Duchess Kate worked her royal fingers to the bone yesterday! Not only did she have breakfast with a bunch of men at the Maritime Museum in Greenwich, she also had a costume change and an appearance at Buckingham Palace later on in the day. *clutches pearls*
The Buckingham Palace appearance was the second “garden party” of the year hosted by the Queen and Prince Philip (it was his 93rd birthday yesterday). For the event, Kate repeated a look from way back in 2012 – she wore this same Alexander McQueen (by Sarah Burton) rose/nude lace dress to the Queen’s Jubilee service at St. Paul’s in the summer of 2012. She did a different hat this time around – this one is by Jane Taylor. She also wore those f$(@$ LK Bennett nude heels. She also took off the pink belt that she wore in 2012.
This is all part of the rash of engagements Kate signed on for following Bum-gate. Seriously, after the “grueling” Australian and New Zealand tour, Kate didn’t make any appearances for more than a month. Then the bum photos came out, and suddenly she couldn’t pack her schedule fast enough. Originally, Kate was supposed to appear at another BP garden party on Thursday, but she had to cancel that appearance and make up for it yesterday. Princess Eugenie was also in attendance. As was the Princess Royal. Do you think Kate curtsied to them? That’s the protocol, isn’t it? Blood princesses before duchesses-by-marriage.
Here are some fun facts about the palace garden parties: they end up serving about 270,000 cups of tea, 20,000 sandwiches and 20,000 slices of cake for EACH party. The Queen serves a “special tea blend” called “Buckingham Palace Garden Party Tea” (quite on the nose with that one, your majesty). Sometimes the parties will have a guest list of up to 10,000, mostly prominent or important people involved with business, culture, the arts, media or charity.
Photos courtesy of Getty.
It may be McQueen, but it looks like a Mother of the Bride dress. And I truly dislike the satellite dish on the side of her head.
Words cannot express my hatred for the hat. I think the dress would be fine if the scoop neck was lower than her collar bone.
haha!!! that hat is awesome!! :DD
And Kate has a head for hats. This is just a bad hat.
Me too. It looks like she’s got the a bloody flying saucer on her head.
Ladyslippers!
Greetings from Blighty. Thank you for your welcome, I’m so delighted I joined in. What a brilliant group of people here, it’s very different from my expectations tbh. Hence my rather excessive amount of comments, I must be making up for lost time!
See you soon m’dear
🙂
I came to the comments expressly for the purpose of saying how much I hate that awful hat.
I’m really over her these days; I think I bought into the “we’re just trying to have a normal life” thing for a couple of years (and I’m not a true royal watcher and don’t pay that much attention), but to even the casual observer, it’s clear that she and Will don’t really want to work, but want all of the privileges. However, bum-gate seems to have put a crimp in that plan, and she’s been told to get the royal a$$ in gear and show up to a few things.
Satellite dish, LOL!
I can never remember the name of this kind of hat. Dang it. They were all wearing endless versions of it a couple of years ago. Anyone remember the name of this thing? Not favori, not pruderie, … something??
Fascinator
Thanks !!
I couldn’t agree more. She doesn’t even have lip color on to offset the drab outfit.
The girl could surely come up in to the 21st century. She dresses like an old fart.
The Brits and their damned hats. The Queen Mother and her rainbow get ups is tiring.
I just don’t enjoy seeing all these stuffy people parading around like we are supposed to be in awe of their lousy style choices. Kate is a very attractive young woman…why can’t she dress like one?
She looks beige and boring – and that hat is just awful! She has no taste in hats but then I really abhor the fashion of those infernal contraptions called fascinators. At least this doesn’t look like a bird has take up residence on her head and has built a nest of her hair – that’s the only positive I can say about the thing on her head!
I wish that she accessoried with a bit of cololut to liven up the overall beige blandness, but that seem beyond her ken. She always has these matchy-matchy outfits on that I find boring. She studied art history, one should think that she knowns the basics of colour theory, but apparently not.
•ArtHistorian•
❤️ THANK YOU! ❤️
I got blasted several months ago when I stated I wished she dressed like she was an art history major. I mean, come on, this is just non-stop blandness. Only her hair breaks up this and there is nothing remotely visually interesting to look at. A total beige canvas.
(The people argued that often art history is just a ‘fluff’ degree to obtain in order to get your Mrs. *sobs* I don’t care about getting your Mrs per se, but gimme some interesting fashion! I beg of you Kate!!! At least pretend you took art classes — please?!???)
This feels judge-y. Art History is what she studied. Bland and natchy-matchy is what makes her feel comfortable and attractive, whether she succeeds or not she *personally* believes it, at least. Your taste in or education in art doesn’t have to translate into personal style. That’s like saying a gourmet chef should be laughed at for going home and eating a grilled cheese sandwich lol. And in NYC all of the docents and curators dress with far less aplomb than Kate.
Dame,
Didn’t mean to sound judge-y. However, an education in the field of aesthetics often gives on an eye for those little things that liven up an ensemble. This is, however, an opinion based on personal observation in my own habitat of the cultural and aesthetic fields in Denmark.
LadySlippers,
The argument about Art History being a “fluff” degree to find a husband or while away time absolutely infuriates me! I’ve studied the subject in two different countries and have NEVER met anyone that fits that description.
Just like any other academic field, Art History is a rigourous subject with a definite methodology and a lot of theory drawn from other fields. When I started my studies in Copenhagen it was expected that I could read English, French and German – and it would be good if I had some Italian too. (Alas, which I don’t). My coursework didn’t have many classes but you had to have a lot of self-disciple to do the work required, and some creative thinking to excell.
ArtHistorian
With NO disrepect to those who have studied Art History it was called the “Underwater Basketweaving” of my old school. We had a sub par and easily passable art history program imo. I do have loads of respect for artist and art historians. I can’t draw a straight line and must pay others to tell me these 2 colors clash.
Also, I don’t need to tell you how rich and influential Art is in the worlds history. I could gush, but it would only be pure jealousy my talents are more science related.
Considering Kate has proven she has retained limited amounts of her subject she’s spent 4 years studying I don’t think she has a passion for Art.
There’s a photo of Q Maxima of Holland from the weekend looking like the young Britney Spears dressed by Christian Dior on acid…in a *good* way. She’d make a cat smile. Kate’s always been famous for her dowd. Attributable to William’s taste it may be, but she’s never been ‘arty’. It’s teling that the PM’s wife is far cooler than a young duchess!
Florc,
I believe that she only did an undergraduate degree in the field – and I know from experience in the UK that students that doesn’t proceed to graduate and/or post-graduate studies rarely stay in the field.
In Denmark, very few students stop with an undergraduate degree because it isn’t much use to get a job in the field (apart from meterology where a BA is enough). Most does an MA, and there isn’t really the major/minor systems as in the US, unless you want to go into teaching at high school level.
Chris,
Is that the pink full-cape ensemble she wore to a wedding? Loved it. Maxima is a favorite of mine! She’s just Maxtastic. She has her fashion disasters but I feel that her sartorial flamboyance goes hand in hand with what seems to be a big personality. Another favorite of mine is my own Queen Margrethe whose sartorial flamboyance in a league of its own. Queen Daisy’s style is indeed daisylicious.
Arthistorian
No, she wore a crome yellow cropped jkt and cool, groovy mini turban, and a knee length full skirt in vivid red, green, yellow abstract pointillist or graphic print . Probably sounds like a disaster but it was bang on.
And re art hist degrees: spot on too. Working in the arts often requires an MA now, though a BA is respected if from a good university. But it’s an over-subscribed subject at undergraduate level for sure.
Sounds like you have a fascinating career by the way
.
Chris,
Dang! I think I missed that outfit but I love your description of it. I did like the huge green ruffle on a dress that she wore recently. I think that Maxima, like Queen Daisy, can pull off outfit that would work for no-one else.
Thanks – right now I’m in a bit of lull, but preparing an application of a Ph.D. (keeping my fingers crossed because there aren’t that many ph.d.-positions in the humanities). It’s a bit different here because we don’t pay for education, so a Ph.D. is actually a job with pay, and with obligations other than research. It is always quite interesting to compare and contrast the education systems in different countries.
•ArtHistorian•
I’ll cross my fingers for you, okay?
And you need to get your Danish derrière on more Royal Loonie posts! I adore chatting with you as you have a different set of skills that livens up every conversation. 😊
•Snark•
It is a tad judgey and I’ll own my judgeyness though.
ArtHistorian is correct — in almost every fine arts class, you deal with aesthetics. Not everyone has the skill set but she should be able to recognise what’s pleasing to the eye and why. AND she can do that and still stay in the comfort zone you mentioned.
This entire look is too monotone. The dress is fantastic yet Anne looks better. Anytime Anne looks better than you you know you’re in trouble! Lol As with other outfits, a few key accessories would take this look from drab to fab. And she’s a beautiful woman who shouldn’t look drab — ever.
•Chris•
Before I forget — welcome! You’ve recently started to comment a whole bunch on the Royal Loonie posts and it’s been a pleasure seeing your comments. I hope you stick around! We periodically get new people but sadly, they don’t often stay. Hopefully more people will come join the fun.
