Prince William, BAFTA president, skipped the BAFTAs for the second year in a row

wenn23208455

Guess who skipped the BAFTAs two years in a row? BAFTA president Prince William. William has been BAFTA president – an honorary title meaning he has to put on a tux once or twice a year and mingle with celebrities – for six years, and he’s only attended the BAFTAs once. And he’s never done any of the pre-BAFTA events or fundraisers either. And now there’s some muttering about whether the BAFTAs need a different royal patron.

IDRIS ELBA, CATE BLANCHETT, STEVEN SPIELBERG, MICHAEL FASSBENDER and LEONARDO DiCAPRIO will all be walking the red carpet at the EE British Academy Film Awards in London on Sunday. But film industry figures have been left fuming because I’ve learned Bafta president PRINCE WILLIAM has decided to snub the glitzy ceremony for a second consecutive year.

The decision has seen many senior movie insiders question whether the young royal’s commitment to the film industry is as strong as it is to sport, especially football. Since becoming Bafta president six years ago, William has attended the awards just two – in 2010 and 2014 – while his wife Kate has never attended. By contrast, he has attended the last two FA Cup finals in his role as president of the Football Association.

[From The Sun]

Last year, William’s absence was pretty controversial – there was a ton of misinformation about when William and Kate returned from a two week vacation in Mustique, but most people believe that they did return in time for the BAFTAs, and William just skipped it for no real reason. This year was the same – there was a pre-BAFTA dinner held at Kensington Palace for this year’s nominees, and once again, there was no royal host. AT KENSINGTON PALACE. Literally, William would have had to just walk a few yards to the dinner. But there were “no royal sightings.” Because of course.

wenn23251290

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

105 Responses to “Prince William, BAFTA president, skipped the BAFTAs for the second year in a row”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    It’s like he’s trying to end the BRF.

    • Ivy says:

      Well, that would be one way to avoid becoming king. I doubt it’s the best way.

    • Anne tommy says:

      One can but hope.

    • Betti says:

      You give him too much credit – he ain’t that intelligent. Like everything else with his life he gets bored easily and the presidency is clearly too much hard work for him – shows what kind of King he will be, a non existant one.

      • Citresse says:

        History has given us good kings and bad, but somehow the BRF went on…. besides, haven’t many put much hope on George, now?

      • Betti says:

        ^ I think a lot people are writing George off because lets face it, look at who is raising him. W&K have no work ethic or any decent values that they can instill in their children – unless its how to shop, vacation and leech off others all the while abusing them with your massive sense of entitlement. Carole has already proven what kind of child she raises, there are 3 examples of her parenting style out there.

      • Savina says:

        Betti, I hope you are kidding about people putting their hope on a toddler. That only buys decades of waiting and not knowing what will happen. Just like hopes were placed on Wills over his father. In the mean time, the waiting game is great because these royals get to have their lavish lifestyle funded by the people. And it’s 2016.

        And Wills has lost all respect as far as I’m concerned. To be able and hob bob with cinema Royalty and talent, but he does not shows just how far his lack of concern goes.

  2. suze says:

    Some of these royal patronages, Wimbledon, BAFTA, seem pretty pointless to me. They are already high profile organizations hosting high profile events. Do they need the additional attention of a royal appearance?

    That said, Wills is the patron so you would think he could be fussed to dress up and show up. Give the darn thing to one of the lesser lights – Prince Edward has a background in theater/movies right? Toss it his way and let Normal Bill shine on, as he does.

    • LAK says:

      Any organisation, no matter it’s size or reach, can have a royal patron. They all apply to their preferred royal and invite them to be their patron. Royal doesn’t have to accept the invitation.

      It’s a pretty poor show to accept a patronage and not show up for events, especially the premiere event of the organisation that you are patroning when you don’t have a good excuse.

      Further, it’ not as if William snubs all BAFTA events. When he is interested, he shows up eg the BOND premiere which was co-hosted by BAFTA thus yielding an automatic invitation for William as BAFTA president.

      Or the time BAFTA laid on a party for Kate and him in LA so that they could meet celebs – seriously that was the only purpose of their LA jaunt.

    • Montréalaise says:

      Yes, I think the BAFTA patronage would be perfect for Edward, but at this stage, taking it away from William and giving it to his younger brother would just remind everyone what a lazy, entitled brat Will is. Not that anyone really needs to be reminded, however.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Montréalaise

        I agree that it should have gone to Edward, but I wonder if William had known that Edward was another option, so he took it himself just to spite Edward or to show him who’s boss. And now that William has it, he’s bored with it. Just like any bullying toddler.

