Keira Knightley is jazzed about the royal baby, but she’s still an anti-monarchist

I’ve been back in love with Keira Knightley for the better part of a year now. She seemed to go through a phase – a phase of hating everyone and everything, a phase that involved being surly and kind of full of herself, a phase where it seemed like she was taking herself too seriously. And that phase is over – either Keira just did some growing up, or she developed into a wiser, more interesting person… or something. Whatever happened, she just seems happier and funnier and cooler. I don’t want to say that it’s because of a man, but maybe it is? She got with James Righton more than a year ago and now they’re engaged and planning their future together. Maybe he lightened her up a bit? Anyway, Keira covers the new issue of Marie Claire to promote her new film Can A Song Save Your Life? Keira stars with your boyfriend Mark Ruffalo and your anti-boyfriend Adam Levine. I’m not pleased with this photo shoot, but the interview excerpts are charming:

Knightley on the paparazzi: “They’re not going to get a shot of me falling out of my knickers as I’m coming out of a club.”

Knightley on England’s royal family: “I’m over the moon about the royal baby. But I really can’t mount an argument in favor of monarchy. Is that treason? Do I have to turn in my passport?”

Knightley on her relationship with fiancé, Klaxons keyboardist, James Righton: “I’m not someone who listens to a lot of music. But I get wonderful perspective by being with someone who is less like me than more like me. The way he thinks is something I don’t get. We come at things from totally different angles.”

Knightley on her wedding: “I could have six fake weddings. God, that would be expensive. We’re not really big-wedding types. I don’t need to have all that.”

Putting down roots: “I’m still a traveler,” says the actress, who recently moved from a loft to a reportedly $3.8 million house in London’s East End with her fiancé, Klaxons keyboardist James Righton, 29. “We love it, but it’s not the house. . . I don’t have anything valuable. Everything in our house is designed so you can spill things on it.”

The insecure profession: “My mom [Sharman Macdonald] is a playwright — she was an actress — and my dad [Will Knightley] is an actor, and we managed to go on holidays, but there were periods when they were hugely out of work and wouldn’t know if they could keep the house. It’s a very insecure profession. I’ve always seen it for what it is. So when I started getting work, it’s like this tiny space opened up and I needed to jump in and go with it. It could all go away tomorrow.”

Defining success: “I’m not sure I can define success. I think if I get to the end of my life having hurt as few people as possible, I will be happy, making sure that the people who mean the most to me know they’ve been loved. Success in work, whatever work, will come and go.”

Fashion: “I like the fantasy of fashion… Creating a different person and dressing up like her. Putting on a flowery dress when it’s raining brightens up the world.”

[From Marie Claire]

I love what she says about the monarchy! That’s kind of how I feel about it too – I’m really excited that Duchess Kate is pregnant but I also think the monarchy itself seems like it needs… something. Something to make it more relevant. And that’s “something” that Prince William and Duchess Kate are NOT bringing to the table.

Photos courtesy of Marie Claire.

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

67 Responses to “Keira Knightley is jazzed about the royal baby, but she’s still an anti-monarchist”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ms Kay says:

    Haha that always and forever *POUT* face!

    Yeah I think she loves East area though. Back in the years she was with Rupert I kept bumping into them in Brick Lane market/Hoxton square and Broadway market a lot!

    • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

      Details! R they as beautiful in real life? Were they loved him as in the pap shots?

  2. HotPockets says:

    the monarchy is irrelevant in this day and age. It only exists to reminds us that there is a difference between old and new money. I’m convinced the Queen is immortal.

    • Angelic 20 says:

      Plus 1, nothing more I want to add to your comment.

    • T.C. says:

      They are like Disneyland a tourist attraction to bring in money from travelers.

    • LAK says:

      And yet i am as excited as a bear with honey at the confirmation of Richard III’s bones and burial place today.

      I am going to take the day out to go to re-burial. And i hope the present family show up. And i hope they re-bury him with full honours. In York or Westminster. NOt a hope in hell though since our politicians don’t have a sense of history or occasion.

      History. Huzzah!!!

      • Amelia says:

        Oh my God, is it sad that we opened a bottle of bubbly when Leicester Uni announced the news?
        I work at a museum, so I’m using that as an excuse ^^

      • Christina says:

        His wish was to be buried in York Minster, and I’d like to see that happen, though I doubt it will. From what I’ve heard, he’s going to be interred in Leicester.

      • bluhare says:

        Me too!! It was the first thing I looked for in the news this morning. I’m so glad that he’ll get a reburial. Does anyone know why Leicester rather than Westminster Abbey? Is it just because he was found there? And he should have full honours. He was a king of England — the last one killed in battle — and should be honored as such. I wonder if one of those skull reconstruction people can give a photo of how he looked in life?

