66 thoughts on “Duchess Kate accompanies Prince William to friend’s wedding, takes George to the park”

1. Okay, here’s the cynical side of me…awfully coincidental how she goes to a wedding after that piece is published, but it could have been planned all along. And it’s so nice the HG survivor didn’t have an incident on the tea cups. I can’t believe I’m actually looking forward to her going into hiding again. Bah humbug!!!

   1. When I saw they went to a wedding together I immediately thought it was to counter the DM piece about her being so absent. I wonder which day the wedding was, because the DM piece was published on Sat. I don’t know if it would be possible for them to get out that quickly to a wedding together, but it still feels awfully coincidental.

      If they ever mention the HG again, I think everyone should throw this People story right in their faces. No f-ing way can a sick woman go on the teacups. If she was well enough to go on the teacups, then she’s well enough to do anything because those teacups spin like crazy.

      1. Just an FYI: There are teacups that spin a lot slower/gentler. They can be found in the kiddie section of most fairs. I am really hoping that is where she took kiddo to ride them. I think the adult ones (those evil spinning nightmares) are too much for a little kid.

         And I never believed that she had HG. To me it was a convenient excuse to not work.

         1. Ah, I didn’t know that. Well hopefully she took him on the slower one. I agree with you on the HG BS.

2. I agree with you both about those stupid tea cups, and what a PR mistake, Kate mistake or both that she rode them and it got reported. We can tell two things from that: Kate and the palace are full of BS about her ever having HG and Jason is-a- a guy, so he’s unlikely to pick up on subtle points like HG and tea cups, and -b- people in the UK and world have phones to catch Mate shopping rather than at state functions or playing with her son. Did she spend an hour with George and then dump him? I think the friends were initially “whatever Will” about him marrying Kate, but with panty-gate, her Oo-la-la spread and obvious insecurity, they probably are meanly critical. I think this new baby is going to add more stress. Sigh….

   1. Exactly. Having HG in a spiny ride with a toddler is a great idea.

3. I don’t believe the sightings of her out and about, unless they have pics with it. EVERYONE has a camera nowadays on their phones, so if theres no evidence, then I think it’s either bullshit PR dropped through a fake Twitter account or 3, or attention seeking nitwits making it up for the lols.

   1. Agree – especially when the report comes from a business account and not a person – which most of the Peter Jones sightings do.

   2. As with all Kate sightings where there is no photo evidence, we must preface it with a “reportedly/allegedly/supposedly” and take it with a grain of salt because it is not photo-confirmed. And that includes the PR fluff piece about Kate taking George to the park. I forgot to add the “allegedly” before I mentioned the Twitter sighting in the post; I’ve added that.

4. Interesting how just last week I was questioning Kate’s lack of involvement with the scouts and now she’s attending her first scouting event in over a year. Not that my two pence played any part in this, but I believe that her staff read the dailys and blogs to keep informed on how the Duchess is perceived and received. I.E. the DM article and poof she appears at a wedding with William. Conspiracy theories abound!

   1. And not just the scouting trip, but also Kate’s attendance at this wedding when it was reported that she doesn’t attend social occasions anymore. I love how they react when there’s anything negative in the paper and the PR goes into overdrive. Good to see that they’re not the only ones pulling strings to get a knee-jerk reaction from the public and nice when the shoe is on the other foot. Conspiracies indeed!

   2. 20 months. The new scout visit is the first in 20 months. So interesting they shoved that in right as you mentioned her not doing anything with them in so long.

5. My, how posh and forgetful Kate has become about her own past when she stumbled out of clubs three sheets to the wind! And if this is true about her on that ride, and I’d love to see pictures myself, this whole notion of HG in the face of Teacupgate would be officially false. I hope this would get thrown in her face any time it’s brought up that she suffers from HG. And as far as not associating with William’s friends, maybe she feels that she’s now married with a child and another on the way and doesn’t have to try hard anymore. She’s got the prize she spent all her years for and she may not want to hang out with William’s cronies who may be the same ones who insulted her and her family.