        I think he thought the patronage would make him look glamorous to be connected to such a thing, but then again, he got bored with it and is probably daring BAFTA to complain about him. There’s no way they’re going to try to get rid of him and get another royal because William knows that no other royal will take it if he’s been pushed out. So he’s in a win-win situation. He can have the title, do no work, and nobody can say ‘boo’ to him and nobody else in the family can take it unless he’s done and ready to give it up. Again, he’s a toddler.

      • MacScore says:

        I am really flabbergasted by William’s non-appearance! So many of us normal people do things we don’t really want to do, but we do them because of a sense of obligation, or we have made a promise, or whatever…. For William, who is supposed to be a role model for so many, simply to blow this off not *once* but *two years in a row* should disqualify him from being patron of anything, IMHO. (I mean, seriously, what is wrong with him? Most of us would kill to be invited to an event like that).

        BTW, to Montrealaise: Edward – who would clearly be a better patron, should he choose to accept something that brings him into the public eye – is William’s uncle, not his younger brother. Harry is William’s brother – and he too would be a better choice! (Although I agree that it is unlikely that any other royal would accept it, if Will had been ‘pushed out’ – which also seems unfair….)

  3. LAK says:

    The wording from this year’s excuse from KP was that he ‘was away’ and therefore couldn’t attend.

    ‘away’ being the operative word rather than ‘working’ which would have implied working at EAAA or royal duty.

    Definitely de ja vu of his SAR RAF record where he wasn’t working at SAR or his royal duties, so where is he?

    Sidenote: the DM is doubling down on Kate’s Helo ride. This time they added photos to emphasise her profligate use of tax payer money.

    • PHAKSI says:

      Saying he was “away” leaves too much room for speculation. Was he away with Kate and the kids? Was he away with Harry and his mates on a boys weekend? Was he away with Jecca… Im thinking #PoorJason will be forced to reveal Bill’s exact location

      • Rachel says:

        It was Valentine’s Day. Maybe the damage control will be some fluffy stories about Kate and William on a romantic retreat?

      • India Andrews says:

        The rumors is that William spends a lot of time away from Kate and the kids and Kate’s acceptance of this situation is part of the reason William proposed to her.

        The night of the BAFTAS is a tonedeaf night to chose to spend at home. Typical William. He is the BAFTAs president and he chooses tonight to skip so he can look like a devoted family man who shuns celebrities.

        No William, you skip other nights with less important events to the organization. Or better yet, cram your calendar with non-glamorous events that do real good for people and then, no one cares if you have a red carpet night out.

    • ncboudicca says:

      I bet “away” is code for “drunk off his arse and not able to be seen in public”

      • MinnFinn says:

        Or code for there was heightened security measures for Windsors and they had to be vague. But if bookies were taking bets on this one my money would be on ‘away’ was code for hunting in Spain. Doesn’t he go to Spain around this time of year?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, this was the time of year he was caught hunting in Spain with Harry (and Jecca). Meanwhile, his wife and son were in Mustique. He chose to miss his son’s first romp on the Mustique beaches. 1-2 weeks later, W&K left their 8-month-old for 10 days for a trip to the Maldives.

        As his godfather owns the Spanish estate, William is probably allowed his pick of dates. If he wants to go hunting in February, pick any date other than BAFTAs weekend.

    • anne_000 says:

      The Sun online stated on Feb. 10th, that William was expected to stay in Norfolk during the BAFTA weekend, return to London on Monday night in order to get to his first official engagement of year, which is on Tuesday at the Foreign Office.

      • Betti says:

        That only makes his no show at the BATFA’s, the BIGGEST event of the year for an organisation he is President of, all the more bad. It basically reads that he’s snubbing them. Wonder what #poorjasons fluff excuse explaining it is going to be. They should give the Presidency to someone else in the family – give it back to Anne or Edward/Sophie.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Betti

        I’m beginning to think that the only reason he took this patronage was to seem glamorous and to stick it to Edward, who I think would have LOVED this gig and would have made the Wessexes seem more integral to the image of the BRF as Sophie is also a good asset.

  4. Naya says:

    I hardly think the BAFTAs need Willis attendance to attract any kind of attention or funding for that matter. Plus, I like that he isnt falling over himself to rub elbows with Leo and company. And anyway, his attendance only distracts from the winners. If its such a huge deal for BAFTA, may be they should replace him. I seriously doubt he would care if they did.

