121 thoughts on “Royal Round Up: Kate, William, Victoria, Madeleine, Carl Philip, Sofia, Letizia, Sonja”

1. Ummm…I’m kind of leery of the Kate/George spotting at the museum. When have we ever seen Kate alone with George without Nanny Maria or Carole. And if he is the tiny terror they’ve made him out to be, I can’t see her dealing with him alone at this point (chasing after him, reeling him in because you know he’s a little destructive monster). I think he’s a rambunctious, curious little boy, but I don’t think she was there with him all alone.

   I said it on a previous post, but William’s trip (at least to me) was solely personal. Being the paranoid child that he is, he is worried about what people are finding out. What’s the matter William, are you worried that people are going to find out that you’re not living the fairy tale “normal” life you want them to believe you’re living at Anmer?

   I was glad to see him shadowing HM. For some reason I really see him concentrating on engagements like this and doing very little publicly if he can get away with it when/if he is on the throne. And I don’t think that was a dig at Charles. It could be that he did it on such a regular basis that it just wasn’t noted. I don’t ever recall hearing PC say or do anything along the lines of William and his basic refusal to learn his position. Maybe HM is starting to put her foot down with him?

   Vic, Madde and Leti keep doing their thing and I love them for it.

   Queen Sonja’s dress is well, just sad. It looks like someone took the dust ruffle from her bed and tacked it on to the bottom of her dress. Way too much going on there with the lace and ruffles.

   1. Yeah, George is supposed to be a terror, and Kate is 8 months pregnant. How could she handle him on his own, especially out at a museum? People is so sugary, they even call her Princess Kate, so I wouldn’t put it past them to lie about Kate being alone with George in order to make her look like a hands-on mom. OR Jason put in a call or something, and got them to do the sugary hands-on mom thing. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it were a PR ploy to attempt to show that Kate can be a mother all on her own without having Carole around.

      I think William’s trip to the GCHQ has to do with his paranoia as well.

      Here’s my thinking re the supposed dig at Charles: the paper is trying to make William look super important and dedicated, possibly even more important and dedicated than Charles was because William is doing the shadowing thing and there is no record of Charles doing that. It was a weird line to include. If it is unimportant, why put it in in the first place. That was my thought anyway. But it could have been totally innocuous.

      “It looks like someone took the dust ruffle from her bed and tacked it on to the bottom of her dress.” HAHA

      1. I agree with the PR ploy. How is it that People and only People is carrying this story? If it is true – someone had to feed it to them.

         1. It does seem like someone fed the story to them, going off of the way it was written. They made it seem like it was a museum employee, but it could easily be Jason or Carole.

   2. Totally agree. Nanny Maria was present. imagine an healthy, curious, confident toddler (who already seem to know what he is), is busy and active, for two lazy parents who cant get their own toast and cheese (but say they are normal)!

      It’s great HM BP CH had P Will around – HM is reminding PW of family, tradition, his role; he already insulted his Royal family over the years and last Christmas holding his own extended court at AH, while HM and RF was following traditions he has grown in (and was never a problem b/f marrying the middletons). If P George is to become heir, imagine the turmoil later – lack respect, if George is kept away from his Royal family, their traditions and roles.

      P Will is wasting time- King Prince Harry should continue to be trained with PW (avoid another King George (Bertie) issue of not knowing …).

   3. KM was photographed shopping the other day and the pictures were posted. We’re supposed to believe she went to a museum with the baby and was unnoticed and not photographed? Nope, didn’t happen. Another plant from Jason to make her look like a hands-on mom who never makes use of the full-time, live-in nanny.

      Maybe Jason’s trying to distract people from William’s unethical use of the royal helicopter for a private visit to the security center in Glouchester?

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005940/The-Spook-Cambridge-Wills-makes-secret-visit-GCHQ-spy-base-Royals-warned-computer-hacking.html

2. Regarding the science museum thing – somebody tweeted that their aunt saw them. Kate was “beautiful and elegant as always”. As someone on royaldish noted, these “sightings” only talk about how Kate looked, never about George. Sketchy.

   I love the aides who are sure Charles shadowed the Queen, but who can’t find a reference. Maybe you could…..pick up the phone and ask him?

   I think William is trying to manufacture/earn gravitas. After the humiliation in the Oval Office, and the Sky news guy exposing the elephant embarrassment, William may have become sensitive to people thinking he’s not as serious as he’d like to be perceived. Also, these engagements might be part of the plan to get out of the EAAA gig, since Williams not a forty hour a week kind of guy. Mind, he did successfully threaten the government to hold his breath and turn blue till they bought him a new helicopter. Hey, maybe the work is the price or his new toy? But now he has to attend his job…. Who the eff knows with Will. Sigh.

   1. Considering they bought him the copter, he better effing do that job! I tend to agree that William is probably upset that people don’t take him seriously. He tried with that whole conservation speech and no one cared because all the papers/people could talk about was the controversy about the circus. But I don’t think the Sky reporter was in the wrong. If KP and W wanted his speech to be the most impactful thing, then they should have changed locations seeing as they knew about it well in advance. They had to have known the press would find out about the animal cruelty just a mile away.

      1. The chopper that the government funded is a different one than what he’ll use. There is a rumored larger helicopter required to house his security officers, paid for (or donated) by someone else (Granny, Daddy, the company who wants to make money off of UK government contracts).

         1. I thought there was another one donated by the manufacturer, but now I cannot find the news story about it.

   2. What is/was “the humiliation in the Oval Office”?

      1. Dixie, there was no humiliation in my opinion. Williams smalltalk with Obama was found wanting (by some). That’s all. He didn’t embarrass himself or my country.

