Why I still call the Duchess of Cambridge ‘Kate Middleton’

Why I still call the Duchess of Cambridge ‘Kate Middleton’

Every once in a while, I’ll get a comment questioning why I still call the Duchess of Cambridge “Kate Middleton” even though she hasn’t been “Kate Middleton” since April 29, 2011. I’ve explained it in the comment section before, but since the subject was brought up again recently I thought I’d take a more in-depth look at the topic for a couple of reasons: 1) So I have something easy to point to if the question ever arises again; 2) Because every few months since I started calling Sofia Hellqvist “Princess Sofia” I’ve been questioning why it was so easy for me to switch names for her but not for Catherine; 3) I’ve been thinking about writing a titles clarification post for a couple months since I saw a comment on another site complaining about the way people write certain royals’ names; 4) I recently read an article trying to explain why people still call Catherine “Kate Middleton” and think their reasoning was incorrect (at least for me). So I thought I’d kill fours birds with one article and write up my personal thoughts on the subject.

The TL;DR answer to the headline question: name recognition. But it’s far more than Google searches and SEO. In order to fully explain why I still use the name “Kate Middleton”, I need to explain a little bit about my royal watching history.

I was never an avid royal watcher until several years ago. My first royal watching experience was when I saw my mom watching Princess Diana’s funeral in 1997 and wondered what was happening. My second royal watching experience was in 2004 when my mom brought home a UK paper from a business trip and it had a photo of Kate Middleton in a sheer dress in it and was comparing her to Diana. My third was hearing, in 2007, that Prince William and Kate Middleton had broken up. The next time I paid attention was in 2010 when I heard that they had gotten engaged. I watched the wedding in 2011, but hadn’t paid any attention to the lead up to it. I again stopped paying much attention until the Diamond Jubilee in 2012 when I became much more interested, but I didn’t follow too closely until after the Vegas and France photo scandals.

Since I hadn’t been paying much attention to the royals, in 2012 when the BBC America commentator said “The Duke of Cambridge”, I had a “Who the F is that?” moment before I saw William getting out of a carriage and realized the commentator was talking about Prince William. I literally had no idea that William’s title was “Duke of Cambridge”, meaning that over a year after she got married I literally had no idea Catherine’s title was “Duchess of Cambridge”.

While thinking about the headline question, I remembered going through my Facebook friends list recently and realized that what I thought while doing so is a similar situation to why I still refer to Catherine as “Kate Middleton”. Recently, I went through my Facebook friends list and unfriended anyone whom I didn’t remember or whose posts I no longer wanted to read. I had so many “Who the F is that?” moments while going through the list, not because I forgot all those people, but because so many of them were women I friended in high school who had since gotten married and changed their last names. I knew them by their maiden names and had no idea who they were with their married names because I hadn’t kept in touch with them. This is very similar to what happened to me, specifically, with Catherine.

I “met” Catherine when she was “Kate Middleton”, then “lost touch” with her until after she was married and going by “Duchess of Cambridge”, and by that time I had no idea who she was when using her married name. To me, she was still “Kate Middleton”, so that’s what I referred to her as – but it wasn’t in a “She’s still just the girl-next-door I grew up with” kind of way; it was in a “I haven’t been paying attention and don’t recognize your married name” kind of way.

I started this blog in June of 2013, and at that point I had been following the royals long enough to know that Catherine’s title was “Duchess of Cambridge” and that it was incorrect to refer to her as “Kate Middleton”, but to me she was still “Kate Middleton”. That’s the name that so many news outlets still referred to her as, that’s the name I knew her as, so that’s the name I used for the blog. It was a conscious decision to use her incorrect name, but the logical reasons behind my decision weren’t fully clear to me at the time.

Since I’ve been blogging, I’ve come to associate Catherine with “Duchess of Cambridge” and so it is easier for me to 1) recognize who people are talking about when they say “Duchess of Cambridge”, and 2) use the name myself. However, I still prefer to use the name “Kate Middleton”. So I had to ask myself “Why?”

In terms of blogging, yes Google searches and SEO play a part in why Catherine is still referred to as “Kate Middleton”. I don’t pay too much attention to SEO (and am probably doing it wrong), but I do notice that most of the search traffic I see in my blog analytics use the name “Kate Middleton” more than “Duchess of Cambridge”. When we’re talking about why news outlets still refer to Catherine as “Kate Middleton”, not only is it searches and SEO but it’s also consistency in tagging and archive articles and backlinks that you don’t want to 404. Catherine had a brand of “Kate Middleton” for many years before marriage so that name will forever stick around due to consistency in tagging and archives. That’s why Sofia’s category at the top of this article is still “Sofia Hellqvist”, because I started writing about her before she became “Princess Sofia”.

The most recent question I’ve gotten about this topic mentioned other royal women and how I don’t use their maiden names – I don’t say Sophie Rhys-Jones nor Camilla Parker Bowles. So that got me thinking about what I call other royals, and that brought back my question about Sofia: why was I so quick to jump from “Sofia Hellqvist” to “Princess Sofia”, but not from “Kate Middleton” to “Duchess of Cambridge”? But then I cycled around to what I actually do call Sophie and Camilla. I don’t call them “The Countess of Wessex” and “The Duchess of Cornwall” (their correct titles), I call them “Sophie, Countess of Wessex” and “Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall” (which is completely incorrect).

As married women, Sophie and Camilla should be called “The Countess of Wessex” and “The Duchess of Cornwall” – the female version’s of their husband’s titles. Only after divorce would they be called “Sophie, Countess of Wessex” and “Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall”. I know that what I call them is incorrect, just as I know what I call Catherine is incorrect, but I call them that anyway. But I call Sofia “Princess Sofia”. Why?

This brought my thought process to what I call the men. What do I call these women’s husbands? I do not refer to “The Prince of Wales”, “The Duke of Cambridge”, or “The Earl of Wessex” as such. I refer to them as “Prince Charles”, “Prince William”, and “Prince Edward”. For all of these blood royals, I refer to them by their first names, not their titles. Unlike for the spouses, the blood royals can be called by their first names without there being any sort of fuss, because they get to keep their first names even though they have titles (although it is proper to refer to them by their title). But for the spouses, they lose their first names entirely and take on the female version of their husband’s name and title only.

The way the British system works is that the royal spouse’s first name goes away and is replaced by the female version of the husband’s title or name. Catherine is no longer Catherine, she’s just “The Duchess of Cambridge”. Sophie is no longer Sophie, she’s just “The Countess of Wessex”. Camilla is no longer Camilla, she’s just “The Duchess of Cornwall”.

Although many people referred to Diana as “Princess Diana”, she was never “Princess Diana” and referring to her as such is even more incorrect than still referring to Catherine as “Kate Middleton”. During her marriage, Diana was “The Princess of Wales”, and after her divorce she was “Diana, Princess of Wales”.

