94 thoughts on “Kate Middleton vacations in Scotland with Queen, adds appearance to schedule”

1. Maybe William needs to up his numbers. I’m curious to see how the children will respond to them.

   Are these pics staged? Kate seems pretty aware that she’s being photographed. And honestly, I’ll never understand how can William and Harry call themselves conservation advocates while going on these hunting trips. Sounds so hypocritical. It doesn’t matter that they only hunt non-endangered species, killing animals for fun is just cruel.

   1. Grouse/pheasants are bred to be shot. All fight ot flight self preservation instincts are bred out of them.

      There is no conservation involved in this activity. It is a canned hunt where the ‘hunters’shoot for pleasure and to see who can bag the most birds out of the available stock.

      The only good outcome is that the dead birds will be sold to local butchers and eventually the public, but Grouse/pheasant shoots exist for pure killing pleasure, and not conservation.

      1. Agreed, this isn’t keeping a population size in check. It is creating a population for the “sport” of killing.

         I’ve also read that the birds are often bred to be poor (if non-existent flyers) and are often so riddled with shot, they cannot be used as food.

      2. +1

      3. I’m aware there’s no conservation involved. What I meant is I find it contradictory publicly advocating for the well being of some animals while killing others because you want to have a good time.

         I recognise this is a simplistic view since I’m not familiar with hunting and its cultural meaning to the aristocracy, but I doubt many people are. If their aim with their conservation efforts is to raise awareness and attract donations within the general public, there’s a good chance they’ll come off as hypocritical.

         1. Paula, i was replying to LC and i agree with your sentiments 100%.

            As for culling Elephants in Africa……BS reasons are always given for killing animals in the wild.

            Firstly, there wouldn’t be a reason for the herds to be too big for the land if more of their land wasn’t being settled by humans who keep multiplying.

            The excusevof culling old animals, particularly Elephants is harmful to the herds at best and ergregious ergregious

            Elephants have a long memory. About survival and how to keep families together. The longer an elephant lives, the more knowledge it retains. It’s been proven that the older animals remember things like old watering holes that haven’t been used for decades by the herd and lead the herd to them in hard times when the frequently used watering holes aren’t available to them.

            All that knowledge is lost when the old ones are culled. The herds are left vulnerable every time an old one is killed.

            Further, to kill a sick animal is entirely a subjective decision by humans because the majority are made sick hy humans who ineffectually hunt and maim them leaving them to die awful deaths. As for natural sickness, there is something called the law of nature. They’ve survived centuries culled by mother nature. Humans culling them because they might be sick is only because humans are doing something mother nature did.

            At any rate, latterly, animals such as elephants have taken to seeking help from rangers when they’ve ineffectually hunted and maimed. There are more reports of elephants arriving at places known to be frequented by rangers seeking help from gunshot wounds . If that doesn’t tell you about their intelligence and long memories, i don’t know what will.

         2. Herazeus, in the recent elephant census they talked about how the elephants know safe places and where they are in danger thus the reason so many of them are now making their way to Botswana!

         3. Sarah, Exactly. And if they are culled because they are old or older, that knowledge is lost!!

            Whenever these animals are culled, it’s always the older ones that are chosen.

         4. Paula, I agree with you. OK, so the birds are meant to be killed for sport and supposedly some good comes out of it. However, not everyone makes that distinction, nor are they aware of the breeding purpose. All they know is that the ‘royals’ kill birds and that means that the ‘royals’ hunt’ while spouting off about conservation and protection of animals. Most people have the same simplistic view, and I am one of them even knowing the purpose. I live in a state where hunting is a given, you see trucks with gun racks all over the place and there are specific hunting seasons. The meat is for human consumption for the most part so I, in accepting this, am probably just a hypocritical as anyone. I, however, don’t go about blabbering and pontificating about conservation and cruelty to animals, nor am I a high profile person expected to set an example. We’re not a hunting family, but know lots of people who quite literally need the meat and we’ve accepted some and enjoyed it ourselves. (well, I have, my husband doesn’t like wild game). This is just one more area where the rules and ethics are liquid for the ‘royals’. We’ve passed the age where it’s do as I say, not as I do, not to mention the age where no one **knew** what the ‘royals’ did or didn’t do and just accepted that they were a world unto themselves and totally different and apart from us. Billy is playing ‘royal’ hunter, and protector at the same time and since most of the population has to work and deal with the details of life their only knowledge is that Billy kills birds for kicks and giggles. Perhaps he should pick another cause, he and all the ‘firm’, and let it go at that. Keep out of the big issues and do his own thing w/o bleating on about how his children may never see a rhino or whatever. Lots of children will never see hamburger so he comes across as phony with his ‘normal daddy concerns’. I’m sure that most normal daddy’s don’t have the luxury of worrying about that, they’re busy trying to put food on their tables and keep their children clothed, with a roof over their heads. Just a thought.

