Duchess Kate gets to raid the Queen’s jewels, but the Queen won’t lend her tiaras

wenn21101620

Lots of odds and ends for this very bizarre week in coverage for Duchess Kate and Prince William. I heard that Will and Kate finally returned to England after their full week away, spent at a luxury resort in the Maldives without their son George, but with a full security detail. I’m glad they’re back… just in time for the weekend. It’s so difficult to get over one’s holiday jet-lag, don’t you know? They’ll need a full three days of downtime to get back on track. Or maybe they’ll go on another holiday to cure their holiday jet-lag. You really never know. So, let’s get to the various pieces of news today.

*There’s some weird, non-conclusive evidence that William and Kate’s Maldives vacation might have just been some fancy “discounted” (or free) give-away (“royal perk”). There are reports that The Cheval Blanc, the Maldives resort, got a huge bump in tourist interest and web hits following the news of Will & Kate’s vacation, and some of the stories about the vacay read like vacation pamphlets or something straight from a press release. I’d really like to know: did Will and Kate pay for this vacation? Did they get a discount for their stay?

*William’s going to need to rest up this weekend, because he has to finish up his Cambridge “bespoke program” next week. Hahahaha. He’s not getting any grades or anything, and it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t give a crap. The whole “bespoke program” was just a scam to avoid working (plus, there were cute university girls, right?).

*The Guardian is going hard after the royals these days – there’s something about Prince Charles writing letters to members of the government and it’s become a huge issue of the Freedom of Information Act, something something. Well, The Guardian published this amazing editorial shade towards the whole royal family, which you can read here. The shade thrown at Kate in particular is… amaze-balls. My favorite quote is this: “Why so many holidays? I think the duchess is being “eased” into what we must call “work”. Royal status is, for her, some kind of terrible predicament that fell on her: a price for true love, a fairytale might say, that can only be soothed with eternal holidays and a life lived predominantly under a hair dryer. But they all do this. They spend like plutocrats and look like victims.”

*And finally, more details about this epic tour to New Zealand and Australia. The royal press office must be pivoting to this trip whenever the press is particularly bad. It’s almost like three weeks of work in April is supposed to make up for three months of nothing beforehand. Anyway, Us Weekly reports that the Queen is lending Kate a lot of jewelry for the trip but “Kate won’t be wearing tiaras on the tour.” Probably because the Queen saw how poorly Kate arranged that beautiful diamond necklace last month.

*Us Weekly also says that Kate “has been allowed to pick out as many items as she needs. She’s working with a wardrobe coordinator to put together her outfits. A number of outfits she’s wearing on the tour are off-the-rack pieces, however they’re being tailored to her body shape. The Queen’s dress maker, Angela Kelly, and her team have been involved in a lot of the wardrobe prep.” Kate is like Duchess Barbie, right? All she cares about is coordinating jewelry to clothes… which is a super-fun activity, granted. But this counts as “work” for Kate. This is a chore for her. She’s probably super-exhausted having to go shopping for all of the clothes she needs AND then trying to figure out what jewelry she should wear. She needs another vacation!

Last thing… the Queen’s dress maker is “involved” with Kate’s tour style now? Do you think that’s the Queen’s way of ensuring that there are no more “Marilyn Moments”?

wenn21101666

wenn21076725

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

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

371 Responses to “Duchess Kate gets to raid the Queen’s jewels, but the Queen won’t lend her tiaras”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kali says:

    With the weather the way it is in New Zealand at the moment, she better be wearing some appropriate length clothing AND have some weights sewn into the hems. I only want to be seeing the royal jewels, not Kate’s royal jewels.

  2. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Hopefully, the Queen’s dressmaker will put some weights in Kate’s hems. Can’t wait to see the clothes and jewels. I know, I know, so shallow, me.

  3. SayWhat? says:

    Do the Queen’s jewels go to the State when she passes on? Or will her descendants get them. I’m just curious.

    • Angelic 21 says:

      most of them belong to state like tiaras etc but she must also have a personal collection that she can give to anyone she pleases.

    • LAK says:

      not all of them.

      Some are private [bought or inherited] and will be passed along to her descendants whilst the majority are crown and so can’t be passed on to anyone.

      • My2Pence says:

        I recommend the book The Queen’s Jewels: The Personal Collection of Elizabeth II by Leslie Field, written with HM’s cooperation.

      • LAK says:

        my2pence: i love that book. it’s hours of self hypnotic fun.

      • SayWhat? says:

        I saw some pictures of the Queen’s stuff. And OMG! They’re awesome. Wonder how much each piece cost. Not that i can afford them…

      • bluhare says:

        I’ve seen that book too. It’s some of the best jewelry pron out there. Absolutely dazzling and the photos of Mary and Alexandra with literally ropes of diamonds around their necks are breathtaking.

      • hmmm says:

        Thanks for the recommendation, My2Pence. I just requested a copy from the library. Bling p0rn is so satisfying; soothes the soul. :)

      • Lady D says:

        LAK, what happens to the crown jewels if the monarchy ceases to exist? Does Britain take and sell them and use the money for hospitals, schools, etc? Would they end up in a museum? No one person could claim ownership of any of the jewels, right?

      • LAK says:

        Lady D, If the monarchy ceased to exist, i’d like the jewels to go into a museum like the tower of London to generate ongoing revenue. At the moment, the state crown, orb, sceptre reside in the tower of London where they are viewed by the public whilst simultaneously generating cash for the tower with surplus going to the treasury. The Queen wears them once a year at the opening of parliament.

        It would be irresponsible to sell them because it would be a one time hit and who knows if their true value would be reached when they are currently priceless. Also, if they were sold, they would disappear into private collections, never to be seen again.

        By irresponsible, I mean that someone needs to price them, and in doing so immediately devalues them, but it’s a necessarily evil in order to come to a market value to sell them. Right now, they are priceless.

        And once a market price has been agreed, that’s the most we could receive for them assuming they reached their sale price. It would be a one time sale for the bottomless hole of government treasury or even a schools/hospitals programme.

        On the other hand if the jewels were put into a government museum like the tower of London, they would generate money for the government pot for many years.

        And the public would see them.

        This is strictly my opinion and what I hope will happen. You can be sure there are many people who would clamour for a one off fire sale.

  4. m says:

    Ms Kelly already denied having anything to do with Kate so we can expect Kate to continue the tradition of her skirt flying above her head.

  5. lucy says:

    Kind of a misleading headline. It’s not that the queen won’t lend her any tiaras (which she has before), but that Kate won’t be wearing any on her trip…

  6. mllejuliette says:

    If I had her access to money and resources, there’s no way that I’d be dressing or behaving the way Kate does. There’s so many things she could be doing to help others. What a bunch of wastrels!

  7. QQ says:

    So Two things;

    A) we are basically following breathlessly the comings and goings of two unemployed and or p/t working newlyweds that basically dress real well??? That’s what this is??

    B) let me understand about Kate’s fashions: She buys for example a H&M dress for 60-100 bucks but then gets alterations on it with a royal tailor which can cost any kinds of crazy money but this is all in the spirit and guise of making her look “normal”?! Got it!

    • Miffy says:

      A) Apparently… and ‘dress well’ is debatable. And in their defense, they just had a baby which is like, soooooooooo exhausting, so y’know, they’ll need 25 vacations to recover from that.

    • wolfpup says:

      I almost feel like I need a vacation from this woman. There is a site, called Princess Diana Remembered, which is loaded with Diana memorabilia, and news clippings of Will and Kate, Harry, Pippa and the rest of them. Diana seemed royal from the beginning…Kate has to play some sort of catch-up, (if she can). I’m sure she is a nice girl, and under a great deal of pressure, I bet that Will is (really) difficult. But Barbie dress-up, and playing nice-nice, is all we have seen of her. There’s got to be something more interesting than this. I hope there is a deepening to what she has shown herself capable of, during her Canada/US trip; something more than all the smiling, and borrowed jewels.
      I find it interesting that the PrinDiRem site has 44,500 visitors from the US, and 13,700 from GB, and in descending order, CA, FR, DE, AU. Do you think that the numbers are so high for the US because there are more people?

      • mena says:

        That could be the reason. The US population is approx 6x that of GB. While the US visitors to that Diana site is only about 3x that of GB visitors.

      • bluhare says:

        I think the US has a romantic ideal of royalty. Britain has a practical view of royalty. That’s the difference in my mind.

      • Elise says:

        bluhare, do you think this may be why in the US Catherine (most of the time) receives positive press, because Americans have a “romantic ideal” of British royalty? When you go to a grocery store the magazine covers of Catherine, William (and now Prince George) are mostly positive, fawning, even. Or the tabloid covers would feature that either Camilla or the Queen are “jealous” of Catherine, and so she’s being “punished” by having to curtsy to the blood princesses’ Beatrice and Eugenie, or she has to wear longer dresses. Also, you don’t even dare put a dissenting comment on Yahoo! news or US magazines’ site about Catherine, lest people jump on you and treat it like it’s a crime to have a different opinion on the Duchess.

        Catherine and William will be celebrating their 3 years anniversary next month, and I am still willing to give them a chance. However, I would not be entirely surprised if the bar will be lowered for Catherine, and all she is capable of and will be known for are her clothes, hair, makeup, vacations, etc. Many of us here are frustrated with her, and understandably so. But in the future maybe we should not expect much from her. She will be there to be admired and looked at perhaps with no identity, interests, ambitions, opinions apart from William.

      • wolfpup says:

        Hi FLORC. Small world. I love all your comments.

        Bluhare, I understand the “romantic ideal”, but not so much the “practical view” of the royals from the British standpoint. Can you elaborate?

      • bluhare says:

        Hi wolfpup,

        I don’t live in Britain now, and haven’t for a while, so I don’t have the day to day view that people who do live there have, but I think it’s easy for us on this side of the pond to romanticize it because we don’t live there, pay taxes (which are astronomical compared to here), see how every day people live, and then see the royals cutting ribbons, not working very much while we do, yet living in what amounts to rent controlled housing . . . that sort of thing. I would think it could put a damper on it quite quickly.

  8. Angelic 21 says:

    Kate is a really bad royal clothes horse and a good royal incubator. That’s it! That’s all you will ever get from her. Role model my ass.

