Duchess Kate attends a private party at BP, adds 2 more events to her schedule

Here ^^ is a photo of Duchess Kate last night, being driven to Buckingham Palace so she and William could attend a private dinner/party for various ambassadors. Kate looked like she was wearing the famous Lovers’ Knot Tiara, a tiara frequently worn by Princess Diana back in the day. These are likely the only photos we’ll get of the event, which People Magazine took pains to say is considered “private” and that no photographers would be allowed. My question? If there are no photos, does it still count towards Kate’s year-end royal-event numbers?

Yes, it’s that time of year… the time when Buckingham Palace and the British media count up the number of events each royal family member did over the course of a year. Ever since Kate Middleton became the Duchess of Cambridge, her numbers have always been at the bottom of the list for “working royals.” She can literally go months without doing one event that “counts” towards her year-in total, and even then… the events that do “count” for Kate and Kate alone have been benefited by a bargain-basement threshold. Premieres, tennis-watching, rugby-game-attendance, a few handshakes on a rope line, all of those count towards her year-in numbers. And even then, some people even believe that Kate’s numbers have been padded the past few years with her very alleged “private meetings” with various charities and scholars.

We still have a few weeks left in 2015, but Kate’s numbers are without a doubt going to be very low. We could give her a break because she spent half the year gestating Princess Charlotte, but honestly, Kate kept working through the last half of her pregnancy and she seemed to be pretty comfortable (“working throughout” = maybe two events a week). Then she took an extended maternity leave, then Poor Jason tried to convince everyone that Kate was feeling “energized” about mental health issues enough to really hit the ground running this time and Poor Jason promises this time will be different! So Kate did a bunch of events all in a row in late October and throughout November. We all had high hopes. Maybe this time would be different. Maybe she really was committed this time, and it wasn’t just a commitment to looking busy before a lengthy vacation.

Before last night, her last public event was November 20th. She’s also doing a charity phone bank thing with William today, which I’ll cover in a moment. And this week, she did add two more events to her December schedule: she will making a trip to Action on Addiction in Wiltshire on Thursday. And she’ll be attending a Christmas party held at the Anna Freud Centre on December 15th. These are her only public events in a month and a half? (As I said, I’m hesitant to count last night’s event at BP because it was “private”.) Also note this: I’m pretty sure that Kate gets to “count” going to church on Christmas day with the royal family as a royal event too. So… that makes three public events, one private tiara-event and one royal-family event in six weeks’ time. Her last burst of energy for her year-end event numbers.

… And before everyone starts yelling about how unfair it is that I would expect Kate to be able to average, at best, two or three events a week, think about this: Kate and William’s event-numbers are consistently half, even a third, of the numbers from the 94-year-old Duke of Edinburgh. They are healthy, young, and perfectly capable of doing more. They just choose not to.



Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

174 Responses to “Duchess Kate attends a private party at BP, adds 2 more events to her schedule”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    God, that ridiculous hair. I don’t think it’s unfair at all to expect her to average two or three events per week. Most people average at least five days per week for the “event” they call their job. And they receive a lot less compensation than she does.

    • COSquared says:

      It’s been said Anne pushes 20. A WEEK.

      • Sender says:

        Ann doesn’t have two kids under three.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Nor does Anne have three dozen staff, including numerous household staff, to enable her to work outside the home like many mothers of young children.

        If KM wants to be a SAHM, they can give up all the perks including the two homes and two nannies. You know, the nannies who are paid so KM can WORK not shop.

      • COSquared says:

        Just so you know,she did that, raising 2 kids while doing hundreds of engagements a year. She also had a successful equestrian career on top of that.

      • CrystalBall says:

        Dear Sender, you remind us that Princess Ann doesn’t have two children under three. May I remind you that even before Kate had children she was a real slacker. And then enter the fulltime Nanny who is there to enable Kate to do regular charity work – what a farce. I am sure many will remember too that after George was born the normal Windsortons announced that they would not do joint appearances so that one parent could always be there for there kid. Well, they certainly don’t stick to that either. I’ve noticed Kate likes to tag along with Bill, avoiding both SAHM duty as well as the bother of organising charity work of her own. She really is priceless.

      • vava says:

        CrystalBall: perfect post. I’d forgotten about all the promises and lies coming from the Cambridges!

    • qwerty says:

      I think they’re lazy and all that but really, what is it to any of us how many “events” they do per week/month/whatever? What’s the purpose of them showing up anywhere and shaking hands? And don’t tell me it’s good for charity cause I’m absolutely sure there’d be huge uproar around here if they skipped the Christmas church service too even though it’s obviously useless. I’m just really trying to understand why people are getting their panties in a bunch over something like that. Royal drama puts me to sleep.

      • Natalie says:

        They’re taking money for it. That’s really what it boils downs to. Why are hundreds of millions being spent? What exactly is the point of it all?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        It’s not much to me, because I’m not paying for it, but I think it is, and should be to the people who are. It’s the principle of the thing. They are enormously wealthy and they should give back. And I disagree that their appearances are meaningless. I think they can bring priceless publicity and attention to good causes.

      • bluhare says:

        To add what others said, they’re also future heads of state. It’s not just playing the fame game.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Not much to me, but even if appearances don’t contribute much in money or morale (which they probably do, honestly), UK tax payers have a right to watch these people dance for their proverbial supper. Lavish estates, jewels, and vacays have a price tag. Show up, greet people, and take pictures for the world to ooh & ahh over. Even as future powerless figure heads, they owe it to the UK to bring glamour and dignity to their public images.

