Prince William gave money to the Middletons to help pay for their new manor

Perhaps I’ve been watching too much White Collar – I’ve been catching up on my Season 3 DVDs over the past week. Maybe it’s White Collar’s influence, but it has never occurred to me before this week that Duchess Kate might have had us all fooled. Instead of Waity-ing and simply doing nothing for nearly a decade, is it possible that Kate was simply pulling one of the most intricate long cons in history? Was her marriage to Prince William merely a confidence scheme to get access to millions of dollars, fabulous jewelry, endless frocks and priceless artwork? And are Kate’s parents in on the “Waity Con” too?!? Don’t say it. I’ve been watching too much White Collar. But the Middletons are profiting from their daughter’s marriage, and not just in the typical “profit” of “access, added respectability and a boost to their business.” Carole and Michael Middleton are actually getting cold, hard cash from Prince William now. William “gifted” the Middleton some lump sum to help them make a deposit on a new Berkshire manor. For real.

That’s a surefire way to get in good with the in-laws! Prince William, who inherited $15.5 million on his 30th birthday last Thursday June 21, has already parted with some of that cash to help buy something special for Kate Middleton’s parents: a house!

Carole and Michael Middleton (parents to Duchess Kate, Pippa and James) are in the process of buying a sumptuous estate in Berkshire — featuring 18 acres and a Georgian manor with seven bedrooms — worth about $7.3 million. And their royal son-in-law has put down some of the deposit money “as a gift,” a source reveals to Us Weekly.

“He sees them as his own family and wants to help out in any way he can,” explains the source.

(A Palace rep has no comment, noting only that it’s a “private matter.”)

Indeed, William (whose 30th birthday windfall was from the estate of his late mother Princess Diana) has grown close to Carole, 57, and Michael, 63, during his nearly decade-long romance with Kate, 30, whom he wed in April of last year — recently joining the entire Middleton clan on vacations in Mustique and the French Alps.

As for the Middletons’ home-to-be, which they reportedly have scooped up in a bidding war with other interested buyers? Located near their current home in Bucklebury, the home (with ties to the royal family back in the 1500s) features a grand entrance hall, 17th century fireplace, topiary shrub and “fantastic views,” according to the Daily Mail. “It’s a quiet, secluded property along a country lane.”

Carole and former flight dispatcher Michael are the self-made entrepreneurs behind Party Pieces, a hugely successful mail-order party supply business that employed Kate herself before she became the Duchess of Cambridge.

[From Us Weekly]

There’s part of me that thinks this is very sweet, and that William is – beyond any other concerns and conspiracy theories – very fond of his in-laws. But about those concerns and conspiracy theories. For one, Kate and William still spend a lot of time with the Middletons, so I’m guessing that the royal protection officers need to upgrade the security of any and all properties where William and Kate will be staying. So part of the money might not have even come from William – it might be money to ensure that the security is worthy of the heir to the throne.

But there’s another conspiracy theory I have brewing away over here. There’s always been a question mark as to how the Middletons live so well and how they started their business and just what kind of profit Party Pieces really makes. I’ve heard whispers – and this was years before the royal whitewashing of Kate – that Kate’s dodgy, drug-dealing, pimping uncle Gary Goldsmith helped finance the Middletons’ entrance into the British middle class, and Uncle Gary was the one to finance much of the Middleton kids’ education and decade-long Waity-ing. Now, those were just rumors, just whispers in the wind. But could it be that the Middletons really aren’t that financially solvent? Could it be that Prince William is trying to do his part to whitewash his wife’s family so they won’t have to take more money from Uncle Gary?

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

165 Responses to “Prince William gave money to the Middletons to help pay for their new manor”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. brin says:

    It’s sweet either way (and kind of heroic of him if the rumors are true).

  2. kingkayski says:

    Look at Camillas face “priceless”,like shes saying,”listen bitch ,i’m here first,i waited longer than your daugther”

  3. Agnes says:

    so, the british taxpayers are indirectly paying for these people’s extravagant lifestyle? awesome. not bad enough that they have to pay for the royal family, but now randoms come with the deal too?

    • Liv says:

      Isn’t he paying with his own money?

      I find it weird though, that he’s paying for her parents. What’s wrong with their old house?

      • daisie says:

        Their old house is easily accessible from the street. @pippadaily, a teenager who has a blog tweeted that she & a girlfriend prepared a scrapbook for Pippa and walked right up to the Middleton’s front door rang the bell & Carol answered the door. They were told to deliver the book to palace security where it would be examined before they could accept it. It was days after this that it was announced that they were interested in the $7m. property. They had just received approval from the town planning board to build another building on the old property. I am sure that the security measures that are needed are very costly. With the chance that an heir could arrive in the near future, this is all necessary. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Will and Kate took over the main house and the Middleton’s built a new house on the property.

      • Hmmm says:


        Oh, puleeeez. So they wanted ‘more privacy’? Then buy something in the woods within your means.

        Of course it’s a con! It always was. If ever we needed validation of all the rumours about the machinations and grasping of the Midds, this is it. A family with no shame, no pride and no self-respect, their eye ever on the main chance. To ask your SIL for big bucks so you can go upscale? Puleeez.

        Willy got conned and he is content in his happy families delusion or they blackmailed him (doubtful).

      • linlin says:

        @Daisie: or, you know, they could just not open the doors to strangers. I mean, there are means to see who is standing on your doorsteps before opening the door, which don’t cost millions.

    • bros says:

      he inherited that money from his mother’s estate, not the tax payers. diana was from a very wealthy titled family and of course she left money to her kids. its his business what he does with it. this has nothing to do with british tax payers.

      • LAK says:

        LAnded estates do not work that way. Everything is inherited by the Eldest son. The 2nd son and any further sons get next to nothing, daughters get even less than the boys and sometimes practically nothing. That is how estates are maintained and passed on. It’s not an equal division of inherited wealth amongst the children.

        Diana coming from a wealthy landed family means nothing in personal monetary/wealth terms.

        95% of her money was her divorce settlement that she got from Charles which came from The Duchy of Cornwall. She had no house or artworks. Some jewellery but not much else. She dies before the divorce settlement could be invested for her personal use.

        That money was invested and is now being settled on William and eventually Harry.

        William, out of his private income, is paying for the Middletons despite their wealth being estimated at £30-£40 Million and can damn well pay for themselves.

        William’s own new flat is being renovated at Tax payers expense to the tune of £1M for which he hasn’t offered a penny and yet he is paying for his in-laws???

        The Apartments at KP are never kept as they have been renovated so as soon as he vacates the apartment, it will be renovated again for some other usage, so not as if it will be renovated, he moves out and it’s turned into a museum.

      • Sachi says:

        It will have something to do with the taxpayers if William puts taxpayer-funded security around the Middletons in their new house, or employs security for the Middletons every time they go on holiday. We pay for royals’ security, not their hangers-on and in-laws.

        William’s “help” will not stop with helping them buy a house. This is just the start of it.

        The Middletons have outdone every other family of commoner-turned-royals with their mooching and exploitation of their royal connections.

        Nobody else in the other royal families in Europe have in-laws who are so blatant and shameless. Nobody else is also a hypocrite when it comes to using the media for their own gain, and then crying foul when the media starts to dig deeper and they feel slighted.

        Spain, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, etc. have discreet, mindful commoner in-laws who never seek the cameras and just get on with their lives. Paparazzi knocked on their doors before, but they refused to be sucked into the media and its games. Now they live their lives in private and are only seen when there are royal family functions (a Christening, ie). None of them have signed a book deal like Pippa, none of them has gone on vacations with full security for themselves, and none of them has ever been reported to ask their royal son/daughter in-law for money to buy a new, expensive house.

      • fairy godmother says:

        Actually the money Will “inherited” from his mother all came from her divorce settlement.
        The money came from Charles and HM in a cash settlement. Basically the money indirectly originates from the taxpayers because that is how their income is derived from.

    • Sue says:

      William inherited this money from his mother, so I am not sure if it has to do with the british taxpayers…..

    • Elizabeth says:

      The Spencers (Diana’s family) are nobility (her brother is Earl Spencer) and rich (lots of land, etc.). And the money William inherited at age 30 was from his mother’s side of the family. So its not public money and you aren’t paying any of that. However you might be getting dinged elsewhere i.e. Will’s security detail.

