabilities. She almost never engages them (as well as other disabled), preferring to speak with their parents/others without disabilities. I find it further annoying her handlers want to make it sound like she is so dedicated to children hospices/disabled children, so they include sappy sweet info with a few quotes from her first speech. But it says nothing about goals she is working toward with these charities. All for show. I genuinely feel bad for these children. I really hate to say it – but they seem to be just pawns in Kate’s game for attention.

    1. Thank you for saying that. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say they’re pawns in her game for attention, but I so agree with you. Last Christmas, I think it was, where there was video of her interacting with a child, she was getting so much press about caring Kate, Kate loves children, look how good she is with kids, etc., which was so much crap I couldn’t believe it. (Excluse that very long sentence, please!) The reason she interacted with the little girl was because that kid was not letting her NOT interact! It wasn’t Kate at all.

      I think that this cause was chosen for her, or she chose it for good press. I don’t think she personally relates that well to children; at least it hasn’t been shown in interactions with them that I’ve seen.

      1. I don’t think Kate relates to children well either. She seems kind of stand-off-ish. She rarely bends down to get on their level. And even when she does hug a child there doesn’t seem to be any real connection with her. Her not relating well to children would be fine if she wasn’t supporting the children’s hospice movement and claiming the children are so important to her. I really think all her charities were chosen for her. Children’s charities are an easy choice because it’s so uncontroversial–no one is going to say something negative about a children’s charity.

        By the way, do you have a link to the video? I don’t think I’ve seen it. Or at least, I don’t remember seeing it.

        1. Kate is so uncomfortable around sick children, the visits have been becoming briefer, I heard the Mad Tea Party visit was only for 15 minutes. Just enough for some pics. I remember one story about how she saw a terminally ill child and had to leave because she was on the verge of tears. I know it’s not something everyone can do, I try to help the suffering as much as I can (ironically comforting people is something I am good at). Just from the work I’ve done, I’ve noticed that the ill are the ones who always wind up feeling like they have to try to put their families and friends at ease. So I try to help their loved ones understand what they are going through and give them advice. I would gladly work with the Duchess of Cambridge to help her at these events because it concerns me the impact her behavior might be having. When you are in the hospital, you don’t need anyone else making you feel self-conscious, the machines and relative lack of privacy is already doing that. These children also don’t need to feel used as photo props. It’s about them, period. They are so much in need of a laugh, a comforting touch, for someone to talk to the person and not the illness. They need someone who is present, to connect with, not someone who is afraid to touch them or looks at them like they are dying, they need to experience the joys of living, even a short visit can have a profound effect if its sincere.

          1. It’s interesting, they were pushing that whole “action on addiction” thing as her focus for a bit, but then they switched to “children’s hospices”. I can’t even remember the last time she did an action on addiction visit. I swear it’s been over a year. They’ve really pushed the children’s hospice thing, which I think is a mistake. I seriously think she should be doing more “get kids into sports to get them off the streets/out of tough neighborhoods/out of drugs and whatever”. This would most likely focus on older children/teens as well, which would work to her benefit. It could still be with young people, but would be about sports, which is the only time she ever really cares about her visits. that would suit her much more than the children’s hospice thing.

    2. I think all Kate’s charities have been chosen for her. The only time she ever shows any interest is when she’s doing a sports-related event. Those are the types of charities/events she wants to attend. Her people picked the children’s hospice movement for her to back–and all her other charities that she rarely sees. I think I know why, too. It’s because sick kids are pretty much a guaranteed thing. No one is going to criticize a children’s charity. If she picked something like sports, people could complain–because while it may be something nice (if it were about getting poor children to play sports or something), it doesn’t really do that much/doesn’t pull on the heartstrings. If she picked anything even remotely controversial people would criticize her. Her whole goal is to be inoffensive. Kate will never back a charity that is in any way even remotely controversial.

    3. I think, as mentioned earlier, that Kate’s charities were chosen for her. It is clear that she does not connect with small children or the very ill well. It does especially concern me that she appears absolutely clueless and extremely uncomfortable around the disabled. She really needs to work on that. While not everyone is suited to bed sitting or groups of little children, everyone owes it to the less able to…how do I say it? Reinforce that they are valued and important in spite of any physical or mental limitations? Does that make sense? Kate sets a very bad example when she talks over them. Also, Kate should man up and tell her advisors that she is going to slowly change her (few) charities to reflect her own strengths. For example she seems to do better with tweens and teens and athletics. That would be a placek to start.