      • notasugarhere says:

        As long as the Windsors keep costing upwards of $600 million a year for whatever it is they do, these two 30-somethings will be required to get it together and work for the firm. That work should be commensurate with their enormous benefits.

      • Jan says:

        I wish that the the renumeration/ privileges they receive should be linked to the amount of work they do not the other way around. The money/ homes should not be a foregone conclusion if they do little in return. That would get their their asses in gear pretty pronto.

      • anne_000 says:

        Because they’re on the public dole aka welfare. So like all the common people who are expected to at least try to seek jobs while they’re on welfare, the same expectations should apply to W&K who are getting probably tens of thousands or more times what one welfare recipient gets per month (I’m counting security costs too). Why should W&K be entitled to taxpayers’ money while that same entitlement is criticized when going to lower class folks? Are W&K that high and mighty like priest-gods of yore?

        And the ridiculous thing is, W&K already have their own private millions on which they could live off of, like any other ol’ millionaire does. Instead they take money from ‘welfare’ aka taxpayers’ money and then whine and roll their eyes when they’re expected to show up at some non-hoity-toity event where regular people are and who can’t keep them interested enough because of the lack of jewels, high fashion, talks of polo, gala parties, other rich folk & celebrity stuff, etc.

        And what’s the purpose of them showing up to the charities for which THEY THEMSELVES CHOSE to be the patrons? I dunno…. maybe it’s something called ‘need of money/funding’ through publicity.

        Though W&K never have to worry about if and when more money is going to come in for them, charities do. They rely on getting the public to notice them and be inspired to donate money. Otherwise, why are W&K their patrons? Just to add to their own CV and pat themselves on the back? And not care one bit about whether their charities can continue to exist due to lack of money?

        Money doesn’t seem to be a dirty word when W&K are spending other people’s money, but it seems to be such a bore for them when it comes to helping their charities get some.

      • qwerty says:

        So it’s just out of principle than and not for any reason that makes sense. Ok.

      • Sixer says:

        Well, qwerty, it also makes sense. Look at the big initiatives of the preceding two generations: Duke of Edinburgh Award and Prince’s Trust. Both of these have had big and lasting positive impacts in the UK. DoE is as big as scouting these days.

        I think you could make an argument that Normal Bill hasn’t had time to set up and develop a legacy initiative, so on that basis it is unfair to criticise.

        I wouldn’t agree on the basis that Normal Bill should have at least shown the seeds of something by now, but you could make the argument. But you can’t really make it on the basis of pointless principle or the royals having no actual role at all.

        The Royals are *supposed* to further the common weal/public good.

      • maggie says:

        I pay! But it’s pennies.

      • notasugarhere says:

        $600 million a year is not pennies, and doesn’t include the foreign costs. That amount is divided among the people who actually pay taxes, so the burden is heaviest on those who work for a living.

        qwerty, you have no problem with government employees being paid excessive salaries and refusing to do the very simple work in return? Your local politicians must love you.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ qwerty – You’ve completely ignored the reason why it’s important for charities to get publicity – to get donations in order to keep existing to help people.

        I know that in W&K-Think, showing up to charities is all about giving themselves platitudes and showing off their clothes and hair and patting themselves on the back, and how hard it is for themselves to break out of their pattern of self-indulgent days to do such a boring chore, but in the real world, it should be about helping out the charities and their recipients.

        But hey. If W&K think of it just as some kind of abstract ‘principle’ in which they’re the main recipients of charitable work and so can take it or leave it according to their own whims, then so probably do their sugars.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        So principles don’t make sense to you? I find that hard to believe.

      • FLORC says:

        By pennies you mean US currency?

      • Tina says:

        Principles make cents. And dollars. And pounds. The US VP’s salary is around $230,000 per year. The First Lady is paid nothing. They do the US equivalent work of the UK royal family, who are paid, as nota points out, $600m per year. Don’t spout rubbish. Not here.

      • Katie says:

        They’re getting “paid” by the public. That’s why it matters. The rest of the royal family had the good sense to be busy

    • Charlotte15 says:

      GNAT I am ROTFL at “the ‘event’ they call their job” 😂😂

  2. Sixer says:

    Helicopter Hair has now taken over from Beige Booty Shorts in my own personal Favourite Celebitchy Image Awards. I will commission a trophy.

    Other than that, I have nothing to add because you guys will all do tiara-talking and I care little about tiaras. Sorry, ArtHistorian!

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I love the expression on her face in that picture, “I look great, don’t I?”

    • bluhare says:

      But DIANA, Sixer!!! 😀

    • Bettyrose says:

      You don’t care about tiaras? But how does one spot the real princess on a crowd? A tiara. It’s like you aren’t even properly brainwashed by Disney.

      • LAK says:

        I know BettyRose!!! We need to send Sixer to Disney Princess training programme forthwith.

      • Sixer says:

        I know, sorry! I am a fashion, beauty and jewellery #EPICFAIL. The only thing I can think of to say about diamonds is um… um… give the koh-i-noor back?

        I would DIE at Disney Princess training. But my family would dine out on the story for years.

      • LAK says:

        Sixer: The entire board of directors at the disney princess training programme just had the vapours at your beauty/fashion/jewellery fail comment.

        This will not do at all.

        You are required to sign up immediately to remedy.

        Address: Middleton Towers, Berkshire.

        Report to Carole Bucket.

      • Sixer says:

        I can put on a good posh accent. Will that do? Must I go, Celebitchy mums, MUST I?

      • LAK says:

        You can put on a posh accent?