  9. Megan says:

    There probably aren’t events appropriate for tiaras on the event. One of the few things that I do like about Kate is that she isn’t afraid to wear high street pieces. But I’m glad we are going to be seeing royal jewels at more formal events :)

  10. Emma13 says:

    That editorial shade was magnificent!

  11. Miffy says:

    From what I remember there’s a lot of prestige that goes into tiaras, the royals continue to put a lot of stock and tradition into them. They’re very much considered family heirlooms.

    So baring that in mind, no, I wouldn’t want to see my klutzy granddaughter-in-law trotting around NZ with a precious family relic and her damn Topshop skirt accessorising her head, probably trying to make sure her sausage curls are intact before covering her arse.

    Kate brings out my inexplicable, completely unwarranted dislike. She’s my ‘SHUTUP, PATRICE’ person.

    • bluhare says:

      That was a great visual, Miffy. A three year old girl playing Princess with mommy’s clothes and shoes!!

    • hmmm says:

      Yeah, Miffy. My hunch is the tiara thing would place the stamp of approval on her as a princess. I’m probably wrong but I like to dream. :)

      • wolfpup says:

        I do not see her as having an affinity with wearing gorgeous jewelry. She hasn’t ever been around it, it is true, but it would be nice if she learned how to wear it appropriately, rather than under her hair. The jewels deserve a proper display, seriously. Perhaps she needs to familiarize herself with how royal women wear them…would mum-Carol know? (kidding!) There are abundant pictures on the internet where women wearing these kinds of jewels, sparkle with them.

    • Miffy says:

      @hmmmm, you’re right. It probably is seen as some kind of stamp of approval.

      Even the tiara that Diana wore most of the time was the Spencer family tiara (the one she wore for her wedding and I think the tear drop pearl one she wore a lot was from her own family too. Don’t judge, I just loves me some jewellery and Lady Di!), so it’s probably a case of BYOTiara til you’re seen fit to borrow the Queen’s. And the Queen has been rumoured to not have much time for Kate, she was supposed to have said ‘But she’s never even had a real job’ in regards to Kate and William getting engaged.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Naw, it’s not actually a stamp of anything.

        Diana was loaned the Cambridge Lover’s Knot from the Queen at the time of her marriage but didn’t wear it often because it was heavy and gave her headaches (a common complaint for all tiaras). She wore the Spencer Family Tiara because it was lighter and more comfortable. But it was 100% her choice.

        Sarah wasn’t given or loaned a family tiara but had one purchased for her and Sophie’s wedding tiara was also loaned to her. Sophie has been seen in a few different tiaras over the years (most loaned to her) from the BRF vaults. Camilla has worn some of the QM’s tiaras and there is a question if Charles now owns them outright. Charles actually bought a lot of new bling for Camilla (rather like David did for Wallis).

        I anticipate that Kate will wear the wedding tiara (Cartier Scroll) and the tiara she was seen in recently for awhile. So far, she and William have not attended many events that were ‘tiara events’ (i.e. white tie, state functions, etc.).

  12. My2Pence says:

    I have to re-quote that Guardian quote from Kaiser, because it is just brilliant.

    “Why so many holidays? I think the duchess is being “eased” into what we must call “work”. Royal status is, for her, some kind of terrible predicament that fell on her: a price for true love, a fairytale might say, that can only be soothed with eternal holidays and a life lived predominantly under a hair dryer. But they all do this. They spend like plutocrats and look like victims.”

    Although, if I were the writer at The Guardian I might have written, “They spend like plutocrats and ACT like victims.”

  13. Christine says:

    I like to shade Kate as much as the next person, but let’s be real. She is doing exactly what the royal family have asked of her. If William wanted her to work and do public appearances more, she would. If he wanted to spend a vacation with his baby, they would. If Will wanted to work at all, he would. And if the queen wanted William to do anything, he would. I really think that they don’t want Kate out in front so that she becomes more popular than William and Charles especially.

    • Original N says:

      Clearly, I do not know if your comment is correct or not as I have no idea what the royal family has actually asked of, nor expects from, Kate Middleton. However, if we suppose that your comment is accurate, the problem is STILL this … that Kate’s history does not depict that she actually has any ‘wants’ or worthwhile interests of her own (other than marrying William) & that presents a problem for me. Regardless of what the royal family has asked of her, if she had any worthwhile passions that she was utterly devoted to, she would attempt to work them into her busy schedule, just as she has her hair, tanning, etc. appointments & her time spent shopping [which I do not find to be worthwhile endeavors when they make up the basis of one's devotions].

    • Angelic 21 says:

      I think Kate and William have shown again and again that they don’t mind going against or saying no to Queen or Charles. For example not inviting extended family members to christening, not getting an official photographer for first official photos of George or going to stay with Ma Midds after birth( which is something Queen was very against because of all the extra security costs but Kate didn’t take no for an answer). So I don’t get how they go from being independent, modern, breaking all the traditions to being completely under RF’s control and having no say in their lives. They can work if they really want to just like they get everything else they want.

    • Suze says:

      I don’t know that the House of Windsor is that worried about her overshadowing the blood royals. I think there is ample evidence that Kate will never reach Diana levels of popularity. She seems like she is probably a very nice person, but as a public personality, she just doesn’t have the “it” factor.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree, but I have noted the build up of Sophie recently. I think that might be happening to offset the Kate stories.

      • DoubleTake says:

        Honestly, forget the “it” factor. She simply can’t TALK to an audience. Sure, she may be able to make small talk to a small group when no cameras are on her, but small talk rarely gives glimpses of a personality, unless one’s pores are simply oozing with charisma. Kate can’t overshadow anyone, simply because she can’t. If her personality is as “terribly shy” as the press make out (and speeches reveal) then overshadowing is not an option simply in terms of reality.

      • My2Pence says:

        It sounds like you doubt the press idea of her being “terribly shy” as well. The terribly shy do not:

        - march down catwalks in a sheer skirt (meant to be worn with a slip) and pretend it is a dress
        - show up at parties celebrating a movie about their favorite sex toy while wearing a playboy bunny ears/outfit
        - sunbathe topless
        - change their bathing suit on a balcony in full view of staff and security
        - refuse to weight the hems of their dresses after the first 6 mistakes and continue to flash people on official duties
        - etc.

        I do not think Kate Middleton is shy, I think she does not spend ANY time preparing for engagements or practicing her “speeches”. That is what makes her unable to make intelligent small talk or give a 6 line speech in her native tongue, not an innate shyness.

      • DoubleTake says:

        @My2Pence – Thanks for the additional examples! One of the main reasons I doubted her being “terribly” shy is because of the job she chose. I can’t imagine any love in the world overcoming that scrutiny and CONSTANT public attention, both pre- and post- marriage.

    • LadySlippers says:

      @Christine:

      Actually not true. HM’s & Charles’ offices have both stated repeatedly that William and Kate are in full control of their scheduling (which is true for *all* Royals) and are not dictated to. Plus, William does not like to be told what to do. Which means that William and Kate are working as much, or as little, as they want to. Period/Full Stop.

      The idea that Charles doesn’t want to be overshadowed is also open for debate.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      I don’t think the OP was saying that Charles and the queen expressly told the lazy duo not to work much. I believe her point was that if Charles and the queen actually had a serious, private conversation with William and aske him to kick it up a few notches that Will would basically just do it. I believe the commentor was then just speculating about why that conversation may not have taken place yet. Of course I could have misinterpreted her comment and do not want to presume to speak for another.
      I think by now we are all clear on the fact that the palace does not dictate the schedule of the Cambridges and that they are making intentional decisions not to work more. But I would be interested in speculating about why the palace has not privately consulted with Wil about this. We know he is headstrong but that does not mean we have proof that he has ever openly defied his father/grandmother. As for the christening, it is a mistake to use that as an example of the Cambridges having thrir way, queen be damned. The chapel, chosen for sentimental reasons, is much smaller than most people can imagine. Protocol and the most interested parties were invited due to the purpose/structure of the ceremony. It was not a snub. People omit the fact that a family luncheon followed the christening and more family members were present.
      We have all easily established that the Cambridges are lazy and self absorbed but I, for one, am very curious to know if anything else is going on here.

      • bluhare says:

        We’ll never have proof of him defying his family. But we can speculate and say they have talked to him, and he has/is.

        I mean, everyone else is picking up the slack for the Queen and Prince Philip. Why not these two.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Blu
        Mostly because they are lazy. I just think the speculation/conversation could be so much more fascinating if we all tried to figure out the missing 5% of the reason/explanation. Otherwise, ita with you all.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Snark:

        You could be right but so many William and Kate apologists honestly think the Queen dictates everything to her family and therefore the Cambridge’s are merely following orders. So it’s all the Queen’s fault. Or Charles’ because he can’t stand being overshadowed. And the fact that most of us can quote sources that contradict these ideas are simply dismissed.

        ETA: Actually you *can* extrapolate from William’s actions that he does defy orders. It is a military and safety regulation to have so many hours per month in order to keep your wings. William blatantly disregarded those regulations and almost lost his wings. He probably received several memos from his superior officers ordering him to get the hours remedied ASAP. And if that is not William passive-aggressively defying orders & regulations, then I don’t know what would qualify.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Lady
        Oh I’ve never said for a moment that William is not stubborn/defiant. But your example actually gets to the heart of what I think should be part of the conversation: how do we explain the means Will uses to successfully get his way and what are the motivators/inhibitors of his passive/aggressive behavior? Nature vs nurture? Introversion vs egotism? Arrested development vs narcissism? I just think it is boring to keep saying over and over how lazy and arrogant William is. He is and we can prove it. But what else is going on?everyone is a tapestry and the different threads/textures are just as interesting/telling as the big picture.
        I think part of the problem is thst we sometimes hurl our info at one another like evidence grenades in order to substantiate our opinions/beliefs. And because cb royal loonies are an intelligent lot the result is sometimes a stalemate.
        Wouldn’t it be cool if we could posit a theory and everyone bring something to the table to flesh out the theory to the fullest? Yes, we do that now, but usually about the same old topics. I would love to dig a little deeper – without an agenda. When you are not looking for a particular answer you are more open to unexpected truths, imo.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Snark:

        I wholeheartedly agree.