   2. Paula I don’t know if the pics are staged but they knew they were being photographed.
      If you go to the Daily Mail link KMR provided, you will see a photo that shows the photographer was too near the road for them to miss.
      We usually have photos of HM in Scotland, particularly with Prince Philip and the Wessex, but as one can imagine they rarely have articles associated with them or make “news” – however most of these are when arriving or leaving church.

      1. She’s wearing the Ring of Doom, so, yeah, this was a photo op. Not sure why, though.

         Ooooh, I get it now- this proves that she and her maj are cosy best buds.

         1. My first thought was that this was done to prove that she and the queen get along.

            1. Mine too.

         2. Oh for sure, look at me, I’m riding with the queen and we are so very close, she’s so impressed with my chutney and all. She made sure that Diana’s ring was in place for the pictures and that smile is ever so genuine and casual, just another day with the queen driving me about. MavenTheFirst you are right on 🙂 Later, they’ll all sit about and have a nice chat about the sermon and maybe Cathy will find time to write out her recipe for Chutney at the queen’s request.

      2. Did Ma Middleton phone someone to let them know they need to get their camera out?

         I dislike the thought of anyone being used like that and I really dislike the thought of HM being used by the Middletons!

         1. Cathy, I totally respect your opinion but I have no pity for the queen whatsoever. I don’t know who said it first but she’s the one who buried her head in the sand and thought that if she ignored the situation with Billy and Cathy it would all go away, and if it didn’t go away it would be dealt with by others and all work out and everyone would go on about their ‘royal’ way. Can’t be used if you don’t allow it, no one forced her into that car. Nope, can’t work up any sympathy for a woman who is supposedly head of state and all her majesty and stuff and lets this happen right under her ‘royal’ snoot. And then rewards the buffoons with houses and trips and all kinds of goodies.
            I suspect that the queen is doing a bit of damage control herself.

   3. +1

      This trip with HM driving seem very stage PR to give the feel, entitled lazy and HM have some relationship. Maybe for the weekend all is… For all we know HM is advising no more kids!.

2. I think like Paula that these photos are staged because what is the possibility that a photographer was present on this road in the good moment? Each year, the press talking about the week end at Balmoral but it is the first time that we have photos (if I don’t make mistake) : people on the web speculate about the veracity of these week-end
   I wonder if she will be the Royal order for the next State Dinner because people on the web remark that she don’t have it….

   Agree with Paula about the hypocrisy about the hunting.
   Personally I don’t want to hear William speaking about conservation : he has zero credibility ( his discussion about killing the ill and old animals… doesn’t pass for me) and if he speaks : I am sure that his speech will be the same with the reference to his children.

   I wonder when was the last engagement that Kate is attending alone : it is before Rolland Garros and the ceremony for Queen’s birthday : a gala for Sport aids or for a museum?
   Honestly as a teacher, just several days after the beginning of the scolar year, having royals (or other people) visiting, is a burden.

   1. We have gotten photos of W&K going to church while staying at Balmoral several times – and there are usually photos of the Queen going to church multiple times during her yearly vacation at Balmoral. I want to say there have been photos from other times/years of the Queen driving around the Balmoral estate. So while these may totally be staged, they also may not be.

      The last appearance Kate did alone was the Museum of the Year awards on July 6: http://katemiddletonreview.com/2016/07/07/kate-middleton-in-white-at-natural-history-museum-for-museum-of-the-year-awards/

      1. I’m guessing the pictures/videos are staged because they are an annual event and a variation on the same themes of (a) the Queen/William driving with Kate as passenger, and (b) going to/coming from church. Just all part of the ongoing PR cycle of being seen. Also, the ring is very much in shot, again, which is always a giveaway. I think a press photographer once remarked that the Middleton’s were always very aware of when the cameras were on them.

         If a speech is expected at an engagement, it makes sense for William to attend since Kate is, at best, reluctant to do so. The content of that speech will be interesting, just to see whether it advances the conversation about mental health or is just a variation on what we have heard many times before. I can’t help thinking that these events are a vehicle for W+K rather than advancing the cause. I honestly don’t have a clue what W+K mean when they reference “my work”. Do they do more than the PR engagements because this seems a very shallow involvement to my eyes.