   And, yes, if Kate was well-recovered from her trip/vacation to New York, certainly enough to go shopping, she could have taken a 30-minute flight to Belgium to represent the BRF at Queen Fabiola’s funeral. But they might not have considered her a good rep and feared that more attention would be on her than on the funeral. However, I’m sure they could have looked hard among all the extended royal family and sent someone; even Prince Michael of Kent or the Duke of Kent/Gloucester. Someone, anyone, for heaven’s sake!

   1. I don’t think Kate should have gone to the funeral, because she would have done something stupid I’m sure, but I do think their lame excuse that everyone was busy is moronic when it’s so easy to check just how busy they all were.

6. I just now heard of Queen Fabiola’s death, and I have to join the chorus of people who can’t believe that someone from the BRF couldn’t have attended her funeral. She was queen of the Belgians for 33 years, after all, and it’s not exactly a long trip to Brussels from London. If the Thai royal family can send someone, so can the BRF–especially with so many of them cooling their heels.

   1. As well as the Empress of Japan, who was good friends with Fabiola. If this frail, 80-year-old lady can tolerate a long flight to England, what’s a 30-minute hop over the Channel for one of the British royals? I’d love to know the reason for their non-attendance.

   2. I know. It’s not like they were all busy. They could have sent someone.

   3. HM attended HM King Baudoin’s funeral. There should have been a member of the BRF at Fabiola’s not the ambassador. I think only Charles, Anne, William, and Sophie had engagements that day. It is insult to injury that now there are two stories about Kate Middleton out the day of the funeral having fun (shopping and at the Christmas fair) instead of representing HM at the funeral.

      1. Kate’s five months pregnant. Usually royal women would go into “confinement” when they reached the showing stage. The fact that she does anything in public at all is remarkable. And why couldn’t the Duke of York represent or have one of his loathsome lay-about daughters do something useful for a change?

         1. It is 2015. Pregnancy is nothing to be ashamed of, nor is it a disability. Many other royal women are out and working well into their pregnancies. CP Victoria of Sweden worked until 2-3 days before she delivered. But that’s the trick — they work whether expecting or not. Middleton doesn’t.

            Don’t know why Andrew wasn’t sent. Beatrice and Eugenie are private citizens, not working royals, and therefore cannot represent HM on official business.

            1. And both Beatrice and Eugenie have full-time jobs. Real jobs. Where they earn a salary. Unlike Middleton who “worked” 2 days a week for less than a year.

               You may not like Beatrice and Eugenie, but they are private citizens who live private lives, including their full-time jobs.

            2. My2Pence: Actually anyone whom Buckingham Palace designates can represent the Queen. At the funerals or memorial services of longtime Household members, usually the Lord Lieutenant of the county (who is the Queen’s official representative at the county level) or a lady-in-waiting will attend on behalf of the Crown. And “private citizen” is a flexible designation. Private citizens aren’t usually styled “Your Royal Highness” nor live in St. James’s Palace. Private citizens aren’t members of the Royal Family and don’t carry out public engagements, like the Concert for Diana and 10th anniversary memorial service (where they represented their father), the Royal Maundy service in 2012, the Olympics that same summer, reopening the Teenage Cancer Trust or traveling to Germany on behalf of the Queen. Princess Eugenie was also the highest-ranking royal at the wedding of one of the close family friends of the Royals, representing the Queen.
               Yes they most assuredly are working royals (since they have private jobs) and also carry out limited public engagements as necessary. They are also the only female titled birth royals of their generation and the first two women in the line of succession (for the moment). One of them could have been deputized to go to the funeral of the dowager queen of a minor European monarchy.

            3. With members of the public like you braying for blood about your false image of Beatrice and Eugenie? Demanding that they not be allowed to be working royals — even though they aren’t. The representative had to be an official working member of the royal family, and there were plenty of those available that day.

            4. All of the charity (including charity patronages) and rep work that Beatrice and Eugenie do is on their own private time. They are not “royal patrons” of anything. They are not representing The Queen, although they may be doing a favor for their grandmother — which is a crucial distinction. They are NOT working royals, just like Zara and Peter are not. Whether they have the HRH or not, they ARE private citizens and NOT working royals. Beatrice and Eugenie were asked by the GREAT campaign to visit Germany – but they weren’t there as reps of HM.

