Duchess Kate’s Kensington Palace apartment does NOT have separate bedrooms!

Duchess Kate is on the cover of this week’s Us Weekly. It’s not like she or Prince William have done anything new lately – William has just begun his “gap year” (lol) and Kate… well, I guess she’s looking after Prince George (see how convenient that excuse is?). Still, they rate an Us Weekly cover because everybody enjoys talking about palaces and nurseries and such. The point of Us Weekly’s story is that Kate and William are just about to move into their new “apartment” (a mansion within a palace) in Kensington Palace. Some highlights from the story:

*Apartment 1A in Kensington Palace has 20 rooms, central air, WiFi. Kate has decorated the place with $50,000 Persian rug (on loan from the Queen) and with a color scheme of creams, beiges, browns and “earthy colors.”

*Sources say: “Kate broke royal tradition and did not command separate bedrooms, though she did opt for the customary separate bathrooms.”

*The complete overhaul had a price tag of £1.5million.

*Other details: “It has five reception rooms, three main bedrooms, dressing rooms and bathrooms, a night and day nursery, staff bedrooms and ‘ancillary rooms’.” WHAT STAFF? Oh, right – they have at least one nanny and a housekeeper. And more.

*Kate wanted to decorate the place “herself” after she saw what Denmark’s Princess Mary did with her palace and apparently “Kate is confident in her own taste and style and knows what she wants.” Not to mention the fact that Kate LOVES to shop.

*Prince Harry might move into Apt. 4B!

*There are TWO nurseries: “one day nursery and one night nursery for sleeping.” An insider claims: “The day nursery will become a play room as he grows up.”

*Some people think they did two nurseries because Kate wants to get pregnant again (to avoid working). A source tells Life & Style: “They’d love to be pregnant again by the end of the year. They want a brother or sister for George… William and Kate are very keen to start trying for baby No. 2, they’d be thrilled if Kate were pregnant by Christmas. William and Kate will be splitting their time during the holidays with Kate’s family and the queen in Sandringham House in Norfolk, so it would be the perfect moment for an announcement.”

[Via Jezebel, The Express & Hollywood Life]

And that’s not all – as soon as Will and Kate move into KP, work will begin in earnest on Anmer Hall, the little “country estate” the Queen gave them as some kind of bribe for not living with the Middletons. They’ve already applied for “planning consent” to add on a conservatory for the home. I wonder how much that renovation will cost the British taxpayers?

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and PCN.

 

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

118 Responses to “Duchess Kate’s Kensington Palace apartment does NOT have separate bedrooms!”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. DanaG says:

    I don’t think Kate will get pregnant so soon not this year at least maybe next year. Is the British Taxpayer paying for the renovations or is the Queen or Prince Charles? Prince Andrews daughters spent a couple of million doing up their place and no one complained at least William does official Royal duties. I must say beige, browns etc sounds pretty boring much like Kate and her dress sense.

    • Nat says:

      The British taxpayer definitely contributed, under the excuse of asbestos. I say excuse because the renovation ended taking much longer than originally planned and the reason given for months upon months of delay was always asbestos. Really? And yet it was fine for Princess Margaret and for the charity Will and Kate evicted?

      Who recompensated the charity for their renovations? That’s what I’d like to know.

      • taxi says:

        Asbestos wasn’t banned for building insulation until long after Princess Margaret was gone. The hazard is greater in a residence than in office space for day use, even though it’s no longer used in building.

        It is a known cause of mesothelioma, a type of nearly always fatal lung cancer. Asbestos removal & disposal as toxic waste became a big industry in the 1980s. Many of the fatalities were among shipyard workers from the 1940s-’50s. It was used for it’s fire-retardant value.

      • Nat says:

        Right, asbestos is a serious danger. I agree. But where was it when the charity was renovating the place into their offices. And just how much was there? Because this renovation was very delayed and each time the reason was always asbestos.

        My guess is there was some asbestos and that was removed and after that the real reason and the major expenses were cosmetic changes. Basically I’m calling bs on a 1.5 million tax payer funded renovation just for asbestos. The expense of the interior decorating has not been released because the claim is the royals paid out of pocket for that.

      • LAK says:

        Taxi – Margaret died in 2002. She lived in that apartment until she died. Neither she nor her family have/had any asbestos issues.

