Duchess Kate won’t be allowed to bring her mom on the Australian tour next year

wenn20774145

Here are some additional photos of Duchess Kate at the SportsAid event last Friday – we covered some of the first pics we had on Friday too. I still think the wedges are a bad choice for this event, but whatever. I’m not calling for the abolition of the monarchy because of Kate’s consistently bad footwear choices. Anyway, there are some interesting pieces of Duchess Kate news in the lead up to Prince George’s christening AND Will and Kate’s Australian tour (which won’t happen until next year, so the joke’s on all of us). Some highlights:

*Will and Kate still haven’t released the names of George’s godparents. I don’t understand why this is a thing that needs to be kept secret at all – I mean, they get to choose three sets (or more) of godparents for Prince George, so why all the secrecy? So, the UK press is trying to guess who’s on the list. So far, the guesses are Hugh van Cutsem (Junior) and Fergus Boyd (two of William’s closest friends) and Emilia d’Erlanger, “an interior designer who met Kate when they were pupils at Marlborough College, and later introduced her to the princes’ circle of friends.” Maybe Thomas van Straubenzee and Sam Waley-Cohen (both friends of William), maybe Peter Phillips and maybe Zara Phillips-Tindall. Does anyone else think it’s sort of weird that Kate barely has any girlfriends?

*Apparently (and try not to laugh at this), the Queen totally shut down Duchess Kate’s idea of taking her mom to Australia and New Zealand for next year’s tour. Kate and William are insisting on bringing Prince George with them (which makes total sense and I have no shade for that), but Kate wanted to bring her mom along too to help look after George but “the idea did not get the blessing of royal officials.” Hahahaha. Nice try, Carole Middleton-Kardashian.

*Also: it looks like hiring a 70-something retiree as a nanny was kind of a bad idea. Nanny Jessie Webb, who looked after William when he was a boy and who now looks after Prince George, might be too old to make the Australia trip. Apparently, Jessie does not want to fly all that way just to look after the baby. Don’t worry. I’m sure there are other nannies that will suddenly “appear” which we’ll find out have been working for Kate and Will all along.

*Kate has already scheduled Princess Diana’s old hairdresser Joe Baily to travel with them to Australia. Wow, at least the royal curls are going to be okay!

wenn20774135

wenn20774136

wenn20774143

wenn20774148

wenn20774132

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

157 Responses to “Duchess Kate won’t be allowed to bring her mom on the Australian tour next year”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Amelia says:

    Completely off-topic; is Kate a smoker? Her skin’s not looking too hot in these pictures. Then again she might just be knackered looking after a baby.

    • m says:

      Yea she is. That actually explains why her skin looked so good when she was pregnant and why she looks so haggered now. Shes looked terrible since giving birth and I figured there was more to it than sleep deprivation.

    • TG says:

      Remember the photo that was published of Kate when she was engaged and you could see a pack of cigarettes in her purse? On my iPhone so can’t find the link but I bet you can Google it. I also remember Lainey saying her sources said she was a smoker but you will never see it. So who knows if she still smokes. I thought she was thin from being so athletic but maybe she wants a little help like much of Hollywood.

      • Anna says:

        I think that picture was wayyyyy before the engagement. Like 2007 or something.

      • Thinker says:

        As of last fall she was still smoking. When the naked Kate photos were published, she was smoking in a few of them.

        I’d bet she stopped or at least cut back while pregnant, but has probably started up again. It’s a hard habit to quit. .

    • blue marie says:

      Didn’t she quit? I dunno, is her hair real? I do like it when it’s wavy like that and am a bit jealous if it is real.

      I still hate her wedges.

      • Rachel says:

        Here I was wondering why she needs a stylist to travel with her, when her hair never looks that great. Don’t get me wrong. She has nice hair, but her hairstyles aren’t anything you can’t do yourself in ten minutes with a one inch curling iron.

        And I have no shade to cast on her for wanting her mom to travel with her to Australia. She is a new mom. Having nannies is all well and good, but there’s no substitute for your mom. No one can allay a new mom’s fears like her mother.

      • blue marie says:

        I like the length and fullness of her hair more than anything. And with her hair like this at least she doesn’t have the big sausage curls.

      • Audrey says:

        It’s likely real, for now

        The postpartum hair loss will be hitting soon though. And it’s terrible, I cried over it lol. I was like legit balding on the front hairline at 4 months post baby even my hair is naturally super thick

        I’m sure she’ll be able to cover it up with extensions or something though

      • Liz says:

        No – she didn’t quit. Remember her nudie photos from September-ish in France? She was smoking in them.

      • Spooks says:

        I think she would look great with a bob or a pixie. How cool would it be to have a princess with a pixie.
        I don’t mind her smoking at all, who cares.

      • Sachi says:

        Her hair right now? That is her real hair. It’s always been thin. Similar to Pippa’s.

        Her hair from 2011-early 2012 was not all hers. Lots of hair extensions.

        2011:
        http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Kate+Middleton/Duke+Duchess+Cambridge+Visit+Centrepoint/idORMjC5Nvv
        http://files.glow.ca/Images/Articles/kmiddleton02_gl_16mar12_rex_b.jpg

        2007:
        http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/cm/cosmopolitanuk/images/bK/8.jpg

        ^ This is close to how her hair is right now.