      1. I’m not even going to front like I’m totally cool with being around sick/disabled people–there is a reason I’m not a nurse, you know–but it’s still common courtesy to be nice to everyone, even if they creep you out a little bit. Maybe Kate is freaked out a little bit by sick/disabled people? If that’s the case, though, then she really shouldn’t have been given children’s hospices as her focus.

        By the way, I don’t even like visiting my parents or other family members in the hospital, that’s how much it creeps me out. When my grandfather was in the ICU before he passed, I had a hard time being in there with him. It creeped me out so much. and I loved my grandfather to bits.

        1. I understand what you are saying. Not everyone is cut out to be comfortable around those that are chronically ill/disabled. As for myself, being a doctor, it’s literally an everyday occurrence – and part of it is knowing what to expect. But that’s why dr’s go to school and train for like a million years. However, with Kate – it is ok if she finds it difficult to be around sick children. I just wish TPTB wouldn’t push this topic so much. Remember, even before they got engaged, there was talk that the Queen suggested to PW that Kate do some charity work (due to her status as being work-shy in the press), and since her mom’s business had already a patronage of I think the Make-A-Wish foundation, she attached herself to that, and then the palace just ran with it. It’s not fair to force her into something she finds so uncomfortable. But then again, TPTB wanted to make her “the new Diana” which again is not fair. (In all honesty, if she wants to help drop that moniker – she really should only wear her engagement ring for special occasions – not everyday as she currently is. That just helps feed the “new Diana” rumors.

          1. What makes me giggle a bit every time the press, and the public, refers to that ring is that they refer to it as “Diana’s ring”. I’ve never seen it referred to as “Kate Middleton’s ring”.

        2. It’s more common than you think, most people are uncomfortable visiting loved ones in hospitals, there are a lot of people who can’t even make the trip. In most instances it’s usually the person in the bed who winds up trying to steer the conversation. I usually try to break the tension with a joke, it’s a difficult situation, everyone knows it. And I’m certain your grandfather knows how much you love him and that it was difficult seeing him in the hospital and it meant a lot to him that you tried, Cookie (it felt like a Cookie moment). No bond of love has ever been broken by death.

          1. I feel like an a-hole not wanting to visit people in the hospital, but it makes me so uncomfortable. I feel badly that I probably make people feel badly, but I can’t get over it.

    4. While I appreciate that it may be *uncomfortable* for her to visit the ill or in fact do any form of WORK whatsoever, it is her damn job. I do not for one minute think that these visits are only 15 minutes because she just cares so much she’ll weep hysterically if she spends more time with them.

      It is her job to at least be able to pretend to give a rats ass about anything other than her hair, eyeliner, shopping, and the beach. She is 13 years in to this relationship, a relationship where she knew there would be a public role. If she is uncomfortable around people who are ill, cry me a river, get her some therapy and acting lessons, and get her off her ass and off to work.

      1. I think if she’s uncomfortable with sick/disabled people, she should just chose and different charity to back.

        1. “There are over eleven million people with a limiting long term illness, impairment or disability in Great Britain”

          That is roughly 1 in 6 of the people she is REQUIRED to serve in her role, and that’s just in the UK not the Commonwealth.

          The BRF cannot spend the next 50 years with one of their main working royals incapable/unwilling to fulfill a huge part of her expected role. Gee, she’s uncomfortable being around the sick or disabled, let’s not make her grow up and LEARN how to to deal with the realities of the world like everyone else.

          She will be required to take on hundreds of patronages eventually, not stick with the pathetic 7 easy ones she has now. She will HAVE to include sick, elderly, infirm, disabled, dying, etc. in the work she does on a regular basis.

          Instead of continuing to coddle this 32-year-old layabout, get her over it now or it will become even more of a problem in the future. As many members of the BRF have said, even those who were born to it, the only way to learn the job is to DO it.