        The charity that was evicted had the space until WK decided they wanted it. The charity had undertaken additional renovations so that the space was fit for THEIR purpose.

        KP had a major building overhaul that cost £12M that lasted 2yrs+ that was completed in 2012.

        Hard to believe that during all that time, asbestos wasn’t a problem, or it would have been overlooked when the entire building was having a major overhaul.

        All this money, including having to recompensate the charity for their renovations came from tax payers.

      • Merritt says:

        @LAK

        Princess Margaret did have lung problems which can be caused by asbestos. She was also a smoker, so it is impossible to know whether the asbestos contributed to her problems or not.

      • Seagulls says:

        @Merritt – smoking amplifies greatly the effects of asbestos. The museum I worked in was being renovated to get rid of the asbestos, and they did an informational speech. Avoid asbestos, obviously, but it’s really long term asbestos exposure+cigarette smoke exposure that does the most harm.

      • bluhare says:

        We wanted to buy a house that had asbestos in the siding, and were told to leave it as the issues with asbestos come when it’s disturbed, which is why getting rid of it is so difficult.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit – The main symptom of Asbestos poisoning, however mild is lung problems. Despite Margaret being a life long smoker, and living most of her life in an asbestos home, She didn’t have lung problems.

        Most of her health problems were due to other causes primary one being a blood circulation disorder blamed on the smoking, and later in life, a stroke, depression, and the accident in the bath which resulted in her being wheelchair ridden for rest of her life, not to mention perpetual disappointment at her love life which caused no end of mental anguish which was thought to have made her suicidal at one point.

      • Fue McCormick says:

        I find it interesting that there was Asbestos there because plaster was still being used through the 1940′s and plaster doesn’t have Asbestos.

    • Florc says:

      DanaG
      Where are you getting your info?
      1. They might claim PC or QE2 or even William out of his private funds are paying for renovations, but a closer look always seems to reveal the tax payers are the ultimate source.

      2. When did Bea and Eug spend millions of tax payer funds like that? Knowing how much the public loves to hate on those girls because of their parents I find it unlikely they did this and no one got upset. Please provide a link.

      3. William is a working royal, but his schedule is very light. Bea and Eug put William to shame with their busy charity schedules and do not get the tax payer help for security, wardrobe, and travel. They do it because they care. My point is that William avoids work like the plague. He’s only a working royal on paper. Minus galas and premieres from his schedule and it looks bare.

    • bluhare says:

      Isn’t it hard on the body to have pregnancies back to back like that? As that’s her bread and butter, I would think she’d wait a bit.

      • Sarah says:

        Yes, it is very hard on the body and that’s why I find it really hard to believe that Kate would be so dumb as to TRY to get pregnant when her baby is less than three months old. I had two babies 16 months apart and I was out of commission for two years after that.

        Besides, I would think she would want to take a little more time to forget about the hyperemesis gravidarium she had the first time around. No way she can be any sort of mother to an infant while vomiting all day long.

  2. LadyMTL says:

    I just find it hilarious that they call what’s essentially a 20 room house an “apartment.” Maybe they should mosey on over to my 1 bedroom place and then see what that word really means. :P

  3. T.C. says:

    Can someone explain what is a day and night nursery. Do babies have gin and tonic in the night nursery or what? I don’t get why you need two.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I think you play and/or have lessons in the day nursery and sleep in the night nursery. In the US we call a day nursery a playroom.

    • LAK says:

      That visual made me giggle.

      On a serious note, the night nursery is strictly for sleeping.

      All other activities take place in the day nursery.

      Essentially, the kid has a bedroom and sitting room.

      • mayamae says:

        LAK -

        I’m wondering if you or any of the other UK experts can answer a few questions for me. If Kate is eschewing her duties, why is it tolerated? Is William already powerful enough to fully protect her? Does William use the way Diana was sometimes treated to force them to go softly on Kate?

        I take Sarah Ferguson with a huge grain of salt, but her first book and interviews basically said that there are men (I think she called them the “Grey Men”), who control things behind the scenes. She presented it almost as if the Queen listens to them, not vice versa.