    • suze says:

      I don’t think the royal patron goes to the actual awards – I may be wrong but I think they just rub elbows at the pre-event and then go off on their way. I doubt they would be taking attention away from the award winners.

      • lilacflowers says:

        He has been at the film awards before AND made a brief speech, which was basically about how there is so much talent in Britain and how BAFTA shows that talent to the world and so on and so forth, as one does when one is a patron of such a thing.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The royal patron of BAFTA usually hands out a special award. William has done this in the past – so no, it is not just attending but also presenting an award.

      • Betti says:

        He’s President not patron. The President role is much more involved, they are usually quite involved in promoting the British film/tv industry at home and abroad – neither of which Normal Bill has been doing. Plus its usually the President that gives out the special, lifetime achievement awards.

    • Betsy says:

      It may be an unnecessary part of his job, but it’s pa of his job. I don’t remember any job where I was able to decide unilaterally not to do stuff.

      • Naya says:

        I hear you but its also a job he was born into, clearly hates and is stuck with (unless he is willing to have his grandma and dad disown him). I am not a sadist. If somebody hates doing something and we can live without him doing that thing, then I say “God speed” to that person and get on with my day.

      • Rachel says:

        I think you and I have very different definitions of ‘sadism’. Getting dressed up, having a couple of glasses of champagne and making small talk with movie stars is not sadism, especially not if it’s one brisk, chauffeured luxury car ride away from your multi-million pound London house.

      • Naya says:

        @Rachel

        I’m using the standard definition of sadistic i.e. pleasure from another persons misery. We should just respect that people are different and the thing that you think would be a heavenly experience maybe unpleasant and even miserable for another person. Especially when they know this is what they have to look forward to for the rest of their lives, unless they trigger another family/constitutional/international event. I sympathise with him however unfashionable that may be here.

      • Rachel says:

        It is his job. He is paid by the British taxpayers, 98% of whom survive on much less than he does in jobs they do not enjoy and are stuck with until their 60s, to simply turn up, shake hands and make small talk at events which he has pre-approved.

        If he doesn’t feel he can deal with that responsibility, William could easily remove himself from the line of succession and live off his trust fund. Would it ruffle feathers? Yes, of course, but if he truly does struggle so badly with these events, then I – and most of the British people – would prefer he did that than continued taking our hard-earned money for half-assing the bare minimum of his obligations. Would his family disown him? The Queen probably wouldn’t be happy, but it would save the horrendous PR crisis the BRF is facing with William and Kate at the moment, and consequently it would reassure the BRF’s future.

      • Montréalaise says:

        @naya – A lot of people work at jobs they don’t particularly enjoy, simply because they have to. Do you think the waitress in a diner or a coal miner are absolutely thrilled by what they do? They do it because they have to support their families – and they earn far, far less than William does. If he doesn’t enjoy going to gala events, perhaps he can balance it by doing work he does enjoy – such as promoting worthwhile charities, the way his father does. Of course, that would probably be seen as “too much work” too.

      • Sixer says:

        I think you have an arguable general point, naya. (Much as it pains me to say it). William *could* bow out. But it would be a nightmare. And whatever he does, he’s under a microscope he was born to be under. No choice about it.

        But you don’t have an arguable specific point. Normal Bill can pick and choose any patronage under the sun. Or no patronage at all. Since he took this one on, he can’t argue with censure if he doesn’t fulfil his obligations.

    • LAK says:

      Naya, the only inevitable part of his position is the head of state part.

      He is not required to take on a Patronage he doesn’t like nor is he required to keep it if it turns out he made a mistake in accepting it.

      The blow back wouldn’t be as catastrophic as his resignation from the line of succession which BTW is also an option he retains despite his woe-is-me attitude about his position.

      No one is forcing him to do anything.

      • Naya says:

        “No one is forcing him to do anything.”

        If you were talking about an obscure charity, perhaps. With a major organisation like this there is bound to be coercion and pressure. And I’m sure part of the sale pitch includes a “we wont impose, we just need your name and whenever you are so minded maybe you could come”. I think Will is good at resisting pressure but in his position he cant say no to everything and everybody.

        Like I said, if those photo ops are such a big deal to Bafta, they should get a new patron. Pretty sure he wont lose sleep over that. I dont think too many people will care actually.

      • Aussie girl says:

        I agree with you all regarding no one forcing him. I suppose I’m seeking an opinion on whether he just doesn’t want the position as the successor to the throne ..? Or whether he wants the position but doesn’t want the work that goes with it. I realise no one really knows just curious on people’s thoughts.

