Is Duchess Kate close friends with a sex-party organizer for the rich & raunchy?

wenn22306805

Sometimes I do stop and think: “Are these the last days of the Empire?” Do you ever get that feeling? That like the Roman Empire before us, the English-speaking Western world will fall and it’s because we shrugged our shoulders when “sex-entrepreneurs” made millions of dollars organizing extravagant sex parties for the rich, well-connected and famous? Granted, these sex parties are only for consenting adults, so at least on that level, the Empire still stands. But it does seem sometimes like the hedonism and excess has a decidedly “end of days” feel.

All of that is just a prologue to this story about Duchess Kate and her friend Emma Sayle. The UK tabloids have been talking about this for months, probably because there is a “royal connection.” Kate and Emma are friends or were friends at some point. They went to the same school (Downe House) and Emma was the friend who convinced Kate to do that Sisterhood rowing thing in 2007 (which Kate ended up not doing because William came back to her). You can see a photo of Emma and Kate here. Funny story: Emma runs a business called Killing Kittens, a business that organizes sex parties.

Emma Sayle is the founder and CEO of Killing Kittens – a highly successful sex party business that caters to the rich and racy. For $250 a couple ($100 for single women), guests at Emma’s high-end romps are treated to a night of champagne, oysters and anonymous sex in discreet, upscale boutique hotels and rented luxury penthouses.

The business is a huge hit, with regular parties in London, LA and a New York City branch opening soon. But while Kate finds her job interesting and “funny,” Queen Elizabeth sees it as no laughing matter.

“This is yet another reason why the Queen can’t stand the Middlestons,” says a royal insider. “The Queen thinks it’s so embarrassing that Kate would associate with someone like Emma.”

But Kate doesn’t understand why the Queen would care. Kate sees Emma as a successful businesswoman, much like her parents. A source says: “Kate really doesn’t see what the big deal is. She and Emma have been friends for years and she refuses to end their relationship just because the Queen doesn’t like it.”

Physical fitness is one of many interests shared by Kate and Emma, who met in 2007 during a rowing event for charity. Both women also attended the prestigious Downe House, although not at the same time. Both are moms as well – Emma has a five-month old son with Olympian James Tindall. The insider says: “They’ve been friends for years. They really get along.”

Sources say Kate is “fascinated” with Emma’s business. Killing Kittens grossed $1 million last year and boasts 43,000 members worldwide.

The royal insider says: “The Queen was furious after learning of Kate’s link to such a trashy business. This is the last thing she needs. She keeps urging Kate to distance herself from Emma. But Kate doesn’t like being told what to do.”

[From Star Magazine, print edition]

As I said, the sex party business seems to be only for consenting adults, which is more than we can say for Prince Andrew’s extracurricular activities. Still… this is a pretty tacky, unnecessary scandal for Duchess Kate. That is, IF Kate and Emma are still friends. We don’t really know if they’re still in contact or how close they actually are. My guess is that Emma and Kate probably aren’t that close and Kate is NOT “fascinated” by Emma’s work. And my guess is that the Queen has bigger fish to fry.

Here are some photos of Emma in 2014.

wenn21411317

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

160 Responses to “Is Duchess Kate close friends with a sex-party organizer for the rich & raunchy?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lisa2 says:

    If this is true it would give her an interesting edge that she is missing

  2. PHD Gossip says:

    Just someone trading on a weak connection. Nothing to see her, folks.

  3. drea says:

    So shes not so boring after all

    • notasugarhere says:

      She was found many times shopping for s e x toys and costumes through the years. It has been cleaned up since the engagement, but the info isn’t really new.

  4. Jade says:

    I thought her friends were William’s friends lol

  5. bbg says:

    I think people get too uptight about sex.

    • DrM says:

      Hear hear. Truly who cares what they do? And no I don’t believe, there isn’t an ”énd of the empire” feel at all. If you have a look at history, and sex and sexual practices down through the ages there have been *much* more interesting times. (I’m a sociologist who specializes in human sexuality. among other things). The 1920’s and 30’s being one of the times that springs to mind, or the 60’s and 70’s. People doing the ‘deed’ in a multitude of weird and wonderful ways is as old as mankind. We are just a lot more open about it now is all. Which I have no objection to. What I DO object to and think harmful is the way in which women’s bodies are portrayed in the media etc and the pressure this puts on women to look and behave in a certain way. it is normal for women’s bodies to change with children and age. It is a lot more healthy to embrace those changes than being told constantly that it is not only not acceptable, but a form of ugliness if you “állow” those changes to happen. If I want to watch p**n I tend to head for 70’s movies. A much more realistic view of women and men’s bodies in all their hairy, natural glory…

    • kem says:

      Yeah, I don’t usually comment on celebitchy, but meh. Sex parties with adults. I wouldn’t do it, but I’m in a monogamous marriage, so….

  6. Elly says:

    I thought they don´t have contact anymore since the bunny ear photos and so, but wasn´t this woman shooting birds with Pippa last year? So she still runs in the same circles as the Middletons.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is like people have no memory of the bunny ears photo. Middleton was at a party to launch a documentary about her favorite s e x toy. Once you know that, a friendship with Sayle isn’t surprising. I think Sayle and Kate Middleton have been photographed together more recently than that event. This is the one who was investigated for her racist comments on social media, right?

    • Imo says:

      A documentary about “her” favorite sex toy? A director and production company thought it a good idea to film an entire documentary around Kate’s fave sex toy? Rotfl.
      And so much sexy talk must surely be verboden, no?

      • NOBODY is saying the documentary was made BECAUSE the toy was her favorite. Just that a documentary was made about what HAPPENED TO BE her favorite toy. And so she went to the party.

    • justme says:

      No this is not the same woman who was shooting birds with Pippa last year.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2454951/Pippa-Middletons-pheasant-shooting-posse-includes-popstars-ex-Doctor-Who-girl.html

      One of the women who was in the party belongs to the Sisterhood, which Emma is also connected with – but that concerns sports not sex parties.

