340 thoughts on “Kate debuts more loaned jewelry at HM’s wedding anniversary dinner”

1. There is the puppy dog look again while being ignored by her husband. This just seems sad.
   And while the dress is a repeat, the neckline seems a bit high for where that necklace sits.

   1. That’s the exact thing that’s I thougt.She smiles at him.”Be happy,William!” And he seems to ignore it.Quite frustrating for Kate.
      We just see a glimpse of them, but I never saw a picture, where William smiles back happily to her or another.He ist often grumpy when in public.

      1. She is so.eager with her smiling , it’s a Middleton thing to smile in every camera.
         He probably doesn’t want to play this role.

         1. It is Middleton trait to be constantly aware of where the camera is and play to it – this was remarked upon in newspapers after Kate and Pippa’s university days when they were London’s ‘It’ girls.

            That said, William looks as if he rarely enjoys the moment, such a glum disposition with the weight of the world on his shoulders. Kate seems to need to keep him buoyed up.

            1. Well, it’s good to see that Kate actually is working for the money. I know it’s cynical, but seriously, at this point in a normal marriage one would think the adoration has had a reality check. Which makes me agree that she is playing for the cameras.

               Sadly, she comes across as desperate and pathetic because Willy ain’t playing. Still, people are buying that face of devotion so she must be doing something right. I can’t begin to imagine the kind of energy it takes to keep up this facade. No wonder she looks starved.

         2. Agree Lovely Blossom, it’s sad to see a woman looking for attention from her husband and being ignored. I don’t know why Kate still insists on doing this. If she is trying to show she and Wiliam are a loved up couple she is failing miserably. And you are right, he never smiles back happily to her. His face always looks bored. Even at Cenopath he was like this. Smile William!!!!! This won’t kill you.

            1. It would be lovely to always see gracious smiling royals, but I think ultimately people feel what they feel. We don’t really have the right to tell someone to smile or frown when they don’t feel it. William’s facial expressions are appropriate. Beyond that – is not up to us

   2. It’s sad, always eager for his attention whether it be this or the birth of their children where she looks at him as if she’s delivered him a lovely present.

      HM gives her jewelry, but mostly it seems to be things that have been sat in the vault for ages and aren’t really anything HM cares about. Kate doesn’t have jewelry, not real jewelry, so HM is being kind in loaning her things. No family order which tells the tale of HM’s opinion I think.

      It’s amazing how she makes beautiful things look cheap. At least she looks nice, healthy, and pretty here, not so emaciated.

      1. “Kate doesn’t have jewelry, not real jewelry, so HM is being kind in loaning her things.”

         The difference between old money and nouveau riche.

         1. I find it interesting it’s Kate who buys herself all the jewelry, too, William does not but he’s cheap…

            Even I, a normal middle class American, have nice pieces given to me by my grandmother or little gifts from my husband. It always surprises me Kate has nothing like that but goes out and waste thousands on Kikis and stuff.

         2. Why shouldn’t the queen loan Kate jewellery?

            1. I don’t think there is anything wrong with HM loaning Kate jewels, and i don’t think that was Ellie’s implication.

               It’s more interesting to note that the jewels that HM *does* loan Kate, barring 2 pieces -the Nizam of Hydrabad necklace and state opening parliament bracelet, she seems to loan her pieces no one in the family cares for ie they wore them as briefly as possible before they were sent back to the vault never to be seen again for decades until they turned up on Kate.

               The royals who’ve discarded said jewels have been uncomplimentary about them, including Diana and the fabled Cambridge lovers tiara.

               Speaking of Diana’s jewels previously loaned by the Queen, i’m convinced she’s trolling Kate. As in ‘you want/ invite the assocuation? Here i’m going to loan you all the pieces that everyone strongly associates with Diana and see how you like the comparison’

               …but Kate does so much Diana cosplay that it wouldn’t occur to her that she’s being trolled.

               Going back to Ellie’s point about Kate’s purchased jewels. At conservative estimate, the cumulative cost of her personal jewellery, that she bought for herself, is $1M or £650K depending on currency. For that she has an endless parade of Kikis that are worthless and none are heirlooms or even simply memorable.

               Certain jewellwry companies appreciate in value eg Cartier. Yet she spent £60K on a chain + matching £35K hoops from that brand that are as unmemorable as they are costly.

               Actually, most people remember the set simply because of the price.

            2. Her Kiki jewelry is just the same thing over and over again. Kate has no style when it comes to jewels as well as most of her clothes.

            3. Kate shouldn’t be loaned jewelry because she hasn’t EARNED it, plain and simple. Waity has done nothing to earn the many privileges she has. She barely works.

            4. No one has to “earn” being loaned family jewelry. If a person decides to loan their personal jewelry to their family members, that is their choice.

         3. Yes, the Middletons are definition of parvenus. Carole and her grasping, social climbing ways are sickening.

   3. Yes, yes, yes. The neckline of the dress does seem way too high for where the necklace rests.
      And, yes, it is sad to see Kate smiling so brilliantly at her husband and getting the freeze back from him Sure, it’s only one brief moment captured by the camera, but we see it time and time again. It’s actually very sad.

      1. If it was the only time then perhaps you could write it off, but we are looking at years of this puppy dog pose. You can’t write it off a coincidence anymore.

   4. I don’t think it is a puppy dog look. The boys are looking off elsewhere in tandem while only Kate is turned towards the camera.

      1. Maven +1

   5. I know right? How embarrassing to be caught smiling at your husband.

2. She looks great from what I can see, no horrible crippling morning sickness here!

   1. That’s cause she never had morning sickness or HG.

      1. How do you know she didn’t have morning sickness or HG? I speak from experience when I say it is possible to feel 100% better a few months into your pregnancy. I too had HG and was unable to even leave the house for months. It wasn’t until closer to the end of my fourth month that I started to feel back to normal. It really is a terrible thing.

         1. But did you looking glowing and healthy with shiny hair and bright eyes? She just looks too well and hasn’t lost weight for someone who was so ill, even if over the worst. I know I’ve been there too.

            1. +1

               As I’ve said I wish I had some pictures of me while pregnant but I looked so ghastly even when I could have the energy to do things, because, you know, life wen on and I had stuff to do, I sure didn’t look like Kate. Glowing and healthy. The few I have, well, I sure hate looking at them. Wan, thin, just you can see it in the eyes. It was awful.

            2. “She just looks too well and hasn’t lost weight for someone who was so ill, even if over the worst.” Birdy I don’t want to make a cause but what you say make sense. My cousin had IG in her three pregnancies and she was taken to hospital at all pregnancies. It was very sad to see how much height she lost. She looked so bad that worried all the family. She was pale and couldn’t eat or even drink water. I don’t know if Kate had IG but she looked very well when we first saw her after she announced her third pregnancy. It seemed she had lost zero height, on the contrary, she looked as if she had gained height what don’t happen with women suffering from IG. I don’t want to doubt a woman saying she had IG but with Kate I really don’t know.

   2. Omg. We get it. Ppl don’t believe she has hg.

      1. No, most don’t., Rose. It’s cruel of the spinners to put out such false stories when others are so sick when they are pregnant and often must work through their extreme illness. Just call it what it is: Morning sickness. A rough bout for a while, BUT Morning Sickness!

         1. I don’t think it’s reasonable for either of us to claim what most people believe. But I think it’s cruel for everyone to pounce on her about it. Women need to side with other women. Have you seen what’s happening in the US with all the sexual assault allegations coming out of the woodwork? It’s time we start giving each other the benefit of the doubt and SUPPORTING ONE ANOTHER. I’m sorry for whatever happened in your, your friends, your families, your loved ones lives to make you become so cynical and bitter of another woman’s story. I agree it’s unfair that most aren’t able to take the time off that she can. I do believe she has health issues, I don’t think it’s relevant at this time to argue what they are, but she certainly has my compassion. It can’t be easy to have people judging your every move.

            I think, as I’ve said before, that she could very likely have an eating disorder, which needs to be better managed when she becomes pregnant. I think it’s possible that they use HG to cover it up, which is unfair, but I forgive them for, as I’d rather take worldwide speculation regarding HG over worldwide criticism over a potential eating disorder which is active, and has such a basis in mental health that it wouldn’t be healthy to go public while dealing with acutely.

            I just, idk, compassion, guys. We’re not her medical team.

            1. Also, in previous threads discussing Kate’s HG, many women who have had HG have spoken up and said that experiences can be much like what we’re seeing from Kate. I get the urge to talk about it, I do. But again, I think we need to try to support one another and not be internet trolls about everything.

            2. Have I seen the reports of sexual misconduct toward women coming out now in the US? Yes, I am an American living in NY, so of course, I have seen them. If true, they are horrible. But, keep in mind, not all the women may be totally innocent. Many play along to get somewhere in their careers, while, most, don’t. And, all this piling on of so called victims needs to be investigated more. Ok, bring it on, guys. I am sorry, but I don’t believe any woman should be subjected to such things, but sometimes, women go along, not because they don’t know what to do, but because they want to get ahead. Not all, but some. I saw that often when I worked full-time in New York City.

               I think the telling of misleading stories about Kate’s health during pregnancy hurts other women. Women who are currently suffering HG, or have in the past. Honesty, would be far better. If she came out and said, “I’ve had terrible morning sickness,” people could relate to her.

               I’m tired of all this in fighting. I think it’s been made clear over and over again that people mistrust what they read from the PR masters handling W and K. Kate looks great now and more power to her. I wish her a good pregnancy, an easy delivery and a healthy baby. However, when she’s portrayed as brave and amazing for getting out there and “doing her job,” it hurts other women who have no other choice, but to do their jobs when they are gravely ill.

            3. Tired of all the fighting? Then stop. Kind of ironic to say that and “bring it on, guys” in the same paragraph.

            4. So are you saying that women who did what the harasser wanted so they didn’t get fired or blackballed in their careers are somehow complicit?

               I get that some people make up stories for money, but the rate of false accusations is about 3%. And people going along with assault or harassment so they don’t lose their livelihood is pretty much the point, jenny.

               But back to HG. Kate is very sick early in her pregnancies. You can say that’s not HG, and that’s fine. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that she pukes and can’t leave the house. I believe her on that. If you don’t, OK. But I think missing her son’s first day of school lends a lot of credence to it.

            5. Rose and bluhare: +1

            6. Thanks, Rose. Additionally, Kate’s medical conditions, whatever they are or aren’t, are her private business.

            7. It’s KP that put HG out there for why she doesn’t attend events or cancels last minute so it’s not exactly private business once they reveal that. They could have said morning sickness and just stop there. They chose not to. And weirdly the issue of royals giving birth is actually public because of how the line of succession works. Kate gave up her right to have a fully private life when she married into the royal family. Her choice. At least she doesn’t have to have courtiers present to witness the delivery.

               Regardless of whether or not she has had HG, it is unfortunate that she has never attended any facility that helps women who deal with this issue. It is rather convenient to just have KP PR to declare she has it and then do nothing further. No other woman has the luxury of not working while experiencing this medical condition. She could do a lot to raise awareness for this issue and once again is too lazy to bother.

3. Get your own car Harry stop looking like the third wheel. Or get a lift with someone else from KP, they were all going.

   1. +1

      1. +2

         1. +3

            1. Love it. I always think that Harry looks like the third wheel in these photos and I just cannot stand that. If Meghan was in London, why wasn’t she invited?

               Harry must resent going to these things solo. And, yet he does not look grumpy like William does!

   2. No way. Carpooling is economical.

   3. Oh Birdy, I thought the same thing when I saw the pictures! Little tag along haha. But maybe it’s an attempt at frugality and that’s why sharesies…??

      1. I was wondering if there was a lack of suitable parking so everyone carpooled? 😉

   4. Ha those were my thought! Harry has never looked the more awkward third wheel than in these pics! Not engaging in convo with them at all.

      1. ‘Harry has never looked the more awkward third wheel than in these pics! Not engaging in convo with them at all.’

         The press are opportunistic. They want a photo of the royals regardless of whether it is flattering or not. In the next five seconds the three may have been in conversation. We don’t know the context of the photo. It is simply a snapshot of a moment in time.

         1. I think the press do a lot of that. They have thousands of snaps to choose from and often pick an unflattering one to make a point. It sells newspapers!

            1. Doesn’t it just!

   5. Did you see the headline in the DM? It said something like “Harry and William accompany Kate to ….” as if Kate was the star and the Princes were hanger-ons. At least KMR rephrased that headline correctly above.

4. Why does she keep getting loaned jewelry? It’s like pearls before swine. Is it because she has no Royal Family Order? Either way, jewelry is wasted on Waity. She doesn’t wear it well and it looks horrible on her because her style is atrocious. Besides that Kate doesn’t deserve the jewelry, she hasn’t EARNED it. Diana never was loaned that much jewelry by the Queen. Why the Queen continues to coddle Waity, I will never know.

