Duchess Kate hosted an actual event at Kensington Palace last night. Shocking! Kensington Palace and the KP Gardens actually host a fair number of events, but Kate and William rarely show up for those events, even when the event is for BAFTA and William is the president of BAFTA. Last night’s event was for the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, one of Kate’s patronages. Prince William wasn’t there, from what I saw.
Kate repeated a Diane Von Furstenberg dress, which I actually like. I liked it the first time we saw it too, back in 2014, when she was pregnant with Princess Charlotte. She stepped out in November 2014, so it was almost two years ago exactly, and Kate is likely as far along now in her pregnancy as she was back then. I don’t think this DVF gown is technically a maternity gown, I think it’s just a bit stretchy and loose in the midsection, so Kate finds it comfortable to wear during the early months of pregnancy. In 2014, Kate wore her hair back in a flattering hairstyle. Last night, she let her curls fly and… what are you going to do? Eh, at least she isn’t wearing five pounds of extensions and wiglets.
A few more royal items… Will, Kate, George and Charlotte were seen on a train over the weekend, and it is believed that they were returning to London after attending an annual “bonfire and fireworks display” at Eaton Hall, the home of the Grosvenors. Also: the Queen is in trouble for having some of her fortune set up in an extravagant tax shelter, which was revealed by the so-called “Paradise Papers.” Mind you, it doesn’t seem like the Queen’s financial shenanigans are actually illegal, it’s just that she looks tacky for using some dodgy tax loopholes.
Photos courtesy of Getty.
“November 2014, so it was almost two years ago exactly” surely it’s almost three years?
Maybe this is our opportunity to go back and redo 2016? Goodness knows there are things we’d like to change (cough…elections…cough)
Given that she buys so many things that look alike anyways, I’m glad she repeats.
I bet she was forced to repeat a dress. 😉
Oh and doesn’t she have that thing in red and off-white, too?
Whereas Kate in black doily lace looks as if she got wrapped in her death cloth already.
She looks lovely. I know what that third pregnancy is like. She wears what looks flattering to her and feels comfortable. Her face is glowing and I say hands off to negative comments on moms to be, she already has enough to worry about!
Yes, she looks terrific, but I wish she would wear more bling. She has access to some of the most gorgeous jewels in the world.
Um, what exactly does she have to worry about? She barely works, she lives in a palace with her every need catered to courtesy of her father in law and she’s already said at some point she and William don’t care what the public think of them so a few negative comments on social media are not likely to bother her. I can’t think of one single thing that normal people worry about like paying the mortgage, feeding the kids, debt, dealing with schools and neighbours would ever remotely touch her.
Many pregnant worry about having a healthy pregnancy and child. Also terrorists have threatened Prince George.
Right. She doesn’t have the same worries as us commoners. But, she is still a mother to two kids under five and a third on the way. As Diana before her proved with her life, being royalty doesn’t exempt you from the horrors of life. I wish her nothing but the best.
I’ll save my sympathy for working Mums who have to pay ridiculously expensive child care so they can go to work and help pay the mortgage and stay on the career ladder. The same Mums reliant on an icreasingly creaky NHS with a shortage of midwives for their and their children’s health care needs. No doubt those very same Mums worry about their kids who will grow up without the massive cushion of wealth and privilege that Kate’s children will enjoy.
What I hope for Kate is a healthy dose of reality that would allow her to develop some empathy and prompt her to get off her lazy butt and actually help the less privileged. Instead what we get is how ‘keen’ she is to help while doing the very bare minimum she can get away with. What I really hope for Kate is that she comes to her senses and recognises the social contract she signed up for when she joined the firm, the social contract that implies she acknowledges all her wealth and privilege by serving her community and country. Shopping and birthing doesn’t really cover it.
@frisbee – Kate Lambridge said during the engagement interview that she didn’t care about what people thought about her. Few moments later Bill comforted her. I think her only care is her family plus her standard of living and status. Not that a divorce would come easy.
@ Soulspa, I did include that in my original response! As I posted it in the wrong place I had to type the whole thing out again and forgot that so I appreciate you bringing it up. She said everything we needed to know about her in that one comment and she clearly hasn’t changed a bit.
She ain’t got nothing to worry about except how to get more diamonds and jewelry out of Bill / The Royals / The taxpayer.
