William & Kate with Philippe & Mathilde in Belgium

William & Kate with Philippe & Mathilde in Belgium

Prince William and Kate Middleton arrived in Belgium yesterday, July 30, for commemorations marking the centenary of the first day of Passchendaele, the third Battle of Ypres. William and Kate joined King Philippe and Queen Mathilde for the commemorations last night.

William and Kate arrived at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission Ypres Menin Gate Memorial for a Last Post ceremony. They were joined by Philippe and Mathilde, as well as Sir Tim Laurence (Princess Anne’s husband and Vice Chairman of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission) and Theresa May (British Prime Minister), and over 200 descendants whose ancestors are named on the Gate and representatives from nations who fought on the Salient.

Both Philippe and William gave speeches. William said:

    “Every evening the city of Ieper falls silent at eight o’clock and the Last Post is played by the buglers of the Last Post Association. With the sounding of this bugle call, the two hundred and fifty thousand British and Commonwealth soldiers who were killed on the Ypres Salient during the First World War are remembered.
    “The battlefields of the Salient came to define the war for many British and Commonwealth soldiers. The defence of the city at such great cost meant that it became hallowed ground. Winston Churchill said of Ypres, ‘a more sacred place for the British race does not exist in all the world’. It was from here, along the Menin Road, that so many marched towards the frontline. After the war, when a location was being sought for a lasting memorial to these men, it seemed fitting for it to be built by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in this place.
    “Today, the Menin Gate records almost fifty four thousand names of the men who did not return home; the missing with no known grave. Members of our families; our regiments; our nations; all sacrificed everything for the lives we live today.
    “At the Memorial’s inauguration, the British commander Field Marshall Lord Plumer spoke movingly to the assembled families, saying of their lost loved ones: ‘He is not missing; he is here’. The local Police Superintendent attended the same inauguration ceremony. He heard the sounding of the Last Post and was so moved, that he and his friends later resolved to play it, here, every evening in perpetuity. A simple tribute from local people to those who fought.
    “We extend our deep gratitude to the Last Post Association and the people of Ieper for this daily act of homage in honour of our fallen. During the First World War Britain and Belgium stood shoulder to shoulder. One hundred years on, we still stand together, gathering as so many do every night, in remembrance of that sacrifice. Thank you for the honour that you do us.”


Then, more than 54,000 poppies fell from the roof of the memorial – one for every name on the Menin Gate.

The Menin Gate Memorial to the Missing is a war memorial dedicated to the British and Commonwealth soldiers who were killed in the Ypres Salient of World War I and whose graves are unknown.

William and Kate then met some of the descendants of those who served on the Ypres Salient from 1914-1918.

Kate meets descendants of those who served on the Ypres Salient s
[Kensington Palace @KensingtonRoyal]

William and Kate, along with Philippe and Mathilde, visited the Market Square in Ypres for an event telling the story of WWI in the Ypres Salient. Cloth Hall, Ypres, was backdrop for the night’s tribute to those who served in Belgium in WWI – original images and video of those that served telling the story of Passchendaele in WWI were protected onto Cloth Hall.

The Battle of Passchendaele, the Third Battle of Ypres, was a campaign during the First World War fought by the Allies against the German Empire from July to November 1917 for control of the ridges south and east of the Belgian city of Ypres.

From the Guardian:

    “More than 800,000 soldiers on both sides of the war died in the blood and mud of the Ypres salient between 1914 and 1918. Many marched on the so-called Menin road, on which the gate built in 1927 now stands, from Ypres town to the front lines. Still today, the remains of dozens of men are found every year in Flanders fields, identified initially by the colouring and markings of the boots in which they died.
    “Of the three major battles in Ypres, however, it is the third and final, whose centenary will pass in the early hours of Monday, that bears the greatest infamy. ‘I died in hell – they called it Passchendaele,’ the soldier and poet Siegfried Sassoon wrote of the carnage that raged from 31 July until 10 November 1917. Perhaps the first world war battle that is today most sharp in the collective British consciousness is the Somme, but at the time it was this battle, and this place, that was synonymous with the hopelessness and horror of what was playing out on foreign fields.”

Kate chose repeats for this event. She wore the white Alexander McQueen coatdress she wore to Charlotte’s Christening in 2015 and Trooping in 2016, and the Lock and Co hat she wore to Trooping in 2015. She carried the clutch she debuted in Germany, and wore her Balenciaga pearl earrings and her five pearl brooch she wore to Trooping in 2014. Kate also wore a poppy pin on her lapel above her brooch, and a new pair of grey suede pumps.

I saw some opposition to this outfit in some of the comments on the last post and here are my thoughts:

I don’t think her outfit is inappropriate here. All of the items Kate wore (minus the shoes) were repeats, white is a symbol of hope, and Kate wore white to a WWI commemoration in Belgium three years ago and the only opposition to that outfit was to the peter pan collar. In fact, multiple people said her white outfit then was appropriate. And that outfit was new at the time whereas this one is a repeat.

This event was about remembering the fallen, and I think wearing repeated items was a smart choice here because it takes the focus off of her clothes. This outfit is not glaringly out of place or offensive (like the hot pink in NYC), so while some people may not chose white for a commemoration service, I think it would be best to take the focus off of Kate’s clothes.

376 thoughts on “William & Kate with Philippe & Mathilde in Belgium

  1. Thank you for the breakdown of the history of this event. I am not well versed on WWI history. The picrue of the illuminated church is beautiful. And the description of the falling poppies is beautiful. I need to try to find a link to watch it.

    I don’t care for the white,imho. Everyone else, including Rebecca, wore muted colors. I just found it to be too “look at me” at such a somber event.

    Thanks for the historical recap. I learned a lot.

    1. +1 At this point shouldn’t she have some sort of sartorial intelligence and sensitivity? She really stands out here. I love this coatdress and those gorgeous shoes (not so much the hat and the pearls and the weird little side bun) but just not for this type of ceremony.

      1. In every photo you see Kate because she stands out against all the others in muted colours. I watched it live and it looked all wrong.

        1. Funny! In the first photo, I thought her hat looked like a marshmallow squashed on her head! Now, I can’t un-see it… While I like the individual pieces, and I think the coat is particularly flattering, I think she could have opted for something that makes her the focus of every photo. But that’s kind of her nature.

  2. Back in the day, white was an official mourning colour for the royal family. In 1938, The Queen Mum wore all white during a visit to Paris.

    1. White isn’t a mourning colour anymore and hasn’t been since the Queen has started her reign. It’s not like Kate was even alive in 1938. Besides they were in Belgium not the U.K. and her assistant should have consulted with the Belgian royal family.

        1. +1
          Although Mathilde should have worn less shiny glossy material with no lace and Kate should have worn some dark and mute but I think both of them looked nice and beautiful and their outfit were not sin here. I’m glad they have been there so we all can remember the loss because in my country we have not commemoration for Ypres so I know about this thanks to Kate.

          1. To only be aware of WWI events due to Kate being present and wearing an inappropriate dress really makes one weep for the world. Soldiers died for freedom but we are going to forget their sacrifice unless some woman shows up? Being ignorant about world events because you want to justify Kate’s dress really doesn’t help your point.

          2. +1 to you too.

            I agree that both Mathilde and Kate look great and not inappropriate, but if I were to be uber nit-picky, I would ding Mathilde more for her boudoir look than Kate for wearing white. IMO white is not an inappropriate color for a somber occasion, especially during the summertime, but it is probably eschewed by many out of fear that a white ensemble would get stained than for being inappropriate or show-off-ish.

            I especially agree with you that royal watching has the added benefit of learning more details about historical events.

          3. White actually is still a mourning color in Belgium. In 1993 Queen Fabiola wore it to her husband’s funeral (Philippe’s grandfather).

            Personally, I like the idea of mourning white, I agree with KMR that it adds a bit of hope, and I liked the fact that this outfit was mostly a repeat. There isn’t the same frenzy trying to figure out what Kate is wearing.

          4. Please, Nic919, could you not presume about me anything? Thank you. Mostly because we don’t agree. Please. I’m not ignorant because I think Kate’s outfit was appropiate. If anything was inappropiate from this event that is Mathilde’s camisole lace.

          5. I don’t know what nationality Anna H is, I am American and while I am knowledgeable about World War I at a high level, I will readily admit that I don’t know details about major battles / events. By the same token, I don’t expect non-Americans to know details about major battles / events of the American Civil War, for example.

          6. I’m hungarian. We have enough material for own memorials. I sure I learnt more about british history than any foreigner about the hungarian one. This goes to WW1 too. But it is absolutly ok we are small country UK was the world’s leader. WW1 traumatized Hungary a lot so believe me Nic919, I am aware of WW1 events due to my own teachers. What a miracle.

        2. Every other woman was wearing a dark colour except for Kate. She made this memorial service about her and this continues a pattern that she has done for a while now.

          1. More than likely Kate does not know what others are wearing. Today, Charles, Mathilde and Kate are wearing light colors at a cemetery visit no less, so Kate does not stick out as much. It seems more like happenstance that Kate was the only one wearing white / a light color at yesterday’s event as opposed to Kate breaking some kind of rule. Also as I noted previously white (and light colors) are probably avoided for practical reasons moreso than because they’re inappropriate.

          2. Ähhh no. There were quite a few women in white or wearing white items. Even if you only have a look at the group photo posted here.

          3. Wearing white at an event when it is considered a sombre event when you can guess most others will be in gray, dark blue, black. Re-wearing something from their daughter’s christening reads as deliberately attention-grabbing to me. As did the other three outfits I referenced. Oh wait, there’s another one, when she showed up in $50,000 worth of brand new tanzanite jewelry at a memorial service when expecting their daughter. Knew it would draw attention, make her the center of attention.

    2. They only did that because they couldn’t cancel that crucial good will tour, but had to honor official mourning. They didn’t want the good will tour in black, bad vibes. Hence having the entire wardrobe made or re-made in all white, because the King liked to think his wife was part of a walking Winterthur painting.

      White is not the official shade of mourning for the BRF, which is why they all travel with an all-black outfit and black-banded stationery just in case.

  3. This outfit was fine. Honestly, I thought this white would have been better than the new one she wore in Germany and Poland.

  4. I disagree with the White since no one else wore a colour like that. The Queen of Belgium wore a more somber colour and this ceremony was on her territory. Kate should have respected that. She constantly wears look at me clothes when she should not.

    Even worse, she should not be wearing further decorations with the poppy. That is offensive and again shows ignorance of the reason for the poppy. Only military medals are allowed near the poppy. That has been in place since the first Remembrance day in 1918. I learned that as a Canadian kid without any formal etiquette training.

    I also do not like how it is UK …. and then just Commonwealth in the speech references when during the Battle of Ypres and Passchendaele it was the Canadian and Australian and NZ troops who helped finally win that battle. Where were the representatives from those countries at this event? I mean if you can invite Helen Mirren you can probably give a role to a representative of countries who helped defend your territory.

    A simple Wikipedia search would provide William with that information for his speech. But again why do too much research? The speech also should have been in French since they were in Belgium, but we already know William can’t speak French, unlike his grandmother and father.

    I am being critical here, but these two nitwits don’t have the gravitas to be taken seriously when they show up to these events. And many poor young men died in the name of defending William’s great great grandfather and deserve the best. The Queen understands this and so does Charles. They don’t half ass these events.

    1. The Queen wears non-military brooches with her poppy pins.

      Additionally, some other women were wearing white as part of their outfit, and I saw a photo of one woman who was wearing red pants.

      1. The point is that Kate is there to represent the uk, and the Commonwealth. I don’t want to know how other women are dressed but I do want a person who is effectively representative of my country to dress appropriately. My grandfather was in this battle, from the start to the very end. I feel that gives me the right, on his behalf, to want respect. He did not go through months of combat, dealing with the mud, dealing being covered in his mates blood when they were blown up beside him (no chances for a change of clothing there) just so Kate can use this service as photo op by wearing white.

        I am sorry to rant but I am angry and appalled.

        1. Hi Cathy, I also think white is not an appropriated color to this event, it’s like Kate wearing floral at that concentration camp. And after I reading about your grandfather, who was in that battle, I feel sad for him and the other soldiers being representes by Kate.

        2. I agree Cathy there is a huge difference between someone who is just there and Kate who is there as a representative of the Queen of GB and the Commonwealth – she will be photographed specifically. Here we are again talking about what she is wearing because so many feel it was inappropriate. She has many darker coloured coat dresses she could have worn, she just wouldn’t have stood out from the crowd.
          I think wreaths were laid by members of all countries whose soldiers took part in the battle – I certainly heard India, NZ, Australia and Canada specifically mentioned but I think there were more too.

        3. My grandfather was at Ypres too. I have the ring and postcards he brought back for my grandmother. He also lost three brothers at Ypres — one of whom is on the wall. I have their memorial ribbons too.

          I say this because I am not offended by her outfit at all.

          I also want everyone to know that they had my dad very late in life, expecially for that time. 😀 I feel so old saying my granddad was in WWI!!

          1. Bluhare thank you for sharing! How devastating to lose three brothers in one battle… it breaks my heart to think of it. <3

          2. Thank you for the personal remembrance. I had a great grandfather who served in the Civil War, so I understand about late babies and fewer generations.

          3. My grandfather was in WWI. He enlisted in the US Navy as soon as we entered the war. My grandmother hadn’t wanted him to join the merchant marines like he wanted to, so I think he thought that he could live his boyhood dream as an electrician for the Navy!

            His two sons fought in WWII, his grandson in Vietnam, and two of his great-grandsons (my sons) serve in the Navy. So far we’ve been incredibly lucky that everyone has come home. I pray that our luck holds. WWI is just a series of nightmare battles and devastating losses. I can only imagine how the survivors of that war felt to see their sons off to war 20 years later. I think he died before my cousin made it home safe from Vietnam.

          4. bluhare, I also cannot imagine the loss of three brothers in your family. Just too sad. May they always be remembered for their service and sacrifices. You are a keeper of the flame of your family’s service. I can see how this means so very much to you.

          5. Hi bluhare

            Thanks for telling us about your family.

            I send you a “Hello and Thank You” on behalf of my Grandfather to your Grandfather and his brothers. To lose 3 brothers must have been horrible for your Great Grandparents. When they say it was a battle I do wonder if some may think it was over in a day or 2 but it stretched on for over 3 months. Such little land was gained at such a huge cost. 18,000 New Zealanders died in WW1, that’s from a population of only approximately 1.1 million in 1914.

            I don’t know which country you are from but here in NZ the lost was hard. There are memorials all over NZ, even in tiny towns, to commemorate the dead from that war. Every year we all do stop for Anzac Day, the Dawn Services are just as big or even big as we stop to remember the fallen and give thanks for what they did.

            Like you I am glad my Grandfather was able to come home. And, I’m like you too – a product of several generations who had their children later in life. My grandfather also lied about his age when he signed up. You would think that they could see he was only 16 years old?

            I do have some of those postcards from the front too. Do you have the ones with the fabric and embroidery on the front? My favourite one is card a soldier sent from the Front back to his Mother in Liverpool. It talks of it being a sunny day and that he sends his love and best wishes to her. I do hope he made it home.

            I think I should say here that it’s not so much the fact that Kate wore white but that she deliberately wore something that would stand out and make her the most obvious person in any photos.

          6. Thanks everyone,

            And Cathy, yes! Those are the ones. I’ve got one with Ypres cathedral (I think the same one here) burning. That takes place of honor in my collection. And because I’m a Christmas freak most of the rest are Christmas themed — including some WWI Christmas themed ones.

            They’re so inexpensive and so pretty.

      2. The military associations outline that you should not do that and she has not done that recently anyway. Besides Kate is not the Queen and she didn’t do any military service. She rarely wears brooches but has to be fanciful the time she wears a poppy? It is a huge lack of respect and shows ignorance.

        1. Nic919 I’ve been looking for official guidelines on how to wear the poppy appropriately and am coming up short; would you mind posting a link to the guidelines you reference?

        2. Not to get into this fight but if you look at pictures going back decades, the majority of the time, QEII wears one of her bow brooches with the poppies at the Remembrance Day services and the Festival of Remembrance.

        3. Having looked up how to wear the poppy, I found it changes for each country which is probably contributing to the conversation in these comments. In addition, how to wear the symbol has also changed over time. Following is a small excerpt from an article with comment from The British Legion, a relevant source in this instance.

          “How to wear it: Many say on the left, symbolising that you keep those who died close to your heart. It’s also where military medals are worn. Others say men should wear it on the left and women on the right, like you would a badge or brooch. The Queen however wears hers on the left.

          There are also many people who say that the leaf should point to 11 o’clock. The Royal British Legion told Newsbeat: “There is no right or wrong way to wear a poppy. It is a matter of personal choice whether an individual chooses to wear a poppy and also how they choose to wear it. The best way to wear a poppy is to wear it with pride.”

          From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/29848595/remembrance-poppy-controversies-and-how-to-wear-it

      3. Hi, Cathy, I was moved by your post and your feelings are so important because of what your grandfather went through. What one chooses to wear to such an event — especially when representing your nation — is such a important part of the appearance you make at it.

