As many of you mentioned in yesterday’s princely post, Duchess Kate might not have attended her husband’s Saturday and Sunday polo games because she was attending a wedding. Except that she attended the wedding last Friday, and it’s still kind of weird to me that she didn’t come to William’s polo game on either day of the weekend. Anyway, it’s the wedding attendance that has caused some consternation – the wedding was held at The Dorchester, which is owned by the Sultan of Brunei. The Sultan owns many properties in America and Europe, and many high-profile celebrities have been boycotting the properties because of Brunei’s recent anti-gay legislation which was pushed by the Sultan.
While celebrities including Stephen Fry, Sir Richard Branson and Vogue supremo Anna Wintour call for a boycott of the Dorchester over its owner the Sultan of Brunei’s anti-gay laws, the luxury hotel group has received a timely fillip from the Duchess of Cambridge and her family.
I hear that Kate was the guest of honour at a wedding held at the Dorchester on Friday. Acutely aware of the sensitivities over her presence at the controversial hotel, she avoided the front door and sneaked into its underground car park in a blacked-out people carrier.
‘The wedding was a big boost for the hotel,’ says my man with the silver salver. ‘It shows that the royals will not let the Brunei business keep them away.’
The civil marriage of the Duchess’s first cousin, Adam Middleton, to interior designer Rebecca Poynton was held in the hotel’s penthouse and pavilion. Kate was joined by her parents, Carole and Michael, brother James and sister Pippa. Adam, who is the son of Michael Middleton’s brother, Richard, advises senior business executives in his role for the Mayfair firm Manchester Square Partners.
While James drove to the hotel with his parents, Pippa and her boyfriend, banker Nico Jackson, Kate arrived separately, accompanied, so I am told, by an astonishing nine police protection officers.
The Dorchester has been the focus of a worldwide boycott over its ties to the Sultanate of Brunei, which recently imposed a series of harsh Islamic laws that increase the punishment for homosexuality from a ten-year prison sentence to death by stoning. The Dorchester Collection hotel group is owned by the Brunei Investment Agency, an arm of the country’s finance ministry. Kate’s attendance was not the only royal endorsement for the luxury hotel chain.
While I think celebrities have every right to boycott the Sultan’s property holdings (and I applaud them for their boycott), I also think that Kate was put in a difficult position. Her cousin probably organized this wedding months and months ago, before the anti-gay laws came about. To pull out of the venue would have expensive, etc. And besides, it’s not like Kate organized the wedding – she just attended. Attendance is not endorsement of anti-gay legislation. I don’t know, y’all. I kind of think Kate shouldn’t be slammed for this. Now, if you want to shade her for coming to a wedding with nine police officers, have at it.
Oh, and People Mag had an article about how Kate has been spending her time… she’s been searching for fireplaces. As one does.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
But was she wearing undies?
LOL.
Of course not
Hahahaha
HA! Perfect!
I’m with Kaiser on this one — it was a family event, not something she planned. Not going because of a celebrity boycott would have meant missing her cousin’s wedding.
I also think it’s interesting that a lot of the coverage of this was focused on Kate, when Will and Harry were playing polo at a different venue owned by the same guy. Not that I blame them either — charity matches probably planned ages in advance — but she really shouldn’t be singled out.
•Esti•
Agree on all counts. It’s unfair to pick on Kate. The princes probably could have changed venues a tad easier than a wedding could have (I could be wrong).
More importantly, I hope this was the LAST time any Royal uses his facilities — they all know better now. I’ll give them a pass once but not twice.
This is a very fair approach.
LadySlippers is right, as usual.
•Florc•
I really strive to be fair in all things. Don’t always achieve it though! Lol
•Sloane•
Thank you although I’m not sure the ‘as usual’ is correct. Lol. Thank you regardless.
ITA, I don’t see why people should be coming down on Kate for this. She didn’t pick the venue and might not have even been aware of the issues with the Sultan of Brunei until recently. Now if she goes *back* to that hotel at a later date, I might point a finger, but not now.
This is what I was going to say. Why not call out Will and Harry for exactly the same thing? They played polo at a venue owed by the same guy.
I’ll cut Kate slack on still attending the wedding-her cousin planned it ages ago. But a polo match? Common lads. Easier to move that a wedding venue.
I’m a serial boycotter and I was sitting here wondering if I would have gone. And I think yes, I would. I would have had something to say about the choice of venue at some point (not at the wedding) but I would have gone. I’m more annoyed that the princelings couldn’t see their polo schedule spoiled.
Agreed. It’s a tough position.
But I feel missing a close family member’s wedding is awful and unforgivable.
I’d attend too
I agree.
It was a family event. I understand why she went and that the venue was taken for months.
If nothing else this has brought attention to the events happening.
That said…. As a side comment the frequency that Kate can find time for private events (and it’s a lot) and not for her charities irks me. And the 9 RPO’s I need to hear more on. Is that a bloated number for 1 royal in a private event? Or is this a situation like the book release where the RPO’s are also covering the Middletons.
Great point Florc!
“If nothing else this has brought attention to the events
happening.”
I absolutely agree!
Oh, FLORC, don’t you know the RPOs were there to each hold a portion of her hem down?
+1 to everything you said. I’m just not understanding the uproar.
I have a different concern. Most regimes with homophobic laws also have very misogynist laws. Homophobia is built on patriarchy and sexism afterall. And yet I never hear anybody calling for boycotts on the grounds that a woman can be legally stoned to death for not conforming to a dress code. Anti gay laws are mostly applied against men, is that why this takes priority over the long standing ioppression of women around the world. Or are brown and black women just not worth the effort of calling a boycott?
I know I am ranting but this piecemeal approach to addressing retrogressive religious/cultural practices pisses me the phuck off.
I agree with this. The news completely going over the fact about all the Sharia laws and what this will mean for women in Brunei. I was reading something yesterday on the laws and was glad to see that many commenters were pointing out how women rights get passed over and no one blinks an eye.
They are not interested in challenging “patriarchy”. Well, first they want not to have their lives at risk. Second they want to not be discriminated against. And third they want themselves a seat on that great big table of male privilege. Listen closely to many advocates and you can hear them bristle every time gay rights are conflated with womens rights. This isnt about challenging the hierarchy, its about claiming their place within it. I had no idea how deep that politics runs until I was schooled on it by some lesbian friends.
Leona
Fascinating food for thought.
So sad and so true.
Thanks ladies for bringing this up!
Anna Wintour was offended? Haha. The world is offended at Anna Wintour for putting Kartrashyian on the cover of Vogue. Pot, kettle.
