Duchess Kate wears a green Hobbs coat to St. Patrick’s Day event: lovely?


In 2012 and 2013, Duchess Kate repeated the same green coatdress for the same St. Patrick’s Day event. I thought the repeat last year was such a boring choice – we know that Kate is a champion shopper, and it just felt like theater, like “I’m so thrifty, I’m going to wear the exact same coatdress to the exact same event, one year later, so people won’t talk about how much I shop.” Some of you disagreed, and that’s fine. Everybody has strong opinions about Kate. But there’s good news this morning! Kate found a different green coatdress for this year’s St. Patrick’s Day event with the Irish Guards. She wore a Hobbs Persephone coat. Yay!

Not only is the coat something new and never-before-seen (thank God), but she’s also wearing a new hat. I had to do a double-take on the hat because I worried it was a repeat, but I don’t believe it is. Millinery by Gina Ford – I think she might have the same hat in a few different colors. And the brooch! The brooch is Cartier, and it’s part of the royal jewelry collection. It was first worn by Queen Alexandra in 1901, according to Vanity Fair. As for the look as a whole… it’s nice. I like that the greens aren’t perfectly coordinated, the coat is pretty (and militaristic too, a nice node to the Irish Guards), and the look is solid. My one complaint? Her security blanket hair is down and she keeps fussing with it.

In other Will and Kate news, The Mirror reported over the weekend that the British taxpayers are about to get hit with another bill from Will and Kate’s Kensington Palace renovation. Apparently, the whole reno cost the taxpayers an additional £1million, on top the £1million-plus we already knew about. A source told The Mirror:

“The young royals are extremely popular but when people up and down the country are struggling to make ends meet, this is not going to go down very well. The Palace is mindful that they are under the spotlight in these difficult times, and there is a fine line between the expected lifestyle of a royal couple and the perception of excessive and lavish spending.”

A source close to the Palace stressed that interior furnishings and decorating costs are paid for privately and not by the taxpayer. The holidays to the Maldives and Mustique were also paid for by the royals themselves.

Costs of the Palace apartment renovations were included and showed that £600,000 had been spent on replacing the heating, hot water systems and wiring, and the removal of asbestos. Another £400,000 had gone on renewing the roof, and £100,000 on professional fees.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said in a statement on Friday: “The figure of £1.1million spent on Apartment 1A announced in the accounts for 2012/13 was for essential building work, which would have had to take place regardless of who occupied Apartment 1A. Any costs incurred in 2013/14 will be published in the normal way in the Royal Household Annual Accounts in June.”

[From The Mirror]

I agree that these were costs that were going to be incurred regardless of who moved into that apartment. I think the bulk of the criticism is simply because the British taxpayers don’t feel like the tit-for-tat of the young royals is paying off in the larger sense. If Kate and William worked more, it would certainly help to explain why the taxpayers had to fund the bloated renovation.

Also – a lot of people asked me to cover this, so here you go. Kate and Will have built in a one-night mini-break into their grand three-week Australian and New Zealand tour. Again, Prince George is not invited! Kate and William have already booked a one-night stay at the Matakauri Lodge in New Zealand for $12,000 (a night). The whole lodge (including four suites and six villas) has been booked “for privacy.” William and Kate will get their one-night vacation after a grueling trip to a vineyard for a wine-tasting (poor sausages) and some white-water rafting (ghastly).




Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

244 Responses to “Duchess Kate wears a green Hobbs coat to St. Patrick’s Day event: lovely?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lydia says:


    • ArtHistorian says:

      I generally hate Kate’s hat choices. They are often fussy or just plain odd, and she always wears them with her hair down, which should only be done with sun hats. Fail!

  2. blue marie says:

    And here I was going to say she looked nice until I read the last paragraph, now I’m just annoyed.

    • megs283 says:

      Same here…$12,000 a night?!? Stars…they’re just like us…

      • My2Pence says:

        Again, it seems that the cost for one room would be $12,000 a night. If the entire place has been rented out “for privacy” as has been reported in multiple places, it is $12,000 multiplied by the number of rooms in the entire place. And the owners are vacating their own space and what, staying in one of the other rooms in the complex?

        If the owners have offered this free (or a severely cut rate) – basically to get the PR – then it is a questionable move to have William and Kate Middleton stay there. Questions of influence peddling, favors for favors, etc.

      • bluhare says:

        I saw somewhere they’re getting a huge discount. Or the New Zealand taxpayers are; don’t’ know who pays for accommodations on a tour like this.

      • LAK says:

        When the royals are on tour, the host country pays for their costs.

        So in NZ, their tax payers are coughing this up, and likewise in Australia.

      • Lady D says:

        It’s the fact that they are going to be 500 miles away from their baby in a foreign country. I could never do that. It would be hard enough being that far away, in your own country, nevermind another land.

      • mayamae says:

        Fergie left Beatrice behind for more than a month when the baby was about six weeks old.

      • Ronia says:

        Well, Kate’s grandmother or great-grandmother fed her babies with bread soaked in water, like most British did at the time, and placed bets who would survive this diet. Does it mean that Kate should be encouraged to continue this “wonderful” tradition? This argument in order to defend someone always amazes me. The fact that someone esle made a mistake should be enough to justify the next one doing the same mistake? I disagree.

      • LAK says:

        Fergie didn’t leave Beatrice behind for a month. She was gone for days. She hadn’t seen her own husband for months.

        The press crucified her for that decision and continues to do so even now when the fact is that marriage didn’t get off the ground due to Andrew’s frequent absences that lasted months on end due to his naval career.

      • bluhare says:

        Bet on whose baby would survive? That’s disgusting.

      • mayamae says:

        LAK, this is a quote from People magazine, November 20, 1989.

        “Ironically, Fergie’s fall from grace began at the very point when she should have been a figure of public love and sympathy—with the August 1988 birth of Bea. Only six weeks later the duchess was off to Australia with husband Andrew, leaving her infant daughter to the care of nannies for six weeks. ‘After nine months of looking enormous and big and your poor husband has had to look at you like that’, she told Barbara Walters recently, ‘it was his turn. Just to make sure that he knew that he was very important’. But despite the brave front, the aftershock of that trip clearly still troubles her. Reflecting on the Walters interview in New York, she admitted, ‘People might be a bit tired of my putting my husband first’.”

      • LAK says:

        Mayamea: i can’t tell you how i know, but she didn’t leave the baby for a month or 6wks no matter what that article says.

        also, a lot of reporting on Fergie around that time and since was to make her deliberately look bad and so many things were exaggerated.

      • My2Pence says:

        Beatrice was born August 8, 1988. In late September and the early part of October 1988 the Duke and Duchess of York were on an official tour of Australia. I doubt this was voluntary, as it looks like a lot of royals were sent that year for the bicentennial. HM, Prince Philip, Charles and Diana, Anne, and Andrew and Sarah all seem to have visited in 1988.

        I think this was the first time they’d seen each other since Beatrice’s birth. Andrew seems to have spent a week or two of his leave doing an official tour. After the tour, I think Sarah traveled around to different ports and saw him briefly at each stop. They weren’t together for X number of weeks uninterrupted is my point.

        Andrew wasn’t working something like SAR where he came home at night; he was deployed on a ship and gone for months at a time. I remember reading that due to Andrew’s naval service (and love of golfing when he wasn’t on a ship), he and Sarah saw each other on average 40 days a year while they were married. Not approving or disapproving her leaving a baby behind for however long it was, merely remembering that there was more to the story.

        Just as there has been a great whitewashing campaign to erase 10 years of Kate Middleton’s history pre-engagement, a lot of things said about Sarah Ferguson were written to make her look bad in comparison to Diana.

