Duchess Kate ‘is not a clothes horse’ or ‘silent mannequin’ says Vogue editor


What’s more annoying: the Duchess of Cambridge spending more than £61,852 on clothes for a royal tour (which no one gave a sh-t about) or being told that despite the fact that Kate is a well-documented shopaholic, she’s really not interested in being a “clothes horse”? Like, is the reality of Kate’s work-shyness and spendthrift ways more annoying, or is the counter-programming propaganda more annoying? That’s what I can’t decide. British Vogue editor Alexandra Shulman has given yet another interview and she’s still talking about Kate. Previously, she admitted that Kate’s Vogue cover didn’t even outsell Cara Delevingne’s cover, and Shulman also tried to push a narrative that Kate is merely a horsey, countrified aristocrat who is only truly comfortable when she’s out in the country, not working or being glamorous. What’s Shulman saying now? Kate isn’t a clothes horse, she’s not merely a clothes hanger. And these are not the droids you’re looking for. *Jedi mind trick*

She’s a fashion icon with the power to make outfits sell out within days of wearing them in public. But the despite her style credentials, the Duchess of Cambridge is determined not to be seen as a ‘clothes horse’, according to Vogue’s Alexandra Shulman. The long-standing editor who appeared on today’s Lorraine show opened up about why Kate, 34, did not opt for high fashion for her Vogue cover shoot earlier this year. Presenter Helen Skelton, who is standing in for Lorraine, referred back to Princess Diana’s glamorous Vogue covers, noting that Kate had opted for a very different style.

‘I can’t really speak for her but in my experience it was I think it was very much her feeling that she wanted to be what she felt she was comfortable with being,’ Alexandra said. ‘She is not a clothes horse. The idea that she is a kind of silent mannequin that just wants to put on expensive clothes is so not what she is. And I think she wanted this cover to reflect that.’

Alexandra, 58, also revealed that Kate had initially turned down the request to be a Vogue cover star.

‘Probably every magazine in the world had asked her if she would be on the cover, I should think,’ she said. ‘I had certainly asked her before. And it was only when I was writing to her saying: “It’s our centenary, it’s our 100 years of Vogue and we do have kind of a history of being able to feature the royal family” that I realised we had another connection.’

[From The Daily Mail]

“I think it was very much her feeling that she wanted to be what she felt she was comfortable with being.” As in, no one – not all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, not the entire staff of British Vogue – simply no one can convince Kate to try to be a little bit glamorous. No one could get her to take off that stupid hat. No one could get her to put on a British-made gown. Part of me thinks that Shulman knows she’s telling lies and pushing Kate’s ridiculous agenda, that she’s just a country girl and not the kind of woman who skips out on “work” after less than an hour to go shopping.



Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet and British Vogue.

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

195 Responses to “Duchess Kate ‘is not a clothes horse’ or ‘silent mannequin’ says Vogue editor”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Bichon says:

    What does it matter if she is a clothes horse?

    • Lorelai says:

      It matters because her wardrobe is funded by the British taxpayers and she doesn’t do nearly enough work to justify the amount spent on clothing.

    • emilybyrd says:

      It doesn’t matter. She should just own up to it. But she makes me tired with her trying to act like she cares about much besides swanning around in different designer clothes all the time. How stupid does she think we are? She’s a clothes horse, pure and simple.

  2. Hannah says:

    Ok, Kate didn’t wanted to be a Vogue cover.

  3. Fran says:

    Way harsh, Tai.

  4. littlemissnaughty says:

    That is news to me. And, you know, Vogue is the perfect platform if you’re uninterested in fashion or celebrity and want the world to know that. There is no eyeroll strong enough for this drivel.

    I feel like one of the things everyone can agree on – whether they like her or not – is that she loves to shop. She IS a clothes horse. Maybe she isn’t stylish but that’s a different issue.

    • INeedANap says:

      I wonder if it’s not so much that she likes to shop, but she doesn’t know what else to do. Because her fashion is cute at best, boring at worst. Her terrible shoe and jewelry game! Those jeggings! Her coat-dress uniform! If all she does is shop how is that not reflected in her outings?

      I believe she doesn’t know how to occupy her time now that she got the guy. Hence the behbehs.

    • Hannah says:

      Loving to shop is very different than actually having a nice style and Kate is blend. How do you wanna be a fashion icon and keep wearing those boring nude pumps and jeggings??
      Other “less famous” royals dress way better and they actually work, so no excuse.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      One of the issues i have with her style is the thing she has of wearing clothes that are out of season or if they are current season she has it tailored. Its like she’s deliberately trying to be non relatable to the people funding her lifestyle, she wants people to know that she’s different to them, that she’s better as she’s going to be our Queen Consort. Its the same with how she likes to flash big blue around, she’s rubbing everyones noses with her prize (such as he is). She doesn’t quite realise that she only got him cause no one else wanted him.

      • bluhare says:

        I read she has said she doesn’t like seeing people in what she wears which is why she wears out of season things so people can’t go out and buy them.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        @Bluehare – yes i have read that as well and if its true then she should stop wearing those ugly LK Bennet nude shoes and those super tight Zara jeggings as everyone and their mother is wearing them.

      • Seraphina says:

        Bluhare, all I can say is wow. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. That speaks volumes about her. Now I see what Will saw in her and what she sees in will.

      • Beluga says:

        Bluhare, I read somewhere that it was to exaggerate ‘The Kate Effect’. If she buys something, holds onto it until the next season, then wears it… shock! It’s sold out! Everyone must be rushing to buy it and look like Kate!

      • A says:

        I don’t have an issue with the tailoring thing tbh. Lots of royal families in Europe do that, or have custom made outfits for their engagements. For me, it’s an issue of fit. What you’re wearing has to fit well, and that’s not automatically guaranteed when you take it off the rack and put it on (a lot of fashion I’ve seen on royal ladies deals with bad fitting, and it drives me crazy because c’mon). Her position demands that she look impeccable and tailored, and I’m not going to go at her for that because to me, that’s not her problem at all here. She’s just got bad fashion sense in general that good tailoring can’t fix.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Bluhare, I’ve read that too, but in reality she doesn’t wear past-season stuff the majority of the time. There’s been a few times when it’s happened, but supposedly she likes to shop at Bicester Outlets.

        Besides, eBay exists, so if people want to dress like her, they will, regardless of what season a particular item is from. 🙄

        And the tailoring is so obviously done to try and alter the appearance of her waistline since we know she’s not fond of her long torso, but it’s always so poorly executed and on dresses that weren’t meant to look the way she ends up making them look…

        She’s really not very bright, is she!