Truth.
Yeah, really Anna, let’s talk about how YOU have offended us….
I am no Kate fan, but I can’t shade her entirely, as it was her cousin’s wedding and the venue not her choice. She took the secret route in to perhaps avoid publicizing the place with her presence though obviously the press happened anyway. Re the nine minders — if they are all guarding her flashing, it’s crazy. If on the other hand the royals were worried about credible threat to her safety that day, then that’s what they had to do, logically. The polo thing – I said it yesterday — I shade the guys for not declining. I shade them hard.
Maybe this event actually got the word out so more people will know about the Sultan of Brunei’s horrible policies and laws. I’m trying to view it that way.
•Madame Liberté•
My guess is the fact that all three used properties connected to the Sultan that it raised the profile of the boycott by a lot. A lot a lot too.
Hopefully, a good many new people are now aware of the properties AND the horrible law put into place in Brunei that’s simply awful and discriminatory against anyone not straight and male.
(My guess is the extra security people went because of the venue and only that. RPOs are looking at credible security threats and that meant they saw a need to be extremely cautious. The poor bridal party had to be super embarrassed too — they would have had to work on accommodating the extra RPOs and know why so many extra were needed.)
Is there a reason you refuse to elevate VICEREINE Liberty to her rightful title, Miss Slippers? As you seem averse to the nobility, I have now un-Lady’d you.
Lady LAK has been behaving most decorously lately (frankly, one is a bit worried as one is when one’s children haven’t annoyed the nanny for an hour), so much so that I have now given her your title. She will now be known forthwith as LadyLady LAK.
Humph. One’s cane is frightfully underused lately due to LadyLady LAK’s virtuousness, and it might need a little exercise. Baronesses do not use those silly face thingys, but if we did, you would now be looking at one with me frowning over my lorgnette, Miss Slippers.
Rodger!!!! Tea and a compress for my fevered brow!!!
•Blu•
Vicereine isn’t a noble title my dear Blu. It never was. It’s a quasi-military title used for the *wife* of a viceroy. That’s why I never use it.
And Madame Liberté is a joke between us — it’s a bare-breasted kick a$$ woman that was a symbol for freedom and people’s rights. Which fits. Lol
Sorry.
And… I’ve never been given a title as a Royal Loonie, I came to CB with my title in place. Hence, you cannot remove a title you did not give. 😊
LS,
I agree re: the RPOs. We’ve never seen her with that many, not when she’s out shopping or out at night with William or when she went across the ocean to Mustique with George.
•AM•
It’s *very* rare that ANY royal steps out with NINE RPOs. My guess is the British government was VERY concerned for her safety and did what they could do so she could attend a family event.
@bluhare and @LadySlippers my darlings, As I may have mentioned, I’ve had a couple of relatives who had a rather rough time of it playing “eat the cake” and “Czar in the basement” back in the day. So while I am so appreciative, honored, moved by the bestowing and use of the titles, I shiver at the thought that you, in your glory and full promise. should be tussling over them in these dangerous days. Let us all pause a moment, sip some Champagne together and agree to be simply fabulous always. Because you are!! Now where are the tarts and chocolate swans?
….and PS, all this time, I thought my new title meant Queen of Vice. (sighs)
What is this? Checking list of titles……..
Yes, yes. I can confirm that one LIBERTY was granted the title of VICEreine on account of her uncovered history with Harald whatshisname, not to mention several vikings, Danes and whatnot, but not the Baron.
Liberty, you ARE Queen of Vice and we very much applaud your efforts in keeping that station with your exploits, not to mention the chronicles.
Just stay out of the Baroness’s hair or should I say lair. She’s handing out punishments left, right and centre because Rodger up and quit. Ran away with Cressida 1 apparently.
I wouldn’t know being a lady and all, but arthistorian and the Dame swear they saw them climbing down the turrets of William Baldtop’s castle and away with several personages.
LAK
*hangs head*
They may or may not have been in a huge hurry to return some spa robes they pinched from the Dorcester. The Baroness insisted (i.e. Hurled Faberge eggs at them)
They escaped while she was napping.
LadySlippers
Your wonderfully portable title reminds me of Diana’s sassy retort to Phillip when he threatened to take her title: ‘My title is older than yours’
Awesome sauce.
Madame Vicereign Queen Liberty
Oh, screw it.
Libby
Keep rocking! (And writing)
@LAK, I am all astonishment at this tale you weave of Cressida I doing the turret dash with Rodger! It was my understanding that boasting a third leg would make sill-climbing hard for him. Well, he’ll be back. I know a minor Hon who reports she saw Cressida I stamping her foot and tossing her head (in a dried fig wreath) telling a virile handsome man that he “didn’t love her, not enough” when he refused to buy her a Smurf doll in Harrods yesterday. I think Rodger won’t be blinded for long, and back to Chez Baroness he will swizzle like the loving soul he is. It’s like the Dame and the time Colin Firth — oh never mind, I speak out of turn.
Robe pinching? The ones at the Four Seasons at Park Lane are really much nicer for slithering out of, don’t you think? Tell her to at least go make nice at The Drake for theirs. I hope Rodger throws those compromised wraps back on the Sultan’s heap before Cressy starts snipping them up to stitch herself a bunny family.
Ok….a tale just for fun. A quite dry, serious, older former higher-level colleague of mine used to work in gov…and confided one day at lunch that he once had to step up and “mind” a guy named Philip at a evening event at an ambassador’s home because said Phil was quite enamored with the ambassador’s daughter and pursued her around the party at the official palatial shack, to her great 19-year-old consternation. No, Phil, no! have a canapé instead! So I love the sassy Diana comment back at Mr Grumpy Quickboots quite a bit!
I tread through today’s shenanigans garden smirking my Vicereign head off!
I was trying to have a little fun, ladyslippers. Won’t bother again.
Actually, LS, if we are going to be pedantic about titles ‘ Vicereine’ does exist. It has a double meaning in it’s usage both as ‘wife of’ and as a female Viceroy should a woman be appointed to the Viceregal position. Much like Empress works as ‘wife of’ and as well as a woman ruling an ’empire’ in their own right.
Vicereine is more commonly thought to mean ‘wife of’ because sadly, no woman [could be wrong, i welcome corrections] has ever been appointed to the viceregal position.
I have never heard of it as a purely military title so i learn something new there. I’ve always known it to simply be a Viceregal appointment which could be culled from anyone the King or Queen wished to represent them whatever their background. i’ve also come across it when reading up on various cultures/empires throughout history which created viceroyalty as a necessity to manage their expanded empires.