😃
Ladies, ladies, ladies:
This is what happens when you show your ass too many times. You get put on punishment and you get put on lockdown.
I say give Kate until . . . oh . . . mid-to-late July and she will be back to form with flyaway skirts, raccoon eyes and all. One has to play along when one has been duly chastised (I assume).
There is also context. The Queen’s visit to France for the D-day celebration and the birthday celebration of DoE should not really take second stage to sausage curls and bare assess, I would think.
LS
The ability to understand, contextualize and qualify great art and it’s history doesn’t mean you can recreate it. And beauty is so objective. For some an Elie Saab is safe, dull and predictable. For others it is elegant, imaginative and the epitome of couture. There are brilliant English Lit professors who can’t write a decent short story. There are politicians with impressive tactical skills who can’t steer clear of personal scandal. There are theologians who stir the very souls of their congregations but lie awake at night questioning everything about their professed faith. Sometimes there is a disconnect. And who’s to say that Kate doesn’t choose to let her personal, private environment reflect her artistic penchants? She really is not into fashion, she has said this before. I guess I’m not ready to dismiss her entire degree because of a preference for middle of the road wardrobe choices. And lots of buttons. I mean, HM spent her entire life surrounded by some of the most stunning, priceless art in western civilization and she wears bespoke cupcake hats.
•Snark•
Hey Beatrix (of the Netherlands) has her cake toppers — there’s no shame in cupcake toppers! 😉
No, I don’t expect her to be perfect fashion-wise but she should know enough to call in help. Often education allows us to get to know ourselves better and that’s just as enriching as being able to spout off facts.
Kate should not be drab when she has the knowledge, know-how, and ability (even if it’s asking for assistance) to be fab. Even in the women that put ‘baked goods’ on their heads understand that.
LadySlippers,
Thanks for the kind words. I really enjoy the exhanges here – there’s a lot of interesting observations and a lot of wit, which is wonderful. I do think that it is a shame that the site doesn’t cover other European royals, because they are quite interesting – even fashion-wise. And there’s a lot happening this year – The Spanish king abdiacting is perhaps the biggest royal story right now, especially because of all the scandals, and because I find it sad that his questionable decision-making these last years is occluding the vital role he played for Spanish democracy after Franco’s death.
Other recent events among the European RF’s have been the christening of the little Princess Leonora of Sweden, the 10th anniversary of CP Frederik and Mary and this wee, the 80th birthday of the Danish Prince Consort Henrik, which has been covered in the Daily Mail. It is a fluff piece of little information but with lots of pictures of the family, especially of the young children. And there’s a good shot of Queen Margrethe in lively red-white polkadot dress:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2655668/Princess-Marys-three-year-old-daughter-perfects-royal-wave.html
•ArtHistorian•
Kaiser has been trying to post on other royals but sometimes no one goes to comment — so if we want a more diverse royal base — we gotta do our part too.
😃
Haha, @punkymomma, I definitely agree
Dame Snark hi
I line up with you re Kate’s style. She’s always been a safe, Boden kind of dresser, stylish elan is not a Thing with her. And as you say… a BA in art history doesn’t necessarily turn safe into dashing
I don’t think style is a duty at all. It’s great gas to pick it apart and anslyse it but let’s be kind here, she’s not disrespectful though shr may be boring. Much of her audience by way is probably far more conservative, by and large, than people are here!
Not saying quit this criticism at all, very far from that indeed!…. just that I don’t think it’s a question of right and wrong. (I know I’ve barged in here only the other day, hope I’m not out of order)
And it’s s glorious sunny day here, hope you have a lovely one too. I wonder what she’ll stun us with today? Taupe?
🙂
Wonder if she’s going commando?
Of course she’s going commando, she always does, and EVERYONE knows! She can’t be embarrassed at this point(?), but I think it would be awful knowing what other people are thinking when you shake hands with them.
This is my first thought now, every time I see her. If the eyes of the world were on me whenever I went out – I would not feel comfortable without underwear, and most especially not with a billowy skirt. I don’t understand her exposing herself like that. It’s strange.
Whoa, whoa. Slow it down, gurl. Who do you think you are? Some sort of head of sta— nevermind.
I like this dress better with the belt.
Me too. And the hat was a better size as well.
Agreed.
Actually, if you did your research or bothered to look at the shoes, you would notice they are different. The color is closer to bone, the heel is lower and the toe has a slight point.
HAHAHA!
sorry. but seriously?
yes, ok, this is serious for some.
**walks away giggling**
This is all I can think of..
http://collegecandy.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pretty-wild-1.gif?w=500&h=273
(the video of the whole thing is way better)
Ha! Lindy, perfect!
Great.
hahaha! Thanks Lindy!
Yes I also noticed that those aren’t her LK Bennets. Still boring though.
Must say , had I her elongated figure I’d leap at the chance to wear flats. I was walking in town yesterday behind a woman in Valentino Rock Stud (?) flats, in fuchsia. O the gloriousness, and v visibly luxe.
@ Chris…………..the Valentino rock stud flats are my dream shoe. If I had her kind of wardrobe budget I’d surely pick up a pair of those and wear them constantly!
there’s a much nicer way to say that.
Ditto.
Yeah, there are mean ways to say that that are nicer, actually. Guess some people don’t make mistakes. Ever.
There are indeed much nicer ways to say it… but then again, I don’t think I could be anything more than perplexed by someone who not only takes the time to research Duchess Kate’s different pairs of nude pumps, but also seems to imply that others should be doing so.
Side note: my phone keeps trying to auto correct Duchess into Douches. I don’t really know what to make of that.
That is interesting, i didn’t know that the Duchess would be required to curtsey to blood Princesses especially since her husband and sun are future kings. Is Zara Phillips required to curtsey to anyone?
The queen laid down the law about Kate’s rank a while ago 🙂
Oh really lol, ofcourse i know Zara has to curtsey to the Queen, i meant does she have to also curtsey to her cousins?
Do you think it was a personal thing against Catherine or something else?
That story is hogwash.
Zara is a commoner and has to curtsey. Kate doesn”t have to curtsey to anyone beneath her husband’s rank as long as they are together in that person’s presence. Her titles are courtesies because of her marriage so, alone, she can be outranked. The York sisters are blood royal princesses and outrank Kate as a Duchess unless she is with her husband, a prince who is second in line to the throne.
Unless William is present Kate has to curtsey to Bea and Eug. That was said to be laid down for various reasons. The theory I enjoy the most was Kate’s history of tormenting the sisters got out. It was a subtle way of the Queen utting Kate in her place and reminding her not to mess with the Queen’s top grandchildren.
FLORC, Kate tormented the sisters? Not doubting you, just surprised she’d have any shade game.
@Chris – right you are! Charles II was 1/2 French on his mum’s side, and his father was1/2 Danish. However, those two illegitimate sons married English, as did their many descendants who followed, so Diana’s bloodline was overwhelming English.
Very strange this curtsey stuff… Perhaps what bothers me is the ranking. I can’t imagine bowing to anyone!
•Florc•
As I said below, this has nothing to do with Kate or Bea and Eug. Nothing.
And I’m not saying one way or another that Kate was or was not mean to the Yorks’ either.
Kate tormenting the Yorks is becoming ridiculous fan fiction. A few years ago it was the Yorks snub the Middleton girls which turned into the Yorks and Mids don’t get along which turned into Kate and Pippa mean girled the Yorks which turned into Kate tormented the Yorks. Seriously, take a step back. And people literally report with condescending satisfaction how the Yorks and Harry called Kate, Pippa and their mom names behind their backs. If true, why shouldn’t the Yorks expect pushback? I’m not sure I believe the levels of cat fighting reported. I also think no one behaves the way they did ten years ago – Yorks and Middletons alike.
Dame
I gree it’s turned into never ending fan fiction, but even you must admit it began in truth.
I may have misused “tormenting”, but i’m not sure I did. If nothing else what Kate did to Bea was pure meangirling for no other reason than to humilate because she could.
Pippa’s demanding the better seats was a lesser event imo. More driven by entitlement and less mean behavior just to be mean.
And while it doesn’t make it any better, the whole circle of friends with the royals made fun of Kate with William and Harrytaking active part. Kate wasn’t seen as respectable. And to gt a jab into the girl who publicly humiliated you, name calling in private hardly seems as bad.
But my bias is known. I’m all for a those who give back and make their way.
To what applies here… The Yorks win for giving back.
FLORC
If the York girls were mean or ridiculed the Middletons in private then how is it that the whole world is aware of it – even down to the actual names? It is unnecessary and unbecoming to a well raised princess to shame anyone because of their modest beginnings. Carole Middleton was building a company from the ground up while Fergie was getting her toes sucked by the pool.
And again, if the Yorks can dish it out they should be able to take it.
As for the infamous skating party incident the accepted narrative is that Kate intentionally neglected to tell the Yorks that the skating party was themed and Eugenie was humiliated when she arrived and realized everyone else was in costume. Even if this is true don’t the sisters bear some responsibility for knowing what to wear? It was a charity event and all of the posh young crowd was there so not one single other friend could have told the Yorks the theme? And is that any reason to stay in the ladies bathroom all night crying one’s eyes out, as was reported?