    • Sharon Lea says:

      ITA with everyone. Anyone remember reading, was it in Katie Nicholls book on Kate, that she shopped 1 day every week when dating William, that she almost ‘needed’ to because of the different types of things she might need to be dressed for. And I thought she shopped in London primarily. If she started that in her 20s, I doubt she’d suddenly not want to shop. This description from Vogue is hard to believe.

    • Greywacke says:

      NOTA, please note that being a mother is work. Hard work. I’d rather work than be a mother.

      • Sarah says:

        It isn’t hard when you have a nanny or two. And a housekeeper. And a number of people who organize your life. She isn’t doing any of this without a huge amount of help. Please.

      • LAK says:

        Why do people forget she has a huge staff to help her? At the last count over 30.

        She’s not cooking, cleaning, shopping, managing a household, arranging activities, balancing finances or anything that occupies everyone else whether they are a SAHM, working parents, childless people.

        She has a household staff to wait on her everyday, to cater to her every day needs as well as office staff to take care of her professional needs.

        She’s not taking care of her husband because he has his own staff to take care of his needs.

        Plus she has a full time, live in nanny to look after them. Said nanny is always present even when Kate is doing mundane stuff with the kids.

        Not to mention a very present grannie who we are told is in charge of the kids to extent that WK take frequent couples only breaks at regular intervals.

        Motherhood under those circumstances isn’t hard. It’s reduced to fun parent at all times. Ditto housewifery and marriage in general.

  5. PHAKSI says:

    Did Kate kidnap Shulman’s dog or something? The consensus was that the pictures were underwhelming. Some royal watchers (myself included) thought they were Kate’s attempt at Jecca cosplay. We’ve moved on, why is she bringing them up again and bending over backwards to defend Kate?

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      I think this is Shulman trying to justify the bad sales and mediocre PR it got at the time, plus anyone with eyes can see the shoot was awful, the fact that she styled herself for a Vogue cover is just, well i don’t have the words. I would say British Vogue seem embarrassed by it – particularly as it was the anniversary edition.

      She seems to have upped the Jecca cosplay lately, something must be up with the fairytale marriage.

      • mbh12 says:

        Well said Digital Unicorn. Something is up with Shulman. She might be catching hell behind the scenes for putting out such a mediocre issue and letting Kate have so much control over things. Even the hair looks awful imo, like a weave not combed through enough.

        Why Shulman had to say that Cara only sold just because it was Sept ,was sort of a bitchy thing to say too.

        Shulman must want to be Kate’s friend or something. otherwise I don’t get why she is keeping up the defensiveness tone in her comments and the putting down of Princess Diana or Supermodel Cara D. in order to make excuses for Kate’s lackluster.

      • Sharon Lea says:

        “I think this is Shulman trying to justify the bad sales and mediocre PR it got at the time…” Excellent point, I agree.

        Is the press so limited by who gets what access, or there are so few events they attend, that when W&K do a one off, the rest of the press won’t cover it to spite them? Remember that weird editing gig Kate did for a day for the Huffington Post, barely a whisper of coverage.

      • wolfpup says:

        The “Jecca-style” – Hilarious that this woman cannot be anything other than Willy’s dream.

    • Lindsay says:


      I think she is filling in a spot on a program similar to The View. Plus, there is a documentary coming out about the making of the 100th anniversary issue. Although nothing about the cover is featured it is just a surprise reveal at the end. So it isn’t like she started talking completely out of the blue.

    • HH says:

      “Jecca Cosplay” is SO ACCURATE. Kudos to whomever put that together. I remember seeing the photos and something about them looked…unnatural. It was too try-hard, while at the same time boring.

      Also, there is something infuriating and logically disconnected about two high-profile royals constantly insisting on there love of a private, low-key, country lifestyle. Something that everyone knows is not only impossible, but disrespectful to the other members of the royal family and the British people. Letting the rest of the BRF do the heavy-lifting and also letting the public fund a lifestyle in which you only want the perks, but offer nothing in return.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The rest of the royals live low-key country lifestyles, raised their kids quietly in the country, and worked circles around W&K. Hundreds of engagements a year while having and raising young children. All the other members of this family have been working parents, but the “normal” and “modern” W&K refuse to be.

      • A says:

        What aggravates me most about Will especially is how he’s legit out and out said that he doesn’t feel like he needs to do much because the elders in his family are carrying a lot of the weight.

        When you’re talking about your 90 year old grandma doing more work than you and how that’s okay and how that justifies your own lazy bones behaviour, then there’s something terribly wrong with you. I speak for myself, but I wasn’t raised like that. You don’t wait for your older counterparts to come by and hand you the reins. You take the initiative. You go to THEM. You ask them, “What can I do?” not wait around for, “Here’s what you do.” The fact that he hasn’t learned that is so very telling about the lack of limits set and how many miles he’s taken from the small inches given to him because of the incidents in his life.

      • Sarah says:

        A says,
        I teach some kids like William – on a much lower scale. Raised with lots of money, no boundaries, can never be corrected – it can turn a good kid into a terrible person. One graduate like that just was arrested for a hit and run – he thought he could get away with it because daddy will take care of it. I think William is a pretty selfish and arrogant man.

      • Mae says:

        Lol they’re clueless. Not sure why Will turned out this way; maybe @Sarah is right and it’s the affluenza that’s got him in its grip. He got the lazy version instead of the criminal version. All they’re interested in is being part of the idle rich, that’s what they mean when they say ‘normal’. Well how many monarchy enthusiasts are there left, really? Using taxes to fund them and their wardrobes when the return is not all that much . . how long can that last? I’ve read Charles is less popular than the Queen . .

    • BTownGirl says:

      Jecca cosplay hahahahaha!! Stick a fork in me, I’m done 😉

    • Lorelai says:

      Good question, Phaksi! Clearly this wasn’t a career high for her, so why on earth is she still beating the topic to death?! Let it go. As you said, we all did.

      It sounds like she feels the need to defend herself, but it’s best to just not speak of it anymore, because now we’re all rehashing how bad it was!

  6. Tina says:

    Well then, what the hell is she? She’s not a humanitarian, she doesn’t like to work. Without clothes and shopping, what on earth are her interests?

    • Sixer says:

      Being the subject of a PR blitzkrieg?

      Cos that’s the only thing I can think of. It’s like a full frontal assault of absolute nonsense at the moment. I feel infantilised by the whole thing, frankly, and it’s really starting to get on my nerves. I think Shulman should go away, far far away.

      • LAK says:

        I started commenting on royal threads because of the PR blitz.

        What made it worse was that people usually believed it.

        It’s taken some time, but i think most people can see through the PR blitz now.

      • Tina says:

        Yeah, she’s protesting far, far too much. I’m starting to prefer Wintour, and I despise Wintour (I do envy her access to Roger Federer, though).