   Also, ANOTHER black lace dress? She looks like she’s going to a funeral and she is too old to be giving Willie boy the puppy eyes. That man could care less about her.

   Lastly, I hate how Harry is lumped in with those two. I hope to God when he marries, he and his wife will arrive to major events in cars separate from Waity and Whiny. In fact, I hope he and his wife get their own offices and pr people.

   And another thing, I hate how girlfriends and or boyfriends of royal family members are not included in major events unless there is an engagement. I take it as a slap in the face. Normal families don’t operate like that.

   Good lord, why can’t Meghan be there? What would it hurt? It is normal to bring her. Harry is serious about her. I don’t get it. It makes no sense and is very off putting and unwelcoming and in Meghan’s case, it could cause people to draw conclusions that she wasn’t included for reasons other than protocol.

   I know the haters are having a field day, saying Harry and Meghan broke up cause she didn’t go.

   1. “Normal families don’t operate like that.” Some of them do. In my family, of my grand parents were celebrating such a Milestone like golden anniversary (50yrs of marriage,…); there would only be family members and the husbands/woves of those who were married. No one could bring a boyfriend/girlfriend. And that is okay. Every family has different rules. And to be honest, I don’t see anything wrong withthat one way or another.

      1. But why no boyfriend or girlfriend? I don’t get it. What harm does your family think it will cause?

         1. There are a lot of reasons why someone would make that rule. It’s really the choice of the people throwing the party, or for whom the party is being thrown. If they don’t want boyfriends/girlfriends invited, then they shouldn’t be invited. If they are fine with boyfriends/girlfriends being invited, then invite them. And if someone has a problem with their boyfriend/girlfriend not being invited, and are willing to make someone else’s party all about them by throwing a fit about it, then they don’t have to attend. But that’s just my opinion.

            1. Like I said, I have never heard of this. My family is very much more the merrier and welcoming and warm. My friends are like that as well. I just feel that non-inclusive attitude can cause issues. But families can be weird at the best of times.

            2. Mind you, there were 100 guests plus family there…

            3. The amount of guests, in my opinion, is irrelevant. I will always take the side of the people throwing the party in that the guest list is at the sole discretion of the party throwers, regardless of the size of the guest list. If the party throwers don’t want to invite my plus 1, or don’t invite me as a plus 1, even if I am annoyed or disappointed, I would say that it is their right as the party throwers to invite whom they choose. If the party throwers want to invite all the plus 1s, even if I am annoyed, I would say that it is their right as the party throwers to invite whom they choose. While I may be annoyed, I wouldn’t be offended or insulted either way.

               This topic was discussed previously on here when it was about Pippa’s wedding, and I took the side of ‘Pippa can choose who attends her wedding; it’s her and her husband’s day, not the guest’s day’. I understand that people’s opinions are different, and people have strong opinions on who gets invited to parties. I have made my stance known, and I will leave it at that.

            4. KMR, I don’t disagree with your stance at all; in fact I do agree with it. My point was that it wasn’t just an intimate family dinner! Had MM attended, that fact would have over-shadowed the actual anniversary. Plenty of opportunities for MM to be rolled out.

         2. My BIL asked us if he could bring his new girlfriend of 2 months to our Christmas party. I’m fine with her coming to our party, but she can’t stay at our house, which is what he really wants. We are already crowded with 4 extra guests, adding a fifth, who (given my BIL’s record) won’t last more than 6 months and may turn into a psycho. They will have to get a hotel, but he is too cheap to do that.

         3. “What harm does your family think it will cause?”

            It’s not about causing harm. It’s a family event. That means family. Boyfriends and girlfriends are, by definition, not family. If you were having a girls’ night, boyfriends wouldn’t be invited, and everyone understands why. It’s not offensive or rude, it’s just that as a girls’ night it’s just for the girls. At a family event, it’s just for the family (unless they decide to extend invitations to others).

            Having been part of 6 families–my mother’s, father’s, my father’s second wife’s, my stepdad’s, my stepdad’s second wife’s, and my husband’s–I have never been to a family event that included boyfriends/girlfriends.

      2. I agree, M. A lot of normal families don’t invite girlfriends/boyfriends to major family gatherings or major holidays.

         1. I would find that insulting and off-putting. My family and most families I know are warm and welcoming.

            1. That’s you. I, personally, find it annoying when random boyfriends/girlfriends are invited to family gatherings, and I would not be insulted if I were not invited to my boyfriend’s family gathering, especially if it were a big occasion like a platinum wedding anniversary. Both options are valid.

            2. If someone in.our family has a girlfriend/boyfriend, we trust them.They know which people they love.
               Good Lord, they don’t have to be married first x)
               It would be seen as strange and hurting in our family to just invite one part.
               I don’t know how often others change their partners.
               From.what I can see, Meghan is a serious case for Harry, like you all say.
               Chelsea was also invited to weddings.

            3. Maybe they don’t want people who are not yet formally part of the family having too much knowledge of personal occasions? A fear that personal information would get out, even unwittingly? The thing is the Windsor’s are not a normal family as they have set themselves apart from society, or rather above it.

            4. So would I, my sons girlfriends are always invited. If 100 people went surely Meghan could have gone? Maybe that’s why Kate looks so happy, she’s still top puppy dog.

            5. Jen, I think you are right. This is not any family, but one which faces media scrutiny daily, and who guards its privacy fiercely. Only friends who have proved their discretion are invited. I like Meghan, but her publicity about her relationship has been anything but discrete, and they don’t know each other very well yet. Once married the family sort of has to accept the newcomer, and they have burned by that, too.

            6. That makes a lot of sense to me Fifi, I agree

         2. I guess we all have views – in my case the first time this happened to me was at my brother’s wedding – I was more than 5 years older than the bride so was not in the wedding party. My other brother and my sister were. As they were “wedding party” they could bring a partner. My invitation did not include that option – when I spoke to my Mom I was told the 1980’s version of “no ring no bring” So I sat on the family table with old relatives and by myself when the wedding dances started . . . . . she is no longer married to my brother and by his choice. I don’t see my circumstances as “boyfriend not invited to family occasions” it was bloody rude – I was not a distant cousin – the ex and her family controlled everything. If a relative on “our side” could not attend then another on “hers” was invited . . . . BTW my parents paid more than 50% for the reception and associated gatherings

         3. Certainly, the BRF are not a normal family. Let’s call them arrogant and suspicious. No one gets to the inner sanctum until they are affianced. Fair enough, given the paranoia and entitlement. That’s what separates them from the plebs.

            In a normal family, all are welcome because there is no baggage. It’s the royals’ fault, IMO, that they are so insular and proud and ridiculously self important. On the other hand, you don’t want some random nobody to know your business and perhaps announce it to the world.

      3. ‘Every family has different rules. And to be honest, I don’t see anything wrong withthat one way or another.’

         M from Germany: +1

         1. I see this as a cultural difference.

            People of North European descent have a very narrow view of family and friends. They tend to limit life events. Culturally, that is who they are and no point trying to make them see it differently. They will justify their invite limitations or even invitations in general using very plausible arguments, but that’s ok. That’s culturally who they are.

            South Europeans, Africans and Asians have a very different definition of family and friends. Life events are shared with as many people as possible regardless of intimacy or closeness of the relationship. Culturally, they invite the community at large to all life events, and trying to explain why they can not do this is equally impossible because culturally that is who they are.

            1. It depends indeed on the family. I can’t imagine that one of my aunts wouldn’t invite a girlfriend, although, we are not south european.
               It’s different from family to family, so I can understand KMR and all the others who have other rules.
               It was just strange for me to hear about it first.
               We love big celebrations with the family.It was one of my happiest memories in childhood, these big events with the whole family.
               Plus, you get to know new girlfriends/boyfriends better who eventually become wives/husbands.

            2. As a North European I’d say that it depends on the family who gets invited. E.g. the Swedes in general are very informal. I can remember the king of Sweden inviting his children’s partners to family celebrations and they were photographed arriving (and in the end his children didn’t end up married to those partners, I’m talking about Carl Philip and Madeleine’s ex partners here). And Carina Axelsson who’s not married to Queen Margrethe’s nephew is a regular guest in even the most formal celebrations of the Danish royal family. As different kinds of partnerships are very common at least in Scandinavia (people won’t marry or move together but can still be an established couple), I can’t remember anyone having a no ring, no bring rule at the events and celebrations I have attended during the past ten years or so. Don’t even think I can remember the names of all my cousins’ partners I have met on those occasions throughout the years!

            3. I’m generalising of course. There are exceptions, but on the whole, the cultural pattern is for northern Europeans / descendants to be less inclusive than South / Asians / Africans / latin America.

               Regardless of connectionb/ relationship to principal participants. As an example, i’d never hear the end of it if i didn’t invite my parent’s congregation to my wedding even though i don’t attend their church. It would never occur to me to exclude them or to worry about how well i knew them or how well they knew my family.

               The flipside, my bestfriend insisted on pippa’s rule of married/ engaged to score a plus one invite.

               And every time i come across these discussions, it strikes me as a very cultural difference. Neither is wrong, it’s just a different , cultural approach to these things.

         2. This family event was to celebrate the 70th anniversary, not to introduce a girlfriend, even though she will probably soon be a fiancé. If Meghan had attended, the press would have been all over it. It is Queen Elizabeth’s and Prince Philip’s day to shine without competition!

            1. I think it was more related to Harry and Meghan not having done an event in the UK together and this would have stolen attention from the Queen and Phillip and would basically confirm an engagement. But they need to make a public appearance and get it over with so the press won’t be so rabid.

            2. Marion Cole: +1

         3. Yes, +1, every family has different rules

            1. Rose: +1

   2. It’s how HM wants things to work. No ring, no bring, generally; and honestly I can understand for family events like this where it’s a big formal to-do. Meghan would be at a disadvantage I think. Also she isn’t ‘one of them,’ as cruel as it sounds, but we know how clannish these royals canbe.

      1. They have the dumbest rules in the British monarchy.
         Look, how all these “important” rules work out.
         In the end, there is no monarchy with more scandals, divorces and unhappy children than anywhere.

         1. Exactly.

         2. Good point.

   3. Leah,
      I’m curious…how do you know that Diana was not loaned much jewelry from the Queen?

      1. I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that neither Diana or Fergie were loaned jewelry at the rate Waity has been. And even Fergie, who was pegged as lazy, worked more than Waity.

         1. I don’t mean to be disrespectful but I don’t understand how someone can post something as a fact but doesn’t have any facts or data to back it up with. I am certainly no lover of Kate–she has been a big letdown but I can’t understand vilifying someone without facts, that’s all.

            1. I agree. I think there are a lot of things ie policies, procedures , meetings, planning etc. going on behind closed doors that we have no clue about and never will.

         2. I have a question Where are all the joule she supposedly received as wedding gifts?

      2. Diana wore lots of Spencer family jewels and bought herself plenty of jewellery, real or paste. Charles was equally generous with the jewels to jis wife.

         Fergie wasn’t a big jewellery person, so her pieces are easy to track, and most, if not all, were her own. Purchsed for her or bought for herself.

         Kate and Sophie are really diving into the royal vault in a way the other 2 ladies never did.

         1. I don’t normally comment here but Diana’s loans included the King Khalid Necklace, worn during her pregnancy with William, the King Faisal necklace worn during her pregnancy with William and also in Australia, the emerald art deco necklace/choker which she wore often over the years, bracelets, earrings and possibly rings. The Cambridge tiara may have been a loan since it was returned – the queen makes loans not gifts for tax reasons, and we don’t know the exact status of the sapphire brooch worn as a choker which is believed to have come from the Queen Mum.

            Diana later wore her Middle Eastern sapphires a great deal which came as wedding gifts and following her tour with Charles of the Middle East. Times were different then. Today gifts from the Middle East are viewed with suspicion although Kate did wear emerald earrings that could be a gift.

            We don’t know who chooses and buys the Kiki jewellery – it could be William. Men often stay with one shop.

            A note on a post a long time back I meant to comment on – during the time Diana was active in the royal family cerebral palsy was known as spastics – a term that has since gone out of favour – and yes, Diana did have engagements – someone suggested they couldn’t find a listing for cerebral palsy amongst Diana’s charities but one wouldn’t. I don’t know if she or the queen was patron but she made visits.

            1. Kate has been seen buying her own jewelry in the past. We can blame William for a lot, but not for the Kikis. Plus it fits her trend of buying several of the same things but in different colours, which she does with her clothing. William is not known to have purchased anything for Kate yet. At least KP hasn’t said so.

            2. KP will never announce personal gifts – it can only be speculated upon.

               I don’t recall ever seeing Kate shop at Kiki’s but it’s possible.

               I don’t like Kiki’s much myself, thinking them overpriced and wish Kate would use many of the other fine jewellers in the country but I believe she thinks semi-precious jewellery draws less notice.

