Prince William & Kate made a ‘private donation’ of £5,000 to Welsh flood victims

wenn21192159

Duchess Kate and Prince William did a nice thing and I will not bitch about it. LOL. Right. First, let’s say something encouraging to them. Apparently, Will and Kate sent a check for £5,000 to the flood victims in North Wales. I actually misread the figure at first and I thought they donated £500,000 and I was all prepared to be like “HUZZAH, that’s amazing.” But it’s £5,000.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have donated £5,000 to the flood victims in the town of Rhyl in North Wales, which was left devastated by storms in December. Andrew Rutherford, the mayor of Rhyl, revealed on Facebook that the royal couple had made the donation to the town’s flood appeal. Source: PA.

A Clarence House spokesman confirmed that the pair, who lived on the Welsh island of Anglesey when they were first married, had made a private donation but declined to comment on the amount.

Mr Rutherford wrote: “The Rhyl Flood Appeal has received an unexpected donation of £5,000 from Their Royal Highnesses, Prince William and Princess Catherine, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.”

He said a letter sent on behalf of the royals read: “The Duke and Duchess realise that it is a long, slow and painful process for the many people displaced from their homes and as a token of their support, and to show the people of Rhyl that they are in their thoughts, Their Royal Highnesses would like to make a personal donation to your Rhyl Town Mayor’s Flood Appeal.”

The mayor added: “I was gobsmacked when the letter arrived but it goes to show that when you keep the awareness of an issue in the media things can, and do, happen. Thank you William and Catherine, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.”

[From AOL]

Was this a nice gesture? Totally. Did they have to do anything? Nope. So, I applaud them for the effort and I hope this will happen again and again. Now, for the shade: £5,000 is what it cost them to rent out their luxury Maldives villa for a few days. And sources keep claiming that William and Kate are paying for their own luxury vacations (I have my doubts about that, but for argument’s sake, sure), so that’s how they roll, charity-wise. They will spend £10,000 plus airfare, plus housing for their security detail for their vacation and then they’ll write a check for £5,000 to people in need. Let them eat cake!

As for the other major expenses facing William and Kate these days, you don’t even realize how exhausted they are after dealing with the extensive and costly (to the taxpayer) renovations on Kensington Palace and their second home, Anmer Hall. It’s just ghastly! If you remember, Kate tried to go budget on the paint and everything ended up with a purple tinge. So now everything will have to be repainted! Now the Prince of Wales is all “told you so.”

The Prince of Wales will have little sympathy. Royal Watch has learned that William’s father suggested his sister-in-law, Annabel Elliot (Camilla’s younger sister), a respected interior designer, help the couple with their redesign of the palace before they moved in. After speaking with Annabel, however, William and Kate went with a less-known designer.

Says a source: “Charles suggested Annabel because she has done a fair bit of work for him and he thinks she has exquisite taste. William did talk with Annabel, but they had a different vision of how they wanted things done. William particularly was keen for them to have their own stamp on their home.”

The stamp appears to be a rather plain hue of neutrals, which reportedly have a “purplish” tinge that the duchess is said to be unhappy with.

[From Vanity Fair]

I didn’t know Camilla had a sister and that the sister was an interior designer. That’s interesting. And of course William and Kate wanted to chart their own course with the decorating! Never listen to Papa. I think it’s weird that Kate wanted the color scheme to be so neutral-heavy. How blah. They should just keep the purple-tinged walls.

wenn21192153

wenn21192158

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

228 Responses to “Prince William & Kate made a ‘private donation’ of £5,000 to Welsh flood victims”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. m says:

    Now now, I don’t think you understand how kind this really was, Kate had to give up one of her weekly shopping trips in order to have enough money for the donation! Silly people, you clearly dont understand how she suffers for a charitable cause! Bless their little souls!

    • LadySlippers says:

      Oh you are so right! I’m sure William had to forgo something as well to finance that *hefty* amount.

      What a sacrifice they made!

      ;-)

    • Dani2 says:

      Right? I think it’s great for the charity but everyone knows they can afford to give substantially more. #notimpressed

    • Xantha says:

      It’s even worse m. To make this donation Kate not only can’t shop for a week she also can’t have her hair done FOR THREE WEEKS!

      You’re welcome peasants.

  2. wowsa says:

    How “private” was the donation if their rep confirmed it publicly?

    • FLORC says:

      That’s what got me too. If any really wealthy person that has accountants, a few banks, etc… want a donation or finincial transaction to remain secret they certainly can make that happen.
      This was released for PR benefits.

      Great they gave something, but i’m shading from afar.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh Florc, how cynical you are!

      • hmmm says:

        Damage control. Cheap bastards

      • Sixer says:

        I am shading also. The amount doesn’t bother me – it’s only the same as me sending £5 or £50 to a charity and I wouldn’t expect to be shaded for that. But that it’s PR-driven – well, see my curling, contemptuous lip.

      • My2Pence says:

        @FLORC. Tanna’s comments on it were particularly snarky.

      • Cersei says:

        Ditto, hmmm. They deserve lots of shade for this little maneuver.

      • LAK says:

        My2pence: let’s talk about Tanna.

        What’s up with him? Why is he so snarky these days? Except for the tennis pics period, he has always been supportive of WK (more K than W, but still…)

        I’m always finding myself surprised at how snarky he is as of late, sort of leading the charge that’s driving the negative press when he used to be such a cheerleader.

        Perhaps he’s been shown the door, do you think? Not completely of course because he knows where some of the bodies are buried, but enough to piss him off?!

        I’m very suspicious when he compliments Harry and Cressida which he is doing more and more, but the turn around in his remarks on WK *is* interesting…….

        What do you think?

      • FLORC says:

        My2Pence
        I follow only a handful of people on Twitter. Tanna is pretty darn entertaining that snarky b!tch!

        LAK
        I’m reading all the “snark” in your post… It seems to be the best word to decribe most of his tweets lately.
        Something has happened. Maybe he’s not getting the steady stream of access he used to have?
        With any luck he’ll play his ace in the hole and tell us what dirt he has on the Midds (which i’m betting he has and is juicy).

      • Louise says:

        For those of us who don’t know, who is Tanna?

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        LAK, i’ve been wondering the same. definitely keeping an eye on that twitter feed!

      • My2Pence says:

        I really don’t know about Tanna. After the tennis complaint, I would have expected snark but there wasn’t any. But then, if W&K had pushed harder, Tanna’s career would have been over. Since then, they’ve forced the closure of a magazine that published the France photos. They clearly have no problem with ending people’s careers when they’re angry about getting caught doing something they shouldn’t.

        It really does lend credence to the idea that William was the one who made Kate Middleton press those charges about the tennis photos because he was mad at her.

        Perhaps William saw this as KM pushing for formalization of their relationship; “look she and her family play tennis on his Daddy’s property they must be getting engaged” sort of idea. He wasn’t ready to stop dragging his feet and give up on finding anyone else. He lashed out and took his displeasure out on Tanna – as a lesson to both KM and Tanna to “know their place”
        http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/165633/Royals-target-scapegoat-in-privacy-fight

        After that, Tanna was brought back into the fold and given Middleton exclusives. Maybe William and Kate both feed him the tips that make him hound Harry, because shots of Harry show up at convenient times for William and Kate.

        Tanna still gets handed exclusives of her shopping for baby gear or in the second tiara (at the secret event no one was supposed to know about and there’s Tanna waiting at the gates, the only photographer to get the shot). Yet he wasn’t invited to the secret press event before the vacation, and he was mocked on twitter by those who were invited. Other members of the press being gleeful that Tanna is getting his comeuppance at last? That has to hurt the man’s pride.

        His mother played the press too, William just thinks that’s the way the game is played, and so they’ve used Tanna for their purposes when they want. They cut Tanna out from more official events, and still keep him on the hook for when it suits them.

        The more I think about this, the more obvious it is that they’ve BOTH been using Tanna for years. The oh-so-convenient let’s distract people from the Uncle Gary drug scandal with the car park kiss – exclusive photos by Tanna. That benefited them both – for KM proof they were together and for William it distracted the press from the fact that they’d recently vacationed at the shady uncle’s Maison de Bang Bang.

        Maybe Tanna is getting tired of this decade-long passive-aggressive push/pull (tips from W&K when it suits them, but refused access to formal events). They haven’t given him an exclusive pap op for the baby and maybe he expected one. He isn’t allowed by the Lazy Duo to move into a more accepted, formal journalist role (maybe promises were made and not kept) and now he’s done playing nice because the scraps they’re giving him aren’t enough.

        And yes, Tanna definitely knows where the bodies are buried.