        I’ve wondered out loud the ‘why is….’ question myself. I actually rather feel for William as I don’t agree with others that he simply likes the perks of his station but not the responsibility. But it’s hard to substantiate that because I agree that we don’t know the full picture. I think even if someone cornered any of the Royals themselves they might not know. I’d guess William may not have the introspective tools to answer it himself. So it leaves us mulling over the info we do know and we’re back to square one.

        ETA: I think you’ve got to include the culture he and his peers grow up in as part of your analysis. The catering to the heir is beyond ridiculous but very prevalent. I’m sure there are other factors we’re not considering too.

      • My2Pence says:

        My guess is that William is temperamental (bullying, moody, suspicious, whiplash), along the lines of Diana. Sunny one moment, capable of being vicious and thoughtless the next moment (ex. leaked phone numbers example for Diana).

        The exhaustion of dealing with someone like that can really be wearing emotionally. HM, Charles, Harry, and the advisors have to gauge when the opportune moment to bring things up is. If they do it at the wrong moment, William will dig in his heels and NEVER consider the idea again. Easier to let him get his way most of the time because it saves wear-and-tear on themselves.

        Dame, you may have been the one who mentioned this in another thread. That William may agreed to the 10 week course because it may have been laid out to him logically and he was basically allowed to decide for himself. If he saw this as another way to duck out of royal duties, spend time away from the baby he insists screams all the time, etc. then he saw it as a good idea. NOT necessarily that he wanted to apply himself to the program and learn, but that he saw the value in the tidy excuse to do very little for another 3 months.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @My2Pence:

        I don’t think Diana was normally mean. I think her issues were emphasised because of the situation she was in. In addition, I think Paul Burrell fed those issues making her a lot worse than what she would have been without him.

        But I think people greatly overestimate her work tactics with her family tactics — most people said she kept her life VERY divided. So I don’t think the boys would have seen that side of Diana much.

        (IMHO Paul did it for personal gain and he gained a lot by isolating her)

      • My2Pence says:

        Because it reads oddly on here, I’m going to add: I was a great admirer of Diana and her work, no shade intended. I do think that she was not someone of even or easy temperament 100% of the time and that is what William inherited from her. She was generally able to marshal her negative emotions in public and do her job, which is what William seems incapable of doing. Ex. Diana would not be caught on video calling an attendee at a charity event “a bore” as William was.

        Having lived with Diana for all of those years, I’m sure dealing with another similar temperament stresses HM and Charles. William seems incapable of doing the work part and his negative emotions spill over and show in public the rare times he does work.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        LadySlippers, Pence
        Get out of my brain, lol. Both of you said at least one exact thing I was about to say and said it much better.
        Pence, don’t you find it ironic that Charles brought out the worst in Diana but his influence has kept Will from becoming another worse, full-blown Diana? At least imo. Diana “lost” her mom and had to deal with a difficult, unapologetic father. Will lost his mother but Charles was extraordinary with him and the whole family circled the wagons to support him unconditionally. Without Charles Will would be much worse.
        Lady
        I never gave the Burrows perspective much thought but I may have to. Do you think the queen dropped the charges against him (officially or un)
        I am really excited you two ladies have given me something to chew on that is off the beaten track. :)

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Snark:

        I honestly don’t think Charles or the rest of the BRF really rallied around the boys as much as was promoted. William and Harry went significantly farther off the rails than would have, had Diana lived*. And everything I’ve read has stated Charles was more involved in rehabbing his own image then to give the boys what they needed (aristo parents tend to be very hands off to begin with). That is partly why William is so hard to control now. He was allowed to run rampet as both an infant/toddler and again as a teen.
        And unlike Harry, he also had the obsequious environment that heirs are grow up in. In my opinion — that’s a deadly combination. This is why it’s such a problem up and down the British aristocracy and in the BRF.

        *Diana was the only one who could get William to mind. I don’t, for one second, think she had an unhealthy relationship with William. For all her faults, she was an exemplary mother. For example (my opinion obviously), the Nazi scandal the boys were involved in would not have happened if she were alive. Nor would all the public drunkenness we saw or other crap they did in their teens and early 20′s be tolerated. Nope, Diana would have made sure her boys would make her proud. Those many incidents were far from making her proud.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Lady
        Agree with you but at least the boys had Charles. Diana had no one after Frances left.
        And you can be sure Di would not have put up withe boys’ later stunts. Besides, they probably would have been living fuller, more substantial lives anyway. They may not have been so directionless, you know?

      • wolfpup says:

        It seems to me, that William believes the mantle of his mother’s popularity, belongs to him, simply because he was was left without her, with the public giving him much good will, and the benefit of the doubt. Apparently, he will have to grow-up, and prove himself as a player, in and of himself, as all adults must eventually do after childhood.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Wolfpup
        I believe you’re on to something here. When he and Harry chaired the benefit concert held to commemorate their mother he rose to the occasion. By all accounts Will was decisive, authoratative, hands-on and worked like a mad man to make it a success. Many people behind the scenes thought that William displayed a vision and a work ethic far beyond his then 25 years. Everyone felt so sure this display of character would continue but it hasn’t grown/manifested. Maybe he was doing it in his heart for his late mother. What you said would explain this. Will has to live in the present and on his own two feet. He has to prove himself worthy of his privilege not just coast on his mother’s legacy.

  14. Mel says:

    Either she really has no control whatsoever over her facial and body expressions (doesn’t she look at her own photos?) – or someone is picking only the worst photos. :)

    The manic expressions are bad enough, but with hand gestures like that – she really seems to have a very reduced range of motion, doesn’t she? – she does not appear overly bright.

    I did say “appear”.

  15. BeckyR says:

    Her Majesty probably has loads of jewelry given to her by the people of Australia and New Zealand–she probably inherited some from the Queen Mother and Queen Mary. It would be a nice tribute to the people who gave them for Kate to wear them on her visit.

  16. Jaded says:

    It sounds mean-spirited but I’m grumpy today so here goes. I really hope the pair of them screw up this trip. I hope her skirts fly up around her ears and her sausage curls blow all over the place and stick to her lippie. I hope she brings the jeggings, crop tops and wedges of doom. I hope she murders her one and only speaking engagement of less that 2 minutes with deer-in-the-headlight stares, lip-licking and having to refer to her notes after every 2 words. With long pauses in between. I hope Wills is as prickly and aloof as he normally is, and I hope they get overheard complaining about the enormity of the trip, how tired they are, how bored they are, how bad the food and accommodation is, etc. etc.

    There, I feel better now.

  17. K says:

    The Queen famously doesn’t interfere directly, but her senior officials do. I’d put money on the dresser assistance now involved in the wardrobe being quietly mandatory.

    I disliked people giving Kate a hard time before she married, because she was a private citizen so it was none of our business. At this point it’s very much our business because she costs us a lot in security/palace renovations, and she’s not doing very much for the money. William is worse, because he was born to it and can’t even be excused on grounds that he needs time to acclimatise, but not that impressed with either.

    I wouldn’t judge most people for a holiday without their baby (it wouldn’t be a holiday for me, as I’d fret, but I have friends who’ve left theirs with grandparents to recharge, and I know they are great parents who just needed that time to recoup) but they have nannies, for God’s sake. Why would they need time apart from him? Plus at a resort like that they’d have additional childcare support laid on – for their kid, definitely, even if not for anyone else’s. Why would they need to leave him behind? A beach holiday somewhere safe and quiet, plenty of air-conditioned rest spaces… it just seems a bit cold in their situation, to avoid even giving him an hour or two a day with his parents when they could otherwise have a child-free holiday.

  18. Eleonor says:

    coming soon: William hissy fit.

    • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

      Definitely. I’m surprised that criticism of their laziness has broken out in the major papers to this extent. Anyone think think this is just the beginning? Has the ride turned on their worshipful press coverage? If it continues, will William feel pressured to step it up or will he just sulk? And would/could his father or grandmother or palace officials express “concern” privately to him about the impact on the monarchy of his laziness? I

      I am hoping for a flood tide of public disapproval.

      • FLORC says:

        And will the public disapproval be so much that William and Kate doing a few events and trotting out PG won’t distrac from the issue.
        And this has been in motion for a while.William has freak outs. Attacks press and then expects them to still do as he says. Bad move.

  19. Juliette says:

    Charles wrote things in those letters that are clearly highly valuable. Its my opinion that if he is exercising an influence over the government, the people of the UK have the right to know exactly what that influence entails. If he’s so bent on concealing their contents, I guarantee its damning information.

    I’ve been speculating on what could be in those letters. At least some of them are likely hawkish, with Charles supporting war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also: taxes. I’m certain there are letters detailing which of Charles’s properties should be exempt, what landed estate taxes ought to be (to support conservation purposes, of course!), and strong opinions on taxable assets and rates. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of the letters were for property grants, in an effort to receive the benefits of public grant money.

    Whatever the letters contain, they are inherently political in nature. The monarchy sustains itself on portraying an image of harmlessness and political powerlessness. “We are just sweet, traditional, tourist attractions!” Nobody wants an absolute monarch, or even a King with strong political visions. The fact is, if Charles was an ordinary citizen, not one of his letters would be read nor would they be newsworthy. Charles gets the opportunity to have Parliament’s ear – and he exercises that opportunity with regularity. Clearly the Prince of Wales is a political animal, but he wants his exercise of power to remain a secret. I think this should concern everyone in the UK.

    • Suze says:

      I agree – release those letters!

    • LadySlippers says:

      Have you read Charles’ earlier letters to politicians? The ones I read dealt with the environment but damn did he not come across very well, IIRC.

    • LAK says:

      Agreed.

      it’s always boggles my mind when i hear or read that ‘the royals are harmless and have no power/influence beyond being tourist attractions or social status’.

      i speculate that as a result of the L-O-N-G reign of someone who ostrich-like prefers to ignore something and or hope time either rights it or makes it go away, who has not exercised her vetos and power on many occasions except where it benefits her and always behind closed doors, has led people to wrongly make that assumption.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Luckily, Charles has a history of interference that we can look forward to when he gets his long awaited for promotion.

      • Juliette says:

        Although I disapprove of the royal veto power as a general rule, if it must exist, I prefer the Queen’s method of involving herself only when directly affected. Never explain, never complain. That’s her motto.

