Kate Middleton attended private Royal Foundation events

Here’s a quick post on a few no press events that Kate Middleton attended recently as Patron of the Royal Foundation.

kate-attended-royal-foundation-autumn-dinner-nov-2016

I missed this previously, but this showed up in the court circular for November 14. Kate, along with Prince William and Prince Harry, attended the Autumn Dinner of the Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry at One Belgravia in London.

On December 7, William and Kate attended a Royal Foundation Board Meeting at St. Mary Abbots Place. And in the evening, William, Kate, and Harry attended a Royal Foundation Reception at Buckingham Palace.

The below photo was posted yesterday, December 7. Both Kate and Harry are seen giving a young woman a hug. The photo is captioned:

    “So so proud of our baby @sai.kadirrajah. She recently delivered a speech on behalf of @youngmindsuk the @RoyalFoundation (run by #PrinceWilliam #PrinceHarry #DuchessofCambridge) ‘s private fundraiser. She was the only young person and the #royals were so moved by courage and determination that they even hugged and kissed her!! Kate even suggested she should be a public speaker!! Our family couldn’t be prouder!!!”

Given that the caption says “private fundraiser”, I think the photos might be from the Autumn Dinner on November 14 rather than the December 7 BP reception, but I’m not sure about that.

In the photo, Kate is wearing her red Preen “Finella” dress first seen in Canada, and most likely carrying her black Mulberry Bayswater clutch. Kate also wore some rather large drop earrings, but I can’t see clearly enough to tell which ones they are.

EDIT: I removed the embed since the photo no longer displays.

96 Comments on Kate Middleton attended private Royal Foundation events

  1. Paula
    December 8, 2016 at 12:48 am (10 months ago)

    Nice to see Kate “recycling” that dress. It’s one of my favorites, but my guess is she only repeated it because it was a private event. She wore it for the first time very recently.

    She looks good in these pics, like genuinely happy. That third pic of her touching the girl’s arm is lovely, but she doesn’t give the impression of feeling comfortable hugging people (nothing wrong with that, she just shouldn’t force it).

    • katemiddletonreview
      December 8, 2016 at 1:09 am (10 months ago)

      Kate is not above repeating an item close together. In 2012, she debuted a pink dress and then wore the same dress two weeks later.

      Not everyone is comfortable with hugging – I myself hate hugging people – so there is nothing wrong with Kate being uncomfortable hugging people. I just wish she and her team would play to her strengths instead of force an issue because it’s better/easier PR. Like, if Kate is uncomfortable hugging people and being around sick children, then don’t give her a children’s hospice patronage and push the idea that she cares so much about children. Instead, focus her energy toward sports and adults. The “Princess who loves sick kids” is an easy image to push, but if she’s uncomfortable with that then don’t have her go that way. Whoever picked her patronages and set up the image they’ve been pushing for years should be fired. Push her image in a different direction and have her patron charities that play to her strengths. Just because she’s a woman doesn’t mean she needs to patron a children’s charity.

      • Jen
        December 8, 2016 at 3:12 am (10 months ago)

        I agree that female = child-based charities is a tired cliché. But what are Kate’s strengths? Pushing her as ‘the children’s princess’ very early on never took hold; kids don’t warm to her, nor she to them. And sick children, no. The mental health thing is vague.

        All I know that Kate is interested in are:
        • Watching elite sports – primarily men’s tennis (Wimbledon) and men’s Olympic yachting;
        • Her personal fitness /looks;
        • Shopping;
        • Vacationing in exclusive destinations;
        • Her photography, though not sure of her level of interest;
        • Her children, without knowing the extent of her hands-on parenting.

        And since there was no work history, nothing to mine from that part of her life. On a personal level, she appears incurious and cold, or at best, not warm. On a professional level, Kate does not have a developed work ethic, rarely speaks, prefers not to give speeches, is largely unprepared, though is polite at events.

        It would be hard for any person to link Kate to charitable work because there’s not a lot to work with. The PR narratives spun to ‘sell’ her – best educated marry-in, wanting to help, keen – have not materialised thus far.

        • katemiddletonreview
          December 8, 2016 at 3:19 am (10 months ago)

          Something with sports and fitness. Sporting appearances are the only times Kate really lights up. She should get more involved with sports or fitness related charities.

          • Jen
            December 8, 2016 at 3:38 am (10 months ago)

            She lights up around attractive sportsmen. I agree that sports/fitness is the best bet, though recall when taking part in the tennis workshop with Judy Murray, Kate could only relate in terms of how this could help her children. So she’d need to learn to focus on and think about others.

          • Overit
            December 8, 2016 at 3:39 am (10 months ago)

            Kate does have a sports charity-SportsAid and look how little she is involved with that. I thought sports charities would be a good fit for her as well, but sadly that has proved wrong (although she does spend more time with the sailing charity, probably only due to a certain man). I really am not sure anymore if there are any charities that Kate would get super involved with. There are things she loves, but when they are aligned with charities she somehow doesn’t seem interested anymore. If it doesn’t revolve around her, I am not sure she will every truly care or be invested.

          • katemiddletonreview
            December 8, 2016 at 3:41 am (10 months ago)

            I know. I don’t understand why KP keeps pushing the children’s hospice and now mental health thing instead of pushing her more with SportsAid and the like.

          • Jen
            December 8, 2016 at 4:34 am (10 months ago)

            But… she doesn’t do anything with SportsAid and she’s had any amount of opportunities to do so. Kate is nearly 35 years old, not a child. Why does she need to be ‘pushed’ by anyone?

          • Herazeus
            December 8, 2016 at 6:14 am (10 months ago)

            I think the most glaring fact, frequently overlooked, is that Kate isn’t interested in working if that means giving of herself without receiving something back for herself. And by that i mean materially, not the satisfaction of noblisse oblige.

            There is simply no there, there. No interest in anything be it charity or not. No curiosity at all.

            It matters not a jot what type of charity, royal engagement is cooked up, or what babbles are dangled infront of her if she doesn’t benefit personally.

            She enjoys sports, but only where elite sports for men are concerned, but i question how much she enjoys them because there are very specific reasons or events within those sports she enjoys rather than the sport as a whole.

