Prince William & Prince Harry were out and about in Berkshire for a polo match this weekend. It was a big deal because this is the first big outing William has made since the royal baby stuff two weeks ago. This was his first polo match as a father! And while that’s important and we’ll talk about it, I can’t really concentrate on anything else besides Prince Harry looking hot and dirty in his polo outfit, with his Robert Redford-esque blonde arm hair glistening in the sun. God, I love blonde arm hair. It’s a weird thing to love, I know. But Robert Redford was one of my first big crushes and I’m a sucker for any dude with Redford-esque arm hair. It’s HOT.
As for the polo match – it was for charity, obviously. They were raising money for Skillforce and The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, both of which count William as a patron and supporter. William left Kate and baby George at Kate’s parents’ house, but William still lost the match to Harry’s team. I’m starting to think that Harry is just a really amazing polo player – his team ALWAYS wins. William told reporters, “I was in baby mode out there, thinking about nappies, I wasn’t really in the zone.” And he joked that he needed to pick up “nappies” on his way home too. He also said it was “good to get out of the house” though. What else… oh, William was asked about George and Will said, “He likes to move around a lot, he wriggles a lot, he keeps us on our toes.” Oh, and after the match, William was presented with a baby-sized polo mallet for George. Update: so, William & Harry were on the same team and they won? Okay.
There was also a minor kerfuffle on Friday because Prince George’s birth certificate was released and now everyone knows that William and Kate describe their occupations as “Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom.” So that began another round of “Is Kate technically a princess? Should we be calling her Princess Kate?” Etc. From what I can see, the story is the same as it’s always been. If the Queen wanted Kate to have a “princess” title, Kate would have been given a princess title. Kate is the Duchess of Cambridge and that is what she should be called. But! Kate could be allowed to “take her husband’s rank” which would make her Princess William of Wales, like if Kate Middleton married William Crumpets, she could sometimes go by Mrs. William Crumpets. But that’s just a technicality – she’s not really supposed to be called Princess William. That’s why the Queen gave Kate her own title. HRH Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. From what I understand.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I saw that “princess of the UK” thing and I wondered if that was Will’s “f you” to the queen for not giving Kate that title, because wasn’t he supposedly really pissed off about that?
It’s not an f-you to the queen. She is the wife of a born prince of the UK, so she is a princess of the UK.
But she’s not Princess Catherine Elizabeth Windsor as stated on the form. It’s put down as Princess Catherine…. She is not a princess in the way where she can follow the title with her name. It’s just overall incorrect, but I doubt it was her who did it. The penmanship is messy and in the box or mother’s maiden name “middleton” is spelled in all caps.
Kate can only call herself or be referred to legally as Princess Will…if she wants to lead with Princess. With her duchess title it’s hers, so it can be followed with her first name.
This was either done as a joke with a bad sense of humor or an f u.
Sorry, but it’s **NOT** an F-you. Kate is married to a born prince of the UK, making her a princess by marriage. If her husband weren’t a peer (the Duke of Cambridge) Kate would be referred to as HRH Princess William as a courtesy to her husband. Royal protocol says that women without a princely title by birth would never be known as Princess + their given name. Even Diana, who the media like to refer to as Princess Diana, was HRH Diana, Princess of Wales officially. This is the same as Sarah Ferguson prior to her divorce. Because her husband was also a peer (Duke of York), she was referred to as Duchess of York instead of HRH Princess Andrew. All the same, she was still a princess of the UK by marriage. And, if Harry ever settles down and is made Duke of Sussex as expected, his wife would also be a princess of the UK by marriage and also referred to as Duchess Whomever.
Annabelle
I think it’s an f u. You are not inside William’s head so you can’t say for certain it’s not an f u. Anyways, her occupation is a lady who lunches. Otherwise her job is to exist with a title and be taken care of financially, by the poor.
I don’t think it’s an F-U to the Queen- maybe it’s an F-U to the people/press who incorrectly referred to his mother as Princess Diana as a misguided honor but not continuing that tradition to his wife? I don’t know.
But, I do know that on another thread a few months ago we learned (credit to poster LAK?) that the princess title is kind of meaningless in reality. The Duke/Duchess title, as an official title of the aristocracy, is actually higher than prince/princess. That’s why William has been using his Duke of Cambridge title when he has a choice.