      • bluhare says:

        Never mind. Someone below clarified for me. 🙂

      • LAK says:

        Yep, this is her own hair.

      • Maria says:

        Rachel, I too had my mom helping me 24/7. I would be an idiot to decline the offer, but this is Kate we are taking about, not an ordinary individual. People already feel that the Middletons have infiltrated the Royal family and are running the show (though Kate and Will) taking her on a ROYAL tour will just add more fuel to the fire. A fire that the Royal Offices apparently want extinguished.

      • Suze says:

        @Maria – exactly. Nice as it is to have your mom help out, this isn’t a typical mother/daughter situation.

      • Florc says:

        Rachel
        I’m wondering if Kate’s wish for her mother to travel was shut down more because Carole would have required travel and security expenses she would not cover personally. Even if she did and was near Kate and George her presence would be 1 more body for the body guards to watch.
        And of course how it looks bad to some that Kate can’t seem to be without her mother for more than a few days. Yes, she’s a new mom and having her mother is comforting, but not for someone in her position on a tour representing her country. Especially when she has plenty of hired help and can skype or call if she misses her mother for a few days away.

      • Sally says:

        Audrey, I have had 4 babies, and I never lost my luxurious hair after giving birth. And I know dozens of women who have given birth and never lost any hair afterwards.

    • Cazzee says:

      Yes. Her Mom smokes, too – hence the leathery complexion – don’t know about the sister.

      • LadySlippers says:

        As far as I know, William smokes too. So that can’t help anything.

      • Lady D says:

        William smokes? I didn’t know either of them did. Is Harry also a smoker?

      • LadySlippers says:

        Yes, Harry smokes. Charles is not happy both his sons smoke. On top of that, Diana would have been livid about it too.

        Which makes their smoking kinda funny in my eyes… They both started as teens — probably as a rebellious/independent thing and got hooked. I know Harry’s tried to quit a few times. Not sure about William.

      • Suze says:

        It was my impression that both Charles and Diana were pretty impassioned anti-smokers – which was less usual in the early eighties than now. So if the boys smoke, I’m sure it isn’t because of family influence.

      • Roselia says:

        If Kate smokes (and there’s plenty of evidence of it), then Will smokes as well. I don’t believe he as a non-smoker would put up with that habit and I believe he calls the shots in the relationship.

    • ShazBot says:

      Botox. Seeing her post-baby has me totally convinced she used botox. Her pregnancy fullness/glow meant we didn’t notice the change, but now, post-baby while she breastfeeds, her skin is showing the strain of her lifestyle (smoking, drinking, tanning, and stressfully waiting for 10 years to see if your gamble of throwing your life away pays off).

    • Violet says:

      Yep, she’s a smoker. Which is why she already looks like she’s in her 40s, despite the botox. She’d probably look her age if she gained ten pounds, because being skinny tends to age most women once they’re over 30.

      Kate also needs to lay off getting her teeth whitened so aggressively, or they’ll start glowing in the dark.

  2. SnarkySnarkers says:

    Geesh, that is one budget looking outfit she has on and way too much “royal” blue. I think it would have been fine if she just wore plain denim skinnies and different shoes.

  3. Miss_Magpie says:

    Joh Bailey is an Australian hairdresser, he took care of Diana’s hair on one of her tours there.

    He may be traveling with them WHiLE in Australia, but he won’t be traveling to Australia with them, he is already there. 😉

  4. Apples says:

    She looks very pretty, but, very tired in the close up shots. I really believe she is the one getting up with Prince George in the middle of the night, instead of the nanny.

    • Florc says:

      Her skin and eyes have always looked like that. It’s a clear family trait seen in her sister and mother. Some pictures published are photoshopped to clear up her wrinkles and pox marks. This is just how she always has looked. She could be losing sleep, but it hasn’t been enough to make her look worse than years of sun and smoking did to her skin.

      • LAK says:

        Florc – many people haven’t seen Kate’s pics prior to the engagement or have only seen one or two carefully chosen by the media (and photoshopped).

        Before she started with the botox and a permanently lacquered face, she has a naturally tired face. There are plenty of pics of her over the years with a tired face.

        I think since she’s not botoxing or using it only sparingly, the tired face is coming through irrespective of the make up.

  5. aims says:

    the shoes are ugly. Nice try on trying to have a family trip. positive: She looks amazing after having a baby a few months ago.

  6. kixendawn says:

    Girl needs to add some SQUAT! to her workouts…. That behind is flat as a pancake! Lol

    • Rachel says:

      There is no cure for chronic pancake ass. Trust me, I know. I squat, lunge, run hills, lift weights. And still flat as a board.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Yup. Lol. I got a pancake back there too. Surgery might help but I think that’s a bit extreme ;-).

        But accepting your pancake is really the best option…. (And cheapest too!)

        ETA: Her backside isn’t *that* bad though…

      • Justme says:

        Never understood what is wrong with a small flat behind. I’d love to have had one. Pants fit much better!

    • Dani2 says:

      Yup, Kate’s one of the longback sisters 😉 I don’t think it’s a problem at all though, she’s got a great, lean bod with legs that go on for days. Nobody’s perfect.