Have you noticed her new bling? That diamond bracelet and those diamond earrings?
Curious: Kate’s bling on this occasion is actually from the vault. Queen often wears that bracelet to opening of parliament, and has been photographed wearing those earrings on a number of occasions.
Wow, I can’t believe people are hating on the fact she said in her engagement interview that she doesn’t care what people think of her!! It’d be the ONLY possible way to approach being Williams’ wife in our modern world of photographs and blogs ripping you apart every second on the internet. I liked Diana too, but she didn’t have to deal with the constant 24/7 intrusion of our media obsessed internet age. Other celebrities have admitted, “I never read about myself; I’d be crushed!” I don’t see this as haughty at all. The one thing people who’ve met her have said, over and over, is how very friendly and down to earth she was, but this point of view can never be mentioned on Celebitchy! ANYWAY, what could she possibly worry about? Her pregnancy and health, her two kids’ behavior and development, her petulant husband, her relationships with a wide variety of family members, intrusive photographers capturing her at a bad moment, being a prime terrorist target, and I suspect she’s not “keen” on having to give public speeches. Is she privileged, and exempt from worrying about all the financial concerns most of us have to deal with? Yup. Will you negate every good thing about this young woman in order to enjoy hating on her for everything her privilege affords her? OK, then; Nancy and I can wish her a healthy pregnancy, and best wishes!!
Actually Saucy in the other thread saw her at today’s event in person and said she was vacant and dim. No one would say on record bad things about the BRF so they continue in their bubble of privilege.
No one is saying she has to read internet comments but maybe do more royal work, since she has done very little in the last six years.
I actually like this dress so i don’t mind it.
Also the paradise papers are interesting. If you haven’t read up on them you should
Yes, the Queen has to stash her cash now that she has to pay taxes like her subjects.
I am so world weary after watching the parade of billionaires in power in the US that the Queen’s tax dodging doesn’t phase me. It would if I were British, though…
Tax shelters are not illegal, but these loopholes are available to the super wealthy only. Taxes are used for important policies such as Heath care, education, aiding an aging society, roads and in England, paying for a lot for the Royals! I think it’s beyond “tacky” to ask poor and middle class people to pay their share while ducking out on your responsibilities.
Not just tacky, it’s highly immoral in her case, considering the position of trust she’s in, the ridiculously entitled life she and her family enjoy at the taxpayers’ expense and the vast amount of unearned wealth she has. It’s greed, plain and simple.
I have to admit I was rather shocked to read the Queen has been off-shoring. The fact the she would invest outside of the UK is appalling, but dodging taxes is is, as you say, immoral.
I don’t know why people are shocked by the fact the royals are a bunch of thieves. People have been complaining about it for years.
Two of the worst ones right now are Prince Andrew and that horrid hanger-on Fergie.
I thought she didn’t know about it and it was an aide?
It is in poor taste if someone is inclined to be generous, but in reality, it is much worse than that.
She has an administrator who handles the Duchy of Lancaster. And he was just knighted for service yesterday. Interestingly he didn’t want his photo taken and didn’t want to be interviewed either!
Yeah that’s not sketchy at all… 🙄
I’ve never undertood the whole “legal but dodgy” concept. I’m pretty sure it’s either legal or illegal. When I hire a CPA, I want them to find every loophole available. That’s why I pay them.
*shrug*
Well, I mean I’m just speculating here, but is it fair to say that you as a person don’t exactly live off other people’s taxes while finding ways not to pay them yourself? And that you rarely go out and make speeches promoting things that you secretly have financial interest in? Those are some the issues people have with this.
🙂 Got it in one. I’m a little hesitant on even my stock movements when it involves where I work-never want to seem like I have insider info. That makes more sense-I was trying to figure out why it was such a big deal that the queen, and anyone, was using every available means built into the tax system
The thing is, you’re cautious with your money because it’s your money.
I’m not a royal hater, nor a royal lover, merely a royal acknowledger. It’s a dumb outdated thing, but it’s silly to talk about getting rid of them. They’ve been waning in influence for 1000 years, they’ll continue to wane, eventually they’ll downsize to the point where they exist and are a mild curiosity. Just let it happen.