In Sweden, however, spouses are given the Prince/Princess title before their first name, followed by the opposite form of their spouse’s title – “Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland”, “Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland” – rather than just the opposite form of their spouse’s title.

That brought me to the conclusion that the reason I dislike using the British royal spouse’s correct titles is because I’d be losing the person’s first name, which I dislike. One reason is that I dislike the idea that the person isn’t a person anymore, they are just a title – which for the women isn’t even theirs since it’s just the female version of their husband’s title. Another reason, which is similar, is that in losing the name I have no idea who we’re talking about. “The Duke” could refer to any of the current Dukes and “The Duchess” could refer to any of the current Duchesses, and the specific title could refer to any of the people who have occupied that title throughout history. The only way to know to whom we are referring is by context. Using the person’s first name is, to me, much easier.

I can guarantee that if Sofia were to use “The Duchess of Värmland” instead of “Princess Sofia” I would absolutely still be referring to her as “Sofia Hellqvist”.

That explains why I don’t use the correct titles for these women, but it doesn’t fully explain why I continue to call Catherine “Kate Middleton” when “Duchess Kate”/”Duchess Catherine” is an option. I’ve experimented with “Duchess Kate” in the past and from time to time still use that name, but it doesn’t resonate with me as much as “Kate Middleton”. On the scale of correct to incorrect names to refer to Catherine as, “Kate Middleton” is more correct than “Duchess Kate” since she was at one time known as “Kate Middleton” and “Duchess Kate” has never and will never be correct.

Without turning this into a debate about a woman changing her name upon marriage, I don’t think there is anything disrespectful in referring to a married woman by her maiden name if that is the name you most know them as, especially for a woman in the public eye like Catherine. I’m not calling Catherine rude names, and I’m not referring to her by her maiden name in some derogatory tone. Words have meaning, but it is tone more than negative words that convey negativity or hostility (which cannot be conveyed through text, so I understand the confusion). When I refer to Catherine by her maiden name, I am not doing so in a negative or hostile way, so I don’t think it is disrespectful to refer to her as such. There are a lot of names that Catherine gets called that are disrespectful, her maiden name is not one of them.

By the way, I’ve never seen anyone get upset that people still refer to William as “Prince William” when it is correct to refer to him as “The Duke of Cambridge”.

Name recognition is the short answer to why I still call Catherine “Kate Middleton”, but the long answer is a blend of “Kate Middleton” being the name I knew and most associated with her when I began this blog, not wanting to lose the person to the title and wanting to be specific about to whom I’m referring, and the fact that I don’t think it is disrespectful to continue to use that name, with a splash of searches and SEO thrown in. Other people have their own reasons for why they continue to call Catherine “Kate Middleton” even though she’s coming up on her sixth wedding anniversary, but those are the reasons I still do.

151 thoughts on “Why I still call the Duchess of Cambridge ‘Kate Middleton’

  1. She still acts more like a Middleton than a Royal, so Kate Middleton is still her name to me. When she steps up, earns my respect – perhaps then I’ll change my mind.

    1. I feel she’s more closely affiliated with the Middletons rather than the royals. Although Kate has the title through marriage, l feel she hasn’t earned being called Duchess of Cambridge. Until she proves otherwise and starts stepping up to the role and her royal position, she’ll always be Kate Middleton to me.

  2. It’s similar to Theodor Fontane’s “Effi Briest”, she will always be Kate Middleton for us. As far as I can see, Kate is no stuck-up woman, she is probably in friendly terms with using her first name. With her maiden name, I’m not so sure. Plus, it’s of course not the same if you would meet her, you would of course use her given title. One reason too could be that she is still very close to her family and still, in some way, a Middleton; she brought this into her new family with William(I mean, the Duke of Cambridge ;)). I think most of us respect her and like her and are fully aware of her greeting her with her title if we would meet her.
    “The Duchess of Cambrige Review?”

    1. Speaking to her in person and writing a blog about her are totally different. If I were to speak to her in person I would use the proper form of address.

      1. And you think Kate wouldn’t like that we call her Kate on this blog? I think the whole concept of a blog criticizing her actions and her life would be nothing she likes.
        But I know what you mean, you don’t want to disrespect her by not using her title and this concern shows that you of course care about it.

        1. I think if Kate were to read this blog the last thing she would be concerned about is being called “Kate Middleton”. I’m sure she’d be more concerned with the criticisms that have been said on here.

          While I don’t think calling her “Kate Middleton” on here is disrespectful, if I were to meet her in person I would not be so informal as to use her first name unless she said it was okay. I’d address her as “Your Royal Highness”, as I would any other royal I met.

        2. She’s been quoted as telling people to call her Kate. It seems to be william’s/palace preference that she’s Catherine.

          1. That’s what I was thinking too Sarah. When she went to visit some children at the opening of a garden last year (I am so sorry, I can’t remember when), but she asked them to call her ‘Kate’. It’s been her name almost all her life. It’s probably what she feels most comfortable with.

        3. At this point and time we continue to have freedom of speech in the US. Whatever KMR chooses to say, as long as it’s not illegal, is her prerogative. 🙂

  3. If I may just add a little something regarding William’s titles. He did not stop being a prince, just because he became a Duke. His full title is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Srathearn, Barron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
    So technically, when Kate married him, her full correct title became Her Royal Higness Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. So she can be reffered to a Princess but the correct way is to say Princess William, as is the case with Princess Michael of Kent. Kate did not become a princess of the UK, although if I remember correctly, that’s what William put under “occupation of the mother” in George’s birth certificate.

    1. ” He did not stop being a prince, just because he became a Duke.”

      That’s what I mean when I say the men get to keep their names. They keep “Prince [First name]” and add the title behind it. It is proper to refer to them by their title, but calling them their first name is also a possibility with the men where it is not with the women since they lose their first name to their husband’s name and title. Even if people called Kate Princess William, I’d still call her Kate Middleton since I dislike the loss of the name.

      1. All I wanted to say is that people don’t get upset when William is called “Prince William” instead of The Duke of Cambridge because technically it’s correct. I see now that I missed to say that 🙂

    2. A Royal Duke is a higher rank than Prince. So the title Duke of Cambridge goes first then William’s next title which is Prince William of Wales.

      1. I am not sure that is right. Duke is the highest-ranked member of the non-royal aristocracy while “prince” means he is of royal blood. I don’t think they are comparable.

        1. For *Britain, ‘Prince’ is a style whilst ‘duke’ is a title/rank. ‘Prince’ is about a bloodline rather than status.

          Duke is higher status because it’s the highest title in the peerage. This is the reason POW and HM also hold ducal titles rather than taking it as read that their Princely titles are highest ranked titles in the land.

          *i emphasise country because different countries have different ranking systems AND put different emphasis on titles and styles.

          Therefore whilst William never stopped being a Prince, he was actually elevated by being made a duke.

        2. Queen Victoria was disappointed when she made her first son a Duke upon his marriage. She felt anyone could be a Duke but few could be a Prince.