      “Frances Trahar is described as a ‘blonde boho beauty who straddles two continents with confidence,’ on the website of The Sisterhood — the strange, all-girls sporting charity Kate Middleton was involved with during her split with William in 2007.

      The Sisterhood is run by Emma Sayle (best known for running sex parties called Killing Kittens) and Frances belongs to the charity’s South African branch.”

  7. Tiffany says:

    Queen Bee cannot turn her nose up at this. Nope..nope..nope.

    Queen Elizabeth, you made me side with Waity. Between this and other things happening with your family, take some time to evaluate this and then we will talk.

    • FLORC says:

      The Queen’s part in this tale has no foundation in truth.

      • Tiffany says:

        I was trying to be facetious with my statement and I am not sure what the font is for that. :).

      • FLORC says:

        Tiffany
        Haha my mistake. Even with font change I wouldn’t know it was sarcasm. Best to add a *wink* 😉
        Some do feel how you wrote so it’s tough to tell. I’ve made mistakes both ways.

  8. Imo says:

    The press keep trying to make fetch happen but this story refuses to grow legs. I guess because the worst thing could be to prove Kate and Emma are more than past casual acquaintances…and then what? There is very little scandal here unless the media is hoping the pearl clutchers grab for the smelling salts. But after Andrew’s stomach turning antics this story barely elicits a yawn.

    • Hazel says:

      Right. Unless Emma employed Kate, there’s nothing to see here.

    • Sofia says:

      It’s a yawn from me too. I think it’s being resurrected because of the whole Prince Andrew scandal, but a casual acquaintance organising consensual sex parties and statutory rape are about a billion light years apart.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I really think that Andrew is the biggest liability to the royal family at present – he has simply been associated with too many scandals. The current sex scandal is just the lastest and most nasty tip of the iceberg.

      • jane says:

        Does anyone know how that Prince Andrew story is going down in England? My stomach rolls at the thought of him now. I’d like to see some consequences for the man, at the very least some consequence in public sentiment.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It certainly didn’t help that the Queen recently promoted him. That was tone-deaf to say the least.

        There’s a Vanity Fair article that you might find interesting:
        http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/08/prince-andrew-201108

      • FLORC says:

        AH
        Is it “Tone Deaf” or is it misdirection?
        And nothing will happen. He’s protected. It’s horrible, but so common nothing was ever going to happen to him so why should he change.

      • wolfpup says:

        Seeing how the royals troll – I’ll bet this article about Kate is to “take away” from Andrew’s notoriety. But as Sophia said, “sex parties and statutory rape are about a billion light years apart”, irregardless of other moralities (noting that Prince Andrew did not bring a date).

  9. K says:

    I remember this story from a few years ago – some friend from Marlborough (Emilia someone?) who’s also close to Prince WIlliam got her to do that rowing thing which she abruptly pulled out of, then one of the other rowers suddenly started touting herself as a best pal based on the rowing, who was also a sex party organiser and rampant self-publicist. And the tabloids practically climaxed themselves, because at last Kate seemed less vanilla and they had something to write about that wasn’t Jigsaw.

    If it’s the same one, I admire her hustle. And if it were true, it would be amusing. But I don’t think it’s more than an old acquaintance. At that point in time I really, really don’t imagine Kate would have done anything that could have put her into Koo Stark territory in the public imagination.

    And I mildly judge anyone who needs to pay for sex parties. What happened to the good old days of pampas grass and car keys in a bowl, which apparently was how our parents’ generation arranged things? Kids these days, can’t even get laid en masse without a concierge.

    • Frida_K says:

      “[…] pampas grass and car keys in a bowl […]”

      What is this?

      Explain, explain!

      Also: yes, it does seem pretty pathetic to have to have someone concierge one’s adventures. I mean, really…*eye roll*

      • Jaded says:

        In the good old days of swinging, you’d put a couple of pampas grass plants in your window to give the secret signal. Or you’d have the neighbours over for drinks and nibbles and they’d toss their house keys in a big bowl. When the party got going everyone would grab a set of keys from the bowl and whoever’s keys they got went home with them. Isn’t that just charming!

      • ArtHistorian says:

        That reminds me ofte the movie the Icestorm. That was one akward partner switching party.

    • bettyrose says:

      If it’s not the same person, how many sex party organizers do these posh schools graduate? Do they offer courses?

    • Imo says:

      Pampas grass? I’m going to need a little help with this.

    • Maya says:

      The benefit of the paid parties is keeping regular friends (who in my SO and my case are often clients as well or know most of our clients) and our sex lives seperate. We are not into drama and don’t need any awkward situations. We don’t really attend many paid parties anymore since we’ve met a pretty good group of friends and mostly go to house parties.

      • K says:

        Maya, I apologise. I’m very vanilla, myself, and the joky tone was because of that. It just isn’t a world I know anything about; I shouldn’t denigrate other people’s chosen means of sexual enjoyment/expression. It was bigoted of me, I’m sorry.

  10. Lily says:

    I think that what stinks about these parties, is that you don’t really know that everyone is consenting. Human trafficking is a very real problem these days, and it is not just something that happens in third world countries, I am afraid.

    • Jaded says:

      These are consenting adults who have paid a lot of money to attend, they’re not kidnapped and forced at gunpoint.

    • Imo says:

      Lily
      I know the Epstein model is prevalent but this particular type of gathering functions slightly differently. Guests are vetted heavily and new entrants are usuallly required to first be the guest of an established participant. Liaisons that victimize unwilling participants usually take advantage of either undisclosed locations or involves a revolving circle of cohorts who will all go down in flames if even one of them talks. Not the same thing as a bunch of tipsy toffs having a go at the Beverly Wiltshire.

    • Anon says:

      I understand your concern, but actually it is easy to tell. Is everyone free to leave? Does everyone arrive either alone or with their date? Do the party organizers have everyone’s info? Do people spend a lot of time hanging around in the social area nibbling snacks with relaxed forays into the play areas? This is the usual scenario. naked billiards, swimming at midnight in the hotel pool in latex boots shorts, then off to the room filled with mattresses and fairy lights with whoever you have chosen to be with..

