Duchess Kate eats lavender biscuits for nausea & she’ll never be “Queen”

At the end of the year, it’s traditional for the UK papers to do a year-long count of how many public appearances/engagements/duties taken on per royal member. Duchess Kate and Prince William’s numbers are… low. As you can imagine. And Will & Kate Defenders, I know, you don’t even have to remind me. The palace said in 2011 that the Queen had given William and Kate a “grace period” in which they would slowly be eased into their royal duties, but their main priority would be to enjoy their first years of marriage, etc. But it’s still kind of devastating to see the hard numbers, especially in comparison to the hardest-working members of the royal family. Here’s what it boils down to:

Number of royal appearances by Kate in 2012: 111 (up from 34 in 2011)
Number of royal appearances by William in 2012: 88
Number of royal appearances by Harry in 2012: 61
Number of royal appearances by the Queen in 2012: 425 (up from 370 in 2011)
Number of royal appearances by Prince Phillip in 2012: 340 (up from 330 in 2011)
Number of royal appearances by Prince Charles in 2012: 592 (domestic & international)
Number of royal appearances by Princess Anne: 566 (domestic & international)

It’s kind of amazing that Kate managed to do more appearances than William, but we should make allowances for William and Harry because they have “full-time jobs” in the military. So if you look at it that way, Kate only managed to make 23 more appearances than her husband, who has a full-time job? Meanwhile, the Queen, Phillip, Anne and Charles are all “Check it, I can do 10 appearances in a day, y’all.”

And you know what is kind of funny to me? There’s been widespread reports of William’s shirking of his RAF duties, and over the past year, William’s press office has pushed many stories of all of the people he’s saved as a pilot. Which, granted, he has. But the stories seem to come out basically whenever William works, which doesn’t seem that often. Like, he’ll work for one weekend a month and magically there’s a story about how he saved someone. You can read the most recent story here – he saved a man’s life on New Year’s Day. After he had a long period of “time off.”

Meanwhile, poor Kate and her poor morning sickness. The Mail reports that Camilla (Duchess of Cornwall) has recommended something to soothe poor barfy Kate. Lavender biscuits!! Like, real biscuits made with lavender. Apparently, lavender is an old wives’ remedy for morning sickness and Camilla send some lavender shortbread cookies to Kate. She probably barfed a little bit when she heard the latest news about her future title too – this one’s got to hurt:

The Duchess of Cambridge is facing the prospect of never becoming Prince William’s Queen. MP John Hemming is attempting to ensure all spouses of reigning monarchs are officially known as Prince or Princess Consorts, with an amendment to the repeal of ancient royal primogeniture laws.

The wives of ruling Kings currently become Queen Consorts but the husbands of female monarchs have no right to any title – which is why the current Duke of Edinburgh is not known as King Philip.

The Liberal Democrat’s Early Day Motion says the Duchess of Cambridge would lose out on being called Queen Catherine when her husband William is crowned King, reported the Sunday Express.

‘It’s not right that a Queen Regnant is treated as less important than a King Regnant,’ he told the Sunday Express. ‘It seems sensible we resolve this issue when dealing with the primogeniture issue.’

The proposal also means Camilla would become Princess Consort when Prince Charles becomes King – which Clarence House has always insisted upon, following the couple’s previous divorces.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill was told by the Lord Chancellor in 1954 that Philip had no right to any title despite his wife Elizabeth II becoming Queen – but he was later given the title of Prince.

The current difference in title rights dates back to the custom of male primogeniture, which has meant that male heirs have traditionally leapfrogged their older sisters in the line of succession. But a new law to ensure the first child of the Duke and pregnant Duchess of Cambridge will succeed to the throne regardless of gender is being fast-tracked through Parliament.

Ending gender discrimination in the line of succession will involve changing some of the oldest laws on the Statute Book, including the Treason Act 1351, which was originally written in Norman French. A Clarence House spokesman told MailOnline of Mr Hemming’s possible amendment to the repeal, which the Commons will be asked to consider next month: ‘It’s a matter for the Government.’

[From The Mail]

So Kate would never be Queen – or she would never be called “Queen Catherine”. She would be Princess Catherine, or Princess Consort Catherine or something. She would probably be given some fancy new title but it would always be something involving “Princess” and not “Queen”. Hm.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

208 Responses to “Duchess Kate eats lavender biscuits for nausea & she’ll never be “Queen””

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Dani says:

    William looks like he actually has hair in the last picture. Yay!

  2. Jackson says:

    IDK. She’s new. And if TPTB really wanted her to do more engagements then she would. What really gets me about this story is that any politician cares enough to get involved in the minutia of royal titles. Maybe it’s because I’m American but I will never understand why anyone cares so much about titles and royal protocol and such. Queen, Queen Consort, Princess, Duchess…..whatever. She’s never going to be ‘in charge’ of the royal family so beyond that I can’t see why anyone would care so much.

    More importantly, I love that grey/olive coat she’s wearing. Love it.

    • LAK says:

      It depends on the consort.

      The Queen Mother had alot of power and sway over her husband. Many of the current Queen’s decisions are a direct influence of the Queen mother.

      The titles as a concept may be meaningless these days but in terms of privilege, they still matter.

      A Queen will always be more privileged than a princess who will be more than a duchess etc, etc and so forth. ditto the male equivalent.

      Charles will be devastated by this because he has been on a stealthy plan to create Camilla Queen consort which legally she will be but the public isn’t happy about it. The idea that at best she would be Princess Consort was floated to appease the more rabid Camilla haters and those who can’t forgive Charles. It would seem that Labour will checkmate him with this move if they succeed in making it law. For the moment, it’s only a suggestion.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK, don’t you think it makes sense to do it this way given the changes in primogeniture? If calling a Queen Regnant’s husband King gives him power over her, then it should be changed, shouldn’t it?

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare – i agree. I have to wonder though why this wasn’t part of the law change discussed? They managed to squeeze in a reprieve for the catholics, surely they should have reviewed entire system to pick up things like this because all the other realms will have to agree to this too.

      • T.C. says:

        The term ‘Queen Mother’ refers to a dowager Queen whose children are now on the throne, like Queen Elizabeth II’s mother was called after the death of her husband when her daughter began to rule. It doesn’t refer to the spouse of a currently ruling monarch that would be the ‘Queen Consort’ . The Queen mother is a “retirement” term.

      • LAK says:

        @T.C – I know. In the UK/commonwealth, we refer to her simply as the Queen mother when talking about her, whatever the context. It’s shorthand, her public moniker just as Waity is for Kate. i assumed everyone understood that.

        I occasionally forget that UK/Commonwealth phrases and monikers for popular figures aren’t known worldwide.

        I apologise to all the non-British/commonwealth people if my post was misleading in that respect.

        For clarity: The former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon had alot of influence on her husband, the future George VI as well as her daughter, our current Queen. Many of the Queen’s decisions can be traced to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon’s attitude and way of running the monarchy.

      • Flower says:

        ‘Queen Mother’ is a very specific term, it is applied only to a woman who is/was both the mother of a reigning monarch and was also a Queen herself. If this suggestion comes into law (which I very much doubt) then Queen Elizabeth’s mother will be the last Queen Mother in British History.

        This really has nothing to do with Kate and everything to do with Camilla, Charles despite his words to the contrary has every intention of making Camilla his Queen, as it stands she will automatically become Queen by law, even if she never uses the title in public, this law would deny him that.

        Quite a few politicians, especially the Labour(left) variety are p**sed about Charles having private meetings with MP’s and government ministers in order to push his own agendas, this proposal is a neat slap in the face for Charles, hitting him where it hurts.

    • M says:

      Shes been married for 19 months, they arent newlyweds anymore so no, she is not “new”. And when they got married, the palace was very clear when they said that Kate dictates her own schedule so she is doing exactly what she wants to be doing. Also, about 11 of the 111 engagements are actually arriving at the airport (those were posted on the CC because we all know those two need as much help as they could get) so she did more like 100 engagements in roughly 65 days and no engagement lasted more than one and a half hours.
      Its funny, we recently found of that William has been doing the minimum flying hours for the RAF (15 a month) because he has been working it around his royal schedule when for the past two years, we have been told that he has been working his royal duties in around his RAF ones. Basically, he was sitting around on his ass at home when he could have been working. My money bets that he will choose four more years int he RAF. That guy just hates to work.

      • LAK says:

        The thing i find puzzling with all the supportive commentry for WK as it pertains to their newlywed status, is that they have been in this relationship for 8yrs before they married. Lived together for minimum 5yrs of those 8 yrs. There is nothing new here except the Palaces. Since they avoid the Palace system as much as they can, it stands to reason that they are no adjustments to be made on that front too.

        @M – if you remove approx. 20 Olympic events bar opening/closing ceremonies, that reduces total further because those events are marked as private events for all other royals so presumption is that rule applies to them too.

        If it does not, then it confirms that their non attendance of the entire run of paraolympic games was shirking their duties.

  3. RocketMerry says:

    Aw, poor Kate. All that waity-work and only a Princess title? Pity.

    • The Original Mia says:

      You know Carol is furious. All the machinations to place Kate in William’s path, all for naught. No Queen Catherine. That’s if their marriage survives because that’s not a given, to be honest.