      • vava says:

        The PR is why I started following this chick, because it was so off-base and ridiculous.

      • wolfpup says:

        She will always be the subject of a PR blitzkrieg. She is ridiculous, for marrying into the royal family, with nothing but shopping, on her mind.

    • Yehan says:

      Her interests are dieting and keeping William happy.

    • Amelia says:

      Vis a vis her work (or lack thereof), can I take this opportunity to vent for a moment?
      I work at a newspaper, and ahead of all Royal engagements we get sent emails letting us know who in the press pool is responsible for distributing the images to other publications who don’t have a delegate there as well as some times/itinerary bits and pieces.
      All this week, I have been bombarded with emails about TQ, Prince Philip, Chuck, Camilla and Harry doing events every other hour, it seems.
      And, surprise, surprise, *nothing* from Duke and Duchess Dolittle. Yet, when they deign to interact with the hoi polloi, my feed is completely taken over by pictures of the latest piece of clothing she’s spent thousands to completely botch with terrible tailoring.
      Their absence is sickeningly conspicuous at this point.
      /rant over.

      More Prince Harry plz.
      And Sofia and Carl. They do so, so much but unsurprisingly never get any British/stateside interest. Plus, they’re just so pretty.

      • notasugarhere says:

        CP&S are one of the main reasons for rising anti-monarchy sentiment in Sweden. If the BRF will only have 6 royals, Sweden doesn’t need 6.

        Representatives from 5-6 political parties recently brought the issue to public debate, to eliminate all royal funding beyond monarch/spouse and heir/spouse.

        CP&S need to get their muzzles out of the taxpayer trough immediately and go into private life.

        Madeleine is getting it right. Not supported by the taxpayers, reimbursement for expenses when she does a charity event in Sweden.

      • bluhare says:

        Those 6 royals include Charles, William and Harry. Harry would be the equivalent of CP. Therefore, not sure what the argument is.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If 65 million people will support only 6 royals, why should 9.5 million support 6 royals? Two different countries, two different monarchies. Surely the people of each country get to decide for themselves what they want in their monarchy, no?

        As discussed frequently, most of the European monarchies limit working (and therefore supported royals) to the main line. That is what Sweden has always done in the past. These two scroungers are trying to change it, probably with the sexist king’s approval. The people are pushing back against it, as is their right to do.

      • HappyMom says:

        Of course in Madeleine’s case she married someone very wealthy in his own right.

      • Amelia says:

        Aw, that’s slightly disappointing. Whenever I see pictures of them it always looks like CP and Sofia really enjoy working and engaging with people wherever they go.
        It’s interesting how differently perspectives can change when looking in at another country instead of projecting outwards.

      • Cee says:

        Madeleine married a rich guy and she is rich herself. Didn’t her aunt leave her like 2 MIL euro? Plus property and jewels. Carl Philip could definitely survive by going private but I don’t think his father would be OK with his son not having his proper place within their own “firm”. I bet he still cries about Victoria being his heir instead of Carl Philip-

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, Madeleine married well, both in terms of him being a good partner and in terms of him being someone who earns a good living. She continues in her job at Childhood too.

        CP is not poor, he has millions in the bank too. He also owns three expensive properties in Sweden along with the luxury apartment he bought her in South Africa. Seeing as most of his business involves stealing the designs of other artists and claiming them as his own? He’d better have good lawyers and excellent investment advice. Otherwise he won’t survive going private, especially as his wife clearly wants to be a public figure/celebrity.

        CP’s proper place is getting off the taxpayers back and going private. The sexist king is still trying to keep his son front and center. By doing so he’s endangering the position of the rightful heir – Victoria.

      • bluhare says:

        nas, I know you don’t like Sofia and Carl Philip. But I don’t see your argument here. He is next oldest to Victoria, just as Harry is next oldest to William. Victoria has two children; so does William. Same, same same. Are their engagement numbers different? I grant you Victoria and Daniel seem to be out more than W&C, but otherwise I don’t see your argument at all.

      • Cee says:

        What does he design?

        I don’t think he is endangering his daughter’s position. Isn’t she popular? She has a solid marriage and two heirs, plus she’s old enough to keep on working more and more as a future Queen.

        However, with the birth of Estelle and Oscar, plus Daniel’s involvement, I do believe CP’s role should be diminished unless he finds a niche for himself, just like Madeleine did with the Childhood Foundation.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Cee, anti-monarchy sentiment in Sweden is rising rapidly. No matter how popular Victoria might be in the royal fandom, egalitarian Sweden is more than ready to dump the monarchy. CP dabbles in design, things like silverware.

        bluhare, not sure why you fail to understand it. Two different countries, two different monarchies, and different traditions as to who is supposed to be working royals and who isn’t.

        Like most of the other European royal houses, in Sweden it is traditional that only the heir and spouse are working royals in their generation. The rest of the siblings go in to private lives, support themselves, and show up for occasional charity work for which they receive per-event reimbursements for costs.

        Madeleine is following the traditional and accepted pattern. CP&S are pushing themselves forward and staying supported by the taxpayers instead. While trying to start businesses on the side. Businesses already showing signs of conflict of interest and using taxpayer resources.

        Many attack the Yorks for the idea (Andrew-pushed) that they should be working royals. Traditionally they likely would have been working royals, like Alexandra, Kents, Gloucesters. Recent changes mean they will not be, but those changes are recent.

        With CP&S? Here we have a case of two people who are surplus to requirement, as siblings of the heir have *always* been surplus in Sweden, refusing to get off the taxpayer payroll.

        Now elected officials are forcing the issue with debates about removing all but monarch/heir from the payroll, in large part because grasping CP&S and the sexist king didn’t follow the traditional pattern.

      • mbh12 says:

        Interesting information Amelia.

      • Cee says:

        @nota I wasn’t aware of his designs. Unless he is designing for charity there definitely is a conflict of interests, especially if he is publicly funded.

      • Lady D says:

        I thought CP was gorgeous until I found out he liked big game hunting. The man became ugly real fast.

      • bluhare says:

        Well then, nas, let’s just say I think your argument is specious. You use one to justify another, then tell me they aren’t the same. OK!

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        Six, ten, two…. Any country continuing to support any amount of monarchy, no matter how low the relative cost per taxpayer, ought to be ashamed.

        Show me a country with no homeless and hungry children, no citizens dying because they cannot access sufficient health care, no schools with music and arts programs being cut… and then, perhaps that country alone might be given a pass, for the embarassingly antediluvian choice of funding the world’s 0.000001% wealthiest people to live in their country’s castles, give them crowns, jewels and the finest clothes and encourage them to prance about all over the world as their royal representatives.