As for Pippa demanding the Yorks give up their seat at a fashion show, well that is ridiculous, imo. Google that story and without fail you will find articles giving two entirely different accounts of what happened, both citing eyewitness accounts.
Version A has Pippa flouncing to the front row and demanding the Yorks let her sit with them and being rebuffed. Version b has the director of the fashion asking Pippa to relocate to the front row to sit with the Yorks, assuming they would naturally agree, only to find that they coldly refused in order to publicly snub Pippa.
Believe what you will. But in these circles none of these types of girls are above being haughty and unladylike. I adore the York girls. Compared to Kate and Pippa they seem approachable, earnest and admirable. But I don’t buy into the High School Musical version of the girl drama.y
And guess what, FLORC? I know you don’t remember but our first argument was over the York/Middleton drama! Lol, nothing like nostalgia. And thanks for reaffirming how wonderful it is to disagree so respectfully.
Dame
Let me respond back to you in sections so I can get my thoughts out clearly.
It’s not impossible for the Yorks or anyone to mock others and have it stay private. Secrets always get out. Someone talked or someone overheard. Like Harry’s “limpet” nickname for Kate.
And while Fergie had it easier than Carole we shouldn’t praise or fault their children based on the parents accomplishments. B and E were not part of a toe sucking scandal and Kate hasn’t the entrepreneurial spirit Carole had.
To the party. It was Bea that went at 18 or 19 years old. Not Eugenie. It was short notice and it sounds like it was understood to be a costume party although Kate told Bea it wasn’t. Why should Bea question that? Seems unlikely she would doubt Kate’s word at that time. She also had no formal invite. Her invitation was from Kate’s mouth by all accounts. And if you’re going to a party that isn’t costume would you call up a friend on short notice and ask what they are wearing? I wouldn’t and can’t understand why she would. You just wear something nice for a skating rink. Simple enough.
As far as the bathroom cryingAs far as all night in the bathroom crying I read it was brief crying in the bathroom and then leaving. Likely enough time to compose herself for the exit and for the girls laughing outside the door to scatter away. Not giving them the satisfaction of seeing her hurt again.
On to the the fashion show!
Th basic story.. Pippa is not front, 3nd, or 3rd row. Yorks are 1st. Pippa throws a mini “do you know who I am” tantrum and when it becomes noticable people pull out their phones… Yorks sit quietly and say nothing to her. Pippa sees phones and returns to her seat.
Were the Yorks giving her bitchy faces? Maybe, but Pippa was the instagator here and had no authority to act as she did.
I agree with you for the most part. The Yorks are lovely ladies, but much more so when compared to Pippa and Kate. And the University stories of Kate meangirling her way past anyone without a title have never gone away. Likewise with Pippa.
And without a doubt the Yorks are female and imo makes them inherently catty.
Ultimately I’m sticking to these 2 stories and the rest seem made up without proof.
Ah, I do not remember our 1st discussion, but it’s nice to spark up old habits from time to time!
We must have been posting at the same time. Any wife of a prince, including Camilla, now has to curtesy to the princesses of “the blood” unless their husband is present. No more Dianas. Sexist, confusing and petty, imo, as I said below, though I’m sure I’ll be “corrected.”
You could maybe guess it’s to annoy Princess Michael, but the ruddy woman already curtaeys to everyone within reach.
Diana had royal blood. That’s why she was used by this despicable family.
Goodnames, that’s how I understand the rules as well.
Even though Zara doesn’t have a title, isn’t she sort of a “blood” princess? I wonder if that means she has to curtsy to Kate or Kate has to curtsy to her… So confusing!
I could see Zara saying ‘get up, you prat!’. 🙂
Even if Anne hadn’t refused titles for Zara and Peter they would not have been automatic. The queen would have had to give them their styles as a courtesy because Anne is a female. The Yorks are blood royal because their blood relationship to the sovereign is through a male, Prince Andrew.
Actually, Diana was descended from royal blood, through two illegitimate sons of King Charles II – she was not royal herself, and despite the fact that her father was an earl, was considered a commoner. Her value to the BRF was that she was a Protestant virgin, with no personal scandals, and she was of a completely English bloodline, whereas the BRF are more German than English. Because she was William’s mum, the UK will soon have a King who is actually, finally, mostly English.
Just for the heck of it cos I’m truly not contradicting….. Charles II was not overflowing with English blood himself. Pretty much most other European flavours, though. Doesn’t matter a damn.
If I were a commoner who married the future king of England, I just would not curtsy to anyone except the Queen. What are they going to do, arrest me?
Actually, does anyone know what is the penalty for refusing to curtsy?
•Y’all•
This Order of Precendence was changed (and that determines who curtseys to whom) in 2005. It was done in order to appease Anne not wanting to curtsey to Camilla (Anne never curtsied to Diana either but it became a huge sticking point after Camilla). It has absolutely nothing to do with Kate or Diana.
The new rules state that IF the born commoner/married-in Royal is at a State function or if she is with her husband, the old rules apply, i.e. she has his rank equivalency. If however, it’s not a State function and she is not with her husband, she needs to curtsey too all born HRH’s.
The new rules, IMO, are silly. Royal protocol is just an extension of military protocol and wives always carry their husbands rank. My guess is this will be corrected once Charles ascends. He’s bulked at this from day 1 *as he should*. This is a huge insult to Camilla.
(My opinion is instead of twisting the rules all up crazy to have Charles and Camilla marry –they should have continued to tell Charles he couldn’t marry Camilla. A few people have argued this is not correct and I believe them as it creates a morganatic-type marriage.)
Thank you, LadySlippers. Very enlightening. I forgot about the Anne/Camilla angle. Agree with your assessment.
Morganatic Marriage: I fell down the wikipedia hole with that term a few months ago and only emerged 3 days later. It’s just fascinating, what people will do to retain power.
I really like and respect the Queen, but I thought her decision to make the wives of princes curtesy to the “blood princesses” except when the princes were present was a bad one and came across as snobby and petty. “You will never truly be one of us, you peasant.”
So how often would she need to curtesy to the blood princesses during an event? I am picturing a curtesy every time they cross paths, which is making me giggle
I think just upon meeting, hopefully, lol
She’d spend her time lunging across the room. No wonder she looks so trim 🙂
Actually it’s really a myth that Kate would have to curtsy anyone. Royals with HRH don’t curtsy to anyone other then Queen. Instead of curtsying there is a rule of precedence which includes who enters a room first or who can leave a room after whom or who can leave a dinner table after whom.
For example Yorks (Andrew and his daughters) don’t actually have to curtsy William, Kate, Charles or Harry but they enter a room after them, can leave then dinner table only after them, can’t enter the church on official events before them etc. They only have to curtsy HM and DOE, otherwise anyone with an HRH don’t curtsy or bow to another HRH. If anything Kate have to wait for Yorks to enter a church first when she is alone rather then curtsy to them. Like Camillia waited in rain at a church’s doorstep for Anne to come when she was attending some official church service all by herself.
Another media misconception is that this rule was made after Kate got married when in reality it was made when Prince Charles married Cam and Anne refused to show deference to Cam. Queen made this rule for her daughter and not for commoner Kate.
Awesome backstory. Thanks!
Then why, when Diana lost her HRH, did Princess Michel send her a note saying not to curtesy her when they met?
•Angelic•
Not true on the myth. Behind closed doors they all absolutely DO have to curtsey to one another according to the rules. Some don’t care (Camilla) but others (Anne), very much do.
•GoodNames•
It’s only upon meeting them that you curtsey (or bow if your a man).
•Y’all•
A curtsey and a bow is the military equivalent of rendering a salute.
I’m a commoner, not in the military, and I do not salute or curtsey to anyone. It is humiliating, otherwise there wouldn’t be infighting about it.
Goods,
Because Diana lost her HRH and hence was required to curtesy those who still do have.
I still don’t get why you take offence after all the reason anyone will curtsy Kate is because of a man she married who happens to have royal blood. So basically all her status, privileges etc comes from her husband’s royal blood, so why is it so offensive when she have to defer to those who have royal blood when you have no problem when she enjoys such extreme privileges due to the same royal blood via her husband. After all it’s all about who have royal blood or who is married to royal blood and neither one of them have actually done anything to achieve such deference. So either you are against anyone curtsying to anyone else (Kate to Yorks or Yorks to Kate) or you don’t have a problem with such a humiliating gesture. I am personally against anyone bowing to anyone else either it’s Kate or Yorks or me or any other common Joe.
•wolfpup•
As an American and a person not in the military you are not required to render a courtesy like a: salute, bow, or curtsey. However, it was *never* meant to be humiliating. It simply acknowledges the person you meet’s rank. That’s all.
It’s honestly not any different than us Americans (please fill in your appropriate head of state) addressing the President as Mr President or Madame President — even if you don’t like person holding that title. Same with standing and removing hats when our national anthem plays, it’s just a sign of respect. As is other courtesies I listed (saluting, bowing, or curtseying).
Heck, Brits no longer have to curtsey or bow to royals anymore either. Only members of royalty* are bound by the protocol.