Other than changing 1 or 2 to see what it’s like or to say “Been there, done that”, this dude has probably seen his last diaper. That’s what the help is for isn’t it? Next we’ll be hearing about the late nights and sleep deprivation.
Hahaha. Too true.
Love me some Prince Harry! Also in the 4th picture it is like seeing Diana all over again.
+1
I thought so in the 1st pic. It’s the angle of his head.
me 2 miss her.
Me too!
From what I understand, if William wasn’t created Duke of Cambridge prior to his wedding, Kate would have been called Princess William only as a courtesy to her husband. Still, as the wife of a born prince, she is technically a princess of the UK. Same as Sarah Ferguson, prior to her divorce.
Yawnsome. Hiddles was in attendance, too. It was a big ol’ meeting of unemployed people who are pretending to have jobs and we all let them.
Oh. Blimey. I must have a spiteful head on today. Sorry guys.
William is actually in the military and he does work. And Harry, as everyone knows, is active military and has served overseas in war zones. I’m not fan of the royal family in general, but saying the boys don’t work is just not accurate.
@Sixer
Yes, I saw pics of the Old Etonian there. Wonder if he chatted up his “classmate”, the future King. Did they discuss how nice it was to be…them?
My, he’s looking quite…worn isn’t he? Hasn’t one of his women/Luke introduced him to sunscreen? Poor fellow is aging too quickly. I hope he hops back into the confines of the shady theatre soon, as to slow down the process, poor guy.
@ Linda – I don’t think Hiddles was looking at his best, no!
@ Noreen – neither of those boys has ever had anything like a full-time job in the military. Ever. Even Harry, although as you say, perhaps he should get a pass, even from me, as he’s seen active service.
@sixer – Yikessss haha your comment made me laugh lol even thouugh I like hiddles it was like ‘woah intense’ haha
A prince or princess is the natural title given to someone who is a child of a direct male descendant of the monarch. Diana was a ‘princess’ because her husband was ‘prince of wales’.
Kate will become a ‘princess’ when the queen dies and william becomes ‘prince of wales’
“According to Letters Patent issued by King George V, the style of a British Princess belongs to daughters and male-line grand daughters of the Sovereign”
That was altered when George VI married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, when he was Duke of York. Nobody knew what to do as she was the first non-royal wife of a Prince in a long time, so there is official correspondence asking if she was only to have the rank of Duchess, and not be an HRH? The response was that there is no such thing as morganatic marriage, that it was settled law that a wife took the status of her husband, and so she would definitely be an HRH with the status of a Princess.
Not that any of this stuff matters, really, but she’s married to a Prince, and under our law that makes her a Princess whatever title she actually uses, just like Camilla is Princess of Wales in fact, if not in use.
I loved hearing how Will & Kate are doing. He sounds like a typical dad out for the first time. I’m sure he’s glad to get out, but you still have that twinge of guilt. I doubt Kate lets him get by without diaper changes. Glad they’re doing so well.
So, we are to believe their full time nanny staff just stands there while they pretend to be a normal couple?
These are sound bites for good pr. They’ve already hired 1 very skilled full time nanny themselves, but state her as a house keeper. The larger portion of the staff is paid for by Charles so they’re not technically fibing when they say they only have 1 staff member…. Just clever press manipulation.
Personally, I am tickled by a person who can list ‘prince’ as an occupation without irony.
Ps:- BBC confirmed that William filled out the form himself, so we can’t blame the registrer.
I knew it was William. Why didn’t he put S/R pilot and homemaker? Those are their jobs. That way Georgie would know they did more than spend the taxpayers’ money without doing much in return. Oh…
Mia, Mia, Mia!
Being a Prince is extremely hard work and time consuming. One simply can’t fit in being S/R pilots and home makers. That’s what the servants are there for.
Me too! It got me thinking about what I’d like to register my occupation as if/when I have kids. so far, I have:
Bounty Hunter
Jedi
Madame
K-pop Superstar
BAMF
Z-list Actress
Coal Miner
Elizabeth Taylor Re-enactor
Duchess of DAAAAAAYUMMMMM
I’ve placed indentured servant on mine before.
You are killing me….ROFL. 🙂
You were a kpop superstar? Omg whoo???
A simple Bitch on Wheels does me fine. BOW for texting.
They are only ordinary folks, just like everyone else, until it comes time to fill out the birth certificate.