•Blu•
I sorry. I missed your snark. I now sad. 😢
•Madame Liberté•
You are a true gem. 😊 But I’m a tad disappointed. Only champagne? I’m famished and require much stronger elixirs to buoy my spirits. 😜
And when do we get a new tale about William Baldtop and Catherine Barebottoms? I do so miss reading about their exciting adventures! Perhaps Catherine Barebottoms can get romanced by the…milkman?😉
•LAK•
No, I never said either Viceroy or Vicereine didn’t exist — they do. They are just appointed positions (as you’ve explained) and it’s a title used while they are filling said appointment. That’s all.
I do think your correct that there’s never been a Vicereine that’s held the position herself and it not been a courtesy title. I could also be wrong but I’m thinking we’re both correct. Sad… Only kinda cuz it’s a remnant from days of old. Lol
•Snark•
Thank you dearie!
Wait. •Madame Liberté•, you thought you were Queen of Vice?!? Oh that is delectable!
*deeply courtesies to the Queen of Vice*
•All•
My poor addled brain cannot possible get up with what Rodger may or may not be doing. I’ll just sit here with a cocktail. No wait! I’ll wander down to listen to the symphony. DRATS, it’s a Tues night. No symphony. Perhaps I’ll attend an opening to something. Send updates regardless.
Ta ta for now…
*waves and wobbles away*
@bluhare!!! ((((bluhare))))) be of good cheer!!! Rodger was spotting packing Cressy off into a hired car and intoning “good riddance to ye” and is on his way back.
The Sultan of Brunei imposed Sharia law. In addition to punishing homosexuals it basically takes all rights away from women. Many feminists have also called for boycotting these properties as well. And the sultan was accused of imprisioning and raping women years ago, no? A boycott of his business ventures is long overdue.
•TorontoE•
Now if we could only boycott ALL countries that have backward laws such as this….
THIS. Brunei has all-sorts of human rights issues!
But my inner skeptic is saying there are probably a lot of other businesses celebs can boycott but turn a blind eye too.
PS: I’m from TO too,
Frankly, if we wanted to really make an impact, we would boycott all business with Brunei. Not just these PR boycotts.
I know, too economically sensitive.
I completely agree…for some reasons “women’s rights” never get the attention that other “human rights” issues do. I think the boycott is good in that it at least raises awareness in what is happening to women throughout the world and would boycott anything he’s involved in…
At least none of the royals have been pictured wearing the controversial jewels by the sultan.
•TorontoE•
From Laci Green on why she’s a feminist.
(BTW thank you so *all* the lovely commenters who recommended her — she’s awesome)
http://www.upworthy.com/51-pretty-shocking-facts-that-make-things-harder-for-every-woman-you-have-ever-met?c=upw1
Thank you! I loved it. Now can we forward this on to Shailene Woodley and all the other “I’m not a feminist because I like men” ppl out there?
•TorontoE•
Totally agree! I love ❤️ love men and am a feminist! I adore my 18 year son and (hopefully) helped show him a real man is respectful of women. Feminism does not mean anti-male.
I loved how Laci addressed human rights violations, rape, stereotypes, gays/lesbians/bisexuals/transgendered etc too. VERY fitting for this post.
And you are ever so welcome!
This is a little ridiculous. She didn’t pick the venue, she simply attended the wedding of a relative, and she was NOT the guest of honor. The bride and groom were. Yet another crap story from The Daily Fail.
I don’t know. Death by stoning. I don’t think she should have gone.
I also would add that I am astounded by the excuses and lame rationalizations on here. This man murders people by stoning them to death because they are gay. But let’s not inconvenience ourselves by boycotting his establishments.
Edmund Burke: all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Dahling,
I don’t *think* that’s what people are saying.
I think there is genuine outrage at the Sultan’s actions in his country. And I see people giving the three Royals the benefit of the doubt here. HOPEFULLY all three have learned to steer clear of financially supporting this poor excuse of a man. Now if they do it again, I except tunes to have changed. I know mine will.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I am just so upset about this, not to mention his treatment of women, as you mention below. How can this be happening? So many things in this world are just beyond my comprehension and I feel so helpless at times.
I’m with LadySlippers on Kate attending the wedding. Not on the others. It was probably planned and contracts signed before the boycott. She was put in the unenviable position of being correct publicly or disappointing her cousin by not going. I’d have gone in those circumstances.
William and Harry have no excuse.
•Dahling•. •Blu•
I’m giving all three the benefit of the doubt here. My guess is ALL these events were planned pre-human rights violations and would be difficult to change.
However, they’ve now ALL gotten fair warning. Next time I won’t be as sweet and nice.
And {{HUGS}} it is sometimes frustrating. There are people here in the US that think stoning gays and women are too nice. That’s equally maddening.
Perhaps we can ALL figure a way to channel our outrage and try to make our voices heard. I think we Americans can write our representatives on a local, state, and federal level to express our desire for civil liberties for all human beings.
And since we are on a BRF thread, express in writing to the BRF, our hope and desire that in the future, the *entire* BRF will avoid ANY other Royal Family or government that violates human rights initiatives — especially when their own supports human rights.
Their own country*
Sorry! Left out a vital word.
Blu
Ita, and don’t forget the Sentebale dinner. I guess this is sort of a strike two. William would be more of a wise, guiding force about things like this if he weren’t so intent on being Free Willy.
Totally agree. She should NOT have attended. Her position as a person who could help defend human rights means she should have stayed away from this event. Instead, she sneaks in. Jeez. Pls dont put too much energy into feeling bad about humanity. As you can see, your good vibes are needed.
Me either. The statement of not going would have been louder than the statement of going. Louder and better, and more worthy.
•Kaylen•
Except, no one would have heard about the non-attendance. In reality, the outrage highlights the Sultan’s horrible laws in a way that the bypassing these events wouldn’t have.
LS
This bruhaha is actually a good thing for the reason you stated.
But Dame Snarkweek, imagine if they had taken a stand, and how effective that could be. The BRR is connected to a lot of wealthy and powerful people. The media would be asking for Charles to explain his position – and the world would be listening…it could be powerful.
And then, they could all take a long vacation.
Are they allowed (?!) to have opinions on human’s right’s issues?
Wolfpup: well, Charles did let slip about Putin the other week…….
•wolfpup•
In reality, the royals can’t really take a stand like this. It’s a very fine line that Charles gets into hot water for even accidentally crossing.
Honestly, they are damned if they do *and* damned if they don’t.