      • bluhare says:

        A rose by a different name is still a rose, or something like that.

      • guilty pleasures says:

        I was going to say exactly that, ‘a rose by any other name is still a rose.’
        Why is is so hard for people to let this woman be, let her be in love with her husband, wish their relationship well, and either agree with Monarchy or not, but don’t ascribe all of it’s ills/attributes to her.
        i don’t believe she is losing any sleep over what her title may or may not be going forward. She is more likely delighted over the fact that things will be more fair for her children. That’s my two cents. I am just so tired of people’s sour grapes and thinking they can know ANYTHING about the inner machinations of other people’s lives.

      • Angelic 20 says:

        She is a public figure and she will be criticised for not working, I don’t know what part of this concept people don’t understand. Other members of monarchy have done 3 times the amount if work she has,a91 years old man with 2 hospital stay has done triple the amount of work done by a30 years old healthy woman. If she doesn’t want to work or criticised then she should move out of the palace paid by us and stop taking money from duchy and live on William’s salary and inheritance. She is a public figure not a housewife living on the fruits of her husband’s labour, it’s not a hard concept to understand.

      • Addison says:

        Spare me. Kate did the work she was told to do. IF the Queen wanted her to make daily appearances she would. A woman or man who marries into the Royal Family as the spouse to the heir of the crown will NEVER be allowed to outshine the Royals ever again. Díana was so popular, the rest of the royals and even Charles were jealous of her popularity. Only the Queen was more popular. AGAIN, Kate will not be allowed too much exposure. Maybe when her husband is King things will change. William chose Kate. No amount of conspiracy on anyone’s part would have placed Love in his heart.

  4. Reece says:

    She eats too many lavender biscuits that kid’s going to come out purple! lol
    Get it? Reference? Anybody? Anybody?

  5. Rachel says:

    If I were Kate, I don’t think I’d really care… as long as I still got to wear a really great crown.

    It does seem fair though that the titles be equal. I mean, when a woman has reigned, her husband is never the “King” (for example Queen Victoria and Prince Consort Albert – my favorite royal couple forever & always), so why should it be any different when a man is reigning?

    • Annie says:

      King will always be higher than Queen. It’s really not a problem if she were to be Queen. She’d be a Queen Mother, not a reigning Queen. King is always higher than Queen no matter what.

      So, if Phillip were allowed to be King, he would immediately out rank the Queen because King is highest and now HIS family could be in line for the throne too. Not the Windsors. So he’s the Prince, ensuring he’s lower than the Queen forever.

      • Annie says:

        And also, you can only be King if you inherit the Throne by birth. You can’t be King through marriage. It’s not like he would be the King Father. He would be reigning King, which can’t happen because he was never in line of sucession.

        Women who become queens through marriage are Queen Mothers because they give birth to the next heir, something clearly men can’t do. This is when men who marry a royal really lose. They will never be more than the person they marry because they would outrank them just because they’re men. And that can’t happen.

      • Rll says:

        You know, the “Queen Mother” nickname is only used when you have been married to the King of England, he dies, and your son or daughter takes over as reigning monarch. The Queen Mother was called the Queen while her husband was alive

      • inthekitchen says:

        Wasn’t the Queen Mother label only something that QEII’s mum was called? I don’t think that every mother of the heir or ruling monarch is called the ‘Queen Mother’ (but I could be wrong). I thought that was just an endearing name the press called QEII’s mother….

      • LAK says:

        The Queen mother was officially ‘Queen Consort’ during the reign of her husband and then became ‘Dowager Queen’ after his death death.

        In general terms, a ‘Queen mother’ needs to fullfil those two criteria irrespective of the gender of their monarch destined offspring.

        i think in later years it simply became shorthand for her rather than full title of ‘Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother’

      • Lee says:

        I get that that explains why the titles have worked the way they have in the past, but isn’t that exactly why they want to change it? The way it is now basically says that the male title is superior to the female equivalent, but the new law would put them on par, no?

      • Whatever says:

        Not a Queen Regnant.

        What’s this “higher” supposed to mean?

      • TG says:

        @Annie – I agree and I thought that was why The Queen’s husband is called Prince Philip since he can’t be king consort even since as you said King is higher than Queen, but for Charles and William I don’t see a problem calling their spouses the Queen Consort. And to those saying the marriage of William and Kate lasting isn’t a given, I think it is. I don’t see Kate EVER leaving Wills she is in this for the long haul. That woman has a lot of determination she didn’t sacrifice all those years for nothing. All the Angelina’s in the world can come and try but it won’t happen. And why does Wills need a grace period? He has been aware of his duties all his life. I can understand Kate though since she is “new” at this.

      • LAK says:

        @Whatever – ‘higher’ is born of the patriachial system we still live under ie men will always have a higher status than women even if the woman is born to rule.

        So a King title is of higher status than a Queen title.

      • Jess says:

        @inthekitchen: You are absolutely correct.

        “Queen Mother” was a title conferred on her because her name was Elizabeth, as her daughter, the new Queen. Popularly she was styled as “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother”, but the traditional title of a widowed Queen Consort is that of “Dowager Queen”.

      • Sunmoonstars says:

        No. A queen is the female equivalent of a king. One is not higher than the other. Generally, the queen/king consort/regnant has been sufficient since at least Tudor times so I have no idea why they are doing this pointless nonsense now. Queen Mary Tudor was queen of England in her own right and her husband Philip of Spain, who was considered by many to be more royal than her not because he was a man but because his legitimacy was never questioned by his parents, unlike poor Mary’s. Despite all that she didn’t give him the title of King and he ate off silver plate while she ate off gold.

        There have been co-monarchs, William and Mary, but Mary chose to make him a co-regnant. There was some opposition as he was Dutch but most people were happy to have them instead of the Catholic James, Mary’s father. But that was her choice, not law. England has always been pretty progressive, they’ve never had Salic law and it’s the first born who rules. I’m no expert on most monarchies but Russia never had it either until Tsar Paul, son of Catherine the Great (a useless overrated tramp IMHO lol) and he instituted it due to his hatred of her, not because he thought women were inherently inferior. And too bad because it led to the fall of the Romanov dynasty when Tsarina Alexandra couldn’t have a non hemophiliac son. But I am Romanov stan to the extreme so don’t mind me!

        Lol nerd alert I know….

      • BestJes says:

        Small correction sunmoonstars;

        “England has always been pretty progressive, they’ve never had Salic law and it’s the first born who rules”

        As it presently stands it is NOT the first born who inherits the throne but the first born SON. If the current Queen had a younger brother, he would have been first in line for the throne over his two elder sisters.

        That is part of what this bill seeks to change. Of course it’s somewhat odd to seek to modernize such a thoroughly anachronistic institution anyway.

      • Jess says:

        @sunmoonstars, after finishing my degree, I studied Tudor History with another university. Just for fun. So no judgement here! lol

  6. the original bellaluna says:

    Ginger biscuits…should be GINGER biscuits.

    Lavender goes in the bathtub, not your mouth.

  7. T.C. says:

    I think Kate would love to stay a “Princess” for life. That’s why she married Wills to become a princess. Queen sounds old and too serious compared to “Princess”. I think Kate will be delighted with the new rules. A Princess can be as lazy as she wants, a Queen has to work.

    How bad does it look for an 80 year old woman (the Queen) to be doing 400% more work than 30 year old Kate? Sad.

  8. Annie says:

    I really love history and old royalty, especially British, but I’m so over modern monarchy today, especially the overrated Windsors. It’s just silly how William gets to work only occassionally. If he’s suppossed to be king, he should not be lounging around all year only making public appearances and having the Palace pushing stories about how he saves people to distract everyone from the fact that he nearly lost his pilot license for not working and pulling enough hours. His ancestors would cringe if they knew what royalty consisted of these days: being a celebrity with no responsibilities. Some of these ancestors would get down and dirty right next to the soldiers. They had a sense of duty and purpose to the people. Not of privilege and entitlement just for being born.

    As useless as the monarchy is these days, if I were descendant of some of the greatest monarchs to ever rule I would try to live up to their legacy and have the decency to make myself useful. You’re descendent of some of the most fascinating historic figures ever, and you will inherit a title that they carried with so much responsibility. The least you could do is work hard at something and do more charity work.

    I could go on and on. I really don’t like that there’s still a “monarchy” today.

  9. LAK says:

    Those engagement numbers are estimates and not confirmed by BP.

    The Court Circular is really confusing at the moment because it hasn’t been tidied up so it includes entries for royals arriving/departing airports etc.

    The final tally will be confirmed later this month as alot of what is in there may not be counted as official engagements eg i thought Kate had put in 40-50 engagements last year, but the CC whittled the number down to 34.

    • badrockandroll says:

      Do you have any idea how many appearances Charles made when he was William’s age? It seems to me that he was a bit of a layabout in his early years, and when he did commit to some causes (green stuff, architecture) people mocked his choices – can’t really win, imo.

      The real surprise for me though is that Prince Andrew made 436 appearances in 2012. I can’t believe that BP lets him out, and I can’t believe that anyone wants him!

      • RobN says:

        Andrew works his tail off because he’s trying to stay on the royal dole. Charles has already stated that when he’s king, that he’ll cut back the number of royals who are supported by taxpayers, and Andrew is running hard to make sure he and his daughters make the short list.

