Prince William & Kate are currently enjoying ’48 hours’ of vacation in NZ


Now that all of the New Zealanders have gotten a good look at Duchess Kate’s Sunshine Beav, I was kind of hoping we would have non-stop photos from the royal tour. Not so much. So, I’m using some additional photos from William, Kate and George’s arrival in New Zealand from yesterday. I made an effort to use photos that I didn’t use yesterday! There are also about a million stories about the minutiae of this or that (I saw an article about Prince George’s baby shoes, for goodness sake), but I’m more interested in the basics: staffers, baby wranglers and clothes. The Telegraph had an excellent piece about what went down on the plane and beyond:

Where most of us would look distinctly frazzled after almost 28 hours on a plane, the Duchess of Cambridge looked a million dollars as she arrived in New Zealand today. But then most people don’t have a team of helpers, including their own personal hairdresser, on hand to give them a mid-air makeover before they touch down. The Duchess, who also had the advantage of a bed in a luxurious first-class cabin on the flight from London, had a team of helpers to make sure she looked refreshed and glamorous for her first visit to New Zealand.

Although the Duchess does her own make-up, her personal hairdresser Amanda Cook Tucker was with her on the flight and will style her hair every morning of the tour. The 50-year-old, who charges £300 per day during the tour, was one of the first people to visit the Duchess in hospital when she gave birth to Prince George last year, so she could do the Duchess’s hair ready for her departure, and also accompanied the Duchess on her tour of the Far East in 2012.

Although the Duchess does not travel with a dresser, she has a personal assistant who can help look after her wardrobe, and her private secretary Rebecca Deacon is also on hand to make sure everything the Duchess needs is provided.

Most importantly of all, the Duchess was also accompanied by Prince George’s nanny, Maria Borrallo, who would have been able to settle the eight-month-old and allow his mother to get some precious sleep if he started grizzling during the flight. Prince George is teething and although he is said to have had a quiet journey the Duchess will have slept better knowing she did not have to worry about him.

The royal party travelled from London on a scheduled Qantas Airbus A380 which left Heathrow at 9.25 on Saturday night bound for Sydney via Dubai. The cost of the tickets, which normally start from around £6,300 per person return, was paid for by the Australian and New Zealand governments. Qantas has won awards for the level of luxury offered in its first class cabins. Passengers have an extra-wide seat that folds into a flat bed, with a duvet and sheepskin mattress, and are given 100 per cent cotton pyjamas and slippers A la carte meals are prepared freshly on board, and a complimentary leather wash bag includes skincare, toiletries, ear plugs and a leather-bound mirror. The Duke and Duchess, their staff and royal protection officers are believed to have been given the entire 14-berth first class cabin to themselves.

After being welcomed at the airport by New Zealand’s Prime Minister, John Key, the Duke and Duchess were taken away for a Maori welcoming ceremony while their staff unloaded their luggage, including around 30 outfits for the Duchess and numerous changes of clothes for Prince George. The couple will have plenty of time to get over their jet lag; after the Maori ceremony they were driven to an undisclosed location to begin 48 hours of rest and relaxation before resuming their public duties on Wednesday afternoon.

[From The Telegraph]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!! Omg, I did NOT realize that William and Kate had built-in 48 hours of vacation within their royal tour at the very beginning of their tour!!! No wonder why there aren’t new photos of Will and Kate: THEY ARE ON VACATION. Again. I cannot stop laughing. How crazy is that? I understand that maybe they would need a night off to acclimate themselves because they’re probably jet-lagged (although Kate did sleep on the plane while staffers tended to the teething baby, of course). But two days of vacation… as soon as they arrive?!




Photos courtesy of WENN, Pacific Coast News.

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

330 Responses to “Prince William & Kate are currently enjoying ’48 hours’ of vacation in NZ”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sandra says:

    These two just show how badly the UK needs to become a Republic.

    I cannot see William on the throne, there would be revolt.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      The only throne one could imagine involves Charmin.

      • blue marie says:

        You know he is squeezing that all day long.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:


      • PunkyMomma says:


      • wolfpup says:

        When she flashes and I see the royal crotch, I can’t help thinking that this is what he is squeezing. DM has a story on Britney Spears underwear, and Kim Kardasian’s humungous buttchecks, and sorrily the comparisons just are made. She needs to understand that this cheapens her. (I’m not speaking of shame, but she is in a lot more control of what other people think).

    • MissNostalgia says:

      Seriously….they totally lack any kind of inspiration.

    • Mel says:

      I’ve said before they could be cunning crypto-republicans in disguise. They certainly behave appropriately for a monarchy-destroying mission.
      Either that or they are incredibly, mind-bogglingly out of touch with their public image, and saddled with the worst PR team in known history.

      • Constance says:

        lol Crypto -Republicans… that would be great. I think you’re wrong about the PR team though. Too many people still love these two and think they can do no wrong. They need a few more holidays to wake people up and maybe then we can send them on a permanent one!

  2. Tiffany says:

    Duchess or Diva is going to have a field day with this story. HA!

    • FLORC says:

      If Kate did a full 180 and threw herself into charity work while folowing every protocol that site would still find something to complain about or it would shut down.

    • The Original Mia says:

      She hasn’t commented yet. I hope she does. Another luxury vacation this time on the NZ people’s dime.

      My BFF flies to Germany all the time for work. She doesn’t have the luxury of taking 2 days off to get over jet lag. She has to get her butt in gear and go to the office and put in a full days’ work. She usually can’t relax until the weekend and even then, she’ll be back in the office catching up on stateside work. These two are lazy. Pure and simple. Get ’em, DoD!

      • Hazel says:

        Interesting, no? Prior to the trip, we were told the tour started on April 7th, that they’d have the next day off to acclimatize, then hit the bricks on the 9th. And that for the whole three weeks they’d only have two off nights–one in NZ & one ‘glamping’ near Uluru in Australia. Now that they’ve arrived, & we get a good luck at their schedule, we see that their work started with…BEING WELCOMED & that their next job is…taking little PGTips to playgroup. WOW!!!!! And they’re not taking their R&R in Government House, their home base in NZ, oh, no, but in some fancy-schmancy resort, paid for by the NZ government. I just…I can’t comment any more on this tour. I’ll follow it, here on CB, on DoD (poor thing’s going to have an aneurysm soon), & elsewhere, but I can’t comment any more. I’m just beyond words.

      • Lola says:

        I fly between Austria and Australia frequently to visit my family. Last trip I did with my 5 month old teething daughter. It took me two weeks to get over the jet-lag. They might be lazy, but 48 hours to acclimate to the timezone when going west-east is actually pretty sensible. Anyone with any sense that flies from Europe to Australia-NZ for work would include a weekend to acclimate before any important meetings.

  3. idk says:

    Isn’t their whole “tour” one big vacation? How is this “work”?

    • Ms. Turtle says:

      Agree with @Lemon on the hair. Needs cut badly. The long babysitter hair is not appropriate anymore. But as far as “work” vs “vacation” goes, this is their job. These formal tours, meeting officials, watching local customs/dances/theatre is their job. So as far as this being “work,” no they’re not digging ditches but this is their job. Was their job in Canada and in Asia. Is it cushy work? Sure. But they’re the royal family, not carpenters.

    • My2Pence says:

      This is incredibly light for a royal tour. 1-2 events a day, including adding in personal time on some of those days to spend time looking at the scenery. I kid you not. Blowing off a private dinner with the PM, doing 1 engagement per day — this is weak by any standard and atypical for a royal tour.

      • LadySlippers says:


        My2Pence is 100% correct. Most tours are punishing and this is not par for course.

        In general, please do NOT look to William and Kate for examples on the entirety of all the Royals worldwide. Most do more in a month than these two do all year (or in two years).

      • FLORC says:

        Well summed up and ditto for LadySlippers.
        This tour was expected to be heavier. Or at least heavy enough to forgive the numerous vacations and lack of events. It was said they needed this time to prep for the tour, but now we know this will be nothing.

      • Mel says:

        Have mercy! Such a long flight is very draining. And then the wind… not to mention nose-rubbing! Give ’em a break!


    • Liberty says:

      According to the Mirror, they are relaxing for 48 hours at a luxury lodge with stunning views to get over their jet lag and relax before beginning the New Zeastralia tour:

  4. Lemon says:

    Anyone would need a vacation after the amount of time it’d take to undo all those buttons! Ok, bad joke. Every photo of her I go straight to her hair. I’m glad the sausage curls are gone, but I think she needs to cut a good 6 inches. It would look healthier and give it some life.

    • Hannah says:

      I liked that joke! 🙂

    • Splinter says:

      I would have thought that a hairdresser charging 300 £ per day would be able to fix the hair so that it does not get into one’s face in the first few seconds. She could tie it into a knot, but then Kate would look even more like air hostess.
      And I cannot calm down that she chose to dress the poor baby in shorts in such weather!

      • wendi says:

        I thought she used extensions anyway (or was it a wig?) — doesn’t that make her low-maintenance? Why the need for around the clock access to a hairdresser?

      • FLORC says:

        Extensions make hair more high than low maintenance. It must be cared for in different ways. On top of root touch ups. Wigs also need to be cared for. I doubt Kate is the one brushing, styling, attaching, and packing those wigs herself.

        And no matter what the hairdresser may like to do Kate ultimately decides how she wants to wear her hair.

        And a full time hair stylist makes sense for someone who works all the time… To make sure they are available for you when you need them and not have to scramble for someone else.

  5. m says:

    They also have two more days off coming up, one I think on Easter weekend and another in Australia. In all my time as a royal watcher, this is truly a first for me to see someone take off time in the middle of a tour…

    • My2Pence says:

      This is an incredibly light tour. YES, tours are work if done correctly. Blowing off a private dinner with the PM and doing 1-2 engagements a day does not count as “correctly.” I think tomorrow they have one event – an hour at a play group. Then another day the only thing they’re doing is going to the zoo for an hour. Not exactly a heavily-stacked calendar.

      • mena says:

        Also, just read that W&K turned down the NZ Governor General’s invitation to stay at the Government House, his Official Residence. It’s where royals & other dignitaries before them have stayed. W&K wanted to stay at a luxury resort, instead.

        I can’t believe anyone in the palace can keep a straight face when they call this vacation a tour.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I know My2Pence, this tour is incredibly light.


        They really really REALLY give Royals a bad name.

        *hits head on desk*

      • ArtHistorian says:

        As I have said before, they are a never ending source of amusement.

      • FLORC says:

        If their vacation time for that 48 hours does not include caring for George then how they declined that invite seems very poor.
        Is their nothing that shames William? Kate I will cut slack because she’s proven herself. She’s lazy and does not find pleasure or interest in helping others.
        But William was raised in this life. He really should be acting like he’s worth his lifestyle.

      • Mel M says:

        I love how in thier engagement interview Kate pretended that she wanted to make a difference, even the smallest HA! I guess she was keeping expectations low?

        I don’t get it, are they scared to ask these two to do some actual work? Are they scared they might make Willy angry and he might throw a fit so they handle them with kid gloves? Does he get to throw fits? Like I said, I don’t get it.

      • FLORC says:

        Mel M
        When William becomes PoW I think he might be forced to pick up the slack.
        And Kate makes her own schedule. If William told her not to work too much it’s big shame on her. And shame on her for letting him dictate her actions.

        I forgot what the exact details were, but when she trained for the charity crew race she pulled out right before the event. Some said she pulled out and others said William told her to drop out.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        The majority opinion was that William “asked” her to drop out. She was allowed to train for a spot on the team but the director told her point blank that if she didn’t meet the athletic/physical standards the others had to meet then she would be requested to give up her spot and would be welcome to try again at another time. Kate accepted the terms and according to the other ladies on the team she showed up early, trained rigorously and proved herself. She was observed to be quiet and reserved but focused on the training, which surprised everyone. They admitted to feeling that they expected her to be a dainty, snobby socialite but found that she was incredibly athletic and was beginning to warm a little to everyone and smile/talk more.
        Then She andWilliam get back together and the entire project went up in smoke. What a sad way to live, imo. It makes me shake my head for Kate and actively dislike William.
        If Kate had completed that boat race she would have been a media darling. The media would have spun it as Jilted Royal GF Bounces Back For A Good Cause or Kate Waits No More, Rows Into Everyone’s Heart. William expected her to Buckleberry and hide under the blankets clutching the phone. She did lots of that I’m sure but people close to the couple indicated how Kate was beginning to blossom.

      • Corals says:

        Mena, I live in Wellington where government house is. It’s pretty much 5 minutes from the cbd and is not really private or secluded so I kind of understand why they chose the lodge which is in a more remote and private part of the region if they’re worried about privacy. However they are spending taxpayer money staying at this lodge. This whole junket is costing our country a lot of money and I can’t help but wonder why when the royals have less and less relevance to us.
        Having said that, I agree that this is not meant to be a holiday and I am thus far unimpressed by both Wills and Kate’s reluctance to actually do some work. Plus I really wish she’d put her hair up sometimes!

