KP: William to leave EAAA, increase royal duties

Kensington Palace officially confirmed that Prince William will leave his co-pilot job with East Anglian Air Ambulance this summer, and starting in the fall will spend more time working for royal family. Kate Middleton will also increase her work for the royal family, while Prince George and Princess Charlotte attend school in London.

KP’s statement in full:

    “Since 2014 The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have used Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace as their official residence when carrying out Royal duties, while basing their family primarily at their home in Norfolk. This arrangement has allowed The Duke to work as a pilot with the East Anglia Air Ambulance, a role he has valued hugely. Their Royal Highnesses love their time in Norfolk and it will continue to be their home.
    “From this autumn, however, The Duke and Duchess will increasingly base their family at Kensington Palace. As they have in recent years, Their Royal Highnesses are keen to continue to increase their official work on behalf of The Queen and for the charities and causes they support, which will require greater time spent in London. Prince George will begin school in London in September and Princess Charlotte will also go to nursery and eventually school in London as well.
    “His Royal Highness will finish his role with the EAAA in the summer in line with his commitment to fly with them for two years. The Duke said:
    “‘It has been a huge privilege to fly with the East Anglia Air Ambulance. Following on from my time in the military, I have had experiences in this job I will carry with me for the rest of my life, and that will add a valuable perspective to my Royal work for decades to come.
    “‘I would like to thank the people of East Anglia for being so supportive of my role and for letting me get on with the job when they have seen me in the community or at our region’s hospitals. I would especially like to thank all of my colleagues at EAAA, Babcock, and Cambridge Airport for their friendship and support. I have loved being part of a team of professional, talented people that save lives every day. My admiration for our country’s medical and emergency services community could not be any stronger.'”

It is worth noting that KP did not expressly say that William or Kate would be full time working royals. All KP said is that William and Kate will increase their official work. By how much remains to be seen.

It is also worth noting that KP did not say William and Kate are moving to their London home. KP said William and Kate will “increasingly base their family at Kensington Palace”, while Anmer Hall continues to be their home. I have seen several articles claiming William and Kate are moving back to London which isn’t wholly true, so I wanted to point that out.

William and Kate will most likely continue to spend a lot of time at Anmer Hall, and that’s fine. They don’t have to live at Kensington Palace full time. None of the royals live full time in London – they all have homes outside of London where they spend time. William and Kate will most likely spend time at Anmer Hall on weekends and any time off in between their work and George and Charlotte’s schooling, while basing themselves at KP during the week. There is nothing wrong with William and Kate continuing to spend time at Anmer Hall as long as they actually increase their workload.

This statement is great and all, and I hope William and Kate follow through with it, but I’m wondering how much they will actually increase their workload this year. I could totally see them claiming they need time to prepare to “move”, William needs more time to devote to EAAA before leaving, they need to spend more time with the kids preparing them for school and the change of living more time in London, etc. I could see them working less this year than previous years because of this change, and not actually starting to increase their workload until 2018. But we’ll see.

I do want to comment on the timing of this release. I realize that KP is in the UK, but I find it odd that they dropped this statement at 10:30 AM ET on Inauguration Day. This statement honestly got buried in my Twitter feed. I wonder if that was their plan, to bury this statement. They could have easily dropped this yesterday. They dropped Harry’s statement on Meghan Markle on Election Day, too. The timing of KP’s big statements recently has been suspect to me.

KP statement William leaving EAAA

182 Comments on KP: William to leave EAAA, increase royal duties

  1. Kitty
    January 21, 2017 at 12:06 am (4 months ago)

    Does anyone really believe this? It will be the same with them. But, I’m happy they will now live in the 22 room “apartment” they spent 4.5M pounds!

    • fran
      January 21, 2017 at 8:52 pm (4 months ago)

      They better bc Harry and Meghan if they get married will upstage them.

    • Dolittle
      January 25, 2017 at 8:26 pm (4 months ago)

      +100!

      This was the huge reason bill middleton ‘ i am a ptince’ with millions inntaxpayers funding, shun the Royal Family Christmas traditions, and the children as pawn kept away from royal grandpa, with whiny holding separate court while 2 – Monarchs exist. Whiny bill/lazy snob waity middleton ordered back to KP/ with duties. This could be the last warning before PRINCE HENRY and Princess Henry in waiting, move up the Line.

      Bill continue playing lazy midddleton games . Not returning January as was first stated instead now September, then a month away its another long Norfolk berkshire Christmas vacation.

  2. rhiannon
    January 21, 2017 at 12:22 am (4 months ago)

    This needed to have happened a while ago. William has shirked his duties for far too long. Hopefully HM’s recent bout with bsd health jolted him to action. He is unprepared and it shows.

    Despite this release, I think William will find a way to way to get out of it. This is a long time coming and hopes he puts some effort into it.

    Thank you for the update, KMR!

    • Jamel
      January 21, 2017 at 4:39 am (4 months ago)

      Totally agree rhiannon. And I read that even if William is expected to increase his Royal duties he is not expected to work more than the Prince of Wales. Ridiculous.

      • katemiddletonreview
        January 21, 2017 at 4:40 am (4 months ago)

        Only Anne has ever out-worked the Prince of Wales. William could do 400 engagements a year and not out-work the Prince of Wales. William has no excuse there.

        • notasugarhere
          January 21, 2017 at 8:57 am (4 months ago)

          She outdoes him in number of engagements sometimes, but not in the overall amount of work done for the country. After engagements she goes home, Charles goes to work on The Duchy, Dumfries House, Prince’s Trust, etc.

          • Lobbit
            January 21, 2017 at 11:46 am (4 months ago)

            I understand that William wanted to pursue his pilot training or whatever, but it’s a shame that he hasn’t sought greater involvement in the Duchy and the Prince’s Trust. Some of the monarchy’s most substantive contributions to Britain have come from those organizations, imo.

            eta: just remembered that agriculture course will did last year To prep for his duties WRT to the Duchy. So there’s that. Still, If it were me, I would have started shadowing PC right out of university.

          • Ellie
            January 21, 2017 at 12:05 pm (4 months ago)

            He never finished the course, it just drifted into oblivion as he stopped showing up…

          • Herazeus
            January 21, 2017 at 12:55 pm (4 months ago)

            Harry has done more work for the duchy than William.

    • Herazeus
      January 21, 2017 at 4:44 am (4 months ago)

      The key sentence that shows they have no intention of increasing royal duties is the 3rd sentence in the second paragraph…..’Their RH are keen to continue to increase their official work’…….

      How many times have we heard that phrase?

      It’s used every year and in every single article that announces the intention of working more.

      • Kimothy
        January 21, 2017 at 7:58 am (4 months ago)

        The “keen” part jumped out at me and made me roll my eyes so much.

        • Nic919
          January 21, 2017 at 8:27 am (4 months ago)

          Keen needs to be banned from their statements because they have so diminished and devalued that word it is meaningless.

          • Kimothy
            January 21, 2017 at 8:34 am (4 months ago)

            These are the synonyms for keen:

            anxious, ardent, avid, eager, fervent, fierce, impatient, intense, alert, animate, animated, devoted, earnest, intent, interested, spirited, warm, agog, appetent, thirst, breathless, dying to, ebullient, fervid, fond of, gung ho, impassioned, lively, perfervid, sprightly, thirsty, vehement, vivacious, zealous

            Some of these words don’t work (zealous?) for them but a great many (gung ho!) do!

        • royalsareajoke
          January 22, 2017 at 3:18 pm (4 months ago)

          I looked up the word keen just as you did, Kimothy. I was hoping it was ‘slang’, but it’s not:( Of course I have absolutely no thought that these two are keen on anything other than a pampered and luxurious lifestyle, and with their track record it seems very unlikely to change. To me Kate appears to consider herself a ‘celebrity’. I do, however, agree that to push someone into a place they don’t have interest in is wrong, I don’t remember who said it but to assume that becoming a ‘duchess’ automatically instills a love for children and childen’s causes is not right. The mental health thing? It seems that the cause du jour is based on what’s the most ‘popular’ at any given time. Popular is a very bad word for this but I can’t think of any other. They are imo using these ’causes and their people’. I don’t know what Kate’s strong suit is, sports perhaps? William? Shooting and helicopters. How to translate these interests into charitable productive work is beyond me. They would simply be accused of avoiding the grunge work. I guess at this point in time I am wary of thinking that any charity or cause needs a ‘royal’. They simply aren’t relatable. This is just my opinion.

  3. GraceH
    January 21, 2017 at 12:33 am (4 months ago)

    Did PWill get his licence to pilot a heli by himself after all the EAAA flights?
    Is PWill going to disclose what charities or foundation received his salary?
    Is EAAA joining the list of charities receiving grants from the Royal Foundation of WK&H?
    Will the Cambs attend galas together now that they plan on spending time at KP?
    I don’t believe they’ll spend more time publicly visiting their patronages but their office will report more private planning & update meetings as official work. (That’s ok. It’s fair.)
    Their schedule will revolve around PG’s school now – or at least K’s will. More holidays will be taken during school holiday periods.
    Charlotte may be seen might be seen more often with her mother and/or g-mother at child-related destinations around their homes.
    It would be nice for the citizens to see W&K taking more contiguous away days at destinations in the UK every quarter.
    All in all, the statement didn’t really offer any new information and never intended to.