         1. His conversation with the Singaporean president, on the other hand–yikes!

            1. Seriously.

      2. As is standard for meetings like that, W and Obama spent some time alone in the Oval, then the press corps came into film them. William, presumably thinking he was being a charming and compelling conversationalist, started nattering on about George’s birth and then a journo interrupted him to ask about Obama’s health (he’d been to hospital for, I think, the flu). Obama turned away from William quite quickly and then he, Obama, and the corps, ignored Will completely till it was over. William kept smiling, but in this stunned sort of way. It seemed to me, and many others, that William had been judged a lightweight, and was shocked by it. It’s a by product of people kissing his butt his whole life.

         1. I just rewatched the video and it’s kind of funny in an awkward kind of way. William was talking about his thing and Obama randomly looked in the opposite direction, smiling at the press.. Then William tried talking again and Obama didn’t pay attention.

            1. AS much as I dislike, Will, Obama was the rude one.

            2. That reflects badly on Obama, not William.
               I think he’s being unfairly criticised here.

            3. It was not a “listen to William natter on party.” It was a press event. The press asked Obama a question, Obama answered it. It is not Obama’s responsibility to baby a famous 32-year-old through a press conference. William has been in the public eye since he was born, Obama for only 1/3 of his life but handles it much better.

               If anything, Obama assumed William understood how press events work. Sorry Bill, but in the US the President’s health is more interesting than the Golden Child yakking about his invisible child.

            4. Just my opinion but I have this idea that William is so used to people hanging off his every word that he sincerely believes that everything he says is fascinating. So he starts chattering about George, an uncontroversible subject, he thinks Obama will lap it up with a spoon, and Obama is all “OMG with this manchild, I’ve got actual work to do”. And William can’t believe it. It’s never happened to him before.

            5. That reminds me of the story of when Kate and Will were dating. Kate was at a polo match and a reporter? was trying to talk to her. She was intently watching the match because she would be required to discuss it with Will in exact detail.

               I think that goes along with what Red Snapper mentioned about Will being used to (and perhaps expects) everyone hanging off his every word.

               http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/5865209/Kate-Middleton-avoids-any-horseplay-at-the-polo.html

            6. Oh yeah I remember that. She was sitting all by herself at the match and not talking to anyone, just focusing on the match. I agree that William probably expects everyone to think he is this high and mighty intelligent person who everyone wants to listen to. This is probably because everyone sucked up to him so much over the years because they wanted to be friends with the future king. And now he just expects it. Yet he’s never really tried to actually be an interesting, charming person people want to talk to.

            7. Also compared to the sugary deferential press in the UK (even the Murdoch publications don’t shout out to the Queen when she enters an event), the US press doesn’t have much time to understand the nuances of monarchy and don’t really care. The U.S. press isn’t going to roll over and lap up your mindless blather Willy. Go back to Anmer and throw a temper tantrum so Mommy Midds gives you your tea and toast.

            8. Don’t forget the cheese for the toast!

            9. I wonder if Kate ever second guessed he choice to give up and not be with William. She gave up her life and interests for a man who doesn’t reciprocate. He has humiliated her on countless occasions. Kate has no friends or identity outside of him. That isn’t healthy. It’s only a matter of time before it explodes in her face and it will.

            10. rhiannon – I know that Kate chose this and pursued this life for a decade. But part of me feels incredibly sorry for her. I hope the luxury and perks makes up for what seems like a miserable life (at least I would be miserable). Unless Will is completely different behind closed doors, he seems like a very inconsiderate person where everything has to be about him.

                I can’t imagine giving up everything about yourself for a relationship – no matter who it is with.

3. Queen Sonja’s dress. Well, it is a pretty color.

   What interests me about these women is their varied tastes and projects. I hate to do this, but I have to compare their appointments to Kate. They are truly engaged and are their to work and bring expertise and experience.

   As far as the SRF, you know where my heart is- I love Vic. I’m not a fan of the head piece, but I love the green gown. I also like the silk blouse with the black leather skirt. The reason that I am so partial to them os that they have a good balance of being regal and relatable. If any monarchy wants to survive past the 21st century, they will need to follow the same lead.

   1. It’s interesting to see the royal lady’s personalities come out threw the types of organizations they support. I don’t get that from Kate. It doesn’t seem to me like she even chose the organizations she supports, rather someone choosing for her.

      I love the green dress on Vic, and the blouse and leather skirt. she looks great at both engagements.

   2. I’m really tired of this dress (cross over chiffon top with lace insert). I feel like we’ve seen it on everybody, in blue, teal, red. Middleton, Madeleine, Victoria, a couple of the Germans, someone in Lux.

      1. We really have, over and over again. It’s so boring now.

4. I think it was Jason who was “keen” on William observing Her Majesty performing her role. After all, Her Majesty performs this particular duty fairly frequently and if William was truly “keen” on observing it he could have done so before. With all the kerfuffle from his China trip, this recent helicopter ride and his lack of engagements Jason decided it would be a good time for William to be seen doing something that actually relates to his role as future sovereign. It seems that William and Kate made a good choice in hiring Jason, he has them out and about doing things, speaking a bit louder, not flashing the photographers.

   While I love Leti’s fashion choices, I just can’t stand the teal tweed dress with the non-tweed back. Did the designer run out of tweed? Oh well, Leti usually hits out of the park so I will allow her this one fashion strike.

   Oh dear, what to say about Sonja’s dress? This is one of the most unfortunate dresses I think I’ve ever seen. The only reason i can think of as to why she wore it, is the it looks better in person than it does in photographs.