So with all that being my view, and not exactly being a Morrissey-esque royal hater, my feeling would be: that money isn’t even yours. My taxes go to things like fixing up your house. And yet you’re going to do this offshore thing to not pay taxes of your own? Charlie’s going to give speeches that relate to his secret investments in firms? This isn’t, you know, shaving off a bit to have some extra holiday cash. This looks like staggering, out of touch hypocrisy.
Unfortunately there isn’t just legal and illegal.
There is also: it is illegal but the tax office won’t find out about it.
There is tax havens where you don’t pay taxes on your profits which you made in other countries. Those other countries are deprived of a massive amount of taxes.
For example: a doctor owns the property in which his clinic is located. The property is transferred legally to a company in some tax haven which is owned by the doctor, too. Then the doctor “rents” this property from this company which he himself owns. The rent is paid to that tax haven company where there are no taxes on these profits. The legal fees for such a tax haven company are around 50.000. Therefore this “solution” is mostly used by rich plastic surgeons because this scheme is too expensive for your average general pediatrician who simply doesn’t earn enough to pay such fees. But rich plastic surgeons or owners of such medical clinics can safe taxes this way.
This is legal as long as the tax office doesn’t declare this illegal which they haven’t done yet. Because a lot of rich folks donate a lot of money to politicians who in turn won’t declare such business schemes as illegal.
Try Wolf of Wall Street:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndTbiDQjbiE
Don’t forget the extra money she’s getting — courtesy of the taxpapers — to redo BP. Granted Duchy of Lancaster is a different pot than the one the palace refurb comes from, but it really doesn’t look good.
It’s legal but ethically dodgy as the queen is a head of state, it looks bad if she is dodging tax, even when it’s legal
She looks nice. And healthy. Love the bracelet.
As for off-shore investments, people who have them don’t declare them to the government. That’s why a lot of them are numbered accounts. And they end up not paying taxes on the income.
Our PM Justin Trudeau is presently in the crosshairs for engaging in the same activity (he inherited lots of money from his Daddy). It’s a bit hard to swallow since he is wanting to hit small businesses with higher taxes.
A bit more than just a loophole.
It gets worse and the Queen has acted in an absolutely disgusting manner. Now she allegedly didn’t know anything of anything. Yep, yours truly just pretends to not have known anything.
Some of the Queen’s investments went into BrightHouse who lend people money to buy household equipment like vacuum cleaners. Then people pay a monthly rate to pay off their equipment. Thing is that by paying the rates this way people pay twice or thrice as much for that equipment. But some paupers can’t cough up Pounds 100 for a new cheap vacuum cleaners so they pay a monthly rate of Pounds 3. But that way they pay Pounds 250 for a vacuum cleaner which would costs Pounds 100 if you pay the whole sum at once.
Never let it be said you can’t make profits from the paupers.
That is one of the companies the Queen profits from. These companies are exploiting and frauding paupers.
See here:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/06/news/queen-offshore-investments-paradise-papers/index.html
” …BrightHouse, which gave customers credit so they could buy its home furniture and appliances, was later forced to compensate consumers after the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority found it was not a responsible lender. …”
In a different situation, I would totally agree with you. And I hate the term “loopholes.” They’re laws! Use ’em to your advantage. 😊
But QE dodging taxes when the commoners are paying taxes for her benefit is quite wrong.
It’s the wealthy that make the rules that protect their wealth. What she’s doing is legal, but very shady.
Nope, it is not legal. That is why she tried to hide these offshore accounts. Thing is that she just didn’t get caught earlier and likely she won’t be punished anyway. Only now that these secret papers are published the Queen’s fiancial activities are put out.
There is also a lack of investigative powers in tax offices due to austerity cuts to their human resources. = They don’t have enough tax investigators.
You guys have been a ton of information today, and very patient with someone going…huh, don’t get it. Thank you all very much!
She always looks happier when William isn’t around
Kate’s hair (worn up) was better in 2014. She seems to have abandoned the up-do looks, too bad.
It’s a modified sausage curl, I’ll call it wavy-waity. Her face was glowing, she seems healthiest, this third pregnancy. As for the outfit she wore today: Hideous.
Her face does seem quite glowy and happy. I will agree to disagree on the hair though. I think the 2014 style was a bit matronly. I like an updo, but when it’s worn lower like that I just feel like its very aging. I prefer the length and style today. Looks like I’m in the minority though!