        LAK: I’ll go to the reburial with you. I love wearing widow’s weeds.

      • LAK says:

        Baroness – i think they are re-burying him in Leicester simply because that’s where his bones have been for the past 500yrs.

        Charlie boy is always going on about history, so this is one of the few times i wish he would interfere and have him buried in York Minster or Westminster and not Leicester.

      • Christina says:

        One problem is that Richard was a devout Catholic, and York Minster, Westmister Abbey and Leicester Cathedral are all Church of England, which of course is the official religion of the ‘royal’ family. I doubt they would agree to a Catholic ceremony in a major Anglican cathedral, but it would also be wrong for Richard to be buried according to Anglican rites.

        Problems, problems…

      • bluhare says:

        Christina: That’s a great point. There wasn’t a Church of England in Richard’s time and he wasn’t Defender of the Faith. I wonder if a multidenominational service could be arranged? A Church of England and Catholic officiant doing the service together. Maybe it wouldn’t be copacetic in Westminster Abbey, but maybe York would make the exception as that’s where Richard wanted to be buried.

        And, Lady LAK, I think this would be the perfect time for Charles to butt in.

      • LAK says:

        personally i don’t think religion should be an issue simply because everyone went with the state religion, whatever their personal beliefs. Meaning there were no alternative religions.

        I vote for Westminster simply because it is the burial place of all VIP and Kings. If religion is a stickler, Westminster Cathedral is across the street from Westminster Abbey.

        Failing that, as he wanted to be buried in York, AND he was King of the north, that would be also be fitting.

        Failing that, his birthplace, Fortheringay. I think several kings are buried there too.

        Definitely NOT Leceister.

      • Lauren says:

        @ LAK I am going to ask you all the royal questions because you seem really smart and knowlegable about British History.

        Shouldn’t HM The Queen claim King Richard III for burial in Westminster Abbey quite correctly as it is the burial place of Kings and Queens going back to Edward the Confessor and therefore the most appropriate place for King Richard III to be re-buried.

        I know a lot of people are saying he shouldn’t be buried there since the Abbey is no longer Catholic but I would assume that regardless if it is no longer Catholic, he was crowned there so it would be right that he was re-interred there.

        Where do you think will be his final resting place?

      • LAK says:

        @Lauren :i think your question posted at the same time i was answering somebody else’s similar question. Please see my answer to some of your question in my post above yours.

        The decision for a state funeral lies with HM and a parliamentary vote. i guess if enough people bombard the government website with the request, we may get one.

        And I really hope HM claims this re-burial and not only insists he be buried at Westminster, but also makes entire family attend.

        If it is a question of religion, not many people realise that the premier Catholic cathedral, Westminster Cathedral, in London [not sure if it is the premier one in all of Britain] is across the street from Westminster Abbey.

        That should satisfy the religious requirements. And it is nearly as grand as the Abbey.

      • Mich says:

        SUCH exciting news! And the discussion it is provoking on various sites really throws into relief just how relatively pointless the monarchy is today. The DM ran a story about Kate burning some exotic candle for her morning sickness and the comments generally ran along the lines of ‘who cares?’. Stories about Richard – a King dead for more than 500 years – have fascinating comments ranging from how the Bard wrote to please his patroness the Queen (hence the vilification) to speculation about what really happened to the nephews.

        Aside from all of the above, I am fascinated by the severity of his scoliosis. The pics are quite startling.

      • LAK says:

        @Mich – Can you imagine what outstanding physical shape he was in despite the scoliosis?

        The NPG used to have an interactive exhibition that allowed you to try on pieces of Henry 8’s battle armour [replica pf course]. The gloves alone where unbelievably heavy. Wearing an entire suit of armour and manage a war horse whilst wielding weapons is the most amazing physical feat ever.

        Ps:- there is already an e-petition on the government website to have him buried at York. Just signed it. All my CB history buffs, please sign it too so he can be buried in a proper place.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: Just signed it. Got my email confirmation so I’m official.

        Mich: You’re dead right. I can’t believe how excited I am about it and he’s been dead 500 years. I hope he gets his wish to be buried in York.

      • Mich says:

        Sadly, the petition doesn’t accept signatures from non-British citizens/residents.

      • Tatiana says:

        This is so exciting! Congrats to the team of archaeologists who worked so hard to find Richard’s remains. I hope to catch some of the tv special on-line.
        I hope when he’s buried in Leicester, he receives the proper burial of a former King. But I do wish he was being buried in York. The north had great affection for him.

      • Dena says:

        I am late to the party but I am super excited too!!!

    • ya says:

      ya – there is nothing that can make the monarch relevant.

  3. La Calabaza says:

    I love her! Yes, I admit it! I’ve probably seen all her movies! She is my english Winona.