      • Ronia says:

        bluhare, i apologize, I was being sarcastic. But on the other hand, since the babies’ mortality rate was frightening and the practices used in feeding the babies were unbeliavably insane, the truth is placing a bet would have been just as safe as expecitng one’s baby to survive. Pure luck and only those who managed to digest the sticky dough without getting internally clogged, survived. Of course, many of the mothers died too. Britain had some horrific mortality rates for too long, IMO. As known traditionalists, the families followed whatever the “wise” women in the village/county would say regardless that their knowledge would be about 30 years old and never updated.

      • mayamae says:

        LAK, that sounds so mysterious.

      • bluhare says:

        Phew, Ronia! Sometimes I read things much too literally I’m afraid.

        mayamae: Our very own LAK is indeed a Woman of Mystery.

    • aims says:

      Me too, and I’m not even British. That’s absurd.

  3. itsetsyou says:

    She looks amazing! Obviously very happy and content in her marriage and her choices!

    • Eyeroll says:

      I really don’t understand this comment – in a previous thread I read a comment of yours that questioned many of the (negative) observations other people had made of Kate with the reasoning that it is impossible for us to ascertain her mental state/state of her marriage etc etc just from looking at her…

      And yet with one glance at her usual manic grin you have come to what you deem the ‘obvious’ conclusion – that she is happy and content with her marriage and choices…

      • Misulinka says:

        was it not sarcasm? It made me laugh…

      • Eyeroll says:

        Sadly, I think not…

      • Angelic 21 says:

        Oh don’t botter. When it comes to William and Kate contradictions works very well in order to worship and defend them. They are independent, modern royals who do what they want and set there own rules and traditions but when it comes to their lack of work they are completely under Queen and horrible, jealous Charles’s control who don’t want them to work at all. Just like you can’t say anything about their marriage by looking at pictures of him ignoring her in public or going away on a vacation with an ex but you can conclude they are so happy and in love by seeing some photos.

      • Cersei says:

        Yeah, it is kinda funny. But, based on the hate and speculation comment yesterday, I don’t think it’s sarcasm.

  4. Lee says:

    I don’t know about the different greens – I find it kind of irritating. Perhaps a bit of pattern on either the coat or the hat would work better for me. However, when I read further down about the poor babies and their $12,000 night off on their trip to Australia and New Zealand, well, I see red, and I don’t give a crap about her green outfit anymore. And I’m not even British! Gahh! The optics are so bad here. Are they dumb?

    • whipmyhair says:

      The different greens as annoy me as well!

    • MsGoblin says:

      Me, too!

    • Mel M says:

      I’m really beginning to think that either they are those people, and I have several in my family, that are book smart but not common sense smart or they are really just that dense. Another possibility is that they just don’t care and put little effort or thought inot anything they do outside of planning luxurious vacations. That hem makes me think she thinks the public is too dumb to notice or doesn’t care if they do.

    • Ronia says:

      These particular shades of green don’t work together. One has yellow undertones, the other – blue. If she had chosen two pieces in these shades but with some common pattern to unite them, it would have looked better. Or if there was an accessory to match the hat exactly.

    • Eleonor says:

      To me if you’re wearing two pieces of the same color they have to be identical, otherwise is better to opt for something tottally different.

    • My2Pence says:

      Agree with the irritating. She’s wearing four different shades of green plus the shamrocks. Hat, coat, shoes, and shiny green patterned belt. I cannot tell if the clutch is green suede to try to go with the shoes or if it is black. She still cannot act properly or tie her hair out of everyone’s way, but she seems to have understood the directive to wear green today. NOT a style icon.

  5. Emelu says:

    I’m sorry, but after living in England for several years, and working in nonprofit, I don’t see the hoopla. The royal family and properties bring in more tax money and tourist money than you could imagine. And yes, that extra quid lines your pockets, not theirs. That being said, the Queen does work hard for the commonwealth. The younger royals, to be fair, not so much. Let the bashing begin!

    • Tatjana says:

      I never met anyone who wanted to visit Britain because of the royals. Anyone.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Well, that might not be the reason they go to GB, but after they’re there, they might go see the Crown Jewels or something and pay admission? I’m not sure how it all pans out, because I’m sure those things are expensive to run. I wouldn’t have any problem with it if Kate and William would just use their position to do good more than twice a year. That’s what bothers me – the wasted opportunity.

      • Algernon says:

        I don’t want to go for the royals, per se, but I am dying to go and visit historic sites like Windsor Castle, and art collections like the National Gallery (largely stocked with royal owned art, right?), and Petworth. I don’t care about seeing a “real” royal (celebrities of every type are always disappointing in real life), but I would like to see something like the changing of the guards, which is like living history to me.

      • Sharon Lea says:

        Actually, I am an American who visited England, Scotland and Wales while in college because I was a huge fan of Diana’s and wanted to see the castles etc.

      • Meerkat says:

        I agree! I’ve lived and worked all over the world and never once has anyone given this as a reason for visiting the UK. What does anyone who says that think is going to happen – they’re going to run into Brenda walking the corgis and she’s going to invite them back for a cuppa?
        Monarchists always trot this out but a look at the Republic site gives a different story.

      • bluhare says:

        The only royals I go to Britain for are the dead ones. The Tudors and now the Plantagenets.

      • Lady D says:

        England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Gorgeous, gorgeous countries, and I want to see them all. I want to breathe the air of Scotland, I want to walk on the moors. I want to see Stonehenge and ancient castles. I want to see the cliffs of Dover and I want to hear English with 50 different accents. High tea in downtown London? Yes please. I want to walk where Shakespeare walked and where the Beatles took their iconic walk. I’d like to see where the Vikings landed and follow the route Romans took when they invaded. I would spend days talking to someone who’s family has been in Wales forever. Just imagine what you could learn. I’d like a proper English fry-up in a pub on a Saturday morning. I’d eat treacle tart and fish and chips wrapped in newspapers. Going to avoid bangers and mash, don’t really like either. The only royal I would be interested in seeing, or have a lot of respect for is the Queen. Gotta respect that work ethic and her sense of duty. (plus, her regal air is pretty kick-ass) But first before anything, the crown jewels.

      • Hazel says:

        Mmm, well, I went to grad school in England & I did go down to London just to see the queen (Trooping the Colour). But no, I did not choose school in England just to be closer to the royals.

    • Ronia says:

      We’ve never seen the royals on our many trips to Britain not only to England. We’ve seen the castles and the galleries and collections but these will still be there with or without the royals. Just like we go to Versailles or Tuillerie, or any of the castles in the French countryside and we don’t really need the former owners to enjoy the sight.

    • Memme says:

      I’m an American who studied at an international school in London for two years. The school organizes trips each term mainly for the one-term study abroad students. The main three repeated every term are the ones to Bath, Stonehenge and Buckingham Palace. Guess which one gets the most signups? A lot of people are interested in visiting landmarks related to the Royals.

      I agree, I don’t think anyone goes to London because of the RF, but believe me, they are an attraction. Especially to those of us who don’t have a RF in our native lands; they are kind of a fascinating human study. I think you underestimate how much revenue they bring to the country through tourism.

  6. eliza says:

    Why does she always have that paralyzed looking hand?

    • MsGoblin says:

      Right? Maybe she should stick a pen in it…. a la Bob Doyle.

    • carol says:

      showing off the ring I guess?

    • Okie says:

      Good point. I was distracted by the maniacal grin and laughing (saw more pics on Lainey). What’s so funny about a saluting officer?

      • Thelma says:

        Why is there so much vitriol directed at Kate for the simplest of things? What is manic about her smile? She looks lovely and appropriate and the coat is not too short — an earlier problem. She’s generally steered clear of scandal, has not had an affair, has not been caught undercover bribing Middle Easten sheiks ( all activities that other royal princesses have been caught in). Too much mean spiritedness targeted at her. It’s a good thing she doesn’t know the people on this site exist and wouldn’t care even if she did. She’s enjoying her life and creating her family.