    • sienna says:

      When they visited Canada on their first tour they took a few days in a hike in/out hotel in the Rockies. It was right in the middle of their tour.

      Can you imagine the Queen doing this? I don’t know how she can condone this lazy behaviour.

    • lindyuk says:

      I can understand them having a ‘day off’…jet lag is a pain in the neck…but come on…48 hours????? I think back to when Diana and Charles arrived in Australia back in 1982??? Diana was launched immediately into a round of public engagements and she was how old??? 22? 23? Kate has had I think one or two engagements this year…..We’ve seen the little Prince once -unofficially (HOLIDAY photos) and the recent ‘Official Photo’ with his parents. Kate is 32…she has been with William I think nearly 10 years…..and yet she’s treated as some sort of special snowflake. I do like Kate. I think she handled herself incredibly well during her courtship with William and even more so when they briefly split. I love her fashion sense…I think she dresses great for her role…but…she just comes across as so LAZY. Since the beginning of the year they have hardly undertaken any engagements. I thought after Georges birth that Kate would knuckle down to a public life…not as intense as Diana’s was…Kate is NOT Princess of Wales after all – but I thought we would see more of her….She is proving to me to be a bit of a disappointment..

      • Dame Snarkweek says:


      • FLORC says:


        You sound like a champion of Kate. Because of this your words have more impact imo. That no matter what your opinions of her are her current actions are in fact lazy. There’s no way to rationally excuse her lack of work even on a tour that is not intended to be a vacation at all.

      • wolfpup says:

        I wonder if she’s sick from dieting(?)

  6. Mylene - Montreal says:

    This baby is a CUTY !!!!! OMG i’m in love with this baby !!!

    • Sandra says:

      I’m seriously sick of people carrying on about this baby, like it is somehow special or better than the rest of the babies of the world.

      It is sick, classist, and pathetic.

      He is a normal baby. Cute? I guess, for a baby. Nothing special.

      But most importantly, you do not know this baby. This baby is a stranger to you, and it’s parents don’t care that you exist. You can pretend like you loving this baby somehow gets you in the club, but you are an outsider. They deign to allow you to look at their baby twice a year, and people eat it up. Silliness.

      • Tiffany says:

        Okaaay Sandra. Its a baby that Mylene thinks is a cutie. Nothing wrong with that.

      • Lucky says:

        Wow. I say babies are cute all the time regardless if their royal status. Haha- it’s just a cute baby (to the commenter above) let go of the hostility.

      • Cherry says:

        Yeah, settle down, Sandra- saying that a baby is cute is hardly ‘sick, classist, and pathetic’.
        Although I have to agree with you that I don’t quite understand what it is exactly that attracts people to this baby. And, ok I’ll admit it, I too get a tiny bit irritated when the parents get a pass for their silly behavior because the baby is supposedly ‘a cutie’. But then, I don’t really like babies in general.

      • Sandra says:

        I did mention that it was cute for a baby, but all babies look pretty much the same. What’s the problem? I wanted to do a little rant 🙂

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        You called the baby “it”
        Maybe you should explore your feelings about this.

      • Amanduh says:

        “Well that escalated quickly…”

      • Juliette says:

        @ Dame … Maybe Sandra used “it” because of the way it is objectified, and paraded about like a gold encrusted accessory to improve its parents dwindling popularity.

      • Lisa says:

        Sandra — I couldn’t agree with you more. Well said.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        And maybe she used “it” because she feels it is okay to be dismissive of another’s humanity just to make her point. Two wrongs do not make a right, imo.

      • Sandra says:

        I’m sorry Dame, I really didn’t mean to upset you by saying IT. I use that term to describe lots of people, because I tend to avoid using gendered terms to describe people.

      • kibbles says:

        I agree with Sandra. There is nothing wrong or mean with saying that George looks like most other babies. It’s not like he has incredibly unique features, big beautiful eyes, or something that would make people say “wow” if he had not been born into the Royal family. The fawning is a little over the top. This baby has been born into privilege, and if he is anything like his parents, will likely not do much with the power and prestige that has already been bestowed upon him.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        That was never my issue.
        You specified me in your response and I appreciate that. It was also nice of you to clarify your point and now I completely see your reasoning. I apologize if I was offensive or judgy.

      • FLORC says:

        We read too much into things. Calling a baby “it” is often overthought by others.
        It shouldn’t matter.
        I have learned to call babies “it”. When they’re young you can’t really tell gender. If they’re dressed up in blue i’ve assumed it’s say to ask… “what’s his name?” Bad call. I got yelled at once because it was a girl. To be more specific the outfit was a blue “yankees” onesie.

        On a side note… I wonder if people only mention George and talk about him as a stregic point. No one can call him ugly without getting yelled at and it’s possibly the 1 aspect of Will and Kate that can be complimented at length without a counter argument.

      • Lex says:

        Sanda I see unattractive babies all the time. All babies are not cute. This is a cute one with an adorable grumpy face and chub cheeks. You seem a bit of a nutter!

      • GreenTurtle says:

        Some people just love BEHBEYZ! Sans context. Whatever.

    • Juliette says:

      The fawning over the baby IS ridiculous. Especially because he represents the self-perpetuation of these undeservedly privileged layabouts. The more regular people care about the birth of an “heir”, the more an “heir” matters, the more that the royals will continue to exist, the more regular people will be considered peasants who should pay for the privilege of a royal vacation.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        But any time we get baby pictures, there are several remarks about how cute the baby is. Babies are cute. I think you and Sandra are reading too much into it.

      • Sandra says:

        I don’t have a problem with people thinking babies are cute in general. Some babies are mega cuties.

        But this baby is just an average baby, and the general public is so over-infatuated with it that I have to wonder why we are holding this one baby above all others? It is because of his status, which living in England I can say is very much still a problem.

        It actually makes me really sad that there are babies left without any care all over the world, but this baby was born into a royal family so is therefore more important and worthy of our time. It kills me actually, and I hate living in a world of entrenched class systems and commoners just eating up the exact PR that the Royal Family is using to appease us and forget that we are not equals.

        The original commenter of course meant nothing bad in her comment, I just launched into a little rant that was somewhat related. Nothing bad about her or George, he’s just an innocent baby!

      • Tiffany says:

        We were all babies and had no control over who our parents will be in life. Some are born on third thinking they hit a triple and there is everyone else. I hope I made sense 😀

      • Juliette says:

        @ Tiffany. You made sense, and very well said.

        And if I may modify the expression a bit for the baby’s father…. Born on 3rd base and thinks he was robbed of a home run = William.

        @ GoodNames. You can think whatever you want about this baby/ any baby. Personally, I feel that statements like: “OMG i’m in love with this baby” ARE ridiculous hyperbole.

      • PoliteTeaSipper says:

        She said the baby was cute, FFS.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        My point was only that I honestly don’t think he gets any more OMGs he’s cute than any other baby, like North West or Victoria Beckham’s little girl. I think you just don’t like the RF so you’re overreacting. Which is your right, I suppose, but there are a lot of serious problems in the world. Cranking out because people think babies are cute seems kind of exhausting. What do you do when people think kittens are cute? Stick your heads in the oven?

      • Lady D says:

        I think PG is elevated because he’s a sign that his mother might actually do some work. Something to get excited about, ya know?

      • Meerkat says:

        I totally agree with you. He’s a baby – he’s a little chubbychops with a grumpy face and – to me – he looked very cute with Lupo. Other than that, why should we care about him? It’s the over- reaction that I find disturbing, too. The English obsession with class – grown women with careers curtsying to Kate Middleton! I’d stick a needle in my eye before I curtsied to anybody, let alone her. Bring on the republic!

  7. mena says:

    I looked at a few video clips of Kate & William arriving. The first few things that struck me were Kate’s trouble managing her hat, hair, skirt & baby. Then struggling to hold George while she attempted to shake hands.

    But now that I think about it, I don’t think anyone curtsied. Not to William. Not to Kate. Did anyone else notice this?

    • The Original Mia says:

      According to a sugar on another site, she never fussed with her hair or her dress, George didn’t squirm and she kept her hand on the railing the entire time. Yet…there are pictures which attest to the fact that all those things happened.

      I didn’t realize no one curtsied until you mentioned it. That’s weird.

    • Splinter says:

      I think I saw the that the women greeting them at the bottom of the stairs curtsied.

  8. Dame Snarkweek says:

    The RF and the UK should consciously uncouple if this is what the monarchy has boiled down to.

    • mimif says:

      Made me laugh.

    • Sixer says:

      I concur. I KNEW that whole hub and spoke bollocks was a translation of something. Now I know it’s holiday. Conscious uncoupling seems so much more appealing.

    • Original N says:

      You made me laugh out loud as well! Well done :).

    • ncboudicca says:

      I’m now working on a theory that William is a covert Republican, working to bring down the monarchy from the inside…

      • Original N says:

        You know – someone mentioned this in passing on a past thread and it stuck with me. I am not usually one for conspiracy theories, but it did give me pause…

      • Sixer says:

        Ha! Willy’s a fifth columnist. I like that one. Not sure he has the cranial wherewithal to be so dissembling, however!

    • Liberty says:

      A plot by William!! Oh perfect.

      Then again, before we totally uncouple….ah, the memories: Harry in Australia last year:

      • wolfpup says:

        I teared up at the last video of Harry, saluting, in front of the men and the band. He seems pretty mature about the nature of what he is doing.

      • Liberty says:

        Wolfpup — I agree. He seems to truly feel the moment and its meaning.

    • CynicalCeleste says:

      I don’t think they could flaunt their extreme privilege, wealth and utter lack of merit and accountability if they tried. Other state-funded monarchies are doing all they can to justify their existence. Perhaps W&K figure (know?) the end is nigh and they may as well milk every drop of luxury while they can.

      I can’t figure out if they are (1) too arrogant to care about the optics of their situation; (2) too sheltered and self-entitled to consider living in any other way (2) so lacking in intelligence that they honestly don’t understand there is an issue or (3) know more than we do about an end to this royal gravy train.

      I do think they truly believe, no matter what they do or how they live, ‘the people’ will always adore them and the press will always vilify them – and that, in their minds, justifies everything.

  9. Emelu says:

    I’ve done that flight as a mere commoner. All I could do was wobble around and babble til the jet lag passed. Heck, I needed that long after a flight from Atlanta to London with my three year old! Not defending, but understanding a bit.

    • Hannah says:

      Presumably you weren’t on a private plane with a huge entourage.

      • Emelu says:

        I wish! Coach only for me. However, my hair still looked like hers after the flight. No stylist needed! 😉

      • L says:

        I think jet lag affects everyone differently. Even in business class I can’t sleep on a plane, so when I did a east coast to lax to New Zealand flight, I needed 3 days to catch up. And that was while trying to stay up during the day. Our friends who had akid had it worse, it took him at least 3-4 days to be normal again.

        My spouse however sleeps like a baby on planes,slept for 6 hours when we landed and then was fine. Just because one person needs a half a day doesn’t mean all of us do.

      • FLORC says:

        I’ve also struggled with jet lag and can not sleep on a plane no matter how long i’ve been awake.

        I was part of a program that sent nurses all over the US for 2 weeks at a time for low staffed hospitals. Jet lag and I were very close. My eyes were bloodshot until I was done. And when I was done I slept for 16 hours straight.
        And my husband also sleeps through anything.

        With that said… Kate has been on numerous long flights and always looks fine and continues to go about her day. This needing 48 hours seems like an excuse to get out of duties.

      • LadySlippers says:

        It usually takes one day per hour difference from home to fully get over jet lag. So if there’s 14 hour time difference it takes 14 days for your cirricadian clock to reset.

      • FLORC says:

        Interesting LadySlippers
        Is this provided you can rest immediately or just in general?

    • idk says:

      I did a 4 hour car drive to the airport, then a 15 hour non-stop flight, and then an 8 hour drive just to get to my destination. I took a shower, slept for a few hours, and then I was up and ready to go. I didn’t have a child to take care of though, but they do have a nanny. Is there anyone on this earth that has an easier life than Kate? She vacations more than she “works”. Harry puts both of these two to shame. Heck, the Queen puts both of these two to shame.

      • Juliette says:

        Nanny, Personal Assistant, Private Secretary, and Hairdresser.

      • LAK says:

        Now that you mention it, didn’t Harry do Australia in 2 or 3 days recently? No down time at all. He continually shows the heir up.

      • My2Pence says:

        HM and Prince Philip visited Australia in fall 2011 (at ages 85 and 90). They took a private flight if I remember, complete with real bed so they could lie down and sleep. They hit the ground running.

        Two thirty-somethings, who had incredibly posh flat sleeping arrangements on the flight (sheepskin mattress covers, etc.), multiple staff, and a nanny to care for the baby? They need two days to recover.