      • LAK says:

        Louise: Tanna is a pap with an agency ikon pictures who is the Middletons’s pap of choice and exclusive to them. It’s a long history going back to several years of WK’s dating period.

        Any pap pics of the Middletons or Kate, including hello exclusives , are given to him exclusively, usually copyrighted by him or Ikon pictures.

        It’s never a surprise to find that any truly exclusive pap photo was exclusive only to him.

        He is also known to tweet fairly accurate information about the Middletons and Kate particularly.

        Many journalists seem to trust his information- you’ll occasionally find them on his time line asking him direct questions or simply joshing him.

      • bluhare says:

        I was laughing over the “second tiara”. I had visions of it hanging around on the the grassy knoll.

        I think I may have to dust off the twitter account.

      • Maggie says:

        Oh you mean like Jolie’s secret donations? I think they want everyone to know. That’s why it’s leaked. At least they donated something right?

      • Liberty says:

        FLORC, stand here in the shading with me.

        Totally a maneuver.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @LAK,

        I need to go and start making a habit of reading him then…

        @Sixer,

        I’m fairly tolerant but my lip is curling too.

        @My2Pennce,

        I think both have used him a LONG time (and by used I don’t mean in a good way). I think France might have changed William’s tune because suddenly the press was more afraid of the legal implications of dealing with William — which made William feel like he has a stronger hand and can be more dismissive of others…. I could be wrong but cutting off Tanna is not a good sign. Mind you, I still see William as the driving force behind this.

      • m says:

        Don’t forget that Tanna also knew that Kate was pregnant and knew exactly what day they would announce it (unexpected illness my ass) and had Kates childhood friend claim to have the info when it was coming from him. He was also the first person to know when she was in labor and the only agency to get pics of her arriving at the hospital ( although those were not released).

      • LadySlippers says:

        @LAK:

        Frankly, I’m gobsmacked at reading Tanna’s twitter feed.

        Perhaps I’ll be able to comment when the stars clear from my eyes (I do believe there are birdies fluttering around my head too).

        Snark indeed.

        **ETA**

        @m:

        I struggle to fit the hints Tanna was suggesting in with the whole ‘admission’ thing too. The hard part is I REALLY try and give people the benefit of the doubt. But know that most people can’t plan an illness so it does leave one in a precarious position.

      • taxi says:

        Sounded as if the mayor announced it, not anyone else.

      • Froop says:

        Was Tanna invited to the palace for the press meet and greet with George? I’d guess that has something to do with his change of tune.

      • FLORC says:

        Hi Maggie!
        Welcome to the conversation:)
        That’s a bridge too far. Kate and Wills charity PR move doesn’t hold a candle to Jolie’s decade long charity work with loads of donations taken straight from her paychecks. If you have links to prove otherwise please list them or state where they can be found.

        Liberty
        Why thank you! I do enjoy shading with company.

      • LAK says:

        Froop: No, he was not. He was so pissy over that one. read the timeline between 4th-7th March.

      • My2Pence says:

        @LAK. I think he wasn’t invited because he isn’t considered a “gentleman of the press”. He’s a paparazzi. One W&K use when they feel like it, but not someone to acknowledge with an invite to an exclusive press event.

      • Hazel says:

        ‘Private’ in that its from their personal bank account, rather than the public purse (or daddy’s wallet), which pays for so much else?

    • eliza says:

      IKR?! If it is common knowledge, it is not “private”.

    • bluhare says:

      Now there’s an interesting question! I now I’ll go read the answers (I bet they’re much better than the cheap reality).

    • Victoria says:

      Why can’t they take their tax write off discretely or do behind the scenes charity work without it becoming headline news? Makes me really think they barely work ever. So when it is on the D.L. it’s so amazing… how good of em! Finally.

    • CynicalCeleste says:

      Wait a tic, is this private donation like the ‘secret’ charity work Kate has been credited with doing?

      • bluhare says:

        Oh lord, I’m going to defend her. I think she did volunteer with the scouts in Wales. I saw some tweets from people who’d seen her on the beach with them.

      • FLORC says:

        I was thinking the same.
        Only when asked by the charity that received the donation… They responded it di occur! When asking Kate’s charities if they had seen her except for once a year they said no… She must have been visiting those secret charities and not the public ones.
        Snar snark snarkysnark snark snark.

      • My2Pence says:

        @bluhare. The question is, were those real or planted tweets? I think one of those was along the lines of how she had a barbeque for the scouts at the “cottage”? Because security was likely to allow that to happen.

        She was photographed with the scouts, what, twice with kids and once with scout leaders at training? In the woods in full makeup, $3000 worth of clothing, and brought the dog along so she’d have something to talk about with scary children. One of those times she spent 1 hour with the scouts, then hopped onto the helicopter and went to one of William’s polo matches. If she had truly been spending time volunteering with the scouts, we’d have more than a couple of suspect tweets as evidence.

        And remember, they started recording her behind-the-scenes secret charity meetings on the Court Circular because her numbers were so bad. Those meetings aren’t recorded for anyone else mind you…

      • bluhare says:

        Am I being too charitable again, Tuppence? It happens.

      • My2Pence says:

        Not a bad thing! Everyone gets benefits of the doubt sometimes, even these two. Unfortunately, they DO tend to do things to dash our hopes once again.

      • bluhare says:

        I just remembered one of the tweets, Tuppence. It was from some guy talking about her on the beach teaching the kids to gut fish.

  3. Ciru says:

    She has dresses that cost more than that.

    • My2Pence says:

      And really, her custom evening gowns can cost more than this donation. This is someone who trots around in a $2000 Ralph Lauren blazer to go lampshade shopping. £5,000 is peanuts.

    • Victoria says:

      Too right. This amount is paltry compared to her coats , fake hair, spray tan, botox, cigarettes, shoes, night at the Maldives resort. Ought to have been 500,000 cheap rat b******S

  4. Hope says:

    I would just like to say that I think the current obsession with beige is just sad. All my friends have beige furniture, beige carpet, beige sheets with cream pillows, beige shower curtains with brown details. Fricken YAWN! May as well nail toast to your walls and furniture. I’ll just sit here with my seafoam walls, purple curtains and umber sofa and hog all the color.

    On the point of the 5,000 pounds the two donated, you’re right. They didn’t *have* to donate. And that money will be put to very good use. But let’s not pretend that some of the duchess’s outfits don’t cost as much. They could have been much more generous, but they said the donation was a token gesture. It was meant to say “our thoughts are with you,” and not make a big difference. If they really wanted to help they would be out doing something for the flood victims or sending more substantial aid.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Sometimes a neutral palate can be very soothing. I love color, though, and I think that sometimes beige=fear. I think Kate was afraid to make a mistake, so she went safe. Remember how Diana decorated Highgrove? It was saturated in color. Just sayin’.

      • Green Girl says:

        I hate the neutral colors, too. I think they could make a deep shade of blue or green look absolutely stunning in that apartment without looking as though it’s overwhelming the place.

      • Victoria says:

        Seafoam green, sponged on. It’s lovely

    • bluhare says:

      On a somewhat related note in the first photo underneath the article, my first thought was Kate looks on the verge of tears as she thinks about all that renovation work that still has to done.

      And if I was a decent lyricist I’d write some lyrics for “Purple Tinge” as I want to start singing Purple Rain every time I see it. :)

  5. LadySlippers says:

    Interesting.

    So £5,000 is the going rate to make people forget a bunch of transgressions???!?

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Do you think it’s a dangerous precedent? I mean, will other people/needy causes be hurt because they didn’t get anything? I think they should have tried harder to keep it anonymous.

      • FLORC says:

        GoodNames
        Maybe i’m not remembering it correctly, but Hasn’t William donated larger amounts before? I want to say he’s donated 10k, but that may have been along with Harry or just Harry.

        And to all you UK residents… is 5k a threshold for a tax write off?

        And yes LadySlippers. I’ve put on my cynical pants today>:)

      • bluhare says:

        Don’t they use their foundation for the big donations? That way they can say they’ve donated and it’s not necessarily their money (thinking of the wedding gift thing).

      • LadySlippers says:

        GoodNames,

        I think it’s a very telling thing. And IMHO it shows how ridiculously out of touch those two are.

        Florc & Bluhare,

        Yes, they’ve donated with their foundation before in much larger amounts. William
        & Harry have donated £100k before (I can’t remember what but I read it within the last month — it might be veteran related).

        I think £5k is a pittance and rather shameful for someone in their position.

        Florc,

        I’m worried that my cynicism might go dark. As everyone knows, I’m fairly open and not judgey, but I’m feeling judgey and it’s only getting worse.