        Charles is a complainer. Like many fussy old men, Charles spends his days writing complaint letters to influential people. The fact he’s trying to keep the contents of his letters to Parliament a secret indicates that Charles will continue to complain and interfere with politics, but will continue to claim privacy rights protect disclosure his princely interference.

        The difference between him and all the other grumpy old men writing letters is that important people are actually listening to his opinions. If he wants to exercise his influence, the public has the right to know the objects of his interest.

    • bluhare says:

      I agree as well. I suppose it could be “the principle of the thing”, but I doubt it. I tend to agree with Charles, but if he’s meddling politically that would be a problem.

    • Sixer says:

      I would guess the letters are about the environment and planning/architecture, his main interests.

      I agree he shouldn’t lobby and I agree the letters should be published. Having said that, I think we should be a great deal more concerned about behind the scenes corporate lobbying, which has much more significant effect on our lives.

  20. Suze says:

    Looking at anything except the most posed, Photoshopped photos of her makes me nervous.

    I’ve gone round and round on what I think of Brunette Duchess, and at this point I just feel sorry for her. She worked hard to marry William, her whole family joined in the effort – no expense was too high, no accommodation too much. And where did it end her? She is completely out of her depth, wild-eyed and awkward in every public appearance, with a husband who has obvious other interests. I sometimes wonder if her very sanity is being tested.

    And it’s getting worse, not better. She looked much more poised and relaxed in her first few outings as an engaged woman. The engagement announcement was her peak, I think. That and her appearance on the hospital steps with George, where she seemed lovely and human and emotional – but real.

    She has George, thank GOD. Seriously, he might be her lifeline.

    So I’ve gone from somewhat liking her, to cynically disliking her, to feeling sorry for her. We’ll see how this trip goes. I’m just hoping she hasn’t lost more weight in anticipation of it.

    • FLORC says:

      I bounce between like, dislike, and pity too.
      She certainly changed since her uni days and during their last break up.
      I’m not going to troll concern. I think she knows what’s going on.

      She has her family. Never has to work. Her child is set for life and there’s a chunk of money for her should she be divorced. She knows how to be with William and deal with his cheating and temper.
      And Kate has the benefit of knowing Diana’s story. If she wants better for herself than to be a clothes horse who looks like a drain on the public she can work.

      I think Kate likes where she is. I think Kate is in a state of arrested development and she’s content. So, i’m not feeling the pity at this point.

    • Original N says:

      I understand where you are coming from, Suze, and IF William had treated her beyond reproach whilst they were dating, then I would agree with you. However, past behavior tends to be the most reliable predictor of future behavior and so I CANNOT feel sorry for Kate Middleton as she chose this life, despite observing some serious ‘red flags’ regarding William’s behavior towards her (& towards others) that would have made most women put their self-worth above the benefits of marrying into the royal family through a union with William. I feel sorry for children who are born with HIV or incurable illness, who are born orphans, who grow up without an assurance that there will always be food to eat & clean water to drink, animals that are treated in deplorable ways that bring tears to my eyes at just the thought when they have the purest of hearts and are killed, maimed, destroyed at a human’s whim. I do not feel sorry for Kate Middleton for living the life she so desperately wished to attain.

    • LadySlippers says:

      I’m with Original N on this. I think… Unless she wasn’t after what William brought to the table and was actually so head over heels in love she couldn’t ‘see’ his faults.

      Or, there might be more going on with her than we know. I honestly don’t think being in such a small fishbowl with the world’s spotlight is healthy for anyone. My guess, and I’m thinking this is where you were going, is the hot seat is much hotter than what she guessed. On top of that, the BRF isn’t known for their cuddles so she might be completely adrift, all without BRF support. She may have support from her family but I’m guessing that doesn’t help as much as she thought.

      Okay Suze, I do see your point a lot more than I thought.

      I really think we are all working with less than 1/2 the story here. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

      • Suze says:

        That is exactly where I was going : ).

        I think the reality of royal life has been a shock, and she probably thought she was well prepared. I don’t get the sense that she has either Pippa or Carole’s toughness – and she definitely can’t go head to head with any of the royal women.

        That said, I’m not going to waste tears over her. Plenty of the world’s population has a lot that is much worse.

        So, buck up, buckaroo!

      • Angelic 21 says:

        Oh please what exactly has changed before engagement and post? Nothing, things have only gotten better for her IMO. William always treated her as second class citizen so no change in behaviour there, she didn’t work before, she doesn’t work now, plus she have unlimeted shooping and vacation budget, status, title, and a very positive press that she lost as a GF.

        And as far as being so in love is concerned, please! Does anyone think she would’ve gone after William or be so devoted if he weren’t HRH,including her family? She was with him for 10 years for Christ sake, no one with a normal IQ will be able to ignore his faults. She wanted the title by hook or crook, as simple as that. There is no way she would have let any William the plumber treat her like that. She was ready to be treated like shit for a title.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        William did not always treat Kate like a second class citizen. It went back and forth over the years according to his moods. Not disagreeing with everything just that part. If we don’t think in absolutes we get closer to the real story.

      • Angelic 21 says:

        I disagree, he always treated her like crap. He first started sleeping with her as friends, had his ex GF Jecca sit with him even though everybody knew he was boning Kate. Then I’ve read in the beginning of his senior year at collage he dumped her and went on a vacation with an American Texas heiress but Waity did what she does best, waited for him to be done the other girl and come back to her. He always treated her like crap from all the biographies written on them (even the sugars 1 that claim he only did stuff like this to check her loyalty) and she tolerated it. No way in hell she or her mother would’ve allowed her to waste her 20′s for a commoner William, she was after the HRH and got exactly what she wanted. She is not a victim in my eyes, not by any stretch of imagination.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Snark:

        Bingo!

        So many people think in terms of absolutes and forget that there are human beings behind our gossip sessions. People are not easy to decipher and do things for all sorts of reasons. And most people we gossip about aren’t that much different than we are. We ALL make choices that span the gambit from logical to downright crazy.

        I try and factor in the ‘people aspect’ in all my thoughts discussions.

        (In all fairness though, it’s harder to convey depth in places that reward pithiness. People and their behaviours don’t lend themselves to abridged discussions.)

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Angelic:

        I know plenty of women who put up with that crap and the loser in question had no money or titles. A lot of women think ‘he’ll change when X happens’ and stick around pining and hoping
        for something most know will never materialise. And we still hug them and let them cry their hearts out when they finally wake up and see the illusion.

        So I don’t think it’s as simple as you think. And that’s why I still give them ALL the same human reactions I would a friend.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Angelic
        When people read bad things about Will and Kate they say see I told you so! When they read something to the contrary they say well that’s just Middleton propoganda making it into the papers. The truth is never so black and white.
        William did not treat Kate like trash the entire time they were together.
        Popular opinion: Kate went strolling down the catwalk in her skivvies because Will didn’t know she existed.
        Truth: will and Kate were already on casual speaking terms. Kate was voted the prettiest girl n their first year hall and was already popular. She and Will were on pleasant terms but nothing earth shattering. He was dating another girl who was voted by the students to have the most enviable figure. That didn’t last because Will was flirting with Olivia Hunt when he went home.
        Popular opinion: after Kate caught William’s eye they started a tawdry fling that Will was too lazy to end.
        Truth: At the party following that fashion show William broke his neck to corner Kate to tell her he thought she was hot. According to others at the party they sat on the stairs side by side talking for a long time. He tried to kiss her and she stopped him, embarassed because other kids were watching/laughing. This may have been sincere or insincere but it worked. William was enchanted.
        Popular opinion:
        Kate went to St. Andrews because Will did.
        Truth: Kate went to St. Andrews because Will did.
        Popular opinion: Kate wore that negligee to catch Will’s eye.
        Truth: Kate wore the negligee hoping to catch Will’s eye.
        Popular opinion: Will soon grew tired of her and her public claiming of his attention.
        Truth: Kate was so discreet that people used to speculate whether or not she was dating Will. When they moved in together everyone knew, of course. It was after their second year that the problems began and Will could show himself to be an ass.
        Before that he fawned on her and found her fresh and wholesome compared to the aristo girls he knew.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Part 2
        Popular opinion: Will cheated on Kate in school.
        Truth: not sure here. He probably carried on during breaks but was careful to make sure was seen as/treated like the official girlfriend.
        Popular opinion: During the Sandhurst years Kate was always nervous about Will dumping her.
        Truth: Will was still quite taken with Kate and even the leaked transcripts back this up. He was often anxious to have breaks so they could spend quiet time together and grow as a couple.
        Popular opinion: Eventually Will grew tired of Kate’s clingy ways.
        Truth: Yes and here the couple hit there second rough patch. He broke up with her.
        Popular opinion: Kate was desperate to get him back.
        Truth: this time Will actually did the convincing. At Harry’s graduation party Will was seen moping, drinking a lot and eventually left the party early and alone.
        Popular opinion: Kate showed up at a party in a skimpy nurse outfit hoping to get Will’s attention.
        Truth: it was a naughty themed party and everyone had on risque costumes. Will wore a sexy police officer uniform complete with hot pants (!!) They came as a couple and were openly glad to be back together.
        Popular opinion: Will soon grew bored again and flirted with other women.
        Truth: This is true.they entered another rocky phase.
        Popular opinion: Will felt pressure to be with Kate.
        Truth: Charles is not an intefering father and Will does what Will likes.
        Popular opinion: Kate waited for 8/9 years for Will to propose.
        Truth: Will privately proposed to her on the beach in Africa and told her he was sure she was the one in 2007. I could be off on the year but it was well before the official announcement so she technically had a right to “wait”
        Popular opinion: during the last break-up Kate lost weight and partied publicly to spite/shame Will.
        Truth: This appears to be true.
        Popular opinion: Kate was just beginning to pull herself back together after their last break-up whe Will changed his mind.
        Truth: Several sources support this. Will saw she wasn’t crumbling and he convinced her to come back.
        Popular opinion: The Anglessey years were good for them.
        Truth: This appears to be true. They seemed more tranquil and domestic at that time.
        Now things seem really rough between them again. But who knows? Interesting to see what develops this year.

      • hmmm says:

        @Dame Snarkweek,

        I agree with @Angelic that William treated Kate like a second class citizen. In fact, I would venture that he would treat any woman as second class.