  3. kate has and is still playing the game of chess with the public, carole taught her well, william looks like hes trapped in this fake so called marriage, william needs to be a man for once , and leave this charade of a marriage and make himself and his country happy, noone will ever miss waity!

  4. It is obvious that Harry cares a great deal about this charity. Watching him on the video with the kids really shows this compassionate side of Harry (much like his mother). Unfortunately he can’t transition that passion into his speech. I don’t understand why there isn’t a speech coach for the RF. I agree with you about PW and Kate. Until PW takes on additional RF duties we want see Kate take on more. I don’t believe she wants to be seen as taking the spotlight away from PW. Jecca Craig, someone to keep an eye on. Maybe she and PW are just good friends, time will tell.

    1. It astounds me that the royals don’t give better speeches. They have all the time in the world to practice, and all the money to hire a professional coach. One would think that give more speeches would help them get better–even if they don’t practice in between–but it doesn’t seem to help. They never change. So weird. When I had to give speeches in college, just the act of giving more speeches made me better.

  5. While I think it is quite nice that Harry is continuing his mother’s legacy in his work to help those effected by AIDS, I am shocked that he would hold it at the Dorchester in light of the reason for the boycott. I am a conservative person and in no way agree with the practice of homosexuality, but NO WAY would I set foot in that place…or the Maldives. (Thank you so much for pointing their record out.) Wrong is just wrong. What are these fancy-schmancy people thinking, for goodness sake?

    PS: Noticed that Bad Posture Jecca is at the dinner, but not Kate. Why would Kate not be there if Willy is there?

    1. I think it’s ridiculous that the royals don’t have people checking this sort of stuff. They should know how bad it looks for a royal to associate with a country that has human rights violations. It’s BS that they keep letting this happen.

      Re Jecca and no Kate: I don’t think Will was at the dinner, it was just Harry, so Kate not attending is normal.

        1. If Will had been there, and Jecca had been there, and Kate hadn’t been there, we/the press would have had a field day.

          Darn, now I’m kind of bummed that didn’t happen. That would have been amazing, gossip-wise.

  6. ha! Kate cant and will never overshadow anyone, let her appear three time ALONE and you will be guaranteed she will mess, flying skirts, playing with hair, grinning like a maniac, no wonder nobody takes her seriously!

    1. While Kate may not have the gravitas of other royals, what I think we mean by “overshadow” (or at least how I mean it) is that the RF won’t allow Kate to do more appearances than Will. They don’t want a married-in outperforming the blood royal, and thus “overshadowing” him. In every royal pair, the blood royal always does more royal duties than the married-in. See this photo for court circular numbers from last year:

      1. Yeah, I’ve thought that, too. Rather sad, though, isn’t it – that they are THAT insecure. You’d think they’d be over the moon that one or more from their family – blood royal or not – would be accomplishing alot. I’ll never understand RF mentality.

        1. It is a shame, but when you’ve been brought up to think you’re better than everyone else, you wouldn’t possibly want someone to overshadow you, not even your spouse. They’re elitist, ego-maniacal a-holes.

  7. why is sophie then doing more and more and shes overshadowed edward in a good way, the thing is its not a competition but you help each other in whatever you do especially work, kate only helps herself and her family

    1. Overshadowed Edward? How do you mean? In a publicity way, then yeah maybe I’d agree with that. The public loves Sophie and doesn’t may as much attention to Edward. But that may be simply because Sophie is a woman and Edward is a man, and usually the public pays more attention to the woman because she wears pretty clothes.

      But as far as overshadowing him by doing more than him, that is incorrect. Sophie did 228 engagements last year, whereas Edward did 345.

  8. I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to criticize Katie for not hugging/interacting more with the children at hospice. All royals are taught that they are above others; that’s why they are royals. It is ingrained in them from birth or marriage. Without this crucial bit, it’s not worth having them. How many times have you seen the Countess of Wessex or the Duchess of Cornwall hug a child? How many times in public has the Queen hugged a child? The answer for HM is once in recent history. In May 2012, during the Armed Forces Parade of the Diamond Jubliee Pagenant, a 10-year-old Ugandan refugee named Lydia Amito who was singing with a group at Windsor Castle, broke with protocol and hugged the Queen. Lydia’s father and uncle were killed in Uganda in front of their children; her mother died of disease shortly after. She and her siblings had to hide in brush for days. When she met the Queen, she said the Queen was a very nice person and she wanted to hug her, so she did. Apparently the Queen hugged her back, which is nearly unheard of for the Queen in public, let alone to hug a strange child. By ‘protocol’ royals should not be touched unless they extend their hand first, and then only a light touch. It goes back to the Middle Ages when Kings were said to be divine and a ‘touch’ by them was said to cure disease. I think it’s as silly as everyone else does, but that’s the way it is. So please don’t hate on me b/c I don’t make silly protocols up or even defend them.