      • Liberty says:

        Didn’t he and Harry get sent to also do sandbag duty or something?

        I think any dime given is a helpful thing, and those who need probably don’t care why it was given – but it smacks as more “look over here” to me, too.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I just remembered the £100k is for the Invictus Games and it is from their foundation.

        @Madame Liberté,

        Yes, any money is helpful but £5k sounds simply like a token gesture and nothing more. I *think* £20k would have felt less like a token and more ‘real’ (if that makes sense).

      • mena says:

        Maybe W&K think bringing media attention to the charity is also being charitable? Like they’ve publicly acknowledged them, shouldn’t that be enough?

        I dunno, I remember when William & Harry did that Enduro Charity ride in Africa, they were criticized when it came out that the princes had donated only the minimum amount of money to join the charity ride.

        Afterwards it was explained away by saying the PR boost the charity got as a result of the princes’ participation was worth a lot of money.

        Seemed like major PR spin at the time and I could see W&K trying to use the same excuse here.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Mena,

        Great points. But there are a lot of less underhanded ways to draw attention to the flooding victims than this. I think, after reading this whole post, people are upset with all the implications the ‘private but leaked’ donation suggest. If it was a donation made in good faith, only the truly cynical would object. The rest would applaud. And this is bringing out even the jaded cynic in me and that speaks volumes.

      • mena says:

        Oh totally agree, Lady Slippers.

        There are dozens of ways they could’ve handled this better. But this is William & Kate we’re talking about here. I’m not sure they care about doing better.

        It’s always the bare minimum with these two.

        William used a lame excuse to explain away a poor charitable effort before. I’m sure he’ll use another one to explain away this one too.

      • mayamae says:

        I don’t want to comment on the amount, just about letting it go public. I’m always torn on this topic, and yes, it is often used for image control. But people used to snark on Oprah’s donations (obviously at a much higher amount), and accuse her of using it to manipulate her image. My opinion at the time, and probably still, is Oprah set an example that many followed. Oprah’s fans couldn’t in any way match her amount, but were inspired by her. And every time her donations were mentioned (even if only to attack her), her charities received publicity. I guess I look at it as a win/win.

      • FLORC says:

        LadySlippers
        We all have our dark moments. You’re allowed yours. If you must ask Bluhare for the keys to the wiglet wagon, drive to the top of a steep hill and rain curses down on the land. No one will judge you.

        Mena
        I think W&K played this poorly from the start.
        1. They or their office (since they were on vacation) should have put out a statement that the Duke and Duchess were deeply moved by the state of their fellow countrymen.
        2. Cancelled vacations within the immediate future.
        3. Been at the flood sites sandbagging earlier than hey were. Like immediately. Or have spoken at the site (at least 10 minutes worth) to give a sound piece on the situation.
        4. Made their donation at least 5 figures considering their over indulgent and well publicized lifestyle.

        Instead, they came in late and left early for another vacation while donating a fraction of the cost of their …3rd(?) vacation this year.

        I’d be harder on them, but in truth this is what we expect. An apathetic couple that doesn’t seemed to be moved by the suffering of those who help support their lifestyle.
        I’m about ready to drive to that hill top with LadySlippers.

    • Liberty says:

      LadySlippers, I concur.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I struggled with what amount, for them, would not seem like a mere token and £20k was the bottom of my threshold.

        I’m curious to see what is the W&K threshold for others. (And yes, Harry & William did sandbag)

      • Liberty says:

        Your token seems reasonable. I try to factor in “other charities need donations too” and so I tried to be somewhat fair — but in the end announcing a small amount, as a seemingly rare gesture, one that pales to their decor and shopping bills, seems weirdly hand-wavey to me. Also, I worked for a very wealthy rather well-known man years ago who gave millions and millions silently to very needy charities and we were ordered to say nothing, not a peep, ever. He expressed genuine horror of being lauded or thanked., felt it was tacky to help and then blab kit around, be it a small gesture or a huge thing. His PR person tried to get him press anyway; he told the guy off in a major way.

      • Original N says:

        ^ Liberty – love your post above! This describes exactly how I believe charitable donations (monetary in nature) should be handled.

        @LadySlippers – I completely agree and it is based on what percentage of my own net worth is donated annually v. the percentage this particular donation comprises for someone like Will and Waity. The only hope I have is that they give an amount annually that exceeds the percentage I give but they manage to keep it secret. Do I think it is likely, especially in light of this leak? No. But, a girl can hope, right?

  6. eliza says:

    WOW! Could they spare it?

    • bluhare says:

      I know!! With all the engagements coming up . . . . oh wait.

      (Yes I know they’ve got that tour coming up; a pesky fact I refuse to let get in the way!)

      • My2Pence says:

        Apparently William now has something on March 31st with HM and PP in Windsor. That only gives them 10 days to fit in the skiing trip. I’m still thinking the skiing will take place before NZ/AU, then they’ll go off on a different holiday (sans PGTips) to “celebrate their romantic three year anniversary”…

      • LAK says:

        William has been doing investitures. i think he did one this week. He’s averaging one every fortnight.

      • bluhare says:

        He knighted Marcus Setchel, didn’t he? Personally, I think he deserved one for saving Sophie and Louises’s lives rather than a normal delivery of George, but that’s just me. Actually, I just remembered. I think the Queen did give him something after that; I just can’t think of what.

  7. Nikki says:

    Seems weird…..they take taxpayer money them give some of it back to the taxpayers (flood vitims) and then expect applause…?
    I’d rather actually see them out there doing something to help too……

  8. bettyrose says:

    Do they also give regular donations to other charities? I mean if they have a monthly gift to the Red Cross that already partially funded relief efforts maybe this was just a little extra they gave to a local charity that really needed it? Just for discussions sake. Regular giving supplemented by small increases as needed would be a common donor profile.

  9. MonicaQ says:

    I mean, that’s…nice. But um, it could’ve been kept “secret” if they would have liked.

    Still, something is better than nothing…I guess. (Can you tell it’s 10 days before I get paid and how I’m grappling with it?! LMAO)

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      Exactly…secret my ass.

      I feel like the fact that so many of us (myself included) are saying “it’s better than nothing” is indicative of how low the bar has been set for these two.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Exactly Kitten.

        I’m so glad they think flooding victims are worth their pocket change. Perhaps if they dug around their sofa cushions they might find another £5k. How exciting and magnanimous of them would it be to donate the change found in their furniture!

        (Okay, I’m sufficiently cross)

      • Mel says:

        I agree. I do NOT think the fact that they gave *something* is particularly redeeming. They could have given much, much, much more.

        And for their sake – not that I care terribly – it definitely would have been better to keep it a “secret”, because this gift only makes them appear cheap (AND vain).

        Frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such disastrous PR management as these two have.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Mel:

        Remember that the Palace’s (and hence staff) employ mostly prior military people. Now, after Diana’s death they did revamp and hire more civilians with a variety of backgrounds but it’s still mostly prior military. That’s why the entire BRF doesn’t always have the best PR skills or they often resort to tactics that are very well worn (e.g. sacrificing the other children to make the heir or heiress look better). Charles specifically hired a PR company to rehab his post divorce image with fantastic results. The rest of the time they make do with the hodgepodge efforts of the staff.

      • bluhare says:

        I have to confess, I saw Edward and Sophie advertising for a private secretary a while back and for about 3 seconds I thought about putting an application in (what fun THAT interview would have been!) but one of the job specs was that prior military experience would be helpful. Does anyone know why? To brush up Sophie’s facts for when she gets together with the Queen?

      • LadySlippers says:

        Bluhare,

        Before I forget, CONGRATS on your new job!!!! I feel like crap for scrolling by when I meant to say something earlier. My apologies and again, mazel tov! :-D

        Royalty is an extension of the military and the rules of the military are often adapted (albeit slightly) for the conqueror’s family. The conqueror’s family is the revered by the new people and become the new country’s Imperial/Royal/Princely Family (depends on country). So back in the day, it made sense that people that served their country on the front lines continued to served in the castle.

      • bluhare says:

        Thank you for both, LadySlippers. I understand what you say about the military etc. in the olden days, but today? Especially when we’ve been talking about how all this military staff might not be the best for good PR? Not that Sophie needs to worry about that right now, but I do recall a DM article about her not that long ago where they said she was quite regal (implying a bit too regal).

  10. My2Pence says:

    @Kaiser. Just some quick reminder maths on that vacation:

    - $500 per meal for every person they took with them (probably 4-6 security staff). That’s at least $3000/day ($21,000/week) for food for security alone – paid by taxpayers

    - Overtime for security staff – paid by taxpayers

    - Airfares: The cost of airfares was approximately $100,000, including the cost of the earlier security visit plus all the security staff. Those costs are paid by the taxpayers, not out of any mythical money William has (the inheritance from Diana still tracks back to the taxpayers). Seeing how skinflint he is, I’m sure he spends someone else’s money for most everything.