          (I’m a longtime “lurker”)

          1. What? Queen Victoria’s eldest son was made Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, etc at a few months old at best. Are you talking about Alfred? He was the second son and made Duke of Edinburgh at 22, before his marriage to Grand Duchess Maria Aleksandrovna.

          2. Victoria is not a good example to use for title rankings. She is a woman who had to be the highest ranked person in the room. To extent that she had India renamed an empire just so she could be called an empress Queen to outrank her daughter, Vicky Empress of Prussia.

        3. I’m talking about Royal Dukes not the other sort of Duke. A Royal Duke is higher than a Prince and both, of course, are higher than the aristocrat Duke.

          1. In Britain, ‘Prince’ is only a style and not a ranking. An aristocratic duke is still higher ranked than a prince because an aristocratic duke is a member of the peerage whereas a Prince, without a peerage title, is not.

            That’s why POW and HM hold ducal titles rather than assuming that their princely titles outrank the dukes, royal or not.

  4. It’s a combination of elements, isn’t it?

    It was William who referred to her as Catherine, I’m guessing, to upgrade to a certain formality that he may have felt to be more ‘royal’. It stiffens the image but I’m not sure it equates to more respect. Titles are just man-made to signify difference but no-one can demand respect; it needs to be earned. Early in the marriage I recall someone asking Kate what she wanted to be called and she replied, “I’m just/still Kate”. I don’t think ‘Catherine’ has taken root in people’s imaginations; for years she was ‘branded’ as Kate Middleton and it has stuck. Also, some names lend themselves to being shortened; Catherine yes, Sophie and Camilla not so much.

    The most dominant reason, I think, that the public has not moved on to embrace the name, is because Kate hasn’t blossomed in the role she married into. What has she contributed thus far? She has not taken on the role with any sense of maturity, shown initiative or individuality, or interest in anything at all connected to it. Frankly, it is difficult to see her her as anything but a largely mute, expensively dressed appendage to William. After five years she can barely string a sentence together or read a short ‘speech’ of half a dozen sentences, if that. Visually, with her girly sausage curls intact, she is channeling her younger mid-twenties self, belying the passing of time. Her alleged dependence on her mother goes beyond closeness and now raises questions of being infantilised to the point of a learned helplessness. And that helplessness sees Kate never having to step up.

    Kate has, simply, not grown up sufficiently to become Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

    1. Very well written. It’s hard to accept someone as a royal duchess with those girly dresses that tend to go up in the wind.

    2. Kate will only be “Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge” after William’s death or a divorce. She is just “The Duchess of Cambridge” while married.

      1. Whatever the title, Kate hasn’t grown into it or made it hers, and certainly has not earned respect while holding it. She presents as a woman along for the ride – the ride being status and wealth provided by others.

      2. Dumb American question. If she divorces, why would she have the title you mentioned? Is it due to the fact that she is mother to an heir and a spare?

    3. In the engagement interview William referred to her as Kate, only later on as Catherine (e.g., first Canada trip) – to me that said “people who know her do call her Kate, that is her name; she was to become royal and so we were supposed to all now say Catherine” (I recall a moment when William let it be known “it is fine to call her Princess Catherine” – that never took off…. ). She has not become royal (actions, manner, etc., etc.), therefore suddenly switching from Kate to Catherine to me feels stilted/unearned/insincere.

      1. I have a shortened form of my name that my friends call me, but use my full name for everything else. I don’t think either is stilted or insincere. The problem with Kate is that she already had a brand as “Kate Middleton” which causes problems when the name changes. Without that, if she had a shortened form of her name that friends and family called her and used the full version for her royal work, then I don’t think there would be anything wrong or insincere about that. Even now, it’s about the brand she had prior to marriage that is why I still call her Kate rather than Catherine or Duchess of Cambridge, not the fact that her friends and family call her a different name than she uses in public.

        1. I use my full name professionally, but friends often shorten it in private. It’s just a separation of work life and private life. I don’t think ‘Kate Middleton’ is disrespectful since she was known as that publicly longer than she has been married. The move from Kate to Catherine could well have appeared self-aggrandizing to some at the time. Diana was known as Lady Di into her marriage, and Princess Di even though that was not her formal title. Sarah will always be known as Fergie. I guess if you’re in the public eye, you’ll be called whatever takes root in the the public’s imagination, often as a form of affection and/or familiarity.

        2. Yes, that’s it, said very succinctly. It’s her brand and in this day and age branding is very powerful. Companies spend millions on branding. Well said, KMR.

    4. When I saw the subject of this post I knew it would be a prime opportunity for the Kate bashers to come out. The Duke of Cambridge was a title bestowed on William by the Queen at the time of his marriage. A royal bride takes the title and style of her husband upon marriage, therefore Kate became The Duchess of Cambridge when she married. You may not like her or respect her but that it is her name. She doesn’t have to earn it. just as any married woman doesn’t have to earn the right to be called Mrs. Whatever, and to suggest that she does because of sausage curls, dependence on her mother, and not “blossoming into her role” is utterly ludicrous. It’s her name! While we all have to earn respect. no one has to earn their name.
      That being said, I don’t find using Kate Middleton to be disrespectful. When I asked KMR the question, I was just curious as to why. Now I know. Thanks KMR.

      1. My point was that Kate has not sufficiently inhabited the role she married into for people to identify her more easily as DoC than with her maiden persona. There has been no adequate gear change from private citizen, where she was largely indolent, to duchess, still largely indolent, for over five years.

        I do believe you earn respect; a title does not automatically bestow it. So what if you assume ‘Mrs’ upon marriage, or DoC? The difference with the latter is that it is a platform laden with professional responsibilities, ones that Kate has consistently dragged her heels in taking up. She has had a world of choices open to her; to get stuck in with any number of causes needing a champion and working hard, and often, to bring them public attention and support. As this blog’s archives will attest, Kate has done little for the few charities she deigns to patronise, to the point of one charity wanting to drop her. To get to that point, the charity would have to be mightily pissed off with their reluctant patron.

        When Kate is interviewed she continually makes a point of ‘being taken care of’ by others; this is how she sees herself – dependent, passive, child-like. She channels this in dress and over-dependence on her mother. Whichever way you spin it, Kate has – to date – been unsuccessful in her royal role.

      2. These titles, his and ultimately hers, were given at the time of marriage as a signal. A signal that he was done dragging his feet, he was finally going to marry her, he was going to stop skipping around branches of the service and taking gap years, and the two of them were going to start working.

        One of the rumors going around at the time was that William didn’t want a new title, thought it made him “old”. More likely he knew that in his family, the new title for third highest royal meant job responsibilities he’d resented and ducked his entire life. I think part of why he put off marriage for so long was because he knew, once he married, the work time clock started ticking against his laziness.

