Duchess Kate is now a “lesser royal” than Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie

This is something I’ve been wondering about for a while, and I’m glad there’s a story about it and details about the Queen approving of new “royal protocols”. Many of us have wondered: who does Duchess Kate really “outrank” in the royal family? It’s generally thought that “blood princesses” (born into the family, born with a royal title) are superior to those princesses/duchesses who simply marry into the family. Like, obviously, Princess Anne (The Princess Royal) far outranks Duchess Kate. But how about Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie? Are they equal to Kate? Are they lesser? Although Kate wasn’t “born” with a royal title, she will be Queen one day – does that affect the situation? Well, The Mail has all of the answers. And it’s not what I was expecting:

Despite the ease with which she has taken to her role, it seems the Duchess of Cambridge has not yet conquered the House of Windsor. Newly updated ‘protocols’ approved by the Queen place Kate firmly down the royal pecking order, it was reported yesterday.

A document is said to have been circulated privately in the royal household, clarifying Kate’s status. Although she is the future Queen, as a former commoner Kate must show reverence to the ‘blood princesses’. This means she is expected to curtsey to those born royal, such as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie – both in public and in private. The rule only applies when her husband, Prince William, is not present.

In his absence, she must also curtsey to other blue-blooded women in the royal household, including Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra, the Queen’s cousin. She must always curtsey to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, whether William is present or not.

However, in the case of the Countess of Wessex, it is she who has to curtsey to Kate. The Earl of Wessex’s wife was once the second-highest ranking woman in the Royal Family because neither of the Queen’s other sons, Prince Charles and Prince Andrew, were married. This is effectively Sophie’s second ‘demotion’, having been pushed down the list in 2005 after Charles married Camilla, and finding she was expected to curtsey to the Duchess of Cornwall.

The complex new rules come in a little-known edict entitled the Order Of Precedence Of The Royal Family To Be Observed At Court, which the Queen has updated to take into account the Duke of Cambridge’s wife.

The Princess Royal is said to have refused to ever curtsey to Princess Diana or to Camilla, on the basis they were outsiders whereas she had given her whole adult life to royal service. In an effort to avoid conflicts, the Queen drew up the first Order of Precedence in 2005, after Charles married Camilla. Its effect was to change the order along ‘blood lines’ so that Princesses Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Alexandra – the granddaughter of George V – were all ahead of Camilla.

The etiquette, though arcane to some, is taken very seriously by the royals, who bow and curtsey to each other in public and behind closed doors. The Order of Precedence affects other aspects of royal protocol too, such as who arrives first at an event. For example, Camilla was forced to wait in the drizzle outside the Guards Chapel, Windsor, for the arrival of Princess Anne at a memorial service in 2006, because Charles had not accompanied her.

Royal historian Brian Hoey, an expert on court protocol, predicted when William married Kate that: ‘Kate will take the rank of her husband, which means that when she’s at court, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie should curtsey to her. But I don’t think there’s a chance they will. While William feels warmly towards his cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie, he’s conscious of the fact that they are lesser royals. As future King, he will wish to see them behaving correctly towards their future Queen – but their attitude is likely to be, “Why should I? I was born royal – Kate wasn’t”.’

Yesterday a Buckingham Palace spokesman declined to comment. Royal observers suspect Kate will not mind the new rules as she is keen to please everybody, but William may be less happy. However, it seems getting to grips with life in the royal household does have its benefits.

The increasingly glamorous Duchess is thought to have spent more than £35,000 on couture and high-end outfits since the start of the year – and the bill is being met by her father-in-law. Prince Charles has agreed to pay for any dresses the Duchess wears for ‘work-related’ functions and engagements through his official household budget. He will open up his accounts to the public this week for the first time since Kate, 30, joined the family.

[From The Mail]

So, basically, the Queen let it be known that Kate and Camilla should always curtsey to the blood princesses, but in reality, it probably won’t happen because William wants to make sure that his cousins respect Kate’s position. ??? I guess. Basically, the rule should be “Everyone needs to curtsey to Princess Anne, and beyond that you’re all on your own.”

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

271 Responses to “Duchess Kate is now a “lesser royal” than Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. RocketMerry says:

    Well… technically… she would be, no?
    Eh. If she had a bit more class and a bit more brains maybe the royal highnesses could let her get away with being a bit less formal.
    Sorry. I feel sooo bitchy today. I’ll say something nice, her hair is gorgeous and she’s tall. There.

  2. Beta says:

    royal protocol is the dumbest thing on planet earth.

    • colt13 says:

      I agree, it is archiac.

    • corny says:

      on the other hand, they say less is more so less title, more maybelline

    • Agnes says:

      i couldn’t agree more. unreal how much bs these people are subjected to and subject themselves to. and none of it really matters, in the real world. i guess they need something to make themselves feel superior to us, the peasants?

      also, i wish all these women would chill it with the hats…

    • Minty says:


      This truly pompous form of snobbery should have died out a long time ago. It’s mystifying to me why some countries continue to maintain hereditary titles and outdated, unnecessary traditions.

    • gigi says:

      Archaic and increasingly ridiculous, yes. But SO entertaining. Look at these rich, white folk getting all worked up about who curtsies to whom. And in the middle of all that, you have Hot Harry, who doesn’t give a rat’s arse. Yet. Sometimes, they’re better than a soap opera.

      • Iggles says:

        Lol! True ;-)

        This also made me chuckle:
        The etiquette, though arcane to some, is taken very seriously by the royals, who bow and curtsey to each other in public and behind closed doors.

    • Liz says:

      I’ll curtsey to NO ONE in this life, I don’t care who you think you are, or how long you waited around to marry a prince. We’re all equal. Thank God I’m American.

      • Charlotte says:

        yeah yeah yeah we get it, america=freedom or something

      • CC says:

        So, I’m guessing if you met your president you wouldn’t use any formality, since we’re all equal?

        Ok…. if you say so.

        But you know, royals aren’t the only ones with protocol in place. Theirs just happen to have been in place for far longer.

      • Liz says:

        I would shake hands with the President, just like I would shake hands with anyone that I meet. We don’t bow to our political leaders in my country–they are our equals, merely people we’ve chosen to speak on our behalf. These concepts are obviously beyond you. That sucks.

      • It is ME!! says:

        “We don’t bow to our political leaders in my country–they are our equals, merely people we’ve chosen to speak on our behalf. These concepts are obviously beyond you.”

        As if the United States invented the concept of a democratic republic! Why don’t you ask some Romans about that. Never mind that the very country you talk sh*t about had a form of representation (not to all peoples, it’s true, but it is still representation nonetheless) since the Magna freakin’ Carta in 1215. The USA wasn’t even a twinkle in England’s eye then. So please, calm down much.

      • Liz says:

        I never said we invented it. Reading comprehension much?! God, what an idiot.

      • Jackie O says:

        @Liz – ‘We’re all equal. Thank God I’m American.’

        ya, unless you are gay in america. not so equal then. also, with your country’s history of racism, please don’t throw your american propaganda around here.

      • blueblueblue says:

        Guaranteed Liz is a red-stater. Flame away, patriot!

      • moonriver says:

        Back off of Liz, guys. Seriously, you’re splitting hairs here, and these are all argumentative fallacies (thanks philosophy of argumentation class :D ). She never claimed American’s invented a democratic/republic government. Nor did she actually disparage England. Or gay people. She just stated that she wouldn’t curtsy to anyone–neither would I. I also consider elected officials to be equal with me, the voter. There is a great deal of American bashing on this site. Why should Liz get bullied because you don’t like America? I’m American. I haven’t done anything to any non-Americans, but according to many on this site, I must be an obese hag monster that kicks puppies and murders children in Darfur.

      • MeMyself says:

        Jesus people, defensive much?

        I completely agree with Liz. Although it is interesting to watch the Royals, the whole “I’m better/higher/ than you, therefore YOU curtsey to Me, as I am more important,” is just another form of the ghastly “Don’t you know who I am?”
        Blue blood? Give me a break!
        I would happily shake hands with Obama or a postal clerk, or a garbage man, or a teacher, or a hairdresser, or another mother…etc…if I had the pleasure of spending some time with him/her and we connected in any small kind of way. But the acknowledgment of publicly, (or behind closed doors) of doing a curtsey to stroke another’s ego just seems silly and frankly, although traditional, seems to reek of insecurity from anyone demanding it.
        I am an American living in England and see the classes on all sorts of levels, not just in royalty, in this lovely country.

      • KK says:

        @Jackie O – Please tell me which country has equality for all their citizens, at least we are trying. And yes, we have racism but so does everybody else and we managed to elect President Obama. Don’t point to us as racist or prejudice when the UK has issues with prejudice against everybody who is not British/WASP (Irish, Poles, Africans, etc.)

      • Minimi says:

        I’m European. Liz just stated how glad she is to be an American since this bullsh** doesn’t happen around there and she is totally right about it! Other crap happens there but we are not talking about it here, so it’s irrelevant to the conversation. Yes, this royalty thing is completely insane and apart from the recreational aspect of it it has no purpose in a modern society with democratic principles. Royalty should be limited to “Game of Thrones” and kept away from real life ;)

      • hatsumomo says:

        Well, Im Texan(which is pretty much like being its own country) and if I ever got to meet the Queen or the President I would most certainly curtsy, or follow proper respectful guidelines. I would certainly not bandy on about how everyone is created equal to their face! It could be perceived as being insolent, rude and/or disrespectful. And above all, you should ALWAYS want to be polite, especially in another country with a different culture. I sure as hell would hate to be seen as “that arrogant American” especially when I know Im not.

      • ZenB!tch says:

        @CC I don’t think we have to do anything to/with the President other than shake his hand and call him Mr.Obama. I don’t know that giving him a high 5 and saying, “Yo! Barry, how’s it hangin’?” would get me points but it wouldn’t get me arrested either.

        That and I would never say “Yo! Barry, how’s it hangin’?” to anyone.

        If I met the first lady I would probably say “Nice to meet you Mrs. Obama, who made your dress?”

      • OMSS says:

        LOL!!! ‘Thank god I am American’.

        I am British, and I am just as free as you! The Queen and her family don’t run jack, our government does. If you think otherwise you are truly misinformed. They are just figure-heads/tools who can be removed by parliament if they step out of line or when the current monarch passes away- I can’t see Charles as King, or even William!!!

      • bluhare says:

        Hey, hatsumo, thanks for a nice, balanced post.

      • blueblueblue says:

        Nobody’s bullying Liz. She put it out there – we get to respond or defend. I was in the Army during the Reagan years. I saw it start there and mushroom under 43 and 9/11.

        Patriotism, God and country, With us or against us, and Take back our country have become shibboleths for intolerance of other: other color, religion, social status, orientation, political leaning, or culture.

        We are not, as a system or a people, better than others – not by anything measurable. We’re not the worst either.

        And I am so over the /[adjective] much?/ construct.

      • Nance says:

        “The Queen and her family don’t run jack, our government does.”

        I’m from Quebec, Canada. I don’t think the british royals are welcome here. They may not run anything, or rule Canada anymore, but we still have to pay for them when they come to visit us.

        Now this, lastly on news, ex-Lt.-Gov Lise Thibault to claim sovereign immunity in fraud trial: “The Queen’s former representative in Quebec, who is invoking sovereign privilege to avoid going to trial on fraud charges [...]”

        It’s not done yet, but just that the idea come to her lawyers mind just makes me want to puke…

        If british royals = soap opera, fine, but I don’t want any of my money to finance this.

        We are not peasants, we are the people and they are not higher than any of us. I would like so much that our prime minister get rid of anything monarchy related in politic/laws. We are in 2012!

      • muppet_barbershop says:

        While I agree that getting mad at Liz for stuff she didn’t say is quite silly, implying that our Americanness makes us superior in this area was also silly, Liz. Just because no one officially has to bow in our culture doesn’t mean it isn’t rife with similar little daily dehumanizations. You ever spent 20 years in retail?…

    • sup says:

      the dumbest thing is the existence of people who actually still revere royals, or wish for their country to have/bring back royals. also, since they never have actual power anymore (thank goodness) who cares if kate is a “lesser royal”? they’re all useless anyway

    • Mauibound says:

      Agreed, strictly because of your good fortune of birth you are owed respect and subservience? Isn’t being rich enough?