        If it were any other type of event, I would have appreciated Kate’s look. I forgot that it was what she wore at Char’s christening, even though I did recall that she wore white that day. After reading your post, I strongly agree that a more repectful and somber color was needed.

        The idea that tribute is made every day and the beautiful image of all the poppies falling down really touched me

        Your grandfather’s service, and the service of so many others is something all people need to be thankful for, Cathy. I’m so glad you support his endeavors to this day.

          1. Dear Cathy, I am sending hugs and love back to you from my little one and from me. Thanks for always being so kind and dear.

    2. +1. As an Australian, deeply offensive dismissal of Australian, New Zealand and Canadian soldiers lumped together as Commonwealth. William’s speech writer should know better. However it does reinforce, again, that we should call time on the monarchy representing our respective countries. W+K don’t have a clue and are unfit for purpose.

      I agree that the white draws attention to Kate and can only assume that that was her priority, as it so often is.

      1. The colonies and former colonies are just there for them to ignorantly snigger at indigenous and First Nations ceremonies. 60,000 Australians died in the First World War.

      2. Seriously, as a Canadian, it is more offensive to me that Canada has just been lumped in with Commonwealth- as if Britain and their “royal family” are still our overlords. As if Canada, Australia, NZ did’t make huge sacrifices in this battle,which helped define them as independent nations.

          1. Australia officially became an independent nation on 1 January 1901 and NZ a dominion a bit later (in 1907?). We were still for a long time – I’d say into the 1980’s – considered ‘colonials’ by the British, that is, lesser than, a put-down in no uncertain terms. About 420,000 Australians enlisted in WW1 (from a population of 5 million). Of those 60,000 died and another 156,000 were gassed, injured. Like NZ, Australia was then a young country and a whole generation of young men simply disappeared. A lost generation. This impacted on the life of a nation – so many unmarried women, sons who would have farmed land and grew the nation no longer there, and on it goes. All for a useless war on the other side of the world for a king and country we had no connection to.

            My great-great uncle was just 16 when he died in WW1. Australians and NZers were treated as merely expendable cannon fodder by their British ‘superiors’ who were anything but that, given their poor military expertise.

            At present, Australia has a Windsor as HoS. I would appreciate her family representatives representing our forebears respectfully in any speeches made. That was not the case here. If they can’t, and can only reference Britons, then they must not speak for us.

          2. Hi Jen

            Yikes! Looks like my Grandfather wasn’t the only 16 year old there? I had asked him if the English questioned him about his age, as he was too young to sign up…

            His answer was “they didn’t care as they treated the men from the Colonies as cannon fodder”. I was really shocked when I heard that. To see you say the same thing means my Grandfather’s comment was echoed in Australia too.

            That, to me is really really sad.

            Thanks for sharing about your family too.

            The funny thing is that even though he went through this and after what he saw, he still believed in the Royal Family? Even acted as an ADC at different times too!

            Thanks again for your sharing. Shows the bonds between Australia and New Zealand are still there?


          3. Hi Cathy

            It’s interesting that your grandfather’s comment is similar to thoughts here across the ditch. It’s certainly not hidden in military histories, especially that the very poor British military generals made some appalling calls causing unnecessary loss of Australian-New Zealand lives. If nothing else, being described as ‘cannon fodder’ is reason enough for our respective countries to be independent from the UK.

            I think that generation, plus the next one or two subsequent ones, saw allegiance to monarchy as simply the way it was. Both countries were outposts of the UK. By way of seeing NZ’s identity development, if you go to Te Papa, there’s an exhibition called ‘Exhibiting Ourselves’, tracing shifts in NZ identity through the lens of how NZ represented itself to the world in trade/cultural exhibitions, from the 1851 Crystal Palace exhibition (as a colony), to 1907 Christchurch, (dominion status), 1940 Wellington (cradle-to-grave welfare state) to the Seville exhibition in the 1970’s (post-UK joining the EEC, independent nation celebrating Maori-Pakeha achievements and looking out to embrace the world rather than the UK). It’s a telling visual take on the growth of a nation’s identity. Full disclosure: I was a designer on Day One Exhibitions.

            Australia, too, suffered from cultural cringe, until the 1970’s and the arrival of the Whitlam government; money was pumped into the film, literature, art et al to grow the national voice so that it could speak to the world, and on its terms. Both countries navigate the world on their own terms. I’m sure Canada is in exactly the same position. Our populations, too, are now so multi-cultural rather than primarily drawn from British stock. The association with the UK is diluted now and the ties to a monarchy not strong because of this, economic independence as well as cultural diversity.

            Australia will revisit the republic option at some point: either after QEII dies or when/if a Labour government is elected. Not sure what the feeling is in NZ; the flag vote was unsurprising given the choice. I would have opted for the status quo too! The replacement needed to be something as beautifully elegant as the Canadian flag. Sadly, the choices didn’t come close.

          4. Hi Jen

            Oh my gosh! I snorted when I read your comment about the flag referendum. Oh my stars those choices were just ugly! And then they tried to add the “Red Peak” one! *snort!

            Where you living here then? The choices looked like a Primary School exercise? Though I did have a soft spot for the one with the Kiwi shooting laser beams from his eyes (never knew if that was a wind up or not?). Personally I’ve always rather liked the United Tribes flag nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/taming-the-frontier/united-tribes-flag

            Or sticking with the one we have? As for those that say it’s the same as the Australian flag? Well they are usually the sort who think that NZ and Oz are joined together by the Harbour Bridge (it’s called the Sydney Harbour Bridge at your end and the Auckland Harbour Bridge at my end). I had that happen to me overseas and when I tried to point out we are two separate countries I was informed that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Great feat of engineering aye?

            My family, on both sides, have been in NZ since 1832, a whole bunch came out in the 1840s, so I haven’t gotten round to going to Te Papa as they were the ones making the history. But know I now someone who worked on those exhibitions I am going to have to call in next time I’m in Wellington. I have heard great things about the designers who worked on those exhibits, must have been talking about you? *tips hat to your skills!

            *snort “Red Peak”

            Thanks for the laugh!

            Have a great weekend!

          5. Hi Cathy

            Oh man, that Red Peak number was hit with the ugly stick! No, I wasn’t in NZ for the referendum but none of the five finalists was remotely acceptable. I do like your United Tribes option with its historical underpinning. Something will happen further down the track when a worthy design is put forward.

            My family came to Australia in the 1860’s (to Queensland) so we are both entrenched under southern skies. Our first task here is to secure a republic; this will be a long public education initiative lest we repeat the 1999 referendum. Still, both parties are pro-republic so it augurs well. Thanks for your kind words re. Te Papa. It comprised a team of roughly 12 core designers, though at its peak, 1,000 people worked on the entire project (construction, management, writers, architects, fabricators etc). Hope you get down to Wellington at some point.

    3. Well said, Nic 919. So some ignoramus decided to revise history a bit and put the ‘Commonwealth’ in its place. It never ends with these fools. What’s truly egregious is that Canada was reluctant to get involved in a losing, minor battle. Canada’s plan helped take Passchendaele at the tremendous sacrifice of Canadian (and Australian and NZ) lives, only to have the Brits abandon it a while later. It was bleak and brutal.

      The white Kate wore to commemorate the horror and valour is issuing in a new era of celebrating ignorance, thoughtlessness, carelessness and celebrity. She is, as future queen consort and representative of millions, meant to stand for continuity, tradition, and history. And honour and respect. Instead, she brings us a celebration of the culture of narcissism and exhibitionism, which requires no ties to the past or anything else. It is a celebration of self. Kate stands out all right- like a sore thumb. Look upon your future queen, plebs and you out there in the minors, you Commonwealth plebs, and weep. She and Willy will Make England Great Again.

    4. She often dresses to stand out at these occasions. The grey coat with the bold zigzag print, the bright pink at 9/11 Memorial, the ridiculous lace cosplay outfit for another military event with Charles and Camilla last year, the floral party dress at the concentration camp. She dresses for these events knowing everyone else is likely wearing gray, navy, or black.

      1. “She dresses for these events knowing everyone else is likely wearing gray, navy, or black.”

        Indeed. To argue otherwise is to attribute cultural stupidity/ignorance to her in this case, and even I don’t believe that. Surely her parents didn’t raise her to be that socially inept.

    5. The brooch goes into my I’ve asked Kate to wear brooches numerous times and when shoe does….. category. My only real offense with it is it’s as cheap looking s those earrings I detest (and I don’t think they’re that cheap)

    6. They were in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium, where French is not the first language. There is a real linguistic divide and antagonism in Belgium between French-speaking Wallonia and Flemish-speaking Flanders so for Prince William to have spoken in French would have been a major, cringeworthy faux pas.

      1. Oh, that’s interesting, Jen B. Thanks for the info.

        So much for ‘soft diplomacy’. They seem to be guided by people who are as lazy and ignorant as they. Surely this is something that should have been known to avoid insult? I wonder whose job it is to keep them apprised. Off with their heads!

        1. I think you have misunderstood my point. I wasn’t criticising Prince William. I was replying to a post that said he should have spoken in French not English. It seems he was correctly informed – or perhaps he was already informed and well-educated about Belgium.

  5. Commemorations like this are so important. Especially since WWI happened a century ago and it doesn’t mean as much to the younger generations (which I am). We need to remember how horrible the world wars were and to honor those who gave us our freedoms. Freedom isn’t free. The men and women who died should never be forgotten-especially the tombs of those who sacrificed their lives and yet their names were lost.

    I personally could care less what Kate wore today. I am just happy her and William were there because a commemoration like this will get more media attention with them there which in turn will keep those soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom alive and hopefully educate. Commemorations like this help the younger generations know what their great grandparents went through for the future generations. I am happy Kate and Will’s media attention was there today.

    1. I agree. And I also think that it is vitally important that we remember why the World Wars happened, and what lead to them. I really liked what one of the Stutthof survivors said to William about learning lessons from the past mistakes: “I think we have learnt some lessons but we have not learnt enough.” Unfortunately, that all got drowned out because of the discussion of Kate’s clothes.

      1. Which is exactly why getting the clothes right is so important. There are occasions where she needs to stand out and others where she would do better to blend in. The bright pink in the presence of her Queen was wrong, here she seems to be trying to stand out more than the Queen of the Belgiums.

        As an aside can someone explain why the BBC refer to Philippe and Mathilde as King and Queen ‘ of the Belgiums’ not simply ‘of Belgium’?

        1. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the clothes thing because I just don’t think her recent choices have been that big of an issue (aside from being ugly).

          Philippe’s official title is “King of the Belgians”, so that’s why he is referred to as such by the BBC and other outlets. I don’t know why that is, but that is how he is referred to.

        2. From Wikipedia:

          “The proper title of the Belgian monarch is King of the Belgians rather than King of Belgium. The title indicates a popular monarchy linked to the people of Belgium (i.e., a hereditary head of state; yet ratified by popular will), whereas King of Belgium would indicate standard constitutional or absolute monarchy linked to territory or state.[1] For example, in 1830, King Louis Philippe was proclaimed King of the French rather than King of France. The Greek monarch was titled King of the Hellenes, indicating a personal link with the people, not just the state. Moreover, the Latin translation of King of Belgium would have been Rex Belgii, which, from 1815, was the name for the King of the Netherlands. Therefore, the Belgian separatists (i.e. the founders of Belgium) chose Rex Belgarum.[2]

          Belgium is the only current European monarchy that does not apply the tradition of the new monarch automatically ascending the throne upon the death or abdication of the previous monarch. According to Article 91 of the Belgian constitution, the monarch accedes to the throne only upon taking a constitutional oath before a joint session of the two Houses of Parliament.[24] The joint session has to be held within ten days of the death of the deceased or abdicated king. The new Belgian monarch is required to take the Belgian constitutional oath, “I swear to observe the Constitution and the laws of the Belgian people, to maintain the national independence and the integrity of the territory,” which is uttered in the three official languages: French, Dutch, and German.”

    2. White is a sombre colour and while Kate does stand out here, it is not a catastrophic error here. Although. I think she would been better off wearing a more muted gray, black or navy- so that she wouldnt be standing out. Even at the Somme commemorations, she was standing out in that ghastly dun colored lace. I am glad that she at least wore a repeat & it wasn’t a wildly inappropriate choice like wearing florals and summer sandals to a concentration camp, which is a graveyard for so many poor souls.

      However, the convo here should be about the event and the history of it, rather than what Kate wore. It would help if Kate would choose to wear sombre outfits to sombre events.

        1. HAAHHHAA sorry my mistake, MaventheFirst, I meant to say in many cultures, including my own, white is a sombre, funeral color. Of course, white also symbolizes purity and hope, like it would for weddings in the Western world 🙂

  6. You’d think Kate would be honoured to be part of the commemoration but I fail to see any difference in her expressions between a garden party and a war commemoration. And of course she has no quotes no know what she said or thought? The only reason people speak of her clothing is because she brings nothing else to the table. She’s trying to bore us all to death. William’s speech is written by a public servant so he’s demonstrated he can read, at least.

  7. Deeply superficial, I know, but Mathilde has a lovely pair of shoes on.

    Otherwise, it seemed a very moving programme which helped bring the stories of this horrendous battle to life. The projections and poppy petals were particularly touching

  8. This is one of my favorite coats of hers, so I’m glad it’s one she is willing to repeat. I think cream is fine for the event – the problem I had with the concentration camp was the open toed shoes not the florals.

    I also think the broach is fine, the poppy is still the centerpiece.

    William seems better at giving speeches lately. He never was as awkward as Kate, but he is seeming to put more effort into his delivery just the same which is nice to hear.

    I’m glad they are doing more serious events this summer.

    1. Confusion, so please help me out. I see that many commenters have called the4 color of Kate’s coat cream, not white. To me, it looks pure white. Am I missing something?

      I have never been a fan of white probably because I don’t wear it well. My wedding dress was ivory, with a slight blush undertone because I am so fair. When I look at Kate in the photos above I see stark white. May I ask why some are calling it cream? I assume all is in the eye of the beholder.

      1. Color photos (as opposed to black & white) will look different when displayed on a screen whether it is television, computer monitor, laptop screen, tablet, mobile phone. The accurate reproduction of color is a weak spot in electronics. White, pale pink, pale purple and green-blue ranges are prone to shift in tone and intensity.

        A reporter viewing the participants may see the subtle shifts in color that aren’t seen in the photos.

  9. I really encourage everyone to read some of Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen’s poetry about World War I, and I’m glad The Guardian mentioned it in the article KMR quotes. It’s incredibly heartrending and powerfully written; it truly makes you witness to the horrors that these men endured for no profound purpose. Benjamin Britten also set Owen’s works to music in his “War Requiem,” which is well worth the listen and contemplation.

    1. I studied Wilfred Owen at school and can still quote huge chunks of many poems. I am not usually keen on poetry but these are exceptional.

    2. If you want to really see the devastation of WWI might I suggest looking at some of the art work commissioned by the U K War Propaganda Bureau. Look up the following artists: Paul Nash, Christopher R.W. Nevisnson, and Eric Kennington. We viewed a lot of Paul Nash’s work. It really does show you the devastation of war even though he is a surrealist.

  10. I think her outfit was okay. White does still have special royal significance; women when meeting the Pope by custom wear black, but royals can and have worn white. I think this coat would have been better at the concentration camp than her casual florals, minus the hat. And of course she always dresses to stand out, overshadowing even her royal superiors.

    Poor Matilde. Her clothes so often let her down. I would have been fine with the dress without the fussy lace overcoat. When her clothes are right, she’s a stunner. Was this outfit Natan, who is almost as bad as Erdem?

    1. Only the queens of catholic countries can wear white when meeting the pope. I am sure Kate won’t care though.

      Meanwhile today she wears a dress with a heart over the crotch. Why would she think that’s appropriate for anything?

      1. Between her and Matilde it’s a lace explosion. Maybe a tribute to the Belgian lace industry?

        Does anyone know anything about her big pearl jewelry?

        1. I actually love her pearl jewelry she has on today! I think the earrings are loaners from the Queen, which is probably why I like them. I even love her brooch that she’s wearing today!
          Much better accessory game today.
          The one’s from yesterday look like cheap 80s costume jewelry

          1. I was wrong, I saw on twitte that her earrings today were Diana’s. Still explains why I like them tho. I generally don’t like any of her own pearl jewelry.

      2. Today Mathilde also Charles are wearing creme/white at a cemetery. I think that heart thing is an exaggeration. I love that beautiful embriodery.

        1. The heart is the first thing I noticed about the 2nd outfit. Details of the admittedly pretty embroidery don’t stand out from a distance but the heart and its placement certainly do. Very unfortunate. 

          1. Ok, I just saw it. At first glance, all I could see was the embroidery at the bottom of the coat. Had to look twice to see the “Heart” people talked about. I don’t know. Isn’t less more? Why did the coat need that detailing when attending a cemetery? And, why was Mathilde also in lace again? The bodice of her dress was a bit cocktail party to me.

            At least, when Kate put flowers down, there was not fly up of her dress. I am beginning to get bored with the Duke and Duchess. More so, than I have in the past. I feel like there are so many things to criticize and things never improve, or do so just barely. What’s the point? Those words, “What’s the point?” keep playing over and over in my mind. We see things that bother us. We rant, we rave, we often are very civilized and nothing changes. Surrounding oneself with more positive things seems to be an idea that is calling out to me more and more lately.