This hair length looks very good on her, I think. Similar to mine, and I laugh at all the people who say adult women should always have short hair. Life’s too short, really. She looks great with the extra pregnancy weight too. The dress is a bit matronly, but not a bad look over all.
She looks nice, but as usual I wish she’d cut her hair.
I think they’re actually called “Panama Papers”, or at least that’s what the media calls them here in Arg. Our dearly beloved (not) President is involved in it, as are many of his friends and associates. Shady AF, but they’re no strangers to any of that.
The Panama papers are different, but were a similar document dump concerning shady and illegal financial activity.
I think she looks great here and it’s nice to see her getting out. She seems to be relaxed and enjoying herself (which is not always the case) so good for her.
Looking nice and happy. Glad she’s feeling better.
This dress is both pretty and boring. If she didn’t have so many damn lace dresses it would be a lot prettier. As it is this is my favorite of her lace dresses but it definitely looked better with her hair up.
She is wearing a “new to her” bracelet from the Queen; first thing that popped into my head was that was the bribe for showing up to this event. Didn’t she bail on the Anna freud gala last year?
Pregnancy suits her. She looks pretty in these photos. I’ve always thought she has great hair.
I think her hair looks good too. I have other problems with Kate, but I’ve always thought the over the top hatred of her hair is a little weird. I don’t really mind it when it’s longer, but I prefer it this length and I like the way it’s styled in these pics.
Nobody hates her hair. We just think it’s funny that out of all the horrendous things that have been written about her since she started dating William, her hair is the only thing she’s asked the Palace to release a statement about.
The Palace specifically denied that she wore extenstions like it’s a bad thing. It’s fun to point them out in light of official govt denial.
Seriously, out of all the horrendous things that have been written about her, THAT was her line in the sad?!
I don’t hate her hair at all, I just think she looks too girlish sometimes.
Hate her hair? No. Some of us do wonder if it’s all hers from time to time, though. People get really bent out of shape if you say so too.
@Lak The Palace put out a statement denying she uses extensions? Really?
She looks nice. And healthy. Love the bracelet.
As for off-shore investments, people who have them don’t declare them to the government. That’s why a lot of them are numbered accounts. And they end up not paying taxes on the income.
Our PM Justin Trudeau is presently in the crosshairs for engaging in the same activity (he inherited lots of money from his Daddy). It’s a bit hard to swallow since he is wanting to hit small businesses with higher taxes.
A bit more than just a loophole.
I don’t know why anyone is surprised or giving HM the benefit of the doubt.
This is a woman who pays tax VOLUNTARILY unlike the rest of her subjects whose tax arrangements, even where they dodge them, are compulsory.
Secondly, who thinks her income when she VOLUNTEERS to pay tax, is at the same rate as other earners in her tax bracket?🤔 i feel a sale of bridges coming on…
Finally, this is a woman who was FORCED to start paying any tax at all in 1992 as the condition for the govt writing her a cheque to refurbish the burnt out areas of Windsor castle as opposed to just handing her a blank cheque. Britain went through a war, rationing, extreme war/ IMF induced poverty, several recessions etc since 1936 when her father struck the deal exempting the family from paying any tax, BUT this Queen never thought to pay any tax AT ALL until she was strong-armed in 1992.
They also forced her to open the palaces to the public to help pay for upkeep of the palaces which she magnanimously does FOR A FEW WEEKS every year.
And without a blush accepted £360M to refurbish Buckingham Palace despite receiving an annual grant to maintain the Palaces every single year that she has been Queen…..
What’s alittle tax dodging in light of all that?
If I’m remembering correctly, she cut costs a few years ago by having a staff Christmas party only every other year.
The Windsors are narcissistic grifters. Some are just willing to put more effort into keeping up appearances.
Yuppppp. This quote from an NYT article about her party planner always stuck with me:
She described how the queen had had her grandchildren over for dinner. “And she said to me that she found it really difficult,” Lady Elizabeth said, “because they didn’t really know how to talk each other. And she said, ‘I suppose it’s because they’re always getting up and down and helping somebody and putting something in a dishwasher or whatever they’re doing, because they don’t have enough staff.’”
So when you see people going on about her great work ethic and how everyone else is lazy, keep in mind, they’re ALL lazy grifters and the queen wishes they were even lazier.