    - $10,000/week per villa. We still have no confirmation on whether or not they rented out the whole place – the kind of thing they have done before. That would be $450,000 for the hotel alone if they did. They aren’t allowed to accept freebies, so if they did or there were significant discounts given, an investigation is in order (influence peddling, etc).

    So overall, £5,000 ($8300) is a pathetic amount to donate. They’ll get a tax break, write it off, and who knows, maybe they’ll even charge it back to Charles since he pays for everything else for them.

    • hmmm says:

      I like your style, tuppence.

    • FLORC says:

      My2Pence
      Is it not possible the Security and Staff they brought with them had to pack or were provided bag lunches? That would lessen the cost greatly!

      • lower-case deb says:

        i’m sure, as they are either armed forces or armed whatever, they are allowed MREs and to forage for wild animals and plants during off duty hours.

        put that survival training to good use.

        actually, i’d love to read all their RPO accounts, must be fascinating to guard the royal person (any royal)

      • LAK says:

        LOWER CASE DEB: read Ken Wharfe’s book. He was Diana’s RPO for more than a decade, only leaving after she decided that she didn’t need RPOs after the separation.

        That’s when the paps *really* started to hound her because those RPOs are very good at stopping that sort of thing. It’s one of the reasons you don’t see pap pics of the royals in general, Kate included, except when public post twitter pics or the Middletons arrange for their pap on speed dial to take pics of Kate, and even those are rare. Public twitter pics have to be discreetly taken because the RPOs try to prevent those as much as they can, and have been known to remove pics from cameras if they know a pic has been taken. Exception Harry’s Vegas night. Honestly, he was a knucklehead, but his RPOs didn’t do their job there.

        On a different note, I’m always amazed at how terrible regular issue bodyguards are when you compare them to RPOs when it comes to allowing their charge to be hounded by paps or even fans.

      • FLORC says:

        lower-case deb
        Mmmm MRE’s are delicious. I got a ton when Kittens Mittens (or was it Kitten Mittens?) was dating a guy in the service. Have a box in the pantry, but it’s mostly filled with the ones I didn’t care for.

        UPPER-CASE LAK
        I’m wondering if most bodyguards hired by celebs aren’t just accessories to a certain extent.. Like Beibers. They seem more entourage and showing rather than protection.

      • LadySlippers says:

        The difference in training that RPOs (or PPOs) get vs body guards (most are military and DO NOT get trained to protect people) is vast.

        RPOs: Royal Protection Officers
        PPOs (what their official title is): Personal Protection Officers

      • bluhare says:

        Yeah, where did Kitten Mittens get to? She’s a friend of FLORC’s, right? And Good Capon? And Sachi?

      • lower-case deb says:

        @LAK, i shall be on the lookout for that book. 10 years! wow. i’m quite curious now.

        @FLORC, i remember talking to an ex-military guy here in my country when a bunch of us had been offloaded a city bus in the middle of a pouring rain in the middle of nowhere. for some odd reason they (this guy and some other men) began talking about ready made meals in the field. this guy remembered a joint training with some foreign (western) servicemen.

        apparently, different countries’ servicemen had different standards of taste.
        he said: for them, as long as it tastes like chicken or potatoes they’ll eat it. for us, it’s a bit bland.
        one of the other stranded person asked: what’s your standard?
        “anything, as long as it tastes like curry or has rice in it”

        i vaguely remember going back home that night, and stumbled upon a website chronicling the many types of MRE from all over the world. i wish i’d have bookmarked it now. :(

      • LAK says:

        lower-case deb/Florc: goodness, didn’t realise i was capitalising lower-case deb’s name. i thought it looked off on my phone, couldn’t work out why. time for an eye test or stop reading CB from my phone whilst on the go.

        on a different note, that’s amazing about the different meals. i thought that outside of religious considerations, they served all military the same meals no matter the country they served.

      • mayamae says:

        LAK, maybe the average bodyguard isn’t as good as these RPOs because they’re held accountable for things like removing film from someone’s camera. I’m pretty sure in the US that this is completely illegal, maybe that’s why Harry’s pics got through?

        This has made me wonder if the Secret Service in my country has a history of removing film from cameras. It seems unlikely, that’s the kind of thing that would reflect negatively on the president.

      • FLORC says:

        Bluhare
        KM won’t be finished with her doctorate until May. She’s eyeball deep in school until then.
        Can’t say about GoodCap and Sachi, but their opinions are greatly missed! At least Mich is back in a small capacity!

        lower-case deb
        My favorite was the mac and cheese with shredded pork! Mmmm…
        When I was in a survival club in high school we did a national guard boot camp. Found our MRE’s in field locations with a crude map and compass. Not only was that insanely fun, but food just doesn’t taste as good when you’re not starving and eat it from the bag. No mess and you squeeze out the rest. No waste!

        mayamae
        Our Secret Service has already reflected poorly… Remeber the hookers, coke, and exposing secret service trade secrets on how to protect the president? Like the formations and where the weak spots are on FB? Oh, that was bad for a bit…

      • LAK says:

        Mayamea: that’s a very good point. i hadn’t thought about it like that.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Google Ken Wharfe and try and read his book. He actually thinks RPOs are better than the Secret Service and details why. Not saying I agree but he has excellent points.

      • wendi says:

        LAK
        Tell me you were joking about the RPO’s confiscating phones/cameras from the public if they (gasp!) dared to take a picture of the precious royals, please??! Do they really have that kind of authority?? That blows my mind.

      • LAK says:

        Wendi: If they are aware the picture is being taken, they are allowed to confiscate/delete the pictures.

        At the end of the day, they are working policemen so they are empowered to do what is necessary according to the law.

        Most of the time, they never allow anyone to get close enough to take a pic which is impossible for the average person with a regular camera phone or even regular camera without a zoom lens.

        Most of the public twitter pics of WHK are really fuzzy and you can tell that they were taken surreptitiously and never a close up.

      • wendi says:

        Thanks LAK – as usual, your knowledge seems to have no limits. It’s incredible to me that they have that kind of power — I’m assuming the ability to have photo-taking apparatus confiscated only applies to royals (v.s. celebrities or plain old John/Jane Smith)?

      • mayamae says:

        FLORC, you’re right. They probably see it as compensation for being willing to throw themselves in front of a bullet.

      • Mhahaha says:

        The Guardian did a fabulous article on military MREs from different countries last month. Here you go!
        http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/18/eat-of-battle-worlds-armies-fed
        Or if you just prefer the pictures:
        http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gallery/2014/feb/18/army-ration-packs-in-pictures
        Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion of W&K and their RPOs.

      • LAK says:

        Wendi: The RPOs come from a specialist protection unit that is part of the Protection command of Scotland yard which provides security for diplomatic and government communities and Royals.

        The entire command is empowered to do what’s necessary to protect their charges whether they are royals or regular people if they fall under their protection.

        Also, they are armed unlike regular policemen, so I wouldn’t cheek them if you ever run across any royal!!!!

    • Liberty says:

      Now, wait. Maybe I shaded too quickly. We’re not looking at this properly A little research indicates this was really a VERY generous amount, equal to:

      Over 1000 Chevron Devein Party Candy Bag sets, OR
      1000 Decadent Decorations Pom Pom Mix sets, OR
      500 Fun At One Basic 1st Birthday Party Kits, OR
      200 Tiered Cupcake Stands, OR
      10,000 Striped Cupcake Gift Boxes

      [I checked a party supplies website to find out how valuable this donation really is.]

      • FLORC says:

        Did you check Party Pieces? I’ve found their prices are a bit inflated not including i’d have to ship internationally.

      • Liberty says:

        FLORC, why yes. I did ;-)

        I guess we must deduct for P&P.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh Madame! What a tres genius you are. Flood victims are sad, therefore they need a soirée to be happy!!!

        I am SO happy you figure dis out. Thank the goodness Kate people’s do soirée decoration. We get good deal and save money. Make victims happy. All better, yes????
        ;-)

      • Liberty says:

        LadySlippers — Yes! Who doesn’t like a party? All better, in a snap! WIth shiny “Our FIrst Flood” banners and sandbag- and wellies-shaped teacakes, and perhaps a little sort of “ark animals” motif for the kiddies. A few coins tucked in the cupcakes for luck, such fun! Boost the spirits, yes?