      • wolfpup says:

        And the house will be clean and tidy when she gets home, and the fridge stocked with their favorite things.

    • Juliette says:

      Yeah, the nanny looked exhausted. George was probably a nightmare on the flight, but of course, he absolutely NEEDED to come, despite the fact that it just added cost to the taxpayer and hassle to the staffers, and his parents just vacationed without him.

      • paola says:

        Why the nz government had to pay for their flight? It sounds crazy to me.

      • bluhare says:

        Yeah, but 3 weeks is a lot longer than a week. I wouldn’t want to be away from a baby at that stage that long either.

      • Redheadwriter says:

        Not defending the Her Royal Laziness, but if they didn’t bring PG on this trip, there still would have been people complaining about them leaving him at home.

    • paola says:

      I flew to Auckland from London through Dubai-Singapore-Sydney in economy and after 28 hours (without counting the time spent in airports during the stops) all I wanted to do was die in a bed for at least 2 days. The long hours sat on the same chairs and plane food kills you!! But New Zealand is totally worth it.
      They’re schedule is also quite packed and the places they’re going to visit are spread all over the country. They will get tired and I actually think it was very wise taking 2 days off at the beginning of the tour.

      • m says:

        Have you seen the plane they were on? It wasn’t a small seat, they each had a room that resembled one of those suits in a train car and they could be up and walking around and not to mention apparently both slept the majority of the trip. Their schedule is hardly packed, one to two engagements per day that won’t last more then two hours combined. All of that plus two more days off on the coming weeks.

      • Emelu says:

        That was the point I was trying to make. Even if I had an entourage, I’d still need down time. Not defending, just seeing the opposing side.

    • herladyship says:

      I’ve done the US to NZ and AUS flights before, approx 22 hours, and it’s exhausting, but 48 hours seems excessive to rest.

    • Vale says:

      My sister lives in Australia and I in Europe so I’ve also done that flight several times, And the brutal 10-hour overnight Dubai layovers included. I was once upgraded because of overbooking and let me tell you, I didn’t want the plane to land. Just wonderful. The chairs go all the way down 180, and have built-in massage features, relaxing music, and the pillows are real hotel-like pillows. It is all better: the headphones, the drinks, the three-course meal, the big television screen, all of it. I got off the plane after 18 hours rested (and fresh!) and went on to have the lightest jet-lag from my 25+ years traveling.
      Seinfeld was right, you can’t ever go back to coach after knowing Business.
      And this is Business, when they were in First. With nannies. There’s really no need to take time off, especially when your ‘work’ requires zoo trips, parties and dinners.

    • T.C. says:

      ” Qantas has won awards for the level of luxury offered in its first class cabins. Passengers have an extra-wide seat that folds into a flat bed, with a duvet and sheepskin mattress, and are given 100 per cent cotton pyjamas and slippers A la carte meals are prepared freshly on board, and a complimentary leather wash bag includes skincare, toiletries, ear plugs and a leather-bound mirror. The Duke and Duchess, their staff and royal protection officers are believed to have been given the entire 14-berth first class cabin to themselves.”

      They had a long flight in luxurious first class setting with leg room equal to a hotel room. Kate had a nanny for the baby, hair stylists, personal assistant etc. I flew first class from Washington state to Spain with one stopover and it was so different and fun! Many diplomats, royals make long flights and maybe rest for that day then start work the next day. All Waity and Baldy have to do is meet people and smile for a couple of hours. Nothing mentally taxing.

      • Violet says:

        Qantas is just the best regarding comfort and luxury in planes. When I traveled to Australia last year for the first time in my life I thought it would be a nightmare but it was absolutely amazing.

    • Ronia says:

      Eh, it all depends on what one needs to do. When work needs to be done, lots of coffee comes into play, vitaminC and mobilisation. Thousands of people fly long flights for work and manage to perform well, sleep or no sleep.
      . A day per hour difference sounds absurd to me and I regularly fly across the ocean. If I have the chance a day is completely sufficient to work out the time difference. More often work needs to be done so no excuses and jet lag and such.

  10. Suzy from Ontario says:

    Seems like every time I read about them it’s about them being on another vacation, or preparing to go on vacation. Sheesh!

  11. My2Pence says:

    It keeps them out of Her Majesty’s hair (and hopefully the news) during the important Irish State Visit to the UK today.

    So no gurning Kate Middleton and jaw-clenching Bill taking attention from actual matters of diplomacy. Perhaps HM deliberately chose to send them 25 hours away *at this point in time* to keep them away from this historic visit?

    I just realized, HM is taking a page out of Shakespeare’s book (Much Ado About Nothing, the scene where Benedick is begging the Prince to send him on an errand so he can get away from a woman he dislikes):

    Will your grace command me any service to the world’s end? I will go on the slightest errand now to the Antipodes that you can devise to send me on. I will fetch you a toothpicker now from the furthest inch of Asia, bring you the length of Prester John’s foot, fetch you a hair off the great Cham’s beard, do you any embassage to the Pygmies, rather than hold three words’ conference with this harpy.

    You have no employment for me?”

    And HM sent them to the Antipodes…

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      Bravo, Tuppence!

    • Sixer says:

      I was going to remark on this. While Lazy and Mrs Lazy are having a little holiday, Her Maj is doing important diplomatic service for the Irish state visit. Not sure this particular visit translates as important and significant as it is to international readers, but even royal-dislikers such as me here in the UK can see what an excellent job ERII does with this stuff.

      Can you imagine William doing this stuff? Even after another 40 years to mature? I can’t.

      • LAK says:

        Sixer, of all HM’s public duties, the one that gives me pulpitations is the weekly audience with PM of the day.

        imagine, you went to oxbridge, graduated with a PPE [going by educational background of current cabinet], have spent your life clawing your way to the top and have developed intellectual rigour and or backroom negotiating skills with tricky people, then have to have a weekly audience with Baldtop who advises you on the issues of the day!!!!

        Will Baldtop have the stamina to read his redbox or will he prefer to go hunting?

      • Sixer says:

        I would love to read a Liberty episode on that very scenario!

        (We won’t tell her about the dominatrix rumours surrounding our current Chancellor of the Exchequer, or she’ll run riot!)

    • Liberty says:

      fantastic. I curtsey to your gifts.

    • Violet says:

      Lol. HM is a genious if that is the case and I would also in her place as these two are actually an inconvenience when her most gracious majesty is doing her work. Well played, Liz 😉

  12. Juliette says:

    Even their “work” sounds like a vacation to me.

    So, a vacation from vacation.

  13. Jaded says:

    What I can’t fathom is why Princess Pantyflash and Prince Balderdash are allowed to be such lazy, unengaged wastes of money? Unless there’s an unspoken agreement to give them enough rope to hang themselves and allow the BRF to atrophy down to a manageable and less financially draining minority. I certainly can’t see them decades from now enjoying the same lifestyle of pomp and circumstance that the current Queen and Prince Philip enjoy.

    • Ellen says:

      Well, they don’t do anything without Prince Charles’s approval and control. So there’s that.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Not true and the Palace has stated otherwise more than once. Each and every Royal controls their own schedule. The only exceptions are the few big events that everyone attends — other than that — they create their own schedules.

      • lower-case deb says:

        unfortunately the palace has made no less than 3 statements that the Duchess sets her own agenda, chooses her own wardrobe and conducts her own affairs, with the help of Ms Deacon (Duchess’s private secretary), and Ms Agnew (who in turn is Ms Deacon’s personal assistant). meanwhile, in the household front, the Duchess is assisted by Nanny Maria who will increasingly take over from William’s old nanny who was drafted to take care of Prince George at the outset.

        all of these people are approved by the Duke and Duchess who has the final word on the matter, not Prince Charles.

        i know it is often a kneejerk reaction to absolve this loveable small family of their sins, it’s all the father-in-law’s fault for footing the bill, it’s diana’s fault being hardworking, it’s the paps fault, it’s the wind’s fault, it’s the queen and her stupid State Visit fault, it’s Harry’s fault, it’s evil step mother’s fault, it’s the carseat charity awareness fault, it’s the seamstress’s fault, it’s jetlag’s fault… what about taking their own responsibility for once?

        we put JLaw, etc through the wringer for some comments, Shailene Woodley, Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, Peaches Geldof (may the lord rest her soul), various Hollywood starlet through the wringer for this dress and that speech… but at the end of the day they’re teenagers to mid-20s who make and spend their own money. lest we forget the Duke and Duchess are in their 30s!! and on public sufferance. yet they are forgiven again and again because they’re royals.

        Sing It to Me Again, Lorde.

      • mayamae says:

        Where are the men who bullied Sarah Ferguson (according to her)? Do they only pick on the in-laws?

      • Ellen says:

        I don’t absolve the Cambridges. I think they’re a lazy disgrace and a blot on William’s mother’s memory. Diana comforted herself with the idea that William would be a prince and king in her style, and instead he does nothing.

        I also believe that if Charles wanted William and Kate to take on more engagements, they would have to do so. He took back their press office. He’s taking over at Buckingham. He’s pushing Andrew in particular to the sidelines, and Andrew deserves it but that’s marginalizing the queen’s favorite son. The press office can try to portray Duchess Lazy as a professional charity worker in charge of her own schedule until the cows come home, but she and Duke Surly don’t pay a single one of their own bills. The minute Charles wanted them to have a higher profile, it would happen.

        In other words, I can think the Cambridges are lazy gits AND that Charles is just fine with that, both at the same time. Please. Charles has been playing the long game for decades now. He’s perfectly happy not to be overshadowed by a hardworking, young heir and his heir’s conventionally pretty wife. The Cambridge vacation life suits Charles just fine.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      I almost agree with you but then I remember that at one time Elizabeth and Phillip were extremely disappointed with Charles and used to let him know it, especially Phillip. They disapproved of his political views, his “dabbling” with architecture, sustainability, his inability to deal with the media, his love of polo and taste for luxury goods, his work schedule compared to his sister’s etc. so things can change over time.

      • My2Pence says:

        Maybe HM and Philip think William and Harry are Charles’s problem to solve? And maybe memories of parental disapproval, plus ongoing guilt over the entire arc of the Diana relationship, keeps Charles incapable of standing up to his temperamental son? Charles is a prickly and emotional man, even though that doesn’t make him able to recognize and deal with the emotions of others. He remembers what it was like to be harshly criticized by a (let’s face it) demanding father, so he cannot comprehend that gentle-yet-firm guidance and structure is actually what some people (both William and Harry) need in order to succeed?

        I think Philip was the one who instituted all-natural farming at the royal properties, as well as wanting them to be self-sustaining financially through agriculture. Charles followed the ideas put forward by his father, even if he didn’t do them the same way Philip did.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Let’s not forget that HM and Philip are old, and Philip has had some serious health issues. I guess that they have enough on their plate at their age. My dad is 78 and he often says that he’s beginning to feel his age in terms of not having the energy to do as much as when he was 60 – and takes care of a very, very sick wife on his own.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Great conjecture and I’ve come to the same conclusion. According to one biographer (Nicholl) Charles gives his sons emotional support and fatherly advice but he only intervenes when their propensities might reflect poorly on the firm. In other words, he doesn’t try to shape their character or curb their flaws as much as he perhaps should until their antics make the news. Even then Charles is known to meet with trusted advisors and personal friends before making any important decision about his sons, including disciplinary ones. Can you imagine that?
        I give Chuck a lot of credit for becoming an affectionate and supportive father. But I also believe a dad should be more than a best friend. Sometimes tough love is the best love for children. Iit is just my opinion, of course, but I think Charles is so absorbed with his own agenda and tailored lifestyle that it is just not worth the hassle to deal with the truly complex/uncomfortable aspects of fathering two princes such as Will and Harry.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Snark & My2Pence,

        Several bios that I’ve read have said that Charles is very hands off and while he loves his sons — doesn’t interfere unless it’s BIG. This was true when both were teens and needed that loving but firm hand that teens need.

        It’s sad because his sons need him to *parent* sometimes.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Completely agree
        🙁 Hope things gradually get easier for your father.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Thanks for your kind thoughts. Sadly, it won’t get better. It would be easier for him if she went into a nursing home, but she refuses, and we can’t persuade her.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Perhaps a visiting nurse or if all were agreeable to it, a nursing professional could provide 12 hours of care in exchange for room and board. Maybe an older or retired nurse?

      • bluhare says:

        AH, I’m sorry to hear about that. We went through it with my dad. He died before we had to sit him down and tell him he could not come home (he was inpatient for rehab as he was so weak my mother couldn’t handle him at home). But he wasn’t improving, and he got an infection and died.

        In some ways it was a blessing because no one wanted to have that conversation, see his face, and deal with the guilt of leaving him there.

      • ArtHistorian says:


        I appreaciate all the kind thoughts.