   1. Lol I agree on Leti’s teal dress. I would have liked it better if it were all one fabric, whichever one they want to choose is fine as long as it’s one and not two.

      Sonja could be trolling everyone. Like, “I’m Queen and can wear whatever I want. Oh you think my dress is ugly? Well too bad!”

      Totally possible re Jason being behind William shadowing HM.

      1. That Jason is earning his salary. Every measurable thing has been better since he started. Not perfect, just better. I’d love to know if someone mailed him a link to our welcome post a while back. I’m positive he’s got someone monitoring the web about Will and Kate, he’d be crazy not to, since things have a way of going viral suddenly.

         1. I still think Jason was employed by the Middletons and not by the royal family. As for Kate taking George to the museum? Yeah right (Not). The kid is 20 months old, that exhibition looks like it is set up for older children and not little toddlers.

            1. How do you come to the conclusion that it is the Middleton’s who are employing Jason? It has been officially confirmed by the Palace that Jason was taking on the position as PR advisor to the Cambridges.

            2. Hi Art Historian. I think I should have worded my statement better. IMO Jason must have been suggested for the role by the Middletons as he appears to be promoting Kate and does not appear to be promoting William. Yes, I do agree with you that he is paid to be PR advisor to both Cambridges but then why is he not promoting William equally. When I made the statement that Jason was employed by the Middletons I don’t mean they are paying his wages I meant that Jason was suggested for the role primarily to make Kate look good. (and he seems to be doing a good job at that)

            3. I think they got Kate out more because of William’s “studying”, his prep for the trip to Japan/China and his “training” for the new job. Kate was the one with nothing to do so they got her out. She’s gotten tons of flak for just laying around while expecting so Jason put her to work. He has to get one of them in the news to justify his position.

            4. Now I understand you meaning better. however, I still think that you give to Middletons too much credit. They certainly influence Kate and William on the level of their private lives – but I seriously doubt that they are well-connected enough for what you suggest. I actually see this more as a proactive move from the side of the BRF/Palace – they hire someone who specializes in crisis PR and suddenly changes start to happen.

               I think that many of the Cambridges’ detractors credit Carol with much more influence than what is likely – especially when it comes to Kate’s official appearances.

            5. I think that anyone who allows her daughter to stalk a male for so long as Carole did is capable of a lot more. I, personally, think Carole has planned well.

            6. I’m strictly talking about the hiring of Jason here. I don’t believe that he was recommended by the Mids, even though it looks like he’s only promoting Kate. Rather, I find it much more likely that it is the other way round – that Kate is listening to an advisor that has gotten her some positive coverage.

               Jason was headhunted and hired by the Palace. That it confirmed. I think that Kate is actually listening to his advice while William is stubbornly doing his own thing. William is, in his own words, not keen on following the advice of others. In this respect I think that Kate is smarter than her husband.

            7. “I think that Kate is actually listening to [Jason’s] advice while William is stubbornly doing his own thing.”

               I could see that happening. While I think Kate is very insecure and stubborn in her own way, I could see her accepting advice more readily than William. William takes pride in doing the opposite of what his advisers tells him. Kate would rather stay in her hide-y hole and not progress or change herself, but I don’t think she actively takes pride in doing the opposite of what the advisers say.

         2. Yeah, he has to have someone looking at the response on the web. I mean, it would be stupid not to in general, but especially since they’ve tried to correct things that we’ve been saying forever, it does make it seem like they are paying special attention to the web response.

            1. I agree with everyone about Jason. It’s amazing the difference since he’s been on board. They made a good hire — especially given his specialty is crisis management! I remember wondering what crisis they had to manage when they hired him.

5. I totally agree about the Science Museum. It’s a very, very busy place & photos are allowed – and yet not a single person got a pic of K&G?

   Yeah, total rubbish.

   I’m pleased to see William working – let’s encourage that.

   1. It does seem unlikely, doesn’t it? Maybe it was like that kerfuffle about people not being allowed to take pictures that might include other children at a place that George visited? Either way, I’d be very skeptical of Kate ever being out with George and not having Maria and/or Carole along!

   2. Supposedly the museum was shut down for just Kate and George, which is why there are not photos. If that story is true, then it is pure crap that they shut down a museum just for themselves! They obviously don’t care about anyone but themselves.

      1. How normal to have a museum shut down just for you! You go, Kate and William, with that whole being normal thing. I can see you’re really walking the talk.

         1. Totally normal. Happens to me all the time. 🙂

      2. Hmm, then the sighting was bogus as it was originally credited on Twitter to a member of the public, not staff at the Museum, literally a “good friend” of a prolific Kate fan.

         Smells brown to me, folks.

      3. It isn’t feasible to shut down an entire museum during visiting hours – I’m not even sure that it is legal when it is a museum owned by the state. However, I do not know if this particular museum is state-owned. Regardless, it is not in the museum’s own interest to shut down for a VIP because they’ll lose income through visitor’s fees. The only way to accommodate an entirely private visit is to schedule it outside normal opening hours. Besides, many museums are closed on mondays because they are open on sundays – so an entirely private visit could be made on an a monday when the museum is officially closed to visitors.

         Regarding the lack of photos – many museums don’t permit visitors taking photographs because too much flashlight might damage some of the more fragile objects on exhibition.

         1. It is feasible to shut it down if you plan it in advance, in my experience. Whether it should be done in light of the museum’s funding sources and the possible ill-will engendered by the shutdown is another question, which is why many don’t do it.