          2. @jenny

            I totally understand your ennui. On the other hand, this is the future of the monarchy, we are witnessing its foreshadowing, so I think consistent and observable changes are important to remark upon.

          3. I think this is why royal families existence in this century is a big misterium. And also why the Commonwealth countries have not voted for their full independence yet. At least 70 years ago

        2. The original version of this dress didn’t have an obvious heart at that spot and yet her version does. It’s so weird.
          Besides she has other outfits that are similar that she could have reworn.

          So much waste and so shallow. WWI started because European royalty was greedy and out of touch and the peasants ended up losing their lives for them. I guess nothing has changed much in that regard when it comes to royalty.

          1. I went and looked. It’s a Freudian heart, and in appliqued lace (of course)! That’s hilarious! Yes, the original is different; I don’t understand the intent of changing it. I wonder how much this new coat cost. I wonder if she had a new dress underneath.

          2. Maven, I could not find the reply button to reply to your other comment, so I will do so here.

            I agree that William and Kate are the future of the monarchy and that is why so many care enough to comment here. I was just thinking lately — and so I said it — that I am so frustrated that nothing, or very little ever changes with them.

            It boggles my mind that people who are given so much, give so little in return. Also, that they don’t seem to even try to research things, understand issues, and really show some sort of interest in the world around them.

            Their ineptitude is startling each time it rears its ugly head and I ask myself, why am I still amazed by it? Do I really think they will ever change?

        1. The top link Grace provided shows the original of Kate’s dress had more vines crossing near the bottom of the “heart.” That makes the open shape much less of a heart and much more of an abstract symmetrical shape. Since the lace is hand-appliqued it had to be an intentional decision on somebody’s part to leave Kate’s design more open and therefore more heart-shaped. I wonder why? Some commenting on other sites say Kate wanted to send a message that love triumphs over evil. Maybe. Seems a little juvenile to me but I’m not into secret symbols in clothing anyway.  But sending any public message, particularly a “love message,” from that part of a woman’s garment? 

          1. There should have been a ‘second eye’ looking over the assembly of K’s coat to look for an image created in an area that was unsuitable. It reflects badly on the designer and the person who directs the team making the garment.

    2. Le privilège du blanc only applies to certain Catholic monarchs and royals, not all. Charlene showing up in white confounded some people, because they didn’t think that rule applied to Monaco. Grace wore black to meet popes.

        1. I think he’s more relaxed as in not requiring the Spanish queen to wear a tiara and black mantilla for visits as in the past. That doesn’t mean he has eliminated Le privilège du blanc. The Swedish royals still wore all-black and covered their heads with black lace, and they are not Catholic and obviously do not have PdB.

          1. I kind of regret any relaxing of those rules, even though it’s more in tune with the modern world. I’ve said before that Queen Elizabeth looked fabulous in black dress and veil with diamond jewelry for a papal visit

  11. There’s no quotes from Kate, but I don’t think consorts gets to speak. The same thing heappend when the spanish royal family visited the UK. Only the King spoke, right?
    I would Mind the clothes in the past, but since the queen herself wore a bright colour after a terrorist atack, I wont give anyone a hard time about colour of clothes..

  12. Mathilde’s look was very mother-of-the- ride. Why the lace over-coat? As one above pointed out, perhaps because of the skills of Belgian lace makers. But, oh, my. It was more of a cocktail dress to me, than something to be donned at such an event. Oh, well. Here we are talking about the women’s clothing again. I mentioned above how important I think it is to never forget the service and sacrifices made by so many in the world wars. Again, the poppies being dropped must have been very poignant.

    1. “Mathilde’s look was very mother-of-the-bride.”

      Yaaaaaas, girl! My mother actually wore something very similar to my own wedding and it kept popping into my head (when I took a short break from being unbelievably moved by the ceremony and sacrifice, that is).

      1. Ah, and I am sure your mother looked beautiful at your wedding!

        So many touching moments in the Belgian ceremony. So many lovely ways that people still want to pay homage.

        And, bluhare, I also was touched by your comment. So many in your family fought there. And, one passed away? Such acts of bravery and care for others.
        We all need to be reminded of such service.

  13. KMR thank you for the detailed post! I enjoyed learning more about this battle and I think it’s lovely that Kate and William traveled to be a part of this beautiful ceremony.

    I think Kate looks entirely appropriate. Susan at What Kate Wore noted that the Queen herself often wears white to commemorative events for military battles. I’m also glad that someone clued her in that there are other neutral colors besides nude. The poppies falling was so beautiful it almost made me forget about that awful looks-like-it’s-turned-inside-out hat.

    Mathilde looks lovely but I think this ensemble ages her unnecessarily… she’s only 44 and to me, this looks like something much better suited to an older woman.

    1. Mathilde has dressed “middle aged” for years. My guess is if she appeared older from the beginning, fewer people would focus on the 13 year gap between herself and her husband.

      1. This made me LOL! What an excellent point. You have me wondering if I would change the way I dress if I had married someone older… maybe I would! I might, if I were Mathilde, feel added pressure to not dress younger than my King-husband looks.

        1. There were plenty of rumors about him as he did not marry until age 39. Then he shows up with a secret three year romance, a young woman who just happens to be from impoverished Belgian-and-Polish nobility? Her 26 to his 39 raised eyebrows, so her adopting middle aged dress from age 26 on likely quieted some of that.

  14. The hat and the hair net look ridiculous. meh on the shoes. The coat is too small for her in the torso, it’s pulling. I like the jewelry and the poppy.

  15. I’m actually having trouble getting worked up about this outfit: I was v pleased to see that it was almost all repeats (apart from the shoes), and even the off-white colour didn’t bother me. But I can see how people would find it problematic (esp. since I was one of those up in arms about the floral Erdem with the open toed sandals at the concentration camp). I hadn’t thought of the problem of wearing a poppy near a non-mil brooch, though, so thanks to commenters for pointing that out.

  16. I can’t believe I’m saying this. It must be the horrendous heat wave we are suffering through and being away from home for two weeks. There has to be a reason.
    It seems to me that Kate in a few, very very few, instances can’t win. If I remember correctly, she was criticized for her outfit choice at the Concentration Camp. I absolutely agree that she was totally wrong in showing off her bare legs and painted toes. However, if memory serves people were saying (no one specific so please don’t hurt me), that white was the color of mourning in some cultures, and now she’s wearing white. And, I find myself thinking that her maniacal grin face is one of two. Her sad respectful face and I’m ever so happy happy happy to be here, especially since y’all have to ***blech, never ever happen for me*** curtsey to me. I don’t think that her outfit was all that noticeable in this engagement, she looks fake and not a bit regal, but this time I can’t go to the ‘what Kate wore and shouldn’t have place’. I find myself thinking that people, myself included, can show respect for historical events and lives lost, but it’s difficult to make it personal. I think Kate tried here, maybe a bit too hard in the sad/respectful face but I’m not so sure that I could have done better.
    That’s my nice for today.

  17. Kate’s new private Secretary has been announced, and my first thought when reading catherine Quinn’s biography were, this woman has been brought in to whip the duchess of Doolittle into shape!

    The woman looks like she takes no prisoners and her record in various areas (including training interestingly) is impressive.

    The news of the shake ups in the royal households this weekend, seem to me to be a concerted effort to whip everyone into shape and on the same page.

    It’s looking interesting! How good would it be if we have the workshy three really working. Mind you I reckon if Ms Quinn cracks the whip too much, we might have another royal baby on the way, that’s good for a couple of years of not doing much.

    Call me cynical, and I’m agreeing with you.

    Ps am I right that today’s catherine walker is yet another new coat dress? It seems to be although again it is similar to one she already owns.

    1. I agree the new lady is someone with real talent. Hope she can make a real difference. Look at her style alone she looks professional and appropriate.
      Yes another new coat dress her spending at a time when the UK has so many issues makes me feel really ill.
      I am also very cross that our PM ( whatever you think of her…this is a non political comment) should have to curtesy to Kate. Any and all of our PMs should only curtesy bow to the HoS, not their grandkids and grandkids in law.

      1. Agree. If I were Kate, I would be *mortified* that anyone, least of all the PM, would “have to” curtsey to me and would insist — and let it be known through pre-meeting briefings — that people not do it. But then, if I were Kate I’d be doing a LOT of things differently…

        1. And this is why I have no patience when Kate can’t figure out the etiquette on how to wear a poppy or how to dress sombrely. She can’t change up the rules and then expect the ridiculous curtseying and titles from others. If she can’t live up to the puffed up position she has been given then she shouldn’t be afforded any special privileges. Kate and Will half ass all the work and still expect all the luxury and kowtowing.

          1. The Queen wears sparkly brooches with her poppy pins. So if the Queen does it it would make sense that Kate would think a brooch with a poppy pin in acceptable since clearly the Queen thinks it is.

        2. KM put her life on hold for 10 long years so that people would have to bow & curtsey to her. It’s all about the titles & trappings for her.

    2. I think with the staff changes it is an attempt by BP and CH to whip KP into shape.

      I wonder if this woman will have to answer to the idiocy that is Miguel Head and Jason Knauf. She should not answer to those two sycophants… She seems like a good choice!

      Insofar as Kate’s brand new coat dress I make a face at how much money she spends, and how she isn’t wearing a dress under it. And pics of them laughing at the graveyard are in really bad taste. Kate, honey, get a new hairstylist, you look like a middle aged lunch lady every day, it’s bad! Brooch and earrings are lovely.

      I’m cynical and expect baby 3 soon enough to avoid work for awhile. Philip’s retiring, they need another excuse, and William will have another gap year excuse I’m sure. :/

      1. Combine her and Lorraine Heggessey and suddenly we have some really strong women in the Cambridge team and I’m with you……the Cambridges didn’t make these appts. HMTQ and PoW are knocking some heads together (see what I did here) and putting some serious direction into the team that up until now has been run on William’s Whims.

      2. It’s interesting that Diana’s death has prompted so much talk of William and Harry as ‘the boys’, as if they are still bereaved teenagers. William’s baldness and their frankly almost middle age says otherwise.

        1. Colloquialism I think. My Mum and my Gran still refer to my sister and I as ‘the girls’ and we are both in our 40’s.

          1. I agree in family settings people may refer to younger members as the children, the boys, the girls, whatever. I have an elderly aunt who refers to my cousins as “the children” (and they are her children) even though these “children” have grown children of their own. And maybe people who call W&H “the boys”, especially in the UK, feel about them the way they do members of their own family. But it is an infantilizing term. And Will seems to try to use the idea that he is just a poor motherless “boy” to his advantage at times. I haven’t seen Kate referred to as a “girl” recently but I have seen discussions get kind of heated on another site when some posting insisted Kate is “very young” and others point out 35 is often considered the approach of  “middle-age.” So I do think when used outside of family settings these terms can carry connotations about whether one is in a fully responsible adult phase of life or still bumbling about in a formative pre-adult phase. And expectations for behavior differ at those two life phases.

        2. William looks much older than most men of his age whom I know. My husband, looks at least ten years younger than he is. William’s genes may be part of his issue, but his anger may also be a part of the reason he is aging so rapidly. Smile more, William and try to enjoy life more, too. You certainly have advantages and perks so many don’t. Be thankful and it will show!

    3. Debra Green, thank you for sharing. Pardon my ignorance, but who hired this new secretary? Did Kate initially hire Rebecca? From all you have said, perhaps, the Royals are about to be whipped into line. And, as some think, that means make room for baby number 3!

      We will see what happens, but a woman of such excellence will certainly have a say in lax attitudes and poor dressing at important events. It’s about time someone guides Kate to take her position more seriously.

    4. It will be interesting to see what happens over the remainder of the year. I was surprised someone with that experience would want to work as Kate’s secretary. If she is brought on to get Kate’s act together I think she has a really difficult task at hand because all three of the musketeers seem really entrenched in their aw of themselves.

      1. SHe looks like one very elegant and very professional woman. Does Kate realize what she is in for? How will William protect her from this?

        So many times the lax ways of the Duke and Duchess have not been addresed by senior Royals. Is this their way of doing so?

        Let the learning process for Kate begin1 If she has even one quarter of a brain, she may just realize how important this woman will become in her life.

  18. This has been an interesting conversation! Not knowing much about European customs, I quickly googled some of my questions and found that Queen Elizabeth is most often shown wearing sparkly brooches with her poppy, and at the Solemn D-Day commemorations to mark the 70th anniversary of the event, the queen wore a bright lime green ensemble including matching hat, and Camilla wore…white!

    1. I thought I remember HM wearing lime green for DDay. But what I really remember is her bringing out the big diamond guns . . . she wore her Cullinan brooch I think.

    2. Yeppers, the Queen has worn white and bright colors to war-related commemorations.

      At D-Day HM the Queen wore a lime green coat with a floral dress underneath. I know about the floral dress because she had the coat off for the official picture with the other world leaders who attended the event.

      For that same event, Camilla wore white/cream and Queen Margrethe of Denmark wore bright blue, but IMO it was Queen Maxima of the Netherlands who won the day by wearing a yellow jacket and head piece over a print skirt with pink and green being the dominant colors, and if that was not enough we were treated to a skirt fly up and gurning with Barack Obama.

      1. What I’m not understanding (being new to this website) is why there is a problem with Kate wearing white or a brooch with the poppy. I would think lime green would make one stand out more than a white ensemble! Is the queen trying to draw attention to herself or insult the deceased by wearing lime green? LOL Is there a royal ‘rank’ that determines who can wear white to a cemetery? Or brooch with the poppy? Perhaps I need to read some older posts because I can’t figure out why it is o.k. for Camilla to wear white and Kate is lambasted for doing so. I know the British have more social rules than we Americans, but I can’t locate these color and brooch wearing rules on the internet.

        1. The Canadian legion states that you are not supposed to wear anything over a poppy, including a flag pin. Since the poppy tradition stems from both Canada and the UK participating in WWI and the poppies in Flanders fields, the etiquette is the same. Now the Queen has served and you can wear military badges near the poppy. Kate hasn’t done any of that and frankly hasn’t earned any special privileges to embellish the poppy.

          The White has more to do with Kate always wearing something to be noticed. The other women all wore something darker and she did not. Trying to say white is a colour of mourning is just trying to excuse how once again Kate couldn’t be bothered to check with Mathilde or anyone else as to the colour scheme. Kate isn’t the queen or the consort, but seems to think she has those privileges.

          1. In my hunting I have only found guidelines discouraging people from pinning things through the poppy, and even then the “rules” seem pretty lax:



            Also, I learned that this was originally an American custom! Say what? I think it’s lovely that it was adopted and continues to this day… Maybe I’ll revive it here stateside!

          2. The American Legion posts assemble these every year and sell them. The proceeds are used to “only for the welfare of veterans and their families and active-duty military and their families when a financial or medical necessity exists.” You can find a post near you at http://www.legion.org

      2. Just where is Camilla? She wants to be Queen , there’s a lot of stuff going on to make us want that, yet at such an important event she is where??? On a yacht in the Med perhaps, or with her grandkids? Too busy to attend. Many Camilla sugars on KMR so where is she?

        1. I will be interested in what Camilla’s total engagement numbers are for this year, because it seems to me like she has been largely absent this year. I know she’s been out and about periodically, but it seems much less so than last year.

        2. I think she should have been there. I do know she’s not in the best of health, so perhaps that has something to do with it. Could be skipping it for her grandkids. Either way, I expect to see her there and would have much rather seen her than Kate.

        3. I don’t think Camilla wants to be queen. I’m not even sure she wanted to marry Charles in 2005. She isn’t the one pushing for her to be recognized as Queen not Princess Consort in the future. That would be her husband Charles who has that agenda.

          I did a not-so-quick run through the incredibly annoying Court Circular which keeps double-posting things. I have Camilla at 120+ engagements thus far this year. Don’t know if my counting on the CC matches O’Donovans personal tracking.

          1. The online CC is often not updated, it’s missing quite a bit.

            I don’t think Camilla wants to be queen consort. She seems pretty ambivalent. I think she should be, she is married to the man who will be king. I’d rather see Queen Camilla as opposed to Queen Catherine…

  19. I love the church all lit up. I’m assuming that’s the church.
    Yes this is about the men who fought and the battles but sadly it’s always going to be about fashion with Kate. Yes, she wore pieces she already owned but does she not have darker colors that she could have worn? Even dark blue would have been fitting. If we’re going to applaud her for wearing older pices why not older pices that would have been more fitting for this occasion.
    I think it’s part of her must stick out mentality. Like I said on the other post. Wearing red when others wear white or here wearing white when 99.9% are in dark colors. And I don’t know if it’s kate or her team who gets it wrong. I actually like this dress just not for this occasion. I hate everything else.
    Thanks for the history lesson. I’m not as versed in WW1 as I am in 2. I know the fundamentals but that’s about it. I always think of All quiet on the Western Front when I think about ww1. The things that stick with you.

  20. Not sure if anyone commented above but I couldnt go through all the comments. All white is a color of mourning in many parts of Asia. Also, it means, if any wars are going on, truce. She wore a similar color when she visited New Delhi, India Gate, which I think is perfect. She didn’t have any flyaway clothes or unwanted shows put on. I would give her credit for that.