        A nurse comes every morning and every evening to give her her medicine, and that service is provided by the local government – help in the home would be provided as well.
        I think he could use some help with cleaning especially. A more permanent nurse is not really an option, both when it comes to money, space and my mother’s consent. She’s very severely mentally ill, but she can’t or won’t admit to her illness, which makes it extremely difficult to organize something more sensible – like a protected community, which actually is an option, and often with direct help from the government ( I can tell you it is a real blessing living in a welfare state – she hospitalized right now, and it is all covered by the national health insurance).
        I just hope that her doctor, the hospital and the social workers can get through to her. She missed her 70th birthday celebrations because she was so out of it after having stopped taking her meds for 2 weeks. She has done this many times before, and it has unfortunately caused some brain damage. I spent the last 2 years taking care of her – and nothing else – and it burned me out completely. I also cared for her 10 years ago, until my father retired from work. He believes he can handle it, but it is just too hard for me, and she has been sick my whole life. I’m having some therapy to deal with it – and then I’m planning to apply for a Ph.D. (fingers crossed).

    • vava says:

      Princess Pantyflash. I LOVE THAT.

      I think they need the down time in order to sew weights into all her skirts.

  14. Valerie says:

    Someone needs to throw her eyeliner pencils out of a car door.

    • Ms. Turtle says:

      This made me laugh. Imagining her personal assistant chucking them out the window as they drive to an event. In all seriousness, I’d love to see how she looks without such heavy eye makeup. She’s such a pretty woman and all the eyeliner does is age her by at least 5 years.

    • Anna-fo-Fanna says:

      IKR?? When it said in the article “she does her own makeup,” I thought – no kidding! No self-respecting makeup artist would lay on the eyeliner like that. Ugh, she could be so much prettier without the harsh black! As a girl for whom makeup has always been kind of a hobby, she irks.

    • mayamae says:

      I usually avoid comparing Kate to Diana, but Diana had an over dependence on heavy blue eyeliner herself.

    • Erm says:

      Could it be that her eyeliner is tattooed on? I think she’d look so much better without the heavy liner but she may not have the option..

  15. Greta says:

    Years ago I used to work for an American Company and I had to travel a lot! Every other week Munich – LA – Munich,for two days. And I had to go to the office straight after arrival. And yes, this is exhausting and I would have preferred to have a little break, but it was part of my job so I made the best out of it, took a deep breath, slapped on some concealer and my best smile. And all that after a Non-First Class-flight!!!!! OMG, those two are the laziest royals ever.

  16. old prude says:

    William and Kate are a pair of useless parasites who bring nothing to table then unnecessary controversies. I can’t believe someone as dull, lazy as Kate generates 400 plus comments. Seriously guys we spend more time energy arguing about her then she does in anything related to work. As a result I have decided not to comment on other people’s comments who like her or make excuses for her. Some people will always like her, done won’t, arguing or insulting them won’t change there opinion, and I don’t want to change their or mine either. From now onwards I will only comment on her clothes or George because there is nothing more to them.

    FYI since our last discussion,I have decided to change me profile name to old prude from Angelic 21 because I don’t want to see royal sexy legs on official events. There i’m an old pride, out and proud!

    • Juliette says:

      Awesome name swap.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Angelic / Old Prude
        I love it! Maybe I should change my name to FrigidPrig. Totally get what you’re saying, and yesterday was so exhausting, I have also decided to try not to argue with the “u r jelly h8ters” crowd.

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        I hear you Angelic / Old Prude. My despair over W&K is the reason I changed my profile name from dominique to cynical celeste.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Hello Angelic,

      I’m starting to avoid Royal posts. William and Kate are so disheartening for me and I’m a long time Royal lover (almost three decades now).

      I love me a good discussion but you’re right — a lot of people aren’t interested in learning or even respectfully conversing about Royals and are bedazzled by other stuff (unimportant stuff to me).

      I’ll just hope and pray that William suffers some kind of head trauma so he’ll start to be the Royal we all thought he was capable of when he was a teenager. Until then… I’ll dive back into history and keep discovering new old people to love.

      • mena says:

        Hey Y’all! Don’t go! I hope I didn’t do anything to contribute to either of you two not wanting to post in the royal threads anymore.

        I know the threads can be a downer sometimes, but I’ve enjoyed the conversations we’ve had. Even when we haven’t agreed all the time.

        I hope both of you will contine to snark in the royal threads.

      • My2Pence says:

        @LS, same thing here. Took an extended break due to this lazy duo. Maybe we can keep encouraging Kaiser to expand her royal coverage to include Letizia, Maxima, Mathilde, CP Victoria and husband Daniel (and Estelle, let’s not forget Estelle!), etc.? Seeing them actually working for their charities and supporting their countries helps me realize there are royals out there who do work hard and are of use.

        On the historic front, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Beatrice d’Este (Sforza) have always interested me.

      • old prude says:

        No it wasn’t you. I just don’t like the whole negative vibe it takes that puts me off. I don’t get how can someone like Kate inspire such polar and intense war of words,I get it when it happens on Angelina Jolie but Kate really?? The woman barely works 60 days a year and here we are insulting each other for her sake, positive or negative. Also I don’t get the point when preppie who do like her or defend her get attacked, it’s exactly as bad as people who don’t like her labelled as haters or jealous. I also got really irritated when anyone who defends her get posted hoards of evidence to make ‘non believers’ think otherwise. Simply put I just don’t like the attitude that of someone who doesn’t agree gets bombarded and the general tone of the threads.

      • LadySlippers says:


        My comments aren’t because of any one person or one instance.

        My issues are numerous:

        ~RAMPET misinformation. I must be really rare that I don’t comment on things I don’t know much about. Or I qualify my comments somehow to show I don’t know a lot on this subject. But there are a large number of people that ‘think’ they know what they are talking about and end up sounding like fools. The ‘let’s blame the PoW/ the Queen’ are great examples.
        ~Unwillingness to listen or reason. Most of the critics of Kate’s dress only ask her to be professional in her appearance. But it’s something that gets turned into a generational thing with younger people telling us what prudes we ‘older people’ are. No, not prudes but we seem to understand that there are bigger things than just wanting to please yourself when in a business setting. The same can be said of William’s lack of work ethic. We *all* do crap we don’t want to do but his supporters have the same ‘me first’ attitude William does. And William, and others, needs to learn we have work together for things bigger than just us.
        ~ Misinterpreting comments. I have accidently been on both sides of this but the internet is not really a civil place and it’s hard to read tone. I RARELY try and attack someone personally — it’s not my style at all. But people often read hostility into a comment because SO many people use the internet as a place to anonymously bully others. That means people, inuding me, are always a little ‘on guard’. Makes it a little less fun.
        ~Kinda of related but always assuming the worst in everyone. Everyone in the celeb world has some kind of agenda. Most do but we don’t know what it is and yet people guess. It’s not the guessing that bothers me, it’s the fact so many guess in extremes only. Black and white thinking is not healthy or is it realistic.
        ~Repeating myself. And listening to others repeat themselves. Gets old.
        ~Dehumanising celebs AND other commenters. Need I say more?

        I’m sure there are other reasons…


        I love both those women. I am reading a book right now that is re-examing the myth of Mary I of England. It’s been pretty darn good too. My next book is about Lady Penelope (great-granddaughter of Mary Boleyn and Henry VIII). I might go and read about Mary Boleyn too (I’m a Tudor geek).

        I love me some strong noble or Royal women. And clearly, Kate just ain’t that! Lol

        Hey, and following up from our conversation from several posts ago. I am really sorry if it appeared that I was attacking you. I was not. And I’m very sorry that it may have appeared that way. Please know that personal attacks are not my thing. They truly aren’t. (I think it just gets hard to tell in print)

        I have thoroughly enjoyed chatting with my fellow Royal Loonies (I capitalise it because we are just that special!). Too bad we couldn’t find a fun and safe place to discuss all Royals. That I would just lurve.


      • mena says:

        @OP, I hear ya. I’ve taken a break from this place sometimes too. Hope you’ll stick around.

        ETA @LS, yeah I’ve seen all of what you’ve written in these threads. It can be totally frustrating. I hope those posters don’t drive you away. There’s still good snark to be had in the royal threads :-). I mean we haven’t heard from a Pippa in a while 😉

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Fortunately, there are other royals who are charismatic and involved with some worthy causes. I’m from Scandinavia and I’ve always seen the BRF as the most backwards and plodding of the European royal families. Not to mention their atrocious fashion sense. They are, however, quite amusing. Before Baldtop and the Hungry One, I found Prince Philip’s “foot-in-mouth”-disease vastly entertaining. If I was British I might no be as forgiving.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Everything you said plus a thousand, but I hope you won’t stop commenting. I have learned a lot from you. Maybe you could just ignore them?

      • Sixer says:

        @LS – can I recommend Alison Weir’s books to you? Also Edward VI: The Lost King of England by Chris Skidmore. Edward gets ignored by many interested in the Tudors, yet his short reign was extremely significant, particularly in terms of the Reformation.

        @ everyone – you know, I genuinely couldn’t care less about arguments in these threads. I’m quite aware that my particular brand of snark upsets some (not so much on Royal threads though) but y’know, it’s just me. I was born to take the proverbial out of everything. And I don’t mind if people want to gainsay me. Nor how polite they are or how aggressive they are when they’re doing it. It’s all grist to the mill. The only thing that ever gets my goat is being told not to speak. I can’t have that!

        Anyway. I hope you all hang around and continue to comment. As a Brit, it’s interesting to see how parts of my society are perceived by other societies – there is a mishmash of genuine insights and complete misconceptions and it’s always truly stimulating.

      • mayamae says:

        LadySlippers, I thought there was much disagreement about whether Henry VIII fathered a child by Mary Boleyn.

      • ArtHistorian says:


        There’s a lot of debate about this, especially since the births and deaths of lesser aristocrats weren’t always recorded.
        Antonia Fraser, whom I agree with, argues that it is unlikely that Henry VIII had any children by Mary, the sister of Anne Boleyn. Which has some support in the fact that he publicly recognized his illegitimate son by Bessie Blount and made him Duke of Richmond.
        Philippa Gregory is dead wrong with many of the facts surrounding the Tudors. Had to put that in here, because her books annoy me to no end.

      • LadySlippers says:


        RE: Mary Boleyn’s children.

        I have read summaries on *two* recent bios of that era that claim they have uncovered unequivocal evidence that Henry fathered at least one of Mary’s children (Katherine).

        In fact, the author Sally Varlow thinks that’s why Elizabeth was so indulgent with certain cousins of hers than others — she knew she/they were more than cousins.

        Sixer & others,

        I love Alison Weir! In fact, her book on Mary Boleyn is the 2nd book to state that Katherine Carey was indeed Henry’s daughter (the first was The Lady Penelope by Sally Varlow).

        Now I haven’t read why either or both assert this but I’m very interested to find out how/why they think this.

        ArtHistorian & others,

        Most Royal and Imperial Families have interesting people. They also have duds too! lol William and Kate are certainly duds.

        And I avoid Philippa Gregory like the plague. I get she writes historical *fiction* but she gets way too many facts wrong for my taste. It’s almost to the point that it looks like she did only a cursory search on the people she’s writing about. Frustrating.

      • LAK says:

        Phillippa Gregory makes it very,very clear in her Author notes in every single book that she is writing fiction, conjecture and speculation based around some historical facts. SHe says repeatedly in every book that she has done her research, but she has chosen to play with that fiction. She points out conjecture and her personal opinion, but never says her book is the absolute truth.

        And anyway, she’s a fiction writer. If she was writing biography, her books would be in the biography section of bookstores.

        To take her work as truth as opposed to the work of fiction it obviously is, is the same as taking Shakespeare’s history plays as the truth.

        Alison Weir’s book on Mary Boleyn is really grating on account of recyling gossip without advancing any facts, not to mention how opportunistic it was given she wrote it AFTER Philippa Gregory’s fictional book ‘the other Boleyn girl’ became such a roaring success.

        i was really disappointed in Alison given her usually excellent track record.

    • Ms. Turtle says:

      I didn’t call anyone an old prude but I did say a lot of the comments on yesterday’s post were nitpicky and prudish. I feel that they were. However, I think it’s interesting to read dissenting remarks. It *seems* like a lot of long-time commenters here don’t like it when not all of us want to burn Kate at the stake or write her off as a lazy crass tramp. I like her. I’m willing to forgive a skirt blow-up or two. I forgive her long stringy hair and kohl-lined eyes. I think anyone in her position has a hard time. Imagine if Celebitchy were around in Diana’s time. Oh lawd! I’m new here but I like reading y’all’s comments even when I think they’re overly critical.

      • mena says:

        How about a skirt blow up 6 or 7, because that’s about as many times Kate has let this happen. Letting her skirt blow up has become Kate’s ‘thing’, like Miley & her tongue.