I’ve been reading up on imperialism in the Middle East. That gave me something to cry about. It is also the underlying issue, in my opinion. Many imperialistic moves were made in the name of “His Majesties government”. If the royals are named, in overturning governments and annexing lands, then it’s not just about your cousin’s wedding, but a de facto royal stamp of approval.
I just don’t like this woman………..
Lol. *sits next to Jules*
Neither do I.
You know, I did like her. I mean, I got that she was a little lazy and shallow. But the last blow up with her bottom sticking out of her dress just sort of did me in. I thought, she’s doing this on purpose, there’s no way she’s not. Now this, not that the two can be compared of course. But, scoot over, please, Eliza, I’m sitting down, too.
Ow, GoodNames!! When you got off the fence one of those pickets poked me in my (very underwear clad) bum!
Oops, sorry, dear. I gained a little weight on vacation. I’ll warn you next time. Lol
Gnatty
Lmao! Awesome explanation.
I don’t dislike her yet, not yet, but she is soooooooo disappointing.
Ugh, with these ongoing peep shows, it makes you wonder if she works hard at being clueless or was she born that way?
I don’t think she should be too harshly criticized as this was a family event that she had to attend and she would have had no say in the venue. It’s very unlikely that the venue could have been changed as events normally need to be booked months in advance.
I think that Princes William & Harry should also be criticized as they participated in a charity event at a resort owned by the Sultan as well.
Yes. If anyone is going to be criticized, it should be everyone. People like to single Kate out though.
And I can’t blame her for not missing her cousins wedding. It was a shitty situation to be in, but she didn’t plan it, or pick the location.
I want to give Kate the benefit of the doubt as well because she was in an awkward position since she didn’t choose the venue for the wedding. However, I still get that nagging feeling that she wouldn’t care one way or another because that’s how she seems to roll, and that if this was a charity event or some other occasion at the same hotel where she could have played fancy dress up she still would have attended, irregardless of the controversy. As far as the Polo Princes, they should have definitely declined their event.
But maybe I just have my grumpy pants on because I have to work late tonight.
•Feeshalori•
This WAS the princes’ event. All three of the charities this event was created to raise money for are connected to either or both of them. This was William and Harry’s event so they couldn’t ‘just decline’.
Please! She attended the wedding. She cannot control where people schedule events.
I have stayed at a Hilton, should I have boycotted because I am against blonde skanks who like to flash beav, and play DJ?
That’s a little different from stoning someone to death because they are gay, don’t you think? This man changed the LAW in his country. NO ONE should support him by entering his establishments, especially someone with a high profile.
LOL this comment. It’s at a Goopy ‘internet comments are like war’, or CT ‘like rape’ level of comparison. Good job.
I see the point that the wedding was planned before the news came out….however isnt that sort of how it goes when making a stand against something horrible. You might miss something or a wedding/party isnt where you had wanted.
It is easy to say that when you aren’t the one who stands to lose money to the venue. It is similar as to when some people wanted to boycott the Olympics in Russia. It is easy to say when you aren’t the one who spent your life training and your family didn’t refinance their home several times over to pay for the training.
This man kills people by a tortuous means because they are gay. What’s money, compared to that? I wouldn’t start my married life there for anything, even if it meant my ceremony had to be held in the street.
•GoodNames•
Let’s not forget his punishment to women, if they step out of line, they are stoned to death as well.
LadySlippers, yes you are right, my friend. The whole thing makes me cry.
@GoodNamesAllTaken
I understand all of that. I’m in no way supporting what this man does. There is an unfortunate reality that we live in countries like the US or UK, that also prop up these types of regimes for oil and other interests.
There is also the reality that people don’t pay attention to owns businesses. And certain things we do everyday, like drive, that contribute to the brutality of people in countries that supply oil.
Agree, @kimber and @GoodNames. Not going would be a sacrifice, and publicizing it as such would be more powerful. The reality is that properties like the Dorchester will continue to be patronized by people who either don’t know, don’t care, or prefer the status of attending over their conscience/political values. However, Kate is not a private citizen; she is a representative of the BRF and GB. She appears to take little responsibility for her actions and yet many continue to make excuses. She doesn’t work because “she’s the wife of the second in line, so it doesn’t matter until she’s Princess of Wales,” or “Charles/William don’t want her to.” She fails to wear appropriate clothing and it’s because “she’s a young woman with style” or “it’s the photographers’ fault for photographing her wardrobe malfunctions and the press’s fault for not recognizing her privacy.” And now she attends a party at the Dorchester and it’s okay because she didn’t plan it. I am not trying to suggest that these are all equal in value (nor that one who defends one defends all such actions), but merely that there is an established pattern of shrugging off the Duchess’s actions.
I go back to the 9 RPOs. How many usually attend a wedding with the Duchess, particularly when she is alone? Were they in greater number because the wedding was at the Dorchester, and there was an added concern for her safety because of the controversy? Would that not indicate that at some point, at some level, a discussion was had about the way that this looks?
It would be difficult for her to miss her cousin’s wedding. I understand that. One of my cousins had to miss my wedding because he was in recovery and the venue served alcohol. I respected that he couldn’t attend, while consciously deciding not to do away with the bar for the rest of the party — that’s on me. Yet Kate is a very wealthy woman who comes from a family of financially successful party planners. How magnanimous would it have been to not attend the wedding at the Dorchester but instead to host her own event in the couple’s honor? Generate good will, and perhaps make a donation to organizations working with victims/political refugees. I don’t know….that’s just me.
Oh, Merritt, I didn’t mean it that way. We just disagree on how to respond to him, but I never meant to insult you by implying that you support his actions. I know you don’t.
Such good points, Okie. Thank you.
Well said! “Duchess Okie”- I really like the sound of that.
It’s a shame there is no quality in “The Quality”.
I, too, was struck by the need for 9 RPOS and what that might mean. I’m guessing it’s added security, which means, she knows. No pass from me. No pass for the self-absorbed princelings. I’m waiting for Charles to step up to the plate and do the right thing regarding his best bud, the sultan, especially after his remark about Putin.
Excellent response, Okie!
I’m scratching my head about the 9 RPOs. Really? She’s in that much danger at a wedding, but needs 1-2 RPOs for shopping. Really?
Does it sound like the BRF will have to take a stand in the future?
As an FYI, none of the Royals decides how many RPOs they need. That’s strictly a police decision. I think if they honestly needed *NINE* it might have been safer for her to not attend at all….
These kind of boycotts only really hurt the hotel employees–especially the service staff who would struggle most to find work if it closed or was sold–who have nothing to do with the Sultan’s policies. Not that I blame the celebs who are boycotting–it’s a crappy situation. But boycotts very rarely affect the people in power.