The grandchildren don’t know how to talk to each other because they aren’t particularly interested, intelligent, or empathetic. I’m thinking primarily of the Cambridges, here, but Harry never struck me as one for great dinner conversation either. Peter and Zara seem a little dull, too. The Yorkies have potential, but all I’ve really heard out of them are excited platitudes. I can see why HM would find that trying. She’s used to people entertaining her.
The grandchildren are all in great awe of their grandmother and they probably were on their best behaviour because of her. I am sure if the Queen wasn’t there they would have been chatting to each other nineteen to the dozen. The Queen is not the type of granny you can run up to and hug, her own children have to make an appointment through somebody else to see her. They were probably all feeling rigid and stiff in her presence.
I’m being driven a bit crazy by the news reports constantly referring to this as “her private estate”. Will someone from RepublicUK please explain the history, reasons for establishment, and true ownership of the Duchies (Lancaster and Cornwall) to the journalists? It isn’t like the Windsors get to run off with billions in Duchy property come the revolution.
Me too.
We repeatedly post this here too and people STILL sprout the establishment gaslighting line that the duchies are their private estates.
Annoying thing of all is that the duchies do not hide their history, ownership etc, yet journalists keep pumping out the false narrative as fact. Talk about fake news.
I know, it’s really irritating. It is A private estate from which she receives the income, but it is not HER private estate.
As I understand it, Sandringham and Balmoral are private estates. If the monarchy ended tomorrow, Queenie’s name is on the deeds and she gets to keep them. The Duchy of Cornwall was established by some medieval king expressly to provide income for the heir to the throne. Interestingly, when QEII was the heir male primogeniture was still in effect so she could be hypothetically usurped by a baby brother meaning that she did not get the duchy. This was formed out of public lands for a public purpose and would likely revert to the public upon dissolution of the monarchy. The Duchy of Lancaster, however, was brought into the system by marriage. It was a wife’s dowry from another medieval king and has since been used to keep the reigning monarch in pretties. They might be able to make a case to keep it.
I’m not entirely certain of this, though. Anyone?
Graymatters: Several things
1. Primogeniture laws robbed the Queen (and other female heirs) of the duchy of Cornwall because only a MALE heir could be declared heir APPARENT, the principal condition of it’s inheritance. The Queen was and remained heir PRESUMPTIVE. There was always a chance that her parents would have another child and that child be a male who would become heir Apparent instead of her. Therefore no duchy of Cornwall for her.
2. The Duchy of Cornwall was formed by an act of parliament to provide an income to support the heir’s support for the crown. No specific private name is written on the act beyond that. This makes it easy for inheritance or switch of dynasties or parliament taking it back in the event of a republic since it remains a state property at all times, albight a private one.
3. Duchy of Lancaster is complicated and there could be grounds for the royals keeping some, but not all of it. The original estate of the duchy was a dowry from the Earls(later dukes) of Lancaster to John of Gaunt who inherited the dukedom as well as the lands. It remained private property throughout the Lancastrian usurpation of the throne from 1399 until 1461 when the Yorkists led by future Edward 4 won back the throne. Following defeat, the Lancastrians forfeited it as attainder for treason, BUT Edward 4 stipulated that it remain a private estate albight one tied to the inheritance of the crown. This has remained the case since then. Like Cornwall, it’s a private state property, but with different origins.
4. You didn’t ask, but it needs clarifying, the Crown Estates are another separate estate that was created by an act of parliament for the instrument of govt. It is separate from Lancaster or Cornwall. The Sovereign grant is taken from the Crown estates.
LAK, it is SO fun to read all your explanations!! You are one of my favorite posters, among many delightful posters! Thanks 🙂
Thanks, LAK. I don’t think of the Crown Estates as belonging to the monarch in any way. Wasn’t it one of the Georges who basically sold it to the government for a varying rate payment plan a few hundred years ago? I imagine that if the monarchy goes, the Sovereign grant will revert back to the pot and funding for the next head of state will be taken from it.
I didn’t know all of that about the Duchy of Lancaster. Interesting stuff.
Graymatters: it’s important to remember that the Crown Estates have never, ever belonged to the royal family.ever.
It was created in norman times to generate income for govt. Govt then was defined as parliament, judiciary, army and royal household.