    1. Yes, but is it a color that is recognized in Belgium for that reason? I think people here are tired of the ineptitude of Kate’s staff whom we feel may not research things enough. Or, for her not following their direction. In the second case, we are tired of her.

      Most importantly, it is good to have had this history lesson and may we all pay homage to those who served and sacrificed — and their loved ones – to ensure our own freedom in the world. Time and time again.

        1. White is not a traditional choice for sombre occasions throughout Europe. Fabiola, as a devout Catholic, was probably highlighting the idea that he was now in heaven.

      1. As I have been reading the comments and viewed photos I was thinking at least I did not get flashed. To be honest the only thing I have not seen on Kate yet is her vagina. So to highlight the area with either holding her clutch there or have the heart put there kind of creeps me out. Why do that? It is just so odd but at least several years on of near constant butt flashing in public she has stopped that.

        1. Kate’s dress has flown up enough where we’ve seen parts we’d rather not see on anyone, I’d imagine. Getting off the plane in New Zealand on that windy day holding George and struggling to contain the skirt while William ignored both of them (jerk).

          1. Ellie,

            Not all British men are as thoughtless as William. There are a number of instances were he has left his wife high and dry. i remember one time when they were at church and the Queen started her little walk about and Kate pulled the girl assistant who was going to hold the flowers away from the Queen to follow her instead. You can clearly see both William and Harry laughing and making fun of Kate. I do not remember how long they were married at that time but I do not believe it was that long. I admired Eugenie because instead of laughing along she stepped in and assisted her Grandmother. Eugenie just assisted without making a fuss or anything whilst the two people who say they love both Kate and their Grandmother just were laughing and joking about Kate’s action. I was sad for her.

          2. And William laughed and ignored Kate when her heel got stuck, and walked ahead. She has to hurry up to go after him since he is so inconsiderate. Isabella Branson called him a boor, and this is the truth!

          3. Kate Middleton was inserting herself into a long-running tradition of Beatrice and Eugenie helping their grandmother with flowers at church. This was a role given to them when very young children, probably as a way to help them feel appreciated and welcomed after their parents divorce.

            William and Kate Middleton get in plenty of passive aggressive digs at each other in public. It is by no means a one-sided situation, but rather a sign of how contentious this relationship has always been.

    2. She’s not in Asia, she’s in Belgium. She is supposed to honor the culture of the country she is visiting at the moment, no? That’s why Letizia wore that horrid hat during the State visit to the UK.

    3. Credit for not flashing her panties? Pulease! The mere fact that she did so, not once, but so many times — especially at somber moments — is something that is too hard to forget.

      Let’s blame the papers for publishing those photos. Let’s never, ever cast any blame on the Duchess. I mean, come on, it could happen to anyone! Unless, of course, one has any iota of common sense and decency.

    1. I wonder this about a lot of the hats/fascinators I see on the British… hats just aren’t really a thing in America like they are in England and so many of them seem so outlandish I can’t help but wonder if the designer was trying to be ridiculous on purpose.

      1. I think hat designers are always trying to do something different but there are only so many variations you can apply to hats before straying close to outlandish. Mostly I really dislike royal hats. They just look silly.

    2. Just my opinion but all female hats over here (UK) are ugly. Really ugly and do not forget those horrid fascinators. Why???? I do not get it and every wedding I go to I flat out refuse to wear a hat. At a really good friend’s weddings (he had two on in his Church and one in her religion) actually none of the women wore hats. It was so nice not to see those ugly things. It could be I do not get it because I am not a native Brit but American.

  21. For Gods sake will HMTQ just send Angela Kelly on secondment to KP. This can’t carry on indefinitely. It’s embarrassing us on the world stage not that you’d know it from the DM this evening who seem to think that sartorially Kate never puts a Gianvito Rossi shod foot wrong. Talking of shoes can anyone tell me who designed Queen Mathilde’s shoes? They are spectacular.

    On a brighter note this new Private Secretary’s CV sounds as if she has more brains than Knauf, Head and both Cambridges combined so let’s hope she knocks Dumb & Dumber into shape and inspires Kate the Keen into becoming a woman of substance? For a start she’s certainly better dressed than Ms Deacon-Priestly. And she had two degrees. I bet she never bought those.

    1. I am surprised that a woman with such a CV would want to bother with these dimwits. I don’t see Kate changing at this point and the pay is supposedly poor, so why even bother. There might be prestige working for the Queen, but not Kate.

      1. I think that HMTQ and PoW are behind this appt. No way did Katie Keen wake up one morning and decide to appoint someone with this impressive a CV who would be satisfied with working three days a month. I suspect this appt. has been made to knock Kate in some form of shape……so expect an accidental pregnancy any time soon.

        1. +1 Nic919 & MrsBBV

          Katie Keen cannot become a woman of substance because there is no foundation to build upon. I honestly think that her attitude is that her work was done once the ring of doom was placed upon her finger, and the hardest “work” she’s ever done was waiting around being at William’s beck+call. Anyone who has so little self-respect and intellectual curiosity is not going to change at age 35, no matter who HM brings in to whip her into shape. Same for William. He has been coddled and allowed to play the “Mummy died!” card for 20 years now.

          For all their crowing about filling up their diaries, I am sure there will be push back from W+K, which could result in them acting even worse when they are made to do more work. If William hasn’t been *snipped* already, then baby #3 would not surprise me in the least.

        2. I was actually expecting them to announce the new Mrs. Matthews as the Katie Keen sidekick Pippa Privileged.

        3. I think K may get a LIW now or at least a person who is tasked with collecting bouquets and objects from her engagements. I can’t see the new private secretary performing that function. The secretary would have an assistant to tag along on those domestic engagements.

          1. It’s not the job of a Private Secretary to collect flowers etc. A Private Secretary acts as an advisor and is a very high powered job.

            I wish the new lady, Catherine Quinn, well in her new role.

          2. I think not, because wasn’t heir schtick from day one about how normal they are, how Kate doesn’t need help or a lady in waiting, blah-blah-blah, all the while having a staff at the “cottage” (really a large house on a private estate) in Wales? And still they push this idea they are normal housewife and househusband with the kids. It’s the narrative. I wonder how this will change, or if it will; the ‘we’re so normal we don’t have a huge staff to look after us and no nannies!’ stuff.

    2. Exactly, I have too have a feeling that this lady with such an impressive resume has been brought into lessen the stranglehold of Mama Middleton & whip Kate into something resembling a professional and intelligent 35 year old woman. The new Private Secretary appears to be a no BS kind of woman too! I would expect a lot less of Kate dressing in silly lace and Peter Pan collars, her skirts & hair flying up everywhere and maybe just maybe to stop telling us how keen Kate is to work & actually just get to work!

      1. Considering what her salary would be worth given two degrees etc she has to be there for giving value. She’s not a highly qualified piece of fluff / flower carrier for sure. I truly believe things are changing in preparation for a Regent / transition of power and PoW, who has a reputation for quiet stealth when putting the knife in is finally taking a grip of the situation that has developed. It would certainly add currency to the rumoured chill between PoW an his eldest son over the last 18 months. Curiouser and curiouser. Xx

        1. I do hope Charles can get them all together to work effectively as a group, as HM says they are the family business, the firm, and they have to all do their parts. And the elder cousins ought to retire and relax, with W, K, and H taking up the slack; and potentially Beatrice who I think would be a wonderful asset indeed. Keep Anne and Sophie, they rock, and Edward seems like such a nice man–something about him I like and I’ve only heard good things about what a gentle person he is.

    3. What is even curious about this nomination, is that it comes in a time of senior officials leaving (plus rumors):
      – HM’s Deputy Private Secretary leaving after a decade of service
      – Rebecca Deacon (KM’s Private Secretary) after 5 years working for Kate and 5 years working for PH and PW
      – Rumors of Miguel Head (PW Private Secretary) leaving
      – Rumors of Edward Fox Lane (PH’s Private Secretary) leaving

      This fits right into the rumors of a rift between Kensington Palace; Buckingham Palace and Clarence House. I don’t remember the article, but I read one that stated there were tensions between the 3 houses because Charles wanted to unify the 3 in a central unit. They tried and it didn’t work.

      I agree that with the fellow commenters (MrsBBV, Red Tulip) that it looks like PoW’s hand. If true, I’m gonna say : FINALLY !! If Charles continues this way, then KP might have a competent office. If Miguel Head and Ed Lane leave, then I hope they are replaced with people as competent as Catherine Quinn looks to be. Maybe then the lazy trio might do a better job.

      Plus for the staff, I found this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4478788/Right-hand-man-tells-royals-rivalries-aside.html?login

      1. You know I often wondered with that statement whether HMTQ had told PoW and Prince William to get their acts together before she briefed the household. It really does sound like she’s getting her ducks in a row. A quasi retirement without actually announcing her own retirement? She has looked really tired and quiet slow over the last few months.

      2. I find it fascinating that Kate and William will now have three strong and successful women (Carole Middleton, Lorraine Heggessey and now Catherine Quinn) surrounding them. Have to admit that I can’t wait to see how it all plays out.

  22. +1kmr. Thanks for all of the recent reminders to be civil, to lay off the parenting comments, and to take the focus off the clothes.

    1. Why would we want to take the focus off the clothes? That’s one of the most fun bits of commentating and let’s face it if we didn’t talk about the clothes we would be hardly blessed with Kate’s workload to keep us going. I hardly think KMR is trying to embargo fashion discussion on the blog given that she always includes what the Royal ladies are wearing in her write ups.

      1. Noting what the royals are wearing is different than engaging in fight to the death style comments about what the royals are wearing. The emphasis is on refraining from the latter. You noted that talking about the clothing as one of the fun parts, and I agree, but the comment threads have been surpassing fun and heading straight to nasty personal attacks, about other commenters and about the royals to the point where it’s not fun anymore. I think KMR is asking for some restraint so that it can become fun again, and I agree and support her in that.

          1. I took a few days away from my iPad because all the Diana stuff in the media since the boys interview has been upsetting me. I knew it was going to be rancorous in July / August but I never expected it to be so bad, her memory to be so besmirched and the Settleden tapes are just beyond the pale. I thought it was safe to come back in the water. Xx

          2. Mrs BBV, it seems to be getting even worse with the tapes–which weren’t they talked about ages ago, and now they’re out, to just get more cash for the media and attention, using her for that when she’s dead… It’s awful.

        1. Absolutely Rose and Lauri.

          I never did cover the final day of the Poland/Germany tour because I just didn’t want to deal with the negativity about William and Kate’s parenting and the kids’ personalities. And I haven’t covered day 2 in Belgium because I don’t want to deal with the negativity about Kate’s clothes.

          It’s one thing to comment on this stuff and be critical of it, but when the discussion is consumed by arguments and negativity then it’s just not fun. This is supposed to be fun.

          1. KMR I’m sure this is something you’ve considered but I would love to read your recaps and commentary even if I couldn’t comment (ie posts with the comments turned off).

            I have really appreciated all of the background information you provide, and I find it’s not something a lot of the other bloggers I read do.

          2. I’m sorry KMR, that you’ve put so much work and effort into this blog and for some reason the comment section has become a giant bitch fest. The sad part is that you could talk all day long about how people should be kinder with their comments or a bit more thoughtful before they comment but the people you are trying to reach will never see themselves as part of the problem. And really it’s only a couple of folks that just don’t get it. 🙁

            As much as I would hate to see you shut down this site, I wouldn’t blame you a bit if you did.

          3. I know what you mean KMR.

            The monarchy is serious business. And while I do side-eye many of WK’s choices and PR moves, I feel people take this way, way too seriously and read far too much into absolutely everything.

            People take their daily life’s frustrations out on internet forums. For some people, that is right here.

            I would be totally cool if you held comments on posts for the next couple weeks, even a full month, and then opened it up again to see how things go. Your blog is awesome and you would for certain still get views and your work would not go unappreciated.


          4. Yeah, I find the rush of criticizing Kate for everything pretty crazy. Like the poppy. There are things to criticize and comment on–and sadly with Kate there isn’t much substance to comment upon but her clothes. Part of me wonders if that is why. There is nothing to talk about with her, she’s an empty vessel/cardboard cutout/mannequin/what have you.

          5. I totally understand. Some posters don’t know what the word “critical” means, and can only reply with mean, melicious , demeaning comments. This forum used to be fun, but has become out of hand ! I hope things improve, but can certainly feel your disappointment!

          6. KMR, I meant to post a thank you for your through and fair posts following the recent tour. I really enjoy reading your round-ups of royal events, even though we sometimes disagree on things. Thank you for doing what you do, and I completely understand the need to take a break.

            I think a few of the comments in reply to mine in this thread are proving a point here. It’s sad to me that people can’t refrain from throwing shade at Kate’s workload or character in a thread which is positively praising an effort to be kinder to each other and to those who aren’t present to speak for themselves.

          7. KMR, first off, let me say I enjoy this blog and I have learned a lot about the royal family. The background you give on some of the more notable engagements is always very well researched. I have been trying to think before I post and I have tried to be less snarky, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think many of us here are just disappointed in the lack of commitment by W/K/H, so it is frustrating. I still have hope that with Kate’s new secretary and the DoE stepping down that we will see some positive changes. What I think happens is that because of the lack of substance, Kate’s fashion choices have become an outlet to express dissatisfaction and negativity. For me personally, I have just accepted the fact that she is not going to be a style innovator and will rarely surprise me with her clothing choices. Yes, I think her wardrobe is dull and many times the lack of good tailoring for someone in her position is just appalling, but my attitude is now “Oh well, that’s Kate”. My point is, just think a bit before you post and do not attack others if you disagree with their opinion and if you do disagree there are ways to state your position using non-combative language.

          8. I would also like to see more out of W/K/H too, but that doesn’t justify calling Kate an empty vessel, or workshy, or responding to other commenters in a hateful way.

          9. Not only negativity I sense a lot blind hatred towards Kate as if she would have done a fatal sin towards some people here. Kate is not a saint she makes mistakes a lot, she could work more she should have learned her royal lessons etc. But when some posters can’t see any good in Kate I can’t seriously take their unfriendly criticism of Kate because in their eyes she can not win. Never. This kind of nasty malignancy, agressivity and yes, bully until everybody just shut up if they disagree… it is misbehaviour. Well, this is my motive why I started to comment at this blog after years of silent reading even though my english is far from the perfect, because that is not “appropiate” to attack each other opinions in disaggrement. So I understand and you are right the discussion here is not fun mostly because of the unnecessary hysteria instead of real negative criticism. Still
            I hope you rethink about posting the last day of the Poland-Germany tour, beacause I loved that purple levander dress and George was über cute on the helicopter and Charlotte is a little lady.

          10. KateMiddleReview,

            I apologise if I have been part of the non courteous reviews. I in no way have ever wanted to be negative as I feel there is more than enough meanness in society without pushing the agenda forward. I will admit that I am highly critical of the royal family as I see there is such waste in money, and I do not believe one person is better than another which is the entire premises of the royal family. So if I have crossed the line please forgive me as at no point would I want to come onto your board and cause any problems.

          11. I’m with MrsBBV, Overit and TC-P on this discussion. And in the years I have followed this blog, among my favorite posters. MrsBBV, you especially are a gem!

            While I agree with you, KMR, about not discussing religion and politics, I think that as long as the Royals take the public dime, they are open to public criticism. If some of it is extremely critical, so what? Royals have PR people who manipulate the public so much, the public can and should call it like it sees it.

            I have always enjoyed the free speech aspect of the blog, LoveLolaHeart, and the Daily Mail in its comment sections. The DM comments are over the top a lot of times and I know they manipulate their content, but I just move on. Even if they are over the top, they are hilarious.

            Your comment policy is spot on, IMO. However, I think it is being taken out of context by several posters. Calling Kate “work shy” doesn’t begin to rise to the level of a vicious attack or hateful language. Calling her out for exhibitionism is fair game, too.

            If you, KMR, decide to turn off the comments, I will leave the blog. I realize that matters not to anyone, but what is a blog site without comments? Deadly dull is what it is.

            Just my 2 cents.

          12. First of all, thank you KMR for this blog! I have spent many many hours reading your post and reading the comments and really enjoyed most of the time!

            I usually don’ t read the comments on Kate posts so thoroughly anymore, because of the negativity. And I’ve basically stopped commenting on Kate subjects quite a while a go. I felt I got disrespected just because I had a different opinion, in favour of Kate on that occasion. It took the fun out of it. I can imagine that perhaps I’m not the only one who thinks at least twice before writing ones opinion, to avoid being attacked. Which is sad because I really could use the practise in English. If English was my first, or even second language, then it perhaps wouldn’t be so intimidating being “bullied” because I could better defend myself. Maybe there are more non-English speaking readers that feel the same?
            I sometimes comment on posts about the Swedes, things that most likely can’t end up in an argument and insulting.But it isn’t that fun.

            I don’t know if me saying anything makes any difference to anything. I don’t want everyone to agree on everything, just to be nice to each other. No matter opinions. I’ll start with me, now 🙂

        2. Rose you make it sound as if commentators wish to criticise then they should not do it here? Whilst I accept there have been some threads that have got out of hand I cannot support a ‘postitive comment’ only approach which is what it sounds like you are suggesting?