        That’s a start.

        Remember to leave your brains and spine at the gate. Those will not be required. Ditto any hint of personality.

        Please let us know whether you have waist length hair (if not, please report to the wiglet wagon mistress Bluhare or her assistant Florc to be fitted)

        Course will take approx 8yrs.

        In the meantime. If you have spotted a bachelor Prince – we are told one Ginger Prince is larking about unattached, please endeavour to throw yourself in his path at every opportunity.

        Extra credit and an accelerated course will be awarded if you are pre-attached to aforementioned Prince.

      • Fallon says:

        “It’s like you aren’t even properly brainwashed by Disney.”

        WINS my internet browsing best comment award of the day.


      • Sixer says:

        Suddenly, I discover that I AM AFRAID OF LAK!

      • frisbee says:

        Sixer – as a fellow Epic Fail at all things fashion I’ll come with you, but I’m not putting on a posh accent. It’s broad Brummie or nothing.

      • Sixer says:

        If LAK is going to turn into Miss Jean Brodie on me, I’ll take all the help I can get, posh accent or otherwise!

      • LAK says:

        Frisbee: The Rain in Spain stays mainly on the Plain!!!


        Moses supposes his toes are Roses, Moses Supposes erroneously.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LAK, making my day with references to two fabulous scenes from favorite movie musicals!

      • FLORC says:

        I learned it as the rain in Spain falls gently on the plains. Weird

      • Liberty says:

        FLORC, LAK, Sixer, frisbee, perhaps an update:

        “the pain of her mane? falls are plainly quite arcane.”

    • ArtHistorian says:

      That’s quite all right Sixer – it would be dull if we all have the same interests. And tiaras are just one aspect of my jewellery obsession. 😉

      I very much enjoy your acerbic comments and your use of colloquialisms.

    • Addison says:

      Beige booty shorts? When was this? Oh my.

  3. fashionista says:

    Does she not see how ridiculous she looks with all that hair?? I don’t really care about her event count, but isn’t image important for royalty? She looks like a sorority girl!

    • Splinter says:

      Wait for the cover of that “charity phone bank thing with William today” she has actually cut her hair! It is shorter, not short, but much better.

      • LAK says:

        Her hair has been this short for a while, she’s been covering it with a wig(let). If you look at the video from their dundee engagement, you can see her hair at the front of the wig she’s wearing, and it stops at the length she has it today.

        This is her hair without the thickness and length of the wiglet she’s been wearing for some time. You could see the two different lengths at several engagements.

      • maggie says:

        I think you have hair envy Lak.

      • LAK says:

        Maggie I do!!!

        I wear my hair every colour of the rainbow, use wigs, wiglets and then some. Hair is a lifelong obsession.

        Currently, my hair is like Chantal Biya’s hair.

        And underneath all that, I still have a good head of hair.

        If I met you in the street and thought your hair was fabulous, I would tell you so and ask for your hairdresser’s number.

        Doesn’t everyone love good hair?

        Don’t you enjoy a good head of hair Maggie? Natural or not?

      • maggie says:

        Well you seem to bring up the fact that she wears a wiglet every chance you get when in fact she doesn’t.

      • LAK says:

        I bring up her wiglet/extensions, when she’s wearing one, because she denies it and that amuses me.

        She’s had periods when she hasn’t worn it. I have pointed out both positions.

        I’m not at all ashamed of the entertainment value if that was the objective of your comment.

    • SamiHami says:

      I think her hair is beautiful and certainly not “ridiculous.” I think it would be awful if she cut it. Very, very few women look good with short hair. Very few.

      • LAK says:

        I actually think this length is perfect for her. I don’t think she would suit short hair.

      • zinjojo says:

        Disagree that “very, very few women look good with short hair.” Personally, I love short hair on many women, and for those with good bone structure, it can be stunning. Short hair can also feel great and be easy to style and manage.

        It’s such a gendered stereotype to say that women don’t look good with short hair, although a lot of people hold this opinion.

      • FLORC says:

        That’s a matter of opinion. Some ladies look ideal with above shoulder hair and they pull it off. IMO most ladies look best with shoulder length.

        Just a few celebs.
        Robin Wright, Halle Berry,Pink, Rhianna, Mary J.B., Victoria B. etc.. There’s dozens and dozens more and i’m not including general public figures like politicians, business women know in media, or just ladies who have short hair and have a picture out there.
        Now that is not to say they look awful with long hair, but they can pull off short and look good if not better than longer hair.

        I don’t think you meant to phrase it as your opinion coming off as a matter of fact, but it did come off that way.

      • layla says:

        *Puts hands up*
        Rocking a fun funky short do… with no overly particularly beautiful bone structure but simply self confidence, self worth and sass.

        Too many woman hide behind their hair or claim it as a mark of femininity. “Woman don’t look good with short hair” translates to “women don’t look feminine enough” all too many times. These things are mutually exclusive to the length of ones hair!

    • Ummm says:

      She has beautiful hair and she should enjoy it while it lasts. Menopause is around in the corner and there goes the hair.

      • bluhare says:

        Not for everyone she says, as she shakes her glorious mane of silver hair. 😉

      • Azurea says:

        Let’s not spread ridiculous generalizations about how terrible menopause is. I went through it 5 years ago. My hair is the same. I look much younger than my age, and I’m in great shape & feel better than I ever have. Look up Christiane
        Northrup & learn about healthy ageing!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Please, my hair is as thick as it ever was. My skin still looks good and I don’t have a mustache.