The monarch was tasked with managing the Crown estates. Much like Charles manages Cornwall except he gets to keep all the profits whilst the Crown estates’ profits always went into the treasury.
George 3, for various reasons, didn’t want to continue managing the crown estates so he handed the task to parliament on condition that his expenses as head of state + royal household continued to be paid. That’s where the civil list came about, later Sovereign Grant.
The establishment, and the palace, likes to put about the fiction that George 3 gave up the income of the entire Crown estates which also belonged to the family, and the royals only receive a tiny portion back when the reality is that they’ve never owned it or had any right to the income from it, and it continues to function as it has always functioned since norman times.
The only difference is change of management and definition of govt has expanded to include public services, NHS, other military services and police.
I suspect some of the glow is thanks to photoshop, but she looks good here. She showed up! It’s a boring dress, but I respect the repeat. I can see the poppy, and she changed up her earrings, bracelet, and hair. So it’s a win for Kate.
At some point there will be a tipping point. The plebs only get fooled for so long before they rebel and Willy seems too dense to realize that.
Wow are the crowds looking small for her? I thought she was popular.
The crowds in Canada were significantly smaller on their second tour. People knew since before the engagement WK didn’t pull great interest such as Charles and Diana but were willing to give them a chance shortly after they married during the first Canadian tour. As time went by it became glaringly obvious WK don’t seem to care much about Royal responsibilities. Even worse when William mentions publicly he didn’t prepare for his appearances. As a result, it’s hardly surprising public interest has dwindled.
The crowds will gather at the hospital for Kate’s third baby but if you ask the photographers they would tell you the magic is not there.
Where they travelled is sparsely populated. The crowds in Vancouver were large.
I humbly ask a serious question that I know the wise & witty contributors to this glorious site will answer to perfection.
Why o why does Duchess Kate ALWAYS keep a tiny purse in front of her tummy?
Yes, I know she’s up the duff — but she always, always ALWAYS stands with her hands covering her stomach, hiding it behind some useless pursette.
I’m going to write a Dr. Seuss-like book called THE DUCH WHO CLUTCHED A CLUTCH.
At the beginning of her baby bump Kate wants to hide it, draw attention away from it. She probably thinks this early stage makes her appear bloated if you didn’t know she was pregnant so I guess it’s her vanity.
Then later she does the opposite. She holds the clutch under her abdomen in the late stages of pregnancy. I bet when they bring third baby home from hospital, Kate will use another shawl to hide her post labour belly. She really didn’t like the photos of herself after giving birth to George, her post labour belly on full display. The woman is vapid and vain. I’m really not sure it’s answered to perfection. I’m not a Royal insider. Just a guess.
Thank you. The thing is, she always does it. Long before she ever was pregnant, long after her pregnancies.
It’s an annoying, internalized pose. Even clutching her legendary handbag, HM is always vibrant and alive in her photos. The energy always focused out.
The tummy shield keeps Kate as she is — hidden and distant.
I dont think you answered it at all. She most likely keeps the same things in there that others do with a small clutch. Lip gloss, Kleenex, mirror…..spliff
Again, the Duch is free to clutch as many clutches as she wants. I’m just wonderful why she always does and why it’s always clasped in front of her tummy.
It’s a shield emotionally and it’s not flattering physically.
It’s pretty and boring. Just like Kate.
I’m tired of all the lace. Not just on Kate but everywhere I look it’s lace, lace, lace. Kate has certainly bought into that trend in a big way. Other than that, she looks good.
This dress has always said to me = well preserved widow of indeterminate age. Especially with that chignon.
Hair has improved the dress this go round, but only a smidge.
The first time KM wore this dress, it was also worn by another woman at the same event who had 20+ years on her.
Nothing special. Same Kate to me.
Meghan has the same dress but in Navy and the short version. Google it. It was bound to happen sometime.
nice to see her re wear an old outfit amazing how she stays so slim her shoulder blades are showing I think she needs to eat a few more pasties, it can’t be easy trying to juggle a pregnancy and looking like she is on the cat walk. Mind she looks good but is it taking its toll on her body:
Hope the noise from the new Mahiki club opened over the road from Kensington Palace isn’t disturbing them.
Such a lot of black and lace and hair. Looks OK but heavy somehow.