    • katemiddletonreview
      January 21, 2017 at 12:58 am (4 months ago)

      I think it’s rather interesting that KP referred to William as a pilot rather than what he actually is: a co-pilot.

      • GraceH
        January 21, 2017 at 2:03 am (4 months ago)

        A wag on Twitter suggested that PWill was now going to learn how to drive a train since he enjoyed being behind the controls on a engagement in 2016. He could build a little model railroad loop around Sandringham and teach PG how to drive it too. 🙂

      • Clem
        January 21, 2017 at 2:42 am (4 months ago)

        I don’t know if it is me but KP and the press always say that he is the pilot, why are they not saying that he is copilot? less glorious for his image?

        • notasugarhere
          January 21, 2017 at 9:00 am (4 months ago)

          Walking out on 500,000 worth of training, working few royal engagements with “training for the EAAA” job as an excuse, exposes about him not showing up for work, nearly flying into trees in Canada.

          Because if they publicly announced what we all know and see from photos – that he’s a co-pilot – too many uncomfortable questions continue to be asked.

      • JET Texas
        January 21, 2017 at 11:28 pm (4 months ago)

        I was trying to find out about this earlier today. All the British newspaper articles I found called him a “pilot”. Sloppy reporting. If the DM want to get some digs in on William, they could mention his glorious retirement from EAAAAs a co-pilot, and also mention the incomplete land management course at Cambridge….he really just can’t finish what he starts.

    • Nic919
      January 21, 2017 at 8:33 am (4 months ago)

      Are there any Brits here who could confirm how many flight hours are required to become a pilot in the U.K.? I think that will tell us exactly how little Will has flown both at the RAF and EAAA. I mean how long has he pretended to be a helicopter pilot anyway? He is 35. Most pilots are qualified to fly solo well before that age. Probably mid 20s if they work full time.

      • Herazeus
        January 21, 2017 at 8:43 am (4 months ago)

        Not forgetting that he is supposed to be a fully trained military pilot.

        As a matter of routine, military pilots train for half/third of the training course required for a commercial pilot because most of it is already covered by the military training.

        The fact that it took him months to train with EAAA and was omly allowed co-pilot is a good indicator of how little training / flying time the RAF gave him AND his level of experience.

  4. Em
    January 21, 2017 at 2:27 am (4 months ago)

    KMR, I also find the timing of the release curious.
    Firstly, as it was buried under the barrage of Trump news and secondly , I don’t understand why the statement was published at this time of the year.
    I’m in the Southern Hemisphere so my dates could be wrong but as I understand it, William is due to finish with the EAAA in the Northern Hemisphere summer so anytime between June and August (?) and the children’s new school year should start around August/September (?) too, right?
    That’s ages away – anything could happen between now and then that may affect their plans – so why make this announcement in January? Well, unless the “re-basing” in London is imminent? Or they just trying to quiten questions about what they actually do, after press about last year’s poor engagement numbers? Or perhaps baby #3 is on the way and they’re setting themselves up to appear “keen” to work and gain some goodwill only to use the new arrival to scale back the work (I mean no will begrudge them for wanting to spend time and call for private family time with a new baby)? Or maybe I’m just overthinking this.
    It’s really so sad that some of us can longer take what they say at face value without trying to suss out the hidden agenda. But then again their track record doesn’t do them any favours.

    • katemiddletonreview
      January 21, 2017 at 2:36 am (4 months ago)

      The only concrete month KP said was that George starts school in London in September. I thought William’s contract was up in March or May (I don’t remember which), but maybe he’s extending it a few months. I would guess he’ll leave in July, maybe, since they just said “summer”. Yeah, I’m not sure why they would drop this in January on the day of the US presidential inauguration. It just got buried. But that may be what they wanted – to quell the criticism of William but also not draw too much attention to it, so they released it when they did.

      • Herazeus
        January 21, 2017 at 4:49 am (4 months ago)

        Em/KMR: for months they’ve been saying he finishes in the spring – March.

        ….but typical of slippery timetable of William’s announcements, they let people thing date is much earlier, then as it draws closer, they release a later date which also turns out to be too early. And then pretend it’s the public/media who got it wrong and it’s us at fault for believing their slippery timetable

        • notasugarhere
          January 21, 2017 at 9:02 am (4 months ago)

          Good point Herazeus. He started training March 30, didn’t start as co-pilot until July 13, 2015.

          Is the contract up in March or in July? If it was a two year contract that included the training period, he’s done March 30 and has April, May, and June to hide out pretending he is still working at EAAA.

          • Nic919
            January 21, 2017 at 10:28 pm (4 months ago)

            If he was technically employed then the contract would start in March and his training would be a type of probationary period which usually falls within the contract. I think we have been hearing about the end of the EAAA contract for a few months now because it finishes in March

        • Miss K
          January 21, 2017 at 5:35 pm (4 months ago)

          I see it more as “Oh, look! I’m extending my contract. Look how wonderful I am.”

          • MavenTheFirst
            January 22, 2017 at 3:03 pm (4 months ago)

            Or perhaps he’s going to take a few “gap” months before September, because his contract is up in March. I don’t see him extending it. I vote for “gap” months, lazy beggar. Then they’ll all say they still have to do little work because the family is ‘adjusting’ to this new routine.

          • Miss K
            January 22, 2017 at 6:03 pm (4 months ago)

            Maven, I totally agree that it’s probably a few gap months. It’s all false pretenses, but you know Will loves to look good. Even it’s just pretending to extend the contract.

    • lyme
      January 22, 2017 at 10:35 am (4 months ago)

      Does anyone besides me think that the timing of the release has something
      to do with plans for a big trip to warmer climes with the Middletons?

  5. Carter
    January 21, 2017 at 3:13 am (4 months ago)

    Well at least this statement isn’t completely OTT and whiny like Jason’s previous statements, though I did chuckle at the use of “keen.” Someone buy them a thesaurus.

    The wording was very deliberate and purposely vague. I understand why they did it, so when William and Kate don’t work that much more, they can say it was never stated that they would be full time royals. I think it was a mistake though. Because when your wording is vague people make their own assumptions. And I think the press and public are going to assume this means they are going to be full time, which I have a hard time believing is their intention opening themselves up for a lot of criticism.

    The timing was also deliberate. Yes it was the US inauguration and they are in the UK, but Trump’s inauguration is world wide news. Once coverage dies down, the news cycle will have moved past the statement. I’m guessing they deliberately made the wording vague and dropped it when people have bigger fish to fry so no one would ask questions about what they really mean.

    • Herazeus
      January 21, 2017 at 4:55 am (4 months ago)

      Yes and Yes.

      As for the vagueness, if you look back at every single statement they’ve released over the years, they’ve always been vague for the exact reason you’ve given ie they can plausibly say they never gave actual dates or concrete detail about event.

      They did it with his leaving the RAF, they did it with Kate’s first pregnancy, they do it repeatedly when the subject of royal duties comes up.

      As for timings of release, i’m willing to give Harry the benefit of the doubt because he was making a public plea AND the racist, sexist trolling of MM was unprecedented.

      William on the otherhand was a deliberate burying of news under the barrage of other more high profile news. That’s PR 101 if you want to make an announcement that may not go over well with the public.

    • notasugarhere
      January 21, 2017 at 9:11 am (4 months ago)

      Yes, it is very slippery. Anne (Gatcombe), Andrew (Windsor), Charles (Highgrove), Edward and Sophie (Windsor). Everyone else manages to spend a great deal of time living in the country and have no problem working.

      Granted, Windsor is an hour from London not 2 hours like Highgrove and Gatcombe, but the distance hasn’t prevented Anne and Charles from working. The UK is larger than just London and the Home Counties after all. No need to be in London for a lot of the work that is done (those bread-and-butter things W&K hate).

      The idea that moving to London means an increase in work, or that they couldn’t work more because they were in the country? More smoke and mirrors.

      KP and Anmer are roughly the same travel time from his EAAA post. Never needed to move to the country for the EAAA job to begin with, but they’d like us to forget that too.

      • Kitty
        January 21, 2017 at 10:36 am (4 months ago)

        @Nota off topic, but what country home do you see The Queen or Charles gifting Harry and his future wife?

        • Ellie
          January 21, 2017 at 12:06 pm (4 months ago)

          Kitty, I wonder your obsession with this sort of thing.

          Charles purchased Harewood Park, and did it up for William and Kate. They refused it, of course. It could potentially go to Harry one day, though it is owned by the Duchy.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 12:12 pm (4 months ago)

            Ellie, not obsessed just interested that is all. I think he should live near Windsor.

        • notasugarhere
          January 21, 2017 at 12:32 pm (4 months ago)

          To answer once again the question you keep asking, even though you will knee-jerk say I’m wrong.

          He will not be given a large space at KP. The Kents and Gloucesters will not be thrown out of their homes for him. It is unlikely the offices now occupying Diana’s old home will be moved, so he will not be given that space either.

          He will be given a small apartment somewhere like BP or SJP, like Edward, Andrew, and Anne all have. Or he will stay at Nottingham Cottage. He will be given the use (but not ownership) of something much smaller than Anmer Hall as a country home. Perhaps Wood Farm.

          I don’t want him in anything owned by the Duchy, because then his brother could throw him out at any time. Harry cannot inherit anything owned by the Duchy, either Highgrove or Harewood. He would have to purchase it, at fair market rate, from the Duchy. Then there would be cries about favoritism and how much taxpayers have to spend on his new (private) property.