            1. If they did go to the museum (no proof) and did shut it down or make a special visit (again, no proof), does anyone think they paid for it? My guess would be, if they did this they expected it all to be done for free.

6. I was so hoping we would stop seeing so many royal ladies in the lace gowns during 2015. While I think C.P. Victoria is fantastic/amazing/fabulous, I am tired of this look. What if the royal ladies took these gowns and put them to the back of their enourmous royal closets for the next 5 years. In 5 years they will look fresh and interesting once more.

   1. The two things we need to stop seeing from the royal ladies: Lace and Tulle.

      1. Well be prepared to hold back a scream because Sofia may be sporting both in her wedding dress if past choices are considered.

         1. I know, right. Sofia’s gown game sucks. I just hope a good designer will get to wear something elegant and timeless (Victoria’s dress was perfect), rather than whatever it is she is in to.

            1. I think C.P. Victoria and Prince Daniel was my favorite royal wedding. They looked so in love, some of the royal ladies looked a bit tearful and Victoria’s look on the day was a real statement. I may be one of the few who loved the cameo tiara, but with the clean lines of her gown and the stunning lace veil, it seemed a well put together choice. The veil kind of reminded me of the one Jackie Kennedy wore on her wedding day.

            2. No, I love the Cameo Tiara as well. It is an exquisite piece of early 19th century craftsmanship – and it has a history that can’t be beat. It originally belonge to Josephine Beuharnais – Napoleon’s first wife and empress.

            3. Plus the decorated boat being rowed around Stockholm, bride and groom on board. It is hard to beat a royal wedding with boats.

            4. The Cameo is amazing: the history, the craftsmanship, the details. It takes a special kind of lady to pull such a remarkable tiara off, though, and Victoria is just the right kind. I’m not sure I could ever picture it on Madeleine–although she’s lovely and I mean no offense to her, she just doesn’t seem as well suited to this tiara as her sister.

            5. I like the cameo tiara and loved it with Victoria’s dress. It was the perfect combination of intricacy (the tiara) and sleekness (the dress).

            6. Victoria’s wedding dress was very beautiful in its simplicity and I hope she’ll continue to work with that designer because his creations suit her so perfectly.

   2. Or, auction them off for charity the way Diana did. The Royal Ladies could give the money for their dresses to their favorite causes.

7. The spy HQ visit is completely about William’s paranoia. In his mid-20s, he was asked what he would do with the superpower of invisibility if he was granted it for one day. His answer? He would go round to all the news editors’ desks to see what they were writing about him.

   As for Queen Sonja…..darling, great Tiara, but burn that dress. Doily ruffles have never been a good look. Not even on doilies!!!

   1. Well yeah, because you know he is all they think or write about.

   2. Lol. How utterly self-absorbed!!!!

   3. In Williams defense the Sun and now defunct News of the World spent a great deal of time and money successfully hacking their way into people’s phones (Kate, plus some palace employees), for the sole purpose of illegally invading Williams privacy. Paps spent a great deal of time and money bribing people into tipping them off about Williams whereabouts for the sole purpose of invading Williams privacy. For all William cries about his privacy, and he does, a LOT, he’s not wrong to think there exists an entire money making industry dedicated to exposing William private moments. The problem is, he takes it personally, and can’t/won’t strike a balance between his public and private life. He takes his privacy too seriously, which, to me, is kind of understandable, but still a bad long term strategy.

      1. I completely agree, Red Snapper, and I understand Williams fears too. They’re not unfounded, sadly.

         I hope he can forge a way forward though – he has to, to become a good King.

      2. His need for privacy from media started when he was a child. Many occasions when Diana had to coax him out of the car because he didn’t wish to be photographed.

         Further, the question about invisibility was asked with a view that his answer would be made public.

         So granted his most cherished desire of invisibility and he would spend it finding out what news desks were writing about him???!!?

8. Okay, I have noticed this for awhile and want to bring it up even though it is off topic. Has anyone else noticed how Kate walks? I don’t know why but it bothers me, especially in heels. She doesn’t walk very gracefully or feminine at all. She just kind of ‘umps’ along. I don’t know how to describe it. I just watched a video of her at that Olympic gala years ago, and she is dressed so lovely and then she walks!!! Every time I see her walk it looks so masculine. Has anyone else noticed this? I guess I am mentioning it because the sugars always talk about how graceful she is.

   1. Overit, I have not noticed it, but please tell me that it is not as bad as Julia Roberts walking in Oceans 11, when she comes down the stair case and keeps walking. Julia looks like she has just gotten off a horse after riding it for about 3 year. It is a terrible walk To make it worse Mat Damon is going on about how beautiful she is.

      1. Lol, thanks Find any Service, that was funny. I had forgotten about her walk in the movie. But sadly, yes Kate is just as bad as Julia Roberts in that scene

   2. Yep. She walks badly. Worse when in heels.

      1. Doesn’t everyone (walk worse when in heels)? Or is that just me?

         1. No, I don’t think everyone walks worse in heels. I love high heels and the only ones that make me kind of stomp are when they are too steep of an incline or too uncomfortable. But my experience at least is you can still walk gracefully in them. Heels look silly if you can’t walk well in them. I think Kate just generally has a masculine walk, and it is more obvious in heels.

            1. Heels change a woman’s gate no matter how well the woman walks in them, though. It’s not natural to walk in heels, especially super high heels.

   3. Thanks for mentioning Kate’s walk Overit. I had kept noticing that Kate had uneven hemlines and even her wedding dress looked like the hem was uneven. I finally figured it our not that long again. She looks her knees and seems to throw out her legs. It’s like she can’t bend her knees. And she takes huge steps so it is more obvious. My Mum would say… the higher the heels then the shorter the steps you should take.