      • lily says:

        I thought that maybe it was the cute dog that she was smiling at but you made me go back and take another look at the officer. Now I kind of admire her restraint.

  7. Tulip Garden says:

    If I wore that much green, I would like like Gumby. That said, she actually pulls it off, imo.

  8. melmel says:

    12k? for that price there better a royal heir in the works. I don`t get how anyone can call these two thrifty when they pay that kind of money for one night. Wish the papers will call it like it is, two privilaged people who have money to pay for what they want and then parse off the rest of the bills to Prince Charles and the tax payers

  9. Tatjana says:

    She lools great. I still like her much more than Cresaida, if only they would start behaving more in touch with reality.

    And I like her hair down. I wear mine down all the time. It’s not a security blankett, it’s just that I look better when it’s down. No big deal.

    • harlemchic says:

      agreed. she looks good…the coat is fantastic! I have the same exact coat ( Got it last September in Hobbs) and I get complimented all the time…love, love the coat.

  10. MonicaQ says:

    I’ve always wanted an Irish wolf hound, they are so sweet. I just wished they they lived a tad longer :(

    Oh, the post was about the lady. Right. Um, the jacket is cute, the hat looks like bread, and the broach looks like she chest bumped Swamp Thing after a try. That’s all I got.

    • Ncboudicca says:

      The dog is the star of these photos, for sure

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Um, I think the broach is under the swamp thing, at the top. Looks like a gold shamrock. I think the swamp thing is real shamrocks or some traditional corsage for the occasion. The dog is wearing one, too.

      • MonicaQ says:

        Yeah, it’s the shamrocks they hand out but they were trying not to cover up the broach so much that it just looks haphazardly thrown on as a “do I have–well alright.”

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I knew you knew that. I was just teasing you.

      • hmmm says:

        Brooch should have been pinned on the collar to make the shamrock corsage work. Another fail for the witless one. And she won’t learn from it, either.

        I do love the tumble of shamrocks! And the dog is fabulous! It’s a very lovely ceremony.

      • bluhare says:

        LOL at swamp thing, GoodNames. You could hardly see the brooch under it!

    • bluhare says:

      Totally agree about the dog! I already said so up top, but I think he’s gorgeous.

  11. Amelia says:

    It seems clear here that the queen is finally interfering with her outfit choices…..below the knee?? How professional waity.

    • Cricket says:

      The coat is poorly hemmed on the right side, reflected in a few photos. Someone noted the coat was several inches longer as shown on Hobbs website. The hat doesn’t match the coat and is a repeat from This year Christmas walk. The dress under the coat is extremely high and I think she was planting her clutch to help keep the coat down and not reveal the dress.

      Anyone else notice their lack of tans? What did they do for a week in a location that is all beach and nothing else?

      • Mel M says:

        I noticed the lack of tans right off. Wondering if they got a whiff of the hoopla and decided it wouldn’t be best to show up back home looking all tanned. Although I think I see a little color in Wills face but that may still be from Spain right? Slathered on the SPF 50.

      • bluhare says:

        If they got back on Thursday, they’ve faded. When I come back from Hawaii, I look tan for about three days then I blend back into the woodwork.

      • Cecilia says:

        I think they spent all their time indoors making a ‘spare.’ They will be announcing the pregnancy in 3 – 2 – 1…

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I thought the same thing!
        *looks away, blushes*

    • Lucky Charm says:

      Her coat may be modest and below-the-knee, but her skirt certainly isn’t! Look at the first picture and you can see how short it is. Baby steps, I guess, haha!

      • hmmm says:

        And look at the battalion photos- she doesn’t bother to close the bottom of her coat. She’s showing off those legs practically mid thigh. Same when she’s striding along.

      • Original N says:

        @hmmm – I noticed this as well. I cannot imagine having a protocol that dictates work attire and completely dismissing it … At this point, it just smacks of arrogance and disrespect, let alone unprofessionalism.

  12. RedWeatherTiger says:

    All her clothes have begun to look exactly the same to me. SO boring. And though I know the “leather belt on the outside of the wool coat” thing is stylish, I am sick of it on her.

    But as always, I LOOOOOOVE the wolfhound!

  13. Inconceivable! says:

    She must be thoroughly exhausted after this St. Patrick’s Day event. ;) I guess it’s vacation time and she probably needs done downtime before her next official engagement. (But she looks nice…)

    • kels says:

      Exhaustion? Perhaps, but I would chalk it up to malnutrition. Once she goes back on solid food she won’t seem so “exhausted” and will be able to undertake her royal responsibilities with energy and gusto!

  14. My2Pence says:

    @Kaiser. From other blogs: Hat is a repeat, shoes (once again too high, against protocol) are new and seem to be $666 in today’s money conversion (not commenting on that number!). I don’t understand purchasing a new green coat that is so similar to the other one. That doesn’t seem thrifty or frugal, but wasteful. She’s had it hemmed shorter (and badly hemmed at that) than the original.

    In related news, the papers aren’t going easy on them:

    Kate and Prince William return fresh-faced from romantic break for St Patrick’s Day Parade

    THE Duke and Duchess of Cambridge returned to rare public duties today sporting healthy tans after their week-long holiday in the Maldives.


    Kate goes top-to-toe green for St. Patrick’s Day! Duke and Duchess of Cambridge show off Maldives tans on first joint engagement of the year at Irish Guards Parade

    Royal couple just returned from week-long trip to five star Cheval Blanc Randheli resort in Indian Ocean


    • Mich says:

      The comments on the Daily Fail are SCATHING.

    • FLORC says:

      DM is again resetting their Green/Red arrows and removing the negative comments that are fact based. Leaving the dumb ones though.

      • kels says:

        They seem so inconsistent with their commenting process. Sometimes they let anything and everything be posted and other times, even the most banal, inoffensive comment doesn’t “make the cut” or it takes hours and hours to show. Seriously, I can’t believe that they have a human sifting through and “approving”/”disapproving every comment on certain stories.

  15. Tig says:

    I love this shade of green on her, and I like the coat.

    I don’t understand ragging on them taking a break in NZ- it’s their money, and I am sure it’s breathtakingly-lovely. It’s $$ I can never imagine, but prob one night’s bar/stripper tab for an NFL/NBA star, so what?

    Re royals bringing tourist dollars- maybe not these royals per se, but the history of the monarchy-castles, jewels,etc- you bet it does!

    • Deedee says:

      Last I checked, NBA stars play 80+ games per season, half on the road; NFL players have 16 games plus pre-season and post-season, training camps, etc. In other words, they earn their money and get fired when they don’t or can’t perform. If they want to blow their money on a strip club, that’s their earnings to spend. Kate and Will are in a whole different category of underachievement and they are highly subsidized by taxpayers (the travel and expenses of their RPOs are paid by the taxpayer, for instance) and if you follow the money back far enough, you’ll see that others have paid a huge price for their life of luxury. As for tourist dollars, look at France and Versailles. They do very well attracting visitors without the living anachronisms walking around and waving.

    • Eyeroll says:

      Um the history of the monarchy including the castles would still be there without the Royal Family. They don’t just knock those down…? A very strange monarchist argument.

    • LAK says:

      Unless they specifically say they are meeting cost of mini-break privately and actually do so, I think you’ll find that it’s the NZ tax payers paying for it.

      • KateBush says:

        I can tell you New Zealanders will be v happy to host the Royals, if they went all the way to Australia and didn’t hop over the ditch to see us we’d be devastated! :)
        I love the coat, it’s below her knees people surely no cause for complaints…

    • wolfpup says:

      We love history here in America too. But we’re only about 230 or so years old. I lived in Korea, and was just stunned by their ancient history, and it left me with a longing to know more about my own people. I’m way deep in Welsh history, and believe it or not, (is this bragging – no- it’s just a genealogy chart), but I am cousins with the queen 9 times removed for her, and 11 times for me…she laid a wreath at our common ancestor, Augustine Warner, when she visited the US at Warner Hall, Virginia. I am fortunate as a Lewis, that the Celts had a unique way of preserving ancestral lines. I’m decended from a great Celtic Chieftan, Rys Goch (red-haired). Our coat of arms shows a dragon with a gule glove dripping blood, in it’s mouth.