      • LAK says:

        Naya, the man’s entire attitude to anything remotely royal duty or charity or Patroning repeatedly demonstrates that no one is pressuring him or forcing him to do anything he doesn’t want to do. To extent that he repeatedly brags about his own refusal to take on anything he doesn’t want to do, as recently as the last summer when he took up his co-pilot post at EAAA and gave an interview whereby he reiterated that other people in the royal family could/should carry on without him AND he intended to be a part time royal even as Monarch.

        The fact that both Kate and him aren’t being forced to take on more patronages despite all other working royals being 50yrs+, majority in poor health, shows that there is no pressure on him to take these things on.

        …..but you are right, BAFTA has had a royal and non royal Patron in the past, so it isn’t a big deal to them not to have one now.

        However, since they’ve created a stink about this – Chris Evans had a rant about it on his Radio One show as well – it will be very embarrassing if they un-Patron him and make it clear why.

        Aussie-Girl: my view is that he wants the perks without the responsibility or the work. Simultaneously, he wants to be King, but only if he has absolute control to do and order as he wishes. No compromising. Even if it makes him and those around him unhappy.

        On the general work front, he isn’t willing to do the work, is quite happy for others to pick up the slack.

        Someone recently described him as quite Royal in the context of his relationships with those around him which brings to mind Margaret (and Charles)’s insistence that those around her treat her as royal even as she was simply relaxing amongst them.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The BAFTAs don’t need William. He was not required to accept, but as he did, he is required to support the organization at their biggest event of the year. Simple.

        Wiliam’s woe is me attitude has been going on for over a decade. As stated, he can remove himself and his children at any time. If he chooses to stay, he needs to do the job for which he is so richly recompensed. The more he fritters away playing these games, the stronger the calls for him to be removed will become. He always wants thing to be his way and his choice – but this choice can be removed from him by the people.

      • anne_000 says:

        If the theory is that William was forced into being BAFTA’s patron/president, that BAFTA and BP have the power to pick Royal patrons against their will, that only BAFTA can release a Royal patron from patronage and then pick another poor, unwilling Royal and thus it’s William’s only way to get freed from BAFTA, then is William’s boycotting of BAFTA events a passive-aggressive way to get himself released from this hellhole that is BAFTA prison?

        And that the only reason he showed up to the Bond movie premiere/BAFTA fundraiser was to show the international media that he’s still alive and still held captive and needs rescuing?

  5. Jade says:

    Nothing new to say about Willnot but why do the BAFTAS even need a royal patron at this point. Any dedicated famous celeb(s) can help raise funds for the charity arm or whatever they need a patron for. Do British or UK people donate more when there is a royal patron? I know some posters here have debunked the need for royals for tourist dollars.

    • LAK says:

      He became Patron when his stock was really high and his work ethic unknown beyond the Palace spin doctors.

      BAFTA’s previous Patron, Richard Attenborough, had resigned, so they thought a young, dazzling Royal Patron would spread gold dust on the organisation.

      This mistaken belief in William and Kate is something their patronages/charities are finding out to their cost.

      • Anett says:

        I find it surprising that he didn’t show up with Kate. Last time in America they were more than keen on having some parties and shaking famous hands. :-)

        Time is changing for sure. Maybe there was no train service on Sunday or the heli was out of order. I suppose the latter is true:-))

      • Betti says:

        I thought he was President which is more involved than being a Patron.

      • Katydid20 says:

        I’m surprised Kate isn’t tripping over herself to go to this. I mean she “dragged herself away from the kids” to meet Angelina Jolie, you’d think she’d be begging to show up to a room full of celebrities.

      • LAK says:

        Betti: it’s confusingly not clarified by either party. BAFTA says he is President and the BRF website (and the royal Foundation) describes him as Patron.

        Perhaps that’s where the confusion as far as his attitude towards them lies.

        That is to say, he thinks he is Patron and operates as such whereas they think he is president and expect him to operate as such.

      • Betti says:

        LAK – that is odd and he is referred to as President of BAFTA on the official Royal site and BAFTA wouldn’t refer to him as President on their site if it wasn’t true.

        http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/PrinceWilliam/Charitiesandpatronages.aspx

        He’s a a lazy f***er.

      • LAK says:

        Betti – my mistake. I read the paragraph above the list of patronages that describes all of the listed items as PATRONAGES. The list is more detailed, didn’t read that.

