Duchess Kate’s next appearance, Princess Eugenie’s new interview

Duchess Kate’s next appearance, Princess Eugenie’s new interview

Shortly after KP dropped photos of Harry’s summer in Africa, they announced a new engagement for Kate Middleton. I’m also including Alexandra Shulman still talking about Kate, as well as Princess Eugenie giving an interview about modern slavery.

Kate at Action on Addiction Autumn Gala
[Action on Addiction Facebook]

The first bit of news is Kate will attend the UK film premiere of ‘A Street Cat Named Bob’ in aid of Action on Addiction on Thursday, November 3 in London. This is Kate’s only scheduled appearance for the foreseeable future, but I expect we’ll get more announcements soon since October and November are usually Kate’s busiest months and Kate hasn’t done anything since October 18.

The second bit of news (?) is that after saying Kate is an incredibly likeable professional who isn’t interested in celebrity and saying that Kate’s Vogue cover didn’t sell as well as Cara Delevingne’s Alexandra Shulman still can’t shut up about Kate. This time she’s saying Kate’s totally not a clothes horse, you guys.

    On Kate not being a clothes horse/silent mannequin: “I can’t really speak for her but in my experience it was I think it was very much her feeling that she wanted to be what she felt she was comfortable with being. She is not a clothes horse. The idea that she is a kind of silent mannequin that just wants to put on expensive clothes is so not what she is. And I think she wanted this cover to reflect that.”
    On Kate turning down the offer initially: “Probably every magazine in the world had asked her if she would be on the cover, I should think. I had certainly asked her before. And it was only when I was writing to her saying: ‘It’s our centenary, it’s our 100 years of Vogue and we do have kind of a history of being able to feature the royal family’ that I realised we had another connection.”
    Pulling in Kate’s patronage, National Portrait Gallery, did the trick: “It ticked the box and yes it happened. It was the best new when I heard she was going to be on the cover.”

[Daily Mail]

If Kate were more than a “silent mannequin” then why didn’t she give an actual interview to Vogue? It was the perfect opportunity for Kate to talk about her charity work and patronages and give them a ton of publicity and to show that she is intelligent and more than a silent mannequin clothes horse. But she didn’t do that. She just dressed up as a country woman and posed for photos. That’s it. She literally IS a “silent mannequin” because she didn’t bother to give an interview to Vogue. Your own magazine is proof that you are telling lies, Alexandra Shulman, so have all the seats.

Princess Eugenie has been partnering with the Salvation Army for the fight against trafficking and modern slavery. On October 18, they released the above video of Eugenie talking about the #askthequestion campaign to end trafficking and modern slavery. In the above video, she said:

    “I’ve had the chance to see first hand what the Salvation Army can do for victims of trafficking and modern slavery. This year I went to visit a safe house and I was completely astounded by the work that they do and by the survivors who have come out of modern slavery. I think it’s everyone’s opportunity and duty to ask the question and to support this campaign in anyway possible to try and affect change and create massive awareness for this cause.”

Now Eugenie has given and interview with The Salvation Army’s Director of Anti Trafficking and Modern Slavery Major Anne Read.

    On why she wanted to get involved with this cause: “I think it was a visit to India that I did with my mother. It was visiting a charity called Women’s Interlink in Calcutta and these women were trafficked and were victims of slavery and they were saved. These girls now print on wonderful fabrics and they make lots of lovely clothes and they get paid for their work and it’s now a growing social enterprise which is something that’s really important to have skills and to be able to help yourself and so that was my first view into it. Since then I came to visit with the Salvation Army and I visited a safe house and I think it’s something that always sticked me as never really being talked about and no one really knowing what’s going on. So to just try and raise awareness and shine a spotlight on an issue and also on the wonderful people who are doing amazing things within the field was so important to my family and to me.”
    People don’t realize it’s happening close to home, too: “I didn’t know that the issue of slavery within even a mile of my living is an issue. I think that was so shocking on our own doorstep when you think it is a million miles away but actually it’s people every day who this is happening to.”
    On how she felt meeting victims of modern slavery: “I was completely astounded by the victims these people were strong, happy, they had their moments when they were telling stories but they were loving life. These girls really showed me how to grab life and to appreciate things and if they can do it after what they’ve been through it’s a really huge lesson for people to learn.”
    On resilience is such a strong thing: “I was actually think today it’s courageous, I like that word, because they are courageous and everyone who works within modern slavery and who tries to fight for the people who don’t have a voice, are courageous, I mean brave, and it’s such an important word I think that goes with it.”
    On the importance of people prompting businesses to question whether there are slaves in their supply chains: “I think the campaign in general is brilliant. It’s something to make people think and to make people listen and have a look and to see what they can do to ask the question to see what’s going on and to provide any support for Salvation Army and their campaign. Ask the question will be shining a light for all people, friends, families, businesses to see what’s going on and to really understand it, and I think raising awareness is such a huge part of modern slavery because no one knows it’s going on as much as it is. There are more slaves now than there were in William Wilberforce’s time and I think it’s such a huge problem but I think everyone can do their part to try and effect change and I think if you can save one person’s life then you can keep going. It’s something that I’m definitely going to shout about.”