        I know the Queen has let her spoiled Andrew get away with a lot, but she seemed pretty hard on Diana and Sarah. If William does have the ability to protect Kate, why does he – if, as is often said, he doesn’t even love her?

        I don’t doubt that Andrew and Kate are lazy in their duties, I just don’t get why they can’t be compelled to do them. It seemed like Charles was beaten down properly when he was growing up. Has Charles stood between the Queen and William to protect him? Or when Charles take over, will he straighten them out?

      • LAK says:

        mayamae – Gosh that is such a multi-layered question, I’m not sure i can give a simple equally multi-layered answer.

        Firstly, whilst they don’t receive much press, all the older generation work. Including Andrew. His tally was approx. 400 engagements last year.

        The royal system is tough because they do not operate like normal families do. They run their personal lives like a corporation. That can be tough for any one going in because regular people do not live their private lives like corporations or relate to their family as work colleagues.

        There is also a pecking order depending on status of the line of succession. That tends to work positively for the higher ups. The lower downs have to earn any positives and when they mess up, less help is given.

        Charles was/is an emotionally needy child/person. He didn’t take well to the same upbringing that his siblings did. He said his mother was cold and his father harsh, his siblings disagree[d].

        Diana and Sarah are/were also emotionally needy and were fairly young and immature when they joined the royals. Marrying into the royal family set up was absolutely the worst thing they could have done for themselves. Sophie is more robust and was emotionally mature and subsequently has fared better. I don’t think Kate is coping any better than Diana or Sarah. She’s lucky, unlike Sarah or Diana, she has strong family support that she can turn to when life at the Palace becomes too much.

        As for William supporting her, i think this is more a fluke than proper solicitous support for Kate. In his own words, he doesn’t like dealing with the courtiers and will frequently go against them. So if Kate doesn’t want to spend time at the Palace because of the courtiers, William is already primed to support that position. Additionally, he enjoys her family so is open to suggestions that they spend time at Middleton Towers with them.

        The Queen isn’t as isolated as she’s made out to be however my biggest criticism of her is that she hasn’t provided any guidance to her heirs/family as to how to operate unlike her own father who started training her as soon as possible. They all say that they are simply left to get on with it, to make it up as they go along.

        From that perspective as long as Kate or William aren’t publicly perceived in a way that impacts the monarchy negatively ie by the press, they are left to their own devices.

        I do think that they are both isolated and out of touch because of the lack of any meaningful focus to their work. They need a helicoptor mentor to show them what to do because left to their own devices, they’ve simply gravitated to the superficial and meaningless which is also the approach they take to the charities they patron.

        It doesn’t help that William has always had his own way, even as a child. As an adult, there doesn’t seem to be anyone who can rein him in.

        With regards William specifically, it’s not so much that he has power. KP [formerly SJP] operates semi-independently from POW/BP. His office is constantly briefing about work either Kate or he intend to do. I doubt very much that the other offices track said work intentions. It’s the public keeping track of the lack of work. Unfortunately, few venues to complain except the internet.

      • mayamae says:

        Thank you LAK. It’s quite complicated. Sounds like you don’t believe that the Queen’s cold and Philip’s harsh. I’ve always believed it. Doesn’t help that she greeted her own little boy with a handshake after an extended seperation. It’s always confused me, because Elizabeth seemed to have warm, loving parents. Seems like she just never liked him.

      • LAK says:

        Mayamae – I think she was more negligent than cold. She abdicated family and parenting to Philip who you have to remember was brought up harshly and thrived. He is his own parenting model. He never adapted the model to suit each child’s needs. 3 of the kids have his temperament and thrived whilst one did not due to that difference.

        HM and Margaret brought up their kids in the same way THEY were parented. HM had the extra burden of being head of state hence the abdication of family duty.

        Margaret’s kids were equally neglected, but they had a more sensitive father therefore no lasting damage in the same way that Charles was damaged.

        The way HM and Margaret brought up their kids was typical of their class and generation. Many people with that generation of parents and earlier have similar complaints of the neglect they suffered because it wasn’t a child centric society.

        I shudder at the video of HM shaking Charles’s hand after not seeing him for 6mths, but I doubt she hugged Anne afterwards. That was simply not done.