      • zinjojo says:

        Not at all. I hit menopause a couple of years ago, and my hair is thicker and healthier than ever. Menopause is different for every woman, and the old generalizations don’t work anymore.

      • layla says:

        I’m yet to hit menopause (41) and my already fine hair (thou, there was always A LOT of it) has decided to hit the road never to be seen again once it hits my shoulders in length. I’m now rocking a funky short do…. that I supposedly, as some commenters above would believe, do not look very good with! 😉

        Here’s hoping menopause brings me the thick hair you ladies speak of! #hairdreams I will still be rocking my “unattractive” short do thou!

      • Citresse says:

        That’s a very common experience for women around 40 age mark to lose handfuls of hair and then see it return back to what you had in your 20s by mid forties or sooner. It’s a hormonal fluctuation quite normal when most women hit the big 40.

      • Petrichor says:

        @Citresse, I certainly hope that’s true. I turn 40 in 2.5 months, and in the last few weeks my hair has been falling out like crazy and I don’t have much to lose! My hair’s not that fine, but I’ve never had much of it, and for that reason chin-length or just below is the best on me. It’s the only way I can get any hint of body! Once it hits shoulder length or longer it just starts to look thin and stringy. I hope I still have some hair left by my mid-40s!

        And Bluhare, I dream of a full head of silver hair in my future. That would be glorious. The very few grey hairs I do have now seem to have some curl to them, so I’m very excited at the prospect that my silver hair might also bring me the curl I’ve long dreamed of as well!

  4. Eleonor says:

    a 94 years old man is working more than them…no comment.

    • anne_000 says:

      +1000 and then William had the gall to hold a press conference in which he said that his elderly grandparents can keep on working if people actually expect the royals to do full-time royal duties – but except himself of course.

      And I know I keep repeating what he said ad infinitum, but I just found it so appalling that he said that out loud and on camera so that the whole world could hear it. And if you ask me what ‘defines’ him, I’d say this statement of his.

      • wolfie says:

        anne_000 – you’ve really been putting out some great comments. You are so logical, patient, and funny! A class act!

        Maia – I like what you have to say as well – (from a thread now expired where you spoke of Diana, and the effects on her boys in the present).

        As for the rest of you – of course, I’m here because you are – I like you!

      • anne_000 says:

        @ wolfie 🙂

        Always love your comments too. 🙂

  5. MonicaQ says:

    Wow I never realized how much hair she has. O_O like it must take her ages to dry. I mean, could be extensions–I don’t Royal watch close enough–but man, I think she could use some layering. It’d liven up her face.

    • Deedee says:

      She does use extensions. Nothing wrong with that, mind you.

    • candice says:

      It’s not natural – it’s either a wig or extensions. With her nutrition deficiencies, thick, healthy hair is impossible.

      • Suzanne says:

        She could use a haircut and uplifting style. She’s starting to look very drawn in the face and that hair just drags her down even more. She’s tired looking these days and I doubt its from overwork.

      • FLORC says:

        Her photos are less touched up. In civilian photos not going out through publications she’s looked more like she is. Although when she puts weight on for pregnancy she looks worlds better. Certainly not overworked, but smoking, dehydration, sun damage, and low weight could all play a role.

      • maggie says:

        It’s hers. Every last strand. I know for a fact.

      • FLORC says:

        Fact? How. Pictures, hair salon hours, and deflate inflate of size are just a few of the hard evidence that she wears wiglets and extensions. To claim you know otherwise with fact is to lose any cred.
        I await your proof that you know this as fact. That is a lofty claim.

      • meh says:


        Are you actually Kate’s personal hair dresser? If so, could you please convince her to wear more updo’s and skip the helicopter head and sloppy sausage curls?

      • maggie says:

        I’ve stood very close to her. Her hair is thick and she’s much prettier in person.

      • notasugarhere says:

        What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

      • maggie says:

        It’s true. You don’t like my answer so of course I must be making it up.

      • Olenna says:

        This thread, LOL! All I can do is SMHair…Every. Last. Strand.

      • notasugarhere says:

        maggie, I’m not doubting that you’ve seen her upclose if that’s what you want to insist. That is absolutely no proof of whether or not she wears falls and extensions. Unless you had your hands in her hair, yanking and checking? When properly done, there are supposed to be seamless. The excessive amount of her extensions and wiglets are what makes them so over-the-top.

      • maggie says:

        Nota I really don’t care whether she wears wigs or extensions however from being in such close proximity to her and having very thick hair myself it was evident to me her hair is her own. Believe whatever it is that you need to make yourself feel better. That goes for the rest of your group on here. Makes no difference to me.

  6. COSquared says:

    If that’s final, the grand total for 2015 is 64/65 engagements over less than 45 days in 1 year.

    • LAK says:

      Those would be 64/65 HOURS over a 45 day period. So if the average work week for a public servant is 37.5hrs per week, Kate worked less than a fortnight in an entire year.

    • Chrissy says:

      How pathetic for a (somewhat) healthy 33 year old! What gets me is that she counted the birth of her daughter and that daughter’s Christening as royal “work”. Does no one go over these events and nix the ridiculous ones? They really think no one notices these things, don’t they. Optics are everything and they just don’t get it.

      • zinjojo says:

        These are the ones that are such an affront to working people everywhere. Giving birth and christening your child are personal events are among the most personal events there are! Counting them as work, just because you posed for some pictures is complete B.S.

      • CrystalBall says:

        Chrissy, I totally agree with you. If giving birth was a work event, then I have three questions:

        A) Is Charlotte the property of the people?