    • ShazBot says:

      It’s breastfeeding!! It has obliterated my butt too. It’s so depressing. I can’t wait to get it back after. She did have a nice butt pre-baby…I remember being shocked by it in the topless photos.

  7. Ncboudicca says:

    I wish she’d cut about 6″ off her hair. That whole outfit sucks, honestly. It’s like these were the only clean items in her closet so she just threw then on.

    Yes I’m grouchy today.

    • Rachel says:

      Layers. I want to see layers.

    • Tara says:

      yes to both the haircut and the layers. i think a deep chestnut shade with a glosser – a side part with a smoothed deep bang tucked behind the ear. that with a slightly bumped crown and tousled layers might be nice, sort of like Karen from Will and Grace. jMO. also think she should switch to a matte lip stain in fig or terracotta for everyday and ditch the lipstick/gloss.
      and an espresso or java mascara would be so much better than the black.

    • Jaded says:

      I’m grouchy too (menopause flashes and insomnia *SIGH*). So Imma let it rip on Kate:

      1. Stop with the schoolgirl hair already, you’re over 30 for chrissake! Get a grown-up hair style, something shorter with layers. And stop fiddling with it every time you’re in public!

      2. Stop with the wedges! We get it, you have a long torso and without some height in your shoes your legs look short. Go with a nice short boot with some chunky heels instead.

      3. And for the love of God stop with the skin-tight jeggings!!! We can practically count your pubic hairs! It’s a trashy, teenage look and is NOT suitable to someone of your position.

      There, I feel better now.

  8. HH says:

    Carole Middleton-Kardashian! OMG! I died, hahahahaha!

    Those wedges are awful, but they will never be more ill-fitting than when she wore them with A SUIT during the Olympics. I wanted to throw something at the TV.

    • TG says:

      I know, the PMK comparison is spot on. I expect Baby Nori to somehow end up at the same schools as Prince George. But I bet Kate has higher ambitions for her little prince. She didn’t Waitying for a decade only to see he their end up back in the trash heap. Okay do the baby isn’t trash but the parents are and that is all that matters in aristocratic circles.

  9. Naomi says:

    Winter is coming the royal wedges will soon be gone.

  10. Beckymaesyd says:

    Gawd, the sooner Australia becomes a republic the better! What a vacuous waste of money when we have bush fires destroying homes all around Sydney right now…actually, just a vacuous waste of money at anytime!! Can’t stand the lot of them…

    • Meerkat says:

      Absolutely! And my skin crawls to think how Tony Abbott is going to suck up to them.

    • RobN says:

      Lots of people don’t like the Royals, but I can’t see how fires right now have a lot to do with a Royal trip six months from now.

      • bluhare says:

        It doesn’t have anything to do with it in one sense; however, if a lot of money is being spent on this trip I can understand some people feeling it better spent on helping some people out.

  11. eliza says:

    Dear Lord, that old mother of hers acts as if she is a royal now.

    • Tara says:

      perhaps but it is also possible that Carol has a particular effect on/bond with the baby that soothes or delights him. in that case the parents are just being indulgent and loving. but it does look bad for the tax payers to foot the bill. but yes I would want my mom to go also.

      • Tania says:

        I agree as well. I would want my mother by my side if I had to go away for an extended trip. Better your mother than some stranger. Or will Carole Middleton not be allowed over or to bond with the baby because she isn’t royalty? Having had a child, I cannot stress how important your own mother becomes in helping with the baby.

      • Tara says:

        indeed. the bond can be hard to describe at times. with both my niece and nephew my mom had this magical touch with them that no one else had – including their parents. besides, the tax payers have to shell out more if Carol doesn’t go. carol = travel + accomodations. a nanny = travel + accomodations + salary.

      • bluhare says:

        Tara, I do remember when George was at Carole’s house after he was born that an article stated Carole had a knack with him. That was in the middle of all the “roars like a lion” stories.

        If that’s true, I understand why Kate would want to take her along; however, most people don’t get to take Granny with them when they work and apparently Kate is no exception.

      • Maria says:

        Those feelings could also be fostered if the parents spent time with him. I see excuse that they want to take her with them other than Kate being too dense and a spoiled little girl who needs mummy near her.

      • Tara says:

        bluhare
        i share this view and actually, if the Mids were to pay their own way everyone would just assume the contrary and yell about it so better Carol stays behind. besides, Kate has got to learn to get by.
        maria
        you are entitled to your Kate assessment but my observation about grandmothers is that they often form uniquely powerful bonds with their grandchildren that is much different (not stronger) than that formed between parents and so therefore can’t really be replicated by spending more time with said parents.

    • Bubbles says:

      Carole seems great to me. I don’t get why people dislike her. If she was a Lady no one would mind her being so present.

      • Faye says:

        If she was a lady (or Lady), she wouldn’t be pimping out her daughters so obviously and trying to push herself and her family into the limelight as much.

      • Maria says:

        Faye, that is right on point. +1000

      • Tara says:

        faye
        i dont think your statement makes much sense as far as rebuttals go because classism and snobbery would automatically open doors for a “Lady” that Carol currently finds being gently but firmly closed in her face – public opinion wise.