    1. Those are all good points, Seth. Again, I don’t like to bring up the name too much, but I think alot of us were spoiled by Diana, and we’ve come to expect that same level of action and compassion from her children and “children-in-law.”

      1. I checked for pics of Camilla, Sophie, and Kate, especially around children. Not surprisingly, I had a hard time finding any Camilla pics. However, there are many of Sophie, including her visiting the disabled. What I noticed is that Sophie is much more a natural. Just my opinion, but she appears relaxed and shows interest and warmth to whom she is speaking to – including the disabled. I think the difference with Kate is that her discomfort with children, and especially sick/disabled, is her posture. She typically will hold herself in a way where she can quickly “get away.” Among the variations are holding quite a distance between herself and the child, doing a deep bend from the waist (as opposed to the knees) so she can get up quickly & easily, or leaning her upper body from the side so she doesn’t shift her feet. Sophie stands much closer, tends to bend at the knees, and doesn’t lean to the side so far, because she tends to stand closer. I’m including some pics to show this…,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNEvmm_COrGPJADz-uMrZ-GSpBe49w&ust=1399757761966626,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNEvmm_COrGPJADz-uMrZ-GSpBe49w&ust=1399757761966626
        And Kate:,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNETUpVGOjvG0KLTVCn8heBVWm9oqA&ust=1399757948071064
        and even with her relative, Lady Louise:,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNHwGstzwTLeh4D1KUqYyRG5iYev3Q&ust=1399758153534229

        1. Sorry for all the pics with the links above. I was trying to get single pics. I don’t often copy links, so I think I did it wrong. My apologies.

          1. Here’s a trick when posting links to pics: right-click on the picture you want and find the “copy image URL” choice and post that link; or choose the “open image in a new tab” choice and then copy whatever that URL is and post that (it will be the same URL either way, just two different ways of getting it).

        2. I don’t think Camilla works with children as much as Sophie and Kate do. Camilla does more work with the elderly (and pets and other things). So while I don’t think Camilla is the type to go around hugging children in general, her lack of interacting with children may be due to the types of charities she supports.

          1. Agree. Camilla is the patron of the osteoporosis society (her mom died of it) and I know she just took on another one involving dogs and cancer. She has her niche and she stays there. I wonder what happened to her rape toiletry idea. Does anyone know?

          2. Personally, I like Camilla’s niche. I get that sick kids are a draw, if you will, and that everyone wants that photo op, but there are so many other areas to focus on and Camilla has chosen some of those, which I like.

            The last I heard about the toiletry plan was Feb. 2013–I looked up the article to check the date. The article said it was a thing between Clarence House and the crisis centers, so I’m not sure how much we’d hear about it. They said it was an ongoing thing for two years from Feb. 2013, so it should still be going on.

      2. You can also find photos of Harry, Maxima, Letizia, Maria-Teresa, Charlene, Mathilde, Mette-Marit, etc. hugging children. I think it was more of an historic idea that royals are not to be touched. They’re not bound by protocol in 2014 to never touch or be touched.

        I think KM finds it uncomfortable to touch others or to show interest, and it shows is her extremely awkward body language in videos with children (photos make her look better than video, video doesn’t lie). Her own cousin said that KM struggles to pay attention and struggles *to find other people interesting*. A member of her own family admitted that! There are other stories in the press of her struggling to pay attention to things like polo matches because she just isn’t capable of focusing for extended periods of time.

        I think that is a big reason why her visits are so short. She just doesn’t find other people interesting and she’d clearly rather be shopping. She’s been caught rolling her eyes on duty at least twice. She asked the same fisherman three times if he caught a particular type of fish, because she didn’t pay attention to his answer the first two times.

