William & Kate at Children’s Global Media Summit

William & Kate at Children’s Global Media Summit

Prince William and Kate Middleton attended the Children’s Global Media Summit at Manchester Central Convention Complex in Manchester yesterday, December 6. William gave a speech about cyberbullying.

Embed from Getty Images

After the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge arrived at the Manchester Central Convention Complex, they headed to the BBC Children’s department where they saw how the BBC runs interactive workshops called “Stepping Out” sessions. These sessions are a focus group where young people are able to give children’s editorial staff and content producers their view of how they respond to new programs.

Embed from Getty Images

As part of the Stepping Out session, William and Kate sat in on a Q&A with a young person named Josh, who featured in a Newsround special telling his story of his mental health challenges. Then William and Kate took part in a feedback session with young children from The Friars Primary School where the children discussed mental health and how it affects them or how they try to cope with it, which helps inform TV programming.

As a side note: William mentioned to the children that Prince George was in his school’s nativity play, saying: “I went to my boy’s nativity play. It was funny. He was a sheep.”

Kate feedback session at Children's Global Media Summit s
[Kensington Palace @KensingtonRoyal]

The Cambridges then moved to the actual conference, but before that they met children who were there to greet them. William then attended a short private meeting related to the Royal Foundation Cyber Bullying Taskforce while Kate attended a “Sesame Workshop” hosted by the team behind the children’s TV program Sesame Street.

Embed from Getty Images

William then gave the keynote speech at the conference.

    “Good afternoon and thank you for having myself and Catherine here. First of all, a word if I might about this great city of Manchester – to which most of you are visitors. You may have seen, if you have had a chance to go outside, the symbol of the bee everywhere in the city – the bee is Manchester’s symbol, a reminder of this city’s industriousness and creativity. It is also a reminder of Manchester’s community spirit, the sense of pulling together. Manchester has had a tough year, and I personally stand in awe of the way that the people of Manchester have united in bravery and support of one another. This community is a great example to all of us, wherever we are from. I hope you all have a chance to witness some of this remarkable place for yourselves while you are here for the Summit.
    “So, the Children’s Summit. We are all here today because we know that childhood matters. The years of protection and education that childhood provides are the foundation for our society. The programme makers and tech leaders in this room understand that. Our childhood years are the years we learn. They are the years we develop resilience and strength. They are the years where our capacity for empathy and connection are nurtured. They are the years where we impart the values of tolerance and respect, family and community, to the youth that will lead our nations in the future.
    “Parents like Catherine and me are raising the first generation of digitally-immersed children – and this gives us many reasons to be optimistic about the impact of technology on childhood. Barriers to information about the world are falling. The child of today can learn about far flung corners of the world with previously unimaginable ease. Social media holds the promise for children who can feel isolated to build and maintain friendships. Digital media is seeing today’s young people develop a passion and capacity for civic involvement that is without parallel in human history. Programme makers have access to real-time research that helps them shape engaging, educational content for children in ways that would have been unheard of in years gone by. We should celebrate and embrace these changes. What we cannot do, however, is pretend that the impact of digital technology is all positive or, indeed, even understood. I am afraid to say that, as a parent, I believe we have grounds for concern.
    “I entered adulthood at the turn of the millennium. The generation of parents that Catherine and I are a part of had understood the world of mobile phones, the internet, email, and the like for some time. We had every reason to feel confident. The changes we have incorporated into our own lives as adults have often felt incremental, not revolutionary. The vast array of digital television content that many households enjoy today did not spring up overnight. The birth of the smartphone was heralded as a landmark moment. In truth, though, we incorporated constant texting, checking of email on our devices, and 24/7 availability into our lives over the course of many years. The centrality of the internet for education, shopping, and the organisation of domestic life has been the work of two decades. And it is the gradual nature of this change – the slow warming of the water in the pot if you like – that I believe has led us to a moment of reckoning with the very nature of childhood in our society.
    “The latest Ofcom research into the media consumption habits of British children shows us just how dramatically the landscape has changed without most parents pausing to reflect on what actually is happening. Parents who were born before the invention of the World Wide Web now have children aged 5 to 15 who spend two hours a day online. Ten years after the introduction of the iPhone, over 80 percent of 12 to 15 year olds have a smartphone. Most of my contemporaries graduated university before any of us had Facebook accounts – and now 74 percent of 12 to 15 year olds are on social media. And a generation of parents for whom watching television was something that happened as a family around a single set have given a fifth of our 3 to 4 year olds their own tablets.
    “Now, I am no Luddite – I believe strongly in the positive power of technology; but I am afraid that I find this situation alarming. My alarm does not come from childhood immersion in technology per se. My alarm comes from the fact that so many parents feel they are having to make up the rules as they go along. We have put the most powerful information technology in human history into the hands of our children – yet we do not yet understand its impact on adults, let alone the very young. And let me tell you parents are feeling the pressure. We need guidance and support to help us through some serious challenges.
    “Everywhere you go, mothers and fathers are asking each other the same questions. Did you see that so-and-so’s friend had an iPhone at the playground? How can I keep my daughter off social media if all of her friends are on it?;How do I know what my children are doing online in their bedrooms? How do I monitor what they’re messaging to other children? How do I find out what apps my children have downloaded? How do we protect family time and teach our kids about actual connection, when all their communication is through their phone? How do we convince our children to go outside and be active and fit, when all they want to do is play online?
    “These conversations are happening right now in our towns and cities and right across the world. We have all let technology slowly creep into our lives. And now we are waking up to the enormity of the challenge technology and modern digital media will mean for children.
    “The people in this room may be the best placed in the planet to help today’s parents, teachers, and caregivers to grapple with these questions. As I said earlier, you are only here because you are passionate about childhood. Your combined experience and insight can be a powerful force for positive guidance. Parents are eager for your advice about how best to combine technology and innovation with the timeless goal of safe and innocent early years that are filled with love and genuine connection.
    “Like all of you, I believe firmly in the power of bringing people together, people with knowledge and passion, to tackle big issues confronting our society. That is what I did through the Royal Foundation when we established the Taskforce for the Prevention of Cyberbullying. Bullying through phones and social media is an issue that caught my attention after reading about children who had taken their own lives when the pressure got too much. As a HEMS and Air Ambulance pilot, I was called to the scenes of suicides and I witnessed the devastation and despair it brought about. And I felt a responsibility to do something about it.
    “The Royal Foundation brought together the leading players in digital and social media, the ISPs, academic researchers, and children’s charities. And importantly, we brought children and parents themselves to the table, so their voices could be heard directly. What we heard is that cyberbullying is one of those issues that had been allowed to slowly take root. An age-old problem had been gradually transformed and accelerated by technology that allowed bullies to follow their targets even after they had left the classroom or the playing field. The technology we put into the hands of our children had for too many families shattered the sanctity and protection of the home.
    “After a year and half’s work, the taskforce announced a plan of action last month. The sector agreed to four main areas of work: the implementation of standard guidelines for the reporting and handling of bullying; a national advertising campaign to establish a code of conduct for the online behaviour of children; the piloting of an emotional support platform on social media; and finally the members have pledged to continue to work together to offer consistent advice to parents and more material for children to help them thrive online. And you will hear more about this next.
    “I am proud of what was achieved, but, as I said at the time of the plan’s launch, I had hoped we could go further. I am very pleased that the BBC has taken up the challenge of supporting one area that I believe merits further discussion: the creation of a single, universal tool for children to report bullying when they see it or experience it – regardless of which platform it happens on.
    “What we have shown through the taskforce – and what we show when we gather on days like today – is that solutions to our challenges are possible when we work together. We can be optimistic about the way digital media will help our children when we can be frank about our concerns. Families can embrace technology with confidence when they can access the best the best support and advice. And we can be hopeful about the future of our society when we all know that protecting the essence of childhood remains our collective and urgent priority.”


I do like that William has taken to discussing the positives that technology and the Internet can bring to people’s lives, and not just the negatives – he didn’t used to do that, so that’s progress for him. I also liked his ‘slow warming of the water in the pot’ analogy and that he talked about how technology’s infiltration into our lives was gradual. I just wish he would speak more about how technology and the Internet are blank slates and it’s humanity that has created any negatives that exist there. It’s not an angle most people take when discussing cyberbullying, but it’s important to note since the only true way to defeat cyberbullying is to change humanity as a whole. Creating anti-bullying tools is great, but that’s a bandaid. It’s fighting the symptom, not the disease.

Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images

Upon first glance, I thought Kate’s coat and dress were repeats from a few years ago, but it turns out they are both new. Kate wore a new LK Bennett Delli Check Coat (£495.00) with a fine houndstooth pattern, and a new Goat Elodie Tunic Dress in Berry (£450.00). She repeated her Tod’s block heel pumps in black suede (£335), her Mulberry Bayswater Clutch in black suede, and her Mappin and Webb Empress earrings.

Embed from Getty Images

Here is a video of the Cambridges arriving at the Summit and speaking to children.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

364 thoughts on “William & Kate at Children’s Global Media Summit

  1. First, thank you, KMR for typing out that speech.

    Secondly, that outfit today eerily matches previous items William’s wife has worn. Why not wear them again, instead of new outfits?


    That coat is just too heavy of a fabric and that dress is just a sack and too short-rides up in front. Will she never learn? And in the pic where William’s wife is sitting at a table with the kids also wearing red, she looks like she is at Santa’s workshop with elves.

    Also I have never liked William’s wife in red, it is too harsh for her and in this case, because she does not look her best at all-she looks haggard and you can tell she stopped with the Botox cause her forehead wrinkles are showing for real-she looks washed out.

    Also, the pic where she is pulling her hair back, she looks mean and like she is yelling. And also the pic of her gesticulating and caught in mid speech is just awful. She still has no idea how not to make faces and poses that when caught in a pic make her look awkward, angry and are just not flattering.

    Here is a vid of Wiliam’s wife outside greeting kids. Compare it to the full crowds almost a week ago for Meghan and Harry.


    Also, Meghan is on the cover of People magazine for the second week in a row. I say that in Meghan, People magazine, who basically made Diana a star in America, found a star in Meghan, having failed to do so in William’s wife.

    Meghan and Harry are also one of People’s 25 most intriguing people for 2017.

    There is just no excitement or magic with William and his wife. It’s like tapioca pudding. They bring no spark or oomph to their engagements, nothing to make people say, “I remember when I met…” like they did with Diana.

      1. I’m glad the woman Harry plans to marry is managing brilliantly on the opposite side of the pond – now she need only remember that she’s marrying into a pudding-loving nation

        Kate is a star in the British sky at least – but there is room for more than one. And respectfully, I would never compare a first engagement with one six years later. Even Diana didn’t pull that large crowds years into her engagements.

        1. “I would never compare a first engagement with one six years later. Even Diana didn’t pull that large crowds years into her engagements.”

          Julia +1

        2. “And respectfully, I would never compare a first engagement with one six years later. Even Diana didn’t pull that large crowds years into her engagements”. Totally agree Julia. Meghan is a novelty right now, even Kate in her first event after egagement got a big crowd so let’s not judge a royal based on a first engagement. If even Diana didn’t got big crowds after years of married imagine the new generation of royals.

        3. The kids were bussed in. And the crowd was gone before they left. It is one thing to have a smaller crowd years later, but when kids are bussed in that means no crowd would have been there otherwise. It is not the first time kids have been bussed in.

          Now everyone wants to say Meghan is a novelty, but Harry isn’t and when he was in Toronto there was excitement. This is Toronto, a city used to Hollywood people filming year round and they had just finished TIFF. But they still were excited for Harry. And my parents were in one of the crowds so I have pictures to confirm this.

          1. I’m just stunned by the comment that Diana didn’t pull crowds to her engagements. I mean it was the complete opposite, sometimes it was frightening how many people turned up. Like a mania.

            This afternoon I’ve been watching a two part documentary on Diana that’s running on Netflix. And some of the crowds were so large and I mean many, many thousands of people it was impossible to see her. I felt quite stunned at the adulation all over again. It was like Beatlemania and this was in Australia, India, Italy not just U.K.

            Seriously go and look at the second episode of the Diana Documentary on Netflix…..there are two 1.5 hour episodes and it’s staggering the intensity of the crowds. I don’t know how she didn’t have a panic attack there and then and kept her composure. It actually felt claustrophobic watching it.

          2. Whilst Diana drew large amounts on tours – I followed her day to day engagements. There were a lot of them. (What I would wish to see for Kate.) Most at home did not have particularly huge crowds. These are the routine engagements prior to the separation – and I have all the old magazines.

          3. I suggest you look at the film footage, it’s staggering. There are routine bread and butter U.K. events featured like a friends wedding,where there are literally thousands of people. It was like the Pied Piper. I’ve remarked before about a visit to a hospital in my local town and the photos displayed in the foyer of the hospital literally show a sea of people all with smiles on their faces. Again thousands in the crowd.

            I’m sure there were some events that were less well attended, less known about prior to them happening but they were few and far between. And yes overseas was even crazier.

            I actually realised yesterday why PoW realised she couldn’t come out of it unscathed. If the public knew she was attending something accessible to them, they turned out in droves to see her.

            P.s Jayne Fincher is interviewed in the documentary……you should watch it and you will realise that the insanity surrounding Diana was why Jayne stopped following and photographing the Princess, shortly before she died.

          4. Following the separation, the media around Diana became intense and unbearable for her. But in the late eighties, she did a lot of engagements that both didn’t draw that much attention or that much press except Hello! would cover them – often with just half a page.

            It’s my opinion, which can’t be proved, that if Diana and Charles had remained married, they would gradually have gotten less and less attention except for tours – but those traumatic tours when the marriage was breaking up changed that progression.

          5. On the contrary the royal reporters like Jayne, Arthur Edwards and James Whitaker said the whole thing started in a manner they had never encountered and developed to insane proportions.

            James Whittaker nearly had a nervous breakdown from the way the Diana story developed and not at the end but after the sneak pictures in the Bahamas, that was in the late 80’s when the demand for photos by the public was so insatiable he was burning out from all the engagemts he had to cover.

            Try speaking to Arthur Edwards on Twitter or Glenn Harvey & Mark Saunders who turned from normal photographers to U.K. paparazzo specifically because of the Diana frenzy post divorce and ask them how quiet they were from the 1981 marriage to 1996 and the divorce. They will all tell you there was never an off weekend, down day and that they were on permanent assignment.

            Of course some engagements were quieter than others……a visit to an OAP home that was barely publicised was never going to attract the same levels of attention from a public that didn’t know the visit had happened until after they’d read it in Hello but the feeding frenzy was insatiable and barely sustainable from the very first engagement Hera alludes to at Broadlands. These grown men (and women) had never seen anything like it then and haven’t since.

            When I watched that Netflix documentary a couple of days ago and saw footage I’d never seen before of her being surrounded by hundreds, thousands of people in U.K., trying to find her own pathway through the crowds to get in a door and safety, I felt quite shocked at how all consuming it really was and more amazed that she didn’t lose the plot in public a lot louder and a lot sooner. I actually thought she looked hunted and not just by the press but by the public.

            The public really did seem to have lost their marbles from just being in her airspace.

          6. Miley……it’s called The Story of Diana. I do hope you manage to watch it because some footage and interviews were new to me and I thought I had pretty much seen and read it all when it came to Diana. Xx

        4. Diana pulled in crowds right from the beginning. Overwhelmingly so. To extent that she was greated as if she were a rockstar. This is a photo from an engagement she carried out at Broadlands during her engagement period, about a month after the announcement.. It’s cropped, but you can still get a sense of the crowds.