That is true as well. The Sultan will not be affected but employees will be.
It depends on how much of his business interests lie in the Western world, and how organized and long lasting a boycott against them is. If his businesses start hemorrhaging money and he has political pressure placed on him from the West, it could impact him in all fairness.
This is true, but there’s something to be said for boycotting for one’s own peace of mind. I don’t buy Koch Brother’s products (which is rather difficult because there are many) or eat at Chick-fil-A. It’s not because losing my money will make any dent in their profits because I know that it won’t, and there are just as many people who will patronize them because of their politics as I avoid them (and such is one’s right). But there’s something to knowing that my money is not being used in a manner I don’t support/find morally repugnant. I may not have much control in the grand finances of this country, but what little I have I try to use in a way I find responsible.
Very pragmatic and utilitarian. If it’s all about jobs, then let’s bring slavery back. One could argue that at least slaves have bed and board. Corporations lay off people all the time, by the thousands. Job loss as an excuse (or threat) in order to engender the wholesale violent oppression/murder of women, gays and anyone “different” sounds lame to me. Where does one draw the line? When it happens on your doorstep?
Well said, hmmm!
If the BRF were to take a stand, that could make a difference! I say keep talking about this, to friends and neighbors.
The wolves are out for Kate. This story shouldn’t have the traction it does and that’s solely due to the fact the press is over its infatuation with the Duchess. BumGate just gave them the okay to go off on everything she does or doesn’t do. Should all three be admonished for their decision? Yes. Should they be ultimately held responsible for the decision of others? No, especially if these decisions were made and finalized prior to the Sharia Law declaration. If the royal trio continue to support the Sultan by using his venues, then they deserve all the criticism in the world.
Fireplaces? Really? This woman is dull as dirt. She can give redecorating 100% dedication but can’t put in an appearance at her charities.
•Mia•
I think it’s more telling that the DM’s Richard Kay wrote an article that seriously shades William. IMHO it was the shot across the plank for him. And that makes her an even easier target because he’s seen as not as strong.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2644414/He-wobbled-Kate-Now-Wills-wobbling-choice-thatll-define-life.html
I do think the Kay article reflects the mindset of the British press at this point. I’ve also seen a lot of frustration from reporters on Twitter. I think they’re ready to turn, but will probably wait to go after them in earnest until after the spare is born.
All the good will is gone. Richard Kay was the last one I would expect to say anything, but he’s been commenting in print and on twitter a lot. Pointed jabs at the laziness of both Kate & William. It’s well-deserved criticism too. It’s obvious stuff that the British press should have been saying over the last 3 years. Kate is exposed because William is not only weak, but a bully and a stupid. He has pushed and pushed and now the press is pushing back. I find it interesting that Charles doesn’t seem to be protecting them either.
•AM•
I actually disagree. The Royal Reporters were testing the waters two years ago when the DM reported on William’s near lose of his wings due to a chronic lack of flying hours. That was very hesitant , toeing the line, and testing the waters. Not here. Not with this article.
Richard Kay came out and stated TWICE that William is a ‘reluctant Royal’. Twice. There was NO toeing the line there. People (The Grey Men) are fed up with William’s wishy-washness and can’t get his attention through the normal channels within BP. It’s clear that both HM *and* the PoW empathise but NEED him to start playing his part.
This article was a clear, man up William and do your job. And it’s not an accident it came from the very veteran and respected Richard Kay.
I remain doubtful that the press will go after them through a second pregnancy.
Bumgate was an issue that will not be forgotten.
However, I don’t believe that this is about Kate, or Richard Kay. I think that it is about Sharia law being brought to Brunei.
Totally agree Bumgate opened the floodgates of criticism! Try as she might, Kate just cannot leave the scandal behind. It keeps popping up again through the back door.
” It keeps popping up again through the back door. ”
I don’t know if this was intentional, but I see what you did there. 🙂
Boredsurburbanhousewife: it’s such a bum deal that she’s the butt of the criticism.
She’s just been outflanked, LAK.
I know I am being juvenile but I am thoroughly enjoying the innuendo-a-thon generated by Bumgate, even if it is not Derri-fair!
I love all of you. *dries tears*
Me too. It’s a bottomless pit of bum jokes!!
It’s time to put Bumgate in the rear-view mirror.
I know! Poor Kate — all the criticism, how can she possibly bare it?
This is a rear attack on the poor woman!
Crack-alicious!
Kate is completely embare-assed.
Her Royal Hiney 🙂
I agree with you, Mia. I’ve been wondering what’s happened.
“Guest of honor” at a wedding? What?
That made me sit upright as well; I’d have thought the bride and groom were the stars of the event.
I had a guest of honor at my wedding. It is not the normal practice but it is also not unheard of. There may be someone you wish to single out and honor whose relationship to you might not be familial or obvious. But as Kate is the groom’s cousin, it is a bit odd, imo.
I don’t see why she shouldn’t attend. Still not a fan.
On the People story: Kate was making conversation with one of the people on the rope line during a walk-about in Scotland. There’s no indication at all that she actually intends to buy the (reasonably priced) fireplace — but well-done, fireplace owner, because that is some solid free publicity she got by telling the story to the press.
I seriously want to know how reliable the royal reporting is these days. I remember when James Whitaker clearly had half the staff on speed-dial, and Junor appears to have kept her ties with the PoW and his staff/intimates, but lately, I’ve had this gut instinct that “sources report” is just code for “we have no idea, so we are taking our best guess.” I don’t know why I think that — in the 90s, “sources report” meant that Diana was ringing someone up after she’d finished her day’s thank-you notes — but I just have this sense that no one has a reliable source for William, Harry, etc.
Ellen,
The royal press has complained about this publicly. They can’t get any scoop on the Cambridges, and the info that comes from KP is often incorrect. They’re burning bridges.
I miss the days of James Whitaker. He said when PW started dating Kate , that his Palace sources which were pretty high,told him the Palace did not see her as wife material and only a University girlfriend. The Brit Royal press pack basically froze his comments out when he continually said Kate was not suitable for the role. Then when they got engaged,someone wrote something totally opposite of what he said all along, saying how happy James Whitaker was. The man was on deaths door by then, so I never believed the last articles were his real beliefs since he always said Kate wasn’t suitable.
It’s kinda sad that few of the the UK press have the guts to tell William what they really think. Richard Kay is one of the few left who seems to be upfront about his feelings of PW slacking off. Even during the wedding interviews RichardKay was Not ecstatic about Kate. I think he’s as close to James Whitaker as royal press followers might have these days.