    • A says:

      I don’t think so.

      I every family there are Alphas and Betas.

      I respect my mom and dad insanely much and act thereafter. I am equal to my sisters and then their husbands and wives are ranking in after us. It’s so common to have your place in a family and while we don’t type it out on a piece of paper we know the ranks by heart.

      • Sachi says:

        I agree.

        Following protocol is not about bowing or curtsying to royals. It’s about respecting the position.

        I’m not American, but I never liked Bush and his policies. Would I have been rude to him when he was still President? No! I respect the rank, if not the man. I would have treated him with the courtesy required by his position.

        Look at that Republican politician who disrespected Obama and shouted, “You lie!” while the President spoke. Many Republicans dislike Obama, but until that politician, nobody has disrespected him to his face and mocked his position by interrupting his speech. It wasn’t only an offense to Obama, but also to the Office he occupied.

        There is always protocol to be followed in almost every aspect of life. In families there are rules you have to follow and in many cultures, various ways to show your respect to your elders. In my native tongue we have a saying, “Learn your place.” when it comes to being in specific situations. If you’re at a formal party, you can’t behave like you’re at a club. There are unspoken rules and guidelines you have to follow as well.

        At work, you also have to adhere to guidelines about respecting your boss, no matter that you don’t like him/her.

        So this, “royal protocol is stupid” doesn’t make much sense, since protocol is protocol, it’s just called other terms. It’s not limited to royals alone.

      • SISI says:

        @ A and Sachi: I completely agree.
        Well said!

  3. Aria says:

    So disturbing.

  4. It is ME!! says:

    Geez, Christmas dinner must consist of hours of bowing and curtseying. Must take them forever to eat.

    William can always change this stuff up once he becomes king, can’t he?

    And Princess Anne is the shit! Maybe Kate can get to her level by being as dedicated to others as Anne has.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Say what you might about Princess Anne (no fashion sense, horsey face), she is one hard working b**ch for the Royal family. And she has been like this for decades! So yeah, I would curtsey to her too.

      • It is ME!! says:

        Yep! Times a million. She seems to have less drama surrounding her and her children, compared to some other royals.

        And I STILL say Zara is the prettiest British royal.

  5. Macey says:

    Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie dont strike me as the type to care about this stuff. I can see them hugging and doing the double cheek peck thing but nothing more. Of course I dont know them or follow them but they just dont give off the royal attitude like some do.

    • Liv says:

      Yeah, but if they hate Kate, maybe they do care…;-)

    • Jackie O says:

      i think they care very much about this ‘stuff’, as do their parents.

      andrew and sarah depend on these girls…once charles gets on the throne, things may get very chilly.

      • StopItLuke says:

        I hate how people place blame of everything on B+E, most of the time it’s Andrew pushing them forward because he takes any imagined slight against them as an insult to him.
        They have to work twice as hard as any other Royals to be liked just because people hold the mistakes of their parents against them.
        Andrew and Sarah don’t rely on their daughters for anything tbh, Andrew has a lot of money (which Sarah relies on) but B+E have their own money which was set in trust for them at birth by the Queen plus inheritance from the Queen Mother I’m sure.

      • ZenB!tch says:

        Andrew AND SARAH? I don’t think Sarah deserves one bit of respect and I feel bad for the Princess who looks like her.

        I was not aware of any conflict between Charles and Andrew but I do hope Charles freezes Sarah out permanently.

        PS: Americans don’t “love” Sarah. Other than as a tabloid spectacle.

    • Really? says:

      Macey, hugging and double-cheek kissing is French, and it is exhausting, but i doubt it has any origin in royalty. Some Parisians and other regions here in France do as much as FOUR kisses. EVERYBODY kisses hello, whether rich or poor, which is pretty much the great divide here these days, rich being royal, the rest peasants.

      I for one don’t have any problem at all with protocal – yes, it’s archaic, but it’s their history and it’s their choice, who are we to judge? Besides, i’d much rather curtsy than kiss, because at least i’d get to keep my comfortable distance, for example, I prefer to air kiss, but some like to put a big juicy smack on each cheek, ick, you just never know until you’re dabbing someone’s DNA off your cheeks.

      • TheOriginalTiffany says:

        I have become fully Quebec/ French in my greetings after this long with cirque. Double kisses and hugs all the time.
        I actually get confused back home. I forget I can just hug or one kiss.

        Ahhh, cultural differences.

      • Mich says:

        Having lived in a Kiss-Hello-Land for more than a decade, I prefer to go Swiss.

        Swiss = three kisses

        It can be SO awkward when you are a three kisser in two kisser land…

    • Miffy says:

      I’d make sure the bitch whose wedding made me famous for wearing a flesh colour toilet seat on my head bowed to me EVERY SINGLE TIME. Regardless of how much of it was my poor fashion choice. EVERY TIME!!

      • Boo says:

        Eh, you know she wore that toilet seat hat to steal thunder from the bride. Worked a little bit, too.

  6. backwards says:

    Ouch. Duchess Kate won’t like that, especially since she doesn’t have the greatest relationship with the York sisters.

    Until she becomes Queen I guess she will always be second to the family members. After all, she is only related through marriage. I’m sure the higher ranking royals would have no problem sending her packing if a terrible scandal was to arise.

  7. eb says:

    I think I can hear Occupy London seething now.

  8. Faun says:

    After reading this I am especially grateful that my 5th great-grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War.

  9. Kellie says:

    The reality is that one day, even Kate’s children will out rank her. If you had a choice to either marry or be born a royal, the wise choice would be birth.

  10. Nashville Girl says:

    Seriously dis functional family

  11. DanaG says:

    Once Charles becomes King it will change then Beatrice and Eugenie and probably Princess Anne will have to curtsy to Kate. How long can the Queen live for? I feel sorry for Charles he is in a hard spot the only way for him to reach is destiny is for his mother to die and she will never really see him have success as a King. Doesn’t Edward have a daughter about 7 or 8? Does Kate curtsy to her then too?

    • LahdidahBaby says:

      The Queen doesn’t have to die first–she could step aside and allow her son to ascend to his rightful place as King–she just has not done so. Some think that’s because she doesn’t want him to be King–and maybe even prefers the idea of William in that role. I would think she wasn’t overly eager for Camilla, his scandalous mistress while he was married to Diana, to ever be elevated to the role of Queen. King Tampon may not be an idea that suits the old bird too well.

      • StopItLuke says:

        The Queen doesn’t abdicate because it’s simply not the done thing. The only King to abdicate in modern history was Edward VIII and look at all the crap that caused, before that there hasn’t been an abdication since the middle ages.

      • L says:

        It’s not the done thing in the UK. But look at Sweden, Norway, and Denmark over the last 2 generations. Rulers abdicating when they reached the upper end of retirement age has worked really well for them.

    • LahdidahBaby says:

      The Queen doesn’t have to die first–she could step aside and allow her son to ascend to his rightful place as King–she just has not done so. Some think that’s because she doesn’t want him to be king–maybe even prefers William in that role. I would think she wasn’t overly eager for Camilla, his scandalous mistress while he was married to Diana–to ever be elevated to the role of Queen. King Tampon may not be an idea that suits the old bird.

    • Michelle says:

      Edward’s daughter is not a princess. Edward and Sophie made the decision to have their children stylized as the children of an earl, not the children of a prince, so no Kate wouldn’t have to courtsey to her or to Zara Phillips, who has no title.

      • iseepinkelefants says:

        I’m sure if the Queen could have her way she would have Waity courtsey to Zara, title or no title. I wonder if it grates on her that her favortite granddaughter has to courtsey to Waity Bloody Katie.

        I’m still not convinced the Queen is a fan of her. She’s just appeasing William as little as she possibly can.

      • Boo says:

        If my mother were a princess and she decided to have me grow up without a title, I might want to smack her in the mouth a few times. Just sayin’. I love Zara!

    • ZenB!tch says:

      How much longer can the Queen live? Oh 20 years. Her mum lived to 102 and I don’t think she was in her dotage either. Charles can also live a very long time given his father is 91. It’s going to be a while.

      The Queen is old school. She doesn’t like Waity for the simple reason that she is or was (?) a commoner.

      It’s very Mudblood way of life isn’t it?

      • Mourning the Death of Music says:

        You get points for slipping in a Harry Potter reference. ;)

      • Michelle says:

        I’ve always thought it would be a Victoria/Edward VII/George V sort of situation. Edward VII spent almost 60 years as Prince of Wales and 9 as King of England.

  12. Kristen says:

    How ridiculous. It’s one step forward, two steps back with The Royal Family. It’s this kind of thing that makes them seem so outdated and stuffy.

    • the original bellaluna says:

      I think they’re outdated and stuffy because they actually ARE outdated and stuffy. Except for Henry, of course, to a certain extent. He’s the only one I think would say “Bugger it all” and be done with it.

      But maybe I’m wrong.

  13. Chatcat says:

    Cheerio Kate…don’t worry love, you may be “the lesser royal” according to the old bag’s new royal protocol then Bea and Genie, but that is all that is lesser.

  14. Jackie O says:

    i read an interesting article about prince andrew and how he has been pushing for his daughters to play more important roles in the family. since he is the queen’s favorite, she has been granting his wishes.

    supposedly, charles and william cant wait to put the breaks on.

    • Relli says:

      I too read the same vanity fair article, Lainey had a link up a bit ago. Very good read, really get to the heart of the difference in the Queen’s relationship with her two sons and WHY Andrew has always been allowed to act like an arse. Were you surprised that it was actually Phillip that hated Fergie so much?

    • Jess says:

      I read that Vanity Fair piece on Andrew too (courtesy of Lainey). It was fascinating. I love this royal stuff precisely because it is so inconsequential at the end of the day (it’s nice to take a break from all the serious, depressing news sometimes). I mean, seriously, they worry about who has to curtsy and when? And why is there no mention of the men? Do they all outrank the women (except for the queen)? I mean, does Princess Anne (who is awesome) have to curtsy to her goofy (and possibly corrupt) younger brother Andrew? It’s all too funny – so long as I’m on this side of the pond and don’t have to support these self-important people!

  15. Emily says:

    After reading those rumours about Kate and Pippa bullying the York Princesses, I read this and was like “HA!”

    • Zimmer says:

      If the rumors were built from truth, the queen likely did it on purpose.

    • iseepinkelefants says:

      I know! Good for Bea and Eugene. I secrelty hope this was also a covert ‘boom, bitch, bye’ message to Waity.

      She must know how Waity and Pippa treated them. I can’t beliee she wouldn’t.

      Besides they ARE Royal. If England’s going to keep up the archaic tradition, than Common as Muck Waity should always have to bow to them. I’m sure Andrew will always make that the case. Even if she does pop out an heir it still won’t rank her higher.

      And she will be Queen CONSORT, not Queen.

      Though I’m a little disappointed that Sophie has to bow to Waity. Surely there should be a rule about elders and that?

    • Reece says:

      Me too. Giggle fit.

    • Amelia says:

      Same here, Emily. Have THAT Duchess Dolittle!!

    • Kelly says:

      Exactly! Love it

    • anne says:

      YES! That’s what thought.
      I read that Kate feels superior to the York Girls because she married with the future King.

      I’m actually glad that the Queen did this.

  16. The Original Mia says:

    I’m sure Duchess Waity doesn’t like being told the York sisters outrank her. Especially after she worked so hard to diss them. And as Kaiser noted just bow to the Princess Royal & you’ll be fine.

  17. Hautie says:

    I find it hard to believe that anyone cares about this social ranking thing.

    It seems to me that the British media is practically obsessed about the whole thing more.

    And who really cares anyway.

    The Royal’s are all living such a shelter life style, that all they have to think about… is curtseying. That is it.

    All this time devoted to whom gets lower on the royal “shit list”. Meaning who ever gets listed on it, has to curtsey to Kate.

    But if any of them had any sense. They should take note that her Father in Law and his wife seems to adore her. And being a jack ass to Kate would come back to haunt them eventually.