      • LAK says:

        Please look up how money is passed along in landed nobility money.

        Diana’s money came from Charles via the divorce settlement, not her family.

      • deep says: are wrong. The wealth from Diana’s family ALL went to her brother after her father died. ALL of the land and wealth from Earl Spencer, which was Diana’s father, was passed on to her only brother who inherited the whole thing. The money that is spoken of that William received from his mom’s estate was from the divorce settlement she got from Prince Charles. It is to be split between William and Harry when they each turn 30 years of age. Well, William now has his and Harry will have to wait a bit longer for his. But NOTHING that William and Harry have came from their mothers side of the family except their DNA.

      • Mary says:

        @LAK – I know nothing about how Diana’s family shared their wealth, but it’s not like everything automatically goes to the oldest son, hasn’t for like a hundred years. It’s right that only a man can inherit the title, but the title is no longer tied to either estates nor money.

      • LAK says:

        @Mary – I am talking about LANDED Estates that also have a title, not about titles in general because a title does not equal wealth. These days wealth can also include investments in other things, so may not be land but wealth as we understand it.

        Landed Families like the Spencers do not break up estate so that the descendants can share equally. Instead they entail it all to the eldest son. This is how they have retained their wealth for centuries. It is the system in place in Britain. Any other children in the family get a fancy title and if they are lucky, an annuity from trust set up by the person who inherited past or present.

      • Rory says:

        I read several biographies about Diana and in 2 of them it states that when she reached 18 she inherited a lump sum of money from a relative, (I think a grandmother) and the money originated from an ancestor who was American. She used some of the money to buy the flat she was sharing with friends when she married Prince Charles. Diana later sold the flat. Some of the money William and Harry got must have originated from their mothers family.

      • LAK says:

        @Rory – that’s exactly what i am saying. her money in the greater % of Spencer wealth was adrop in the bucket. Flats in the building she lived in retail at £2M at the top end in today’s money which isn’t alot if you adjust for inflation in 1980s/70s prices. The Spencer Estate is worth £300M+, all of which bar these relatively small gifts is entailed to the Heir. When she died, her estate was estimated to be somewhere in the region of £18-£22M, £17M of which was her divorce settlement. After tax, it was a rumoured £12-£13M which has all been wisely invested to bring it up to a rumoured £20M currently, of which William receives his half in full rather than the income he was receiving from 25.

        The estate inheritance will also play out with William and Harry. William will eventually inherit all the family wealth in addition to his trust funds. Harry will only be as wealthy as the trust funds.

    • Anon says:

      @deep…That’s what they said on the news. Will and Harry split Diana’s estate, (originally at 25, but was amended to 30) 50/50.
      Maybe Will put a rider on the house that says it comes back to him in the end or he and his wife gets a bigger share of the pie. (Maybe he is their landlord.) His money, his choice.

      • LAK says:

        You misunderstand what both @deep and the news is telling you. Diana’s estate came from Charles. Not from her own family. Her family is wealthy but that wealth is always passed along to Eldest Son only. It is never shared out equally amongst the heirs. Any additional children get very little, and boys always more [of the little] than the girls.

        So in the marriage stakes, girls bring the status of their name and bloodline rather than wealth. And if you are a title chaser, you better identify the eldest sons of titles because they are the true wealthy. Their brothers may be titled, but they will have little or no wealth.

      • deep says:

        @Lak actually, Diana had no older brother..only sisters. So, the estate went to the ONLY boy, which is Diana’s younger brother and actually the baby of the family. He even inherited the title of Earl. So, Diana’s brother, after the death of their father is now known as Earl Spencer. And, if I am not mistaken, the girls didn’t get a thing. I could be wrong. But, if they did get anything from the estate it wasn’t enough to write home about. And, as far as Diana’s father’s wife..Same went for her..she didn’t get much, that is if she got anything at all.

      • LAK says:

        @Deep- now you are misunderstanding what i am saying. It doesn’t matter how old the eldest boy is amongst the children or where he falls in the birth line, only that he exists. That is why having sons is preferred over girls because if no sons, estate is inherited by the nearest eldest male in the wider family.

        It doesn’t matter that Diana and her sisters were/are older than current earl Spencer. He is the eldest BOY therefore he inherited the lot.The parents probably stopped having sex after he was born because they had the all important boy. If there had been another boy after him, that 2nd boy would have had a fancy title and not much else. That was the point i was making about title chasing the eldest boys in a landed titled family.

      • LAK says:

        @Deep – just to add that said eldest son has to be born in a legitimised marriage. No illegitimate sons, even if they are the eldest, may inherit. If like the present Earl you have kids from multiple marriages, it is the eldest son of the first marriage who counts.

        All other inheritances/annuities are at the descretion of the title holder. They may set up trusts to help the other kids out, but not at cost that will impact the family estate.

      • deep says:

        @LAK you are exactly right on everything you just said. Actually, I know you know what you are talking about. :) That comment re the son, was meant for Elizabeth who thought that Diana’s family all shared equally in the Earls estate. :) And, yes considering the way things are done..Diana’s brother, even though younger was the eldest son.

        OH and LMAO stopped having sex after he was born. How sad. Maybe that’s why mummy left. :/

      • LAK says:

        @Deep – She should have continued to have girls, if only to keep having sex!!!:)

      • flower says:

        The Spencers, even when Diana was alive didn’t have much in the bank. they had land and a big house with some fine furniture and paintings but that’s it. The kids were always snarking at how Reine, their stepmother was selling off the paintings to finance the running of Althorp. Diana’s brother is pretty hopeless with money as well, he sold of a huge amount of Althorp items at auction just last year along with a very important painting which bought in millions. The Spencers have for a century or more been asset rich and cash poor,a few aristocrats are still rich but most of the Earldoms and Dukedoms in the UK are hanging by a (financial) thread.

      • flower says:

        I’ve just been doing some digging in newspaper archives and apparently Diana inherited £5million from her fathers estate, this was 4yrs before her divorce. I wonder if he made a special provision for her because of the royal grand children and her status. I can’t imagine that he had enough money to do the same for her sisters as well.

      • flower says:

        Sorry….my internet decided to drop out before I finished.

        Apparently after the will was read Diana and Charles Spencer had a huge falling out and it was never patched up. Remember during her divorce when the paps were hounding her day and night, she asked her brother if she could stay at Althorp till it all sttled down and he said flat out … NO! wouldn’t even conder it.

        Perhaps the falling out had something to do with this unexpectedly large bequest his father had left Diana.

      • LAK says:

        @Flower – all these estates are definitely Asset Rich and cash poor. At the same time, they want to hang on to those assets. It’s not like ye old times when they would simply increase rent of their tenants into the ground to maintain their lifestyle. Even Charles struggled to find the cash for her settlement and had to sell off a few things. You get the ones who finally throw in the towel and sell up and enjoy the monetary riches. Or those who are forced to sell because the inheritance tax becomes too much. The Devonshires had to give up Hardwicke Hall to the tax man in order to settle inheritance tax bill. It is now managed by The National trust.

        If she received an extra portion from her father, then she did very well and you are right, it was probably about her status if he didn’t do the same for his other daughters.

    • flower says:

      @ Anges, How are British tax payers funding this? The money has come from William’s inheritance, that’s why it’s happening now not a year ago. If anyone is funding this it’s the late Diana.

      Just for the record, I don’t actually think the story is true at all, just some more rubbish from the rags. According to the more ‘in the know’ royal correspondents, the royal family never deny erroneous stories but they will sometimes confirm true ones. Crazy I know but that’s royal logic for you.

      I’ve posted some interesting facts on William’s inheritance toward the bottom of the comments.

  4. Anne says:

    “A source reveals to UsWeekly” ??? Yeah, ok.

  5. GoodCapon says:

    I really doubt they’re worth 30 million pounds. Where did the media get this figure from anyway? I don’t think a company that sells cheap party tats would be able to finance their middle-class lifestyle. Perhaps they’ve invested the inheritance wisely in the stockmarket? Who knows. Party Pieces isn’t exactly a transparent company.
    I do think that classy Uncle Gary helped a bit.