      • wolfpup says:

        Outrageous! So many children, in need, and Will raises his hungry narcissistic head like he is one of them. How does Britain call them equal in necessity? Does he actually earn a salary, with his lazy attitude?? Poor Willy, and poor orphans, everywhere….yet Willy isn’t poor, and lives off the state that doesn’t support their young, in deference to him.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Response disappeared, trying to recreate.

        CC, only Monaco would fit that bill if we’re looking at Western monarchies.

        bluhare, different monarchies different rules.

        Many assumed that B&E would become working royals. Only seemed logical with so many elderly royals coming on to retirement. Peter and Zara were out, Louise and James too young. Charles plan to go from 14 to 6 is new, not established tradition. But much as Andy might fight it, this is the new plan.

        In Sweden, it has always been that the heir’s siblings go into private life. It isn’t a new development like the BRF situation, it is the long-standing tradition. Madeline is following it, CP isn’t. The taxpayers aren’t accepting adding extra adults onto the tax rolls, why should they? They are fighting, and demanding full access to the king’s finances so he cannot secretly fund them on the side with taxpayer money.

      • A says:

        @notasugarhere, thanks for the info abt CP’s considerable inheritance! Yeah, he’s incredibly rich in his own right, mostly because he inherited a lot of money and properties from Prince Bertil’s passing. If I have my information correct, Prince Bertil wasn’t too happy about the way the primogeniture rules were changed to make Victoria CP, and ensured in his will that Carl-Philip would inherit the lion’s share of his money because he wasn’t getting the throne anymore. I feel like that’s a story that needs exploring/is missing some parts though.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Amelia, a new engagement was just announced: she’s going to a movie premiere next week, apparently, where she’s expected to wear a fancy dress.

        Unreal how she attends things that most people would PAY to be able to do and calls it “work.”

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        @nota: great point. albert & charlene can stay

    • Lorelai says:


      “Princess” and “Mom,” I think, if you asked her.

      But clearly she doesn’t understand the “Princess” job description. It involves more than getting dressed up and standing on the BP balcony waving at the peasants a couple of times a year.

  7. Seraphina says:

    I think Paul Costello summed up well with what he said about Kate (earlier CB post related to Vogue cover). Unfortunately she will be compared to Her late mother in law. That’s a fact we will have to get used to. Diana set the bar high

    That said, what floors me is that Kate had the world at her feet. We’ve said this before, She can use her role to advance causes AND British fashion houses, yet not only is she work shy, but she can’t even use her love of shopping to push British fashion to the forefront. It’s like she doesn’t care one bit. She secured her comfy job as the Queen Bee: to sit in the hive and push out babies while everyone else works to support her.

    A constant disappointment in my eyes. And I know that was a harsh assessment, but let’s all be honest: 2016 and this is what the world has as an educated female role model in one of the world’s most pubic roles (funded by the British people). That says a lot.

    • INeedANap says:

      If she wore boring clothes but worked regularly at worthy charities I’d be defending her everywhere, because women’s value is more than our appearance. But she doesn’t give me anything to defend!

    • Tina says:

      Most apt typo ever, Seraphina.

    • Alix says:

      I think “work-shy” is too mild a term. “Work-averse” is more like it.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Alix, when it comes to these two, I would say “work-averse” is still too mild.

        W&K are outright HOSTILE when they have to work. They barely even try to hide their disdain anymore.

    • Beatrice says:

      Seraphina. It’s not harsh–you speak the truth. Yes, she will be compared to Princess Diana, but unlike Diana, Kate had 10 YEARS to prepare but did nothing except be a Will’s beck and call. If Kate is not a clothes horse, silent mannequin, or an active patron for worthy causes, what is she? She is woman incapable of functioning without Mummy pulling the strings.

    • msthang says:

      Lets’s see how long Sofia sticks around once the money dries up!!!

    • Lorelai says:

      @Seraphina: that’s what gets me: at the very, VERY least, she could make a point of wearing British designers on the occasions she does deign to work. But she doesn’t even do that consistently.

      She wears a lot of Tory Burch, Lela Rose, DVF and recently Kate Spade, all American designers – and she wore some of those designers on tours in other countries where she should have been showcasing *those* country’s designers!

      What is wrong with her?! What is wrong with her advisers? She can’t get even the simplest things right. SMH

  8. Seraphina says:

    I think Paul Costello summed up well with what he said about Kate (earlier CB post related to Vogue cover). Unfortunately she will be compared to Her late mother in law. That’s a fact we will have to get used to. Diana set the bar high

    That said, what floors me is that Kate has the world at her feet. We’ve said this before, She can use her role to advance causes AND British fashion houses, yet not only is she work shy, but she can’t even use her love of shopping to push British fashion to the forefront. It’s like she doesn’t care one bit. She secured her comfy job as the Queen Bee: to sit in the hive and push out babies while everyone else works to support her.

    A constant disappointment in my eyes. And I know that was a harsh assessment, but let’s all be honest: 2016 and this is what the world has as an educated female role model in one of the world’s most pubic roles (funded by the British people). That says a lot.

    • Jade says:

      It’s unfair but I think the best and easier way to mitigate the constant comparison is to accept it won’t change and then continue working steadfastly behind the scenes. In the process, you can be your own person and have your own legacy. Sophie did it, did she not? Correct me if I’m wrong.

      Besides, isn’t she lauded as the royal spouse with a university degree, different from Diana? Thus, she was expected to have a bigger impact? I think it’s fine to be a SAHM (regardless of education level) and I consider it to be a feminist choice. Unfortunately, the narrative that was woven after the engagement was that she would hit the ground running. It’s fine to change your mind, but you can opt to reduce your privileges or William should pick up the slack. Neither happened…

      Having said the above, I emphathise with the unfair scrutiny on her skin and weight, which is why I don’t comment on them in this blog. I’m also ok with her facial expressions because I am quite sure I won’t look photogenic all the time.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Jade, I was FLOORED when I learned that Sophie reached out to Kate around the time of the wedding and offered to mentor her, but Kate declined.
        I mean…what? Who in their right mind would turn that opportunity down??

        Not only was that plain rude, but it showed the size of her ego and the level of disinterest she had from day one in doing a good job (or at least *trying*, for the love of god).

        Sophie has done an outstanding job, after some initial missteps, and her guidance would have been invaluable to Kate, IMO. But she literally couldn’t be bothered.

        No words.

      • mbh12 says:

        The Queen asked Sophie to mentor Kate. When Sophie approached Kate and told her of the Queen’s suggestion and how happy she would be to help Kate. Kate turned her down and Sophie informed the Queen that Kate said NO.