        Thanks for the rundown of Wills’ behaviour. That cements for me what an appalling, cheating cad and jerk he was. Even abusers show a woman a good time for a while, and fawn over her, and declare their undying love. Over and over again between the bad bits. Cheaters do it too, over and over again.

        Your extensive profiling confirms for me that he treated her like trash after the initial honeymoon period, and I would say that his true colours came out and are consistent with what we see today.

        I doubt that he has respect for any woman (not even his granny), because once he is challenged, by Divine Right, he becomes what he truly is- a contemptible lowlife/misogynist.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Hmmmm
        I kind of like your take because you formed them after considering all the information instead of discarding the parts that don’t “fit”
        This makes me excited to hear different opinions and challenge my own. The abuse cycle you allude to makes a lot of sense although I am not sure that it has come to that yet. As of yet I am not convinced that Will never once actually loved Kate and only used her. If Kate ever defies or challenges him we could know for sure if he is a classic abuser by his reaction. Not sure that will happen. And there is a lot we dob’t know yet because Will’s friends/associates know they will be cut off if they talk. When more time goes by and people are tired of Will’s aggression we will finally see. I’m willing to admit that it might not be pretty. But we could also be surprised.

      • wolfpup says:

        Dame Snarkweek (“”snarkie, snarkers, snarkin-weekly”) Thank you for the well-thought out information. I think that we’d agree that it can’t be easy being Kate. (Yes, “wolfie, and all that…”)

      • LadySlippers says:

        My guess is that William also had nice periods which is why she kept coming back. Most people, irregardless of money or titles, don’t put up crap ALL the time. There are glimmers of hope throughout any cycle otherwise people just walk away.

    • Eleonor says:

      I don’t feel sorry for her at all, she has the lifestyle she wanted, she’s got Diana’s ring.
      She has never worked a day in her life, her family was on the “get the prince” board too, and they supported her financially through all those years, because they could afford it .
      Once she’s got married she didn’t even try to do something positive with her new status: she goes to events and does speeches because someone has to tell her “move that ass”.
      There’s no need to try to be the new Diana, but at least trying to avoid certain things like “being on holiday” (holiday from what?) the entire time is it too much? Or trying to do more public speeches even if she is not great at that, but you know, seeing that she tries to do something positive, that she tries to improve herself would give a different image.
      Of course people judge her only for the clothes she wears, there is nothing else left.

    • bluhare says:

      I’ve never disliked her, but I do wonder what she thought she was doing. It could be a classic case of “be careful what you ask for; you might get it”.

  21. Liberty says:

    FIFTY SHADES OF WINDSOR: BOOK FIVE

    “Bugger Margaret Roger it, I’m dead tired after that whole Maldives thing!” complained William Baldtop. He sat on a gilt chair staring at a half-filled suitcase, his broad shoulders hunched deliciously in a cashmere sweater, a fresh golden tan accentuating the angles of his smooth, formerly sensual gopher-like face.

    Gazing upon him, Romina, the young 22-year-old “foreign” former literature student and royal baby nanny, felt the burning desire to be near him, to feel the stimulating heat that might arise from touching his perfect skin with a hard slap from the back of her work-roughened hand. Instead she said, as she rifled through stacks of new shirts and jeans, “Oh, tired Sir. Brings you I a drink and plate of the lady pastries? Or you go to some of the rooms of beds and rest again? I think the wife person she rest too now, I see her weepings, she say, — ‘No more gowns right now I have been to standing for an hour and my hair needs a lay-down. Bring me magazines and the cart of shoes! I want a tiara right now or I will hold my breath and let mummy keep the great old brat! I wish I was already in New Zeastralia! I hate it here!’ She was scream, they chase her down hall and she go laying upon some jewel things and will not hand them back and she makes the Queen try to roll her over to get jewel things, but, she strong! So they give up at last. You go lay to down perhaps too? Poor Sir, poor wife-person, we call royal doctor? I call now! You go see her?”

    “No, no,” snapped William Baldtop, crossly throwing a glossy new three-hundred-pound hand stitched men’s loafer across the room. “I have been on Wife Duty an entre bloody week! Can’t a man have some time off? Work, work, work I am blind with it! Are you going to nag me too? You are to be my escape, Cressida Two!”

    “Yes, okay, you want me to sends thirty shirts to Oxford?” said Romina hurriedly, quelling a longing to reach her slender naked fingers out to him and painfully pinch and twist his nose until he squealed like the axle on a rusty Romanian tractor. She caught herself, and smoothed her new sheer beige taffeta nanny sheath over her new black silk nanny bra and pants. “Dear sweet holy Sir Harry,” she whispered under her breath, her eyes welling up, “Oh strong-loined hope of the peoples poor and injured, the peoples trod down and what cry over the tax, and cry over the peoples in the crowns on head and satin on holidays, and us saddest of peoples trapped with great large royal employers, dear blessed ginger man, oh pray Gods you never see me in this frock of my shame unless we go for nice dinner three times before and saves some whales too!” Young Romina choked back a sob under her breath as she tried to push more sweaters and some falconer’s gloves into the suitcase. “Oh, what is this?” She held up a great large tiara half-wound in a cashmere and pima polo stocking.

    “Damn! bloody old wife!!” yelped William Baldtop, snatching it from her hands. “I told her she was NOT to even THINK of following me to Oxford, and she thinks she’s going to pack her swag with me?” He threw the ancient priceless crown against a wall, where it nicked the purple-flocked paper. “Cressida Two, pack up, you’re coming to Oxford with me! I shall need your soothing….touch! Hurry!”

    “But the small childs!” stammered Romina, “I take him? Where is he?” “Fie!” said William Baldtop, “I’m paying the Mindingbucks a boar-load packet to keep their laundry under the bushes, let them have him. I won’t be able to bear those bloody boring classes without you! Call the car, then call the press office. Eager to be back to my studies, etcetera, agriculture, learning things help the Duchy and all that, dirt, alfalfa, sheep, what ho! We’ll play master and Margarita tonight. Jolly fun! God, I love my job! Bring the cuffs and the leather scrunchies! Har! Where’s my new Maldivian flask! And bring your paycheck, we’ll need food!”

    • bluhare says:

      I haven’t even finished reading yet, but “formerly sensual gopher like face” deserves some kind of award!! I must invent one. *thinking cap on*

      Liberty, no one can touch you. AmazIng. Get that blog going!!!!!

    • Dimebox says:

      Bravo Liberty! I am in awe of your wit. *genuflects*

    • FLORC says:

      Bravo Liberty!
      I’ve ccome to look forward to these:)

    • Reece says:

      “Cressida Two” LOL
      You really should look into self publishing or compiling these all onto one site. :)

    • Sixer says:

      Where can I buy some leather scrunchies?!

    • LAK says:

      Happy Friday Liberty. bloody brilliant!!!

      i say, Baroness, an elevation is in order. A wet wiglet to FLORC for missing her off the recent list submitted.

      respectfully

      Lady LAK

      • bluhare says:

        Lady L,

        I was ruminating about just this a bit earlier. I was going to invent an award for her literary expertise, but perhaps she would prefer a title. It’s a bit tricky with “Liberty”, as Lady Liberty would be lovely, but Lady is taken by the just as lovely Lady LAK (and I really hesitate to give you another title because Lady LAK just reads so beautifully). There’s Marchioness Liberty or Vicereine Liberty, or Countess Liberty. What do you think? I like Vicereine just because of the “vice” part.

        And FLORC? You owe Liberty a ride in the wiglet wagon. With valet service.

        The Baroness bluhare

      • LadySlippers says:

        I think Madame Liberté ;-)

      • bluhare says:

        That has a definite ring to it but it’s not an aristocratic title. If she turns one down as FLORC did, which is why she’s FLORC as opposed to AlexandraBananarama now (yes, FLORC, I actually remember!!), then I think Madame Liberte is great. Although I’ll have visions of her trying to murder me in the bathtub, but I’ll get over it.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @bluhare:

        Oh no! We cannot have a Royal Loonie massacre here in the Queendom of CeleBitchy!

        Therefore I hereby put a new rule forth:

        Thou shall not kill another Royal Loonie in the Queendom of CeleBitchy (henceforth referred to as QoCB) for any reason. Any Royal Loonie suspected of the death of another Royal Loonie shall have a jury of at least three of his/her peers, and if found guilty, be banished from the esteemed Queendom for a fixed length of time (which can be determined at the punishment phase of the trial).

        Better bluhare? Please say yes!!!!

        And my visual image was the bare breasted painting of Liberté waving the French revolutionary flag with soldiers all around her. No scary bathtubs in site (same with showers).

      • FLORC says:

        Hah!
        I pretty much went into witness protection with the name change.
        And the Bananarama was my ode to the name game song. Fun fact!

        Liberty
        You are without a doubt a true Royaloonie. Please join us for some tea while we tour the many wigs and wiglets in the Duchesses abode. It is an impressive collection only rivaled by John Travolta.
        Quite a sight!

        I will bid you all my leave as I must endure 5 lashing with the wet wiglet for not inviting you on wiglet watch sooner. Notice i’ve installed heated seats. Because Kate may always find it’s skirt season, but we must keep warm!

        Warm Regards,
        First Lady Of The Royal Celebitches.

      • LAK says:

        Dear Baroness,

        May i point out that you recently elevated Duchess Capon, which makes her Countess seat available. Liberty has done sterling work on the royal chronicles worthy of a Countess. Countess Liberty has a nice ring, don’t you think?

        Yours Respectfully

        Lady LAK

      • bluhare says:

        I put a pea under my mattress so I’d be up all night tossing and turning as I needed to think about Liberty’s new title. I’m going to stick with Vicereine or Countess Liberty unless she turns it down (damn FLORC for setting *that* precedent), in which case I will allow her the choice of Madame Liberte (put the accent there somebody; Baronesses do not do alt-ctrl thingys) or Laureate Liberty. I am somewhat partial to Laureate Liberty (thank you, Sixer) given her literary skills and the fact it starts with an L, but she can decide. I’m very egalitarian that way.

        LadySlippers, it is most refreshing to have someone volunteer to create order around here. It has been sorely lacking; my posts do not generate nearly the adulation they should.