            Eg Sailing has Ben Ainslie as the carrot dangled infront of her, but apart from her long ago work on a yacht + yacht races on boats during tours, we do not hear of Kate doing anything to demonstrate any love for sailing. She doesn’t attend the annual Cowes week which is the premier sailing event in the calender for sailing enthusiasts.

            She never misses wimbledon, but only to sit in the royal box at the best men’s matches. Serena’s final last year is the first time she has been seen attending any female matches including before she married. Apart from that tennis engagement with Judy Murray, she hasn’t done anything with tennis groups at any level and we know the only questions she asked at that engagement concerned how soon she could start teaching her children to play.

            As for why she went down the mental health path?

            I have a theory that it began with her first engagement with place2be.

            It was picked as randomly as all her other charities, BUT the timing of her first visit coincided with first few months of baby George.

            Place2be had a day of conference talks on child development. Kate originally agreed to attend one or two random talks during that day, but when she arrived and saw rest of programme, she stayed an extra 2hrs. The 2 talks she stayed to hear were centred on child and mental development of 0-3yr olds.

            It was such an odd thing for her to do that it made the papers, reporters were live tweeting in surprise at the change in plan, and Kate was overheard asking one of her team to make sure William was informed of the change in plans and she would be home in time for dinner.

            I remember thinking at the time that she had stayed to get information about the baby. Commendable if i was right, but puzzling considering she has an uber supermum in Carole who was/is available to help her understand child development.

            I strongly suspect that Kate has kept up with place2be as her children grow because they are helping her understand her own children’s development.

            Again puzzling given the presence of supermum Carole AND in many of the women in the royal circle are new mums and could share advice ( yes i know. No actual friends. A different problem.)

            Whenever she talks to mothers, her comments, as inane as they are, are actually very revealing.

            She repeatedly discusses the need for reassurance, the difficulty of motherhood, and the need to talk to someone about it all.

            It’s always made me think that motherhoid has been, and continues, to be quite challenging for her.

            Not helped by articles telling us that Carole is the children’s nanny/governess on top of the nolan nannies in residence.

            I’ve digressed from my original point, but i think Kate’s particular path down the mental health road is self serving more than we realise.

            The rest is a non starter. The sooner we give up hoping she can do better or a different sort of charity/royal engagement will do, the sooner we can go back to applauding her for doing nothing because it’s not going to get better. We are 14yrs in already and nothing has changed. I’m not even sure a crisis would precipitate a change.

          • Fifi
            December 8, 2016 at 9:21 am (10 months ago)

            Kate likes sports events where she can show off her own skills in inappropriate high heels. As she ages, this interest will dwindle.

            They push kid’s charities because they see this as the key to Diana’s popularity. But Diana was genuinely interested in children from her schooldays. If you remember, they tried to rehabilitate Fergie with children’s charities after her fall from grace.

            If you look at Kate’s activities from schooldays, they pretty much were about showing off. Hard to find a charity to fit.

          • MavenTheFirst
            December 8, 2016 at 8:19 pm (10 months ago)

            ITA Herazeus. That’s it in a large nutshell.

            She couldn’t care less about anything other than her circumscribed, self-absorbed world. She lacks curiosity as well. Frankly, I think she barely tolerates most humans. It doesn’t matter what the cause, she will never care. She wants to live her life in the womb.

      • Linds
        December 8, 2016 at 11:40 am (10 months ago)

        “Push her image in a different direction and have her patron charities that play to her strengths.”

        I agree. Kate can serve the Commonwealth in a role other than championing ‘sick kids’. To be clear, I’m glad she’s involved herself in EACH and some of the other charities, but she looks either plastic or unbelievably uncomfortable doing events for such charities and the public thinks she doesn’t seem invested in them. Give her something that she is really passionate about and interested in…it doesn’t have to be a heavy subject. It can be a lighter one, sports, fashion, or arts comes to mind. She’s also invested a lot in her own kids (so we are told), so maybe something about the family that not about family hardship. Such subjects may not be pulling on the heart strings of the public like hospice, but that’s fine. Even charities and foundations on lighter subjects need Royal Patrons.

        And maybe (just maybe) she’ll feel compelled to really get involved in her charities of choice and her work ethic will improve because she’ll want to be involved. (To be fair, I think the low engagement numbers is more complex that just mismanagement of her public image. But I do think that looking unengaged and bored at events is a significant part in the whole ‘Kate isn’t invested or interested in other people’ image.)

        I would also like to see Kensington Palace change around the types of engagements she does for those charities that aren’t a good fit. Engagements involving some type of designated hands on activity seems to be her one of her fortes, not fly-by visits to facilities to do the handshake, hellos, and unveilings.

        • Lizzie
          December 8, 2016 at 11:56 am (10 months ago)

          Exactly–events that keep Kate busy–crafting, sailing, playing cricket–are the ones that seem to suit her best. But the problem is that these are usually light and fluffy events, simply fun. Anything else that involves mental depth or an intellectual or emotional connection with the public makes her appear dull, flat and disengaged. As others have said, she’s totally incurious about anything or anyone outside of her on little orbit and it shows.

          Is it Rebecca who is primarily responsible for helping Kate select what events and charities to participate in, or does Jason play a major role in that? I do believe he was responsible for the mental health focus for the royal trio, but beyond that?

          • Linds
            December 8, 2016 at 12:26 pm (10 months ago)

            Lizzie,

            I’m sorry, you’ve lost me. I don’t understand how a light fluffy ‘fun’ event won’t emotionally or intellectually connect her with the public. The public has some lovely photos and video of Kate and Charlotte at a children’s event on the recent Canadian tour where she looks really engaged and natural. That was a light and fluffy event but it really connected the Cambridges to the public.

            I would think it would be more about her enjoying herself at the activity that would connect her to the public than the particular activity itself. For Kate, she enjoys being active and doing hands on activities (even with kids…welly wanging anyone?), so these events seem to be commented on positively by the public. If she was Harry, then joking around with kids would be her forte and this would connect her to the public. Come to think of it, Harry does mostly light and fluffy events and he’s well connected to the public.

          • mary elizabeth
            December 8, 2016 at 2:02 pm (10 months ago)

            Linds, I agree with you. And, often it is by doing crafts or participating in sport that helps people who are suffering from anxiety and depression. Not a cure, but a help. That could be tied in with her mental health keen projects.