         What is noticeable is appearances from W+K on a more regular basis and hopefully this eases the burden of the older members of the BRF. It also seems to signal hastening the end of William’s gap decade.

         1. Jen, I LOLed. Gap decade indeed!

            I think this is just about them and their PR, not changing things or using their position to truly do something with it about the stigma against mental health. William saying he wants to help men and erase that stigma is all well and good, it is a big thing, but he does nothing but repeat. Repeat, again and again, those buzzwords and phrases and ‘my work’ to make it seem like to most people they work oh so hard and are so modern and intelligent and amazing. There is no action, nothing like what they could be achieving; just fluff. And if you look at others in this family who do truly use their position in a proper way, they could be doing that same thing. They are too lazy. It’s all about smoke and mirrors, especially with these two.

            1. Just a thought.

               I wonder that they never consider how rude their mental health position is to the duchess of Kent.

               According to WK, poor parenting, working parents or just plain being poor is why people have mental health issues.

               Tell THAT to the Duchess of Kent. A lovely lady who has had mental health challenges leading her to step away from the royal spotlight completely.

            2. Kate is a 34 year old woman who has never held a job, done volunteer work and is obsessed with being thin. She can barely speak in public after five years of this position. She is not the example of someone with strong mental health either which makes her comments on this issue ridiculous and hypocritical. Look in a mirror before you tell others how to help themselves.

            3. Mental health is too serious an issue for William and Kate to tackle in a succession of ‘rinse and repeat’ self-serving events. They need to stop. The HuffPo event, with its wall to wall coverage, is a case in point: Kate working a day with journalists = an hour or so of photo ops. Then it was off shopping…

               I agree with nic919; both W+K need to get their own house in order before opining on bad parenting, mental health, and well, pretty much anything. They would be best advised to stick to the bread and butter events. I’m assuming a deal has been struck for W+K to step up their engagements. I’d imagine Carole figured in this somehow, hence her attendance at Balmoral.

            4. I sure wish that Kate would use one of those mirrors before she leaves the palace. I don’t mean the Disney one either, the one who tells her that she’s the fairest in the land, no I was thinking along the lines of ‘go change your clothes woman, and for the love of God do something with that hair, you’re a duchess not a teen aged rock star.’
               Please note that I am speaking in very general terms here, and KMR you are awesome in giving Kate the benefit of the doubt. Now I’m trying to think of how I sit in the car, but as an American I am on the other side of it. Personally, I think Kate deliberately sat in a way as to show **the* ring, but now am open to the possibility that it’s simply comfortable for her, who knows. Interesting that she is dressed rather nicely, could it be the driver’s influence you think.

         2. Jen: “Also, the ring is very much in shot, again, which is always a giveaway.”

            You’re spot on. All their silly calls for privacy and ridiculous histrionics, it’s obvious that Kate loves the media attention. Maybe, Carole informed the Daily Mail of their invite to Balmoral and their schedule. I looked at the picture twice trying to figure out how her hand is so way up high enough to be seen, and thinking to myself, this woman is definitely lacking in etiquette. Her hands should be clasped in her lap.

            W&K certainly knows how to vacation, WOW. They went on the 10 day trip to France, and after their return, visited some charities, then last weekend did about 10 hours of fun work like tourists, now Balmoral. With all of this *hard work* I’m sure they’re all tuckered out. I do hope the Canadians are ready for their illustrious highnesses, who will be descending upon them lickety-split.

            1. “Her hands should be clasped in her lap”

               Kate was resting her elbow on the window ledge in the car. That’s why her hand was so high. Is that not allowed? I do that all the time when I’m in the car.

            2. That would be uncomfortable since the window was not open (as per the smaller insert pic). The elbow would only have an inch/4 cm to rest on. Meanwhile the rest of her arm is hanging in space.

            3. I do it. I never have the window down in my car but frequently rest my elbow on the little ledge there.

            4. “That’s why her hand was so high. Is that not allowed?”

               Of course it’s allowed. She can do whatever she chooses. However, in that instance, she’s sitting next to the *Queen*, not William, and/or one of her family members, and IMO, should not be so *casual*. I view Kate as someone lacking in social graces, e.g., her constant whispering to William when in the company of other people, her flashing, and that ridiculous, fake wide-open mouthed forced laugh. Who knows, perhaps that’s their way of being “normal.” To each his/her own.