      Like big deal huh? No vacations!

      • bluhare says:

        I have a lot of Welsh in my ancestry as well. My dad’s grandmother was Welsh, as was my mother’s. And her other grandfather was Irish, so I’m mostly Celtic. Don’t think I’m related to the Queen, though . . . unless she’s got some Welsh stone masons in her tree!!

      • wolfpup says:

        There’s always family dirt too, that is unpleasant. This is worse than unpleasant, but there is plantation ownership involved. I think that’s just shameful. Enough said.

        I never had the desire to go to Britain because I had the idea that because we had a common language, that I would just find more of the same. But there is a culture, that many of us are trying to understand. I love learning all about it!

        And I do want to go to my ancestral home.

      • wolfpup says:

        And so after all this genealogy, here is my question. Why, oh why, do people bestow grace and wealth, based merely on genealogy? It’s cool, be rich, have your vacations – but why does the public pay for, at least, a part of it? I hear, because they are receiving a wage. For blow dries and all the goodies and oodles of shopping, needed for “an appearance”? That’s a job everyone wants! It seems to me, like they have to look that good, in order to impress upon another being, that their lives are so different, and the blood that runs in their veins so special…that everybody is suppose to bend over and fork it over?

        If there were no royalty, the entire British caste system, whoops, forgive me, the “aristocracy” would crumble. No one believing anyone else is more special than anyone else, would change everything. The ‘powers that be’ (who became rich on the backs of others) need royalty, to define their existence. If you question the basic assumption of some sort of superiority, what kind of mess would all the ‘special ones’ (privileged ones) have?

        Meanwhile, we watch them working(?), with blow-outs and beautiful clothes, and adulation beyond belief, and marvelous vacations that no one but the British royal family could take. Can you imagine how much fun their Australian trip will be? It would be so awesome, all the things that they are doing, and everyone being so delighted to see them. I can’t see it getting better than that. What a lullaby to sleep with. I love my life, but you are calling me stupid, if you want me to believe that is work. I’ll prove it – anyone out there want this job?…that’s just about everyone volunteering, especially for the good deeds.

        No offense anyone. I’m just saying that it doesn’t make sense to me; there’s no such thing as people who are better in any way, (except better off), than other people. Nope, uh-uh, t’isn’t so. Yet, I’ll say anything if you threaten to torture me. On no, here comes William – “Fe Fi Fo Fome – I am the King of Christendom.” Gotta Go. Just give me an idea of how one could feel good about oneself under these kind of assumptions.

      • Hazel says:

        Ah, well, our history in the US stretches back a bit further–at least to the founding of Jamestown (1607). Others might extend it back further to the exploration days of the conquistadores (16th century), since those Spaniards covered quite a bit of ground in Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, & California. I probably left out some states. And, of course, our ancient history stretches back even further, back to the Ice Age, at the very least.

    • Original N says:

      @wolfpup – love that you have been commenting…you basically stated my very thoughts!

      @LAK – now they are saying the Maldives holiday was paid for by the royals. My problem relates to your comment above, I.e. they said it, but how do we know that is true?

      @My2P – this is the second trip (Maldives, NZ) reporting a discount being offered but only the price for one roomroom being listed – NOT the cost to rent out the entire facility. There needs to be transparent reporting of costs borne by UK taxpayers such that citizens can determine the worth of the monarchy to them!

      @bluhare – I love the dog as well! Magnificent being!

      • bluhare says:

        I believe they paid for it themselves. With a hefty discount from the resort. I hope the Metropolitan Police got the same discount for their people there. That was a bigger cost than William and Kate’s, as I think there were four of them. Does anyone know the number?

  16. vava says:

    I think this outfit leaves a lot to be desired. The two shades of green don’t work together. Maybe it one of them had a pattern, they would work (like someone else commented) – but this is a colorblocking mess. The coat is ill fitting. The sleeves are too short, the shoulder and bodice area look to small, and this belting thing is really overdone with her. That said, the length is appropriate for once even though the new hemming job isn’t perfect. She must have an inexperienced tailor. Overall, I’d give this look a 3 star out of 10. She needs to work on that posture of hers because she looks stooped. Maybe some lower heels would help?

    • LadySlippers says:

      I missed your comment in the last thread but I agree that she is NOT a style icon. I wish people would stop saying it because I agree — I think she hears all this and doesn’t realise she isn’t and won’t hire a stylist.

      At first blush Kate looks nice until you notice the jacket doesn’t fit correctly. The greens don’t bother me as much as they do you vava but she goes for the typical cliché and that gets annoying (to me at least). She could be in Irish wool that’s just as ‘Irish’ as wearing green with shamrocks.

      Okay, so what’s with the poor hemming??? Geesh, I don’t get it. It’s not like she can’t afford to have her things hemmed correctly.

      However, I DO really like her in saturated colours. So that’s always a plus from me.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I have real trouble seeing why she should be a style icon – she almost never gets it right.

        The article says that she wears brooch, a royal heirloom – however, it seems to be completely hidden beneath that piece of vegetation that appears to grow on her coat. Why wear nice jewelery if you going to hide it? Sigh. And don’t even get me started on the hat!

      • bluhare says:

        LOL, AH. Please . . . start on the hat!

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The hat! – from the front it resembles a baret that has gotten a good dose of yeast, but sadly has failed to raise evenly – and the bow. Bows on hats are just a no-no in my book. The hair makes me grind my teeth, I really don’t like long hair with little hats. It just look untidy and fussy, and it doesn’t help that that hat is a lumpen, fussy piece as well.

        As a caveat, I must admit that my taste in hats generally is confined to the period around the 1930s, 40s and 50s. I just think that they were more elegant and restrained during this period. My paternal grandmother got married in the 30s in a long dark gown, a beautiful widebrimmed hat and white glowes and she looked stylish and sophisticated.

        I must also admit that I unreservedly hate the choices in hats that many royal and aristocratic British women make. Either they are too big, and overloaded or they are these godawful fascinators that look like a bird is nesting in the lady’s hair.

        If a hat can’t be elegant, then at least it can be humourous, case in point: http://www.seoghoer.dk/Nyheder/Royalt/~/media/B865E19B52C84BDAADC126901DDB84D4.ashx
        (It is a damn ugly hat, but Queen Margethe has enough whimsy to carry it off).

      • bluhare says:

        AH, my fantasy was always to be a beautifully grieving widow of a wealthy man. That isn’t going to happen, but I looked really lovely at the gravesite with my all black outfit, hot black shoes, and my hat with netting over my face. Sigh.

        I think hats can be tricky. Love them, but I agree about Kates hair being too big for her hat.

      • hmmm says:

        Bwah! Either she’s an honourary member of Devo, loves big breasts, or is posing as a giant blue candle. I love the hats from the 30′s and 40′s in film especially- so much whimsy- I remember some on Jean Arthur and Kate Hepburn. Queen Margrethe carries it off. She seems to have a sense of humour, unlike the witless one.

      • ArtHistorian says:


        Queen Ingrid wore some smart hats in the 30s as well.

        I don’t know what Devo is, but Queen Margethe has a healthy sense of self-irony. After all, she had a little cameo as an angry peasant woman in an adaptation of H.C. Andersen’s “Wild Swans” that she was heavily involved in a few years back (she did the artwork).

      • bluhare says:

        I’m a terrible link clicker, but I just looked at the photo . . . . . . .

        I do give her points for matching her brooch to it though!

      • vava says:

        @ Ladyslippers, I agree with you, an Irish wool would be fantastic!