          • Lizzie
            December 8, 2016 at 2:53 pm (10 months ago)

            Linds, I think you and I are looking at “public” here differently. I meant connecting with the public who are physically present at the events, while I think you’re talking about connecting with the wider public looking at media coverage of her events.

            I agree that the public enjoyed seeing photos from that Canadian petting-zoo event, but that was really nothing more than Kate engaging with and enjoying her own children, not with others present. And while Harry does a lot of light and fluffy events, the difference, to me, is that even at these fluffy events he is able to show a depth of compassion and interest in others and what they do, which I don’t see from Kate. He is even able to express interest and seem engaged at serious and formal events as well, which make the general public like him even more.

            I agree that Kate seems most natural at events that involve sporting or hands-on activities, but again, what do they show other than Kate is just enjoying herself? If she wants to strengthen and widen her connection with the public–in a way, to defend her role–Kate needs to find ways to engage herself with charitable causes in addition to the “Kate has fun” events. Maybe they’re a great first step for boosting her confidence about being in public, but, really now, it’s been almost six years and she should be way past taking first steps.

            I really like how Denmark’s Mary has found a balance between those sorts of hands-on, fun activities and taking on a more business-like, professional role as well. No matter what the type of event, she seems engaged and interested. The same could be said for many other royals–Charles, Camilla and Sophie. But not yet for Kate.

      • Sarah
        December 8, 2016 at 12:11 pm (10 months ago)

        Do we know what Kate’s strengths are? Even more important, does Kate know?

  2. Lilibet
    December 8, 2016 at 1:58 am (10 months ago)

    I love that dress. She really does look happy here and engaged. I wonder what’s different about this event that makes her look that way? Is it that press weren’t there? Was she particularly interested in this young woman’s story? Maybe doing events with Harry makes her more at ease? Whatever it is, I’m glad she looks happy.

    • Indiana Joanna
      December 8, 2016 at 6:23 am (10 months ago)

      If she appears engaged, it’s because she’s with Harry, who is warm and intuitive about people and also seems to do his homework about events where he appears. IMO in the photo she’s still very inauthentic with her manic smile and awkward hug. Even the young woman she’s hugging looks uncomfortable. Compare that photo to the one where Harry hugs her. Much warmer and genuine.

      KM copies the mannerisms of the person she’s with. Harry is a hugger, so KM mimicked H. When she’s with W she’s tense, barely turning her head if only to check with W for cues on how to interact, speak, wave. When she does solo appearance she lapses into a figure who is alone and lost. See her at the cat film premier where she sat by herself looking lost and not interacting with anyone until a man turned around to offer her some popcorn.

      For the longest time whenever KM appeared at solemn or official events with W and H she flirted with H ignoring. She obviously relished the attention so much that there seemed to be an actual sexual flirtation on her part similar to how enthralled she is around Ben Ainslie. Thank goodness H eventually stopped any behaviour that led her to giggles or strutting about.

      As to this and another upcoming appearance, once again someone has forced her hand into attending. That’s the only time you’ll see do any work. I suspect her mummy also spoke to her because KM’s laziness is of epic concerns for Carole who wants a title. The People magazine article painted Carole as a mother who smothers and does everything for KM, W and the Camb kids.

      KM has never worked and never will unless some one forces her. And then she’ll quickly scuttle back to the manor for more beauty treatments, shopping, and furtive vacations.

      • Liza
        December 8, 2016 at 2:21 pm (10 months ago)

        Do you happen to have a link to the People article about Carole? Or was it just in the print edition? I’ve seen it mentioned on here a few times recently, so I’m curious what it says.

        • Indiana Joanna
          December 8, 2016 at 4:06 pm (10 months ago)

          Google People magazine Carole Middleton. The title is Kate Middleton’s Secret Weapon. I’m using my phone and can’t copy and past the link. Sorry.

  3. LadyBlueRibbon
    December 8, 2016 at 2:00 am (10 months ago)

    I’m counting it in the no press events section and not as Charitable Appearances – given that the cause is their own foundation.

    • katemiddletonreview
      December 8, 2016 at 2:05 am (10 months ago)

      I also counted it as “no press”.

  4. Lizzie
    December 8, 2016 at 2:18 am (10 months ago)

    Congratulations to that young woman–she must have done an outstanding job. Kate does look actually happy in these photos, but perhaps that’s the Harry effect. And that event is the Nov. 14th dinner–if you look at the website for One Events Belgravia, you can see photos of that exact room. Much more intimate than BP.

    Other than these two events, do the royal trio attend any other Royal Foundation meetings during the year? Hoping that at this meeting they were told that their foundation gave more out in grants this year than last. According to last year’s trustees report (page 22), “whilst charitable activities represent 81% of total expenditure, grant funding of activities represents 54%. The balance of charitable spend was on two other key roles of the Royal Foundation–raising awareness and convening–together with a share of support costs.” Not sure what they mean by “convening”, but the “raising awareness” sounds to me as though roughly 27% went to spotlighting the royal trio themselves, all in the name of charity, of course. I don’t know much about how charitable organizations are set up, but I think it’s funny how “raising awareness” is labeled as charitable giving and not as fundraising.

    • Herazeus
      December 8, 2016 at 3:58 am (10 months ago)

      Convening = putting together/meeting several groups or people.

      • Lizzie
        December 8, 2016 at 8:30 am (10 months ago)

        Right–I guess what I mean that I don’t get is how convening–putting groups together–can actually be an expense, can be classified as charitable giving? By convening, does that mean just having meetings? Creating initiatives? And that is an expense?

        • Lizzie
          December 8, 2016 at 9:08 am (10 months ago)

          I guess the costs could be for the foundation’s support staff and meeting space. It’s just that I honestly don’t think that should be classified as “charitable giving”.

          • Fifi
            December 8, 2016 at 9:24 am (10 months ago)

            Coffee and cookies?

    • Indiana Joanna
      December 8, 2016 at 6:58 am (10 months ago)

      I don’t understand the 81% and 54% information. Doesn’t total 100%. Am I misreading this information?