      2. Ok sorry I don’t remember seeing these photos of W and K with the Queen at Balmoral. Thanks for the rectification (I hope this word exists in English…. correction), KMR

         I am ill so I read the article a second time : when I read the first time I understand that William will make a speech about conservation…. not totally awaken… My post was a little not in the subject.

         1. +100

            Spot on Nic919 and upthread. Anyone with poor self esteem who waity a decade for anyone’s beck and call…is challenged; wallk out of a hospital in heels a few ‘ seconds’ after birth – cant Ive without carol at age 34 and a company of staff has issues along with entitled willnot.

3. I find it strange that Kate hasn’t been going to any visit alone. All her appearances as of late have included William. It makes me wonder what is going on, maybe she really can’t handle engagements alone. Or maybe the firm doesn’t think Kate comes off well on her own. Something is up though.

   Oh to be a fly on the wall….I wonder what Kate and the Queen actually talk about.

   And I know this weekend is a yearly trip but they just had a month long vacation. They have only worked 4 days since or rather about 10 hours since. I can’t believe some consider them hard working.

   1. Overt, if you’re gonna be the fly I wanna be the butterfly! Sooooo curious as to what HM and Kate spoke about before, during and after lunch!! I would hope it wasn’t just about G & C and that she didn’t use her “fake posh accent” to speak but who knows.

      I’m also curious as to why William has been with Kate whenever an engagement takes place. Is it to plump his numbers? To “baby-sit”/keep an eye on her? Have TPTB said something to him about her behavior? Things that make you go hmmm……

      Interesting that five years after marriage, she’s still treated with “kid gloves” as if she’ll break at any moment yet those behind the scenes have said that she’s anything but delicate and can be quite fierce and calculating (tried to come up with a synonym other than manipulative because that’s just mean, IMO).

      P.S. I just wanted to add that, like others, I also think that this photo is staged because 1) Big Blue can be seen and 2) her hair is perfectly styled. We all know how naturally curly it is!

      1. @Overit “I find it strange that Kate hasn’t been going to any visit alone. All her appearances as of late have included William.”

         @Kimothy “Have TPTB said something to him about her behavior? Things that make you go hmmm……” and .

         Like you, I’ve been wondering *why* they are doing duo appearances, and the only reason I can come up with, or that stands out in my mind, it could probably be due to Kate’s flirting with Ben Ainslie and the Daily Mail article that caused tongues wagging. Something’s amiss.

   2. Perhaps Kate is afraid to go it alone lest William stray even in thought. I couldn’t agree more with those who say she is an extremely insecure woman, sad but true. She is nothing without her title and Diana’s ring at least I think that is how she views herself. I don’t see anyone anywhere as being nothing, but facts are facts and this woman has totally submerged if not melded herself into William. I need to rephrase that since I was arrogant enough to state something as fact when I don’t know, so this is just my opinion. That’s not really rephrasing but hopefully it makes sense. I’m basing my opinion on Kate’s actions or lack thereof, and using what I do know about her. She went from being a tool (again, just my thought), a stepping stone for her ‘mummy’ to a default wife and womb for a man/child who had run out of options and caved in. Also, who knows what she’s hearing behind closed doors, what William is saying to her, how he is treating her? I haven’t any pity or sympathy for her because I can speak from experience on getting help and breaking free if one chooses to. Sacrifices must be made so it’s a matter of deciding what matters in life and what ultimately does not. Sorry for going off on a tangent KMR. Last post on this subject.

4. Harry went to Sandhurst’s dinner on Friday and also had an Invictus meeting, and went to Mildmay hospital again. He’s back, yay!

   Of course, none of it is publicized much.

   At least Place2Be is getting another visit. I don’t expect much from them about hese things – more buzzwords, empty comments, and lots of plaudits for doing little as usual.

   1. First lazy entitled wife of a royal who is so well babysit and is a ‘snowflake’.

      PR with HM fornsure – look no further than the very recent publicized SRF Prince Alexander’s lovely, family Christening with a sincere loving family unit – from baby Princesses ( coordinated elegant ponytails updo) to the Princes with Princes Oscar and Alexander showcasing the loving family togetherness!

      SRF and baby Princes spotlight HM BRF POW and enttitled secret whiny willnot and cannot middleton and kids shanigans with POW and uncle Wales excluded, all on taxpayer and Duchy funded lifestyle .

5. Is it wrong of me to think the photos are staged because Kate is showing off the ring?

   Pheasants are raised like chickens to be put in nests on the hunting ground. Grouse are scared by beaters into flying over the hunters’ guns. Not culling. Not very sporting either.