               The queen has been loaning jewellery she herself wore as a young woman. I don’t see this as a sign of either favour or disfavour – we don’t know how choices are made, and that ruby necklace would be a sentimental piece for the queen, but I don’t think the fiddly necklaces suit Kate well – some of the Middle Eastern gifts the queen rarely wears might suit her better.

               As for the order, I’m not ruling out the issue of ivory. The queen may prefer not to have her order made out of porcelain or enamel and I don’t think William wants Kate wearing ivory. Her wearing an order made of something else would call attention to the royal ladies who do wear the ivory orders. But it could be Kate’s lack of work as well – now her engagements have slightly increased, we’ll see what the diplomatic reception brings if she attends.

            3. Am I remembering correctly when I say that they do disclose gifts on on a financial disclosure basis? I think I’ve seen things to that effect. They report gifts to the kids too.

            4. Julia: the owner/designer at Kiki has told reporters on more than one occasion that Kate shops there herself. Not just for the kiki earrings, but the eternity band as well.

               William is a known skinflint whose gifts to Kate, as far as jewellery is concerned are exactly 3 items. A watch, a wooden bracelet and the engagement ring. During the dating years, there was speculation that he gave her a watch which is different in style to the one she currently wears, but no one could say for certain that it was his gift.

               Given his reputation for being a skinflint, the often repeated joke about the engagement ring is that it cost him nothing monetarily and that’s why he chose it!! (Yes i know the emotional reasons, but the joke is a reference to his refusal to spend any of his money on anyone or anything and is quite free with getting freebies out of people. Including getting the Middletoms to fund his mustique / ski holiday habits!!)

               Yes, i know Diana received lots of jewellery gifts from various royal families. The Middle Easterners were particularly generous, and she borrowed from the Queen too, but she also wore alot of Spencer jewels as well as receiving gifts from Charles.

               One habit Charles has, probably acquired from his grandmother, is a love of gifting jewels to his ladies. He was generous to Diana and he is generous to Camilla.

               A habit William doesn’t have.

            5. Ok Herazeus this is for you. I thought while they were dating g he also gave her that gold ring that she would wear on the middle finger which had both of their birthstones set in it? I thought he also supposedly gave her some pearl earrings like a year before they got engaged or something and her brother’s dog chewed up the box they were in or something like that? And I also thought people credited him with giving her those peridot Kiki’s their first married Christmas together that she wore on the first walk with the royal family to church. What’s your take?

         2. This is another thing that was modeled for William that he didn’t pick up on— the gifting of jewelry. With both Diana and Camilla, Charles is lovely and generous about giving it. And, of course, Philip has given so many beautiful things to the Queen.

            1. The only gifts that have to be disclosed today are ones given on tours and engagements and the like. Private gifts amongst family members aren’t included.

               Philip has given some lovely things. Charles has been a bit too generous to Camilla, it feels like compensation and does her no favours – just makes them look expensive and out of touch when she already has too many overseas gifts and much of the Queen Mum’s jewels at her disposal – honestly giving expensive gifts is what a man is seen as doing for a mistress more than a wife.

               William is very private even about what gifts the children are given – which has at times sounded a bit rude to me when a child has asked him – although my husband approved of that discretion – so I think he would be extremely subtle about anything he gives to Kate. I would hope Harry would follow suit – gifts of things that belonged to Diana are unexceptional since they already exist – it doesn’t look like you’re spending a fortune.

               On clothes, I don’t always agree here on what’s said about Kate because the clothes royals were are often expensive – the only difference is most royal ladies do work more – although Camilla’s numbers aren’t hugely higher. I’d rather pay for the mostly tasteful things Kate wears than some of the excesses of Maxima, and there are other royal ladies who are said to have purchased jewellery – Mary of Denmark being one of them.

5. And I wish Kate would stop wearing jewels or anything associated with Diana. Kate isn’t fit to wipe her shoes.

   1. More than that, if she doesn’t want to be compared to Diana she should choose other options. She could politely ask the Queen to loan jewels not associated with Diana, I’m sure HM would understand.

      1. Are you sure Kate does not want to be compared to Diana? She flashes that ring at every opportunity, as well as there being many examples mimicking attire evoking her late mother-in-law. And then there’s dressing George in almost identical clothes to William when he was a child. I don’t think Kate has much of a personality, and content to absorb the identity of another woman, hoping it will elicit the same affection.

         1. True perhaps it is just the press that say she doesn’t want to be compared.

            1. With this necklace and dress, she looks a lot like Diana.Everyone would.It’s like dressing up like her.
               I wonder why she does it.She could wear her own style.
               I wonder if William appreiate it or finds it annoying?
               It surely is no coincidence, everyone with eyes can see her resemblance in this outfit.

            2. Around the time of the engagement, it became very clear to me that Kate plays up Diana for William.

               William has Diana issues, and Kate cosplays her to keep William attached. Everything from needing to be looked after (Diana was so vehement about not being looked after), William fulfilling his promise to Diana that he would look after her when he grew up, the paps ‘harrassing’ Kate, dressing like her. All of it to feed William’s Diana fetish.

            3. I totally agree on her wanting to emulate Diana. This dress, though, to me is a simple and beautiful lace dress, and one that pre-dates Diana. Diana can’t “own” every single style ever created.

         2. Yea I found Charlotte’s christening to be very strange, with George wearing near identical clothes that William wore and in laughably old fashioned attire, Kate in her 1950’s housewife going to church finest attire and the “hired help” in the uniform.

6. Her neck looks like it is a bit too thin for this choker, that’s why it is so far down and close to the neckline of her dress 🙁

   1. I love multi strand pearl chokers but this one not so much. I think it’s the shape of the diamond clasp as I am not keen on marquise settings. None the less it probably looked dazzling.
      I don’t mind that it’s low down as it stands out against the black lace.

      1. I love pearl chokers but think they look best with a colored gem stone in the center to make them pop out. I also think the neckline of this dress works against it. Maybe if we saw a pic of her standing up it would help?

         1. Possibly.

   2. I also think the Zarita neckline doesn’t complement the Queen’s choker. It’s a piece made to stand alone imo not barter for space with eyelash fringe. At least her dress is black, which I think looks better than the color Di wore it with- it’s a draw. Kate looks very well, the sickness must have been gone some time now for her to look in such rude health.

      1. I agree.

7. Kate always looks like she’s having the time of her life. She is much more relaxed than William. It appears that both she and Harry understand that William can be a bit prickly about royal duties and she enjoys gently making fun of his angst. It’s probably a formula that helps to change his mood. I think they are sincerely in love and have a happy family. That’s wonderful in a world full of negativity.

   1. A man in love with his wife wouldn’t laugh at her in public, shove her around to direct her, talk to her the way he does. I think she loves him as a dog loves their master. Always wanting his approval.

      Kate made her bed and lies in it after stalking the guy for ages knowing he cheated on her and treated her poorly, but it makes me sad seeing her adoring faces and how he ignores her or how he treats her. That is wrong. But the other women William pursued said it loud and clear, he’s a nasty boor.

      1. Amen, sister!

      2. +1 Ellie.

      3. The one rude way (of so many) that William treated Kate that will always be at the forefront of my mind is the time he left her out in the rain outside Kensington Palace when the Obama’s visited. The President was concerned about her and William was not. He had an umbrella, didn’t he? And, would not shelter his wife?
         How rude. How inconsiderate. How very, very boorish. I felt so sorry for her then. It still makes me upset that he could treat his wife with so little regard.

         1. Jenny I’m not trying to challenge your perception but William did not have an umbrella. President Obama had one and he tried to get Kate to come under and she didn’t want to. William did walk ahead of Kate but he’s supposed to. Mr. Obama tried to get Prince Harry to walk ahead of him but he refused.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2GcxjEoo-Y

            1. It was their house. It’s London where it rains a lot. no umbrella in sight? Wouldn’t you want your so to protected from the rain? Yet it’s the visiting foreign dignitary that offers up his. That’s why it stuck out.

            2. For whatever reason the royals did not have a umbrella on hand; only President Obama had one and he used it to shield his wife. I would imagine they are used to a little rain and didn’t think it was necessary for a quick photo-op

      4. I read that Ellie as a nasty boar.

   2. Karey +1

8. I think Catherine looks lovely.

   1. So do I.

9. I love that choker. And I think this is the first time Kate has worn a pearl necklace. It looks nice. I hope she wears it again with a different neckline so we can see it better-it doesn’t really work with a boat neckline. It needs a V-neck or scoop to really show it off.

   1. I’m not usually a fan of pearl chokers but I do agree this one is lovely and it looks good on Kate. I quite like the contrast against the black, but it would be nice with a v neckline or even better, a strapless dress.

10. Why does The Queen keep loaning Kate lots of jewels? Is it because they have a close relationship? No royal order?

    1. I keep coming back to the fact that Waity has no royal order and that is why she keeps wearing-badly-jewels from the Queen. They look SO CHEAP on her. And like I said, Waity hasn’t EARNED the right to wear them. Nor does she appreciate them in the least.

       1. ‘Waity hasn’t EARNED the right to wear them’

          You don’t have to earn the right to wear family jewelry. If a family member has loaned them to you, then clearly you are allowed to wear them.

          ‘Nor does she appreciate them in the least.’

          How do you know that?

          1. I’m just surprised that The Queen has loaned Kate a lot of her jewels compared to the past when she would barely loan jewels to the royal women.

             1. Kate is going to be Queen someday and all those blings will belong to her somehow, why the Queen would not borrow it to her, I bet she doesnt even need to ask. Also theres some jewalery that belongs to Diana and now belongs to William and Catherine will probably have acess to those since now it also belongs to her.

             2. The jewelry will never belong to Kate, but to the Crown. And before her there is Camilla who will have access to it. Kate does not get to usurp that role. And there are definitely pieces that belong to Elizabeth personally and she will be giving them to her female family members, because she is not going to just give it all to Camilla. (She also wouldn’t have done that for Diana either). Queen Victoria did the same.

          2. KMR +1

          3. KMR I would say she doesn’t appreciate them because she wears beautiful earrings with her hair down so you can’t see them, or this necklace with a neckline on her dress that doesn’t work. If you have some of the most spectacular jewels in the world, your outfit and accessories should showcase them.

             1. It smacks of throwing money around indiscriminately. Surely, anyone in Kate’s position would seek advice in building a collection? Instead, all she has are many similar, unforgettable pieces from a dull brand that will have depreciated. With seemingly limitless funds and any number of knowledgeable experts on tap, why not build from estate collections, new designers and so on?

                And as Birdy says, Kate doesn’t understand how to wear her jewellery to accentuate either the pieces or clothes; how many times have people written here that she needs a professional stylist?

                Looking at patterns of behaviour, Kate appears to be reluctant to seek professional counsel, preferring her own or family. In her role that is not an intelligent position to take, especially because the money she is using willy-nilly is not her own; rather, it reveals an arrogant and insular mindset.

          4. +1 KMR

11. Kate should refrain from wearing chokers or jewelry that’s close to the neck. In the above pictures the choker draws attention to her adam’s apple and highlights the difference in color/makeup between her face and neck. If Kate wants to copy Diana’s style then she should ensure she does it correctly, in this instance Diana’s face and neck were perfectly blended. I have to wonder how William/Harry feel about Kate imitating Diana’s style, etc.

    1. If Diana wore a dress with that neckline, she would have worn her hair up and the choker backwards so the focal point was at the back.

       1. That’s because Diana had style, was original and had common sense. Waity is neither of those things and doesn’t have those qualities.

12. Am I right in thinking that Kate is wearing more of Diana’s jewelry (not including the loaned pieces that Diana also wore) since it became known how serious Harry and Meghan are? Is William not-so-subtly claiming Diana’s jewelry piece by piece before Harry marries?

    1. William being William this wouldn’t surprise me. Preventing Harry from ever giving anything of their mother’s to his brother’s wife, whoever she may be.

       Kate’s the future queen consort, no matter what, so…

       1. Some of the jewelry belongs to the Queen personally so it won’t all be kept for Camilla and Kate as future Queen consort. I suspect Anne will be receiving a great deal of it and other female relatives.

    2. Everything that used to belong to Diana was split between Harry and William, the things Catherine wears belongs now to her, unless its not from Diana and it belongs to the Queen. Theres many more jewalery that just Meghan will wear.

       1. How do you know it belongs to her? I would think that William and Harry have kept the majority of Dianna’s jewelry in a “pool” so both wives and later on – daughters can enjoy all the pieces.

          1. I’m guessing that William places royal first dibs on any bling he wants and Harry gets the leavings. I doubt that Harry is treated like a peer, even as a brother.

          2. Just look up the information please. Diane wrote down her wishes incuding which one of her belongs would be to each child. Like the blue ring used to belong to Harry but he decided to give it to Willian so he could give to Kate.