          Let’s not rewrite history to excuse Kate.

          Though i will agree that we shouldn’t compre first engagements as every single royal is universally loved at the beginning of their royal career.

          1. Herazeus, do you know where I can find a comprehensive list of all of Diana’s engagements after she became engaged?

          2. Leah, it’s the national archives.

            Before the official BRF website was redesigned, it was an easy place to research these things, but i find myself unable to find anything i need on there especially if it is historical information.

            The national archives are publicly available.

          3. I can’t think of the exact name of the photographer and can’t wake Hubby but Jayne Fletcher or something like that did a book on all Diana’s fashions that include most of her engagements during her marriage. This covers from before the wedding into the nineties. I’m sure used copies are available on Amazon, probably inexpensively, but there were two editions so make sure you get the later one. Both have a red cover – I believe the latter was in paper – she also did a book following Diana’s death but it was less complete as to every engagement.

            Hello! Magazine almost always documented any engagement Diana did from 1988 on when it was first published in English. Often Diana’s engagement didn’t warrant much more than a page and no, they didn’t draw large crowds, but I don’t think they ever missed one. They also did periodically a review of her fashions analysed by designers – which gave a fair review of her activities for a year. Check eBay UK.

    1. Wow, It’s so very sad to see people judge a woman in the 21st century not by the content of her character but by the thread count of her frock. How bizarre that a posting on combating cyber bullying the very first response is a shallow, vapid superficial diatribe about meaningless (jealous?) physical assessment of a woman who is supporting her husband, the royal family and the children of the world. Women should not be judged by how many wrinkles appear on their foreheads but by their accomplishments. Where are the comments about Williams coat, his shoes and his hair or lack thereof? Non-existent. How shameful. SMH. Cyber bullying is something that every parent needs to be hyper vigilant about. Monitoring software and regulating access to the internet for minors needs to be something all parents need to implement to protect the vulnerable victims of cyber bullying.

      1. You’re right.We should discuss William’s looks the same way as we do with Kate’s.
        There is just not much to discuss about men’s clothes, but I also.don’t care much about Kate’s clothes.She can afford everything she wants,so it doesn’t really matter in the end.
        I rather find it interesting if she looks happy or healthy in her life, that’s something you can’t change that fast like a coat.

        1. Kate can afford any clothes she wants but any new outfit is decried by people for her being frivoulous. Leave her be. She is a pregnant mother of 2 small children. She is doing her best and her husband loves her. Try being in that royal fish bowl and see how easy it is.

          1. Please, do not paint me with a broad brush.

            You state, “Kate can afford any clothes she wants but any new outfit is decried by people for being frivolous. Leave her alone.”

            I do not find my comments to be disrespectful. The retail cost of the GOAT dress on their website is $620.00, and the L.K. Bennett coat retail price is $664.06, which equals a total of $1284.06. For me, this would be a good deal of money for these two items.

            I am happy to hear you are in a better financial situation than myself.

          2. So she should spend tax payer money like an addict to make up for her life choices? No one forced her to pursue this role. She chose to become a member of a family that lives in luxury and does little in return. She has nannies and housekeepers to help with all the work. Kate is not a single mother struggling to survive…. unlike her neighbours at Grenfell Towers who lost their homes in a fire and whom she has never bothered to visit.

            Being part of the royal family is accepting a social contract to serve the people of the UK in exchange for living in palaces and having clothes and jewels without question.

            So no I will never leave Kate alone on the issue of her not meeting her end of the social contract she pursued with open eyes for close to a decade. If she wanted the lifestyle but not the work she should never have dated a royal. Date a regular rich person if that’s what you want.

        2. Yes but Lovely Blossom the thing is that she cannot afford these things on her own. Her father-in-law funds her wardrobe via his income from his public-owned Duchy. Her lifestyle is provided by consent of the British people/UK taxpayer. So I do not think that the cost of her wardrobe is irrelevant to the discussion here, and if the UK taxpayer is not getting value for money then it is worth pointing out. That said, I agree that the men’s clothing choices could be dissected in the same way.

          I’d also respectfully disagree with some of Leah’s comments above – mainly the stuff about Kate’s facial expressions in some photos. I think it’s a bit of catch-22 here – if she is engaged in conversation and showing some interest, she’s bound to look ridiculous in some shots (I dread to think what I would look like if someone was taking snaps of me mid-conversation). On the other hand, if she is constantly taking care to not be pulling funny faces in photos, she would look unnatural, unengaged, and would end up looking as if she cares more about the camera than the event. I think there are plenty of things to criticise Kate for given that she has barely worked and is utterly wasting the platform she has been given, not to mention wasting one of the best educations money can buy, but funny faces when there are cameras all around her is not one of them.

          1. “I think it’s a bit of catch-22 here – if she is engaged in conversation and showing some interest, she’s bound to look ridiculous in some shots (I dread to think what I would look like if someone was taking snaps of me mid-conversation). On the other hand, if she is constantly taking care to not be pulling funny faces in photos, she would look unnatural, unengaged, and would end up looking as if she cares more about the camera than the event. I think there are plenty of things to criticise Kate for given that she has barely worked and is utterly wasting the platform she has been given, not to mention wasting one of the best educations money can buy, but funny faces when there are cameras all around her is not one of them.”

            Lucy S +1

      2. +1000

        After having to have someone explain about the words used to describe a motorcycle incident in the last post, The Poster has proven that she certainly is no expert on British life or her claims of knowledge of what the Royals and the Middletons are plotting next.

        1. Bashum, I completely agree but one reason we talk about royal ladies more than royal men is the clothes! Royal clothing has always held fascination and in the past. male clothing was just as interesting . (Back in time, there were even sumptuary laws preventing commoners from wearing what aristocrats could wear and limiting certain colours and items to royalty.)

          Since Victorian times when men’s clothing became duller, attention has focused on royal female clothing.

          Having said that, royalty has never been about looking glamourous – that’s for models and Hollywood. So I try not to comment on physical appearance outside of what’s in a royal lady’s control like hairstyles.

      3. So let’s judge her by the quality of her work then. Of which she just sat there and said nothing again. Seven years into this and she still rarely does speeches and is a hanger on at her husband’s events. She fails at the work part of this which is why they talk about her dress.
        And wearing a new similar but different outfit at this event shows her willful ignorance of how her extravagant lifestyle spits in the face of the UK people who will have to have health services cut in order to support her and her wasteful family. Brexit is turning the economy upside down , but Kate needs another red dress that looks like another one she could have worn.

        1. I completely agree. People wouldn’t be talking about her spending and clothes. If Catherine actually pulled her own weight. Along with with with her husband. To justify the allowance they receive from Charles at the taxpayers dime. You can’t. They live in a bubble. Of delusional ignorance. How many engagements have they done this year? It comes down to work ethic. Which neither one have. They want all the perks. Yet the they don’t want to do the job. 2017 is almost over. How many engagements can they squeeze in before Christmas? And you probably won’t see them until February or March 2018.

          1. And don;t forget the mat leave that Kate will probably take come March or April (her baby is due in May, right?). I thought mat leave was for women who actually work & now need the paid time to look after their little one/s in the first few crucial months of life. It is not for women like Kate to abuse at will: Kate doesn’t even work part-time, she has nannies and housekeepers to raise her kids and look after her home, so she can’t claim that she’s exhausted by life and needs some time off before a new baby arrives.

            So Kate won’t have much engagements in 2018, will be lucky if she pulls in 80-90 engagements next year.

          2. @Red Tulip so they probably be off three months for Christmas holiday. I figure the last public appearance will be the Christmas Lunch at BP. Then they all shuffle off to Sandringham. We will probably see them for Christmas morning maybe New Year’s Day. Not holding my breath though. Does anyone know how many engagements Will and Kate have done together/solo for this year?

      4. Oh! That (jealous?) word.(Bashun). I pat myself on the back that I can read people’s opinions and respect their views. Fun and friendly, as the world turns.

      5. Sadly considering Kate never says much or gives us much to talk about it is all back onto her clothes because that’s basically all they give us. She’s little more than a mannequin. We talk often of how we wish she would speak out, talk more, be present instead of just stand there with comments on her clothes but that is, sadly, all there is to her. When Kate is just there as William’s window dressing, what more is there to say of her? It is a common complaint here. We want her to work, to say things, to be active, to not be some 19th century mode of a woman but that’s not Kate.

        1. Exactly, Ellie. Willam’s wife is nothing more than an automaton, a Stepford Wife, who says nothing, adds nothing and does nothing other than cranking out kids and shopping and put her feet up at Carole’s.

          It’s a disgrace and insult to working women everywhere. If I were a citizen of the UK, esp as a woman, I would be ashamed and mad to have her represent me and the country.

          1. +1000 Leah. I AM mad that she’s so useless. How much does she cost us each year yet one of those Japanese sex-bot dolls could do a better job and look more animated. I hate to think this drab boring duo are the only option we have. They may personally be very nice people (I doubt it) but as Royal representatives for the UK they are awful.

      6. If you don’t talk about the clothes of William’s wife, there is nothing to talk about. There is no there there with William’s wife. NO substance.

      7. “How bizarre that a posting on combating cyber bullying the very first response is a shallow, vapid superficial diatribe ….”

        Bashun – well said! (In reply to Bashun’s comment below )
        Sorry – Bashun’s comment is above … this commenting system is totally confusing! :0)

      8. Nope. Won’t let this one go. I have stated from the beginning that their whole “cyber-bullying” campaign has to do with them and their children specifically. They want an excuse to reign people in so that no one calls them to account. It doesn’t matter if we talk about what William is wearing the point is that they live off the public and they don’t give back what they take in.
        Kate has to spend on new clothes continually. It looks ridiculous to everyone around. She wears two similar new, red Goat dresses in continuum. They don’t want cyberbullying. I want my husband back. We all have wishes, but you can’t wish away cyberbullying and KMR is completely correct. It’s a bandaid and they do not help in anyway that I can see. Humanity killed my first husband and humanity killed my second husband. I was cyberbullied by Westboro and I don’t have castle walls to hide behind. I still have to go to work regardless of have tough life is and my real Hyperemesis gravidarum were I had to call family and friends in, and generally lie in bed while my kids sat their watching tv. I’m tired of people who pop on this site just to stir up trouble and cyberbully those of us on here who appear to have thoughtful contemplation and not just “you should do this or you should leave her alone or you should judge this or you should’t judge that”. As I said on MMR then we’re down to “leave the royals alone and they can do anything they want.” No, just no. Enough is enough.

        They want to believe they are so special that no one should be able to say or do anything about them unless it’s to provide special treatment for them. I don’t care what William wears because it looks like the same suit over and over again so at least we aren’t really concerned about his clothing expenses, but he believes even more so that he is even more special and should be cyberbullied and left alone. Alas this is Kate Middleton Review and Not Prince William Review.

        1. People who receive welfare get scrutinized and judged to no end and they only receive a fraction of what the royals get. Until they are earning their own income, they have to abide by the social contract. It is a pretty good deal for them and if they don’t like it, they can always take themselves out of the line of succession. And yet they never do do they?

        1. Yes, but she’s been on the cover of Hello! – the closest thing to People in the UK – dozens and dozens of times. And Hello! has international editions all over the world where Kate may be often on the cover. Meghan has been on a couple of times so far and I’m sure will be more so in the coming months – but Kate is doing fine in her country. She obviously sells.

          Having said that, the only magazine likely to matter to the Royal Family is Country Life and other than weddings, I believe the only royal on the cover in recent time is Prince Charles. (Meghan may make the famed frontispiece to announce her engagement as I’m fairly sure Kate and other royal ladies have.)

          Meghan is on the list of Tatler’s most interesting people to have as guests at the moment but Kate, Cressida and I believe Chelsy have also been up there at various times – it changes constantly.

          1. Hello is a really bad example to give because they are a middleton mouthpiece.

            Yes, they love royalty and the aristocracy in general, but they were coopted a long time ago to always forward the Middleton line in the hunt for the ring. As long ago as the dating years when flat out told William that Kate was his perfect princess, nevermind that it was during one of the breakups that was thought to be final.




            Not to mention the times they got Kate pregnant exclusive (confirmed by the injunction for a fortnight from other media plus picture taken by Tanna)

            Rinse and repeat when Kate wanted to shame William for his continued abscence culminating in his spanish hunting trip with Jecca by allowing herself and 6mth George to be captures exclusively on a solo holiday on the way to Mustique where the Middletons awaited her.


          2. Jessica, no need to call me obtuse. I have never called you a name. In fact, I have been nice to you. Just because I don’t like your fave is need to be personally nasty.

          3. Hello! never publishes anything negative if it can be avoided. In the past the late owner actually bought photos of Diana in a bathing suit or something like that that he found intrusive and didn’t publish them to protect her.

            They also pay for articles and paid to photograph the wedding of Peter Philips. The Middletons did not invite them to photograph Pippa but they perhaps they would like to have. After the outcry about Peter Philips, I’m sure it couldn’t be considered.

            Hello! is great for photos and are reasonably factual as celebrity magazines go, they speculate far less than most, but I wouldn’t go to them for deep analysis – but then from what I’ve seen online, I wouldn’t go to People either! Even more gossipy and inclined to speculate more from what I’ve seen.

            Hello! generally uses articles in their parent magazine Hola! I believe most of the other international edition are licensed in some way. I don’t think anyone gets on the cover though unless they sell. Sometimes in the past they’ve run double covers.

            I agree – I think the Mustique visit was a set up. Hello! doesn’t normally publish pap photos – neither does most of the British press. I’m not sure about People. The most intrusive magazine seems to be that Australian one -Woman’s Day or something like that.

          4. Julia: Hello definitely has deals with some famous people including royals. If an article doesn’t end with a comment along the lines ‘the fee for this interview / picture was donated to charity’ (paraphrasing) you can ge sure that the subject of the interview pocketed the money.

            They pay between £25K for a bog standard footballer’s wife upto £1M to world famous celebrity.

            And the Middletons definitely have a deal with Hello because most of the time the pictures, even where they are pap pics taken whilst skiing, holidaying on mustique, Kate or pippa in the street, Kate dragon boat racing or at a private party are held as exclusives to hello magazine for a week or two’s editions and the Middletons pocket the fee.

            Ditto all those Pippa exclusives in the magazine.

            I know the Kate + Carol holding a moses basket on London street nearly became the subject of a court case because Hello had it as an exclusive and the DM posted it for a day and took it down. Blogs that copied it during the 2wk hello exclusive injunction were sent cease and desist letters. And money for those pictures were shared 3ways between the pap, Carole and Hello.

            The pap who sold the Mustique with Kate and George photo said he was given specific time and place to photograph them, and directed to sell the resulting photos to Hello who held them for a week’s exclusive before the rest of the media could use them. Money was shared between him and the Middletons.

            I’m long out of that world, but i still hear things. And frankly, if i were a celeb, i would do deals with Hello as often as possible because of the positive framing of their celebs and the very easy large checks hand out like sweets.

          5. Hello! is interesting – they used to use the Marquesa de Varela to facilitate interviews – you would see her name in the credits. I rather liked her because she rescued dogs – which is my standard for everything. There was some speculation after the Catherine Zeta-Jones business where Hello! got sued for using unauthorised photos they would drop her but they didn’t, As of 2006, just picking a random issue, they were still using her but I haven’t seen her named in the last few years. Perhaps, she’s retired.

            I don’t know about the Moses basket incident – that looked papped to me but maybe not. Mustique certainly. I don’t know if the Middletons get paid or not but it wouldn’t surprise me.