          The strength of this site has been KMR’s ability to educate, inform and foster a forum where debate and constructive criticism flourish. Inevitably there will be times when posters overstep the mark and quiet often comments and tone are misinterpreted because of the different languages, cultures and countries this forum is made up from but that’s life in cyberspace, especially when your audience is International. One takes the rough with the smooth and moderation here whilst allowing free flow of thoughts and ideas has always been succinct and to the point without suffocating. One of the reasons it’s so widely respected.

          There is a fine line to be had but you seem to be advocating this forum take a complete change of direction? Personally I would be very sad to see this site lose it’s humour, it’s educational qualities, it’s wide and varied posters, it’s debating base and intellect and it’s occasional and it is occasional rumbustiousness.

          Respect for other posters yes but I will not only blow sunshine at those we come here to discuss, learn and write about.

          1. Btw why would you object to Kate being called workshy and class that as hateful speech? She is workshy and in the UK that is a perfectly acceptable way to describe someone who is consistently out worked by two nonogenarians? It’s not hateful…..it’s accepted across Britain that Kate is lazy hence the Duchess of Doolittle nickname in the media. Are you saying that even that’s unacceptable talk on this forum? I’m not trying to be obtuse or sarcastic and I am trying to understand your position but if that’s your definition of what is unacceptable talk for this forum then we are poles apart and very unlikely to find common ground.

          2. Hi Mrs BBV, while I can’t speak for Rose, I have to ask why can’t we find some middle ground? As you can see unthread KMR hasn’t posted anything yet about yesterday’s event because she doesn’t want to deal with the negativity, doesn’t that suggest to you that maybe we’ve gone a bit overboard on our “criticisms” and need to dial it back?

          3. Hi Mrs BBV, I would also like to point out that this is KMR’s site, it’s not a democracy it’s a Kmr-ocracy and if she asks that we tone it down, then we should tone it down.

          4. Laurie I do agree to a point but and let me give you an example there are many times I have been accused of being a ‘pearl clutching Brit’ and a ‘Camilla sugar’ I don’t like it much but I try to assume that no one has meant to be offensive and upset me but that something, usually my sense of humour, has got lost in translation.

            I find 99%’of posters here respectful and the odd one who goes too far……and that is KMR’s remit to deal with as she sees fit but if we are going to be policed or called out to use one of Rose’s examples for such innocuous comment as saying Kate is workshy then why bother having discussion? All forums have cycles of good and bad times as much relative to their subject matter but only two weeks ago look at how positive and joyous the board was over the state visit from Spain?

            It does bother me that KMR feels upset at the tone that sometimes develops but that is the time to take a break or dare I suggest it KMR you should appoint yourself a couple of mood moderators to tackle the comment workload so you are not overburdened. There are some posters like you Lauri or Rhiannon (not to heap work onto you but it’s just an idea) who command respect across the board who would be ideal in supporting KMR in moderating comment. It must be soul destroying to see the board disintegrate into unrest but as I say for the most part I think this site and it’s users play fair. I am happy to pledge and be more mindful about respecting other posters but surely not to be policed and micro managed in speech to the degree of Rose’s example? The board would like lose all it’s spontaneity and more importantly it would put barriers up where language is colloquially used and means no offence?

            Of course I accept that this is KMR’s site but I’m sure she would agree the success of it comes from all of us working together and I have publically and privately committed to providing her with my support wherever I can. Xx

          5. I agree with your comments Mrs BBV. The suggestion to shut down the blog to comments for a few weeks? Who says that to any blogger and especially one with this kind of traffic? And why suggest such draconian measures, a sure recipe for failure?
            The only one it would punish is KMR.

            This topic keeps getting raised by the same people who will not be satisfied, it seems to me, until critics are pushed out. There are millions of positive blogs out there, so I don’t understand sitting on this one.

            And one more thing: I am sure this blog began with the best of intentions, hoping to follow and review Kate’s keen and active participation in the royal family and in public life as she originally promised. She has been a total bust on that score. So what is left? To actually ascribe to her qualities she does not possess, to actually applaud her limp attempts at work etc. etc., is to support the lie. She *is* workshy by any standard and yet even that is considered a sour word.

            I don’t buy the excuse that people won’t comment here because of all the negativity. And the fact is, if this has turned into something that KMR considers too trying, especially considering the lack of substantial material to work with, then there is the option to give up on it. I think it is deeply unfair to place blame for the negativity on commenters when there is little positive to comment on. There is no ‘there’, there, and that’s what we’re dealing with and it’s not really much fodder for fun. For anyone, and that includes critics like me. Moreover, commenters have contributed invaluable information and knowledge on the royal topic and others, and I’m not hearing a thank you, just criticism. It’s demoralising.

            So, Rose, since you have raised this topic once again, what will make it fun? I’d like to hear the plan. Because, I agree with Mrs BBV, it seems that you are advocating a complete change of direction into your idea of a Kate blog.

          6. Hi again Mrs BBV, I agree that it would difficult to deal with if this site became heavily policed and no opinion other than fairy dust and light would be allowed, there are already Kate-centric sites like that if that’s ones cup of tea. And while I don’t pretend to know KMR’s wishes, I don’t think she wants that for her site either.

            What I find frustrating is that while good folks like you, promise to be more mindful about their comments, it’s the ones that are actually being more aggressive and negative just don’t see themselves in these conversations, hence the continuing problems.

            @Maventhefirst, in fact I have cut down commenting here and reading comments because I just get tired of the same conversations. It used to be fun, commenting on and critiquing Kate’s wardrobe and her work ethic but imho, again just my opinion some of the critique has become endless criticism, where’s the fun in that?

          7. I referred to your comment about Kate being workshy as throwing shade, which is what it was. I used the word hateful as follows: “or responding to other commenters in a hateful way.” I am not opposed to being critical, I am opposed to the endless arguments, which is what this has turned to. I don’t strictly “blow sunshine” at the royals, but I do err on the side of kindness, and I wont apologize for it.

          8. Well I err on the side of speaking as I find with an injection of humour, nortiness and a sprinkling of good naturedness. I tend to poke fun at situations rather than be cruel and I don’t feel the need to change my posting style to accommodate you based on your criteria and on the feedback I’ve received from others on this site over the last two years. However I wouldnt dream of being rude to you, or any other poster and on a personal level and I will be more mindful of you as I am the other posters of this site when I write.

            I also notice that you say we should not speak or criticise those that aren’t here to defend themselves. Are we planning on inviting Kate to our threads and discussing our thoughts with her before writing them and giving her the right of reply. No…..of course not although I would welcome an hour in her company to tell her how she might give the country greater value for it’s money and I would lay it on the line where I feel she’s failing the nation in her role. I am a great believer in the feedback sandwich and write across a thread in that style. I.e a positive, a negative and a could do better as a minimal contribution to any discussion. As this site is essentially a review I think the feedback sandwich styled writing is in perfect alignment with the sites aims.

            If Kate continues to be workshy I shall continue to write about her being workshy…..I don’t believe it’s throwing shade rather pointing out that it is a widely recognised fact in the U.K. that she is lazy, over compensated and much rewarded who needs to start earning her keep and in fact should have been earning her keep years before. But if it were ‘throwing shade’ it would be appropriate would it not? Would you think it more appropriate to call it constructive criticism?

          9. I debated commenting on this thread, but since I have been a loyal follower on here for a few years, I decided to go ahead and say something. (warning, I am using the word sugars for lack of a better description)

            I personally took a month off of this site due to the comments section. However, it was because of all the sugars that are now popping up and causing trouble. I don’t want to tell people what they should think of Kate, but I also don’t want to be told what I should think. We are allowed different opinions. So, I don’t mind the sugars coming on here and praising Kate, but the sugars are also the ones telling posters what they should think. As of late, this site is getting run over by them. They seem to think this site should only praise Kate and never say anything bad.

            I have not been here in awhile, so maybe things have changed. My comment above is my first in awhile. But from the last time I was here the sugars were the ones who started trouble. Pretty much if you didn’t agree with them you were either a bully, jealous or rude. It got tiring, so I left since they were allowed to keep attacking.

            Take this thread for example- I am not sure why the initial comment mentioned parenting when this post isn’t even about parenting. To me, that is trying to cause trouble. I know you didn’t mean it that way, but look what has ensued from it. If there are topics that cause a lot of fuss, like parenting, then just make it easy and say no comments on that. We can still be a critical site and have topics off limits because they get too nasty like parenting. But I will say, all Kate sites seem to have little disagreements, normally because one of the extreme sides get offended. It is not just this site and I don’t think closing the comments is the answer.

            I think people just need to lighten up and not get offended so easily. And honestly, I wish the Kate adorers would stop telling people what to think. Because in their eyes, or so it seems, anything critical is not okay-we should only say nice things. Such as workshy is not throwing shade, but an observation since she hardly works. Honestly, getting offended by that is like making a mound out of a mole hill. I want a site where I am able to say when Kate does well, like the Poland tour, and also say when she needs a dose of reality-like buying another pair of nude heels to go with her other 15 pairs. I don’t get why if something is offensive why posters can’t just move on and not read them. Like water on a ducks back. I don’t read certain people’s post because I know what they will say. Some people will never be happy with what Kate does while others think she walks on water. We aren’t always going to agree and that is what makes this site great. If something offends you than don’t comment instead of getting into an argument. People take things on here so personally. We all need to remember, this is suppose to be a place where we can come and talk about the good and bad of the BRF. Anyway, I have said my peace and I hope that this site returns to what it was which was a fun sanctuary away from they typical sugar sites.

          10. @all:

            I think there are legitimate things that Kate has done or has not done that she needs to be criticized for – such as her light work schedule, her public speaking abilities, and skirt fly ups – and I don’t think it is wrong to comment negatively about those things.

            But there are so many times when people get so worked up and so negative about our own perceptions of things Kate has done which are not based in knowable, true fact – such as her outfit color and her parenting. We have our opinions and we can discuss those, but why do we have to be outraged without any facts to warrant it? Why can’t we just state that we dislike something without name-calling and being outraged? Additionally, in my opinion, I think name-calling makes the people who use those terms look worse than the people they are trying to insult, because instead of taking the high road and being better than the other side, one is stooping to that other side’s level by using those terms. And then there is the bias factor, where Kate gets eviscerated for things that other royals have done and no one thinks is wrong – like in this post’s comment section where it was pointed out that other people were wearing white as part of their outfit to this event, or that other royals have worn bright colors to world war commemorations, or that other royals have worn brooches with poppy pins, and all of those facts were ignored in order to negatively criticize Kate’s outfit choices here.

            Most importantly, the name-calling and the being outraged at our own perceptions and the ignoring true facts that other royals have done what Kate has done and not been called out for it, takes away from the legitimate criticism about Kate and her faults. If there isn’t a light and shade, then the legitimate criticism gets lost, and anyone who says anything remotely negative gets labeled a “hater” even if one isn’t making those types of overly negative comments. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been called a “hater” or much worse by random people because of some of the comments here. Legitimate criticism gets ignored when all one hears/sees/reads is outrage at everything.

            Speaking of the term “hater”, I think “sugar” is just as bad. Just because some people find positive things to say about Kate, or like an outfit she wears, doesn’t make them a “sugar”. Why can’t we have nuanced opinions about Kate? Why can’t we like certain things and dislike others? Why can’t we dislike things but not be hyper-negative when speaking about them?

            And specifically to the point about positive Kate people not commenting on things they find offensive instead of telling people how to think or getting into an argument, that same logic can be applied to the people who are very negative about Kate: that they just shouldn’t comment when they find something offensive, and should ignore comments that they disagree with. While I think there is something to be said for not taking too much offense to comments and not responding to offensive comments right away when one is extremely emotional, the aforementioned argument really isn’t a solution to people being rude to other commenters, or being hyper-negative toward everything Kate does.

            We all need to be better about not being rude to other commenters. And in addition to that, I think we all need to be more critical of our own thought processes and word our comments differently to stop being hyper-negative toward Kate. Being constantly that negative doesn’t help anyone. The comment section being consumed in arguments doesn’t help anyone.

            If there is no lightness and only negativity and arguments, then yeah commenting here isn’t fun. There has to be a middle ground between all-out negativity and me closing comments or shutting down the blog. I am not a “sugar”, and I don’t want this to be a “sugar” site, but I also am not a “hater” and don’t want this to be a “hater” site either.

            I have put forth the effort this year to be as middle ground as possible in my articles, all I ask is for the same effort in the comments. From everyone. People need to understand that there will be negative comments made here because there are legitimate negative criticisms to be made about Kate. But people also need to understand that there will be positive comments made here also and that not everything warrants us being as negative as possible.

          11. Mrs BBV,

            Let me sit beside you as a Camilla ‘sugar’. I can feel very fluffy about her, LOL, especially when she brings out the big bling. I also see her against the broad panoply of love and life and royalty over the decades, and whatever her faults (adultery is not okay with me) she has stepped up to the plate for a long while now and given of herself.

            I sometimes am shocked by the vitriol tossed her way, even here on these generally benign pages. But you know what? What will it accomplish me to try to change someone’s mind when they are set upon it by offering little argument or are not persuasive? I’m okay with live and let live. I don’t tell the sugars what to think and as a ‘sugar’ myself, I expect people not to tell me what to think. I do love a good persuasive argument though. Not the police.

          12. My opinion? LOL, like it’s that important. 🙂

            Anyway I think her work life (or lack of it) absolutely should be up for discussion, and if some people think she’s lazy as all get out and can back it up I’m all for that. If someone thinks she’s not acting in an appropriate manner I’m all for talking about that too. I’m totally into talking about her office staff, things she could be doing and all that up to and including her doing well.

            All that being said, I scan through the posts by people I think are ridiculous. I think we can all exhibit a degree of discretion that way. I mean, I can only read so many posts about how she is always dressed inappropriately, her hat is awful, her shoes suck, her bag is ridiculous, she always acts inappropriately before I want to bang my head against a wall. When really it’s all just personal taste and who am I to say they can’t say that? The only person I think can do that with any authority is the owner of the blog who apparently now tailors her posts to avoid it. That is what we should be concerned about in my opinion.

          13. +KMR, Agreed. Thank you for all you said. I appreciate comments from both sides. You are doing a fantastic job. I am sorry I don’t comment more, but I want to thank you for all you do!

      2. I have been a reader here for years and a commenter occasionally. I second MrsBBV wholeheartedly. I haven’t sensed any new tone or people being over the top hateful or criticizing of Kate. And I agree with the point above- weird that parenting is being brought up when it has nothing to do with the post just seems like pot stirring to me. I adore the comments by MrsBBV, Herazeus and Birdy. They have thoughtful, insightful and factual points to everything they post and observe. There is also praise where is it due for Kate. But the overarching point of the blog is that it is a critical for people who care to look below the surface of the facade and I appreciate it. I don’t know KMR if there are messages or things that you receive that are unpleasant or hateful that we aren’t privy to which would be very trying and would definitely reduce the pleasure of the blog… I hope that isn’t the case.

        1. I agree with you for the most part but if you think everyone here will praise her when she does well, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

          1. Oh I know not EVERYone praises when she has done something well or appropriately, I was referring to the “core” group of posters that I had mentioned- Mrs BBV, Herazeus, Birdy & Laurie. You too bluhare. Come to think of it, kimothy & Rhiannon too. You guys are whom I consider to be regulars who do not provoke and give credit when credit is due, but look at things with an intelligent, critical eye. Should’ve been more specific. To me, you all are the tone of the blog, the other stuff is just noise that will pass. And if not, and KMR decides she’s had enough, there’s always LoveLolaHart ?

          2. I agree with @kateincali – I’ve come across bluhare on other sites and always valued her commentary. There are regular commenters here who set a fantastic tone – this site is easily my favorite Kate site because we have discussions. I hope we can keep doing that in a way that doesn’t stress out KMR, because, after all, this is her creation and work.

          3. Thanks, Kateincali! Your words mean a lot. It is difficult because I can be a bull in a Waterford Crystal shop at times. My frustration is that I’ve followed the BRF for years and love the history. Seeing Kate do the bare minimum is frustrating. Every now and then she does something really good and then regresses.

            I truly care about this community. I think we have unique points of view. My internet policy is to be respectful and ask for the same in return.

    1. Leonor and Sofia look like wonderfully happy young women. How tall Sofia is getting! Felipe and Letizia seem like warm, loving parents. I do wish we’d see the girls more often, but I don’t get the impression Felipe liked being paraded around so much when he was young and made to do public engagements as a teenager.

    2. Thanks for this link. Great pictures, and the girls are growing up. I wonder if they will be tall like Felipe or petite like their mom?

      The Spanish royals, like the Swedes and other European royals, do these photo calls with such grace, and they give pleasure to those who are interested in royal families. I’m sure there are times when a photo call is the last thing they wish to do, but they always look happy in the photos (except for King C-G). I wish the BRF would at least do one occasionally, maybe at Balmoral.