        With any luck, we get a family or Queendom discount! Maybe we can tack on “Have A NIce Vacation” balloons and plates for later use.

      • mayamae says:

        Obviously you’re joking, but Teresa Giudice, from Real Housewives of NJ, responded to clothing drives in New Jersey post Hurricane Sandy, by packing up some of her and her children’s sparkly, sequined, faux fur, leopard print, etc. clothing. She thought it would make these devastated, now homeless people “happy”.

      • Liberty says:

        mayamae — yes, completely joking!! Oh my god….can you imagine being so devastated by a storm and being handed not functional warm clothing, but a tacky leopard print salon dress? (The tiniest kids might have liked it I suppose in a sort of Halloween way, but gah.) People sometimes…. I remember my grandmother when I was small helping us kids choose what to donate to a charity drive in similar circumstances: “give not what you don’t want, but what you like – give to them what you’d need yourself.” Best advice ever. It made us thoughtful about every pick.

      • TG says:

        What about Boomf? How many personalized marshmallows could you buy with £5,000? It might have been better if they had just donated marshmallows that way the flood victims would have something to eat.

      • Liberty says:

        TG — Boomf marshmallows!!! Of course. I wasn’t thinking. Ah, you’re a natural at charitable giving. I salute your selection.

    • Reece says:

      Hold on M2P, I (vaguely) remember someone mentioning, casually, that one or two of the overabundance of articles on this story saying that a person called up trying to get a villa on the island during the same week and the person on the line told them not that it was shutdown to others but that they had “no vacancies”. *straightens my smarty pants hat* There is a difference. Where do expect the RPOs to sleep? They can’t stay in the same villa as W&K! Also when a place such as that has “no vacancies” they do tend to give a discounts on things. So I doubt that the taxpayers paid 450K, they probably only had to pay 425K. ;)

    • Original N says:

      I am so glad you keep drawing attention to the actual costs likely billed to the UK taxpayers. If the monarchy is to remain, the expense of the monarchy should be transparent to the taxpayers! People should be allowed to make an educated decision regarding cost versus worth…

  11. Jaded says:

    Why just a paltry donation to Rhyl? South-east England was devastated while Wills was off banging boars (or is that “bores”…sorry, haven’t had enough coffee yet). They should have been front row centre giving and raising money to help all the flood victims right from the getgo.

    Anyhoo…too little too late so bring on the shade.

  12. Kiara says:

    That is probably the cost of what she wears on nights she decides to “work” every 5 months or so.

    wow
    such generosity
    very money
    wow
    many pounds

  13. RobN says:

    I’ve never quite understood the phenomenon of people who donated nothing criticizing people who did.

    • FLORC says:

      RobN

      Speaking of my personal charitable work I donate my time and money when I can. I also put a lot of time into researching charities before I don’t to make sure the money doesn’t go to a corporate set up or a solicitors cut. And for those who rely on the commonwealth for their expensive and indulgent lifestyle to barely toss anything back is something to talk about.
      This is a nice donation, but the timing falls more on PR than someone leaking this info on the other end.

      Don’t assume we criticize blindly here.

      • RobN says:

        I didn’t say it wasn’t worth talking about, what I said was that people who give nothing, and perhaps you’re an exception to that, are always quite willing to judge others for not giving in the “right” way. The “right” way, of course, is how they would give; that is, if they actually give anything at all. It’s the hypocrisy that bothers me, not the fair discussion about the purpose of the donation.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I’m with Florc here.

        We criticise because they are *capable* of donating more both in time, money, and other ways. And the timing of the donation seems off. The UK has been dealing with flooding for some time now.

        I also volunteer when and what I can. But I have to do both within my budget which is substantially less than theirs.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I donate money to local animal charities every year.
        But regardless, the royals aren’t just “people”, as you indicate. These are people who are very wealthy and in a position of power.
        You really don’t think they should be held to a different standard than the average person?

      • FLORC says:

        RobN
        I do see what you’re saying. Who are others who give nothing to judge those who give a little.
        The other side of this is those who have a little can’t always give at all. And those who have a lot might not give at all unless others guilt or shame them into doing it. And there’s exceptions to every part of this.

        Still, does one don’t to say they did so or to really help whether it’s acknowledged they did so or not?
        This 5k feels more like a token amount than a sum they thought would do the most good.

      • FLORC says:

        LadySlippers
        Because i’m in a particularly snarky mood today… Can you imagine the amount of donations that could have been generated if Kate found herself a random soapbox and generted some press on this disaster? I wouldn’t even care if the speech, outfit, and hair were awful. Just as long as she raised awareness. If she can wear a dress and it sells out surely she is capable of having the greatest impact/smallest amount of work ratio, no?

        TOK
        That’s great you donate to a shelter and seem to adopt cats into what I imagine is a loving home. You’ve done several cat rants in posts and you really geek out over them (meant as a high compliment).

      • LadySlippers says:

        Florc,

        I’m not so sure I want Kate speaking at all considering her past performances (you KNOW I’m cranky now as I rarely get snarky). However, putting my cynicism aside, having the Cambridge’s out asking for donations would be impressive. Time is JUST as important as money when people need help.

        I have a foster cat and for years fed (and when I could grab a feral cat — vaccinated & desexed) the feral colonies wherever I’ve lived.

        We donate old clothes and help out with time whenever we can. People forget how helpful donating clothes are to people in need.

      • mayamae says:

        TOK, in the past I’ve been money rich and time poor. At that time I donated at least 10% of my income to charities – primarily animals, but also St Judes. Currently I am money poor and time rich. I know volunteer at least once a week at a private animal shelter and it’s so rewarding and yet heartbreaking at the same time. What a difference between donating money vs donating time. It’s easier to distance yourself with the money. I don’t regret it.

      • FLORC says:

        LadySlippers
        I have a terrible shopping habit. When I reconsider my purchase it’s appreciated as a donation. Helps with the buyers remorse.

        And remember around christmas Kate did a recorded message? She wasn’t half bad! It was still terrible by normal standards, but for her… Good. I think she should do more of thoses to allow for a teleprompter and many edits(snarky snark).

        Mayamae
        Donating time is always great. I feel better after doing it (which is selfish), but love helping another person smile a bit. That these 2 can’t see the gain in that is lost on me.

    • bluhare says:

      As you do not know what people here have and have not done (you do know Sixer actually lives in a flooded area and was stuck on top of a hill, right?), I don’t think that’s a fair comment either.

      Although I think we all struggle (as did Kaiser if you read the article) with this, but when it’s put out there as a donation, and they live rent free in a mansion that would cost gazillions of dollars a month to rent if they paid market rent (does anyone who lives there have any sort of clue what market rent would be on a place like that?), she spends more than that on one bleeding shopping trip, but they’re just like us mind you, well you can get where we come from.

      And, for the record, I have been unemployed (not any more as of 4/1 — yay!) for quite some time, living on no income at all, and I donated to charity. OK with you?

      • The Original Mia says:

        Congrats on the job, bluhare!

        They could & should do better. The fact they only chose to do something because of bad press leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. They shouldn’t be shamed to do something. They should do something because the plight of others less fortunate than them moves them. But that would require empathy and acknowledgement of others’ suffering and I’m not quite sure either of them is truly capable of that.

      • FLORC says:

        Bluhare
        Yay! Will you show up for your 1st day and they tell you they’ve reconsidered your employment only to yell April Fools? I never trust anything that might be said on that day.

        TOM
        They are a goood example of Apathy. I strongly believe that.

        And did you ever read an article quoting Kate’s cousin(not the stripper)? I think it was her cousin.. anyways. The cousin was trying to defend her on how she struggles to be interested in others. Once the topic drifts from what she wants to talk about she drifts. I always confuse the article with the Jigsaw one. LAK always sets me straight. I’ll see if I can’t dig it out if you can’t remember.

      • bluhare says:

        Thanks, you guys. FLORC the April Fools aspect was not lost on me at all. I should get the offer letter today, so I’ll sign on the dotted line toot sweet!

      • LAK says:

        FLORC: that cousin quote came from a Middleton cousin during their first visit to Cambridge. She said that Kate struggles to be interested in people. She was responding to a direct question from a reporter about how Kate was coping with royal duties and was trying to give a sympathetic quote. I can’t paste the relevant article because my phone is rubbish like that, hope you find it.

        It’s sort of sad that in trying to paint Kate in a sympathetic light these people end up making her look worse.

      • lower-case deb says:

        amazing news Baroness Bluhare! *airkisses*
        i will start hoarding half-priced mimosas from goodwill so we can celebrate in a fortnight’s time!

      • Liberty says:

        Congratulatins, bluhare!! Fabulous news! Champagne all ’round. And a great comment, too.