    I swore I read a couple of months ago. That Charles did not want either of Andrew’s daughters on the family payroll.

    Were as they thought, they would be working Royal Princesses. Charles wanted them to go get a real job. And their Father Andrew was p*ssed about it.

    • iseepinkelefants says:

      Well one point they do more work than Waity. And frankly if the Royals had to be paid for I’d much rather a born and bred Royal be paid for than Waity and her Boleyn-esque family.

      And yes I am a bit biased. I do like Bea and Eugene.

      Andrew did throw a snit and as well he should. His daughters were going to be pushed out but Waity was going to join the payroll and she has shown nothing to proved she deserves it.

      Meanwhile Bea and Eugene have been working far longer and have put in even more hours since Waity joined. Of course they’re going to need Royal protection because they’re going to events and what have you. It was ludicrous that Waity had security detail with her at her hair appointments and her endless trips to Zara. I never side with Andrew but I saw his point.

      As for Charles loving Waity. I’m not sure why you jumped to that conclusion. I have never heard rumors that Charles liked her. He always thought she was cashing in on his son and even made it well known when Waity crashed the Royal box at some horsey event two years ago.

      But yes Camilla does like her and I can see why. They’re both two commoners, disliked by the Royals (and by the public) and they share that bond. Camilla sees it as an in (because William will outrank them all one day) and I’ll give Camilla a golf clap for securing her place. When Charles does die she’ll need to make sure she’s taken care of.

      • bluhare says:

        Isn’t this how it’s always been, though? You’re dealing with people who have a birthright, and the eldest wins. So Charles and his family have first place and everyone else moves down. I don’t see why they’re all in a snit about it. It was going to happen no matter who William married.

        The fact they’re all bent out of shape is snobbery, pure and simple.

  18. Jackson says:

    Good. Lord. Thank goodness I wasn’t born into that family because the day I bow before some cousin or uncle or whoever the Hell they are is the day I just pack it in. How incredibly absurd. People sitting around making up rules to keep the pecking order in check so they feel superior. Sounds like “Mean Girls” on steroids.

    • iseepinkelefants says:

      I’ve often wondered if Americans HAVE to bow to them. I’m sure there are some that wouldn’t mind but if I ever had to attend an event (ha!), I would absolutely REFUSE. Only a gun to my head would ever make me curtsey to another human being. Revolution and that (plus they’re not even allowed to use their titles in America, they have to go by Mr. and Mrs. Cambridge/Wales/Windsor).

      • Amelia says:

        You don’t *have* to curtsy to them here in the UK as far as I know. You wouldn’t get thrown in the tower or anything. You’d probably just get kicked out of whatever function you’re in. It’s just the proper thing to do, and if you didn’t you’d probably forever be known as that twit who didn’t curtsy/bow etc

      • Belle says:

        Given that Americans are not ‘subjects’ of the royal family, why would they be expected to bow?

        As for the other comments, I always find it a little funny when people say things like ‘it’s a good thing I wasn’t born into that family, because I wouldn’t bow to anyone!’. Obviously as an American, I have similar, but more realistic thoughts on the subject. If one WERE born and raised in that bubble, they most certainly WOULD follow the protocol.

    • bluhare says:

      When I think about it, don’t we all do some bowing and scraping in our families? Not literally bowing and curtseying, but don’t a lot of people have a relative for whom it’s best to kowtow to in order to keep the peace? God knows I do.

      • LAK says:

        @Bluhare – though i am English, my parents are African. The tradition in their tribe is to kneel [not even a curtsey] to all your elders and stay down till they pull you up again as a mark of respect.

        many, many teenage arguments later i finally gave in, but only to curtsey. They grumble but have come to accept that i am English. The only time i willingly knelt down properly was when my grannie was dying. It felt like the right thing to do to show her proper respect.

        The few times i attend family gatherings, everyone is kneeling and bobbing and curtseying all over the place. i feel wierd when all the little ones or younger family members kneel to me and i discourage them as much as possible to the disgust of the older generation.

        For our royal family, i would have trouble curtseying to the grandkids on the basis that they are younger than me. They should be curtseying/kneeling to me.Lol.

      • bluhare says:

        In my case, it’s keeping my mouth shut and saying, “yes, mom” and not getting on my sister’s case because mom doesn’t want conflict. It’s easier that way. :)

        But that is really interesting about your family. I don’t think I’d have done too well at bowing and/or curtseying either!! What part of Africa is your family from? When we left England, dad’s choices were Canada, Australia or South Africa. You can probably guess which one won.

      • LAK says:

        @Bluhare – East Africa. Uganda to be precise.

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        @LAK Fascinating story about your family! Personally I feel we Americans should do more to be respectful toward elders. We seem to have gone to the other extreme.

        Further–re Fergie has there been a good psychology bio of her done like Sally Bedell Smith did for Diana? What is her problem? What is she spending all this money on? Why can’t she just live quietly at Royal Lodge or a London flat or something? How hard is that? She can get her thrills through CB like the rest of us.

      • LAK says:

        @Bored surburban housewife – re: Fergie: No book has been written about her, and amazingly Airmiles Andy because for the most part, everyone feels they have made no contribution to society ie not even worthy of a haggiography!!!

        I think she is an over indulged child. She doesn’t employ critical thinking and since her messes are always cleaned up, never really suffers the consequences, and as such she will always mess up.

  19. Kaboom says:

    Of course as soon as Charles ascends and William becomes Prince of Wales, the whole thing shifts again and Kate will move up to Camilla’s current status.

  20. blc says:

    this article just further exemplifies how outdated and ridiculous the whole notion of royals is.

  21. EmmaStoneWannabe says:

    If Kate hasn’t had Wills with her at every event with those “blood princesses” present, you can bet she will now. Team Duchess Katherine! Lol

  22. maureen d says:

    I have read here in the comments that Kate is rude and/or insensitive to Beatrice and Eugenie but can’t find any anecdotal support elsewhere. Can anyone elaborate?

    To update the royal protocol at this time makes me wonder at the motive; like, if the impetus was due to complaint, or disagreement about it? It’s not like an annual thing, it seems to happen arbitrarily, so the timing seems possibly motivated by discontent somewhere.

    While it seems odd enough to bow or curtsy in public, I can’t imagine the curtsying in private, it seems to be taking this royal protocol pageantry too far, especially as the royals do not actually run/govern the country (yet are still supported by tax dollars).

    And, having a budget from your FIL for your clothes — for the official service portion at least — seems… well, I imagine I’d prefer to buy my own clothes. But is Kate even allowed to work?

    • LAK says:

      This story is a deflection from the cost of Kate’s clothing costs – NOT budget…..clothing for her public duties since January. She’s supposed to be frugal and recycles many items…..

      I would also imagine they are trying to garner some sympathy for William since the story of his choice RAF/Royal duties went down like a lead balloon last week.

      The precedence was clarified in 2005 at Alexandra and Anne’s request because they did not want to curtsey to Camilla. This clarification hasn’t changed anything since then.

      • Sachi says:

        £35,000 on clothes is just ridiculous. Nobody should spend that amount of money on clothes when doing so little ‘work’.

        I’m waiting for Kate’s PR and fans and the media to explain this one away. She’s aware of the economic crisis, right? She’s the representative of austerity? She’s just a normal, down-to-earth girl, isn’t she?

        95% of her clothes are high-end designer brands. I wouldn’t mind as expensive clothes are always high quality and can be used years from now. But their PR always makes it out to be W&K are ordinary people who live in a cottage (oh yeah, “just” a 5-room cottage resembling a manor) and Kate does her own groceries with the media tipped off 3 times to sell an image, and then never seen grocery shopping again. Bollocks. If they want to spend so much money, stop putting up a front and telling lies. We know they’re not like us, it’s insulting to liken themselves to ordinary citizens who actually work for their money.

        Kate almost always shows up in NEW clothes every time she has an event to attend, and she’s only attended about 20 events since January. The high cost of clothes compared to the frequency of her royal duties don’t make sense. It’s practically showing that Kate spends upwards of almost £2000 every time she goes to a gala. Maybe more.

        And Charles is paying for it all?

        How does William afford to go to such expensive holidays when he makes average income as a RAF pilot? Who is paying for his trips? Charles? The Middletons? The taxpayers? We, the taxpayers, should only shoulder their security, not their entitlement issues of living a jet-set lifestyle.

      • LAK says:

        @sachi – £35k is the tip. An american website tried to estimate her hair/make up budget based upon published known and verified information. The conservative estimate was £24k without such costs as labour for personnel that may need to be hired privately. So that will be £12k + £35k for six months. The accounts will reveal much methinks.

        Don’t forget she’s supposed to be frugal and recycles items. And a housewife who doesn’t get out much.

        PW’s income, whether it’s salary is considered his to disperse as he sees fit while all official expenses are covered by Charles…..and we know just how much everybody else pays for him eg vacations (the middletons or some other sucker), home renovations at KP (tax payer and charity donations), 3 rent free or minimum rental pay in wales, balmoral and KP, plus new ‘cottage’ at sandrigham etc

        Really it’s no wonder they retain their wealth – they have other people pay for them whilst investing their private income so that further down the line they can say no one ie tax payer isn’t funding them. It’s a very fine, slippery line.

      • Sachi says:

        LAK – I cannot wait for the account books to open up and be accessible to the media.

        £12k for hair appointments and such is disgusting but also lends truth to the stories that Kate gets a blow-out at the salon every 3 days.

        Streak of vanity and narcissism, and she doesn’t even work a complete 8 hours when she’s out and about. The most she spent with the kids at the campsite last week was 1 hour and then off to a polo match.

        Thing is, she’s not the first and the last royal to behave like this. Her behavior comes from being indulged by her parents, and now Charles has assumed the role because this is how many of the Windsors live.

        Some aristocrats live a more frugal, practical lifestyle than taxpayer-funded royals. If royals are not mooching off of taxpayers, they’re mooching off of their rich friends.

      • Juliane says:

        Everyone forgets that Diana had someone come to her every morning and wash, blow dry and style her hair. She also had her makeup professionally done as well as her nails. Every single day. The queen does as well on every day that she has an official engagement. The fact that Catherine has hers done every three days (and goes to the salon) when doing official engagements and insists on doing her own makeup doesn’t sound that outlandish to me. If I was going to be photographed and seen by millions I would be professionally styled as well.

        A lot of people critize her heavy hand with the makeup and I agree that it is awfully stark in many photos. However, she is often in crowds of hundreds or even thousands of people. Perhaps she is more concerned with them making out her features than the inevitable photographs?

      • LAK says:

        @Juliane – No one sold Diana or Queen as a paragon of thriftiness or down to earth frugality who recycled her clothes. And buys from high street stores = cheap clothes. That is what Kate has been sold as. I am pretty sure Diana wore couture for the most part even though the UK was going through a severe recession when Diana joined the royal family.

        Secondly, Diana worked. even when her personal life was crazy, she worked. No excuses were given for her. ditto all the other royals.

        I am pretty sure that if kate worked as much or even showed some passion for what she does when she is there, rather than giving every indication that she would rather be else where, we would all be co-signing off her clothing/grooming expenditure as no big deal.

        A frugal, thrifty person who recycles her clothing does not spend £35K + £12K in six months on work clothes + hair and make up respectively when they have barely worked in that time. And for the most part are not visibly seen.

        They make a big song and dance about how she doesn’t use a professional make up person, but given how disastrous and heavy handed it is applied, perhaps she should.

        Someone, several posts ago, speculated as you are doing that the heavy hand is for TV and photographs, so pity the people who have to meet her in person and see all that make up on her face. It is sending a message that she cares more about media than the people she is meeting.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK, I think Juliane makes a good point re Diana. She might not have been sold as a model of thriftiness, but that’s not the point. The point is that Kate isn’t doing anything different than anyone else.

        Where I fault her is for not joining the officers’ wives club in Anglesey, not for spending money on clothes.

      • LAK says:

        @Bluhare – i know. We didn’t get round to that. Refusing to mix with the RAF wives, which is such bad form. Seriously, in a snarky way that is why i am enjoying this curtseying story, even if it is a deflection.