      • LAK says:

        I’ll do some digging to findout exact numbers but Charles was never a layabout.

        At William’s age he had already founded his own personal charity as well as the various engagements he had to carry out. No one would have coddled him, just as no one coddled Diana.

        His special interests started alot earlier than the 80s. If you look at his personal interests and long term hobbies, it is no surprise that he speaks on these issues. In many ways he has tailored his work to those interests.

        @Robn – it’s going to be interesting to see if and which patronages/engagements/tours are cut when the slim down happens because 6 people [including Harry's wife] can’t hope to carry out the engagements they are doing based on current numbers. Especially when 2 of the 6 have proven so work shy.

      • SISI says:

        There’s really no comparison between William & Kate current situation and Charles & Diana (or Camilla) and other senior royals. Charles (automatically) became the Heir Apparent at the age of 3 when QEII became Queen, and as such he also (automatically) became the Duke of Cornwall (plus many other titles). He was created The Prince of Wales at age 10 (crowned as such 11 years later). At the age William is now, Charles was a confirmed bachelor with many mistresses (not just Camilla), who’s been heir apparent, PoW and full-time (senior) working royal for many years. He’s also been running the Duchy of Cornwall and many charities for many years too. Whereas William & Kate (and Harry) have only been made senior royals last year and are still only part-time working Royals. – Kate in particular, has been a royal only for 20 months. Last year was her first full (calendar) year, the 34 royal engagements she did in 2011 are really only for 6 months period (allowing for the honeymoon & time to settle in). So, she’s trebled the number of royal engagements to 111 last year, all high-profile events, many solos, incl. some done by herself with the Queen & Pr. Philip, and with the PM.
        When Diana married Charles, she (automatically) became The Princess of Wales – her position, rank, nature & level of duties can only be compared with Camilla’s and crown Princesses Mary of Denmark and Charlene of Monaco. Kate is in an entirely different situation – not a fair comparison.
        BTW, How may royal engagements (incl. solo appearances and speeches) did Camilla, the current Princess of Wales – future queen – did in 2011 and 2012?? How does it compare with Diana & Princess Anne??
        Does any one know?…

      • LAK says:

        @SISI – you are assuming Kate’s engagements from those six months where in/around the UK.

        27 of those 34 engagements were for their canadian tour. which means that outside of the tour, she carried out one engagement per month in the 8months to Christmas after her wedding.

        The 111 for 2012 isn’t confirmed but an estimate by media. I take that to include ALL the royals’ figures not just Kate.

        If you look at the CC, they are including airport arrivals/departures, engagements that were cancelled but are still showing so we have to wait and see the revised figures once all that has been removed.

        I am not saying this to be unkind to Kate. Last year i had her down for 40-50 events but apparently 15 of them were not counted as work engagements in the final revised tally.

        For the record, Kate’s 2012 should be closer to 80-90 broken down as follows:

        Official engagements 2012 – 39
        Overseas Engagements/tours 2012 – 12
        *Non Official engagements 2012 – 7
        Jubilee Engagements – 6
        Olympic events – 15
        Paralympic events – 6

        *Non-official engagements: these fall under this criteria

        a)when the engagement though public is deemed a private event eg The Lion, The Witch and The wardrobe or Dinner with media types,

        b)it’s tweeted but no evidence it happened eg scouts,

        c) she’s merely tagging along to William’s Patronages eg Welsh Rugby Match.

        Also, the CC clearly states that Olympic and Paraolympic events don’t count beyond opening/closing ceremonies. ditto private events. That reduces her number to 60-70events. If the non Official engagements are also crossed off, she drops to the 50-60 range.

        The same applies to ALL the royals.

        Since you ask, Camilla, Anne and Charles made 250, 568 and 601 respectively in 2011. Before you jump on board Camilla’s total, we do know she’s lazy. It’s commented on and accepted. WK are supposed to be the new face and saviours of the Monarchy [not my words]so their numbers are baffling given they aren’t otherwise occupied.

      • SISI says:

        @ LAK
        I’m not making any assumptions of any sort – You are!! I’m well aware these are Not the official figures so I’ve taken them at face value without discriminating further into “home or abroad” (!?). Certainly, I would not attempt to arbitrarily weigh-up any of her visits (based on whose/which criteria??) which would very likely skew/distort the whole picture ….Why do that? Why the xtra-manipulation? And why only for Kate’s visits? IMO, none of it is necessary, relevant or valid.
        Whatever her engagements, Kate’s full working schedule is devised & vetted by Palace officials, agreed with William, Pr. Philip & Charles before sanctioned by the Queen herself – she is Kate’s boss and final arbiter. Kate certainly has a major input, but does not dictate the agenda (royal protocol prevents her from becoming a full-time royal before William. She is not allowed to outshine the Queen, Pr. Philip, Charles Camilla and William). Being William’s wife – the heir to the heir – is Not the same as being the Princess of Wales – the next queen.
        Diana was expected to assume the role and work as a full-time royal straight away, which proved disastrous. I would expect the RF to treat Kate differently (better).
        I think in many ways Kate is far less free to do what she wants than Diana was. Difference is she is a good team player (Diana never was), intelligent, well-educated and highly capable (a high achiever) …and perhaps more importantly, she follows the advice & gets on well with palace aids. William trusts her implicitly. Unlike Charles, he is a very protective & supportive husband who is making sure she is treated well by his family.
        Camilla’s total for last year is same as Diana’s in her first year, and only ½ of Princess Anne. We all know she is the lazy one, but it is Not acceptable or accepted by everyone, as you suggest. She’s been married to Charles for over 5 years now and IS the current Princess of Wales and Next Queen.
        Whether you like it or not, WK ARE the best & only hope the RF has for the Monarchy’s future, especially after the birth of their first child. They are the new face and will have to be the saviours of the Monarchy after C&C have helped themselves. So, their numbers are not baffling given the palace announced from the very beginning that this is their period of grace (the calm before the storm)

  10. booboocita says:

    The news about the title change may be premature; after all, the legislation is still in the proposal stage. I doubt Kate cares one way or another, but I’m thinking Charles is furious. He’s always wanted Camilla to be the first commoner Queen, and “first commoner Princess Regnant” just doesn’t have the same ring.

    • badrockandroll says:

      Not too sure about this – it seems to me that Charles had quite the sit-down with his mummy prior to his marriage to Camilla, and I think that the future title of Queen for her was taken off the table pretty quickly, due to their divorces – she’s not Princess of Wales currently, is she?

      • inthekitchen says:

        Camilla actually IS princess of Wales, she just chooses not to be styled with that title out of the knowledge that a lot of people would have flipped their sh*t at her having the same title as Diana. But, technically she does have all the same titles as Diana did because she is married to Charles and therefore gets all of his titles (in the feminine form).

      • LAK says:

        to add to what @inthekitchen said, the public mood is also the reason why Queen Consort appears to be off the table for Camilla. Right now, legally and constitutionally, she will be Queen Consort.

        Princess Consort was floated to make the marriage and Camilla palatable to the public, but everyone knows that’s hogwash. unless this MP succeeds.

    • epiphany says:

      This is not a new rule, it’s simply a proposal to Parliament. Camilla will not be given the title ‘Queen Consort’ simply because she is divorced, not because of any new rule.
      There is no “princess regnant” in existence except in the case of a female ruler in Monaco (which there won’t be in our lifetime.) ‘Regnant’ means ruler, ala Queen Elizabeth, her father, etc… ‘Consort’ means person married to the ruler, ala Prince Phillip. A consort has no constitutional role or power, other than to make babies with the ‘regnant.’

      • Lucija says:

        Am I the only one who really really likes Camilla?

      • Mich says:

        Camilla has grown me over the years. She was, however, absolutely horrible to Diana and that will forever taint her.

      • Lucija says:

        Really? What did she do? I’m not English and way too young to know that kind of stuff.

      • Jaxx says:

        @Lucija–What did Camilla do to Diana?

        Well, let me see, she screwed Diana’s brand new husband before the honeymoon was even over, while letting Diana know that she and Charles had picked her together to be the broodmare for the heir and the spare they needed from her. Ending, of course, Diana’s dream that she had married her fairy-tale prince, and any idea that Charles really loved her for herself. And that’s just the beginning of Camilla’s insults. Isn’t that enough?

      • LAK says:

        @Lucija – please ignore what @jaxx has written because it’s highly prejudicial and malicious and re-writes history, though there is a kennel of truth.

        In a nutshell, Camilla and Charles were young sweethearts who never quite let go of each other, went on to marry other people before resuming their relationship about 5yrs into Charles and Diana’s marriage. Both Charles AND Diana conceded that their relationship was completely broken down by then, so both went on to have affairs. Charles had several mistresses but Camilla was mistress no 1 and the one Diana fixated on. People like @Jaxx conveniently forget other mistresses like Lady Tyron AKA Kanga.

        As for picking Diana as a sacrificial lamb, let’s not forget that she was as much in Love with PRINCE Charles rather than Charles Windsor. Their loving relationship was so shortlived that not many people can remember it.

        There is evidence of it though, and during those years, Camilla and any other women were banished to the attic. Diana herself glossed over this brief 4yrs in order to paint Camilla as a wicked witch.