        B) Why was the public locked out of the birth event?

        C) Can she get anymore ridiculous?

    • Amber says:

      I’m just gonna’ copy/paste the comment I made on November 15th 😀

      Even if, IF!, William and Kate started to work consistently and legitimately hit an average of 100+ engagements a year, or around 300 between them, that’s still significantly less than what some other working royals manage individually, let alone as a couple. Compounding that issue are the mammoth-sized intervals between events, the brevity of their appearances, and the lightweight nature of 99.9% of their engagements (hence, raking up credits during vacations, I mean, “work trips”). William and Kate should never complain about the tabloids. It keeps them relevant and covers the gaps of their absences. One of the things that irritates me the most nowadays are the “flurries” of events. Where William and Kate do nothing for months and then maximize their PR by doing a “flurry”. Yes, they are like flurries in a meteorological sense. If you mean light dusting of snow, that probably won’t stick or matter. That’s quite accurate. Because remember that flurry before Kate left for maternity leave? Yeah, that was 6 appearances in January, 8 in February, and the big flurry of 10 in March. The DoLittles really got going in October and November, just like Poor Jason told the Mail they would, right? If I count The Rugby World Cup and the Balmoral visit (basically dinner and church with Granny)–Starting in September, Kate’s done like 26 things. That’s if I’m being a bit generous. Because you know they will be. And that’s your flurry after only doing a handful of fluff appearances since May. I know 26 sounds impossible–I didn’t quite believe it myself–But just take a scroll http://www.celebitchy.com/category/kate_middleton/page/5/ I can’t be that far off. That’s the PR magic of the flurries. Kate’s total this year will hover around seventy again. And let’s be very clear about this. We only get to 70 by giving her a point for the Christening, the video message/NYTimes quote/short letter (that’s 3), rugby, polo, Wimbledon, etc., I gave her a credit each time she appears. Even if it’s technically the same individual event, (but it’s a day to night thing, or they change activity or location). I even included tea with Angie and Brad, Prince Phillip’s b-day dinner, and a funeral. 70! For Kate at least. Because Bill’s schedule is even sketchier and harder to keep track of than Kate’s. I like to make fun of the galas, dinners, luncheons, and crap that Kate does. But she doesn’t have a thing on hubby and his meetings, luncheons, and “HisRH welcomed/received/greeted so and so”. Not only does Bill get work credit for sitting at a rugby match. He gets credit for shaking a few hands before it starts.

      We could give Kate a pass. But then we have to remember that Prince Philip, who is the 2,000 Year Old Man, and has been in and out of hospitals for years, still averages around 200 engagements. We should also remember that the timelines and the year’s events for Kate change, but the totals really don’t. She was only pregnant with George for the last few months of that year. But was still bringing up the rear in the BRF and used HG as the reason. She was pregnant with Charlotte for a few months last year AND George was here this time. Still came to 76. So she “hit the ground running” with 34 engagements in 2011 (19 overseas); 111 in 2012 (36 overseas); and 44! in 2013. Then the 76. And remember, they announced the 2nd pregnancy ASAP and she quickly began canceling all/only her work and charity appearances. It’s like they’re aiming for 70 now. We’re gonna to get to that average again, if you include everything, which is really pathetic quality, quantity, and content. My November 15th comment also got into the cost of Kate’s clothes nowadays. But I’ll save that for when the official work totals are released 😀

      • COSquared says:

        LOL. I also predicted circa mid-September that she’d hover near 70. But I, unfortunately, predict that she’ll have that RFO her fans so desperately want. She hasn’t worked for it, yes, but I’ll say she’ll be sporting it when Felipe(with a beard PLEASE!) and Letizia*prays for some Felipe Varela* come to the UK in March 2016.

      • zinjojo says:

        COSquared. Hope you’re not right on the RFO before March, but I’m afraid you may be. That said, I can’t wait to see Kate next to Letizia; I think she’ll wilt.

        And Felipe with a beard. Yes. I recently saw an old photograph of him in his 20s. Wow, he was gorgeous (still nice now too!).

  7. LadyJane says:

    Nice crown, pity she wears it like a headband.

  8. Emily says:

    The Lover’s Knot Tiara AND she wore her hair back????? C’mon Jason! Give us some pictures!

    • Lucky Charm says:

      That’s what I was going to say, too! A tiara, and her hair back so you can actually see the fabulous earrings, and we don’t get a full picture?! So not fair.

    • notasugarhere says:

      To top it off, she wore a lace dress similar in style to one of Diana’s. #oedipalcomplex

      • zinjojo says:

        I love it when The Telegraph sharpens their claws (like the article about the Midds and Party Pieces). They’ve got a good one today: 10 times the Duchess of Cambridge has dressed like Princess Diana

    • Jib says:

      I saw a picture in which Wills looked quite testy, and Kate looked worried. Someone commenting on the DM said, Here he goes again, being annoyed with Kate. LOL!!!

      • wolfie says:

        With Kate wearing his mom’s tiara, he probably got confused – just a little boy with big problems he thinks she can solve…

      • Hazel says:

        I noticed that, too. Kate’s smiling at him & he’s scowling. What a pill.
        This is a response to JIB. I can never tell where a reply will end up!