If you read Kay closely it is impossible to deduce that he is anti-Kate. I was thoroughly shocked at the Nicholl like version of the WillKat romance he endorses. That may not mean that he believes Kate to be future queen material, idk, but he is not anti-Kate by a longshot.
He’s not crazy about Wills, though.
Kate can get thru this, unlike the poor schmuck who gets put into a hole with stones thrown at them until they are dead!
I was pretty active/vocal in the marriage equality movement in California. At one point I had to attend a work function at a boycotted hotel owned by a notorious anti-gay rights contibutor. I went to the event but spent no money there. And now we have marriage equality, so clearly no harm was done by my actions. Let’s give Kate a pass on this one.
Such a straw man argument … Brunei is in the British Commonwealth.
There are many countries in the Commonwealth that have similarly repressive laws against homosexuality. Off the top of my head, Pakistan and Nigeria’s laws involve capital punishment. India’s anti-homosexual laws don’t involve stoning, but they do involve lengthy imprisonment if convicted. Jamaica is notoriously anti-homosexual. These laws are all a colonial legacy of Great Britain. Instead of fussing over a rich man’s hotel, how about a real stand of political importance?
Well, gay marriage is legal in UK, therefore that has nothing to do with politics or colonial legacy. The fact is that in countries where the religion stands in the way of politics (including every religion, given that even southern Europe countries have antigay laws), it will be always difficult to obtain gay rights officially recognised and to get to a point where law doesn’t convict people only for their sexual preferences.
Hear, hear! It wasn’t that long ago that some states (US) still had colonial-era anti-miscegenation laws still on the books. And, one would have be naive to look to Kate Middleton to take a political stand on anything.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. If people really want to change these countries, the Commonwealth is a place to start.
I don’t hear anyone criticizing the Queen or the British Parliament for allowing the countries I listed to remain in the Commonwealth, so I don’t think that where her grandchildren play polo or attend weddings is material.
Sharia laws are not just regarding gays. How can you forget the terrifying impact on women? Is that a colonial legacy too? And Islamist law?
Brunei may have Sharia law, but it is not the only nation in the Commonwealth that does. Brunei may have anti-homosexual laws; today there are still about 70 nations that have criminalized homosexuality. Of those 70, some 40 of them have laws that date back to the British colonial penal code, which had been implemented but never repealed after those states gained independence. Many of those 40 states are in the Commonwealth. If countries such as Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia were sincere about human rights and equality (whether under existing penal codes or under Sharia code) the Commonwealth would be a place to start. It has its own Bill of Rights and the discrimination that these countries display is in violation of it.
Not as flash as hotels and Olympics, but it (sorta) worked with South Africa.
I think you can blame many woes worldwide on the legacy of colonialism, and not just Britain’s. But not homophobic legislation. These aren’t retained legacies of colonial laws.
yes they are – the British implemented anti-sodomy laws in pretty well every colony they inhabited.
Oh c’mon-as though the colonial anti sodomy laws are to blame for sharia laws? I’m not giving Islam a pass on anything anymore…and certainly not using the fashionable ‘christianity or colonial legacy’ slams as an excuse….Though make no mistake, the post colonial mess is alive and well in many parts of the world (Most of Africa, for one). I don’t think it doesn’t effect the world, just not an excuse for the many Islamic laws and governments that violate human rights today.
Just because the governments that we care for, have violated human rights, does not mean we should throw in the towel and stop protesting! Why not start with Brunei, and branch out from there? How else do things get done in this world? Nothing comes from nothing…
I don’t know why anyone would expect the duke and duchess to boycott all things Bruneii when the sultan was a guest at their wedding and even President Obama called him a friend. Oil trumps human rights folks. Nothing new here. Faux outrage is usually only expressed when the West’s access to that oil is threatened.
•TG•
I wish I could scream from the highest mountain that you are wrong.
😢 Sadly, very sadly, you’re spot on. 😢
And it makes me so mad the lengths all these oil tycoons to keep us tied to them too. Grrrrr 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
I know @LadySlippers and I just wish I could vote for a party that could actually win and change could happen, but I think both the Republicans and Democrats are controlled by oil interests. I guess it is a little conspiracy theory stuff but I believe that 100%. I guess I am not energetic enough to start something myself but I would happily vote for a party that believed in ending dependence on oil and especially foreign oil altogether. I wonder if we really did stop using foreign oil what fake outrage these terrorists would have against the West. I just can not get down with supporting nations that harm women and jail you for wearing a bikini or kissing on the beach or for being gay. That is why I will never visit Dubai or any nation with weird rules that do not support humanity. I mean I believe in respecting cultures when you visit, but I will not visit a nation whose culture I cannot respect.
Yessss…. but did everyone know that he was a religious nutbag before last week? I mean, he just implemented *sharia law* in his country. My cynicism leads me to believe that nobody saw this coming, since political and pseudo-political figures wouldn’t flaunt their connections to such an individual in public. Too much bad press comes of it.
The boycott has started well before last week. While yes, most people probably have no idea, anyone interested in politics or fashion has known about the boycott and implementation of sharia law in Brunei for while. If I remember correctly, the Sultan first announced the adoption of sharia law back in October 2013.
Hypocrisy abounds when it comes to oil. We seldom hear demands being made of Western leaders/governments/royal families to cut ties with Saudi Arabia and its ruling family. I also don’t recall too much criticism of Diana when she was the beneficiary of Mohammed Fayed’s largesse….at the same time as he was happily corrupting members of Her Majesty’s government.
Most of the time, expediency trumps principles. And whilst a boycott of the sultan’s interests can give the warm and fuzzies, it’s far more likely to affect the ordinary worker than his nibs, one of the world’s richest men.
When outrage ceases to exist then we don’t deserve to be human.
I’m with you and I can’t believe I’m about to say something I never thought I will, ‘give this girl a break for once’. Wow that was tough!
As you said she was a guest not the one who was organizing the weeding and it would’ve been unbelievably rude and entitled of her to either not attend a first cousin’s wedding or ask or expect them to change venue because of her. Another nice thing I love it how Classy Mike Middleton side of her family is. She apparently have 3 uncles but forget about them giving interviews or anything, you won’t even recognize them, something Carole’s side of family doesn’t have, class and discretion IMO.
It’s so amusing that all the goodwill she and William got after their tour was flushed down the toilet with latest BUMGATE and palace’s cry for invasion of privacy. Media is definitely coming after her especially since they will always protect Di’s golden boy Willy the horse.