            Like you, I would pick Hello! if I were a celebrity because they never publish anything nasty and don’t speculate as much as most gossip magazines. However, like Disney, that sweetness may come with a price – they stopped covering Catherine Zeta-Jones as frequently after the suit – they didn’t ignore her but they didn’t favour her either – and her fame diminished – although possibly for more than one reason.

            The senior royals have been wary of Hello! at least on the surface although Anne gave an interview in their first issue.

            Kate must be selling though. My stack of Hellos is in the sitting room – I’m terribly behind on skimming them. Kate made the cover at least 21 times this year. Meghan followed at 10 or ll – I don’t think the recent issues are in the pile yet – she presumably will exceed Kate for next year at least. Pippa followed with about five covers due to the wedding and there was one of George. And that only covers the full cover photo not smaller ones.

            The only other cover celebrities since issue 1466 that I can see are the Clooneys,Rod Stewart and Jennifer Lopaz – each once. So it’s been a right royal year. But Hello! manages when it’s not – I recall during the years after Diana’s death and before Kate came on the scene, royal coverage was rarer -I think Charles made it a couple of times at most.

        2. Leah. Her name is Kate. How about we start calling Meghan Harry’s piece. lol. We get you don’t like her. So don’t read this blog. You never have anything nice or constructive to say about her.

          1. I love reading kmr &mmr along with everyone’s opinion. Lately i have noticed an increase in people attacking other poster’s .If you dont like what someone writes don’t read it .It’s that simple.Leah can have her opinion just like everyone else does even if people dont like it.

          2. Leah has been reprimanded by KMR/MMR on her name-calling and she still won’t abide by the owner’s rules. No one is attacking her; just pointing out KMR/MMR’s wishes.

          3. I think leah has stopped with the nick names and no where in her post do i see any of the names that she was asked to stop using.

          4. One of her names is actually Princess William of Wales so I don’t see how this is an offensive nickname. I also think that Leah is making a larger point in that Kate does not have a her voice of her own either by choice or through William and she is a cipher and just stands there. If some of you are uncomfortable with that, perhaps take a look at why Kate is sublimating her identity into that of her husband’s. Because seven years later we still know nothing about her.

          5. It takes more time and energy to type out ‘William’s wife’ than to type out ‘Kate’. If one is not actively trying to insult Kate by not referring to her by her name, then why take the extra time to type out ‘William’s wife’?

          6. Jessica, what I have or have not been doing is not your business and you don’t run this blog. And I have not name called William’s wife in a hot minute. Keep up with the times. Thank you.

          7. I have every right to be on this blog, as have you. If you don’t like my comments, don’t read. Have a nice day.

            Jessica, you are not KMR, you don’t need to point out her wishes and you don’t run this blog. But I am flattered that you seem to like me so much :). Happy holidays!

        1. Kate has been on the cover of People so many times. She was 3rd or something close to that, with the most covers. That is because she was really popular and still is. Meghan will be on the cover for awhile since she is new and American (since People is American). But honestly, she is the new shiny toy and the media will get bored after awhile.

          It is a temporary shift. You may be enamored with Meghan and therefore think people will care more about her than Kate. But that is not true of everyone. Meghan has actually made me appreciate Kate more. I am not a fan of hers, that is why I don’t frequent the MMR site. It is really not fair comparing magazine covers and the size of crowds with someone who has been a royal for 7 years vs. a newly engaged woman. Look at crowds Will and Kate drew in Canada right after the wedding. Shoot, they still draw large crowds like on their recent summer tour. We will see how many covers Megahn is getting 7 years after marriage and the crowds she draws. Everything will settle after the excitement of the wedding-it always does. History repeats itself.

          I also find it really unnecessary to keep bringing up Meghan on this site in order to just put Kate down.

          1. Thank you KMR, that was the link I was looking for but couldn’t find it. People’s website wouldn’t let me search for it. So, I was wrong, she wasn’t 3rd, she was 4th with the most covers. ;). I forgot Brad Pitt was #2.

            Leah, you can keep saying it, but it doesn’t change the facts. She is #4 with the most covers.

          2. Will and Kate did not draw the same crowds during their second tour, even with the kids. The larger crowds in Germany et al were likely because they had never been there officially. But really they should be focusing on the UK because they are the ones footing their lifestyle and taking the hits. So what if a bunch of Germans go to see them, they don’t have to support them.

          3. I thought the crowds in Vancouver looked quite heavy – but much of the tour was set out in the country – I thought it was a strangely balanced tour with a lot of similar engagements – William and Kate on a boat again – although sea industries are important.

          4. The arrival had a lot of people, but Trudeau was also there and he was still very popular from the election. In fact he was mobbed recently at a mall in Scarborough. After that the crowds died down. There weren’t tons of people at Simon Fraser University and some of the places were a but remote.
            While some of the engagements were fine, Kate did not speak at any of them, which this many years into the job is unacceptable. And I did not like the indigenous people having to perform for them. It smacks way too hard of colonialism, and William is the direct descendant of the kings and queen who helped commit genocide.

    2. I understand some of what Leah is saying about William and Kate. It seems to me, William is somewhat reluctant to embrace his role and Kate has been slow in working from early days. I remember when it was announced Kate would pick five organizations in order to concentrate on them. If my memory serves, this really did not happen.

      After two years with little work from Kate, I wondered if there were security issues with William and Kate. About year three, I gave up trying to find excuses for the lack of work, and concluded she did not really plan on doing much with her role as DoC.

      At least Meghan has claimed she wants to travel the U.K. and see many places and the people. I hope she does what is reported.

      What I think Leah is pointing out, is that Harry and Meghan seem to have that extra something when connecting with people. Will and Kate have a reserved manner, and after all their years of doing engagements, this remains who they are in public.

      Only time will tell. It will not take long to see if Harry and Meghan connect with people in a meaningful way. I tend to have more hope for these two and feel W&K have proved who they are in their roles.

    3. “She still has no idea how not to make faces and poses that when caught in a pic make her look awkward, angry and are just not flattering.”

      The photographers take a ton of photos. They are bound to catch her at awkward moments such as mid-speech. The only way to avoid non flattering photos would be to just stand there and smile; never engaging in any conversation or activity. If she did that, people would then tear her apart for just standing there.

      It is unrealistic to expect her to look amazing in every photo taken. There is no one in this world that can look good in every photo taken when you are being photographed constantly. The awkward photos are actually the result of the photographers choosing them (the could choose ones where she isn’t talking or reacting). There are a lot of faults Kate has, but this is out of her hands. She is human and not a statue, she therefore won’t look amazing in every photo. I actually like the awkward poses because it means she isn’t focused on the cameras, but rather on the person she is talking to.

      1. I agree. If Kate is talking and interacting with people – like we all want her to do – then of course there are going to be unflattering photos of her. If we are going to criticize Kate for unflattering photos but then also criticize her for not being/looking engaged, then we are the problem because even when she does what we claim we want her to do (be engaged), we criticize her.

      2. Yea, you don’t want to see me with my mouth open and gesticulating when I’m talking. I’m a talker and tend to talk with my hands a lot- oh boy, there’ve been some hilariously bad photos of me and I don’t think I’m a bad looking woman. So ya, criticizing Kate for some of her terrible photos when she’s caught mid-talking, is not something we should criticize her on. Although, I have to say, her makeup is very heavy-handed here. If there’s one thing she could spend taxpayer money on, its to get a good makeup artist, who can make her look her best and natural, without trowelling on the makeup.

        1. Red Tulip, I so agree with you. I think that is makes her look much older than she really is. Sometimes, it seems like stage makeup it is so heavy. Then as time goes by for an engagement, she ends up looking shiny and oily and it sets into the grooves making her look “wrinkley” (if that is a word?). A good makeup artist could work wonders and make her look fresh and polished. Sometimes it reminds me of that scene in Beauty and the Beast where they powder and paint the beast for his dinner and dance with Belle. She needs Luminere to fix it.

    4. This whole “William’s wife” bit is so, so misogynistic. It’s appalling to intentionally and repeatedly refer to another human. being as simply “someone’s wife” thus entirely erasing their autonomy. What year is it again?

      1. Hit the nail on the head Joanna. I completely agree. Not only is it misogynistic it’s also a tad childish and repetitive. I use to comment on this blog a lot more than I do now. I find the caddy, snarky, and obnoxious commentators completely over the top. I miss the time when older commentators we would agree to disagree. And leave it at that. Now it’s a mellow drama of nasty people. Barking and fighting all the time.

      2. I find ‘William’s wife’ a bit jarring, just use her name, but.. devil’s advocate.

        The thing is a lot of us don’t think Kate has much autonomy whatsoever judging by the way she behaves. We may be in the 21st century but she and William are not. And through the monarchy and how it works everything she has is predicated on her husband’s status, including her title of HRH Princess William.

        1. As you say, 21st century… Denying a woman her identity and even her humanity (by calling her a robot or automaton) for making choices you disagree with, is wrong.

          Millions of people in this world make choices every day I would never make for myself, but I don’t have the right to deny them the basic human dignity of their own identity. Nor would I ever seek to.

          I’m sure many would be appalled by how little impact I’ve made in this world, but I still have a name.

          1. I have no problem with Leah calling her William’s wife. That is her identity. She hasn’t tried to distinguish herself from him. To extent that she checks with him before pressing buttons on machines during engagements. Or checking for his (implied) permission.

            She’s a throwback to Anglo Saxon era where the word Queen simply meant the King’ wife and no more. Popped out his babies, but not thought important enough to record her name and utterly unimportant in every way. Being the mother of the King’s babies didn’t make her anymore important than other random women.

            Ever since some women were elevated and recognised as being royal, they were expected to achieve more than regular women. Being elevated, they were given agency, education, freedom etc that regular non-royal women could only dream about and didn’t get for another 1000yrs. Royal women were raised to be ambassadors and diplomats and regents if needed. We all know the minute detail of Anne Bolyen drama and not so much about those periods of Katherine of Aragon’s regency when Henry went to start wars with France.

            At every turn, royal women have rarely been seen and not heard. They’ve been active partners. In public and privately. Having children was one of their roles, but unlike regular women, having children was simply an extension of their ambassadorial role since that child cemented relations.

            Kate has demonstrated for 6yrs now that she would rather be the anglo saxon version of Queen.

            In her early marriage, a rumour went around that she wanted to be viewed like the Queen mother, silent and beloved. A laughable idea given how much work the Queenmother actually did, not to mention being the power behind the throne. So effective was the Queenmother that Hitler claimed that she was the most dangerous woman in Europe for her ability to rally the British during WW2. Kate, whose only challenge in life was the times William broke up with her, would wilt if faced with such challenges. Frankly, her mother and Pippa, have more grit in their little finger than Kate.

            If the Queenmother was silent and beloved and spoilt rotten in her old age, she earned it.

            Kate is often mistakenly compared to Victorian women, but aristocratic / upper Middle class women were extended the same agency as royal women. They were often left in charge of the running of their family estates and they were expected to entertain to advance their families and expected to have noblesse oblige.

            Kate has been around these types all her life, royal adjacent for 15yrs and can’t extend herself in any of these ways.

            She can’t or won’t extend herself beyond William’s shadow and clearly he is in charge of their public life.

            When a mischievous article originating in American media does the rounds of UK media in which it’s claimed Kate has asked to be excused permanently from royal duties, it’s plausibly believable. And would anyone miss her from public life? She remains William’s wife. At least in public. And if she carries on, she will be Queen, anglo saxon style.

          2. Thank you, Herazeus. Well said. Exactly, she is like a little mouse, just scurrying around, it’s ridiculous and then she does these puppy eyes at William, just begging for his approval, but he could care less and rightfully so. What man wants a woman without a backbone or something to say for herself? Apparently William did, but I couldn’t marry someone about as interesting as day old oatmeal and twice as thick, apparently. Old Girl is permanently set on mute

            It’s ridiculous. She will not have made her mark at all, which is sad, because there is so much to be done. All she can do is try and draw hollow comparisons to Diana, who did so much.

            The Queen Mother would have eaten her alive and rightfully so and watch when Margaret had a turn.

            It’s really sad Diana’s daughter in law is a poor excuse for nearly everything.

          3. Herazeus:

            You noted how Queens weren’t identified in early history. It wasn’t just queens, but daughters too. Sons, no matter how unremarkable, were usually recorded.

            That’s a symptom of misogynistic, patriarchal society, and not a statement of how ‘unremarkable’ those women may have been. We have no idea because the writers of history have long overlooked even the most remarkable women.

            So it doesn’t make much sense to say Kate’s a ‘throwback’. If anything, those who refuse to allow her the dignity of her own name are the throwbacks.

            I’ll repeat: I don’t believe a person has to ‘earn’ the right to be called by their own name.

          4. Cady, i know women and daughters were overlooked, but i am making the distinction between regular women vs women married to the elite particularly the King. Aka the lives of royal women vs regular women. Regular women had no agency for over 1000yrs. They had to riot and protest before they got their agency. Royal women were treated better, educated, raised with expectations contrary to the received wisdom on the capabilities of women in general. It wasn’t just to be silent and decorative.

            Kate was described by her own Jigsaw boss as someone who had no agency and had chosen not to have agency. Someone who was willing to live a life that was dictated by others whether she was needed or not.

            And that idea of someone removing her agency is very anglo saxon.

            And yet Kate has the advantage of living in the modern era, but willingly throws herself back to that era.

            The idea that royal women are raised to be submissive supports is a modern one based upon the royal family’s reaction to hurricane Diana. History tells us this theory is not true. Across all royal families.

            History shows that as soon as women were elevated and recognised as royal consorts, they were expected to contribute. To that end they had more agency than regular women who continued to be ignored by society, elites and the history books.

            Kate, by her own choice, has chosen to throwback to an era where regardless of her status is not accorded that status or any agency.

            And cleaves strongly to being William’s wife above all else.

            Her choice.

            Pointing out her choice of a misogynistic life without agency isn’t wrong, despite your disapproval.

            No one is forcing her to be that way. There are all kinds of theories about Carole and or William influencing her to make these choices, but at the end of the day, the choice is hers to be only William’s wife.

          5. What is a name that is earned? Because by that token any title is not something to be earned but is given and not on merit either.

          6. Herazeus, I usually nod along with you, but not on this one. I understand what you’re saying — and I pretty much agree with it — but do we have to perpetuate women having no identity outside of who they married?

            I agree Kate hasn’t done much to distinguish herself — I mean, she’s followed the tried and true path and had the heir and spare. She fits right in the mould. But do *we* have to go along with it?

          7. That’s a good question Bluhare, and normally i would think likewise, but at the end of the day, Kate has made this choice and we are the ones rejecting that choice. Our disappointment is rooted in our rejection of Kate’s choice because we have all been raised with agency and can’t fathom a woman who rejects it willingly. Especially a woman in such a powerful position. A position that brings with it levels of power that only captains of industry can challenge.

            Understanding that she’s William’ wife without agency is the same as understanding that she chose to wait him out until she got the ring to the exclusion of all else.

            And no matter which way you slice it, Kate has chosen to be without agency. She’s *forcing* us to accept this about her. We come up with theories to reject *her* choice. Every year a new excuse makes the rounds, and it sounds plausible too.

            Yet, the woman in question shows us who she is every year. William’s wife, nothing more.

            She goes as far as refusing to own her own opinions without qualifying them either as part owned by William or not to cause any offense.

            And i know that her feminist choice is to regress to having no agency, but as Jigsaw boss said, she would raise her daughters to have agency instead of accepting the choice that Kate made.