            5. I don’t understand your anger. “With members of the public like you (me) braying for blood about your false image of Beatrice and Eugenie”. I’m not “demanding” that they not be allowed to be working royals; quite the opposite. They are members of the Royal Family (Peter and Zara Phillips, as female-line grandchildren of the Sovereign, are not) and hold the styles of HRH and titles of Princesses of York.
               The Queen is 88, the Duke of Edinburgh 93. Even the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall are 66 and 67, respectively–pensioners in most countries–and the three next senior royals: William, Kate and Harry–show little interest in carrying out a full schedule of public duties, which is the responsibility of senior British royals. Since Charles wants a focus on the “core” family, this will leave a couple dozen charities and upwards of a thousand public events every year, uncovered by royals.
               The minor royals that used to carry out lesser events for the Queen are aging. The Duke of Kent is 79 and had a stroke last year. The Duchess of Kent has retired entirely from royal duties, as has the Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy, who is 77. The Duke of Gloucester is 70 and the Duchess of Gloucester is nearly 70. In less than 15 years, it is entirely likely that Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will leave the Royal Family forever as they will pass to extended members not entitled under the 1917 Order-in-Council to the style of HRH or titles. The Queen and Duke will be dead. This will leave Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine and Harry as the senior royals. Charles will be doing too much work as Sovereign to be fully involved in public duties (assuming he’s alive in 15 years, when he’ll be 81). His sister, the Princess Royal, will be nearly 80. The Duke of York will be 70, the Earl and Countess of Wessex will be in their late-60s. Unless a number of organizations will no longer have royal patronage, the York girls will likely have to be called on to carry out engagements. And they are royal patrons: Beatrice of the York Musical Society and Arkell Dyslexia Centre, and Eugenie of the Royal National Orthopedic Hospital.

            6. Not anger, just trying to make distinctions clear in text and my only options are all caps to emphasize words.

               Again, a crucial distinction. B&E are members of the royal family (just like any other family), but they are not working royals. They never have been, and with Charles’s recent decision, they never will be. Charles, Camillla, W&K&H — those will be the only working royals when/if Charles is king. That decision has already been made.

               B&E, just like Peter and Zara, will be members of the family (they are his nieces and nephews so they are family) but will not be “working royals.” Once the elderly working royals retire, they will not be replaced with B&E.

               That leaves an enormous hole in the number of people the BRF will have for royal engagements, but that is the choice Charles made. He is pruning back the working royal family to only his direct line, much as it done in The Netherlands.

               And again, B&E may be 1) members of their family and 2) patrons of an organization, but none of it is as working members of the royal family or official reps of HM.

            7. My2Pence: It is interesting that you say Beatrice and Eugenie are not doing royal duties, yet Beatrice is ROYAL PATRON of the Dyslexia Centre and ROYAL PATRON of the York Musical Society. They are royal patrons, unless the website and the York girls themselves have been mistaken and need you to correct them. Forgive me my sarcasm.

            8. I think it is difficult to understand the distinction since this is kind of a new thing for the British Royal Family. Other royal families have been this way, just not the BRF.

               King Felipe of Spain recently declared who is and who is not a member of the “Spanish Royal Family”. Felipe, Letizia, their two girls, former king Juan Carlos, former queen Sophia – that’s it. After this decree, his sisters Elena and Cristina and their children are no longer considered part of the official “Spanish Royal Family”, even though they are part of his personal extended family.

               B&E are members of the Windsor family. They are part of the family itself, just like Zara and Peter are. B&E have HRH because Andrew wanted it. Zara and Peter do not, because Anne wanted it that way. None of them are part of the official/working British Royal Family and the work they do is not in the Court Circular – because they aren’t considered official working Royals.

               A simpler (but inaccurate) way of looking at it would be “royal” with a little “r” vs. “Royal” with a big “R”. Important distinction. B&E are “royal princesses” but they are not official members of the working British Royal Family. Zara and Peter are kind of “royal” this way too, just without titles.