    • bluhare says:

      T.C., everyone knows that gin and tonics are served in the day nursery after lunch. The night nursery serves port or brandy. Sheesh.

  4. m says:

    Crown Princess Mary and Crown Prince Freceriks place is stunning, but Mary and Fred also have fantastic taste, Kate does not. It actually sounds like Kate tried to copy Mary and Freds place with the warm color scheme,watch, next we’ll be finding out about Kates newfound love of modern art and how her mansion is full of it.

    • Spooks says:

      I don’t know much about royals, but isn’t Mary the only princess who was a real commoner and didn’t come from wealth?
      That’s enough for me to like her a bit more than Kate.

      • anna says:

        Yep She is from Tasmania, Hobart. She had a regular up bring, her parents had normal jobs and not rich like the middletons. Im pretty sure Princess Mary was a lawyer before she met Fred in a bar during the Syd Olympics. I saw Princes Mary in Hobart when she was visiting family. She was sunning and so graceful.

      • m says:

        Anna, Mary had several different jobs in her life but most of them were to do with marketing. She worked all over the world following her mothers death in 1997, including Scotland (where her parents were from) and Paris.
        And yes, Mary was the original brunette commoner to marry a prince ;)

      • Lizzy says:

        Weeeell, I would not call someone whos parents own a multi million business and could afford to go to St. Andrews (and was before probably public school educated) a “commoner”.

        Yes, she did have no title but poor is not what I would have called Kate.

        We British pay around 5p (around 0.08$) a year for the Royals. Does not sound much but nobody on this planet pays their monarch this much as we do and I am one of those people who would love to see this financial support go.

      • L says:

        I love Princess Mary.

        Crown Princess Mette Merrit of Norway is also a commoner from a non wealthy family. (he father was a journalist) She was also a single parent at the time they met.

        Isn’t Letizia also a commoner? Her mother was a nurse.

      • SuSu says:

        I love the scandinavian royals. They are not so phoney as the Windsors.

        yes, CrownPrincess Mary isn´t from rich background, but she was never poor. Her father is a Professor. Mary was no lawyer. She studied Commercial Law (or something similar) and worked in PR for some firms (i think one was Microsoft).
        Sometimes she comes across as a little bit vain, but her style is gorgeous. She´s natural elegant.

        CrownPrincess Mette-Marit of Norway is from poor background. She´s the real modern Cinderella. Her father was an alcoholic. Mette took drugs on university and became a single mother. The CrownPrince fell in love with her and fought for the marriage even against the wishes of the most Norwegians. That´s true love!

        Her son Marius had a special role at the wedding and was with them on the balcony:
        http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-0000381476-007.jpg%3Fsize%3D67%26uid%3D842fc302-e5b1-4609-aa2a-3549ed79f295

      • Sachi says:

        Every future Queen, except for Queen Mathilde and Victoria of Sweden, was a commoner.

        Maxima, Letizia, Mary, Mette-Marit, Masako. All commoners.

        Letizia is the one who came from the “poorest” background. Grandfather a taxi driver. Grandmother a radio host. But IMO she’s the only one who came the farthest and achieved the most given her background. Award-winning journalist and top news anchor in Spain at age 31.

        Mary’s Dad is a Math professor who has worked for NASA and her stepmother is an author. Mary was never poor through her family although her life in Sydney did point out to hard times, probably due to her inability to hold onto a proper job without hopping onto another after 7 months. One entry-level position after another. Never was promoted nor achieved anything in her “career”.

        Mary before getting a hold of taxpayers’ money:

        http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff190/aboganindenmark/mary_at_the_movies_with_friends_syd.jpg

        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7FYs_SDZJhU/SCUE0_8dhvI/AAAAAAAAAI8/kDZVEQ4tFjQ/s1600/200010star.jpg

        http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff190/aboganindenmark/200010Star4.jpg

        No natural elegance there. She is a product of millions of Danish kroner spent to mold her into a throback 1940s Princess: pretty to look at, but very empty and superficial.

      • Spooks says:

        I also read once about an European princess who used to be a NATO soldier, but I can’t remember who it was?

      • Sachi says:

        Spooks – That’s Princess Tessy of Luxembourg. Bit of a brouhaha back then since she got pregnant before marriage and the Lux royals are devout Catholics. Prince Louis lost his right to the throne in order to marry her. Wasn’t made a Princess until several years later. Louis and his children will never be in the line of succession.