          8. I would argue that Kate has the right to give away her agency, but *we* do not have the right to take away her agency. Especially since “William’s wife” as a term to call Kate, instead of her name, is a direct response to being told not to call Kate ‘Waity’ and ‘Mattress’.

            I don’t agree with Kate’s life choices, but we aren’t sitting here talking to her about why she made the choices she made and what her thoughts are on the world at large in relation to her own life choices or how she could use her own experiences to make the world a better place for women. We’re sitting here refusing to call a woman by her name because we don’t approve of the choices she made in life. We’re essentially saying that if we don’t agree with a person’s choices then we don’t have to be respectful of that person, to treat that person as an individual.

            I have a friend who does the same thing about a different topic. He’s a single guy with no kids who works long hours and at any time of day. He claims to be open-minded and non-judgmental but then turns around and disparages people who choose to work a 9-5 job or who choose to have kids. I keep telling him that he doesn’t have to like other people’s choices, but he doesn’t have to be rude about other people’s choices either.

          9. As a woman who stays home with her kid to raise said kid, it also galls me when people go on about how Kate can’t work much because she stays home. I do plenty of stuff outside the home, volunteer things, and so on. I have an active social life. I do stuff around the house. Kate presumably does none of these because she has nannies and staff, precisely to work. Then the comments about how working parents are somehow bad, and hiding behind them being parents first but then jetting off on holiday–it all leaves a sour taste in our mouths.

            Had they not kept up with the “William and Kate are so keen to get going and work” every year and said from the out they wouldn’t, as was evidenced by her previous work history, or wanted to stay home with her young children, I am sure people wouldn’t be so irked. Honestly I am also very irked at William more because he is perpetuating a lot of the comments about working parents = bad parents, and he has no responsibility at home either and should be out doing his thing. HE is the royal, the blood royal, the future king. Kate goes along for the ride or at least behaves this way. He is as big a disappointment or moreso than she is. It’s just all the lies and PR they’ve pushed: the housewife taking care of her husband on Anglesey when we know neither were there very often, the hero helicopter pilot in EAA, blahblah. It’s tiring.

            I support every woman’s choice to do whatever she likes with her life, obviously, I stay home and get crap from it from so-called feminists but my job is just here at home raising my child to be a good, independent person in the end. It is a job. But it is not a job I suspect Kate is involved much with, nor William. Children need both parents. (Which is why my husband gets furious when people joke to him about how he is babysitting. No, he is PARENTING. Shock. Horror.)

          10. Thanks, Herazeus, and thanks to KMR as well, for offering a master class in civil disagreement. Smooches to both of you!

            I agree with KMR, though. I get what you’re saying and I agree with you. I had hoped Kate would be more of a player on the stage than she is. But I don’t think it helps anyone to call her names — or refuse to speak her name– because it’s not something we would do in her position. Hopefully you won’t throw your smooch back at me now! 🙂

          11. I am thrilled with this discussion. This is why I come to this site. I think we’ve drilled down to the core of our frustration with Kate: she has power and chooses not to use it, she has a pulpit and barely speaks.

            Diana changed the way royalty interacts with the public. I don’t think anyone really wanted a Diana 2.0, but a Letiza, a Victoria, a Maxima…that would have been great. Instead Kate has chosen to emulate wives before Diana: supportive of her husband, claiming domestic life as her primary interest, and mostly silent in public. And this just seems so strange because she is university educated, and pursued this position so ardently. She chased William with everything she had, and does the bare minimum with her role. And we are left wondering why. My only conclusion is that she wanted the social standing, the money, and to be “taken care of”. To her, the public duties are the baggage that comes with the position, when to us the duties are the core of her position.

        1. To Herazeus above: Thank you for the history lesson. Yet, you still called her Kate.

          I agree Kate hasn’t done a lot in 6+ years, but she hasn’t done ‘nothing’ either. It’s been acknowledged by both William and Harry that Head’s Together was in fact Kate’s idea. You may not like it, find it insufficient, and disagree with the aims and outcomes, but it is something.

          And while I feel the scope of her work should be expanded, she has been fairly consistent in her focus on children’s mental health.

          I don’t believe a person has to ‘earn’ the right to be called by their own name.

      3. Joanna Wallace

        I agree with what you write. Referring to Kate as “William’s wife” and “wifey” is both misogynistic and a putdown. Neither have a place in 2017. Both terms perpetuate stereotypical views more aligned with grossly outdated societal attitudes.

      4. I find it so too – Daniel of Sweden does very little independently – he has been most often seen supporting Victoria- yet I don’t think most here would call him Victoria’s husband.

        I’v heard terms used for Meghan from old time royalists recently regarding her putting herself forward – I won’t repeat them – they aren’t racist or really offensive but they are sexist – since I don’t think they would ever be used for a man. But such names work every way – and personally I prefer to avoid them all.

        I will say I don’t see Meghan as a particularly modern woman – she is a television actress who has participated in some light shows like Deal or No Deal. I think it’s wonderful she’s had a career but being an actress and then giving it up to marry a prince doesn’t make her a uniquely modern woman – Lili Langtry was an actress.

        Most of Britain right now is worrying about deal or no deal and not about the television show or Harry and Meghan.

        1. @Herazeus the Queen Mother was force to be reckon with. She was the rock for King George, her family, Great Britain, and the Commonwealth, during World War II. She was power in my opinion behind the Crown. George was a shy and doubtful man when it came to himself. The Queen Mother was a dominant force that guided him. She was by no means a wallflower. Now if Kate wants to eliminate the Queen Mother she has some big shoes to fill. Kate would also have to find her voice and a strong constitution to stay the course. Maybe she also try to be more like Queen Mary. Consort to King George the V or Queen Alexandra. Hell maybe open a history book and learn about past Queen Consorts.

          1. You’re telling the wrong person to “open a history book.” Herazeus is one of the foremost “experts” on this site when it comes to royal history and protocol. Your failure to correctly read her comment is no grounds for insulting her. Really. All of the high-and–mighty commenters throwing out personal attacks at longterm, reliable members of this blog is getting really old, really fast.

          2. Eleanor: I just rewatched the entire first season! I know that not everything is accurate but it’s just so beautifully shot. And Claire Foy is such a tremendous actress. I loved the nuance of her performance. And now she’s working on a biopic of Neil Armstrong, playing his wife Janet.

          3. Meghan: i understood Eleanor meant Kate should open a history book, not me, but i never miss an opportunity to open a history book, so even if she meant me, i’m not offended at all. There is so much more to know.

        2. Meghan was also on Suits and had a successful blog and designed a popular clothing line. She was also asked to be a guest on many talk shows, sharing her world view and also fashion sense. Well-rounded and multifaceted, articulate, well-spoken with great warmth and charm, an easy way with people. Very engaging, which is more than I can say for some.

          You could do worse than be like her.

          1. @Meghan my comment wasn’t an attack on Herazeus. It was it meant that way from end. So if she took it way as you did. My sincerest apologies. My comment was directed towards the Duchess of Cambridge. Not at Herazeus in that way. Rereading the comment it does seem like I am correcting her. Yet that was not intent in any way. So thank so kindly for correcting me. Have a lovely day.

          2. @Herazeus thank you for realizing I wasn’t try to insult your intelligence.

            @Meghan again I have been commenting on this blog. Yet I took a break for a while. Because of squawking hens like yourself. Who do not read peoples comments correctly. Yet jump at the chance to pounce on someone. And to give you a little education about me. I have of Doctorate in History. And teach at university. So please save me your high and mighty soap box lecture.

        3. Brexit is a big deal and will affect the UK economy. And the massive expenses of the monarchy and their actual value should be scrutinized in detail. Will and Kate are not helping the case that the monarchy provides any real value as compared to their personal lifestyle expenses. Especially not beyond the monarch and immediate family.

          1. Yes it is. Will and Kate do not help with the bottom. All the perks and not much work from they’re end. Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy. Yet how do you justify his family living off the taxpayers. Yes the line will descend from William and his family. Then to George. How can you expect the taxpayers to pay for your livelihood. When you do the bare minimum of work?

  2. The coat is gorgeous although I though it was the one she wore when she got photographed recently. But I hated the dress. I wonder why she keeps using Goat dresses as maternity clothing. I like your angle about cyber bullying, KMR. I think that’s an issue that would be worthwhile to discuss.

  3. I love the coat. Dress is too short, but color is lovely. Wish she’d have worn a necklace! I wish she’d do maternity clothes too, they’d probably fit better.

    The speech is interesting. I am a bit younger than these two, but I do worry about the internet, social media, and kids glued to screens. We grew up with the internet and nobody knew of the problems or dangers, but then again, we also grew upraised by the television, or I did. ‘Creating anti-bullying tools is great, but that’s a bandaid. It’s fighting the symptom, not the disease.’ – Good comment KMR, I just wish they would do more than just show up and talk about it, especially from other comments William has made that seems to indicate he’s into it to support himself and to tell critics they are just bullying him.

    FRom the speech – “The Royal Foundation brought together the leading players in digital and social media, the ISPs, academic researchers, and children’s charities.” Um, hasn’t this been going on before, everyone getting together? Companies starting this, not TRF. Again they act as if THe Foundation of Keenness is the one doing everything and creating all of this dialogue when they’re jumping into it. Yes, it could fund some good initiatives, and I hope it does, but it’s once again them taking credit for things that don’t really concern them because they got into it to jump on the bandwagon. Anyone else feel this way?

    People use cyberbullying especially other children and teenagers, and yes, us adults, because we are anonymous. It is easier to torment other people, to give in to some dark parts of human nature and nastiness, because we are faceless behind a computer screen. Yes, we complain here about the royals but I hope we don’t get into bullying each other as I’ve noticed the arguments and vitriol on all sides can get a bit heated. So I wanted to say if I have ever offended or hurt someone’s feelings I’m sorry, because text doesn’t translate tone at all.

    1. I think they’ve hit upon a model in Heads Together of gathering together a collection of established organisations doing great work with the promise (maybe) of greater publicity and RF funds if all herded under the RF banner. It allows the trio a couple of simple messages to chant at various occasions to up numbers while appearing involved and caring when really. Now, if they work in more headbands for this initiative, they will be winning.

      1. I’d like to think they do care, I think Harry does because he shows it, but a lot of it seems so…disjointed and just about making them look good rather than say taking a page out of Charles’s book and really making a difference in people’s lives with the publicity and fame you have. I no doubt they all three mean well in their own way, even W&K who I criticize constantly, but it’s just obnoxious at this point.

        1. In my opinion, William and Kate are glory-hunters: they want praise, acclaim, and respect, but they don’t want to work for it. I suspect the same of Harry, but will reserve judgement on him for another while.

        2. My feeling is all royals by definition try to find a purpose.

          I don’t think either William or Harry are per se work shy but I don’t think either find traditional royal work much of an attraction and are trying to redefine it – without truly having a plan. That’s a pity because royal work may be dull but it brings attention and happiness to a lot of people. I think both William and Harry have little capacity for boredom – having never worked in the ordinary jobs most people hold to support themselves. And I don’t think sadly either are close to their father or interested in his work and some of the blame goes to him – he was so interested in developing his relationship with Camilla when William and Harry were young, I think he let them both run rather wild. Now they seem him as someone who put work before them but it didn’t have to be that way. I don’t like the way Charles has handled his personal life but I do admire his work.

          1. I agree that both William and Harry have been over-indulged without sufficient boundaries imposed or obligations made clear or often enough. However, I’d hold both Charles and Diana responsible for the parenting style employed. I’d also add a grandmother inclined by nature not to confront difficult problems, instead hoping they’d be resolved with more indulgence.

            The problem is failure to launch. The result is imbalance: two men – both approaching middle-age – with a slim grasp of consistent and immersive service on one hand yet a huge sense of entitlement on the other. I’d agree that without firm family instruction it is difficult for people in W+H’s positions to find purpose. They are never held accountable for their actions or lack of performance; they know that any and all difficulties will be swept away as well as palace PR spinning their conjured virtues to the world.

            As you point out, royal work need not be dull, or worse, a superficial PR exercise. The latter is where these men find comfort: appearing to be busy and involved but unravels once you start to examine it closely. Charles designed the Prince of Wales role, to his credit; one would think it might provide inspiration to his sons at some level. I think these men are drowning in unfettered privilege and this results in a curious mix of arrested development and lack of resilience. Both men bemoan their fate, and play the public for sympathy a la being ‘Diana’s boys’, but then neither has had to develop their characters sufficiently to cope with disappointment and failure along with having to pay their way in life. Something will always be provided to soothe them. And yet… they are given the opportunity to meet people from all walks of life who have overcome incredible odds and circumstances to excel. Where is the self-reflection, the humility of W+H to say to oneself, “I am so lucky. I need to devote my life to lifting others up in whatever way my position allows me to.” There are endless ways to serve if one is truly committed to do so.

      2. Nothing to do with this post… I see the bill has passed, well done Australia!

        And a big thumbs up for the quick passing of the bill after the referendum. That’s efficient law making. Well done to the Australian Government

        1. Hi Cathy – yes, it is done and will be law by Saturday. Abbott still trying his scare tactics (as per Republic Ref in 1999) but no-one took the bait, and his amendments were voted down. Yay for Australians sending a strong, unequivocal message to MPs that everyone should be treated fairly and with dignity.

          1. Hi Jen

            It was the speed that the bill went through after the result of the postal referendum that impressed me.

            (You’ve caught up with New Zealand now? 😉 😉 😉 )

            “Yay for Australians sending a strong, unequivocal message to MPs and the world that everyone should be treated fairly and with dignity”

            Go Aussie!

          2. Oh, Cathy, I’m well aware that Oz is catching up with New Zealand, one of the most socially progressive countries on the planet 🙂

            The postal survey was seen as an unnecessary and expensive delaying tactic on the par of conservative politicians, who sought to muddy the waters citing freedom of speech and religion and all sorts of things would ruin Australian life as we know it. That argument didn’t fly though the same politicians sought amendments once the bill was re-introduced, and again were defeated. Yay! The survey caused huge distress to LBGTQ communities due to public insults and assaults – calls to Lifeline etc were up – and this caused many MPs to put their heads down and get the bill passed with no further nonsense. It’s a big growing up day for Australia.

      3. Bingo, Jen! And looks like Meghan, touted to be the great humanitarian of our times, is going to be joining in the Foundation of Keenness and sporting headbands, very soon.

          1. The Foundation of Keenness was a huge backer of the Invictus Games. Their biggest donation in 2016 I believe. I might be wrong on the year, but when I last had insomnia and read their financials that was their #1.

    2. I think it’s the poorest thinking of our society that Internet will solve the problems.For me, it’s quite the contrary.
      Children need real life, no mobile phones.So don’t give your child a phone.
      And if everybody has one, you still have the right to say no.
      In my opinion, Internet is for adults, not for children.
      People who cyberbully are also idiots in real life, there is no difference.

      1. Children should be children for as long as possible. Many schools have programs in place to counter cyber-bullying and work together with parents and the whole school community really to ingrain in students empathy and consideration to each other. If on every flank children see the virtue of friendship, of being kind at an early age, it does stick. The internet is a brilliant tool for opening up the world and is used extensively in teaching; we need to be selective about when and how it is used. I agree that children don’t need to have unfettered access. Two boys from the US were on TV here; they designed and made a small-scale working roller-coaster – a fantastic feat of physics, building etc – all because they got bored one summer and decided to create something instead. https://boingboing.net/2017/02/24/teens-were-bored-so-they-built.html

  4. I really don’t understand Kate’s aversion to maternity clothes. There is a lot of uncomfortable, cheaply made stuff, but there are also *amazing* maternity brands, boutique stuff, that will cost you a pretty penny, but the fit is wonderful, looks great, and is very well made. During my two pregnancies I spent money on a few items (the same brands that are popular with royalty and celebs) – jeans and a few dresses – and it was worth it. With her access to clothing funds, Kate can afford it.