               If B is a patron of something, she is a patron on her own time. As a private citizen. Who happens to have a Queen for a grandmother and and a Royal Duke for a father. She is a part of a family where some members are “Royal” and others are “royal”. She is not a working Royal and according to Charles, she never will be. So she’s “a royal princess” but she’s not a member of the official/working British Royal Family.

            9. I’m sorry My2Pence but you’re simply wrong. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugeine have the titles and styles of Princesses of the United Kingdom because they are male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign and for no other reason; not because the Duke of York “wanted them to be”. He wants them to be full working royals. Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor are technically permitted to be Prince/Princess but the Earl of Wessex wanted them to have a “normal” upbringing. Peter and Zara Phillips are in the female-line. They do not automatically acquire any titles at all. In fact the only reason Charles and Anne were born with titles is because George VI issued letters patent, just as the Queen did before George’s birth in case he was a girl. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugeine hold those titles by birthright as male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign and can not be deprived of them except by Act of Parliament.
               Also there has only ever be idle chatter from unnamed courtiers that Charles is “slimming down” the Royal Family; he has never stated his intentions publicly or privately. Everyone made atwitter about the balcony during the Diamond Jubilee and there was a write up in the Daily Mail about how p***ed Andrew was. Actually that had been decided months earlier and reported in March, as a deliberate conscious echo to Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, where they emphasized continuity and the direct line of succession, with only the Queen (Victoria), Prince of Wales (Albert Edward), Princess of Wales (Alexandra) the Duke of York (George) and Duchess of York (May). Also it has been extensively reported and documented that in private the Duchess of Cambridge must curtsy to Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugeine. And they have apartments at St. James’s Palace. Hm, it doesn’t sound to me that they are being thrown out of the royal fold. Until Charles takes the throne, there is no knowing what he will or won’t do. Your idle speculation is unhelpful. And the Duke of York is the Queen’s favorite. If he wants something, she gives it to him.

            10. Not everyone who lives at SJP or KP are working royals. HM had one of her Bowes-Lyon cousins living there rent-free until the government caught on.

                We’ll have to agree to disagree. No matter titles, HRH, place in line, where they live — I think Beatrice and Eugenie will not be “working royals” now or after/if Charles takes the throne. Time will tell.

            11. Very well we will agree to disagree. The Duke of York does pay 20,000 pounds rent for St. James’s Palace, just as Prince and Princess Michael of Kent do for Kensington Palace. There are dozens of grace-and-favour homes, in lieu of higher pay. Lord and Lady Fellowes live in Kensington Palace, as do many others.

         2. When was confinement last practiced? I know it was used in the 16th century but are there more recent examples?

            1. HM was rarely seen while pregnant, and with the earlier pregnancies it was just announced that she wouldn’t be doing any engagements after X date on the calendar. Anne was seen out more while she was pregnant, but Diana was one of the first in the BRF to be out working while heavily pregnant.

            2. The Queen and Princess Margaret’s generation. There is one photograph of the Queen pregnant (I think with Andrew). Like My2Pence said, they would announce she wouldn’t undertake engagements after a certain date. It was worded in a very abstract way but the point was gotten across. It would be nice if they practiced it today.

         3. Diana and Fergie and Sophie all made public appearances while heavily pregnant.

7. Since when does tartan and lace go together like that? Style Icon? I think not.
   It looks like a frumpy last minute addition. Must be hiding something.

   It’s funny how they manage to find her shopping on social media, sometimes with pictures.

   But her cherished mothering moments and secret charity visits are always kept super super secret.
   (Aren’t you supposed to avoid amusement rides while pregnant.)
   It must be that Waity is so selfless and so genuine. Always thinking of others.

   1. I totally agree that while the lace and the tartan are both fine, the combination is wrong.

   2. Yeah, the black lace and purple tartan don’t look great together.

8. I wish the BRF would have attended Queen Fabiola’s funeral. Even the frail Empress of Japan attended.

9. As far as the teacup ride goes, just replace “Kate” with “nanny” and I believe therein lies the accuracy of that story.