        SuSu – MM wasn’t exactly poor. Yes, she was a waitress but she didn’t really seem to have wanted more in terms of a career. She didn’t come from an impoverished background. Her father was never poor, just a drunk. If anything, the welfare system in Norway wouldn’t have allowed her to live in poverty. The father of her son, Marius, is also from a wealthy family. Haakon loves her genuinely. I do wish she would work more. She barely did 70 events last year although she is always game for fashion shows or parties thrown by Gwyneth Paltrow.

      • Suze says:

        @Spooks -

        That’s Princess Tessy, one of my personal favorite royals!

      • Mel says:

        “And yes, Mary was the original brunette commoner to marry a prince”

        No, that would have been Silvia Sommerlath – although, technically, she didn’t marry a prince: she married a king, no less.
        And that’s counting only recent “commoners”. There are more in older history (not counting the foremother of the Bernadotte dynasty who was, of course, a “commoner” – but then, so was the king himself).

    • LAK says:

      m : please would you post links to CP Mary’s apartment?

      Lizzy : the cost of the royals is one of the most successful lies told. We pay more than the often touted 62p by the Palace/Govt when trying to justify the expense. I think the republican movement estimated it to be between £5-£8 per person.

      Here is why:there are off book expenses eg security and travel which aren’t included in the figures but absorbed into the corresponding Govt dept budgets.

      They receive many tax rebates and write offs for their estates and living costs, again not included in the calculation.

      Whatever the sum that is advanced to them, previously the civil list, now the Sovereign grant, it’s divided by every person living in the UK to come up with the fabled 62p. That means babies, children, teens, working and unemployed/unemployable adults, OAPs, retirees, people living on the street etc are ALL contributing to the family. A more realistic calculation would be to divide the figure by tax paying population.

      Finally, tax payment is a purely voluntary exercise for the royals unlike the general public.

    • Sachi says:

      That palace renovation in Denmark also cost the taxpayers 163.5 million Danish kroner, not even including the furniture and decor.

      Here’s the “funky” Amalienborg renovations. Hopefully Kate has done a better job if she insisted on copying this hot mess:

      http://www.ppe-agency.com/500px/Feb2010/PPE10022215.jpg
      http://www.ppe-agency.com/500px/Feb2010/PPE10022208.jpg
      http://www.ppe-agency.com/500px/Feb2010/PPE10022207.jpg

      http://www.ppe-agency.com/500px/Feb2010/PPE10022209.jpg

      • bluhare says:

        Maybe it looks better with furniture in it?

      • Sachi says:

        I don’t know, bluhare. Seems like those rooms were the result of an acid trip. No furniture can make up for those psychedelic ceilings. The only room I liked has the burnt orange walls. But for a Palace? It seems so dark and broody.

        Here’s a NASA-inspired room/map of the world…or something:
        http://i47.tinypic.com/2cxx4dv.jpg

        Here’s the kitchen with some wood? counters:
        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BHTrKDIswI8/S4KRtqOZP3I/AAAAAAAAdbE/pUK_NvQi4y0/s1600/31_DK_Amalienborg_NYE.jpg

        Here’s the entirety of the Palace renovations underway:
        http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?start=0&zoektype=2&search=22-02-2010%20Palace

        Hopefully they matched some of the walls to the ceilings.

      • bluhare says:

        I find the kitchen a bit jarring . . . Chinoiserie inspired wallpaper with traditional fittings, and sleek cabinets? It just doesn’t fit.

        I do like some of the rooms . . . the ones without the mural things.

      • LAK says:

        I’m with Bluhare on this.

        I can’t decide if i like or not.

        I don’t like the blond floors.

        The walls are fun but i can’t imagine furnishings that would go with that.

        The detail of the walls would call for no furniture,no? like a gallery. So you can enjoy them unencumbered.

        …but i am a minimalist at heart so Kate’s colour scheme sounds lovely to me.

      • Florc says:

        Looks like it’s fitting for an interactive museum. I would get horrible headaches if I had to live there.

      • Sachi says:

        bluhare – agree about the kitchen. The mural just looks silly.