        She needs to be trained in how to PAY ATTENTION, and she needs to work tons more and learn on the job.

        1. According to the British Monarchy website, there are no obligatory standards of behavior around royals; just “simple courtesy”. I’ve read that the Queen does not like being touched; it’s almost a phobia with her. Aside from very rare occasions where protocol is broken, you never see anyone but her family touching her in public. All the royals you cite with the exception of one have two similarities: They are all under 45 (their average age is 41); and they are part of what the Queen Mother called “bicycle monarchies”, with the exception of Prince Harry. Two are queen consorts, one is a reigning princess, one is a consort duchess, and two are the consorts of heirs-apparent. None of them constitute major royal houses; I’m willing to bet that a majority of their subjects don’t even know they are ruled by them and unless there is an accident, scandal or recent major event like a wedding or funeral, they do not receive major press coverage outside of their own nation. My point is that no cares if these people sink themselves to the level of commoners; most of them take Euro salaries as compensation like a civil servant. The Queen of the United Kingdom is only the servant of God.

          1. With all due respect, in many people’s opinions they do constitute major royal houses. Unless you are a citizen of all of those other nations simultaneously, you do not know 1) what they know about their ruling family and 2) how they feel about them. I suspect that some of them value their royal houses as highly as you seem to value yours (if you are in fact from the UK).

            The majority of royal families today – including the BRF – are compensated in some way via tax money, tax breaks, illegal dodging of inheritance taxes, and “personal” fortunes that are the result of stealing from the people. I wouldn’t class the BRF as above the idea of “Euro salaries” in that way. They take a great deal from the public purse no matter how you slice it.

            The BRF is not the oldest reigning family, nor would I personally classify them as the best or brightest amongst royals. And again, it is your opinion (or your religious beliefs) that make you state “The Queen of the United Kingdom is only the servant of God.” Not everyone believes in the same version of the Divine, or in any for that matter, nor in the idea that HM rules by divine right.

            “My point is that no cares if these people sink themselves to the level of commoners.” Interesting attitude for someone who seems to defend Kate Middleton and her IMO common (not “commoner”) behavior. (common = showing a lack of taste and refinement; vulgar.)

          2. You seem to insist on giving me your two pence, so I will give you my two cents. First of all, if you are trying to impinge my integrity or my motives, I would advise you to proceed very cautiously. You are welcome to your point of view but not to your own facts. I will vigorously defend myself in any forum necessary to ensure that only the facts are presented with integrity and care. You can disagree with my views but if you libel me, I will take any action necessary to correct said libel. A poll from January 2014 in the New York Times show that 60% of Spaniards want King Juan Carlos out and his younger daughter and her husband are accused by the Spanish authorities of official corruption. This is fact. When Queen Beatrix abdicated (something British monarchs are STRONGLY discouraged from doing by The Establishment), 2,000 people saw the “inauguration” of Willem-Alexander. 36 million people in the UK (of a population of 62 million as of 2014, or 58%) watched the most recent royal wedding. Presidents and Popes are inaugurated; Kings and Queens are coronated. However of the current European monarchies, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark have “enthronements”. The Netherlands and Liechtenstein have “inaugurations”. Norway’s monarch is “blessed”. The Sovereign of the United Kingdom is coronated in a religious pageant that was started in 973 A.D. The Coronation Chair and the Stone of Scone have been relics of the ceremony since the 13th century.

          3. This is a gossip forum involving a hobby for many of us, not a court of law. What some people view as absolute fact can often be shown to be opinion instead. Again, my opinion is my opinion, yours is yours and you are welcome to it. Please allow me to have my opinion, without threatening me with solicitors because you do not like what I’m saying.

            Unless you are simultaneously every single one of the citizens of every monarchy (including those outside of Europe such as Japan that have a strong religious element), you do not know what they all think or feel about their royal families. Polls are frequently flawed and are merely a subset of a subset of opinion, not the be all and end all of every individual’s belief.