*I’m including everyone here — even those that aren’t royals per se (e.g. Japanese Imperial Family or the Monegasques Princely Family).
•Angelic•
Diana actually didn’t have to curtsey to those still with an HRH. I posted a link awhile back stating that she kept her rank at state visits and all her titles. However, I was unable to find a memo that stated she didn’t have to curtsey to anyone regardless. But it was put out at the time of divorce that ALL she lost was her HRH and nothing else.
@A:) OP
I see your point, and it’s a good one, but when you marry someone of any rank, I think you should be treated with the same respect regardless of whether or not they are present. To do less seems disrespectful to both the husband and the wife, and humiliating, not to mention confusing. I take offense to the fact that the Queen felt it necessary to actually change the rules to favor her “blood” which seems petty to me. This gesture leaves Camilla, who I don’t like, btw, standing out in the rain until the the “quality” princesses are inside if Charles isn’t there. It just seems mean spirited, like they’re saying we don’t really have any respect for you and will treat you like dirt when he’s not here to complain.
I guess I didn’t think about curtesy/bowing in general, but was just taking that part for granted since it has been in place for so long. I will think about what you said about eliminating it all together. That had not occurred to me. I’m not sure how I feel about it.
Ladyslippers
She’s ‘my’ Queen and I didn’t know one need not curtsey! In my defence, I never would anyway, though certainly I’d execute (pardon the word near royalty!) a swift nod/bow. As you say. it’s the office that’s being acknowledged. If I met Pres Obama, Higgins, Hollande, same thing, a leetle nod of deference.
•Chris•
I’ll curtsey for you k? 😜 (I’ll need to practice as I’d want to do the court curtsey which is way harder than a normal curtsey!)
I have no idea if I’d render the appropriate courtesy as I’m both a proud American AND a proud Royal Loonie! Lol
•Y’all•
After being a military wife for 16 years rendering appropriate courtesies are a simple fact of life. It’s not a big deal.
As for Anne, she can be very full of herself. It had nothing to do with humiliation. Same as been said of Andrew and Edward too. Part of a military/royal hierarchy is knowing your place. IMO — she doesn’t. Even if they changed the Order of Precedence to reflect birth order, she’d still be required to curtsey to the Wales’ and Cambridges’. It’s exactly the same in the military. Exactly.
•wolfpup•
There actually is little ‘infighting’ about this. It was just Anne throwing a fit. Charles fought it though. And will fight it and change it once he has the reigns.
Goods,
I don’t get why it’s humiliating for Cam to wait for Anne to come first when it’s not humiliating for Anne to wait for Cam to come first with her brother. I find the whole ordeal of deferring to anyone humiliating, not that if you marry top dog then you deserve to bowed down to. If Anne can wait for her brother and SIl then why can’t her SIL wait or feel humiliated? Do you think Charles is better then his siblings and hence his wife too? It’s an old fashioned, ridiculous institution so ridiculous rules are made but to suggest Cam deserved to bowed and making her defer to Anne is humiliating is actually believing in royal family
‘s medieval concept of status and precedence by birth IMO.
•Angelic•
Camilla is technically Pss of Wales and therefore, outranks her SiL. What Anne asked her mother to do is to flout centuries-old traditions that are reflected all across the English speaking world — which is that a woman takes her husband’s rank. It stems from the military. It’s very patriarchal and may not have much relevancy today but we all still use it. If you don’t believe, look at formal invites, stuff usually comes to Mr & Mrs John J Smith. THAT’S what’s being denied Camilla.
And yes, Anne honestly made Camilla wait out in the rain, even while Camilla was ill. That’s just sh!tty anyway you look at it.
I get what you are saying but I don’t have a problem of Cam not getting husband’s status in royal world because her bloody husband didn’t get his own status on his own merit like other people you mentioned. At the end of the day in the ridiculous, outdated world of royalty it’s all about royal blood.
LadySlippers: I agree – its a sign of respect for someone’s rank, not meant to be humiliating. I have to do it all the time in my profession – judges are addressed as “My Lord/Lady”, i have to bow when leaving the court room and colleagues are addressed as “My Friend” or “My Learned Friend” (if they have a QC designation). This isn’t optional for me.
What is Anne going to do when Camilla is Queen Camilla (which I think she will be) – refuse to curtsey to the Queen Consort? Does she curtsey to Prince Phillip now? He’s royal by marriage, not blood.
I’m a little fuzzy on this, but as GoodNames mentioned above, there was a big hubbub when deciding Diana’s status over the idea that if they took away Diana’s HRH, she might have to curtsey to Princess Michael (of all people). I think this is why the solution of letting Diana keep her rank at state visits was reached.
I assume this is how Anne feels about curtseying to Camilla – “Camilla, of all people”. And to LNG, I would think Anne has absolutely no problem curtseying to Philip. He is her father and someone she deeply respects. Anne clearly doesn’t respect Camilla, and evidently doesn’t respect her position either.
•LNG•
Actually Philip was born HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. His parents were TRH Prince and Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark (née HRH Princess Alice of Battenberg). So he is and was a prince by birth. Just not of the United Kingdom which Lilibet bestowed upon him a few years after she became Queen.
Formal courtesies are actually found everywhere and no one thinks twice about using them. Totally agree with you there.
Anne is silly in this regard. Camilla, unless a law is passed, will be Queen. Period/Full stop. Anne will need to get off her high horse and curtsey. Plus, you can bet that Charles will fix this promptly after he ascends and then she’ll be required to curtsey to both Kate AND Sophie. If Sarah remarries Andrew, add Sarah to the mix. Stupid pettiness.
@A:) OP
Well, I’m not explaining it very well. I totally see what you’re saying. To me, it wasn’t humiliating to Anne because that’s the way it was for centuries, I’m assuming. So she grew up with it. But then her mother changed it, apparently to shift the status to her daughter. Which seems petty. You have a point that the whole thing is silly to begin with. I’ve sort of backed myself into a corner where I’m defending something I’m not so sure how I feel about, so I’m just going to mumble something and exit the room now. Lol.
All quite bitchy and silly but so entirely fascinating.
LAK
I get your point but in a courtroom people *actually* do something important. The way everyone is being addressed is old and time honored. It hasn’t been changed because this judge or that judge stamped their foot and threw a tantrum.
DAme: that was LNG not me. I’m not a lawyer.
My only contribution to thise conversation is to remind everyone that it wasn’t just Anne who threw a wobble, it was Alexandra too.
Alexandra who is so far down the line of succession that only dedicated royal watchers can pick her out of a line up is now elevated higher than Camilla when Charles is not present.
Sorry LAK, oops.
Dame: You’d be surprised at how often I do ridiculously unimportant things in a court room 🙂 I agree with you though, I think its ridiculous that the rules were changed because someone threw a fit. It feels like it wasn’t thought through very well – I’m seriously curious whether Camilla is going to have to curtsey to Anne even after she is Queen Consort when Charles isn’t around.
LAK – I didn’t realize Alexandra was in on it as well! It really just seems silly. I think everyone should curtsey to the Queen/Consort and that should be it. Although I’d love to be a fly on the wall for Christmas breakfast – all of the bobbing up and down must be hilarious. I am now picturing Camilla walking into the crowd while Anne is curtseying to the Queen and Anne yelling THAT IS NOT FOR YOU CAMILLA!! heh
Well, it would be a cold day in hell before I’d ever curtsey to Kate Middleton. The notion just makes me laugh! Send me to the Tower, I’m OK with it.
Just saying, as an American we are not expected to bow or salute our president. Anyone who meets Barack Obama can expect him to shake their hand, or he even might give them a hug! There is warmth in the communication. No groveling expected – there is only joy at meeting him!
It’s almost a shame we have to know this tosh, makes it so hard to justify one’s pro-monarchy bent!.(Bent indeeed) Making a distinction between Zara P and her egregious female cousins is a lot to swallow! No doubt she roars heartily with laughter herself, so I’ll do the same. 😉
LAK
Have mercy, Alexandra too ? I’m sticking my fingers in my ears ….’lalalalala’…
•GoodNames•
I totally agree. This comes across as Anne being petty as h^ll and her mother co-signing. I do know that QEII was (and is) very conscious of the public opinion surrounding Camilla (it’s why for almost 10 years the Dss of Cornwall wasn’t included in the prayer for the RF) but all these moves just strike me as very below the belt. Not nice.
Ladyslippers
I’m a staunch Camilla gal, so want her path to be smooth. Trying to excuse Mrs Queen, might the ruling be based on any other motive? Or at least, not personally about Camilla? Surely that would be too petty for Anne or HMQ (hark at my pleading!) When this type of tosh pops up, you remember La Simpson though, and her clawing for protocol and deference, and what resulted, and you can get a glimmer of HMQ’s sensitivity on the subject. Maybe.. Oh dear!
•Chris•
I was a firm Diana fan (but I don’t turn a blind eye to her faults) and Camilla has really won me over with her grace and work ethic. Go Camilla!