      • Original N says:

        …Or 7? I do not believe anyone debates that being in the public eye is not easy; however, when one accepts a job, one accepts the good (vacations, taxpayer subsidized lifestyle) that comes with the bad (working when perhaps you would prefer not to, but definitely working more than 3 engagements per year Jan-March, adhering to a dress code that was put forth by your place of employment that one may not agree with, etc.). For most of us, we would try to use our position to make the world a better place, which would naturally entail working more than 3 engagements per quarter. So, I find little to like about this woman or her husband as I have yet to find a single way that she had made this world a better place, despite having every opportunity to do just that – opportunities that only the rest of us can dream of having! That said, I am not friends with people who base their lives around shopping, decorating, and staying thin, so perhaps I just don’t ‘get’ the appeal of Waity.

        ETA: Mena’s comment posted before mine! 🙂

      • mena says:

        @Original N, Twinsies!! JINX!!! Buy me a Coke 😉

      • Original N says:

        @mena – I owe you a Coke! If you are ever in New England, feel free to collect *smile*

      • LadySlippers says:

        My fellow Royal Loonies rarely want anyone to burn at the stake. We generally prefer decapitation. 😉

        I think the issue is that too many people mistake criticisms for hate. Kate and William have some very simple things they need to fix and yet they don’t. That is an honest and legitimate complaint.

      • old prude says:

        Ms. turtle
        I don’t remember who said what but I did renderer a lot of name calling from both sides, especially old pride, slit shaming, pearl clutching etc.
        I do agree with you that those who do like her got a little harsh reception and that what really turned me off. I was actually taking against the way posters who defended Kate got very close to attacked IMO. It really turned me off. I have my opinions and I can respect others too even if I disagree with them. That’s why I don’t go around providing’proof’to validate my opinions as correct and others as wrong or misguided.

        Anyway i’m going to talk about skirts and noting else and I’ll be polite to everyone, whether they think Kate is adorable, classy or not. I have enough negativity in my life, don’t need it on internet too.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        There are definitely strata to the composite of royal watchers here:

        Highly intelligent people with research, a great memory and a passion for history to their credit. Upside: knowledge and intuition that is second to none. Downside: dislike of being disagreed with sometimes, not the world’s best sense of humor.

        Very intelligent watchers with good memories and an admirable interest in royal affairs. Upside: easy to get along with, in general and tolerant. Downside: also not always comfortable with differing opinions but handle it with more diplomacy.

        Not exactly into the facts, tables, figures and links of royal watching but more of an armchair spectator. Upside: they can bring surprisingly refreshing perspective because they are not as vested. Plus they add an air of levity and much needed humor. Downside: sometimes lack focus and the ability to fully support opinions.

        Those with absolutely no interest in examining facts/history but are more inclined to put forth their opinions based on extreme emotions/passions. Upside: they make the rest of us look better? Downside e: increased tension between commentors and increased rates of offending/discouraging others.

        Very few people fit neatly into one category or another and I feel that you can be one type of royal watcher one day and another type the next, so I am not trying to put us all in neat boxes – just trying to quantify a bit. for example, LAK is someone I would put in the first group but she happens to have a wonderful, snappy sense of humor when she lets herself be sillly. Someone like Basking Shark would be in the last group yet she is never rude to other commentors and never goes after anyone who disagrees with her. So you see, this isn’t an exact science.

        I would feel sad if the royal thread broke down because of these issues. And sad doesn’t even begin to describe how I would feel if we lost a LOONY *looks imploringly at LS*
        ETA: LAK and Basking Shark: please forgive me a thousand times if you feel I shouldn’t have used your names. I just feel that you are both admirable examples of both ends of the spectrum and great examples of not fitting neatly into a mold. In other words, two reasons why the royal thread onCB is the most balanced and informed out there. Am I making sense or making it worse?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Old prude
        I changed my mind. I actually don’t like calling you that. I completely misunderstood you when you were explaining what you didn’t like about yesterday, and who was attacking who. (Whom?) I guess all we can agree on is that it was unpleasant and exhausting and not worth the emotional energy.

      • mayamae says:

        It can be very overwhelming to wander into a Kate Middleton story as a casual observer and make what you think is an innocuous statement. It can feel like the wrath of the titans is coming down on your head – even when everything stated is facts. My first post was very mild and yet I was called an ignorant American. I understand my place in these threads now, but can sympathize with those who don’t.

      • My2Pence says:

        @mayamae. Your place is wherever you choose it to be. Please do not let any of us – pro, con, undecided, fawning, or frustrated – discourage your from sharing your opinion.

      • GoodNames says:

        What did you think why I changed my name? I changed my name for those who think people who complained about Kate’s flashing are old prudes, so if that’s the case then I’m fine being an old prude. I get both sides make snarky remarks and some of the comments are irresistible to comment to but I just felt (not you, you are always polite even to me and my very angry remarks re USA”S politics, which I did regret making after) those who like Kate or try to defend her sort of corned or bombarded with proof of how their thinking is illogical and kind of hostile environment for them to post freely. Anyway I changed my name to take pride in being called an Old Prude, as I said I’m out and proud!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Old Prude? Is that you? Do you see where it says “GoodNames says?” And then it’s you commenting and not me? Did you change your name again? I am so confused! I’m glad you’re out and proud, but what is going on with the names?

        I remember our awful fight, and I’m so glad you brought it up. I am sorry, too, and you have every right to your opinion. Let’s be old prude friends together. 🙂

      • mayamae says:

        My2Pence, I appreciate your comment. Thank you.

    • WillowDreamer says:

      I love your angelic 21 name but old prude is much more entertaining!
      Please don’t go girls as i love your input and learn so much from you.
      Maybe Kate or Bill will read these posts or someone close to them and a lightbulb will go off!
      A girl can dream…..

    • Violet says:

      Brava my prudish lady. You speak the words of wisdom and I agree with you.

    • bluhare says:

      NOBODY GOES ANYWHERE!!!! Name change is acceptable . . . but confusing.

      The baroness

  17. maynot says:

    I used to travel a lot for my previous Job. So let me explain how it works for normal working people, including senior managers and company executives: you Fly business from Europe to Australia, you have a confortable seat, not a bed, you sleep if you can, otherwise you prepare yourself for the meetings , you try to wash your teeth and face in the lavatory, you land, you wait in line while they check your passport, you wait for your luggage, you wait for your taxi, you reach your hotel to take a shower leaving your bags unpacked in the room and you run to join the first meeting. After a couple of days of meetings, a number of orribile coffees and a couple of business dinners you take another taxi to catch your flight back. Exausted. And pls note that when you land you don”t leave for some luxury vacations, but you go back to work in your office where you find a number of new issues that you colleagues have been so kind to leave to you since you were abroad…

    • lower-case deb says:

      it makes me tired just reading it, i may need to go to Hobbiton.

      hope you are currently on a more enjoyable schedule… *digi-hug

    • Cazzee says:

      Don’t forget the travel paperwork and a pile of receipts to be processed.

  18. Mary says:

    I just want to see William hold Prince George. I am thinking he hasn’t held him since George’s baptism!

    • WillowDreamer says:

      I completely agree! I would love to see the connection William
      has with his son.

    • Kayla says:

      I was just coming to say that! Kate seems to have really been struggling departing the plane. Would it have killed William to take George?!

    • hmmm says:

      From what I’ve read, George’s last public appearance is tomorrow, until he returns home.

      • bluhare says:

        I’ve just seen some photos and I don’t care what anyone thinks. He’s frickin’ adorable!!!

  19. paola says:

    I really don’t get why the nz government had to pay for their flight. I think it should have been used royal money for at least those tickets. It’s their duty to visit old colonies and if I was a kiwi I would not be happy with my money spent like that. It’s not like the royals can’t afford it.

    • LadySlippers says:

      They are now working on behalf of the Australian and New Zeland governments — that’s why the local governments pay for the Royal Tours.

    • hmmm says:

      Not only do the taxpayers in Australia and NZ pay the bills, but the Dolittles can change their itinerary over to a luxurious resort instead of Government House, rent out 13 or 14 suites for their entourage, and hand the bill to the taxpayers. What a sweet deal for these ‘diplomats’.
      And all for what?

      • LAK says:

        Now, Now. William Baldtop is practising his brand of diplomacy. Isn’t this what you learn at the Foreign office?

      • My2Pence says:

        This behavior is “modern” don’t you know? 🙂

  20. qtpi says:

    She has it all wrong. Have a professional do your makeup and do your own hair. She has a simple basic hairdo. Why the need for a hairdresser?!

  21. Christina says:

    I have such a hard time considering any of these meetings “work”. While my husband was active duty in the military I had to attend lots of events with him – promotions, award ceremonies, etc. All complete with awful chicken dinners (that we had to pay for in addition to paying a babysitter back home). I had to chat with tons of people I didn’t know … small talk constantly. That’s basically what they are doing at these events, except she gets a huge budget for her wardrobe and people to help her look her best. I never considered what I was doing WORK. It was part of being a supportive spouse. If getting her clothes/accessories together for this trip has truly taken her months of “WORK”, perhaps it’s time to hire someone to take care of it for her so she can focus on other things. She has such a huge opportunity to use her name/popularity/media attention for GOOD and she just isn’t. It’s such a shame. I hope it will change in the future.

    • maynot says:

      Besides, after having worked for months to prepare her outfits she had her usual Marilyn moment before even touching the ground. So unprofessional and disappointing.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Love voluntold activities! (Former Navy spouse here) Complete with the crappy dinners! (Sometimes I lucked out and got salmon — most of the time it was even *good* salmon too. Lol)

      She should be doing a lot more than just what the military spouses do. I did consider it work, but I happily did most of it. And it needed to be done, so why not do it with a smile?

      • Christina says:

        Voluntold activities! I love that! Totally stealing it. My husband always made it clear to me that I didn’t have to do anything regarding his career … he was 100% happy with the rank he had already obtained when we met. He was Air Force OSI and they are a bit different anyway. A missing spouse at events is a normal thing! I went b/c I enjoyed them (for the most part) and I liked being able to support him at those events. Hosting parties for other spouses, putting care packages together for all the deployed men and women from his wing … it was a way of helping others and getting to know new people. Kate KNEW the lifestyle she would have to lead when she married her husband, just like I did. In a way, people paying taxes were paying for our lifestyle just like the people are paying for their lifestyle. Obviously a MUCH bigger scale for them. The least she could do is give back by using her name/effort/time for some great causes.

  22. Just wanted to do a mini update on the Casparies–Miss Erma isn’t doing good. She’s still not walking, isn’t eating a lot, and Mr. C told me that the nursing home isn’t taking his insurance, so he’s going to have to start paying 3 or 4 thousand dollars a month for her to stay there.

    I’m worried that Mrs. C is going to die soon. My mom worked in a nursing home for about five years, and she said that once they stop walking, then that’s when they usually die.

    • My2Pence says:

      @VC. I am so sorry to read this. Is there any way that part-time at-home care would cost less than the nursing home? Maybe if she was home, with a health aide coming in X number of hours a day, that would help both husband and wife.

    • LadySlippers says:


      Your mom is spot on. 60% of the elderly die within 12 months of breaking their hip which is not encouraging.

      Ask her hubby what made her tick before the fall. What hobbies did she enjoy? Try and see if someone (including you) can re-engage her. An OT can facilitate it but it needs to be done with family and friends. Anyone and everyone that she cares about can help. But re-having her is key.

      The sad part is realising that she may be ready to go and then helping her hubby deal with that. It is tough. My guess is he’ll go soon as well. Swans are like that.


      • LadySlippers says:

        Re-engaging* her.

        Damn autocorrect.


      • Well, Miss Erma has Alzheimer’s–it’s really bad. I’ve been visiting them for over two years, and it’s gotten to the point to where she can recognize me as someone she’s met before, but has no clue who I am. Her memory has also gone downhill a lot, since I met her. When I first started visiting–she used to tell me a lot of stories about how she grew up, etc…now she doesn’t remember any of that anymore. She can’t remember what year she got married (1949–WOW), or any of that. She can’t even remember how many kids she has. If they came up to her, and didn’t say anything–then she would think that they were strangers. I know more about her and her family/kids than she does.

        Like when I go and see her now–she asks me the same two questions over and over again (where do I live and where do I go to school)—when before, she would only ask me once or twice.

        She broke one hip, and the other hip is just bone on bone–and before that she did a lot of sewing and painting (the house is covered in her paintings/embroiderings) and gardened a lot–now she sits in her chair, and she does word searches and listens to the tv–that’s all she can do pretty much. Mr. C still goes to see her twice a day, so I know he brings her puzzle books.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      Maybe a hospice will take her insurance and provide better palliative care in a more homelike environment.

    • blue marie says:

      Aww, I’m sorry to hear that VC.

    • Suze says:

      Virg, I am sorry. Your kindness to this couple has been such a bright light in the middle of these chaotic crazy royal threads. My thoughts are with them.