It’s not just anti-gay laws, it’s SHARIA law. That affects everyone. Not just gay people.
Thanks for pointing that out. This law effects everyone, but especially women and gays.
I know *I’m* aware that this law affects everyone. However, powerful men are quite often treated differently than ‘lower class’ citizens such as women and homosexuals.
And so my comments elsewhere on this post still stand as is.
I completely agree Lak!
The Sharia Law is very frightening and being pushed everywhere
including the U.S.
Forgot to add….
Original Mia and LadySlippers….agree with you ladies as well!
Please. This is Kate we are talking about, she would not have cared one way or another.
Yesyesyes.
People need to give her break, it’s her cousin’s wedding which she’s probably close to so she can’t all of a sudden decline.
Hissyfit
I get your point and agree. But lets not pretend she hasn’t suddenly and without notice pulled out of more established events where she played a role in greater than a guest attending.
Exactly FLORC. This woman does what she wants, when she wants.
Well, you’ve got a good point there, FLORC.
I don’t believe in cutting this woman any slack what-so-ever. Call me hard-nosed, but she hasn’t done anything to warrant the admiration that the sugars have for her. I think it’s about time the press take her down a notch or two. This bum-gate situation is so stupid and she has only herself to blame for it. Boycotting Brunei and other oppressive nations is appropriate I think, but these royals are so clueless and it’s high time they face the music and join the boycott.
Amen, vava.
Why on earth does Kate deserve any slack?
Because she’s just a charitable person? LOL.
When a couple makes plans at a venue for their own event, especially something as important as a wedding, you just go with the flow. It wasn’t Kate’s event . I think she did the right thing and supported her friends.
So people saying royals can’t boycott stuff because it’s too political or other reasons have clearly not noticed that Charles has been actively boycotting China for a number of years.
If they wanted to Boycott Brunei, they would. The unfortunate thing is that they are as thick as thieves with Brunei so it’s not going to happen even with this small outcry.
Well, then it deserves to be exposed, over and over again. Charles can lambaste Putin but his buddy the sultan is sacred. Release the hounds!
Perfectly said!
Ugh. This woman.
Kate obviously knew of the “situation” and hence brought along NINE (9!!!!!!!!!!) Protection Officers. Why would she bring so many? Naturally, to stop anyone from photographing her! Dense as a doornail, yet she still cares about her fluffy image enough to attend “unseen.”
Guaranteed she didn’t wear undies.
Guaranteed those RPOs had to smash a few cameras or delete some cell phone pics.
And once again, William and Kate spend their entire weekend apart. Naturally.
The number of RPOs sent to accompany her would not have been her decision.
•DameEdna•
Yes, the Royals have *ZERO* control over how many RPOs would be needed to protect her. That’s 100% a Scotland Yard decision.
How popular are Waity and Willy in the UK now? Are they losing the goodwill from the wedding (and Diana)? If not, then no wonder they feel untouchable…
I disagree. While yes it was a personal commitment, she is now a public, and slightly political figure and her actions carry weight. she can no longer do certain events based upon her status so cry me a river. She championed for this position for 10 years, when your in it you have to learn to give up certain things.
Apparently, she is not a “people’s princess”.
When I was young, aids was a new epidemic, and even in a very progressive state, there were fears of kissing, or even touching another human being, who really needed that. Diana changed everything.
Ziiiing! Heh.
She needed nine bodyguards around her to act as a wind & pap shield because her bum-watcher wasn’t there.
Or to hold her hem down.
•Anne•
Minders are not the same as her Royal Protection Officers (RPOs). RPOs are men and women that are part of a special division within Scotland Yard. Two totally different things.
Sending Kate with nine RPOs was a decision made by Scotland Yard and no one else. Obviously they thought there was a security issue that needed that large of a crew.
I thought the whole point of a boycott is that you give up something you ordinarily do or would like to do because the principle matters more than your personal interest — you sacrifice. But what the heck — this is Baby Kate Dolittle we’re talking about here — too dim and self-absorbed to do comprehend that.
I’m not certain that a junior royal could just decide to make a huge political/human rights stance like this without palace permission or knowledge. And how would that play with the Prince of Wales, a personal friend of the sultan? Right or wrong Kate doesn’t wield enough power to do that. And if William and Harry haven’t made a stand who in the world expects Kate to? Outrage for outrage’s sake is exhausting. Surely there is a way to affect change that eventually becomes change for the better. Can members of the RF position themselves, geopolitically, outside of parliamentary policy? Would doing so add purpose/gravitas to the RF or hasten its demise? I hope someone knowledgeable can weigh in here.
I’m not certain that a junior royal could just decide to make a huge political/human rights stance like this without palace permission or knowledge. And how would that play with the Prince of Wales, a personal friend of the sultan? Right or wrong Kate doesn’t wield enough power to do that. And if William and Harry haven’t made a stand who in the world expects Kate to?
Fact is, she snuck in by the back door. Clearly she didn’t want to be seen. So, if she decided to boycott, she could have just not attended. She hasn’t been forced to attend events where she actually had a commitment, so how is this different? Nice shade, too, on Dolittle as having no mind of her own.
Outrage for outrage’s sake is exhausting.
Oh, that’s just disingenuous.
ETA: Is she a junior royal? Really? I would think that given the Jubilee balcony appearance, we saw the senior royals.
She is a senior royal. end of. despite all attempts to downplay her position which leads to her being excused for all sorts.
And for the record Charles boycotts China for their stance on Tibet so a senior royal, which covers the two brothers, to boycott Brunei and make it known that they are doing so as Charles has done would be noticed.
Would it affect a change? we don’t know, but they are in a better position than we are to shine a spotlight on the situation.
I know people have called for her to have taken different sorts of actions here, and let me say again that I personally don’t fault her in the least for attending her cousin’s wedding, but she could have simply not attended. No statement, and let the press draw their own conclusions, if they even found out about the wedding in the first place. That was an option well within her means.
LAK and Hmmm
I always thought/assumed junior royal was a blanket term that covered zhM’s grandchildren and their siblings with the children and their parents being senior royals. Honest mistake and therefore, no need for shade about making excuses for Kate by calling her a junior royal.
Outrage for outrage’s sake is a very real and unfortunate thing. Where was outrage when Harry held his fundraiser at the hotel? Where was outrage when the princes played polo on the sultan’s property. Where was outrage when Charles befriended the sultan and maintained the relationship?