             1. I thought William swiped the ring from the vault without asking Harry first…..

    3. Hopefully Harry stands up to claim the 50% he is entitled to – or tells Will to buy him out – that would be interesting as Will is known to be”cheap”

       1. To be honest and this is no shade to Diana, who I absolutely ADORE, I don’t think either Meghan or Waity should wear anything associated with Diana. Give it a few generations. I just it invites comparisons and to be honest, I think it is bad luck.

          I shuddered when Kate got that engagement ring. I truly believe nothing good will come of her having it and I wouldn’t like it if Meghan got it either. I admit, I am superstitious, but I stand by that.

          Of course if Meghan wears anything of Diana’s, all hell will break loose and certain ugly comments will be slung at her that will not be thrown at Waity.

          1. I still shudder at that engagement ring. So much bad karma.

             I hope Harry’s wife gets the gobstopper sapphire choker ?

             1. I want to know where that sapphire choker is!! It’s my favorite!! I also think she had a beautiful emerald choker. Kate seems to have finally been given access to the Diana jewels so it’ll be interesting to see what makes an appearance.
                I wonder how the divided them up? You pick one, I pick one type? Or since Kate eventually gets all the other bling does Harry get more?

             2. Did Charles buy that sapphire choker for Diana? I thought it was a loan from the Queen. Dear God, if Meghan gets that, Waity and Carole will have their considerable claws out.

                I prefer that Meghan not wear anything of Diana’s. As I said, there will be comments made and they will be made with a different kind of venom of than if Kate were to wear them.

                That emerald choker Diana wore as a headpiece-was that a loan from the Queen? Is there a website just about Diana’s jewels?

             3. That sapphire brooch was a wedding gift from the Queen Mother to Diana. Diana later converted the brooch into a choker.

                http://dianasjewels.net/ is the only site I know of about Diana’s jewels, but there may be others.

             4. Sarah, perhaps, it’s open to everyone from the Queen to Kate(except engagement ring,it’s Kate’s now)Meghan and Camilla.
                But could you imagine Camilla wearing one of Diana’s jewels?
                All hell would break loose! ×)And rightly so, I would say.

             5. Lovely Blossom: Camilla has already worn pieces previously worn by Diana and she was torn to shreds for it.
                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-409065/Camilla-steps-diamond-brooch-Diana-used-wear.html

                Despite the shredding then, she has worn that brooch a few times, and she is shredded every time.
                https://www.thedailybeast.com/camilla-wears-dianas-brooch

             6. Are you sure she’s shredded every single time she wears this brooch? Because she wore it to Trooping in 2015 and I don’t remember anyone mentioning it at all let alone shredding her for wearing it.

                http://www.gettyimages.com/license/477044282

             7. KMR: You’ve never shredded anyone.

                I should have been clearer that it is other media that write trolling articles when Camilka wears this brooch or other diana associated jewellery and it’s the commentors to those articles who shred Camilla for it, and call her disrespectful for wearing ‘diana’s jewels’.

          2. I see plenty of unfortunate comments about Kate being made right here. I’m known to be quite critical myself but also believe in being fair.

             I myself wear my granny’s engagement ring for sentiment’s sake because she never had a chance to meet my husband but left me her ring. Her marriage was miserably unhappy but she loved her ring. I’ve been happily married for over thirty years – you make your own karma. I see nothing wrong with William wanting to make a link with his mum who picked out that ring herself and loved sapphires but never had the chance to meet Kate. I would suspect Harry will choose something of his mum’s – either another ring she had or perhaps like Philip create a ring from other jewellery.

             Jewellery will be passed down. George is expected to be king one day. Harry’s children will most like be in private life and like Margaret’s children won’t have as many chance to wear big jewels. Much of Margaret’s jewellery ended up sold so it makes sense to me to pass most of it through the expected royal line with just a few pieces reserved for a younger sibling for sentiment’s sake. Many lovely pieces have been lost to auctions and disappeared because Alexandra and Mary didn’t do this. I would prefer to see a royal jewellery foundation like other countries have to prevent this.

             1. I wouldn’t personally wear a ring relating to one of the most acrimonious marriages and divorces known to the world, but to each her own. I just find it interesting that the ring was originally willed to Harry but William took it for himself. I think it explains the dynamics of the brothers quite well and it is not flattering to William.

                As for the jewelry, I think it will be very interesting once the Queen passes to see what happens with it. The last time the monarch was female was when Victoria was Queen and much of her jewelry was passed down to her daughters and left the royal vaults. I am not sure what the Queen will do, but to those saying Kate gets to control it, no she won’t First Camilla will be Queen consort and will have access to it first, and second, I am positive that many pieces will be given to Anne, and the female royals, not the daughter and granddaugther in laws (except for Sophie because I think the Queen truly likes her).

13. hello i am new here, forgive me if my english is very bad
    first, i want to say thank you to KMR i like your blog very much, your blog is very fair
    second, i confuse to why some people upset if the queen loaned her jawelry to kate, i mean whether you like her or not she is married to william,she is his wife,she is part of the family and its oke to loan jewelry to your family member, you dont have to earn the right to wear family jewelry just like KMR said
    however, its completely different story for the royal family order, you have to earn the right to receive it and as far i can see the queen dont give it to her yet, i think its because she still not doing enough to deserve it.

    1. There are ppl out there who get upset no matter what she does. I don’t really get it either, but I’m guessing it comes from ppl being unhappy with their own lives, and they turn on her with jealousy instead of compassion. Sad!

       1. Rose. Go to the top of the page where it says KATE MIDDLETON REVIEW and read the sentence directly below it. Everything you say has been said here multiple times before by many different commenters- yet here we still are. We are here for a reason. Disenchantment and holding these supremely privileged humans to what they say. Which, as we have all come to see since this blog’s inception is rarely what they do. It’s been a let down pretty much since the honeymoon. We are entitled to feel that way and if you sincerely disagree with this attitude, please know YOU are not the one who’s going to change our minds by belittling our conversations and opinions.

          1. I 100% agree. Waity sugars don’t fare well here. I have never gotten why people defend Waity, when there is nothing to defend or advocate for. She is a disgrace to the family and will be a horrible, lazy Queen.

             On the flipside, though, I wonder if she has a some sort of agrophobia or weird social anxiety that accounts for her laziness and just plain awkwardness around people.

             1. I can totally understand people defending Kate against unnecessary misogyny. Whether one likes Kate or not, one doesn’t have to be misogynistic about the names they call her.

             2. Leah, I appreciate your flip side compassion. I try to look at people with compassion, it’s not always easy for me. I have a hard time relating to folks who are exclusively critical of Kate and her husband. I don’t understand why you would keep reading this blog if it brings up so much dislike and negativity. Birdy, all of your comments on this page are negative. There are parts of my taxmoney spending I dislike, but I can’t imagine spending my time complaining over and over again in comment feeds on blogs about Donald Trump. What do you get out of this? I’m asking that honestly because I really can’t relate. I guess my INFP is shining.

             3. All your comments in this blog are always full of vennon, you call the Duchess a mistress in another post. You are always mean, ressentful and unfair in all your comments. You just sound like a jelous person, and I am sorry if you are not, but read all your comments, they are always desperate screaming bad stuff. Theres a classier way to dislike Catherine withous sound so unkind like you

          2. Entitled to feel that way? Do you have a personal connection or were you wronged by one of them?

             As I stated in a reply above, I’m hugely disappointed in both William and Kate but I don’t feel entitled in bashing people I don’t know, especially given the fact that I’m not a British citizen.

             1. As I said many many times before on this same blog, I dont get why people that ae not even part of England or what it respresent, feels entitiled about things relate to the royal family. I have a double citzenship, I am also britsh not by birth, I pay my taxes in the UK and we the ones that pay the taxes to the royals, we dont care or have that much hate towards them. Then I see people screaming and banishing Kate or the royals and the are from the Mideast of Usa, and I am like, what does that make you feel, how did you ended up feelin so connected and entitiled about the Britsh Royal family? I see some vennon comments in this blogs and I am always choked. Kate is not doing anything bad to you and actulaly to anyone, she is going to be the next Queen consorte and not Camila, its been a long time that was decided that Camila wont be called Queen consort, everyone in England knows it. People here adore the idea of the Royal family and truste me they are not going away anytime soon. So why so much bullying, stress and hate over it? Its okay to not like theirs work, or style or even their personality, but theres a classy way to disagree. This people are not doing you any harm and you dont have the right to call them names, or wish bad stuff. Just be classy people, its okay to not like it but its not okay to be hateful. And like everyone else in the UK I am going to keep MY taxes going to the royals wich we know and are okay with and if WE THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY HAVE A SAY over the Royals, dont want them anymore, we would make them to leave, like another countries did, but we wont. So just enjoy, this is a very entertaining blog and the owner works hard to show lots of infos.

             2. Camilla will be Queen consort unless Charles dies before the Queen. She uses Duchess of Cornwall to avoid the Diana issue, but it has been twenty years since her passing and the public won’t be objecting to Camilla being called Queen consort once the time comes. And really it doesn’t matter since the public can’t vote on this. Charles has done the PR for decades to make this happen.

                And there are many posters here from Commonwealth countries who have the Queen as head of state and are stuck paying for when the royals deign to visit on occasion. Many question the point of a foreign head of state that has no real connection to the cultures of their respective countries, especially because William doesn’t bother to prepare when he visits and boldly admits it.

                But really no one has a vote because that’s the entire point of a monarchy, it is decided for you. Regardless of whether or not the next in line is qualified or competent.

             3. I find this notion that only peeps in the U.K./commonwealth are able/”entitled” to comment or have thoughts about the BRF or really anything outside of their country rather sad and narrow minded. We don’t live in isolationist societies anymore.
                Most of us are well traveled, educated and have broad interests the spand locally, federally and yes globally. I don’t live in Zimbabwe but I have thoughts on things that are happening there just like i have concerns over things in my own country! No, I don’t pay taxes in the U.K. but my country is an ally with them and I travel there so things happening there concern me. Many of us feel that the monarchy will be abolished in our lifetimes so that makes the goings on there even more interesting. There are many reasons why people are here. Many of us don’t believe in the idea of hereditary rule but love fashion, bling and history. William, Kate and more recently Harry are a huge disappoint (at least to me) and it’s refreshingy to read things that are sycophantic and nonstop OTT praise. It’s also nice to read viewpoints from all over. Last yr many shared the holiday traditions of their countries and I loved hearing about them! Had nothing to do with royals but if we only had peeps from the U.K. on here, we wouldn’t have that.
                And according to that malarkey of a pr piece called the royal finance brand the U.K. Better keep hoping we non British citizens keep an interest in the monarchy because the royalty inspiried tourism is 500 mil or so ?
                To my fellow Americans or those who just celebrate it early Happy thanksgiving

             4. OK Nancy, that’s fair. I will edit “entitled” to say instead- “This is how we feel and if…”

       2. What a sad and inaccurate reply Rose, and very insulting to those you don’t know at all. I find your comment deliberately written to cause trouble, I hope I am wrong. I have a very happy life, but Kate disappoints me. As a U.K. taxpayer I am funding her lavish lifestyle and don’t like the fact she gives so little back.

          1. Exactly. My life is fine and Rose the personal attacks on us non-Waity fans is not warranted.

             1. Personal attacks? Consistently referring to someone by a nickname with negative connotations is a personal attack. (Aka Waity.) I didn’t call you out in the slightest, you threw yourself under the bus.

          2. And Birdy, no, my comment wasn’t deliberately written to cause trouble, but I can see how it could come across that way. I’m generally a glass half-full person, and I often come across as too pro-Kate for many people here. I honestly don’t understand why people, like yourself- who seem to only have negative things to say- bother to hang around here. I really don’t like Donald Trump, so I either do what I can for meaningful change (calling or writing to actual members of my government,) or I don’t spend any time time on it. What do you get out of focusing so much time on something you dislike so much? It’s not going to make your tax money stop going to the Royals, so why bother? Do you enjoy the time spent making negative comments?

             1. Rose +1

             2. Please have the courtesy to stop telling me what to do with my time, it is totally unnecessary to be so personally rude to me. I will not respond further to any comments you make on this post or any future posts.

             3. Birdy, I’m honestly curious.

          3. “..To whom much is given, much is expected …” and Kate has failed miserably …. .

             I’m of the opinion that we are all entitled to our opinions, be they positive and/or negative, and it’s the reason people blog. The mission of this blog as stated “A critical blog about Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, and the rest of the British royal family.”

             From Kate’s own mouth,(not verbatim), she was *keen* on filling up her diary. She stated such of her own volition, and I didn’t see anyone threatening her in any way, when she uttered that statement many times. Kate is a public figure who enjoys a lavish lifestyle via taxpayers hard-earned money, hence, it’s only normal for them to feel anger and express such verbally. No one likes to feel that they’ve been had and/or lied to in any way, form or fashion.