    I’ve been wondering about something for awhile… people make a lot of comments about how nice Kate’s legs are and “if she’s got it, she should flaunt it”. I really don’t get it. She has nice legs, but nothing I don’t see every day where I live. (I was thinking about this because this red dress is very short and people on Celeb*tchy were discussing it.)

    1. The dress looks tailored to be that short for Kate. Like as if she had it made even shorter. I don’t know, it’s weird.

      1. I think when Kate shops off the rack that she is taller and thinner than the average woman the clothes are made for (even expecting), so the clothes end up too short, and the waists too high. I actually liked this dress, and think she looks good in red, but why the short clothes when she knows she will be interacting with children, and she had to sit on a low chair?

        I did think her makeup was far too heavy. Too bad she doesn’t recognize how pretty she is naturally. And I don’t like the sausage curl hair on anyone, unless it’s Mary Pickford.

        Off topic: one of the more unreliable tabloids reporting that Meghan is having fittings at the dreaded Erdem’s and guessing it could be the big day dress. I sincerely hope not.

        Finally, I am very tired of posts that spend so much energy in criticizing another poster. Again, they are displaying the very behavior which they upbraid others with.

        1. I don’t agree with you. I think what you are seeing is some pushing back from people with more moderate opinions and who consistently get shouted down here.

        2. Fifi Kate’s really not that tall, no taller than me and I have no trouble getting clothes the right length. She always wears sky high heels ( as I do) so she appears taller.
          She is a lot slimmer than me though I do admit ?

    2. I read ages ago – for what it’s worth – that Kate doesn’t like being pregnant. I assume that’s be cause she has less control over her body shape and she counters that by drawing attention to her legs and preferring non-maternity clothes. She does seem driven to be as thin as possible; looks are important to her.

        1. I’d certainly accept that reasoning. It’s still depressing that women and girls are so susceptible to seeking approval through others’ acceptance (or not) of their bodies and worse, that their body is the key to success rather than intellect, empathic nature. I read recently that ‘attractive’ female Olympic athletes were more likely to be offered sponsorship deals, regardless of actual achievements on the field, in the pool etc. SMH.

          1. This is true. Serena Williams has far fewer endorsements than Maria Sharapova and Anna Kournikova, both far lower ranked players than her but “traditionally” beautiful women (white and blonde).

        1. I am afraid xou are right, William seems to prefer the skinny type of woman (just look at his ex jecca craig), and Kate tries really hard to stay skinny for him 🙁 in her early years at university, she was of course slim, but her face was a it fuller and she had a few pounds more which looked really pretty in my opinion 🙂

          1. She looks so lovely and glowing pregnant because she isn’t so thin. She was such a healthy, happy younger woman when she didn’t do this over-dieting. It makes me concerned for her health, really, it is so not good for you to do that. Especially not to appease a man. But she gets praised for being so very thin so I’m sure that has something to do with it too but William’s been recorded by Uncle Gary talking about how he loves super skinny girls.

          2. I think she looks better now as well. The super thin look isn’t healthy and if it is being done to keep a man’s interest.. that is just depressing. What I don’t like is how the media praises the extreme thinness. And the constant bump monitoring. We know she’s pregnant. Why talk about it any further?

          3. It’s one thing when someone (man or woman) is naturally thin but when there is proof that the individually isn’t genetically slim and is going above and beyond to be skinny, then there is a problem, IMO and it makes me sad that Kate feels that she absolutely, positively has to be super skinny in order to be liked/worth/choose your adjective.

        2. Actually, I think she’s so thin because of being photographed so much. A lot of women lose weight when they start appearing in the media and Kate carried more weight until after she got engaged and married. I personally thinks she looks better with a bit more weight than she carries when not pregnant.

          Most men I know like a bit more meat on the bone. Maybe William’s the exception that proves the rule though. No idea really!

      1. If she doesn’t like being pregnant, why does she keep popping out rugrats? There is already an heir and spare. Why have a third? I remember a lot of people eye rolled over this pregnancy and non really happy about it.

        1. Lots of women enjoy their children and may want more without enjoying actually being pregnant. I know that I have felt insecure about body issues while pregnant… that doesn’t mean I don’t want more children even though I dislike that part of how I get more children. Pregnancy is very short compared to the lifetime of having that child.

          Also, your apparent hatred of their parents doesn’t make George/Charlotte/Baby3 “rugrats” that are being “popped out.” I just think it’s an unkind way to talk about children or choosing to grow a family.

          1. “Also, your apparent hatred of their parents doesn’t make George/Charlotte/Baby3 “rugrats” that are being “popped out.” I just think it’s an unkind way to talk about children or choosing to grow a family.”

            Megan +1

        2. Well, this has nothing to do with William and Kate but Queen Victoria hated being pregnant but looooved the sex with Prince Albert, hence the nine bambinos they had.

          1. Ew, Historical Randyness is my least favorite subject!

            Kimothy I sincerely /hope/ this tidbit has nothing to do with William and Kate.

          2. Victoria’s letters describing Albert’s physical charms are hysterical. Especially describing his legs. So at odds with her public image.

          3. Alexandra: I specifically said that it had nothing to do with Will and Kate. I was bringing it up because someone upthread said that perhaps that Kate does not enjoy being pregnant so I was mentioning another royal women who also didn’t like the physical aspect of pregnancy.

          4. Herazeus: I think the reason why we’re so amused about how Victoria basically drools over Albert’s physical appearance is because the majority of the public have this image of her in black, during the later years of her life. It’s hard for them to picture her as a young woman deliciously in love with her husband.

          5. Kimothy: I know what you said, I was making a joke! Emphasizing that I certainly hope you are correct!

            I really wish we could all assume the best of each other.

          6. Queen Victoria really was a passionate, fun young woman. So vivacious. Albert tamped down on that, or tried to; I don’t think he loved her nearly as she loved him. She was the means to an end and it was all plotted out from when they were young besides.

            And at odds with the “I hate my babies” thing, she was very interesting as a mother–neither as awful as some people perceive but not loving either, but some letters, man, she goes all out pouring her heart and soul to her children in good and in bad. I do think she loved her children, but certainly not in the modern way we’d describe. She who had such a terrible relationship with her own mother probably had no guide or knowledge on how to do it and was totally resentful of having kids so young. There are letters written to her children where she waxes poetic about how she loves them, or all the sketches sh did of them and mentions in her journal about spending time with them, so I don’t think she was as bad as people think.

    3. I wish she would wear maternity clothes too. At least the hems wouldn’t rise up in the front. But honestly, I keep forgetting Kate is pregnant. She doesn’t look it in most of these photos. Perhaps that is what she is trying for. Me, I resembled a manatee for most of my pregnancies.

    4. Whilst I agree with what you are saying re the clothing fund – yes she has “access” to it but if she didn’t dip into it so constantly to buy herself awful clothes in 97 similar colours the fund would have more money available for WORTHY causes. And she’d probably earn more respect. Just because she can doesn’t mean she should. A new dress to visit a kids school? C’mon!

  5. Geez… she looks bored, angry, or looney tunes in all of the photos I’ve seen of her from this event. I wonder if she is just that unphotographable, or if the photographers publish these photos deliberately? Literally none of the pictures are flattering in my opinion, which is a shame because I know she can be pretty when photographed correctly.

    1. If you read different different posts on that engagemant you will find more photos which include more fortunate ones. One example is princessblog76. It is french so I have no clue what is written in the posts but the blogger usually has a lot of photos to every royal engagement.
      I tend to read (or scan- time is finite) three to four blogs on the royal topic. Apart from different photos I feel you get a more diverse coverage as if you (general you) only stay in your own bubble.

    2. Charlotte, you are noticing the subtle manipulation of the press. Every story has an angle, and editors chose photos that support that angle. And they have tons of photos to chose from. If Kate stepped on a rock, winced, and a photographer captured that moment, editors could run it a year later under a headline of her and William’s marriage falling apart. Also, most photos in US and (seemingly) British papers are photoshopped, so we are surprised to see celebrities looking like average people, if unretouched photos ever see the light of day. Unretouched photos are often saved for negative news; arrests, trials, breakups, etc…

    3. The hard thing is that KMR tries to get the posts up quickly, but often all that are out at that point are the unflattering ones. Even the Daily Mail has pivoted and shows the less than flattering ones.

  6. I thought William’s speech was excellent and Kate was involved and engaged on what is a very important topic in today’s world.

    I liked Kate’s coat and didn’t mind the red underneath but I really dislike those short skirts and don’t understand why they always appear when Kate’s pregnant.

    I very much appreciate KMR for typing the speech out.

    1. I too really liked William’s speech. I’m the same age as him with 3 kids 7 and under and preserving my kids’ childhoods in this culture is on my mind daily. How technology can help and hinder that is huge. I thought I very timely on a very important topic.

  7. I love this coat, but it’d look even better without the boop flaps. I also think it’d fit better if Kate wasn’t pregnant because now it looks too tight and the fit is poor in the front. Hopefully she has it altered and wears it even after the birth of her third child. It’s odd she doesn’t make use of those countless maternity coats she already has but buys coats that don’t fit well now and probably will be too big after the pregnancy. Or does she just have so much loose stuff around that she’s in a hurry to use it all before a new shopping spree? I’m sorry I’m this grumpy, but I just don’t understand why someone is so wasteful and does not care about the enviromental impact of all this shopping and never wear again thinking at all. Someone in Kate’s position could really lead by exemple and show how you can re-use and style your clothes well.

      1. The excessive amount of new clothing on show at almost every engagement results in discussion and/or disquiet because such profligacy is just unnecessary, particularly in the current UK economic climate. Spending the price of an average house on clothes for just 50 days ‘work’ (= a few hours at most) is tone deaf to say the least.

        Kate has many clothes from her two previous pregnancies that could do just as well as this latest new coat and dress, especially when she has similar items in her wardrobe. She only needs to be presentable, thoroughly prepared and genuinely engaged in whoever she is meeting. It’s not much to ask for the privileges extended to her. If Kate did more, offered more of herself, discussion would be around her contribution what she’s spear-headed, the results etc. rather than what she wore on a particular day.

        1. My thoughts exactly, Jen. I really hope we’d see a royal lady lead by example some day what comes to sustainable fashion. I just can’t understand excessive consumerism, and in my eyes wearing something new almost every time you leave the house counts as such.

        2. With three pregnancies in pretty quick succession, Kate really does not need many new items of clothing for every stage of her pregnancy. She really should be aware that some clothing costs can appear excessive.

          I feel Meghan should get a pass on what she spends, because she is spending her own hard earned money for the time being. I noticed Meghan has a Prada bag with a price tag of about $2,600.00 USD. Once Meghan is a member of the BRF, she will be scrutinized for her spending the same way Kate has been by some of us watching her style choices.

          I am a fan of Meghan, but she needs to be aware she is being watched by those who will be supporting her new lifestyle. As an American, I hope Meghan will be sensitive to her new position and step with care.

          1. Kate has and I’m sure will reuse clothes this pregnancy. I had 2 kids in a year and a half and with my second pregnancy I bought new maternity clothes. All women do it. People criticize her when she buys new clothes, her hairstyles, her jewellery, her facial expressions, her family, She can’t win.

          2. Kate is in her third pregnancy and how much has she reused to date? Anything? Outside of her jeggings we haven’t seen it yet. And it’s not like she is even getting new maternity styled clothing, but instead other clothes that aren’t fitting her properly because of the pregnancy. Being pregnant isn’t just gaining weight in the belly so upping sizes stops working after the first few months. Kate should know this since it’s her third kid.
            Why do we expect Kate to be any different in the next few months when she has been spending money on new clothing for seven years? She won’t control her spending unless Charles stops it. She doesn’t have the decency to be considerate on her own. Any person who cares about economizing would not be spending nearly 200k every year to step out of the house about 50 times. Theresa May would be ripped apart for spending this much and she works every day. Why are politicians held to a higher standard than an unelected granddaughter in law who mostly attends events as an ornament and says little?

      2. It is when you keep spending money on new outfits that look identical to old outfits. The frivolous spending of William’s wife is causing disquiet and anger all over Tumblr and Twitter. People are really starting to notice and be outrage. They don’t think it makes sense, especially because she barely works.

        But the woman is so superficial, I guess she doesn’t really know or care to do anything else but shop. A modern Marie Antoinette.

      3. @Bashun: when she’s shopping on other people’s money (in this taxpayers, as her father in law does a tax write-off, as “work expenses”), then yes it is a social ill. Also, with Brexit and the struggles in Britain, she needs to keep public image in mind- notice how Letizia of Spain rewears her pieces several times over? Since Spain is a country where the monarchy has a shaky support from the public at best, so Letizia as a public representative cannot be seen as being wasteful with taxpayer’s money in tough economic times. That’s the fatal mistake that Mary Antoinette made centuries ago and lost her head for it.

    1. When you spend $200k+ year on clothes and it’s taxpayer bucks it suuuure is an issue, especially when her engagement count is around 100-150 if that per year.

      1. I hope she rewears the peach toned dress and coat from when she was carrying George- she looked really lovely that day, glowing and healthy and happy. Oh, and the yellow coat from the garden party, same pregnancy – loved that as well.

    1. I wondered if there was some clothes swapping going on, as per rumors, or if she and Donna are close? It might explain the poor fit, as the coat was too big through the shoulders and too tight in the middle.

      1. I didn’t know there were rumours but when I saw Kate in that coat and then the pic of Donna wearing it, I thought the same as you – they are closer than we think, and they swap clothes. And you’re right about the fit. The fit makes me think now that the coat is a loan – which is not a bad thing in my opinion.

  8. For those comparing the public reaction of two separate events, I want to add that Harry & Meghan just got engaged. It is understandable that they will be grabbing all the headlines. William & Kate have been together for what seems like forever so the public are used to seeing them together. Comparing the size of crowds & level of interest at this stage is pointless. There was a long period of time where Kate was grabbing all the headlines & she was on all the magazine covers. I suspect the same thing will happen to Meghan.

    Every public figure has a period in the limelight where they’re hot commodity, and H&M are currently at that stage. The key thing to look for is whether they will have longevity. Diana had longevity because she was plucked from obscurity at the age of 19 and her marriage provided lots of drama. Meghan is 36 and realistically she only has about 5 years to really make an impact. In a world obsessed with youth I suspect once she hits her forties the media will have moved on to their next big thing.

  9. The view from the other side of the pond, Kate looks great. William and his wife are beautiful people that are conscientious about their roles in both the UK and the world. Thank you KMR for providing this unique window into your fascinating culture. Keep up the good work.

    1. Interesting KMR is American not British, and even Kate’s fans have stopped trying to convince themselves that she is conscientious.

    2. Conscientious, how? They don’t work. They don’t even know what the meaning of the word means. All we hear from them is constant drivel about how “keen” they are and nothing of substance gets done.

      So, all you can do is talk about the clothes of William’s wife and how much spends, cause at the day, there is nothing else.

      1. KMR, you have a fantastic blog. I am a long time reader, hardly ever comment but the constant, lengthy criticism of “William’s wife” is making the blog less appealing. I can and do just scroll down but is it really necessary to be so unpleasant about Kate? Even the expression “William’s wife” is, as you say, offensive. The criticism is becoming really unpleasant and and I am not a Kate lover. Neither Kate nor Meghan is 100% perfect or 100% imperfect. Could we have some balance please?