  9. Alexa de Vere says:

    Speaking as a Brit, I really think you guys should start giving her a bit of a break. She’s not actually on extended maternity leave- in the UK people generally take a whole year if they can and you are entitled to statutory maternity pay for a large chunk of that. Yes she is a royal and a younger one than the queen, but she’s got her whole life to do the ‘duty’ thing- why does it offend you so much that she wants to see her kids grow up while they are still tiny? I work full time, but if I were in her shoes I definitely wouldn’t. We don’t judge them as working people who have to clock in for a justifiable amount of time. They’re the royal family- they just are. We expect to see them at things like state openings of parliament and at the odd charity do so that we can coo over them all and then we, for the most part anyway, completely stop caring and thinking about them.

    • Sixer says:

      Speaking as a Brit – I judge them as working people. All the time. And so do all the people I know. Each to their own echo chamber.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Then you deserve to pay through the nose for nothing. If you’re happy with paying for her lux lifestyle while you can’t afford to stay home with your own children, fine. But please don’t use her having a baby as an excuse for her laziness. She can work eight hours a week and still “see her children grow up.” Don’t be ridiculous.

    • Rachel says:

      Speaking also as a Brit, I’m going to have to disagree with your comment, particularly the bit about the public ceasing to care about them after the big ceremonies. There is some kind of unspoken agreement that the royals should do a certain amount of work – consider all the articles which subtly ask why Kate is such a shrinking violet, or the demonisation of Beatrice for taking eighteen holidays this year, or, more simply, the fact that the Queen is so popular based on her incredible work ethic. There’s a reason her motto is that she wants to serve her country until her dying day; it’s her brand, it’s the thing that keeps her beloved and relevant. The upsurge in republicanism in this country but also in Australia (hence the tour with little George to keep everyone on side) is evidence that the public do not blindly accept the BRF, but have expectations of them.

      To turn to Kate and her low number count this year; I can completely understand your assertion that most mothers would like to stay with their children, and that you would in her shoes. But to say it’s the ideal situation does not make it right. William and Kate relish pushing a ‘normal’ image (e.g. eschewing the royals’ Germanic Christmas traditions for the typical British Christmas morning); normal women, unfortunately, do not have the luxury of working maybe 64/65 hours per year, which is not even to discount clearly puffed up events such as giving birth, or going to watch a rugby match. Normal women have to get back to work if they have been lucky enough to have a healthy pregnancy and delivery.

      Kate is 33, ostensibly healthy, and has received tip-top medical care throughout her pregnancy. If there is some underlying problem which is precluding her from going back to work, the best move PR-wise is to either leak it, or have Kate herself spearhead a campaign about it (e.g. post partum depression) to maximise public goodwill. Otherwise, Kate’s seriously low numbers is another feature of her and William’s exceptionalist attitude to their duties. If they want to live a life of luxury on the taxpayer’s money, then by all means – I’m sure the public would have something to say about it.

      They either need to drop this charade of being normal or actually get down to some work. No one is asking that much of two healthy 30 somethings with plenty of outside help – esp compared to their octogenarian grandparents who consistently display more duty.

    • frisbee says:

      speaking as a Brit, you’re talking bollocks for all the reasons given by Sixer, Goodnames and Rachel above.

    • Tina says:

      Speaking as a Brit, I’m impressed that Jason has hired native English speakers for his latest foray onto the message boards.

  10. Alexa de Vere says:

    Also (and sorry for being all shouty) I’ve not long had my second baby and I feel a bit shitty about it all sometimes. I don’t have a nanny but I do have my mum nearby and a really supportive family but, nonetheless, I do find myself down in the dumps a lot about how the dynamic between myself and my son(same age as George) has changed, about the state of my house, my ruined body and my lack of time for myself. Kate probs feels these things too although has the added pressure of the worlds press attention on her shoulders judging her for everything she does. Maybe she is just a bit scared and nervous about coming out much- I would be petrified in her place.

    • vauvert says:

      Alexa, I feel for you. I am sure you don’t have cooks, maids, nannies, gardeners, drivers, bodyguards and a beauty/styling team on top of an unlimited budget. Having a supportive family is great. Having a maternity leave -I am Canadian so I got a year too, is fantastic and all women should get one.
      However, when you get a multi million dollar budget, gifted mansions and everything money can buy, I really don’t think it is too much to expect a few “events” a week, particularly when you look at what Kate considers events. For us plebes, attending a movie premiere and hanging out with movie stars, catching a sporting event, going to a ball – those would be considered a fun outing, and a privilege. For her, showing up in a (badly fitting) couture dress, hair professionally (but horribly) styled, driven in a luxury car with a tiara in her head… Is work.
      Sorry but not cutting her any slack, particularly when the elder RF members do much more.

    • bluhare says:

      You’re a kind soul, Alexa. I wouldn’t be surprised if Kate’s felt all those things; however, as vauvert said above, she’s got staff to take the baby so she can have some 1:1 time with George, work on her body, staff to clean the house, and we all know she certainly has her mother on speed dial! I wish you had those things too.

    • Charlotte15 says:

      Alexa I am in a similar situation and agree with a lot that you’ve said here. Obviously we don’t have the staff that Kate does, but sometimes it doesn’t matter. My baby can be with my mom sometimes and my only responsibility in the world is to get out of bed and take a shower, and there are many days where that is extremely hard (if not impossible) to do.

      • notasugarhere says:

        As pointed out on another thread, she’s managed to “work” all of 65 HOURS this year. Two nannies, two housekeepers, two dozen office staff, and a mother that is always there. To compare her as if she was an everyday SAHM is beyond the pale to me.

    • wolfie says:

      I had three babies in four years – be patient – you won’t be stuck with nursery duties for long! I would suggest all the sunshine you can get.