        My principal objection to Kate has always been this need to sell her as what she is not. The housewife schtick was embellished with details of her wanting to be low key and hanging out with the RAF wives club and yet despite years of ‘living’ in Wales, she’s not mixed with them for low profile purposes!!! give me a break. There is a press agreement not to report on their time in Wales plus military wives are very discreet and help each other out.

        This clothing thing also demonstrates plainly and clearly that she is not frugal or high street or thrifty. It really doesn’t matter if Charles is paying – that is a matter for another discussion. It’s the principle of the thing. I hate being blatantly and gauchly lied to. Plus i volunteer with teenage girls who really believe the role model thing that she represents. It doesn’t matter that i can try and point them in a different direction. I see it as the WAG effect that you see in cities like Manchester.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: I remember reading when they got married that now that they were Kate would be joining the officers’ wives club. The fact that she hasn’t, and won’t, is more revealing than the curtsey and money stories in my eyes.

        Makes her sound like she no longer wants to associate with the likes of us, and although that was probably true a long time ago as well, it really rubs our noses in it, doesn’t it? That to me is really bad PR. She won’t even participate to make herself look good.

        Not only is it snobby, but I imagine it doesn’t do much for William and his co workers either. Especially when he takes the time off that he does.

      • LAK says:

        @bluhare – yes! what you said about the wives. She can’t even pretend!!!

    • Suzie says:

      She meangirled one of them at a party. Type it into Google.

    • maureen d says:


      I think I may have mis-read this as being a new and updated protocol.

      I have read about Kate recycling clothes, which makes her seem yet more down-to-earth, yet this is the first I have read about her FIL paying for them. My point was that that would seem like a bummer, being beholden to someone for certain clothing.
      But I still can’t find anything online about Kate dissing Beatrice and Eugenie…

      • Belle says:

        Seems to me that it IS an updated protocol, to clarify Kate’s position.

        As for the ‘recycling’ outfits… funny(; Yes, she has worn a few repeats, which many people hail as her being ‘economically conscience’ and ‘down to earth’. Hard to sell that one, when the amount of money she is spending for her clothing is outrageous. Oooooh, so she wears a dress more than once, does that really justify the cost? Probably not.

      • LAK says:

        It was made clear a while back that Charles was covering all their office expenses and public duties including her clothing budget and personal allowance.

        Most people probably didn’t really pay attention. It’s only glaring now because that is a huge amount of money to spend when a person isn’t working most days, and is lauded for their frugal, thriftiness.

      • bluhare says:

        This is a serious question. If Charles is paying for all of her upkeep from the Duchy’s money, why is it a big deal? He’s not on the civil list and I don’t think the Queen gives him money (or am I incorrect there?), so why does anyone care how much he pays for her clothes? Maybe Camilla doesn’t cost that much, but I bet her horses cost an arm and a leg.

    • BeeBee says:

      www. dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1068477/Beatrice-Eugenie-snub-Kates-sister-fashion-stand-off. html

      Or you could try any combination of ‘Kate’ ‘Beatrice’ ‘snub’ ‘roller disco’ ‘fashion show’ ‘Eugenie’ ‘Pippa’

  23. Monkey Jim says:

    I said this last week on a Kate thread and some people scoffed! Blue blood outranks marriage by miles. I also think some people forget that Charles is next in line to the throne, not William – so it could be over 20 years before Wills is King. I doubt Charles would make any constitutional changes to benefit his daughter in law.

    • flan says:

      I would find it rather strange that, when Charles is king, Kate would still need to bow to aunts and cousins.

      In earlier times, a Princess of Wales (or a Dauphine of France) would be the second lady of the land. First if there was no queen. This regardless of whether there were many other princesses of the blood around.

      That might have something to do with the fact that those wives came from royal or aristocratic houses themselves and it would be considered offensive to be placed below cousins and all kinds of other number 10s and 12s in the line of succession. Still, that makes the emphasis on Kate’s commoner status rather glaring.

      • bluhare says:

        When Kate is Princess of Wales, she will only have to curtsey to Camilla, who will be Queen. Everyone else will have to curtsey to her. Assuming William keeps the curtsey thing going.

    • flower says:

      Also assuming William keeps the Katie-wife thing going for 20years. The modern royals don’t have a good track record in that department.

  24. ladybert62 says:

    I love that grey dress kate has on!

    For now, she may have to curtesy to them when william is absent, but everyone knows, Kate outclasses them in every department.

    • Suzie says:

      How does Waity “outclass” them? I’ve never heard anything bad about the York sisters, but I’ve heard plenty of stuff about Kate. All you have to do is see the photos of her party days to know this woman has zero class. She simply cleans up well with a bit of help from her Daddy-in-law’s pocket book.

      • Sachi says:

        Because Kate wears pretty clothes, has shiny hair, and wears jewels.

        That’s why she’s classy and she’s better than Kim K and the rest of Hollywood.


        It’s funny, isn’t it, how some people describe class based on nothing but a person’s physical appearance?

        I bet you many people who claim Kate is so classy and a harmless person haven’t read any of the stories about Kate or her rudeness to others.

        But because Kate has cleaned up well since the engagement and her life story has been whitewashed by the media for the consumption of those gullible enough to believe the PR schemes, she’s now considered by some to be better than everyone else and everyone else who is not dazzled by her is mean and hateful.

        Seen the photos of Kate flashing her crotch at the paparazzi? Yes, she’s so classy all right. And that was back in 2007, when she was on a campaign to guilt William into taking her back after he dumped her. She didn’t know that when William dumped her, many people saw him going to clubs, dancing on tables yelling, “I’m free! I’m free!” with such joy. But the media pressure got to him so he took her back and strung her along for another 4 years. Now she’s here and we, the taxpayers, must deal with her and William as the monarchy’s future. Ugh.

      • bluhare says:

        Sachi: In fairness to Kate, she didn’t invite the paps to look up her skirt! Yeah, it was short and she was inebriated, but that’s a far cry from a Paris/Britney/Lindsay.

  25. Skins says:

    These people are a joke

  26. LAK says:

    It’s is definitely shifty that a story sympathetic to poor put upon Kate has been posted on the daily mail even though these rules were clarified in 2005 in deference to Anne’s wishes and were trotted out by all the royal protocol experts during last year’s royal wedding commentary.

    The real story is the scandal of Kate’s expenditure. Mrs Housewife spent £34K in six months on her CLOTHING for the few engagements she’s carried out. CHarles’s accounts are about to be opened up and i am sure we are going to find out more about our dear frugal duchess.

    In the meantime, to deflect, let’s throw out this BS story that everyone has known about since 2005, make it seem that Andrew or his daughters requested it etc……..let the public abuse the yorks whilst forgetting about the other thing they don’t want you to think about!


    • Sachi says:

      The York girls are once again thrown under the bus in order to make Kate look good.

      Her PR team is so desperate to make her look like the victim here when the protocol has been present since 2005 and everyone has adhered to it without a fuss.

      But of course, for those fans gobbling this PR-stunt up, Kate is defended and praised for being “classy” for no apparent reason other than to mock Beatrice and Eugenie. It’s sickening how many people behave like sheep when it comes to Kate and William.

      Maybe Kate should make herself Princess-by-right when Charles becomes King? Maybe that would make her and her delusional fans happy?

      And I would really like to know how Kate’s fans, who have always defended her spending habits as a “royal thing to do” would explain the costs of her clothing for only 6 months.

      £35000 on clothes for a little over 20 events is appalling.

      Even if Kate insists on paying full-price and not getting discounts, where is her shame at having someone pay such obscene amounts of money for her clothes every single time? And expensive, designer clothes, shoes, and jewels at that.

      Where is her pride and her discretion?

      I hate to have someone paying for anything I have. If a friend or relative insists on treating me, I never think, “I’ll get the most expensive meal/shoes/dress because it’s free, why not take advantage of their generosity?”

      The moment I was allowed to work at 15 years old, I rarely asked my parents for money again. The times I did, I felt really bad to be imposing on them and I was ashamed. I paid my way through University and got a job after graduation to pay for rent, gas, and other bills.

      But Kate? She has no problem mooching off of her parents for 9 years after she graduated from University, and now she’s mooching off of Charles. Can she not refuse Charles when he offers to buy her clothes? Or at least get less expensive clothes to wear than McQueen and Jenny Packham $3000 dresses?

      She’s had no work experience, no savings, no money of her own. But she’s so willing to have someone else pay for her expensive lifestyle as long as she is indulged.

      Isn’t she the epitome of class? This is the role-model that many of her fans aspire to and insist as the picture of a “harmless” person and the “I don’t get the hate for Kate, I like her! Everyone else is jealous!” brigade.

      We can laugh at the trashy celebs and insult them, but at least someone like Kim Kardashian makes her own money and works on her brand and image for herself. Whatever she has now, she achieved it, no matter how awful the means.

      Can you imagine Kate as a full-time royal? How much would the expenses increase then? Double, triple? She has not even been a royal for 2 years and she’s already a Marie-Antoinette.

      • flan says:

        The Marie-Antoinette reference made me laugh, but is also quite apt in a way. She also had to deal with aunts and cousins (as well as with a father-in-law who showed off his mistress at court) before she was queen. Like M-A, she seems to be going about it the wrong way.

        There have been princesses and queens in history who came from other cultures than their husbands’ lands, but took it all in stride and made themselves beloved. Somehow, I think Kate is not going to be that way. The clothes and hair-spending is already a sign in that direction. Another one is that William never shows that he thinks much of her.

    • bluhare says:

      LAK and Sachi: You two have made lots of valid points about Kate, and my opinion of her has changed as a result.

      However, this latest is making me a bit nauseous for a few reasons. I read quite a few blogs about the royals, including some sites that are definitely not Kate friendly, and I really wonder why the York girls are worthy of such adoration, I really do. They don’t do much — yes, I know at least one of them went to college and graduated — but it seems like all they’re doing is angling to suck on the royal tit as well, so what’s the difference between them and Kate? Oh, that’s right. They were born to it. Sired by a man who hangs with paedophiles while using his position to get taxpayer funded trips and a woman who wouldn’t know a full wallet if it hit her in the face.

      Kate was taunted by William’s friends with the old “doors to manual” crap, and it’s not much of a stretch to think that she could have been taunted by William’s family as well, which is somewhat verified by Harry’s “limpet” remark. At least his was based on her behaviour not her origins.

      • LAK says:

        I do not think people are pro-Bea and by extension Eug because they are is superior.

        Bea and Eug will have to walk through the streets of London, shaven headed, in sack cloth for people to stop viewing them through the prism of their parents. The media is quite happy to play up the awful parents angle without writing a true or correct piece of information putting emphasise on the awful paraents = B&E are just as awful.

        People forget that they are still young. 23 and 21 respectively. Eug is at university studying. Bea graduated last year and for the past few months has been interning in the city with occasional forays into Royal territory. They are not sitting at home eating bonbons or getting their hair blow dried or shopping up a storm until the next royal occasion. Despite medical issues eg Eug had a curved spine and had to have special operations and wear a brace for years, Bea is dyxlesic but has worked really hard to fit in, they earned their places at University rather than being sent like William or Charles or Edward. And they did not pick soft subjects. Eug is doing a triple degree in Politics, English Lit and History of Art whilst Bea studied History and History of ideas. THrough out their young lives, they did charity work with Children in crisis. Fergie got that right by following Diana’s example to show the young William and Harry the charitable route and to be grateful for their privilege.

        They were brought up with expectation that they would be in the firm, and have shown a willingness to take on charity work for the firm. When that did not work out, without public whinging or whinying, Bea started looking for work. She’s been doing work placements in the city, and i hear from a good source that she may have been taken on permanently for one of these placements. Eug will do the same.

        I think what people also see, once they get past the fog of media orchestrated vitriol is that the girls have no airs or graces. people who come into contact with them have only good things to say, and come away surprised that they aren’t the awful creatures the media would have you believe they are.