        1. We do have balance. You are calling out Leah so here I am supporting her 100%. Now it’s even and we can all move on.

    3. I’m on the other side of the pond and I can’t help but laugh at the thought of W&K being conscious of anything but how much cash is in their coffers. They do the bare minimum while spending excessively. No, it’s not my money they’re spending but I’m not selfish enough to only care about what’s happening in my little corner of the world. I don’t buy the People mag covers and glossy stories lauding them for all the things they don’t really do.

  10. Their visits have had more depth lately (well, except the driving Landrovers, but even that celebrated British manufacturing) and that’s a great relief. William really has increased his duties this fall, and I’m glad he’s keeping his promise. I think he is growing into his role at the moment and hope he keeps up this trend.

    Kate has so many similar coats, in fact the Zara one she wore in private is similar. I like her in red, but this dress is far from my favorite. I’m glad she and Will went to separate panels for part of the day.

    George had to be adorable in that school play.

    1. William has done more recently. Kate has not. She should be giving more speeches because if she is to be future Queen consort one day, she needs to be much more than an ornament. She also needs to be attending her patronages and adding more of them. Clearly she is healthy enough now to do more work as she can attend concerts and premieres.

      1. If she’d ever bother to get a speech consultant, she might give more speeches. But that’s like hoping she’ll hire a stylist. As my dad says it’s “sand down a far hole.”

    2. One of the best parts of school plays is taking videos and photos, and then sharing them with friends and family, even years later. Otherwise those precious memories fade. Hope that the Cambridges’ privacy concerns didn’t conflict with the parents of George’s schoolmates recording their own children participating.

  11. Things I wish she would do: (1) Get rid of the long hair. Or at least quit playing with her hair; (2) Tone down the makeup. Less is more. If she keeps layering it on, by the time she’s 40, she’ll be slathering it on with a trowel. (3) Ditch the clutch purses and carry a shoulder strap purse. (4) Take some risks when it comes to fashion. The Windsors always dress about 20 years behind the times. Or they dress 20 years older than they are.

  12. Kate has a new engagement planned: ‘The Duchess of Cambridge will join children and families to celebrate the work of the Rugby Portobello Trust at its community centre in North Kensington on December 12.’

    I wonder if they will go to the Grenfell service at St Paul’s next week. I doubt it. Harry will be at the Sovereign’s Parade at Sandhurst, good on them sending him this year.

    Prince Charles invested Ed Sheeran as an MBE for his services to charity, like EACH. Funny whilst Kate is its Royal Patron she has done little to support them but look at all Ed has done!

  13. I love the comment from William about George being in the nativity. He sounds like a proud papa. It is a small thing, but I really liked that he said “my boy”. Will and Kate tend to always use their children’s names when talking about them instead of just saying ‘my son or daughter’. It just sounds more natural the way he said it this time-just more of a off the cuff remark. It was nice 🙂

    1. I picked up on ‘my boy’ too; nice. I quite liked William taking George’s wish list to Santa in Finland too – probably at his boy’s request!

      1. I’ve said it so many times but when William talks about George he really is the William I like. I bet George was as cute as a button.

        1. I suspect that George is the conduit allowing William to connect with the world. Children also know, intuitively, which parent needs them most.

  14. Having read all these comments today and been dismayed by some of them – although not denying anyone’s right to think what they do – I’m going to put down my own perspective.

    I’ve often criticised Kate for lack of work experience that would have helped her. I’m not putting all the blame on her – royal men tend to be selfish and I believe Kate felt that she needed to be available for William, but as I said yesterday, you take responsibility for your own actions. I actually think Kate was sincere in her first interview, but I also believe once she got into royal life she found she disliked it. She’s a reserved woman (I am too) and I don’t think once the initial gloss was off, it came easily to her. But she was stuck. And I’m prepared to give her credit for what she does do because I want to see her do more. I’m also not going to critique her for things I give other royal women a pass on – they all spend a fortune on clothes – I was stunned looking at one blog on what Marie of Denmark spent on handbags. Willem-Alexander and Maxima are presently on a tour in the Caribbean with fluffy engagements William and Kate would be violently attacked for.

    But I see a lot of comments here on Kate’s passiveness. As a fifty year royal observer, I’m going to try to put some perspective on that. Almost forty years ago, Diana appeared on the scene. She was young, charming and wore her heart on her sleeve and much of the public fell for her. But Prince Charles did not. There were many problems – his feelings for another woman, her emotional nature but I’m only concerned with one here. Charles thought too much attention was focused on his new young wife. He was jealous of the attention she got. Almost every biography of Charles, even favourable ones, have mentioned this. Right or wrong, it was a big problem in the marriage.

    The courtiers – those grey men who are still very much in the palace and likely to be through the reign of Charles – picked this up as the marriage collapsed and other royals – probably also jealous of the praise Diana got, undoubtedly joined in. The public loved Diana but the royal loathed her and still do. She became an example of what a royal lady shouldn’t be.

    Into this mindset came Kate Middleton. She is a very cautious girl. I think it is her nature, from listening to interviews. If someone says ‘your’re taking too much time’ she takes it to heart. We know this is out there – we just heard Meghan express it about selfies and it’s just beginning for her.

    I’m certain the message Kate received from every adviser is that Diana’s way of doing things – putting herself independently ahead of her husband was bad news. William and Harry clearly love their mum but I don’t think this is an aspect of Diana they’re too attuned to – she was just Mummy to them. Whether William is as sensitive as Charles about Kate drawing too much attention is unclear. He may be. But even if he’s fine with it, just being around the palace Kate was going to get that message constantly – don’t be a Diana. The public might like it. The royals don’t.

    Royal consorts at the best of time are expected to be bland and not put themselves too far forward. We don’t know much about what Daniel of Sweden thinks – much of the time he is smiling, supporting Victoria. Camilla has been praised for supporting Charles by royal commentators who contrast her with Diana. From the view of the inside of royal palace walls – that’s what consorts do.

    I think Kate has deferred to William in excess because she is scared to death she is going to be criticised by the palace if she puts a foot wrong. I would like to see her develop more confidence in herself – I think she has actually lost confidence since her marriage. But seeing Meghan – the other extreme – racing forward too fast – people are coming to appreciate Kate’s reticence more.

    It’s not easy to be a royal consort – it’s like walking a tightrope. Having met a courtier once, who I believe is representative of his breed, and who thought Kate was a ‘nice girl who doesn’t put herself forward’, I try to be understanding – and see what goes on with Kate as resulting from external forces, not just her own nature. My probably futile hope is that others here will too.

    1. I am fine with Meghan being forward. She is a modern woman. At least she has a brain and personality and opinions. At least she has WORKED. And thank God for her. I can’t stand mealy mouthed women who are reticent and just nod and smile. It’s not the 1700s, people. And I also dislike women molded by their moms to chase a man and don’t have a backbone or their own interests.

      William’s wife’s issue is not reticence. She has no substance, none. I doubt she was ever allowed by Carole and then William, to ever voice an independent idea or thought. She was raised from birth to be a courtesan. So sad. It’s odd that her dad was okay with that. My dad wouldn’t have stood for it and my mom raised me to be a hard worker with my own brain.

      Anyway, I see a ton of royal engagements being called fluff. What do you all consider to be fluffy and non-fluffy engagements? What non fluffy tour engagements should royals be doing?

      1. “She was raised from birth to be a courtesan.”

        A courtesan! Referring to Kate as a courtesan is disgusting! But I am not surprised. It is akin to every other misogynistic and sexist term that you have used to describe Kate.

        1. She wasn’t raised to be independent and career seeking. That is what I meant. Sorry if the term offended you, but that is how I see it. And she did nothing but arrange her life around a man. That and the poor work ethic get her nowhere with me.

          Maybe if she had worked and applied herself, I would feel differently. I gave her a grace period of two years and I desperately wanted to believe. I was hopeful at every engagement, but then I gave up and realized she would never better herself and didn’t want to.

          There are so many great things she could advocate for but she is content just twirling the dolly curls and being stuck on mute. It’s unconscionable to me. How do you not care, how do you not see all the issues not want to help and just dive in, sleeves rolled up to elbows?

          1. Refer to Julia’s comment. It shows an understanding of the roles within the royal family, with which you are not au fait.

            “Royal consorts at the best of time are expected to be bland and not put themselves too far forward. We don’t know much about what Daniel of Sweden thinks – much of the time he is smiling, supporting Victoria. Camilla has been praised for supporting Charles by royal commentators who contrast her with Diana. From the view of the inside of royal palace walls – that’s what consorts do.”

          2. She was raised to be a wife/stay-at-home mom, not a mistress; big difference. It doesn’t make her a bad person that she would rather be at home with her children, everyone isn’t cut out for the working world and a lot of people are unhappy with their careers.

          3. She can still make a difference and work harder. Her track record shows she is not interested in doing either.

            And Julia does not work for the Palace. She is not a royal expert, if there even is such a thing. We are all amateurs.

          4. I would much rather Catherine put most of her energy into a handful of causes close to her heart like bullying (and other things). I imagine once her kids are 4, 7, and 9 and all at Battersea she’ll pick it up. Yes, that’s about 4 1/2 years from now but that’s my guesstimation.

          5. And Kate is paid a handsome sum through taxpayer bucks, has all these houses and staff, multiple nannies, all the help in the world, to work but chooses to be a stay at home mother who probably isn’t super involved considering all the other people that are involved in their life, including the multiple nannies.

            I stay home with my kid. It’s hard work. But if I were royal and paying nannies and living sumptuously ou bet your butt I’d be out there doing my job. Only Kate has been the royal wife who this excuse is made for. What about Sophie Wessex who almost DIED giving birth to Louise and has done more engagements in a year than Kate ever has? Why is Kate so special that she can do whatever she likes and not give back? It is to threaten the stability of the monarchy, between this and William’s open mockery of the institution itself.

            Kate did not marry a man to be a stay at home mother. She married William to be a royal. She married A JOB even though we all know she hardly ever knew the meaning of the word. And I’m sure he doesn’t help or guide her at all, and would prefer her to stay in the background between his ego and his paranoia.

          6. @Ellie

            If you want to be technical; there are no official duties for anyone except the Monarch and maybe the heir as preparation or to fill in when the Monarch is unable. Spouses and spares have no formal role just like the First Lady and First Children; Catherine doesn’t have to do anything. They do engagements so people won’t completely revolt.

          7. The Queen Mother was not passive. Queen Mary was not passive. They understood duty and busted their behinds at least in terms of royal engagements. The Queen Mother helped sustain a nation under attack by the Nazis. They are turning in their graves over her laziness. It is an insult to them to suggest that they were as lazy as Kate currently is. And it’s only Kate that needs the excuses. Princess Anne works the most and raised her kids and she will never take the throne. Sophie also worked her job and did engagements the first two years before she had to give it up. And as stated above, Sophie almost died giving birth and still got more engagements in that year.

          8. Re-read my comment; I simply stated spouses and spares have no formal role (because they don’t). It’s completely up to the individual.

          9. No one outside of the monarch or perhaps the Prince of Wales have a formal role in the UK Government But the portion receiving money is expected to do something for it. The Duke of Kent doesn’t have a specific position but he does engagements, and down the line. But again it is only Kate for whom excuses are being made. Phillip also did a lot of work as the spouse and while he wouldn’t have had to give birth, he was primarily responsible in raising the kids with the same amount of assistance that Kate has. Diana did her duty and Camilla does as well. It’s just Kate who apparently as an individual chooses to do little.

        2. Actually the phrase ‘modern day courtesan’ is frequently used to describe Kate. I think we can agree she’s not the old school definition but they way she and Pippa were brought up to make the very best marriages certainly has aroused plenty of comment.

          I often wonder how Ma Middleton would have taken to Joe Average being brought home by one of her daughters. After all “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife’.

          1. I think any implication that Kate and Pippa are prostitutes or mistresses is inappropriate. They are both married women who have been in long-term relationships.

          2. Because the British media, the columnists especially, used the term ‘modern day courtesans ’ to describe how the ‘Wisteria sisters’ as they were known, were educated and primed for suitable marriages courtesy of their relentless social climbing mother.

            It’s quite a different thing altogether. More Mrs Bennett that Moll Flanders. And of course they weren’t raised to just marry wealthy, they were raised to marry well socially. Far more important to Mrs. M. They already had Uncle Gary to help with the money, now they needed class to legitimise themselves.

          3. “Well, why use the word courtesan then? You could just say they were raised to marry wealthy.”

            Jessica +1
            It is a derogatory and insulting term that should not be used to describe any female in 2017.

          4. @Jessica……because it’s modern day vernacular and not intended as it’s old school meaning. I do think I have made that point abundantly clear from the start of this conversation.

          5. Personally I’d be delighted to be called a courtesan – but then I actually know what it means. These women were very highly educated, intelligent, trained and valued. They were the pinnacle of female achievement in a society where you had zero opportunity if not born male. These women could hold their own with anyone, they were respected and did a difficult job. To call them playthings or prostitutes is as insulting to them as it is to Kate. I’d love to have had half their training in music and poetry and dance but I’d never have lasted. It was harsh, these women were exceptionally gifted.

      2. We don’t know what Kate was raised to be – if she hadn’t met a prince when she was at university. It’s very unlikely she would have necessarily met another wealthy man. She probably would have held down some type of job – I don’t think it would have been anything earthshaking. (Diana was at the most a nursery teacher after all.)
        I don’t like how the Middletons have handled things but I think Kate being involved with a prince turned their life upside down and all the children would have been pushed to have jobs if that hadn’t happened.

        I do think Kate met William earlier than the usual scenario and she, possibly with her mother’s encouragement – tried to follow and pursue him. She probably wasn’t the only one – just the one who succeeded. But it’s worth remembering Prince Philip was the same – encouraged into the relationship by Mountbatten – he was writing to the queen when she was still a child and told someone he was meant to marry her – but I don’t think he would appreciate being called a male courtesan.

        And I don’t understand the constantly changing timetable of Meghan and Harry’s relationship but it looks now like she was dating him at the time she didn’t even know the lion and the unicorn were the sacred symbols of Britain. Frankly, and that interview is still going around, she sounded silly and clueless.

        It’s hard to say if Kate has any views because by the time she was at university she was involved with a prince and would know not to express political views. I don’t expect we will be hearing any more about Meghan’s either.

        Meghan worked as a TV actress – she could have potentially done other more serious work having attended a good university but she chose acting – a career but I wouldn’t call it a modern one. Women have been actresses for two centuries. I’m glad she worked – but that included promoting luxury goods a and lifestyles. And had she met Harry at Northwestern, I frankly doubt she would have done any of this – I suspect she would have been a lot like Kate.

        Even when royal partners have had careers and views they don’t mix well with royal life. Look at Sophie. Daniel had his own business but gave it up to marry Victoria – the same with Mary, Maxima and Letizia. Mette-Marit was a waitress.

        As for fluff engagements – diving in the Caribbean engagements less fluffy including visiting schools and hospitals and yes, making a statement on cyber bullying.

        1. Meghan also worked at the Argentinian embassy. That is also a real job and she was around people of substance.

          Re fluff engagements vs non fluff, I totally agree.

          Julia, I really don’t understand why you continue to put down acting and why you find it non respectable. It is a job and a good one and it brings happiness to many. And there are some great actors and great people, like Meryl Streep. Surely it is not a profession to sneer at.

          And nothing wrong with promoting luxury goods or items. It is not a sin or something to look down upon. It’s a job and a fun one.