             1. For Agnes: ” Then I see people screaming and banishing Kate or the royals and the are from the Mideast of Usa, and I am like, what does that make you feel, how did you ended up feelin so connected and entitiled about the Britsh Royal family?”
                You’ve just insulted and/or alienated 50 percent of the commenters who post here. FYI, surprise, surprise, the blog owner is an American — and as we say in the US, “how do you like them apples”? I feel entitled to comment on this blog because our country has been host to Ms. Kaity and other members of the Family’s presence on several occasions, and our tax dollars had to be spent to protect her *exalted* self and wine and dine her also. Hence, before you insult us puhleeze stop and think!!

                It’s people such as yourself who empower her to continue to behave as *better than*. Is it any wonder Kaity does not feel obligated to make her insignificant appearances? Guess why, because she is exalted by some of the taxpayers who are prepared to fight for her and condone her laziness despite *her nibs* behaving as though she’s the best thing on two feet that ever landed on your country’s shores. And,
                BTW, Agnes, I come here for fun — a break from my work — not to be insulted, and I’m thankful that waity is yours so puhleeze keep her. Thank you very much.

    2. +1 silver

14. I dont like this dress on Duchess Catherine, I dislike it everytime. I do like the necklace tho and if the Queen did not want her to wear, she wouldnt. So if the Queen does not concern neither should I.
    I dislike the make up, its always the same and the heavy eye shadown, but thats my personal taste. I would love to see her in red or pink lipstick like the Queen use to dare.
    About Catherine ûsing too much of things that belonged to Diana, I think its okay, now part of this belongs to William and its normal that she is going to have it, surely many other are with Harry and its saved for his future wife too. Its the royal family, jewalery is probably not an issue.

15. To be fair to William here, I’ve never seen him look relaxed when being driven, even sans Kate. He is hyper aware of the cameras, I think, and hates it. I personally think his sour expression has nothing to do with Kate or Harry when he’s in a car. I think there are times he has been off-putting with Kate in public but I never read too much into his car demeanor because it is very consistent no matter who he is with or where he is going.

    The only time I can remember him looking relaxed when driving in public was with the newborns, and I think he felt in control there as he was the driver.

    I always feel Kate’s face is prettiest when in middle of her pregnancies. Not just because her face is fuller, but because she has a smile that reaches her eyes.

    I’m glad she has events lined up through the end of the month, as December will likely be quiet.

    1. Agree, pregnancy looks good on her.

    2. I agree – he seems to hate being photographed in the car and I think Kate is trying to compensate.

       There have been times William has actually put his arm up to block photographs. Personally, I find it childish and petulant. The public is not invited to these lavish events – these few bad snaps are often all we get. He should think about that. Personally, I would love more formal photos to be released. than the car shots would be less necessary. There still seems to be this feeling that seeing the royals dine on pheasant isn’t good enough for us peasants – though the formal photo taken at last year’s diplomatic reception was a start in the right direction.

       I would love for a formal photo to be released of the whole family present, perhaps for the last time, at this gathering but it doesn’t look to happen.

       1. Kate has been with William close to 18 years, and by now she should know that he does not like photographers nor will he entertain her feeble attempts to make him smile. I feel that Kate will smile even if William were to tell her through clenched teeth that she’s stupid, et.al. Kate loves the camera and goes out of her way to engage the photographers. I believe she wants to give the impression that she and William are absolutely in love, regardless of what others may think, and enjoys being with him. She loves being the focal point of the pictures taken, vis-à-vis, if others smile, Kate can’t do that, she has to open her mouth the widest with nose wrinkled up and all teeth on display to give the impression that she’s having a wonderful time. I keep wondering whether her over the top actions have been addressed by the Queen or is it that the RF does not care enough? I’ve never seen pictures of other RF members behaving like Kaity. .She’s pathetic.

16. Some photos of the trio early in the trip to Windsor show Catherine wearing a black shearling jacket over her dress. I had never seen her wear it before so maybe it is new or maybe part of her private events wardrobe.

    1. I actually wondered how she got that coat off! It was a tight squeeze in the back of the car.

       1. I wondered that too. And why she wore it in the first place. It’s not like London and Windsor are sub zero, and she was getting into a warm car and sitting between two people!

          1. I concur on all points Marion Cole.

17. A repeat dress, some glam jewels, and an event supporting gardening in schools. I’m satisfied! Thanks, KMR!

18. I know we probably have all said this before but why does William compress his lips together and end up with puffed out cheeks? Is this his resting heir-to-the throne look or his I-am-an old-young-fogey-with-bad-dentures look. Oy vey!
    Kate: Unfortunately the neckline of the dress detracts from the necklace, thus making it look out of place and dull. Maybe Kate is just not a necklace person because none of these bigger pieces pop on her. Also, interesting how Kate wears a lot of black when pregnant.
    On a positive, glad to see she is out and about for the rest of the month.

    Harry, I beg you, get rid of the facial hair!

    1. I just want to add that I agree Kate does have a glow tonight.

    2. “I know we probably have all said this before but why does William compress his lips together and end up with puffed out cheeks”

       Because he’s a big put upon baby. Yet he thinks he’s so special and superior.

       1. He used to the same expression when he was younger: but at that time he had hair, was seen as a sex symbol and thus this was considered a smouldering look. Now it looks like something’s of a grimace ?

          1. That passed as a smoulder? To me he looks like a puffer Fish.

          2. It was half smoldering/half “shy Di” expression which endeared him to the public back in the day.

19. Why on earth would I have compassion for Waity? She doesn’t need or deserve it. She is a lazy woman who does not work, she herself has no compassion for those less fortunate than her and cannot relate to others not in her social strata. Waity has never worked a day in her life and doesn’t really work now. That is beyond offensive to me. She does not appreciate her position, use the platform she is given to make a difference in anyway. Waity has little to no intellectual curiousity. She is a Stepford Wife, who is content to be a little 50s house wife. She is no role model at all for women. Disgusting.

    And yes, like someone said upthread, I think one of the reasons Waity is smiling so broadly is because she is she is still top dog because Meghan is not there. If Meghan was there, I guarantee Waity would not be smiling. She would have serious Resting Bitch Face and be glaring daggers at Meghan.

    I am sure Waity and that gorgon of a mother of hers are already drawing up and finalizing plans on how they are gonna gaslight Meghan.

    1. While Kate may be lazy and not care about doing good in the world with her position, she really doesn’t deserve as much vitriol as she receives. She’s lazy and wasteful in her spending, but there is no need to treat her like the devil. I’m all for calling Kate out on her laziness and wasteful spending and lying, but there really is no need to call Kate or her mother rude, misogynistic names – especially if one is going to call out others for being misogynistic toward Meghan.

       1. KMR: +1

       2. +1 KMR

       3. +1 KMR

       4. All Leah s comments are heavy and full of bitter hate.

          1. Agree. Kate certainly has her faults, as do we all. but she doesn’t deserve this level of vitriol. I find some of the nicknames misogynistic and offensive.

       5. Calling her Waity is very Troll Like behavior IMHO… lazy can hold some ground but Waity seems a little sexist

          1. Sunfuntravel +1

    2. Leah, your vitriol against women who worked hard to create a home for their families, either in the 1950s or present day, is rude. And I say this as a woman who chooses to build a career.

       And for what it is worth, I doubt Kate works as hard as the terrible 1950s non-working housewife you are going on about.

       1. My grandmothers would have fallen in that definition and they were nowhere near as submissive and lazy as Kate is. I think she acts more like a Victorian upper class aristocratic wife, except without the noblesse oblige which would require her to be more heavily involved in charitable endeavours. In short she is unique in that she isn’t doing much of anything she should be doing regardless of the century.

    3. Leah, there is not one shred of evidence that Kate and her mother are plotting.

       It makes no sense for your over the top emotions about these people to exist. You don’t know them. You have no idea what really goes on in their lives. Where do you get your information from? A picture snapped in a millisecond? Anyone can have an expression that can be interpreted negatively.

       Is Kate a disappointment? Absolutely, but spewing hatred is also disappointing. Why are you letting this eat you up? There is no reason to care that much unless there is some deep seated problem or resentment within you.

       1. Nancy +1

       2. +1000 it’s disturbing how people seem to really believe they know everything about people that they’ve never even met.

          1. Joanna Wallace +1

             . . . and are unlikely to ever meet.

20. Leah i agree with your comments!

    1. Thank you, Halia!

21. I guess the is she or isn’t she in London has been solved.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5104969/Meghan-Markle-spotted-Christmas-shopping-London.html
    Mrs. BBV, what’s your hubby saying

    1. I actually like her outfit here.

       1. I must have this leather jacket!!

       2. I like Meghan’s outfit,too.A bit pricey, but nevertheless a nice clothing choice for shopping.

    2. And look, Meghan is shopping with someone not her mom or sister. Take notes, Waity.

       1. I actually wonder if that person is security. They’re not talking, she doesn’t have purse or wallet or anything else I’d expect a friend out shopping with to have.

          1. Also, she’s moving to block the photographer’s view of Meghan. So I think she’s security.

             1. The lady with Meghan is Sarah Chapman, who owns a skin care clinic. Meghan was shopping in her store & I think she might have been escorting her perhaps back to her car.

             2. It seems that Meghan is not above unwarranted drama. She could have bravely strolled through and taken the attention. But no, she’s stalked and harassed and a victim. Seriously? She giving off vibes about her importance so I’m calling that soon there will be an announcement.

                She’s bought into the “modern” royals’ idea of victimhood to convince her honey she hates the attention instead of reacting with grace- that grace is possible. So disappointing. And really manipulative.

             3. Initially I thought she was a PO too.

             4. The dark glasses in autumn worn with a scarf are simply awful – something Victoria Beckham would wear – Meghan is beautiful but needs to lose the Hollywood actress look immediately. The same with the overpriced bag.

                I don’t think Meghan’s the slightest threat to Kate who has the home advantage. There’s been so much talk here about Kate’s ‘posh’ accent. Imagine if Harry had chosen a sparkling aristocrat who came by that accent naturally and knew the score.

                I do think Meghan can do well long term if they marry but she is starting from ground up with masses to learn. Her comments in Vanity Fair made her look very pushy – a title best left to Princess Michael – another foreigner who came on much too strong. For those who can find Majesty, Ingrid Seward, a shrewd royal reporter had some comments on that last month.

                Right now Meghan is roaring down the outside lane of a motorway well in excess of speed limits which she seems not to have noticed – whilst Kate always looks as if she is wanting to get off at the next services. I would like to see both end up in the middle – Meghan learning how the royal family and the country functions before jumping ahead and Kate stepping forward more.

    3. We will go.crazy if we don’t know soon what they are doing in London together.
       Yes, celebrating Christmas,.isn’t that obvious? x))
       It will be so interesting to see later if they are engaged already now or if it all was speculation.
       On the other hand, she would never stop her work at “Suits” if she wouldn’t be.
       These two make it really exciting!

    4. He’s going to check the bookmakers odds when he gets in tonight. Apparently you can do that online…..who knew?

       How interesting she’s shopping for beachwear. I suspect that means that Harry is having his Christmas Day at Sandringham and then flying off somewhere hot with her on Boxing Day.
       Either that or they are going to announce their engagement and then fly off for a short holiday whilst the country goes into engagement frenzy and mainly so they don’t have to hear about all the snidey press analysis in papers like the DM whose comment section is still very anti Sparkles.

       That lady with her……definitely protection. Maybe not full RP but someone has called someone in to give her a hand as the speculation ramps up a gear. Good move really because she’s obviously quite high profile and more recognisable that 12 months ago.

       1. I just saw where one betting agency or bookie or whatever you call them has suspended all bets regarding an upcoming engagement. Just days away now, perhaps?

          1. I think so. My gut feeling this week has been his week / next week for an announcement. Oh I really hope so.

             Sartorially she doesn’t put a foot wrong IMO. Even when she wears something I don’t much like she just exudes a really savvy with her appearance.

             1. +1 about outfit and engagement, Mrs. BBV!

             2. I would doubt that. Royal engagements aren’t long and there are sensitive immigration issues. I think January or February – quiet royal months, are more likely if there is to be a quick engagement with a marriage in early July at Windsor the most likely early date. June is a very busy royal month and May is thought traditionally bad luck, something this impetuous couple doesn’t need. (Princess Margaret was married in May and June 3 is the Edward VIII wedding date – a time to avoid.)

                (Personally, I would like to see them wait until Meghan has a chance to learn more about the country where she aspires to be a princess and both are certain they’re doing the correct thing. Royal divorces are awful – nothing like walking away because you spend to much time apart as Meghan did before – if there are children, Meghan will never leave Britain – even if she hates it.)

                And no more holidays please! – there have been too many already with the African holiday – we already had the sunshine holiday problem in the past with William and Kate. Let’s do things better this time with more of an eye to the mood of the nation.