        They have also shown a sense of humour in light of the media onslaught. When Bea was criticised for being fat, she took on a trainer and lost all the weight and used the weight loss to raise money for charity. ditto her much derided wedding hat was put up for auction to raise money for charity. Eug has agreed to become patron of the hospital that treated her and has just completed a charity bike ride to raise money for them. They are engaged patrons rather then just showing up for photo ops before rushing off to their next appointment.

        people are to quick to judge them and to tar them with the awful parents brush when there is no evidence either official or unofficial or gossip etc of bad, entitled, prima donna, bratty behaviour. No poorly behaved teen behaviour like William and Harry. No falling out of clubs showing their crotch like Kate. The one time Bea nearly had a less than respectable BF, it was nipped in the bud immediately. Kate, a grown woman, had no problem making a teenage Bea cry in the story that made it into the papers.

        It is really amazing that Fergie and Andrew raised such good girls given their own personal shortcomings.

        They are just starting out. And yet no one will give them a chance, and their media script as the ugly sisters who are possibly entitled brats has been written.

        I speculate that people are beginning to love them because they can see they are good girls who have potential.

      • Luise says:

        Lak, I would like to thank you for setting the record straight regarding the York girls. And you did it beautifully and truthfully. Regardless of their parents, they are good young women who want to give back and have never done anything wrong…..as do so many of the others i.e. William and the awful Waity DoLittle.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t have any use for the Yorks, and if the only thing they have going for them is being “nice”, then the rest of us should get curtseyed to as well.

      • LAK says:

        @Bluhare – if they turn out like their parents, i will be on your train. For now, let’s see what they will become.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: Deal. I hope they’ve learnt from their parents’ mistakes, even though their parents don’t appear to have done the same.

  27. phaksi says:

    Princess Anne would probably tell Kate off if she didn’t follow the protocol

  28. Luise says:

    Well, I am glad the Queen did this. Kate and Pippa have been monumental Mean Girls to the York princesses from the get go. The stories of their bullying them throughout the years is all over the internet.

    Kate is not what she appears to be. In private, she is condescending to shopkeepers and those she considers lesser than she is. She and her mother plotted for years how to ensnare William. She is a serial calculating cold methodical stalker of the highest order. She is not a nice person at all. William is realizing what a huge mistake he has made by marrying this woman as seen by his recent attitude towards her at all the public functions. The public is not buying the spin that The Palace spews that this marriage is a fairy tale. It is a complete disaster.

    • Sachi says:

      Careful now, you’d be called names for criticizing Kate and saying she’s not as nice and kind as she appears to be in public.

      Her comments about tea and other things really make a case for her not interacting with shopkeepers and other staff. If she makes tea regularly and buys tea herself, shouldn’t she know better than to ask, “Can you test the smell of the tea by…um…smelling it?” What a stupid question. Anyone who knows their tea and who really talks to the shopkeepers and clerks would have better inquiry than that.

      Or the Faberge eggs comment. Again, someone who visits museums often and talk to the guides/staff would know the answer to her question.

      Or the comment about the UNICEF efforts for the famine in Africa. Someone who is so concerned and who has read about the crisis would have a lot of important things to say, not bumbling about how British citizens need to do more and donate more when we’re already doing a lot. What has she done except for show up as a PR move?

      Little things, but revealing things. She’s so inept at interacting and discussing with people who don’t belong to the rich and titled because chasing after the wealthy is all she’s done since she was a teenager. She’s never had to deal with true “commoners” like she has to now as part of her image, and she doesn’t know what to do.

      • bluhare says:

        I must admit that for a college graduate and housewife who theoretically makes her husband cups of tea, she does appear to be incredibly stupid. I also think it’s a lot of work keeping those marbles in her mouth to make sure that accent doesn’t slip!

        Then Nice Bluhare thinks that maybe it’s nerves because she does stutter and stammer an awful lot.

      • LAK says:

        @Bluhare – can you imagine the stress she must be under. it’s bad enough to meet new people at every engagement but then she has to worry about things like her new accent. If she didn’t have that worry, she’d relax and probably say things that made sense.

  29. cody says:

    No wonder Princess Diana had trouble with this family, it is an archaic way of thinking. Anyway, in the end, Kate gets the big prize.

    • LAK says:

      ….but she may not. They got rid of the super popular Diana who’d birthed a couple of heirs.

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        @LAK thx for comments & compliments. I’ve always wondered about the fergie-Andrew relationship. In the beginning they seemed to really have a spark! Obviously they get along famously but do you suppose it’s cause he is actually gay and thats why all this went down? Her infidelity, no jealousy, BFFs etc. or is it just an example of one of those strange aristo English UC relationships that would make us regular plebs curl up into a ball of embarrassment ?

      • apsutter says:

        @Bored- Fergie said that they really were in love when they were married. But as soon as they wed he had to leave for the Navy and she didnt see him properly for a looong time. And she was thrown into daily Royal life virtually by herself so I think it put a strain on their marriage.

      • LAK says:

        @Bored suburban housewife – he’s not gay. i heard that he felt like he had failed her in the sense that she had been thrown to the palace wolves/media and he wasn’t there to protect her. Possibly why he also forgave the infidelities and everything else. And why he supports her now.

        jeesh, i sound like a fergie/Andrew supporter. I am not, but their marriage and subsequent divorce makes me sad.

    • Hautie says:

      But wasn’t Diana an aristocrat by birth? She was Lady Diana Spencer even before all the crazy royal nonsense enter her life.

      I could have swore I read she had a better aristocrat lineage family line. Than that the Royal line she married into.

      Anywho… I recall the first thing that the Queen did to Diana was take away her HRH status. (after the divorce)

      Which meant Diana had to curtsey to EVERYONE. Including her sons.

      • Luise says:

        That’s what is known as a consequence. If you don’t know what it means then look it up in the dictionary.

      • Bad Irene says:

        I thought the deal was Diana gave up the hrh title in exchange for a larger divorce settlement and that Fergie kept her title when she divorced Andrew and settled on 15,000 per year settlement which led to her selling stories and access to royals? Or am I still drunk from the weekend and rambling?

      • LAK says:

        Both sarah and Diana are aristocrats and related via same illegitimate 2 sons of Charles II. Sarah’s line became minor aristocracy compared to Diana hence the lack of a title.

        True, Diana voluntarily gave up hrh in exchange for cash and complete break from royal family but realised after the fact that she’d have to curtsey to everyone including her own children and so went crying to the press about how mean old queen had forcibly removed it – she was either trying to retrieve it by publicly embarrassing royal or wanting some kind of revised caveat so she didn’t have to curtsey.

        Sarah retained her title but because both andrew and her, despite her ppublic mistakes, never wanted to divorce but where forced to and she left under a cloud,so she got a very small settlement (not an annual one) and like camilla can’t use her title officially.

        The queen, after the diana ddivorce, which came about AFTER the fergie divorce and especially with diana drama re-wrote the rules to make hrh an automatic loss in the event of divorce

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        @LAK — re Andrew & fergie forced to divorce– Fascinating! Do do tell us more!

      • Marie Antoinette Jr. says:

        LAK, does Fergie have to curtsey to her daughters?
        What would happen if she didn’t? Can the royals do anything more to her than they already have? LOL!

      • LAK says:

        @Boredsuburbanhousewife & Marie Antoinette jr – love those monikers btw.

        In public Fergie curtsey’s to everyone. In private their various relationships are such that they do not curtsey to one another including to their father.

        Fergie is seriously disliked by Philip, and so she isn’t invited to any royal get togethers, even in private.

        Their marriage never stood a chance right from the start. He was posted abroad for most of it. I read somewhere that they spent only 42 days together in that first year. Plus of course the usual palace interference.

        Andrew has never said a bad word about her publicly or privately and hates it when people say bad things about her.

        He wanted to bluster through the bad press but it was too much. I think if she hadn’t been so openly indiscreet, it would have been a different scenerio.

        In the end, the media was too vitriolic about her, not helped by Philip’s attitude and divorce forced upon them.

        Divorce not withstanding, they have continued to live together and see each other as BFFs. I do not think they are involved romantically, but what ever their current relationship, it works for them.

      • Marie Antoinette Jr. says:

        Thanks Lak, this stuff is endlessly fascinating to me. I could pick your brain forever!

  30. L says:

    That writer from the Daily mail isn’t the biggest fan of the royal family.

    I think it should be curtsey to the queen and no one else. That way no hurt egos or all this drama. Although these were rules written back in 05′ so I agree with other posters that it’s about distracting from Kate’s dress budget. And for all the calls of bullying the york girls-let’s not forget that most of the rumors about leaks from various family weddings and events are rumored to be traced back to them and their pathetic mom. Mean girling them isn’t cool, but they aren’t exactly the epitome of class either.

    Although Charles’ money doesn’t come from the civil register, so it’s his money Kate’s spending not the British public.

    • Luise says:

      The York girls cannot help who their parents are. They have never done anything wrong and appear to be decent human beings. They wish to work for The Firm and not simply parade around in expensive clothing waiting for the entire world to exclaim over how great they are.

      • L says:

        Overall this whole drama is really because Anne and Alexandria didn’t want to curtsey to Camilla in private.

        But of course the York sisters want to parade around in clothes having people tell them how great they are. That’s why they got a stylist to make up for the whole ‘ugly step sister’ thing from the wedding. Other than the one who ran a marathon a few years back, they aren’t involved with any charities not attached to their mom or dad. I don’t buy this ‘they want to work for the Firm’ line.

        They are adults and might be nice girls, and while they might not be responsible for their parents crap, they enable them. Andrew has always been the spoiled child (and by extension his children) but Charles thinks they are twits, and they know the gravy train is ending once grandma passes away. It might have started out as Dad’s idea, but they have bought into it to try and keep their positions high. There was a in detailed story about it in vanity fair last year. They are described as nice girls, but totally used as tools in dad’s schemes.


      • mayamae says:

        L -

        The Vanity Fair article was quite the eye opener. I find it quite ironic that the Queen has raised Andrew to be as spoiled and irresponsible as her uncle Edward. Good thing he was the second son.

        It would seem that Fergie and Andrew are made for each other with their grifting and leaching ways. It seems a concern if both their girls have adapted these ways. As B & E are apologists of their parents, it seems possible.

        Two questions for the Brits –
        Why was Charles, born to inherit the throne, given a name that he will not be known as when king? Seems a lack of forethought.

        Why did the Queen name her son Edward? Her mother apparently blamed this man for the early death of her husband. And yet her grandson honors the man with this name?

      • LAK says:

        @Mayamea – private names used by the family are different from Public names. They give all their children various names that they can choose from once they inherit. It’s not a necessity to change their name but for pr reasons, they choose a name as a namesakedmonarch that has good public standing.

        The Queen naming her son Charles was a break from tradition. Perhaps they were hoping to break the charles jinx, but then he hasn’t exactly been a popular POW which would point to the jinx in full effect.

        That Edward was known privately as David. As Edward, he wasn’t in the position long enough to wreck major damage to the illustriousness of the name. He was King for less than a year. Most people remember him as David if they remember him at all.

  31. aquarius64 says:

    Sounds like the blood princesses have their noses out of joint b/c they know they will never see the throne.

    • StopItLuke says:

      This is nothing to do with Beatrice and Eugenie it’s down to Anne and the Queen’s cousin Alexandra. Also you shouldn’t speak so soon, the Queen was born a daughter of a Kings younger son (also the Duke of York coincidentally) and became as a consequence of something nobody would have expected.

      • OMSS says:

        True. But it would take a lot of unforeseen incidents before either become Queen. They have Charles, William, Harry and their father ahead of them!

      • LAK says:

        @OMSS – It’s not unprecedented. Simialar gap and unpredictability resulted in Queen Victoria.

        We may have been celebrating the Queen Charlotte age and Victoria would have died a minor forgotten princess.

    • Fair and Balance says:

      You never know, the Queen was also the second son’s daughter. Blood princesses will be forever princesses. Commoner princesses revert back to mere commoners if there is divorce. So, until William sits on the throne, I would’n be sure if we can call Kate future queen. Her position depends entirely on him . I read somewhere that Kate and her sister were mean to B and E so this will put her back in her place. It does seem though that B&E are good friends of Chelsy Daisy.