        These are, in essence, job titles. Trouble is, they don’t do the jobs. Take all the perks, refuse to do the work. I don’t refer to either of them by these titles, because to me those are job titles for jobs they refuse to do.

        1. Nota, just a small thing, but I’ve seen you mention William ‘skipping’ around the branches of the military a few times now. I’m not sure what you mean. There was a plan in place, from before he entered Sandhurst, for Will to spend time in all the branches, just as P Charles did when he was young. William didn’t flunk out one branch of service and slither onto the next, he was following a timeline crafted just for him. Having said that, I don’t think Will covered himself in glory with his service or anything. In fact, he was probably a nightmare.

          1. To me he was skipping, allowed into flight training through a loophole in spite of his eyesight, rushed through training and never fully trained as a pilot. Gotten rid of before he started to be a real problem for anyone.

            He could have stayed at SAR, it wasn’t going private for two more years. But the incoming US contractors were unlikely to cover for a lazy prince like the military had.

            Nearly losing his wings in Wales. The expose about EAAA. Never fully completing flight training. Still a co-pilot not a pilot. The evidence mounts about how little he shows up and how little effort is put into any of this.

            Imagine if a US-based contractor had fired him from SAR because of his lousy work ethic and inability to do the job? That more than anything contributed to him leaving SAR early IMO.

          2. His military service and his SAR service are two different things. While in the military he followed the path set out for him. After the previously agreed upon five year stint encompassing all the branches, he decided to ‘hide’ in the SAR to get out of becoming a full time royal. I’m not really defending him here, you understand, but it’s unfair to conflate two unrelated periods in his life.

          3. To me, it is all smoke and mirrors to disguise his disinterest in his role from the age of a toddler. Ditto the geography degree, which is of no use to a future head of state.

            He was never going to commit to anything, so a plan to have him skip around branches of the military with no responsibility was one of the few things he might agree to. Being snuck sideways into pilot training? I lump that in with the BRF attitude of, “Give him whatever he wants because he’ll make our life hell if we don’t”.

            My opinion and I’m welcome to it.

          4. The plan that was crafted for Will wasn’t based on his unpalatable personality, it was the same plan his father had had laid out for him when he entered the service. P Charles *also* had an abbreviated flight training course. They both ‘skipped’ around for five years then went on to other things. These are facts, not opinions.

          5. Again, my opinion that the only reason they were able to get William to do those 5 years against his will? Because he was going to get what he wanted out of it, whether it was ducking royal responsibilities for those 5 years or getting flight training (when likely no one else with his visual issues would be allowed in).

            Traditional path or not, the only reason William would have done it was to get what he wanted out of it. Not because it was the expected path.

          6. Nota there is no evidence anywhere that he went to Sandhurst and then served for five years against his will. I agree that his attitude sucked and he did a terrible job of it, but he did it. He followed the plan that was laid out for him, the one that mirrored his fathers, and then he used the SAR to hide from royal duties.

          7. Hasn’t placating William always been the main game? It seems he learned from an early age that he could call all the shots. A four year university degree (not three years, as many are), time in the military (a family tradition), SAR, the EAAA, a Cambridge course, and having small children all became barriers to putting off the inevitable job he was born to do. He seems completely at ease in accepting all benefits accompanying the role.

          8. A quick comment about Charles’ military career. He had already earned a degree from Cambridge (I think) and had his private pilot’s licence when he joined the RAF for jet training. He served for four months, then went to the Royal Naval College to become a naval officer. He worked full-time for the Navy for about five years, including helicopter flight training, some submarine work, and served on 5 ships, ultimately commanding a minehunter before leaving the Navy for full-time royal work.

            He used his pension to start up the Princes’ Trust.

            Later he was appointed Colonel-in-Chief of the parachute regiment and he insisted on undergoing the same training as the regulars. So he could look them straight in the eye, I think he said.

            I think the difference is that Will grudgingly does the bare minimum of what he’s expected to do, but his father takes his duty seriously and really gives it a go. Oh, and the navy thing… he served on those ships whilst battling sea sickness. There are a lot of reports from men he served with about how he worked around his vomiting.

          9. Re: his degree, he only went to get a geography degree because he was failing his art history degree. He would not show for class, often showed up drunk, and hardly did any work. This from someone I know who was at St Andrews at the same time. It was pretty open that William was failing out, which was why he changed his degree; it allowed him to pass, and he was gifted a 2:1 classification when he didn’t earn it. (Also, Jen, the Scottish Honours degrees are always 4 years, not 3.)

          10. Thanks for that Ellie. I read that William selected St Andrews because it was four years. It doesn’t surprise me that he fooled around, but of course, the uni would never have failed him. So unfair to students who work hard for their degrees and also hard on W’s tutors trying to teach him but having to pass the unworthy git.

          11. @Jen, No problem! It sounds like he was indeed a nightmare. I remember on message boards people who worked with William in the Army and RAF complaining about him until it was banned to speak of them due to ‘security reasons’… I remember something about William skipping off on holidays with no notice, and others having to take over; such as canceling their own vacations!

          12. How could he have been cleared to get his license if not completing the program? That does not seem possible to me. (I am referencing notasugar’s first comment as to William being rushed through training….
            Let’s face it, he’s in a chopper that is transporting very ill or very injured people, as well as medical personnel. If something happened to the pilot, he’d have to take over, right? So, come on, he had to complete the requirements. At least, I would hope!

        2. jenny,

          Many professions have supervised work experience requirements before someone is considered to be done with their training. Medical doctors, for instance, complete med school, pass their exams, and are rightfully called, “doctor”. However, until they complete their residencies, they won’t get hired on as fully fledged professionals. In William’s case, he’s done all the classroom work and has passed his exams. He does not yet have enough time in the co-pilot’s seat (logged flight hours) to be allowed to take control of the chopper. That’s why we get weird comments like how he “misses flying” after more than a year of co-piloting. That’s why people pay attention to where he’s sitting. If he had completed the hours, he’d be in the pilot’s seat. That he isn’t, really emphasizes the work-shy label.

          1. Jenny: here is an article from 2008 about his training with the RAF. Notice that whilst the article laid out that he would receive cliff notes version of training ie he would be trained to be a competent pilot, but not an operational one whilst the Palace and media sell him as a fully trained operational military pilot with all that entails. It’s very clear that he was trained to fly one or two types of aircraft, but not full range of aircraft.


            He then moved to SAR where his training was on a very specific type of aircraft. His previous training was treated as basic skills training.


            Or as one reporter who compared William vs Harry’s helicopters and by extension their level of training,’ *budgie vs Airwolf!’

            *budgie = http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/dreamlogos/images/3/3b/354-009.png/revision/latest?cb=20160930095705

            Airwolf = http://www.geocities.co.jp/Playtown-Toys/5896/gif/wolf016.jpg

          2. GM, yes, I am aware of what doctors go through.I was wondering, however, how he could be certified to co-pilot if he had not completed the hours/work he needed to do. Thank you.
            And, you, Herazeus. When I have a moment, I will read the articles. Sick baby, today, but when I can, I will eagerly red the articles. Very interesting.