          He’d be safe at Wood Farm Sandringham until Charles dies, but William will have the ability to throw him out of Sandringham eventually. Safest would be a 99 year lease at a Crown Estate property like Belvedere or Frogmore.

          The purchase of a private estate would be unlikely. Too many complaints and questions about how much the taxpayers would be paying in security.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 1:38 pm (4 months ago)

            @Nota, he will be given probably Apt 4B. Once Charles is King he will be given probably Clarence House since, WK will be staying at Kensington Palace till W is King. I see a huge country home for him! Just saying not all of your predictions are correct.
            I personally think your a little ill tempered because I keep saying Harry won’t marry MM.

          • Mrs BBV
            January 21, 2017 at 2:09 pm (4 months ago)

            There is about as much chance of Harry getting Clarence House as me. He would neither want it given it size and value nor as a second son be entitled to it. Never going to happen.

            I will concede that despite all the evidence to the contrary I think somehow despite it belonging to the Duchy, Harry will end up in Highgrove. He may never own it but I do believe some provision will be made for him to use it in his lifetime albeit when PoW acceds the throne or on his death but I agree with NOTA I don’t want Harry tied to any whim of William’s. Highgrove is a small country house by Royal standards. I just hope that the PoW can arrange something like a 99 year lease at a market rate for Harry to live there.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 3:10 pm (4 months ago)

            @mrs BBV, But William and Kate want to stay in KP until he is King and I think Clarence House should be used if Charles goes to BP when King and I see it going to Harry. What would be funny is if Harry gets named Duke of Clarence and lives in Clarence House.
            I doubt William would do that to his own brother.

          • notasugarhere
            January 21, 2017 at 3:17 pm (4 months ago)

            Thanks for proving my point again Kitty.

            Charles is not going to kick his private secretary out of his KP home. KP has to earn its keep with market rate rents; giving a huge space to Harry rent-free isn’t going to happen. Harry will not be given a large London space, none of the spares are. It doesn’t matter if he is popular or not.

            He will not be given Clarence House or the use of it, even if he is given the Clarence title. Charles will stay in Clarence House while BP is being redone, but eventually he’s going to have to concede and move into BP. At that point, CH becomes surplus to requirement and a security nightmare. It will be turned into government office space not a private home.

            Moving to 6 royals also means downsizing the amount and number of buildings that house them. That includes taking Clarence House off the list as a private home. It is too expensive to maintain royals in BP, KP, and SJP, and his downsizing has to include economizing too.

            Harry will be given the use (not ownership) of a country house that is smaller than Anmer. He, spouse, and kids will be based there not in London. No need for a large London home when London will only be used for overnights or early morning meetings. Likely his kids would attend local school in the country (like Anne, Andrew, and Edwards kids all attended schools local to their country homes).

            There is no “huge country home” in his future. There is really nothing left at Sandringham besides Wood Farm, and nothing left of Crown Estate at Windsor except Belvedere and Frogmore.

            Other royals will not be thrown out of their homes and their 99-year leases broken for Harry. Will not happen, even if you want to pretend that decades of history regarding royal properties and the massive downsizing don’t exist.

          • notasugarhere
            January 21, 2017 at 3:31 pm (4 months ago)

            I don’t care if Harry and MM marry, why would I? Not my life.

            I am fascinated by all the spinning being done by fangirls who insist it cannot happen and she is the devil incarnate. She’s been royal-adjacent for two months and I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt. If that includes using logic to counter all the OTT comments from people who don’t like that the unicorn is real, so be it.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 4:17 pm (4 months ago)

            @Nota, if you have done your research you would know that Charles secretary quite 6 years ago and does not live there anymore. Oh and Harry would live rent free if he does public duties and Apt 4B which has been said to be for Harry when he gets married is a good sizable home. 6 bedrooms and 6 reception rooms. He is a son of a future king and brother of a future king. BP will be renovated for about 10 years and The Queen can possibly live for another 10 years so it is a possibility that Charles lives in BP and Harry moves into CH.
            Yeah I do not even think Charles will do the downsizing thing. I mean WK do less work as it is with The Queen and other minor royals. Well there is a lot of royal home that on The Queen’s estate or when Charles is King and if its on his estate I think they would gift Harry and wife a nice sizable country home!
            Remember times are changing. You watch…

          • Herazeus
            January 21, 2017 at 4:34 pm (4 months ago)

            Kitty: If YOU had done your research, you would know that Clarence House has never gone to the spare. It’s always the heir.

            If William doesn’t move into it as POW, then it will be used for banquets and receptions in the same way that Marlborough House is currently being used.

            Marlborough House is reserved for dowager queens. An exception was made for the Queen mother to live at Clarence House rather than Marlborough House, but that doesn’t mean that anyone else who isn’t top of the tree can take Clarence House.

            Harry is a spare, not top of the tree. He is not entitled to live at CH. At best, he will receive a small london space or stay at Nottingham cottage, and a country mansion. LIKE OTHER ROYALS – Andrew and the Queen’s own father (before the abdication) are the template for Harry if you can’t understand this point. The spares are not given anything that resembles the riches the heirs get. Ever. It’s the way of the aristocracy and the way of the royal family. Popularity doesn’t matter. Scaling down the royal family doesn’t change this basic principal.

            And if William refuses to move into CH when he is POW, then the more likely scenerio is that it will be used as a bangueting and reception space in the same way that Marlborough House became after the Queen mother refused to move in.

            And as Nota keeps pointing out to you, just as the other royals have received small spaces, so will Harry. The fact that govt/palace officials are retiring and leaving their apartments at KP doesn’t automatically mean that Harry receives those spaces because if they were so, he would get them now.

          • notasugarhere
            January 21, 2017 at 4:39 pm (4 months ago)

            Her Majesty is 90. Her mother lived to 101.

            There are not a lot of homes left at Sandringham. Next biggest that is available is Wood Farm. Big but not extravagant. Charles doesn’t own the Duchy, he cannot give Harry anything that is owned by the Duchy.

            Anne is the daughter of a queen, sister of a future king. Has a small space at SJP, and a country home.

            Andrew is the favorite son of a queen, brother of a future king. Has a 2-bedroom apartment at BP, and a country home on lease from Crown Estate.

            Edward is the son of a queen, brother of a future king. Has a 2-bedroom apartment at BP, and a country home on lease from Crown Estate.

            Times are changing, but not in the direction you want them to.

            The BRF is downsizing in number of royals, type of properties, and costs.

            Harry is 5th in line and sinking. He will not be given riches, he’ll be given the standard fare of lower-down royals. Small London apartment, leased country home.

            No point in continuing to face you with logic, because there is no logic in what you write. You’re not looking at facts, you’re thinking with your heart. I get it. You want Harry to be king. You want him to have a huge London home. You want him to have a huge country pile. Not going to happen, no matter how much you pray otherwise.

          • Red Snapper
            January 21, 2017 at 5:01 pm (4 months ago)

            Some people will never be swayed by facts or arguments. They just *know*. Like, they can *sense* the future and you’re the unreasonable one for not believing them. Best to ignore.

          • Ellie
            January 21, 2017 at 5:43 pm (4 months ago)

            Is it sad that I think William would totally throw Harry and Family out of a residence once he inherits it? Shows how much I admire him, eh.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 7:25 pm (4 months ago)

            @Ellie, I do not think William would do that. I think they are close.
            @Herazeus, if it was always for the heir then why did The Queen mother live there? She could have lived somewhere else? I doubt Harry would raise his family in Nottingham a one bedroom place while minor royals like the Prince and Princess Michael of Kent or the Gloucester(rent free) apt. at Kensington palace. Well if Charles wanted to want Harry and his family to live in CH once Charles is King it will happen.
            @Nota, well its not like you can see into the future now can you? So you do not know what will happen in the future.

          • notasugarhere
            January 21, 2017 at 9:20 pm (4 months ago)

            I expect Harry and spouse to live full-time in the country, like Anne, Andrew, and Edward. The London apartment will only be for overnights and early meetings, not for a London home for the entire family. Just like all the other spares.

            Charles has to downsize the costs of royals, including the hangers on and the extra properties. That speaks to eliminating Clarence House, SJP, and most of KP as royal housing. He’ll only need to house himself and Camilla (BP), W&K (1A), and Harry (2 bedroom at BP like other spares).

            The rest of the royals will pass away, KP will be turned into money-making rentals. No more grace-and-favor housing in massive homes for anyone except heir and heir-to-heir.

            There is only one person on here who seems to think they can see the future, or wish it into existence. The rest of us are working with fact, history, and the downsizing of the royal family.

            Harry is surplus to requirement, he will be treated as such in regards to properties.

          • Kitty
            January 22, 2017 at 12:24 am (4 months ago)

            Nota, CH will still be used by the royals. Do you believe in God?

          • katemiddletonreview
            January 22, 2017 at 12:59 am (4 months ago)

            Commenter’s religion or belief in any god is not relevant to this site, and is in violation of the comment policy to keep personal religious beliefs off the site. Please stop commenting on personal religious beliefs.

          • aaa
            January 22, 2017 at 4:46 am (4 months ago)

            My thought is is that Harry’s London residence will be modest and that eventually he will be gifted by Charles his own Gatcombe Park or Sunninghill Park.