      • bluhare says:

        Hey, Anett, nice to see you!!!

      • Anett says:

        Hi Bluhare!

        I have been lurking around lately. I can see there are a lot of like minded people here. Though there are extremities but where aren’t.
        Still enjoy some very interesting discussion. Hope to hear you too. But I know it depends on the subject, let’s hope she gives us a lot to discuss this year!!!

    • anne_000 says:

      This excerpt is from The Express, written by Richard Palmer (on 1/26/16), about the BRF cutting down the number of royal patronages due to QE2 and PP getting too old to keep up the pace and because Charles/W&K/Harry can’t/won’t pick up the slack.

      It explains the benefit of a royal patronage :

      Rob Cope, who spent eight years working for the Trust before becoming director of Remember A Charity, sounded a warning note for those who lose royal patronage.

      He said: “What royal patronages have always done is give that royal stamp of approval. Royal charities are generally better trusted than those without royal patrons because people know that they have been checked out properly.

      “If it were the case that fewer charities were to be supported or have royal patrons, then obviously that is going to have an impact on the public’s trust.”

      • Timbuktu says:

        Do the BAFTAs really need legitimacy, though? They are not a small charity start-up, nor do they really need donations, do they? At least, not from the regular folk.

      • LAK says:

        Timbuktu: BAFTA (award shows aside) is a charity. It relies on a combination of member subscriptions, fundraisers and donations from private individuals and corporate entities. It claims not to receive any govt. Subsidies, but since we can’t look at their books, we have to believe them.

        It’s achieved a level of glamour that masks the fact that it is a charity always in need of sponsorship. It’s not as wealthy as it appears. Infact the BAFTA building is really shabby. It doesn’t have a permanent income generating endowment like Great Ormond Hospital which has the rights to ‘Peter Pan’ in perpetuity.

        As an example, for the past 15yrs the film awards show has been sponsored by a telecommunications company, used to be Orange, now EE network.

        Therefore, a royal patronage helps it maintain that spotlight to keep the donations coming.

  6. Shambles says:

    Doesn’t Duchess Kate live for these kinds of things? The ‘celebrity’ aspect, the galas? He couldn’t even have sent her in his place? It looks as if he’s not even trying to act like he cares about his position at this point, and it’s annoying to someone stateside and infuriating for those of you across the pond, I’m sure. He would probably rather end a centuries-old monarchy than think of someone other than himself.

    • MinnFinn says:

      I agree they really love rubbing elbows with Hollywood. William was visibly giddy when he arrived at his NYC hotel last winter with Kate. Those 2 posed for photographers grinning like cheshire cats.

      So yeah, my theory is that he and Kate both would have shown up last night for a celeb they’ve always wanted to meet.

      • Citresse says:

        Well, as someone pointed out, it was Valentine’s Day. Maybe he and Kate had a (planned) romantic dinner together? At least their marriage doesn’t seem to be a three year marriage of Charles and Diana. And when I think of Fergie, Kate doesn’t seem so bad. But she should have taken a train back to Norfolk.

      • LAK says:

        Citresse, Fergie vacationed a lot, but she was never as lazy as Kate.

        Kate is also in the favoured position of being married to the heir. That means that should the editors decide to set up a saintly Diana vs sinner Fergie tabloid narrative for Kate and whom ever as they admit to doing for the two women, Kate will be in the Diana position. Always. She won’t be set up to look bad as Fergie was.

        Finally, Kate takes helicopters like buses. So does William. In their private and public lives. They’ve been caught out a few times where it’s been specifically highlighted, BUT if you read articles about Kate’s engagements, there is always a throw away remark about her transportation and more often than not, Helicopters are involved even when it’s not necessary. To extent that royal reporters have joked about the frequency of use and who pays for it – here is a clue; helicopter/private jet/first class travel = tax payers or private friends/relatives. Budget airlines/trains/cars = WK’s own pockets.

    • anne_000 says:

      They also got Jolie and Pitt to show up to KP to pay them homage.

  7. my3cents says:

    Of all the events he snubbed, this is the strangest. Seeing how they were so keen to meet Hollywood celebrities during their tour.
    I’m still trying to think of a logical (per Williams world) explanation for this.

  8. The Original Mia says:

    William truly doesn’t give a f&ck. Why in the world doesn’t he just remove himself and his family. Just live a life devoid of expectations and royal obligations. The BAFTAs, like so many of his and her patronages need to cut them loose. Get people involved who truly care.