The whole Princess of the UK made me giggle. It sounds so grand and insecure even though it is technically true. So maybe i will tell people i am a strategic domestic analyst since i stay home and tell my husband what to do, lol. I think they did not want little Georgy to look at his birth documents and feel underwhelmed. But geez, there is honor in knowing that your mom was a charity patron/housewife and your dad was an army pilot. I would be okay with those labels. Then again, she could have also put mystery shopper.
I bet Harry is going to be the most awesome uncle on the planet and i bet little Georgy will influence Harry’s criteria when it comes to choosing his own wife. jmo.
“strategic domestic analyst” YES!
Lol and royal roast burner, occasionally!
I might change mine to Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Noodles Academy.
Or Prince of Whales!
How embarrassing that for occupation you put prince and princess. Might as well as put NONE or unemployed.
Really? There are Princes and Princesses who do a lot of work (Prince Philip, Charles, Anne etc) just because William and Kate refuse to pull their fingers out and live up to the responsibilities the office holds it doesn’t mean everybody else does.
I mean royalty no longer rule the country or control armies so putting Princess or Princess is the equivalent of putting Socialite. It’s not really a job it’s a lifestyle. Made better sense to put pilot and homemaker like someone else said.
I will never cease to be amazed at how enamoured the US are with our royalty.
Ha! That makes two of us. And I’m American. I don’t get it at all. A passing interest/curiosity….yeah, I could see that. But most Americans act like we’re British when it comes to the royal family. I find them terribly boring—not just the UK royal family, but all of them everywhere. Are there any interesting royals anywhere?? I don’t think so.
I’m an American, and I don’t find the Royals that interesting. I like gossip, but don’t understand why anyone would fawn over royals, celebrities, etc…
I’m an American and while I’m not super-interested in the Royal family (I don’t follow them other than on this site), I do find them interesting. I guess it just seems old-fashioned and romantic, somehow. It’s fun to talk about King and Queens and Princes and Princesses because it is different from our culture. That’s my take at least.
I get that, thanks for sharing it does make sense. We do romanticise things here too and the papers have gone really crazy with every mundane detail of the couple. I guess we justify the gossiping and interest with notions of the royals being part of our heritage etc.
Side note – I was talking to someone this week about how different the media coverage of the royals is now. Kate and William are treated as celebs – the magaine cover about Kate’s baby weight was truly shocking and uncomfortable to me. I have studied English history growing up and been presented with images of royals as untouchable god-like figures with total power. Now it is as if we want to make these figures as normal and approachable as possible and it is such a contrast. Kate is unfortunately treated with as much class and respect by the media as the Kartrashians who truly deserve such treatment. Obviously when I’ve been growing up the culture has been different to say the Tudors but I still think figures like Diana and Kate and their relationship with the media (Diana in particular) have triggered a huge change.
I agree. I think Diana was the big shift in the way the public perceives the royals and the way the media reacts to them and presents them.
I just like to read the snark. Otherwise, they’re pretty dull.
The U.S. media is enamored (the Today Show should be called The Royal Celebrity Watch show) and there is a certain segment of the population that is interested, including some people on this site.
But by and large the vast majority of the US population does not give two hoots about British royals. Most probably can’t even name more than one or two.
I’m American and I think the British Royal Family is a joke. I think the Brits are bigger jokes because they still pay taxes to support the dolts…and they haven’t thrown the precious very non-English quite-German royal family out. I have no idea who decides which snippets to put on the Today Show but if viewers don’t watch that rubbish then it doesn’t matter much. In other words, most Americans don’t care unless there is some scandal involved and then it is great fun the follow the BRF. So bring it on!
We pay to support them but.. and I’m guessing this.. but the money brought in from tourists coming to see the palace etc would eclipse that amount. It’s not like our glorious sunshine attracts people (though we are having an amazing summer – or more to the point an actual summer season! 🙂 )
Also they do a lot bring attention to worthy causes in my opinion.
I am for the royals completely I just get bewildered in the interest in them attenting sports games and mentioning nappies.
I respect what you are saying, Laura. But when I travel to GB I stay in Scotland only. I saw BP the first year it opened and was honestly appalled at the garishness.
Most Americans do not even consider the royals when planning a trip to GB. The likelihood of seeing a prince or princess is very slight especially since they tend to avoid commoners,
So, don’t want to burst your bubble…
Laura – I don’t get the tourism thing as a benefit at all.