Eugenie attended the October 12 Westminster Abbey service to commemorate the work of William Wilberforce and mark the United Kingdom’s commitment to combat modern slavery. I think this interview and the above video message were done the same day as the Abbey service as she’s wearing the same dress and shoes and necklace.

I know that Charles doesn’t want Eugenie to have a public royal role, but with this one interview Eugenie has already outdone Kate by a lot. Can you imagine Kate giving this type of interview and having detailed answers like that? I think Kate would have a heart attack.

104 thoughts on “Duchess Kate’s next appearance, Princess Eugenie’s new interview

  1. The juxtaposition of these two stories is powerful. One of these women is a voice for others and one of them is Kate. It really highlights what Kate has squandered.

    1. Red Snapper, so true!!!!

      The Vogue article was a place where Kate could have talked about the causes she champions. But, no!

      Eugenie comes across as a very bright and caring woman. I’m happy to read more about her here and other places, too.

    2. I totally agree!

      We hear more ads about pippy wedding with carol the mddletons g and c role than any charity duties, lazy entitled w&w will be representing.

  2. So to prove she’s not a clothes horse she posed for the cover of Vogue? That makes sense.

    This cause Eugenie is embracing is so important. Over the last few years in my country they busted a lot of sweatshops that produced clothes for Zara and other local stores. The workers were mostly immigrants who didn’t speak the language, had nowhere to live and were lured into work. I had a lot of pieces from Zara, but after these news broke I decided to stop buying from all those fast fashion chains.

    It would have been great to see Kate tackle this as she gets so much attention for her fashion, but I guess Eugenie will do a better job. And, on a superficial note, she is really beautiful and I love her grave voice.

  3. Here’s the thing. The York girls are more then welcome to champion any causes they feel passionate about. But why should the British public have to pay them for it? They can promote any non-profit, for-profit and use their name recognition however they see fit. Promote British brands/business, use their connections to support causes — just like anyone else. Why should the British taxpayer give them money to do so? Especially since these women have private family trust funds. Why they don’t have paid contracts with Burberry and Land Rover to publicly use their products while they promote non-profit causes is beyond me.

    1. I don’t think Eugenie ever intends on it but Bea would rely on the idea that she could be a working royal. Eugenie has her job, and enjoys it, clearly doesn’t want to get into that rigamarole and is using her position for good because she can, not because it’s expected of her or is some payback from tax bucks.

    2. Both Eugenie and Beatrice were made aware of the re-jig of royal roles at least six years ago – plenty of time to plan and move on. Sadly, it doesn’t help that their father resists this decision. Andrew is a symptom of a larger problem: the BRF must stop thinking that the public owes them extravagant lifestyles forever. It’s completely out of touch with the real world.

      As Ellie said, Eugenie has a job, private funds, charity interests and is sorting out her future. Beatrice still needs to find that relative independence too. It will be better for them both in the long run if they transition to more independent lives.

      Lady Blue Ribbon, you make valid points. Many with public profiles use their fame to help others, many more without pubic profiles do the same, and all without public funding.

    3. I guess my question would then be what about Harry? Why can’t he go off and live off his own trust funds and get a proper job and support himself while also doing charity work in his off hours? He doesn’t need to be supported by the taxpayer either.

      1. He can. Nothing is stopping Harry from living from his own means. But his father is giving him an allowance, courtesy of the public when it comes down to it, but he has no pressing need to work at a regular job (or desire to since he left the army some time ago) since he has been identified as a full-time working royal, whatever that entails. It’s not entirely clear.

        So much is provided to members of the BRF that it is impossible for them to provide the same living standards and access to opportunities that they have become used to but based on their own efforts and abilities. It’s not healthy. And it’s dangerous to assume endless funding will go on forever, particularly when there is a refusal to account for that spending in a transparent manner.

      2. Harry should not be paid by the taxpayer to do charity work. Harry needs to get a job and carve out a life of his own. Currently I see no difference between him and his brother when it comes to being supported by Daddy’s taxpayer supported coffers. He’s just another trust fund kid with a fancy title and some charm which seem to absolve him permanently from dedicated labour.

        Indeed, the BRF resembles a crooked charity case itself, hoarding its own money while looking for handouts. In fact, one never hears of any member of the BRF contributing to charity; they seem like a miserly bunch to me. I guess showing up is as good as gold.