  11. jeanne says:

    She cut her hair!!!!! Looks nice. Good for her, we all know what a huge step that was. 🙂

    • mel says:

      I think the credit needs to go to whatever professional hairstylist she’s using at the moment – she probably doesn’t even brush her own hair, let alone cut it!!!

  12. Breakfast Margaritas says:

    I don’t envy these Royals. What is the point of being royal if every bloke is quacking Work! Work! Work! @ them? Maybe in time Buckingham palace will become a museum or university and these people will choose to live their lives privately. Normal Bill may have this in mind.

    • Sara says:

      Easy solution: stop accepting tax payers’ money to fund your lifestyle, then no one will care what you do with your life.

      • Rachel says:

        +1 Sara
        It’s not as if William couldn’t remove himself from the line of succession and live off his very generous trust fund.

      • zinjojo says:

        That’s the solution. Either work, or give up the monarchy. But don’t expect taxpayers to fund an extravagant lifestyle, only work 64/65 hours a year and not hear complaints about the lack of work.

      • Betti says:

        @Rachel – with the lifestyle these 2 have and the way she burns throu money shopping/renovating etc.. that trust fund wouldn’t last long. If he goes (out of the line of succession) – he’s going with a very very generous ‘pension’ and a lump sum, particularly if he takes the kids with him.

    • Breakfast Margaritas says:

      Yes, I agree. That’s exactly what I meant. Maybe Normal Bill will will be the one to reject monarchy and all these palaces will return to the government and these people can live their lives privately as very rich former royals no longer beholden to taxpayers demands that they be trotted out for every ribbon cutting or pageant.

      • notasugarhere says:

        William would end up with his $10 million inheritance and nothing else in that scenario. No where near enough to support the lifestyle they enjoy now.

    • anne_000 says:

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t some of the money that was supposed to go to help repair Buckingham Palace go to W&K’s remodeling fund?

      So if BP does become a museum, then maybe that’s a good idea, since the BRF aren’t going to spend their money wisely by fixing it and give it to W&K instead.

      I don’t know why it’s so bad to interrupt their self-indulgent life style and show up to charities from time to time (they only spend about 45 minutes or less there at each visit and then show up late at times too). Is it really so terrible to go and meet the people whose tax money pay for their ultra-wealthy life style?

      • FLORC says:

        You’re not wrong. Apparently BP was due for many repairs for some time. And the accounts with funds allotted to do so were always relocated. Thought to be in private funds or spent elsewhere IF I have this correct.
        Word was the Queen used those funds as under her discretion to help KP along. This was seen as justified when Kate needed the Purple erased with haste so they could live at KP full time. Not a week before KP is completed they begin to announce they need Anmer Hall to use full time. Leaving KP to have been rushed with extra expense for no good purpose. Having renovations rushed drives the price way up!

      • anne_000 says:

        @ FLORC

        I’m just shaking my head. With all the stories about how bad of a condition BP is in (didn’t they just close down one of the dining halls because the ceiling might collapse), and then some of the repair money is used to bend over backwards to indulge W&K in a hopeless effort to get them to get them to do full-time royal work, what a ridiculous situation this all is.

      • FLORC says:

        I knew the ceiling was literally falling down in BP for being so neglected from renovations. All the time they had to fix it and never did. I’d love to know where all of that money went.

        And it does highlight how quickly the family will react to appease William or by extension, Kate. Say what you like about the BRF. They are doing everything to keep William happy. And it never seems to be enough.

      • wolfie says:

        The royal family are doing everything to keep William happy – yet it’s so wrong for his character! Like Charles, he probably reads stories of yore, and thinks it applies to him.

  13. CLEO95 says:

    Holy Cow, just saw on the Daily Mail that Kate cut her hair! It honestly looks much better, I think!

  14. COSquared says:

    Her hair has never been as long as advertised by People and the Fail. I think it’s less hair extensions piled on.

  15. Lilix40 says:

    Honest question, no snark: were her teeth always that big or did she put veneers on them? I am genuinely intrigued.

    • candice says:

      This has been commented on a lot on this site and I think the consensus is that she’s messed with her own natural teeth and had them drilled down and replaced with chicklets (veneers). Sad really, as there was nothing wrong with her original teeth. William on the other hand looks like a beaver with yellow teeth – he’s had orthodontic treatment, but he should ask for his money back imo.

      • LAK says:

        William’s teeth are a family trait. From Philip’s side of the family. 2-3 people in each generation have them. Orthodontics aren’t going to sort them out.

      • Lilix40 says:

        Thanks for the input, Candice and LAK. Why, Kate, why? Her teeth were ok, why mess with them?

      • vava says:

        What is the lifespan of a set of veneers?

  16. Citresse says:

    Let’s see what January 2016 brings. You never know, they may dramatically increase the workload then (post holidays and all that).

  17. FLORC says:

    Doesn’t Harry generally tally up as the lowest? Not because those are true numbers, but because the high majority of his charity involvement and work as a royal is counted as his private and/or personal time. All in line with keeping the heir elevated above the spare.

    • COSquared says:

      Look @ Very Much A Kid on tumblr. Will and Harry have similar numbers yet H has thrice the appearances counted as private each month. Also 2012 is probably the only year DK has topped H. This year,by way of making everything he does count as usual, Mr. Bill will be highest of the three. However, H even with plenty of privates will be lying close by.

      • FLORC says:

        I’ve seen something similar to that COSquared.
        And 2012 to 1 full year ending 2013 was very busy, but padded and mostly vacations that were counted as work.