    IMO the media is on to them, it’s like they’re trying to tell the public something but for now they’re just sitting on it. For now, William is giving them protection status.

    • Anne says:

      I know a few people that make a very hefty living off of similar enterprises. And now I assume that every single person in GB that has a party probably orders from their business. The products cost next to nothing to make, and they’re all probably made in China on the cheap, and then they sell them for a huge profit. It’s a gold-mine.

      • angelic 20 says:

        THEIR company is not national but local and no one knows anything about their business because they keep their finances private.

      • deep says:

        @angelica you are right. Nobody knows the state of the Middleton’s financial situation but the Middletons. It’s been reported to be a modest income to being worth millions. I would assume it’s somewhere in between.

      • fairy godmother says:

        Unless Midds’ private sealed income is opened no one will ever know who is really involved with their finances or how much Midds actually have earned from their party favors. No way 30-40 mil and Mike’s inheritance was split and was around one mil (not known if before/after taxes).

        Facts are Midds made big bucks from selling the list of their customers to other companies. (It is illegal now).
        Money now is from referral/ads on web site.

        Many reports suggest that the private sealed income includes GG’s earnings from drugs and pimping w/ money laundering. Drugs are reportedly brought in by private planes that are not subject to inspection (plus now have social standing compliments of Willie- not suggesting Will is involved, but he has stayed at Gary’s a few times so he must have had some knowledge including his security @ GG’s lifestyle). Planes are owned by wealthy ppl.

        Lets face it royals have been socializing w/ some very unsavory characters for years i.e. Andy with pedophile and Charles who was outraged a perv was on boat w/ him, HM. DoE. When real fact is Charles has been involved w/ that character (he has now banned from royals) since 1999!

  6. Suzie says:

    I’d heard there were some pretty suspect things in the Middleton closet.

    And on a petty note, why does Wills have such yellow teeth? Is he a smoker?

  7. marie says:

    umm, wow-seems like a nice gesture but why do they need a house that expensive?

  8. angelic 20 says:

    I am not at all surprised with this news.actually Middleton are not that rich, their millions (not as much as tabloids claim) are in the form of the market value of their company, properties, money invested in the company and some money in liquid.this is how generally the worth of any company is calculated.tabloids made them more worth then they are because of the snobbish society of England, they wanted to tell people that yes she is from a very rich family and not all that common.their exaggerated millions were part of the pr whitewash.kaiser you are wrong about the source of their school fees which was funded by a trust fund left to Kate’s father by her grandfather.i am sure that not only uncle Gary funds their lifestyle in the hope for a goldsmith wing in the palace but also do money laundering through that company.

    What surprises me is that they are so open about cashing on the royal family connection.they are so shameless that they don’t even hide. pippa went and signed a book deal right after the wedding and the whole media created her royal hotness tag, her brother started two cake companies son after by following the lead of big sis in this disastrous economy and let me not get started on the content of the cake company plus because he is the bil of William he talked to the media about his company and got himself an article on daily mail and other internation newspaper, something no Middleton have done before the wedding (talking to the press).in addition to all this their patents company have received advertisement worth millions of pounds.even the over sugary daily Middleton do not get positive comments for this family because everyone can see that they are cashing on which is very shameful.

    Before anyone points out to me that royals are still inviting Middleton, so they are not upset.well they are doing that because they don’t want to give any excuses to Kate if something goes wrong in the future, which was the case with Diana .they are doing everything to protect themselves and the monarchy.if something goes wrong and William decide to leave Kate, it will be very easy for them without risking a threat against the monarchy and hm or doe or Charles because they are giving her all the benefits that no other royal bride received in the past and by doing this they are saving themselves from any blame game that Kate might try in future.royals ate working for the long term strategy and preparing for the worst the future may hold because they will never risk of having another Diana situation every again.

  9. Talie says:

    Their business is estimated to be worth around $50 million when the conversion to US dollars is made. Also, Michael Middleton inherited a substantial amount of money when one of his grandparents died.

    • LAK says:

      So they should be able to pay for their own house. Not expect their son in law (even if offered) to pay for it.

      William’s money is from Diana’s divorce settlement. He has tax payers renovating his own place and yet is paying for his in-laws???!!! come on!!!

      • Sachi says:

        I know, right? The KP renovations don’t come cheap. But we’re paying for it, all £3 million (maybe more) worth so William and Kate can feel special.

        That’s tolerable, since KP is part of the royal properties.

        But the Middletons? The apple really doesn’t fall farm from the tree.

        If they’re so rich, why are they not buying the house on their own?

        Weren’t there reports that they were looking at buying Camilla’s old house worth £5 million? Were they planning on buying that house by themselves or were they going to be helped by William’s and ‘Casa de Bang-Bang’ money?

      • angelic 20 says:

        I agree with you both.Kate now lives in a palace funded by tax payers, she have security also by tax payers, clothing allowances more than 100 thousand pounds plus other expenses but no she is not supposed to work and now her husband is finding the new family home.he can do whatever he wants to with his money but there is no excuse for us paying for his palace while he is partying for her parents home.if he have so much money to gone then spend it on his home or give it to the UNICEF, remember he wanted all of us to digg deep into our pockets and donate money for a cause so close to their heart s.well here is an idea, since we ate already paying for your palace, security, olympics, general taxes etc how about you two lead by examples and dog deep into your pockets and make donations to UNICEF because we are already digging very deep into our pockets .

      • angelic 20 says:

        I agree with you both.Kate now lives in a palace funded by tax payers, she have security also by tax payers, clothing allowances more than 100 thousand pounds plus other expenses but no she is not supposed to work and now her husband is funding the new family home.he can do whatever he wants to with his money but there is no excuse for us paying for his palace while he is paying for her parents home.if he have so much money to give then spend it on his home or give it to the UNICEF, remember he wanted all of us to digg deep into our pockets and donate money for a cause so close to their heart s.well here is an idea, since we are already paying for your palace, security, olympics, general taxes etc how about you two lead by examples and dig deep into your pockets and make donations to UNICEF because we are already digging very deep into our pockets .

      • fairy godmother says:

        Reading some of the insightful comments just reminded me that if the new house is to take in to consideration for Wills & his security team then would not HM or the government help pay for it?

        Look at how much they paid for Camilla’s private home for security.

        I am sure Willie would use this to his advantage because he is not spending any of his money- as evident by KP & Wales “cottage”. PW had been getting around 250- 300,000 pounds each year from interest earned from his inheritance. Pathetic lot- remember “we all have to dig deep” into our pockets to help others!

  10. GoodCapon says:

    The Middletons do love their signet rings don’t they? First Pippa, then James, now Carole… I hardly see anybody wear signet rings anymore. Well, I know Prince Charles does… but he’s a royal after all.

    Frankly they look a bit tacky unless you’re one who’s really into bling or come from a noble family.

    • LAK says:

      Of course they wear signet rings now. How else are they going to show off their new status and coat of arms. Lol.

      Isn’t it amazing that sophie’s parents are accorded the same status but they don’t show off in this way?

      • iseepinkelefants says:

        One only needs to looks at Sophie’s or even Zara’s husband’s family to see how sad and moneygrubbing the Middleton’s are.

        I think people forget that this isn’t the first “common” person to marry into the Royal family. This is just the first to go about it in such an flagrant manner.

        I am really surprised that the Middleton’s get away with so much. No other family has ever been awarded this luxury (and to have Pimp Mama Middlton flashing that trademark Middleton Chesire cat grin in the Royal box at Ascot to boot!). HM really IS going senile in her old age. Or maybe she knows a republic (with Charles and then Spinelss Willy ascending the throne) is inevitable and she just doesn’t give a f–k anymore?

    • bagladey says:

      I luv signet rings. My only child (son) and I have signet rings :) .

    • bagladey says:

      Why do they need a new, bigger house that they cannot afford on their own when their children are all adults and of marrying age?

    • Lisa Turtle says:

      I noticed this too.

      I know a few men (interesting, no women) who wear signet rings, but often it was a gift from their father or grandfather and its more of a family tradition and a way of carrying on their family history than a “status symbol” (especially because I am talking about men who live and work in America).