       2. She had security with her in Toronto so I can’t imagine that she would be in London without any considering the frenzy is increased there.

          Also great casual outfit and nice to see something other than jeggings.

          1. Frenzy? What frenzy? She’s not going to be queen. She’s not an aristocrat. She is a relatively tepid celebrity. That might change if she becomes affianced, but even then, Harry is rather low on the totem pole.

             1. Maven, you hate Meghan, I get it, but how is she calling attention to herself? She didn’t call the paps and Sarah was politely walking Meghan to her car or wherever. Meghan unfortunately won’t be Queen and lord knows if she would, she’d do a damn site better than Waity, but she will still be a senior royal and of huge interest as she is American and biracial. Sorry you have an issue with that.

                Harry is not low on the totem pole. According to polls, he is the most popular royal and he is Diana’s son, with the charisma that Waity and Whiny are SORELY lacking, the stiffs. Being Diana’s son is a BIG deal, especially here in America, where she is adored and rightfully so, bless her.

                I love Meghan’s confidence and her outfit is flawless. And while Meghan may be a “tepid” celebrity, she will soon be a Duchess and will get tons of press coverage and hopefully do good with the platform she is given.

                And Maven, how do you know Meghan has bought into being a victim? NOTHING suggests that. But I do think she needs protection because the hatred lobbed toward her esp by the Daily Fail readers is horrible.

             2. I’m honestly curious, why is it okay to be so negative toward Kate, but not okay for someone to be anything other than positive toward Meghan? You like Meghan, and I totally get that – we all have and defend our favorites. But I find it interesting that you do to Kate what you criticize others for doing to Meghan. And it’s not like Mavin ever gives a pass to Kate; Mavin is quite critical of Kate, too.

             3. And not to get into a battle but isn’t this the same poster that cried that she wanted the misogynistic bs to quit on a Harry post yet uses disparaging names and what not in terms of Kate? You can’t have it both ways. I’m by no means a Kate fan but calling her waity and saying she hasn’t earned wearing the family jewels and what not reeks of hypocrisy.
                If that’s another poster my apologies.

             4. KMR, I don’t think it’s an issue of HAVING to be positive toward Meghan. I think most here are willing to criticize when it’s called for. But she’s not even officially engaged yet. There’s not much to criticize her for.

                Meghan could be the best thing that has ever happened to the royal family OR she could be the nail in the coffin. Who knows? She’s Schrodinger’s Duchess at this point. Some of us are choosing to believe that’ll it will turn out well, and others are assuming the worst. NO ONE is right yet, but personally, I think we should attempt to be charitable and assume the best until she gives us legitimate reasons not to.

             5. There is definitely a press frenzy about Meghan. Whether or not the UK people think so is another story, but she ended up retaining more security in Toronto because of the press trying to break into her house. And the set of Suits also had increased security in the last year since the relationship has been made public.

             6. nic919

                Perhaps press frenzy means different things to different people. I remember the press surrounding Diana so I’m not seeing that kind of frenzy surrounding Meghan, or a public frenzy, most importantly.

                As to all the naysayers, until now I’ve been neutral about Meghan. She could walk through the fire with grace but with the pics, she’s acting like she’s being assaulted. This is the beginning of the victim narrative, IMO. This is the first time that I suspect drama. I am disappointed.

                It’s so much more fun to cheer on someone who doesn’t seem to play false.

             7. “. . . I find it interesting that you do to Kate what you criticize others for doing to Meghan.”

                KMR: This is spot on.

             8. “She could walk through the fire with grace but with the pics, she’s acting like she’s being assaulted.”

                On this occasion I agree with you Maven the First. My impressions were similar to yours. However, I am hopeful that it is not a sign of things to come.

             9. Agreed KMR

             10. There are many things Meghan can’t help that stand against her like being a divorced American actress – These things are beyond her control.

                 But she has made mistakes that are within her control most of all that Vanity Fair article. Even if she had to do it for her work, discussing her relationship is a royal no-no, as is using ‘luvvie’ talk, which is despised in Britain. There were also those coy hints in her blog and far too much publicity and engagement talk before people even got to know her as a girlfriend – some coming from people close to her and those famous ‘unnamed royal sources’. There’s a feeling she’s being thrust upon the nation much too fast, knowing too little and assuming too much.

                 In fairness, I’m sure she’s gotten bad advice, Harry is not the best source on these things having made many mistakes himself and I have a low opinion of any advice – or anything – coming out of Kensington Palace. at least until Kate’s new secretary’s arrival. But part of becoming a successful royal is being a shrewd cautious independent thinker who evaluates the mood of the nation before acting, and that’s been wanting so far.

    5. I like the top half of her outfit. However I don’t like the cut of the jeans, it doesn’t look flattering on her.

       1. Me either. Just a bit too flared at the bottom.

    6. So people are writing in the comments this is sarah Chapman with her, the designer. Are they friends?

       1. According to DM, Meghan had purchased skin care and maybe had a facial, and was being escorted to her car. I suspect this is often done for high profile clients.

       2. I’m a bit surprised about that as I thought Sarah Chapman was a bit older than this lady. Now the question is why a mid week facial? 24 hours to settle down before you meet the cameras? Are we looking at a Thursday / Friday announcement. We know it’s not tomorrow as Harry is at public engagements in West Midlands impeding my way to the shops.

          1. It’s William and Kate in Birmingham tomorrow, not Harry.

             1. I thought Harry was going with them? Jeez that’s even worse….. I was gonna Honk for Harry as I drove along in the car. Now I’m just going sit in snarled up traffic which no chance of see the ‘gorgeous one’.

             2. Nope, just William and Kate.

          2. My aesthetician always tells me to come in a wk before a big event. Gives the skin time to calm down and look it’s best, so maybe next wk? ?Or may she was just getting top of the line sunscreen for their vacay?

             1. I guess it depends on what she’s had done. Either option is plausible. I always get a facial before a sunny holiday and no closer than 24 hours before an event. If she’s having something more challenging like extraction or dermabrasion definitely needs longer than 24 hours.

                How exciting. ?

          3. Maybe I’m in the minority, but for some unexplainable reason I don’t feel that Harry and Meghan will get married. Maybe, engaged, and then it will fizzle out. Harry has been in the state of limerence quite a few times, and the relationship just fizzled out. I remember at W&K’s wedding Harry’s current beau, was invited to their wedding, and per one of the commentators, Harry asked that his GF be treated well. Granted, all of his previous GFs were younger than Meghan. and perhaps the attraction for Meghan is due to her being more mature and someone he can share more meaningful time with, as she is more worldly, but that can also get old. Further, I feel that their infatuation with one another is just that, infatuation, and they need to spend more time together before taking the romance one step further. For both of them, as the relationship now stands, each time they meet it’s idyllic, and everything is seen through rose-colored glasses. But, spending time together on a day-to-day basis, is quite different, and what previously was thought of as absolutely wonderful, can change dramatically. However, only time will tell ….

             1. This is how I feel about it too. I’m ambivalent about Meghan and a bit cynical. I don’t think this will lead anywhere to the altar.

             2. If she would go.over the top (because she is soo excited to become part of the monarchy) it could go.wrong for her.
                Like others said above, I don’t like her attention-seeking and ,it’s what we call the Middletons off for.
                Why not a woman who doesn’t need this attention?It’s always dangerous to give someone access to this place.
                I have to.say,I’m disappointed.
                Meghan seems to be a nice person, but too attention-seeking and living the luxury life for me(on the other hand being a charity person). It all has a bitter tase for me.
                Look at all the royal husbands and wives who never searched for fame, for example Daniel and Chris in Sweden.They love their wives, not the fame.So, they don’t going around,playing this game, write in magazines how crazy they are about their wives.They don’t have to.
                So, a big compliment for both of them! In comparison to others, I’m even more grateful for these two.
                I don’t get it why the British Monarchy never gets it right…

             3. I feel that way too. It is easy to be head over heels in love when the couple live and work (in harry’s case, I use the term work very lightly) far from each other and only spend time together being holed up in a palace or going off on exotic vacations. And Meghan has a grin (when she’s around Harry) that is too “cat got the cream”-like for me to warm up to her. At least she and Harry share the same trait of being overly self-congratulatory.

             4. My gosh, Snowflake. I never thought I’d read the words “state of limerence” anywhere, ever! The word and concept geek in me is thrilled.

                I can understand people having doubts about Harry the serial boyfriend. I think it’s actually pretty fine that he is able to sustain relationships for quite a while. But now?

                True, that he and Meghan have had an exciting love ride unhampered by reality and perhaps she will be just be another in the line of girlfriends. But let’s add a couple more factors to the mix- age, and Harry’s patent broodiness. Sometimes, your biological clock goes off and you just wanna procreate, especially if you love children the way Harry seems to.

22. KMR, will do you do a piece on Meghan out shopping in London?

    1. Yes, I’ve covered it over here: http://meghanmarklereview.com/2017/11/21/meghan-spotted-shopping-in-london/

       1. Thank you. It was lovely and thank you also for the website detailing Diana’s jewels.

23. I cannot STAND Kate, even before she had the ring, because she didn’t work and didn’t seem to want to and she spent her life waiting for a man. For TEN years. However, when the ring went on, I set about trying to give her a chance for two years and then it became clear that Waity would never work, didn’t want to and didn’t want to make a difference at all, that she only cared for luxury and privilege.

    To me, with my work ethic and being a feminist, that is inexcusable. This 50s throwback is going to be the next Queen of England and I find it tragic. She won’t change because she doesn’t care.

    1. I am disappointed in Kate as well but just fyi feminism is about having choice and equal opportunity, not about working.

       1. And Stephanie, I get that feminism is a choice. Kate just made a choice to be a Stepford Wife and to be lazy and not work. Her choice, but not a smart, respectable one or one that can be defended.

       2. +1 Stephanie

          Also, Kate did work, as an accessory’s buyer for Jigsaw.

          1. Kate barely worked at jigsaw. Her former boss said that and said her schedule was basically arranged around Whiny so she could be at his beck and call. Kate doesn’t know the meaning of the word work.

             1. Leah, you seem to dislike Kate so much. There are places where my tax money goes to which I emphatically disagree with as well, but I can’t imagine spending any amount of time on comment threads of Trump Blogs. What do you get out of this? I don’t get it. In addition to Mattress, can you stop Whiny and Waity as well?

          2. What Leah said.

             According to her former boss, Kate arranged to work for 3 days a week at jigsaw, on condition that she was could skip out at any moment should William call her. Her boss described her work demand as Kate needing to be available to continue a relationship with a high profile man. You try making that a condition at your next job interview!!

             Soon after she started work, 3 days dropped to 2 days a week.

             Then there was a month long heartbreak vacation after William broke up with her that April which she spent mostly in Ibiza, before returning to show him what he had missed via a media blitz and that very high profile charity boat race that she dropped the minute William made up with her.

             Not to mention that her work companions told the mirror (or was it the sun) that despite the very generous work schedule, she was rarely at work, spending alot of time in the car park talking to a person they presumed was William and or on vacation.

             Her jigsaw job lasted 9mths, BUT if you take away the generous schedule plus her heartbreak vacation month, it was closer to 3-4months of work.

             1. Didn’t a rather famous photographer, refuse to take Kate on staff when given the list of what her working requirements would be?

             2. I agree with you, although I interpreted that interview with her former boss very differently. I read the boss as saying she was happy to make accommodations. I was just saying, she did have a job. She also had a lot less time for a career than Meghan did before the Royal Romance began. I agree that I’d love to see Kate narrow down her focus and do more with the resources that she has. However, I also believe that she is probably very isolated, and very pressured to behave in a certain way. For all we know, her husband wont allow her to do more. I know women like that in my circle, and it takes time and compassion for them to push through it.

             3. There was an article recently which stated that Kate worked for her parents business as a web designer and was also a photographer. I can’t remember the site. Also, it was stated that Kate was involved quite heavily with art and utilized her degree in art history. The piece seemed to be a lot of contrived details but nothing concrete. Perhaps, it was written in defense to statements made with respect to Kate’s non-working premarital life. Who knows, the media can write anything. There was another article which stated that Kate lived in palaces, i.e., her parents large homes before marrying William, to which a lot of people stated that it was untrue.

             4. Mrs BBV: Yes. There was a period where little articles would appear regarding Kate’s efforts to find work and she was repeatedly turned down because of that ‘needing to be at William’s beck and call at all times’ work condition.

                Rose: i don’t think Kate’s jigsaw boss was being nasty. The entire interview reads like the boss felt sorry for Kate and what she saw as the impossible lifepath she had chosen. She saw Kate as someone who had no agency at all, something she said she would make sure her own daughters had. In revealing these details, she was trying to garner sympathy for Kate. If Kate had proven a workhorse once an official royal, that jigsaw interview would remain in the sympathy collumn, but as Maya Angelou once said, when someone shows you who they are, you believe them, and in lightbof 6+yrs of Kate’s poor work ethic and priorities, that article reads very negatively and reflects very badly on Kate.