    • Jadzia says:

      Aw, VG, this is breaking my heart. My grandma died in the UP (where it sounds like you are?) just a couple of weeks ago. : ( You are so kind to that sweet couple; your mom clearly raised you right.

    • bluhare says:

      Oh I’m sorry things aren’t more positive, Virgilia. I totally agree with what Suze wrote; you’ve been a real blessing to Mr. and Mrs. C.

  23. Shelley says:

    I just watched the movie Diana with Niomi Watts. It’s totally stupid BUT it made me think about just how different Diana is from these guys. She had so much charisma and she was so loving plus she worked her butt off. Sure, she lived a luxurious lifestyle, but she deeply and truly invested in issues/charity. Also, she had input. She was not a stupid puppet who smiles- she really participated. Kate does nothing. It’s so ridiculous.

    • maynot says:

      Totally agree. Plus, times were also different . Now after the economic crisis, so many government and public workers fired in UK, I think they should understand that the way they spend time and money.

      • Original N says:

        …Agree – but would add: this is why it should be a transparent system. I completely understand having a Head of State, but what the Head of State costs the UK taxpayers should be as transparent as possible such that the taxpayers can make an informed decision regarding the worth of the Head of State and if not, elect someone else! In the current conditions, what motivation is there for Will & Waity to prove their worth? No one can definitively state what they cost the taxpayer versus what they bring in for the country nor can they be fired when they take endless vacations!

  24. Dancer says:

    God I love reading American coverage of the British royal family, particularly Kaiser’s posts on here. For obvious cultural reasons, American’s just don’t get them, don’t understand the British class system, the media, the different reporters, the funding etc, and it makes reading the comments on here hilarious.

    • Ms. Turtle says:

      Hilarious, how so?

    • sunsetsnow says:

      I am British born and raised until thirteen, and then I moved to the U.S. I completely understand about class system, etc. They are still lazy, ungrateful, and self-involved.

    • mena says:

      UK coverage of W&K doesn’t seem to get them either. The UK sites are even more fun to read because you’re stuck paying the bills for those two. Now THAT is hilarious.

      • Dancer says:

        Not the point I was making. There are elements of a common culture between the UK and USA but there are far more differences than similarities, and it is obvious in the coverage on here. Kaiser’s Cressida Bonsa coverage is hilarious, for example, because she clearly has no understanding of that particular class or social set,

      • mena says:

        @Dancer, I understand the cultural differences between the US & the UK. But when we talk about celebrities – and that IS what the younger royals & their aristo friends behave like – there aren’t many differences.

        The post Kaiser made about Cressida Bonas came from the Daily Mail and this post about W&K came from the Telegraph. Those are both UK publications, right?

        The comments on the DMs ‘Cressida wants go to Burning Man’ article don’t appear that different from here. And the comments about W&Ks vacation don’t seem that different from here, either.

        So what is this site not understanding about the behavior of royals William & Kate and aristos like Cressida?

        ETA Further up thread we were talking about how frustrating some posters can be on this site. So Dancer, I hope you don’t think we are dog-piling on you. But looking at the responses to your initial post DANG!

    • Kellie says:

      Could you please elaborate? I’m not being sarcastic, I really want to know. I am not American or British, and I don’t know much about the royals, but I just don’t see any benefits from having them around, and if there are reasons I’d like to know what they are.

    • HoustonGrl says:

      You’re right. Please explain to me why the British are so willing to supplement the lavish lifestyle of a family that seems to give so little in return, and to uphold a system where certain privileges are granted only by birth, and all others considered inferior. What is this “special” system of which you speak? I can’t believe we’re missing out! What a shame. One thing’s for sure, kiwis sure are lucky to have their “ruler” come by for an all-expenses paid visit and to get the duchess’ periodic panty flashes! The don’t call it the tour of down under for nothing!

      • Original N says:

        lol at ‘all-expenses paid visit and to get the duchess’ periodic panty flashes! The don’t call it the tour of down under for nothing!’ …

    • LadySlippers says:

      So why not explain then? It is always very interesting to get more input from people that could shed some insight on the matter. And I’m very serious when I write that too.

      • Sixer says:

        I know you’re being serious so I’ll reply here because some of these other posts are a bit willy-jousty for a serious reply!

        I’ve said it before, LS, but reading the royal posts on here, I can see very clearly that there is little-to-no comprehension stateside of how entwined the British monarchy is in many aspects of society. To become a republic (as I would like) would not be as simple waving goodbye and instituting presidential elections.

        For example, we have an established church and the Queen is its head (nobody seemed to get that the recent ER visit with the Pope was two religious leaders meeting one another in an official capacity).

        We’d have to get rid of that (also another thing I would like) if there was no monarchy. But getting rid of an established church would have repercussions within large parts of our education system (a huge percentage of our state elementary schools are church schools), and within our legislatory upper house. And much, much more – our laws include special provisions for the church in many areas – births, deaths, marriages, inheritance – all this would have to be undone were the church to be disestablished.

        There also seems to be little understanding of how an unwritten constitution works (not least as a break on power) and how it could be possible that an apolitical head of state could have a benign influence on a democratic society without wielding any actual HARD power.

        I’m not saying that these things are arguments in favour of retaining a monarchy. I actually feel quite differently, as you know. Neither am I making any value judgements on Americans being ignorant of another country’s socio-political system – why should they know? But these are significant and powerful issues. It’s not as simple as “the Brits should wake up, smell the coffee and get rid of these spoiled poshies” as I often see written on here. The repercussions would be massive and there would be a great many unintended consequences.

      • Suze says:


        Thank you.

        I still like your idea of booting the royals out of Windsor and Buckingham Palace so that they can be turned into fully functional year round tourist venues, a la Versailles.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Serious question. Do I come across as a typical stupid American?

        I think dismantling the British Monarchy would have profound effect on the entire world. People honestly don’t get the impact the UK and the BRF actually has.

      • Sixer says:

        @LS – I did reply at length but I’m afraid it didn’t make it through m-land. A bit rich when arrant nonsense about genetic subservience does, but ho hum! Of course you don’t come across as the stereotype of a stupid American. And anyway, stereotypes smell of cat’s wee. What I said boiled down to a summation of the way the rest of the world sees the American system (very poor at actual freedom and democracy despite the pervasive national myths – this may or may not be the case, but it’s how the US is perceived outside the US). And I suggested that therefore the prospect of swapping what we have for you have is distinctly unappealing – particularly for a country like Britain, whose people tend to the pessimistic view that change is likely to be for the worse rather than the better. Britons retaining the monarchy is a better the devil you know thing; not a constitutional monarchy is great because we all get to do some forelock-tugging thing.

        @Suze – I maintain it would be more profitable!

      • maynot says:

        I understand most of the implications of the Monarchy and I also appreciate its positive impacts on UK political and social life . Because Elizabeth is a great Queen. That’s why I am particularly concerned about its future when Charles and William will be King. How can a Head of a Church accept that his wife is flashing her crotch whenever she has the opportunity? Or to change her bikini in front of their security staff? Just to make an example. Most of the comments are referring exactly to this unfortunate and superficial behaviour and the lack of respect towards the glorious Institution they represent.

      • Sixer says:


        Interestingly, Charles got into quite hot water a few years back when he suggested he would like to be a Defender of Faiths, rather than THE Defender of Faith, thus hinting at the disestablishment of the CofE that I was talking about above.

        I think Charles will end up being an ok king. William? Time will tell but it’s not looking good, is it? I still think it will take a cataclysm to get we Brits to risk a change, though.

    • Lisa says:

      I think it’s because we’re not culturally AND genetically inclined to be subservient. If you (or your forebearers) had the brains and chops to make it over here, no matter when that was, you’re not just going to accept a hereditary representative/head of state. The only justification I guess for accepting such an undemocratic/anti-meritocratic system is if it benefits you, in which case you’re kind of a jerk. I sense, though, that many people in the UK are waking up.

      • Nymeria says:

        @ Lisa, I respectfully disagree. I think it’s human nature to fawn over the most powerful people in a society. The reasons may vary from person to person, but in general the fawning is done to curry favour with those in power and thus become an extension of the ‘elite.’

      • My2Pence says:

        It would be interesting to see it as a genetic study, wouldn’t it? There have been studies showing that certain people are genetically pre-disposed to religious belief. Other studies have shown that immigrants *tend* to be the more extroverted members of their families (the introverts *tend* to migrate less), and introvert/extrovert *might* be related to genetics.

        You have nations of immigrants (Australia, Canada, United States) that often have the stereotype of being filled with extroverts. There might be correlation with these extroverts (and their descendants) being genetically pre-disposed to the idea that respect has to be earned, you must earn the alpha position, etc.

      • Lisa says:

        Hi Nymeria — you have a good point. Fawners will fawn wherever they are but having spent a great deal of time in the UK I see far less of that here. America is a far bigger country — there are always (seemingly) greener pastures to move on to, no one is literally a lord over you, you are no one’s “subject”, you are not expected to bow/curtsey (ffs!) in front of any other human being. Can you see any American accepting that? Most importantly — I think — every single parent in this country can dream that their baby will grow up to serve his/her country as its head of state. In the UK there is only ONE set of parents that can do that. As a parent, that would NEVER be acceptable to me.

        Thank you Tuppences — it certainly is fascinating. There have been some studies down correlating immigrant groups with academic success, etc but I’m sure there is much more work that can/should be done in that field.

    • Nymeria says:

      A-holes are a-holes everywhere, no matter the intricacies of their social world. They’re pretty easy to spot with a little practice. Guess what, Dancer? These two are assholes.

      What a kick it would be if “Dancer” turned out to be Cressida.

    • Suze says:


      Maybe you should offer to write the British royal posts. Most of us are eager learners.

      Even though our media drools over some of them, I’m sure you realize that there is only a very small subsection of American society that cares at all about the royals. It’s only so much celebrity background noise to most of us, just part of the drivel and fashion “news” that flows out of outlets like People and The Today Show.

      This forum isn’t representative at all of broader American society – most of whom couldn’t name a royal outside of Queen Elizabeth, “Kate Middleton”, and the late great Diana. And Kate isn’t by any means a sure thing – my cube mate the other day referred to her as that brown haired broad who caught that prince.

      And I can guarantee you that 99.99 percent of Americans don’t have a clue what class or social set Cressida hails from – and don’t care. That’s why the howls of outrage on here about how people give old Watercress an easier time because of her aristo connections always puzzle me – unless of course you are talking simply about coverage in the British media.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Oh, Dancer, I’m so delighted that we can entertain you with our hilarious ignorance! We, who have never read any history or novels about your terribly complicated class system, could never comprehend the way it works. Let’s see, there’s the upper class, meaning coal miners, right? Oh, forgive me for being such an ignorant American peasant! The only consolation is that we can cling to a few simple stereotypes about the British, such as, I know! They have such lovely manners and are always so awfully, awfully polite. Oh wait…

  25. dorothy says:

    I’m going to have haters, but I really like them as a family. Very sweet.

    • hmmm says:

      Well I think there are posters on this site who look like they would agree with you. However, they don’t seem to be showing up for some reason to do just that.

  26. WillowDreamer says:

    OH MY WORD!!!
    Can this woman NEVER keep her dresses down!
    Now i am beginning to wonder if this is all on purpose….like i have the
    best looking legs! Maybe she is trying to copy Diana where the photographers
    took pictures of her in the playground and you could see her legs through her dress.

    • Christin says:

      I remember that photo being taken around the time of the engagement when she was 19 or so. Diana seemed to learn from it instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

  27. lunchcoma says:

    I never realized how irritating these people were until I read this site.

    I could understand a night off for jet lag, but this whole trip is a working vacation. They could go to a wildlife preserve or a concert or a beach or a museum and dress it up as an appearance, couldn’t they? Why not just do that and kill two birds with one stone?

  28. LadyJane says:

    Prince William is the one who should have been holding baby Prince George, or at least being seen helpfully taking the child from Duchess Kate. Kate not only had to hold her son, make sure her coat/dress didn’t fly up, pillbox hat didn’t fly away in the wind, hold on to the railing, walk down airplane stairs in sky-high heels AND keep her long hair out of her face. She managed to do it all with a smile on her face, and looking beautiful.

    • Original N says:

      Agree regarding Will holding George & from a PR standpoint, this was an error. I have no idea why William wasn’t walking down holding George. Can you imagine the positive press that would have been generated when women across the world found photographs of William descending with a chubby-cheeked George?

      @LadySlippers, LAK, My2Pence, Old Prude etc. – I’m not overly informed regarding when the 2 heirs are supposed to be separated, can be together, etc. They were obviously on the same plane together so is there any reason why William could not have carried George down? Something I am missing? It just seems like such a missed opportunity!

      • LadySlippers says:

        Technically William and George should not have flown together (William doing his own thing). But there was and is no logical reason that William could not have assisted his wife walking down the steps. Those steps are often steep and treacherous in flat shoes NOT fighting the wind or a squirmy infant.