            Thanks, all.

      3. Well BethNY, you’re right you don’t have to earn a name, it’s simply given. But it’s the only you have and you do have to work very hard not sully it/tarnish your reputation…after all your name is your word,right?
        It makes absolutely no difference, as in a tangible difference, to my life what Kate or any royal for that matter is called.
        I think that all people want from the Royals is for them to appreciate the privileges that could me with their self-made titles and to respect and honour the people who keep them in such privilege i.e.tax payers.
        The young royals in the U.K. Don’t seem to have figured out that respect is a two way street and that treating the press, public and their duties with such obvious contempt is not only rude but just plain stupid.
        It’s that sense of respect for oneself, the “office” that one holds and the people that makes all the difference. At least, I’m pretty sure that’s why people are so fond of Q Maxima, Q Letizia and CP Victoria.

      4. Then Mrs. Windsor? That should be her name, but she was given a title and with that comes responsibilities. Right now, at most, she is Mrs. Windsor. If she performs the duties of a Royal Duchess then I think people would be more than willing to show her more respect, but as others have said, respect is earned and she hasn’t earned it.

      5. BethNY,

        “She doesn’t have to earn it. just as any married woman doesn’t have to earn the right to be called Mrs. Whatever,”

        Being called ‘Mrs’ is not a right, not a privilege. You make it sound like an upgrade. It’s a tradition, a convention, that many choose not to adopt these days.

        You’re still arguing a false equivalence . On the childrens’ birth certificates, for occupation, Willy put down “Prince”, “Princess”. Not co-pilot, not..well, Kate has no professional occupation except “Princess” according to him. Which means it’s a role and with that role come expectations. It means she took on a *job*. These have been defined to some extent by the queen and Charles. They also get paid obscenely handsomely for it, for a job, not because they’re titled. Anyone can lie around all day eating bonbons, but they sure as heck aren’t going to be paid for it.

        As I said in the last discussion, Kate calls herself Mrs Cambridge when she’s shopping so she has taken on tradition, convention in that respect. ‘Mrs Cambridge’ is not a role, just a way of addressing her. So is Kate Middleton.

        There is no need to take others to task because their views don’t agree with yours, especially given the above. Those views are not incorrect.

    5. I just said up thread that she’s been heard/quoted to tell peeps to call her Kate! =)
      For me, it’s not only that she hasn’t grown into the role it’s that she had 10 yrs in media being known as Kate Middleton, names stick and hard to switchover. I had a childhood friend get married last yr and I still sometimes address her mail to her maiden name. Old habits die hard so someone I have no personal connection to is even harder.

    6. You said the magic word: branding. Kate was branded as ‘Kate Middleton’ in the public eye long before she became a duchess. Don’t doubt the power of labels. A good one will stick forever. Her maiden name suits her, so it will follow her forever.

      1. She had so much opportunity to do otherwise for those 10 years. Funding from Uncle Gary, the ability to create a job for herself in a flexible career that allowed for jumping every time the phone rang.

        Through her own actions she earned the branding of being lazy and workshy. Being all about her looks, shopping, and vacations and never about substance. Could have been so different.

        1. So true. Kate opined her desire to open a photography gallery/ have an exhibition in her Jigsaw days. Had she been truly serious, there are excellent design degrees in London offering photography as a major; she could have learned a tremendous amount and be on her way to fulfilling that ambition.

          Similarly, William could have moved from co-pilot to pilot had he put in the training and hours. I think both like the idea of these rather glamorous occupations but lack the stamina to do the hard yards demanded of these professions.

  5. I think it’s more of a habit. We spent a lot of time reading about “Kate Middleton” and when she became the Duchess of Cambridge people (myself included) had not yet gotten used to calling her Duchess or Catherine. Sofia was easier on me. I only knew her well when I found this blog and I started to read more about the Swedish Royal Family. Many people also say that Kate does not deserve to be called a Duchess or Catherine because she does very little for the monarchy. On Daily Mail article said: “William says that as Kate becomes more comfortable in her royal role, she will realise that there’s no need to deploy her accessories for protection.” – That’ll never happen, she doesn’t fit into the BRF. She has been married for almost 6 years and was Royal-adjacent for 10 years before that. Her younger child is more than a year old. How much time does it take to “be comfortable in her royal role”?

    Kate is not a people person, that’s why she wears her clutch bag in front of her crotch. It’s a “please don’t touch and talk to me”-atittude. Oh God, on her engagement interview Kate said: “I really hope I can make a difference, even in the smallest way. I am looking forward to helping as much as I can.” A lot of people believed that (myself included) but now I think Kate is spectacularly unsuited for the role her mother pushed her into. Pippa would have been much better at this – she seems much less nervous and much friendlier, more natural and confident. Kate’s accent shows me she’s trying to be someone she’s not. She needs to find a stylist who knows how to dress her and find a way to work with her hair that doesn’t take hours of time for extensions and blowouts. Her hair is naturally very curly. I can’t imagine the hours she’s spent to make it look like it does. Imagine if she embraced the curl! She needs to drop the whole Diana 2.0 act and be the best version of herself. You can only keep up a charade for so long before it starts to show on the outside. I’ve always caught a “play acting” vibe from her and wondered how long it would last. Who is Kate? I wonder if she even recognizes herself at this point.

    1. Hi Jamel, do you have a link the that Daily Mail article where William talks about Kate’s accessories? If he really said that then I find it interesting that even he realizes that she is using her clutch as a barrier to keep others away from her.

        1. Thanks for sharing! I see now that the “William” in this article is William Hanson, for some reason I saw the name “William” and thought Prince William said this. 🙁 Oops!

  6. I never had any problem with you still calling her “Kate Middleton” but thank you for explaining why you do it. You are able to express your thoughts and outline your reasoning really well – I envy you! Aren’t you in Florida? I hope you escaped the worst of the bad weather.

  7. I much prefer the Swedish way of titling married-ins. I always thought the poor ones who married British princes and then only got to be Duchess, royal or not, rather than Princess got a bad deal. And it definitely seems sexist to erase the women’s names.
    I do remember Charles complaining about Americans calling him “Prince” which sounded like a dog’s name; he didn’t realize that Americans use titles related to our work, like Professor Smith, or Judge Brown. Titles themselves seem rather dated, especially if they are bestowed only because of birth or marriage.

    1. While I kind of understand the whole blood princesses v married-in women thing, I think the married-in woman losing her name entirely is definitely remnant of a very sexist system and something I dislike.

  8. Don’t the queens of England who are commoners get referred to by their maiden names anyway? For example, we refer to Elizabeth Woodville and Anne Boleyn, Woodville and Boleyn being maiden names. So in the grand scheme of things (if she does become queen) she will most likely be Kate Middleton to history, wouldn’t she?