        1. I’m not entirely familiar with the system, but what kind of jobs do those who leave the army usually get if they don’t have a university degree like Harry doesn’t? I think he said something in an interview about being a non-grad causing problems when carving a career path in the army?

          Another question is what his family wants him to do? Is he so loyal to his brother he accepts it’s his number one duty to be there for his brother if needed and take on royal engagements to the extent his brother allows/wants him to?

        2. I believe the Queen does contribute to charity, but their finances are so tangled and opaque who knows whether it’s “public” or “private”.

          Harry should have stayed in the army. What job is he qualified for?

          1. Officer class of the military tends to be fast-tracked into fabulous jobs, usually in the city.

            No slogging from the bottom.

            Experience isn’t required.

            It’s the squaddies who struggle when they leave.

            Officer class = tends to draw from the old boys network. Many of them come from middle class/ upper middle class/aristocrat class. As officers, they form or tap into networks available to the old boys networks and that helps them enormously when they retire from the army.

            Squaddies = rank and file soldiers. Regular people who sign up to the army without undertaking officer training.

            Unless they work their way up the ranks until they reach officer class, their prospects aren’t so good when they leave the army.

          2. So why did Harry leave the army? Was he pressured to? It seemed as if he really liked it. Wasn’t he forced to switch from army to army airborne?

          3. I read that Charles wanted Harry to stay in, but Harry didn’t want to have a desk job, which at his age was the career path open.

          4. What Fifi said.

            Harry had been promoted to the glass ceiling of action ranks. Any further promotions would have involved more desk work and little action.

            As he is dyslexic, that would have been a problem. his strengths lie in action, not paperwork.

        3. Agreed, Maven. I’d like to see Harry very productively engaged in real work, well away from the BRF. I’m not sure what that work would be; being involved in healthy transitions from active duty to civilian life for veterans in an NGO would be a good fit. Problem is that full-time royal work is a world away from what the rest of regard as full-time work hours and responsibilities. Again I say that royals receive so many privileges that nothing else comes close to meeting it, so they stick with what provides the best deal.

          In fairness, members of the BRF have given private donations to various organisaions, particularly when a natural disaster has struck. Also I recall Charles organising hampers of food for flood victims a couple of years ago which was immensely practical and needed.

          But their finances are too shady to be believed , way out of control and really need to be exposed as well as radical pruning.

          1. Given the comments from organisers of Invictus AND Sentebale, not to mention the level of involvement he brought to the Diana concert and William’s wedding, it’s clear that he is very good at operational type things.

            Yes, his profile means few people turn him down, but rather than coast on his advantage, he really gets stuck in.

            For that reason, any job that requires operational skills would work for Harry.

            Given his love for people, it would have to be a jon that is customer facing

      3. KMR – Harry sometimes operates as a soft diplomat – he does visit with foreign leaders at the request of his grandmother/father/government. The Invinctus Games is an international coalition to support armed services from many allied countries (all with governments dependent on military to hold their power in the world). Giving Harry a visible leadership role in that helps solidify the idea that the UK has military might. While the word “charity” might apply there in how it’s partially funded there is definitely a strategic geo-political aspect to it.

        In all other areas, I agree, his “charity” work should be on par with any other philanthropist/activist and the public should not fund it. He has a trust fund from his mother and grandmother as well.

    4. Agree with everybody. My question is what do members of the BRF do that can possibly be worth the billions bestowed upon them by the tax payers? They become patrons of charities, they go on goodwill tours, they coordinate a few programs. Actors and other wealthy people do the same without getting a dime for it. Just a few: Sean Penn after Haiti earthquake (described by a nurse I know who volunteered while he was there as an incredibly modest hard worker), Gary Sinise for military personnel; and uber wealthy Edwina Grosvenor for prisoner reform.

      So the BRF is getting huge amounts of money for doing work other people do for free in addition to their day jobs.

      Agree with Jen that the BRF’s lifestyle is what is most galling. They can never sustain it with regular jobs, even if they were paid a princely sum of a couple mil a year. That’s what keeps Charles and the rest of this lot making appearances in order to justify continued payment of millions a year without any accountability for how it’s used. In reality they are nothing more than pitchman. In W&KM’s case very reluctant pitchmen.

      1. Totally agree. And I get so sick of hearing the argument that William is wealthy in his own right, so that even if he became a completely private citizen he and Kate would still enjoy their current luxurious lifestyle. Ha! William would be buried in debt if he used his own funds to live as they do.