        The Baroness

    • Liberty says:

      I am laughing so much some gin tea just flew over the lip of the cup. I thank you all most humbly. I blush, but, pish posh, I am not sure one deserves a title; I have yet to earn my grape leaves and gardenias among you. I bow before your vast knowledge, fair snark, and incandescent royal capabilities; I will keep trying. But confab away; does an elevation come with a cute pin with jewels and ribbon? I do so like a cute pin with jewels and ribbon. LAK? what do bestowed titles come with, re, darling swag bits?

      I will be delighted however to attend the wet wiglet tour’n'tea — is it in aid of anything, such as, the continuing education of Kate the Hungry? The building of a statue to Harry the Great in Hyde Park? A small bamboo trap affixed with tripwire to catch William Baldtop shimmying down a drainpipe? (A little pony tells me Princess Anne is willing to go in on this.)

      @bluhare — the stiffness of the leather scrunchie is, I understand, as the deliciously savvy sixer notes, its playtime appeal. ;-)

      • bluhare says:

        Lady LAK!! One is having the vapours over here!!!!

        Liberty, this is not cricket. One does not hand out titles just for fun you know. One has to EARN them, which you did with Chapter 5. Now, put your big girl panties on and pick a title or else I shall have to go smack the Lady LAK around. She knows that’s part of being able to hang around me, but she doesn’t like it, and I really do try to avoid doing it. I think she spits in my tea when I do.

        The Baroness

        (You didn’t know we did this, did you? Haven’t done it for quite a while now. Thanks to LAK for bringing it up. ) :D

      • LAK says:

        Dear Baroness,

        IF Liberty refrains from picking a title, one shall have to pick one for her.

        I recently came upon her diary, sent to us anonymously by one ‘arthistorian’ in which she confesses all manner of activity with the Anglo-saxons, some Vikings and *whisper* a few danes.

        A Lady doesn’t like to tattle, but one feels Vicereine would suit Liberty to a T due to her activities away from the palace.

        As the royal chronicler in chief, she will need the Royal Celebitches family order as soon as we can locate one to protect her from William Baldtop and Kate the Hungry. We are receiving many distressing calls from the ‘foreign’ graduate nanny person who dared to cross you and was banished to his castle. She requests Harry the Great’s help, but I think she needs to work alittle harder before we can unleash the Ginger Prince. The Vicereine Liberty shall report.

        I remain your humble and obedient servant.

        Lady LAK

      • bluhare says:

        While we are waiting for Liberty, would you mind sending me that diary, Lady LAK? Danes, you say? Oh my. I don’t think my fan is big enough.

        Liberty, you are hereby dubbed Vicereine Liberty, Laureate of CB. Here here, for she’s a jolly good fellow, and all that rot. Huzzah!!

        The Baroness

        LAK, the diary! Now! And my parasol does not unfurl itself, you know.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Oh, dearest Liberty
        A Vicereine you shall be
        So sayeth Lady Lak
        And we all have her back
        So curtsey, smile
        And sip your ginger tea!

        Our knowledge is the truest
        Our blood, of course, the bluest
        So now you’re in
        Our worthy friend
        And I’m no longer the newest!

      • bluhare says:

        While that is a very lovely poem, Ms Snarkweek, I do not recall ennobling you. Was Lady LAK handing out titles again while I was on holiday? She’s done it before, and it’s most confusing when one gets back to the stately pile and does not address one’s guests correctly.

        The Baroness

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Baroness Blu
        I must humbly remit you to Lady LAK and FLORC for the answers you seek ;)
        But I will say this much: I used to be Snarkweek, and quite simply so until your fellow peeresses thought differently of it. I, though snarky incarnate, remain ever humbly in their noble debt. Shall I remain, ever, in yours?
        PS – Every noble house has its rascal ;)

      • LAK says:

        To Vicereine Liberty, Laureate of CB. Huzzah!!

        and now dear Baroness, a sample from the diary:

        Liberty says:
        March 11, 2014 at 7:49 pm

        LATE ADD: — “Eric the Memorable (though I can’t for the life of me remember why he was memorable)”

        Oh my God, ArtHIstorian, I dated this one in a past life. I’ll explain why he’s memorable, nudge nudge, wink! Quite more of a lad than Eustice The Despondent and oh my god, Harald the Soft! Nobody went back THERE I can tell you.

        Vapours!!!

        The Dame was elevated whilst you were away on the grand tour. we had to get through the list so that you wouldn’t find more work after such a gruelling tour.

        Lady LAK.

      • bluhare says:

        Dame Snark, you may keep your title. I have not yet had to unnoble someone, although I must confess I’m rather looking forward to it.

        Lady LAK has been holding out on me. I’ve not heard about Harald the Soft. Don’t suppose it’s because he’s got a soft heart, is it? Although I am glad it’s shut her up about Eric the Memorable. So he kept her up all night . . . the Baron’s kept me up all night and I never had to go on and on about it. Maybe because the Baron had a bit of digestive upset and I didn’t want to embarrass him.

        The Baroness

      • LAK says:

        Baroness

        The Vicereine was challenged to attempt a turn around of Harald the soft’s reputation. Alas, she failed. as have all who have taken up the challenge.

        Lady LAK

      • bluhare says:

        I wish I’d have known this before I dubbed her VICEreine, Lady LAK. Oh well, one supposes one must call on the Americans. If we tell FLORC that Harald wears a bad toupee she’ll be over there with the wiglet wagon. One spin with FLORC on those heated seats ought to do it.

        FLORC!!!!!

        The Baroness

    • wolfpup says:

      “Wife-Duty” Very funny… I like how you put “studies, etcetera”, which is somewhere close to the truth, being that is all they seem to be able to pin-down, along with large words, such as agriculture. Very weird that Will would leave so close after the birth of his first child. Do daddies do that? Mommies would be upset.

    • Liberty says:

      @ALL Bows head at enormous kindness. Needs a moment to fully take it all in and regain proper composure. Glad one wore gloves today! Honored, above all. Honored!

      – Vicereine Liberty, newly formed

      • bluhare says:

        Enormous kindness is what I do, Vicereine Liberty, Laureate of CB.

        Humbly yours
        The Baroness

        PS About those Danes . . . . . .

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        *pulls braided silk cord, waits for the servant*
        Blu
        All will be well once the champagne arrives.

      • Liberty says:

        @ Baroness bluhare — so sorry about the Danes! (shuffles feet) I realize we were quite pesky and yes, stabby, all apologies! High spirits, love of bracelets, icy cocktails, eh? One’s French side never stops pointing at this either. Sigh.

        @Dame Snarkweek — oh that poem!!!! I am sending my man out to the village with orders to have it embroidered on a pillow. Meanwhile — bring on the Champy! One does love the bubbles to brace oneself for an evening.

        @Lady LAK — I shall attempt to turn around Harald the Soft’s reputation in a more forthcoming manner. I was trying to be delicate. Alas, I see I shall have to throw down in Chapter Six, where a strange and shocking genetic connection to Harald and his proclivities manifests in my tale of royal love gone hot and wonky.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Liberty
        Hail sister, well met:)
        *wrings hands nervously*
        Now that we’re proper mates I need to explain something to you about Harold. His brother started calling him the Soft after a few too many drinks one night. The truth is he could put five cherry stems in his mouth and spit out a bracelet.that’s all I’ve got, I swear! And if LAK finds out I told you first I’ll have to rearrange her lingerie chiffarobes again. You don’tknow what that’s like, I tell you…they have to be alphabetized and arranged by content (confusing silk with satin or supima has consequences around here) and ivories can’t be confused with creams or ecrus. And don’t get me started on her bloody pre-ppre-war reproduction hand sewn silk stocking collection. Since the costume department from that Gatsby flop came by to do some sketches of it everything I do is all wrong.
        *sigh*
        You see the predicament I’m in, right?

      • bluhare says:

        The baroness responded to your comment last night, Snarky, and she will be quite upset when she gets back to find it did not post. She was quite intrigued with Harald’s jewellery making abilities. However, she has dragged poor Lady LAK out to visit the local high street and will not be posting today. LAK was not happy; I believe I heard her talking to herself as she went to get the Rolls. Something about, “this stupid old biddy thinks I’m her bloody paid companion! This isn’t 1814!”

        Translation: I’ve lost the baroness vibe!!

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        B’ss Blu
        Well, in that case, one feels much better. Fear not, V. liberty was quite the lovely companion whilst you and the Lady L were scrunchy shopping. FLORC is using the wet noodle so you’re off the hook! And I wouldn’t worry about LAK. I hear V. Liberty has something truly inspired for her. Something as precious and bespoke as William Baldtop’s Cambridge program!
        *claps, hops from foot to foot* lAK will definitely have a smile on her face!

    • Liberty says:

      @Dame Snarkweek —
      Hail to thee, oh Dame! Despair not! First, might I gently inquire: this lad about whom you sing. Was he in fact, Harald the Soft, or a well-known imposter and tenth century male model of courtly short coats, Harold the Soft? The cherry stem twirling sounds a right bit like Harold, who, have no shame, fooled more than a few wenches and ladies, a common rogue born on the wrong side of the wolfskin. Now. the Harald of my certain acquaintance was of a shall we say more industrious propensity, though his preference for certain hobbies and settled temperament about some subjects due to his advanced tutelage led to the misnomer in the public eye. I shall reveal all soon; be prepared to clasp your bosom and daydream.

      With regard to LAK: naturally, a woman of her rank and peerage is particular about her garments, not least of all her lingerie. I too have nearly wished to box the ear of a maid who could not differentiate a blush corset from a watered silk oyster sleeping chemise. However, I promise upon the souls of my Danish and French noblewoman ancestors to protect you from such a fate, for indeed, the true tale of my Harald the Soft will astonish the worldly and bewilder the delicate and strike dumb the bossy. Pray, be at peace today.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        V. liberty
        *thinks this over*
        You may have a point. Although my life would be immeasurably better if LAK could trust the servants with the accursed lingerie. But, understandinggentlewoman that I am, even I can’t let the Lay’s delicates fall into the heavily cuticles of Nell. Or Emmy. Or whatever her parents call her.
        *sigh*
        None of this would have hapoened had I not lost that stupud bet with LAK about Wallis Simpson’s true dress size. Damned divorcee.
        A thousand pardons about the Harold confusion. I remember there was hagus involved in the story so…wrong country, wrong Harold?
        *air kisses* Do hurry with the tales. After shopping with the Baroness we are all going to have to pull LAK back together. Ta-ta!