        2. If she hadn’t met Wiliiam, she most likely would have married some other wealthy man. Either way, she wouldn’t have worked.

          1. Of course she wouldn’t. You only have to see who both her and Pippa mixed with at university to see where they were headed. Ma Middleton had those girls primed to aim high……they didn’t fall into those circles of friends by accident and naming them the ‘Wisteria Sisters’ is about right.

            If you’re not born to those circles they are very particular about who they let in. Tenacity and strategic thinking is key.

        3. Kate didn’t meet William at university. They had met previously and it’s very public information how Ma Midds and her daughter made sure that she followed him across the world and then changed up her entire plan for school just to snag him. This wasn’t the fairytale chance meeting of a commoner and a prince. It was very carefully orchestrated. She was raised to bag William and that’s it.

          1. They first met when Kate was at Marlborough but Pippa’s circle at Edinburgh was equally prestigious. Those girls didn’t make their friends by chance. It was an orchestrated campaign.

          2. Is it any wonder she doesn’t appear to have other skills and talents. I hope as she grows older she may develop herself more. It will be interesting when her children grow, she might think about her own childhood and how that’s worked out for her personal development. Who knows. Kate was locked down early, there are no jobs, no entanglements, no political positions held to come back to bite her. In some ways she’s the ideal royal wife. But her performance, I think is a huge disappointment. She’s a blank.

          3. Lisa…..some would say that the ‘blank’ makes her a huge success and the perfect consort. Especially those who lived through the War of the Wales.

          4. Interesting to compare Kate and Pippa to the Bouvier sisters, who were raised to marry wealthy men, too. Jackie finally found real satisfaction in her work in publishing. I believe Lee also searched for a meaningful career. Evidently just being a consort is not that wonderful, especially as the children grow up. Work should be a joy and life-affirming. It’s what we older feminist fought for.

          5. Being a blank is because Charles is selfish and didn’t want to share the attention. However, having a cipher as a spouse isn’t helpful either and since most women are not ok with giving away their agency to their spouse, she will turn off many women. Look at the metoo movement. Many women are calling out behaviour that would have been ignored or dismissed by other women even ten years ago. Kate will never be a feminist, but if she has no voice then what is her point? Why does she need to be there? Like today. What did she do today? What did she say? Does she have no thoughts on Cyberbullying?

        4. “She probably would have held down some type of job – I don’t think it would have been anything earthshaking.”

          It’s the fact that Kate didn’t do anything at all that’s the problem, for me. I’m not being a job snob – she didn’t need to be a doctor or a research scientist or a museum curator or any other kind of prestigious job. Her having had a run of the mill office job or retail job or anything that involves showing up on time and putting in the hours would be enough for me.

          1. She didn’t even do charity work, which is something that rich women sometimes do to give back or at least look busy. She could have been a philanthropist but didn’t care to.

        5. I read your comment with interest Julia and I would like to bring up
          2 points.

          It bugs me that nursery teaching, early childhood educators, are seen as lowly, non prestigious jobs, because it’s s profession dominated by women and working with children. Sure, in Diana’s time, she was able
          To become a nursery teacher with no experience or qualifications, but thankfully that has chang e. In Canada at least, you need to take a 2yr diploma and do unpaid internships to gain hands on experiences, then register with the regulating body. Now, there are 4yr Bachelor and even Masters degrees in Early Childhood Education. Because there’s a recognition that raising and educating children, overseeing their development in all domains and even unofficially diagnosing a developmental disability in young children and helping to coordinate resources to help that child and family. Many ECE/nursery teacher are teachers, social workers, counsellors and guardians, all
          Rolled into one.

          If Kate had worked as “just” a nursery teacher prior to marriage because that’s what posh girls do in England, I would’ve had a lot
          More respect for her work ethic, as she would’ve worked at a demanding, rewarding but lower paid job.

          1. This is for Red Tulip – I have the highest respect for trained nursery teachers and should have made myself clearer. Diana wasn’t trained. She was basically a helper – not a teacher.

            Kate said when visiting her old school that she would have liked to have been a teacher. I’ve said many times I wished she would have pursued that – many schools have private grounds that would have given her the protection from the press she supposedly wanted. It would have been an excellent way to learn to present herself.

            The previous career a royal lady or man has doesn’t always connect with what sort of royal they turn out to be. Mette-Marit was mainly a party girl but I was listening to one of her speeches in English and she did extremely well.

            I do wish during the years William was working with rescue, Kate had spent time working to improve her skills for her future royal life. But I don’t see any evidence of that.

      3. I’ll be curious to see if Meghan’s forwardness continues or if it’s tamped down. I suspect it’ll be the latter.

        1. I don’t think Harry will let the Palace curb her natural spontaneity but I think Meghan is hugely into self improvement and will modify herself to the role she finds herself in…..to a degree.

          1. I don’t mean that she’s calculating just, and I speak with a whopping generalisation here, but Americans do seem massively into self improvement as a mental health goal. And I can see Meghan looking at herself and thinking ‘right I did that but now how can I do it better’. Actually it’s rather an enormous compliment.

    2. “Royal consorts at the best of time are expected to be bland and not put themselves too far forward. We don’t know much about what Daniel of Sweden thinks – much of the time he is smiling, supporting Victoria. Camilla has been praised for supporting Charles by royal commentators who contrast her with Diana. From the view of the inside of royal palace walls – that’s what consorts do.”

      Julia +1

      I read your comment with interest. The paragraph that I have quoted is pivotal.

        1. They’re not at all equal, though. Phillip made something of his role. He did things and made an imprint. Kate is credited with having the idea for HT but she hasn’t shown one thought that she honestly knows anything about what the organization is supposed to do, or about actual mental health beyond “Talk to people and don’t be sad.” Phillip ran circles around W&K in his 90s. You can’t compare them.

          1. She has also implied that mental illness relates to how poor parents raise their kids, completely ignoring genetic connections and how sometimes kids from rich families also develop mental illness. I found that line of classist thought ignorant and shows she has done no research in the area.

    3. Julia I love when you respond and share!! Eloquent and thoughtful. You have the tone and complete depth of knowledge I wished I could write with. ?

      1. I appreciate that although I’m sure not everyone does.

        I would certainly have been happier had Kate had a job before marriage and I think the absence shows in areas like her public speaking. But I hesitate to say to make judgements about her interior thoughts.

        Masako of Japan was a brilliant career woman by all reports and was expected to be a breath of fresh air in the restrictive Japanese court – but it didn’t work out that way. She apparently had a break-down due to the pressures to have an heir. Charlene of Monaco, a competitive swimmer has been reported of having difficulties with adjusting to the pressures of court life in Monaco -(although she does some outstanding work.) So even if you worked previously, royal life isn’t always easy.

        The British court isn’t nearly as restrictive as the Japanese but I do think after Diana and Sarah, there has been a push against royal consorts taking on major independent roles. Sophie seems to have found a better balance than Kate but she also stays very much within traditional royal life. So I’m not excusing Kate for what she could have done in the past or could be doing now – but I do think she is under pressure not to overshadow William – and whilst we might like her to do so – the palace might not agree.

        I mentioned Philip because Mountbatten promoted Philip’s marriage to the queen. Philip is a dynamic man but by all reports he had to fight hard to get the independent role he wanted.

        1. I don’t think the palace is behind the pressure for Kate to be submissive to William. I believe it comes from William himself.

          1. And I believe it comes from herself. Some people are outgoing and some – like her? – are not. She does the best she can. Unfortunately it’s not good enough for the kind of times we are living in.

  15. I really like the purpose of this engagement and its focus on social media impacts on kids. Agree, KMR, on the absence of inherent positives or negatives of technology. I never understand why some people do that. Maybe the same people who ascribe emotions to weather systems.

    This would have been a great occasion for Kate to give a quick soundbite to reporters about the day. Or a brief address to the workshop attendees. In the future, perhaps.

    1. Kate doesn’t talk. At 36 years of age I don’t expect that to change. She’s had all this time to better herself, with all the resources at her disposal that some would kill to have, and she’s done nothing with it.

  16. I saw a comment on the daily mail about how she must be listening to what people are saying because she took her coat off and has used heels that are deemed “safer” this pregnancy. I did not care for the outfit, but I like that they seem to be upping their service hours. I hope it sticks.

    1. We’ve joked here that Jason et al read this blog. If they do – good! Kate could still reshape into something worth taxpayers’ money. I’m not holding my breath but stranger things have happened. lol

    2. I won’t read too much into what DM say, Meghan took off her coat… now Kate takes off her coat.

      Kinda easy to draw a conclusion after seeing that Kate hasn’t taken her coat off at engagements before this (as far as I can recall).

      1. Kate as taken off her coats before, years before Meghan did. I’m on my phone right now so I can’t pull past posts for evidence, but when I can, I will.

        1. Coats on. Coats off. That’s not what matters. What matters to me is that there is not a single remarkable quote from Kate (apart from “Are Faberge Eggs still made?” and “Gosh, that’s interesting!”)

  17. This was a good engagement overall. Kate has yet another unnecessary new expenditure in the clothing department but to act surprised by it would be a waste of energy. Their profligate spending while people in the UK and around the world struggle to make ends meet is appalling.

    I’ve tried staying out of this whole mess regarding the site but for Pete’s sake, this is getting ridiculous. This blog went so long with only the occasional Kate sugar crashing the party. They would be shown the door and everything went back to normal. Now it’s gotten to the point where you can’t say anything negative about Kate without the sugars attacking you, names and all. The cries of bullying and misogyny are so reaching at some points that I’m afraid the poster will fall over if they reach too much further. Not every woman wants to be a feminist and it’s no one’s place to try to force any woman (or man) to be one.

    It used to be that everyone knew who the wacky commenters were and we would just roll our eyes and keep scrolling past their posts. They weren’t hurting anyone and still aren’t. Ignore them if you don’t like what they say. But if we’re going to get to the point where anything that could possibly offend anyone is going to be censored and every post is going to be policed, then what’s the point? This is supposed to be a critical blog – meaning the bad and the good are both presented and discussed – but here of late it’s turning into a “Say nice things about Kate or else!” site and that’s sad. Some longtime members who have thoughtful, knowledgeable things to say are being harassed and attacked and it’s being allowed, but the random commenters who only come in to attack and belittle are allowed to keep on keeping on. What the hell happened? Kate is William’s wife. Calling her such is stating a fact, so trying to cry misogyny is ridiculous and doesn’t add to the discourse. Ignore someone if you don’t like their posts (or if you simply don’t like *them* as a person). Unless it’s something truly abhorrent, it’s not the end of the world and you won’t be some feminist Wonder Woman for constantly attacking other posters. It’s time to give it a rest and get back to the fun, lighthearted discussion we’ve been able to enjoy here up until recently.

    I understand I’ve probably touched a nerve. No, you don’t have to agree with my opinions. I don’t care if you do or not. But that doesn’t mean you get to belittle me or anyone else into seeing things your way or referring to Kate in the manner that *you* prefer. That’s how life works. And that’s all I’ll say on the subject.

    1. Meghan, thank you, you echo my thoughts exactly, I’m just tired of trying to say the same thing.
      This blog is, as you say, becoming unpleasant to visit for the reasons you state.

        1. I’m sad to hear you are feeling this way KMR and I hope the situation will improve soon?

          I appreciate the work you put into creating and maintaining this blog. If it wasn’t for your research I would know nothing about some of the places the Royals visit. I would know nothing about Maxima, and some of the European Royals, either. (Special mention for Maxima as I’m still buzzed about getting a wave from her when she was out in NZ)

          Thanks again, I have gained some special friends from this blog and this makes me even more grateful for your work here.

          Sending you blessings from a sunny Auckland!


        2. The best reason for coming is you though KMR, the hard work you put in is much appreciated. I’m loving MMR
          Too although in the U.K. MMR is a slightly controversial childhood inoculation for measles, mumps and rubella!!!

          1. Yeah I did a double take on that as well. It’s hard when we recognise something (MMR) as a vaccination to suddenly switch but we’ll get there! My husband gets me every time when he says he’s off doing IT training and comes home covered in mud. It means something different to an Armed Responder!

      1. I just want to get back to the days where we ignored the crazy people and moved on with our conversations. The personal attacks are totally unnecessary and the vast majority are from the randos who swoop in to decry that Kate is God’s gift to the world and we’re all a-holes if we think otherwise. Those used to be dealt with accordingly and we moved on. Not so much anymore and now we’re all being policed to see if we’re acceptable feminists and worthy of posting. It’s exhausting. I might just read and try to avoid the comments for a while. I can keep reading and commenting over at LLH and Celebitchy for the time being. I’ve always enjoyed the fair and balanced perspective brought by KMR, and no one can accuse me of being anti-Kate – I was in the minority saying I didn’t think Kate called the press at the train station on Friday – but jeez, man. Some folks are just so hateful towards anyone who isn’t perfectly perfect just like them. *eyeroll*

        1. Your thoughts are always appreciated. Not everyone can agree on everything or else things get boring. But respectful debate is always a good thing.

          1. Thank you. I still love this site. It’s refreshing to come here after visiting another blog that is almost nauseatingly pro-Kate, though it’s not a BRF blog and she doesn’t pop up every day or week. I miss the days when someone asking if we think Harry will be king were about as annoying as it got (and that wasn’t even annoying, just to be expected and we all knew it). This is supposed to be fun!

        2. Yea totally. I’ve been posting here for sometime and I’m starting to feel that this is becoming like Celebitchy- a bunch of faux, armchair, feminist, warriors all here. A poster on this thread referred to Kate as “William’s wife” and got called out for being a misogynist? Since when did being someone’s wife become such a problem? I have referred to Kate in the infamous nickname that she herself earned, I never created it for her and some poster had the audacity to call out my moral compass? Who the heck is that person to determine whether I’m moral or immoral, when we are talking about Kate who is so lazy and greedy, it might as well be a congenital condition, and who can’t be bothered to help the poor and the distressed with her position?

          1. KMR also commented on why she and some posters felt that way. Also this site is not like Celebitchy.Kaiser hates Kate and allows all type of sexist, hateful and gross comments about Kate, whilst claiming to be against that. Kaiser also deletes any postive comments and comments that call her out.
            KMR talks to us and allows us the freedom of words.
            No one here says they are feminist. Faux feminism implies that they only stand for some and not all women. The reason why the Williams wife thing is so sexist is because the poster refused to call Kate anything but something disgusting, i.e Matress and she was told multiple times to stop with the nicknames. So she did. It’s just telling that someone can’t call Kate anything but an disgusting sexist nickname, such as Matress. One that she nor any women deserves. It’s slut shaming.Its disgusting.
            I don’t see why people think people can’t and shouldn’t comment on what they want as long as they are civil. Also when KMR says something it seems like people ignore it. All we know of each other is what we put out. So if someone constantly puts out gross behavior that is my idea of them (or them on this site). I won’t be rude about it or call names (which I have seen done).

    2. +1000

      KMR doesn’t need to have to moderate this place and watch us. We’re all adults, aren’t we? And we want this site to stay open as we love KMR, the friends we’ve made here, and KMR herself who’s made a really neat critical blog that comes up with some very interesting points all the time that we can discuss and makes us think.

      1. You really think so?

        I find this blog to be disjointed. It’s a critical blog, –but don’t really criticize or that’s mean and you’re a bully.

        Don’t say anything about Kate or get really irritated by her because you’re a bully.

        Don’t say anything that might offend someone else.

        Do make sure and praise Kate for not touching her rear, not tugging up the jeggings, no super dark eyebrows or hair-net, because you need to be fair.

        She has to be praised for coming out and shaking some hands? Praised for giving a speech on par with my fifth-grader (but that’s mean).