        I’ve flown on numerous military flights and always had numerous young military men fall all over themselves trying to assist me when I flew with two small children.

        William was being very selfish and thoughtless. No question about that.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        It was reported months ago that William had to apply for formal dispensation in order to fly with George. She gave it in writing. But yes, he should have helped his wife and child. I think his ego didn’t allow him to possibly be seen as an un-future-kingly, undignified, un man’s man princely princey prince-big-boy-pants. He plays polo. He shoots animals with a biiiiiiiig gun. He doesn’t carry babies.


    • The Original Mia says:

      According to the sugars, if Kate hadn’t been holding George, she would have been called a bad mother or accused of showing off her outfit. It’s ridiculous. He could have taken George and allowed Kate to descend without putting herself and George in a precarious situation.

      • LadySlippers says:


        And how is allowing the FATHER of the child do his job translate into being a bad mother?!???

      • wolfpup says:

        For him to be unaware of his wife and child, if truly done by a kingly snobbitness, it would seem somewhat disparaging of other women too. Out of touch.

  29. Maggie says:

    An aquaintance of mine was a lady in waiting to Queen Elizabeth when she visited Canada. She told me when the Royal Family are on tour they have an enormous amount of reading to do because they have to familiarize themselves with the charities, government and various groups that they will be visiting. It’s not a holiday plus there is a lot of preparation before hand. I’m sorry but I think the majority of the bitching on here is very petty. Our world is going to hell in a handbasket and ppl are concerned about a skirt blowing up in the wind? If you want to see where your hard earned dollars are going look to your gov’t, the drug companies, the banks, oil companies etc. At least the royals employ ppl and bring in tourism dollars to pay their way. They are good will ambassadors for England. It’s what makes England special. My cousin is a press photographer for the royal family and has met William and Kate several times. he has nothing but kind words to say about them.

    • WillowDreamer says:

      Seriously Maggie? This IS a gossip site not world wide news or politics.
      When i see something i would rather not read or would get upset about i just…don’t click on the article! Problem solved.
      I believe we have the right to voice what we think or feel and what a world it would be if we couldn’t voice our personal opinions.

      • Maggie says:

        You are right and that is exactly what I was doing. Voicing my personal opinion.

    • mena says:

      @Maggie, No one is slating the work that the Queen does, but do you really think William & Kate are spending their time at a luxury resort reading up on the local charities?

      If W&K had read up on Plunket, the NZ children’s charity that installed George’s car seat for them, they would’ve known the charity strongly recommends that a child of George’s age should be seated rear-facing. W&K specifically told the charity to position PGs seat facing forward.

      So, do you think W&K read up on Plunket OR maybe they did read up on them and they just don’t care?

    • hmmm says:

      Waity reads? LOL

      What proof is there that she does her homework? There is lots of proof that she has shown her ignorance.

      I wouldn’t say it’s showing ‘good will’ when they change their itinerary to bugger off to a resort instead of diplomatically staying at Government House, insult the Maori King, and decline dinner with the PM. Some ambassadors.

      On the other hand, they do have value as celebrities. I am sure their tour will increase tourism. In fact, their free trip seems more like a travelogue than anything remotely diplomatic. Could have had Rick Steves as tour guide.

      As for pettiness, well, this is a gossip site. And you’re here too, being petty with the rest of us.

      • Maggie says:

        I’m not being petty. What proof is there that she doesn’t do her homework? Perhaps there is a reason they dont want the car seat facing the rear and we know nothing of it. Why would they want their child put in a dangerous position? There must be a valid reason and I’m not going to jump down their throats for it. I shouldn’t be slammed for having a differing opinion than the majority here.

      • KateBush says:

        On the news yesterday it said the royal tour would generate $20 million for NZ so it’s not all bad. Guess that helps explain why the taxpayers don’t mind forking out for the accom/flights etc.

      • wolfpup says:


      • mena says:

        Hmmm, I’m feeling a little ignored. 🙁 Anywhoo.

        @Maggie, what reason could possibly justify embarrassing a charity like that?

        Plunket has been very influential in advising NZers on child safety.

        If W&K didn’t agree with Plunket’s advice, wouldn’t it have been better if they had diplomatically & discreetly asked the charity not to install the seat and have someone else do it?

        Instead, because of W&K, Plunket has had to very publicly go against their own advice.

        Instead of helping the local charities, W&K have hurt Plunket by making their work look unimportant.

      • hmmm says:


        Can’t disagree that they will generate tourist income, as celebrities. So does a circus. What does this have to do with diplomacy?

        Do you think that we should perhaps give up on the ‘royal’ moniker and treat them like celebrities?

    • Suze says:

      I didn’t know QEII had temporary duty ladies-in-waiting for her tours. I’m fascinated by this.

      • Maggie says:

        When she travels abroad she is appointed a Lady in Waiting from that region. Apparently she gets very nervous before having to do a speech and she loves cross word puzzles to pass the time. Just thought I would throw in that little tidbit. Oh and she wears very heavy make-up as well.

      • wolfpup says:

        You girls are just being silly. Some of us are old enough to be your big sisters, mothers, grandmothers and aunts. Shame for teasing and trying to provoke others! It embarrasses me to say anything…

      • Suze says:


        What are you talking about?

        I have been trying to draw Maggie into a conversation on these royal threads for months. She posted something I had never heard of before, so I asked more about it, and she answered.

        For me at least, there was no silliness or provocation. I don’t know about Maggie, of course.

        Honestly – I’m a little annoyed here. I was genuinely curious. I didn’t think the royal family would hire temporary outside help. It seems very, I don’t know, un-royal.

      • Maggie says:

        Wolfpup I’m an adult with several professional designations after my name. Seems to me you just embarrassed yourself.

      • wolfpup says:

        I am not at all embarrassed! Do you seriously want to examine pedigrees and degrees and places of employment? Trying to call me out? (as I bounce away joyfully – having spent much time on tasting what is healthy or not!) Nope – you can’t get me – I am free to be!

        Good day!

    • WillowDreamer says:

      The info you gave earlier is interesting and your right your entitled to your opinion.
      I just find it interesting that you made the comment about people on this site bi@@ching and AGAIN this is indeed a gossip site.
      Sorry i have to say this but are’t you b@@ching as well?
      I stand by my earlier comment…”don’t click on the article. Problem solved.”

      • Maggie says:

        Are you telling me I’m not welcome to state my opinion on this thread?

      • WillowDreamer says:

        I never said that…you did!
        State on.

      • KateBush says:

        That’s really not fair Willowdreamer. Maggie is entitled to her opinion, I like reading comments that put forward a different view. It gets so depressing reading all the negative stuff sometimes.

        When anyone puts forward a positive comment it’s instantly dismissed but any tiny flaw is magnified and discussed endlessly. I like to try an provide a counter to some of the arguments, but at the end of the day it’s not that serious is it?

      • Maggie says:


      • WillowDreamer says:

        Double wow!
        I didn’t think i was not being ‘fair.’
        Just stating an opinion as well.
        I didn’t say hey don’t say that….i just said if
        you don’t like it don’t read it….that is all…
        end of story!

      • FLORC says:

        We are all entitled to post our opinions here.
        And opinions here are generally not outright attacked at the 1st sign of weakness.
        Correcting or posing a counter argument is not done out of hate even though some people are not receptive to thoughts outside of their own.

    • Shin says:

      According to Maggie, Kate can do no wrong and Angelina can do no right.
      And staying in resort costs NZ taxpayers extra money.

      • KateBush says:

        My post above: this tour will generate $20 million for the NZ economy. Probably justifies the plane tickets/accom spent by the NZ taxpayers. 🙂

      • Maggie says:

        That doesn’t even deserve a comment Shin.

      • FLORC says:

        I would love to see the true numbers of the cost to have W&K visit. It’s always much more than we’re quotes and tourism profit is always much less than reported.

        You’re not wrong.

      • KateBush says:

        @FLorc here is a link I just found:

        The value of the visit is expected to generate £10m which is about $NZ 20m.

        The figures that the PM used were based on the cost of Charles and Camilla’s recent visit.
        I think it is hard to quantify how many tourism dollars their visit will generate my guess is that the figures quoted are based on estimates of other events that garner worldwide coverage for NZ eg Rugby World Cup, The Lord of the Rings premiere etc.

    • Suze says:

      Maggie – banks, the government, oil and drug companies also employ people, far more than the royal family. And they also generate revenue, far more than the royal family.

      Also, they aren’t really fodder on celebrity snark sites.

      I agree that you shouldn’t be slammed for being a royal supporter and fan. But by the same token you can’t expect people commenting on a post about Kate and William to start debating whether commercial enterprise is in their interest because it’s “more important.”

      I did like Kate’s dress yesterday. I didn’t care about the wind flipping it up. I think both Kate and William are probably very polite to people who work in their periphery, people like photographers and assistants and secretaries. They both seem brought up to be civil and cordial in social situations. I’m sure they’re not ogres by any means. So I agree with you about some things.

      I don’t see any heavy intellectual leanings from either of them, though, and their work load seems pretty darn light.

    • WillowDreamer says:

      Just reread my post….i guess i thought i was covering my opinions balanced and matter a fact.
      Sorry Maggie….and i do appreciate what you wrote and i don’t see the royals as all bad. I think if you go back and read all the posts on the royals throughout the years you see the progression of kate and will and issues. I had a different
      opinion before i came on this site and have learned much from the posters here.
      It is good to have different opinions and thoughts…positive and negative.
      Mena…i read your post and you raise an interesting and valid point concerning the charity and carseat issue.
      I really do enjoy the stories and comments. There are just some stories that i will not click on because i know it will irritate me.

      • KateBush says:

        Hi WillowDreamer- sorry if i took my frustration out on you too … it was good of you to apologise 🙂 I love the Royals (well Royal history mainly) and i guess i still want to give these two a chance.. Im beginning to get a bit more annoyed with them though… i think its time Kate stepped up… and thats thanks to this site LOL .. but i still love to discuss her clothes more than anything 🙂

    • diane says:

      @Maggie: girl, you just don’t get it: you don’t state anything, you complain about people complaining of Kate. To me ALL, absolutely ALL your posts on Kate threads sound like emotional outbursts. IMO you don’t simply say what you personally think, you “defend” Kate and slum others who in your eyes “accuse”/”judge” her. You come across just as judgmental as you accuse others of being. If your personally opinion would be that Kate rocks, that would be ok, of course,…but the “Kate rocks, you people are all prigs!!” or inserting the “majority bitching here”……do I need to say it? rude, passive aggressive and a clear invitation to conflict….THAT is why your posts receive all this negative attention. But whatever….

      IMO I don’t Kate is doing very well, she seemed to have aged a lot in the past years. I think she thought she knew what she signed up for, but my guess is she underestimated the pressure and its effects in time. I think she can’t perform well because of pressure….performance anxiety. It’s not her dresses and legs I care about, whatever…, it is her speeches that make me want to hide. They are so painful to watch.

      Georgie is a cutie and that color rocks on her.

      • hmmm says:


        I also agree that she looks as if the pressure gets to her sometimes. I can’t see how it could not since she lives to serve William and her own/family’s goals and William lives to be served. In other words, it seems she gets no support from her husband, who is only ‘protective’ of her when it comes to his paranoid delusions about the press. He treats her like dirt, and perhaps that’s what makes her arriviste task so much more difficult. On top of which, it looks like the RF barely tolerates her.

        Her ace in the hole is that she speaks to William’s basest instincts, shares them and keeps him sweet. I can’t help but feel that she and the Midds are playing the long game, William is the tool, and she simply has to hang in there. I really don’t think she’s a delicate flower at all. She plays one because it suits her purposes. She’s just that venal.

      • Maggie says:

        Well your comment isn’t exactly what I would call polite Diane. Or intelligent, just really mean.

      • FLORC says:

        I’ve been attacked and mocked by this poster. And while I o think it’s rich for the pot to call the kettle black we don’t need to sink to that level.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Me, too, FLORC. Diane, just don’t engage or to try to explain. She refuses to do anything but take offense and call names.

      • My2Pence says:

        Personally I found Diane’s post to be intelligent, polite, and logical.

      • diane says:

        @Maggie: do whatever you want, but complaining of people being mean to you while you insult everyone, defies the most simple logic. so my explanation is that you like attention, and even negative attention is attention…

        @hmmm: I think Kate is trying her best. During her speeches I am always like OMG she is going to pass out, she is that nervous. I’m like girl, you are Will’s wife, you will have to talk in front of an audience, for the rest of your life. NOT doing this sorts of things is not an option. So do more. Smaller audiences, more speeches. I don’t think she is that frail, she is just that afraid to make a mistake, which makes her frail…makes sense? And then she goes into hiding and the next speech is worse….and worse.

        @FLORC: ugh, I know!! I had to say something:) now whatever…I will leave it alone.