        LAK – The rooms in the PPE website are actually Mary and Frederik’s private rooms/used by their family. So yes, they must have put furniture in those rooms with the ceilings painted brightly. What a chore it must have been to find decor and furniture that matched. The “NASA” room is also said to be Frederik’s office. How very dark for an office space.

        Florc – some of the rooms are the Crown Prince family’s private rooms. I really can’t imagine living in a house like this. It looks too busy.

        IMO the renovations don’t look welcoming and warm, esp. for a family with 4 young children. Hopefully their 4 kids’ rooms were brighter and more child-friendly.

        A poll in Denmark conducted after the photos of the renovated Palace came out had 59% of the responders saying they hated the new look. Even the die-hard royalist Mary fans (yes, they have existed before Kate’s legion :D ) were not happy about the murals and renovations.

      • LAK says:

        Sachi – As a minimalist, the entire thing gives me a headache.

        I think Fred’s office is cool. a glass work desk and few chairs in the middle of it would work against that wall mural.

        The others murals would be fun for an afternoon and then i would paint over them.

        Funnily, i love the Kitchen mural, but would use that in the kids rooms which i would decorate in my idea of a fun play room to go with the mural eg indoor forts and tents and bean bags. A room to explore.

        The stairs with the lit baskets remind me strongly of ski lodges…odd i know.

      • emmie_a says:

        I sort of really like the interiors… It’s extremely elegant but totally quirky. It looks rich but fun. Definitely has personality. I just can’t see Kate doing anything like this.

      • Sachi says:

        LAK – I lean more towards the traditional, romantic aesthetic for interiors, so Kate’s colour scheme sounds good to me, too. I don’t like murals in particular but I prefer the ones with soft palettes that appear cozy and warm.

        I think the kitchen mural looks alright, but as you said, it looks better for a child’s playroom/bedroom. For a kitchen with what looks like a clean, sleek counter, a Bambi-esque mural doesn’t match.

        emmie_a – As I mentioned above, I’m a traditionalist. :D So this kind of decor isn’t my taste. They’ve never released the actual finished rooms, so it might be the gilded and crown moldings against the modern murals/bright colours in the photos that clash against each other and make the room look too busy.

      • Fue McCormick says:

        That kitchen with the ugly walls looks like you could buy the stuff at IKEA. But I guess that’s where IKEA stuff comes from anyway …

      • Florc says:

        IKEA!
        The cabinets and wall fixtures are very much ikea.

        LAK
        Maybe the wall fixtures remind you of wicker baskets holding kindling to start lodge fires? That’s my impression.
        Neutrals and browns was what I had my first and current home painted in. I grew into my own tastes and slowly painted it as I liked. She’s trying to impress someone by neutrals. Her parents decorated in a more opinionated manner. Or maybe she really is just so neutral. The cottage was rumored to be far more colorful and original.

        LAK
        Also a minimalist. I love a simple layout with clean lines.

    • hannah says:

      stunning ?? That thing is horrific.

  5. Buckwild says:

    They should save the next pregnancy for when public opinion starts turning again, and when Kate starts running out of excuses to do nothing.

  6. AC says:

    I still can’t get over how bad her hair looks in those photos.

  7. Spooks says:

    Those estates are so beautiful, gosh, I would so like to live in the British country. A small cottage would be fine.

  8. Scarlett says:

    British country estates are beautiful but please remember that it is rainy and muddy 10 months of the year! Holiday in August – lovely, living there – hell.
    Scarlett xoxoxo

  9. Cool Phosphorescent Shimmer says:

    When I saw what my friends did with their palaces, I definitely wanted to decorate my own palace, too. I am confident that way.

  10. Suze says:

    I don’t for one minute believe that Kate and William are sharing pregnancy plans with any “source” that would talk to a tabloid.

    As for the apartment, it actually sounds tasteful. Gah, I would love to live in Kensington Palace. Love it. And I would also love a little country place with a conservatory.

    This is one area where you could definitely say I am jealous of Wills and Kate!

  11. Mandy says:

    Ahhh, to be a royal. What a charmed life.