          • notasugarhere
            January 22, 2017 at 8:47 am (4 months ago)

            aaa, they got away with that years ago with Anne. Upgrades on Gatcombe were even paid by the Crown Estate, even if it was purchased with private money.

            A huge stink was made over Sunninghill Park, from them being allowed to purchased a piece of the Crown Estate to the design. And that it ultimately went to rack and ruin after being sold to someone questionable.

            Ditto the huge stink over how Andrew and Sarah could afford their new Swiss chalet, esp since Sarah is alleged to be penniless. Makes me think Paddy McN may have bought her part of the house for her.

            The BRF learned from those lessons, and Edward and Sophie weren’t given a private home. They lease something from the Crown Estate, but they don’t have a big private house that they own (that we know of).

            HM put money away for B&E as part of the divorce. Some was invested in real estate, quietly, and one of the houses was sold last year for a big profit. But very quietly.

            I don’t think Charles could get away with gifting Harry with a large private house now. Too many questions would be asked about where the money came from, how much taxpayer money is spent securing that private property, etc.

            I think it more likely that he’ll get a Crown Estate lease for one of the remaining places at Windsor. Or Wood Farm at Sandringham as grace and favor. He will have to pay for a CE lease out of his inheritance. Many questions will be asked about that even though it is his private money.

            If Charles (and HM) want to give Harry property or money, they’re going to be doing it behind the scenes not publicly IMO. Maybe a secret house in S.A.? They’re very good at hiding what they own “privately”, like HM’s horse farm in Kentucky.

          • aaa
            January 22, 2017 at 7:38 pm (4 months ago)

            There’s a difference between wealthy parents buying their child a large home and that’s it, versus buying the home and then taking it a step further by using resources from the family business to make enhancements.

            If all Charles does is buy Harry his own Gatcombe Park or Sunninghill that should be fine beyond the grumbling that always take place when there is some exhibition of wealth by the royal family. If Harry turns around and pulls some Andrew type shenanigans then he will get heat for it, otherwise it may be more like the reaction, make that non-reaction, that took place when Princess Anne plopped down £500K for a yacht.

            But hey if I’m wrong all that means is that Harry will have to make do with getting some kind of sweetheart deal for Fort Belvedere or some other Crown Estate home and then whatever Charles would have spent buying Harry his own Gatcombe Park or Sunninghill, Harry will get as part of his inheritance when Charles dies. Yeah OK if that is suppose to better optics.

            Maybe it’s just me but I don’t count family members being given homes on the private estates, namely Sandringham and Balmoral, as grace and favor.

          • Kitty
            January 22, 2017 at 8:29 pm (4 months ago)

            @aaa, well William has a Grace and Favor residence in Norfolk. No matter what all the royals will get flake fro showcasing their wealth. Heck even to this day people give William and Kate heat for spending so much on taxpayers money on their apt in London then decided to go to Anmer Hall and spent a million on it.

  6. Caroline
    January 21, 2017 at 3:16 am (4 months ago)

    Don’t want to be the bad boy here but the inauguration is really no big deal outside the US. A lot newspapers write it up like it is but I know only one person who actually watched it.
    The election was way more important for everyone and even then people would just look it up on the internet or wait for the news. Those messages might get buried in the twitter feed of people on the US but not so much in Europe. In the end they are the British royals they have no need to schedule for any other things than important stuff in Britain. If they would drop stuff like this while there own election- well that would make me raise my eyebrows!

    • M from Germany
      January 21, 2017 at 3:56 am (4 months ago)

      In Germany, 4 (!) TV channels did live broadcasts with experts commenting on everything. Some major news networks did a live broadcast all afternoon for more than 6 hours so I have to disagree, at least in Germany it was a big deal.

    • Lovely Blossom
      January 21, 2017 at 4:02 am (4 months ago)

      I don’t think that’s true. I don’t know where you live (you don’t have to say it). But it will affect the whole world in the long way. I can’t predict the future but in Europe, the right-wing parties celebrate. I know, this is no political site, so I stop it here.
      I think the Royals plan years ahead(for example weddings), but I wonder too, how can Norfolk stay their home when George and Charlotte attend school and nursery in London?

      • Herazeus
        January 21, 2017 at 4:59 am (4 months ago)

        I’m with M and Lovely Blossom. All our TV stations in Britain were turned to the live broadcast of thebinaguration with barely a break for other news, as were all editions of all papers, print and online.

        Ordinary people may or may not gave tuned in, but in terms of media coverage, it was the only news of the day. Which made KP’s statement strange in terms of timing because it didn’t get a look in.

        Perhaps in tomorrow’s media?

        • M from Germany
          January 21, 2017 at 10:03 am (4 months ago)

          So true. First of all, nobody thought Brexit was going to happen. Then, everyone belived that people had learnt their lesson and Donald Trump was not going to become President. But all of these things happened and it makes people insecure about the (political) future. So people, especially in Europe, are extremely cautious about everything going on over there and pay lots of Attention.
          Plus, Donald Trump has polarized extremely, even some of his tweets (!) are mentioned in German News!! So he definitely gets a lot of Attention.

      • graymatters
        January 21, 2017 at 10:32 pm (4 months ago)

        If G and C go to boarding school (many aristocratic children begin as young as 8), then W & K can live full-time at Amner quite comfortably.

        • Herazeus
          January 22, 2017 at 9:14 am (4 months ago)

          Anmer Hall is a 10 bedroom house. With additional staff and nanny bedrooms/suites in separate wings.

          I think WK are more than comfortable there at present.

          It’s big enough to accomodate their family + Carole, Mike, Pippa, James +their partners and not have anyone on top of another person.

          .

          • graymatters
            January 22, 2017 at 6:36 pm (4 months ago)

            Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I was responding to Lovely Blossom who wondered how W&K could continue to be based in Norfolk after G&C begin school. “Comfortable” wasn’t the right word. “Convenient” may have been a better choice. If G&C go to boarding school, W&K may find Norfolk to remain a convenient family home — both comfortable and secure from press intrusion or work expectations.

    • Bella
      January 21, 2017 at 6:42 am (4 months ago)

      I am in Sri Lanka and the inauguration is a really big deal here. So many people are interested.

      • Debra Green
        January 21, 2017 at 3:26 pm (4 months ago)

        There have been marches and protests across UK yesterday and today, my daughter attended one.
        This is an incredibly big deal for everyone as Trumps policies and actions have the potential to effect people’s outside the USA.
        The inauguration actually brought the protests to a head so I think it was a big deal.

        • Meghan
          January 22, 2017 at 11:34 am (4 months ago)

          As a KMR reader from the USA, I apologize for this dumpster fire to whom we have given an international platform. Some of us have enough sense to know that was a very, very bad idea and we’re totally embarrassed.

  7. M from Germany
    January 21, 2017 at 3:54 am (4 months ago)

    I totally agree, I also thought the time of the release was SO STRANGE! I mean, the whole world was watching Donald Trump get inaugurated. Did they want the news to get lost on purpose? But why? Very mysterious…

    • Herazeus
      January 21, 2017 at 4:59 am (4 months ago)

      I think they did.

  8. Red Snapper
    January 21, 2017 at 4:10 am (4 months ago)

    The language is too clever by half. It doesn’t say he’s going to be a full time royal, only that he’s increasing his royal work. Since behind the scenes planning meetings will now be counted as “work”, this is all very murky.

    Interesting he’s giving up the fig leaf protection of the EAAA. I predict that once he can’t hide his co-pilot duties, there will be a lot more questions of the “What does he do all day” variety. He won’t like that.

    • Jen
      January 21, 2017 at 4:35 am (4 months ago)

      And the answer will be, ‘planning meetings’.

      • Nic919
        January 21, 2017 at 1:33 pm (4 months ago)

        I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear that Kate is pregnant with number three in the summer, which would be a reason used to avoid work.

    • Herazeus
      January 21, 2017 at 5:00 am (4 months ago)

      They are both KEEN to increase their work, not that they are going to increase their work…….

      • ArtHistorian
        January 21, 2017 at 7:17 am (4 months ago)

        They’re redefining the meaning of “keen” – that’ll be their contribution to Britain-. Lol.

        • notasugarhere
          January 21, 2017 at 9:06 am (4 months ago)

          Waves excitedly at AH. Happy to see you again!

          • ArtHistorian
            January 21, 2017 at 11:42 am (4 months ago)

            Hi! Waves back.

  9. Ellie
    January 21, 2017 at 4:29 am (4 months ago)

    The timing, I think, was totally deliberate.

    The language, as Red Snapper said, is clever; it could stave away criticism by hinting they will work more and become full time royals, which we know means they won’t be. They’ll just be in London more often than not, though Kate is spotted there fairly often shopping just as she was when she supposedly lived full time on Anglesey. Smoke and mirrors, as always. Just like the lies he’s a pilot when he is not, and how much he works when EAAA Colleagues have hinted he doesn’t show up unless he has something to gain from it–ie the same photographer that’s there all the time, catching him LEAVING the helo when they’re dealing with a casualty!

    I have little optimism they will truly increase their workload at all. If they do I will eat my hat. Or something.

    Thanks for covering it, KMR! I hope everyone has a great weekend! I’ll be going to an early birthday dinner, it should be fun, but I’d rather be sitting at home with popcorn watching the US figure skating championships on TV…

    • Herazeus
      January 21, 2017 at 5:02 am (4 months ago)

      Yep. Yes. And Yes.