        If anyone should be accused of picking Diana, it should be the QM and Diana’s own grandmother Lady Fermoy.

        If you have the time, I’d recommend you read the biography written by Sarah Bradford. It presents the facts in a balanced way. All other biographies, including Diana’s own autobiography ghostwritten by Andrew Morton are high prejudicial to whatever agenda or ‘side’ they are pushing.

    • Kate says:

      There have already been “commoner” Queens of England eg Anne Hyde (wife of James II) and Elizabeth Woodville.

      Also technically Camilla is not a commoner as she is the granddaughter of a Baron.

  11. Janey says:

    The Queen is the senior royal, in her jubilee year. She should be doing more appearances. You also have to factor in the fact that if Kate was everywhere, doing loads of appearances, people would most likely accuse her of trying to steal the Queen’s thunder. I’m no royalist and wish we could just get rid of the lot of them – but I don’t really understand the Kate hate. If the Palace thought Kate should be doing more appearances then she would be. I’d also question the 10 appearances a day thing – how are you doing more then turning up, smiling and buggering off again if you’re doing that many appearances? – Kate seems to be the one they send when there is a requirement to actually spend time, communicating with people.

    • Angelic 20 says:

      Are you kidding me? Most of Kate’s engagements included spring events at olympics, movie premiers, gals, diners, parties not spending time with real people. She only visited her 4 charities once this year and each visit was 45 minutes long and William hasn’t visited any charity since Christmas 2011. Most royals are working all year long and do not attend movies premiers and olympics they are spending time and meeting normal people not William and Kate. You want to like her please do so but don’t go on downgrading other members work and telling lies about these two. Check what others have been doing and then make such incorrect comments. W&K act and treated as celebrities not public servant.

      • Janey says:

        What lies? I dislike the Royal family – I think their continued relevance is a disgrace. I also missed the memo where we’re canonising the Queen now – apparantly because she stood on a barge. All that doesn’t mean I’m comfortable with piling onto Kate – if people wish to take issue with the behavour of the royals I will gladly join in. I won’t attack Kate endlessly on the basis of inference and assumption.

    • Angelic 20 says:

      Are you kidding me? Most of Kate’s engagements included sporting events at olympics, movie premiers, gals, diners, parties not spending time with real people. She only visited her 4 charities once this year and each visit was 45 minutes long and William hasn’t visited any charity since Christmas 2011. Most royals are working all year long and do not attend movies premiers and olympics they are spending time and meeting normal people not William and Kate. You want to like her please do so but don’t go on downgrading other members work and telling lies about these two. Check what others have been doing and then make such incorrect comments. W&K act and treated as celebrities not public servant.

    • LAK says:

      Kate and William spend exactly 45mins at their engagements. An hour if they are being generous. It caused problems in Cambridge because they were expected to spend longer at each stop but they nipped in and out and were done very quickly. The only exception is galas and premieres. Then they spend more time at said engagement.

      The others average 2hrs at their engagements.

      Many of the royals tend to do 3 engagements per day they work.

    • Belle says:

      I think it is Harry that is sent out when they want someone who seems genuine, spends a reasonable amount of time with people and can communicate well with them.

      Kate hardly comes to mind for this type of engagement.

      • taxi says:

        Harry wouldn’t go over so well with people who were offended by his costume of choice at a party a few years ago. Some earlier Windsors had personal political preferences which are now controversial and generally unpopular but which have certainly not been obliterated among the entire citizenry.

        Charming scallawags can certainly evoke tolerant affection but does that develop into respect?

      • GoodCapon says:

        A woman who was a doormat booty call for 10 years isn’t worthy of respect either.

        At least Harry seems to be more fun to be around. He also has the common touch, something that he inherited from his mother, and something that Kate will never have.

      • My2Pence says:

        @Taxi. You are apparently unaware that William went to the shop with him, helped him pick out the costume, drove him to the party, and attended the party with him. Seemingly never voicing concerns over the outfit.

        Where I come from older siblings look out for younger ones and try to steer them in the correct direction. Wills doesn’t appear to feel that way. Henry stepped up, admitted his offensive mistake, and apologized. He visited Auschwitz and publicly accepted responsibility for his actions. William never admitted to anything, nor was he publicly reprimanded in any way.

        The Family Firm put all their eggs in one basket, unfortunately their Chosen One doesn’t want the job nor are he and his wife up to the task.

    • GoodCapon says:

      It’s the basic law of supply and demand.

      Had Kate been pushed to do work since Day 1, the novelty of seeing the new royal would fade out pretty quickly that even the media would lose interest and would stop publishing a thousand stories about her per engagement.

      But as it stands, we only see her a couple of times every few months. One could hardly blame the media for going into a frenzy everytime she dares to show herself. They overcompensate for the lack of Kate events by oversaturating the public with stories-both fabricated and exaggerated- because the demands are not being met.

      Right now she has a lot of excuses for not working:
      - she is ‘new’ to the job
      - she is a ‘military wife’ and would support William
      - she’s a royal with only part time status
      - she’s preggers

      By the time she’s ready to become a full-time royal she’ll be old and wrinkled.

  12. Baskingshark says:

    I don’t know if that company her parents own sells any horse-shaped party decorations, but if they do then that John Hemming guy is going to wake up with the head of a donkey pinata in his bed. Kate & family didn’t spend ten years working on Prince W just to wind up with some lame “Princess Consort” title at the end of it.

  13. DAFFY says:

    I could be naive, but I get the feeling she not in it for the title

    • Mich says:

      Sorry. A lovely thought but I think you are being naive.

      Kate made like a doormat and put up with his crap for 10 years because of his title.

      I’ve heard from people who went to uni with Pippa that she is a total snob. If you didn’t have a title or were not connected to someone with a title she had no time for you.

      • CC says:

        This. While I don’t have the benefit of knowing people that went to school with any of them, the Middletons are nothing but social climbers.

        And I’m guessing their whole attitude framatically changed the second Kate got an “in” in William’s sphere.

    • cumber says:

      yes, agree with you daffy.
      she’s in it because she loves and admires william, no matter how bad she treated her.
      you know some people can be really silly when they’re in love? kate’s one of them.
      I dont know about her family motivation. but I believe, they support kate and william simply because her parents are kind of parents who always spoil their children and grant anything that their children want, no matter how stupid it is.

      • Mich says:

        @ cumber

        I have no idea how truly in love they are but I do know that power and extreme wealth do funny things to people, particularly women.

        Add in the UK class system – which William sits at the top of – and a lot of women could convince themselves they loved him even if he treated them like complete and total garbage for years on end.

        As to her family’s motivation, would you tell your daughter to put up with the heartbreak and humiliation of being publicly cheated on – for years – while some guy was playing the field hoping to find someone ‘better’? Would you say ‘hang in there’ when that guy and his friends made mean and derisive jokes about your family? I certainly wouldn’t.

        You clearly have a very romantic heart and that’s lovely. I totally believe that many royal couples fit into how you see Will & Kate but I don’t think Will & Kate do.

      • LAK says:

        Cumber – there is treating a person badly, then there is making one a laughing stock to the entire world.

        Personally, even if i was silly in love, i would hope that my family would step in me immediately rather than encouraging his behaviour so i was the one who had to apologise and take him back despite his many humiliations.

        Edit: Having read @Mich’s post to you, i would recommend that you follow CP Victoria and Daniel of Sweden. Similar dating time frame as WK, same age bracket, Daniel is a commoner. They adore each other. Their love story seems to be what we see in front of the cameras. past and present.

      • TrustMeOnThis says:

        Nice sexist assumption, Mich. You don’t think men are just as bad? You’re not paying attention.

      • Mich says:

        Since when do men prefer powerful women?

      • Nymeria says:

        @ Mich – Since when have there been loads of powerful women amongst whom to choose?

        I agree with most of what you say, but I draw the line here: Money and power do strange things to people of both sexes, period.

      • Baskingshark says:

        @mich Totally agree with the sentiments – the Middleton women probably have a special room where they string giant hams from the ceiling so they can practice digging in their claws and hanging on – but it does cut both ways gender-wise. Exhibit A: One Beau “Casper” Smart; actor (hahaha), model, dancer and subservient plaything of Jennifer Lopez. Waity K gets a title, plenty of free money and to lord it over those she considers beneath her, Casper gets a Dodge Ram and the opportunity to choreograph shitty music videos for bad songs about high-end shoe brands. But it pretty much boils down to the same thing in the end.

    • Miss You Enclave24 says:

      I agree. I dont think she’s in it to one day be Queen, I think she’s in it simply because she’s married to William-and thats probably enough. Queen would just be the cherry on the cake.

  14. Apsutter says:

    Prince Phillip did more appearances than last year and his health hasn’t even been great! The funny thing is that if Harry hadn’t been deployed he would have blown Kate outta the water. This just shows how damn lazy Will is because we all know that he’s barely been flying. It feels like he hasn’t been with the RAF since before the Olympics.

  15. inthekitchen says:

    The total numbers are completely bogus anyway – if, for example, Waity “inspects” a line of soldiers…that equals one engagement/appearance, then, if she has lunch with those SAME soldiers, that equals a SEPARATE engagement/appearance. So voila, two engagements in about one hour.