  12. Barbara says:

    My comment…I find nothing wrong in the way she looks or what she wears. So glad no one can comment on what I wear sometimes…lol

    • LadySlippers says:

      I comment. :-/

      But I understand what you’re saying. Everyone has different tastes and you can’t please everyone.

    • Barhey says:

      I actually like this outfit. Not obsessively love, but I think it’s pretty cute. I agree with you Barbara I’d be terrified if people were commenting on what I wear!

    • MoonTheLoon says:

      It’s not something I would ever wear, but I think it’s mostly appropriate for the occasion. I mean, we’d be kvetching if she showed up in a ballgown and stilettos to play volleyball.

  13. Not says:

    If she (GRANNY Middleton) pays for it herself, i do not object..

  14. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I supported Kate when she wanted to be with her mother after the baby was born. I’m very close to my mother and understood that. But I think it’s time to let go a little. Why should her mother have a free trip (I’m assuming) to Australia? She’s not an employee.

    • Marigold says:

      Well, if their own nanny isn’t going, I don’t see the problem. If I were traveling extensively with my baby, I would love to have my mother on hand to watch him/her.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I didn’t express myself very well. I was trying to say that it doesn’t seem fair for the taxpayers to pay for her mother to have a free trip. Since her mother doesn’t work for her, there would probably be occasions when her mother would want to do fun things or attend certain events, so they would have to bring a back-up nanny and pay for that, too. Although now that I’m wading deeper into this, I realize I really dont know what I’m talking about as far as who pays for what. Lol, um, never mind…

  15. aang says:

    If the Queen had the best interest of the baby in mind she would have no problem with the grandmother there to help out. Why hire an unrelated stranger when a willing relative is available? In food insecure areas infants who live in close proximity to a maternal grandmother have better outcomes. Obviously George is not in that situation but Grannies are the best care givers.

    • eliza says:

      You think Granny Middleston was just going to go and babysit? Lol.

    • Suze says:

      If Carole wants to pay her way to provide her grandson with the superior care only a granny can, then I see no issue with it.

      • LNG says:

        I’m guessing that having Carole go along would be cheaper than having a nanny along. While they might pay for the trip (hotels, travel, etc), I don’t imagine Carole is getting paid a salary on top of the expenses. A nanny would be.

        If I had a new baby and had to go on a work trip I would take my mum in a second if that was an option! Heck, I might take her even without a baby – I like my ma!

  16. Jacqueline says:

    Lol-ing at the Carole Middleton-Kardashian bullet point!
    And, wow, Kate is already so thin again! Maybe Kim Kardashian should’ve done whatever she’s up to.

    • Montréalise says:

      Well, to be fair, Kate and Kim do have completely different body types. Kim could diet and exercise like a maniac and still never be as slim as Kate.

  17. Algernon says:

    I’m not going to shade her for booking a hairstylist (and likely at least one dresser) for a royal tour. We expect the Duchess to look a certain way, and if she didn’t look that way, we would all say she was horrible at her (made up) job. I would be curious to know if Wills takes his valet on tours like this?

    I will, however, shade her for trying to get Mummy a ticket. I get that they’re trying to keep Kate from going off the deep end a la Diana, but she’s a grown-ass woman who ought to be able to go on a business trip (surrounded by handlers and aides) without her mom tagging along.

    I wonder if all this isn’t just Wills shoving his preference for the Middletons in his family’s face. Honestly, I judge him a little there. Kate aside, the Middletons are TACKY.

    • LadySlippers says:

      I think William is behind A LOT of their more controversial decisions but he slips by unnoticed and she gets the heat.

      • Suze says:

        I’ve come around to that idea, too. I think Kate would work like a demon and make three appearances a day if Will told her it had to be done.

        My personal theory (based on zero facts whatsoever, just my fevered brain) is that both Will and Charles are planning a serious downsizing of the royal family once the Queen dies, and that they are completely on the same page about who is in and out. Charles concedes the Middletons to Will, and in return Will distances himself rom his aunts and uncles.

    • Tara says:

      will seems very spoiled to me.

  18. vava says:

    Nice try Carole Middleton. LOL. The Cambridges need to grow up and act like adults. They are going to be traveling on business and not on a family vacation.

  19. Woolie says:

    Kate doesn’t do any work – Kate leaves the baby with nannies all the time. Kate is obsessed with her hair – Kate is representing her country and should do something with her hair. Kate is close to her family – Kate is a snob who shut her family out. Kate has no girlfriends – Kate is an embarrassment with all her girlfriends who are just using her for her position. And y’all get the idea. I’ve never commented before and probably won’t again, but I enjoy Celebitchy except for these weirdly obsessive Kate posts. I am truly sorry you will never be a pretty, pretty princess Kaiser. You sound like a really fun, smart person (even though I have a way more adventurous fashion sense!), but these posts are not “smart escapism.” I enjoy reading about the British royals so I don’t want to not read these posts (this is the only gossip blog I read), but the tone is just ridiculous, especially the “wife’s job is to spend hubby’s money” crap from a Kate and William post awhile back. I can’t say I’m really a fan of any of them, but their lives are so bizarre and there’s so much fascinating history behind them that I enjoy the carnival sideshow aspect of it all. Maybe step back on taking it all so personally, delve into the various protocol issues for example? Can Carole Middleton not travel as a nanny for her grandson because she’s actually halfway between a nanny and the royal family and they don’t have a SOP for that? The real info/dirt in other words! Finally, since I’m actually commenting, I think Kate is working every second of the day as she is under such intense global scrutiny, living with staff and required to notify them every time she wants to step out the door. I think it’s a hideous lifestyle that would make me ill and alcoholic, but that’s what she wanted and she’ll be working for that lifestyle for the rest of her life.