Unfortunately, no. As much as I’d love to say otherwise, I think QEII was being petty here. Wallis wasn’t so much an issue as QM’s objections. QM was STAUNCHLY opposed to Camilla as she didn’t even personally like her and blamed Camilla for all kinds of things (but not Charles. QM was sexist through and through). So HM often just followed Mummy’s lead and only begrudgingly allowed them to marry. But with huge caveats and changes to the Order of Precedence. The latter just might be illegal as there isn’t such a thing a morganatic marriages in the UK and this effectively created a quasi-morganatic marriage.
I do like HM but she’s not perfect. Not by a long shot.
Chris: Anne’s PR image is that she doesn’t stand for nonsense, but her insistence on this point shows she’s just as status conscious as the rest of her siblings and just as entitled.
Ladyslippers
Thank you SO much for that explanation, even though it was unwelcome, if you get my drift. Very disappointing all round. I read your other comment just before this, and thought that you hit it with the ‘quasi’ status of Camilla, and thus excused Anne’s insistence on the letter of the law, but gawd…
🙁
LAK hi
Anne: absolutely, and I’m ridiculously saddened by a this . (I mean, why care?) Still. Can’t even blame Hello mag this time either. ‘My’ Anne is probably a construct of a few occasions 40 years ago. (Way to use an education, gurrl)
🙁
•Chris•
You are ever so welcome.
Comfort yourself with the fact that even great people have major flaws. There isn’t a one of us that escapes that aspect of being human.
Ladyslippers, Lak ( god knows where this will show up)
A watershed day here at Rose-Tinted Towers! I think I must let Mrs Q know that my continuing support depends on the abolition of curtseying, and a new protocol that allows for human weakness and pride…. a nod/bow to one’s equals and superiors, and Camilla to continue to kiss DoE since he seems to enjoy it.
From now on, I peer at them all through very STERN lorgnette
Thanks for a fun and instructive talk!
Ladyslippers, Lak ( fod knows where this will show up)
A watershed day here at Rose-Tinted Towers! I think I must let Mrs Q know that my continuing support depends on the abolition of curtseying, and a new protocol that allows for human weakness and pride…. a nod/bow to one’s equals and superiors, and Camilla to continue to kiss DoE since he seems to enjoy it.
From now on, I peer at them all through very STERN lorgnette
Thanks for a fun and instructive talk!
LAK, your post about Anne gets an A+ for making the point with the fewest number of words! I need to take lessons from you.
Sign me,
bellicose bluhare
Family infighting over status? (teehee) Royal blood – pffft! Royal privilege and comeuppance is what it is all about.
Chris
I love you so much for finding a reason to say lorgnette. I find myself looking forward to your posts!
LAK
Ita
Wolfpup
You said it better than I could.
Ladyslippers
Just the belated observation that if anyone these days sent out a formal invitation to Mr and Mrs John Smith, said couple would have serious doubts about attending. It’s an outrageously outdated salutation (obvs) but importantly, no public sector instutution (UK centric comment) would dare have it on a mailing list (unless requested) So in order to get around the fact that Mrs has in fact taken Mr’s name, you get ‘Mr and Mrs John and Evadne Smith.’ Which carries its own share of nonsense, but at least admits a bit of independent existence for Evadne.
Don’t know why I mention it, as it will hardly stamp out curtseying, will it?!!
🙂
Chris: As it should be. I side eye everyone who changes their name to support the patriarchal system.
Though on that note, two friends’ new husbands changed their surnames to the ladies’ surnames. As much as i support this, i also realise how much i’ve been indoctrinated because i have the occasional moment of vague puzzlement as to why my friends X are married to their own brothers!!! 🙂
LAK,
In Denmark we’re starting to see a lot of hyphenated surnames to include both family names.
Interestingly, enough the custom of a wife taking her husband’s surname isn’t really that old, just a couple of centuries. I guess it reflects a time when patrical sociaetal structures became close entwined with the importance of the family unit. Before that women often retained their family name at a time where the larger family/dynasty, etc. where more important socially that the domestic family unit.
True story: My last name is also Mr. snark’s last name. Totally geeked out by the karma and totally disappointed at missing my one real shot at hyphenating my name.
But our bank lists both of our first and surnames on our checks/accounts with ‘or’ between our names. I think it’s pretty awesome. And Mr. snark’s sister never changed her maiden name when she married. She didn’t spend her entire life building a solidly impressive professional vitae just to have to remind everyone in her field who she was because she got married lol.
•Chris•
Sadly, in the US things being addressed to Mr and Mrs John J Smith is still fairly common. It’s decreasing in commonness but not a ton. In fact, many of my traditional aged classmates in college (I went back as an adult so was a non-trad student) were thrilled to be called Mrs John J Smith (more formally than in everyday use) and any woman who didn’t like it was kinda put down. Retro is kinda in.
•ArtHistorian•
Yep, my father’s family is Swedish and I would have been known as my fsther’s first name and dotter instead of a last name (so Lady Oscarsdotter for example).
I’m fascinated with naming traditions, especially since there have been many different in my own family throughout the ages.
The Scandinavian naming of the child after their father’s firstname, then either -son/sen or -datter, goes a long way back (early middle ages/viking I believe), and it was retained in among the peasant class until the 18th century. I did, however, make things a tad confusing. Fx Paul Olessen would have a son called Ole Paulsson, he have a son called Nils Olessen – so, either one patronym was retained (Jensen, etc.) or place names were included. And sometimes the spelling of these were changed for different reasons, fx social status. My paternal grandmother had a german-sounding family name so we assumed that her family once originated in Germany. Totally not so. They came from a tiny Danish hamlet, the origin of the family name, but when they moved to Copenhagen in the 18th century the germanized the spelling because the German-speaking populace of the capital were very successful and looked down on Danish as the language of peasants and servant.
A long and slightly complicated history in just a single name.
Princess Anne has broken my heart, wearing that hat! Can’t the damn things be declared illegal? Kate’s is simply beyond snarkery.
I love all things British, but I think the women need to seriously review their headgear. I think they see some hats as whimsical and ironic when they just look stupid.
There’s a fine line between whimsy and freakishness. That is one ridiculous hat, Waity.
Here’s a pic with Camilla wearing a hat that is simply so outrageously silly that I can’t help but like it, since it looks like she growing an english summer meadow on her head:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/91901648620970429/
Yes, but I bet their cell phones never drop calls.
Lol, I knew there was a good reason
Dame: ha ha ha!!!!!
I never knew there was such a thing as “beyond snarkery” until today.
😉
LAK
Re husband’s name
Exactly what I meant by the ‘nonsense’ bit: we boldly remove ‘Mrs John’ but she’s still subsumed herself under ‘Smith’ even if she gets to use Evadne.
I hate those shoes. This girl has no pizzaz at all, she’s just so bland. Honestly how hard can it be to go to parties and drink champagne and talk to a few people for a couple of hours? Some people don’t realize their luck. *Fuming while getting ready for my 8hrs at the office*. Sigh.
Your comment made me laugh. Not because you have to go and spend 8 hrs in an office, because I am about to do the same:( But it was funny, and I agree.
Actually, those appear to be *different* nude shoes. Not the Sledges.
And, I like the dress, but I really miss the belt. Looks a little plain without one.
Kate has the hands of a 50yr old.
Yes, and I’ve also noticed that lately the creases and wrinkles around her eyes appear much deeper. I think she was botoxed to the hilt during the AUS/NZ tour.
This was one of my all time favorites when she wore it to the jubilee church service, but I really disliked it yesterday. I agree it needs the belt. I also think it looked a million times better with the pink accessories (belt, hat, clutch). Without them, it’s just way too beige and blah looking.
This one’s a big miss for me.
I agree, I liked it the first time she wore it, but this time she looks like a wreck. The hat is hideous.
Nice to see her padded bra is back…….
It’s a very pretty dress and hat but the outfit is so BEIGE. I know jewel tones are probably too bright for a tea party type sitch but surely there has to be some happy medium?
“they end up serving about 270,000 cups of tea, 20,000 sandwiches and 20,000 slices of cake for EACH party. The Queen serves a “special tea blend” called “Buckingham Palace Garden Party Tea”
Nothing about that sentence I don’t like. Sandwiches, cake, tea.
Happy Daisies!
*sips peasant tea*
It’s a lovely day for it too.
Might have to go to the park with a pitcher of Pimms at some point!
Pimms in the park!!!!
I can’t think of too many things nicer than Pimms in the park with a few confections thrown in today. Lovely!!!
What has she in those rigid reticules she carries? A swipe of red lipstick would liven things up, even HMQ loves good lip!
Exactly, or at least a lip stain, whichb I love for daytime.
2 engagements in one day!!!? She’s going to need a vacation after all this hard work.
PLUS her hair is off her face AND we can’t see her bum or upper thighs. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is someone just off to the left or right of the photo with a fainting couch for Catherine.
She looks ok, though I agree that the belt improved the outfit. However when I see her in this type of dress, which is of course “wind-proof”, I can see why she wears so many full skirts (a look I always prefer to pencil skirts). Since she has no hips, the full skirts give her the illusion of a more womanly figure. But without a slip those full skirts can be dangerous!