      • Lizzie
        December 8, 2016 at 8:46 am (10 months ago)

        I know, it gets confusing, and I made it more so by only referring to the charitable spending. Of the foundation’s total expenditures, 81% was for charitable giving and 19% went to fundraising (there’s that 100% for expenditures). Breaking down that 81% for giving, 54% was awarded in grants and 27% went to raising awareness, convening and support costs (54 +27=81).

        Another simpler way of saying it would be that of the fund’s total expenditures, 19% went to fundraising, 54% went to awarding grants, and 27% went to raising awareness, convening and support costs.

        • Indiana Joanna
          December 8, 2016 at 9:01 am (10 months ago)

          Thank you, Lizzie!

          • Lizzie
            December 8, 2016 at 9:08 am (10 months ago)

            You’re welcome! Sorry that I wasn’t clearer before!

    • Lobbit
      December 8, 2016 at 1:37 pm (10 months ago)

      It sounds like the figures are about how the Foundation spends all its money – not just charitable giving, no? Since “raising awareness” and “convening” is lumped in with support costs, I’m guessing they’re referring to be PR/marketing for various causes and for the foundation itself, in all iterations: print and digital communications and events.

      • Lizzie
        December 8, 2016 at 4:00 pm (10 months ago)

        Lobbit, I think you’re right that PR/marketing event costs might be part of the “convening” expenses. But if you also mean that perhaps all of these PR/marketing costs are separate from charitable giving, that’s not so. At least not in how I’m interpreting their report. The foundation divides its total expenditures into two categories: Charitable Giving (81%) and Raising Funds (19%). Included within charitable giving are grant distribution and raising awareness, convening, support costs–those PR/marketing costs I think you’re referring to.

        I think I’m correct in saying that what it basically comes down to is that for every pound donated, only 54p goes directly to the participating charities. The rest goes to fundraising, overhead, support/administrative costs and PR/marketing.

        • Lobbit
          December 8, 2016 at 8:17 pm (10 months ago)

          Gotcha – thanks!

  5. Overit
    December 8, 2016 at 2:54 am (10 months ago)

    I don’t understand ‘no press’ events. I thought the royals needed to be seen. At least that is how the Queen feels, they need to be seen to be believed. Also, that is the only way they make an impact. With the photos above there was obviously a photographer there and they could have publicized the event after the fact. So I am not sure why there was no mention of this engagement (Nov. 14th one). It just seems counterintuitive, especially since the younger royals always are trying to pad their numbers. Seriously, why bother having a photographer if you are not going to release the photos.

    • Jen
      December 8, 2016 at 3:26 am (10 months ago)

      I didn’t understand that either. Surely, the point of these events is to raise/keep awareness in the public’s minds about a charity’s work? Having your own photographer helps control the story, but did it need to be controlled in the first place?

    • Future Crayon
      December 8, 2016 at 3:27 am (10 months ago)

      +1 I don’t understand why no press either. If there are vulnerable or younger people involve, just embargo the release of any photos for a few hours for any checks to be carried out or any images removed.

      I don’t understand why she could do this and not the SportsAid or EACH galas.

      And are those the wonky Baroque pearl earrings?

    • Linds
      December 8, 2016 at 12:05 pm (10 months ago)

      The Instagram photo was probably taken by the family of the young woman who spoke and they posted it on a personal (but public) account.

      No press means Royal Reporters and professional photographers like Getty’s Chris Jackson aren’t invited to the event. Therefore, no articles and photographs are published in the Daily Mail, etc. on the event. ‘No press’ doesn’t always mean ‘no photos’ though. Candids are taken by invitees at the receptions which is why we get third party photos of such things. Charities and foundations will often take a few ‘official’ photographs (like the honorees and the board) at ‘no press’ events and post them to social media. I don’t understand why Kensington Palace doesn’t do the same for Royal Foundation since they ‘own’ the foundation and should be promoting it.

      As for why some events are ‘no press’ usually has to do with the people invited to the events. A significant portion of possible high value donors to a charity don’t want to be publicly recognised and so they don’t want party photographers aggressively asking for photos and reporters feeling free to report they were there or worse yet coming up to interview them during the event. No Press events are a lot less stilted than ones where the press is present, and usually better attended.

      • Overit
        December 8, 2016 at 12:30 pm (10 months ago)

        Hi Linds, I know what ‘no press’ events mean. I was saying I don’t get the point of them. I know what they mean and why they do them and how they work-I just still think they are pointless is all.

      • Lobbit
        December 8, 2016 at 1:18 pm (10 months ago)

        Agreed. This event sounds like it was more about donor relations or “stewardship,” an integral part of any fundraising operation that isn’t really appropriate for the press. Events like this are meant to make high-end donors feel good about the gifts they’ve given – so that they’ll keep giving!

        • CrazyAMG
          December 8, 2016 at 7:47 pm (10 months ago)

          I completely agree. IMO, it seems more genuine when it’s a no press event. Also, it’s nice to see Kate with a personal touch…without the camera’s.

  6. Everild
    December 8, 2016 at 6:09 am (10 months ago)

    I prefer how the dress is styled here than it was in Canada. Kate looks lovely and seems genuinely engaged.

    • Megan
      December 8, 2016 at 8:27 am (10 months ago)

      +1

      It is nice to see her look happy.

  7. Linds
    December 8, 2016 at 9:50 am (10 months ago)

    When I see candids of Kate at no press events she always seems engaged in talking with people and smiles genuinely. I always wonder if it’s not a press thing that keeps her looking plastic. Or maybe it’s the atmosphere; no press events are usually more relaxed. Regardless, I wish Kensington Palace would release some personal candids from events like these (with permission of the people in the photos of course) so the public can see Kate’s other side-the one that engages well with people and the public. I think it would do a lot to curb the ‘she isn’t interested in the public and other people’ persona if we had pictures to the contrary-where she is genuinely engaged.

    It irritates me that Kensington Palace doesn’t counteract (untrue) criticism of Kate’s character except to issue on record statements to the contarary. Words are words, and Kensington Palace’s PR ‘senior courtier’ comments and ‘palace spokesman’ statements are slowly becoming worthless. Since they clearly aren’t above doing their own press work through social media, they should use it to their advantage. They’ve already commented that they want to access the public directly in the Financial Times article, why not just do it.