   1. No, it’s not sporting at all. It’s also a waste of taxpayers’ money using a dozen or so highly-trained soldiers as beaters simply so that a profligate family can enjoy killing living things. Ugh.

6. I agree the photo does look staged. I know Harry is the Favorite i get the impression that the family are trying to push K & W more into the media rather then Harry. With all the media on Harry being the preferred King which we all know he would do a hell Job then the other two. I’m beginning to think Harry’s been asked to step back a little. Perhaps that why we have no news on Harry lately. I just wish Harry had his own PR team and leave the other two rot in their own misery. Team Harry

   1. I wonder at the end of the year what the number of engagement will be : I think that the press will insist about the fact that K and W make more engagement. If Harry’s number are less than Kate, the press will insist about Harry making nothing and it will be the principal focus on this article.

      I think that the family can push K and W more in the media, I don’t think it will change the fact that Harry is more popular (even with his past scandals) : now in the mind of people he is associated with concrete action like Invictus.

      1. Harry has done more engagements than Kate every year since she married. So if Harry had less engagements than Kate this year I’d say something is very, very wrong.

7. Off topic : yesterday I saw Elizabeth Marks winning gold medal on the 100m breast stroke in Rio (she was the Invictus sergeant who gives her medal to the London hospital in thanking for serving her life)

   1. Amazing! Good for her!!

   2. That’s awesome!! Congrats to Elizabeth and Team USA getting gold!!

8. I have to say that I normally also enjoy royal couple doing engagements together though only ine is patron or it would have been enough if only one goes but in other cases it shows the interests of both in the topic while WK often look bored and seem unprepared and saying thigs which seem rather off – unlike other couple who bring out the best of each other, those two seem to bring out the worst of each other so often. Two bored faces, two people uninformed, and so on. It’s just too much. And also others still do majority alone which is not the case for WK

   On other note, yeah for Harry being back. Nice to see him again and looking forward to his tour in Caribbean!

   1. Harry returned end of the week and has already done 3 engagements. No rest for him!

9. This doesn’t look staged to me…staged pictures would be the Bhutan hiking pictures. It looks like a candid shot; as royalty of course they expect the press to be around but I think here they are just going about their day. Only the biggest royal watchers will look at this picture and analyze it for deeper meanings. I also think it’s interesting how this blog now criticizes appearances before they ever happen; I think it shows how long of a way Will and Kate have to go to be considered the inspiring couple/wave of the future/”A” team that so many hoped for when they married.

   1. They are staged in the sense that a photographer was told to wait at a point where the motorcade would pass, simultaneously the family agree to be photographed on that road.

      Balmoral is a private estate of approximately 50,000acres. A random photographer can’t enter the estate without permission and a security check.

      These are staged ‘natural’ photos.

      That said, we have staged Balmoral pics with the royals every year around this time and at Easter. Easter tends to be Charles staged photos. And we often get staged William and Kate st Balmoral evety year around this time. This year, we ‘happen’ to get HM and Kate.

      1. +1 Balmoral is a locked down, private estate. The “men in grey” make sure these pics come out to ensure the public is appeased at best. WK don’t work and are distanced from the Windsors at best. The BRF needs to look unified and normal.

   2. The reason I included the “Why is Kate bringing William to a Place2Be event” comment is 1) I am actually curious about that and 2) so I don’t have to include it in my post on the actual event. In case the event goes really well I don’t want to have to drag it down with that comment.

      1. KMR – the reality is the royals do all these engagements for the press and good will it gives them. No one will pay attention to a solo William if a solo Kate is about – the heir’s media coverage will diminish. That is not the agenda of the royal family. And from the point of view of the family – who is more important – the heir’s wife, or the heir? How nice that the HEIR is attending the Place2Be event.

         1. That’s why for me that Kate doesn’t make solo engagement during tour because I think that a great part of the press will follow her and not William (it is one reason)

            1. …but the press follow flasher Kate for the wrong reason – to be the one to get that pap of how a royal marryin waste millions in taxpayers and Duchy funds on clothes and still manage to look plain unroyal, than the rest of us with less funds.

            2. The press follow Kate because she sells more than William does.

10. I am quite surprised that Kate’s numbers are so low at this point of the year. The Canadian tour will soon remedy that. I am tiring of this ill-informed mental health initiative. It proves WK are in over their heads.

    As far as hunting, I’m not a fan personally. However, I don’t know enough about the culture in the UK to have an informed opinion. But I do find it hard to swallow that you can want to save the rhino/elephants yet hunt.

    Let’s keep our fingers crossed for this week, KMR.