Anyway, I am very glad to see the wonderful Duchess of Gloucester in the first picture (she is the lady behind Anne.) She was a secretary when she married the Queen’s cousin Prince Richard of Gloucester. He was a younger son and not expected to be Duke. His elder brother was killed in a plane crash however and Richard and Birgitte (her name – she is Danish) took on their royal roles and have always been a quiet help to the Queen, doing lots of unheralded “royal stuff”. Plus they raised three children who turned out normal!
Justme
Lovely…there are a few smashing older women quite close to the top who remain low profile aren’t there? I do like Alexandra, and the Duchess of Kent, for example. They’ve always seemed so thoroughly decent.
It’s said that, since converting to Catholicism, the Duchess of Kent is referred to within the family as “Poor Kate”.
I miss her going gently about her presenting duties at Wimbledon.
And wasn’t there some scuttlebutt about Alexandra and DOE….or am I thinking of that carriage-driving temptress, Penny Knatchbull? No doubt someone here will know.
DameEdna
That was lovely! A poignant tribute to her, gentle and calm
Gosh, there were one or two excitements too in the old days. Anne’s kidnap on the Mall! Charles’ tearaway cherry brandy guzzling at Gourdonston! Heyvho.
.
•Chris•
Did you see Alexandra behind Kate in one of the shots? She looks fab too!
•Edna•
I can’t remember the story exactly either but Alexandra isn’t a wallflower! Lol
And I’ve never heard anyone say they refer to Kate Kent as ‘poor Kate’. Can you elaborate? I do think her marriage fell apart years ago… And I wouldn’t be surprised if she struggles with depression. Luckily QEII has been very accommodating and understanding of the Dss of Kent’s needs and requests. But I’d love to hear more.
DssK has more or less retired from public life due to ill health and a separation that hasn’t quite gone to divorce.
She had taken to teaching music in Nottinghill though not sure whether she is still doing that. I was so pleased to see her during the Jubilee celebrations though she looked so withered and diminished.
•LAK•
I think she is still teaching. There was an article about a year or so ago that talked about it.
Very dear woman and it’s always a shame to hear when a marriage falls apart. Regardless of why.
Love this story. And agree about Kate and her flouncy skirts. She is hipless and can look like a stick of gum in straighter lines. I battled the same problem for years myself. I learned what silhouettes worked best for me. But I’m older than Kate so flippy little skirts interest me less these days. So I get it but I also have two little sisters and a mother all too willing to tell me if I’m dressed like a ninny.
•justme•
I love you!!! I was SO excited to see the Dss of G behind TPssR. I am desperately trying to find more pics of her at the event (no such luck).
YAY for Glousester love! YAY for Birgitte!
Did you know there’s a blog on tumblr just for her?!???! 😃
I must find that tumblr blog! Thanks! I really like the Gloucesters, Richard and Birgitte. This dates back to my earliest royal viewings on TV – things like the Investiture of Prince Charles. I always wondered who the fellow in the glasses was – the one who looked like a budding professor or a student architect (which he was) rather than a royal.
Then I read his mother’s autobiography – The Memoirs of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (a great read by the way) and began to look for and recognize them whenever any of them peeked out. They were always far more ignored than the Kents, although they were higher on the line of succession.
Justme: they attend my church*. They are so unassuming.
*I’m an avowed atheist, but my church puts on special events – usually chamber music concerts so I occasionally put in an appearance. Ditto when relatives pop over for a visit and insist on going to church. And the christmas mince pies and mulled wine after the services.
Justme
I feel bad for the Kents though, frequently taken to be the flashy Prince and Princess Michael. I’d be spitting feathers.
(I was at boarding school in Gloucestershire and the older Gloucesters were our girlish mascots, even the nuns approved.)
LAK*
Atheism is so peaceful…I love it.
@LadySlippers…..sorry, I don’t have anything more to tell about “Poor Kate”. It was something I read and I recall thinking “what a cheek” when you consider some of the half-wits and borderline-hysterics that have traipsed in and out of that family.
@Chris……Gloucestershire! I once found myself, quite unexpectedly, in Lower Swell on a glorious, midsummer morning. Queen Anne’s Lace frothing in the hedgerows, campions…..and swallows,my dear, swallows. Utter bliss.
DameEdna
Lower Swell in summer:
You must let me know what you would charge for a daily micro-vignette like that, an English country idyll!. Lovely. Sense memory brings back Queen Anne’s lace and I can hear bees buzzing….
(Damnit, it’s the fridge!) Still, what a beautiful corner of England eh?
The fridge! Priceless.
The Gloucesters have been j heralded workhorses for years. The Duchess is absolutely lovely and hasn’t ever put a foot wrong even though she wasn’t born to royalty or nobility nor expected to be a royal duchess. And her jewelry is second only to the Queen’s. Primcess Alice received a ton from Queen Mary upon her marriage and the late Duke also inherited a lot from a spinster cousin (he was her godson). As the current Duke was the only surviving child, he inherited it all. It’ll be a shame when it starts getting sold off when they pass–because of taxes and lack of need. As a side note, one of their daughters is married to a Maori–I think it’s Davina.
•Kori•
Yep, it’s Davina and he’s divine! Yum. Lol
The Gloucester’s ARE work horses and get virtually no press. They were just in Devon (I think it was Devon) and got just blips in the local news. And terrible pics! Lol. Richard and Birgitte are a good looking couple and I’d love to see more of them.
Ladyslippers–they used to het press back in the day (80s and 90s) but its faded significantly, sadly. They still carry out a lot of engagements. Their children never turned up in the tabloids either and all seem happy and content.
Oh yes, she is ever gracious and lovely.
the fascinator looks too small for her head/face IMO.
The dress isn´t my favourite. Pretty but a little bit dull. The colour suits Kate, but it makes her shoudlers look super wide and she has no hips.
Eugenie looks cute, not spectacular. The hat… hmmm
Two engagements in a row that she’s worn a dress with a slim skirt–maybe she’s gotten the message we don’t want to see the royal bum/ladybits anymore!! The person they hired to be the royal bum watcher/shopper seems to be doing their job!!
I feel like Kate’s pattern is to play it safe for a bit after her big incidents, letting everyone think an official edict has come down. And then a strong breeze comes around and her skirts fly right up and we’re off to the races again.
Wouldn’t it be great if Kate flat out refused to curtsey to those little twerps? I mean, just said NO! What could the queen do about it? Arrest her? Wouldn’t that make a great headline?
What makes them twerps? Really. please respond to this.
And there’s much that can happen to Kate and her family that more subtle than arrest.
Curious about the “twerp” reference too – these 2 are a credit to the royal family and seem more genuine and committed than Kate, that’s for sure.
Guess this was a post and run.
I don’t want to assume people blindly worship Kate, but it seems true when they also attack anyone who’s know to have some slight issue with Kate. Even if Kate started it. Like Leanne Rhymes twitter brigade. Remember how they harrassed the Smiley family the moment Leanne posted her low opinion of them?
If OTHER RENEE has their reasons for saying twerp to the Yorks I wish they would state why they feel that way or they only sound like a pawn or mimic of anothers opinions.
😉 Egging you on yet Renee?
Her face is starting to really age. Bad nutrition and years of chain smoking and sunbathing has caught up with her. It doesn’t matter what you’re wearing when the foundation is starting to crack. She looks rough.
Yes with all that money I thought she’d look better. Can’t believe that dress is designer – it looks super cheap.
Boring dress. Was meh on it the first time. My opinion has not changed. The shoes are better, but still meh.
Someone needs to take away her foundation. She plastered that stuff on. Jeez.
Stat.
In person she looks extremely thin and frail. Poor skin and damaged hair.
So say my Brit friends that have seen her in person. Now 1 of them is very into spf after seeing what sun can do to your skin.
When she had a healthy weight she had a better figure. She’s become much too thin again.
Did you notice the difference in the tightness of the dress from 2012 to 2014? In 2012, the dress is way more body- conscious than it’s most recent outing. It’s hard to imagine Kate could be any tinier than she was two years ago, but she clearly is from the most recent pics.
She is even thinner than two years ago. Very troubling, I would think.
Before coming back to post these replies I noticed a lot of loose material in her mid section. She’s appearing thinner imo too!
When I had my ed I remember thinking my body was never perfect, but at least I looked good in clothes. Truth is they hung on me like this dress hangs on Kate.
If she’s struggling I do feel for her, but she needs to figure herself out because girls are idolizing her and her body is not in good shape it seems.
She’s bony and frail all over – when she is wearing less conservative – lower necklines – clothing you can see her bony sternum and I’ve also seen photos where the bones in her bac are clearly visible. Ugh!!
Just for once. Can we have a size 16 princess? I’m so tired of the trophy wife, husband dumps her at 40 for a cocktail waitress paradigm. Shit gets old. When can we have a princess with a bold, funny personality? And a prince who’s not threatened by a strong woman. Are you that prince, Harry ?
ITD,
We did have the reverse of that paradigm – Charles left his young, slim, pretty, etc wife for someone who did not fit that mold at all.
Yes indeed……Charles loves a bold, laughing, smoking and drinking age-softened woman. As one myself, I love him back 🙂
I think different: We have a size 16 princess with personality though technically she isn’t a princess – different discussion, and the press nicknamed her Duchess of Pork. for real. the poor woman has been yo yo dieting ever since and has probably had one too many therapy sessions to deal try and dampen her larger than life personality.