      It’s the usual ‘intentions to work’ article they release every year.

      They’ve made all of us doubting thomases with good reason.

      I’ll believe it when i see it.

    • MAfromtheSix
      January 23, 2017 at 10:21 am (4 months ago)

      +1 Ellie!

  10. Jen
    January 21, 2017 at 4:30 am (4 months ago)

    Past performance is a good indicator of future performance. The skepticism meeting the Cambridge’s intentions has been fueled entirely by the couple’s finding excuse after excuse to delay royal ‘work’ to an acceptable level. For years. Surely no-one is in doubt about their distaste for work. Any work.

    The little slip a few days ago that planning would be counted in the CC signals that this is where numbers will increase without necessarily being seen in public. Unfortunately, there is no understanding of what ‘planning’ entails in this instance; it could be an hour-long meeting, or a short phone call. No-one to see or record such things; perfect.

    The only comment that brought a wry smile to my mouth was William’s statement that his experiences at EAAA would help him in his royal work for decades to come. Does he really think the monarchy will be around then?

    • Red Snapper
      January 21, 2017 at 4:53 am (4 months ago)

      Not to be a bitch, but I am sick of this “end of the monarchy” bullshit. The British monarchy is a deeply entrenched, thousand year old institution. It’s not going anywhere. When the child molestation scandal erupted, did anyone, anywhere say OMG this is the end of the Catholic church? The death of the Queen is imminent. It is being planned for. The dissenting voices who are now saying she should or will be last monarch will be steamrolled over like a tank over an anthill.

      The British monarchy is strong enough to endure social media. Believe it.

      • Herazeus
        January 21, 2017 at 5:11 am (4 months ago)

        I’m with Red Snapper on this.

        I rail against my taxes going to these numpties and the PR games they play as they waste my money, BUT there is no desire to remove the system of monarchy. Not now and not in another 50yrs.

        It is inbuilt into the fabric of our legislature and our society and that doesn’t necessarily mean the Windsors.

        It would cost too much to remove it, and there is no viable alternative that people can rally to accept.

        We deeply distrudt our politicians and no one is ready for President Blair (or any politician as president). Faced with that prospect, people would rather keep the monarchical system.

        That doesn’t mean it will never, ever happen, but the extreme circumstances that allow this change aren’t here and historically take decades/centuries to achieve. Even the Romanovs and the Kings of France had to buildup centuries of misrule and bad public feeling coupled with extremely bad economic circumstances before the revolutions that removed them. If Britain can withstand the Prince Regent who was later Goerge 4, an heir and monarch that is still despised to this day, we can survive a recalcitrant William.

        That said, i find it galling that WK will be King and Queen Consort.

        I hope against hope that George will turn out the opposite of his parents. It’s happened on many occasions in history, and that gives me hope.

        • Red Snapper
          January 21, 2017 at 5:48 am (4 months ago)

          Yes! The monarchy can withstand Charles’ infidelities and William’s laziness. Their wives don’t count. They just don’t.

          PS Herazeus, I see you all over the place (LoveLola, Celebitchy) Just wanted to say Hi. You’re one of my favourite all time posters.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 10:43 am (4 months ago)

            @Red Snapper, I see the monarchy in a dangerous place after The Queen and it will need a great miracle for it to survive. With Charles and William I do not see that happening.

          • Red Snapper
            January 21, 2017 at 12:21 pm (4 months ago)

            Kitty, your psychic predictions do not concern me.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 1:36 pm (4 months ago)

            @Red Snapper, I do not believe in physics first of all. I believe in prayers 🙂

        • Carter
          January 21, 2017 at 3:30 pm (4 months ago)

          I used to absolutely agree with you guys. Never in a million years would I think the monarchy would be abolished, but I also never in million years thought Brexit or Trump would happen. So I don’t know anymore. Anything is possible.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 4:12 pm (4 months ago)

            @Carter. Exactly, if 2016 has shown is that anything is possible.

        • Darling
          January 21, 2017 at 7:51 pm (4 months ago)

          “It would cost too much to remove it, and there is no viable alternative that people can rally to accept.”

          Why would it “cost too much” to stop funding the royals’ lavish lifestyle? Is there concern that your tourism industry will suffer if you are not a monarchy? France is no longer a monarchy, and yet Paris is the dream vacation destination of many, not London.

          • Herazeus
            January 22, 2017 at 9:23 am (4 months ago)

            The institution NOT the royal family.

            Our monarchical system of government is woven into the fabric of everything, not just the top visible family part. Legislature, taxation, operations at council level etc.

            Removing the current royal family isn’t an issue. It’s reforming the system of govt that we have which would be expensive. Plus no one has thought through the reforms that would necessarily take the place of the system.

            Most people think that removing the royal family will also remove the monarchical system of govt, but it won’t. Oliver Cromwell struggled to implement a more democratic govt and failed.

            The french solution (ditto the Russian and Chinese solutions) was simply to burn/tear it down which resulted in a few years of hell before they finally came up with a viable system that they continue to follow.

            Everyone assumes democracy means the American model which only works for America.

            The realms have already disengaged from the monarchical system so it’s much simpler for them to disengage by removing the royal family, but there would still be a huge expense in the process which isn’t a priority expenditure for most of them right now.

            ETA: Arthistorian explains it better than me downthread.

      • Jen
        January 21, 2017 at 7:00 am (4 months ago)

        Several Commonwealth countries will move to republic status sometime after the Queen’s death. Fact. There is no need for a foreign Head of State. In the ’80’s, scratching around for something to do, Charles campaigned to be made Governor-General of Australia. According to recently released Cabinet papers, he made several demands – a suitable property, a raft of servants, and all sorts of privileges – but was denied by the then Prime Minister who told him that his (Charles) needs were not a financial priority for Australians. When William was in his twenties, it was mooted that he become G-G; he was rejected due to inexperience and lack of qualities required – and by a monarchist PM to boot. Further, and more seriously, it has come to light that the Queen knew more than previously understood in the dismissal of an elected government in 1975. She has refused to release letters between herself and the G-G at the time, embargoing them until at least 2027 and up to 50 years beyond. However, a legal attempt to retrieve them is being mounted.

        While there is genuine respect for the Queen due to her longevity, that’s about the extent of it for many, though there are pockets of monarchists, usually ex-pats and older people. As well, our multi-cultural makeup sees England no longer considered ‘home’, with no allegiance to a foreign family thousands of miles away. The disinterest from Canadians (and outrage at the taxpayer expense generated) about the ‘royal stars’ W+K tour in 2016 gives you an idea of the mindset of former colonies. Ditto India. Unwise to under-estimate it.

        Look around you. There are all sorts of shifts in attitude to established structures, even to the idea of a United Kingdom itself. If the BRF was unconcerned, why would they invest so much money and time in PR strategies determined to convince us of their relevance? Whitewashing their indiscretions? Refusing to be accountable for their spending of public monies?

        Of course, it is up to Britons if, or for how long, they will indulge the concept of monarchy. I suspect loyalty rests mainly with the Queen rather than to the institution itself. Will Britons be prepared to fund it at the current extraordinary levels while ‘austerity’ measures see many services – education, health, welfare – cut to the bone and quality of life deteriorate?

        I’d expect some serious thinking after the Queen dies as to the need for a monarchy, apart from tradition, or at the very least, what people expect of it in the 21st century. If kept, I’d expect radical reform, for example, paid a modest per diem for state appearances only. Through his reluctance to move a muscle, William provides an excellent ad for why hereditary privilege should be abolished, all the while expecting bounty to flow in his direction forever for doing next to nothing.

        • Red Snapper
          January 21, 2017 at 7:13 am (4 months ago)

          You suspect that loyalty resides with the queen and not with the monarchy? That’s where you and I disagree. The monarchy as an institution is too useful to the self perceived great and good to be threatened by the filthy unwashed masses clamoring for equality. I’m not saying the monarchy shouldn’t be abandoned, I’m saying it won’t.

          • Birdy
            January 21, 2017 at 7:37 am (4 months ago)

            As a Brit I can agree with Herazeus that there is no appetite for abolishing the monarchy. However I do think there’s appetite for change. Their expenses need to be more transparent, the line between private and public money clearly defined, and a much reduced role and financing for all but the monarch and the heir.
            People here love Sophie ( as do I ) but her husband is far from the throne (9 th I think) and that will increase as Harry has kids. So we shouldn’t be funding her.
            Funding should not depend on whether we like a person.
            I also agree , though it’s not my decision, that the three major nations (Canada, Australia and NZ) at the very least will change their HOS in the next 10 -20 years, although I hope remain in the Commonwealth.

          • Nic919
            January 21, 2017 at 8:46 am (4 months ago)

            I can’t speak for the institution of the monarchy in the UK, but as a Canadian, it does not have the same hold here. The Queen is British, not Canadian and she is the symbolic head of state because of inertia more than anything else. When people think of Canada they think of hockey and maple syrup and if they think of a politician it would be Trudeau or John A McDonald. The Queen is a foreigner and many Canadians are not of British descent and have zero interest in preserving ties to the ancestors of the colonizers.
            The one thing Trumps election demonstrated and that even things you don’t ever think will happen, can happen.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 10:49 am (4 months ago)

            @Birdy, I think they should only fund after The Queen passes; Charles, Camilla, the Cambridge family, and Harry and his wife and kids. That is all.