    • Suze says:

      The Duchess Kate posts draw a lot of people to this site and generate a lot of conversation. They work!

      I like Kaiser’s Kate posts and don’t find them any more obsessive than her Jennifer Aniston posts. Or her GOOP posts. Or …. Fill in the blank.

      She isn’t going to please everyone here. Personally, I skip Aniston stories around these parts because I’m a fan and I realize Kaiser/CB/bed head aren’t going to change their approach for me.

      • Harriet says:

        For me this place is addictive but also infuriating. I try to avoid reading the Gisele posts (big fan!) but still end up
        there, then sit there rolling my eyes at both the post and the commentary which is usually unflattering. (I’m a big girl I can deal with people disagreeing with me) I personally feel that the posts here aren’t neutral at all. I find myself defending celebrities I don’t even like because I feel the post is misleading. Just my opinion.

    • LadySlippers says:

      William & Kate draw a lot of controversy on any site. They seem to also draw the worst out in people. As does Harry. So love ’em or hate ’em, people find them very polarizing. And probably always will.

      (FYI: Calling her ‘Duchess Kate’ is technically incorrect.)

      • Suze says:

        Of course it is! Princess Diana was also technically incorrect.

        I’m not going to type out Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge every time I have a thought about her, though.

        If people seriously want consistently positive, instructional commentary on the Cambridge clan and other royals, check out the Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor. Lots of talk about protocol there an d interesting it is.

        My point was that I come to CB for the snark and go other places for insight on royal protocol.

      • Tara says:

        suze
        do you have that link? i want to check it out 🙂

      • LadySlippers says:

        Even, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is incorrect. You use the first name appendage to distinguish between two people that share the same title, and the dowager and the divorcee are the ones to get the appendage, not the current title holder.

        However, Suze, the reason I added my comment wasn’t directed at you. It was more directed at Kaiser since it’s the gossip sites that most people glean their information from. And thus, bad information keeps getting repeated. My sincere apologies if you thought I was directing that towards you.

        And yes, the Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor is one of my favourite sites. 🙂 🙂 🙂 Plus a whole lot of other sites (MadHattery now defunct but her new one, A Tiara a Day is also a gem).

      • LadySlippers says:

        Tara,

        Just google the blog and it’ll come up. Enjoy 🙂

      • Tara says:

        lady Slippers
        *curtseys*

      • LadySlippers says:

        *blushes*

        No need to curtsey. I am a HUGE Royal & history buff and there are a ton of lovely Royal and/or historical blogs out there to enjoy (and a ton more to steer clear of).

        Truly, enjoy ROoSS. MadHattery is still up and Ella Kay is SO snarky — her posts will have you in stitches. I mean that (I miss MH a bunch).

      • bluhare says:

        Thanks for the blog ideas, guys. I’m checking them out.

      • Suze says:

        No apologies necessary, Lady Slippers. Titles are tricky.

        I use Duchess Kate as a quick identifier, just like Max and Wax and Vickan. No disrespect intended to anyone.

      • bluhare says:

        Thank you for the sartorial splendor blog tip! I’ve been on there for the last half hour drooling over wedding gowns and tiaras. Tiara Thursday! Love it!

    • Sachi says:

      There is The Royal Forums where Kate is praised to the high heavens and you can get yelled at for not calling her “Catherine” or “The Duchess of Cambridge” in all of your comments, because according to the people on that website, it is disrespectful to her title to call her Kate.

      One word of criticism about their beloved Kate and you’ll get driven away if not banned altogether. Such a lovely place if you’re a drooling sycophant who only wish to read positive news about royals and praise them for every little thing they do.

      Thank goodness Celebitchy isn’t that kind of website.

      Also, how hilariously hypocritical is it to tell one of the people who run this website “I’m truly sorry you’ll never be a pretty, pretty princess”? And all because she’s not posting the kind of info that you want to read?

      • LadySlippers says:

        Sachi,

        I agree, there are several places where either the commentary about a particular Royal (I’m going beyond the BRF here) is either one extreme or the opposite extreme. It’s frustrating to say the least.

      • Ayre says:

        Sachi, I agree with Woolie, and think you may have misunderstood her point.

        As for myself, it’s not that I don’t want to read ANY criticism of KM. I just don’t particularly like to read criticism that promotes a type of woman-on-woman-judgement I find toxic.

      • Sachi says:

        LadySlippers,

        It was not for you. 🙂

        It’s for Woolie’s comment about the part where she tells Kaiser about not being a pretty princess and tells Kaiser to stop taking all of this royal poo-poo so personally.

        Frankly, Celebitchy is one of the most lenient, “free” websites where you can express your opinion and start a discussion without being told off by the administrator to conform to the website or get out.

        Most royal websites are extremely prohibitive and don’t allow both viewpoints to be heard. It’s either you dislike royals or you love them.