        1. I agree with everyone. I think this is the reason Charles wants slim down or “trim the fat” per say,to the BRF. So he can justify taxpayers paying for their lavish lifestyle. He we would only have six. Yet when two of the six are work shy. How are you going to have four people do all the leg work and engagements. I know Charles and Anne do a lot of engagements. Yet Anne would be out of the equation. So would Prince Edward and Sophie. Who also put a lot of time and effort into their patronage. I do not think Will Not and Can Not will be doing four to five hundred engagements a year. Individual or combined. So Charles really need to consider or reconsider his plans. Utilize the people you have and their strengths and commitment. Maybe reconsider the York Princesses into being full time. Yet not funded by the taxpayers. On a side note, Charles better respect his mother and father’s wishes when it comes to Edward. That he will fashion the Duke of Edinburgh someday.

          1. And the Cambridge children, if they model after their parents, won’t be full-time royals until well into their 30s, even 40s. If the Queen dies in a decade, that is another 20-30 years before the Cambridge children serve. And Charles, Camilla, Harry, Harry’s Plus One, and these two are going to plug that hole all by themselves? That is how the Queen’s cousins, etc. got so involved in the first place — her only available surrogates were Margaret and the Queen Mother, and she needed more adults.

          2. Is Charles plan definitely to cut out his siblings when he becomes king? Because I always assumed the slimmed down monarchy idea was that only his kids would be working royals and Anne, Edward and Andrew would continue working till they decide to retire. That way the monarchy would eventually slim down as time went on.

      2. Joanna

        As a staunch republican here, I would happily send the entire Royal Family over to you – or anywhere else for that matter, as long as they are not here – on a strictly one way ticket.

        In my opinion, they are a complete waste of time and money and do very little to justify the exhorbitant and utterly outrageous sums of money spent on them. Kate Middleton is a classic example of everything which I loathe about them. If she and that awful husband of hers could just organise a foreign trip on a space rocket heading to Alpha Centauri and beyond, I would be a very happy man, just as long as they never returned here.

        It is high time that the dreadful brainwashing of the British public ceased !

    5. They can and they do. All we have is speculation that their father wants them to be working royals, lots of stories – but all of it is speculation. He said, she said, the DM or Mirror published.

      Even Charles’s plan to slim down the monarchy, which we all take for granted as fact, has never been published or publicly-acknowledged. Likewise his rumored plans to turn BP into a museum and turn Balmoral over to the people as a national park. Rumors but no concrete statements.

      The question is, how many people does the BRF need to do the work it does? Many people already think this family doesn’t work enough, and they cover 3200 engagements with 14 people. If they’re already considered lazy, they cannot decrease the number of engagements they do annually. 3200 engagements done by four people? Not if two of those people are W&K.

      The rumored slim-down plan doesn’t seem to be accompanied by a slim-down-the-costs plan. We have rumors of Charles trying to grab Duchy of Lancaster, Duchy of Cornwall, and Crown Estate and legally considered *private property* of the Windsors. Hell no!

      If they’re going down to 4 people, they have to decrease costs accordingly. The people have to remove the blocks HM and Charles have put in place against Freedom of Information requests. All funds and costs must be made transparent.

      Pay-per-view appearances looks like a better and better idea. Plus a limited fund for private-life security. If you go over budget, by running off to Mustique and mummy all the time, those funds have to come from private money. The government and people set the annual targets for appearances and charity money raised. The Windsors are reimbursed for costs IF and only IF they reach or pass those targets.

      1. I doubt Charles has considered scaling down payment to himself with the alleged downsizing of paid monarchy! His grand plan rests on grabbing the Duchies for private ownership and in return kindly letting go of the Sovereign Grant. I hope the Brits finally wake up to this lot and in one united voice say, hell no.

        I agree, nota, that the workload and payment needs to be radically re-jigged:

        • A modest stipend for attending state ceremonial occasions;
        • Pay-per-appearance for other events but with a cap of ‘x’ per year (eg 1000) to avoid abuse. I like your idea of targets to be achieved;
        • Security provided for the above, and maybe a limited and modest lump sum for private security.Visits to Mummy, holidays in Mustique,France and wherever, plus overseas weddings of friends etc etc can be funded through their own funds. As they should be already.

        NO to transferring public assets such as the Duchies to the WIndsor’s.
        YES to re-instating compliance with Freedom of Information Act.
        YES to all public expenditure being made public and independently audited, annually.

        Whatever is funded needs to be predicated on the tangible value it provides to the British people who are funding it.

  4. KMR your points about Shulman and Kate are spot on. Shulman is just keeping herself in the spotlight by talking nonsense about Kate. She sounds like an idiot — basically telling the world – we put someone who doesn’t care about fashion on the cover of our fashion magazine! Remind me again how many bespoke Alexander McQueen outfits Kate has? That we know of?!

    1. 30, including both wedding dresses. Though I’m not sure all of them are bespoke.

        1. Yes. There was the church wedding dress she wore at the ceremony and day reception but also an evening wedding dress she wore to the evening reception.