      1. Cathy so true. The higher the heel, the shorter the step! Kate has not learned that. I walk quickly like Red Snapper below and Kate, but again you can still not clump along like Kate. It is such an odd walk. Her walk reminds me a little of Meg Ryans. Which Megs walk was always described as a bit masculine mixed with a child’s.

   4. She’s a fast walker, I think. Mt BFF and I are too. We take long strides and just boot it everywhere we go. It’s just how we walk, not because we’re necessarily in a hurry. You’re right, it’s not feminine or graceful, but I get around pretty quickly.

      1. Frankly, I think that the whole idea of a masculine and a feminine way to walk is utterly ridiculous. It is an idea that is culturally encoded – remember that the whole idea that certain styles of movement is considered more feminine generally is the product of a time where female attire was really constricting. A time where female dress forced you to take small steps, prevented you from bending down (corsets), etc.

         I hate the way that assigning masculine features to women is used as a way to deride them by targeting their femininity. It is the same way ageing is used to put down women. I’m not just talking about Kate here but a general cultural script that is harmful to all women.

         *rant over*
         – sorry if I offend anyone with this post but stuff like this just make me angry. The idea that women should not only modify their looks but also the way they walk, talk, etc. is, IMO, a very damaging and constricting one. There are many ways to be a woman and what’s important is to feel comfortable in one’s own skin.

         1. Yeah, I can’t really criticize Kate for this one.

         2. I have been trying to decide how to respond to your comment, so I will see if I can get my thoughts out. First off, I never said Kate having a masculine walk takes away from her beginning a woman or makes her less feminine as a whole. Merely, I was pointing out she has a bad walk, which is not different then people pointing out her bad posture. I stated it was masculine for lack of a better word. I could say she has a child like walk in that it is more stomping-like. The point I was making is she does not walk gracefully, unlike the sugars make her out to be. If anything, it is more a Royal things, as royals are expected to be elegant and graceful.

            Also, I was actually saying in jest down below that she should get walking lessons. I didn’t really think she should. I only said it since she has taken lessons on everything else like how to sound more posh. But, even if she did change the way she walks, there is nothing wrong with that. Again, it is the same as modifying one’s posture. As someone else pointed out it appears as though she locks her knees, which is bad on the body as is slouching. So what is wrong with changing something that is better on your body?

            It is funny you blame culture for the ideas of feminine vs. masculine, but I see it quite opposite in this day and age. Now, it is considered politically correct to be gender neutral. Which gets into my pet peeve. What is wrong with a woman being a woman and a man being a man? Each gender has different qualities and you are kidding yourself if you do not see it that way. Some characteristics are identified as masculine and others as feminine and I see nothing wrong with that as men and women are different. Having someone comment on a masculine feature does not make her any less of a woman!!! I think it is ridiculous that feminine and masculine are labels we are not suppose to use anymore. They are not offensive labels at all. Are we getting to the point were we cannot call the genders different? It is just silly and drives me nuts. I will say again, no one was saying that a woman having a masculine feature is an attempt to deride her of her femininity. My saying Kate has a masculine walk was a way of just saying she has a bad walk. Plain and simple. I am sorry if that offends you. Which btw, men and women do walk differently as whole! Our bodies are shaped differently and so is the way we move which then affects our walks. A woman tends to be more graceful. And there is nothing wrong with saying that. I will reiterated, that again, it does not make a woman any less of a woman if she does not walk gracefully. Just as the opposite with a man it would not make him any less of a man. If I were to go out and people watch, there would be characteristics in common with a woman’s walk that is not found in a man’s walk. If a characteristic is found 8 out of 10 times on a woman and only found 1 out of 10 times on a man, then it would make that more of a feminine characteristic. Does not mean it can’t appear with a man, but it tends to be found with women more often. And if that character is found on a man, that doesn’t take away from his being man. Women have smaller hands, that is a feminine characteristic. What is wrong with pointing out something like that??? Why is it so bad to have distinctive feminine characters and distinctive masculine characteristics? The genders are different. I hate now that it is not okay to point out the differences. It is really frustrating. Men and women are different and certain attributes pertain to one gender more than another. Which is why men and women compliment each other so well.

            As far as you saying there are many ways to be a woman and what is import is to feel comfortable in one’s own skin. Then let me ask you this? What is the point of this blog then? Because I could say well everything Kate does just shows how comfortable she is in her own skin, so we shouldn’t ever criticize her or point out things we see about her, like her posture. Her lack of speeches and work is fine because she is comfortable with that. Or her flying skirts is fine because she is comfortable with her body. I know I am being extreme, but that’s how it come across to me. Because to criticize is to make it seem like Kate has to conform when really she should just be left alone since she is comfortable with herself.

            1. Overit,

               I didn’t mean to single out in my post and I’m sorry if you felt that it was the case – I was speaking in more general terms and I may not have made that clear. And I’m not offended by your response. I respect you opinions though mine are different.

               Let me try to explain my position in a more clear manner.

               Firstly, when people say that such and such woman looks masculine – they often mean that as a put down. I see remarks such as these all the time on gossip blogs – especially aimed at women like Kate and Jennifer Aniston. Make no mistake – remarks like those are often if not always meant to imply that they are less womanly.

               Secondly, in conversations like these I think it is very important to be aware that sex and gender is NOT the same thing. Sex is an inescapable fact of biology (unless you get a sex change operation.) GENDER is not biology but rather a set of historically and socially ideas of what men and women are like and ought to be like – in that sense masculinity and femininity are social and historical constructs – and that means that they aren’t set in stone.