  23. 2 friends told me today that the British Royal Family board on the RD forum has been reconfigured. I know others here have mentioned that board in disparaging terms but that board runs in cycles. I read it after the friends told me about it but I don’t post. They have recently stopped posting because they felt the tone had changed. They have been waiting until the most agressive posters are warned or banned to even consider posting again. In my observation, it had changed with some new posters since the new year. Older posters had reduced their presence as those new posters became more abrasive.

    Essentially, the royal family section has been broken up between 3 sections and seems to mirror the tone of the usual posters in each of the new sections. The admins have put the Cambridges & Harry in an Off-Topic section. It is more difficult to read now and my friends are wondering if the admins will lock it against further posts. It had been done before. They do miss the ‘conversations’ they had other long-time posters.

    As other posters have written here, it would be in our best interests to moderate our postings instead of firing off what comes to mind before giving it some thought. OTOH, if you are a poster expecting this blog comment section to be full of complimentary postings this blog is not for you. There is a push-pull between posters here and the archive will show that. There are also posters who provide info that offers insight to the machinery of royalty and the history of the British royal family as well as customs, government and protocol of other countries. It is a lively conversation forum that KMR has provided and I would be disappointed to find that the comment function had been closed.

    We all need to conduct ourselves in a mature fashion. There is room for humor and sarcasm and that is far different than belittling and denigrating the Cambridges and other posters. Take your cues from the person that writes this blog. IMHO.

    I think other posters here are of similar viewpoint.

  24. I am going to offer my two cents. I’ve been around for a while. I’ve seen faces come and go as well as people who were here since I started. We all have things that we love and dislike about Kate. We also have royals that we like or dislike. I appreciate what everyone brings to the blog. There are topics I won’t even touch. But I believe we need to be balanced. There is a saying that “where you sit is where you stand”.

    Imho, I am in no position to tell anyone how to express their opinon. This is KMR’s blog at the end of the day. I cannot tell her how to run it. But I feel that some of these discussions put her in a difficult spot. I get frustated because this blog has had to take several turns due to the people going a tish too far. KMR has made so many accommodations that would drive me mad.

    So we have a choice: we either play fair and respectful in our comments, keep scrolling or stop reading.

    I’ll see myself out to have a glass of sweet tea.

    1. +1

      I’ve been trying to be less critical or at least outright angry about certain things, and praise when it is due; for I’ve noticed the tone of the comments has become too negative which doesn’t make it as much of a fun place to post and talk and learn! Like how Kate was far more engaged, friendly, and open on this tour which is a major plus for her.

  25. Especially in the 4th photo down, the party, Kate’s hat reminds me of a hospital bedpan,lol. Hehe, I hope she retires this one.

    1. Chuckle-snort. LOL. I never liked this hat & thought that a designer in the shop was having a bad day & decided to turn the hat upside down and flatten it while affixing a leftover stripped feather as the ‘flourish’ to adorn the piece. Now I see…not a hat! Almost as bad as a sunhat I wore that made me look as if my head had been flattened to half its height. I liked that hat but photos of it make my head look like a a squashed tomato. 🙂
      I think it’s time for K to retire the hat.

  26. I would like to show my thanks to the people of Ypres and of Belgium for looking after the Men from New Zealand’s graves every day.

    I also want to thank the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for giving a resting place for every body that was found, even if they didn’t have a name.

    And to the burglers of the Last Post Association? I want to extend a huge “Thank You” from the bottom of my heart for this act of kindness. To do it daily for all these years reminds us, in New Zealand, that our dead are not forgotten.

    Thank you

    (And thanks to KMR for the post too)

    1. A beautiful post, Cathy. The people of Belgium do deserve praise and thanks.
      I think that we need to always honor and treasure the service of many and all the lives that were lost, or severely injured in war. As well, as their loved ones who suffered and sacrificed, too. Your words are truly thoughtful and heartfelt. Bless you.

  27. Well the day has finally come and the Duke of Edinburgh has retired. His last appearance was in the rain and I just hope he hasn’t caught a cold as he did on the Jubilee boat trip. He’s certainly taken criticism over the years! I wonder what a blog about him would have been like when he was younger. The one thing he would have got little criticism for would be his dress sense he always seems to be immacutely turned out. The Queen will miss his company at work I’m sure.

    1. Though I know he has been controversial, I thought the ceremony was very moving. He still stood straight and got on with the job at 96. He has spent most of his life doing a job he would never have picked, and never once complained publicly, or let the Queen down. It’s the end of an era.

      1. Exactly! His grandsons could and should learn something from him! I am sick and tired of hearing them waffle and moan about what a crap lot they got dealt with- we all have our own problems & many suffer much worse than we do. So why all the complaining about the duty that comes with your life of immense wealth, status and privilege? Why complain when you actually have a sustainable job; a job for life!

    2. Awww, one can’t argue about an old guy who somehow found a worthy niche for himself. I’m sure there would have been scandalous tales to tell in this era, but he’s a man of his time, and on the surface, he largely represented the monarchy with a sense of duty and honour to the institution. And I do love a well turned out man. 🙂

      I wonder how well the queen will manage emotionally without him.

      1. I’m loving that Bowler Hat!

        And to think that his last engagement was in the rain but he still saw it through!

  28. I can’t find a way to reply to KMR from up-post regarding her views on the term sugar. ‘Sugar’ is widely used, it is not a KMR special. To me a sugar is not someone who makes some nice remarks about Kate – or whoever – it is someone who can see no wrong, gets furious with anyone who dares to criticise and refuses to acknowledge that everyone has faults even their hero/heroine. I am not sure what else you would call that? A sugar is in effect the exact opposite of the way ‘hater’ is used on this blog and others, where the person can do no right however hard they try. I think another word I would use of a sugar is ‘gushing’, where the praise is totally over the top.

    JMO anyway 🙂

    1. I think the issue is that, like with the term “hater,” people who use the term “sugar” are often using it as a way to attack or dismiss the other person– for example, while I have criticisms of Kate and believe that I have an evenhanded view of her… I find it frustrating to be dismissed as a “sugar” if I post something positive about her. I certainly don’t gush about her or think she does everything right, but I’ve been told I’m a sugar because I can find positives in most of her engagements (or choose to focus on the positives usually) or don’t think she’s the worst ever. Like calling someone a hater, calling them a sugar shuts down dialogue and just dismisses them.

        1. OH please, Maven. Don’t make me go look for what you said to me. I obviously have not forgotten it, and I’m used to taking crap. The fans think I’m a hater and some of you think I’m a sugar. The way I think of it, I’m doing something right — in that I look at both sides before I come to a conclusion instead of dismissing something out of hand.

          Plenty of people have called posters sugars on this very site. And I agree with Megan that the term is used to demean and dismiss, just as hater is used to demean and dismiss.

          1. I’m sorry, bluhare, I don’t remember this but you keep bringing it up. If I said something in the heat of the moment, I apologise and hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. I think you’re a good egg even though I do not agree with your perspective.

            I can’t do much else about something I don’t even remember but let me tell you I don’t appreciate being blindsided by your airing a personal grudge more than once on a public site. I won’t respond further to this and will ignore your comments from now on.

          2. Then apparently you aren’t really sorry. And if you post a comment on a public blog that basically says I must be less than human then I think you can expect to have that thrown back at you when you make a remark about how no one has ever called someone a sugar or otherwise been incredibly rude.

            I’m totally fine having you ignore my comments. I generally ignore yours, but when you say things like that I find very it difficult to let go given what you said to me.

    2. I think an important difference is, I don’t go to pro-and-only-pro-kate-middleton blogs and order them to change their minds. I don’t go onto pro-kate sites and anonymously send hate. I don’t tell them they are terrible human beings because of their OTT gushing over Kate Middleton. I also don’t go to RD or RG, because for all the good info they have on there, the discussion have gone way way way to the extreme. Ditto TRF.

      This blog has been a centrist voice of reason, and that includes criticism. For some of the most determined Mini-Middletons, no criticism is allowed. Anywhere. Ever. And they will go to any lengths to shut it down. Especially on a popular blog like this one, that lays out logically what KM is and is not accomplishing.

      afaik on here it hasn’t gone as far as the extremists attacking places like Heavyarethecrowns on tumblr, telling her her boyfriend is lucky he died in an accident. Otherwise he would have killed himself to get away from a horrible person like her, etc. Or telling another tumblr that she deserved to have a miscarriage because she was critical of Kate Middleton. But the extreme pro-kate side of the spectrum putting pressure on KMR and posters here has increased.

      What has been seen in the last year or two is strident pro-kate fans (the “sugars”) coming on here attempting to shame and belittle people who are critical of KM. They have also gone after KMR personally, using her revelations about herself to try to concern troll her into quitting. Or shaming her that she feels the way she does because she has been critical of Kate Middleton or allows critical discussion on this blog. I find that behavior disgusting.

      Be polite to each other, yes. Do not attack other posters, yes. Shut down freedom of speech because some people don’t like critical opinion? No. These are government employees with far too many PR resources at their taxpayer-funded fingertips to allow them to go unquestioned.

      That is why I wonder what percentage of the “kate sugars” are employed at KP or PP, because I honestly believe some of them have to be for hire. The random, OTT positive comments that show up sometimes here or at CB – comments unrelated to the discussion at hand – must be coming from paid PR hacks.

      1. And what about the people who are hyper-negative when discussing their criticism of Kate and jump down people’s throats if they dare not be offended at everything Kate does? Just because those people aren’t as bad as on other sites doesn’t make them not bad. I understand being upset at being criticized by “sugars”, but for the most part “sugars” aren’t posting here (there are the random comment from one, but I mostly filter that out now). What people are deeming as “sugars” are people who just aren’t as negative when discussing their criticism or who can find positive positive things to say about Kate. And yeah, sometimes the not-as-negative people can make a rude comment when they think a negative comment has crossed the line, but more often than not it’s the supremely negative people who are crossing the line when discussing criticism of the royals. yeah, the not-as-negative people can make a rude comment sometimes, but it’s the all-out negativity toward Kate and her kids that has me fearing to post on events. I specifically did not post about day 5 of the tour in fear of the negativity about Kate’s parenting and her children. I haven’t yet posted on day 2 in Belgium in fear of the negativity about her coat given what occurred in this comment section. All of the last 5 or so articles about Kate have seen the comment section consumed by negativity and arguments, and a lot of the articles about Kate going back to Trooping have been also. It sucks and it makes it not fun to write about Kate or comment here.

        1. notasugar,

          +1 to the nth degree.

          My favourite comment was in essence: You are amazing and fabulous, KMR, but your commenters suck.

          I also suspect that there are attempts to shut this blog down by seasoned agitators. This is not a new pattern, seen it many times. But that’s just me. I wonder too, whether they are largely people who are not affected personally by the BRF because they are not subjects/taxpayers and have no stake in the outcome. Or attention seekers.

          Every site gets a couple of people who are OTT, whether sweet or sour. I still say, ignore and move on, instead of derailing all good will and conversation.

          1. +1 Constance…. this is me 100 percent. I admit to posting infrequently, to the point that I fear my lack of consistent posting will get me pegged as a random instigating sugar, which then makes me reluctant to post… it’s a catch-22 to be sure! And a shame, because I really admire KMR’s blog.

            Does asking people to be just a little more polite in their comments really have to cause this much indigestion?

        2. I applaud your patience here KMR!!! I know I wouldn’t be able to take the time to explain myself 15 different ways the way you have! I agree that the terms “sugar” or “hater” need to go bye-bye. They aren’t in any way a compliment nor are they being used a such, so really do we need to use them?

          What I’m finding so frustrating about this particular thread is that KMR is calling for a bit less negativity, a bit more common manners when commenting and people are up in arms as though she’s commanding that all posts be puppy dogs and unicorns. Come on people can’t you see the middle ground here?? Not everything is black and white, there are many lovely shades of grey in between and those shades are what KMR is trying to get you to look at. She’s not saying you can’t be critical, hell the word critical is in the title of her blog, she’s just asking for a bit of restraint and good manners and really it’s kind of shocking that she actually has to ask a bunch of grown ups to play nicely in that sandbox!! Aren’t we a bit more mature than that??

          Again, my hats off to you KMR, you have the patience of a saint, I’m just sorry it’s needed here.

          1. You couldn’t have said it better, Lauri. I agree with every word of your post.

            And thank you, KMR, for your patience and dedication to the blog. I haven’t had the time in recent months to comment as often as I did before, but I still read every update and enjoy the balanced, thoughtful, and honest commentary you offer.

        3. I first want to say to KMR that I discovered this blog by accident, and I have been charmed by the striving for integrity in its commentary. Both KMR and many posters, who are obviously thoughtful and decent people. I do think that there is a difference between people who fundamentally question the validity of an expensive monarchy today, and so are constantly pointing out the problems with this very idea, particularly as personified by WKH, and people who are pro-monarchy but find WKH not living up to what the monarchy ought to be. And there are some critics where there is no real thought behind the criticism–where the criticisms are shallow and mean. They become troll like. But this blog has few of those–it’s well moderated, and attracts thoughtful, principled people.

          However, when Kate is making appearances on behalf of GB, the visuals are very important. What she wears matters. It is not hard to know what would be most conducive to the occasion–and she could do this, but mostly doesn’t. There is also interest in the children, because they are royals, and will presumably be monarch. How they are educated, and the way they are taught to behave in public is of legitimate interest. That is different from criticizing them as private parents.

          1. Thank you for pointing out the nuances, Vivian. I’d also add that those from Commonwealth countries tend to be far more removed than British posters who have the monarchy interwoven through their lives much more strongly in so many ways.

        4. Dear KMR, I find it very saddening that you stop posting on your own blog because you fear the comments. I am a long time reader but post only seldomly. In fact I mostly post when I feel that the discussion takes an unfair turn, contains wrong information or when I think Kate looked particularly nice. There are enough people stating her faults and I don’t have to echo them if I agree (especially as a lot of you seem to be earlier than me). Like many here, I want Kate to do well and feel disappointed when she doesn’t. Don’t think this makes me a “sugar” though.

          I have to admit, that I was confused, why you didn’t post about the Belgium Day 2 as all the white coat drama would have been solved with Mathilde wearing white/cream as well. Posters ranting on about why Kate wore white when no one else did made me very uncomfortable as this was just not true. You can tell even from the pictures in this post. There were several woman in white/cream and I sometimes wished you would straight out delete posts that can be easily proven wrong as they heat up a discussion with no point. We can argue about if we think light colours are a good choice and that we might would prefer more muted ones, but it is in no way totally out of line for people in her position.

          I hope you can go back to post every post you want, because this blog is yours and we are only visitors. Maybe close the comment section on specific posts if that will help.

      2. I don’t know why you have to call people names at all, nas. They are people with strong opinions either way.

        I agree that people shouldn’t tell others how to think. But why get so bent out of shape about it? That’s what I don’t get. Some people have posted what looked to me to be legitimate questions or comments, and they got jumped on right away by the usual contingent calling them sugars and trolls. Even when the person stuck around and rebutted or answered all the responses. I was gobsmacked at the people here. Truly.

          1. You was more of a general “you”. I could have written that better. But I would also like to say that you and I have disagreed a lot, and you stick to your point and aren’t rude about it. A bit too tenacious for my taste sometimes, but that’s what makes the world go round, right?

            Anyway, thanks. I like a good, spirited conversation!

    3. I know what a “sugar” is defined as and why that term is used. And I disagree with it’s use just as much as the term “hater” because both terms don’t take into account the fact that people can have nuanced opinions and liking part of something doesn’t make one a “sugar” and disliking part of something doesn’t make one a “hater”, and both terms are used to shut down conversation and dismiss people’s opinions rather than discuss them. Some people can say something positive about Kate, that doesn’t make them a “sugar”. Some people have negative criticism of Kate, that doesn’t make them a “hater”. Asking people to be less hyper-negative when discussing their criticism doesn’t make one a “sugar”.

      1. I think that was exactly my point. Haters and sugars are the extreme where you can only say positive or negative things. I’m disappointed in Kate especially by the amount of money she is spending on clothes whilst really achieving very little. But I love her Poland day 5 lilac dress, and loved the fact that George got something out of being dragged around. His helicopter visit was magical.
        I’m very well known for not liking Camilla, but I love her ability to wear a great hat and tiara , and I love her Christmas party at CH. I don’t want her to styled Queen but I do appreciate that despite the past she does make Charles happy. So I don’t think I’m a ‘hater’ .
        If adore Harry yet he disappoints me increasingly, so I’m not a Harry sugar.

        That was the point I was trying to make.

        1. I liked the lilac dress, too. Although we might have had a heated arguement on exactly what color it was.

          I think the great majority of comments on KMR are reasonable and informative. There will always be outliers on both ends, and a few trolls stirring the pot. I think the whole tone may be a bit more negative because of increasing disappointment with the Cambridge’s performance. I’ll bet a lot of posters are like me; I really believed all the early publicity about Kate, and then became disillusioned. I still want the royals to do well, to bring a little magic to the world.

          I do tend to focus on fashion because I’m superficial and that’s part of the royal fantasy.

          I do not like to read attacks on long-time, much admired posters which twist their words and jump on any negative comment as evidence of bad character. I’m glad that the community will come to their defense against such unwarranted attacks.