          1. The reception dress looked like a toile that couturiers make and experiment with as they design before they cut the final dress in an expensive fabric.

            A basic toile at that.

          2. I think I preferred the evening dress. The wedding dress was far too revealing for my taste. I liked the lace. However I think Kate needed more support and I didn’t want to see her frontage.

          3. Fifi: me too.

            I’m still convinced it is.

            It really looked like an under-dress (not a word, but i can’t think of a better description)

    2. Never heard of Shulman before she spoke out about the KM centenary issue of Vogue. She doesn’t come off as very capable or intelligent based on her cryptic comments about KM or the magazine sales. Makes you wonder how she ever got to be Vogue’s editor-in-chief.

    3. I love how LadyBlueRibbon asked a sarcastic rhetorical question (I’m assuming) and KMR answered it with detailed facts. No shade at you, LBR, just surprised and amazed KMR could answer that! I love this blog!!!!!

      1. It was actually both. The obsessive detailing of Kate’s wardrobe on many news sites will completely mock anybody’s attempt to say Kate is not a clothes horse nor a shopper. That was just from ONE designer in five years of royal life. And I stress, the SEEN wardrobe. We don’t see her that much – She’s been out and about 55 out of 305 days this year.

  5. Loved Eugenie’s interview.I agree with Shulman saying that Kate is not a clothes horse.The thing is that Kate is kind of nothing.She doesn’t take initiative,doesn’t do anything out of the box,barely any spontaniety,talks in a barely audible voice and is very cautious.I have guaged that she is a very private person,but she needs to talk more regarding her charity work.She is one of the senior royal family members.Her communication with the public is very important.The good thing is that this year I feel that William and Catherine have been playing a more prominent role in the royal family.

    1. People always assume that is a person is silent, they are shy, private etc, but sometimes, they are silent because there is nothing there.

      Kate is silent because there is nothing there. And as her boss at Jigsaw surmised, someone who is always dictated to, who lives their life in full expectation of being dictated to, who has never questioned this state of affairs. A person who one designer called ‘very obedient’. Like a lapdog.

      Yet, like a lapdog, she knows where her bread is buttered such that if it gets her what she wants, she’ll happily be dictated to.

      1. Can you please send me the link to the interview that her former boss at Jigsaw gave?I’d be interested in reading it.Thanks.

          1. Gosh I’ve not read that before. I’m simply appalled is this what we want from a future queen? And what an arrogant man is Will to expect Kate at his beck and call. I hope she doesn’t bring up Charlotte in this way.
            Despite the changes in media and social media I still believe Diana was hounded much more, yet she still managed to do a job.
            Shame on you Kate.

          2. Did I miss something here? Just clicked on the link and the story was much more flattering of Kate than what you wrote, Herazeus.

            “And as her boss at Jigsaw surmised, someone who is always dictated to, who lives their life in full expectation of being dictated to, who has never questioned this state of affairs. A person who one designer called ‘very obedient’ ” Where was this in the article?

          3. Mary Elizabeth: the jigsaw boss is trying to be kind and entire interview is supposed to be a positive defence of Kate, but this passage aka paragraph 9 in the article…

            “She rang me up one day and she said: ‘could i come and talk to you about work?’ She genuinely wanted a job, but she needed an element of flexibility to continue the relationship with a high-profile man and a life she can’t dictate. She’s going to be dictated to when she’s needed and when not needed.’

          4. I found that last part disturbing. For Will to treat any woman like that is disgusting and Kate has so little self esteem she agreed to it. Screw that. Have some Pride woman.

            But we can see now how it’s working out. Kate is a shadow of herself from five years ago and is seriously bad at interacting with most people. I almost feel bad for her, except she gets millions in perks.

          5. I raised my eyebrows when I read this article. First we have someone asking if W+K (and friends) can borrow this woman’s house but they are not “allowed” to pay for it? Not allowed to pay for using something? Really? And then Kate rings her up and wants a job? Cheeky! OK, that shows us that Kate has got some initiative and courage so why are we not seeing that now?

          6. “She rang me up one day and she said: ‘could i come and talk to you about work?’ She genuinely wanted a job, but she needed an element of flexibility to continue the relationship with a high-profile man and a life she can’t dictate. She’s going to be dictated to when she’s needed and when not needed.’

            Ok, I have a question which I hope someone can answer for me. Have we ever heard from William that pre-marriage he wanted Kate to be available to him when he wanted? Or is this the only source of him wanting Kate available? Personally I’ve always felt that Kate had put it in as a condition of working for Jigsaw so if she didn’t feel like going to work that day then she had an “out clause”. After all we have heard from numerous sources that Kate was very protective of William and didn’t like letting any other females get close to him, just in case he got interested in someone else? Kate was under pressure to be doing something with her days and IMO having a job with the ability to be able to pick which days she went to work would mean she could still be able to chase that ring?