      Party organizers specialize in keeping things safe, making sure everyone vouched and known, for an that everyone is a consenting adult. The parties I’ve been to are hard to get into precisely because you need to have two or three people known by the organizer who can say “Yeah I know her, she works at Google and her gf is a prodomme who has worked with Midori.”

      I’ll take this over the bowl filled with car keys btw. The whole idea behind d those parties was that you were “swapping” girlfriends who you regarded as property. So sixties. Ugh.

      • MinnFinn says:

        It says couples are $250 and single women $100. So the pricing structure give single women a price advantage. Why is that and also do single men get the same price cut?

      • Anon says:

        Absolutely not. Another way to minimize the ick factor is to strongly discourage single men. Guy have to be a part of a couple (straight or gay doesn’t matter), or be very well known by the organizer as not a wanker. The key to making these parties work is that it has to be a safe and fun place for women– otherwise the party is over.

        Also the pricing sounds ludicrous to me– there is no way she is clearing a million a year. $100-$125 per person barely covers costs, and is a little more than the donation I would expect at a private party (and the ones I go to as a rule do not serve or allow alcohol). I question this whole story.

      • Imo says:

        Desirability is skewed towards females at these gatherings. Males who arrive alone are seen as trawlers, which feels uncomfortable and intimiddating. Should they want to engage with a female partner it is far less likely that her male partner will be invited or that he would want to be. Awkward. Sex party hosts have a razor sharp intuition for what issues change the comfort level at their gatherings. The more prevalent and acceptable model is a female who will engage with a traditional male/female couple. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to have a surplus, if you will, of females.

      • MinnFinn says:

        I have to ask some puzzling questions. Seems to me that the parties have policies that benefit the hetero male participants the most. Policies that discourage single men but encourage single women ensures there are more women than men. That means the hetero males have less competition for women. Also is it reverse sexism to assume single females are not trawlers but single men are? Don’t shoot me for asking this one. It looks to me like hetero males set themselves up as a scarce supply which gives them more power and choices than the relatively abundant females. Isn’t this just swapping a different form of male power for the power they had key-swapping their female chattel in the 1960’s?

      • Anon says:

        “That means the hetero males have less competition for women.”

        You are assuming a.) that all the women are heterosexual and there for the men, and that b.) the parties primarily about “swapping,” and entertaining men. Nope, nope, nope, nope. Never presume that someone is heterosexual. Never presume that someone is there to “serve.” Never presume that a person is property, never presume that you are entitled to any action. The men do not have the power here, and the women are not possessions to be swapped. The parties are consent-based, and if you want to play, the best approach, the only approach, is to think about others and what pleases them most– especially the ladies. The men I know who have fun at these parties tend to be very service-oriented and respectful and want their partners to be happy.

        It is like I said above, a toxic male vibe will clear the room of women very fast. This is not what the party organizers want. This is not what anybody wants except the wankers who are expecting Eyes Wide Shut.

        “Also is it reverse sexism to assume single females are not trawlers but single men are?”

        I have never, ever seen a female trawler at any event or party, never heard of it being a problem. The “icky guy syndrome” though is well known and actively patrolled for very good reasons. If men want that to change, they need to reverse the icky guy syndrome and make it their job to understand what consent is. Luckily, there are plenty of men who care about this, and these are the guys who get to go to the party.

      • Imo says:

        MinnFinn
        Valid questions but the prevailing atmosphere that results because of this setup is one of ultimate comfort and ease for the female. They have the upper hand in a way because they are free to choose amongst females, males, same sex female couples or male/female couples. The chances of them being approached or cornered by a single male are virtually nonexistent.. Whether fair or not single men are viewed almost as predators and are not welcomed with open arms.

      • MinnFinn says:

        anon and imo,
        I still don’t see how the arrangement doesn’t statistically skew in favor of hetero and mostly hetero males and skew against hetero and mostly hetero females.

        Why do HF and MHF settle for this disadvantaged situation?Why don’t the organizers arrange some parties that statistically skew in favor of hetero females?

      • Imo says:

        Minn
        Because your model makes assumptions that have never lent themselves to this particular lifestyle. What female wants to attend a swingers’ party where she is outnumbered 2,3 or 4 to 1? And that doesn’t include the male she may have arrived with. I feel the fact that the females outnumber the males gives you the impression that the males are strutting about in their own personal harem for the evening. This is simply not the case.

      • Jib says:

        I am so out of it. I had no idea there were even parties like this!!! LOL!!!

      • MinnFinn says:

        imo,
        OK, now you’re not being fair. You told me not to assume anything but that is what you are doing.

        I am not assuming anything. I reached a logical conclusion (imo) and now I’m asking questions trying to understand any holes in my logic.

        Let’s ask your same female question about males i.e. what male would want to attend a swingers’ party where he is outnumbered by females 2,3,4 to 1 and that also requires him to attend coupled with a female?

      • Imo says:

        Minn
        I apologize for offending you as that was not my intent. Your questions are valid but you are applying logic that does not translate quid pro quo. The variables are not without weight. And more importantly, practice bears out what rationale only implies when it comes to sex parties. For the reasons painstakingly laid out by myself and others the ratio of men and women favored creates the most comfortable, sought after model for the parties. Beyond this I am at a loss to explain it further/better.

  11. a cut above says:

    This seems like a non-story. I don’t think the Empire is going to fall because Waity used to be friends with a lady who went on to do high-class sex parties. Moving on…

  12. candice says:

    Agree this is a non-story although I must say that in the photo of Kate & Emma Kate looks great. She looks so vibrant and healthy. Must have been before she started with the extreme, crazy diet plan….

    • Betti says:

      Kate’s obsession with her looks and weight started when she got engaged – she’s been on the very thin side since then. She’s also aged quite a lot – i think the stress of marriage, motherhood and trying to keep her husband by her side is taking its toll.

      And yes, she looked great during the GF years.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She did a big weight loss after one of their breaks. It may have been the one that lead to the party girl time, hence the bunny ears. She lost the weight and sexed it up to get William back. She lost even more weight after the engagement, but she’d done the first weight loss for him years before.