      1. I forgot to add, in a time when people had numerous spouses due to death, annulment’s etc, it’s a more linear way of keeping track of who’s who.

    1. I think part of the issue is with Henry viii having so many wives and having 2 Anne’s and 3 Catherine’s it became a necessity to differentiate so retaining maiden names for biographical/historical reasons has stuck.
      I also think most of the women Elizabeth woodville, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and even Catherine d’medici were strong women in their own rights/own personality in a time when women’s whole existence was to get married, have kids and fade away. So whether by intent or not the historians referr(ed) to them as their maiden names and it’s stuck.

      1. A case can be made for the exception that was Henry 8, but given the number of Queens and Consorts known by their maiden names or nicknames rather than their titles across history of the world, it clearly doesn’t matter if we use their titles.

  9. KMR: a correction. The title you’ve given Kate in the event of William’s death is incorrect. A widow doesn’t acquire their first name back. Instead they become known as the dowager title ie as a widow, Kate becames the Dowager Duchess of Cambridge.

    It has caused cofusion in the past when the widow and the new duchess have the same title, but it’s never changed except for that one word added to the widow’s title.

    Overally, i don’t get in a snit about titles except where they are used incorrectly eg Princess Diana rather than The PssOW or Diana, pow.

    Afterall, centuries later, we are still discussing Anne Bolyen, Katherine of Aragon, Katherine Howard, Jane Seymour, Caroline of Brunswick, Eleanor of Acquitaine, Alexandra of Denmark, Lady Jane Grey, Matilda and any number of Queens and Queen consorts by their maiden names.

    Some Princes have remained so notorious that their nicknames or private names are used rather than their proper titles eg William the Conqueror, Ethelred the unready, William Rufus, Bloody Mary, Prinny/Prince Regent, Mad King George, Bertie, David.

    As for Kate’s specific title ie D of Cambridge, i still think about the previous titleholder when i see or hear it because the previous Duchess of Cambridge was a larger than life character who cast a larger (literally) shadow in life. This impression is not helped by the fact that William films his PSAs in a room with her portrait hanging on a wall behind him.

    1. ETA: to clarify my point regarding widows, here is the obituary for the dowager duchess of devonshire. Content is irrelevant, but the heading is the point i’m making.


      Ps: wiki puts first name + married surname before the title. This is incorrect, but i guess they need a way to clarify who they are talking about as opposed to several generations of dowagers of the title.

      1. I was going by Diana’s and Sarah’s titles after divorce, but they were divorced not widowed. My bad.

  10. I think it’s because she has been on the scene for 8 years as William’s girlfriend and everyone including the public called her Kate Middleton. So when she got married it’s really hard to stop calling her that and just call by her formal title. Now Diana she was on the scene for a little bit as the royal GF and got married as HRH Diana, Princess of Wales but everyone and the media called her Princess Diana even though that was not the correct way. Sometimes the media determines what you will be called and things just stick.

    1. Diana was never HRH Diana, Princess of Wales.

      Her maiden name and title were Lady Diana Spencer and her married name was HRH The Princess of Wales – no first name or *comma. She also gained the definitive article ‘The’.

      *that comma is very important in titles. If you include it in the title, you are saying that the holder is divorced. Only divorced women have a comma in their title. They also regain the use of their first name infront of their title whilst losing the definitive article in their title eg in the case of Diana and Fergie, post divorce they became Diana, princess of Wales and Sarah, duchess of york (lost ‘The’, gained comma + first name).

      1. That’s interesting and such a little thing, lack of comma or not, makes such a big difference in the meaning and understanding of a title. I have a question: had Diana been alive, when Charles and Camilla married, what would Diana’s title then be? There cannot be two living Princesses of Wales, correct? So Camilla’s actual title, HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall. Would Diana be still known as Diana, Princess of Wales, had she been alive?

          1. I think Charles’s avowed promise could be kept as long as Camilla didn’t want to marry. And she didn’t. It’s a little discussed factoid that Camilla was happy to be a mistress, but not a wife. Royal adjacent with all the perks, but not the responsibility of being fully royal.

            However, their unmarried relationship became socially awkward whereby social arrangements had to take their marital status into consideration with the unmarried Camilla banished to back of the room rather than sit/arrive with Charles.

            The most publicly embarrassing of these social kerfuffles was the wedding of Edward Van Cutsem to the Duke of Westminster’s daughter. It caused quite a row.


            After that kerfuffle, they married as soon as it could be arranged ie This snub was in November 2004 and Charles and Camilla married the following April 2005.

          2. It’s interesting that Camilla didn’t want to be a royal considering she seems to fit the role so well. I always thought they got married so that the public would be more accepting of her. And I’ll say I never bought the whole “she’s always been Charles’ only true love” storyline they try to sell.

          3. Paula: on the one hand, Camilla has turned out to be a good royal, and i am willing to concede that perhaps their relationship in old age *has become* the true love story of fairy tales, but they have been part of a deliberately and overtly orchestrated positive PR campaign since the 90s. Since before Diana’s death. Inconvenient truths have been whitewashed completely. It helps that Diana and Kanga are dead and can’t contradict this bogus PR image or their love story.

            Speaking of their love story, C4 once pulled together a documentary about Kanga……






          4. And, had Diana re-married? Or, if Kate and William divorced and she married a commoner, would she still have a title because of being mother to the Prince and Princess?

          5. Jenny: You have to remember that Diana’s lawyers successfully argued for her status as a mother of a future King be recognised.

            The Queen Mother argued the same thing when she became a widow.

            In both cases, it shows that divorce and widowhood will downgrade status unless you can successfully argue differently.

            Besides the QM and Diana were such popular figures that the Palace had to acquiesce to their demands.

            If Kate doesn’t argue for her status as the mother of future Kings, it’s not automatic that she will be accorded it.

            With regards marrying a commoner post divorce, all the examples in history show that *she* would inhabit a twilight world of quasi royalty where she would be downgraded to regular commoner, but also recognised as the mother of future kings.

        1. Regarding remarriage. Traditionally, the ex wife loses title entirely if she or title holder remarries.

          However, given that divorce and remarriage is new territory, it’s hard to say for sure what would happen.

          Looking at peers who’ve divorced and remarried, some have kept the divorce title whilst others have gone back to maiden name so it’s hard to say definitively.

          For such an important title like POW, i suspect that a different title would be used/granted to Diana to remove the confusion of multiple PssOW.

          1. Thanks For your last sentence, you referred to Diana. Did you mean, Kate? If a new title needed to be created, I wonder what it would be.

          2. Jenny: i was answering a question about hypothetical situation regarding Diana’s title after Charles married Camilla assuming Diana had lived.

            You could extend that hypothesis to Kate should they divorce and William remarry.

          3. Again, many thanks. Kate better hire a good lawyer. LOL

            Honestly I don’t see K and W’s marriage ending up on the rocks.