    I also think a lot of those “appearances” at the Olympics counted separately. So, it’s all absurd. They went and had front row seats at various events and they probably all counted as separate engagements. Also, the Asia trip – each separate activity counts, so again, multiple “engagements” in a day even if they are all with the same people or on the same subject.

    As for the proposal to make wives of the king a princess or princess consort…good. It will take care of the looming Camilla issue (upChuck vowing publicly to make her princess consort, while privately saying he wants her to be queen), plus it will make all spouses of the monarch equal, whether they be male or female.

  16. Loulou says:

    People of no royal blood should only ever attain the title of prince/ss then establish a royal legacy of their own through endurance IMO. Anyone who’s ever promoted to something that’s well beyond their circumstances needs to prove they have the mettle for it. There’s nothing worse than posers who are only good for one term at something. That’s my archaic view of things.

  17. Mita says:

    ……….No one cares about her pregnancy, she might as well hide under rock. Kim Kardashians pregnancy news have taken over, until the day she givez birth, Kate is pretty much out of the picture #truth

  18. j.eyre says:

    I would be interested to see Diana’s number from 1981 to see how her first year numbers look – just for comparison.

    I am not British so my opinion about the Princess Consort matters less, but I am a woman and I do believe in equal rights – if a man is only a prince consort than I agree with the logic that a woman would become a princess consort.

    • Angelic 20 says:

      DIANA’s first year engagements were 250 plus and she was pregnant with William. I don’t think comparing Kate and Diana will ever be beneficial to Kate, this is just not comparable.

    • Mich says:

      I read on another site that Diana averaged 200 – 300 engagements per year in the beginning.

      That said, I don’t know if a direct comparison is possible. Diana was 20 years old and gave birth to William 11 months after she got married.

      I was tween when she and Charles got married and I remember her always being in the news for visiting hospitals, etc. It clearly wasn’t just something she ‘had’ to do.

    • LAK says:

      Diana made 170 in her first year, plus she was pregnant. No coddling for her.

      Her job started on her honeymoon cruise which hosted several diplomatic meet and greets.

      • RobN says:

        Nope, no coddling for Diana. And I think we can all see how well that worked out. Maybe not dropping the new girl into the deep end without teaching her to swim was not the best idea, and maybe the family finally learned that.

      • Mich says:

        Diana was 20 years old and went from a ‘nobody’ to the most famous person in the world overnight.

        Kate is a decade older and has been in the public eye for years.

      • Belle says:

        @RobN, yes, Diana could have used more coddling… from her HUSBAND. I don’t think her number of engagements was the problem, especially considering she actually cared about many of the causes she took on. Yes, becoming famous overnight, and having every move critiqued probably did contribute to some of Diana’s self-esteem issues. I tend to think her relationship (or lack thereof) with Charles did the most damage.

      • Zvonk says:

        Diana eclipsed Charles’ popularity very quickly. And this was a huge problem. Charles was often faced with members of the public being disappointed that he was on their side of the road, whilst Diana was shaking hands on the other side. When they started doing separate appearances, many more people would turn up for Diana than would for Charles. Diana’s events would be covered by the press far more often. No doubt those high up don’t want Kate outshining William, the way Diana did Charles.

        And lets not pretend that the Queen, Philip, Charles or Anne actually do any work. Turning up somewhere and shaking a few hands, cutting ribbon or two is not hard work.

      • Mich says:


        Princess Anne doesn’t do any work?

        She is involved with over 200 charities in an official capacity

        She has been president of Save the Children since 1970.

        She is the Royal Patron of WISE, an organisation that encourages young women to pursue careers in science, engineering and construction.

        She a Patron of The Blond McIndoe Research Foundation which has pioneered leading-edge surgical techniques in skin repair and healing wounds, in particular the treatment of burns.

        She is Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh

        She is President of the Royal Society of Arts

        She is a patron of Acid Survivors Trust International

        The list goes on and on. Reducing her contributions to ribbon cutting is unfair.

      • Zvonk says:


        Anne being involved in an “Official capacity” means that those organisations get to use Anne’s name and title to promote themselves.

        Aside from turning up once in a while to meet workers/volunteers, or to see a new venue opening, she doesn’t actually do any actual work for any of those organisations. You won’t find her sifting though bags of clothes, you won’t see her spending the afternoon answering phones, stuffing envelopes. or manning the till in a charity shop. She’s not consulted on how budgets are raised or allocated, she doesn’t proffer opinion on hiring or firing of staff.

        Sorry, but its not unfair to reduce what she does to ribbon cutting. Essentially that is what she does.

    • The Original Mia says:

      You are most definitely barking up the wrong tree. Kate is the total opposite of Diana in every way.

      • taxi says:

        Yes, among many other differences, Kate appears to be far more emotionally stable than Diana. If her marriage ever goes wrong, she’s unlikely to make her very young child her confidant to the woes. Kate has an immediate-family support system which Diana lacked.

      • SISI says:

        Absolutely!! … Kate could not have been any more different to Diana – not just physically but in her background, upbringing, education, interests, also temperament and demeanour … in just about everything!!
        IMO, Kate is much more equipped and better suited to royal life

  19. RobN says:

    Lavender biscuits are awesome. Spent a semester going to college in London and gained 20 pounds on lavender biscuits. When we broke away from Britain, we really should have held onto the whole tea and biscuits thing.

  20. Madriani's Girl says:

    I’m so confused. If she had lived, Diana would have been Queen Diana, no? So why won’t Kate be Queen Catherine?

  21. tabasco says:

    her title should be The Empress of Eyeliner, Waity McNoStyleLazyBalls

  22. Jaxx says:

    People are being ridiculous. Saying how sad it is that an 80 year old woman is doing so much more work than a thirty year old. Get real. The Queen was supposed to show up at those 400 appointments–try sending Wills in her place and see how many fits are thrown!

    Will and Kate may be the cute new show ponies to trot out occasionally but don’t think for one moment that their presence will suffice at big events. The Queen will work her buns off until she can no longer work, no substitutes. Because she is Queen, and that is who counts most.

    • LAK says:

      Charles and Anne have taken over some of the Queen’s duties. They’ve been at it for the past 10 years, possibly longer. It’s been so subtly done that most people don’t realise it.

      The most visible aspect of this handover is overseas tours which The Queen and Philip no longer do undertake.

      Mind you i heard that one is planned for Asia next year which will be their last Hurrah.

      • Dena says:

        Your comment reminds me of a “story” I read in the Onion. The Onion is a newspaper filled with satrical articles and stories.

        Anyway . . . a few years ago, the Onion published a story about God. The story read that God had grown tired and weary, that he had worked so hard that he had even missed his only son’s crucifixion. He was just tired. So, anyway, an un-named source in the article said God had quietly begun to delegate work to others a few decades ago and that most people hadn’t noticed the change. Etc, etc, etc.

        That’s my contribution for today

      • Dena says:

        Here is the link to the story and the passage I referenced. Just googled it,


        He Who Commanded Light to Shine Out of Darkness told reporters that his biggest regret was putting his job above spending more time with his son. In particular, God mentioned that he deeply lamented missing his only child’s once-in-a-lifetime crucifixion.

        “Your son’s down there being martyred in front of all these people, but you can’t be there for it,” said God, his voice cracking slightly. “He thought I’d forsaken him. Of course, I was tied up working on something that seemed important at the time but that I can’t even remember now. And I’ll never get that moment back.”

        Many worry that God’s retirement could create a void at the helm of creation that no omnipotent deity would be available to fill. However, sources close to the Heavenly Father pointed out that he has been gradually delegating key responsibilities to respected subordinates, such as the Holy Ghost, for at least an eon.

      • LAK says:

        @Dena – Brilliant! I should start reading this onion!!!

  23. Anon says:

    In England, the word “biscuit” means “cookie.” Our American “biscuit” would probably be called something like a “scone” in England. So the Duchess of Cornwall was referring to lavender cookies.

  24. Bored suburbanhousewife says:

    1. First let me say how much I loved the fiery and informative discussions in the two previous Kate posts! Was away for holidays but always so entertaining!

    2. In response to the assertion upthread that Charles wants Camilla to be ” the first commoner Queen”–she would not be. There have been others. I believe Edward IV was the first to have a commoner Queen, Elizabeth Woodville. Others followed like Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour. Trouble usually followed because others would resent the elevation of the “upstart” and her usually ambitious and grasping family ( sound familiar?)

    3. LAK –correct me if I am wrong but technically the Queen Mother and Diana were “commoners”–if you are not born royal you are a commoner even if your father is an Earl.

    • LAK says:

      You are correct vis a vis Diana and the QM.

      The royals always married other royals with very few exceptions. Anyone non-royal was deemed a commoner.

      I always find that designation funny because of course in terms of bloodlines of the British monarchs, Diana was more royal than the Windsors, and people like Camilla and Fergie though painted as commoners also have a big dollop of royal blood.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I think “commoner” means anyone without a peerage or title of their own. So Diana would have been a commoner, even though she was a blue-blood.

      • LAK says:

        When the German princelings took over the royal houses, one could only marry other royals. even if they were minor royalty. As long as they were in the ‘royal’club. Those outside the club were ‘common’.