    (Just to be clear, I’m talking about candids of her public work. I’m not talking about candids of her personal life. I don’t think photos of her life in Norfolk would be appropriate.)

    And yes, I am aware of the irony of releasing pictures from a no press event on social media. Lots of charities do it though. The only thing it might do is enrage the Royal Press Corps, but Kensington Palace doesn’t seem to care much for the Press Corps these days.

  8. Ray
    December 8, 2016 at 10:08 am (10 months ago)

    She looks very pretty- being happy and relaxed takes that tension out of her face. And I really like the hairstyle. Maybe instead of hugging-her arm looks like she’s flexing and she’s not really going for it- she could, when shaking hands then grasp the hand in both of hers, lean in, make direct eye contact and sincerely tell the person what about them has moved her. The hugging is terribly awkward, and there are alternatives.

    • Kitty
      December 8, 2016 at 10:38 am (10 months ago)

      Well that won’t be good when they become Prince and Princess of Wales and King and Queen!

  9. Lobbit
    December 8, 2016 at 10:25 am (10 months ago)

    Minor astrology tangent: I just found out that Kate and Will are both cancer moons. It explains so much! They just want to hide away from the world with their kids and their secrets lol.

  10. jenny
    December 8, 2016 at 11:11 am (10 months ago)

    Kate did seem more relaxed and I guess it’s being with Harry, who just is so intuitive and giving towards all the people he meets. His behavior is contagious. I did think that she had an over-the-top expression when she was talking to the young lady, who obviously spoke so well, and the expression may have lasted only a second, but been captured forever by the photographer.

    The red dress looks better when shown only from the waist up. I just hate the skirt and its length, which I apologize for bringing up again. Just hate it, that’s all!

    I think Kate is more relaxed when no media are there. As for Harry, he really is great with people. Even the photo of Kate looking on as he hugs the young woman, tells so much about his ability to make people feel special.

    I’m glad that this event was quiet and yet did shine light on the young woman whom everyone said spoke so well. This is the way events should be — even when the media are there!

    • Overit
      December 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm (10 months ago)

      How did it shine a light on the young lady? All we know is she spoke well and was courageous. Was she courageous because she spoke at this event, because the royals were there, because she was dealing with something personally? Did the royal foundation help her? We don’t know anything at all. That isn’t really shinning a light on her. This event was to raise money for their charity.

      • Lobbit
        December 8, 2016 at 1:08 pm (10 months ago)

        The young woman must be beneficiary of the charity – it wouldn’t make sense for her to speak if she wasn’t. This reception was probably a “stewardship” event meant to cultivate donors and show them the impact of their gifts to the royal foundation.

        • jenny
          December 8, 2016 at 2:06 pm (10 months ago)

          Exactly, Lobbit. I am sure the association helped her and she told her story. If we are not privy to it, perhaps that was her/their call. But, when she met Harry and Kate, who were so complimentary of her, I am sure that helped her. Sometimes, I find you a bit too curt, overit. Or, am I being too sensitive. Forgive me, if I misjudge you.

  11. bandanas
    December 8, 2016 at 12:23 pm (10 months ago)

    I have a few questions that maybe someone here can answer. Recently Charles has come under fire for fundraising tactics http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3995632/Dinner-Charles-ll-100k-Rich-guests-asked-transfer-cash-royal-bank-invitations-confirmed.html. Who keeps track of how many “private” fundraisers the royals have? Also of how much money is raised and how it is spent? How much is raised at the polo matches that all seem to be sponsored by companies. It goes to financial accountability even more because the line between their “royal duties” is so blurred with their charitable acts. Do they attend any fundraisers that don’t directly benefit their own organization? If someone has a business (say a travelfashion blog Meg & Misha in Italy last 3weeks of August 😉 or a jewelry line Chelsy. 😉 London/Hong Kong/Africa ) they can write off their expenses when they travel. If someone is traveling for a charity does the charity pick up the cost? (Megs trip to Rwanda was it paid for by World Vision or the magazine she did the photo shoot for? http://hellobeautiful.com/2846523/good-works-and-good-looks-meghan-markle-gives-us-humanitarian-glam-in-rwanda/ When Will goes to Africa for a wedding and has a lunch for Tusk and they say it was a private trip, Did Tusk pay for it or William personally? When Harry traveled to Africa For the Aids conference July 18 to 20. Did he pay or was it paid by the http://royalfoundation.com or Sentebale? We know there are no reports on the RPO costs which are paid by UK taxpayers. And security for the royals is covered by the taxpayers of the countries they visit. He was at the 500 elephants project for 3 weeks. At his cousin’s wedding the weekend of Aug 10th then disappeared till 9/7 when he visited Botswana president to discuss Sentebale. Then flew home. Where was he during those last weeks of August and who was paying for it? (rumour was he was with Meghan) We know Will & Kate mix royal/fund-raising/personal stuff all the time. We know Harry thought nothing dropping his flight home from an official tour with KP team to do what a booty call? How many other times did he fly back & forth to Canada under the radar and possibly write it off as an Invictus related trip? If I were a donor to their charities I would want transparency in the finances as much as I would if I were a taxpayer. Does anyone keep track of any of their expenditures? Have a lovely day!

    • Lobbit
      December 8, 2016 at 12:59 pm (10 months ago)

      I’m afraid I don’t have any answers re: royal accounts payable but want point to out that Meghan’s trip to Rwanda was sponsored by World Vision and there was no photo shoot for any magazine. I’m honestly not sure how this photo shoot rumor has gotten off the ground.

      • Jen
        December 8, 2016 at 2:33 pm (10 months ago)

        Lobbit, there was the article in the magazine that bandanas linked to in the above post. If you look at the credits, the photographs of Meghan in Rwanda on the WV trip were taken by a professional fashion photographer, Gabor Jurino, from Toronto and who specialises in celebrity photography. Someone mentioned here ages ago that MM’s PR company organises their clients to do aid work with charities and also channels their clients through a charity organisation they (PR company) set up themselves.