          4. I don’t ever see Kate seeking a divorce. However, I do see Will dumping her if he needs a popularity boost. I also easily see him blaming her for his workshy ways.

  11. KMR- I have been reading your blog for a long time and I have always appreciated your measured, thoughtful posts filled first with ample info on the occasion or event, then with accurate critiques and most interestingly (to me), true appreciation of those moments when Catherine shines and/or improves.

    I am probably what most commenters here would title a “Sugar” as I have been enamored of the BRF as long as I can remember- one of my earliest memories is watching the wedding of Diana and Charles with my mother, and William being not that much younger than me I identified with him very easily. I also lost my mother at a young age- although I was technically 21 I still felt very much like a young person- my mother died in summer 2000, just 3 years after Diana. I became further interested in William/Catherine when I heard that they were back together after the breakup in 2007- I figured for a public figure to revive such a relationship would require a very clear understanding from both parties of what they each expected, moving forward and I anticipated their engagement stemming from that reconciliation.

    All this being said, I am really posting today to say that your site has easily become my favorite go-to for accurate coverage of what William/Catherine are doing. You never shy away from applauding their good moments- which a lot of critique-type sites never do- but you also plainly state those moments when they’re making not such good choices- which a lot of the sugar-type sites never do.

    I really appreciate the time you’ve taken here to not only explain your reasoning to us, but also to show us the digging you’ve done thru your own thoughts to really understand your own rationale and to bring across to us the thoughtful work you do behind the scenes of this site. I also want to mention how respectful in tone this article is- while discussing proper titles “The Duchess of Cambridge” and maiden name “Kate Middleton” and other amalgams such as “Duchess Kate”, you refer to her as Catherine when not using quotes- this really struck me as a symbol of the respect behind the critique. Someone could have easily imagined a slight behind your use of “Kate Middleton” but this post shows differently. So, thank you for everything you do with this site and I hope you keep it up.

    TL;DR- Former Sugar, assisted by KMR, looks at W/C with clear eyes 😉

    1. By your definition I would be a sugar too. Welcome onboard. Your comments have hit the nail right on the head as to why so many of us have found this forum the perfect place to be. I look forward to getting to know you and your views better. Xxxx

  12. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is it mandatory that when a woman marries a titled man that she takes his title(s) as well? Could she not say, for example, that she would be happy to be Mrs. Harry Wales but not the Princess Harry (or whatever that formal title would be)? Didn’t Camilla choose not to be titled the Princess of Wales?

    Also, I find it ridiculous that William or the palace would insist that Kate be known as “Catherine” when Harry is perfectly fine without being called his formal given name of Henry.

    1. I don’t know if it is mandatory in the peerage. In the case of Harry’s future spouse? Yes, I think she would be required to accept a title and required to be a working royal. If he was lower down the situation might be different, but as one of only 5-6 royals that will be left standing? He and his spouse will have titles and will be working royals.

      Camilla didn’t refuse the title of Princess of Wales; it is one of her official titles. She chooses to go by a different title for PR.

    2. To your first question, in theory yes, in reality not so much. Socially (and where such matters count) she would always be known by her married name. In the same way that married women take their husband’s name after marriage. Harry being a working royal whose wife becomes a working royal is a special case. That situation requires the wife to take his title and work for the firm.

      Camilla doesn’t use her PssOW title because of rabid Diana fans. The royal family has gone to great lengths to rehab her image and especially to disassociate her from the Diana associations. Using the same title would have made this PR makeover impossible. Legally she is the PssOW, but for PR reasons she goes by DssCornwall. Diana wasn’t associated with this title even though she was also DssCornwall.

      At the engagement, the Palace said she would be known as ‘Catherine’. Kate told a fan during those early days that she was ‘Kate’. William took a long time to settle on Catherine. He alternated between Kate and Catherine over several interviews, but now calls her Catherine.

      As for Harry/Henry, that’s purely nickname vs his proper name. His parents made his nickname public and the public took that on board. He clearly doesn’t mind the public using his private nickname. However, in official Royal family capacity, he is always Henry.

      1. “However, in official Royal family capacity, he is always Henry”: Yet for official press announcements, the BRF website, the royal foundation, etc., he is still called “Prince Harry.” Apart from church sacraments and possibly military appointments, I can’t think of an instance when “Henry” has been used.

        1. The British royal family website used to list him as Henry. I’ve just checked the new revamped site and it says Harry.

          At the London Olympics, he was labelled as Henry throughout which caused much confusion because the public is so used to Harry and few remembered his given name.

          When he represents HM, he is labelled Henry and announced as such though the talking heads, commentors and dignitaries call him Harry.

          1. Am I right in thinking that when Prince Andrew married Sarah and he was given the title DOY Sarah wrote to HM to express her gratitude thinking it was the gracious thing to do. Apparently it was a big faux pas as HM hadn’t confered the title to her, but her son and it became hers by virtue of her marriage and no compliment was intended to her by bestowing it, it was her right to be styled by it.

    3. Thanks for your replies, notasugarhere and Herazeus. Interesting how the use of titles–and the deliberate non-use of them–often comes down to nothing more than PR.

  13. KMR, you made my day for a totally different reason. I’m glad I’m not the only one who purged my Facebook “friends”. I realized I didn’t actually have 700+ friends, more like acquaintances. I took the plunge and un-friended many of them, most of whom I never talked to or ever had a real relationship with. Old co-workers, their spouses, their pets, everyone I ever went to school with…it was not a reflection of my social group at all. I did a great purge, and got my ‘friends’ down to people I actually wanted to keep in contact with. My husband chided me, saying it was mean to un-friend people, but I felt so much better after doing it. I did keep my sorority sister’s donkey’s page. Donk Donk is pretty funny.

  14. Why should I ennoble and elevate Kate Middleton when she acts like a WAG? Ain’t gonna happen. But then, I also call PW ‘Willy’ because that’s all he is.

    1. If people elevate themselves as ‘highnesses’, higher than you or me, they need to bring the ‘better-than-the-rest-of-you-lot’ on a consistent basis. Of course, they can’t and won’t.

      1. Absolutely agree Jen. And I think this whole elevating oneself through made-up title, which has not been earned, is ridiculous anyway.

      2. I actually think they need to stop giving out automatic HRH’s to peeps when they marry in. Harry’s wife should just get whatever ducal title he gets.
        Just like I don’t think Sofia of Sweden should have gotten her title either. Even more for her case since she’s trying to set up shop at the palace.
        I agree with you tho that it will never happen.

  15. Very well written, KMR.
    I’m one who thinks that Kate may very well like being known as Middleton. And, if William is so into “regular” folk, why does he call her Catherine, when she reminds others to please call her Kate? I think she came into the public eye as Kate Middleton and it’s hard for most people to think of her differently. The Duchess thing — for others than those in the UK — is pretty hard to understand. Especially, if you were never a Royal Watcher. Or, not much of one.