          7. The Jigsaw people and Middleton’s are friends. Kate was under pressure to ‘do’ something other than shop and wait, hence the job. I agree, being available on tap was Kate’s out clause. She had invested years in William and needed to keep him close and interested after university.

          8. Cathy: Given everything that’s been revealed about William, some of it by interviews and or articles justifying his actions, i think he is someone who needs alot of attention and who throws an almighty tatrum if his needs are not met instantly.

            To have a relationship *with him* requires focus on him. And as Kate knew him and how she got him, let him be for a second and he finds someone else to take care of him.

            In that sense, i think that he wouldn’t have needed to verbalise a desire for his partner to be available to him 24/7, it might have expressed itself non-verbally.

            If Kate wanted a relationship with this man, she had to ensure that she was or could be available to cater to him at a moment’s notice.

            The mcjob at jigsaw was an obvious reaction to an article sanctioned by HM where the media called Kate out for not working.

            William was drawn into the potential row about his workshy girlfriend.

            Kate took the job to silence the critics, but she ensured that she could still be available whenever he called.

            Also, she ensured she was papped everyday going to work as proof of her working – jigsaw tried to help her lessen the pap problem and she refused. Ditto nightclubs she frequented. she had to be seen by her intended audience.

            The jigsaw job lasted 9mths in the end. Those 3 work days eventually turned into 2 days and she took a month long ‘heartbreak’ leave during the final months because William had broken up with her and grrl had a media tour to organise!!!

          9. We’re also supposed to believe that she worked for her parents, which obviously isn’t true. If she had WANTED to work, there was the opportunity there to have as flexible a schedule as possible. Or take some of her parents money to start all those businesses she was rumored to want to do. But really, she never wanted to do anything other than bag a prince, so none of that happened.

            All of that could have been done while still pandering to a man who would move on quickly to the next available woman, because that is how little she meant to him as a person. She has chosen this relationship for 15 years now, because she wants the position and status more than anything. None of this would have been done if he was Billy the Plumber, as others have said.

          10. Herazeus, so it’s Kate’s idea to “be always available” for William. And William never insisted on it?

            I agree with you that William probably does need a lot of attention.

            I do understand Kate wanting to “stake her claim” and be monitoring William just in case he met someone he liked but this is Kate’s idea and IMO William never told her to always be available to him. It’s sad that Kate started out her relationship feeling that she has to be there or someone else would be picked to fill the slot. If any of my friends were being like that I’d be telling them that it’s probably a sign that it wasn’t the right relationship for her.

          11. I don’t know the situation because I was not there, but it’s possible Kate felt she had to always be available to William or else he’d dump her. He may not have specifically said so. If Kate were insecure with herself and the relationship, she may have been desperate to always be available lest she get dumped.

    2. If she’s not a clothes horse, why all this shopping and new outfits? It does not look like she was forced to get them.

      1. I think of her more like a clothes hanger- it’s not the (butchered) designs that matter so much as the obscenely extravagant price tags, jewellery included. She likes to show off her (father in law’s) money, very nouveau riche.

        1. and with all that money and time to waste. girlfriend looks wasted. washed out plain and bland. she does not turn heads with her looks or fashion sense.!!

      1. There are so many fun, covetable things that are privileges, like appearing on the cover of Vogue, or having bespoke clothes, or having access to untold riches and excess, that they sell to the public as if they are burdens thrust upon Kate.

      2. You know, we’ve been called out on this site for calling people names, and I’ve done it myself. But this one takes the cake. Clothes donkey. I love it! You guys are on fire today.

        Kate Middleton’s other titles: Duchess Dolittle, Chutney, Cutout Kate, and now Clothes Donkey

  6. Great Eugenie interview, thank you for sharing it. Unfortunately because of position, Kate gets the main headlines in the news even though this is far more important. If the rumors are true that the York sisters aren’t big fans of Kate, it’s not hard to see why. Kate had a fantastic opportunity to do a Vogue interview. Obviously if Shulman was so excited to have her on the cover, she would have happily let her have pages of things to say. A huge missed opportunity for the Cambridges, in my opinion. They could have really promoted their charities.

  7. Thank you KMR, for the interview with Princess Eugenie. Eugenie, has a lovely voice and is very clear and concise. Slavery was a topic, I studied in year 8 after The Tudors. I came across it again in my university work. Jane Austen and Sir Thomas Bertram ‘s plantation in Antigua. I like how the Beatrice and Eugenie put their passions into their work. Finding something and researching and promoting the charity. Kate does barley any research and when talking uses soundbites and buzzwords. As was mentioned above, hardly any detail. I remember listening to when Kate was speaking at an event way back before any engagement. Kate was inaudible and then still used the word ‘interesting’.