        The Queen was not pleased that Kate turned Sophie down .
        Then Kate had three years of skirt fly ups, underwear or worst showing on royal outings, too short skirts, rear end, butt exposure, even when Kate was photographed nude on holiday, when she got home from the tour, just after the magazine put the nude photos out. William dropped her off in Berkshire , Kate went home to Berkshire to her parents house and not the Palace , to huddle with her mum to decide how to handle it. Kate has avoided the Palace’s help at every turn , until recently when in some instances the Palace or someone put their foot down and made her stop wearing too short dresses and showing her panties and worst to the world on royal tours.

    • wolfpup says:

      She doesn’t appear as educated…she appears simply as her mother’s daughter, grasping. William’s rejects his royal father – how long has it been since they were seen together?!

      • Sarah says:

        Sadly, Kate doesn’t seem able to string two sentences together. Her discomfort is painful when she has to talk, which is rare. The BRF must be disappointed in her! She’s a big blob of nothingness!

      • Mae says:

        She can hire people to work on that with her. Fear of, or problems with public speaking isn’t uncommon, and those skills can be improved. That’s one of the advantages of having a higher socioeconomic status: you can pay people to help troubleshoot your problems. I feel like I’m watching someone in denial (I mean Kate et al).

  9. LAK says:

    Dear Alexandra Shulman,

    Counter programming is so 2011.

    Publicly praising Kate will not bring you another cover.

    Yours Sincerely

    The world.

    …but seriously, if Kate on the cover ( royalfans, cambridge fans, disney princess made flesh fans) crossed with centenary celebration of Vogue fashionista content ( every fashionista) can’t pull the sales, it demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt her ability to sell magazines as sprouted routinely by counter programming.

    Using the September issue as the excuse is actually very poor excuse because the September isdue is a known, annual event whilst Kate’s cover was/is a once in a lifetime event argo should gave produced more sales.

    And as i posted yesterday, the July 2008 all black Vogue Italia cover/edition is probably one of the best sellers of all time across the Vogue stable precisely because it was a one off event, like Kate’s cover/vogue edition. That Vogue Italy sold out across USA, UK and Italy in 72 hrs and had to be reprinted. It’s a collector’s item. Something we can’t say about Kate’s centenary vogue.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      Did you watch that recent BBC documentary about behind the scenes at British Vogue – it was very interesting. Shulman is clearly feared by her staff and there is def a bitter rivalry with Wintour as was evident over the Rihanna cover. British Vogue was more exciting under Wintour.

      • LAK says:

        Yes i did. It was boring as hell. I don’t understand how this woman became editor. She has no creative bone in her body. She’s lucky that Lucinda Chambers is still working for her after all this time because without her, British vogue would be more mediocre than it has been allowed to deteriorate under her tenure.

        On a different note, i brought up the Vogue Italua because Alexandra poo poo’d it when media started to run PR ahead of publication. She said gimmicky one off magazine editions didn’t work AND said *black models didn’t sell and that’s why she’d stopped using them and fully expected the magazinw to fail.

        The fact that there was a stampede for it when it hit the newstands always makes me smile. Egg on her face!!!

        * she started using Jordan Dunn because Jordan was championed by Burberry and used frequently for their campaigns. They must spend alot on ads in the magazine because they fibally convinced her to use Jordan. Other non white models also come with powerful commercial contracts and that’s why she’s finally using them, but if you notice she doesn’t use unknown who have that advantage.

        The last creative risk she took in 1990 when she commissioned a little known model called Kate Moss with only a few dazed and confused editorials to her name + the unknown photographer who took those Dazed and confused pictures, Corinne Day.

      • mbh12 says:

        I listened to a interview Shulman did and she was asked about lack of diversity and her response was awful. She clearly did not get, does not get why it’s an issue or should be when discussing Vogue. imo
        She basically didn’t see the lack of diversity. She gave a answer that made me think of her as not connected to what’s really happening in todays world.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        @LAK – ITA about how could she become editor as she’s not creative enough. She def rides the coat tails of Chambers and I preferred the US Rihanna cover.

        Shulman is typical of the white middle class marrow mindedness and she’s not interested if it doesn’t directly affect her which is why she will never ‘get’ diversity. Its sad how British Vogue has suffered under her tenure, legend has it that Wintour did not want her taking over after she left as she didn’t think she was good enough – well Anna was right.

    • mbh12 says:

      I think Shulman wants into a HRH Cambridge friendship. Kissing Kate’s butt may get her that, maybe she figures, but Shulman may not have a job at Vogue if she keeps on making bad decisions like the Kate issue. Letting Kate take control was a dumb move for Shulman.

      I think Anna W. would have handled it differently and Kate would have THOUGHT she was in charge but Anna would have been.

    • Sixer says:

      Hear, hear, LAK.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Saw headlines this weekend that made me think of you SO MUCH!!

        Idris Elba is apparently dating Madonna.



        (Waiting for the “I <3 M" tank.)

    • Zardi123 says:

      Really Well put LAK…. well spoken the truth ….

    • Lorelai says:

      @LAK: I guess Shulman has never heard of ‘The Streisand Effect,’ because this is a prime example. We are now all rehashing how terrible that shoot was, which is exactly the opposite of what she was trying to achieve.

      The same goes for the fact that the photographers who took the topless photos in France are apparently set to go to trial soon. All that’s going to do is get everyone talking about/looking for those photos all over again. The headlines will, again, have the words “Kate Middleton topless photos” in them.

      These two are such idiots.

  10. Kitty says:

    It’s really amazing that anytime I see photos of Diana in her custom made gowns or anything she still has a presence and aura about herself. It shines through the photos or videos. I guess Kate doesn’t have that type of aura or charisma. Kate is so boring. It’s sad that she is in a position to do great things in the world and be a great humanitarian but decides not to be at all.

    • sushi says:

      Agree to that.Diana had this radiance and brightness and it reflects in her photos. She is one in a million.

    • Beatrice says:

      Diana could have worn a trash bag and still outshined everyone in the room. Star power!!

    • Desi says:

      Too true. You either have it or you don’t. I don’t think “it” is even something you can develop. Even when Diana was newly married into the royal family and was still working to find her feet, there was something interesting about her and the way she seemed to connect with people. Harry inherited it. William didn’t and Kate doesn’t have it. It will be interesting to watch how things move forward for the RF once QEII joins her ancestors.

      • vava says:

        There is no warmth to Kate (unless she’s around Ben Ainslie). It wouldn’t be so bad if she had a work ethic like the Princess Royal, but she obviously doesn’t. Kate is just a coat hanger. She likes the perks without putting in the effort.

  11. Tourmaline says:

    Another day, another opportunity to be alarmed at Kate’s drastic brows on that Vogue cover

    • LAK says:

      What, you don’t like Scouse brows?!?! LOL

      Have you noticed that Kate drwas in a thicker brow since that shoot?