        When the Windsors decided to make themselves over as English as possible, they opened the gates to relaxing that rule and that in turn relaxed the designation as to who was common and who wasn’t in relation to themselves. Prior to 1917, it would have been unthinkable for any member of the royal family to marry outside the club even if they were choosing from the top tier of aristocracy like the QM.

      • SISI says:

        You are correct – only the Monarch and the peerages (members of the nobility) are Not Commoners, the rest are. Although Princess Diana came from an aristocratic & royal background, she was a commoner before marrying Charles – same as Camilla and the Queen Mother (Diana’s father was given a cortesy title). Even Prince Harry and Princess Anne are (still) Commoners. And Prince William was also a commoner before his marriage, before he was made a Duke, etc. – same as Kate.
        However, Kate is the first commoner in over 300 years, who is married to a direct heir, and has no aristocratic or royal background whatsoever – She is entirely middleclass.

      • Kate says:

        The rule on British royals only marrying other royals was relaxed for daughters by Queen Victoria, a good 50 years before they applied it to sons. Her daughter Louise married a Scottish peer, not a prince, as early as 1870. Edward VII (he was just the Prince of Wales then) was hopping mad about it, but then one of his own daughters also married a peer, Lord Fife, in 1889. He had her daughters created Princesses once he was King and in a position to do it, too, which was completely off the wall as their father wasn’t royal. Had to use Letters Patent to make the change.



        The British royal family were also seen as weird in allowing the Battenbergs to marry in – they were a morganatic (not officially sanctioned, kind of Charles and Camilla on steroids) marriage, and lots of the other royal families treated them as commoners. That would be the Battenbergs who became Mountbattens around the time the Hanover/Coburgs became Windsors.

        This family have always made the rules up to suit as they go along. It’s not new.

  25. anne_000 says:

    After William becomes King, Kate might use this excuse of not being allowed to be Queen as a reason not to do as many appearances as QE2 had done. She might say that since she doesn’t have the title, she doesn’t have to uphold any responsibility to act like one. Oh well.

    As for the Queen Mother, I heard that after King George died, she didn’t want to give up the Queen title, so she was given the re-styling of “Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother” while her daughter would be titled Queen Elizabeth.

    And I agree that the Prince/Princess Consort titles should be given to both genders, not just the husband of the Queen. I disagree that Kate & her family don’t care about the title. It was ALL ABOUT THE TITLE & social status for them. That’s why the daughters were sent to that particular university. That’s why Kate stuck it out for all these years. That’s why you don’t see Pippa hanging out with untitled &/or less than wealthy men.

    • bluhare says:

      If I remember my history, I think George VI’s mother (Queen Mary) was still alive when he died, so there were two Dowager Queens at the time. Perhaps this was to differentiate one from the other.

      • Kate says:

        I think it was also because there were two Queen Elizabeths, so Dowager would have to have been actually used to differentiate them, rather than just official (same as nobody bothers to call the current Queen “regnant”, while that is her actual status). It hadn’t been necessary before because they just said Queen Alexandra or Queen Mary. That was off the table as soon as the Queen and her mother shared a given name. And the QM was a bit vain, apparently, and still quite young. Dowager sounds really geriatric.

  26. HannahF says:

    If you consider the appearances that the Royals make to be work then wouldn’t the Kardashian appearances be work as well?

    I do think that it is work but it seems that many don’t. The idea of heels, hose and small talk is not appealing.

  27. Miss You Enclave24 says:

    Look at it this way; what if William dies as King and Kate was previously crowned his Queen….the title of King would then pass to Harry…but what if Harry is married at the time. So at formal events you would have King Harry, the widowed Queen Kate…oh and Harry’s wife. I dont think so.

    • TG says:

      She could become the dowager queen just like all the other titles become dowager when the titled gentleman passes on and his wife is still living.

      • Miss You Enclave24 says:

        I think you’re missing the point. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to ensure that females who marry into the royal family are treated in the same respect with titles, as the males. The Queen’s husband is not the King. Second, it also ensures that the highest title will only belong to those in line to receive- not the ones who got lucky by marriage.

      • Kate (newer one) says:

        Second, it also ensures that the highest title will only belong to those in line to receive- not the ones who got lucky by marriage.

        Not sure why lucky by birth is any more valid, tbh. And it would be just as “equal” to make husbands Kings as wives Queens. The problem is that a monarchy is inherently an unequal, non-meritocratic system. It has advantages, but worrying about equality in regard to the institution is pretty bizarre from the getgo.

    • Miss You Enclave24 says:

      I agree with you Kate (newer) to a certain extent. Equality and the monarchy has never been the norm. I personally feel this new proposal is more about ensuring the integrity of “King” and “Queen” as it relates to passage based on the blood. The lineage of this title denotes rulers and power. Today its just pomp but I do feel its important to respect what it means to be King or Queen-as the head of the monarchy, so know I dont think, Kate, Camilla or anyone Harry might marry should get the title.

    • Boo says:

      The title would pass on to Will and Kate’s child after William’s death, and Kate would become “Queen Mum” just as Elizabeth’s mother did before her when she was Queen and her daughter ascended the throne. I guess if Kate only ever gets to be Princess, she would be Princess Mum, which sounds bloody stupid.

    • inthekitchen says:

      Sorry, that’s wrong. The title of king would NOT go to Harry, it goes to the royal fetus that Waity is currently gestating (unless that baby dies and any subsequent babies die). Once the baby is born, Harry gets thrust aside and the new line of kings/queens goes through the baby.

      p.s. do you know what happened to Enclave24???

  28. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    So what about all the other hereditary peerages? The dukes, earls, barons, etc.? Most of those will still go to sons only, right? Why not fix ALL the discrimination at the same time?

    At any rate, the best thing that could happen to the royal family is for the 200 or so in line to the throne to abdicate, and let Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden take the British throne. She’s be better than dimwitted and spoiled Charles, lazy and self-entitled William, and whatever equally lazy and dimwitted kids William and Kate have.

  29. jess says:

    I’m about as far along as Kate, if not a few weeks further, and everyone keeps telling me to stay away from lavender. I guess studies are coming out showing that it is not good for pregnancy. Anyone else heard this?

    • Holly says:

      Jess, I’m guessing lavender essential oil is what pregnant woman are supposed to stay away from. The oils are stronger and more concentrated. I remember reading when I was pregnant that eating rosemary was ok, but using the essential oil was a no-no.

  30. Kate (newer one) says:

    John Hemming is a joke, though. Google him – he’s like the Kim Kardashian of MPs, total self-publicist. This isn’t going to happen.

    I think it’s unfair on Philip not to be King. He wasn’t even a Prince until the Queen came to the throne because he had to give up his foreign titles to be able to marry her in the first place. The old idea was that a King would always have more authority than a Queen, but then the old idea was that a boy always inherited before a girl. It’s simpler just to do as the Swedes have done and equalise everything. Though frankly it’d be simpler still to get rid of the monarchy altogether, or at least require them to pay their own transport and security costs.

    • Poppy2 says:

      Isn’t Philip basically of German stock? I know he was a royal of Greece originally but he doesn’t have an ounce of Greek blood! The Queen deserves her title, not Philip. Elizabeth really cares and takes her career seriously.

      • LAK says:

        But the same could be said of entire royal family before they decided to become Windsors and make themselves over as English during WWI.

        The Queen is half Scottish,half German. That makes Charles more German than his Mother!!!!

        Charles and Philip do take their roles seriously.

      • Kate says:

        His mother was 3/4 German and 1/4 British (well – that’s if you accept Victoria and Albert were British, which in itself highly questionable). His father was Greek/Danish, so also of German descent. And two of Philip’s sisters were married to SS officers. Which explains their non-attendance of the wedding. In fairness, though, his mother actively protected Jews when living under Nazi occupation and is recognised as “Righteous Among the Nations” at Yad Vashem. And Philip himself fought against the Nazis in the Navy. Yet those facts get lost in the shuffle when people chortle over Philip’s German heritage.

        I don’t know. I think it’s a little hypocritical when republicans argue the race card against the royal family, when they’d be appalled and disgusted if people’s ethnic heritage were used against them in any other context. But it does undermine the whole “blood royalty” aspect when you think how subverted and stage-managed it’s all been. I mean, Prince Philip is called Mountbatten, which is an Anglicised version of his mother’s surname… which used to be a shameful name amongst European royalty because they were a morganatic (mixed, non-approved, only half-royal and semi-legal, without succession rights) family. So people who think commoners shouldn’t have any right to the throne should possibly be giving Charles the side-eye too. And indeed the Queen, given her mother wasn’t royal. Not to mention the fact that Philip gave up all royal titles whatsoever to marry the Queen, becoming plain old Mr Mountbatten. George VI created him Duke of Edinburgh, but he wasn’t created Prince until 5 years into the Queen’s reign. So legally she married a complete commoner, more so than any heir until William and Kate.

        The thing is, people treat this stuff like there is some definitive rulebook they all follow religiously. Whereas the reality is, they make it up as they go along and as it suits them. The one and only bit they’ve stuck to, for the past 400 years at least, is the line of succession. And gender equality there is only minor tinkering, because as the Queen demonstrates, it’s always been the case that a monarch’s child succeeds over a sibling, regardless of the child’s gender.