    I had not a clue that it was wrong to call Diana, Princess Diana. Interesting. But, so many did.
    She had a real Princess quality and aura, didn’t she? I guess it was easy to think of her as Princess Di.

    Kate does not seem much like a Duchess to me. Maybe, because I think that someone with that title is more mature and more regal. Kate just hasn’t grown that way. Not so say, she won’t.

    1. Fun fact: Diana used to visibly flinch when she was called princess Diana. Often she would deflect by asking people to call her Diana.

      1. Really off topic, but why is it George, Lord Byron, not Lord George Byron? In other words, is there a difference in rank between the two configurations?

        I have always thought they are trying to use Catherine not Kate is because of The Taming of the Shrew.

        1. I’ve never heard of George, Lord Byron. Pretty sure he was commonly known as Lord Byron. George was his first name, and i think people have taken to adding it to his title, but in his lifetime he was simply Lord Byron.

          1. My American English literature texts used George, Lord Byron, so I thought it was significant, but that was eons ago. Lord Byron makes more sense. Thanks, Herazeus, for this and all your other clear explanations.

          2. Fifi: Apologies. I think i had a brain fart and i’ve just realised what you were actually asking.

            On second reading, you are asking why his first name, George, was sometimes used infront of his title and not after his title, no? In the same way the correct form of a daughter like Lady Diana Spencer rather than Diana, Lady Spencer?

            The answer is that it is correct to call him Lord George Byron because he was the son of his father who held the title before him. In the same way that Lady Diana Spencer was so name. As the holder of the title, that could be shortened to Lord Byron, but that only applies to males. Shorter versions of female titles, leads to other interpretations of their status eg Lady Spencer is actually the wife of title holder, but Lady Diana Spencer (with first name) clearly signals that holder is daughter of title holder.

            It is incorrect to call him the other way ie George, Lord Byron under any circumstances.

        1. I think it started because of big blue. If William would have been man enough to go out and get her own engagement ring. She would have moved up on rank after getting married . But with her lack of work . And flashing Diana’s ring at every chance she gets she will never be more than she is . I think a lot of it is William and the mama cord . I’m old enough to remember princess Diana . She had class and was a princess from the beginning.

          1. @Just me, I wish William would have given Kate her own ring. Now I am excited about the ring Harry will give his future wife.

      2. By the end of her life she also told people not to curtesy to her too. She would always thank them for the compliement if they did but also made sure people were aware it was unnecessary. Xxx

    1. Haha I think my new favorite word applies to this story: alternative facts!
      I’m shocked that William is even going. He must do an even/odd yr rotation for some of his patronages =)

      1. William has only attended the BAFTA awards twice in his 6 years of being President: in 2010 and in 2014.

    2. This couple is tiresome in the extreme. More like Kate would be outshone by people of incredible achievement as well as beauty. This is about personal vanity, and quite frankly, not measuring up.

      It’s simple: if William does not want to be President of BAFTA he should resign. He has shown little interest, has now not attended twice and even missed the event he ‘hosted’ last year. No loss to BAFTA, who really should find a president from their own ranks.

      And isn’t the ‘outshine’ excuse reserved for not attending weddings? They need one of their minions to create a book of their excuses so they use the right one for the right context.

    3. Does anyone still believes that Kate is able to outshine anybody? Yes, I am curious which of her mother’s drapes she will choose to wear but that’s all.

      1. No, I don’t, but I do believe she would demand deference of being the prettiest, the most wonderful at the ball Aka, ‘look at me!!’

  16. Kitty, why do you think she will never be consort? It sounds like a certainty / prediction the way I read it, or am I misunderstanding what you wrote?

  17. Diana was introduced to Australia as Lady Di and ever remained so, really. Charles was always the Prince of Wales but Diana always seemed to be Lady Di. When Kate takes on the job of a Duchess, not just the title, perhaps her name recognition will change from her eternal lady in waiting for a ring- Kate, to Duchess!

  18. On your write up about Kate’s EACH visit I hope you talk about this quote

    ‘She said she was very well looked after by her husband’: Duchess of Cambridge tells a four-year-old girl what it’s like to be a ‘real princess’

    1. Poor snowflake Kate who cannot function without being looked after by everybody. It’s a clever ploy to get people to think she’s too fragile to do anything on her own.

    2. Just lowering the bar, every time she opens her mouth. Plus, there’s self-preservation in there too, building up William’s ego to keep his ego on an even keel and therefore a more pleasant life. This is where Carole comes in too, I’d say. It would be a monumental effort.

    3. I think it’s interesting that most of her quotes about people are how they take care of her or help her.
      I also don’t think the answer has anything to do with the question being asked. What does William taking care of her have anything to do with “what’s it like to be a real princess”?
      At least Harry gives an answer of great responsibility/privilege and wanting to do good. I have some skepticism about him now that he seems to holiday just as much of the rest of them but at least he can give good answers.

      1. I mean, at least Harry can fake it, even though he’s just as bad as the rest of them.

      2. Yep, the responsability/privilege quote should be the standard answer to any questions about their roles. Whether they live by it or not is another story.

        I feel so torn because I don’t know to which extent this is Kate’s fault. She was probably raised to see marriage/being taken care of as her only life goal and it’s really difficult to get rid of this mindset, especially if you don’t surround yourself with women that think differently. She needs someone who could advise her on this, but her mom seems to be such an overbearing figure in her life it’s going to be difficult.

    1. The EAAA PR pics come out as regularly as clockwork, don’t they? Judging by the comments section, no-one is fooled. Glad some commenters mentioned the co-pilot status.

    2. Same photographer. Same William getting out of the helo when he should not do so. They should be readying the helo to leave ASAP, not dawdle around for his photo ops. God, this makes me angry. All about him and not the patient!

      1. Ellie, given your comments on William’s performance in the military, and at university, it’s hardly likely that he’d change his spots with the EAAA. I’d imagine anyone who’s had to deal with William would be heartily pleased to see the back of him. Think of it: every advantage in the world given to this guy and he still can’t perform.

        1. Oh, I doubt it, but it really irks me considering he is yet again n a position that could really hurt someone thanks to his ego and refusal to be tranied properly. The RAF only gave him about four months of training, the excuse being he’d never fly on the front lines; usually, RAF Cranwell courses are 32 weeks, and then you have an extra 10-21 months training after that. William went to SAR and didn’t spend very long training there, either. For helicopters, it’s an extra 18 months on top of the 32 week course at Cranwell. Oh, yeah, you sign a contract for 12 years. William signed for what, six years, which he didn’t even make and so the government lost something like half a million pounds on training him.

          1. These people: no accountability and the public is fed BS about ‘pilot’ Wales. Disgusting. Had to laugh when reading the DM comments about the latest PR pics: almost to a person they called William out on ‘work’ and nailed him as being a ‘co-pilot’, not pilot.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top