    • Green Girl says:

      I have heard that too, FLORC, and that is a shame about Harry. It seems he spends more time at his appearances, too, so that should be more meaningful than a quick appearance (getting out, shaking hands, making a speech and then leaving).

      • FLORC says:

        Green Girl
        Harry has follow through and commitment. That’s to be admired. He’s constantly doing things that better the lives he meets longterm. And he never gets proper acknowledgement in the press for that. So, it’s safe to say that’s not why he does it. It’s not for PR or numbers. He’s found that helping others gives him purpose. I think Like Diana did.

        And he appears to absorb what people are telling him.
        IMO William can get there in time, but he has to show commitment past end of the year number boosts. And in his interactions. You don’t have to give your heart and soul to each event. Just look like you give half a damn.

  18. wow says:

    I use to take issue with her lack of events. But she has her whole life to do numerous events. If she wants to spend most of this time enjoying watching her kids grow up and being there for them as a hands on Mom, I don’t blame her. She has the luxury to do so. I’m sure most mothers would if they could afford to do so. A lot of mothers can’t afford to yet still chose to do;it because they know you can’t get those years back. Plus based on books/articles about various royal princes of the world, some of their issues stemmed from having absentee parents in their life as children because they were mostly raised by nannies.

    • Peanutbuttr says:

      How long would she be away from her kids if she did actually attend these events? 1 hour (roughly) to get to the event, budget 2 hours for the actual speech and Mingling, and 1 hour back. I wouldn’t call that absenteeism or an investment banker’s schedule

    • notasugarhere says:

      The luxury is based on a lifestyle handed to her as a member of the royal family. They are expected to do work commensurate with the perks in exchange. If she wants to be a SAHM, they have to give back all the houses and staff and life off William’s inheritance. It should last them about three years.

      And again, bashing working parents. Full-time royal work would be roughly 20 hours per week with months of vacation thrown in. Oh the horror. She spends that much time away from them exercising, shopping, and at the hairdresser.

    • Sixer says:

      What makes you think the children aren’t being raised mostly by nannies?

    • anne_000 says:

      So she can’t work her entire adult life because of something or other. If not because she had to be a hand-on, beck-and-call girlfriend and wife to William, then it’s because she has to be a hands-on remodeler and interior designer to their estates and a hands-on mother to babies, toddlers, growing children, teenagers, college-age kids, and then a hands-on grandmother, and then hands-on dealing with menopause, and then she can’t work because she’s senior citizen who should be let to retire.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      But, really, wow, she could do both, or she could decide she didn’t want to work and not take the money. If she’s going to take the money, she should give something back. Nobody’s asking her to work full time, or even regular part time hours. Just a half day or two a week. That leaves plenty of time for her children.

      • FLORC says:

        But it’s different. It’s ok for Kate to leave the kids with the nannies and staff and Carole when she can go and to fun things. But work? No. That is the 45 minutes plus helicopter or car commute time she needs to spend with her children. Otherwise they could forget who she is. But that won’t happen when she’s gone for hours nearly every day to shop, workout, beauty upkeep, etc.. It only happens when she needs to do her job.

        I’m in awe of how an adult woman can only be defended by treating her like a child.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I don’t get it either, FLORC. She has a responsibility to the people who support her lavish lifestyle. Is it really too much to ask that she work a day or two a week? Ugh.

  19. Ellen2 says:

    The Diplomatic Reception is an event on the royal calendar for everyone. It’s private but all of the Royals who attend consider it a working evening.

    I am 100% in agreement with the criticism of the Cambridges for their shameful lack of a work ethic. They need to step it up in a serious, serious way. But i do think they get to count the same events that the other royals count. If it’s an event similar to ones on the calendars of the Princess Royal, the PoW, or the Wessexes, then the Cambridges get to count them, too.

    The problem isn’t that the Diplomatic Reception (or the annual phonebank thing) counts. Sophie Wessex, who works like crazy now, also counts those events. The problem is that the Cambridges aren’t doing enough other events.

  20. nat says:

    Another site juxtaposed a photo of Kate in the crown alongside Diana, and despite being approximately the same age in the photos, Kate looked so much older – her skin looked crepey and dull. Diana’s looked luminous and vibrant. Just an observation 😉

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Diana had beautiful skin, didn’t she?

    • FLORC says:

      Some just get that quality skin. Toners and pore reducers with spot moisturizing improves my skin. And I have large pores on my nose and between my eyebrows.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yes, I think it was just good genes. It’s surprising that her bulimia didn’t take a toll on her hair and skin, but it didn’t seem to.

  21. Betti says:

    Oh good lord – i wondered when we’d get rumours of this ‘secret royal romance’. One prob thou – Harry prefers blondes! Pips, break out the bleach.

    OK Magazine via the Fail:


  22. Um, that’s not a tiara, its a head-drone

  23. mrsrockstar says:

    Can someone please tell me the origin of the term Katie Bucket?

    • wolfie says:

      It’s from A British comedy. Ask Sixer.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is from the British comedy Keeping Up Appearances. The main character, Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced Bouquet) is always chasing after a higher-class existence.

      • FLORC says:

        And it’s on Netflix of you care to watch.
        All about acting more posh than everyone else even when you’re average, bit trying too hard to act like aristos. In the show her last ne is bucket , bit she insists the correct pronunciation is bouquet.

  24. Tina says:

    So bloody bored of the Jason apologists. Come up with a new story, guys.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The Anmer Organics one from a few weeks ago failed miserably. Next up, a story about how she’s handmade X for Christmas and HM is incredibly awed and impressed.