      • Tourmaline says:

        You know what LAK this morning I put on my brow pencil with an accidentally heavy hand and I immediately thought “Scouse brows! ” although I honestly don’t know what Scouse means!

      • callmeishmael says:

        Tourmaline, a Brit here. Scouse = something originating from or identified with Liverpool. A Scouser is a Liverpudlian. A Plastic Scouser = someone from the other side of the Mersey (ie the Wirral). When you’re in Liverpool, it’s not uncommon to see women with leonine hair extensions, spray tan, false nails, monster brows and fake eyelashes like exploding crows – and that’s just to go down the shops. It’s not my style (I’d look like a drag queen) but I kind of admire the level of effort.

        PS I have a very pale complexion – last time I attempted to wield an eyebrow wand, I ended up looking like Stan Sitwell.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @callmeishmael thanks for the explanation! You painted a vivid picture.
        Yeah I guess I was inadvertently bringing a bit of Scouse style to Minnesota today with my eyebrow pencil gone wrong

  12. notasugarhere says:

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” – Shakespeare

  13. Thaisajs says:

    No one who has seen her shoe collection could ever mistake her for a clothes horse.

  14. Kay Dozier says:

    I have to say, I laughed from a good, healthy place when I read that headline. A silent mannequin is EXACTLY what she is.

  15. Cerys says:

    The pictures were out months ago and no-one really cared about them. Why is Alexandra Shulman still talking about them? If Waity isn’t interested in being a mannequin or clothes horse, why then does she need a new designer outfit on the rare occasions she appears in public? I’m sure Ms Shulman’s OBE is already in the post, so she doesnt need to rehash Waity’s attempt at being a cover girl any more.

  16. Ollie says:

    All i got from her interviews is that Alexandra Shulman’s days at Vogue are numbered. She is so desperate to justify this whole thing. I bet she gets heat for this.
    Think about it, the big jubilee edition tanked because of her decision! The month before and after sold more while the 100 year cover flopped! Shulman clearly miscalculated that whole thing. Vogue readers see through “fake style icon” Kate and the pics were so ugly. Seriously this is one of the worst covers of all time. The 100 year cover was wasted.

    • mbh12 says:

      That’s the vibe I get too.
      Shulman’s days could be numbered or she’s getting complaints about why the issue didn’t sell as they thought it should.

  17. IMO says:

    Kate will never be a fashion icon.

  18. yep says:

    Catherine is a clothes hanger. No more, no less. Every time she attends royal duties it looks like she doesn’t want to be there. Plus, her fake accent is horrible.

  19. Greetings says:

    These Vogue pics are so lame and boring. No one really cared about it.

  20. londoniscalling says:

    Something tells me that Kate and her mother aren’t that nice behind closed doors…

    • mbh12 says:

      Shaking head in agreement.

    • Yehan says:

      The Middleton women are “mean girls”, all three of them.

      • Yehan says:


        Yes, all three of them. Trust me, I’ve met them. Pippa might seem nice on the outside, but she is just as bitchy and snooty as Kate and Carole.

      • Starlight says:

        Wow – there was a really interesting comment on mailonline about an incident in one of the nightclubs The Midd girls frequented, just after the engagement, it basically implied your quote /comment. Jaw dropping to say the least

      • callmeishmael says:

        It’s always the way with middle-classers desperate to move up one echelon. Their self-importance comes from rabid insecurity. Like or loathe ’em, those genuinely ‘to the manor born’ have nothing to prove and are generally more gracious. Generally. It’s quite ridiculous in this day and age that the British class system still holds people in its thrall, but there it is *shrugs*

      • Lorelai says:

        Yehan, if there is any way you can tell some more without “outing” yourself or how you came to meet them, I would love to hear details 🙂

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      Yep – there were many stories out there before they got whitewashed after the engagement. W&K got a royal protection officer sacked after a comment he made about her being unpleasant to their Kensington Palace staff made it into the press. Plus there is the story of when she cursed out Princess Beatrice (in front of the press) at that charity roller disco that she took the credit for organising when it was Holly Branson.

      • mbh12 says:

        Yes, Kate totally used HollyB. imo for several years. Many of the other women around William’s circle wanted no part of Kate, they were polite but kept their distance basically. Holly was always welcoming and nice to her. Then when time came for Holly’s wedding, I don’t think William or Kate went from what I recall. I don’t think Kate is all that friendly with Holly anymore, but Kate use to chase Holly down during the dating years, accepting free airplane rides to Holly’s father’s properties or island.
        I think the Midds are only nice to people who they can use for something they want or need.

  21. Olga says:

    Catherine, The Duchess of Valium.

  22. grumpy bird says:

    And these are not the droids you’re looking for. *Jedi mind trick*

    Amazing Kaiser! I legit cackled at this. It’s hilarious and a completely accurate assessment of their entire PR strategy – tell the plebs what they want us to see (Kate is not a clothes horse, Bill works full time, we’re super keen about whatever cause this is, we are a completely normal middleclass couple) and we’ll believe it regardless of what’s right in front of us.

  23. Beluga says:

    Year after year, Kate and Will’s royal engagement numbers are embarrassingly low, particularly compared to older royals like Prince Philip (who is in poor health on top of that) and Princess Margaret. If they were working with their charities behind the scenes, you can bet it would be added to their numbers. It would also be widely publicised to counter the idea that they are workshy.

    • Redgrl says:

      @beluga – you mention Kate’s numbers being low compared to older royals like Prince Philip & Princess Margaret. Considering Princess Margaret has been dead for years (God love her!) that’s no mean feat!

      • Beluga says:

        @Redgrl Omg haha brain fart – I meant Princess Anne! (Insert obvious joke about Princess Margaret still managing to work more than Waity and Wills…)

        This was also a reply to someone, but I’m not sure where the original comment went.

    • Starlight says:

      That will all Change when Charles becomes king

  24. Zardi123 says:

    Well said LAK… what a well spoken piece
    I for one know she is anything but a horsey aristocratic person… she has never ridden a pony or horse ..as she has supposed allergies ..total fabrication to get het out of being on a horse
    as for vogue cover it was hideous she is alwsys tryong to be something she is not … she has never been a country person she was from Buckleburynand wenr to town constantly showing her knickers most of the time wanting tobe photographed by any camera that was available. .. have no time for het as she has lied about so much through the years …..she had the title she coveted for so long but cannot do this role on any shape or form no speeches she is useless as this … and yet had so many people running up her bottom she should do this role easily but has not the intelligence needed to be in BRF …

  25. squeezeo'lime says:

    England, stop trying to make fetch happen..