      • My2Pence says:

        Congrats on the new position, bluhare!

      • MonicaQ says:

        Congrats on the job! Being unemployed is a special hell and you’re free now! :D

      • Original N says:

        @bluhare – CONGRATULATIONS! Best wishes for you!

      • FLORC says:

        LAK
        My phone is only allowing me to open, view, and post mobile addresses…. GAH! Thanks for the confirmation though. I might give up. It isn’t worth it.

        And TBH I’m somehow lost the Mortal Instruments City of Bones movie… Not for Lily, but the Jace character. Good lord I think I need that sequel to come out asap even though she’s awful and the writing is a nightmare! Meryl Streep couldn’t pull off those corny lines!
        Hot body, blonde hair, accent, yes! And I don’t feel that bad because he’s only 2 or 3 years younger than me:) So yes… i’ve thrown in the towel on… What were we talking about?

      • bluhare says:

        How lovely to come back and see all these comments. Thank you everybody. I’m looking forward to getting back into the real world, and really looking forward to having what I hear is called “disposable income”. :)

      • Sixer says:

        Bluhare – congratulations! Really happy for you.

        Regarding Robn’s original comment: in terms of voluntary work, I am a lay governor of a local school, I help run an after school poetry club at the same school and I am the bookkeeper and treasurer for a local charity. Working it out, I have done more voluntary work hours this year than Waity has – and I have a full-time job, do my own housework and bring up my own children, unlike her. I suspect that the amounts I donate monthly to three charities are probably a larger proportion of my income than whatever Baldtop and Wife Person give.

        So if I want to criticise a public servant paid for by my taxes for not sufficiently serving the public, I blinkin’ well will!

      • bluhare says:

        Thank you, Sixer. I feel a bit guilty now, after reading your post! I was wondering where you were yesterday; apparently you were busy. :)

      • FLORC says:

        Sixer
        1. That’s amazing you do so much!
        2. I’m starting to understand why so many of us here are critical of Kate and William’s lack of work ethic. The majority of us seem to be busy bodies that enjoy spending time and hopefully enriching the lives of others. It’s nice to hear (or read) that the world isn’t filled with people who are indifferent to the circumstances of others. And why so many of us get angry at the wasted potential of Kate’s platform. Myself, more because I saw what Diana accomplished with it.

        And to the issue. Just because you’re wealthy doesn’t mean you can’t care. Diana and Florence Nightingale were both from well off families, but impacted the world by their caring nature. So, it’s not the money that makes a person not care, it’s just the nature of the person.

      • Sixer says:

        Don’t feel guilty, Bluhare! I wasn’t trying to blow my own trumpet, honest. I just had a little antsi moment at being told not to criticise because I don’t do anything.

        And yes, FLORC, everything you said.

    • My2Pence says:

      Based on American data, not British, but interesting for this discussion:

      Why the Rich Don’t Give to Charity
      The wealthiest Americans donate 1.3 percent of their income; the poorest, 3.2 percent. What’s up with that?
      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/

      Quote:
      Last year, Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, a**holes.”

      • mayamae says:

        This was true as of at least a couple of years ago – The employees of Walmart (many who live on public assistance), give a higher percentage of their income than the Walton family. That fact absolutely stunned me! I am no fan of the Walton’s and their company that ate America, and this is one of the reasons.

      • MonicaQ says:

        I’ve actually had a rich person from Sand Key here in Florida remark to me while I was working at CompUSA that she deserved her wealth because she married rich. And that if I had worked a *little* bit harder, I would’ve had the same success.

        Mind you I was trying to tell her that the $800 computer she wanted would do everything that the $1500 computer she was trying to get. I remarked that we were not all so lucky to trip and fall on a money phallus and that my two degrees are quite frankly worth it before walking away.

      • FLORC says:

        MonicaQ
        LOL
        I’ve met more than a few of those ladies since moving to CT. Their value is only as great as their husbands paychecks.

      • bluhare says:

        MonicaQ, that was some of the best shade I ever read. My hat is off to you.

      • Liberty says:

        MonicaQ, when I work in fashion and non-profit, I sometimes hear the same thing. I smile because I imagine “I’m Contemptible” written on their foreheads.

    • hmmm says:

      @RobN

      Other people just don’t boast about it like the Dolittles.

    • Mel says:

      But how would you even know whether someone has donated or not?
      Keep in mind that some people – many people – DO keep their charitable deeds private.

  14. The Original Mia says:

    Paltry sum they wouldn’t have considered giving if not for the disastrous PR from their Maldives vacation.

  15. CynicalCeleste says:

    They have so much opportunity to use their immense power in the media to do good and yet… we get this, the very least they could do. Oh, and elephant tusks. If they ever actually aspire to be ‘modern royals’ they need to get their heads out of their bottoms, be in touch with what is going on in the world and take part in the issues facing the mainstream of society (and their, ahem, subjects) in a timely way.

    For example, how amazing would it be if they did a photo-op of taking Baby PG to the doctor for his immunizations? It would stop all these ill-informed anti-vax celebrities in their tracks…along with the growing resurgence of measles, whooping cough, etc. which seriously endanger all our children.

    With great privilege comes great responsibility and these two are shamefully wasting all opportunities.

    • bluhare says:

      Get their heads out of their bottoms . . . that’s so sweet, Celeste. It just is. :)

      And I like your post. A lot.

    • Maggie says:

      That’s actually a really good idea. I cannot believe ppl arent vaccinating their children when it has been proven to work. Maybe these ppl should visit a country where there are no vaccinations?

      • FLORC says:

        Working in health care I can tell you there’s a huge spike in babies, kids, and adults coming down with easily preventable illnesses.
        What can be as simple as a $200 (or free at certain clinics) all in 1 shot for someone without insurance can prevent so much in overnight bills from hospitalization.

        Makes me go Grrrr.

    • Liberty says:

      “With great privilege comes great responsibility and these two are shamefully wasting all opportunities.” This is something that I wish someone would explain to them. But if they haven’t gotten by now, watching the Queen etc., it feels like willful shirking and mingy displays of effort. How do you drive home through Palace gates and feel no twinge of “I am fortunately placed, what can I do with this to help others?” Ah well.

      • bluhare says:

        Totally agree, Liberty, although I can’t believe that at least Charles hasn’t tried. I hope he’s tried anyway. I also like to think (probably naively) that Jamie Lowther Pinkerton quit because he was tired of banging his head on a brick wall.

      • Liberty says:

        I hope he tried, too. The contrast between Wm and the Ginger Scamp makes me wonder what went right, what didm’t, is this first-born vs. spare attitude, etc. Who knows. I share your view re Pinkerton actually, though I think he tried to help train the new staff (may be wrong about that) — or warn them (wink).

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        Liberty – “driving home through the palace gates” – great image.

        Florc – upthread @12:47, the soapbox comment…totally agree. If they are too cheap to donate actual money, then get on a soapbox. Flubbed speeches, wardrobe malfunctions, even posh holidays, would all be forgiven if they were actively, frequently and honestly using their position to make the world a better place for others.

      • Liberty says:

        FLORC and CynicalCeleste — I agree. Even if it’s not earth’s best speech, who cares — just speak from the heart. With a little practice, they’d probably do well after a few stumps. I’ve personally given til it hurts and done without for things like this over the years. I even lived on noodles and broth for a freaking month more than a few times when in college and starting out, skipped weekend trips w friends, etc, to donate decently to something worthy (I was also helping relatives so budget was shrieking tight! haha). ANd i am a girl who likes nice food and cute clothes, not a martyr by nature LOL! So I just can’t imagine….you’re royal, rich, have a platform — how the heck do you not step up? How do you just keep shopping and whining and tea la? How do you not walk into a palace or snap on some jewels and think, “man, I could really help people or animals or etc? What might I learn along the way?” sigh.

      • FLORC says:

        Liberty
        I lived pff of Ramen and peanut butter for long stretches of school. You do what you have to.
        I remember when My husband and I started living together we lived in an aawful part of Hartford on the west end. Our parents both told us we would appreciate a home later on by living in that roach infested 1 bedroom. And we appreciate our home more having lived that way to save for a home.

        Now these 2 need to see the other side of things. Both are so coddled. Even William’s sleepingbag/homeless for a night charity had him with bodyguards. They’ve only been told how bad it can be. I don’t think that’s enough for these 2 to know how much they can impact a life for the better or care to do so.

        And yea. To be seen being actively endorsing a good cause is what should be happening instead of mailing a check and a letter signed by a machine.

      • Liberty says:

        FLORC — here’s to the value of noodle and peanut butter days. (Raises glass.)