      • LAK says:

        As were Henry 8, Elizabeth I, and Victoria amongst many in history. The chances of the spare or ‘lower’ ranking royals to succeed is high.

  32. DuBarry says:

    Um, no. The rule should be – “So basically everyone needs to courtesy to THE QUEEN, and beyond that you’re all on your own.”

  33. StopItLuke says:

    I wouldn’t really trust the DM’s spin on it they’re very sensationalist. There are two orders of precident public and private, the public order (female) would be The Queen, the wife of the Prince of Wales (Camilla), the prince of Wales’s daughter in laws (Kate + Harry’s future wife) in order of the husbands age), Andrews daughters (B+E), Edwards wife Sophie and then her daughter Lady Louise (who is officially a Princess) then Princess Anne and then so on…
    Basically the private order SHOULD be the same but the Queen caved in to nagging from Princess Anne and her cousin Princess Alexandra who didn’t want to be lower than Camilla when she married charles and now it’s had a knock on affect, She should have just told them all to deal with it and left it as it was since Camilla is the Princess of Wales but just doesn’t use the title.
    When Charles becomes King I don’t doubt he will revert to the traditional (official) order immediately.

    Having said all this I don’t like the way people are hating on B+E like they’ve been plotting to push Kate down the ranks it was nothing to do with them. Also Beatrice would gladly do the Royal Duties Kate has to be dragged into doing so I hate how people call her work shy. And I don’t like the way the DM says “William is concious of the fact his cousins are lessor royals”… Apparently William and Beatrice are pretty close, I’m sure they all know he is higher up as future King but they act like he thinks his cousins are less worthwhile.

    • fairy godmother says:

      I doubt Willie respects his cousins as evident from not reigning in Waity & Pippa for their horrible treatment of his beloved cousins.
      Then he went and married the “mean girl” who is the real bully.
      I think Willie only cares about Willie & getting his own way all the time. I think Willie thinks less of his cousins.

      • Luise says:

        I so agree. He is one totally selfish hardheaded brat. Diana would not be proud……she would be mortified by his behavior and his choices.

  34. Rose says:

    Blimey! What a minefield, they do it ‘behind closed doors’ too? So if they’re all staying together at christmas they must walk in and out of rooms just curtsying to each other all day lol

  35. really says:

    There’s an intriguing “Cinderella’s maniacal step-sisters” vibe around B and E!

  36. Raven says:

    Makes sense to me. Where would Sophie or Kate be if their husbands died? Those born royal have ranks that won’t change. When Wills is with his wife, she doesn’t have to curtsy to anyone but the Queen, Phillip and her in-laws.

  37. Schnikes says:

    Beatrice looks to be smuggling raisins in that first pic.

    I suspect Kate’s ridic’ cheek makeup is what Blohan had in mind the day she arrived at court looking like a zombie movie extra. Either way, that look is nasty.

  38. Murphy says:

    uh forget about Beatrice….will Kate have to bow to Lady Louise?!

    • StopItLuke says:

      I don’t think they bow to children in the family anyway and I’m not sure if they treat Louise as a Princess (though she is one) they have tried to make her and her brother the same rank as Princess Margaret’s children, basically not Royal but noble.

  39. Ravensdaughter says:

    Good for Princess Anne for removing her kids from all this crap. I guess technically they are still a prince and princess, but I assume they don’t observe protocol except with the higher ups, i.e. the Queen, Camilla and Charles.

    • Raven says:

      They aren’t. Prince/Princess is only carried through the male heirs, so Anne’s children never had that option.

      • Zimmer says:

        Now that’s sexist. A female monarch should never put up with that! Queen E. should have changed that!

      • JulieM says:

        Yes, Raven. The only way Anne’s children would have had titles would have been if their father, Mark Phillips, accepted a title from the Queen. Like when A. Armstrong-Jones married Princess Margaret, he accepted Earl of Snowdon. Thus Margaret’s children had titles. But not Princess. They were made Viscount and Lady.

  40. Kloops says:

    That whole family looks terribly inbred. I’m not a champion of Waity by any means, but thankfully she’ll be added some fresh blood to that gene pool.

    • flan says:

      Someone pointed out somewhere that Anne Boleyn did the English a favor, since she had some commoner fresh blood. This probably helped make Elizabeth I so healthy mentally and physically compared to many of her contemporaries.

      This unlike most of the royal houses at that time (where they were all fourth cousins in multiple ways etc).

      Worst was the House of Habsburg. Philips II of Spain married his sister’s daughter at some point, while her father was also his cousin. (And Philips himself was the result of two cousins marrying, whose families had already intermarried several times before).

  41. jc126 says:

    Inbred imbeciles.

  42. aud says:

    kate should refuse until they hire stylists

  43. Ellen says:

    This is all so stupid. TECHNICALLY the Earl and Countess of Wessex could have had the Queen bestow HRHs on their children, too. But Edward’s not a douche like his brother Andrew, so his kids will never have the Princess/Prince designation (bad timing, really, having them so soon after Diana’s death and the whole “we’re retrenching the monarchy” campaign). Meanwhile, Andrew goes on pushing for Eugenie and Beatrice to keep their titles even though he was asked to give them up.

    There’s more than one story out there indicating that Charles plans to demote those girls as soon as he gets the throne. Man, to be a fly on the wall behind closed doors when all this stuff gets discussed. Only I’m sure they all do it through their staffs, and never confront each other about it. Talk about sibling rivalries…

    • Hautie says:

      “Man, to be a fly on the wall behind closed doors when all this stuff gets discussed. Only I’m sure they all do it through their staffs, and never confront each other about it.”

      Oh yea… they would never get into a screaming match with each other. But would have no problem forcing their staff to do the dirty work for them!

      Now here is something I am curious about.

      Why would you not have your children (Edward & Andrew) marked with the HRH.

      (I know Anne’s reasons. She never wanted her children forced into the role.)

      But if Edward and Andrew let the children be “titled” with the Lady and Princess thing. Why not have it be HRH.

      How many of them are left with the HRH title? That belong to the Queen’s direct blood family and descendants?

      None of them are getting any younger.

      So there would need to be a few younger HRH’s to replace the older ones, as they die off.

      And can Charles really remove the HRH from Andrew’s daughters if he ever ascends to the throne?

      That really seems like a sh*tty thing to do in general. Over petty jealousy.

      • Ellen says:

        Sometime after 1997, the Royal Family was asked to make its roster of “official royals” smaller, as part of a modernization campaign. It used to be the rule that all grandchildren of a ruling monarch through the male line were granted the HRH, and were therefore Princes or Princesses. Hence Princess Alexandra. The new rule is supposed to be that only the children of a monarch or future monarch get the HRH — the implication being that Harry’s children will not be “Prince” or “Princess,” but will have titles derived from their father’s title (he’ll presumably be given a Dukedom at marriage — Edward was made Earl of Wessex but he’s going to inherit Duke of Edinburgh from his father, presumably pretty soon).

        Edward went along with the change (he and Sophie had enough image problems as it was) but Andrew said it would be cruel to strip the HRHs from Beatrice and Eugenie, and an insult to HIS position, and he wouldn’t let them do it. It was rather idiotic of him — they were young teenagers at the time, they wouldn’t have noticed the change then but they would notice now because they’ve started doing all these formal events.

        If I had to guess, I would guess that Andrew thought the retrenchment was a temporary sop to an angry public (again, this was post-1997) and that eventually it would all blow over. I guess we’ll see what happens if/when Harry gets married. I would guess that only William and Kate’s kids are made HRH.

      • Ellen says:

        Oh, and Charles might still try to demote Beatrice and Eugenie because it’s expensive to maintain a big stable of royals. HRHs stay on the civil list (as do lesser royals with sentimental/family-politics claims on the monarch), and Parliament made the crown start bearing a big percentage of those costs in the 1990s.

        He might also want to demote them because having a lot of extra royals trying to find meaningful work gets tricky. Edward and Sophie were a disaster when they had jobs. Andrew’s been criminal since he left the navy (I still don’t understand why anyone let him retire). Anne’s children are in the gossip columns but without the titles and the patronages that go with the titles, their private lives and employment will never be matters for parliament to discuss.

      • Hautie says:

        “The new rule is supposed to be that only the children of a monarch or future monarch get the HRH — the implication being that Harry’s children will not be “Prince” or “Princess,” but will have titles derived from their father’s title…”

        As we say here in Texas… that seems all a little ass backwards.

        I would have assumed (and apparently wrongly) that Harry’s future children would get the HRH title.

        The same goes for any biological children or grandchildren of the Queen’s. Since they are a direct blood relative.

        That they would get the HRH title.

        But I do understand the stance that people married into the family… would not get the HRH title.

        But it all seems to come down to cash. Fewer people with the HRH title. Means more money to the ones with it.

        And this is as if that the Queen isn’t ridiculously wealthy in her own right. Can you image the ugly fighting that will happen when she dies. And her personal cash comes up for grabs. Lord, I hope she has it all set to funnel into trusts.

      • Belle says:

        “The new rule is supposed to be that only the children of a monarch or future monarch get the HRH — the implication being that Harry’s children will not be “Prince” or “Princess,” but will have titles derived from their father’s title…”

        I object!!
        Here I was, reading through all of this gobble-de-gook, not having much of an opinion, but I do now! Harry’s children damn well should be princes and princesses. Why? BECAUSE!

    • flower says:

      I have to disagree about Edward inheriting the Duke of Edinburg title soon, he will have to wait until Charles is King before he gets it. When the Duke of Edinburg title was re created by the Queen from a defunct title, the letters patent made it clear that the title would devolve onto the eldest son. Charles will automatically inherit the title after Phillips death. When Charles becomes King all his lesser titles revert to the Crown and he may then hand the title to Edward if he has a mind to. Then Edwards son James would take the lesser title Earl of Wessex.

      • flower says:

        That should be Edinburgh, my ‘h’ is sticking.

      • JulieM says:

        Yes, flower, true. But I think the Queen can really do what she wants with the title after Philip is gone; regardless of the fine print in the letters patent. There’s no reason she can’t have that changed, if she is of a mind to do it. I have also read that she intends for Edward to have it. Think it was around the time that Edward and Sophie were married.

        However, I think Harry, Duke of Edinburgh has a nice ring to it, don’t you?

      • LAK says:

        It’s the Queen’s father who created him Duke of Edinburgh. He oculdn’t have his princess a minor non royal princeling even if they were related.

        Prince philip had to give up his rights to the Greek Throne for himself and his descendants yadayada to become British, and A royal Duke before The Queen was allowed to marry him

        The Original letters were written for title to go to eldest son, but Queen has already changed that. It was her wedding gift to Edward. The Sovereign can do what they like with titles. Charles will get Duke of Lancaster as Monarch, he doesn’t require another royal Dukedom.

        What does surprise me is that Eward did not get the other vacant royal dukedoms ie Suffolk, Sussex or Clarence. Harry should be the next Duke of York by right after Andrew dies, but Andrew may live a very long time so he may get a lesser title to hold him over like Edward or a completely different Dukedom.

  44. Cathy says:

    This royal protocal is confusing. Ah what the hell, let them battle it out. Maybe I’ll get a good laugh out of it when the battle stories come out in the Daily Mail.

  45. Dhavy says:

    Why are they calking Kate future Queen? Her husband is the Heir not her, she will be a princess just like Diana would have been. I’m not surprised the York sisters outrank her since they were born royalty despite their mother. If William ever gets to be king then he can change things but its usually blood first. If Kate has children in the near future they will probably outrank her? I think that’s how it goes

    • Sachi says:

      Of course her children would outrank her. They’ll be born royal.

      Unless William gives up his position and titles as well as those of his children, in which case Kate will return to being a commoner with her children untitled (or given courtesy titles).

      Of if Kate is made Princess-by-right in which she is to be her own Her Royal Highness (even if there is a divorce), then she will be on the same rank as the born-royals.

      The only other future Queen who is a Princess-by-right is Princess Maxima of the Netherlands. Even if she divorces her husband, she will still be styled HRH Princess Maxima of the Netherlands. Every other future Queen is like Kate: royal by marriage and their children outrank them.