      • inner stillness says:

        True NSH, Kate’s weight loss started during the dating years.

        She just went to extreme at engagement time, but her weight loss mission started long before, but she stayed at a healthier weight during the dating years.

        Even way back when those Sisterhood Rowing pictures came out, people were talking about how she had lost some weight.

      • FLORC says:

        Inner Stillness
        During the rowing she was training with them heavily. She appeared to have lost weight, but gained muscle. And if you’ve been on the thin side, done some moderate weight lifting/trx/pilates you’d see yourself suddenly unhealthy looking as compared to before the workout.
        Your muscles have swelled and stretched your skin while making you a bit dehydrated. My sternum doesn’t show, but when I lift my arms look defined, but my chest looks sickly.

        This was the case with Kate. Most athletes that get into “training mode” know these results.

        Whatever Kate’s weightloss is because of 1 thing is sure. It’s not her natural state.

  13. Santolina says:

    Sex parties for the rich and famous are nothing new, so if the “end of days” was going to happen, it would have done so by now. It’s the type of sex party; for example the sex-trafficking pedo-parties organized by Jeffrey Epstein and attended by Prince Andrew are the ones to be concerned about…

  14. Imo says:

    Perhaps the queen should make Kate an admiral.

  15. AmandaPanda says:

    ugh. I AM friends with Emma and she was not that close to Kate, ever. They don’t really speak these days (not because they’ve fallen out, they just don’t speak). This is totally, absolutely made up.

    • FLORC says:

      AmandaPanda
      I agree. This whole story is fiction. Though, i’m curious. How long have you been friends with Emma?

      Lots of friends will lose touch when another married or moves away. It’s not always a falling out. Given Kate’s friend loss history I think the majority left from lack of communication and not because of a fight/fall out.

    • notasugarhere says:

      You’re friends with this person? Well, you can judge a person by the company they keep.

      “Miss Sayle caused outrage when she posted a message on the social networking site that read: ‘Just had a two-hour shooting lesson. She will now be using this skill on the top of East London high rises to help with the UK’s illegal immigrant problem.'”

      “Days later Miss Sayle, who runs an ‘upmarket’ swingers’ club, wrote: ‘Just had a call from the old bill demanding I go in as someone has reported me for apparently making racist comments… hahaha… using my new found gun skills to control the UK’s illegal immigrant population is not what I call racist.’.”

      “Just a day after her police interview, Miss Sayle posted a link on her Twitter page to a Right-wing U.S. website entitled ‘Australia says no to Muslims’.”

      • FLORC says:

        Nota
        Let me play Devil’s Advocate here.
        That’s a sick sense of humor. I have friends with horrible senses of humor. Nasty, dry and possibly racist. They’re still my friends though. And I let them know that doesn’t go over well with me or others.

        Ofcourse, I am using the term “friends” loosely. I think many people claim friendship with some, but are not much more than good aquaintances.
        I was told a long time ago that you will never have more friends than you have fingers. They’re a core group that will be there for you like family. The rest play friends, but are only fair weather.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’ve cut people out of my life for comments like Sayle’s, FLORC. Does that answer the question?

      • FLORC says:

        Nota
        It does, but only in regards to how you would personally handle it. Others can maintain a friendship with people that can say things that highlight poor judgement. It doesn’t make that person bad by association. This (imo) is case by case though. Some things are unforgivable and context is a big factor here.

        Some things just are said out of ignorance from your friend that you do not agree with and will not put up with. Cut that part out and they can be a perfectly lovely friend that learns to value the friendship you share over the stupid comments that pass their lips. And sometimes you can change their opinion. That they only have those opinions because they’re misguided in thinking it’s funny or correct.

        Yes some can be judged by the company they keep, but that is not the rule. To each their own. And I personally won’t suffer that behavior.

      • notasugarhere says:

        FLORC, I wasn’t willing to remain friends with a racist.

      • FLORC says:

        Nota
        I get that, but I think you’ve overlooked my points. I’m not defending racists.
        I am saying that there’s a level of ignorance lots of people have. And that behavior when isn’t exercised around a person they’re friends with and that said friend doesn’t approve at all of that behavior should that still reflect poorly on that friend? If they turned to me and said they will only ever think this way we would not be friends. Some need to relearn things and I won’t jump to judgement.

      • India Andrews says:

        I love having a group of friends with diverse opinions. I can vehemently disagree with someone and still go out for dinner with them. I agree with you FLORC.

        Also, socially ostracizing someone doesn’t work if you want to change their mind. There are plenty of people out there who share their views. They’ll just shrug their shoulders and makes friends with those other people.

        I can’t remember the name of the study but some political scientist noticed how Americans of different political stripes are pulling away from one another by moving to places that are more friendly to their views. So for examples, Liberals leaving Montana and moving to the Bay Area in greater numbers amd conservatives moving to Idaho or some other conservative place from the coast of California. The result being those people become more strident and militant about their views because fewer people in their social network are available to call them into question. Give them something to reconsider.

    • Imo says:

      AmandaPanda
      Here’s hoping your belief system isn’t as reptilian as Emma’s. Barring that it is possible to not be as sketchy as one’s friends.

      Notasugarhere
      Careful. Your rascally adorable Princes Phillip and Harry have been known to make egregious racial comments themselves. The comments don’t have to be as extreme and hateful as Emma’s to qualify as innapropriate and hurtful. but per your usual I’m sure yoy’re coming up with excuses why they are exempt/misunderstood/taken out of context.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That discussion has been had on here many times. You just have to read through the threads to see many people discussing it. William picking out the costume for Harry to wear, William going to the party draped in animal furs calling himself a native, the Army co-worker of Harry’s saying that IS his nickname and everybody calls him that, etc. Not excuses, they’re just facts some like to avoid.

      • notasugarhere says:

        William went as a native not a lion. The shopkeeper said William was disappointed that all of the “native” costumes were already rented. He made his own. And I think you’ve got your facts mixed up around incidents, parents on record, etc.