  22. Stephanie says:

    I’m a NYer with some questions. You all seem well informed of British ways, maybe you can help.
    1. Is High Street a real place, like our Fifth Ave here? Or when someone refers to DKoC High St clothes does if just mean high end, designer?

    2. I was under the impression that the job of the royal family is for the people. To bring in funds for charities that support the people. Will’s big chrity is elephant conservation. While I think it’s a very worthwhile cause, how does it help the people? The UK (admitedly I have a hard time remembering to include the entire Commonwealth) doesn’t have free roaming herds of elephants. Why doesn’t he have a second big interest directly related to helping his people?

    • bluhare says:

      There are High Streets just like we have Main Streets, but it’s pretty much a term for the main shopping area in town.

      Elephant conservation doesn’t benefit the british people. He is the patron of many charities, though, so he does do more than just that.

      I’ll let someone else give you all the details as I’m not so versed in those.

    • Lucrezia says:

      Ooh, translating from Pommy into Yank … I’m good at that since I’m an Aussie and exposed to both dialects :)

      1) High Street doesn’t mean high end, it means common, available to the masses. It’s not exactly referring to a real place, more like it’s the most common street name in the UK. Basically, “High Street” = shops you’d find in the centre of every city. Not a boutique designer. The US translation might be Main Street, but I’m not sure you guys use it in quite the same way to describe something common.

      2) Wills is patron for several charities. I don’t know that anyone would say elephants are his one big cause. Are you maybe just thinking of that particular charity because it was the most recent one in the news? Here’s the official list http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/PrinceWilliam/Charitiesandpatronages.aspx
      It’s got some varied stuff on it. Not sure if anyone has a real problem with the types of charity work he chooses, it’s the AMOUNT of work that’s the problem.

    • LadySlippers says:

      @Stephanie:

      I think people covered what High Street means.

      The Royals pick charities and causes that mean something to them. And all of them have charities that fall outside the UK or the Commonwealth too. For example, Anne has several charitable causes that focus on Africa. It’s not just William and Harry that have charities based in Africa (in fact, Africa used to be Anne’s territory and most Royals are careful not to step on another Royal’s toes).

      The purpose of the Royals in most countries is to use their name and connections to improve the world (beyond diplomacy). So Royals can elevate that concern a particular charity might highlight to a much higher level. For example, Harry has brought the world’s attention on wounded vets and the plight of orphaned children in Africa. Diana did the same to landmine victims. Charles has tackled poverty and advocated training & jobs for British poor youth. Queen Rania of Jordan advocated for women’s rights around the world.

      I could go on and on but a lot of Royals both in and outside the UK do some fabulous work with William and Kate an exception to the rule and should not be the used as guide posts for any Royal Family’s worth.

  23. Jackie Jormp Jomp says:

    Waste of jewels: her silly, phony, Texas-cheerleader hair is always hiding them.

  24. Stephanie says:

    Thanks BluHare and Lucrezia.

    I knew the one after the hunting trip was for conservation of endangered animals but I didn’t know it was the elephant one. Over the years the elephant one is the only one I’ve heard of. So it seemed like his big one to me. That could be bc the charities he is a patron of that actually help ppl don’t need an audience outside of the UK, while animal conservation needs to be done on a worldwide scale.

  25. hmmm says:

    What the heck is a “wardrobe coordinator? Is that like a stylist?

  26. anne_000 says:

    What’s the point of giving Kate showy jewelry when she’s going to cover them up with her hair? The Queen may have her dressmaker help Kate for the New Zealand/Australia tour, but if Kate’s going to the hairdresser’s with the same instructions, then oh well…

    I wonder who’s going to win the battle of the way-too-short-skirts & no weights vs appropriate-length dresses with weights? I think Kate will.

    • Deedee says:

      This. They’re wasted, really, if you don’t show them off. Most of the calls for Kate to wear her hair up are so she’ll get those extensions out of the darn way so we can see the bling. When she has worn jewels she looks like a teen playing dress up in them.

  27. HoustonGrl says:

    Well, one thing is for sure: Kate has done all she can to prepare for this trip. She’ll be as orange and thin as possible. She’ll have plenty of jewelry and haircare. And her clothes will be even better than before. But no worries, we won’t have to hear her speak or even blink.

    *eye roll*

  28. Ronia says:

    If they got the Maldives’ trip for less or nothing, that’s even worse. Cheap and distasteful. And whatever jewels the Queen gives her, as long as the sausage curls are there it’s pointless. How can anyone wear such amazing diamonds with this mess hiding them? Ugh. Nouveau riche.

  29. ItSEtsYou says:

    Where do you get the evidence of William treating her like second-class citizen? Or cheating for that matter? They went on a vacation together and before that he went shooting with friends which included this Jecca girl. The Royal circle is very small. Like any family they’ve been spending time with the same people since forever.
    Moreover, where is the evidence of Kate feeling like she got herself into a mess? She’s been with this man for 10 years! She would’ve said ‘NO’ to the ring if it was such a bad prospect.
    She has tons of money and close-knnit family, she looks healthy, stressed maybe, sure, but whatever, who isn’t stressed about at least something in their live?
    I’m not saying people are jealous of her, I just really want to see the evidence of her being in the point of breaking down as everyone says! She didn’t even look particularly bothered with the fact that her bare breasts were all over the Internet – like water off a duck’s back.

    I think her life is great and it seems she is quite enjoying it.

    • bluhare says:

      Please read further up the thread. There’s a discussion of how Kate let William walk all over her.

      • itsetsyou says:

        @bluhare – precisely because I read the thread I’m puzzled at these allegations. It’s all pure imagination of the audience and speculations of the people on the outside. I see the situation between the two to be quite the opposite: they both look great, they both spend much time together and they both (not just Prince William) do whatever the hell they please. It seems like people WANT Kate to be unhappy to justify the stroke of such good luck they themselves can’t attain. Well, I have news for everyone – she got what she wanted and she is absolutely enjoying it. She is rich, a Princess, has great body, great family and most likely a nice husband – she IS living the life.

      • My2Pence says:

        FLORC, I had written an entire fact-filled rebuttal, then remembered your advice to just ignore.

      • bluhare says:

        I think it was Snarkweek who posted a two parter going through rumor and truth (or mostly truth; lol). Other than that, we all make up our own minds.

    • Suze says:

      It’s actually quite funny to think of Kate saying no to the ring. Yeah, that would happen.

    • wolfpup says:

      I thought her reaction to her nakedness, curious, as well. I decided it must be that it was because she is just a girl…we’re all pretty much the same, more or less. I don’t know…how else would one handle that kind of humiliation?

      • itsetsyou says:

        I bet Will told her it would be ok when she took her her top because he thought they were at a private residence, so he probably felt worse than she did if at all.

      • My2Pence says:

        @wolfpup. I think it is because to her it isn’t a big deal and she wasn’t humiliated. The Middleton family is known for sunbathing topless, more European than British about the whole thing. William is clearly okay with her doing things like that, because he didn’t stop her from stripping off on the balcony and changing her bathing suit outside in view of the guest house staff and their security.

        If she were an everyday person who was used to doing that, I can understand her “so what” attitude. The fact that she doesn’t seem to understand that in her position it is not okay, that is what amazes me.

  30. Sinead says:

    At the risk of being slammed…I think Kate is a bit of a light weight but George is only 7 months old. Lots of mothers, especially first time mothers take up to a years maternity leave. So why should she be any different? Why is everyone criticising her for not working when plenty of women with young babies take a long maternity leave?

    I don´t know how it works in America, but I´m Irish and I took 10 months for my first baby and 8 months for my second. No-one slated me for not going back to work earlier. I know she has plenty of help but she´s technically a new mother.Give her a break.

    • Original N says:

      You cannot compare your situation to that of Kate Middleton. First of all, you went BACK TO work. That alone is different from her situation! Furthermore, based upon what you wrote, I assume it is likely that worked throughout your pregnancy in order to ‘earn’ that time off … also, very different AND I am going out on a limb here, but I assume that you do not reside rent free in a palace apartment that is owned (and the expenses to maintain that palace apartment paid for) by your fellow taxpayers? ;)

      In all seriousness, though, Kate Middleton is receiving criticism because she accepted William’s proposal and willingly entered into the BRF upon marriage. By willingly accepting that role, and willingly accepting the privileges that come with that role (e.g. living in a 57-room apartment within a palace that is owned by the taxpayers RENT FREE), she must also accept that her job is as LadySlippers so eloquently described above: “The purpose of the Royals in most countries is to use their name and connections to improve the world (beyond diplomacy). So Royals can elevate that concern a particular charity might highlight to a much higher level. For example, Harry has brought the world’s attention on wounded vets and the plight of orphaned children in Africa. Diana did the same to landmine victims. Charles has tackled poverty and advocated training & jobs for British poor youth. Queen Rania of Jordan advocated for women’s rights around the world.” This is what is expected of the royal family in exchange for the great number of privileges they enjoy that are provided to them by the people of the UK. Until both William and Kate Middleton begin to exert effort to give back to the public as much as they take, they will continue to incur criticism from the public particularly when members of the general public, myself included, currently devote and donate more time to charitable endeavors than William or Kate can seemingly manage within the span of a month …

    • bluhare says:

      Sinead, part of it is the communication. We’re told one thing and she and WIlliam do another.

      Personally, if she wanted to be a stay at home mom, that’s fine with me. I think a lot of women would stay home to care for their children if they could. I’m not sure she can, though, due to the nature of her position. She’s expected to do something.

      But I also think that the criticism would mute considerably if her husband got off his dead ass and stepped up to the plate.

    • Suze says:

      Royal women typically don’t take a year off. Kate would be setting a precedent there.

    • Xantha says:

      Maternity leave from…what exactly? It wasn’t like she was some hard worker before. Which is a big problem. She, along with the rest of the Royals who are funded by the Sovereign Grant are expected to serve the public in return. She and William only do the bare minimum.

      She’s not a housewife, she’s not a SAHM, she’s a Royal. She didn’t marry an unknown rich man which would allow her to be a housewife and a SAHM if she wanted to be one. She married into a centuries old institution which needs the goodwill of the public and a strong show of public service to survive.