                Kate’s own work colleagues at Jigsaw thought she was ridiculous. Their comments about her work ethic and commitment to the job were scathing. One of them described her ‘ someone who wouldn’t be described as committed to the job, preferring to talk to her boyfriend and going on vacations with said boyfriend’ whilst others flat out said she was barely at the job even with the generous work schedule.

                Snowflake: during her wait, Kate was often described as doing various things at Party Pieces, yet each job she was publicly claimed to be doing was always credited to other people on any official Party Pieces documents or websites.

                For someone so involved with PP, she struggled to articulate any goals at a marketing conference she attended.

                ..but even if you put that down to shyness, Pippa gave an interview to the Sunday times in late 2009/ early 2010 -ish in which she was asked directly to describe Kate’s work role at Party Pieces. Pippa couldn’t answer the question. She didn’t refuse to answer it. She *struggled* to answer it. The entire interview comes across very chatty and knowledgable, including the day to day workings of Party Pieces, but she is completely stumped on the Kate question. The reporter tries to break it down by giving all the various jobs Kate is claimed to have done at party pieces and Pippa remains stumped. She tries to answer it several times, and eventually says to the reporter that she will have to check and get back to her.

                That interview, if nothing else, was an unintentional truth revealed.

                And like the jigsaw boss interview, didn’t set out to be negative or elicit negative views. In trying to be kind, they accidentally revealed something Kate’s PR would rather remain hidden.

                But of course people will believe the PR about Kate’s work record because that narrative is repeated often and dessimated widely with no dissent allowed.

             5. MrsBBV, I think the photographer you’re referring to is Testino. In January 2008, lots of articles came out that Kate was going to be working for him/learning from him. Here’s just one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576130/Mario-Testino-to-teach-Kate-Middleton-his-art.html.

                But then, Testino himself came out and denied the story: https://www.sponkit.com/mario-testino-denied-kate-middleton-photography-speculations/.

                This was all after she left Jigsaw because, as she told her boss, she “needed some time for herself.” Here’s a link to the interview with her Jigsaw boss and the quotes Herazeus refers to above: https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/kates-not-precious-she-mucked-in-at-jigsaw-6922185.html

             6. I’m trying to remember where it was that the quote came from— I’m thinking maybe a teacher at Marlborough?— that said that she was just never a worker. There are some people who will dive in and help and thrive on that. There are others who will always be content to sit back a bit, have more time to themselves, never really get going when the going gets tough. And Kate was always someone who fell into the latter camp. Add to that the massive emotional f-up that was her enmeshment to William that made her feel as if she literally had to jump when he said jump and… It suddenly becomes clear how she ended up as someone who seemingly doesn’t understand on a fundamental level how to dig in to get things done.

    2. Being a feminist can be difficult – there is a lot of internalized misogyny that we have to re-process and we have to re-train our brains about how we think about the world, and we all slip up at times. I know I have. I have publicly on this blog, and people have called me out on it, and I try to learn from my mistakes and to be better than I have been in the past. But I do still slip up at times.

       I am having a hard time, though, reconciling being a feminist yet calling a woman misogynistic terms like “mattress” or comparing two women based on uncontrollable metrics just because the comparison makes the woman one likes look good while tearing down the woman one dislikes.

       Like I said in a comment above, I completely understand having a favorite – everybody does – and I completely think that criticism of controllable metrics is appropriate, but we don’t need to then use misogynistic terms toward the people we dislike or compare them to our favorites based on uncontrollable metrics just to put them down.

       1. +1 KMR

       2. I am not a perfect feminist, I admit that, but I have a solid work ethic and it roils me to see those that don’t. I also don’t like for people to get privileges they haven’t earned, but what is most offensive to me is that Kate does nothing with a huge platform she is given. She is content to twirl her hair, wear an inappropriate outfit, deliver a tepid speech in a fake-ass posh accent and call it day.

          NO. Do better.

          1. I understand that. And I agree with it, for the most part. But disliking lack of work ethic or unearned privilege doesn’t mean we should call Kate, or any woman, a mattress or insult women based on uncontrollable metrics. There is a way to criticize without being nasty. In fact, I would say that being nasty about one’s criticism undermines one’s legitimate criticism. We may not like every choice a woman makes – and I don’t think every choice a woman makes is feminist just because a woman made it – but we don’t have to be sexist and misogynistic toward women who didn’t make the same choices we did.

             1. And yeah, I have been a bit harsh on Kate and I will not call her Mattress anymore.

                But I stand by hatred of her laziness and refusal to do anything more than the bare minimum and her unfathomable reluctance to make a difference.

             2. KMR can you explain a bit what you mean by saying a choice is not feminist just cause a woman made it? I find that fascinating and want to hear more.

             3. KMR +1

             4. +1 KMR, thank you.

             5. +1000 KMR- love!

             6. I agree with you KMR for the most part and I know I am guilty of calling Kate by that moniker. If Kate didn’t have a problem being at Will’s beck and call, then I’m not going to lose sleep over how un-feminist it was of me to remind ppl why she was allegedly called a mattress. That’s a choice she made to get this level of power and privilege & be taken care of.

                I am more disgusted that someone in Kate’s position doesn’t do anything for those that have lost everything and have seen many of their friends burn to death- due to the negligence by their local government. I’m more horrified that she doesn’t have the ability to empathize with other people’s grave suffering and provide some comfort- esp since they live in London and in her own borough of Kensington. How can anyone not see the burning husk left of that building & hear that remains were still being pulled out it very recently, and not be moved into doing anything to help beats me!

                I’m surprised the commentators are here more ready to jump at me for being politically incorrect, rather than demanding that these “royals” do more to help the distraught and the poor in their own backyards! Going in once or twice and sending “our prayers” aren’t going to help these poor people recover financially or emotionally.

             7. So, so well-stated. It’s difficult to try to hold to the ideals of feminism and not sometimes get pulled down into the muck of emotionality.

       3. KMR +1

          1. Feminism is about more than a woman doing anything she wants and calling it feminism. I think there is a basic egalitarian ethic, and an idea about equality of opportunity and some kind of justice for women. To me, the very idea of royalty is not feminist—Feminism does involve public solidarity with other women. Kate is not a feminist at any level, nor do my knowledge, does she claim to be. Are there any royals who have said publicly that they are feminists?

             1. This. +1000

             2. I agree Vivian, the whole idea of royalty, flies against the face of feminism itself. Feminism is not only a personal choice but a political movement (personal is political and vice versa). And Kate is even more regressive than Diana, Fergie or Anne, had been some 30-40yrs ago. I don’t make any secret of the fact that I hope the monarchy system is abolished in my lifetime, even though there are good apples among the lot, the ones who work hard and care for public service. If these royals really care for public service and philanthropy and volunteerism, I imagine they would also do it even if they didn’t have a Prince/Princess/Queen/King prefix to their names.

             3. The royals (and royalty as a whole) not being feminists doesn’t give us, as feminists, the right to be sexist toward the royals.

          2. Yes. Agreed Rose. Thank you KMR.

             1. I agree KMR. But this business of what are “reasonable” expectations of royals in general and Kate in particular and therefore acceptable to critique is slippery. She has knowingly assumed a symbolic position based on an archaic social order that no-one believes in any more. (Feminism as a social movement goes back in England at least to Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), enlightenment ideas about reason, justice and the equality of individuals.) It’s interesting to see how some of the royal ladies manage to combine good modern educations, competence and old fashioned royal graciousness and dedication into a hybrid identity that seems to work be a “modern” royal woman.

       4. Hello. I’ve been reading this blog for three years. Love it. I hardly comment. Anything i want to express has always been already expressed by another.
          Honestly, i neither like Kate nor Meghan. This whole generation of royals have been a disappointment.

24. Not even Hollywood could come up with this farce!

    1. Not even for Prince Rainier and Grace Kelly?

       1. Bless her, I loved Grace.

          1. Me too. But hers was such tragic fairytale. ?

             1. But she is the fairytale princess and helped Monaco what it has become today!

25. Rose, no. I will not stop Waity and Whiny. I am NOT a Waity sugar. Kate did wait. For 10 years, she waited on a ring and a proposal. I can think of no more fitting name and Willy does Whine and Neigh as well. But he does more whining. Whining about the press, whining about wanting to be regular, as if he had any idea. No, sorry if you don’t like it, but the names fit.

    It is also a crock that Waity had less time for a career than Meghan did before she started waitng for Whiny. Waity could have worked. She could have started a career, Normal women have careers and relationships. This is not the 1800s, But Waity seems to think it is. There is NO excuse for her Waiting on a man for 10 years. Served her right if Whiny hadn’t married her.

    1. What is so sad about it is how William expected her to wait and put her whole life on hold to amuse him. She could do nothing. Couldn’t hold down a job so had a psuedo-job at Jigsaw which she couldn’t even handle. She was at his beck and call, gladly, to nail him down, then the relentless attempt to get him back–which I’m sure she did before, considering they broke up half a dozen times! The one time she showed a backbone and dumped his sorry, cheating ass her mother talked her out of it and invited him to a party and the rest is history. No wonder nobody else was interested, he wanted everyone worshiping him and dancing to his own tune!

    2. An excerpt from KMR’s comment policy:

       “But do not attack, demean, or insult the royals. Vicious attacks and hateful language are not constructive. ”

       I wonder if you would feel more at home in a less mature environment, Leah? Strictly referring to your use of language – I do, in fact, agree with a majority of your criticisms of Kate and William.

       1. I’ve read this comment a few times today and bitten my tongue but really Stephanie it is not your postition to suggest where Leah posts and in what style. If you have a problem with her output, please take it up with KMR. I often find people who’s style isn’t to my taste and I’m quite sure I’m not everyone’s cup of tea but you have no right to ‘moderate’ Leah. It’s really not on. Disagreement over opinion is one thing but this feels quite mean spirited to single someone out and suggest their style is not ‘mature’ enough for here.

          1. Thank you so MRS. BBV! I have just a right to be anti-Kate as those do who are Pro-Kate.

          2. Well I agree and I’ve been told by Rose that I only comment because I have a sad life. It is all getting very unpleasant.
             Hope you enjoyed Birmingham today …The Mail Box? I’m off to the Chatsworth Christmas Fair , for someone with such a sad little life I am really looking forward to it. I think many commenters on here would love it. The house is decorated in Dickens style this year I am told.

             1. I am still in Birmingham now having a coffee and cupcake in Selfridges. I decided to go later in the hope I missed the ‘royal’ traffic. I love Chatsworth probably of all the great houses in the U.K. but there are so many to choose from if your a visitor to U.K. it’s always difficult to know where to start.

                The Mailbox is redeveloping at an enormous rate. So many fine dining and Michelin starred chefs are realising there is life beyond London and we are getting our own ‘The Ivy’ next year. I can’t wait. Xx

             2. I love you, Birdy. Keep the comments coming!

             3. Hope you have fun at Chatsworth Birdy!

                And I’m sorry you’ve been trolled too

             4. Oh Birdy – or should I call you Sad Birdy? – I visited Chatsworth on my first trip to the UK; it was undergoing huge repairs at the time so we didn’t get to see inside, but the grounds were magnificent. Lucky you today!
                And Mrs BBV: I hope you missed the ‘royal traffic’ and enjoyed that cupcake as a little reward of sorts.

             5. Birdy, I wasn’t speaking to you in any way directly, you inserted yourself into my post.

       2. I am just fine in this environment, thank you. Don’t like my posts? Keep scrolling. Not everyone likes Waity and with good reason.

       3. Stephanie, I’ve got to agree with MrsBbv and Leah, that was below the belt. Leah, I defend you like I defend Kate. Btw, i do still somewhat resent being called a sugar (for the record, I don’t like to say, but I thought Kate’s dress today was so boring, and an incredibly boring gig compared with what she could be doing, I’m glad she made it out of her house, though.)

    3. We’re not allowed to call each other names here, I don’t think we should call her names either. Whatever her struggle, I’m sure it wasn’t easy. I grew up in a home where my mom encouraged me to marry a rich Dr instead of think about my own career. That kind of mindset can take a long time to overcome.

       It’s absolutely frustrating to watch her under use the platform that she has, but I just don’t think constantly putting someone down is useful to anyone but the person who is doing the put-downing. Sure, Kate’s probably not in here reading the comments, but you really don’t know who is. Are you being a role model or advocating for change? I can see that you want change, and I agree with you on that, but the bullying language just encourages more bullying language. That’s not the world I want to live in. <3

       1. Rose,

          Every few months you come on here and stir up trouble with your ad hominem attacks. Nobody’s buying that old refrain or your self-righteous vitriol towards others. One would think that you and a couple of others love to troll. Y’all are piling on one commenter which looks suspicious to me; such nasty attacks should be stopped.There are other sites where you wouldn’t be so miserable instead of bringing your misery to this site..