    • wolfpup says:

      I don’t think that they give a damn as royals, although Charles has always played a game in his head, about being one. He’s the real loser for the entire family, in the long run.

  26. A says:

    I’ll agree that the Diana comparisons are unfair. I’ve said it before, but Diana was exceptional in some way that wasn’t seen before. But not all royals or royal newcomers are easily blessed with that kind of a presence, which means that the rest of them have to work at it to build it up, which is what they do and ultimately find their niche.

    What’s theirs, lol? It’s been years and I’m still trying to figure it out.

    • seesittellsit says:

      And whatever Diana’s issues or problems were, the bottom line is, she really was an aristocrat. Kate is an arriviste.

      • A says:

        Why would that matter that Diana is an aristocrat and Kate is not? Kate’s family is trying too hard, that’s certain, but ultimately, the bottom line about her problems are due to the try hard behaviour, not the fact that she’s a commoner. And ultimately, Diana being an aristocrat didn’t make her any more fit for the role of a future monarch’s consort.

      • wolfpup says:

        I believe that Diana understood her position far better than Kate – her father was an equerry, and her grandmother a part of the court. Kate’s understanding is her mother’s clothing choices, and her husband’s pitifulness. They are both simply stupid to allow feelings of discomfort with Charles, to continue to color the future of Britain. If I were their PR guy – I would suggest that they support him in the silly story of power.

        On the other hand – to hell with major corporations and their handbasket of excuses for stealing.

      • Tina says:

        Sophie is a commoner, and she gets it. Kate’s issues are due to laziness, not birth.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thank you, Tina. Most of this crop of European consorts are not from the noble classes and do well in their roles.

      • Mae says:

        Lol! Time traveler sighting.

  27. D says:

    I would like to lead her life

  28. seesittellsit says:

    Countrified aristocrat?! She’s a coal miner’s granddaughter whose family made it to upper classes thanks to an Internet business that took off and a fiercely socially ambitious mother whose dreams came true when the girl met Prince William at St. Andrews. Kate may have played a few rounds of field hockey, but it’s not as if she’s been riding to hound and going to village fetes all her life! Countrified aristocrat my derriere. Lazy, sheltered, slack, dull and lucky. End of.

    • Zardi123 says:

      Couldn’t agree more ,.. they don’t like the truth…. she has never been an aristocrat or will ever be ..no matter how they swan about parading the grabbed wealth they have got through being wysteria clambering climbing …thats all they are good at .. the voice is all elocuted to the extent she cannot speak properly … ugh ghastly lot .. Waity had more excuses to get out of doing anything except producing two children .. again she obviously can do that easily ..mattress …
      Its beyond all belief how this has been allowed to carry on … some people in power certainly are no men when it comes to doing whats right for our country …

  29. What would have Kate done if William hadn’t asked her to marry? There was no guarantee that after ten years of plotting and sitting around she was going to get what she and her mother wanted.

    • mbh12 says:

      I think she would have been a lot like Pippa, dating , until she found someone with either title and money or with loads of money and connections to something that would benefit her and the MIdds.

      She would have Chased another Aristo albeit she would NOT have been future Queen, but she would have tried to find an Aristo who would give her some sort of title. When William dumped Kate in 2007 she immediately went out with Henry Ropner who was, Jecca Craig’s Aristocratic former boyfriend, who William could not stand because he supposedly hurt Jecca , years ago when he dumped her. William had once ran to comfort Jecca when Henry dumped her because Jecca called him so upset and crying.

      The talk at the time in 2007 when William saw Kate out with Henry Ropner during the 2007 break up, he was livid and called and asked why she was hanging out with him, of all people.
      But alas Henry Ropner didn’t even want Kate anyway. I recall his girlfriend at the time coming out and saying basically he was taken and also Henry’s mom wasn’t especially happy about him being seen with Kate. It was one of the rare times Lady Ropner, spoke to the press.

      • Seems like Kate and Will were destined to be together – no one else wanted either one of them!

      • mbh12 says:

        I don’t view it as destiny. I think without her mom, she would have never landed him. IMO Carole knew how to play him and both she and Kate decided being a doormat until William was ready was the way. Kate seemed like someone who clung on until the Prince caved in. IMO He didn’t seem all that in love, even during the engagement interview.
        I don’t think they were destined at all. I just think William is lazy, insecure and figured a doormat was the way to go.
        I think she’ll put up with anything, even him possibly cheating.

  30. Joannie says:

    These comments are so depressing. People are so mean and unhappy. She was exceptional when visiting Canada. I couldn’t have carried it off the way she did.

    • sage says:

      What made her exceptional?

      • Tough Cookie says:

        I don’t think there were any Royal Biscuit flashings in Canada….so in that sense yes, she was exceptional.

    • wolfpup says:

      You could have carried it off, with all the help she has been given. No one asked for a clothes horse, just someone who cared for the British public, and their future.

    • A says:

      Tbh, I do agree with this. I was pleasantly surprised by the reception from the Canada tour, especially from those they visited. Whoever submitted the itinerary for that did an exemplary job highlighting some of the most critical issues facing the province and I was really glad that these things were getting the coverage they deserved. Not many of the engagements were fluff, and a lot of them were chosen with care and they received quite a bit of coverage here for it I think. Most of the folks I spoke to who aren’t royal watchers were pleased by it and the spotlight they shone on things we’re most proud of out here.

      Could they have done more? Absolutely. But the understanding generally is that royals don’t exactly do a whole lot anyway so whatever little they do is enough. I don’t know what that says, but that’s the general feeling on the ground here.

      • Tina says:

        None of that was down to William and Kate. William admitted he hadn’t even read his briefing notes (aka the bare minimum) when they visited the Sheway charity.

      • LAK says:

        The Queen’s staff acompanied them on that trip which speaks to BP planning the trip as opposed to their office planning it. Left to their own devices, they plan vacation tours.

      • A says:

        “whoever submitted the itinerary for [the tour] did an exemplary job” were my words in the comment. I’m fully aware of who does the planning and who chooses the events and itinerary. It is typically the country that extends the invitation that plans the events. Clearly a Canadian, presumably someone from the province/territory, who is aware of the political climate and the issues at hand wrote up the itinerary and submitted it. The BP didn’t plan it, and neither did the office of W&K, it was likely the office of the Governor General/Lieutenant Governor who submitted their planned itinerary for approval/sign off.