    • hmmm says:


      Agreed that choice of coat colour shows singular lack of imagination. It’s so stereotypical. Irish tweed is gorgeous and would have been so outstanding with that tumble of shamrocks.

      • LadySlippers says:

        And in Scotland she wears plaid/ tartan. It’s just so unimaginative.

      • vava says:

        Kate IS very unimaginative and she has no flare for fashion regardless of what her fans may say. An Irish tweed would be refreshing for next year’s performance and hopefully she’ll pin the gold pin somewhere it is visible!

  17. anne_000 says:

    There’s Hair Middleton again. She’s starting to look like Pippa in the face. 6-inch heals (according to the Express). Was it last year or the year before when she got her heels stuck in the hole in the ground?

  18. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    And Kate gets the best denture cleaner money can buy, no Polident for her.

  19. minxx says:

    Too much green, IMO. She should have worn a different color hat or shoes – I hate when someone wears different shades of the same color, it doesn’t look good. The hat is very matronly, Diana could have worn it in the 80s. And I don’t get the need to put a belt on everything. Last year’s coat was much nicer, IMO.

  20. The Original Mia says:

    Ugh. Still scratching my head at those that call her a style icon. My grandmother takes more chances than this chick and she’s 92.

    The costs to refurbish their apartment should have been known before work started. There’s no way any contractor worth their salt would come back after a year and say…oh, by the way, there’s an additional 2 million pounds worth of work that we didn’t think we’d have to do. Please. That’s BS. They knew. They just didn’t want to reveal the costs to the public for fear of revolt.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Actually, the contractor often finds things they didn’t anticipate and has to readjust the cost. It happens quite often in my experience, almost to the point is say, it’s almost a sure thing.

      • sienna says:

        You are so right. Especially in older properties. A healthy contingency fund is a must!!

      • bluhare says:

        But double the cost? Apparently they don’t work on the bid system in the UK!

      • The Original Mia says:

        Yes, some additional costs, but not 2 million pounds worth of unknown costs. That’s ridiculous.

      • LadySlippers says:

        It honestly depends on a lot of things.

        One) Did they go with the cheapest bidder knowing that they couldn’t met the demands of time or money? And before you start to squawk — this is exactly what the US Gov does for everything. Uncle Sam goes for the cheapest bidder and then pays 2-3 times MORE than the most expensive bid while going way over on time too. Huge waste of tax payer money.

        Two) Something really big was unearthed that wasn’t planned or budgeted for. And in an old home that could be about a zillion things. Remember not only is KP centuries old but the number of rooms is pretty large. This isn’t just a one room makeover.

        Three) Honest error or price fluctuations. The global recession has done funky stuff to the price of things, certain things are cheaper while others have sky-rocketed.

        There are probably others that I haven’t thought about. But going over budget, even doubling the budget, is not unheard for a renovation this large on a home that is centuries old.

      • hmmm says:

        One wonders how anyone managed to inhabit those rooms before the reno, because all seems so dire. Talk about a crumbling pile! I can’t imagine how awful it must have been for Margaret for all those decades and for the charity!

        I think given a basically unlimited budget thanks to taxpayers, the tugging of forelocks, and a code of silence, Waity and Willy went wild.

      • Sixer says:

        NOT that I am in favour of Mr and Mrs Interiors Should Not Be Purple, but you’d be amazed at how much it costs to refurbish these historical places. My brother is a design engineer and was responsible for redoing the electrics for one of London’s iconic old hotels. Millions and kajillions of quid. I almost fainted at the cost.

    • HK9 says:

      What?? Granny’s throwin it down at 92???? Now THAT is style. :-)

      • The Original Mia says:

        She’ll pin her hair up. She’ll throw a colorful scarf on. She has tailored pantsuits and sensible shoes. She has her every day cane and her “I’m going somewhere fancy” cane.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        She sounds smashing :)

    • Máiréad says:

      Any sort of government job (or grant aid), you can whack at least 50% extra on top. Take it from someone who knows :-/ And of course historic and listed buildings means that there is less flexibility in terms of materials and methods.
      A good QS should sort that out quickly, but the trick is getting a good QS – or even an observant and consistent one would do!

  21. TheCountess says:

    Cathy Cambridge looks smashing, as always.

  22. India says:

    It is impossible for her to keep her hands off her sausage curls.

  23. dahlia1947 says:

    She looks ravishing! Green looks so pretty on her! It just blends so well with her hair and her skin tone. And she looks so happy and content! I’m very happy for her!

  24. Cersei says:

    Sad commentary on this couple from a DM commenter: “My brothers friend is in this regiment. I’ve just spoken to his wife. The general feeling was of disgust for them, and it was made apparent to a couple [sic] the press by a few people.”

    • LadySlippers says:

      Really? DM commenters can be quite harsh though.

    • Juliette says:

      Well, who could blame the soldiers for their disappointment. Old Baldtop and Kate the Hungry aren’t known for their sense of duty or honorable commitment to selfless causes. Receiving recognition from these two bozos isn’t worth much.

    • hmmm says:

      Thanks, for that, Cersei. I just wish the press would print stuff like this and they never do!

  25. Maggie says:

    She looks gorgeous!

  26. Angelic 21 says:

    Now whoever can’t understand why I criticize them and expect them to work and not just take vacation after vacations, here’s why


    I hope everyone gets on with the program on why they are expected to do more then just a socialite who loves to shop and party.

    Oh and isn’t it amazing, Duchess who spends tax payers 2 millions on renovations, go on vacations costing thousands of pounds per night wears a coat on sale, dnt ya knw how thrifty she is.

  27. Liberty says:


    “I say, Cressida Two, have I told you about a bloke called Harald the Soft?” said William Baldtop, idly using the toe of his riding boot to shove a notebook around the floor of his Oxford bachelor’s suite. Using the long, hard muscles of his thigh, which seemed to have gone slightly squiggy since the holidays, he gave the notebook a sharp kick. “History type chap, quite a way and all that?” He took a slug of Guinness, then rubbed his Maldives-browned neck in a suggestive manner, staring hard at the young former student.

    Romina, trying to read a thick book on agriculture for the essay she was supposed to write for William Baldtop, winced. The plucky 22-year-old “foreign” former literature student and sometime royal nanny had dark circles under her eyes from trying to unpack, cook, attend classes, read books and grow sprouts in small dishes while learning about the best organic feed for sheep. Feeling his hot sharp gaze licking at her body, she pulled her homemade butcher’s paper apron up over her small festive green silk nanny St. Paddy’s slip. “Soft Harald? Whats you go on? I think dear blessed Sir Harry is not be soft? Like corned beef and cabbage soft? No!”

    Suddenly, Willam Baldtop grabbed her by her bare shoulders, hurting her as he pressed his face nearer her own. “You must understand! I just winged an extra million pounds for you, because you are my soul mate, my delicious, naughty Cressida Two!!”

    She gasped. “This cannot be, what! No, no, police will come!” She ducked under the desk. “No show me moneys! I am good girl!”

    “Har, no! It was dead easy. Well, half of it will go to a one nighter with the old thing the press office has trundled up, sod ‘em. I need two hundred for skis, car, pony. Two hundred more at least to whittle Kate the Hungry’s bad gobs off the walls of the Kensi flat, a real gasper! Jecca needs a bite of Chloe and rhino gun, har, but that’s still a solid five thousand pounds left for your air ticket to New Zeastalia with us! We are filing it under cottage relief, har, mold and scold, what ho! But you must be with me now, because: Harald the Soft runs not though my veins, but, the lucky veins of my own ginger sodding brother! Comes though Grandpap’s side! Bloody lucky Danes!! I got the cursed German sludge like my dad and Edward. But lucky Harry! Ha! Harry bloke’s like Harald: no big decisions, no unpopular choices, tabloid appearances, no! He gets Harald’s bloodine, and so, just the wench-over-wench laughs, feeling good so good works for the commoners, always a good bloody jolly mood like old Harald! because both of ‘em Stonehenge the fair and the comely and are too worn out to cause a war or argue for more taxes or redecorate or marry a bloody shopgirl in a wig! So they’re having fun and they’re the heroes too! Because here’s the real Windsor secret: Harald the Soft had magical love blood, a gift from a grateful wizard he partied with, so his form in the bedroom would grow and grow and cast a spell so big, he was also known to poets as Harald the Cudgel of Love! Soft heart for the ladies and peasants, but the rock of Estridsson at home, hence satisfied mild tempered beloved lawmaker! So satisfactory, some wenches were too tired for sevenths and eighths, and went home with treasure and a tale! My uncle willy, it make me cross! why not me!”