               I’m not advocating for gender neutrality either. Rather, I am sick and tired of the way ideas about gender are seen and used as a metaphorical straight-jacket for how men and women ought to be and behave. These ideas are inherited unthinkingly through the generations and I think they can be very restricting and in some instances very damaging – sometimes the most damaging for men and boys because they get punished harder if they stray outside of gender norms.

               I’ll just posit a few examples of such norms that are very much still in play, even if we don’t always recognize them:
               – women shouldn’t express anger (I have been told that many many times) and men shouldn’t cry (if they do they are seen as unmanly)
               – boys shouldn’t play with dolls (I was once told as a child I couldn’t play with LEGO because I was a girl – that’s when I became a feminist even if I didn’t know what feminism was).
               – blue is boys and pink is for girls (this one is really quite ironic since if was the exact opposit a 100 years ago).

               My point it that biological sex is shoehorned into gender categories that are constructed, historically inherited and those can be extremely constricting, even though they have been loosened, especially for women, during the last century.
               – fx today it is fine for a women to wear trousers but in the 19th century is was illegal for a woman to do so.

               It is not my goal to strive for gender neutrality – and I don’t think that is what is happening today. Rather, I see how certain retrograde traditional gender norms are being used that pigeon-hole boys and girls more strictly than what I experience during my childhood, and that makes me sad. Fx in a Danish children’s insitution the adults arranged a soccer game – and the instructions sent out to the parents was: boys in soccer gear and girls in cheerleading gear. No one seemed to have thought about that some of the girls might have wanted to play soccer instead. It made me sad.

               I don’t strive for gender neutrality – and I don’t think that it is even posssible. I just wish that the gender norms wouldn’t be so constricting and that children should be able to stray outside these norm without censure. In this respect I think that boys are still much more restricted by current ideas of gender normative behaviour and that they are punished much more harshly than girls if they don’t conform.

               To return to my original complaint – you may not have intended to impugn Kate’s feminity by you remark and I take your word for it. However, there is a pervasive and persistent cultural script that operates as a subtext when women are being called manly and masculine – and that subtext carries a negative meaning. It does so because arguments like that have been used to put down women through centuries. And arguments like that are still used to put down women who are disliked – as I pointed out above with the examples of both Kate and Jennifer Aniston. You may not have meant to imply that Kate was any less than a woman for walking ungracefully. However, concepts like beauty and grace are deeply embedded in our received notions of feminity and therefore calling a woman’s appearance or behaviour masculine carries the subconscious implication that she is unwomanly and in a sense “wrong”. This is not a personal criticism of you but rather an observation of how deeply embedded cultural scripts about gender normativity pervade our view of the world and how a simple sentence like “she has a masculine gait” can carry meanings that wasn’t intended – and that an innocuous remark like that can be read and understood quite differently than what was intended.

               As I have said before: I don’t want gender neutrality. What I want is for us to think more carefully about issues like gender normativity because I wish for people to be comfortable in their own skin without being derided or punished for stepping outside the bounds of inherited notions about gender that society holds.

               Regarding your last paragraph:

               I think it is quite ok to critizise Kate for the things you mentioned – because that is very unprofessional behaviour on her part when she is on official engagement representing the RF and Britain. I do feel very uncomfortable when people critize her for unladylike behaviour because then they do appear to judge her on her person and her femininity. I don’t care if she flashes her husband in private or that she likes to sunbathe naked in the privacy of her home. However, I do expect her to behave professionally on the job. I hope you see the difference.

               Lastly, I’m not going to dictate how people ought to critize Kate. I’m an simply stating my opinion because I feel uncomfortable when famous women are being critized in a manner that specifically target how they conform to or deviate from gender norms – because I still think that arguments like that hurts us all. However, that is just my personal opinion. I do not require people to agree with me. I simply wished to raise a subject that I think is important and relevant – even to a gossip blog – because I see that gender does play a unstated role in how famous women ofte are judged.

               This had been a very longwinded reply but I hope that I have made my meaning clear.

            2. I don’t mean to butt in but I would like to comment because I want to point something out. This is not an attack and I am not saying this is how you feel/think about the subject. I am merely pointing out historical/societal aspects of this topic to maybe provide a bit of background and an explanation as to why some people would not like a woman seemingly being put down for being a bit masculine.

               “Having someone comment on a masculine feature does not make her any less of a woman!!!”

               Historically in our society, commenting that a woman has a masculine feature *has* been used as a way to say a woman is less of a woman. Historically, saying a woman has a masculine feature has been used as an insult and to put that woman down and/or shame her into conforming to the societal gender norms.

               “Our bodies are shaped differently and so is the way we move which then affects our walks. A woman tends to be more graceful.”

               You are completely right when you say there are differences in the sexes. Physiologically the two sexes, on average, move differently. Women’s hips swing more, and there is more of a bounce when walking. They take shorter steps, and their legs are closer together when walking. While men’s hips don’t move as much and there is less bouncing. Their legs are father apart when walking and they tend to take longer steps.

               However, “graceful” is a social construct-based opinion and best left out when talking about the physiological differences between men and women. The two sexes, on average, move differently, but one is not better than the other. They are just different.

               “Just as the opposite with a man it would not make him any less of a man.”

               Again pointing out historical societal points of view: historically, men would get made fun of and put down for being “too feminine”.

               This still happens a lot today. It is far more acceptable for a woman to be a bit masculine than it is for a man to be a bit feminine.

               “Women have smaller hands, that is a feminine characteristic. What is wrong with pointing out something like that???”