      But the Middleton’s got their Arms last year. Its purely to put on the appearance of high-status. Tacky.

      • LAK says:

        Perhaps because i live in Britain, i know many, many people who do wear them for the reason you have stated. Occassionally ‘daughters of’ wear them as well. It always made me laugh when Kaiser posted on Pippa’s daily walk to work after the wedding because her new ring was so visibly flashed, just as Kate flashes her engagement ring.

  11. Bite me aka aniston says:

    What a lovely gesture

  12. Cathy says:

    Whatever. It’s his money, he can spend it how he sees fit. But I can’t help but think that part of this is the future King can’t have his wifes parents living in a little house. They have to look the part of in-laws to the future King. If that means helping them get a huge manor to live in, then, who cares. As long as the British taxpayers aren’t footing the bill.

    • Sachi says:

      Why not, though?

      Other royals are making do with it.

      Again, William is the only future King to have given possibly millions to his in-laws to buy a house.

      None of the other “commoner” in-laws all over Europe are lining up to buy new, expensive houses with help from their royal son/daughter in-law. They all live private lives.

      If anything, they seek to be excluded from the royal life as much as possible and you don’t hear/read anything about them unless they actually show up at a royal event or was photographed randomly on the streets, going shopping or walking around.

      So what is it about the Middletons that need to be exposed in the media? Why do they have to live ‘in style’? If other in-laws can live quiet lives away from the paparazzi, why can’t they?

      Maybe it’s because they actually don’t want to do so? They want to be out there like celebrities.

      Befitting their role to live in a big house? They’re not royals. If they want to be extravagant, that’s on them, but I’m not buying this whole, “It’s William’s money so he can do whatever he wants with it.” because there is a very high likelihood that this new house is just the start of William ‘helping’ his in-laws.

      There will be more in the future of things like this, and when all of William’s inheritance gets used up, where will he get his money to help pay for his in-laws’ needs?

      Are you certain that this house is the one and only thing the Middletons would need? When William and Kate have children, what if this new house isn’t big enough? Would William help the Middletons buy another newer, bigger, more expensive property? Where would he get his money, then?

      Charles won’t always be there to fund William and Kate and their expensive lifestyle. William’s income now at the RAF is average and hardly pays for all the expensive vacations he takes every year.

      He will have to dip into the taxpayers’ funds in order to continue paying for his lifestyle and because he’s so fond of the Middletons, he’d be paying for them too.

      This is all sweet now since it seems to be a gesture of goodwill. But 2 years from now, are the taxpayers (such as myself) going to hear about the Middletons having taxpayer-funded security of their own, placed by William courtesy of the unknowing public, because the Middletons felt like they weren’t being protected enough and their status as in-laws of the future King entitle them to have the same security as taxpayer-funded royals? I mean, wouldn’t it be another aspect of looking the part of the future King’s in-laws to be followed around by security?

      Where does it stop? Are the Middletons going to be given rooms at Kensington Palace to renovate as they see fit, paid for by the taxpayers because hey, they are the future King’s in-laws, they have to develop an image befitting their status, they have to look the part!

      Again, where does it stop?

      • fairy godmother says:

        Excellent comments- not only will they each get their own apartments at KP a castle of their choosing will be gifted when Willie bestows a befitting royal title for each Midd!

      • LAK says:

        Speaking of cashing in relations… come Camilla’s children are not getting any kinds of security/big mansions perks?? Her grandchild was in the wedding party – that child in the Balcony pic above – did anyone notice what they wore to the wedding?

        Afterall their mother is the next Queen Consort – probably within the next 10years. Camilla’s sisters and nieces and nephews do not push their way into the royals circle….Did anyone notice that Tom Parker Bowles was at Ascot. Did anyone notice that Andrew Parker Bowles [Camilla's ex] escorted Anne to Ascot??? Are they flashing new signet rings because they have received new coat of Arms due to Camilla’s status? Camilla may have security around her private house, but you never hear the rest of her family, including her children bleating on about it or need of it and they are in much greater need of it based upon people who will not forgive Camilla and are very vitriolic in their abuse.

        All this Middletons they-need-to-be-seen-to-have-good-status-as-royal adjacent is just BS

      • Sachi says:

        @ fairy godmother – that scenario–William bestowing titles on the Midds–is not impossible. He’d probably do it as a gesture of his love. Ugh.

        @ LAK – Sophie Wessex’s parents also get to ride in the carriage at Ascot, but we don’t hear anything about them unless they actually attend high-profile events.

        And this is why I’ll never believe the Middletons don’t seek the press and that they are being hounded by the media and they are victims in all of this. If they want to live privately, they can and they have the means to do so. They just don’t want to.

        All this posturing about how they deserve all of these perks because they’re a royal’s in-laws and they need to look the part is, as you said, BS. They can look the part at formal gatherings where they’re invited to attend, but right now they’re coming across as wanting to be actual members of the royal family and be treated with such deference.

        The signet ring, the coat-of-arms they got right before Kate’s wedding, Kate’s wedding earrings with the acorns as if they were a family heirloom, etc. all point out to a family who want to be seen as more than they are. They want to be seen as if they’re Old Money and that they’ve always belonged in the aristocracy.

        And this new house is just another step for their social climbing and showing off.

      • Lisa Turtle says:

        Truth!!!! The Middletons will get security detail, and yet Charles wants to ‘streamline’ the monarchy and cut the protection officers for the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

  13. Patricia says:

    Ooooh I love it – skeletons in the closet!!!

    This is shaping up just like a fine Agatha Christie mystery :) :) :)

    And as Poirot says “Often, the more respectable you are, the more you have to hide.”

  14. Meg says:

    The whole thing is just awkward…and the whole thing IS a scheme to a certain extent, starting from when Carol Middleton convinced Kate to go to St. Andrews instead of her preferred university just because he was going there.
    None of this is really surprising anymore…

    I’m just surprised they accepted it, I’m not sure my parents would be able to.

  15. ladybert62 says:

    I had read someplace that Uncle Gary was indeed a thorn in the side of Queen Elizabeth and she was against the marriage because of him – makes one wonder if wills is trying to demote Uncle Gary’s influence on the middletons.

  16. Laurie M. says:

    Maybe Wills wants his children with Kate to visit the in-laws at a much more PRIVATE & SECLUDED country estate??

  17. backwards says:

    They are making it sound like the Middleton’s currently live in some crap shack.
    Don’t they already have a huge house on an estate?

    • LAK says:

      Yes they do, but they are upgrading to a house/land that is 3 times the value and size of their current home.

      The Middletons also live in the most expensive of the home counties. They could have bought bigger, more land,with that kind of cash in a different home county. Charles himself doesn’t live in their county.neither do Anne or Edward.

      To be honest, when it was first rumoured that they were looking at this estate with emphasis on security, and the timing to coincide with William’s new inheritance,I thought they were fronting for William and Kate because they are going to need their own country estate.

      • daisie says:

        I thought so too. All the British papers were saying that it was time for William to acquire a “pile” (country estate)now that he’s turned 30.

        The reality may actually be the reverse… that the Middletons are contributing so that their daughter and her husband can afford the property.

      • BeeBee says:

        A securitized country estate for Will and Kate that doubles as the Middleton’s home actually makes sense. Especially if he and they are both contributing financially.

      • BeeBee says:

        cont’d Maybe the idea is that the Middletons are going to be very involved grandparents, and a shared country place will also cutback on family foreign vacations. In that case, it is sort of an investment that kills a few birds with one stone.

  18. The Original Mia says:

    Shady business. If Wills can now afford to front the in-laws cash, then he should also pay for his wife’s dresses. No reason he or Kate should be living off Charles’ funds anymore.

  19. Margo-go-go says:

    Made up dribble


    • Suzie says:

      Actually, it’s a fact and for those of us who live in Commonweath countries, this stuff is very important. William will be the future head of state. He and Kate are not like US celebrities. We pay taxes to keep silver spoons in these people’s mouths.

      The Middleton house will need inside staff and ground staff. It will need security. WHO is paying for that?

      And if William can affort to pay for his in-laws’ house, why can’t he cough up the money for Waity’s wardrobe?

      These two entitled brats are quite unreal. When does the tell-all book come out?