      • Imo says:

        Nota
        🙂
        If thinking William went to that party dressed as a native helps you come to terms with Harry’s racist comments then by all means…and your radio silence on Phillip speaks volumes.

      • AmandaPanda says:

        I’m not best friends with her but know her reasonably well – have known her for many years. She’s very right wing. I don’t agree with her politics – but I have lots of friends whose politics I don’t agree with. She has a perverse streak too – likes provoking/stirring up trouble and I’m not even sure she believes everything that comes out of her mouth. She’s good fun though and has a strong sense of who she is.

        Anyway, the point is she’s not friends with Kate so this story is bs

      • notasugarhere says:

        Shopkeeper is on record saying William wanted a native or Zulu costume. Choose to look it up yourself or not, since I can’t get any links to go through. You’re determined to think Harry and the army are wrong, the least you can do is admit there is proof William wasn’t there as “a lion” – that was the coverup story from the Sun.

        Philip has been great support to HM and she wouldn’t survive long without him. He has done some great things and said some horrible ones. I don’t think I’ve denied that here.

      • FLORC says:

        Imo
        He went as a “native” and the “lion” came post pictures. Cut it any way you like it. Native came before lion.

        And Harry got properly lashed for that costume. He didn’t have to put it on. William didn’t force him to. It was a bad move all around for all involved. What makes this worse for William in the threads is he was protected. Harry wore Nazi and William wore Lion.
        And truly that was a terrible Lion costume if it was suppose to be so.

        Nota
        Slightly off topic
        Queen and Prince P have been together for so long I wonder if they’d pass within a close timeline to eachother. A couple that has been together for decades tend to sync up in many ways. When 1 passes there’s a void and the remaining partner will “die of a broken heart”. If not that they seem like the types who will only retire when they’re about ready to pass on.

      • Imo says:

        FLORC
        I give you credit for not excusing or explaining away Harry’s BS. It is possible to mature and grow out of youthful indiscretion but pretending as if nothing happened is revisionist and unfair to those Harry disrespected.
        Iam tired of every fair criticism of popular Harry having to include William’s transgressions but okay, I’ll play along. It was absolutely wrong for William to endorse that bloody bad Nazi costume. Lion or native? I’m not convinced but the whole idea sounds awful and smacks of privileged insensitivity at its worst. Just because the media plays heir vs spare doesn’t mean I have to drag William every time “poor” Harry needs defending. I call each situation as I see it. And these people really don’t need defending.i just don’t like double standards. But I give you points for being quite rational even when we don’t see eye to eye.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It was a shorthand reference to the Army’s response to the situation, his fellows in the Army and the language they all use, etc. That was the discussion at the time.

        Some quotes:
        “I believe William asked about a Zulu costume but we didn’t have any,” the shopkeeper. Prince William went ‘native’ wearing a Zulu outfit with black tights and a leopard skin robe.

        Are we supposed to be impressed William only went black on his legs, as other people at the party went in blackface?

        FLORC, members of the family said in interviews about how much they rely on each other. Some don’t realize how important Philip has been as a support through the years. For all his foot-in-mouth activities, he’s done a good job in other areas including a lifetime partner to HM.

      • FLORC says:

        Imo
        Thank You! I do appreciate your balanced comments as well. Even if we don’t agree it’s nice to discuss opposing sides without feeling like you’re talking to a wall.

        Regarding Harry. Yea he’s made some major mistakes. I think both William and Harry have and need to be held responsible. So, when Harry gets trashed endlessly after apologizing to the press William gets excuses and praise never being held accountable for his errors. That is where the scales tip and William ends up getting more negativity than Harry. Sometimes this isn’t explained it’s just understood.
        Is that worded correctly? Sometimes my thoughts to text can read like a long ramble without my point coming across clearly.

        Nota
        Philip is a workhorse. The Queen and Philip have 1 solid and common goal. Preserving the Monarchy.
        On that note I just saw The Royals. That show made my DVR series list.

  16. LAK says:

    The only thing to say about this is that Kate looked happy and healthy when she was hanging out with Emma. Pity Emma uses the connection to sell her business.

    • Imo says:

      Kate would have been flying high had not William reeled her back in. She almost escaped lol. Almost a shame he came crawling back to her (Richard Kay’s words, not mine) after Isabella refused him. Kate and her friends still lord that over him (again, Kay’s words).

  17. moon says:

    I don;t think this is uncommon or modern at all, royal families have been doing this for years. Americans have such a funny idea about empire and monarchy.

    • FLORC says:

      Moon
      I think you have an incorrectly generalizing image of how Americans view the Monarchy.
      Clubs and parties like this have been around for ages and are fairly well accepted from a distance. Only when things turn illegal with tax fraud or blackmailing is it seen as wrong.

      Though the methods Emma uses are modern the idea and structure of such an event is not.

      • weegiewarrior says:

        Thought its a bit rich, pardon th pun, to say u shoudnt hav a wanker at a sex party?

  18. PHAKSI says:

    This is old though. Its been discussed on royal blogs and such since before the wedding

    • India Andrews says:

      I think its more interesting this stuff finally is making it into the regular press.

      I wonder if Kate and William are in for a tar and feathering from the press soon and this stuff is just the preview. This sort of thing has been discussed on the royal blogs for years about Kate and William. We all knew Kate wasn’t a virginal flower when she married William. We also knew William and Kate had a lot hushed up because William is the heir.

  19. 30winks says:

    This chick’s skin and hair look like what Goop would look like without her expensive treatments. Sun damage, much? That link to the daily mail is horrid, and just said “Peasant Goop” to me.

    • India Andrews says:

      Kate also has major bags under her eyes. Wonder how she’s really doing. William looks rested enough.

  20. Doc says:

    What a hypocritical world we live in… I am still amazed at how people buy this sort of c**p as being scandalous.
    I don’t know for sure, but I don’t see members of the royal family shying away from association with oil companies, BP for example, responsible for one of the most toxic and destructive oil spills in history, but also constant environmental damage world wide, or with companies basically endorsing sweatshops and slave labour.
    It should be scandalous whenever a member of the British royal family does nothing about the existence of such companies in their country and basically gives them a blessing when not seriously condemning their actions.
    This is a classic scale of spin, making us constantly look away from REAL issues, which consenting sex parties are not.