        The beauty of CB is that it is very neutral. Yes, Kaiser can be sarcastic on Will-Kate posts sometimes, but she is a writer and part of it is gauging the nature of the commentary that these posts get. I don’t see why people who don’t like that sort of setting on a website get offended when their own wants are not being met.

        If you like Kate, fine. If you don’t, it should be fine too.

        @Ayre – I’m sorry but I disagree.

        Do you also think this way about posts on Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift, etc? Because those posts often get such vicious comments that are rarely seen on Kate posts.

        This website is a gossip place. It’s not always gonna be sunshine and rainbows. But it’s not all judgment, either. There are a lot of intelligent, thoughtful posters on here who have meaningful discussions about a lot of issues.

        What I don’t get is why the Kate posts always draw the ire of those who are personally offended about ‘woman-on-woman judgment’ when other female celebs get called worse on this very same website, yet not a lot of people call each other out. The double standards are quite jarring.

        Kim Kardashian has been called a c*mbucket and other slurs on here before. Taylor Swift has been called a tramp. But nobody gets offended. If anything, it’s “hear, hear!” type of comments that follow such vitriolic words.

        I often see a comment saying that Kim Kardashian “deserves” to be called names because she puts herself out there. Again, nobody is offended by this type of commentary because the status quo is to dislike the Kardashians.

        But if it’s someone you like that is being written about, then suddenly the comments promote woman vs woman judgment, comments are too angry, people are jealous, etc.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Thank you Sachi for clarifying!!! *breaths sigh of relief*

        And I know ALL too well about the nastiness on other forums and I dislike it intensely. And it’s not limited to forums or websites either. Tumblr has its fair share of ‘self-elected policers’ too :-(. I don’t think Royals are either all bad or all good. I DO enjoy an intelligent discussion without it dissolving into vitriolic hate which it often does. Ugh!!!!

        I also dislike the constant female bashing. People don’t get it’s just ‘new and modern’ misogyny & sexism. I may not like some one but that doesn’t give me a right to be mean. And conversely, you can have a negative opinion about someone w/o it marinating in nastiness. It makes you wonder where civility has gone….

        Overall, great thought provoking comments Sachi.

        Out of curiosity, Sachi, what does your name mean? Is it Hindu or Japanese? 🙂

      • Ayre says:

        Sachi,

        Thanks for your reply.

        To your first point:

        I absolutely would be offended if I read those slurs on a Taylor Swift or Kim Kardashian post. What would make you think that I wouldn’t? I’ve never commented on those threads because I don’t read them. For me, at least, there is no double standard. I disapprove of toxic critical patterns wherever they are found.

        To your second point:

        Yes, this is a gossip site. I do not expect sunshine and rainbows. And I LOVE a good bit of gossip. But I think it’s fair to argue that a distinction should be made when the implicit judgements found in gossip veer towards a kind of 1950s standard of female behavior.

        Thirdly, I don’t like Kate Middleton. My issue is not meant as a defense of her. I think it’s a travesty that she hasn’t used her position to champion a cause. I really, really don’t like her for that. And on the lighter side, she can’t dress. Like she really, really is a bad dresser (with the exception of the exquisitely tailored bespoke AMcQ outfits).

        I’m happy to agree to disagree. I don’t comment here much anyway. I have just been a little tired of the KM posts lately, and have felt that they pander to the lowest-common-denominator of snark about women.

      • bluhare says:

        Amen, Sachi! I tried posting on one of those threads a while back. Never again. I don’t even read them now.

      • Florc says:

        Sachi
        Well said!
        Though I do see posters here and there get upset when these people are called names there’s no such outrage over it as there is on a Kate thread. People here need to be aware that people aren’t always the same as the image they wish to project and opinions will differ. That’s not cause to attack them for disagreeing. I very much enjoyed your post. Thanks!

    • Ktx says:

      Woolie, I agree with you to a degree. I’ve come to realize that this site is great for seeing both sides of the coin- you get the adoring fans and the harsh critics, and as I’ve also come to enjoy the snark, I don’t mind (or give too much credence to) either viewpoint. What annoys me is when certain commenters (none of whom I’ve seen on this particular post so far today) take on a know-it-all, condescending tone and basically admonish anyone who might have a positive comment about Kate. The same over-zealous people, in putting others in their place, like to use lines like “It is well documented that….” And “All the evidence shows that….” as if they were proving a case, meanwhile harshly criticizing others for refusing to “acknowledge the truth” or some such nonsense. So patronizing. I love reading comments about how fabulous Kate’s hair is (or isn’t) or how lazy she is or how gracious she is– I like reading all of it EXCEPT the condescending, bossy posts by those who seem on a mission to prove that Kate is a waste of space.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Ktx,

        I’m not fond of condescending know-it-alls period/full stop. ESPECIALLY when they don’t know sh!t about sh!t!!! Lol. On tumblr I found that both extremes of Royal love and Royal hate to be had. Both are (in my not so humble opinion 😉 ) completely off base and sometimes out of whack. Lol

      • Tara says:

        if it were possible to fall in love with a comment then your comment and I would be on our way to an Elvis drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas as we speak.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Tara,

        Is my comment drunk and dressed appropriately for such a grand meeting with the great Elvis ?????? 😉