  8. I just wonder why all of a sudden Alexandra Shulman is speaking out about working with Kate. It just seems odd. Maybe Kate’s PR machine is behind this, since it seems like her popularity and likeability is at an all time low. Maybe Shulman is trying to get people to believe that Kate is just a normal person and thus more relatable. When playing the comparison game, Eugenie’s interview makes Kate totally irrelevant and invisible. Eugenie spoke clearly and in full sentences, looked confident and was well informed on her subject. The time has come for Kate to speak out in more depth about the causes she is “keen” on and not just parrot all the cliches. Kate needs to convince people that she is truly interested in her causes and at this point, I am not sure she can succeed as it is going to take a lot of work and commitment on her part. To me, it is clear Kate does not like to work hard at anything.

    1. I think Shulman is doing damage control for her own career. Obviously the sales numbers were below expectations, and print is struggling anyway.

    2. I have the sense that Kate chose an incredibly broad cause to work with, and that is part of the problem. Mental illness is a huge collection of problems, and there is little opportunity to focus on individual ones. It is also difficult for Kate to do PR appearances with people who are suffering, because who wants to be the poster child for a personality disorder, or some such, and shake hands with a princess with that claim to fame?

      Eugenie has a more focused topic here, and that undoubtedly helps her to be more articulate and focused. Princess Diana dealt with leprosy, AIDS, and land mines — all very focused topics with specific interventions.

      I think Kate would benefit from specifics in her cause.

    1. The York girls are very impressive, especially compared to the Cambridges. I wonder what horrid story will appear about them in the papers tomorrow now that they’ve had another successful media appearance.

  9. KMR, if yoiu decide to do a post on Kate’s least favorite clothes, please, I hope you include the dress in the photo you used above. I hate that dress. So cheesy. Made to appear as if there are cut-outs and her flesh is peeking through.

    I’m all for Eugenie and the cause she is championing here. In today’s world, it is so troubling that sex trafficking occurs and that so many women are forced into sexual slavery.

    What is Kate doing these days? Resting from so much traveling? Too many appearances back-to-back-to-back?

    The idea that she is not a slave to fashion is a joke, to me She definitely is into clothes. Not ones that many of us think are fashionable, but let’s be real, the Duchess is basically all about show.

  10. One of the things that rubs me the wrong way about slimming down the monarchy is that if you’re going to have one, and William, Kate, and Harry are delusional and think they can maintain just a few patronages and go there 1 or 2 a year, that will be incredibly neglectful of the cities and towns in their kingdom that they do not routinely visit. They’re suppose to serve the realm, not solely London and Norfolk and Bucklebury.

  11. How about this for a mad idea?
    HM is HOS of so many far flung countries. Send the youngsters off to various countries for a year or two – Harry, Bea, Eugenie,….Australia, NZ, Canada and the smaller islands. Let them get stuck in and involved, working closely with the Governor Generals.
    Those countries would have a real link to their HOS. It would keep them busy, they would have a clearer role and a need to really deliver, and the countries would surely benefit by having a member of the family resident?

    What do you think?

    1. I will say it as the Brits do, Birdy: “Now that’s a capital idea!”. You are right, it would create stronger linkages between a British HOS and the far flung countries and give the younger generation a greater purpose and understanding of their role within this historic institution.

    2. Pretty sure no one would want them.

      Didn’t they float the idea of Charles being governor general of Australia or Canada years ago? It was quashed pretty quickly. Those days are gone.

        1. Unacceptable that a foreigner would be Australia’s GG. That went out the window in 1930 when an Australian (Sir Isaac isaacs) was appointed. It has been an Australian ever since. No need for Brits.

      1. As a Brit I simply do not understand why HM is still HOS of such far flung places. You all have your own people who can do the job so much better. I assume there will be a lot of referenda once HM passes on.
        Max is in Australia but will not meet the Australian HOS…that’s really odd isn’t it? They will meet the GG but it’s not really the same thing.

        1. A previous PM here, a devout monarchist, using wedge politics, effectively skewered the 1999 referendum making way for a republic. Even Prince Phillip thought it daft to keep a monarchy here. The republic issue will be revisited after the Queen dies. Both major political leaders here are republicans.

          Do you mean that Maxima will not meet the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull? If she is meeting the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative. that’s probably as good as it gets.

      2. We have has spectacular Governor Generals who actually give a shit about Canada. From Jeanne Sauvé, Adrienne Clarkson, Michaelle Jean and current GG David Johnston, we have had people from various walks of life, both genders, different races and with excellent resumes perform this duty. No one in the British Royal Family can compare to them. Because I don’t want someone in that job so was born in the right family. That is not what Canada is about.