               I have never in my life heard anyone make fun of a woman for having small, “feminine” hands. I have, however, heard people make fun of women for having “great big man hands”.

               For the most part, not many people are making fun of women for being feminine or having feminine features; but historically women did, and do, get made fun of for having masculine features.

               “Because I could say well everything Kate does just shows how comfortable she is in her own skin, so we shouldn’t ever criticize her or point out things we see about her, like her posture. Her lack of speeches and work is fine because she is comfortable with that. Or her flying skirts is fine because she is comfortable with her body.”

               I would argue that most things Kate does shows how *uncomfortable* she is in her own skin. Yes, she is comfortable not giving speeches… because she is not confident in herself and her abilities as a public speaker. Her bad posture shows how uncomfortable she is with herself, and her lack of self-confidence. She wants to hide when out in public and therefore slouches (and holds her hands over her body) and makes herself as small as possible because she is not confident enough with herself to stand tall and take control of her situation. She doesn’t want to work much because she is so uncomfortable with herself and being out in public and having to interact with people.

               Again, Overit, this is not an attack. I am not saying this is how you think or feel about women being more masculine; I am just pointing out historical and societal points of view and giving a bit of background info on maybe why some people would not like a woman seemingly being put down for being a bit masculine.

            3. I find this discussion interesting, mostly because Middleton clearly defines her own self-worth ONLY by old-fashioned values of what a woman should be. Made-up, hair done, expensive clothes, body the size and shape that the man wants no matter how unhealthy it is, whatever the man wants in bed, long hair, empty-headed, no opinions, keep your mouth shut when the big smart man is talking.

               It is interesting to see people “attack” (for lack of a better word) someone for calling Middleton’s walk unfeminine — when all Middleton has done is define herself by outdated ideas of what is feminine. If William ever criticized her walk or pointed out that say, Jecca, was graceful on her feet, we probably would have seen Middleton at StarMakers like CP Mary.

            4. I agree with My2Pence. I also think, no offense to anyone here, that it is much easier on Waity. Getting her hair done, donning expensive clothes, grinning like a moron, asking banal questions (“Can you test the smell?”) is much, much easier than doing even what the royals consider “work.” Let me have that life any day! 🙂

      2. A constant life of that would have my head pounding and leave me drained physically and emotionally. Does she not have any natural curiosity about the things and places she gets to see (other than Downton Abbey which she was just a chatterbug at)?

         I think most of the people who comment here would be the same, naturally curious and wanting to learn about the places we were going and then ask questions regarding that place once we got there. Not inane chatter about the grooming of beards. Has she lost that much of whatever personality and intellect she had? If I were a family member I would be incredibly concerned about her.

         1. Unfortunately Lisa, Mommy Midd is only interested in preserving the HRH in front of her daughter’s name, at all costs. Kate’s her meal ticket to plan all the parties for the future King (and make a bundle at it)and be able to get up over the old “doors to manual” talk. Parasites only grow when allowed to run unchecked.

            1. I hate to think this, but I honestly believe Carole would let Kate have a complete mental breakdown rather than letting her divorce William. If she became unstable, that would be more ammunition to use against William and she would move heaven and earth to get more control over the kids claiming she has to protect them from the very same things that affected their mother, when the reality is she’s the main problem.

            2. Lisa. Thanks for the comments. Very sad but possibly very true.

   5. It’s like she is walking in gumboots (wellingtons)? Not at all elegant!

   6. Part of the reason she probably walks that way is to keep up with William. He has very long strides and doesn’t slow down or wait for her. There was a video of them when she attended some graduation of his when he was in the RAF. She wore a white coat (fancy that) and at one point she had to trot to keep up with him because he was just hauling butt. Maybe it was to get away from the cameras, but it seemed she was trying to be oh so casual with the smile and he was intent on getting away and the trot just made me laugh.

      I also remember seeing clips from the wedding that Harry, CressMess and Chelsea were all at. Almost all of the women (including Bea, Eugenie and Pippa) had on these incredibly high stilettos and were walking on the cobblestone path to the church taking these clomping steps. I know they were trying not to go down on the cobblestones and/or twist an ankle, but it was the worst thing in the world to watch. Not the least bit attractive.

      1. Is it bad that I can still see that footage of Will and Kate walking out of his graduation, where she has to trot to keep up with him? Like, I can clearly see it in my mind without having to look it up. I always thought it was odd that she had to trot to keep up with him, instead of him slowing his stride to keep up with her.

         1. Then we’ll be bad together because it’s etched in my mind as well.

            1. Me three! And her tucking her hair behind her ear as she hurried along.

            2. Lol, I totally know what you guys are talking about without even looking it up! I couldn’t believe he made her trot to catch up with him!

            3. I’m glad I’m not the only one who remembers stuff like this!

            4. I as well can totally picture the event that you are talking about. Wasn’t it also the first time Kate and Will were officially together at an event as a couple?

   7. Oh, I agree. The one time when she “clomped” with particular lack of grace was when she bounded downstairs after the Royal Wedding on the way to the evening party that Prince Charles threw for the newlyweds. There she was in a gown — all dressed for a gala evening, and boom, boom, boom was the way she came down the stairs. Not a graceful site.

      1. Ah Yes!!! I had totally forgotten about that. It so did not match up. She is wearing this gorgeous dress and clomping down the stairs! Can a person get walking lessons? She might think about them 🙂

         1. Yes, you can get lessons on how to walk in heels. Try somewhere like Lucie Clayton, like the debs did. It is easy to modify your walk depending on how high your heels are and it will look more graceful and elegant. Kate’s habit of locking her knees and throwing her legs out in a wide stride made the hem on her wedding dress look uneven in places. All I could think was… that’s not a good way to show off all that handwork. I do remember Kate chasing after William at his graduation and it looked like William was trying to get away from her. I feel that if there is love in a relationship then the man will automatically alter his stride so the woman doesn’t have to race to keep up.