        I’m not going to be unhappy about the tour. It got people talking. I’m not concerned about who did the planning and whether it was W&K or BP or Her Majesty herself. The engagements got the attention they needed because of the presence that W&K have in this corner of the world. Whether that presence and relative popularity is deserved or not is your opinion. You don’t have to be happy about it and you don’t have to like it, but it got people to talk and it made the news in a province with a government that supports austerity measures and budget cuts to social services and education and supports measures designed to punish addicts and the homeless and those at the fringes of our society. The work that Sheway did in the area of Vancouver they visited was not in the prominent consciousness of folks (most of whom were content to sneer at the homeless as being “spongers” or worse), but it was talked about after they visited, even without Willy having read the briefing notes. So that’s significant to me. Was any of that down to W&K? Perhaps not, but whoever planned the tour exploited the attention they would inevitably bring to these causes in a good way, and I’m never not going to be happy about that.

      • Tina says:

        The original comment was “she was exceptional.” She was not.

    • Sarah says:

      Joannie, what did she do? Talk about the plight of the First Nation People’s in Canada? Discuss the degradation of the environment from the tar sands? Cure cancer?
      Or wear pretty clothes and wave?
      Pretty Low Bar for exceptional.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Maybe she meant exceptionally spendthrift? But exceptional means unusual or outstanding, and KM always spends a ridiculous amount of money on ugly clothes.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Sarah, “wear clothes and waved.”

        Fixed it for you! 🙂

    • PHAKSI says:

      Hello again Carol with an E 😀

    • notasugarhere says:

      You have no idea what our personal lives are. Why assume that someone cannot be both happy in their lives and think that W&K are essentially useless? That is just a twist on pathetic “jealous haters” argument that always falls flat because it isn’t true.

      Mean? Because we recognize that these two are lazy, greedy, selfish, and lousy at these jobs? Not mean, factual. Neither of these two brings much to the table, which is proven time and time again.

      • Joannie says:

        Nota its the degree of nastiness and the number of comments day after day. Dont you get bored of the same old rhetoric? Youre right I dont know your personal life but you come off as angry.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Joannie, give it up. Some of us see through W&K and always will. Doesn’t make us angry, doesn’t make us unhappy. It makes us logical, thoughtful, and able to see through the PR. Some of the most intelligent, history-minded commenters on royal topics show up here on CB, having fled the sugar or vinegar forums.

        You are free, as always, not to read the comments. You are not free to try to shut down the conversation with your baseless and silly accusations. That is the desperate refuge of the person who knows they have absolutely no leg to stand on with their side of the argument.

      • Tina says:

        You know what bores me? I get bored of the same apologists trying to convince us in the UK that all the royals provide good value for money. You know who does that? The Queen & the DoE. Charles and Camilla. Anne. Sophie. You know who doesn’t? William and Kate. Andrew.

        We live in a country that has an NHS crisis. If hard Brexit goes ahead, we will have lost the £60+ billion pa that financial services bring into this country. We do not have money to spare for this laziness. This is not “nastiness.” It is reality. And I, for one, will keep pointing out the reality of the situation, no matter how many people don’t like to hear criticism of their pretty, pretty princess.

    • cindyp says:

      This blog is called “Celebitchy”. If you don’t like what people are saying go to the Daily Mail

      • antipodean says:

        @Joanie, so what’s wrong with being angry? Sometimes it is a requirement of the intelligent interpretation of perceived realities. To parrot Peter Finch, ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more”! Quite often nothing is changed by “nice” and “polite”. And of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even those we don’t agree with. It’s what makes life interesting. Especially here on our beloved Cele/Bitchy.

      • Joannie says:

        These comments go beyond angry. They literally rip a person to shreds. Day after day. What does that tell you?

      • Tina says:

        It tells you that she (or someone on her staff) doesn’t understand how to respond to criticism. Hint: you work more. No one criticises Anne for being frumpy, or wearing the same outfit three decades in a row. Because she works her arse off.

      • Joannie says:

        Nope. Tells me youre Cinderella’s stepsisters.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Pulling out the old jealous hater comment? Gonna keep beating that dead horse, eh? Thought we were over that. No glass slipper envy here. I have no desire to be royal. I find William repugnant, always have.

        I do have admiration for some members of certain royal families and how they have handled themselves in their roles. But I hate to see taxpayer resources wasted, especially wasted on selfish, greedy, lazy, self-centered individuals like W&K. They are the perfect example of why hereditary monarchy doesn’t work. And we’re all going to keep expressing our reasons why, no matter how many times you childishly keep yelling jelly h8ters.

      • wolfpup says:

        Nota; as much as you may hate it – Big Hugs for the truths that you share//////////////////////!

      • notasugarhere says:

        I welcome the hugs!

    • mbh12 says:

      IMO Kate’s been mediocre to barely adequate in most of her tours and Royal outings. She rarely seems to know much about the subject matter and makes inane comments. She doesn’t seem to do research. IMO. (Asking the director of Hague about the Painting, she referred to the film by Scarlett Johansson. it’s as if that’s as far as her research went, only to superficial levels.)
      When she first began Royal outings, she was downright terrible, with her rear-end exposed to cameras ,crotch clutching and hair flying all over her face.

      In Canada she was still rather stiff and mediocre, as if she was posing sometimes instead of really being engaged in her surroundings, but there were some improvement , at least we didn’t see her underwear, her skirts were longer and she wore her hair out of the way of her face.

      The children were adorable in Canada though.

      • Citresse says:

        There was little improvement- don’t you remember when she bent down to Charlotte (at the children’s party) and exposed her undergarments? She knew she was being photographed. She still wore ridiculous dresses above the knee (in Vancouver, the silly red doily layer cake dress fit for a 6 year old). Middleton is a silly creature along with her lazy, entitled husband. What a pair of dolts on deck after Charles. All I can say is I hope there’s big changes after HM dies.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Joannie: this is a sincere question, no snark, truly. But why do you keep coming here and reading the comments on every Kate thread if this is how you feel about them? I’m asking honestly.

      I started out really liking Kate back in 2011, and ended up here as time went on and it became apparent that she was never going to live up to her potential. I simply wouldn’t have visited a site with commenters who dislike Kate so much when I was a fan of hers, because what’s the point?

      I’m not saying you don’t have a right to come here and defend her in every thread. It just seems to me that it must be so frustrating for you to be constantly reading such negative opinions about someone who you think so highly of.

      • Joannie says:

        I didnt say anything about how I feel about them other than how well she did in Canada. And she did do well.

  31. Denise says:

    I think the cover was totally appropriate for their centenary issue. It made me feel that I was looking at fashion from 100 years ago.

    • vava says:

      LOL! I thought the clothing had an early 1970s vibe, but without the interest of the originals. Kate just looked dull as ever. Why anyone thought that photo collection was exceptional…………is beyond me.

  32. Tourmaline says:

    Katie Nicholl has an article on the Mail about the York family drama and Charles v Andrew. She says the Queen is on Andrews side.