  31. WendyNerd says:

    My mother LOVES Kate and will defend her and Wills to the death constantly. She gets really defensive every time I criticize either of them and then is like “FINE! I guess she’s horrible, Wendy! We should throw her to the wolves!” She’s convinced that I hate them or something.

    I don’t hate either of them. I just don’t find them as DAZZLING! as so many others. I just feel like they are given way too much credit, especially her, for essentially looking pretty, that they could be doing more and that they’re either getting really bad advice or just being foolish in general. Maybe they’re not being lazy intentionally, but they’re not making good decisions.

    I don’t think I’m being hateful saying so.

    I feel like the people who give them So many breaks and are defending them so vehemently are doing so out of something I call “Diana Runoff”. They want another Diana. They want William to be like his mother and the woman he married to be the second coming of Diana. They want to think all this tradition and classism and tax payer money is at least going towards really wonderful people who are beyond reproach ( not tht Diana was perfect, but people like to think she was some kind of saint) and that this new generation of royalty won’t be at all spoiled or silly and that beautiful, wonderful Kate will be able to be perfect and rise up and put evil old Camilla and fuddy-duddy Charles to shame. Sort of some avenging thing or some shit. You suggest that isn’t the case, and they go nuts. They just really want some sort of second coming of Diana to rise out of the ashes like a freakig Phoenix and have the perfect royal career they feel Diana should have had and put all those meant older royals who harmed her to shame. Well, sorry, they’re not doing that. They’re making mistakes. They’re not perfect.

    I’m not saying all Will and Kate supporters are like this, but a lot of them are.

    • innocent bystander says:

      Wendy, what does your mother find appealing about Kate – I’m just curious.

      With Diana, she had a movie star quality about her (i.e. looks and charisma as well as fashion sense) and I think this was appealing to the masses. More importantly, she was genuine and caring and did a lot of meaningful charitable work.

      • TheWendyNerd says:

        To tell you the truth, I’m not quite sure. She thinks she’s “down to Earth”, but I don’t know why se thinks that. I know she talks about that time Will and Kate broke up for about five minutes, and she thinks Kate showed him the door for cheating and likes her for that…even though of that is true that she still took him back pretty quickly. Mostly I think it’s jut she wants to think Kate is a new Diana. But I don’t know her reasoning. We’re American, and the press here has been pretty much selling that idea an I think she’s buying it. She doesn’t read any British papers, so she doesn’t hear a lot of the bad stuff. But even if she did I am not sure she’d believe it. I will ask her.

      • TheWendyNerd says:

        —Also, Kate is pretty and charismatic and dresses well, so that sort of feeds into the Diana thing.

      • TheWendyNerd says:

        My mom admits to some serious Diana runoff– especially since she was at Diana’s wedding. She also says she feels this maternal instinct for Will, Kate and Harry since they are close in age to my sister.

  32. TheWendyNerd says:

    My mother LOVES Kate and will defend her and Wills to the death constantly. She gets really defensive every time I criticize either of them and then is like “FINE! I guess she’s horrible, Wendy! We should throw her to the wolves!” She’s convinced that I hate them or something.

    I don’t hate either of them. I just don’t find them as DAZZLING! as so many others. I just feel like they are given way too much credit, especially her, for essentially looking pretty, that they could be doing more and that they’re either getting really bad advice or just being foolish in general. Maybe they’re not being lazy intentionally, but they’re not making good decisions.

    I don’t think I’m being hateful saying so.

    I feel like the people who give them So many breaks and are defending them so vehemently are doing so out of something I call “Diana Runoff”. They want another Diana. They want William to be like his mother and the woman he married to be the second coming of Diana. They want to think all this tradition and classism and tax payer money is at least going towards really wonderful people who are beyond reproach ( not tht Diana was perfect, but people like to think she was some kind of saint) and that this new generation of royalty won’t be at all spoiled or silly and that beautiful, wonderful Kate will be able to be perfect and rise up and put evil old Camilla and fuddy-duddy Charles to shame. Sort of some avenging thing or some shit. You suggest that isn’t the case, and they go nuts. They just really want some sort of second coming of Diana to rise out of the ashes like a freakig Phoenix and have the perfect royal career they feel Diana should have had and put all those meant older royals who harmed her to shame. Well, sorry, they’re not doing that. They’re making mistakes. They’re not perfect.

    I’m not saying all Will and Kate supporters are like this, but a lot of them are.

  33. Poppy2 says:

    Anyone here have an authentic recipe for these biscuits/cookies? Wonder if these would help ease the suffering of chemo patients.

  34. anne_000 says:

    What would happen if William became King & Kate became Queen, yet William died first and Kate had children w/ another man? Would those latest children be considered of royal blood or at the very least given titles (even if it was “Count,” “Baron,” “Lord,” etc.) since their mother was Queen or is at the time of birth a Dowager Queen?

    • inthekitchen says:

      After William dies, their child would be the monarch. Kate’s subsequent children would not have any title unless the new monarch (her first child, with William) grants titles for her husband and/or new children. Kate has no titles of her own – only those she gets from being married to BigWilly – so she would have no titles to pass on to any other children…the titles are held by the men (with a very few exceptions) and therefore passed down to the man’s children.

    • Kate says:

      She can’t pass on succession rights she doesn’t have. She gets to use William’s titles as his wife, that’s all. If she remarried, she would lose all titles and take her new husband’s name and rank.

      That’s sort of the issue with this one. Philip’s title (Duke of Edinburgh) and rank (Prince) had to be specially created for him, to give him some status alongside the Queen. He was born a Prince but had to give that up when he married, as he had to surrender his old nationality. If they equalise the law they need to work out what the spouse of the monarch should be called, and make that apply to both. Right now, the wife gets her husband’s status, whether he’s a Mister or a Duke or a King, while the husband of a high status wife gets nothing. They have to specially create something for him, or else he just stays Mister, as Princess Anne’s husbands both did.

      • Flower says:

        Phillip changed his nationality and gave up the rights of succession to a foreign title but he never gave up his title of Prince, he is fiercely proud of his lineage (the Battenberg’s) he was born a prince of Greece and Denmark and remains so. There was talk of him becoming ‘Prince Consort’ when Elizabeth took the throne but he vetoed that idea himself as he didn’t want to be compared with Prince Albert, who he greatly admires and remained simply Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh

      • Kate (newer one) says:

        @Flower, I quote from his own webpage:

        “Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark in Corfu in 1921, but renounced his Royal title when he became a naturalised British subject in 1947, adopting his maternal grandfather’s surname of Mountbatten. At the time of his engagement to Princess Elizabeth he was known as Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, RN.

        Shortly before his marriage to Princess Elizabeth on 20th November, 1947, King George VI gave him the titles of The Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich. The style of His Royal Highness was also authorised shortly before his marriage.

        The Queen accorded him the style and title of a Prince of the United Kingdom on 22nd February 1957.”


  35. MiMi says:

    I feel that the mother of the future heir to the throne should bear the title of Queen.

    • Kate says:

      I don’t really care what they call them, but sauce is for goose and gander IMO: if they’re altering the law on sex equality grounds, then a man marrying a Queen Regnant should become King Consort. The argument that a King always outranks is daft: they’re changing the law on gender, so just have it inserted that whoever is Regnant outranks Consort. Problem solved. The Swedes did it 30 odd years ago and the sky hasn’t fallen in yet.

  36. Jaxx says:

    For all that people gripe about Kate and Will being lazy and not willing to work? How do they believe W&K control any of this? I really think the Queen has nightmares about Kate becoming a new Diana. I think that she and she alone, dictates how much exposure Kate and Will get. If Kate were seen more often or their roles as darling newlyweds played up more then that spark might ignite again and the Queen & Co. finds themselves being eclipsed by the beloved new royals. The Queen has no intention of letting that scenario play out again. These two are kept scarce for a reason and it has nothing to do with their wishes on the matter. Not that I doubt they care that much about cutting ribbons all day.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the Queen isn’t having a repeat of Diana-mania.

  37. Another K says:

    I wonder if William would rather NOT be king. He is independently wealthy with his inheritance from Diana so he could conceivably live quite a comfortable life while being a military pilot. But how could he possibly get out of this dynastic business without scandalizing his family? Besides, I don’t believe William would ever want to throw that horrible predicament into Harry’s lap. I’m sure Harry thanks his lucky stars daily that Kate is pregnant so that he can distance himself even further from any chance of being king. While British royal history is one of my first interests, I do not see a reason this set up should continue. It simply makes no sense anymore. I’m amazed that an MP is taking the time to attempt to clarify the title of the spouse of the “ruler.” This gentleman has nothing else to do? But I was also amazed when the queen and her advisors felt the need to publicize who should curtsey to whom. Seriously? In the 21st century? Anyway, the feeling I get from William and Harry is if anyone offered them a viable respectable way to bow out, they would. However, unraveling the financial and real estate aspects vis-à-vis the Windsors and Great Britain would be a nightmare and would probably continue for decades at the very least.

    • Hmmm says:

      I think that William considers no one but himself.

      He bitches about his destiny, yet has no trouble using it for the perks. If he had the balls, he would refuse the title if he felt so strongly about it. Unfortunately, I think that he likes to put his whine out there, sorry victim that he is, instead of stepping up to the plate and making a stand. Not much of man, IMO.