        But hehe! It’s the truth tho! Lol

      • Harriet says:

        @Ktx I can’t agree more. On a previous Kate post I was bombarded for defending myself as a British citizen who pays tax- which apparently all goes to Kate and her wardrobe (never mind all the other things tax goes towards!!!)
        That bit I probably wouldn’t have even cared about had it not been for the need for some commenters to become patronising and condescending towards me. I particularly love the need to link to obscure websites, as one commenter said to me “for my edification”- but I have realised they are usually very eager to make their point to you and the more obstinate you are on your opinion the more flustered and desperate they become. Which is kind of entertaining. The cracks start to show too, as the argument because more and more narrow minded

      • Tara says:

        ladySlippers
        21 year old whiskey Bushmills) and white velvet jeggings may or may not be involved *looks away, whistles*

      • Florc says:

        Harriet
        I usually remember your posts and you more often post inaccurate statements. Not simply that you are a tax payer and do not mind paying your share. If it were that simple no one would comment.
        And many of us here are typing on our phones… Spell check is not always so easy. Not every critic of Kate is the most informed and that goes for her fans too. When Kate does well I do not post negative comments, but praises instead. I do not blindly support her. I think a fan of hers is often written off as a sycophant for not being open minded to all the negatives. That’s where the debate seems to falter because one side will not admit her failures. Both sides can be at fault. I think LAK is the ultimate in fair commenting here. If she agrees she will back it up with well stated facts.

      • Harriet says:

        @Florc I remember your posts too mainly because we don’t usually agree! (Honestly I have no issue with you for that reason) I genuinely don’t attempt to post inaccurate things on purpose I go with what I know and usually someone like LAK will go and correct me, and I will concede to it. I have never attempted to act like the most informed because they are plenty of know-it-alls here that know more. I just like and defending my position. I have written a few research papers in my time but I don’t go that in depth before posting something here- usually that happens on a whim. Also have you seen some of the sources sometimes? But now I am dying of curiosity- when was I blatantly pushing something wholly inaccurate? (No really now I need to known! It will drive me crazy!)

      • Tara says:

        flork
        forgive me for weighing in but your declaration about Lack exemplifies the whole problem. there are no real “facts” no matter how well stated or heavily repeated/agreed upon. or rather I should say very few facts. few are willing to admit that their strongly held opinions are a mixture of an avalanche of propaganda, media biases, (some) facts, creative interpretation, sometimes great supposition, a great memory and a very personal, individualized interior landscape. together these components give none of us the right to wield the “truth” like a spiked mace. for every link supporting one view there are a dozen pushing other angles.

        i imagine the heads of these media outlets flip a coin to decide who will be pro-Kate or anti-Kate, etc. charles and Di taught us that the truth usually lies between the horror story and the fairy tale.

        but yes, you do seem to base your Kate opinions on the matters in question and not just hate on her for the sake of doing it.

        like I always say – relax, ladies, it is just gossip.

      • Harriet says:

        Thanks Tara. I know it’s just gossip which is why sometimes it beggars belief how invested people here become and therefore personal and vitriolic.

    • bluhare says:

      LOL. You think Kate posts get heated? Go back and read anything about Rob Whatsisname and Kristin Stewart. Or Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. Or LeAnn Rimes.

      These posts are a lot more civil.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Bluhare,

        Perhaps not here on CB but Kate discussions, on almost any other forum, get way more than just heated. They get REALLY NASTY. Same with almost all female Royals, past or present. Very sad. 🙁

      • bluhare says:

        Thought you meant here, ladyslippers. I agree with you though. The love/hate forums are not for the faint of heart. I’m not hatey enough for the hater forums (I once got bodyslammed for saying I liked her shoes!) and not lovey enough for the sugar blogs. Although I do post on one and so far so good. 🙂

      • LadySlippers says:

        Bluhare,

        I’m glad we are on the same page now! 🙂

        In general, I avoid blogs/forums/websites/posts (basically anything) that are in either extreme. Even here on CB. Once people ‘settle’ into an extreme mode of thinking, all rational thoughts seem to be left behind. And then people miss your point (even if it might be valid) and prefer to listen to themselves. Unless it’s Shakespeare (or another literary great) I tend to steer clear of soliloquies and/or soap boxes. 😉

        I’m super excited you found a non-extremist blog to comment on. That’s always exciting! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Suze says:

      @ayre – I appreciate your well thought-out comments. I don’t agree that the duchess is the sole recipient of unfair judgement on this site, though. Kate Upton, Jennifer Aniston, and everyone’s favorite target, Kim Kardashian, come in for some heavy criticism, too. Outside of a few posters who are very vocal, I find most of the Kate criticism mild.

      • Ayre says:

        Thanks Suze! And just to be clear, my issue is mostly with the ARTICLES published here, not generally the comment threads. I learn a lot from the comment threads, even when I raise an eyebrow or two at the thinly veiled vitriol. But it’s the articles themselves that stoke the fire. Again just an opinion, and we know what they say about opinions.

        It seems like maybe a lot of the people who comment here also read about KM on other websites, which I don’t. So I see these articles as a little too anti-woman, while to others they are mild as milk. I think that may be the source of our differing perspectives. But I definitely don’t think this site is neutral on the subject of KM. I think there is some seriously talented passive aggression and back handed compliments at play ! 🙂 And I grew up with sisters who play a high level of the passive aggressive game, so I know my stuff.