    “Ya, so and?” said Romina, creeped out by his squintiness yet again, but understanding why this pink British man was such a bore and a crank. “Why to tells me this thing?” She scowled. The leather scrunchie pulled her hair.

    “So! This is what the agriculture course is for! You must help me figure out the exact herbs to make me as powerful in the haystack as old Harald the Soft! I mean, Harry! I want to be happy too! My brother is getting all the magic and the good press! Cressida One, Las Vegas, two at a time – of course he hasn’t time or mind to alienate the population and take senseless vacay! He’s busy with the magic cudgel! Doing good works! I’m stuck with the tours and a beady-eyed family of balloon blowers! I’m tired! I want fun too! I want to be liked too!! I want what Harald the Soft’s blood gave to Harry and I want it soon! I can’t risk losing all my exes now!” He pinched her arm and she gasped. “Or, you’ll be reassigned to…CAMILLA! Giant poplin knicker folding and listening to my dad go on about yeast! I warn you! Now, find the answers, so we can pick the magic cudgel herbs down under as the wizard in the legend did!”

    • bluhare says:

      Applause!! Snarkweek said you’d be throwing that in!

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      V. Liberty
      You are everything.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Oh Madame Liberté! Oh Dahling, I do so *blush* at your suggestive words!!


    • Nymeria says:

      You had me at “beady-eyed family of balloon blowers!”

      That last paragraph was… sublime. :)

      • bluhare says:

        I had to go re-read because of that . . . can’t believe I missed it the first time.

        Liberty, you are indeed the Laureate of CB.

      • LAK says:

        Vicereine, you’ve been holding out on us regarding the secret of Harald the soft!!


    • ArtHistorian says:

      Oh my God, this is so funny!! I’m very happy that my historical factoids have provided inspiration for you rampant imagination. Perhaps I ought to dig up some more.

      • bluhare says:

        You should!!

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Thinking hard……. There is the story about the bigamist king Frederik IV of Denmark.

      • bluhare says:


        You have to picture me turning purple I’ve been bating my breath too long!

        And, as an aside, if Danish is your first language, your command of English is amazing.

      • ArtHistorian says:


        Thanks! I’m Danish born and bred, but I did my MA in England and that really improved my language skills – I just wish that my skills in German and French were as good as my English.

        Frederik IV ruled from 1699 to 1730.
        He married Louise of Mecklenburg.
        However, he not only had mistresses, he also married two of them while he was married to his queen. The first one, Helene von Viregg, i 1703. She died a year later.

        In 1711, he met the young noblewoman Anna Sophie von Reventlow at a masked bal. She was 18, they fell in love, but her parents didn’t approve. Her mother locked her up. A year later, he managed to abduct her, and they married the same day.
        This was a morganatic marriage, which means she wouldn’t get a title and their children wouldn’t be royal. However, morganatic marriages usually weren’t bigamous.
        Queen Louise died in 1721 – and he married Anna Sophie in a legitimate ceremony the day after the Queen’s funeral, and she was crowned queen. Tragically, all their childred died in infancy. However, after his death, the new king exiled Anna Sophie from the court.

        Bigamy was illegal (and, I believe, punished with death), but an absolute monarch was, of course, above the law.

        It is a very good story.

      • LAK says:

        ArtHistorian: i read that as Sophie von RENT LOW [as in low rent!] LOL.

        ps: which King is the subject if the film A ROYAL AFFAIR?

      • ArtHistorian says:

        LOL – language is funny too! Fx I don’t think that Kirsten Dunst would like to know what her last name means in Danish!

        The king in “A Royal Affair” is the unfortunate and insane Christian VII. (interestingly enough, his son Frederik VI didn’t have sons and the throne went to his “nephew” Christian VIII, who apparently was the spitting image of his princely father’s aide *nudgenudge*).

      • bluhare says:

        Kristin might not, but I do!

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I Danish “dunst” means “stink”!

    • FLORC says:

      Each one is better than the last!

    • Sixer says:

      Favourite this time: being reassigned to Camilla is the fate worse then death. Liberty: when are you going to send this poor girl to the Tower?

    • hmmm says:

      “a beady-eyed family of balloon blowers”….”a bloody shop girl in a wig”…BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    • Liberty says:

      :-) Thank you all!! bluhare, FLORC, Dame, Nymeria, Sixer….all!

      [Curtsies, gestures invitingly at large tray of blood orange martinis and white chocolate twists]

      @Art Historian: Yet again, history is our friend. I salute you. Dig away!!
      @LAK: A well-guarded secret, but it was time to share, for the realm.
      @LadySlippers: Apologies! I attempted to veil the palpating meaning for tender readers….

      - Vicereine Liberty, as you wish

      • bluhare says:

        Of course you are Vicereine Liberty, Laureate of CB. Good heavens, gel. I don’t elevate people for no reason!

        Except for LAK. She whined so long and hard I had to make her a Lady to shut her up.

        The Baroness

      • Liberty says:

        @Baroness, I am not worthy. The brilliance of your court astounds, and leaves one shy.

        Furiously blushing,
        Vicereine Liberty

    • Dimebox says:

      How do I address a Vicereine? My lady? Your grace? My liege? Whatever, Liberty, you have once again astounded! Please keep them coming.

      • Liberty says:

        as a brand new Vicereine, I’d go with “hey you” but I may be wrong. LAK can tell us perhaps? “Your Vicereineingerskarg?”

      • bluhare says:

        A viceroy is usually addressed as Your Excellency; however, in your case Liberty I think “hey, you!” will do just fine. Ma’am if I’m feeling formal. :)

      • LAK says:

        The Baroness is correct, A Viceroy is ‘Your excellency’. An excellent salutation for our naughty VICEreine!!!

    • wolfpup says:

      Tired, with treasures and a tale…how marvelous!

  28. anne says:

    I adore him and wish only the best for their family. Thankful there is a grounded and classy young lady out there for young girls to emulate! I remember when I was a kid and everyone envied Diana and wanted to be a Royal in a fairy tale (even the adults) but I just had the feeling that it would not be the dream people thought it was and that she would have a hard road ahead. Adored her and sure enough, she did have many very tough times ahead. Think she raised two great sons though and hope Kate is more secure and happy and stays that way. I had the pleasure of being friends with John Kennedy Jr. and he was so wonderful…beyond words just a cool real guy. That he and Diana both died so young and tragically and close together is always something thing I will be sad about. So great luck to the new young clan and all my best to them!

  29. Juliette says:

    Why are they both smiling so hard? In previous years there wasn’t the same forced laughter. Well, at least there wasn’t the forced grins from William – on the other hand – Kate regularly sets her face in that maniacal “happy” expression.

    Neither of them look authentically happy. They look like bad actors pretending to be superbly excited. Why? Does William think if he smiles in his wife’s face that we will all forget about his little sojourn with Jecca?

    • caitlin says:

      Especially in that first photo – so fake and forced IMHO and Kate’s veneers make it even more so.