      • FLORC says:

        LOL Liberty. I’ll drink to that (and just about anything else).
        I remember hating running after high school, but ended up joining my college XC team because athletes got upgraded meal plans. You do what you have to!

    • CynicalCeleste says:

      Meanwhile, I cringe to think of what world-changing bunk William is going to be inspired to champion once he finishes his bespoke agricultural program. Protecting the endangered spotted yellow wood ant of northeastern Cornwall or some such rot.

    • mayamae says:

      I’m loving the immunization idea. Jenny McCarthy did this country (US) a disservice – there used to be a Jenny McCarthy body count website, but they’ve changed the name. While I think there’s a good argument in splitting the vaccines up instead of doing the whopping combinations, it’s that fact that they can be combined that makes them affordable.

  16. Kimberly says:

    It’s better to give something than nothing at all, but at the same time……………. I’m thinking to myself, what’s the point of donating that small sum of money, if you can afford to give more generously?

    Also, there’re not donating that money because they want to. Just trying to make themselves look good and get good publicity.

    You should help someone if you really want to, not because you think you have to.

  17. itsetsyou says:

    I don’t care how much they donated – it’s the fact that it’s presented as “private,” a good deed the couple supposedly didn’t want to brag about yet it’s in the media! Please.

  18. kibbles says:

    Did someone really think that leaking this info would help William and Kate’s image? I don’t think it does. Everyone know that they can afford to give much more than £5,000 . It’s such a paltry sum for a Royal couple who typically spends that amount each night in a luxury hotel room during their travels. This might even give them more negative press than if they had not donated at all. Sure, a donation is nice, but would any of us brag to our local newspaper about donating a dollar to charity? Because that is what £5,000 is to William and Kate, just a drop in the bucket compared to their net worth. These two make me sick.

    • Mel says:

      My thoughts exactly.
      For their sake, I wish they HAD kept it private, because this is only making it worse. Much, much worse.

  19. idk says:

    Kate doesn’t actually have any income coming in right? Like, she doesn’t actually get paid for showing her face right? Just wondering how this works. Does a certain amount of money just get put into their bank account each month or something?

    • itsetsyou says:

      I believe royals don’t even carry cash. Everything just gets billed to the appropriate department :)

      • idk says:

        Really? Then how would someone “think twice” before purchasing something really expensive when the money isn’t even coming out of their own bank account? Why do the Brits put up with this? THEIR tax dollars could be put to better use.

      • LadySlippers says:

        They sometimes DO carry cash.

        Ken Wharfe often paid when Diana forget her cash or cards.

      • mayamae says:

        I thought there was a big story back in the day that after learning Prince Charles was caught off guard when he was younger because he did not carry money (and perhaps knew not the meaning of it), Diana specifically taught this to her children.

    • LAK says:

      They have money from a variety of sources. HM is the only royal who famously doesn’t carry cash. They all carry something, even if it’s the entourage carrying it for them.

  20. Nymeria says:

    Given that the “private” donation was made public, it’s clear that those two think that sum is just fine. Which is utterly outrageous. So the dynamic is: We’ll take millions of pounds of taxpayer money, and give back what amounts to a tiny fraction of a penny (when you look at the ratio of what they receive versus what they donated). That makes me sick to my stomach.

    • idk says:

      Why does the monarchy still exist? Imagine if the money was spent on more important things than paying for the Royal’s lifestyles. They did nothing to deserve this but be born or marry into that family.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @idk & @everyone:

        The British Royal Family actually has a *very* important role to play in the UK and elsewhere in the world. Charities CLAMOUR for a Royal patron as it ups their profile and brings in a lot of money and volunteers. Right now, the number of charities that would like a Royal patron far exceeds the number of actual Royals.

        Most British Royal work their tuchas’ off for their many charitable organisations too. Even Royals that aren’t considered ‘working’ Royals have a decent number of charitable organisations and by far, work more than the Cambridge’s do. The sad part is the junior Royals get virtually no coverage for what they do for the UK or the world at large. So please don’t associate coverage with work or value.

        I’m going to beg now. Please, please, PLEASE do not think that William and Kate represent the worth of the entire British Royal Family — or even Royals/ Imperials as a whole. Most Royals work extremely hard for the causes that are near and dear to them (and they even work hard for causes that aren’t near and dear to them). William and Kate are just very poor examples to base everyone’s worth on.

      • Liberty says:

        LadySlippers — well explained.

        Whoever is doing their PR or advising them now is just not getting it.

      • idk says:

        @ LadySlippers

        I get what you’re saying. I know that some Royals take their “duties” seriously. I just don’t understand why the tax payers have to pay for their lifestyle when tax money can just go straight to the charities themselves. Plus, tax payers should be able to choose what charities their tax dollars go to.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Liberté,

        Up thread I explained how the Royals work their PR. It’s pretty pathetic.

        @idk,

        The Royals still generate more than what they are worth. Charities are really begging for the Royals to front causes. They bring so much to the table. And people forget that a portion (no one knows how much) is generated by the Crown Estates which means not the tax payer.

        It’d be nice if the BRF really was a lot more open about exactly where their revenue comes from. Right now, people are assuming a lot and facts would help clear up many false assumptions.

      • LAK says:

        The crown estates and it’s revenues have never, ever belonged to the royals. Perhaps if they were called the STATE estates rather than crown estates that would be clearer to everyone.

        in the simplest terms, the portion of the estate claimed by the royals is purely by default since it was designed to look after the head of state who in our case is a monarch. If we swopped out the royal family and had a president instead, that portion would go to the president.

        Further, the crown estate revenues are public meaning it is easily researched. The income they generate has nothing to do with the royals and is not to be confused simply because it has a government crest.

        the STATE estates were set up so the peasants wouldn’t have to pay taxes to run the state. Peasants were taxed only because the crown estates proved inadequate eg income tax came about specifically to pay for Nelson’s war against Napoleon. it was never meant to become a permanent tax.

        right now, the STATE estates’ revenues pays for basic public services like police, army, NHS, parliament and government.

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        LadySlippers – I don’t know… I hear your pleas, but I do believe the Queen’s heirs to the throne (Charles – William/Kate – George) must shoulder the responsibility of the reputation of the BRF as a whole. They receive the lion’s share of the wealth and prestige and they set the tone for the monarchy as a whole, regardless of the good works of so-called ‘lesser’ royals.

        As for the Crown Estates, I’m not an expert, but according to the official BRF website: “The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign. The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profit from the Estate is paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.”

        Therefore, would these properties not continue to exist and create revenue for the British Treasury, with or without publicly-funded royals? And couldn’t non-publicly-funded (merely privately wealthy family trust-fund-supported) titled royals continue to act as patrons and support charities as they do? Why must these people be taxpayer subsidized in order to lend their names to charity? It’s the title that draws in volunteers and boosts fundraising efforts, am I wrong?

        I don’t know the answers. Just being a devils advocate here.

        Here is the link to the Crown Estates page
        http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/CrownEstatesxyz.aspx

      • Original N says:

        For me, the issue with the content of LadySlippers comment above is this: could these same people not generate the same interest for their charities as they currently do if they were to stop accepting public funds? Philanthropy doesn’t need to be publicly funded if it is true philanthropy.

      • bluhare says:

        You know I’ve got too much time on my hands when I can say with complete honesty that I was on the BRF website the other night reading all about the crown estates. :) Seriously. Next is to go to a good republican website (British one!) and read up on their POV.

      • wolfpup says:

        In America, celebrities donate by going to a dinner, for example, that cost $5000 a plate or more, by those who want to see the celeb. This might be a movie star, or musician, even a Senator or the President. Nobody can do it on the tax dollar, because that is unethical and illegal here, unless it is on private time, and would not cause the same questions that are being raised here. The celeb’s are not doing it on the public dime. Our president is on a salary, though what he does is very different than just charity work. One really can’t confuse the two. While most presidents are independently wealthy, some refuse the salary, or donate it to charity.

        Getting paid for doing charity work, would happen only to those behind-the-scenes people (costs of mea/chefs, invitation/engravers, and so on, who are generating the event. Being the celeb that is featured, is totally donated time. They even pay for their own clothes.

    • bluhare says:

      I agree. It would have been very easy to request that the donation be anonymous. When I was in a position to donate money that hit the donor lists, I always did it anonymously

      • bluhare says:

        I think they chose Rhyl because it’s not that far from Anglesey, It’s along the north Wales coast and is pretty depressed right now, so actually 5,000 pounds is probably a lot of money for them. I think it’s 10% of what they’ve collected.

        I’m feeling guilty about badmouthing them now.