          4. It is unfortunate that you insist on trolling through websites, looking to start so-called “flame wars” with people who are simply interested in facts, not statistics. You are welcome to your opinion but if you aren’t an expert, please don’t criticize those of us who are, and try to approach matters with facts and statements, rather than opinions. It is a fact that 60% of Spaniards want the King to abdicate because he is ill and not doing an adequate job in their view, not mine. It is fact that his daughter and her husband are being threatened with criminal charges. It is fact that only the throne of the United Kingdom is part of an ancient and unbroken legacy dating back to the 10th century. I do not claim to know the feeling of the citizenry of the bicycle monarchies, nor do I care to. I have zero interest in the bicycle monarchies and do not see how anyone else possibly could. I am interested in the Queen of the United Kingdom, her consort and her heirs. I am on this forum because I am gravely concerned about the conduct of her second-eldest grandson and his consort, who do not comport themselves the way senior royals of the senior monarchy in Europe should. Many of the minor royal households of Europe are investitured or inaugurated. Politicians who answer to constituents are inaugurated. The Queen invests civil servants, honorees, etc. with the royal Orders, namely of the Garter, Thistle, Victorian, Bath, etc. But a coronation ceremony is different. It is sacred, it is secular. It is a combination. No royal household compares to it. Elizabeth the Second is Queen by the Grace of God. These are facts. Your OPINION of these facts is fine but is irrelevant, at least to me. If you wish to continue arguing, do so with a dining table because you would be better at it.

          5. I’m not sure why you feel the need to personally insult me, but I’m not going to worry about it. I definitely agree with you on this: “I am on this forum because I am gravely concerned about the conduct of her second-eldest grandson and his consort, who do not comport themselves the way senior royals of the senior monarchy in Europe should.”

    2. You’re assessment is quite accurate (nice background info, too). I’ve heard of the protocol where the royal has to offer the hand for a handshake first. I mentioned above somewhere that they are elitists who grow up thinking they are above everyone else. What you say is true about the Queen not hugging people. And it’s true for Camilla as well. But not for Sophie. I’ve seen numerous photos where she’s hugging children. The Queen definitely holds herself to a higher standard, but the younger generations are breaking protocol more and more (it’s that whole “modernizing the monarchy” thing).

      1. I don’t know that I would classify it as holding herself to “a higher standard.” A different standard certainly, based on the era in which she was raised and how she was raised, but I wouldn’t necessarily say that makes it a higher or better standard.

      2. I do not consider it to be an insult, just simply facts. However clearly this matter has become inflamed. We should discuss it rationally, calmly before it becomes inflated. I regret if you feel I have attacked you personally. I am merely trying to ensure accuracy and care in discussing this matter. I know what scientific polls say and as someone professionally trained in political research methods, I have learned how to properly interpret them. A majority of polled respondents in Spain want the King out. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is less than two centuries old and while the abdication of the Princess Beatrix has made King Wilhem-Alexander popular among those who know of him, true power rests in the hands of the Cabinet. So it is across Europe, with the exception of the United Kingdom.

  9. Wow that was very interesting information! Thanks I learned something new about the RF. With all the privilege of being royal, protocol can really screw up their reality. I find that to be very sad.

    1. Crazy, I don’t think I have ever heard anyone put a finer point on the RF than you. Your “protocol screws up their reality” totally nailed the issue. Excellent observation.

    2. “protocol can really screw up their reality”

      Perfectly stated.

      1. Totally agree. From when Prince George was a day old, he had cameras capturing everything he did. He had a Wikipedia page before he was even born! When the Queen took the throne, a size portion of Britain’s population believed she had truly been chosen by God to reign over them. That was in 1952. How things have changed. For her, that means she absolutely is different than other people. The Prince of Wales has a staff of 50 to wait on him hand, foot and finger. He has someone to put toothpaste on his toothbrush for him. I’m surprised he doesn’t have someone put it in his mouth for him. Willy and Waity don’t do these things b/c they want to fool people into thinking they are “normal”. Please spare us the pretense.

  10. I get the feeling there are some who don’t like to be challenged and would engaged in childish tactics like bulling. All this because I am willing to express my opinion and try my best to respect yours. I find this type of behavior very interesting especially coming from adults whom I assume are equally well educated. As an FYI until the host tells me she doesn’t care for my opinion I will continue to comment and show you the respect that you refuse to afford me. For goodness sake this is suppose to be fun! Grow up people!!!

Comments are closed.

Back To Top