      • jenny b says:

        The cosmetic dentist I work for – I’m a dental assistant – said he’d be out of business if he gave someone veneers like Kate’s — blindingly obvious (relative to the rest of her teeth & colour) and don’t suit her mouth or face. Pre-veneers, Kate’s smile didn’t seem so “maniacal” — as so many people on this site put it — and seemed way more natural and genuine.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Does she have to open her mouth super wide to accommodate her veneers then?

        And if I remember correctly, it was reported that Kate went to a super exclusive dentist in France to have her dental work done…

      • hmmm says:

        Thanks for the info, jenny b. Are her veneers getting larger and larger or is it my imagination?

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Maybe the teeth are like Pinocchio’s nose?

      • hmmm says:

        Bwahahahaha!!!! No doubt!

      • caitlin says:

        All of you are hilarious! Coming to this site is my entertainment for the evening. Good night everyone :)

  30. Hazel says:

    I’ve ever been fond of the matchy-matchy, which seems to be Kate’s go-to comfort zone.
    At the same time, she never seems to get quite the right match–the tones of these various greens just don’t work together, IMO. Plus, her body language is always so contained & constricted for these official outings–arms close to the body, hands clasped firmly in front at all times (except when containing the flying hair or skirt)–either clasped together or clasping a clutch. Was this taught in her Princess Deportment Class? And can you imagine, we may have to see these stilted scenes for the next, I don’t know, 38 years? I think the DM said that’s how long the Queen Mother did it. Wonder how many more times we’ll see this coat?

    • Angelic 21 says:

      The lack of spontaneity is what makes both of them so boring, forced, disinterested and fake. She always have 1 thing to say i.e. how well she is been taken care off or how happy she is and now how happy George is, same with Willy, not a single original sentence, joke, humor, nothing.

      What made Diana so good and popular as a royal is her instinct connection with people and spontaneity. They on the other look so rehearsed and forced all the time, no matter what engagement they are doing or different mood of the occasion.

  31. hmmm says:

    The style of hat does not work with the style of coat. Too fussy all round. The different greens clash. Anyone notice how long that coat is? She’s actually covering those gams.

    I see the Duke of Dolittle is playing dress up. He’s got a nerve wearing a military uniform.

    They both look ‘well-rested’ :rolls eyes:.

    After reading about the excessive costs for them, I’m seeing red. All told, neither of them has any shame nor does the RF.

    • bluhare says:

      He’s honorary something for the regiment, isn’t he? Although I really do think William looks the best in uniform — deserved or not.

  32. MissNostalgia says:

    Boring, monotone, “matchy-matchy” outfit. Fed-up with her caught at every event constantly fussing with her damn hair. She is 30/31, time to get a haircut, new style…something!

  33. Ronia says:

    It’s not getting better these days. Wrong shades of green which don’t match. Zero anything to unite them. Hooker heels. Zero etiquette knowledge – the woman apparently has no idea how hair is worn with different kinds of hats. Terrible body language. Hands in hair again. Laughter appropriate for a circus, may be. What did they actually teach her during this so called “training”? I wonder.

    • MissNostalgia says:

      Love this! I was afraid of mentioning her maniacal grinning…so annoying and inappropriate!

      • Ronia says:

        It starts looking like a Steven King movie to me. I’ve never seen another public person advised to have such expression. A warm and delicate smile, eyes showing understanding, calm and polite. That’s what she needs to show, IMO.

    • Alin says:

      For me the worst is that her posture and body language is so super bad. I see her round back every time and it hurts! Her silly fidgeting and that maniac grin… so unelegant! A royal woman should be an example of eloquence, grace, style and elegance with a perfect posture! Yes, sounds old fashioned, but that´s what all these old royal stuff is about.
      What´s with the “Princess training? I thought “Waity” will surprise us and silence her “haters”, she just needs a little bit time to come into herself. But she is now married for 3 years and over 30 years old. There is no improvement. She still behaves so inane. Her smalltalk and speeches are still bad, it´s surprising b/c the speeches are easy and short. I have this feeling the palace people don´t think she is capable of more :-(

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Her posture is rather bad, and it is such a small thing to correct. I recently started doing tai chi and some physical therapy (mainly exercises) and it has done wonders on my posture and gait. It is all about focusing on the centre and adjust outwardly – shoulders, spine, pelvis. Mindful focus on the body’s architecture helps to correct things like posture and gait.

      • vava says:

        Her new nickname is The Hunchback of Cambridge.

  34. Nymeria says:

    Since it’s St. Patrick’s Day, I’m going to unfurl my Irish flag and state that in my opinion, the only thing the British RF should be doing on this day each year is good works expressly for the Emerald Isle.

  35. Pattie says:

    Glad to see she’s wearing a below-the-knee length coat. I hope the Queen is pleased.

  36. JustJ says:

    The brooch actually belongs to the Irish Guards, they loan it to the Duchess just for this ceremony.

  37. Carmel says:

    That dog looks embarrassed to be photographed with Kate.

  38. FLORC says:

    I just can’t.
    They do nothing except spend. When they do decide to work it’s covered like we’ve been witness to the 2nd coming and all the spending is forgotten.
    How anyone is still a fan is beyond me. I only imagine they either live under a rock or love worshipping people who take their money.
    Here are the keys to the wigletwagon Bluhare. I need a spa day.

    • wolfpup says:

      They act upon the assumption that we will forget, after seeing their unadulterated happiness. (seriously, like we love to see them vacation-happy, and that should cover it, now we’re happy too?)

  39. Violet says:

    As a New Zealand taxpayer it really annoys me to be paying for their mini break. OK, not a huge amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but how many pairs of shoes or raincoats could it buy for kids living in poverty to wear to school.

    • My2Pence says:

      @Violet. It would be interesting to see if you can ever track down what this cost. Are the owners giving these two a great rate (meaning, you the taxpayers are paying that rate)? Or are they going to claim $12,000 / per room times the entire resort and charge the taxpayers for that amount? I wonder if there is any way for that to be found out. Probably not until the business files their taxes next year, if then.

      • Violet says:

        @My2Pence. You can make an Official Information Act request, asking for information on the cost of their visit to the taxpayer and a breakdown of that. One of the grounds for a Govt Dept refusing an OIA request is to protect personal privacy and also commercial sensitivity. So while we are likely to be told how much the trip cost overall (and I think this information has been published in the past) I’m not sure if they will provide a breakdown of costs. Even if the resort is giving a great rate (and I’m sure there is a discount in there somewhere) it still galls me that we are picking up the cost for this. Their schedule isn’t that demanding, the weather at that time of year isn’t too hot or cold and I imagine in the scheme of things NZ and Aus are one of the “easier” royal tours. I’m probably just bitter because I’m envisaging the rolling 24/7 news coverage and what Kate is wearing watch.

  40. bettyrose says:

    Serious question: why do they even want entire private resorts? Do they have long talks and romantic nights? Or just watch tv? That is a lot of time together in isolation.

    • bluhare says:

      They don’t want us plebs taking photos. Or paparazzi. I think that’s the big reason. Just my opinion, though.

  41. Tessy says:

    The coat looks nice. Its an appropriate length and she could bend over to pet the dog without showing her knickers off. I could care less if the recycled hat is a perfect match or not, its a one day thing anyhow. I just wish she’d keep her hands out of her hair. If she’s got to have it so long, why not tie it back or put it in a nice French braid once in awhile.

    • LAK says:

      Amazingly, her hair is controlled when she’s in the presence of HM. even if she has it fully down, it’s controlled [hairpins/gel?] and she barely touches it.

      she seems to touch it most when she’s with William.

  42. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    This is a nit-picking side note, but isn’t the Queen the head of the Church of the England? Shouldn’t the family wear orange instead of green? Or is that too much of a hot potato.

    Another side note: that dog looks like he really doesn’t want to be touched by Kate. Poor thing.