      More like…..crybaby.

    • Lucy says:

      I also wonder how much Wills wants to be England’s king. It is kind of ironic that before his wedding he didn’t get too much bad press, but in the past year or so there has been a ton of negative things said about him and Kate. I can understand that people are upset that they aren’t doing that many “events”. I just wonder if it because they don’t want to do them or if they are being guided by the Queen? I wouldn’t be surprised if Queen Elizabeth is the last monarch of England.
      Side notes, I miss Fergie. She was the most exciting royal and was always doing something to embarrass the royals, loved her. I also want to try these lavender biscuits.

  38. Megan says:

    I think Kate’s limited schedule is driven by Prince Charles. He was upstaged by Diana and he is not going to let Kate get the lime light. He intends to be King and doesn’t want any public support for a leap frog to William and Kate.

  39. Celia says:

    Am I the only one who wishes Kate would cut that awful long hair off? She would look gorgeous with shorter hair. (Not really short – just not Woodstock long.)

    • Jaxx says:

      I really don’t get the hate on Kate’s hair. It is certainly NOT awful. She has thick, shiny hair most women would kill for. If it were mine I would definitely experiment more with nifty updo’s–the kind someone else has to fashion to get really fancy, which she has on staff, and I would certainly pin it back on windy days, but her hair is gorgeous and I don’t think she would look good at all with it short. Like Anne Hathaway, she has large features, cut off her mane and there goes half her attractiveness.

      I wonder if a lot of the women who gripe about her hair have thin, stringy hair and are just plain jealous.

      • Celia says:

        Sure it’s healthy hair – I just don’t think hair that length flatters her as much as shorter would. On the contrary I think Kate has fine facial features. I also think Anne Hathaway, who you say has large features, looks great with her new short hair, as well as longer in her The Devil Wears Prada era.

        I guess the reason I would like to see Kate chop it is she has had it the same boring length for so long. I’d like to see her mix it up a little and dare to be different. For the record I have thick shiny brown hair, similar to Kate’s. It grows quickly. I get bored with the same length and move from long to layered short back to long every few years.

      • Lisa says:

        I guess those women jealous of her hair could just buy it like she does, no?

  40. hikkilove says:

    wouldnt it make more sense to make queen and king eqivalent in power and the queen/king consort would simply be the lesser of the two. its really sexist that a title held by women would continue to mean less than a title held by men in this day and age.

  41. My2Pence says:

    Please note: Diana was not destroyed by her royal work. She loved it, she lived for it, it saved her when her marriage fell apart. As for Charles and the Queen “not wanting another Diana”? They are in desperate straights to hold off the growing Republican (anti-Monarchy) movement and they NEED people loving William and Kate.

    William has been a bully from childhood, beating on his brother, his teachers, his mother. He was spoiled rotten, never disciplined, and always given what he wanted. Psychology and emotionally stunted at the age he was when his mother died, holding the Sword of Damocles (abdication) over Her Majesty so she will never question Willy Boy and his spoiled brat of a wife. I agree with the earlier poster: Her Majesty knows neither of them is up to the job but just keeps hoping, somehow, that they’ll wise up.

    Kate hunted the royal ManChild from the time she was 18. The great royal romance began when she started sleeping with him behind his girlfriend’s back. They have been together, basically living together, for 10 years. She knew exactly what she was getting in to, and she chose it anyway. For those of you who honestly believe she loves the man instead of the prince, I have a bridge to sell you.

    She knew the job description and she chose not to prepare for her role. She could have learned a few spare languages, run an arts charity, prepped in any way for the job. Instead she spent a decade of her life not working; her own sister proved this when she couldn’t tell a reporter what her sister Kate did at a company that only employed 30 people. (Her family claimed Kate was the photographer, but all photos are credited to someone else.) All she did for a decade was wait for the phone to ring and go on vacation 12 times a year. Some of you call that Standing By Her Man, others call it being a doormat and royal mattress. To see the contrast in what Waity should have done, go look at Prince Daniel of Sweden. He successfully ran his own business for the 7-8 he dated Crown Princess Victoria before they wed and he stepped onto the global stage fully prepared.

    Now here’s the crux: She had a decade to prepare, failed, and now chooses to set her own pace (Palace said she sets her own pace and she’s happy with it). She needs time to ease into a life she’s been clawing after for a decade? I don’t think people are jealous of the anorexic, spoiled, vacuous mop of hair. Nor do they want the bullying ManChild basket case for a husband. I think many people just don’t understand: All she has to do is show up, smile, and make people happy. She has the opportunity to spend the rest of her life just trying to make the world a better place and living in palaces to boot. She chooses to throw this opportunity down the drain. How can she be so pathetic and so selfish that she didn’t jump in with both feet, schedule 10 appearances a day, and make the most of the privilege of being paid to try to make things better?

    Many of us just don’t understand this waste of space or her idiot of a husband. All that opportunity, all those chances, and all she wants to do is frolic naked on a patio, watch tv, and pay someone else to wash and dry her hair extensions three times a week.

    • Jaxx says:

      Boy, I bet you make people happy everywhere you go.

      • Lisa says:

        That all ya got, Jaxx? Not much of a rebuttal.

      • My2Pence says:

        As a trained historian (British History), I merely prefer fact to the fiction/fairytales being constantly spun around these two worthless spongers. They are refusing to step up and meet their obligations, refusing to take over work currently being done by a handful of people who are past retirement age.

        Whether you deem that “work” actual work or not, as long as there is demand from the people who pay for the palaces, Wills and Kate are required to get the job done. They want the privilege but not the responsibility, so step up or step aside. Trouble is, William does not want to be king, but he is selfish, jealous, and vain enough to never want Henry to be king either.

        Wills and Kate need to read up on their history and pay attention to what members of the Family Firm have to say. “Something as curious as the monarchy won’t survive unless you take account of people’s attitudes. After all, if people don’t want it, they won’t have it.” – Prince Charles paraphrasing his father, Prince Philip.

    • Mich says:

      I really like what you have to say and think you describe the situation perfectly :-)

    • JulieM says:

      I think you nailed it, My2Pence. Could not agree with you more. Two spoiled, petulant kids who want the perk(s) but not the work(s). Harry came from the same gene pool and it’s pretty obvious he at least has learned some work ethic. And much better liked by the palace staff, I’m willing to bet.

    • Jaxx says:

      Well Lisa, just how do you rebut the opinions of 2Pence? She makes many poisonous charges about Will and Kate both like she knows the family personally. I don’t know them, but I did ask the internet for instances of all of William’s bullying of his brother, his teachers, and HIS MOTHER and found NADA, nothing, zilch. So, basically her opinions are not based on fact so where do you go with that?

      But what I do know for a fact is that she sat down and filled NINE inches of space with her vicious, hate filled venom toward Will and Kate. From which I came to the opinion that she is not a very pleasant person to be around herself, so her charge that Kate needs to be stepping up and making the world a happy place is not advice she takes for herself. So maybe she doesn’t need to be throwing rocks at anyone, much less someone she does not know any better than the rest of us.

      • My2Pence says:

        I’m out. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and the MM’s will never see.

        @taxi “Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.” – Dandemis

      • Lisa says:

        I’ll help you Jaxx. Bullying: known as billy the basher as kid; invited his nanny to school event when he knew it would upset his mother; last words to his mother were that he hated her; taking a military helicopter for a joyride; sending his henchman to pressure a journalist to write more positive articles about kate; leaving his co-workers to pick up the slack with all the leave he takes; cancelling a military event to hold kate’s puke bucket but attending a movie premiere; pressuring a charity out of the KP apt he wanted; ditching the paralympics to vacation in france; threatening the press with lawsuits and jail; calling a charity rep a bore on his way out of an event — picked up by cameras and microphones; humiliating kate with all his philandering; countless public digs at his brother; getting in to the RAF despite shitty grades/eyesight; going ballistic on his uncle for filming him; demanding his staff watch twilight instead of the movie they wanted to see; etc, etc. i could go on and on. Everything I have listed is available in biographies and press reports — every single thing but even if you believe only half of it, do you think he sounds like a kind, decent person to you? I remember when he was born and just cannot believe what an entitled drip he has turned out.

        As for Kate I don’t blame her as much as others do — she’s just a weave on a stick and so desperate to please her master she’ll do anything he commands so I feel kind of sorry for her,

    • GoodCapon says:

      Bravo, My2Pence! Bravo!

    • Jess says:

      @My2Pence, you have perfectly and eloquently explained what I have tried to many times over on various Duchess Catherine threads (however, not as beautifully as you have).

      @Jaxx, I just wanted to point out that a lack of evidence that Prince William was a bully throughout childhood found through the internet is not necessarily conclusive proof that it never occurred – in the same way that earlier in this thread you posted that the Duke and Duchess are surely controlled by the Queen herself – something no evidence of could be found on the internet.

      Furthermore, I feel it may be necessary to point out that one’s opinion is not automatically reflective of their character. You have stated that they do not know the Duke and Duchess, yet it is prudent to remember that you don’t know the poster either.

  42. TMB says:

    Isn’t all this title changes just to ensure nobody can rule unless you are a royal by blood? I don’t think they want anyone being a ruler through marriage.