    • Ellen says:

      No, she will be crowned queen, just as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was crowned queen at Bertie/George VI’s coronation. Victoria started the habit of having a “Prince Consort” because it freaked people out to imagine someone being crowned king (Kingship implicitly outranking Queenship), and that’s why the Duke of Edinburgh wasn’t crowned king, either.

      Diana would have been crowned queen of England at Charles’s coronation if they’d remained married. In 2005, Charles announced that Camilla would NOT be crowned queen as a sop to public outrage (the mistress becomes the queen? That’s so Henry VIII!), but he’s been quietly campaigning for years to create a groundswell in favor of her becoming Queen Camilla. (Her middle name is Rosemary and I wouldn’t be surprised AT ALL if she gets crowned Queen Rosemary IF Charles can pull it off.)

      There’s no actual reason in law or precedent for Camilla not to be called Princess of Wales right now, and it’s only because Charles says she won’t be crowned queen that she wouldn’t be.

      I believe absolutely that everything William and Kate does is being carefully orchestrated by Charles. His office limits their public affairs because Charles couldn’t stand being overshadowed by his first wife, let alone his daughter-in-law. (It helps that William and Kate don’t want to do the work, of course.) Kate and Camilla being public allies? OF COURSE. Because if you like Kate, and you expect HER to be crowned queen (as she would be, in the natural order of things), then how RUDE not to crown Camilla, her best-friend Mother-in-law.

      • iseepinkelefants says:

        I was under the impresion that Diana, and only Diana, would have become Queen because she was already titled. Waity and Camilla can’t because they’re commoners. If they had come from aristocratic families that would be different but they didn’t so they cannot EVER become Queen or Princess and certainly never a HRH.

      • Michelle says:

        iseepinkelefants- no, any one who marries the king becomes crowned queen. It’s why Edward VIII was forced to abdicate, because the parliment refused to see his twice-divorced American mistress become queen. Now it’s never happened, because the Royals tend to marry other royals, but the blood line of the spouse doesn’t matter as long as she’s the wife of the King, she’s queen (unless there are issues like with Camilla), which is why they prefer women of higher blood lines, to avoid having a “commoner” Queen.

      • flan says:

        In past times not every queen consort got crowned queen. They would be ‘the queen’ and referred to as such, but a coronation gave them that extra touch of divine right and royalty.

        Only the first two wives of Henry VIII were crowned for instance, but all the other ones were still his queens. Perhaps they changed that, but it would not be without precedent to be a queen consort, but not be crowned.

  46. Anon says:

    And why this is an issue? Did the Commonwealth object? Just wondering.

    • Sachi says:

      This is the million-dollar question.

      This article just sprung out of nowhere. Nobody even cares to discuss this. The protocol has been in effect since 2005. There were initial discussion about Kate curtsying to whom when she got engaged (mostly Beatrice and Eugenie), but nothing came of it.

      Now this issue is resurfacing again. One has to wonder why.

      Oh yeah, there’s an article that just came out about Kate’s obscene spending habits and her love for everything expensive.

      As LAK said above, this article is meant as a deflection and a cover-up, so people don’t pay too much attention to Kate being a spendthrift and instead be outraged on Kate’s behalf, and then criticize the royals for making Kate observe the rules that everyone follows anyway.

      • Luise says:

        Our Waity so full of “class” is absolutely turning into a nightmare of a train wreck.

      • bluhare says:

        It’s a good thing the internet was not around when Diana was Princess of Wales. She’d never have survived the scrutiny.

      • Sachi says:

        @ bluhare – Diana would have been fine. She knew how to play the press, but her stories also had a lot of truth in them and the press would have been more patient with her since she did well in performing her duties as a royal. We can’t deny Diana’s accomplishments as Princess of Wales.

        Not as many people would have been enamored of her persona had they known what she was really like (manipulative and cunning) beyond what the press printed out, but she would still have had the people’s sympathy.

        She’s never given the air of haughtiness towards other people, either. She’s always appeared warm, genuine, and approachable.

        Had the internet been around in the 90s as much as it is now, we’d have found a lot more about Diana, but many people IMO would be more forgiving because there were a lot of good things about her as well.

        Can I say the same for Kate? I don’t think so. The only stories that come out about her are either PR-driven to build her up and praise her, or stories of her rudeness and bad manners toward others. She rarely appears engaging, warm, and genuine. She often appears bored, disinterested, or pretending she cares.

        She doesn’t act “real”.

        Had Kate been revealed to have a history of being helpful to the disadvantaged and the vulnerable, the public might be more forgiving of her. But she doesn’t. 9 years of being followed around by the media and the most charity work that could be associated with Kate were fancy events that only wealthy people attended. Nothing on her life as William’s girlfriend established her as accomplished and learned.

        Thanks to the internet, not everyone wants to drink the kool-aid that the media is trying to sell to us. If the internet weren’t here, we’d all be fooled into praising the royals at every turn and believing whatever the royalist media publishes.

        @ Luise – ain’t that the truth.

      • bluhare says:

        Sachi: Not sure I agree re Diana and internet. These days everyone has their phones out photographing everyone. Back then they didn’t. She couldn’t have hidden things as well as she did if it were today.

        I do agree that some good things could have come out of it, definitely. I know she did lots of stuff under the radar, and that is definitely to her credit.

    • Brenda C. says:

      My first thought was that the Queen was upset at the very public gaffe on Kate’s part when everyone was disembarking the boat. And Kate’s curtsy to DOE on the balcony seemed inappropriate somehow.

      • LAK says:

        That balcony Curtsey is too funny for words.

        waity has the distinction of being the first person [ok maybe royal person] to curtsey on the balcony.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: Why is that such a big deal? Is it because she should have curtseyed inside when she first saw him? Maybe she was in the loo and the balcony was the first time she saw him. :)

      • HME says:

        LAK: So the balcony curtsey WAS wrong then? ‘Cause one of the articles about this ‘new’ curtsey order thing made it out like Kate curtseying to the DOE on the balcony was her following the ‘new’ directive…………but it that was the case then everyone else, except the Queen, should have also been curtseying too right?

      • LAK says:

        @HME _ definitely. If it was a new directive, there would have been lots of curtseying/bowing to everyone or possibly just by everyone to HM & DOE. And she wasn’t curtseying to HM. It was definitely directed at DoE.

        @Bluhare – They gather in the room that opens onto the balcony and all curtsey to each other in there if it is the first time they are seeing each other. So she should have done it then.

        Also, from a different angle, it looked like she was surprised to see him there even though he had been in the procession with The Queen that morning. A procession she was a part of!!! it may have been a case of mistaken identity as DoE was dressed the same as her hubbs, but DoE isn’t as tall as William.

        it was funny because it demonstrates once more her inability to pick up simple protocols. She wanted to be in this family, she’s been a part of this family for more than a year, she’s a veteran of the Balcony etc. And the curtsey was so bouncy too! There is a gif of it doing the internet rounds which is so funny especially because HM seems to be saying ‘too late’ and DoE doesn’t acknowledge the bounce and simply says something over her head to William.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK, I hate it when you make sense. ;)

        But I can’t believe no one is talking about why she won’t join the officer’s wives club at William’s RAF base in Anglesey!

  47. K Taylor says:

    I would love to invite them all to a ladies only dinner and watch all hell break loose.

  48. JulieM says:

    Classic. I can’t wait to see Waity curtsey to Bea and Eugenie. Blood is always thicker than water; especially in this family. And Waity is the water.

    How pathetic they also have to do all this behind closed doors too. Holidays must be so much fun.

  49. ama says:

    Courtesy or curtsy? Confused.

  50. Aud says:

    Eugenie and Beatrice are like the two ugly sisters in Cinderella in that photograph. Eugh…

  51. A says:

    What I find interesting is that Charles apparently wants to bump both Beatrice and Eugenie off the list that financially provides for royals. It’s a bit ridiculous that the Queen’s other grandchildren have found actual jobs, but excuses are made for those two not being employed. I understand the Queen’s immediate children and spouses working for the The Firm, and the children of the heir (Charles) working for The Firm, but not the others being provided for by the tax payers. There was a very interesting Vanity Fair article about it a year or so ago. Andrew is apparently a corrupt fucker who possibly sleeps with under aged hookers. When the Queen passes, it will certainly be soap opera in how they all deal with the changes. Apparently, Charles has a bit of a contentious relationship with Andrew. Edward stays out of it. Anne may do a lot of charity, but also doesn’t seem like the nicest person.

    • Jane says:

      The average dysfunctional family. I am so glad we fought to disentangle ourselves from the motherland. I will enjoy the 4th of July even more than usually this year after reading your post and this blog.

    • bluhare says:

      Makes a person wonder what Andrew’s doing in the background, doesn’t it?

    • flan says:

      I remember Charles and Camilla’s wedding, when Anne stood amongst the benches for a while.

      The BBC reporters made some mild fun of her “oh, and there is the princess royal… ehm… haha” because she looked so angry. This might have nothing to do with Camilla, but more with some mistake in the organization, or that was how it seemed.

      It was quite fun to watch, also because Harry made fun of William’s hair in the wind, and I believe some random entertainment figures also attended.

  52. A says:

    Also, am I the only person who thought that Beatrice and Eugenie may have worn those ridiculous outfits to Waity’s wedding to try and get some attention for themselves? I’ve seen the way they normally dress…it’s usually not that attention grabbing and bold. My English friends (I went to grad school there) mostly thought those two were trying to grab some of the spotlight.

    • Jackie O says:

      agreed. i think that spoke volumes about who they are…oaf offspring of sarah and andrew.

    • LAK says:

      if you had noticed or followed them before the wedding, bea’s hat at the wedding would not have been a surprise.

      She’s been wearing Philip Tracy’s more interesting pieces for years before the wedding.

      But once again, dislike of their parents has translated into they were attention seeking at the wedding.

      • bluhare says:

        I did wonder if they wore those hats to make a point, I really did.

        It was great that Beatrice auctioned hers off and made all that money for charity. Points for Bea!!

  53. djork says:

    ‘Born royal’ is the polite term for ‘inbred’. Idiots.

    • Jane says:

      Philip and Elizabeth are third cousins, Philip descended from Queen Victoria’s daughter Alice and Elizabeth from Queen Victoria’s son Edward VII.

      They are related, but he is a very distant relative.

  54. whatev says:

    for being blue bloods those chicks sure are uuuuugly!

  55. Patricia says:

    As an American I just can’t get my head around the curtseys. That would be a deal breaker for me. Not so much to the Queen but Camilla??? And the York sisters??? Ugh – no. I hope she refuses to do it whenever possible. That’s just too demeaning for words.

  56. TXCinderella says:

    Despite Royal Protocol, Kate is prettier, skinnier, and has better fashion sense than Eugenie and Beatrice. They can never take that away from Kate!

    • Luise says:

      And she is also one mean as a snake stalking witch.

    • Amelia says:

      Are you seriously that shallow? Like that somehow makes her a better person. I’d much prefer to be friends with B+E who quietly get on with the jobs they do, work with charities behind the scenes and run marathons.
      Compare that to the Wisteria sisters – social climbing, extravagent do-littles who have achieved next to nothing. All Kate can say is she married someone who is still relatively important.
      To be know for who you married. Yuck.

    • LAK says:

      And Kate will not talk to you unless you are male, preferrably friends with William or can provide a photo op.

    • Tatiana says:

      Well, I like the York princesses more and in my opinion they have more style than Kate.
      Said that, they even seem more genuine and down to earth than her.

  57. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I’m not surprised. While it seems weird to us Americans, those british royals REALLY AND TRULY believe they are better than everyone else simply because of their birth. Not just richer or more important socially, but BETTER because of their birth. They really believe in eugenics, and support inbreeding.

    While I would normally point out how dumb/useless the members of the royal family are, it’s difficult to do that when comparing them to Kate. The family looks down on her, and well they should. It was really difficult for William to find a dummy who makes the other royals look smart by comparison, but somehow he managed to do it. That’s quite a feat, well done!

    Edited: as for praising Kate’s “fashion” sense, she has the same taste as my grandmother. Everything she wears is old and over-done. She wouldn’t know classy, fresh fashion if it bit her. But seeing how badly the rest of the royal family dresses, I can only assume most of the Brits who praise Kate were raised with very low expectations.