      2. I have noticed that most people on this site want Kate to do well. We all get disenchanted by the lack of work, but I see people try to make positive remarks. Like the last tour, I noticed that a lot of people, including myself, thought Kate shone; it was fabulous to see. I was happy to see that!

    1. Hi Cookie, are you thinking of the picture that came out about a year or so ago, that looked like the cover of a Stephen King novel or is there a new one, god forbid?

      1. Yes that’s it. I was looking on tumblr and saw “new” but I guess it is old news. But Addams Family is a pretty good description! Yowser!

  29. KMR thank you for getting in the comments and talking to us. I follow another blog who has a site owner who just bans and deletes comments of anyone who has a opinion that she doesn’t agree with.
    Certain celebs on that site you can say anything about (Kate Middleton is one) but other celebs you will have your comments deletes if you crictize them. Or even if you cricize the writers.
    For example today on Celebitchy there was a post about what surname Prince George would use, instead that turned into someone criticizing 2 year old Charlotte’s looks. Saying she doesn’t think she is pretty.
    I get opinions, but I don’t get saying something so horrible about a toddler. I believe that is a case of keeping your opinion to yourself. As women we have enough to deal with but seeing a grown woman judging a person who has only been on this earth for 2 years is disgusting.
    Then when I tried to respond to the person who said it, I was banned and my comment was deleted.
    So I appreciate your approach of kindly and fairly coming into the comments and talking. I appreciate you stopping things before they go too far.
    Kaiser just deletes your comments or bans you. Yet she allows comments criticizing children’s looks because she (rightfully) doesn’t like the parents.

    1. Agree, Dolly. I don’t think the children should be up for discussion either at this stage of the game. Maybe when they’re older but even then looks should be off limits.

      PS Welcome to the I’ve Had My Comments Deleted club!

    2. Hi Dolly,

      I, too, have been banned from Celebitchy. Twice. The first time was because I dared to question Beyonce, and the second time was because I commented that the writer was biased (she was touting factually incorrect information to prove her negative bias about a celeb). The writers over there are absolutely biased about celebs, and quite sexist at times too.

    3. Agree… I don’t even read Kate posts there anymore because the level of vitriol toward the children is disturbing.

    4. I have read some downright nasty things about Charlotte. People saying she looks like a dog or a snake. That poor little girl is going to grow up with horrible body image issues.

      1. I think Charlotte. Is adorable. I work with kids, & a lot of my coworkers call some kids ugly. I think that’s mean to talk about kids. NLopez

      2. That’s disgusting.. How dare they? And, she will develop a terrible self-esteem. Honestly, I find her quite pretty and adorable in character…

      3. Charlotte and George are just kids and can’t help who they may look like. I think some of the negative may be because Charlotte resembles Carole to some people and she engenders negative feelings. I am seeing more of a resemblance to William now, but really no child should be attacked for that.
        I think it’s fair to comment on how Will and Kate only seem to bring them out on foreign trips, and question why they were brought for this tour when there was nothing for them and it adds an extra cost to the taxpayer, but the kids cannot control any of this. Like George being stuck wearing short pants all the time.

        As for the other comments about Kate and how criticizing her lack of work is something we shouldn’t do… well until her numbers actually increase, then it still should happen. Have her numbers increased from last year? And the fact that she seems to have a new outfit almost every time she leaves the house? These are things that need to be commented on. It is massive waste and taxpayers are footing the bill for what? Maybe this new hire will really change things, but until we see a noticeable increase, it is still currently same old same old.

        And I still think she didn’t properly respect the poppy. Her handlers should have known better too. I was a Brownie as a kid and participated in several Remembrance Day ceremonies so the proper way to wear them was inculcated from an early age. It is a sign of respect for the veterans and those who died and paying attention to the etiquette honours the sacrifice they made. If other Royal ladies have done the same so be it, but it doesn’t make this time right. I know poppies aren’t really worn in the US so this may seem frivolous but it really is not.

        KMR’s work on this blog should always be appreciated and we can agree to disagree on issues, but when random posters dictate that we can’t comment on Kate still not working much or her clothing, especially how she barely wears repeats, that isn’t their purview to do so. It is hers.

    5. IMO it is okay to think a kid isn’t pretty. I worked with kids for years, and you know what, not every kid can be the best looking kid on the planet. They’re kids, they’re cute because they’re kids, but that’s it. I don’t think it is okay to go on and on about how you think a kid is ugly, but it is okay to think a kid isn’t pretty.

      Personally I don’t think HM was the world’s prettiest kid nor do I think she was really pretty as an adult. She was a cute kid, fluffy blond curls and blue eyes, but you could find a prettier kid in an ad. Attractive, filled with life as Margaret was, but I don’t think either is/was conventionally pretty or beautiful.

      This is what she wrote “@bitsy
      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You see It in Charlotte and I don’t. I will never be ashamed of expressing my opinions. It would be absurd to claim all people are beautiful/pretty/attractive when it’s obviously not true. I was not a pretty toddler/child myself and there’s no shame in that. I do think the Queen was a pretty girl and later on a pretty young woman. You obviously disagree. It’s your opinion and I wouldn’t dare to imply you should be ashamed of it. Blue hair and blue eyes are not my only criteria for beauty. Quite the opposite, as I prefer the Mediterranean type myself. ”

      I don’t see what is so terrible in that. I myself have suggested on here that value-judgements about the kids looks be off limits. Say she looks like Carole or say she looks like HM to you – but leave out the nasty comments like “squinty eyes” etc. Leave value judgements out of discussion of the kids looks, or make the kids looks completely off limits – positive or negative. That also means no OTT comments about how you think this is the most beautiful child on the planet.

      That is dangerous to her self-esteem, to only be valued for an edited, obsessed perfect version of what she really looks like. Much as it is KM’s fans themselves, with their hyperphotoshopping, who apparently can only like her for her (altered) looks.

      1. I would add to this that it’s OK to think whatever you want, and quite a different matter to say it out loud or post it on a website, even a critical one such as this.

        And I feel very strongly that commenting on anyone’s physical appearance (outside of that which they can control such as clothing or haircut) is rude. If you wouldn’t say it to their face then you shouldn’t say it behind their back, whether that person is a celebrity or not. On a site like this one I don’t mind reading “I don’t think she’s attractive,” but I don’t think comments like that add anything to the discussion. Who cares if you think they’re attractive? There’s nothing they can do about it. There’s nothing you can do about it. The clothes, on the other hand, are fixable so I think debating them is fun.

      2. I don’t agree. I have kids and no my kids aren’t princes and princesses, but there is a difference between thinking and saying.
        In my opinion, you can think whatever you like, but this person has multiple times came on threads basically saying the same thing.
        On top of that, she’s talking about a two-year-old, her face isn’t even fully developed yet. More so than that she’s a child, a female child.
        People already judge women harshly and unfairly based on looks, so we are starting at people as young as 2 years old?
        People were saying she looks like a 90-year-old woman or her face is like a Picasso.

        Also, if she looks like Carole, so what? That’s her grandmother, so chances are yes she would look like her. If people like to project hate onto a child for looking like someone they dislike (and don’t even know personally) that’s on them, not on Charlotte.
        That’s crazy. Period. It’s like someone mistreating their child because they look like a relative they don’t like.

        If a man said this no one would be like, “it’s okay”
        it’s okay to think a kid isn’t cute but constantly saying it over and over, doesn’t seem like something that I can get behind.
        As I said before as women we have enough to worry about, and I don’t care who Charlotte is, as of now she’s a toddler.
        This person and multiple people on that site have always put her and George up against each other in attractiveness, which is gross and just plain evil.

        “Aurelia says:
        August 3, 2017 at 5:46 pm
        When people say Chaz looks just like the queen they mean as a 91 year old woman. Not as a child the same age. Charlotte has an old ladies face to me and she is always pulling weird faces. Just sayin”

        Comments like this are disgusting and should not be let through moderation on that site. Though they are. As I said, women have more than enough to deal with, and to see people constantly picking at a 2-year-old looks is something I think should be kept in your head.

      3. What about the opposite side of the coin, which is the point I’ve tried to make on here multiple times? Those who insist that Kate Middleton and her daughter are the most beautiful, perfect creatures on the planet and insist upon posting that everywhere?

        It perpetuates the idea that a “princess” should be valued for being pretty, never mind that she cannot speak coherently in her native tongue, show up for work more often, or wear appropriate clothing. I think that is damaging to no end, but somehow that part of the program or agenda is “allowed”? We even had their parents in on the gender stereotyping, with them insisting Charlotte (as in infant?) was a perfect little lady while her brother was a bruiser.

        It speaks to what Hilary Mantel wrote, for which she was so attacked. That all Kate Middleton is to many people – especially her fans – is a pretty doll in a pretty dress. Manufactured. It is the those who build these two up on pedestals about their looks that will be the ones who cause their fall – based on perceived value of their looks.

        The point I’ve made, multiple times, is to take value judgements out of the discussion of kids looks. Pro and con both being disallowed.

        1. I always think of the Seinfeld episode about the breathtaking baby =) so true
          And I have to agree, I think the reason why so many of us push back on what Kate wears is because we’re constantly being told how wonderful/beautiful it is, regardless if it is. She is the Empress with no clothes. Remember that diaphanous disaster she wore to the Bond premier?!!eek Just because someone is a Royal/celeb doesn’t automatically make everything they wear wonderful.
          As for Charlotte, I hope Kate and William are able to tell her beauty is on the inside and self worth isn’t tied to your looks/weight but kate seems to have her own issues with body image so who knows.

      4. All of these posts about whether or not one can/should be critical of Charlotte’s looks reminds me of the York princesses. They were picked on and bullied mercilessly by the press and public when they were just a bit older than Charlotte (just before their adolescent years, one of the most awkward and difficult times in a girl’s life) and it has never let up, even after Beatrice lost the weight, ran a marathon and has succeeded in keeping it off!

        It’s because of what B & E went through that I don’t feel it’s right to insult a 2 year old girl. She’s flipping two years old! She’s just starting to understand what she likes and doesn’t like based on appearance, let alone inner vs. outer beauty. Give the kid a break!

        If you don’t think she’s attractive/cute/adorable (pick an adjective), fine! But please don’t tear the child apart by nitpicking something she has no real control over right now–her looks!

        1. Don’t know if this is true, or not. I was waiting for my car repair at the mechanic’s and read an articfle in one of the glossies about Kate, William and the latest tour,

          What struck me was the fact that the article pointed out that Charlotte loves to play with her princess characters and doesn’t realize she is a princess helself Also said, she RUNS everywhere. She and Kate are doing everything together and Charlotte is called her little shadow. I can see that just in the way Kate looks at her and deals with her.

          I know we cannot always believe these articles, but this one made sense on a few levels. It also said that Charles and Cam do visit whenever possible to see the kids. So, who knows.

  30. I don’t want this to turn into a “I hate CB club” but I will say this, It’s infuriating to have your comments deleted on a gossip site because someone doesn’t like them.
    I wanted so badly to respond to that person, who twice now has came on the site under different names talking about how they found a 2 year old unattractive, but my comment was put on moderation and then deleted.
    The comment insulting Charlotte is still there.
    Which is why I say I love that you don’t just delete comments, you come down and talk to people. CB likes to talk at people and delete their comments for no reason other then, “I don’t like what you said and I have the power to do so”
    CB can be sexists, shaming and very Biased towards certain celebs.
    Though, I do enjoy some of the posts, I feel like it’s become a very negative place. I also feel like the moderating and silencing of opinion is a huge turn off.

    I’d rather talk to the writer or hash it out with a commenter, then make a comment, have the person respond, then try to respond but I can’t because I’ve been banned.

    I thinks it’s best to me that I don’t read the Royal posts there anymore.
    I come here because I love how you handle the site and comments.
    (and the amazing write ups)

    1. DollyD, I don’t like or read “Celebitchy” any more, either. It only took me a few visits to decide it is a poorly written blog without any redeeming qualities. To allow comments to stand about a 2-year-old little girl is so beyond what’s right. No person under any circumstances or at any age should be harassed over looks. But a little girl! Outrageous. And to ban your comments about it? More outrageous.

    2. Same, as I said above. CB actually got blocked at work for me, but even now when I pop in from a Twitter link, it’s not the same. The content has become very biased and the comment section has turned into the DM on some articles. I used to really enjoy the commentary there; now I come to KMR for all my Royals info – KMR is thoughtful in her approach and there’s usually good discourse.

    3. I so agree. I tried to comment a couple times on that site, and my comment was also deleted. Like you said, how can they let comments sit about what little Charlotte looks like is just ghastly and wrong? I guess I am not the only one..

  31. I’m a long time reader but rare commenter on this blog. I have reservations about the Cambridges certainly. They could and should do more engagements and lack substance in many ways.

    Having said that I find myself driven to post now and then by the extreme negativity and the sometimes ludicrous extrapolations some commentators resort to. based on a few photographs.

    Like the blog owner I think that the comments about the kids and the ridiculous conclusions about parenting seen on here cross a line. I’m English, sense of fair play and all that. Criticism is all well and good when it is merited but as KMR herself points out singling Kate out for things like wearing white at a service when the Queen herself has done so is just silly.

    Think on it. The hyper-negativity just drives some people into responding more defensively even if they are by no stretch a “sugar”

    1. I have to just point out it is not that Kate wore white it is that she wore a colour to make her stand out . She is not a Queen yet she wanted to stand out ahead of Mathilde. And she did. Just as she stood out on the BP balcony so soon after the fire, and in the presence of HM. Personally I stick to my point of view on that, I don’t think I’m being silly, but I’m more than happy for you to have a different opinion.

      1. Thank you Birdy. I agree with your comments 100%.

        Like Birdy, my complaint with Kate was her dressing in a way that made her stand out and be the centre of attention of any photos, at the service in Belgium as well on the balcony at BP.

        Kate is married to the heir of the heir of the British Throne, she is not Queen. Therefore it doesn’t work, in my opinion, to compare what she wears to what HM The Queen wears.

        1. I disagree. If we compare Kate to other royals above her in order of precedence like Camilla, the Queen, and Philip in terms of work numbers, then I think it is fair to compare Kate to those people in terms of clothing choices. We comment all the time that William being below Charles in the line of succession does not mean William has to do less work than him – we compare someone lower in the line to someone higher as equals in terms of what we expect from them. So then why can we not compare Kate to Camilla or the Queen in terms of dress? Meaning what is good for one is good for the other, and what is bad for one is bad for the other?

          1. As you said before we will have to agree to disagree. When Kate is in the presence of a Queen – Elizabeth or any other Queen, she should not try to take centre stage. Kate will never be my HoS, so I would never compare her directly to HM.

            I think there is a big difference on this blog, that has showed itself recently, between the expectations of Brits (who pay for her), Commonwealth commenters (sorry to lump you all together but you have surprisingly similar views from Canada, Australia, NZ and elsewhere) and the rest of the world. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does seem to follow a trend.
            Equally, for example, I was always interested in what MO was wearing, but didn’t worry about the cost or the appropriateness because I wasn’t paying and she wasn’t representing me.

            I hope no-one thinks I am insulting anyone here, that is not my intention at all, I am just highlighting why in my personal opinion, we come at things from different perspectives.

          2. Birdy, I’ve just remarked in response to Vivian my thoughts that Commonwealth posters generally think have a different take to British posters. Physical distance from Britain, nations that have forged independent and vibrant multi-cultural paths forward contribute to different thinking about monarchy. But the biggest difference by far is the egalitarian spirit core to Commonwealth countries, unshackled – very, very deliberately – from the class system that bedevils Britain and of which the pinnacle is the monarchy. I think this is what you are picking up on too.

          3. I think it was rude for Kate to wear something that attracted notice over the Queen of the Belgians. As they like to use to justify their low work hours, Kate is just the granddaughter in law to the monarch and she should have had a handler contact Mathilde’s entourage to confirm the colour scheme for the next day so as not to outshine the reigning monarch of that country. When Mathilde wore beige the next day, it did not look as bad that Kate wore a lighter colour outfit.
            Maybe Catherine Quinn will help fix these things.

            And WWI I think makes Commonwealth countries particularly sensitive when it is just someone from the UK there at ceremonies and no one else. This is because Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia and NZ sent lots of soldiers from 1914 on representing significant percentages of their population and they were often treated poorly by the British commanders and used as cannon fodder. Passchendaele in particular represented a huge win for Canadian soldiers in horrible conditions and was a formative moment in forging Canadian identity. The Canadian GG should have had a more important role in that ceremony as opposed to William, who couldn’t even bother to separately mention the individual countries in his speech.

            The Statute of Westminster was developed as a result of the commonwealth countries wanting to be more independent seeing how they were treated and used by the U.K. Government during WWI.

      1. “We didn’t have counsellors rushing around every time somebody let off a gun, asking ‘Are you all right? Are you sure you don’t have a ghastly problem?’ You just got on with it.” (Prince Phillip about the Second World War commenting on modern stress counselling for servicemen in 1995).

        I wonder how that falls in with Heads Together. ??

    1. Omg, this is too cute!!! I would like to extend an invitation to Her Majesty to visit the area where I live, there are cows by the acres and wild horses too!!