  20. RobN says:

    I think the entire family was pretty thoroughly vetted before the young William was allowed to spend more than five minutes there. If there was anything really suspect, there never would have been a relationship at all.

    • Kellie says:

      I seriously doubt that. You have to consider they were both so young and he dumped her so many times, most people didnt think he would actually marry her. And lets not forget the most suspicious things about people is their motive. You cant “vet” an agenda.

    • Maura says:

      Well the firm didn’t notice when they vetted diana, that she was mentally unstable so……

      • Suzie says:

        Ooh, I get so tired of people calling Diana that. She said herself in the Panorama interview that the firm would label her unstable to get rid of her. And lo and behold…

        She’s dead. She can’t defend herself and her few friends that have tried are ignored.

      • The Original Mia says:

        Emotionally immature, naive 19 year old vs. 30 year old woman with a social climbing family. Yeah…that’s a rational comparison. What exactly would vetting have discovered about Diana other than she was a virgin & she came from a broken home? OTOH, there was plenty to find out about Kate, her parents, her shady uncle.

      • Sachi says:

        @ Suzie – if Hollywood celebrities are not being trashed and mocked in order to make Kate look good in comparison, and if it’s not Beatrice and Eugenie being called names in order to make Kate look the hero, it’s Diana that people are chasing after to make Kate come off smelling of roses.

        I think it’s extremely offensive that some people will go after a dead person just to magnify what they think as Kate’s attributes. Diana can’t defend herself. She’s dead.

        The Palace don’t want another Diana, so Kate isn’t allowed to work. Diana was unstable and had an eating disorder, so William is taking good care of Kate so she won’t end up like his mother. William will treat Kate lovingly because Diana had a terrible marriage. Diana overshadowed Charles, so Kate is kept in the background. Diana this, Diana that, Kate won’t be like Diana blah blah blah…

        Kate must always be compared to those who can be considered ‘beneath’ her, so she’ll always come out on top.

        But comparing her to independent, accomplished women is something her fans won’t do. Or if you present sound arguments and criticisms about Kate, you either get called jealous, or you’re ignored.

  21. fabgrrl says:

    Oh lordy, an extremely wealthy man giving money to his wife’s parents. Scandalous!

  22. iwannarock says:

    haaaaaa. thats where kate got her eyeliner technique from!!!! mummy dearest.

  23. dorothy says:

    I would be mortified if the world knew I couldn’t afford to buy the house without my son-in-laws money. And, if they had to have finanacial help with the deposit, how can they
    afford the house?

  24. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    It’s a pay-off. They’ll be iced-out of Kate’s life, along with her sister and only friend Pippa, and they can’t complain because they took the hand-out/pay-off.

    If the royals want to turn Kate into their robo-princess, it takes more than bleaching her teeth, training her to speak with a faux accent, making her wear Diana’s ring, and scripting everything she says. They have to marginalize the tacky family too.

  25. moja31 says:

    I don’t care who you are, if you can’t afford a home, don’t buy it. William & Kate have been visiting and staying with her family for 10 years (security & all) with no problem. The Middletons simply wanted an upgraded home to go with their upgraded status, and William decided to foot the bill. I think that makes him an idiot, but that’s his right.

  26. Lisa Turtle says:

    Wow. First of all, I’m feeling a bit clairvoyant today, because I commented on the other Kate story yesterday questioning the Middleton’s financials.

    Now onto the scoop… As far as the solvency of their company, its a private corporation with no shareholders, so they do not need to report their income publicly. This is very interesting. All numbers surrounding its profitability are pure speculation. There is actually no way of knowing how much it is worth. Hence, the figures of £30-40 M are rubbish. I guarantee its much less than that if they need William’s help to buy a £7M home.

    In addition, owning a company gives certain tax advantages that could give the appearance of more wealth than actually exists. For example – company cars. That little BMW that Pippa is always seen in? I bet its registered to Party Pieces, and because Pippa commutes from London to her parent’s house twice a week for “work”, the car is an “expense” that can be written off.

    Didn’t Carole start Party Pieces from the family house? This means that at least some of the cost of maintaining their home could have been written off as business expenses as well.

    There are just certain signs indicating the wealthy lifestyle was a facade – Kate would always borrow her mother’s clothes for example. Pippa cashing out on a book deal…

    Reportedly, Michael Middleton had a wealthy ancestor who set up a trust to pay tuition for his descendants’ educations. That trust paid for the posh schooling of all three Middleton children and put them in a position of having high-society connections. That foundation cannot be underestimated in Britain. Still today, William and Harry’s closest friends are the “Old Etonians” who they attended public school with. (Obviously I mean public school in the British sense – which means fee paying school) Once Kate enrolled at St. Andrews, it was only a matter of time before her and William crossed paths – because all the wealthy, posh, public school kids meet each other eventually. She just had to WAIT (which we all know is her special superhero power).

    There is nothing wrong with being self-made. In America, where I am from, its considered a mark of pride. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps… However, the Middletons take expensive vacations, drive fancy cars, they seem to covet high-society connections… It just seems like they were faking wealth and entrepreneurial success for the long-con of wedding their son and daughters to real wealth. Especially now that they are accepting a down payment on their home from their son-in-law. Very suspicious if you ask me.

    • Lisa Turtle says:

      Okay – I have one more bone to pick!

      “Fake it til you make it” seems to be the Middleton family motto. It seems to me like the whole family is obsessed with appearances – and this trait is most evident with Duchess Kate. The appareance of prosperity, of perfect grooming (i.e. never putting a foot out of place), the appearance of status…

      What gets me is that Kate did nothing for 10 years. A wealthy girl of leisure… But she didn’t take up charity work, she didn’t volunteer… Why? Because she was never taught to do those things by her family. Instead her mother taught her the “Dukan Diet” and how to keep a lithe figure. She spent her time shopping, and having beauty treatments, and whisking William away on expensive vacations that her family apparently could not really afford.

      Inside Kate is a shallow girl who care about her hair, her clothes, her car, her vacations and her high-status boyfriend. IT SHOWS. From her fake grin to her impossibly short appearances at charity events… She spends a longer time having her hair done than she spends actually involved with her philanthropy projects.

      In comparison, William and Harry were raised with a strong sense of nobelese oblige. With wealth and priviledge comes responsibility and duty to others. I think William has always felt that duty was a burden… I tend to think Harry has Diana’s heart, and he really enjoys the charitable aspects of the “job” – especially when he’s with children. Still, they both pursue a variety of projects and have for years and years, even while maintaining full time jobs.

  27. Minxx says:

    Carol Middleton has that hungry look of a dedicated (and successful) social climber. She can’t even hide it. Kate pretends she’s posh and sophisticated but she’s just vapid and vain. I can’t imaging taking money from my son-in-law to upgrade my house…they obviously can’t afford the lifestyle they aspire to. Michael Middleton looks like a sweet guy, completely under his wife’s thumb.

  28. Liz says:

    Carole’s face is so stretched and tight and scary. Waity’s going to look like that someday.

  29. anne_000 says:

    I was going to say that Will should keep the deed in his name, but then I thought Uncle Gary might start doing stuff at the manor which would put Will & the Firm in a precarious & awkward situation. And this might stall the authorities in stopping Uncle Gary’s shenanigans at the manor.

    But putting the deed in the Middleton’s name means that they could sell the house a year later and keep any profit. And I think the Middletons might do that one day. Just sell the house and not give back the deposit to William. They might say that all the vacations they paid for makes up for the deposit money.

    • jenna says:

      I very much doubt they are going to sell and walk off with a huge profit. The only ways I see this property going back on the market are:

      1) Will & Kate split up before having kids (if it’s after having kids, they will still need a huge private place for the grandchildren/future heirs to the throne to come visit)

      2) The Middletons decide they need to upgrade again (in which case any profit from the sale will likely go right into the purchase of the new and more expensive house)

      3) Mike & Carol both die and the house is sold as part of settling the estate (so, William has now helped to ensure financial stability for Pippa and James down the road–probably not a terrible move as it makes them less likely to engage in tacky behavior for $$). as this probably won’t happen for another 20-30 years, William will likely be king, have inherited his father’s duchy, and generally be in such a good financial position that the money he could potentially recoup from the sale will be peanuts.