        • Lobbit
          December 8, 2016 at 3:17 pm (10 months ago)

          Right, but the magazine article is nothing more than a bunch of embedded Instagram posts from Meghan’s account – it’s not a fashion editorial. Hello Beautiful didn’t commission these photos – if they had, they would own the images or have licensed them and posted them directly to their site. Since they don’t own the images and clearly weren’t given the rights to run them on their site, they did the next best (legal) thing: they embedded Meghan’s social media posts instead. Meghan credits Jurino, who is a commercial photographer/videographer, in each post.

          I’m sure that Meghan’s campaign with World Vision Canada was set up through the efforts of her publicist and a celeb philanthropy consultant – I’m just saying that this wasn’t a shoot for any magazine.

          • Jen
            December 8, 2016 at 4:53 pm (10 months ago)

            As you say, it is still part of an overall PR strategy to increase the standing of the MM brand. All celebrities do this, as do royals. They’re all hustlers when it comes down to tin tacks. We just need to know how to navigate it to be able to discern real from staged, empathy from opportunism.

            From a quick look, the Rwanda jaunt was written up in various ways for various audiences. The ‘Hello Beautiful’ article speaks primarily about MM’s clothes; in case you are in any doubt the headline screams, “Meghan Markle Brings us Humanitarian Glam in Rwanda’. WTF. The magazine’s art director chose to embed professional images in the IG visual format ie make them appear as amateur happy snaps, almost instant photos. It’s visual rhetoric, using highly staged pics. I’m not sure people can easily pick their way through the careful construction of images.

            The photographer would have been commissioned to travel to Africa to take those images. I assume Meghan was the commissioner. MM would be obliged to credit this work. Note that the focus of his work is celebrity, fashion and beauty. This gives clear focus to the visit.

            All media should carry a disclaimer that ‘A’ activity has been funded by ‘B’ so that the reader can easily follow the breadcrumb trail to the money.

          • Lobbit
            December 8, 2016 at 5:44 pm (10 months ago)

            @Jen: Hellobeautiful doesn’t have an art director – they’re not even a magazine: They’re a blog (affiliated w/ Radio One) with an extremely lean editorial staff (and a small army of mostly unpaid contributors).

            I work in communications, and my office publishes a quarterly print and online magazine, and having clicked through their site, I can promise you that Hello Beautiful does not have the budget to contract a photographer like Jurino. Jurino has worked on national pubs and on major ad campaigns: HB couldn’t afford his day rate – forget sending him on assignment to Rwanda.

            Again, they didn’t set up these photos – they don’t do fashion editorial work. It doesn’t look like they use commissioned photography anywhere on their site. They didn’t embed these images to fool anyone – they did it because that’s very much their MO. They embed media across their site to save money and get around rights issues. All online pubs do it.

            There’s really no conspiracy here. I’m not sure who paid for Jurino’s work – could have been World Vision (it looks like they used Jurino’s images and videos on their site) or Meghan’s philanthropy consultation agency. It definitely wasn’t HelloBeautiful, though.

          • Lobbit
            December 8, 2016 at 5:55 pm (10 months ago)

            I should add that it’s possible that Meghan commissioned them herself. I doubt it, but it’s totally within the realm of possibility.

          • Fifi
            December 8, 2016 at 7:01 pm (10 months ago)

            So just what was a fashion photographer doing in Rwanda? I don’t understand how he was included on a humanitarian trip? Was he the official WorldVision photographer?

          • Lobbit
            December 8, 2016 at 7:47 pm (10 months ago)

            Fifi, I’m not sure who commissioned the photographer. But I know that it wasn’t a major publication. World Vision is my first guess. Jurino is a commercial photographer based out of Toronto. The Rwanda trip was sponsored by World Vision Canada, with whom Markle – who spends most of her time in Toronto – is a celebrity ambassador. I *think* that Jurino has shot Meghan previously, so maybe World Vision booked him upon Meghan’s recommendation – charities almost always document their humanitarian efforts, especially when they involve “celebrities.” Also, some of the images of the Rwanda trip are on Jurino’s Insta, and he tagged a Toronto marketing firm in one of them – maybe they hired him. And maybe they have a hand in Meghan’s philanthropic CV, too. There are lots of connections there.

          • Fifi
            December 8, 2016 at 7:55 pm (10 months ago)

            Lobbit, Thanks for the info, these things are far more complicated than I realized. Perhaps the photog donated his services.

            I hope this posts in the right place.

          • Lobbit
            December 8, 2016 at 8:32 pm (9 months ago)

            Good point about Jurino, Fifi. Maybe World Vision covered his travel and he offered his services for free.

          • Jen
            December 8, 2016 at 8:51 pm (9 months ago)

            I’d guess the Jurino pics were a joint commission by World Vision and MM’s PR company where both parties use them as required. Unless stated, I wouldn’t presume Jurino provided his services for free.

    • Kitty
      December 8, 2016 at 1:20 pm (10 months ago)

      So what you are saying is the monarchy is doomed after The Queen passes.

      • CrazyAMG
        December 8, 2016 at 7:51 pm (10 months ago)

        IMO, PC will need to take the RF in a different direction after HM’s death. Her shoes are to big for PC or any other member of the RF to fill.

    • Herazeus
      December 8, 2016 at 1:54 pm (10 months ago)

      It’s treated the same way that you have laid out.

      A diary secretary works out the itinerary from dawn to sleep time. The entire day is scheduled with military precision. Every hour accounted for, people they are to meet, personnel handling each hour or sections of the day. Salaries would be paid according to company/charity/taxpayer funds division of the itinerary. And you have to cost every single part. It’s not called bean counting for nothing.

      Every event will have been organised and hopefully security checked before royal sets foot there. All handlers vetted, from PAs, drivers, grooming, valets, butlers, press etc.

      Each organisation pays for the part they have committed to. This may include paying for transportation, accomodation and support staff. If it’s abroad, that may include air fares, hotels, per diems for entire team as agreed in the event planning. If it’s a personal trip, that portion comes out of his own pocket sans taxpayer bodyguards. Even if he commutes to Canada daily whilst on tour of USA/caribbean. Since Canada is deemed personal, that portion of flights, accomodation etc will be billed to him sans taxpayer bodyguards.