Here’s 2010’s Top 10 tourist sites in the UK:
http://www.visitbritainshop.com/world/articles-and-features/top-10-english-tourist-attractions.html
2012:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21739486
The Museums, art galleries, Churches and heritage sites, and ‘natural wonders’ like the Stonehenge get the bulk of tourism. In all the other publications of tourist sites I’ve read, Buckingham Palace is not even rated in the Top 20-30. Kensington Palace is not high on the list, either.
France got rid of their royals more than 100 years ago and Versailles is still a massive tourist attraction. Same for German castles and Russian Palaces.
I really doubt that anyone who goes to see Buckingham Palace does so with the idea of running into the Queen and being invited for tea. Most people go for the history and artifacts, not the current royal family.
I respect what everyone is saying. It’s difficult to put a figure on how the royals benefit the economy isnt it because they are not always the only reason people would vist (thank god!)
I heard that the merchandise relating to the wedding alone brought in around 50m to the economy and when it comes to travel, flights and visits to London for that event there would be a revenue of over 200m for that event. I guess it’s easier to look at a single event than the overall picture. A lot of people do come to see the palace.
Having said that obviously they cost a huge amount too!
The wedding did cause an uptick in tourist revenue generated by the royals. But those events are rare. By and large tourists don’t come to the UK to see anything related to current royals.
Now the royals do promote UK charities and businesses, and I think that’s their real value.
The idea that the Royals are why foreigners visit the UK is the biggest myth by Royalists. People visit to see the old castles, historical sites, etc. Just like people visit the US, France, Japan, etc. No one plans on going to see the royal family in person since that almost never happens.
The royals are high profile so when they take an interest in a charity it gets noticed. This is a wonderful thing. It killed me to hear a charity cancelled a fundraising event because of lack of interest. If Kate would have attached a written note with her dull donation or showed up for an hour or even 30 minutes there I wonder if the charity wouldn’t have suffered like it did…
As an American that lived briefly in the UK it’s not that we’re interested…. It’s that we can’t avoid it! It covers the tabloids and daily news shows. One way or another you will hear about them. Then you ask yourself… Why all the fuss? Then you find out Kate was just a spoiled socialite that stalked a prince until no one was left and he needed a bride. All in all I wouldn’t care, but I keep seeing people saying how normal and hard working she is… It’s like they’re telling me that 2+2=100. You have to correct them!
And I hated having 1 pound of my own earning there go to that crazy lifestyle.
“God, I love blonde arm hair.” Um OK. That’s not something you hear every day.
i think there was no other way to call their “occupation”. Kate is unemployed and William has to quit his pilot job now, so he and Kate will be “real” full-time working royals from now on. Occupation Prince/Princess of the UK, because they represent the monarchy/ Queen.
What i find interesting, i always thought Kate is HRH Catherine, but she is just Catherine, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. Checked the Palace homepage where they have her titles and styles. The HRH stands only before her title and not before her name.
Did William finally quit the RAF? I thought he was determined to stay until they changed the locks on him.
Sadly, I doubt he will become a full time royal now. Something will come along so that he doesn’t have to take on these responsibilities for his country. It’s a true shame he feels this is a burden, but won’t abdicate.
I wish people would just grasp the fact that Kate IS a Princess of the UK (Just like Princess Michael of Kent who takes the title from her husband) but in the UK sons of the King / Queen are given royal titles (Duke of…) when they come of age / Marry which rank above just royal princes (EG Prince Michael of kent) unless it is the Prince of Wales which is the title reserved for the Heir and a title actually relating to a principality (Wales) not just a curtesy title.
Also Princess Anne’s children would never have had Royal titles since they are of the female line, The Queen would have given her husband a noble title which would have given Zara and Peter the title Viscount and Lady which are the titles used by Prince Edwards children although they are technically and by law a Prince and Princess of the UK.
Not being snarky I just want people to know lol
That gets brought up with pretty much every single Kate article.
We grasp it. It’s just that in terms of “job duties,” something seems lacking.
So, if this were an annual job review & evaluation (cause she clearly has the job of Princess of the UK), with 4 being the highest, she’d get a 4 for producing a male heir first time out (but that credit should really go to William); she’d probably get between a 2.5 & a 3 for “projection & relatability” simply because not all women (particularly career women) relate to her or even find her relevant; and a 2 for execution of secondary & tertiary duties, i.e, charitu & other types of duties & responsibilities.