Her daughters aren’t skinny minnies and they have lovely hour glass figures. Still the eldest daughter was media fat shamed at 17/18 and has been on permanent diet/exercise routine to maintain a slimmer silhouette.
AM: And i think that was /is part of the problem for the public. We are all indoctrinated with the fairytale of the beautiful princess and her Prince charming. Prince Charming is not supposed to leave the beautiful princess for the ugly duchess. ever. Charles definitely upset the apple cart with that one.
LAK,
I didn’t even think of Sarah, and she’s probably the best example. She was well-received for a minute, and then the press turned on her for a number of reasons but a big one being her weight. And I do believe Andrew really loved her and wasn’t overly bothered by her weight, but the public sure didn’t.
Agreed, re: Charles and Diana. For all her good works, the dynamic really was “why would he leave that beautiful woman for that old crone?”
Sadly, most royal married in females will be ridiculed for appearance. For the most part the critiques here aren’t bad. Follow protocol, wear hair back when in need to, don’t look like the poster girl for thinspiration is enough.
Bottom line, you’re instantly a very powerful person through marriage. People all over will see your image and it will be held as the gold standard or the worst.
Be it quick weight loss or gain it’s not good. Although, if you maintain a healthy weight and give us something else to focus on the headlines will still be mean, but more people will respect you for the right reasons. You will be a positive role model.
Long Bottom Line.
Queen Maxima comes to mind–she isn’t super skinny and has more of a normal woman’s shape. Actually so does CP Victoria at this point, following her recovery from anorexia. Both dress for their shape and look great.
I don’t think she looks all that great these days. She looks tired and frail, trying to enjoy it. Is there a history of depression in her family?
Agree,
Working her fingers to the bone!!! LOL!!!
Don’t make me laugh! Never mind; I just did!
i look forward to that phrase in Kate posts. it’s so funny and yet so true. Kate was once caught on tape telling someone at a reception that she’s had an incredibly busy year and was hoping for a more quiet one the following one.
Lak, I hate to use the phrase bone idle, so I won’t. I’ll just say she must have been idling (like a car) for the past 10 years and is now having to drive in 1st gear.
I’m wondering if Eugenie wore a short, flouncy skirt to stick it to Kate? “You’re banned from fluttery skirts, but I can still wear them….” It will be interesting if Eugenie and her sister wear nothing but flouncy skirts all summer.
B & E wear flouncy skirts all the time because their figures are best flattered that style. They both have hourglass figures. Best showcase with a flouncy skirt rather than a pencil skirt.
Lak
You have just renamed Yorkies for me. B&E = ‘Breaking and Entering.’ Nailed.
Hourglass figures, but often presented as novelty egg-timers too. The more photo’d one, with the large eyes, does calm it down these days though, and looks better to me. Not that *that* matters of course.
(ps I love the thought of your local musical recitals. Another atheist, I too enjoy churches and alternative uses, such calming spaces)
Chris: LOL. didn’t’ think about that B& E!!!
Kate is so tall, thin and statuesque. They all must hate her in the way I hate her hat. Otherwise she looks nice. They all three look nice.
The Windsors are rather on the short side so in comparison Kate looks very tall.
She is also very tall with the heels that she prefers. But I would probably feel uncomfortable taking a picture with her for media broadcast, when she is so “modelesque”, and I am so normal. I don’t know, maybe if I were wearing the right outfit.
Not a fan of the hat, but I like the dress.
I really wonder how tiny her waist looks in person. Are people like “dayum that girl’s gonna break in half.”
I read somewhere that she’s a “star” on various pro-ana web sites. Great role model indeed.
Yikes! I’ve heard about those sites and what they’re about, but have no interest in venturing there. Can’t believe Kate is among the revered.
post in wrong place
I can believe it. She’s very thin and got that way quickly, before her wedding and then after her pregnancy. I think you’d really have to see her in person to appreciate the full effect of her frailness (frailty?)
or……….eating disorder.
agree. She is way to thin
I know Kate has to wear pantyhose but do Beatrice and Eugenie? Eugenie looks like she has bare legs here.
It’s hard to tell from that picture, but they are all wearing tights including E. It’s the smooth no wrinkles look of the ankles and knee creases that give the game away for their presence if you can’t tell.
I’m coming back here to comment again, because I can’t get over the math. Ten thousand on the guest list. Each person had maybe 2 sandwiches and 2 cakes, ok. But… 27 cups of tea, each??? Wow, I hope they have a lot of loos. Especially as tea is a diuretic…
Probably typo, but i wouldn’t be surprised if they had excess tea vs eats. tea cups aren’t exactly filling.
I believe Kate is clearly showing the strain of marrying into the BRF, hence the drastic weight loss and drained look. I also think that she and William’s lack of interest in stepping up their public appearances and charity work is a direct result of the death of Diana, and the lack of press intrusion while William was at school.
Kate bit off more than she can chew with her relentless pursuit of William and willingness to go into a world that can be at once adoring and vicious. William, on the other hand, utilizes her reluctance to take on a wider role as it keeps him from having to step up his own game. He can use her reluctance for public life and desire to stay within the safe bosom of her own family to his benefit for a long time.
Do I think they have a happy marriage? Not sure but if her weight loss and general lack of spark are any indicator, I don’t think she’s dealing with the stress of her marriage or position at all well.
God forgive me for prolonging this, but:
If I hadn’t been reading these comments I would not think twice about her appearance, as far as weight, skin, demeanour go. She looks like she always did, to me. Surely the long relationship with Wm gave her a few clues about the marriage! And one thing in her favour is her *not* looking detached and sad like other prisoner brides of this and other parishes!
I dunno, obvs I’m no expert observer, but if all that is suspected here is fact, then I damn well hope someone in the Firm is ready to put out fires.
Chris —
If you look back at pictures of Kate pre-engagement, the weightloss is clearly evident. She was never remotely heavy or overweight, she actually had quite an enviable physique — slim and athletic would be the best way to describe it. Now she is a shadow of her former self and underneath the padded bras and layers of clothing she is quite frail.
The other changes are more about esthetics v.s. health-related — veneers, heavier make up, hair extensions and some people believe, botox.
Thanks Caitlin
Worrying news then about weight. If she turns into another Diana, or Fergiana , with that, I will may lose the will to live. I’m not convinced it’s pathological, and hope
it’s Kate dieting post partum though her metabolism was already working on it (sorry if that’s gobbledegook)
🙂
Chris
To add
Kate in er white bikini on that boat was yearss and years ago. She was fit with muscle. Flashing to her honeymoon picture of her and william in swimsuits on a beach. She becomes all skeletal. Her hips diminished and her shoulders looked broader because of chest and rib weightloss.
Links are an issue with me so you’ll have to google them.
Her you to University days to mid way through their engagement she had an athletic build with some fat, but not enough to make anyone think she’s fat or unhealthy. Kate’s natural size is not this thin by far.
Around the engagement she lost the weight and only slightly regained it for pregnancy.
It’s also well known andbeen confirmed here and there she works out for a few hours doing mostly cardio daily. Her diet is sometimes stated to be a specific diet that later becomes trendy, ubt is heavily calorie and carb restricted. I wonder if she exceeds 1000 calories a day with her frame.
And she smokes. They like to think it’s a secret, but it isn’t.
IMO and a few others that’s why those topless france shots were a big issue.
Everyone had seen Kate’s chest, but there was a photo of her mid drag off a cigarette that was thought to be the main issue and why all the photos had to be pulled citing another issue. Pay no attention to the possibly pregnant woman smoking! look away!
Dear Ms. LadySlippers 11:15am:
I need more convincing that a curtsy is a sign of respect “not any different” than an American removing their hat for our national anthem or using the title “Mr. President” when addressing our president.
My view is that a curtsy = deference or reverence. One could argue that the meaning of a curtsy has evolved and today it no longer symbolizes deference. But that is not the case because a curtsy continues to be protocol exclusive to royalty (and square dancing).
If introduced to QEII (fat chance!) would I curtsy? Protocol does not require it since I am an American and certainly HM would not expect it of me. Even though in general, I believe when in Rome do as the Romans, I would not curtsy to HM even though I have tremendous respect for her. But I would follow all other royal protocol even though imo all the other rules for interacting with royalty also denote deference.
Respectfully yours,
Ms. MinnFinn
Hahaha!
That made me think of Malcolm McLaren’s Buffalo Girls video (am crap at links, sorry)
Royalty and square dancing. This comment brings me life.
•MinnFinn•
Respecting a person’s rank can be a part of deference but it’s usually just seen as respectful. That’s why a salute, bow, or curtsey is called rendering a courtesy. As is other forms of military and royal protocol.
But being respectful and/or deferential is also not turning your back a Monarch (one example), so I’m confused why you would pick and choose when to be respectful. How is one form of protocol different than another?