      If it’s a series of events like Harry’s summer in Africa, the Elephant organisation will have paid all that, but if he detours to Sentebale, that organisation pays for that detour in terms of transportation/accomodation/security outside his RPOs who accompany him everywhere. If he detours to his cousin’s wedding, that part will be paid from his personal funds including transportation, hotels etc. Detouring to meet presidents officially is picked up by the host country because that meeting becomes an official visit. Usually the foreign office will pick up that tab for the official visit portion of the trip and pass the bill to the host country to be reimbursed. Thus ending up with 4 different entities to send bills to. It’s upto the 4 different entities to double check the itinerary matches the bills they have been sent and the contracts signed.

      For a simple trip like the Memphis wedding, all except the body guards would come from their personal funds.

      Kenya should have been as easy as the Memphis wedding, but there was bad optics so William quickly added a meeting with the president which looked very strange if he had no official reason to ge meeting the president, so Tusk was roped in and the trip turned into a taxpayer funded trip/ Tusk funded trip with a wedding attached. Considering he is very close to the bride, the wedding part of the trip sans taxpayer bodyguards was probably comped since he always lives with the family rent free when he visits.

      Harry’s African summer was complicated in the planning and logistics because of the different entities involved, but if you have a head for logistics and planning, it’s really simple to schedule and bill.

      The Caribbean tour was also as simple as the Memphis wedding because the Foreign office receives all bills for the tour and does the costing for each island and places he visited and gets reimbursed by the host govt of each island as appropriate.

      It’s not a free for all. Considerations are made for size of entourage, proposed places to be visited, budgets set and the diary scheduled to fit as many of these considerations as possible. If he undertakes something charitable on tour eg polo for Sentebale, the charity pays for that occassion as detailed above. Tours also have adfitional costs like per diems for tipping and unexpected expenses which are agreed upon before the leave Britain.

      And when he decides to go to Toronto, the detour flight comes out of his personal funds whilst the official flight is either written off or the Foreign office tries to get a refund.

      The only bit taxpayers are screwed over are the bodyguards because no matter the extra security laid out by various organisations, those travel with him everywhere even on personal visits. They are never off the clock. We pay their salaries, flights, accomodation, expenses.

      MM’s trips are her personal business. If she joins Harry on tour or in Africa, she is entirely self funded no matter whether a magazine or her TV show or her personal bank account pays. If Harry chooses to pay for her, he is billed personally even if his own bills are covered by the charity/personal friends/taxpayers.

      She is not a member of the BRF, so what she does is on her own dime. Harry can’t use work/taxpayer funds for her.

      • MavenTheFirst
        December 8, 2016 at 2:25 pm (10 months ago)

        “whilst the official flight is either written off or the Foreign office tries to get a refund. ”

        Written off? You mean the taxpayer eats it?

        All this rigmarole for an accident if birth and no merit. What a sweet deal to be a prince. And to no be accountable especially where transparency is concerned.

        Sixer over at Celebitchy said that the BRF agreed to separate official trips from jaunts and ensure the proper payment. Then an audit was done, and no such thing was happening. These guys are loathsome con artists and why should I believe that they are any honester now? This makes Harry’s little spinoff even more suspect and egregious.

        BTW, the DM asserted that Harry’s little sojourn cost the Canadian taxpayer like me for protection. Now that really piosses me off if it’s true.

        • Sarah
          December 8, 2016 at 2:32 pm (10 months ago)

          This is why people need to to demand more transparency in regards to the royals and finances. They are the ultimate wizard telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
          And if they get a refund because Harry wanted to see his gf, I’ll be super mad. I can just imagine if you or I called up asking for a refund for that reason! They would laugh in our faces.

        • Jen
          December 8, 2016 at 3:17 pm (10 months ago)

          “All this rigmarole for an accident if birth and no merit.”

          Indeed. These ‘royals’ cost people and organisations a heck of a lot of money just to indulge whatever they currently fancy. It must be a drain to prop up these guys. And for what? Photos and press justifying their ‘work’?

          Then again, local councils are billed when royals visit, money better spent on local services. And protection is provided from the police budget; that puts a strain on community resources. If full and true costs to keep the monarchy were known, I doubt it would exist or at least have its wings severely clipped financially.

        • Lobbit
          December 8, 2016 at 3:33 pm (10 months ago)

          I see your point, but as a taxpayer, you pay for national/federal Canadian law enforcement no matter how or where they are assigned – and they have to be on hand to provide protection whenever anyone from the BRF is in town, apparently.

        • Herazeus
          December 8, 2016 at 3:38 pm (10 months ago)

          Maven: the taxpayer bodyguards are the part we all can’t get away from. In addition to his RPOs, especially on personal journeys, the local security/emergency services provide cover. That cost comes from the taxpayers of the host country and it’s in addition to the UK taxpayer funded guards.

          Regarding the flight refund, if the Foreign office can’t get a refund from the airline, then yes the taxpayer has to absorb the cost from the pre-set budget. No one gets a prize for making savings.

          For what it’s worth, this type of waste can be found accross all govt dept, and many govts don’t care.

          Jen: don’t forget emergency services which also have to be on high alert for duration of visit. The best the city can provide.

          That’s why Kate’s visits to Middleton towers are so annoying because apart from the increased security, she and the babies are top priority for all local emergency services. Too bad for the locals.

          • Jen
            December 8, 2016 at 8:40 pm (9 months ago)

            The Foreign Office might get a credit for the unused flight, rather than a refund? Let’s hope so…

            I’d forgotten about emergency services having to be on high alert too. While it’s an understandable part of the deal during engagements it’s a staggering waste of public resources when Kate runs back and forth to Bucklebury all because she can’t function independently.

    • Herazeus
      December 8, 2016 at 2:11 pm (10 months ago)

      Forgot to add that as per regular working lives, the organisation that invites you should pay all your expenses so if the royal foundation organised the Aids Conference or thought it prudent to send Harry to the conference, then they would have to pay his expenses including flights, hotels, per diems. Ditto William and Tusk.

      As for keeping track of private donors, that’s upto the individual charities for whom the royal acts as the draw to tempt donors into parting with cash or goods for the benefit of the charity.

      It’s not the concern of the royals or the royal family at large unless the donor turns out to be unsavoury or have unsavoury connections. That will impact the royal personally so in theory all donors are vetted to make sure they are kosher.