    • RocketMerry says:

      She is lovely and an amazing actress.
      I too have seen all her movies, and basically watch anything that says: “Keira Knightley was/is/will-be associated with this”.

    • Mel says:

      YES TO ALL OF THIS!!! I love Winona and I love Keira and Kaiser is right that she grew up to be a beautiful and interesting woman and I love her even more because of that!

  4. Dawn says:

    I will always have a fondness for her as I believe she was the best Elizabeth Bennett ever in fact that was the best Pride and Prejudice ever. And I love Pride and Prejudice so thanks for that. Other than that it is her country and she can think what she will. I see nothing wrong with that.

    • mln76 says:

      Excuse Me ???? Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth’s version is the gold standard we could come to blows over this LOL.

      • Dcat says:


      • Gine says:

        Am I the only one who really likes both versions, just for different reasons? Everyone I talk to about this seems to be all about loving one and hating the other, but I love them both.

      • Mich says:

        +infinity…+1 😉

      • Brown says:

        I really love both as well, but Keira’s portrayal of Elizabeth was so amazing and I absolutely LOVED the entire movie, from the acting to the amazing cinematography…. it holds a spot in my top 3 favorite movies for sure. I probably watch it every month or so. 🙂 Absolute perfection.

      • Reece says:

        Although just to say, I thought the non-pristine pearly white muslin production design was an interesting departure from the norm. Everything else, however, everything else I could not stand in that version.

      • Dawn says:

        MLN76…I haven’t seen that version. I’ll find it somewhere and see what I think of it before we come to blows!

      • TG says:

        I love both versions. What I can’t stand is Jane from the BBC production. She was just ugly and Rosamund Pike is just beautiful as Jane in the Keira Knightely version. I love both versions but Colin Firth will always be my favorite Mr. Darcy. I love Keira too and will watch her in almost anything.

      • Silk Spectre says:

        I think KK was dreadful as Lizzie, just as she was dreadful as Anna. She seems to have no idea how to convey inner strength in a way that doesn’t come off as bratty.

        I wish I could like her as an actress, because she does come across as very charming and relatively sharp in her interviews. But it’s just always the same… *jut the chin forward, pout, giggle, gasp, repeat* the exact same mannerisms in film after film after film.

      • Christina says:

        @ Silk Spectre


        I honestly don’t know how Knightely lands so many top roles. She’s a HORRIBLE actress and while she is beautiful, her beauty is cold and lifeless. She looks great in still shots, but on screen she has no animation or charisma. And it’s one thing for a bad actor to get eye candy roles (think Henry Cavill) but Kiara gets serious dramatic roles which she consistently makes a mess of. I just don’t get it.

      • bluhare says:

        Double infinity on the Firth/Ehle version. Everything else pales.

    • Bubbles says:

      I lke Jennifer more as Elizabeth, but I like Matthew more as Darcy.

    • gogoGorilla says:

      Ugh, I can’t stand the KK version of P&P. They took so many liberties with the script – the way the family was portrayed was completely wrong AND KK is just as bad as KStew with the use of lip-biting and mouth-pursing to convey emotional content. Very disappointing. The dude who played Mr. Darcy was kinda hot, although no one could ever touch Colin Firth’s Darcy, IMO!

      • Lexie says:

        though i really like keira and most of her movies, i agree..her elizabeth bennett was a sullen moody brat – not really elizabeth at all.

      • bettyrose says:

        I absolutely loathe Keira Knightly. However, as anorexic moronic adaptations of Austen go, at least her version of P & P didn’t reduce Austen to a pathetic romcom like Goop’s adaptation of Emma did.

  5. Dinah says:

    OMG why does she always do this to her mouth? (o)

  6. rtms says:

    I really think Rupurt was a downer for her. His extreme shyness along with her growing up phase made her really the angry bitch at times. I figured that phase would die down someday before she was 30. They may have looked good together but something tells me he just wasn’t the best guy for her.

  7. mln76 says:

    I feel like they are just people who live off of welfare just because its been collected over a millennia people think they are classy but I’m not english so what do I care.

  8. Gine says:

    Those aren’t great pictures, but I do like her makeup. Dark blue shadow can look really cool with brown eyes.

    I think part of the reason she’s lightened up is that interviewers seem to have FINALLY stopped hounding her about her body. She’s been around long enough now that people are finally like, “Okay, she’s thin, whatever.”

  9. Reece says:

    Those are the same pics with different clothes.

  10. ramie says:

    Why would she care about the royal baby? Because she’s British? Stupid.

  11. Queen says:

    She is awful one-note actor.

    • Christina says:

      Yup. She makes Natalie Portman seem like Cate Blanchett. It’s really annoying that she gets all these major roles when her ‘talent’ seems to consist solely of trying to correct her underbite by sticking her chin out.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      I wouldn’t say she’s awful but I think she is INCREDIBLY overrated as an actress. She’s one of those women that as a woman I’m “supposed” to like.