As a “public employee” albeit the royal herder of unicorns or Princess of the Realm, she will be evaluated and scrutinized. Sometimes not favorably. That’s what her fans and avid supporters refuse to grasp.
Looks as if my entire comments weren’t posted.
Kate would probably get a 3 or a 4 for shopping which has been euphemistcally (sp) referted to as “bringing attention to UK designers.” And she’d receive a 1 for attendance because she seems to vacation more than she works (or perhaps she works privately to advance the concerns of her charities (?)). No snark hers. That could just be perception leading reality. If not, then that she be considered a growth area for her going forward and setting next year’s goals.
Whether or not she is a herder of unicorns or a Princess of the Realm, she is a “public employee” to a certain extent and in that context her job duties and responsibilities will be subject to ongoing evaluation as well as scrutinized. Her fans and supporters don’t seem to grasp that.
I don’t mean those that comment (justifiably) on the little amount of work Kate does I’m talking to those who think because she has the title Duchess of Cambridge she isn’t also a Princess 🙂
@Dena,
I really like what you wrote. I do love satire. Brilliant!
But i have read many many times over that Ann refused the prince/princess stylings for her children when the Queen offered them. Isn’t this the case?so now her children have to curtsey to people they otherwise they would not have had to. Weird.
The Queen offered to give Anne’s husband a (noble) title as was done with Princess Margaret’s husband the Earl of Snowdon which would have given Zara and Philip the titles Viscount and Lady, not Royal titles Prince & Princess.
Even if they were a Prince / Princess they would still have to curtsy to higher up Royals just like Kate has to curtsy to the Queen / Camilla etc it all gets complicated because of the rule the Queen made to Keep Anne happy but generally it’s like a pecking order, the lower you are the more people you have to curtsy too lol.
This “Anne refused”-stuff is just a myth.
Styles and titles come from the father. Anne may be the Queen´s daughter, but the father of her children had no titles. Means there are no titles for his children. The mother is “irrelevant”.
Quick question: Now that – by act of parliament – first born daughters will be heirs, does that change the entire protocol for the female line? i.e. When Wills & Kate have a daughter (who, like Princess Anne, will not be the heir), and that daughter has children, will those children now get titles?
The succession concept is agreed and The Queen has signed but it is still making it’s way through the realms and parliament, so it isn’t law yet.
Further, it ONLY applies to succession line, doesn’t touch upon inheritance or peerage titles beyond POW.
Unfortunately, it never occurred to anyone to change the inheritance laws so women still can’t inherit.
It would be awesome if it were changed and applied retrospectively to the current generation, peers and commoners alike. In terms of the royal family, Beatrice and Louise would inherit Duchesses of York and *Edinburgh [respectively] on their respective fathers’ deaths.
*If Edward receives DoE as it is widely assumed he will.
LAK – Thanks for that explanation, but I’m still puzzled about this:
“Unfortunately, it never occurred to anyone to change the inheritance laws so women still can’t inherit.”
Does this just refer to peerage titles? I mean, surely woman can inherit property/fortunes from their families, no?
Bettyrose – It’s both complicated and yet very simple. The Peerage law is tied into the inheritance law.
On the one hand, we have very strong gender and discrimination laws that trump this law. On the other, even though it is not enforced for the majority of the population, this law still stands.
For daughters of landed gentry, they routinely have to give way to male heirs or take the estate executors to court to regain their inheritance. The most recent case involves one Baron Braybrooke whose 7 daughters will lose the family estate to a very distant male cousin they’ve never met. It’s prompted a more vigorous campaign to change/remove this antique law.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/People/article1198158.ece
The succession law was a chance to review and change the peerage/inheritance laws as well, but it was overlooked.
There are glaring examples of this law being enforced, even on this board eg the Spencers – entire estate will go to Louis, 4th child and male heir of Charles. If the law didn’t exist, it would be simple enough to divide the estate between his 7 children.
LAK – and, again, thanks for the detailed explanation:
“7 daughters will lose the family estate to a very distant male cousin they’ve never met.”
Just, AACK. How bizarre would it be for your own life to mirror a Jane Austen novel published 200 years ago? They didn’t even have steam trains back then.