    1. If the Invictus Games count as one event for Harry, then Canada should count as one for W&K. They can choose which one of them it counts for.

11. Well Kate is the only out of the three that has not done a solo engagement related to Heads Together.
    The first to do so was William on fathers day.
    Than Harry with the BBQ.
    Taking into account joint and solo events for Heads Together William is the one who has done more, in public.

    I don’t remember she doing so many engagements with William, with exception of her first year of marriage. Could this be a way of the couple spending more time together? We know how William never seems to have time for anything important in his life and we know how much he loves creating excuses…..

12. Why doesn’t Kate wear great scarves like this when she’s doing engagements? They would certainly add a bit of interest to otherwise boring outfits.

    1. Maybe the weight of a “great scarf” would be too much . . . and swamp her. And her hair would get caught up in it too. OK for the car and a quick walk into church – but not for a “meet and greet”

       1. LOL Oz!! yes, those scarves must weigh several ounces, hahaha.

13. I’d like to start challenging the use of “holiday” or “vacation” when the family is simply enjoying themselves at another one of their properties. This is just like everyday in their life.

    You do realize that no one can tell the 90 year old Queen “no” when it comes to driving. That’s a pretty uncomfortable seat to be in, quite honestly.

    I’m going to suggest the “team” events are so that William gets equal coverage and is seen about. The whole program of appearances is for the royal family to engage with ordinary folks and to be seen doing this in media. If they media lean towards covering Kate (and if she’s out solo) — and exhaust folks interest in “royal” press – William will get shut out. That defeats the purpose of all the exposure. It’s like when movie starts promote a movie together – that’s why Will and Kate are doing appearances together. To promote the Cambridge brand. Kate is not in line for the throne – promoting Kate solo benefits no one. (Lessons learned from the Diana era).

    1. Uhh every royal spouse does things alone. Camilla & Sophie are not in line for the throne so why do they mostly do solo engagements?

    2. I just watched a small clip of the Queen taking Bea pony riding at Balmoral when she was about 4. In it the Queen referred to holidays, so I think we can, too.

       Actually, unless they think Kate will be gone like Diana, or Fergie, separate appearances make sense. More interests covered, showing women being independent. Otherwise the spouse is just a clothes mannequin, or a baby breeder. All the other royal families in Europe manage separate appearances.

    3. If so I think that has less to do with Royal protocol and more to do with William’s ego. All of the other spouses make many solo appearances.

       1. I also think she seems to need shoring up before engagements so they just send him with her now.

       2. Well said, KMR! Ego, is the answer! +1

14. Hello everyone, this is my first post here.

    Two weeks ago, merely 7 minutes drive away from the school that William and Kate are going to visit in Harlow, a group of British teenagers beaten a man to death in what appears to be a hate crime, the man was murdered most probably because he was Polish. Following that event, I read several articles stating that Harlow is full of teenage gangs that are verbally and physically attacking immigrants or are for example throwing stones at the immigrants’ shops. Sometimes they attack British citizens too. People are scared, police do very little.
    So William and Kate announce visit to this place, but there is nothing in the agenda that would even remotely reflect current situation? I have to say this bothers me tremendously. I thought that William is supposed to be super keen on fighting bullying and discrimination? I really hope that at least William’s speech will include mention of what is happening in the town. If not, then this is the best example of how utterly irrelevant, useless and detached from reality this two are.

    1. Welcome, and thanks for this info. This is something I would never have learnt just reading US news reports.

15. I just saw that Carole Middleton went to church with W and K, Charles, the Queen, and some others. Are Carole and Mike Middleton separated? I haven’t seen them together in a year. I didn’t see him in the car with Carole today.

    1. I had read that they had but then he was at Wimbledon and some other engagements further back. Maybe together in name only? Wouldn’t that disrupt William’s version of the happy family if they have!

    2. The story in the DM says that both Carole and Michael flew to Scotland together and both attended church with the royal family. However, only images of Carole with the royal family have surfaced, which is unusual.

16. I like that they’re staying at Charles’s place. Maybe that means he can finally get some grandpa time on.
    I like that the queen is seen regularly going to church. I think if you’re the head of the church you should be going.

    1. They say Carole is there so she will make sure he knows his place.

17. I find it odd that Carole goes everywhere with them.I understand she is their grandmother but they have a nanny.It seems like Carole ‘s life is about will,kate ,and kids.Shouldn’t she be spending time with her husband and friends instead of being attached to her daughter. I don’t see Queen Letizia or Princess Charlene mother’s following them everywhere. I know some people will say its nice they are close. That is too close and unhealthy.I feel sorry for Pippa cause Carole will never treat her like she does Kate when it comes time for her to have a family of her own.