      I’m just not a fan of her acting.

      • bettyrose says:

        Honestly, I’m not sure who is meant to like her. She’s not sexy enough for men or intelligent enough for women.

    • bluhare says:

      Not a fan of her AT ALL, but I found The Duchess on TV not too long ago, and it was a great movie. I didn’t even mind that she was the duchess.

  12. LAK says:

    The thing about Monarchy is that it depends on the incumbents. There is no real argument for it’s continued existence, even with our Liz in the chair, but she has held it together and inspires respect so people make the argument for it’s continued existence whilst she is still alive.

    Charles, despite the messy private life, has proven himself and will make a good King.

    William and Kate haven’t brought anything so far to the table. If anything, they are giving the people who are either indifferent or outright republicans are good argument for why the whole system should be discontinued.

    It’s a shame we can’t find a way for Anne, Harry or Beatrice to take over after Charles because they are showing all the signs of being as inspiring as our Liz should they get the top job.

    • bluhare says:

      Long live King Henry IX!

    • Lucky Charm says:

      This is probably a silly question, but I don’t understand why the rules of succession would have to be changed if Kate has a daughter, that would allow her to become Queen? Obvioulsy there were Queens before – Victoria, Elizabeth, Mary, etc. and the current monarch is a Queen and the eldest daughter, so why would it need to be changed? Otherwise, how come when the Queen’s father died she was crowned and not her father’s nearest male relative?

      • LAK says:

        The heir has to be a direct descendant of the monarch. Only if there are no direct descendants does it go sideways to a brother [and his direct descendants], failing that to a sister [and her direct descendants] etc

        The Queens were all crowned by default because there were no boys to inherit. And after their deaths, crown went to nearest male relative. Even our present Queen. She was never declared heir Apparent despite being the heir from age 10 onwards. That’s also why she was never declared Prince [ss] of Wales which as heir was her right. ditto being declared Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothmere etc [all of Charles’s current titles] and the wealth that went with them.

        In our Queen’s case, there was always a presumption that the King might have another kid who might turn out to be a boy who would be declared automatic heir over her.

        Queen Victoria was the lucky recipient of a similar situation because the heir presumptive [her cousin princess Charlotte] died in childbirth, and she was the only descendant of the heir apparent [the Monarch’s brother] who died before he was in a position to be declared thus.

        ditto Mary I, Elizabeth I, Anne, Mary II and all the other Queens in history.

        The reasons for the rule changes are so all this stuff can be straight forward. So Daughters have as much right to all of it as the boys and so they aren’t pushed aside by younger brothers. If you look at the current line of succession, it reads as Charles [his descendants], Andrew [his descendants], Edward [his descendants], Anne [her descendants].

        If the law had allowed daughters to inherit, it would have been Charles, ANNE, Andrew, Edward. by birth order rather than gender order.

        For now, a daughter isn’t an automatic heir.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        @ LAK – Thank you, that makes sense to me now. Being American, we don’t have to worry about things like that with our Presidents. Being both the oldest and a daughter, I certainly agree that it should be birth order 🙂 Younger siblings are enough of a nuisance without having to worry about them cutting in line in front of you, LOL!

      • LAK says:

        Lucky Charm – It’s not just younger siblings cutting through to the top, it is also about inheritance as a whole. This story made news a few weeks ago, and is demonstrates clearly why the laws need to change.

        It’s crazy that this law still exists. You don’t see it often in the lower orders simply because lack of substantial wealth and common sense prevail.

        This man’s 8 children will be cut off simply for being girls.

  13. hoopjumper says:

    One thing I’ve always liked about KK is that I think she really believes what she said about, “This could all go away…” She’s been saying that in interviews for years, and I find it really refreshing. She’s like anti-entitled, or something.

  14. Patrice says:

    I go back and forth between really liking and loathing Keira. On the one hand, ‘The Duchess’ is one of my all time forever faves and NO ONE pulls off a smokey eye/full lashes/nude lip combo-my go to-like Ms. Knightly 😀 -but on the other hand, sometimes I (used to) feel a strong Hathaway vibe coming through in her interview so idk…

    For now, just from these down to earth, funny interview exerpts alone, I’ll give her a pass 🙂

  15. Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

    The ‘thing’ that the monarchy needs is dismantling. I haven’t been forced to marry a cocky fifteen-year-old who carries around broom shrubs, so when it comes to which man or woman succeeds it’s of little consequence to me. I love the history (under a parking lot!), but I wash my hands of the present monarchy.

  16. Gemini08 says:

    I don’t live in the UK but the monarchy seems like a dinosaur to me. I mean, it’s based on the idea that these people were divinely chose by God to rule over everyone else. I think we’ve established that to be completely crap so why are they still around??