   Enjoy your temporary position, Jason. This is not going to end well.

   1. lol I would be more inclined to believe it was Nanny Maria taking him to the fair. But that doesn’t jive with their “Kate the earth mother” narrative.

10. Have to wonder what’s going in with the BRF. How did they all miss this? I know there have been some PR reshufflings but I don’t understand how no ones camp, especially the Queen who seems solid on state expectations would drop this ball. Expense? Send a minor royal or Harry. Bizarre

    1. It would have most likely been the Wessexes – they seem the go-to for foreign royal stuff. Don’t know why they didn’t go; they weren’t busy with engagements.

11. The tweet mentions Kate doing her “crimbo shopping” what on earth is “crimbo”?

    1. I Googled it and apparently “Crimbo” is slang for Christmas. So Kate was Christmas shopping.

       1. Oh, thanks!

    2. Urgh, crimbo is a lame slang term that we use over here (UK). Same style as hubby for husband. Both naff in my opinion!

12. Well I personally don’t find it a big deal that the British Royal Family didn’t send a representative. The other crowned heads of Europe sent delegations. It’s appropriate that the British ambassador to Belgium attended, since it is their job to… um… represent the Queen to the host nation. Spain and the Netherlands both sent dowager queens to represent them. Since there isn’t a dowager in Great Britain, perhaps they felt it not necessary. Also the British royals hold themselves to be the senior royals of Europe. When Pope Francis was inaugurated last year, the Duke of Gloucester represented the Queen and I bet 9 out of 10 people wouldn’t recognize him if they were asked. And the Court Circular is put together weeks or even months in advance; for example, Willy’s trip to China and Japan in February, two months out. It’s hard to drop everything at a moment’s notice to attend a funeral for a dowager queen of arguably a minor European country (I don’t want to get into a war here, but Belgium is not politically or diplomatically the level of France, Germany, Spain or even Denmark). I suppose it would have been nice if the Earl and/or Countess of Wessex were able to stand in. Customarily the Queen does not attend foreign funerals or weddings and the Duke of Edinburgh obviously is too elderly to do much long haul traveling anymore. Oh well. God save the King of the Belgians!

    1. Charles made it to Mandela’s funeral – so they do make an effort when they want.

       1. It also depends on who is able to free up their schedule and who died. If they had a relationship. Mandela was on a first-name basis with The Queen–not easy to do–and obviously many of the foreign heads of state, being their cousins by marriage or blood, they send representatives: the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal to King Olav of Norway’s funeral or the Duke of Edinburgh for the Emperor Showa of Japan.

          1. Right, I read up on this because I was surprised at what seemed a completely dropped protocol, which is so unlike the Queen, and found that BRF doesn’t go to funeral unless reigning head or on close terms. It’s possible in hindsight that KP realizes it was a mistake not to send someone like Sophie or maybe Princess Anne to represent.

             1. I would understand if the BRF normally had a busy schedule, and I don’t blame the queen or the DoE for not going. But you’ve got a whole raft of British royals with only leisure on their schedules or things that could easily be put off until later. Would it have killed one of them to spend an afternoon in Belgium?

    2. While you may be technically right, Seth, it still looks bad. This situation reminds me of the whole no-flag-at-half-mast-over-Buckingham after Diana’s death. Like it or not, perception rules the world and the BRF needs to pull their collective heads out and realize this. As far as the BRF holding themselves to be “senior royals”…well La, Dee, Dah for them! So did the Romanovs, Bourbons, and the German Kaiser, I am sure.

       1. I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I’m only explaining why I think they have done what they have done. 🙂

       2. I quite agree! Let’s not forget that the protocol they’re operating on the basis of is very outmoded. I always get the sense that the BRF is trapped in this odd little time pocket – and that they’re really aware of just how much their position and relevance is dependant on public perception. In order for the monarchy to survice they need to adapt to the times and QEII has never been the most imaginative or adaptive monarch. In affair about Diana’s death QEII clung stubbornly to ptoyocol until she was forced to abandon it to soothe public feeling – and that was the worst crisis of the BRF since the Abdication in 1937. They do need to understand that in a modern democracy their position is dependant on the will of the people, not on divine right! That’s also why I find that a coronation ceremony is completely unsuitable in this day and age.