    1. Doesn’t she have a business to co-manage? A separate life to lead? Carole seems to need to live the whole royal connection thing. Hovering around two 34-year-olds and their family, plus staff, even if at their request, is not healthy.

       1. Right???? Who is managing PP???

18. Interesting piece. One point that may be restating is that William talking to kids is not the same as giving a speech, so it shouldn’t be expected. The press release does not say he will give one, just talk to the students about random points.

19. “Making an Appearance” is correct – arrive, wave, walk around, shake a hand or two, say a few words, wave again, and leave . . . . . all the work that goes into these occasions and for what ?

    1. For what? Well, to appear as if you’re doing something.

20. The Queen is the Head of the Church of England, having inherited Henry VIII’s legacy.
    Charles will likely become Head of the Church of England as King.
    William will likely become Head of the Church too.
    I would be interested in knowing the Queen’s thoughts about this. She is clearly a woman of great faith. Charles had affairs, divorced, and married a divorcee. William lived in sin for many years before finally marrying.
    I don’t know why the Queen ‘allows’ such behaviour from men who will likely become the church head.

    1. Henry VIII had six wives. He annulled the first marriage, killed the second and fifth wives, and divorced the fourth wife. All of the Kings of England have had affairs. So Charles and William’s sins aren’t really that different from the sins of the kings of the past.

       1. Thank you KMR.

          I never understand people who invoke the church in order to censure Charles or William considering the established for the primary reason of giving the King a divorce!!

          Same King went on to have 5 more reasons that wouldn’t qualify him as head of the church under these people’s strict church morality.

          And speaking of church censure, anyone who has studied the history of the Roman church knows the Pope was easily and frequently bribed to grant divorces for the flimsiest of excuses most of which were to do with money, power, politics and unsuitable marriage partners. Morality was the last thing on their minds.

          And finally, the church as a whole didn’t bother with marriage until the 12th century as far as insisting that it be guided by the church’s rules, so again, pearl clutching about it is to abide by a recent construct that the church’s own leaders never allowed in their own lives yet imposed on the people for their own ends.

       2. Interestingly Charles 11 did love his wife, refusing to divorce Catherine of Braganza. Albert never had a mistress. Or so I read. I am not sure on Mary and William. I would have thought William was a traditional guy, choose a girl and married. I don’t think William was that serious about Kate and the problem will arise if someone if it is likely comes up.

          I think Kate wears the scarves to fit in. However it is good seeing some sort of accessory. I find it strange Carole tags a long. I do think Kate behaves herself when her mother is there. The publicity with Sir Ben has not done Kate any favours.

          1. Charles 2 refused to divorce his wife, but that didn’t stop him from having a stable of mistresses who were as important at court as his wife and sometimes often so.

             https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mistresses_of_Charles_II_of_England

             Half the current aristo families can be traced back to Charles 2 and his illegitimate off spring, including Diana and Fergie. We’ll never know for sure how many he fathered though he acknowledged 14.

             https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Illegitimate_children_of_Charles_II_of_England

             His brother James 2 was devoted to both his wives, yet managed an equal devotion to his mistresses.

             William of Orange, Mary’s husband was considered moral because he kept just one mistress unlike Charles or James.

             Queen Anne’s husband was faithful as far as anyone knows, but few biographies exist of him to be sure.

             Of the next 5 Kings (George 1-4 + William 4), only George 3 was faithfully wed to his wife and didn’t take any mistresses or father scores of illegitimate children

             Albert and Victoria are a rare princely couple that fell in love unexpectedly given their arranged marriage.

             Albert was determined to mold the royal family into the model family, morals included and that’s when the fidelity of the monarch’s marriage became a thing.

             Every Monarch that has come after Victoria has been scrutinised with a view to censure if they do not meet the high moral standards set out by Albert. Bertie and David fell short in various ways, especially mistresses.

             We won’t know for another 50yrs minimum whether George 5 and 6 met the standard as all matters concerning them are under seal for 100yrs after their deaths. Ditto HM and Philip. We are still being subjected to the PR roses and rainbows versions of them until their papers are unsealed.

             Victoria and Albert’s semi unsealed papers have revealed 2 people very different from their PR-ed historical versions.

             1. I really enjoy your comments, Herazeus!! :). I never knew there was so much that I didn’t know. I look forward to the fascinating posts you write.