And I guess I’m confused as to what you want me to explain. That’s not snark btw, I’m honestly confused. Think about how and what you do everyday that acknowledges respect for another person — there are virtually hundreds if not thousands of things we do every day that’s respectful and deferential to other people. Whether they ‘earn’ it or not.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland is the Head of State for the UK and the all Commonwealth nations. Imperial, Royal, Grand Ducal, and Princely families are heads of their countries and extensions of their military (historically royals and their ties to the military were much more obvious). They are the flag bearers of their countries. They are assigned jobs that cover a myriad of things: government workers, politicians, ambassadors, relationship builders, charity volunteers, cheerleaders, giving voice to the voiceless, working for a better world, etc. etc. etc..
Plus both the President of the United States and HM QEII are both heads of their military in addition to being the head of state. They both, even though one is elected and the other inherited, have responsibilities to their countries. In fact, in one area having a Monarch is very beneficial to a country — it allows for partisan politics to be cast aside and unifies a country very well when needed.
The issue is many people now see royalty as celebrities when in reality, that is not their role at all. WE the general public, with our need for salacious gossip, the press willing to deliver, and a few scandalous royals, have turned some royals from people with gravitas to mere famous objects rather than people. Obviously, declining importance in government has aided it as well. My point is royalty is not all about pomp and circumstance — there is real work being done that we rarely see.
So if you choose to curtsey or not curtsey, that’s obviously 100% your decision. I don’t know if I would to be perfectly honest (I probably would though — especially to QEII and the DoE). But that doesn’t negate the fact that rendering a courtesy or following either military/royal protocol was created so people could easily show respect to the office/rank of others.
Respectfully,
🌸 LadySlippers 🌸
And sorry for the lengthy response, I kinda took awhile to find some traction. Hopefully it makes sense and I answered your questions and concerns.
I would curtsey. But mostly because I just really want to curtsey at some point in my life with a straight face. But I couldn’t do it all the time, say for instance, if I were a courtier, servant etc. too dehumanizing, imo.
But I love your comment. Well said, imo.
•Snark•
Honestly it’d became just a part of life and you’d take no notice if it if you had to do it daily. Saw it all the time on base. It becomes something you do…
And thanks. 😊
On one point I must disagree. Americans are not given a list of of protocol to meet our president. If you watch footage of our president with the general public, he is warm shaking hands, giving hugs, small relevant sharing…
LS, your list of what the British monarch does is impressive, but her role is very different than our American president. She cannot send troops to war, or legislate and sign things into law, Her “powers” seem to be the veneer of the British government, despite any “titles” that she holds.
•wolfpup•
Actually, people are often told what they can and cannot do prior to meeting the President. I promise you — it’s a big dog and pony show too. George HW Bush (while president) went to my high school a year after I graduated and I heard what people were told prior to the visit.
My hometown was and is frequently a destination for royalty and famous celebrities (athletes, actors/actresses, politicians, etc.) and some had all kinds of rules when meeting them and others had virtually none. Same held true for royals that visited (except the Saudi Royals — they were not pleasant).
And yes, the powers of the British Soveriegn are much diminished but the ‘soft power’ is still enormous.
Just me or does she look like she is wearing less eye makeup? She usually piles it on even for day events. Good girl!
Her figure looks incredible in that dress. Her measurements are PERFECT-
http://celebriot.com/kate-middleton-weight-height-measurements-bra-size-ethnicity
those figures aren’t correct because she’s an inch shorter [at least] than quoted, plus they’ve listed her hips wider than her shoulders and we can all see [or google honeymoon pics] that her shoulders are wider than her hips. Even if one argues that bra size is a measurement of back rather than shoulders, it’s still wider than her hips.
Plus she wears a padded bar most of the time. At the most she’s an A cup – see green Jenny Packham evening dress she wore bra-less to an event at the Albert Hall.
The accuracy of anything from a site entitled “celebriot” is questionable at best. I suppose Kate had one of her people take measurements and then supply them to the good folks at “celebriot”…
What’s more disturbing is that you think the measurements & weight provided are “PERFECT”…..If anything, they support the view that Kate has lost a dramatic amount of weight and is not healthy.
I think she might be a B cup at most. Probably an A usually. She certainly is not 5’9″ that the media would like us to believe. Just look at William with her next to him wearing her 4 inch heels and do the math.
IMO, Kate is insecure about her natural height. She is obsessed about her weight, too, and diets to the point of looking rather unhealthy. It must be a drag for her to think she has to get pregnant again.
She’s never looked dowdier …..
I like the dress, but I’m not a fan of the tiny hat.
She went more subtle with her makeup–I love it. I think she looks lovely in that dress
The dress is appropriate but the hat looks like a plate slipping off her head
I just have a couple of sincere questions. After one of these threads where people gather and criticize her hat, her hair, her makeup, her dress, her pantyhose color, her jewelry, her too thin body, etc., etc., etc., does everyone feel better? I’m not asking this sarcastically, I’m really not. I really want to know if everyone then goes about their day feeling all’s right with the world after this girl has been faulted for everything but breathing. Because I always feel kind of sick after I read one of these threads, so I don’t anymore. (Because I wonder if there are some who would prefer her not to even breath, but that’s a whole ‘nother territory. Like The Lottery territory. As in if each of your criticisms were rocks thrown at this girl she would be so dead now. Thank God we wouldn’t support a lottery situation. I know sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me. Or so it says. But I truly hope that Kate does not EVER read the internet. Because I think all the words on her here might hurt a little. They would hurt my feelings, so I guess that’s why I feel ridiculously sorry for her. Some new age people even think it sends all kinds of negative vibrations flowing her direction but I really hope they are wrong. Really wrong. Because that would mean all our words really DO matter. Anyway, I just wonder what everyone enjoys so much about this relentless criticism of her. On the assumption that no one would participate in these threads if they didn’t enjoy it.
Anyway, and I’m a little scared to admit this, but I think she looks pretty. To me, the blandness of her dress just accentuates the beautiful lines of her body. The lack of color just makes her pretty face pop out more noticeably. And it bothers me that she gets so much criticism for wearing the same dress AGAIN. I think of some of my favorite outfits that I wear again and again because maybe they make me feel confident and pretty. Or I just like how they feel, or whatever. But Kate gets criticized for it because why? She can afford to throw it out? Then she’d get criticized for wasting money on clothes. The girl really can’t win no matter what she does. It really ends up making me feel sorry for her, when that’s just ridiculous. Me peon, feeling sorry for a Duchess?
Which brings me to my second question. Since I just admitted that I think Kate looks pretty, does that mean I have no taste, or if I do it’s dowdy taste that means I’m not cool and can’t sit with the cool kids?
Jaxx–I feel compelled to reply to your sincere questions. I have been personally curious about the DoC since the wedding and started with very high hopes. After all, Cinderella was my favorite princess growing up. I lived through the Diana era too. Royalty for me represents the top of society in terms of etiquette and decorum, tradition, as well as public responsibility. Although I know that sometimes behind the scenes there is a different reality. The DoC, as a new royal by marriage, gets an incredible place in the history books…one that not many other women in the world can boast. Overnight she went from being called a door mat (and other things) to being called graceful, elegant, and praised in the media for every little thing she did. Yet over time I began to realize that she isn’t interested in doing good in the world and using her platform to help others less fortunate than her. She doesn’t appear to be trying to improve her skills (public speaking, etc) and work hard to earn the constant praise she gets. Don’t even get me started about all of the “wardrobe malfunctions” she has has which for me is disgraceful (and I’m far from being a prude). She is just there for the cameras and when they are off there is nothing there but a regular, ordinary, everyday person. But yet she is wildly popular–which is something that I’m critical of too. I think people should be praised for their actions…not because they are rich, titled, young and pretty.
Which brings me to your first question. I read daily but only post on occasion. I never post about her appearance as I’m not fashion focused. I don’t really care how beautiful she is (I think she is pretty — thats ok to admit). For me, it’s about her work ethic, her skills as a Duchess, what she does, says, how she influences other people. If I wanted to pick apart her appearance I could because I don’t always like her style. When I do post, it’s more about her actions that I’m compelled to comment on. She gets a place in the history books, is one of the most influential women of our times, and yet there is nothing THERE when you look closely. Whenever I do post, especially if I’m being critical, I feel terrible…after all…she is a real person, someone who I’ll never meet, and the people reading my words are real too. However, my curiosity is sparked by my profession and provides insight into things I am interested in professionally. I try to keep my comments fairly neutral. I guess if you don’t like reading some of the really snarky comments, you might have more fun visiting the HRH Duchess Kate blog which sings praises of her consistently.
This brings me to your second question. One thing I like about reading these blogs is that there are very intelligent, educated people commenting with real things to say from time to time. It’s not always strictly criticism about her appearance although sometimes that’s all there is to talk about because she and her platform lacks substance. Also, the good bloggers are very apt to point out that everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you honestly like the DoC and her style that is your opinion and it doesn’t make you any more or less “cool” than anyone else. I sometimes like what she wears and sometimes I don’t–but I don’t really care. I want to see her do something unique, thoughtful, caring, etc. with her position. Heck, I’d even be happy at this point if she just worked on a consistent basis. A girl can dream.
All of these events were scheduled before some lucky photog with a telephoto lens caught at one second flick of her dress at a helicopter landing.
http://a-royal-love-affair.tumblr.com/tagged/UpcomingEngagements