        I used to comment here until I got ripped for saying something about Carole Middleton, IMO, continuing to nursemaid Kate. Innocuous statement but enough to pull out the pitchforks.

        This is a critical blog so people are going to criticize. And that’s not really welcome to those it matters most to here at KMR. This blog has an identity crisis, and sometimes only someone outside can see it.


        1. Considering the new people that post here who do criticize for anything negative ever said about Kate, I know what you mean. It used to be different even a few months ago.

          I try to be nice and give credit where credit is due but the bar is so low it’s frustrating and I’m sure frustrating for KMR who never is given much to even talk about because, well, Kate is Kate and won’t change.

          1. Agreed, I think that’s what’s really at the bottom. I can only speak for myself but I’m frustrated with what I see as problems that a royal could put a spotlight on, and I do feel that they should work hard (5 days a week for at least four to five public hours a day) to justify the lavish lifestyle and, more importantly, lack of fear they will never experience from worrying about paying for top-notch medical care, educational opportunities, and just mattering in the world.

            Many people, myself included, volunteer along with working hard, and we only cast our little shadow. That’s totally fine. But here Kate has this enormous shadow that she worked for and doesn’t do much with it, or what she gives is of such poor quality that it becomes irritating.

            Most of us will never be able to travel much. We can dream of going to India and seeing the Taj Mahal. She gets to go (and good for them), but what value do they bring? Drawing a little house with the kids who asked what kind of house K&W lived in? Really? Be honest. British taxpayers aren’t paying for a modest-sized house.

            Everyone is expected to give way and bow to her. Is she worth it? Maybe that just my American Republicanism.

            IMO Kate is representative of a bigger issue; where duty and hard work by the larger mass seem to be a thing of the past. It’s all about getting over the break between the plebs and the privileged and all gravy from there.

            That’s probably why Will looks so miserable most of the time. He probably wants to loaf around on Amner all day.

            Thanks for the positive thoughts. I think there are a lot of good and funny commentators on here and hope the tone can go to a more productive one, but people are going to criticize and it’s deserved if W&K don’t seem worthy of what they give to what they get.

            I for one try to give Kate credit where she seems like she’s trying but for crying out loud, I can’t understand how she managed through St. Andrews with so little apparent ability.

        2. The goal posts always move when it comes to William and Kate and this is annoying as well. Even in this last event we have a speech written with poor grammar and neither of the St Andrews University grads manage to catch this, or their staff. If Charles gave a speech like that he would be ripped apart. They are both approaching 36 and need to be treated like fully grown adults and not “young royals”. They aren’t young anymore. They have kids that are young. But that adjective is convenient because it lowers expectations.

          1. Exactly, they aren’t young anymore they are rapidly approaching middle age and they fully need to step up and act it.

  18. This dress is my favorite piece of Goat clothing that I’ve seen her wear. Nice material, great sleeves and an interesting neckline. I will admit she looks better in red when she has a bit of a tan. A long statement pendant necklace would have looked fab with this and understated earrings- since her hair is down anyway. I also think either nude stockings or black as night opaque rather than black sheer (of which I am never a fan- sort of an 80’s look imo).

    As for Pippa’s look at the hospital- I thought she looked really nice. I’ve always liked her clothes, and she still looks wedding day thin! I have a soft spot for this woman, always have and couldn’t tell you why. She’s got some spunk and I admire that despite her graspy ways. She’s fun to watch and I wish her well. And I really do think her and Meghan resemble each other, I have no problem seeing where the comparisons come from.

          1. I didn’t know she was in LA but if she is I suspect even more that she will be attending Sandringham this Christmas. Meghan’s attendance was the third part of my prophecy.

          2. What were the first two parts of your prophecy? I hope she does go to Sandringham for Xmas, but the knives will be out and people will be pissed as when William’s wife did not go to Xmas at Sandringham when she was freshly engaged (did William do the church walk back in 2010 after he was engaged?)

            There will be stinging commentary, I am sure about why rules were bent for Meghan attending Xmas at Sandringham as a fiancee when they weren’t adjusted for William’s wife and other royal fiancees.

          3. On November 20th I said an engagement was coming either that week or the following. That the wedding would be May in St George’s Windsor. That Meghan would be at Sandringham this Christmas given the age of HMTQ and PP and who would ease on Royal protocol to have what may be one of their last Christmas all together with all their grandchildren and great grandchildren present.

            I might have mentioned that I thought Harry would be Duke of Clarence and not Sussex as everyone else thinks and I have in the past said that PoW will find a way to entail Highrove to Harry even though I am frequently reminded that as things stand it’s not technically possible given that it’s owned by the Duchy and not PoW but they are mere details. And despite many disagreements with dear Kitty, I do believe that Harry will never live in Clarence House……not even if he becomes the Duke of Clarence.

            Mr BBV has been quite an orcacle of prediction this year too. Royal baby’s etc…

          4. Leah …..Clarence House is one of the largest and grandest Royal properties in London in absolute prime location. On today’s market it would go for £75 million and that’s conservative. It’s far too grand for the second son of the heir to the throne or even the second son of a future King when he’s on the throne.

            In a streamlined, scaled down Monarchy I can’t ever see Harry living there. I do expect PoW will stay there and use BP as the office as HMTQ tried to do. PoW will probably manage as BP is in such a state of disrepair and even the more immediate building plans are only going to touch the surface. I expect some tactful excuse from PoW about not getting in the way of the building programme whilst the building works are done will be used nearer the time. And when and if he eventually does vacate the place I think it will go to either Royal Palaces or some other museum type organisation.

            Just my opinion of course but it really is very grand. The only other option would be for Harry to take William’s KP apartments and William to move in there. That might be seen as more suitable as an heirs residence.

          5. “The only other option would be for Harry to take William’s KP apartments and William to move in there. That might be seen as more suitable as an heirs residence.”

            Mrs BBV: Agreed

          6. Actually, William’s wife couldn’t have gone to Sandringham because she didn’t exist. She was Kate Middleton then.

            But I can’t imagine anyone would care if Meghan goes and Kate didn’t because by all reports Kate wanted to spend it with her family (we know how fun Middleton Christmases are!) But I’m not going to be mean about the Middletons here – I would have spent my last single Christmas with my family too. It’s a different story for Meghan if she does go to Sandringham because her family lives too far away for Harry to easily visit.

            I seem to remember either that first Christmas or the second – I’m thinking it was the latter, Kate was photographed out running with the Middleton family dogs – so that’s a plus for me. On that subject, there’s a nice photo of Meghan’s mother out walking her dogs – her family so far seems pleasantly low-key compared to the Middletons.

  19. I don’t post often, but I love this blog and appreciate so much the effort that KMR puts in for us. I love the insight from many posters and look forward to updates from y’all. We can agree to disagree on many things. Example, I love the coat (minus the boob flaps) but I think the red dress is too short. I’m glad Kate is getting out more with triple digit appearances but I hope for more substantial efforts like Sophie. So lets just try to remember that we’re all entitled to our opinions and be respectful of others. I’d hate for KMR to stop blogging because we (yes I’ve gone on tirades before) can’t act like decent people.

    1. The first sentence was even incorrect: “….and thank you for having myself and Catherine”. Not as jarring, but really Jason Knauf or Miguel Head or someone with a degree from St. Andrews should have caught both of those immediately.

    2. This is basic stuff that should never happen and yet it does. If they are trying to be professional then not using proper grammar blows that out of the water. Can you imagine if Charles got a speech like this?

    3. You wouldn’t say ‘parents like I’ you would say ‘parents like me’ – most correctly it would be ‘parents such as Catherine and myself’ but that’s a bit stiff. It’s an awkward sentence but the preposition ‘like’ makes the difference to my ear. How would you put it?

      The queen’s correct when she says ‘my husband and I are delighted to be here’ because if you take out husband, it’s I’m delighted to be here.

      The tendency to reverse the pronoun ‘myself and Catherine’ instead of ‘Catherine and I’ is common in British speech but perhaps not in Boston. It’s an informal way of speaking, heard constantly. I wouldn’t use it myself but I’m old-fashioned.

      That it’s a popular usage doesn’t make it right – but it’s hard to say whether we’re dealing with ignorance or an attempt at informality that I frequently hear in both William and Harry’s speech. I believe they feel that makes them sound more accessible to people.

  20. This blog used to be fun to visit. Lately, more of the kinder and more intriguing commenters have said good-bye. Either, for good, or for a mental health break!

    KMR, I appreciate your hard work and the site you created. It’s been a nice place to come and there has also been a kind and genuine community of caring people who have supported one another through tough times. Of late, though, it’s been hijacked by a few nasty people — from both sides of the aisle. It’s chasing away good and positive people, many of whom criticize Kate when it’s needed, but find good in her, too.

    I am glad you addressed the William’s wife issue, but wonder if it will make an impact at all. If I may be so bold as to ask why certain people continue to be nasty and drag others through the mud at all times, let me do so.

    I know this was not meant to be a sugar site, but surely the venom that is appearing more frequently now is equally awful. It seems to have taken a rather long and tedious amount of time for Kate to have found her footing if you ask me. However, progress is being made and I can appreciate it while still wondering what’s taken so long. And, for asking, can’t more be done?

    Kate has made different choices in her life than most modern day women have She also has the luxury of great wealth and help at home to see her through what most of us have to do on a regular basis. I can see where resentment can crop up, but I’ve only started to question those who make it a habit to frequent this board to criticize her so vehemently for not working outside the home, when if they themselves are working, how do they find the time to post so frequently both here and on MMR? Are their careers really that important to them, if they find the time to post here constantly?

    I’ve enjoyed coming here. First, just reading comments and then, finally, sometimes posting my own I miss the old days though and many of the former commenters who are now staying away.

    It troubled me greatly to hear a question posed as to how Kate can possibly hate being pregnant and yet continue to pop out rugrats? First, how do we know she hates being pregnant and how rude is it to refer to anyone’s children as rugrats? There are many aspects of pregnancy that are exciting and fun, but there that women don’t enjoy. Still, they love their babies and do what they can to bring healthy and happy children into the world!

    Once before, I remember your saying, KMR, that you couldn’t be all places all the time, when it comes to policing comments. I can certainly appreciate that. Respectfully, may I ask you if you have considered moderators to help out? Perhaps, some college students could intern for you and receive college credits in return? Just a though.

    This is your blog and you have created a wonderful place. Sadly, it seems to have been a site where people are now coming to sabotage your work and the thoughts of others. I hesitated writing this initially, but finally decided to do so. I’m off for my job now. Thanks for allowing me to voice my opinions and I wish all the best.

    1. Please no moderators, does anyone really want Maria from Royal Dish on here? She shuts down anything remotely ‘off topic’ (in her opinion) in the rudest manner possible. She’s horrible. We can moderate ourselves, as said above we’re all grown ups!

      1. Maria is awful and extremely unfriendly. I once had a question about the order of the garter and she barked that I asked too many questions.

        I also see she shut down permanently the Meghan and Harry section on the board. Apparently, Maria does not wan race discussed at all. I see people were calling Meghan racist names on that board.

        1. I sincererly doubt that a college intern would be so horrific as a moderator. And, the guidelines would still be KMR’s. Yes, this site has become very nasty of late. Some great people like Rhiannon, Queen Lauri and others are now gone. Perhaps, temporarily, I do not know. KMR, you started a great forum and much has been learned by many here. But, I still suggest that some type of moderator be brought in to do the work that you want done.

          This used to be a fun place to come. It was visited by mostly respectful people who agreed to disagree. Yes, quarrels cropped up, but tings calmed down Frankly, I don’t think there are any excuses for allowing this site to be hijacked by people who think it is their personal forums . Start your own sites, those of you who are trying. See how hard it is to come up with decent copy and stay on top of Royal News. Perhaps, then you will appreciate KMR more and respect her work more. And, respect others who come here with the best of intentions.

          1. What happened to Lauri from CA and Rhiannon? They were two of my favorites! And Art Historian also? I used to post here sporsdically, but I felt somewhat antagonized/attacked a couple of times over silly little things (both by posters and by kmr herself) and so I took a hiatus. Now that I’m back, I see this comment section is worse than ever. It’s so disheartening because I remember what a great blog this used to be. Where did all the negativity come from?

          2. What happned? They don’t post. Many others have stopped posting here and yes, Queen Lauri is Lauri of CA and she made mention that she was not happy on this site of late. I think she may post on MMR under Lauri.

            I may be paranoid, but I think may of the sugars of late have been hired and trained to sabotage this board. Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions, but some of these people hang on for dear life and are miserable to the regulars, imo. Just a thought. A lady I have been doing some work for doesn’t want to post here anymore, either.

          3. How sad… I will really miss their insights. This forum is starting to feel as nasty ad Royal Dish. Who do you think hired and trained the sabotagers? It’s not out of the realm of what I would believe, because clearly something is going way wrong here.

  21. Thank you KMR for all the hard work you put into your blog. The time and research spent of each post is wonderful. I have enjoyed commenting over the years. With that said. I would like to thank the old commenters of this blog. For insightful and fun conversations over the years. Birdy, Mrs BBV, Herazeus, Nic919, Red Tulip, Cathy, Queen Lauri, M from Germany, Jamel, and The Wild Rose. Ladies,you have made it fun over the year. With your opinions and respectful natures.

    1. Thanks. Back at you as well. As the Foundation of Keenness moves forward, it will be interesting to see what happens. The fun part of this site is that we can discuss anything from fashion, feminism, tiaras and gender roles. KMR puts a lot of time on this blog and there can be a lot of interesting discussions. Long may she reign!

  22. Right guys……who has spent today with Season 2 of The Crown. I started and then had an appt. in Birmingham so I abandoned it having only got through the Season 1 recap.

    I am home. I have snacks (fresh calamari and cocktail sausages seeing as you ask) chocolates, cashew nuts and some Percy Pigs from M & S. It’s snowing heavily, I have a box of tissues and I may be gone for some hours.

    Catch you all when I’m finished. ?

    1. I hope to get started this evening after I get home from church (Immaculate Conception=Holy Day of Obligation! 🙂 ). I can’t wait!!!!

      Is it wrong that I want to get another glimpse of Matt Smith’s rear end? 😉

    2. I’m baking this weekend (it’s Hanukkah on Tuesday) and I plan to be streaming the Crown while I do. I’m ridiculously excited. I’m choosing not to think about what that says about my life…

    3. I’m watching season 2 and I love it; interesting to watch older eras. I’m actually not interested in the Diana era because it’s been done over and over but if they insist on taking it to the modern era I am interested in how they deal with Will and Kate’s romance and Harry’s partying scandals. The actor who plays Prince Phillip wants Selena Gomes to play Meghan Markle which makes no sense. I honestly don’t know if I could watch it once it gets to the Diana era.

      1. I was dumbstruck at the suggestion of Selena Gomez playing Meghan Markle. Say what?? Selena is half Mexican and has some Italian in her!

  23. Our favorite engagement of the year is next week! On the 13th Camilla is hosting children from hospices at Clarence House for the big Christmas party. I can’t wait for pictures. I love this event.

    1. Me too. The DM scrimped a bit on pictures last year but I want to see Camilla serving bangers and mash and squash, her equerry using his ceremonial sword to help decorate the tree and all the children having a thoroughly good time. I love this engagement so much and love that Camilla does it so naturally, with good humour and with such aplomb. Mashed potato trod into priceless Persian carpets…..not a problem. Ketchup sticky fingers on the paintwork……who cares. It’s wonderful.

      This is a template I would love to see more of from H & M.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top