      Why are people still being so dense about this? Stop acting like she’s an ordinary woman. She’s not.

  31. Maggie says:

    Wow! Red is her color. She looks gorgeous!

  32. SoCal says:

    I would imagine someone needs to help Kate coordinate certain jewels with her clothes because she completely messed up the Nizam necklace with the Jenny Packham dress at the National Portrait Gallery. The occasion really didn’t call for that necklace and she totally took away its pizzazz because her hair was covering it.

    So many of QEII’s jewels are very extravagant, especially the necklaces, and should only be worn at state banquets and other pomp occasions. For this tour, since there are no evening gown appearances, the only jewels Kate could wear are earrings of pearls, diamonds, sapphires, emeralds or rubies, that QEII and or Diana has worn. Less-detailed necklaces would do, but nothing as extravagant as the Nizam necklace. We already know that William gave her Diana’s sapphire and diamond stud earrings that match the engagement ring which she converted to drop earrings, so maybe she will wear some more Diana jewellery. I almost forgot about the brooches. I’m sure Kate will wear the Golden Wattle (Aust) and Silver Fern (NZ) brooches with a nice suit.

    What is so strange is the fact that Kate wore an evening gown in Malaysia and she didn’t wear any of QEII’s jewellery then. So what’s with all of the hype of her wearing QEII’s jewels now for this tour when there aren’t any evening gown appearances to wear said jewels? Again, strange.

    • Cersei says:

      ITA about the necklace. I think Missy Kate lacks a basic eye for elegance and sophistication. It’s a “skill” that some have and some don’t, regardless of wealth or status. Look at Britney Spears–she’s not short on funds, but couldn’t pull together a smart, chic or elegant look if her life depended on it. Missy does her casual High Street look quite well, but beyond that she always misses the mark on the most obvious details like fabric quality, hair, jewelry, shoes, coat or dress length, something! At first I was baffled that the fashion mistakes and oversights were still happening after the marriage, but then I realized that she doesn’t have that “skill” and she’s too stubborn to hire a stylist on a regular basis to help her get it together. She doesn’t need jewels or couture ensembles to look great, she just needs help.

    • LadySlippers says:

      @SoCal:

      Actually several blogs have shown that the earrings you mentioned are not the ones Diana wore! There are some subtle differences between the two pair.

      @Cersei:

      I’ve said very similar things to what you wrote. In so many instances Kate is *almost* there look wise but falls just short of knocking her look out of the ballpark. I too wish she’d hire a stylist but I’m guessing with the papers fawning over her every outfit in the beginning that bloated her opinion in that dept.

    • wolfpup says:

      Elevating her status with jewels, really doesn’t cut the wool.

  33. raincoaster says:

    The Prince Charles letters are a Big Freaking Deal: they are rumoured to prove that the heir to the throne deliberately meddled directly in political activities from which the throne is barred. It’s the kind of thing that could cause a referendum on the monarchy.

    • bluhare says:

      I agree with you. It’s so important it deserves a thread of its own. And there are plenty of posters here who could really talk about it and what it means.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Very true. But it’s not very gossip-y.

        I actually think Charles or anyone can write letters and such — that’s not a big deal. I find keeping those letters a secret to be a HUGE deal. To me, if you go to the enormous lengths the palace has gone to keep Charles’ letters private, it shows that something might not be on the up and up (even if they’re harmless).

        IIRC, Charles did not come off well in the letters previously published either. I forget exactly what was written but I think the tone of the letters left a little to be desired. Knowing that the letters will be published might have forced Charles to be different than writing letters thinking no one would be the light of day.

        Democracy is meant to be transparent but the whole atmosphere of doing ‘things’ beyond closed doors really stops democracy in its tracks. And with recent world events, it’s plain to see Charles isn’t the only guilty party.

      • bluhare says:

        There’s been a lot of things talked about in these threads that aren’t very gossipy. I’ve always been amazed at the breadth of knowledge on this site.

      • Sixer says:

        Tony Blair and the previous Labour administration gave the RF exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. Don’t forget: we didn’t have one before! So the chances of Charles being the first royal lobbyist are non-existent.

        I don’t believe the RF should have an exemption. I do believe the courts are right and the letters should be published and I hope the appeal is lost. And I don’t think the RF should be lobbying behind the scenes.

        I’m quite happy with tangentially political speeches (such as those Charles has made about the environment and town planning, etc) – provided they are not PARTY political and the one making them is not the reigning monarch (ie head of state). I don’t see why the RF shouldn’t have views and opinions.

        BUT – I do think we should get this in proportion. Charles and his letters are extremely unlikely to be having any effect whatsoever on any administration’s legislative programme. You can see it now, can’t you? The ministers and their PPSs (UK government civil servants) opening the latest Chaz missives, sighing, eye-rolling and replying with “yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir” to the silly old windbag.

        On the other hand, the unseen corporate lobbying, the cash for questions (businesses paying MPs to bring up issues that suit their profits in parliament) etc – this type of thing DOES have an effect on legislative programmes and the welfare of the people.

        From where I’m sitting, tilting at Charles simply deflects this important issue.

      • bluhare says:

        And to make my breadth of knowledge point, may I present Sixer!

      • LadySlippers says:

        @bluhare:

        Very true!

        @Sixer:

        That’s probably part of the reason’s Charles’ letters don’t inspire much feeling in me as I agree that most people will simply dismiss them. And he means well, that isn’t something to be said of most government meddlers like big business.

        I find it rather sad that most people have NO idea the damage large coperations are doing to our governments and our civil liberties (to name just a few). And the damage is conducted at a global level as well. Here I am in the middle of the US and share almost the same concerns as a citizen in another country. Short of a global war — most countries don’t share many very specific issues and yet we do. Big coperations are taking over, diverting our attention from them with red herrings, and most have no clue.

      • wolfpup says:

        The RF are in many respects a business. People generally see to their own best interests. Charles wanting to press his views, (in a way that is only possible for him) to a mostly male dominated, hierarchical power structure, is most certainly interesting, especially those to whom the laws apply.

        Seriously, every scrap of paper that Diana put her hand to is high value. I cannot believe that Charles would be so foolish to pen and send, anything about anything, without accepting the responsibility of his high position, knowing therefore all correspondences would be very valuable, because people write biographies, have museums, etcetera, and he is the future King of England.

  34. Lady D says:

    What would Philip’s title be if he outlived the queen? Is there a king father equivalent to queen mother?

    • bluhare says:

      Good question. As he’s a male I think he gets to keep all his titles, so he’ll be Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (there’s probably a “the” in there!) until he dies. Am I right? I do know when he dies, Edward who’s now Earl of Wessex will inherit the title. So they’ll be Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Philip’s titles will remain the same after the death of his wife.

        However, Edward has to wait for the Edinburgh title to merge with the Crown for the title to be reissued (unless his Letters Patent read differently). So when Philip dies the title automatically goes to Charles as Philip’s eldest son and heir. When Charles ascends all his titles will then merge into the Crown allowing for them to be reissued (except for Cornwall & Rothesay as they are for the eldest living son of the Soveriegn). But this all depends on how Philip’s Letters Patent were issued by George VI but my guess is they were written ‘normally’.

        Make sense?

      • bluhare says:

        That’s interesting, because I’ve always read Edward had no issues with being Earl precisely because he gets the dukedom upon the death of his father. Must just be a formality then.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @bluhare:

        I think Edward requested Edinburgh as his title with the understanding that it will come in time.

        Typically, Letters Patent are written so that they are inherited by the eldest son and the eldest son of the eldest son and so on. IF they had been written differently it might stipulate the title going to another child (it’s rare but does happen). And when Philip dies, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other two ducal titles. Now I’m curious to go find the Letters Patent creating Philip DoE….

        Everything I’ve read has also said Charles is in agreement and so, once he’s king, he’ll bestow the title on his brother. But it’s just a lot of hoops before it’s Edward’s.

      • LadySlippers says:

        A copy of the wording in the Letters Patent creating Lt Mountbatten Duke of Edinburgh (notice no special provisions were written in):

        Issue: Friday, November 21st, 1947
        Type: Letters Patent
        Date: November 20th, 1947
        Notice: November 20th, 1947
        For granting unto Lieutenant H.R.H. Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N. and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Greenwich in the County of London, Earl of Merioneth and Duke of Edinburgh.

      • LAK says:

        DoE’s title will not go back to the crown because he has a male heir in the person of Edward. HM put caveat in the letters to acknowledge the change as the automatic inheritance would have been to Charles as the eldest son of title holder per the peerage system of titles.

        Since Charles and Andrew already have titles which complicates the usual inheritance which is why everyone says the title will have to return to the crown before being handed to Edward. Edward is, by default, the one who was chosen (he asked for his wessex title, not DoE and it was granted with caveat that he would carry on philip’s title) to carry on Philip’s title as though he were the eldest male heir of the title holder which is the normal way of handling these things as demonstrated by the eldest sons of DoK and DoG who will simply inherit automatically per the usual rules.

        At this point, it’s merely a formality due to the unusual circumstances, but it’s been agreed.

  35. Lou says:

    JUST IN! Will and Kate are taking a holiday DURING their NZ tour!

    Yes, that’s right, nine days is so hard that they need to book out an entire Queenstown resort so they can relax. But they’ll be staying in the owner’s cottage, not the resort itself. Oh, and Prince George won’t be with them, so they can get the night off “baby-sitting duty”.

    HEAD EXPLODE
    gory details here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/9833197/Royals-NZ-hideout-busted

  36. Ronia says:

    The Mirror joins the feast. LOL http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-william-kate-middleton-hit-3247656 Now, if I remember correctly, the KP underwent some major renovations just a couple of years ago, right? I remember some huge amount was spent on it, more than 10 millions, if I’m not wrong, I haven’t looked it up. How is it possible to not disturb and remove the asbestos during such refurbishment is beyond me… And wasn’t part of the reasons for this expenditure now the same as for the refurbishment then? I may be wrong, again I haven’t looked it up now. (of course, the security costs for the vacations are not declared at present)

  37. itsetsyou says:

    So much hate and speculation, wow! :) )) I’d say if people invested as much energy into finding their own Prince Charming it would take them no time!