      Overall, I’m pretty weirded out by the whole thing, but I don’t think it’s so off the mark to say they DO need the extra privacy/security. The British royal family is much more high profile than other European royals so I don’t think you can really compare the experience of commoner-in-laws elsewhere. Likewise, William is arguably the most senior British royal to marry a “commoner” and the interest, public scrutiny, etc. of his in-laws (and in the future, his children) is going to be greater than for the in-laws of someone like Edward. So their need is somewhat valid. That said, the Middletons sure are milking their connections and the constant public scrutiny they get is certainly in part of their own making. I do believe there’s some merit to the idea that William putting up this money is part of a whitewashing/de-uncle-garying the family.

      • LAK says:

        Ok. let’s take out the Middletons and instead think about Camilla’s children and her immediate family and start this conversation again regarding their need for security.

        And bear in mind that they are in more danger from the Diana fanatics who are walking up and down the land as well as terrorists.

        We know Camilla was often attacked after Diana outed her as the mistress, but she never asked for help or had bodyguards until she was engaged to Charles.

      • jenna says:

        Well, Kate is now married to William, so you could say that her family never asked for help with paying for a house until they’d closed the other deal :)

        Camilla has also spent tons of $$ doing up her own digs, right?

        Camilla’s family has never been in the spotlight the way the Middletons are. Certainly the Middletons have courted it, but I think also that any family William married into was going to be in for a certain level of public scrutiny.

        I suspect also that they may be considering future security needs with any children Will & Kate might have. You know those kids will be visiting their grandparents, and you know that the security concerns around them are going to be huuuuuuge. Basically, I can buy that they “need” a larger house for some semi-legitimate reasons.

        I do think it’s somewhat ridiculous that William is fronting this money if the Middletons are really so wealthy, and it’s my opinion that something is fishy with the Middleton family finances–either they aren’t really as rich as has been reported, or there’s something dirty (Uncle Gary) that they are trying to move away from, or both.

      • LAK says:

        @Jenna – perhaps the point is the way the Middletons are going about it.

        We know Camilla has security when at her own place, perhaps tarted up using Charles Money, and maybe her kids also benefit from the connection, but it’s done with a finesse the Middletons do not appear to understand. Is it better for Camilla to be receiving Charles money on the quiet, probably not but if he is going to give it, he isn’t putting out [or havng sources put out or even speculate] stories about how much he loves Camilla and wants to make her life better, easier etc

        And i can’t believe i am defending Charles and camilla today! i need to go lie down:)

  30. d says:

    Haven’t british/english royalty been giving money and property to the non-royals for eons already anyway? I mean, King Charles, Henry, etc., even Elizabeth…weren’t they “gifting” people so that in return, the royals would have their support? This doesn’t seem all that shocking to me, if true. I think for the royals, it’s par for the course.

  31. benny says:

    I sometimes wondered whether the Middletons “have” something on William, like pictures of him doing drugs in college. But he seems fond of them, not resentful, so I don’t think that’s it.

    William just might be a generous guy who doesn’t like to think Kate is living so far above the rest of her family.

    Speaking of Kate, I gotta ask: is she “special”? I know art history is the kind of class bored socialites take, while working on their “Mrs.” degrees — but Kate seems even dumber than that. At first, I thought it was good that Kate was going to add some vibrant peasant blood into that inbred family, but now I’m wondering whether William picked the wrong peasant.

    “Can you . . . um . . . test the . . . um . . . smell of the tea by . . . smelling it?” That was a PLANNED visit to a tea shop, she had all the time in the world to think up something to say, and that’s the best her mind could do.

    Seriously, is she special?

  32. HME says:

    Man I would LOVE to know what the Queen REALLY thinks of the Middletons……….

    So did William force the Queen’s hand with his engagement to Kate by only informing her hours prior to the announcement?? How did the papers find out about the 2 hour thing? Surely that’s not something the palace would be broadcasting.

    Anyone read that hilarious article on the daily mail giving all the details about Kate’s department store make-up lesson? I guess the fact that she uses Bobbi brown make-up and does it herself (can’t believe they are STIIL harping on about that fact) is supposed to make up for the huge clothes expense??

    • SISI says:

      No one can impose anything on HM the Queen, not even Philip (as he found out), nor Charles or William. I think the 2hr-short notice came up in the engagement interview they gave shortly after the unnouncement – I thought it meant that he gave officials at his office & BP only 2hr-notice to get ready to make the public (official) announcement of their engagement (incl. interview). – He had proposed over a month before, but was delayed by a friend’s wedding & the funeral of her granfather. Her father was first informed (alone), then Charles, followed by the rest of their families. I have no doubts he informed the Queen before he left from London and took the ring with him (she had it stored in her safe)

      • LAK says:

        if the engagement story had only been reported in a tabloid, then your explanation would make perfect sense. There would have been the usual engagement protocols despite the 2 hrs notice to the staff. BP staff are incredibly efficient. It’s amazing how fast they can turn something out at short notice.

        As they said in their engagement interview, marriage had been discussed in general terms for several months, so i am sure HM was aware that it was going to happen, again in general terms.

        I think this is a terrible story and much more in need of a palace denial than hair extensions, don’t you think? ;)

      • SISI says:

        You know very well that the Palace normally do NOT answer either way – they rather Decline to comment, esp. if it leaves it open for further questioning or presumes an improper behaviour by a royal. Only on rare occasions they issue a confirmation or denial, which is usually brief & absolute. A palace denial in this case not only would not have made any difference (irrespective of being true or not), but it would have presumed – somehow – that William could have behaved like that with the Queen & Charles (they just wouldn’t honour it with an answer, IMO) …Anyway, it is the explanation, by itself that makes it more credible & likely (it makes perfect sense!), and the fact that William LOVES taking the media by surprise (& he was very exacting in his requirements for Confidentiality). Also, this rumour was only circulated as tabloid-type gossip story, never reported as proper news in serious outlets like CNN, BBC, ITV, etc … But, the most compelling of all to me is the fact that for William to have the ring, he had to ask the Queen!!

      • LAK says:

        SISI – This story has been circulating for a long time, but no print/broadcast media acknowledged it.

        It only gained traction once The Telegraph printed it.

        My point about it being a terrible story for the implications is that whilst the Palace doesn’t comment on stories whether they are true or false, they lowered themselves on correcting a story in a tabloid ie The Daily Mail about Kate’s alleged extensions which to me is a completely immaterial thing but would let a much more serious allegation, printed in a reputable paper stand. It has now been picked up by the tabloids who will run with it ad nauseum and probably add embellishments to it.

        2nd point is that whilst William likes to ‘surprise’ the media, in the case of a royal family marriages, there can be no surprises. Therefore i stand by my assertion that HM could have known about the engagement in general terms but not specific details, which would enable him to acquire the ring months ahead. Do not forget that he himself has said that he simply rolled up on his ducatti, went to the safe, and retrieved the ring. Plus, the ring was his personal property rather than an item from the family or royal collections so he wouldn’t have needed her permission to sign it out.

        3. There are engagement protocols that were not observed which gives credence to notion that it was indeed a surprise. For a woman like HM who fetishises [sp?] protocol and duty, it is highly unlikely that she wouldn’t have followed through as necessary for her ‘beloved grandson’ and especially given his status.

  33. K says:

    I love bitchily gossiping about the royals as much as anyone but many of the comments on this site are incredibly snarky and bordering on slander. I’m reading the Celebitchy comment policy as I write and I think some of you should give it a once over again. Laughing at the goofy royals is one thing. But some of you are obsessed with the hating aspect. The royals are just people. They screw up like we all do. They have good days and bad days. They can take lousy photos. They make bad choices; they make intelligent choices. They live their lives in public and one slip up lives on forever. They’re on the public dime so they are fair game for comment and I’m all for that but some of the stuff I read here is obviously rumor wrapped up in fairly pompous pronouncements of truth. Did you ever think that maybe this guy William just wants to help out his inlaws? And don’t we all have an embarassing “Uncle Gary”-type in the family? Just sayin.