    • anne_000 says:

      I think he’s waiting to get the Duke of Cornwall position so that he can get his hands on the Duchy money.

      • Betti says:

        Yes and the Middletons will be angling to get their grasping hands on the Duchy Originals business chain for their new venture Amner Organics.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Betti

        Yup, once the Middletons get that retail access, they can get all their products into the major store chains or else face the wrath of William.

      • Betti says:

        ^ Yep and we’ll also have overpriced Party Pieces tat and Boomphf Marshmallows shoved in our faces in every aisle in Waitrose. Watch out Waitrose shoppers – the Middletons are coming.

  9. Betti says:

    The excuse that he was ‘busy’ is dodgy on so many levels – he wasn’t working and he probably wasn’t at home. I suspect that he and Waity were probably on a mini vacation or he was off partying on his own somewhere.

    It all usually comes out in the wash.

  10. India says:

    What a jerk.

  11. Jaded says:

    He really has turned out to be SUCH a huge disappointment. Diana would be embarrassed by his lack of work ethic, his sense of superiority and entitlement, his hypocrisy (I’m just Normal Bill) and his choice of wife.

  12. Sarah01 says:

    The BRF needs to cease to exist. How is a monarchy relevant these days.
    I thought he would better at performing his duties, but seems like he wants all the perks and with no work, his wife is the same.

  13. Citresse says:

    This is why I never understood William’s critics with regard to him wanting to be all Hollywood ie wanting royal gigs with celebs only.
    I think William doesn’t like the responsibilities of being King and I believe the seed Diana planted many years ago with regard to how she showed William how the poor of UK are attempting to survive, took root.

    • LAK says:

      I don’t think Diana taught him anything.

      In the past he has shown that he is more likely to turn out when Hollywood/Galas/goodies are involved.

      He has barely worked with his less than stellar charities except for Centre Point.

      Ultimately, which ever side we all think he prefers, he has shown that he is only interested in himself. Everything is arranged, including by Kate and the Middletons, to make *him* feel better.

      • Citresse says:

        I did see the additional write up from the DM re- Kate’s trip back to Amner by helicopter. She did change clothes but it seems she likes to travel in style. Someone pointed out Kate wouldn’t have any say in this. William the control freak again?

      • Betti says:

        Lets not forget his sporting ones that he gives or has given a lot of time to in the past – remember the time he got involved in England’s bid to host the World Cup and wasn’t he involved in some capacity for the Olympic bid as well (thou that was mostly Lord Coe – who i still would. *hangs head in shame*).

      • notasugarhere says:

        Of course she had a say in it, it would have been her decision. Her taking the helo shows how little time she is willing to put towards any work. Take a train like a normal mother, NEVER. She would have agreed to do the event and told her staff how many seconds she was willing to put in as her “work day”.

        Her husband wouldn’t have dictated “You must take the helo”. I doubt he cares much about what she does daily, as long as he isn’t bothered by it and he doesn’t have to listen to her complaining about taking a train. He gets to live his life the way he wants and she chooses to put up with it.

      • LAK says:

        Citresse: as mentioned upthread, yes Kate likes to travel in style. So does William. Helicopters/private jets, preferably paid for by other people.

        I remember an engagement she had during her early years in the family. She was late, stayed for 45mins, wouldn’t eat lunch with the kids and TOOK A HELICOPTER TO A POLO MATCH straight after the engagement.

        And with regards how these things are arranged, what Nota says is very true.

        Infact, if we are blaming William for this, look at it this way. Every time William pops up or calls Kate, she drops everything and runs to him. Be it work (that risible jigsaw job) or charity (that boat race) or royal duties (cancelled engagements when he came home from Falklands).

        Based on previous form, as seen every year since she became his GF, if she chose to use the helo as the easiest way to minimise her time away from Anmer, then there is a very strong chance that William was home. And she’s all about William and his needs.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I see no evidence that he cares for what the average citizen is going through, and even less for the disadvantaged. He has no concept of what “normal” is. If he cared, he’d be out there everyday working for Centrepoint, raising money, working with the Prince Trust employment schemes, working to raise money for flood victims, etc.

      He likes celebrity events. He likes calling the shots. He likes taking credit for other people’s work (Invictus, his umbrella charity for conservation). He likes doing the least possible and getting away with it.

      • Citresse says:

        Maybe William likes the sporting events because he’s secretly betting? You know it wouldn’t surprise me- he would have all kinds of inside info and you know Kate’s uncle Goldsmith. William the mob king and he’s known to be so cheap, I bet he hasn’t touched one penny of his inheritance from Diana.