        Interesting discussion nonetheless. Thanks all-around.

      • Suze says:

        We are definitely critical of Kate here. My own perspective is skewed because I’ve seen some royal sites where people hate the woman without reserve, so I find Kaiser’s take mild and often amusing.

        My own perspective shifts constantly due in no small part to the excellent commentary here.

  20. SuSu says:

    pic2 shows her whole beauty

  21. tifzlan says:

    I like those shoes. I would wear them! And i kinda want them.

  22. Fue McCormick says:

    Boy is she drab … drab, drab, drab …

  23. Maggie says:

    I find her style rather conservative. She can wear whatever she wants considering her figure is pretty much perfect.

  24. Montréalise says:

    I don’t think that Carole Middleton should join Will and Kate on the Australian tour because it could lead to some really awkward situations. I know a lot of you think she should go along to take care of the baby, but she’s not his nanny. Will and Kate will be attending a lot of receptions and other official functions, and what is Carole going to do? If she were to attend the functions along with Will and Kate, she would come in for a lot of criticism from people who don’t think she belongs there and would see her as exploiting her relationship to the royals. On the other hand, if she were to spend the whole time out of sight, just taking care of little George – as a real nanny would do – I’m not sure that Will and Kate would be pleased.

    • anne_000 says:

      I think you’re right. I think that was the worry for the Firm too. I wouldn’t put it past Carole in trying to get some media attention. It would seem like she’s trying to incorporate the Middleton family more into the Royal family P.R.

    • Suze says:

      You expressed this so well. It would be awkward and it would set a bad precedent. If she is replacing the paid help, does get treated the same as the help or is she treated like grandma? (Does she travel in the back of the plane and stay in the type of rooms the help stays in?)

      Would Sophie now get to bring her aunt or dad along on her official trips because they know best how to help her with her kids? Maybe Bea and Eug should begin to travel with the Queen now that she elderly – just to help her out?

      On the MIddleton side, will Carol go on family vacations with Pippa and James once they have kids – replacing, say, their au pair – because grandma is always the best caregiver?

      Plus, regardless of whether Carole was there or not, there will be nannies along for the ride on Kate and William’s trips. Nannie are always around – it’s a fact of royal life. I’m guessing there would be exactly zero cost savings by taking Granny Carol along.

  25. Gossipfun says:

    I thought that Carol besides Kate, also has 2 other children (granted they are adults), a husband and a business to run. She seems to be an appendage to Kate, Will and George.
    What happens to Party Pieces?.

    • bluhare says:

      My guess is that they’ve got someone to run the day to day activities.

    • Green Girl says:

      I’d imagine they have well-equipped staff who can take care of the day-to-day stuff. I would also bet she will be available by cell/email/Skype, etc., so she won’t be completely away from the business.

      I really don’t think it’s a great idea if Carole comes with, though. Will she be with them if the entire family makes an appearance at a charity function, even if she is just taking care of the baby?

  26. Maggie says:

    Who better to care for George than his own Grandmother? I would have loved to have had a Mother to look after my children. At least she is emotionally involved with her own grandson. I doubt she would be at any of the formalities.

    • angelique says:

      Oh, I think Ma Midd would be at EVERY formality, banquet, gala, etc.
      Her two daughters have no careers, no observable skills and a strong dependence upon their mother, and both are beginning their fourth decade of life!!
      I wouldn’t give Carole too much time with George.
      After all, England doesn’t need another co-dependent, whiny, spoilt, petulant, cry-baby prince.

  27. Kelly says:

    These people are useless. Seriously.

  28. Lisa says:

    I seriously wonder if Kate is suffering some long term effects from that childhood head injury. Something is just not right with her.

    • Tara says:

      what happened?

      • Florc says:

        There was that “scar” we all saw in her temple. It was in a statement because many thought it was a hair extension. Funny how that got a palace statement. They only said it was a scar from a childhood procedure and never again mentioned it as the scar seemed to vanish.

      • Tara says:

        thanks Flork. former classmates have said Kate had a goofy, infectious sense og humor i wonder if she had some serious injury and if that made her more cautious/clingy? it would explain her family’s overprotection also. just speculating.

  29. jackie says:

    The Queen is back and is still ruling and making judgement calls !

  30. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    Okay without reading any of the comments, I’m going to say this–Kate’s parents have money, right? And they’re not bound by an employer, so feasibly they could plan to travel WITH their daughter and son in law, and pay for all their shit if they really wanted to?

  31. Maria says:

    I know I’m in the minority, but I like the wedges >.>

  32. susan says:

    Waity waste of space, is that how a seniot royal,future queen consort goes around dressing herself!????? Look at princess charlene, waity pay her a visit, you are an EMBARRASSMENT no wonder u follow ur husband around or your mum, no one wants to be around you!!!

  33. Roselia says:

    While in most cases it makes sense to have a grandmother travel as the nanny, in this case I think that the Queen is right. It would just be weird to have the Middletons along on a royal tour – it would look like Carole Middleton IS on tour rather there in the capacity to be nanny.