  43. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Re: Kate’s manic smile and nervous tics (like playing with hair) — I’ve thought that maybe, before public events, she gets hopped up on No-Doze and RedBull, and her crazy eyes, manic smile, and nervous tics are just s symptom of the caffeine over-dose. I could be mean and say I also suspect her of amphetamine use, since she’s so focused on not eating and being skinny. But I would guess that at the very least, it’s been drilled into her head that yawning while doing these boring public appearances is a major faux pas, so she goes overboard on the caffeine.

    And/or being prohibited from smoking for hours at a time while doing these appearances can really affect her nerves. Maybe a combination of not being allowed to smoke and being hopped up on caffeine is enough to cause the crazy eyes, manic smile, and nervous tics.

  44. Stephanie says:

    I’m always surprised about how hard on Kate everyone is about hem length and heel height. Her dresses, though not fashion forward always seem fine in length to me. I’m down for thighs showing as long as her tush isn’t. I also don’t believe low heels (I’m fine with flats) on anyone under 60. That being said, is she color blind? Mix and match the same color but it needs to be the same undertone. That hat is horrible with the coat. I love the shoes.

    • My2Pence says:

      Stephanie, as had been stated many times, Kate Middleton’s job has a dress code. That dress code includes hems no higher than the knee and heels no higher than 3 inches. You many not “believe” in her dressing this way, you may not think it fashion forward, but it is simply the dress code for her job. All of the other ladies in the BRF manage to follow this dress code while on official duties.

    • Ronia says:

      There is protocol. Protocol is to be obeyed. This is true not only for royal members but for politicians, diplomats and all working and present at an official event. Simple and mandatory. Like/dislike are not part of the job characteristic (mine included).

      • Stephanie says:

        Hi My2Pence, Hi Ronia. I’ve been working full time since I was fifteen. I’m fully aware of dresscodes. I still don’t think they are always right. Obviously you don’t want to wear something that hinders your ability to do your job. If she needs to be bending over, a loose short hemline is not the way to go. But if it’s not in the wayand her heels don’t bother her a dresscode that strict for the sake of just a dresscode is archaic. She is never short to the point that she looks provocative.If she was in anyway interesting outside of her wardrobe I don’t think ppl would notice.

  45. Máiréad says:

    I like the coat: (hem aside), it’s a nice cut. I like the hat too. Colours aside, the outfit looks well. I wish she’d tie her blinking hair up sometimes. You’re almost guaranteed that the weather will either be wet, windy or both, so why not prepare for it.

    The wolfhound is great! (His name is pronounced “dough-null” in case any non-Paddy is wondering ;) )

  46. hmmm says:

    So, why isn’t Wills pretend studying today?

  47. ArtHistorian says:

    For bluehare, who love all things shiny and sparkly: Two pieces of lovely royal bling!

    One of my absolute favorites:
    the diamond-ruby parure (danish RF):
    CP mary wearing the parure

    (Before and after the recent altertation)


    This tiara is just exquisite – delicate but not too delicate. I actually love that it isn’t so massive and that the stones are small because it puts the focus on the aesthetics of the piece rather than the amount of carats.

    This parure has a very interesting history too. It was given by Napoleon to Désiree, the wife of his marshal Bernadotte, to wear at his imperial coronation. Bernadotte later became king of Sweden.
    The parure came into the Danish RF when the Swedish-born princess Lovisa married the Danish Crown Prince Frederik (later Frederik VIII). Her mother gave her the set because the rubies and diamonds matched the colours of the Danish flag.
    Lovisa gave the set to her daughter-in-law Alexandrine (who altered it to wear it low on her forehead as a headband). Alexandrine gave the parure to her daughter-in-law, another Swedish-born princess, Ingrid.
    Ingrid altered the tiara to a more substantial form. At her death, the set was inherited by her grandson Crown Prince Frederik for his future bride – since Ingrid felt that it should always be worn by the (future) Queen Consort.
    CP Mary received the set at her wedding in 2004. She had it altered in 2011 to a better fit for her head and a more even and compact shape. The tiara actually consists of many tiny brooches, and Mary often uses some of the spares as hair ornaments to good effect.

    The Midnight Tiara (CP Mary of Denmark):

    A close-up:
    It is made of black oxidized silver, white gold, rose gold, moonstones and tiny diamonds.

    The Midnight Tiara is a modern piece. CP Mary doesn’t own it, but retains the exclusive use of it. It think it is very pretty, and I like a modern take on the tiara that thinks outside the box and works with colours and textures rather than just the stones.

    • bluhare says:

      YAY!! Thank you Art Historian! (For that I spelt your name out!)

      Personally, I’m not a giant fan of the Midnight tiara. It looks like a floral taped bouquet in the photo and I do tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to jewelry, but that diamond and ruby parure is incredible. Absolutely gorgeous. I would LOVE hair clips like that!

      • ArtHistorian says:


        I give Queen Margethe’s floral aigrette tiara:

        I consists of three sections that can be separated and worn differently, either as a traditinal tiara on a frame or as separate hair ornaments. The centrepiece sports a larger flower, mounted “en tremblant”, that is, on a spring so that it trembles when the wearer moves, adding sparkle.

        The provenance isn’t entirely documented. It is said to date to the 1850s and was originally owned by a Russian Grand Duchess, the mother of Queen Alexandrine. King Frederik bought it for Queen Ingrid from a Danish opera singer in 1963. She wore the piece publically for the first time at Margethe’s wedding in 1967.

  48. P.J. says:

    Something nice, something nice…I really like the puppy (I love Irish Wolf Hounds!) in his dapper, co-ordinating red coat 😊

    • bluhare says:

      If you like that, check out his facebook page. He is a cutie (especially with his handler’s little girl holding his leash!)

  49. Amy says:

    Usually I like her hats and she pulls them off pretty well but this one looks like a giant green mushroom sitting on top of her head. I had a feeling everyone would be freaking out because she finally got a new coat. Rejoice British populace!

  50. Size Does Matter says:

    St. Patrick’s Day 2014, brought to you by 50 Shades of Green: the Waity Edition. I could overlook the hat and coat not matching, but the green shoes, Holy Mother of God, it’s too much! I have always thought she was lovely and had good taste, but she grates on me now.

    Also, I have no problem with them vacationing extensively (without their baby if that’s what they choose to do) or endlessly redecorating, provided they SPEND THEIR OWN BLOODY MONEY doing so. Wasn’t William left a small fortune by his mother? What does he spend it on? Does he have a salary? Or is everything just paid for by the taxpayers?

  51. Mhahaha says:

    I have a new theory on the hemline of that coat: it’s not badly hemmed, she just forgot to cut open the tack-stitching on the rear kickpleat. This means that the coat won’t hang correctly when she moves, since there’s a gigantic pleat open at the back that’s tacked closed at the bottom. One of the photos on the post at Go Fug Yourself makes it seem (to me, at least!) that this is the problem — and if it is, this is truly amateur hour. Opinions?

    • bluhare says:

      I think you might be right about that pleat. I’ve got insomnia big time tonight, so I just went and looked.

    • My2Pence says:

      It is possible she didn’t have that cut open. I’m not finding any photos of her 1) walking and 2) taken from the other side which would help us figure that out. Would not cutting open the tack-stitching be a sign that she is paying attention to the idea of the wind and that she should take precautions? Or another sign that she doesn’t bother to prepare (or have someone else prepare) her clothes properly for events?

      I’m still going with mostly likely shortened as well. You can see the enormous hem in the photos of Kate Middleton, which is not evident in the professional photos of the coat.


      Again, it doesn’t look short because “her legs are so long” in case someone throws that in. It has been shown time and again – even by a writer for Vogue – that her legs are short in comparison to the length of her torso. Hence all the artificially-raised waists on her clothes.

    • Hazel says:

      Very likely. I’ve noticed on other coats & jackets, she hasn’t clipped that little bit of tacking at the pleat, such as her navy blue trench coat that she wore for the Canadian tour.