    • Jaded says:

      The “seed” Diana planted in her boys was that hard work and empathy to bring focus to the sick and underprivileged, the jobless and homeless was the duty of the BRF. Apparently Harry got the message….Willnot, not so much.

  14. Murphy says:

    he is legit the WORST

  15. Anare says:

    Harry would have showed up, looked great and had a blast. Honestly, what is with William? He or his handlers make some really poor decisions. Yay that Wills shows up for causes for the poor and working class (although he doesn’t exactly bust his ass there either) but he needs to do the glitzy appearances too. It’s part of the show, pal!

  16. vava says:

    I think the time has come to ignore this man and his lazy wife. The press should just step away, and the organizations should stop inviting him to functions.

    • anne_000 says:

      I hope the passive-aggressive criticisms from the media continue. It’s fun to read between the lines and see how well the British do snark.

      • Betti says:

        The British press are masters at passive aggressive snark – its how they get their point across without actually offending or alienating anyone.

        Am always a bit surprised at how the Mids still go to the Fail considering the snarky articles that they have written about them over the years. Thou they seem to also be the only ones willing to give them the time of day.

      • LAK says:

        Betti: the current Editor of the Mail on Sunday used to advise the Middletons on their press relations prior to Kate marrying in.

        Perhaps they continue to maintain that relationship so that he doesn’t authorise a mail on sunday expose and in exchange they give the DM inconsequential titbits?

  17. lunchcoma says:

    He confuses me. Shouldn’t this be a relatively fun thing to attend? I’m not even British, and I’d happily show up to the BAFTAs if someone got me a ticket and paid for airfare.

  18. Queen B says:

    I do not get the fuss about William not attending the BAFTA awards. Although, he did not attend the start studded event, he did go to the funeral of a close family friend a few days ago who died tragically. It seems to me he has his priorities in order. We all know if it was Harry and not William who chose to honor of fallen friend , he would be praised for his honor and compassion. People think William/Kate are obsessed with celebrity but their absence from the BAFTA events shows otherwise.

    http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20395222_20986607,00.html
    Prince William paid his respects at the funeral of his inspiring friend, Henry Worlsey, who died last month during a solo expedition across the Antarctic. The royal, who wore a navy blue suit and tie, shared a comforting hug with Worsley’s widow, Joanna, and shared his condolences with the couple’s children, Max and Alicia, at St James’s Church in Knightsbridge, London. Worsley, 55, died Jan. 24 in a hospital in Chile from “complete organ failure” after falling ill just 30 miles from the intended end of his trek in the footsteps of explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton. Vowing to make sure Worsley’s wife and two children receive the support “they need at this terribly difficult time,” William said, “He was a man who showed great courage and determination and we’re incredibly proud to be associated with him.” “Even after retiring from the Army, Henry continued to show selfless commitment to his fellow servicemen and women by undertaking this extraordinary Shackelton solo expedition on their behalf,” the prince continued.

    • bluhare says:

      Worsley was crossing Antarctica to benefit the Endeavour Fund, which William and Harry are associated with. I do not know if he was a close family friend. Either way, the funeral was a few days ahead of the BAFTAs so not sure what your argument is there. There wasn’t a time conflict.

    • Betti says:

      All this does is show that he was in London and could have shown face at Sunday’s event – the funeral was the day before the BAFTA ceremony and the dinner was on Sat eve. He is scheduled to appear at an event tomorrow for the Foreign Office in London and was reported yesterday to be in Norfolk until today – so he could have easily stayed in his massive house in Kensington Palace. So to recap he was in London on Sat, went back to Norfolk after the funeral only to return to London a day later for his first public engagement of the year. It def reads that he was avoiding anything to do with the biggest event in the year for an organisation that he is President of – how ‘normal’ of him. Plus that some carbon footprint he’s got going.

      He still could’ve at least attended one of the 2 events.

    • suze says:

      I have attended funerals of those close to me and then gone back to work the next day, indeed, sometimes I return to work right after the funeral and finish out the day.

      I know, I am super amazing but I am just showing it can be done.

    • LAK says:

      Henry Worsley, the guy who died wasn’t a personal friend though they may have been friendly. He was merely a member of a charity that William Patroned. William went to the funeral in his capacity as Patron and it has been added to the CC as a work engagement.