        • ArtHistorian
          January 21, 2017 at 7:27 am (4 months ago)

          Historically speaking, monarchies have only fallen during times of great upheaval, usually violent upheaval. Most of the European monarchies fell in the aftermath of WWI and WWII. Interestingly enough the Spanish monarchy was restored after the death of Franco. That is why it is the most vulnerable among the modern European monarchies since restored monarchies rarely survive long (in this case the jury is still out on the Spanish one through they have survived the latest crises so far). The only restored monarchy to survive is the British one (after Cromwell).

          The outliers are the French and the Greek monarchies. The French monarchy first fell in 1789 after decades governmental mismanagement coupled with immense social and economic inequality and bad harvests (the history of the French monarchy after 1789 is long and complicted where it was restored, reformed and abolished yet again before Napoleon III made himself emperor and he was in turn overthrown when France lost the war with Prussia in 1871). The Greek monarchy was abolished in the 1960 after a military coup.

          • Lovely Blossom
            January 21, 2017 at 1:02 pm (4 months ago)

            So to speak, everything is possible. You can’t say if there won’t be some violent upheavel in the world, especially Europe. It would be horrible for all of us of course but it would be naive to think everything stays the same for the years to come.

          • ArtHistorian
            January 21, 2017 at 5:23 pm (4 months ago)

            I’m not saying it is impossible, I’m just outlining the ways in which European monarchies have fallen in the past. It is quite possible that something really drastic might happen to topple a 1000 year old institution as the British monarchy – however it is not something that I would wish for because it would most likely be something horribly destructive that would make the whole world suffer – and the toppling of antiquated monarchies would just be a minor side-effect. Trump taking office and setting to with a wrecking ball is scaring the crap out of me because we certainly have the conditions right now for the world to truely run amock.

            My point is that an institution as old and as entrenched in the social and political fabric as the British monarchy is very unlikely to simply be dissolved by peaceful, democratic means – because an institution that is this old and entrenched has its own inbuilt inertia.

          • Lovely Blossom
            January 21, 2017 at 11:19 pm (4 months ago)

            ArtHistorian, I know what you mean, I feel the same way. In normal case the monarchy will stay the same and believe me, I’m glad it is still around! It is a precarious time, I hope you alll will stay safe, no matter what will happen in the following years.

          • ArtHistorian
            January 22, 2017 at 4:11 pm (4 months ago)

            I would love to see it but it is in the other end of the country – and my funds are very limited. I may work something out with something out with a couple of friends. It is on until the end of august so I have time. I really wanted to see the Fabergé exhibit they had last fall but couldn’t go.

            I am, however, hitting the museums in Copenhagen since I have free entrance. I just caught the most amazing exhibition of the French landscape painter Theodore Rousseau. Plus there’s a lovely one about Japonism in Nordic art.

            I was fortunate enough to see the exhibit of QMII’s gowns a while back.

          • notasugarhere
            January 22, 2017 at 9:27 pm (4 months ago)

            I am so jealous you got to the exhibit on her gowns! I’d be making use of that free entrance card as often as possible too.

            I hadn’t realized they’d done a Faberge exhibit too. I’m always up for looking at one of those.

          • ArtHistorian
            January 23, 2017 at 10:50 am (4 months ago)

            It was great to see her gowns but it was a much smaller exhibit than I had expected and some of my favorites weren’t there. It was focused on her wardrobe in relation to important life events so it included her christening gown as well as some of her childhood clothes and daywear used for important State Visits.

            The Fabergé exhibit at Koldinghus was centered on the DRF’s collection of Fabergé objects. Interestingly enough, though Fabergé did produce jewellery (including a few tiaras) most of their production came in the form of objects d’art (the eggs being the most fameous examples) as well as practical (yet beautiful and precious) objects such as cigarette cases, inkwells, gluepots, etc.

        • Linds
          January 21, 2017 at 8:43 am (4 months ago)

          Having lived in a few commonwealth countries, I agree. The monarchy will go when the queen passes. The BRF aren’t as popular as they are in England. Scotland may go too since Brexit has exposed some rifts.

          Several UK only polls in the last few years have demonstrated the loyalty for the BRF lies mainly with HM regardless of an 68% approval rating.

          And as for history, these are different times. European monarchies are beholden to their people more than any time in history. Spain’s abdication of King Juan Carlos because a vocal minority favoured republicanism should be heeded.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 10:51 am (4 months ago)

            @Linds, I don’t think the monarchy will go but if Harry does not find another “Diana” in terms of being charismatic, in touch with the people, global phenomenon, work ethic, popular, than the monarchy will be at its knees once The Queen passes.

          • Ellie
            January 21, 2017 at 11:02 am (4 months ago)

            The BRF don’t WANT a Diana. She was popular, sure, but she monopolized everything. She was dramatic. She rocked the boat. They want a dull bore like Kate who worships her husband because of what his position gives her and will never rock the boat because she’d never threaten her own cash flow.

            Quite frankly had Diana not died relatively young I’m sure not many would be singing her praises. She was slammed for a lot before her death.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 12:10 pm (4 months ago)

            @Ellie, well it looks like people do not like dull Kate and that is not going to help after The Queen passes. The World is made for those people who are so rare and charming and charismatic. They need another Diana who has strong work ethic and makes a great impact.

          • notasugarhere
            January 21, 2017 at 12:39 pm (4 months ago)

            Royals aren’t supposed to act like celebrities, or be copied and obsessed about as if they were.

            It doesn’t matter if royals are dull, it only matters if they work. Sophie is dull, Queen Mathilde is dull as is her husband, QEII isn’t all that interesting, Willem-Alexander was dull until Maxima came long. He’s still dull but nobody notices him when Maxima is around anyway. It doesn’t matter so long as they get off their lazy bums and get to work.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 1:34 pm (4 months ago)

            @Nota, you do not have to be a celebrity to have charisma. Look at JFK.

          • Mrs BBV
            January 21, 2017 at 2:19 pm (4 months ago)

            Kitty……politics is showbiz for ugly people. Monarchy has mystique, celebrity doesn’t. And as much as I loved Diana there will never be her like again and I thank God for that. The War of the Wales was horrible. It wasn’t a soap opera, it shook the very fabric of this country.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 3:08 pm (4 months ago)

            Mrs BBV, yeah I think the monarchy has already lost its mystique. The younger royals act like celebrities.

          • notasugarhere
            January 21, 2017 at 3:23 pm (4 months ago)

            You missed the point. Royals are not required to have charisma, not required to even be interesting. They are required to do their jobs.

            In some cases, it is better that they are bland. Belgium wouldn’t know what to do with a Queen Consort like Maxima. Luckily they ended up with Mathilde instead.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 4:11 pm (4 months ago)

            @Nota, just because that is what you think they should be doesn’t mean they have to be.

          • notasugarhere
            January 21, 2017 at 4:42 pm (4 months ago)

            The more celebrity-like they are, the more they risk elimination. Bland is a safe zone for their continuing existence on the gravy train.

          • Mrs BBV
            January 21, 2017 at 6:19 pm (4 months ago)

            And no one understands that better than HM & PP. PP is on record as saying better not to be too popular…..you have further to fall. He was recollecting HM pulling power when she came to the throne, sheer idolatry it was. It was equal to anything Diana experienced but they were wise not play to the crowd, Diana was not.

          • Kitty
            January 21, 2017 at 7:31 pm (4 months ago)

            But I thought all of you said the monarchy will ALWAYS be there so it shouldn’t matter right…..

          • notasugarhere
            January 21, 2017 at 9:24 pm (4 months ago)

            The monarchy may or may not continue. Royals who act like celebrities will only increase the odds of it going the way of the dodo.

          • Kitty
            January 22, 2017 at 12:22 am (4 months ago)

            @Nota, no one is saying having charisma is acting like a celeb.

          • notasugarhere
            January 22, 2017 at 8:54 am (4 months ago)

            Diana had charisma and acted like a celebrity. Maxima has charisma and sometimes acts like a celebrity. I think she’s been slapped down about it a few times, so has dialed it back. They’ve had their own scandals about purchasing private resort homes, etc. Crossing that line is dangerous for royals in the modern era.

      • Red Tulip
        January 21, 2017 at 10:56 am (4 months ago)

        Have to disagree Herazeus and Red Snapper. the monarchy has increasingly little use for a lot of people unlike the Catholic Church and religion, in general. And even then, Church attendance and regular religious observance has decreased significantly in the 21st century, compared to say when Lilibet became the Queen. Also, there is a hint of anti-establish sentiment in the air and people for good or for ill are mistrusting the traditional powers of authority and are seeking to turn to those who promise anarchy, uncertainty, all for the sake of “draining the swamp”.

        • Herazeus
          January 22, 2017 at 9:36 am (4 months ago)

          Monarchy isn’t just the Queen. It’s woven into our political system of governance. The Queen embodies the insitution of monarchy, and when she dies, there will be calls for reform plus some realms will pull away, but as a way of governing Britain? In the current circumstances? Not a chance of it fading away quietly.

          It may not be visibly popular, but no one is truly rallying to the republic’s cause and even they can’t come up with alternative govt. Yes they rail against the hereditary principal and the abuse of taxes and lack of transperency, but their followers are not swelling in numbers sufficient enough to affect those rational offences, nevermind doing away with monarchical constitution.