    • SISI says:

      I entirely agree with you (100%) – I don’t mind bitchy gossiping and used to enjoy coming to this site for a good laugh & a good dose of healthy skepticism – but I’m increasingly giving up commenting, some of the vicious remarks are simply beyond the pale and is the same old negative mantra, childish name-calling, wild accusations and malicious speculation …bordering in the absurd! (like little bullies in a playground)

    • It is ME!! says:

      Sure thing K(ate Middleton). Could you define slander for me? (Especially since people like to throw around “slander” as if that should shut down any bad press about someone.) Never mind, I’ll save you the work:

      Please tell me if any of these statements made here could actually cause damage (harmed Waity in any way) or were made with actual malice. I’ll wait.

      *Who hates her? Is she some Syrian dictator or something? I just think she is a terrible role model.

      • Sachi says:

        Apparently, if you’re not dazzled by Kate, that must mean you hate her and you only have vicious remarks about her.

        None of the comments here have wished ill and harm upon Kate or her family, nor on the Windsors or anyone else.

        But some people just can’t believe that we’re not enamored of Kate and the royals, so that must mean that we are slanderous and behave like bullies.

        If Kate’s fans think some of the comments in here are vicious, then they’re lucky they don’t live in England. The things I’ve heard some people say about Kate and her family, as well as the Windsors, would be seizure-inducing for some sensitive people in here who can’t handle comments that aren’t about praising Kate and defending her.

        Where else on the internet would you actually find discussions about royals in depth? Many of our British posters here are rational and intelligent. Their comments don’t come from blind disdain, but valid criticisms and arguments.

        If people can’t find another excuse to defend Kate in the face of the criticisms made by posters here, that’s their problem.

        But calling others as slanderous and vicious for not singing Kate and the royals praises is disingenuous.

      • It is ME!! says:

        Sachi: Yep yep yep and yep!!


    • Garvels says:

      Katherine-K-So nice of you to take time to comment in between your shopping “exertions”.

      So K-Katherine,you would like the PC police to monitor a silly celebrity gossip site? Would those posters who break your rules get sent to the Tower?

    • Henry says:

      @K (Kate middleton?) this may be “celebitchy” but the comments on this site have always been very insightful and polite and logical. They are already wayy tamer than the vitriolic stuff you see on the comments of other places like Daily Mail, Guardian etc. Commenters here on the most part voice their opinions in an incredibly considerate and cultured way. You don’t see insults or vulgarities in their statements – which are always backed up by sources and facts.

      So what slander are you talking about? Do you even know the definition of the word? Accusing someone of slander is a VERY serious thing and if you don’t have the evidence or even know of the definition of the word, please dont use it loosely and as you please.

      “and don’t we all have an uncle gary in our own families” – are you serious? what a gross and rude generalisation you are making there. so you are saying that EVERY family out there has a druggie/pimp/shady character as one of their relatives? for real? if Kate’s or your family has someone like that, good for you. Please do not use the same brush on every single family out there.

      and even if EVERY family does, what is that supposed to mean? to justify Kate’s family’s actions or what? Gosh.

      • K says:

        The “Uncle Gary” comment was meant to address the fact that most families have a particular “black sheep” member that, in a variety of ways, regularly embarasses the rest of the family. If you don’t have one in your family group, please say a quick heartfelt prayer of thanks.

  34. E says:

    It’s ridiculous that people get so upset about social climbing and taking advantage of royal connections. How do you think nobility came about? They were the friends and relatives of royals.

  35. Asha says:

    They’ve been saying that the Middletons are golddiggers for a long, long time. Personally, I don’t like Kate’s mom, I don’t know why…

  36. TrollyDolly says:

    Emmm, what’s wrong with being a social climber exactly? It’s bandied around as a terrible indictment of morally dubious behaviour. I would really welcome an explanation of why it is seen as such a crime?

    • LAK says:

      Here are a few definitions from various dictionaries. Notice that none of them include character.

      -someone who seeks social prominence, for example by obsequious behaviour.

      -anyone that becomes friends with someone else if they have something that they want, which we all know involves people. They become ‘friends’ with people who “know people”. In turn, they become (or attempt to become) ‘friends’ with that first person’s more “popular” friends, leaving the first person behind. Rinse and repeat until you reach the top.

      -a person who seeks advancement to a higher social class

      -one who attempts to gain a higher social position or acceptance in fashionable society

      • TrollyDolly says:

        Thanks Lak, but telling me WHAT it is still doesn’t really explain WHY it is so awful. IF people wish to move in more “elevated” circles or be invited to the “right” parties and events why should they not? Isn’t that also known as social mobility? Does being from a council estate mean you must never aspire to own your own home? Or a person who hasn’t done their A levels shouldn’t hope to send their child to Oxbridge?
        If all that can be levelled at the Middletons is their desire to socially inhabit worlds they weren’t born to, it’s not much of reason to hate them is it? It’s just not valid to any sane person. Castigating them because of social ambition is not fair or right I believe.

  37. ZenB!tch says:

    All I have to say is…..

    Seeing William on the home page next to Chris Hemsworth was just cruel to William.

    Goodness he is an unattractive man!

  38. iseepinkelefants says:

    Highly successful but they have to have their son in law foot part of the bill?

    Oh I love when history (the Boleyns) repeats itself.

  39. HoustonGrl says:

    Even if Party Pieces is successful now, it still takes quite a pile to start a business (I’ve heard figures like $250,000 on average to start a healthy small business). So obviously the Middletons had some money somewhere even before Party Pieces. Kate was already going to a prestigious school before PP became successful.

    Personally, I think the Middletons have been played up as ordinary folks, more so than they were. I think Michael Middleton actually came from a fairly wealthy family, and I also heard once that uncle Gary sold a “tech company” for $275 million.

    My suspicion is that dear old Gary bank-rolled the Middletons for a long time, at least until PP took off, and now Will is taking over because it would look bad in the press if Gary were still intimately connected to the Midds. So either they are very lucky, or they’ve all sold their souls, depending on how you look at it ;)

    • flower says:

      It actually doesn’t take that much to start a successful business if the timing and product are right. I started my own business with £50 when I was still in college. With a little hard work we managed to retire long before retirement age, (there were only ever two of us in the business, no employees and run from my London flat) . Not that we made anywhere near the mega millions the Middletons are reputed to have made, but it is possible.

      All you really need is to find a gap in the market and exploit it.

  40. annieanne says:

    Seriously? After Fergie and the $550k all access pass and Andy and the paedophile – you think there’s a chance in hell William would have actually married Kate if her family had any dealings with Uncle Gary?

    You don’t have a very high opinion of their self-preservation instincts.

  41. SISI says:

    If this news is true … Then, it’s a good gesture (and a smart move) by William!
    …Has anyone considered that he may want to give Kate her own (private & secured) country home??! – Where her parents (if they wish) could live in for the rest of their lives (paying only the maintenance, and perhaps a modest rent) …and maybe selling wood acre and using the money for whatever they want. They (& children) can come and stay as often as they want – It is Kate’s House! …Would it be Unusual if he were to share part of his inheritance money with his wife??!

  42. flower says:

    Earlier up thread I said I would post some interesting facts about Williams inheritance for the Social History buffs.

    William’s financial worth is mere speculation, Diana is believed to have been worth around £22million at her death . Apart from some minor gifts to her 27 god children and staff she left half to each son but they paid 40% inheritance tax on the money so that would leave them with around £6.6million each at most . With good investment it might be worth £10million now or it might not. The inheritance tax could have been avoided if Charles had petitioned to take back the £17million divorce settlement and invested it in a trust for the boys. He was legally entitled to do this as the divorce payment was based on her living until she was 86, as she died so soon after there are precedents for the return of the money where minor children are involved, but he refused to do so, because of public sentiment towards him at the time.

    Diana herself could have set up a trust for her sons which would have negated the 40% tax as well, but she didn’t she kept all the money at her own disposal. Lord knows who was advising her on finances but her last will stated she was worth around $1.6million when her assets were actually $35million The Queen Mothers estate was not large around £4 which would have been divided between all the grand children I think so there isn’t a huge amount to add from that source. The Queen Mother was a quite a gambler and actually had to sell some of her important jewellery at one point to pay horse betting debts.