            1. Umm, I don’t think that is necessarily true that a man will alter his stride if he loves the woman. My husband is used to my fast walk, but when I am wearing 4in/5in heels, he forgets I can’t walk as fast or take as long of strides. He is so used to walking fast together that he forgets and I will have to tell him to slow down. He still loves me, he just forgets since he is used to my normal walk. In Williams case, I can’t help but wonder if it is partly because he is used to always walking in front. That is Royal protocol that he walks in front of Kate. So, it may just be ingrained in his mind to walk a certain amount ahead and those behind are supposed to keep up?

            2. When couples walk together, women set the pace
               Men slow down to keep in step with wives and girlfriends, study shows

               http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/24/women-men-walking-study/3179369/

               “They found that, as expected, men ambling solo generally walked faster than women – but that when men walked with their wives or girlfriends they slowed down to match their female partners’ speeds. Women barely sped up at all.”

               “It’s worth noting that when guys were paired with female friends in the study, they did not slow down. When they walked with other guys, they actually sped up. And when women walked with female friends, both women slowed down, perhaps reflecting the intimacy of those relationships, Wall-Scheffler says.”

               http://consumer.healthday.com/pregnancy-information-29/love-sex-and-relationship-health-news-452/men-may-stroll-a-little-slower-down-lovers-lane-681415.html

            3. That’s really interesting, Pence, thanks for posting!

9. Thank you, KMR, for the time, effort, and research you put into your posts. I look forward to the royal round-ups and the occasional treat of the tiara posts. And, of course, I appreciate your critical perspective on Kate Middleton and William – the first I’ve found on the web. It’s surprised me to see how they seem to have squandered whatever good will they once enjoyed.

   1. Thank you, Constance! I’m glad you’re enjoying the blog.

      It really is amazing how far Will and Kate have fallen. There are of course still the die-hard fans, and the press still fawn over them for the most part, but the press is becoming more critical and Will and Kate have lost a lot of goodwill among many. They had all the goodwill in the world at the tips of their fingers, yet they squandered it away due to their laziness and hatred of the press and public.

      1. So true KMR! They did have so much goodwill at their fingertips. Perhaps, if they had Jason at the point of their engagement/wedding and he continued in his present position, they wouldn’t be attempting to regain some of that goodwill today.

         1. The fact that they felt the need to hire a specialist in crisis PR says a lot about how their popularity has diminished. It also indicates that someone in the royal machine has been aware of their PR problems for a while. I think the greatest obstacle to improve their PR is William himself, not Kate. He prides himself of not listening to his advisors and that kind of stubborness is hard to change. I have had family members who couldn’t admit if they were wrong – ever! They would rather argue something they knew was wrong than admit thay had made a mistake. We have a word for that in Danish: “dumstædig”, which translates to “stubborn to the point of studipidity”. I have the impression that William fit into that category.

            1. I love that! I’m totally going to use that word now. I know several people it can be applied to.

               but um… how do you pronounce it?

            2. Sadly, I cannot help with that in a blog format 🙂 But it is a great word.

         2. I think they brought Jason in to spin. He isn’t there to change them or make them care about their charities. Jason is there to make them LOOK good while allowing them to be lazy as ever, not make them BE good at their jobs.

      2. Oh yeah. Even on the Royal Forums site there are A LOT of critical posts now (some written by me) that a couple years ago would have gotten a stern lecture from a moderator named “Warren.” I had the nerve to call a five-month old “Georgie Porgie” instead of “His Royal Highness Prince George” and “Warren” went off on me. I looked at the recent comments over the weekend and there are a number of people posting in recent months who want to know if Willy and Waity are ever going to DO something besides hang out with her parents and even speculation that Willy may abdicate the throne or be bypassed in the line of succession.

         1. Wow. When they loose the sugars you know something is seriously wrong in Will and Kate land.

10. CP Victoria with her hair down!!

    http://www.gettyimages.fi/galleries/events/543757029

    She looks incredibly like her mother!

    1. Yes she does! Her mother was so lovely and still is. I love her hair down. Wish that she would have worn an opaque top…And Daniel. He is always hot.

    2. I’m going to cover her and Daniel’s tour of South Korea later.

    3. I think that all Silvia’s children look a lot like her – and Silvia is a very pretty woman. I actually think that her son is the one who looks most like her – and Carl Philip is certainly a looker! He has always looked like Orlando Bloom’s younger brother to me. 🙂

    4. Is it just me, or do others see the (disturbing) similarities?

       https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/98/07/e3/9807e3388f1a618d65650b05c7dccef5.jpg
       http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/893/xedg.jpg

       https://cdn3.cdnme.se/cdn/6-2/377327/images/2009/silviacarlgustaf_31621617.jpg
       http://project-playground.org//wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sofia-Hellqvist-k.jpg

       http://savepic.ru/4740519.jpg
       http://stoppapressarna.se/sites/default/files/styles/flexslider_full/public/carlphilip6_0.jpg

       1. Yes. Don’t want to think anymore about it. Thanks My2Pence.

       2. That is a rather uncanny resemblance. I won’t lie – it set of my squick-metre, pointing at the oedipal-range. 😉

       3. Another one trying to mimic the mother?? Ewww…it’s just too close for comfort.

Comments are closed.