          Cromwell tried it and failed. Everyone assumes the alternative to monarchical system is democracy American style and completely ignores the fact that we do live in a democracy.

          Personally, i think the Irish have it best. A fixed term president who does the ceremonial duties of the Queen whilst letting the politicians get on with the actual governing.

  11. Kip
    January 21, 2017 at 6:41 am (4 months ago)

    KP’s election day statement wasn’t buried at all. It stayed up in the breaking news headline section on all of the major US & UK Newspaper websites for hours and hours afterward.

    As for the cambs…
    Similar tactic, but their statement was conveniently buried. Never showed up in the US headlines.

    They can release all the obtuse statements they want. It’s disgusting to see them taking all of the heir to the heir perks. At the same time declining to step up to the role and refusing to support four senior citizens.

    Silver lining – William’s dumb photo ops will end.

  12. Future Crayon
    January 21, 2017 at 6:43 am (4 months ago)

    Anyone else guessing KP might need another refurb first? It hasn’t been occupied for a couple of years and there’s probably a new shade of beige in fashion…

    • Red Tulip
      January 21, 2017 at 11:00 am (4 months ago)

      Apparently greige walls are now in fashion, mix of grey and beige. Lol

      • Ellie
        January 22, 2017 at 12:04 am (4 months ago)

        We’re painting our house interior kinda greige, at least some rooms; it can look really nice depending on the lighting of the rooms… Better than brown realtor beige we have right now.

  13. Lainey
    January 21, 2017 at 8:00 am (4 months ago)

    I’m now expecting baby no.3 to be announced late summer early autumn. Easiest way to put off increasing work numbers.

  14. yuhki
    January 21, 2017 at 8:23 am (4 months ago)

    I swear they’re going to drag this thing out for several months, maybe even next year. Remember when Will started working for EAAA? It took MONTHS before he finished training or whatever and started working. Same with after he left the military. He dragged his feet before deciding what to do next. I don’t expect any drastic increase in their workload.

    • katemiddletonreview
      January 21, 2017 at 9:09 am (4 months ago)

      I think it was close to a year between the time KP announced he would be doing that job and the time he officially started flying as a co-pilot.

      • notasugarhere
        January 21, 2017 at 9:18 am (4 months ago)

        It was close to a year – good memory! Going through records (and your site).

        August 7, 2014 Palace announcement he’d be working for EAAA

        March 30, 2015 began training with EAAA

        May 2015 moved to Anmer after reno

        July 13, 2015 first shift as co-pilot

        • Ellie
          January 21, 2017 at 11:03 am (4 months ago)

          That’s just sad considering it just is proof William was not a fully qualified pilot in the RAF either, as it should have been a simple exercise of a few months to get his civilian license.

  15. J from USA
    January 21, 2017 at 9:03 am (4 months ago)

    Regarding the keen statement, I’ll use Kate’s words, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Touche!

    • Birdy
      January 21, 2017 at 10:06 am (4 months ago)

      That’s so funny and so true!

  16. BostonBrahmin
    January 21, 2017 at 9:45 am (4 months ago)

    It boils down to this:W&K’s long vacation from being full time working royal will be ending in Sept.of 2017. But, if you factor in Christmas and the NewYear, the vacation really will be extended through mid-January 2018. If Kate gets conveniently pregnant at the tail end of 2017 she could extend her vacation even longer.The announcement says they will be increasingly based at Kensington Palace, so rest assured this is not a permanent move.
    I see them only being in London on weekdays for George’s schooling then back to Anmer on weekends and whenever possible. So any engagements will be planned during the week, but I would be very surprised to see a spike in numbers any time soon. The announcement is just designed to shut down criticism of their laziness.

    • Kitty
      January 21, 2017 at 10:54 am (4 months ago)

      her pregnancy wouldn’t help this time. Not a lot of attention for Charlotte’s birth.

      • Sarah
        January 21, 2017 at 2:06 pm (4 months ago)

        She doesn’t need the attention to give her a pass to get out work. That pesky thing called maternity leave does that for her =)
        one could argue semantics about having/needing a job first and the fact/level of assistance they already have to help but she does indeed get time off for having a child

        • ABKM
          January 22, 2017 at 9:30 am (4 months ago)

          And the HG that makes her too sick to work but not too sick for a long-haul flight to a tropical holiday, of course.

  17. Sarah
    January 21, 2017 at 12:50 pm (4 months ago)

    I now suspect that William and Kate were told around dec that they were going to have to up their numbers and William officially quit the job. Thus the Christmas snub.
    I don’t think he was working there nearly as much as he/they would have us believe. I’m sure his coworkers are happy to see him go and get someone who actually pulls their own weight.
    My expectations are so low with them work wise, I’ll need to actually see them working to believe it. If they’re trying to lad their #s by counting behind the scenes meetings tho, I’d say it’s not going to be that much

    • notasugarhere
      January 21, 2017 at 1:07 pm (4 months ago)

      I hope people, including the press pack, keep asking questions about the meetings being counted. If those are going to count for W&K, they have to count for everyone else too.

      • Sarah
        January 21, 2017 at 2:11 pm (4 months ago)

        I agree. It’s time the press ups their game and keeps asking pertinent questions. I once jokingly said that they would soon count Kate’s letters on the cc and that doesn’t seem too far out of the realm of possibility now.
        It will be interesting to see how they cover her upcoming EACH engagement

      • Mrs BBV
        January 21, 2017 at 2:23 pm (4 months ago)

        Ha….you know that’s never going to happen. As it is much of Harry’s work gets excluded. This whole buried statement is such b*llsh*t on so many levels. We see through it, I just hope more people start to question these two and the press go at the issue a bit harder this year.

  18. Cookie
    January 21, 2017 at 2:52 pm (4 months ago)

    Yeah, well. I’m not gonna hold my breath. Actions speak louder than words so if by next January we actually see the numbers in the court circular reflect what this statement says then I will believe it. How many times have they said this already? I watched a documentary on YouTube recently that was made right after the royal wedding and Katie Nicholl said that Will and Kate would begin full-time duties in 2013 or so. Well, that was three/four years ago.

    How many times will they tell us they are ‘keen’ to pull their weight and then we hear more excuses?

    My prediction is that close to September of this year Kate will announce her 3rd pregnancy and say because of it and her HG George will stay in Norfolk for another year and not start Wetherby until he is 5. I don’t want to sound cynical but many of us already suspect that Kate wants a third baby and if it happens this year it would give them another excuse to ‘focus on their family’ because parents who don’t stay at home with their children 24/7 are neglecting their children.

    • Kitty
      January 21, 2017 at 3:06 pm (4 months ago)

      But does William want another child?

      • Cookie
        January 21, 2017 at 3:31 pm (4 months ago)

        If it means he doesn’t have to work? Maybe.

      • Ellie
        January 21, 2017 at 6:53 pm (4 months ago)

        He was pretty vocal about George being more than enough, making me believe he was not ready for the blindsided announcement of Kate’s second pregnancy.

        • Kitty
          January 21, 2017 at 7:32 pm (4 months ago)

          Ellie, really? Well I thought in his Vietnam tour he implied he was not ready to have kids and probably still isn’t.

          • Ellie
            January 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm (4 months ago)

            Yeah someone asked him about a second and he was like oh God no! laughing and horrified by the idea. I’m pretty sure both pregnancies, he was blindsided by.

            We all know he wasn’t ready for parenting or marriage, but was forced into both…

          • Kitty
            January 22, 2017 at 12:21 am (4 months ago)

            @Ellie, well I feel bad for him. No one should force him to marry or have kids.

      • Kimothy
        January 21, 2017 at 7:07 pm (4 months ago)

        I know of women who’ve purposely gotten pregnant with a second even after the guy said, and I quote, “HELL NO!” soon after the first was born so I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if Kate dropped a “guess what?! We’re pregnant again!!” on the public *and* William.

        • notasugarhere
          January 21, 2017 at 9:25 pm (4 months ago)

          She was photographed drinking wine at 5 weeks. Baby #2 may have surprised her too.

          • Ashley
            January 22, 2017 at 12:14 am (4 months ago)

            Newer studies show that light drinking of wine and beer is not as harmful as previously thought

          • Ellie
            January 22, 2017 at 3:11 am (4 months ago)

            Yeah, even a glass of wine a few times a week is no big deal.

            Didn’t they announce it the following day or two? I’d bet they knew. After all, they told the Middletons and didn’t tell the Windsors… Harry found out at Invictus, if I remember correctly, and Mike and Zara found out from the radio…

          • katemiddletonreview
            January 22, 2017 at 3:22 am (4 months ago)

            Let me check my archives…

            The photos of them drinking in Norfolk were from August 28, 2014. They announced baby #2 on September 8, 2014. So about a week and a half after those photos of her drinking wine they announced the second pregnancy. She was only about 6 weeks pregnancy when they announced, so I guess it’s possible they didn’t know she was pregnant at the time they were spotted drinking.

          • Ellie
            January 22, 2017 at 4:01 am (4 months ago)

            KMR, you know everything! 🙂

            I always wonder why they announce so early when usually you wait until 12-13 weeks. Get out of work ASAP card?