      In the case of Charles, that article makes it very clear money is for charity and not his personal bank account which means it’s the charity that has to provide transparency not Charles.

      • bandana
        December 8, 2016 at 3:36 pm (10 months ago)

        But Will Kate and Harry run Kp office and the charity is theirs too. So basically who questions if Harry said he went to Toronto and met with someone for Invictus 2017? Not necessarily refering to this last trip but others that he may have taken in the last few months to see her. Who if anyone would have any authority to audit? It’s obvious to many that Jason Knauf is powerless to say no to W,K & H and given the infamous letter Meghan now too. Makes me wonder who is all investing in the Pearl of the Caribbean and racetrack and if they have donated money to the royals charities too??

        • Herazeus
          December 8, 2016 at 6:24 pm (10 months ago)

          Harry’s two charities are ran by outsiders as separate foundations and limited companies that have trustees and competent staff with proper work experience to ran such organisations and an annual tax filings at companies house. That makes both organisations vunerable to external auditors that may or may not include the tax office, their own donors seeking transparency. When the people at Invictus and Sentebale say he shows up to work and meetings, that is something they have to prove to serious people, not just to royal dans or the general public.

          As they are ran as limited companies, there are statutory rules that govern limits and types of expenses so if Harry decided to take detours to Meghan whilst in Toronto, that would be on his dime, not Invictus.

          Finally, i thought that race course was a deal between a chinese developer, the St Lucia govt and the Warrens (cough BRF cough)

          http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/st-lucia-soon-to-be-the-pearl-of-the-caribbean/

          https://invictusgamesfoundation.org

          https://invictusgamesfoundation.org/foundation/governance

          http://sentebale.org

          http://sentebale.org/who-we-are/

          Jason has nothing to do with Invictus or Sentebele as you can see.

          As for the royal foundation, that appears to be primarily how or where WK ‘work’ and clearly not such a robust organisation as they aren’t required to be and no one has held them to account yet.

          Harry’s private office is at KP with WK’s office and clearly they all treat everyone, Jason included, as glorified diary sectetaries and not much else.

          • bandanas
            December 8, 2016 at 6:52 pm (10 months ago)

            Thank you Herazues. I appreciate your information. I wish the Uk Journalist would dig a little deeper into things but I guess we all have bills to pay and people want to read about matching bracelets lol

  12. JET Texas
    December 8, 2016 at 1:45 pm (10 months ago)

    I have a question. I asked this in the previous post, but it got lost in a thread. Sorry that this is off topic, but is Harry not allowed to work more than he does? Is he not allowed to outshine W&K? Has someone told him this? Given how often he has been thrown under the bus to make W&K look better, I can easily believe it.

    • Sarah
      December 8, 2016 at 2:35 pm (10 months ago)

      I think that’s just rumor and Harry’s own personal preference.

    • Jen
      December 8, 2016 at 3:20 pm (10 months ago)

      It’s a nice save to ‘have’ to work less than your brother when said brother barely stirs himself!

    • Fifi
      December 8, 2016 at 7:11 pm (10 months ago)

      Anne used to always have more public engagements than Charles, and that went on for years (it may still be true). Nobody told her to stop working so as not to make her brother the heir look bad. I’m pretty sure Harry could work as much as he wants.

      • MavenTheFirst
        December 8, 2016 at 8:30 pm (9 months ago)

        Agreed. I wonder who started that rumour because it’s the default excuse when it comes to Harry.

        • Sarah
          December 8, 2016 at 8:52 pm (9 months ago)

          Probably Harry!he probably took a note out of William’s book. I think it was mentioned that William told air ambulance people he couldn’t do more becuase of Royal engagements and told the palace he couldn’t do more becuase of job requirements!
          Obsfuscation should be the Royal motto =)

  13. Sarah
    December 8, 2016 at 3:35 pm (10 months ago)

    KMR, I think you should do another poll on whether we think the York girls future husbands should get titles! I try not to read DM articles so they don’t get any revenue off me (I have tried to up my visits to your site tho so you can soon jet off to Sweden and view the wedding gowns exhibit 😋) so am just going off the headlines but that alone made me smile

    • katemiddletonreview
      December 8, 2016 at 4:47 pm (10 months ago)

      It now says “content unavailable” so the person must have taken the photo down. Bummer.

      I’ll have a post about the diplomatic reception in a few hours.

      • Miley
        December 8, 2016 at 6:25 pm (10 months ago)

        Oh ok makes sense. Thanks. Alrighty can’t wait.

    • Kitty
      December 8, 2016 at 5:00 pm (10 months ago)

      Look at the pics of both Diana and Kate wearing the same Tiara yet Diana has this allure and magnetic personality about her that she just is royalty and Kate looks like she is playing dress up.

      • Miley
        December 8, 2016 at 6:27 pm (10 months ago)

        I do find that it doesn’t flatter her as much as the one she wore for her wedding, I think Diana definitely looked very regal in it. I’m not sure if it was her posture, head shape, or just the confidence she exuded wearing it.

        • Kitty
          December 8, 2016 at 8:15 pm (10 months ago)

          @Miley I think it is her inner beauty and her allure. Even to this day she is magnetic and was a larger than life personality and her aura and charisma is still unmatched to this day. I can’t describe it!

  14. duchesschicana
    December 8, 2016 at 5:49 pm (10 months ago)

    I don’t mid kate wearing the lovers knot tiara there has been a more than enough respectable time since Lady Diana’s passing. Least the tiara is nor crooked this time, in the passed the tiaras seemed crooked

    On another note I still see no royal family order *whistles

    • Herazeus
      December 8, 2016 at 6:25 pm (10 months ago)

      Definitely no family order.

      • Miley
        December 8, 2016 at 6:27 pm (10 months ago)

        When do members of the RF receive those?

        • katemiddletonreview
          December 8, 2016 at 6:29 pm (10 months ago)

          Whenever the Queen wants to give them out. Diana got hers within the first year. Fergie never got one. Sophie got hers at about 5 years in. Camilla got hers within two years.

          • Kitty
            December 8, 2016 at 8:06 pm (10 months ago)

            Don’t you think its pathetic Kate still never received one? What if Harry future wife has one within a year?