  19. shannon` says:

    Whenever this comes up, the vile always baffles me. Let’s not forget – he didn’t *run* for prince. He didn’t apply for it. He was born into it, he didn’t have a choice. Clearly, it’s not really his cup of tea. If I had been *born* into being something I wasn’t particularly good at or enjoyed, I’m sure I’d end up focusing my attentions elsewhere and doing as little as I could get away with on something I had been, basically, forced to do. I think he just wants to have a normal life, but that’s never really been possible for him, but he tries. And imo, there’s nothing wrong with that. it’d be different if this were an elected position that he’d campaigned for. Just because dressing up and going to fancy dinners and hobnobbing with celebrities sounds like fun to some people, it sounds like an absolute nightmare to me, and he and Kate may very well feel the same.

    • Deedee says:

      Will has known the expectations since he was born. It should be easy for him to embrace them; Harry is the one who you would think would be faffing about, since he is the 2nd son without a well defined role. Kate signed on for this, presumably knowing there are responsibilities along with the perks. Will can step aside if he’s decided not to be a prince. It’s happened before.

    • suze says:

      Kate actively campaigned for this role. I don’t think of her as an innocent victim who has been unjustly saddled with duties that are onerous. LOL. Nor William.

      As far as William’s patronage of the BAFTAs goes, he could resign from it or discreetly work to turn it over to someone else.

      They both like the perks. They don’t like the work.

    • LAK says:

      He may have been born into it, he didn’t have to stick with it. Especially as it becomes complicated by children whose future in or out he has to consider OR when he is given perks at each new phase of his life that brings him closer to the throne.

      The very least, and easily done, he
      1. could have married a catholic
      2. or encouraged Kate to convert to catholicism before he married her
      3. or personally convert to catholicism before the law was changed just before first baby was born.

      It would have taken him out of the line without any fuss or crisis.

      We’ve had the legislation banning catholics from the throne since the 17th century.

      Even now, he can still step out of the line. It would be harder due to his more complicated life, but it can be done.

      BTW, in recent times, 2 European Princes have stepped out of the line of succession to marry for love ie woman didn’t fit the legal/religious criteria of the wife of a direct heir to the throne:

      In 2003, it Prince Johan of the Netherlands gave up his place in line to the throne,

      in 2015, Prince Amadeo of Belguim effectively eloped ie He didn’t ask for official permission to marry.

      Another way William could have stepped out of the line. He could have eloped with Kate and viola! No more heir in waiting.

  20. Fireweaver says:

    Actually, he can’t just give it up. The only ways are Acts of Parliament (they had to accept the Duke of Windsor ‘s abdication and pass an act, or he’d still have been king. ) or William becomes Catholic. He can’t just peace out! for himself and his kids.

    • Ollie says:

      Let’s face it the “acts of parliament reason” is bs. This means nothing in our times. If Willy says bye the parliament will say “ok, we’ll find a way to do it without big scandal”. They have no choice! They cannot deny him this. They cannot say no! What could they do? Nothing. They cannot imprison him. They cannot force him to dress up and cut a ribbon or hold a speech. If Willy doesn’t want to play along then they can do nothing. He doesn’t even need to leave his house.
      Letting him go is better than the PR disaster of an absent, sulking King who will cry in every interview about his hard life.

  21. wow says:

    Further shows that no one can force these people to do anything they don’t wish to. The BAFTA managed to go on successfully without his presence as usual. Besides, I have a feeling that even if William had made an appearance there, some would still find fault;in that. “Oh he can show up for celebrity filled events but not …blah blah blah.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They should fire him as president. And if he’d shown up, he would have gotten praise from some for finally showing up.

    • hmmm says:

      “some would still find fault;in that. “Oh he can show up for celebrity filled events but not …blah blah blah. ”

      And it would still be true.

  22. Deedee says:

    Well, Normal Bill got a little sun wherever he was when he wasn’t at the BAFTAs. Unless he’s into self tanner. Just saw some pictures from this morning’s engagement.

  23. amelia says:

    why do people celebrate “royals” who are the very definition of corruption and entitlement. My guess is because Hollywood glorifies them. They are no different from rest of us mortals.
    it is rather funny that one day an adulterer is going to be the “supreme ruler” of the church of England , the same institution which mocked Charles Darwin!

    • notasugarhere says:

      The founder of the Church of England only founded it so he could divorce his Catholic wife and marry his pregnant mistress. Henry VIII the king of personal relationship ethics.

      Charles isn’t going to be the people’s husband, he’s going to be their king. Roughly half of marriages in the UK end in divorce, so I cannot see this being an issue.