      1. I’m certain she would love it. One of her closest friends is Monty Roberts, the horse whisperer and until recently she holidayed privately in Kentucky most years. Xx

  32. Over the last 3 days I have watched a dialog unfold between a blog’s owner and its posters. The posters have turned over and examined the enjoyment and pitfalls of posting to this and other blogs. Over time a concensus has been reached by the posters to this blog about the way that a dialog ought to be conducted in the blog’s comment section to acknowledge and respect the different points of view. I find this remarkable and laudable. I tip my hat to everyone who has kept engaging in this conversation. I commend KMR for continuing to engage with her audience on this subject, an admirable and honourable choice. Thank you sincerely.

  33. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4757698/Kate-buys-DUPLICATES-look-perfect.html

    More media discussion on Kate’s clothes.

    Just to add but most certainly NOT to inflame discussion but Sebastian Shakespeare who is a society columnist has written this week about how there have been mutterings amongst Members of Parliament at the inappropriateness of Kate’s attire in Belgium last weekend. My point in telling you is not to stoke up the discussion again but to point out that it doesn’t matter who you are and where you’re from or what ‘class’ you belong to what has been apparent is that the clothes themselves were divisive and have caused too much chatter. To that end that is what makes them unsuitable not the colour. The clothes should be seamless (not literally) and not THE talking point.

    And I have to say the Catherine Walker with the loveheart lace around her foufou is so unfortunate but rather amusing. I would be mortified and I don’t expect we’ll see that coat dress again on the repeat list without some alterations. But it would be unfortunate whichever Royal lady had worn it.

    For those of you who love your fashion I must point you to the Dior exhibition in Paris if you can take a look at it online. That is pure artistry and so breathtaking I caught myself with a lump in my throat and I haven’t even had the privilege of seeing this exhibition in the flesh.

    1. Mrs BBV I was just about to share this same article.
      If it is true that Kate buys multiples of the same exact thing and we are not actually seeing her re wear anything at all that is beyond ridiculous and extravagant. If she had a dresser that person would be responsible for keeping her clothes looking clean, pressed, and new. There is no need to buy the same exact thing and literally wear each item only once.

      1. I suspect some of the shoes aren’t bought but supplied. Not unlike HMTQ and her black day shoes. But I was surprised that the shoes were Rupert Sanderson because I thought they were Gianvito Rossi. Regardless though why would anyone wear suede shoes to a garden party / racecourse? Kate really does need a dresser come September though. This stylist thing has run it’s course and even if only part time someone needs to be looking after these things.

        1. I agree, Kate needs both an actual stylist, not just a PA buying dresses, and a dresser. I volunteered to do this for her years ago and I would volunteer today, if only to see her accessorize correctly. I could help her understand that expensive doesn’t always mean great and that cheap doesn’t always mean bad. And enough with the monochromatic outfits already, you don’t do it properly Kate so just quit trying. That red clutch with the lilac coat on her last day in Germany was just so wrong, not the color mind you but the material and type of clutch and where was the other red piece to pull it all together? Ugh!

    2. Hi Mrs BBV, thanks for sharing this link. I don’t understand why Kate would buy, for instance, another exact white McQueen coat/dress when she has at least 4 other white coat/dresses. So to that end I don’t know if this article is correct on that score or not. And I did disagree with the author, in that we have seen scuffs and marks on Kate’s shoes in the past, so I don’t believe she’s buying multiples of those either. One piece I would love to see her repeat is the blue with white lace dress she wore in Singapore (I believe), with pearls in her updo. I’m sorry don’t recall the designer, Jenny Packham maybe, anyhow it’s one of the prettiest dresses I’ve ever seen and would love see her wear it again. Gosh, now that I think back, Kate has lots and lots of nice dresses that have only been seen once.

      You know, I never even noticed that “heart” pattern on Kate’s dress until someone else pointed it out! And I really liked this outfit!! But now I can’t un-see it 🙁

      1. If it wasn’t for that silly crotch heart the outfit is fine…. but it resembles so many other outfits that she already has and really that is what needs to be criticized. Multiples similar outfits only worn once really is wasteful. If she was a private citizen paying out of pocket herself then fine, but she isn’t. And I am going to criticize that forever until she controls this wasteful habit.

        1. You know Nic, most of the royal ladies, Camilla, HM, Leti, Mary, Max, etc have outfits that are similar to others that they have. They’ve found a style, shape or look that they like and tend to stick with it. Take Camilla for instance, she wears almost the exact same style of dress over and over because she’s found a style and shape that suits her body type and she’s comfortable in it. Personally, I would love it if Kate found a style that worked for her but she’s kinda been all over the place, either too Yummy Mummy or Middle-aged Housewife, with very few great pieces in between.

          1. But do they spend as much on similar looking outfits as she does? I am not against a style that works, I think we all do the same, but she had plenty of current outfits only worn once she could have worn instead of a new one again.

            And factoring the low number of appearances makes it worse. If she was doing five outings a week that would be different.

            As an example, instead of the grey crotch heart dress she wore, she had a pale blue one with lace that would have worked as well. Why not wear that one? That is what I mean. It’s like she forgets about all the clothes she has. That’s why you need to help her organize her wardrobe !

          2. Oh I’m sure they all probably spend a fair amount on their outfits. Anna Valentine, who Camilla wears quite often, I’m sure doesn’t come cheap or Nathan, who dresses Maxima and Mathlide, is probably pretty expensive as well.

            I do understand though that what she spends versus the number of her engagements really doesn’t add up and that is an issue worth discussing.

          3. Letizia has the same basic shape Varela cocktail dress in white, red, green, black. She doesn’t have five of the same cocktail dress in each of those colors.




            Finding a style that works and sticking with it is one thing. Having almost the exact same outfit X times over times in the same color is the problem, especially when you aren’t working enough to wear out even one of the outfits.

            What we see with KM is no working wardrobe. Dozens, literally dozens, of similar coatdresses and day dress. Not a working wardrobe of suits and separates, but one-offs that she rarely if ever repeats.

    3. “Foufou”. LOL. I have a new word to play with.

      I never thought of multiples but it fits right in with her profligate spending. I remember reading about some rich person who indulged in new Pratesi sheets every night, tossing out the used ones in the morning. But this would mean that the total spending for clothes would be far higher than has been calculated, which truly boggles the mind. Surely she lucked into a good cleaner, and that would be my guess. I mean, would Charles stand for this?

      I can’t find the Shakespeare article, Mrs BBV. That’s a rather interesting report.

      I also believe that the new overqualified whatsit she’s getting was chosen by Charles’ camp and therefore, indeed, Kate might be forced to have a stylist in September in anticipation of more ‘work’. I’m still expecting more of the same old fluff though.

      1. As with everything about that couple, I will believe it when I see it. Many things have been promised since 2011 and none have yet to really take place.
        Catherine Quinn does seem very competent and I wish her well. She will be earning her pay on this one.

      2. Goodness I would love to have just one Pratesi sheet for special nights like my birthday, Christmas etc…… I bought the very best bed I could afford and scandalised my family but I just love my sleep and my bedroom is my sanctuary. The best bed you can afford is as important as the best car. I spend circa a 1/3 of my life in it so I want the best but to spend a night imbetween Pratesi sheets would be heaven. Jackie Kennedy used to have her sheets changed three times a day, I can empathise with that as there is no feeling like clean, crisp, cool cotton bedding especially if it’s dried on the airer outdoors.

        The Sebastian Shakespeare piece was Tues / Weds this week, very surreptitious and no more than a one liner in a paragraph but so many of his articles get pulled / amended after 9am. that I always suspect Jason / Miguel arrive at the office and then start on the columnists and Royal correspondents. They’re not exactly reknown for standing their ground.

        1. Three times a day????? Was she as ‘active’ as JFK then? That just seems a bit weird. My dog loves it when I put clean sheets on any of our beds, he snuggles down straight away ! Oh dear I’ll probably be told off by someone telling me I shouldn’t let my dog on the beds…..that was supposed to be the rule when he was a puppy but it didn’t last long ???

          1. I believe she had two siestas…..one at lunch and one early evening so combined with her fresh sheets when she got up in the morning. Very demanding on The White House staff apparently. I would be fine with one fresh sheet a day.

            My dog has colour coordinated throws to keep him off my cotton sheets with his muddy paws. But I like a bit of furry redecoration of the bed linen now and again. My ‘no dog’ upstairs rule lasted until I came out of hospital about six months after I got him. I couldn’t bare to be apart from him again. I do attachment parenting with him……he guards me when I’m in the bath by lying on the bath mat and he guards the bathroom door when I use the toilet. If I shower he stands in the shower door. He’s my everything. ??

          2. Your dog sounds like my kitty, Mrs BBV! She follows me everywhere and is in fact lying next to me with her head in my lap here on the sofa. When I was pregnant she loved on my belly and loved on my son from the moment he was born, guarded him every night by sitting on the dresser watching him, and sleeps with us in our bed or with him in his bed. It’s pretty cute! I had surgery this summer and she never left my side.

    4. This article made me chuckle!

      Is it possible that things are being… cleaned?!

      I’ll admit that some of the shoes look suspect but honestly if you’ve ever taken your shoes to a cobbler you know the magic they can work, and I’m sure hers pay a visit after every wear.

      Seriously if you’re not taking your shoes to a cobbler I can’t oversell it, it changed my life.

      1. I swear, if I were in her shoes I’d have all of my footwear handmade. Imagine the comfort! Sigh and swoon.Like her I have large flat feet. Can’t bear high heels.

        Thanks, Mrs BBV. I’ll check the article out (if it still exists)..

          1. If I were royal I’d have that. I have small, child-size feet that are wide, so finding shoes is a nightmare. But if I were royal I’d have one-two pairs in each color I’d need and voila, not buy so many shoes. Charles buys expensive bespoke shoes but has worn ’em since he was like, 18 or 21! Just take good care of your things, when you splurge on something nice… I got a Burberry coat for Christmas and had to get it majorly altered, but you bet I take darn good care of that $1000 trench! I hope it will last a very long time and I can let a daughter-in-law wear it or something 🙂

    5. Thanks for the link, Mrs. BBV. I was struck that the “statement of fact” tone of the headline isn’t quite matched by the text of the article, replete as it is with qualifiers like “might,” “it seems,” “”she’s likely to have,” “it wouldn’t surprise me if,” “probably,” and the concluding, “It might be easier for her to have her favourites in duplicates…. ” A more accurate headline might begin, “Fashion Expert Speculates….”

    6. I would love to go see the Dior exhibit.

      I read the article this morning in the Daily Mail. Not sure how accurate it is. If true than it actually brings the price of her wardrobe higher. But then we also do not know how much she pays for her cloths in the first place. I have read a number of times that both Audi and Land Rover give the royals and Middleton deals on cars so who is to say that it also does not happen for clothing. I had read somewhere that Kate only pays for the item if she wears it in public. But then it has been reported that she wears a lot of stuff custom made. If that is the case I am not sure I would pay full price for ill fitting clothing. At times it is like she did not even go for a fitting.

      As for wearing the same style I am not bothered by that. Lets face it Elizabeth wears the same dress and coat style in hundreds of different colours with the same couple of matching hats. No one complains about that. When she was younger she defiantly had more variety in style. Whilst Ann is the poster child for wearing clothing multiple times over the decades. She has clothing older than me which she still wears and from what I understand Charles is the same. I like Camilla’s style. It looks comfortable and I must admit that I loved her wedding dress in 2005. Plus I think she has the type of face and body that can get away with the massive bling; same as Elizabeth.

      Back to Kate; I just think she has lost her way from the early days. She dressed really nice and I think she was comfortable. Maybe that is the problem she is being lead by someone who thinks this is how she should dress. Overall, though, I wish she would not wear clothing so tight that it puckers. She is super skinny so not sure why the need to wear clothing smaller than they need be.

      1. I think the tightness is often because she’s borrowing sample sizes and isn’t having customised fit clothing. I also read today that the Prime Minster declared in her members register of interests a discount card at Russell & Bromley for 25%. I have said this before but Kate has major discount arrangements throughout London. M & S and Net-A-Porter both have 30% discount facility for VIP’s bloggers, journalists etc. There is no way she paying full retail price for anything…..hell even I don’t and I’m no one.

        1. I don’t know if I believe Kate buys multiples of the same outfit but she surely buys a huge number of very similar dresses, shoes, and clutches. For example, I would think 8 pricy black clutches would be enough for anyone, even a royal. (Two in suede with different metals used for trim, two dressy, two sporty, two more just because. Yet Kate has many more than that in black—it’s not as though a rarely-opened clutch purse carried for a few hours every few months will “wear out.”) Still, on other sites people did remark the white dress in Belgium seemed different somehow from the last wearing so maybe it wasn’t the same dress. On ocassion we have seen Kate’s suede shoes look like they need attention, maybe because they were last worn on wet grass and never brushed. But we’ve also seen the soles of some supposedly repeated pairs of shoes look so pristine it looked like they’d never been worn before. (Closeups including soles studied on fashion sites to determine brand.) I know Kate’s engagements are typically very brief, but I’d think the bottoms would scuff from walking on concrete to and from the car. I know shoes can be resoled but not after every wearing! (I’d also think they’d be a little slippery to wear with no scuffing on the smooth leather soles.)

      2. Considering all the bespoke clothing she wears, it is unacceptable that it doesn’t fit properly. Whatever size she happens to be, she should have a tailor fit her clothes properly. There are often many poorly done seams or things that pucker because they don’t fit. It makes zero sense that this is still happening. She is spending enough money on the clothes it should fit.

        1. I don’t know if it is true but it has been reported Kate doesn’t like to have fittings. If the designer is working only from measurements and doesn’t fit a dress with the undergarments that will be worn with it, fit problems are likely particularly on the kind of form-fitting styles Kate seems to favor.

        2. Queen Mathilde seems to have the same problem, or is that just that Natan are just poor tailors?
          I think Kate often looks better in her LKBennet type off the rail dresses, which seems strange. But then I don’t like Sarah Burton’s style at best and then Kate has the toned down, royal appropriate changes which often look as if they are done by Natasha!

    7. Obviously this person dsn’t pay close emnough attention
      ‘Kate likes to have a clean, sleek image at all times. Can you image if she stepped out on a royal engagement with scruffy shoes. She’s likely to have back up shoes – all the same style – in various quantities.
      how many times have we commented on her sruffy shoes!!!

  34. Nic919,

    You stated “The Statute of Westminster was developed as a result of the commonwealth countries wanting to be more independent seeing how they were treated and used by the U.K. Government during WWI.”

    In many ways this is a simplistic statement that is not entirely accurate. Yes it did in some view come out of World War I but it actually came from the League of Nations which the UK was a member and the idea within the League of Nations of self determination for dominions. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 which came about from the Imperial Conference of the same year was the driving force to give the dominion their independence and the creation of the Commonwealth through the Statute of Westminster.

    This is in no way a criticism but expanding the facts.

    1. I don’t take issue with that, because of course history is not black and white, but my point was to outline how the treatment of the Commonwealth soldiers and the lack of control they had during WWI along with a callous attitude by many in the British command lead to Commonwealth countries wanting more independence. In 1917, there was a conscription crisis in Quebec because many felt no loyalty to Britain and so Canadian politicians realized that they needed to consider the Canadians who weren’t of British origin, as there were riots that took place because of the refusal to serve.

      Ultimately this lead to the creation of the Van Doos, the 22nd regiment based in Quebec that was the first one allowed to be a French speaking unit, because until then this was not permitted.

      1. Nic919,

        I am happy that you are not offended. I agree with you in many respects. Just a few years ago the UK government had to recognize the contribution of the Gurkha forces and give them compensation equivalent to that of a UK soldier since most of them retired here in the UK but were receiving money equivalent to their home country. My husband’s grandfather served with them during WWII and I have met a few here as they were stationed in my home town. They deserve recognition for their contribution just the same as all the common wealth soldiers. If anything has taught me governments refuse to acknowledge the sacrifices of the common solder.

        Thank you for the view of Canadian history. I love history more so than my field of work.

  35. Just to go completely off topic, did you all see that the prince consort of Denmark is refusing to be buried next to Queen Margarethe? He makes Carl Gustav look like a charmer.

    1. All because he wasn’t called King Consort. The article I read seemed to suggest he is not really living in Denmark but in France. I hope that’s not true.

      1. As far as I know, no husband of a female monarch has ever been titled King or King Consort so for him to behave this way is just mind-boggling.

      2. I think he’s been living separate from Margrethe for years, and mostly in France. He seems like an entitled a-hole. Both of them, do, honestly, after all this is the woman who hosts massive parties for herself fairly often and neglected her children horribly (beyond what one would imagine for the time), but at least she’s done a decent job from what I understand as being a monarch.

    2. Wow, talk about being a whiner!!! I can’t imagine that this attitude has made for a happy marriage but it seems that he’s living more or less in France on his vineyard so she probably doesn’t have to see him or put up with him very often. I also read in another article that he wasn’t a great father to Frederick because Frederick out ranked him and apparently that caused a breech that has never healed. If I were his wife I’d be thrilled that I didn’t have to spend eternity next to him but I do feel for her, it can’t be easy to have your husband publicly state that he doesn’t want to buried with you.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top