          Once again I have to muck through useless comments derailing the original topic and longtime commenters. Stop it, and y’all stop bullying the commenter.

          1. Thank you Maven. And Maven, I am sorry I misjudged you re Meghan.

          2. Maven, I think I wrote this comment to you already, but thank you for saying what you did about me not being ganged up on and I am sorry I misjudged you re Meghan.

             1. You’re welcome, Leah. And Birdy has been pilloried, too, I see, a contributing, thoughtful and valued member of this site. No one puts Birdy in a corner!

                Bottom line- KMR generally keeps this site on the straight and narrow so kudos to her. But she also attracts fabulous, thoughtful and informative commenters and has a faithful base because of the freedom to opine.

                The one thing this base of commenters has in common is the lack of ad hominems, which I think is worth its weight in gold. ‘Sugars’ and royal fans come on here and are not personally attacked. Their opinions sink or swim but no one self-righteously attacks them or polices them for having another view. Their opinions stand along with the naysayers.

          3. Maven, we all just agreed it wasn’t nice for Stephanie to suggest that Leah leave. From this side of the fence, a lot of the haters seem like trolls a lot of the time. I agree with you that such nasty attacks have to stop, and I think it starts with the people who are calling other people names.

             Birdy, I was cranky when I posted this morning, I said the wrong thing, I get it. What I should have said was that I don’t understand what the other side of the fence (assuming I’m a sugar, and you’re the opposite) gets out of this. And I really would honestly like to know. I will not own up to any personal attacks towards you, though. My comment was in response to another commenter wondering something along the lines of why people are so mean to Kate. I didn’t have my internet filter on when I posted, but what I posted was in no way personally directed towards you. I’m sorry that you feel like it was, I’m sorry if what I said make you feel bad or attacked. I mean you no ill will, same with Leah and MrsBBV and Maven, and Herazeus, and anyone else I’ve disagreed with here. You guys see me as all pro kate. I’m not. I’m really not. I would love it if she did more specific, down to earth charity work on a regular basis. I think it’s disappointing that she doesn’t do more. I don’t dislike or resent her for it though.

             Leah, I’m sorry if you’ve felt ganged up on. Maven, I’m sorry my comments make your eyes hurt. Birdy, I am so tempted to make a joke but they don’t work over the internet- i hope you enjoy the Christmas thing tomorrow. I’m having trouble with holiday cheer so far this year, but i hope I find some.

             Guys, I enjoy our conversations. I think you all are intelligent, and you have interesting opinions. I’ve been a Royal watcher for twenty years or so, and I really enjoy having so many other people to watch with. I try not to be to mean, and I try to own it when I am. Frankly, it’s probably for the best that we don’t all agree because that would be less interesting. But I will probably always default to being a glass half-full girl in regards to Kate, or at least defend her when people are calling names, or making assumptions. That doesn’t necessarily mean I’m a sugar though. I’d like it if you wouldn’t call me that anymore, and I wish once in a while you guys would notice when Kate does something you wish she’d do, like today she repeated a dress again. That’s something you guys seem to want, right?

             Maven, you’re vocabulary is slightly more sophisticated than mine, and you probably can’t see the good in me but we all have in common that we like this blog more than the others, right?

       2. I agree with you, Rose, on the massive double standards that exist. And frankly, there are names that I often just scroll past because I don’t feel like reading that type of vitriol in that moment. But I’m also trying to be someone who keeps things copacetic because I don’t want to drive KMR into another situation where the infighting results in needing to shut down the blog. I can enjoy the critiquing, and learn so much more than I do on any other blog, and still keep my sanity intact.

          1. Totally agree. Critique of work ethic and appearance OK. Name calling not OK.

             1. Ecelos +1

          2. Thank you for the compassionate and thoughtful response. It’s good to know that there are kindered and perhaps more tempered spirits out there.

             I also want to keep the peace for KMR, and I do feel bad at times when it’s been mucked up, but I also hate sitting silently while people are being so mean. I think of my nieces out there and I want them to see that ppl will stick up for one another, and give them hope but i forget that generally the best way to do that is to make my own thread and ignore the things that bother me. Negativity can behave like a virus, and I’m not a nurse. Maybe that should be my comment thread mantra.

       3. Thank You for saying this!!!!! From the past few months of me coming to this blog I have been disgusted at the language that has been directed towards Kate and even Meghan for that matter. As women we say that we need to fight against misogyny from men but I feel that should include women as well. We don’t know these two women and the fact that these comments have come off like Kate and or Meghan stole your man, ran over a dog, or forgot to pay your light bill is perplexing to me. Does Kate need to step up and do better, maybe or did Meghan make a misstep with the Vanity Fair cover, probably so (Even though I felt that was apart of Harry/KP “roll out plan”) but I am sure that there is a better way of giving criticism than what I have seen on this sire.

          Here is a question for you all: If you were to find yourself to be in a room with these women would you say the things that you posted on this blog and other forums to their faces?

    4. FWIW I think there is value to waiting until you’re older to get married. Just because a couple doesn’t get married until 10 years into the relationship doesn’t mean its a bad relationship or that the woman is left “waiting”.

       1. It’s not necessarily that they waited. It’s the fact that Kate did nothing in those 10 years but wait. And shop. She’s never had a real job. Everyone at Jigsaw said that she didn’t actually do anything while she was there except wait on William to call and cry over him. She had all that time that she could’ve done something with her life. Instead she chose to shop and get strung along by a man who openly cheated on her. Waity just had to get the ring. That’s all she’s done with her life.

26. Harry worked. Sorta! I wonder if he’ll walk with them.

    Prince Henry of Wales, Patron, Walking with the Wounded’s Walk of America 2018, this evening attended a Reception at Mandarin Oriental Hyde Park, 66 Knightsbridge, London SW1, and was received by Dr Paul Knapman (Deputy Lieutenant of Greater London).

27. I looked at the pics and to me it doesn’t seem she’s looking at William with a lovestruck look- she’s merely smiling and looking out the window and in William’s direction- that’s what it seems like to me.

    The necklace is gorgeous but Kate doesn’t wear jewellery well and her dress neckline is the wrong choice for that necklace. Its funny how Kate has reworn this dress many times, yet she also buys so many new outfits that are seen only once, max twice. Odd choice of dress I would say.

    Diana, even with her early 80’s monstrosity of an outfit, looks dazzling in that same necklace. Kate doesn’t even come close- for some reason she is missing something…that would be able to rock statement jewellery.

    I’m a huge critic of Kate, but even I also ask, why is Kate not allowed to wear jewellery loaned to her by the Queen from the vaults? She is William’s wife, mother of a future monarch, future Princess of Wales and Queen Consort- so she would get dibs on beautiful jewellery over time. Yea the fact that she doesn’t rock jewellery and turn it into an unforgettable look, is a shame especially when she has access to such beautiful jewels.

    1. That’s the part that is so sad to me. If she would take consult from *someone*’who could teach her how to wear them, how to balance them with her hair, etc. she could rock so many different baubles!!

    2. I don’t think she is a style icon because she doesn’t want to be. She’s a pretty woman and has (I think) good every day style but she’s not a fashion plate. I think it would take a certain type of personality (not better or worse than Kate, just different) to pull off being a style icon.

       1. “She’s a pretty woman and has (I think) good every day style but she’s not a fashion plate” There are many more beautiful women than Kate, ergo, she should not capitalize on just being attractive. There’s a lot more that goes into being well turned out. Yes, face is important, but Kate does not possess other attributes from the chin down.I don’t think Kate will ever ask for help with respect to her fashion choices. It appears that she’s too proud to do that, and most probably feel that if the clothes are expensive then she’s made the right choice. However, I’m sure we all know by now that an expensive item does not necessarily make it more appealing. She should pay attention to women who dress beautifully and use their style as a guideline. As a matter of fact, I don’t think the Middleton women know much about dressing elegantly, and they have the worst shoe choices.

28. Interesting post re Kate wearing more jewellery loaned from The Queen.

    As for the question about why Kate, and Sophie too, are being lent so much bling? It’s easy, because other ladies who have married into the Royal Family would have brought their own jewelery with them. They would have inherited pieces or would have been given pieces while growing up. Kate had to borrow a tiara for her wedding day as her family didn’t own one. Traditionally the bride would have worn a family tiara, like Diana did. Kate started off on the right foot (IMO) with the acorn earrings from her parents but it seems that her personal jewelery collection hasn’t improved since then – all those overpriced Kikis for example? Kate could have gone to jewellery auctions and quietly bought some beautiful heirloom pieces for the same money. Ok, she will end up with being able to dip into HM jewllery box as much as she wants but it’s nice to have something of your own?

    I do agree with Birdy’s comment up the thread that Kate seems to not be able to understand how to wear statement jewellery –

    “I would say she doesn’t appreciate them because she wears beautiful earrings with her hair down so you can’t see them, or this necklace with a neckline on her dress that doesn’t work. If you have some of the most spectacular jewels in the world, your outfit and accessories should showcase them.”

    It’s a shame really as The Queen has some beautiful pieces.

    1. I disagree about her buying estate pieces. She should buy what she likes now because she’s able to wear it now. As soon as William becomes the Prince of Wales I think there will be an expectation she will be more formal and wear the fancier stuff from the royal family.

       I know lots of people criticize her work ethic but I don’t think everyone always takes into account that she will be expected to work until she’s 90. Now is the time for her do more of what she wants and wear what she wants because as she gets older her options will be more structured.

       1. I’m not sure William and Kate will replicate Elizabeth and Phillip’s work ethic; I think their idea of a ‘modern monarchy’ is to do considerably less, a la Heads Together, where charities do the heavy lifting and the royals pump out a few slogans. Whether that will fly with the public, who knows? The work, as it is, is a bore and a chore only if you don’t have an interest in people or don’t care to use your position to effect positive outcomes for others. Otherwise it is a great privilege to meet so many accomplished folk through one’s life.

          I agree with Cathy that buying beautiful heirloom pieces would have been a better buy than Kikis. Having someone to advise Kate on what suits her and how to showcase jewellery would be a good move. I’d also like to see Kate wear some cutting edge contemporary jewellery of museum quality though admit it may not be her thing. But again, top notch advice would help.

          1. Jen, the monarchy won’t be as strong once The Queen passes. William and Kate just like the status and luxury of royalty. Such a shame. Is the reason why The Queen gives Kate so many loaned pieces because she has a great relationship with Kate?

       2. Then her share of the luxuries with which she is provided should be shrunk to match the lower amount of work she is doing. But that isn’t the case is it? The royals exist at the behest of the taxpayers and are there to serve them and not be served. If Kate didn’t want to work then she should never have married William. She knew exactly what was expected and spent a decade of her life to achieve that goal. The “work” she is expected to do isn’t even that arduous anyway. It doesn’t even amount to more than a few hours per week. She isn’t working a factory assembly line. It’s time to stop defending her laziness.

          1. “She isn’t working a factory assembly line. It’s time to stop defending her laziness”

             I agree, — she’s living the life of Riley. She’s been fortunate that there are aren’t many young adult BRF women with whom to compete, or else she would have had to put in more time to doing everything.

             I try to understand the whole *Royal* mindset, as to why people want to exalt another human being above themselves, e.g., curtseying, bowing, not turning one’s back on the monarch when leaving a room and to be truthful I’m lost as to the justification for such imposed rules and specialness. All I can come up with is that there has been a point in time when a family was able to accumulate riches more than others through wars etc., and then emerged as *ruler* to whom homage has to be paid. I refuse to bend my knee to any mortal; they’d have to put me in jail for non-compliance. The movie “The Queen” depict the very essence of the monarchy and their narcissism, when in *the presence*.

29. Here is a photo of the guest list for HM’s 70th wedding anniversary dinner. Princess Eugenie’s long-term boyfriend, Jack Brooksbank is not on the list. Meaning even Eugenie, who has been with Jack for something like 7 years, couldn’t bring just a boyfriend. So the ‘no girlfriends/boyfriends’ rule didn’t apply to just Harry and Meghan, it applied to Eugenie and Jack, too.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/20/21/468CB23500000578-5101469-image-a-83_1511214415555.jpg

    1. That was a fun little read. What a party that must have been!

    2. Thanks for finding this list KMR.
       I wondered if Jack would be invited.

       If I read that list correctly Sophie did not attend.

30. I apologize for indicating Leah should leave. At the time (and now I see it isn’t), I thought it was an indirect/more polite way of wondering why someone who is disrespecting the rules and wishes of both the author and the commenters would want to be here rather than elsewhere where it is more acceptable.

    In any case, this was a pretty fascinating thread… 330 comments, phew.

31. MrsBVV Grace won an oscar.

Comments are closed.