    Harking back to Diana’s will, there was a least one major legal error in the document regarding the guardianship of her children, the particular clause states ….. “SHOULD any child of mine be under age at the date of the death of the survivor of myself and my husband I APPOINT my mother and my brother EARL SPENCER to be the guardians of that child and I express the wish that should I predecease my husband he will consult with my mother with regard to the upbringing education and welfare of our children.” Meaning if both she and Charles died before the boys were of legal age her mother and brother were to be their guardians.

    However Diana did not have the legal right to decide the guardianship of her minor children. In British law neither she nor her husband had legal custody of their minor children. The Sovereign has legal custody of all his/her minor royal grandchildren. This is due to a law known as “The Grand Opinion of 1717” passed during the reign of George I, during a period when George I was having an almighty row with his son and it has been kept on the statute books ever since . It makes sense if you realise that unexpected sudden death was common prior to WWII and no one could be sure which of the grandchildren would eventually become monarch, it was to prevent young, possible future sovereigns from being taken out of the country or coming under the influence of self-interested individuals that might be hostile to Britain .

    If you recall there was never any discussion about who had custody of the boys at the time of the divorce, nor with the children of Sarah and Andrew when they divorced , it was never an issue because legally the Queen always had custody of them. Strictly speaking she is still the legal guardian of Edward’s two young children.

    A fact which hardly anyone realises is that when/if William and Kate have children it is possible the Queen may actually be their legal guardian as well (if the old statue extends to great-grand children as it may well do in the fine print).

    • flower says:

      I forgot to mention that even if the law does not extend to great-grand children, at some point in the future when Charles becomes king, he will actually become the legal custodian of William and Harry’s children.

      Also that should read £4 million regarding the Queen Mothers estate not £4, she wasn’t that bad a

    • d says:

      that is totally awesome information.

    • Suzie says:

      Awesome. Thanks for this info.

    • deep says:

      Flower..I didn’t read all that you wrote, but, you are wrong re Diana’s divorce settlement. EVERY PENNY that she got from Prince Charles WAS invested before she died, she did that. It was not at her disposal. By her choice, I might add. So, it wasn’t taxed as much as it would have been if it had not been invested. And, a few years after her death an article came out that said her money had more than doubled the original amount. So, William and Harry have millions because of that. Charles took care of Diana after the divorce re she got to keep her place at the palace. She had protection and her clothes etc. were paid for by the Royals. She was still patron to a lot of charities and still considered Royal by many even after her divorce. You have to remember, she was treated kindly…after all, she was the mother of the future King. And, might I add, not just considered a national treasure..she was considered an International treasure and still is to this day. She was special..very special indeed.

      • deep says:

        @flower..just finished reading your post. Of course there was nothing brought up re custody of William and Harry when Diana died…Their father was still alive. Pretty much, I’m assuming in any civilized society that would be the case. Weather you are Royal or not. Children usually aren’t taken away from their living parent once a parent passes unless there is some sort of abuse or something. And, Diana only asked that her brother and her mother take part in the decision making..not take the children away from the father.

    • flower says:

      @ deep…..Not when she died, when she was divorced, there was never one word spoken about who would have custody of the children because there was already a legal custodian.

      While the children are minors they are under the Queens legal control, I’m sure she doesn’t exercise that control, but the law is there just in case. For instance what if Diana had kicked up a fuss and decided to take the children to Europe or America or the Middle East to be educated because she was so p***ed with the royals and Charles. She couldn’t even take them for a holiday without the Queens permission. The same thing applied to Fergie and would apply to Sofie if she ever divorces Edward.

      Once the children are of legal age the custodianship ceases.

      • flower says:

        Regarding the inheritance, Diana did invest the money yes, but the money was still at her disposal she could liquidate the investments anytime she saw fit, but I am talking about a specific type of trust fund, which she did not set up, Charles could have remedied this after her death but he chose not to, so the boys ended up forfeiting 40% on inheritance tax, that’s in public tax records.

        The trustees of her will have managed the money well but the press is still just guessing at the numbers. If an article came out saying the money had doubled it may just be some journalist going on hearsay or ‘a trusted source’ because no one knows except the trustees exactly how much the princes are worth, as no one knows exactly how much Charles or the Queen have in their bank accounts. I’m not disputing the fact that he now has a lot of money, just that the exact amount is supposition.

        Diana was indeed special she was a fabulous princess but a very troubled woman and in some areas she was way out of her depth and down right stupid for instance despite having received that large divorce settlement she did not updated her will, which contained several legal errors not just the custody clause, her last will and testament had been signed on June 1, 1993, long before her divorce.

  43. Lisa Turtle says:

    Maybe all this sudden “need” for money, property, and William’s help is why he looks so unhappy with Kate lately. Seriously, their body language is totally off. From last year to this year, he looks like a man whose realizing what a mistake he made. I’d be pretty disturbed if my wife’s family (who always fronts like they have sooo much disposable wealth) suddenly wanted me to buy them a house.

  44. d says:

    I think William looks unhappy because he’ll have to give up his armed forces job and do the royal thing more. There was something in the news about that the other day. I don’t think he’s quite ready for kingship yet. But I wish Kate would at least give the appearance of working a little harder. Diana’s love of style and fashion and the like may have livened up the royals when they really needed it, but I’m not sure how well that plays these days. And, it’s been done. I kind of think people will relate more and think kindly of them more if they seem people like Kate WORKING and I just don’t get the impression that she works very hard or ever did. I mean, background is background. whatever. It’s what you do now that counts and it just looks like she doesn’t do very much. Nor her parents. I don’t know. People have it tough these days and I don’t think partying all the time and flitting around creates a good impression.

    That being said, I can’t help but admire the Queen. She’s the only one I really care for and I’d like to think she’s smarter than all that and made her people make darn sure that everything’s above board with this family. But who knows. Wishful thinking.

  45. deep says:

    Regarding William helping the Middleton’s buy a house or whatever else he does…I have no opinion on it either way. But, right or wrong, whatever people think..they will be the grandparents to the future king or queen of England. And, maybe that is why William is doing what he is doing. He’s going to do what he wants anyway. Like I said..I have no opinion regarding the matter. Just a thought.

  46. Staci says:

    Britain still has a real problem with perceived class differences, though. It sounds like the Uncle Gary financing the Middletons bit may be typical British class propaganda b*llsh*t.

  47. badrockandroll says:

    The Queen may be a heckuva figurehead monarch, but she, along with Philip, have been lousy parents. I am old enough to remember a documentary that the Royal Family did when they opened their doors to the BBC in the mid 60s, and she said flat out that Andrew was her favourite child. Juxtapose this with the vanity fair article that lists all of Andrew’s screw-ups. And if Charles is a cold fish, it may well be because he was ignored by his parents when Philip wasn’t bullying him for being “weak”. Philip also used to say that Anne was his favourite, and that he wished she was his son. Elizabeth prevented her sister from marrying the man she wanted because he was divorced. She continued her family’s cruelty to her uncle, again (in part)because he marrried a divorced woman. Fast forward, and now three of Elizabeth’s children have divorced – two in scandal, the third likely precipitated it through quiet adultery. The fourth child hasn’t divorced because where is he going to find another beard like Sophie?

    My point: unless you have lived in a fishbowl with these odd odd fish, there is no comprehending their actions, no interpreting their body language. They are beyond us, not in a class way, but in another planet way. They have closets full of relatives that make Uncle Gary look like a choir boy – Fergie springs to mind, as does Andrew, and I think that there is some scandal attached to Princess Michael too. I think that you would have to be really short on insight and intelligence and ego to live with them happily ever after.

  48. Lisa says:

    I can’t imagine any sensible, self-respecting family accepting such a gift.

  49. char says:

    I think the Middletons look Russian

  50. julie says:

    @daisie What a comment! Kate is not the first nor will she be the last to want to marry a royal and live a life of privilege. I can’t really fault her for that, honestly. The only thing I can say is that I don’t like the fact that the Middleton parents are seemingly taking money from anyone and everyone who offers it like they have absolutely no shame.

  51. Mel says:

    TOTALLY off topic, but… Do both Ma and Pa Middleton have grey/blue eyes? It appears so from the photo of them together.

    If that’s so, how can Pippa have brown eyes?
    I thought that was genetically impossible.