      • Liberty says:

        I understand how you feel, which is why I wrote what I did above — I am sure the people are grateful for every penny as any group in need would be. That however doesn’t erase that where 5000 was ok, 10,000 would have been twice as okay, and it should still have been done quietly, anonymously. I give anonymously like you, it is easy. I understand that in some worlds, people crave seeing their name in print on a donation list and won’t give unless they do; but that’s not what we’re dealing with here. So I don’t feel as guilty as I possibly should. I feel tired of this clunky show of support here and there backed by air and emptiness, I suppose. You’re descended from people who stayed in London during the bombings to help provide spirit and strength to people, and all you can do is have a lackey stamp and post a little check?

      • bluhare says:

        Liberty, I’m so with you. One thing I’ve never understood is people who have to have a big production made out of them just for doing the right thing.

        Anonymity is sometimes a good thing. And my response was supposed to have posted underneath VIctoria’s below; I screwed that one up! Rhyl is not that far from where my family is from and when we were there everyone else went for a day trip to Llandudno which is down the road from Rhyl and not as blighted. My mom and dad honeymooned on Anglesey actually, and it really is lovely. Cold, but lovely. (I was with my bonsai loving cousin in Yorkshire so I didn’t go. )

  21. Victoria says:

    I find it a little strange they donated to a small place in north wales and such a small amount. I think they could have donated over a million to south wales and southwest England. Their time and going there could have done so much good, just putting in some face time with the devastated flood victims. They are so out of touch with reality.

    I was in England and S Wales entire month of January, not just flapping about it. Thought I was going to die on the M5

  22. lucy2 says:

    I think charitable giving of any amount is great. What I don’t care for is using that to get good PR. If you want to use your fame to raise attention and money, that’s one thing, but writing a check and announcing it always just seems self indulgent to me.

  23. My2Pence says:

    Unrelated, unless they were trying to cover up this *possible* protest by making the donation. This is getting interesting:

    https://twitter.com/BBCPeterHunt
    https://twitter.com/BBCPeterHunt/status/446705156017893376
    “The rules Ken Pal say the recent royal nanny photo contravened” and is now a matter for Park police

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1639/regulation/4/made

    I’m guessing it refers to this point but it could be a different one:
    (18) take photographs of still or moving subjects for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a body of persons whether corporate or unincorporate;

    Does this mean that no one – including passing tourists – are allowed to photograph Kate Middleton, PGTips’s stroller, the nanny, etc. in this park?

    Please note, no protests seem to have been made ALL the other times Kate Middleton was photographed in this park (walking lupo, walking lupo with protection officer, walking lupo with “friend” with child in stroller, walking PGTip’s stroller, working out while walking the stroller). But NOW there is potential protest and the matter being referred to park police? Who is bringing this matter to the attention of authorities? Kensington Palace? William and Kate? Some random stranger?

    • LAK says:

      considering how many people use the park, and especially the weekend dads who are taking pics of their precious tykes, are they going to arrest them all???!!!

      it’s a public park!!!

      whatever happened to a discreet media wooing or even asking the PCC to step in as the older royals have done in the past so that the nanny isn’t disturbed??!!

      nitwits.

      • Suze says:

        How many acres of private land does the royal family own? If this is such a problem, she can go walk the heir somewhere else.

        Just checked. Apparently Buck House has a forty acre private garden. They can zip over there and take their constitutionals.

      • bluhare says:

        They’re probably afraid security over there won’t recognize them and tackle them like they did Andrew. :)

    • bluhare says:

      Apparently its because the photos are sold for profit. If that’s the case, then there is no reason why a member of the public with a phone couldn’t take their photo legally if they weren’t going to sell it. This is bloody ridiculous and they are going to lose big time.

      But they’ll trot George out, who’ll drool (because he’s teething, natch), smile and coo, and we’ll all go gaga and forget about it.

      • My2Pence says:

        I don’t think William realizes how this can be turned on him. Do you remember 15 years or so ago, when Sharon Stone complained about paps outside a Hollywood hotspot restaurant? The next time she walked the red carpet to promote something, every single photographer held firm and did NOT take her picture. She walked that long long long red carpet to absolute silence and NO promotion for her event/movie/whatever.

        All the press has to do is agree to stand united, and no one caves. Create one centralized social media account that has one shared login and password (so it cannot be seen which photog uploads which picture). Dozens of them show up in Kensington in a giant press pack every day and take thousands of digital photos of Kate Middleton, stroller, nanny, lupo, whatever. From a distance, without impeding progress, etc. They all upload them to the central account WITH NO INTENTION OF MAKING MONEY OFF OF THEM. Every day, every single time that stroller shows up in the park, thousands of photos will be uploaded.

        Then, they take it a step further. All of the UK media outlets agree NOT to take any photos or promote any appearances W&K make. Nothing in the papers, nothing on the news. Absolutely no coverage or promotion of ANY royal events until this issue is resolved. They’d end up winning back freedom of the press.

        No, I don’t think they should be hounded on their personal time, but they have to understand that if taxpayer-funded people show up in public places, taking photos of them is going to happen and is legal. Far past time for the press to stand up to William and his ridiculous games.

      • bluhare says:

        I actually do remember that Sharon Stone situation, Tuppence. (I hope you don’t mind me calling you that; I talk in my head when I comment and Tuppence flows so much better than TwoPence; but if you hate it, let me know.) I believe Sharon was quite shocked. :)

        I think it unfortunate that the likelihood of something like that happening now is between slim and none.

    • Maggie says:

      Are you serious? Lol! Why don’t you blame the rain on them too? These two can do no right even when they donate to charity.

  24. Victoria says:

    I know this is stupid but I’d like to see Kate wear some nail polish for once. She tries so hard with her hair, blush and eyeliner, piling it on heavy. I’d like to see some bright lipstick and lots of Lily Allen type nails.

    • LAK says:

      She’s got a washer woman’s hands……

      It’s quite shocking considering how hyper groomed the rest of her is.

      I think she had a manicure at the engagement, wedding and that’s the best they’ve ever looked.

  25. kay says:

    there were comments earlier about Tanna the photographer well I just got on the dm at 6pm pacific time and there are new pictures of harry playing football and guess who took the pictures. this guy tanna has a serious source.

    • bluhare says:

      I have heard that LAK, Angelic and AmandaPanda, our London residents, are not above disguising themselves with shrubbery and will lurk in Kensington Gardens so they can give us some good scoop here at CB. We too have our sources. ;)

      • kay says:

        “shrubbery” LOL! that made me chuckle

      • bluhare says:

        I wish I were like my nephews who can spout Monty Python, and have a quote for pretty much every occasion, because you’d get one now. All I’ve got is “Shrubbery?”

  26. Mario says:

    And then Kate spent 10,000 on a new designer purse. Who are they trying to fool, that amount of money to the royal family is chump change, if they really cared they could have given ten times that amount.

  27. Christina says:

    The only thing the Royals really bring to the table is publicity they’ve hyped up on their own. They do not give more than they take or generate more and I think the fact they keep the financial records under lock and key is ample proof of that. The boring old ‘such and such is held in trust for the nation’ excuse is an excuse and just that – funny how they keep it in trust for the British public who supposedly own it but have to pay thirty quid per visit to go see their ‘own’ national treasures and in many cases never see them at all while other repositories of British art collections on that scale are free. Don’t get me wrong as I think culturally they can be useful – but this current system has got to change drastically at least financially.

    • bluhare says:

      I hadn’t thought of the irony of the public paying to tour their own buildings before, Christina.

  28. Francis says:

    Williams hotel stay in Maldives , cost ten times more than that donation. His pr team needs to get him under control. The problem with William is he thinks he knows better than the Pakace handlers and he does what he pleases, the. The Palace has to deal with how to make him look like a caring Prince. I personally don’t believe he ever was a caring person, I think he’s always been selfish and all about what he wants and what he desires. I really think Prince William is a loose cannon behind the scenes. He constantly fights the Palace on everything from what various reporters have said from time to time. Even William said he lets the Courtiers talk and then does the exact opposite.

  29. Little T says:

    Hi, I’m late to the conversation I know but I just had to comment on this story.

    I live in North Wales (yes I actually do I’m not lying for internet points) and whilst £5000 may not sound like much of a donation from Will and Kate, especially after their holiday cost £££ as many people have pointed out, Rhyl is an extremely deprived area so in terms of generating PR for the flood victims the donation can only be a good thing. £5000 is a tiny drop in the ocean of money that needs spending in Rhyl (and that was before the flooding, believe me it is a grim place) and yes they could have afforded more, but they actually didn’t have to donate anything.