  12. Lila says:

    All of those descriptions sound exactly like Kate to me. The room setups- 9/10 royal custom, 1/10 just modern enough to pass for modern. The colors- perfectly pretty and presentable and devoid of any true personality or originality. An unspecified number of staff rooms- can’t be too specific or people might not believe they are just like them!

    I doubt the pregnancy talk. Not yet. I don’t think they would want to run the anticipation and positive feelings a baby brings together too much.

  13. bettyrose says:

    All couples should have a shared bedroom with two bathrooms. Not two sinks. Not a tub & shower setup, two full, complete bathrooms with no shared walls to each other. It’s sheer genius.

  14. Minxx says:

    Separate bathrooms are the key to marital happiness. I’m loving mine and won’t let the boys (hubby and son) get near it :) . That and, of course, separate closets, two for me, one for him ;D

  15. Louise says:

    I don’t think there’s going to be another pregnancy this year. My bet is on next year when William “gap year” ends, they are going to announce that Kate is expecting again and that he’s not going to begin working for another year to help take care of the baby, because he’s a modern and down-to-earth dad with no staff.

  16. Mrs.Darcy says:

    I was watching MAsterChef Australia -2013 and there is a contestant Jules who Kate would resemble a lot with better makeup, some skills (and a job!) and a whole lot of vivaciousness..

    http://media2.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2013/09/11/LNS_12-09-2013_EGN_04_LIS070913TASTE20.3_t460.jpg

  17. Zombie Shortcake says:

    No separate bedrooms, but three main bedrooms, and bedrooms for staff.
    Those sound technically like “separate bedrooms”- unless all those bedrooms are in the same room.

  18. moon says:

    The royal family sound like very expensive national pets the country inherited and doesn’t know what to do with. The brits are the parents here – they have to do all the feeding and cleaning up, while the americans are like children who just get to enjoy them.

  19. Lisa says:

    That whole Unicef gig in Denmark makes sense now — just a bogus excuse to check out Mary’s pad. Did they ever do any follow up on their appeal to “dig deep”? Ever mention the famine in Africa again? Thought not.

    • Suze says:

      I don’t know if they did or they didn’t – after all there were all those “secret” charity meetings. I will say I never heard anything else about it.

      And that’s what drives me nuts about the WillKate show. Pick a few charities and really follow through, like Harry does with Sentebale, Queen Maxima does with micro-financing and King Willem-Alexander with water conservation and delivery. People will take you much more seriously.

    • LAK says:

      What really grates about that Unicef story is that not only did she have no clue as to why they were there, but also didn’t seem to know what country the damn famine was in EVEN THOUGH they’d spent a holiday in the country a few months prior!!!

      • bluhare says:

        Serious question, LAK. If Kate was so woefully prepared for that trip, where lies the blame? With her for being uninterested (I assume that’s the case if she doesn’t know why she’s attending), or their office for not making sure she had at least one or two sound bites to throw out?

      • LAK says:

        Blame Kate squarely. Rebecca has been in the system since 2007 and knew the drill about how to prepare your royal for an engagement. Beyond that JLP has been at the Palace for decades.

        If the royal refuses to do their homework ahead of time, you make bullet point sheet summary and put it in their intinerary pack to read as they travel to engagement.

      • bluhare says:

        Thanks, LAK. I don’t understand why a woman who did well in university (she graduated higher than William, didn’t she?) comes across as such a dim bulb. At first I put it to nerves, now no clue.

  20. Nikki says:

    I don’t really understand why, since she’s now a royal, Kate has to become a workhorse. Diana was one in a million. Not everyone can or wants to be like that, and that’s okay. It doesn’t make her lazy because she’s not tirelessly exhausting herself.

    Having a baby isn’t an “excuse” it’s legitimate.

    • bluhare says:

      I don’t think anyone has suggested she needs to be a workhorse. But people do think that two immensely privileged people, whose lifestyle is supported either directly or indirectly by taxpayer money should do SOMETHING. They don’t do many royal engagements, and they don’t do much work with charities they are attached to. And now William wants time to think or whatever.

      Personally I think they should be embarrassed that William’s 87 and 92 year old grandparents do more engagements in a year than WC do in two.

    • Suze says:

      For a royal, it’s not ok.

      And no one expects her to have a schedule like Diana’s.

      If she had one or two charities that she promoted more than once a year that would be terrific.