          1. correction: they aren’t really aware of how dependant they are on public perception

13. The British royal family may view themselves as the preeminent royal family, but their main basis for that would have to be notoriety and the former g(l)ory days of the British Empire. Most of the European royals are from the same two German families. Japan has the longest continuous royal family line. I believe the Grimaldi family in Monaco, the Lichtenstein royal family and the Danish royal family have survived longer than the current British royal family (which is Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.) If money were the basis then the British royal family would be at least 13th in the world. In Europe the rulers of Lichtenstein and Monaco are wealthier. In terms of having a scandal free family – the British haven’t been leading in that area – maybe they are neck and neck with other families. The Swedish royal family probably enjoys the highest popularity ratings in their own country. Queen Elizabeth has been a great queen, but it would be arrogant of the family to assume themselves to be the preeminent family in Europe. If their policy is to not go to funerals I think other royal families should abstain from going to British royal family funerals.

    1. I only know the popularity rating for my own country, Denmark, and that is about 85 %. I don’t know the numbers for Sweden but the king is not very popular. However, the CP Victoria is very popular.

       1. Yeah, I think I was thinking about CP Victoria ratings. 85% is very high – that speaks highly to your royal family.

          1. I have the utmost respect and affection for my queen, QMII – she really understands the symbolic and public aspect of queenship in this day an age, and much of it she learned from her mother the late Queen Ingrid who seemed to have a natural flair for PR. I would also add that the DRF is much more open and accessible that the BRF – they do let the public get a glimpse of their life and work through the media.
             They also have an very professional Head of Communications – she worked at the Danish Embassy during the s**t-storm that was the Muhammad-crisis, so she’s been baptised by fire, PR-speaking.

             It is great that the Swedes adore Victoria (her birthday is a public holiday!). I personally think she’ll be a wonderful queen and she definitely married the right person because I think that Daniel has a keen understanding of what his role is as a future Prince Consort. Her father is quite unpopular for several reasons – mostly because he doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut! He position is purely ceremonial (unlike in Denmark or Britain) and the Swedes really don’t like it when he comments on political issues. I think that Queen Silvia is well respected though. She always kind and gracious – something she undoubtly learned from Queen Ingrid who mentored her personally when she first became queen. Silvia has spoken about Ingrid’s kindness several times publicly.

14. I thought those earrings were hideous and I wouldn’t want them if they were free lol.

    Black to a wedding?! Aah, she is obsessed with wearing black!

    Did you notice that her engagement ring was turned to the inside of her hand? I wonder why she does that? I doubt she would waste an opportunity to show off THE RING. William probably pissed her off.

    1. I dunno, I have wondered that myself… I have seen her spin it under her palm both at public events (not engagements) and also when running errands. But also having it in view when doing those things.
       So I don’t know, maybe she spins it out of habit and sometimes we get pictures of it flipped under?
       Or when she is in crowds she spins it under so she doesn’t scratch the hell out everyone?

    2. Cali Gurl and Stephanie: It’s also possible the ring is too big on her finger and it spins around naturally. I’ve had a ring that, while it fit fine, wasn’t super tight and it would randomly shift around on my finger as I went about my day. Maybe that’s what happens with Kate’s ring?

    3. I spin my engagement ring round to my palm when I put hand cream on, so it doesn’t get on the diamond. I also fiddle with it when I’m nervous – maybe she was a bit tense?

       1. Apparently the Queen has a habit of turning her wedding ring on her finger when she’s nervous or getting angry. The faster the ring spins… stand back. It’s her passive way of displaying her anger.

15. Oh look a mutual friend she actually cares to celebrate with. I feel like Kate is never with Willy when he goes to his friends’ nuptials. Not feeling the pashmina although it’s quite English.

Comments are closed.