          • katemiddletonreview
            January 22, 2017 at 5:01 am (4 months ago)

            Basically. One could argue that because of “HG”, Kate has to cancel engagements, and instead of giving some other excuse as to why she has to cancel engagements and potentially facing backlash for it, they announce the pregnancy as early as possible as the go-to excuse as to why she’s cancelling engagements. So, basically, to get out of work.

          • notasugarhere
            January 22, 2017 at 8:56 am (4 months ago)

            I tend to think she didn’t know yet. They may have been trying, but nothing was known. Or it was a surprise to both of them.

            She hauled her own two big bags through the train station a day or two later, while her loving husband worried more about the dog than her.

            I’d hope, if he knew she was expecting, and that she’d had “difficulty” before, he’d have carried her bags for her.

  19. Lizzie
    January 21, 2017 at 4:23 pm (4 months ago)

    This may be stretching it, but I suspect that Pippa’s upcoming marriage is also coming into play with the Cambridges’ decision to spend more time at KP. Given Pippa’s age, I bet she will become pregnant as quickly as possible, and Carole probably will be as involved with her very-rich-although-untitled daughter as she has been with her now-royal one. The distance between Anmer and London would make it more difficult for Granny Carole to divide her time equally and we know that Kate can’t function without her close by. A move back to KP will be less strenuous on those apron strings.

    I also agree with others that Kate may be planning pregnancy #3. Best to get that announcement out about being so “keen” to increase her royal workload way in advance of announcing yet another upcoming extended maternity leave.

  20. Cookie
    January 21, 2017 at 9:17 pm (4 months ago)

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2674535/meghan-markles-brother-tom-speaks-out-about-gun-arrest-and-begs-for-a-second-chance-and-an-invite-to-royal-wedding/

    “Everyone makes mistakes. This time I made a bad one. But we all do.
    “If I may say so, Prince Harry has made a few in his time and learnt from them. I just need the same chance.”

    Oh my gosh you guys… This man is a jerk. A major jerk. I have never been a Meghan ‘sugar’ but this is absolutely ridiculous. This man has no class. How dare he speak about Harry like this? Yeah, sure. Harry has had drunken nights out at clubs. But he has NEVER held a loaded gun to his girlfriend’s head. I can see why Meghan broke off contact with this guy. He is awful.

    • notasugarhere
      January 21, 2017 at 9:28 pm (4 months ago)

      Reminds me of Pippa’s Paris gun escapade, which may have been smoothed out of existence by the BRF.

        • notasugarhere
          January 22, 2017 at 9:06 am (4 months ago)

          Toy or real, no one outside of the car knew if it was real or not. France has very strict gun control laws.

          She’s joyriding around in France with some hanger hanger hanger on aristos who think playing with guns (real or fake) is funny. The guy is a lawyer who represents a gun manufacturer. Hopeless to hope that someone Pippa associates with would have more than half a brain.

          Charges and stories about that disappeared quickly, with rumors that they were leaned on to make it go away because it was embarrassing the BRF.

    • Kitty
      January 22, 2017 at 12:20 am (4 months ago)

      Does he really think there will be a royal wedding?

    • katemiddletonreview
      January 22, 2017 at 9:40 am (4 months ago)

      No. Just no. In no way does a 50 year old man brandishing a gun at a woman equal a late-20s man letting randoms keep their phones while partying with them naked in Vegas. How f-ing dare this dude compare his violent outburst to Harry’s stupidity and say he deserves the same chance at redemption as Harry. I am one of the harsher critics of Harry’s Vegas photos because how dumb are him and his RPOs that they let randoms keep their phones while they partied naked, but no f-ing way is that anywhere near as bad as what Markle did. This dude is 50, he had his chance and if he still doesn’t know by now that threatening someone with a gun is not okay then tough sh-t, dude. If Meghan and Harry do get married, I hope this a-hole isn’t on the guest list.

      • Carter
        January 22, 2017 at 12:39 pm (4 months ago)

        I doubt he would. I don’t think any of them went to her first wedding, and I don’t think they are doing anything to help themselves get invited to her potential second wedding.

      • Lovely Blossom
        January 22, 2017 at 2:14 pm (4 months ago)

        You can really say that I’m sorry for Meghan Markle to have such an half-brother. Harry would have never done such a thing to anyone, he is much too human for it.

      • Lobbit
        January 22, 2017 at 2:31 pm (4 months ago)

        Doubt we’ll ever see this fool any where near Meghan. My guess is that he’s pleading for forgiveness and begging for a wedding invite (LOL) via the press because he’s been cut off and can’t contact Meghan directly.

    • Lobbit
      January 22, 2017 at 2:36 pm (4 months ago)

      He’s a menace. It’s beyond pathetic that he’s more worried about getting a hypothetical wedding invitation than getting his messy life sorted out.

  21. M from Germany
    January 22, 2017 at 7:53 am (4 months ago)

    The telegraph says that US President Donald Trump will make a state visit involving the Cambridges to Britain sometime this year. Thoughts on this?

    By the way, has anyone seen this old tweet by Donald Trump soneone on Twitter found where he talks about kate’s nude photos from France? https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/247757867032117248
    If I were Kate, I’d be so grossed out to have to shake his hand!

    (Hope I did not get too political, but since it was about the Cambridges…)

    • katemiddletonreview
      January 22, 2017 at 8:58 am (4 months ago)

      I read that there was a State Visit being planned, but I haven’t read that it involved the Cambridges. Could you link the Telegraph article?

      Re the tweet: He’s basically saying the nude photos are Kate’s fault because of course someone would violate her privacy in order to make money. Poor Kate.

      PS to everyone re this particular comment thread: Let’s please keep the discussion focused on the Cambridges, and not get into US politics. I’m allowing the above comment and replying to it because I’m interested in the Cambs possible involvement in a State Visit, but I really don’t want things to turn political.

      PPS: Has anyone heard about a State Visit to the UK this spring? They usually do one in March, but I haven’t heard anything.

      • M from Germany
        January 22, 2017 at 9:03 am (4 months ago)

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/21/donald-trump-plans-new-deal-britain-theresa-may-becomes-first/
        You have to scroll down a little bit, it is under ‘Trump wants to play golf at balmoral’

        Yes, I also feel so sorry for Kate. He said such sexist things about her but as her role as a representative of GB she has to welcome him, be friendly, smile and shake his hand 🙁 As william got very furious over the France photos, I imagine he will not be able to hold back his feelings when meeting Trump…

        • katemiddletonreview
          January 22, 2017 at 9:14 am (4 months ago)

          Well I guess that answers my question about a State Visit in March: “A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: ‘Currently, no inward State Visit for 2017 has been announced.'”

          Considering the article says the visit is still in planning stages, I don’t think it’s correct to say that anyone is “set to be involved” in the visit, especially William and Kate, since the visit itself isn’t “set”.

        • Nic919
          January 22, 2017 at 10:37 am (4 months ago)

          They don’t have to meet him though. This should be something that Charles and Camilla handle.

          • M from Germany
            January 22, 2017 at 12:14 pm (4 months ago)

            But if W&K don’t meet the President, it could be seen as an affront since the Cambridges received the Obamas in both 2011 and 2016.

        • Carter
          January 22, 2017 at 12:44 pm (4 months ago)

          Well considering that they don’t usually take part in state visits, and there is no constitutional obligation for the heir to the heir to meet an incoming head of state if William and Kate don’t want to take part I have a feeling they aren’t going to take part.

  22. Just me
    January 22, 2017 at 4:02 pm (4 months ago)

    Not to get off topic. But it’s something I’ve been wondering for a while, why hasn’t Kate middleton taken any formal portraits yet . In a gown and tiara . Just wondering.

    • Mrs BBV
      January 22, 2017 at 5:40 pm (4 months ago)

      That is a very, very good question. Although there is that picture in the National Portrait Gallery isn’t there? Not so formal but making her look softer and wistful than she really is. And there is Vogue photoshop / homage to Jecca but you’re right nothing rocking the rocks formally yet. Maybe when she gets a gong from HM it will happen. Not that I’m looking forward to her being rewarded with ‘Orders’.

      • Nic919
        January 22, 2017 at 7:48 pm (4 months ago)

        I suspect that she will never get family orders from HM. She doesn’t work nearly enough to deserve them. Besides she is a granddaughter in law, not a daughter in law like Sophie and Camilla, who also happen to work far more than she does.

    • GraceH
      January 22, 2017 at 5:46 pm (4 months ago)

      In the NPG:

      Anne and Mark Phillips 1973
      Andrew and Sarah 1986
      Edward and Sophie 1999
      William and Catherine 2010

      Charles and Diana 1981
      Charles and Diana 1987 (He in uniform, she in a white ball gown)

      None of the above are wedding pictures.
      There are no other ‘couple’ photos listed.

  23. Bella
    January 23, 2017 at 1:13 am (4 months ago)

    What is with Kate’s old photos and videos coming out these days?

    • Ashley
      January 23, 2017 at 1:16 am (4 months ago)

      And who releases these photos? Like the one where she is in the Party Pieces advertisement, and the one where she at Uncle Gary’s wedding

      • Bella
        January 23, 2017 at 6:07 am (4 months ago)

        I am also wondering. Is it Carole?

    • Jen
      January 23, 2017 at 6:27 am (4 months ago)

      Where could they come from but family archives? Didn’t the Middleton’s employ an editor from the Daily Mail for PR purposes and leak all manner of self-serving material to the paper?