    • Anna says:

      This too is a real issue, one concerning the degradation of human character. Or is that “old fashioned” to you? The enviornment and BP and the rest are constantly in the headlines. You needn’t worry about the lack of attention there.

      If this is the way that one makes money, it is no wonder the West is digging its own grave. Only if there is a “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobic” angle to any “moral” issue, does it register it all with the herd-mentality crowd. You are all on automatic pilot when it comes to thinking and the brainwashing is astounding.

      When your daughter, best friend, mother, boyfriend or husband or whoever gets involved with the likes of Joe Francis and this ugly “entrepreneur” let us see how you feel then.

      If Queen Elizabeth did in fact express the sentiments that are quoted here, my respect for Her Majesty has just soared +1000. The Middletons are vile.

      • Bridget says:

        These are parties for consenting adults, not a bunch of drunk Spring Breakers giving dubious consent to filming. It may not be your cup of tea, but who are we to judge?

      • Doc says:

        I believe I said nothing about attention, nor am I worried about that aspect. This I think is clear from what I wrote and I was referring to a story about the royals being connected to a certain company and that being labelled as scandalous.
        I didn’t really understand who you were referring to when saying ”you are all on automatic pilot when it comes to thinking, etc, etc…?”
        I do not know who Joe Francis is and it is highly unlikely that any of my kin should get involved with him and who they choose to be involved with is something I can’t control. But I’d rather they attend consensual sex parties than have a hand in causing the suffering and pain of millions humans and/or animals.

      • wolfpup says:

        For all the bread and circuses that the royals put on for the masses, one must never forget that the royals are on the side of the rich – that the House of Lords is filled with all kinds of questionable wealth – and that Snobbery is the ticket to the top. We must never confuse them with our American government in which we vote for people who are capable of doing the work of our evolving society. Showing up for a charity, so guests at their balls know to whom they might contribute funds, is merely bread (not even cake), and their public rituals are the circuses. (I was very surprised to hear that they are spending millions to bury an old king found under a car park – I believe that it’s just good PR, for their “blue-bloody” system). Who really did care for the poor and disenfranchised – (Diana did) – and she’s trashed because she opposed their governance in her life. Also, how do you think that this royal family talks about all plebeians behind our backs – not only are they racist, as commentators have mentioned above, but they show their true colors and real intentions when they make fun of people – such as they have with Kate’s commoner status. This system must and will come down for the people! A royal household does not seem to be a good place for children to grow up as far as good character is concerned – being privileged, absent a reason for the privileges – what other human can play so fast and loose with all the rules?! Or make vows without meaning them (Prince Charles to Diana)? I’ve heard that she was supposed to have know that fooling around was part of the game – but she didn’t!!! End rant.

    • DaysandNightsonair says:

      Are people really convinced that there were only consenting adults at these sex parties? Sex club owners and swingers’ clubs are known to invite prostitutes to please the guests.
      Ever noticed that women guests hardly ever have to pay to get into a sex / swinger club?

      • wolfpup says:

        What I wonder about, is how the girls feel after the party is over…

      • FLORC says:

        wolfpup
        Fine I would think. There’s a screening process. If someone at any point isn’t ok or seems like they’re not in control of their faculties nothing continues for them.
        These parties are heavily policed for consent and not to endanger anyone.

    • India Andrews says:

      The fact so many people barely blink at this stuff tells you how far to hell in our handbasket we’ve gone.

  21. inner stillness says:

    Kate use to get up to plenty…IMO a lot of her party times have been whitewashed

    “Dean Piper On February 16th, 2009
    I hear Kate Middleton went down a storm last Thursday evening at Raffles nightclub in Chelsea. The future wife of Prince William (OK, possibly the future wife) was completely out of control at the trendy club from what I hear! In the past I’ve seen Kate so blasted she’s lay on the floor and wriggled like a worm while a male friend did the conga over her….so I’m not surprised she was a little messy again! Amazingly Kate, who was with a group of girlfriends, managed to leave via the front door and escape being papped. A source said: “It was raining and Kate left via the front and the waiting paps missed her because the weather was so bad!” That Kate’s a master of disguise…..”

    • Becks says:

      Inner stillness, you are SO right that they have whitewashed her.
      I remember articles quoting some mates of theirs describing that Kate always amazed them because, no matter how soused, she never failed to retreat to the bathroom and do a major freshening-up job on herself before leaving the nightclub. She was determined to always look picture-perfect for the cameras.

      When you consider those comments and yet, there HAVE been pictures of her and William looking inebriated, it maybe shows how much drinking there really was.

      It’s hard to picture Chelsea Davy caring so much about how she looked for the waiting pals. The two were very different personalities.

    • FLORC says:

      The whitewashing is very obvious for those following this pre 2009.

      It was mentioned often Kate would wait to exit clubs. If she was without William she would sober up in the bathroom while fixing her hair and makeup. Then she would leave so no bad press would reach William.

      • Becks says:

        That’s on par with what I read as well.

        To keep William interested, she has exercised, smoked, and starved herself to stay thin; ignored all the “Waity-Lazy-Katie” comments (must have been personally humiliating) to dedicate herself to look and BE sexually available to him at all times, and to never, ever put a foot wrong in terms of being seen with another man or revealing any Royal secrets (Willaim was known for putting false stories out to see whom among his group might leak stories).

        For a woman with no real personal accomplishments, there are more than a few hints at a very, very steely and disciplined personality. Beneath that always smiling, beatific face, there is a very real determination.

      • charlene says:

        @Becks – Some of this makes sense, but I cannot for the life of me understand “To keep William interested, she has exercised, smoked, and starved herself to stay thin” — not doubting you, it’s been written countless times before –.

        Kate was slim and trim to begin with and had curves in all the right places. Obviously that was what attracted William in the first place, so why would she starve herself, sacrificing her youth, looks and health in the process? I think she has an eating disorder and there is something else at play here besides keeping William interested. Seriously, most men don’t want to lie beside a bag of bones.