@LAK “the Spencers – entire estate will go to Louis, 4th child and male heir of Charles. If the law didn’t exist, it would be simple enough to divide the estate between his 7 children.” – But then there would not BE an estate very long. It is primogeniture which has allowed the British aristocracy to hand down intact at least part of their estates to their heirs. Whether this is a good thing for the world or the country or humanity or fairness is not the point. It is a good thing for THEM and has worked.
Justme – The point i was making wasn’t about tradition even though people assume it’s practise is indeed merely tradition. The fact is that it IS law as Baron Braybrooke’s 7 daughters are finding out.
The Spencers are an internationally known example i used to illustrate the point further.
If [big IF], Charles Spencer had no sons, the estate wouldn’t automatically be inherited by his eldest daughter inkeeping with the tradition of entailing estate to one child or even his daughters collectively which is a fairer way to inherit regardless of who you are.
The other point about the law preventing the estate being divided up, wasn’t to argue the merits of it. There are many laws that have existed for centuries that we do not use any longer even though their beneficiaries profited greatly from these laws.
@LAK – if the estates were broken up then there would be no way to preserve those wonderful country houses, castles etc. – at least not in private hands. So the rule keeping the inheritance complete still makes sense in this world. All that would be left are those in the hands of the National Trust (which is not taking on too many new ones these days – it is very expensive to maintain these buildings.)
Much would be lost – and I think that might affect tourism. Certainly lots of people want to visit great country estates when they visit the UK – I always do and I must admit those still in private hands have an air about them less museum-like than the ones owned by Trusts etc.
Some people of course would like to see all this privilege swept away as unfair. They may get their wish. That will be up to the British people not me.
Damn, William’s body is BANGIN’, ain’t it?
Seriously! I am not ashamed to say I find his body banging and has a sexy body people might object with that! But he is damn attractive to me
I just don’t like his horsey-teeth
Yeah, he’s got the Windsor horse teeth. Look that whole family on Charles’ side–aunts, cousins, all of them. All with that long nose and those teeth. Diana’s side is very pretty/handsome/normal. Harry didn’t get the Windsor teeth, bless his heart.
Harry’s wife will a be a princess, though, right? In what way won’t Harry’s wife have it better?
She will have the same type as Kate, Princess Henry of Wales and then a duchessy title.
Harry could marry a blood princess from another country like Monaco, Luxembourg, Greece, etc. AFAIK she would keep her title given at birth and could receive another upon marriage, like Princess Caroline of Monaco.
AFAIK, the only blood princesses in the UK that are Harry’s age are Bea and Eugenie, and that would be very weird.
LOL, no no I meant the woman he marries will *become* a princess (though I guess that might not be so). I wasn’t advocating for a return to first cousin nuptials. I still bet that it’ll be a blast being Harry’s wife, whoever the lucky girl may be.
Bettyrose, whoever marries Harry could go by Princess Harry but probably won’t. Harry will probably become a duke at some point and the woman he marries will be a duchess, and use that title.
Think Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson: He was known as Prince Andrew and she by her title, Duchess of York – I never heard her styled Princess Andrew.
Think Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex. She is never styled “Princess Edward”.
I had heard there were suspicions that Prince Charles wasn’t Prince Harry’s biological son, but that first picture of him should put any of those rumors to rest. He’s the spit of his father.
*bio father. Oops
I think Harry looks just like Prince Phillip
I think he looks very much like Charles and Prince Phillip as he’s gotten older. He’s got red hair from his mom’s side of the family. I think it’s just unfortunate that he DOES actually look a bit like James Hewitt (who is also a redhead), with whom his mother had a passionate affair. But it’s simply a cruel coincidence that he has Hewitt’s coloring. He’s definitely Charles’ kid. He’s Charles all in the eyes and eyebrows.
I feel like a bitch saying this, but I think Prince Hot Ginge is losing his looks.
This is one of the few places where people are ‘real’ when it comes to William and kate. The media is way too afraid to say anything bad about her because they don’t want to be seen as doing the same as they did with Lady Di.
Waity is a bad role model, waiting, being lazy and living off others. She has always had a meal ticket. She is always photographed shopping, at some ‘party’ or on one of her rare royal engagements. It’s not a good example to anyone but the media may never have the guts to say anything and most people swallow everything they read in the papers and see on TV.