    3. No, no, a thousand times, no! If that’s unclear, a million times, NO.

      It’s kind of an ironic suggestion. Australia was settled as a repository for unwanted convicts; now here’s a proposal is to send redundant members of the royal family here. What a laugh! There is no benefit to having a ‘royal’ resident here: they have negligible skills, no work ethic, and suck up public money (costs, security etc).

      If the British public wants its royal family it is their responsibility to deal with them, not shift the burden to other countries. The younger ‘royals’ just need to grow the f**k up. They can ‘get stuck in’ in Britain – there are any number of social issues needing real work done where they can ‘have a clearer role and a need to really deliver’. The problem is they don’t want to do this, just live off the perks of hereditary privilege, be flattered by loads of attention and live a charmed existence of dabbling in causes, living the good life, all underpinned by no accountability.

      Australia wants to rid itself of foreigners as HoS, not keep them. The ties you speak of are in name only. The ’empire’ is no more, the ‘colonials’ have no use for the BRF’s aimless offspring. Australia will move to a republic once the Queen passes. If Canadians are considering removing images of the monarch from their bank notes that’s a clear sign they’ll be doing the same. Jamaica is looking to sever ties. When smaller countries excuse themselves from hosting royal visits because of cost they are saying that they have better things to do with their money than entertain the Windsor’s whose heyday is over.

      1. I so love the entire comment!

        “The younger ‘royals’ just need to grow the f**k up. They can ‘get stuck in’ in Britain – there are any number of social issues needing real work done where they can ‘have a clearer role and a need to really deliver’. The problem is they don’t want to do this….”


        Instead, we see them swanning around exotic countries representing exotic causes, taking subsidised exotic holitours while the troubled UK gets barely any attention, unless it’s a fancy event. The one thing they don’t do is get down and dirty.

        They are *adults* and yet people infantilise them, treating them like they need coddling, moral support and lots of ‘help’. How pathetic is that? They have all the resources of the world at their fingertips but that’s not enough. It’s almost as if being a royal is synonymous with being a brain dead thumbsucker. That’s quite an indictment.

        As a Canadian, the thought of any of these losers interning with the GG is offensive and laughable. As it stands they will be ‘keen’ ‘learning’ and ‘interning’ until they drop dead. The fact is, there is no place for them any longer in this modern world and their only salvation is to get a real job and/or get off the public dole.

  12. So interesting how Eugenie has the received pronunciation accent- it makes it all the more obvious about Kate’s ridiculous put-on ‘hoooow noooow brown cow’ accent. She’s a damn joke.

  13. I don’t know why Ms. Schulman of Vogue feels it’s so important to keep defending Kate in the media. Has Kate dangled a carrot of another appearance in the magazine as long as the kind words keep coming. Or maybe an exclusive of sorts to Pippa’s wedding. Nah, that’s just too weird. As others have said, she’s definitely not a clothes horse. No self respecting clothes horse would ruin bespoke clothing the way Kate has. Nor would they accessorize so boringly.

    Then we’ve got the lovely Eugenie who just blew five and a half years of Kate statements out of the water in under five minutes. Not one use of “keen”, “gosh that’s interesting” or some silly question (“do they still make them (Faberge eggs)”. A very well spoken, intelligent, detailed response to the questions that were posed to her. No rapid blinking or intermittent hair tossing. No faux posh accent. No heavily spackled on make-up.

    And I still love that dress.

    1. I’m wondering if there is some kind of competition going on behind the scenes between Alexandra Shulman and Anna Wintour about covers? There is a lot of competition between the two ladies and the US Vogue and the UK Vogue.

  14. Considering that Eugenie’s direct ancestors, the British Royal family, are directly responsible for committing atrocities like slavery and torturing non-white and non-Christian, “savages” through colonialism- it is good that she’s addressing slavery. While Eugenie cannot take back the crimes done by her family, she can definitely choose to help eradicate modern slavery through awareness campaigns, activism, highlighting the works of abolitionists and so forth.

  15. “There are more slaves now than there were in William Wilberforce’s time ”

    Thanks for reporting on Eugenie’s interview KMR, otherwise would we even know about it? I was shocked when I read the above statement! This was a thoughtful interview and I thank the Salvation Army for their work in this area and good on Eugenie using her position as a member of the British Royal family to draw attention to the Salvation Army’s work.

    1. The problem with using that kind of statement is it doesn’t give context or numbers. In total, there are also more people who are not enslaved today than at the time of WW. Because there are 7.5 billion people on the planet now, vs. 800 million of his era.

      No where does she give us numbers, unless I missed that section of the interview. From the UN I can learn there are roughly 30 million people living in slavery in today. That is more powerful to me than a reference to an historic person many people don’t recognize, even if she just attended a ceremony about him. I think Eugenie did a great job in this, but she missed the mark by not referencing concrete numbers.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top