      • LAK says:

        Charlene: Kate isn’t naturally thin though she isn’t a fat girl. I’d say she is averagely normal weight.

        However, if you look at William’s previous/ex/crushed on girlfriends, they are all thin to extent that they’d be described as bony. In particular, the 2 women that gave Kate pause are pin thin naturally. One would say that William likes bony lasses.

        From the moment she dated William, she’s exercised and dieted her body to it’s current size. In the early years, it was a gradual change and she probably wasn’t aware of it happening plus it could have been a natural shedding of baby fat into her final adult size.

        Post University, she did nothing but diet and exercise herself down further. I think she hit her slimmest ideal weight around 2006/2007.

        After that, she lost more weight especially after the engagement. The only time we see her body at a more natural body weight is during pregnancy and even then it’s quite clear that she’s still dieting.

      • charlene says:

        Thanks – didn’t realize the previous/exes were bony. Makes sense I suppose for her to think of that as a competition, however unhealthy. Such a shame when you look back at how vibrant, athletic and healthy she used to be.

        The wigs, makeup. padded bras and designer clothes can mask the (outward) toll on her health, but surely she must realize what she’s doing to herself inside and her longterm health. Osteoporosis, digestive problems….

      • inner stillness says:

        Well put LAK.

      • FLORC says:

        Charlene
        It’s been noted William has said he prefers Kate with more meat on her bones, but I think William’s long history of attraction and how Kate keeps herself now speaks louder. Also, that William has been said to like her legs and long brown hair so she’s often showing that off by leaving it down and legs exposed. Not in pants, but if in pants they’re skin tight. I suspect if William really preferred her with more weight it would happen. That she might not have an ed, but rather is fully aware of her eating habits and is catering to William like she has during their whole relationship.

        Kate appears to have aged so heavily since the engagement. Pre all of that she had a near ideal athletic build. And while she has some muscle definition in her legs her back and arms appear very weak leading to much slouching and slumped shoulders. I’m hyper aware of these traits from my jobs. To compare to mid dating years her posture was nothing like it has been.

      • caitlin says:

        FLORC – well said!!!

  22. Lady D says:

    Emma looks years older than Kate. They went to school together?

  23. Lisa says:

    Don’t tell me royals have sex. I won’t hear of it.

  24. Reece says:

    Whha…Nope still boring! I can’t even fake being scandalized.
    Even the sex party aspect, people have been doing this stuff since they invented sex; and for free. I bet this is just getting press atm cuz it’s expanding to NYC now. I saw it in NY Post or Times or some where a couple of days ago. Meh…BD

  25. Olenna says:

    I now realize that I have been living under a rock! I didn’t know anything about pampas grass, bowls of keys, stag males versus females at sex parties, etc. until reading these threads. Ha…what an education I’ve had today! On topic, though, isn’t Sayle the chic whose name has come up as the first one to leak news of Kate’s pregnancies?

    • notasugarhere says:

      You’re thinking Jessica Hay.

      • FLORC says:

        Speaking of Hay how is it she always has the correct inside info, but has had it official stated she and Kate do not see eachother?

      • Olenna says:

        You’re right, nota. I just looked Hay up. She was the one who spread the not-so true rumors about Kate being bullied in school. Reportedly, she also claimed that Kate had had a miscarriage. Florc, I’d be amazed if Kate has even spoken to her since the wedding; she seems like quite the blabbermouth.

      • FLORC says:

        Olenna
        I suspect they have spoken in passing or Hay is close to someone close to the Midds. Hay hasn’t just guessed this info. She states it with certainty and is correct. The gender, the due date, and several other little details only an insider could know to come out with info in chunks like that and not be wrong. Unless she’s psychic or incredibly lucky.

  26. boredblond says:

    Doesn’t the price seem waay too low to be catering to the rich and powerful? A hundred bucks? If the fee was five figures, I’d believe it was ‘exclusive’..odd..

  27. Down and Out says:

    $250/couple $100/single actually seems pretty cheap to me. I guess because participants are in the amateur league and not pros(titutes)? I’ve had champagne and oysters alone that were more expensive.

    • Imo says:

      I guess this was before you were down and out lol

    • Citresse says:

      Depends on what kind of champagne and given all the counterfeit garbage on the market I bet she’s making a killing hence the business name. What a horrid business name too and FYI I’m an animal lover except for cats and I still think it’s a horrible name.

      • Red Snapper says:

        I think it’s a play on the joke that every time someone masterbates God kills a kitten.

      • FLORC says:

        I read into it as that joke too.
        Sick, but not literal and not without meaning.

    • Imo says:

      The name makes one shudder, right?!

  28. vava says:

    The comments on this thread are great!

  29. anne_000 says:

    I don’t know if they’re still friends or not. I kind of doubt it because does she have any friends she hangs out with that isn’t part of William’s circle? Maybe they’re just acquaintances at this point.

    I believe that Kate was more wild in the past than the media lets on now or that the public’s short-term memory can now remember.

    I wonder if Kate had married a rich but not famous man, would she have joined in on some of the activities of this club to keep her rich man happy?

    • FLORC says:

      William and Charles are said to be members of the super exclusive Whites Club. 2 major requirements to be a member. You must be Male and Powerful. Though things leak out and it’s sort of understood the members get their wants tended to there 😉

      Kate was wild. About as wild as we all were at some point in our early 20’s. That it’s all hushed up now is fairly insulting to the public. Especially when the pics and evidence are still up.

      Vava
      (posting direct response didn’t clear)
      The discussion about those parties up thread made this go from really boring to really fun!

      • vava says:

        LOL, Florc, so true!

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Well, the Whites Club is the oldest gentlemen’s club in England. It was established in the 18th century. In the early 19th century it was know as one of the playgrounds of the dandified set lead by Beau Brummel and it was a reputed gaming house – huge fortunes we won and lost at Whites.

        It has a bar and a restaurant as well. Not exactly the same as a sex company business.