    • LAK says:

      ….but what does it say about Kate that she was desparate to join them, knowing all this about them?

      • bluhare says:

        Self hatred. That she (or her family) are not worthy enough and need the cachet to feel good about themselves.

        Bluhare Freud

  58. jesstar says:

    I find this so funny. But if Kate wanted so badly to be a royal, she should have known there would be a price to pay.

  59. MamaBear says:

    I so don’t get the vitriol for this girl. Yeah, her clothing and grooming bills are pretty ridiculous – pretty much what I make in a year. But I’ll bet you Jennifer Aniston’s or Kim Kartrashian’s or Beyonce’s or Goop’s is about the same. It’s fine not to like her, but I don’t see the need to be completely vicious about it. She chose this life and she has to live with it and the criticism, but she’s still a person with feelings (not that I think she reads Internet comments, but still, she’s a human being).

    • LAK says:

      ….because her clothing/grooming bills are indirectly paid for by us. It’s a tax write off for her FIL.

      As for the sums involved, she is sold to us as a frugal, thrifty recycling machine who wears cheap high street [mall] clothing.

      £35K in six months on your working clothes when you barely work is ridiculous by any standards when you are not a celebrity and your appearance isn’t paramount to your job.

      • maemay says:

        Well I don’t pay sh@% so spend on Katie spend on!

      • LAK says:

        @Maemay – You do remember what happened to the last Princess/Queen who spent whilst her people suffered?

        if she visits your country, you will be picking up the bill. Let’s talk then.

      • Sachi says:

        @ maemay – This is all I need to know about you and your adoration for Kate. You’re not paying for her and her expensive tastes, so you don’t care.

        Good for you.

        I, however, am paying for Kate’s “sh@%”, so I will criticize her spending habits whenever I want.

    • Fue McCormick says:

      The difference is those women earn their own money; they don’t live off the tax roll … and I wouldn’t be surprised if Waity does spend a great deal of time online shopping and reading about herself. She probably also spends a great deal of time watching television.

      • maemay says:

        As opposed to people on this board who spend their time reading about Kate.

      • Sachi says:

        @ maemay – So? What does people on this board have to do with Kate’s laziness and vanity? You must compare ordinary citizens to Kate, who spent an obscene amount of money on clothes in only 6 months, that many people earn as their annual income?

        If we’re reading Celebitchy and commenting, it’s only a small part of our lives. I would assume most people who are here actually earn their own money, have real careers, and don’t spend their entire day on the internet lapping up every story about Kate.

        Can you say the same for Kate? Is being lazy a part of her hobby and she works 70% of the time? No.

        Is shopping only a hobby and she was never caught shopping in London twice every week the last 3 months when her fans claim she’s in Wales most of the time? No.

        If people want to spend their time reading about Kate, so be it. She’s a public figure. She’s fair game. That’s something she accepted when she chased and waited for William for 9 long years and now committed herself to him.

    • Belle says:

      Why is Kate’s spending being compared to that of a celebrity? Do members of the royal family (other than Kate, of course) consider themselves celebrities?

      • Sachi says:

        Because the only way to make sure Kate comes out on top is to compare her to people who would obviously pale in comparison to her.

        So who are the people in this planet who spend more than Kate? Celebrities!

        So let’s compare Kate to them because it’s obvious the celebrities will lose and then Kate will come off the lesser of two evils.

        These comparisons between Kate and celebrities have gone stale the moment her fans kept on saying she’s better than the Kardashians and other trashy celebs. Being compared to what I consider as “bottom of the barrel” is not a compliment.

        How come Kate’s fans never compare her to other women who have made names for themselves in business, literature, philanthropy, education, politics, etc? It’s always “At least Kate is not like Kim Kardashian”. How about Melinda Gates? Why don’t we compare Kate to her? Melinda’s accomplishments vs Kate’s?

  60. Tiffany says:

    I am amazed at the number of comments this story generated. WHO CARES????

    I think Kate is cute and has some cute clothes, but stories about them every other day are unnecessary. There just isn’t anything interesting going on in the royal family.

  61. bettyrose says:

    Every famil has bizarre hierarchies that new spouses complicate – don’t even get me started on how my cousin’s wife has hijacked thanksgiving. I wish grandma would issue a decree requiring that I be bowed to.

  62. Fue McCormick says:

    As an American I have to ask: what do “limpet” and “doors to manual” mean?

    • LAK says:

      Limpet – a persistant clinger

      Doors to manual – part of the safety instructions as demonstrated by Air hostesses on planes.

    • mayamae says:

      Fue McCormick –

      What LAK does not fully explain is that “Doors to Manual” is a slam against Kate’s mom who – GASP – was a flight attendant. A lovely example of the class system in the UK.

  63. JennJennM says:

    On UK media comment threads, Brits are howling at the idea that Beatrice and Eugenie are “curtsey-worthy.” Quite a few have suggested that curtseys and bows should be limited to the monarch and consort only, excluding princes, princesses, dukes, duchesses, and other royals.

  64. Amanda_M87 says:

    Of course Kate is less of a Royal than Beatrice and Eugenie who are actually related to the royal ancestors. Kate only married into the Royal family.

  65. mimi says:

    I wonder if British people are ashamed that this is the sort of nonsense that “their Queen” is dealing with and all that silly ego games or pretend “rank”.

    These people are adults and they are busy thinking who should curtsy before another and who is more important based on … wait for it… BLOOD.

    This is 2012. What year is it in England nowadays.

    I would feel embarrassed if this was my country.

  66. bettyrose says:

    I’ve never understood why the Brits tolerate this nonsense but we Americans tolerate a lot of bigotry, election fraud, draconian restrictions on birth control and so on that Europeans ridicule, so let’s not make this about nationality.

  67. apsutter says:

    Well, if it takes William 30-40 years to ascend to the throne(which is probably will) then I don’t give this marriage a snow balls chance in hell of surviving. I think it’s pretty clear that Will only married Waity because no other woman was stupid enough to marry into his family. He ran out of options and then he ran out of time so he had to settle.

    • SC says:


      Rough but probably true.

      Kate needs to start devising a back-up survival plan asap.

      • Violet says:

        The only backup plan available to her is to move back in with Mum and Dad. And get that baby in the works.

  68. jes_sayin says:

    So what do these people have against braces anyway? So much money and they still have their funky, crooked teeth.

  69. katie says:

    That’s a bitchslap if I ever seen one!

  70. flower says:

    I don’t know why you all have your knickers in a twist, this is only a family thing, nobody is asking you to curtsey to the Yorkies or the Queen for that matter. Bowing and Curtseying even in England are totally optional, few people outside the royal household and family bow or curtsey to anyone other than the Queen. Are you now going to complain about squaddies saluting an officer it’s exactly the same thing, a show of respect for the chain of command.

    I haven’t had time to read all the comments above but I’m sure others have pointed out this isn’t a recent thing, this new protocol was in place before Kate’s wedding so she hasn’t been demoted as the article says. It’s just the Daily Mail winding up its readers once again, that rag pretends to be gushy over the royals but it’s a republican newspaper, if you take careful note every single royal story is twisted to stick the knife in somewhere. This time innocent Bea and Genie are copping the flack.

    The new guidelines were mainly put into place so that Princess Anne would not be required to curtsey to Camilla, Kate, Sophie or whatever Chelsea dolly bird Harry decides to marry unless their husbands were in the room.

  71. ilikechocolate says:

    Hooray a new Royal family story! I was beginning to have withdrawls lol…anyway i’m a fan of tradition so this story doesn’t particularly ruffle my feathers. Now enough with the waity and bring on the Harry!

  72. ghoulish_moose says:

    I can’t find any stories about Kate bullying the York sisters. Or the gif of her curtseying to the Duke of Edinburgh. I wonder if they’ve been cleaned up by her PR team?

    Links would be lovely =D

    • Sachi says:

      Kate curtsying out of nowhere to the DoE:


      The way she did it was as if someone kneed her from the back, very inelegant. Quite an improper greeting to be talking to the DoE for some time, and then dropping into a curtsy all of a sudden, like she just remembered she had to do it. The DoE wasn’t even looking at her, he was talking to William so her curtsy wasn’t acknowledged.

      I don’t know what the Queen was saying though. She didn’t look too happy.

      Before the curtsy, Kate turned to her right and saw the DoE beside her, and she had this, “Ooh! You’re here, too!” exaggerated facial expression and maniacal grin, complete with raising her shoulders in mocked surprise.

      Bizarre behaviour, especially since the DoE was first on the balcony with the Queen, so Kate would have known he was already there to begin with, no need to have looked like she couldn’t believe he was there, since the DoE participated in the whole ceremony of Trooping the Colour.

  73. DanaG says:

    Beatrice and Eugenie are not on any civil list. There daddy pays all their bills for them and they have money invested from when the Queen Mother died. Prince Andrew now has to pay for their protection officers himself, finally after getting away with wasting the taxpayers money all these years protecting these two leeches. Beatrice doesn’t work and running one marathon in 25 years doesn’t make her into charity work. She has no other charities except is listed on her mummies. Eugenie is now supporting a charity and is attending uni. It’s Andrew and Sarah pushing for the girls to get lucky and hit it rich on the Royal gravy train. That way they will get paid for doing little which is what Sarah wants more then anything. That way she can tag along and such even more money out of the two girls. Kate is boring at best and hasn’t done that much work but her outfits even if worn twice are still expensive. William comes into his own money so I am sure he will start paying for her clothes and hair. When Charles becomes King things will change and he is the one who doesn’t want the York girls doing official duties. Both will probably never really work and marry rich men and get seen at Ascot and the balcony each year. Neither really seem to want to actually work especially Beatrice who is far from the down to earth girl many think she is.

    • Rose Moore says:

      I agree with this comment… Eugenie and Beatrice are lazy princesses. They only want to cause trouble with people like Kate who is popular and well liked. As a Team she and William are wonderful to watch and of course the extra attention causes a lot of jealousy with “lesser royals” and these girls most definately are lesser royals and are just waiting for handouts so they won’t have to work. They are also so unattractive and frumpy!!!

  74. Irishgirl says:

    I am an Irish-American. I will never bow to anyone and you’d have to kill me to make me bow to any of the royals. As far as racism goes, the British invented it or I guess if it is against the Irish it is okay?

    • sup says:

      i’m not irish but the idea of aristocracy is nauseating to me, regardless of what land it is… btw riddle me this: why does bono, a citizen of free republic of ireland, accept knighthood from the queen of uk? see if i were irish, i’d refuse. he’s such a fameho?

  75. LisaA.B. says:

    My opinion from across the pond: Her Majesty lived through WWII, she remembers the devastation from the Blitz. I believe that she wants the PEOPLE of Britain and the world to never forget the struggle between the forces from those who seek to rule through AUTOCRACY and the people’s desire to live in FREEDOM.

    I believe this is a BRILLIANT CIVICS lesson everyone to learn. This curtsy rule MUST stay!

    Long ago the British people tamed the autocratic monarchy with the MAGNA CARTA. For those who don’t remember what this is Google it—we must NEVER FORGET THIS MAGNIFICENT DOCUMENT.

    We who live in the “the West” today live under a governmental model that allows us to CHOSE representatives to defend OUR view of governmental influence in OUR lives. This curtsy rule is a reminder how it USED TO BE.

    I APPLAUD the Queen’s decision to have Kate curtsy to William’s cousins when he is not around. I adore the phrase, “the blood princesses.” We should NEVER forget that in our past all of us ‘serfs’ once ‘bowed’ to the rulers who told us they were “God’s chosen or even GOD among them.” If this was not HRH’s intent then it’s the greatest ‘accident’ in history!

    But I believe this is Her Majesty’s last gift to her beloved kingdom: Never forget where we have come from and be grateful where we are going. Before this curtsy rule SHE initiated the RULE CHANGE that allows a daughter born to William and Kate to be queen and NOT a younger brother; GOOD RIDDANCE old autocracy!

    As an American who is constantly told to RESPECT OTHER CULTURES watching all this I say, “God save the Queen.”