      • hmmm says:


        I can’t disagree that she is afraid of making a mistake. But the fact is that she seems not resourceful, imaginative, etc. Diana was finally coached. Why can’t Waity get that clue?

        I do believe she uses her seeming frailty to achieve her goals more so than being afraid to make a mistake. Making a mistake, in her books, is a frailty she can use to advance her agenda. She does like to be “well taken care of”.

        I have never forgotten her girlish giggle when she screwed up her brief speech at the National Portrait Gallery. She expects to be forgiven everything by acting girlish, her MO, which translates as feminine and charming and helpless.

  30. original kay says:

    My Big Holiday Adventure:

    Detroit to Narita, non stop. Coach. Hell on Earth. Drank Saporro upon arrival, passed out and stayed out for 2 days. What a waste.

    Narita to Honolulu. Left 11pm March 25, arrived 11am March 25. THAT screws you up. Drank Red Dog upon arrival, passed out and stayed out 12 hours of prime Hawaiin sunshine. What a waste.

    Home was Honolulu to LA for a stop over, then on to Detriot (then flew home from there again).

    The rest was a waste. Better I got up and SAW Japan. It was the trip of a lifetime and I blew 2 days with beer.

    Wake up Kate and Wills!

  31. Chris says:

    Apparently the break in royal engagements is so Kate doesn’t overshadow the state visit of the Irish president to the UK, which begins today and is quite a big deal. Not sure whether that is true, but that is what is being said on the news.

  32. My2Pence says:

    Head’s up, Jenna left a really sweet message over on the previous Kate Middleton thread.

  33. Suze says:

    I didn’t comment yesterday because, frankly, it was too crazy in the thread.

    I actually like the dress and am not that fussed by the latest skirt uprising. She will always, always have that issue, sure as the sun rises and water finds its own level.

    I do think this tour is a light on the diplomacy, but I’ve come to the conclusion that WillKat are fairly lightweight intellectually, and that they lack the super buzz of charisma that Harry exudes. I expect very little from them. A few photo ops with George, a few chances to see what KATE WORE, and that’s that.

    Meanwhile QEII is pulling out the stops at Windsor for the Irish president’s state visit – it’s worth a peek over at the official website if you are so inclined.

  34. Liberty says:


    “Excuse me, small Sir, to sleep I beg you!” said Romina, the 22-year-old “foreign” former literature student and sometime royal baby nanny as she paced up and down the back hallway of the luxurious Happy Kiwi Hotel carrying a large kicking bundle. A fat fist poking out of the bundle was pointing with disdain at various objects, paintings and planters of fern. “I not sleep forty eight hours, please, small Sir, please, the little economy plane seat she has left my back broke with the pains! I die for water or tiny food item! Please, to sleep!”

    “I say, is something the matter with old Jack, what?” The alabaster and beeswax tones of her employer, William Baldtop, came growling down the staircase behind her. He moved like a well-fed private zoo panther, his pretanned skin glowing with the invigorating care of a spa bath and brush down, his bright new polo shirt supple across his chest, whereupon proudly glinted the wings he had earned for being a good airline passenger and sleeping thru the night on a rich stack of sheepskins. “I say, you look a fright! I was going to suggest the leopard nightie. Cressie Two, and the spare crown, hahah, old Anne Bolt-ons, ha, but now I am not sure! You ought to have a four-hour Perk the Princess Package like the old thing, eh? But you know, we’re on a budget here so don’t charge it to your basement rollaway –“

    “Where is the Maria!” Romina blurted out as she stumbled wearily into a small table.
    “I read of her in newspaper! Isn’t she be nanny also!? Big child education! So good!”

    “Ah, ah, Maria, yes, yes, right right, no! She’s an eyeliner cosmetologist and ringlet-maker, you see!” laughed the jolly prince, exposing golden teeth that seemed to come directly from the tomb of Charles II. “Just seemed better to call her a nanny. Well a hair nanny, there you go! But no you’re it! Lucky you! Not many students get to and all that, what? Now, why don’t you take old Jasper here on a run about the lawns, while Dutch and I have a steam, exhausting year so far, you know, we’re still not caught up from the pesky Maldives by god, and by the way, do something about your face won’t you, you look a right mess and this air has made me quite bongerly spritely jolly ha, heels up, shoulder high, ho! I’ll swing by your cell in the basement later, wink, ho, glory England and all that! Cheers and toodles!” He sped off in the direction of the hotel’s exclusive gin rubdown center, his feet silent in giant white down-stuffed slippers, leaving poor Romina and her burden.

    “Oh holy limber Harry, laughing noble peacemaker of the galaxies, hear my cry from the earth’s bottom!” wept the starving sleepless dehydrated Romina, her legs nearly crumpling under her as her bundle hurled a silver cup engraved with “Nana M is my Queen” at a china case, “save me from secret royal spa tour of no hopes, send now to me a miracle, or —-!”

    • Maggie says:

      What is this?

      • My2Pence says:

        Liberty has been writing fan fiction about the royals in the style of 50 Shades of Grey and posting them on here. I haven’t read those books, but I enjoy Liberty’s fan fics!

    • bluhare says:

      Liberty, you have a gift!

    • Violet says:

      OMG, this part: “Ah, ah, Maria, yes, yes, right right, no! She’s an eyeliner cosmetologist and ringlet-maker, you see!” laughed the jolly prince, exposing golden teeth that seemed to come directly from the tomb of Charles II. “
      It is just hilarious and brilliant, you should publish some of this.

    • Deedee says:

      I came here looking for this. You never disappoint!

    • ArtHistorian says:

      …and she’s back! 😉

    • hmmm says:

      Bwahahaha! You really captured the grumpy, willful Georgie. “Nana M is my Queen”….so evil……BWAHAHAHA! You have a real gift for satire.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      This is everything. That’s all I’ve got.

    • Sixer says:

      Ringlet-maker! HA!

  35. feebee says:

    I have tried to, if not defend her in the past, at least give them the benefit of the doubt but I think I’m done now. They’re taking the piss in a major way.

    They are the quintessential ‘what’s in it for me?’ couple. There is no need to take 48 hours off just after arriving. Why they flew Qantas when Air NZ would have been a better option (less stops) I don’t know. Unless Qantas suddenly flies directly to NZ without stopping in Australia. I’ve flown from the UK to NZ and several times Chicago to NZ and the jet lag is more than bearable. It’s going the other way that screws with you.

    But you know, someone is okaying all of these shenanigans. And if what we’re told is believable about the buck stopping with the Queen then is it her? William should have been told he won’t have multiple “breaks” for a three week tour, he bloody well will stay at Government House and if he doesn’t get with the program there will be consequences. But no one is saying that and the buck stops with QEII. So my question is – why?

  36. anne_000 says:

    DM has photos & a video of the celebrity luxury resort that W&K are staying at now.

    • hmmm says:


      Hmmm….I don’t see an opportunity for Wills to decompress with a wee bit of hunting. Maybe they let him strangle chickens for dinner. (Sorry, getting a bit punch drunk with all the endless OTT opulence. It’s surreal.)

      • Nick says:

        Would Wills give one of his chickens to the Hound if he asked? I am thinking No way.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The Hound would just take it – and give Baldtop a well-deserved spanking. 😉

    • Nick says:

      hahaha – I dont know what i was expecting but just looking at these pictures made me laugh out loud. Their lives are just so…….funny to me. They get to NZ and its straight to a luxury resort. It wouldnt be so funny if it wasnt so real.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I can’t help noticing that many of these super-luxury resorts are quite similar in terms of interior decoration, the services they offer, etc. The only thing that varies are the surroundings they’re located in. It’s actually a bit boring and bland (and my eyes are still smarting from the atrocious interior design!), especially if that’s the only type of resort that they like. One would think that they would get a hankering after something different. Then again, they seem to like “bland”.

      • hmmm says:

        Yeah, Nick and ArtHistorian, it’s like going to the mall.

      • kibbles says:

        They are bland but very luxurious and comfortable, of course. I stayed at several luxury hotels in Africa and that is probably the closest I’ve ever gotten to understanding what daily life is like for these two parasites. It’s nice but I can also imagine the same thing getting boring after a while. One can’t really appreciate a luxury vacation if staying a luxury resorts becomes one’s full time job. It’s not as if they feel the same type of rewarding feeling us peasants get for deserving a week or two of luxury after working full-time for the rest of the year.

  37. Deedee says:

    It was announced today that Prince George, having finished his bespoke course in the Philosophy of Patty-cake and having put the finishing touches on his first play, called “The Importance of Being George,” has announced several changes to the itinerary of his first royal tour. The young prince, who has already logged several flying hours on the trip to New Zealand, while his parents slept in first class, is keen on hitting the ground running and breaking his parent’s combined record of charity visits and appearances in his first year.

  38. Country girl says:

    Seriously?? I used to think that KM was sorta cool and even irrationally compared myself to her since we are the same age. Now…I just can’t even handle. There is so much abuse, poverty, and corruption that people face daily. So many struggling families, so many unemployed. I just don’t understand how something of this magnitude can even occur in today’s world. Are we really still saying that some people are better than others based on who they are, or what family they were born into. As a student of anatomy and physiology I can assure you…when it comes to blood, the same constituents apply despite the human, “Blue Blood” is a social construct. And as far as the welfare of all humans on the planet are concerned…possibly a dangerous one.

    • hmmm says:

      Very thoughtful comment. Yes, in this day and age, entitlement by birthright does not compute. And I can’t even begin to imagine curtseying to my inferior. 😉

  39. Summer says:

    @ Maggie

    Yay! Finally some positive comments rather than the endless snark. Watch out for the haters on this thread . Some are very uninformed and rather feral.

    • wolfpup says:

      If you don’t like the commenters on this site, there are other blogs that are full of sweetness and spice, and feel all offended if everyone doesn’t have something nice to say. I think the women on this site have shown great patience and forbearance. Be respectful, and stop using words like uninformed and feral…you cannot be sure who you are talking to! Do you know how to give thoughtful, honest criticism and in good faith? You seem pretty indifferent to other’s feelings. Our reactions are normal, but you try to gaslight who really is being negative (you!). Acting inappropriately, and then making it about somebody else is completely illogical. This kind of behavior can only be lose-lose.

      I don’t know you from all the billions in the world, but I believe that you are kind, and really care about connecting with others. Stop being annoying!

    • FLORC says:

      Lots of positive comments here. Don’t lumb negativity in with criticism.
      Your opinion is not shared. It doesn’t mean it’s all negative all the time.

    • Lisa says:

      I do think you mean h8terz.

  40. racer says:

    I’m optimistic. Perhaps the two days off is the amount of time it will take to assess and amend damage from day one.

  41. Bwarf says:

    Their first item on the itinerary is for April 9th, that’s not really 48hrs. They get a day to acclimate, so what? I really don’t get all the snark about them here. People have so many expectations and it’s pretty unfair. Especially to critics of her public speaking skills, why is she expected to be great at giving speeches? So much comparison to charles, the queen, harry, etc. Charles didn’t always do all the things he was supposed to do, harry is by far better than william; he might be more personable but he would never hack it in Williams position, which is most likely what makes him so personable. So they vacation a lot? So they are trying to project a down to earth image? Aside from the fact that they were born into privilege they do genuinely see pretty down to earth, friendly and smart. Who cares if William is trying to postpone a more active royal life? If you knew that every bit of yours and your family’s life would be scheduled to the second you’d probably try to postpone it too.

    A lot of Americans on gossip sites seem to have such an opinion of the Cambridges and I don’t get it. I love them and I imagine that william is worried about the toll it will take on his wife and child/ren. Sure, kate chose the life but that doesn’t make it any easier to live it.

    • wolfpup says:

      Pesky Americans!

    • dagdag says:

      Kate is not a celebrity in the sense of Paris Hilton but the Duchess of Cambridge and represents the British royal family and expectations are and should be high, that is, if you believe in the royals.
      I do not believe in royals and have no expectations other than what a person stands or works for and I think Kate is privileged being a royal and that is all and does not say anything but being a privileged royal and so on and on, like the cat bites its own tail.

  42. cyndi says:

    Awww…so sorry to hear this! Your Mom’s right a good deal do die once they lose their mobility. I saw a lot of my patients go downhill quickly once losing their walking abilities. And Alzheimers just flat. Out. Sucks!A lot will just give up, my Grandmother gave up when she had to be placed in a long term care facility. )o’: She also forgot who I was b/c we had moved to Wa from Va, and it had been about 5-6 yrs since I had seen her. We cried together when we were reunited in ’06, she was mortified she had forgotten me. (I was her first blood grandchild and the only one who lived in the same city until I was much older). That was the last time I saw her alive. )o’:
    Hopefully she will remain comfortable (no pain) and if it is her time, it will be peacefully.
    So sorry for Mr. C *and* you! )o:
    *(sorry for being a downer here!)*