      • FLORC says:

        AH
        It’s my understanding there’s The White’s Gentlemen’s Club and The White’s Club. 1 openly a gentlement’s club and the other a super secret society of sorts. Members and what happens inside is largely secretive.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        FLORC,

        I’m always sceptical of these rumours of a super secret club with super secret activities. They are not so secret if they’re rumoured – or they only exist in the tumours. I always take stories like that with a large grain of salt.

        Anyways, the club is simply called White’s (nothing more) – interestingly enough it started out as a chocolate house that catered to the theatre crowd in the 1690s.

      • FLORC says:

        AH
        I understand what you’re saying, but I still believe there are exclusive clubs.
        If nothing more it’s said to be very exclusive with members topping the richest and most powerful in the area. Members are male. And all that happens within is heavily guarded. I’ll leave it at that. All the ways i’m trying to phrase this comes off reading like conspiracy theories. Trying to avoid that connection.

        As far as calling it a club. That was an error in wording on my part. Sounded more like a name and not a location without the club.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I’m not doubting that exclusive clubs exist. I’m sceptical about the idea that because they are exclusive and “super secret”, they must necessarily be vice-ridden dens of iniquity on posh scale. It simply veers too much into conspiracy theory for me. It just seem to me that you implied that such clubs revolve around satisfying the sexual needs of rich and powerful men. It is just a bit too fanciful for my sensibilities. However, I can be boringly pragmatic and not much given to flights of fancy, which is ironic since I’m here, posting on a gossip site. ;-

      • wolfpup says:

        You are not boring, ArtHistorian – far from!!! You add so much to these discussions – and your historical background (and photograph submissions) are invaluable. But, hopefully, you and I will never know too much about “den iniquities”, other than helping those helpless, inside of them.

        Did anyone get to view the Duchess of Windsor jewels in Chicago?

      • FLORC says:

        AH
        I’m not trying to paint a picture of the illuminaty debating which way to steer humanity. Just that an elitist crowd will gather and not want their activities documented by the outside world.

        And not that it’s a club where men can have relations of all kinds with ladies. More that it’s a perk of entry if they chose to indulge.
        With that many powerful members of society you can be sure topics are discussed more freely than it could be in public.

        And yes, the irony of this discussion while on a gossip site is not lost on me either. If you didn’t say it I was going to point it out 🙂

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I would have loved to see the jewels of the Dutchess of Windsor. She had a magnificent collection! She may have been a horrid person with truly repulsive political symphaties but no one can deny that she had impeccable taste when it came to fashion and jewellery. I do wonder, however, where Edward got the financial means to buy her all those splendid jewels – those are not cheap? Just that one big, heartshaped canary diamonds of her must have cost a fortune!

        I did have the good fortune to see a Cartier exhibit in London in 1997. However, I’m still miffed that I haven’t been able to see the big Cartier exhibit in Paris last year (tiaras galore!), Wallis Simpson’s collection or Elizabeth Taylor’s. Marjorie Merriweather Post and Daisy Fellowes also had some spectacular collections though I did some of the major pieces that cartier made for them and since have reacquired for their collections.

        Some of the big jewelelry houses – Cartier, Chaumet and Bulgari – maintain large collections of their own work and they often buy back famous pieces. Ah, to be the curator of such a collection (and archive).

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      That’s what I thought too — I doubt Kate has ANY “close friends” at all.

  30. Miran says:

    Who cares, why are people still such prudes?

    • notasugarhere says:

      You do understand that one day William will be an unelected head of state, representing a nation and the Commonwealth, right? There are still people who call for Charles’ head and demand that Camilla not be allowed to be queen consort because of their affair.

      People are allowed to question being represented on the global stage by W&K, including questioning whether they want to be represented by people who are friends with a for-profit orgy organizer. If they were private citizens who never cost the taxpayers a penny, it would be a different story. You may not like that, but as long as the taxpayers are represented by these people, the taxpayers ARE allowed to voice their opinions.

    • DaysandNightsonair says:

      This is not just about pruderie. See my comment below.

  31. DaysandNightsonair says:

    Here is my two cents:

    Women do have a lower sex drive than men. (Average, statistics etc.) That means that – speaking in general – men want to have more sex and they want to more often than women.
    Also many swinger clubs charge men only but the women get in for free.
    It is known that the owners of swinger clubs arrange for prostitutes to attend the parties because there usually aren’t enough women. Again, at average women have a lower sex drive. So to get things started there usually are some prostitutes. This is rather convenient for the prostitutes as they have a guaranteed income for the night.

    Judging by the above … do you think all the women attending Sayles’ parties are there without getting paid for attending and having sex? Surely the rich people attending the party would like to consider themselves as better than mere suitors … and believe the sex they have is all due to their own attractivity to their desired sex partners and not due to somebody paying prostitutes to attend such a party and having sex with the paying (and unsuspecting) guests.

    And that is why the whole thing is very very seedy.

    • wolfpup says:

      Men and women’s sex drives are different – I don’t believe that a man’s drive is stronger – just different. We have eggs that are precious – and he needs to spend those sperm, apparently.

      • FLORC says:

        wolfpup
        DaysandNights isn’t wrong. Many stats do agree with those claims. There are many, many variables that change everything though. Ovulation, age, attraction chemistry on hormones. Wanting to achieve different *goals* and Pretty much a lot of environmental factors can change the game.
        It’s apples to oranges really.

    • India Andrews says:

      Dayandnight was speaking statistically. Of course she knows there are exceptions.

  32. India Andrews says:

    Kate was tied to tue owner of Crushing Kittens, a sex club in London, but that’s it. There also are pictures of Kate in a naughty nurse outfit from when she and William had their split in 2007. The Palace really tried to whitewash Kate’s history when she became engaged to William. This is a woman who moved herself out of the friend category by sashaying down a catwalk in lingerie after all. We shouldn’t be surprised she’s comfortable with her body.

  33. seesittellsit says:

    What? The biddable, tractable, demure, mute, perfect-for-the-position Middleton girl turns out not to like being told what to do now that the rings are on her finger and the Heir and Spare provided? Quelle surprise!