The BRF should sever ties with the sultan publicly. Then and only then would protocol make it okay for Kate to take a stance. Geopolitics, the RF and human rights initiatives make strange bedfellows historically. But who knows the dirt that could still be going on even today. A lot, imo. It is ridiculous and a little precious to expect the flasher to do what the Prince of Wales and heir to the throne can’t be bothered to do.
I guess I’m wrong also because I have heard the media, itself refer to Kate, Will and Harry as junior royals. Talk about splitting hairs.
So two royal born princes can saunter about on sultan owned polo fields but Kate is kicked around the media for attending a wedding – one she obviously wasn’t trying to promote.
Too many people drink the RF kool-aid, imo.
•All•
William, Kate, and Harry are senior Royals. LAK is 100% correct on this.
•Snark• •All•
Senior vs junior royals is determined by the Order of Precendence for State visits. William and Kate are both #3 after Philip and Charles (William) and QEII and Camillia (Kate). Harry is obviously right after William as will his wife be right after Kate.
In general, children of the Soveriegn are senior royals and grandchildren are junior royals. Except William (and Kate as his spouse) and Harry are children of the heir which changes that.
•LAK• (and anyone else) •Snark•
No snark here, very serious question.
I see your point with Charles and China/Tibet. Don’t you think that’s a ‘safer’ soapbox for Charles to be on? Boycotting the Sultan of Brunei IMO is totally and unfortunately different. Not only are they a Commonwealth country — the West is hog tied to oil producing states (grrrrr but that’s for another discussion).
Could Charles or *any* of the rest of the BRF really and honestly make a public stand about this? I honestly, and again unfortunately, don’t think they can. And to make matters worse, many Western leaders do think of him as a friend (or ‘friend’ no matter — the results are the same).
I ask because didn’t QEII recently (last two years) make a kinda/sorta pro-homosexual rights comment but also had to qualify it for the Commonwealth countries that had differing view point?
I honestly think they are all (the BRF) in a bind because I don’t think they can make these kinds of bold statements.
Too bad as the world could use a few more people to stand up for women and other minorities…
Unless the palace put out a press release stating that Kate was not attending, and why, then no one would have had any idea that this wedding was held at a Sultan of Brunei property – so you can argue that she actually brought attention to the issue.
Regardless, I think this is a case where she did the right thing, although it caused some ripples.
The princes, on the other hand, are more problematic.
The BRF will be taking a stand, however played, no matter what they do, concerning this in the future. I hope that this got a lot of press in the UK. Someone should tell them that “not showing up”, would bring an easy vacation.
Suze
Can’t agree enough here. If Kate had flouted protocol it would have been seen as egregious and the media would have exploded, running Kate vs Charles stories for weeks.
Kate will be criticized for breathing.
This too shall pass.
I don’t think so. Most people do not criticize others for mere pleasure.
Charles *finally* got some big boy pants positive spin because of the Putin comment. If he were seen as having his friendship with the sultan threatened because of the Curly Duchess With the Bare Bottom there would be hell to pay for her and Will behind closed doors, in my strong opinion. I’m not one who believes Charles is jealously holding WillKat back but this would be a completely new level of epic meltdown for Charles.
When Will passionately but foolishly wanted to destroy the royal tusk collection Charles used it as a teaching moment about being informed, effective and having a strategy. Same thing here.
Regarding Charles’ view of China (and its activities in Tibet), I doubt if we’d hear a peep from him, publiciy at least, if China was a monarchy. Royalty seldom criticizes its own. Just as Western powers happily prop up tyrants and despots when it suits them, so it goes with royals.
I don’t understand why Kate receives more flak for attending a cousin’s wedding than that loveable scamp Harry did when he chose to ski in Kazakhstan. It can’t just be on account of her bare bum…..we’ve seen his, too.
Some of it’s due to sexism but it’s also the simple fact that he’s the most hardworking and visible royal of his generation in the BRF. He actually goes out and does things. I’m not excusing him by saying that.
•DameEdna•
Harry did indeed get flak for his skiing trip. Maybe not enough but he doesn’t get a free pass.
Fellow Dame
Extremely interesting point about Charles and China. Pretty sad, really.
Kate is going to catch an unfair amount of flak over this for several reasons:
1. People with a strong social conscience are disappointed that Kate seemingly missed an opportunity to bring attention to a critical issue. Without a thorough understanding about the spoken and unspoken rules of protocol this is a highly unrealistic expectation.
* Some people strongly dislike Kate and any/everything she does/says/doesn’t say/doesn’t do. They will go on about this incident when they remained silent as other, prominent royals did identical or worse.
* Kate’s own ridiculous wardrobe antics and work shy schedule has left her more or less difficult to sympathize with – even when her actions are innocuous or neutral, at best. It’s a perfect storm of sorts.
What a fascinating read. I read that the palace said, the wedding was a private function. That is their excuse for her. She wasn’t “Duchess” enough, to get her own bum-looker. And they are saying that she does have a choice. I hear them avoiding the issue of Sharia Law.
•wolfpup•
I’m not understanding your comment. Can you explain? (I’m super duper tired so that might explain my lack of understanding)
What did you mean by not duchess enough? Are you being cheeky and I’m missing it?
Oh I need to go get some serious shut eye.
OT: I’ve started the book! 😊
@wolfpup
And there’s no avoidance of the issue of Sharia Law as practiced in Saudi Arabia? I recall a photograph of a certain POTUS holding hands with a princeling of SA’s ruling family.
Amnesty has been banging on for ages about the extremist Mutawa but obviously slapping Kate Middleton around the head is an easier proposition than conceding that most countries dependent on Middle Eastern oil are complicit in the abuse if human rights.
@LadySlippers
I didn’t say Harry received no flak regarding Kazakhstan……but certainly nothing like the Duch is currently on the end of. Yes, Harry works hard(ish), yes he’s a charming devil….but! Goose and gander please, in equal measure. Or we could all just wait until Hollywood discovers a new cause. And I don’t mean to disrespect anyone here holding a passionate opinion.
Hi Lady Slippers, I was tired when I wrote that as well. You’ve heard the expression, “to man up”? I meant that in the same way, when I said, to “Duchess-up”. I thought that it was silly for the palace to appoint a bum keeper, when Kate was old enough to find one herself.
I am also referring to a statement from the palace, defending Kate’s attendance, due to it being a private function. If so, then Kate also had a voice (choice), as to what she was going to do about the boycott. If so, they are letting her be the fall guy, while they avoid the issue altogether, in private.
I actually thought about you last night, wondering if you had started the book. I hope that you like it as much as I did.
Dame Edna, I have no issue with keeping our leaders, our governments, and our assumptions accountable.