             2. Back in the day, Philip was said to have had many a dalliance with other women while married to the Queen. If true, the Queen turned a blind eye. Herazeus’s excellent overview of royal marital fidelity shows faithfulness to one’s legal partner to be the exception than the the rule. It’s the current royals’ insistence of their own ‘PR roses and rainbows’ to give a glow of superiority to the rest of us in all aspects of their lives – standards they do not meet – that causes much of their problems. They are human, and are fallible, no better than you or I; the refusal for royals and supporters to understand this is incomprehensible.

             3. Thanks Charlotte and Jen.

                Fun fact, if you should ever visit Althorp, the Spencer family seat, they have a gallery dedicated to portraits of Charles 2’s stable of mistresses and other ladies who may have also caught his eye, but didn’t manage to graduate to mistress status.

                During his reign, Britain came close to having an official mistress position like the custom of the French court of Maitresse-en-titre.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maîtresse-en-titre

                All Charles’s mistresses were openly acknowledged, had their own apartments/rooms at court close to his own, had proper power which they weren’t afraid to yield. His poor wife is often invisible when you read any biographies anout him because the mistresses were and took on larger than life public narratives/influence.

                When he acknowledged his illegitimate children, they were enobled and the mothers given estates. Like Henry 8 did with his illegitimate son.

       3. I know that there is history for affairs, and that H8 was not a faithful husband. My point is more that I wonder why Elizabeth doesn’t want better behaviour from her successors. We don’t know what’s said behind closed doors of course, and we all know about Philip’s poor history of fidelity, but she surely takes very seriously falling numbers in church attendance, decreasing popularity of Anglicanism, church scandals, etc. – all of that affects church standing and she’d want to set a good model to bring people back to the church, wouldn’t she? I’d be surprised if she hadn’t told Charles off in the past, just don’t understand her approving of a future king and queen (albeit consort) cohabiting, that’s all.

          1. Thank you Herzeus. However Catherine of Brangaza out ranked all the mistresses. Charles was said to have looked after his wife when she was sick. Actually clearing the vomit up. I don’t think Charles put love and his mistresses in the same boat.

          2. Lauren: The church no longer frowns on co-habiting.

             Society as a whole has moved on from such ultra conservative, Leviticus law abiding living.

             We have gay bishops, women bishops and preachers etc. All would be frowned upon if we still lived by old school conservative Leviticus abiding laws.

             Laura: As the wife of a monarch, Catherine of Braganza had an assured rank, but that doesn’t mean that she held power or that Charles was a faithful, devoted husband even where he showed acts of devotion to his wife.

             The most powerful of his mistresses, Barbara Villiers was considered to be the first lady of the land, above the Queen and was often treated as such even though technically the Queen *was*the first lady of the land AND outranked her.

             She has gone down in history as the uncrowned Queen of England due to her power and influence over Charles and his court during her tenure as official mistress. Naturally the Quuen objected to her and disliked her, but Charles refused to give her up.

             Further, for many years, Charles installed Barbara in apartments next to his own at the Palace, between him and Catherine, and eventually made her a duchess in her own right.

             Yet for all his devotion to Catherine AND Barbara, he found it easy to move on to his next mistress who was equally elevated and cossetted.

             The one constant thing about Charles 2 was that he loved women, showed devotion to each one, but was notoriously unfaithful even for a monarch, not just to his wife, but also to his mistresses.He is not an example to give of devoted relations.

             The one saving grace about his romantic escapades is that he wasn’t cruel to the women. He was often kind and generous and maintained relationships with most, if not all, long after their affair had cooled. Being discarded by him didn’t send them into purdah.

             1. I have learnt a lot though about Charles 11 and I do find him interesting. However maybe being a bit of a romantic I like to think that Charles and Catherine loved each other. Catherine was meant to have introduced tea to England. It makes a change from my Victorian obsession.
                My godmother said that a baby in their parish was refused by the vicar to be baptized because the parents were in a co-habiting relationship. That was disgusting. The baby was christened in another church.

             2. The Paradox of Charles 2 and other unfaithful monarchs is that often they *did* love and respect their spouses.

                Perhaps it was the fact that the wives were arranged marriages and usually not someone the monarchs would have picked for themselves.

                If they liked each other as friends, the marriage was often pleasant and even loving and mistresses tolerated on both sides after the heir and spare had been sired.

                If they hated each other, the marriage was one of toleration above all else.

                The church has been a terrible steward for many centuries, but thank goodness we had a reformation and continue to reform even today.

                Much of the cruelty remains a mark of the non-reformed church and i weep for those people who had to live through that.

Comments are closed.