Duchess Kate is 32 years old and she’s been a member of the royal family for more than three years. So it was PAST time for her to undertake an overseas trip on her own, and no, I’m not talking about a vacation (but good guess!). Apparently, Kate is going to undertake her first official solo overseas trip in September. She’s going (or being sent to?) Malta for the 50th anniversary of Malta’s independence. Malta is off the coast of Italy and it has many lovely beaches. Perhaps this will be a half-work, half-vacation? Will Kate bring Prince George along for mummy-baby beach time? Will the littlest diplomat try to squeeze some indigenous Maltese animals? So many questions!
It’s Kate’s time to shine. The Duchess of Cambridge will consciously uncouple from her constant overseas travel companion, husband Prince William, when she heads to Malta this fall on her first royal tour alone.
With William, 32, likely starting a new job as a helicopter pilot in the air ambulance, Kate will head to the little island in the Mediterranean solo in September to mark the 50th anniversary of Malta’s independence.
Local media are excitedly reporting the news, which PEOPLE has confirmed.
Kate, also 32, has been adept at carrying out solo visits in the U.K. and has made excursions alone while abroad, such as when she visited a hospice in New Zealand in April while William attended a separate event.
Of the Malta trip, a Kensington Palace spokesman would say only: “We will announce any overseas trip in due course.”
I hate the infantalization of Kate. Like we’re supposed to pat her on the head like she’s such a good girl for jetting off by herself (“by herself” = surrounded by a staff of 12, with bodyguards). And that’s not on her – that’s the way the press treats her. Like she’s this child-like naïf who won’t know what to do without her husband. She’s capable. She can handle this. She could have handled it years ago. That being said, I wonder what the skirt lengths will be without William there to act as the bum-watcher.
Also – Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are going to be in Malta around the same time. They’re supposed to start filming their weird little experimental film in late August in Malta. Think there will be any kind of meeting now that La Jolie is Dame Angelina?
Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame/Flynet.
I wish she would take about three or four inches off of her hair and put some subtle layers in it. It looks so heavy and unflattering. I think many women are at their most beautiful in their 30s, but you have to transition from young girl to woman to make it work, both in your sense of self and your sense of style. She needs to shake off the twenties and shine as a fully adult woman.
It’s funny that we (Celebitchy posters) are always commenting on her hair – but it’s because it’s true, she needs to cut it! It’s not flattering anymore.
Meanwhile, I will give her props for bleaching her teeth.
Those are state-of-the-art veneers done by Dr. Didier Fillion. Some people think are too big and fake. I think they look much better than the traditional flawlessly perfect ones.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/8917484/French-dental-pioneer-created-naturally-perfect-smile-for-Kate-Middleton-it-is-claimed.html
It’s not really the length that bothers me. You can be over 30 and have long hair (Julianne Moore, for example). She could do so much with it, but the weird flippy curls aren’t working for her.
Interesting. I wouldn’t have guessed they’re veneers.
To be fair, the last time we saw her (at Wimbledon in the patterned dress), it did appear that she had taken a little length off and had some much needed layers added. And she looked miles better than the Jan Brady day. I think layers are key if she wants to keep the long hair.
Oh, sorry I didn’t know that. Glad to hear it.
GoodNames,
Only mentioned it because she basically did what you suggested an looked markedly better. I used to be all about her cutting her hair until Pippa did, and now I think something that short wouldn’t be flattering on Kate’s face.
never mind her hair – the amount of make-up she is wearing is flatout scary.
Her make-up ages her terribly! Hire a new make-up artist stat Kate!!
So true. Step away from the eyeliner! Slow-ly now. Nobody needs to get hurt.
I’ve heard that Kate’s eyeliner is actually tattooed on. I have to say I believe it, since reading that somewhere I try and look at all the closeup photos of her and the thickness and line do not change. Especially the bottom line. I hope I’m wrong though. Tattooed eyeliner starts looking really noticeable as a women ages.
I’ve heard about the eyeliner being tattooed on, as well! I surely hope not… but Ma Middleton and Pippa have the same eyeliner, so me thinks it may be true…
I also read it’s a “class” thing? Like, the upper-class of England wear their makeup this way? I don’t know if this is in anyway true… But it’d make sense. Her eye makeup looks terrible year after year, she must see how bad it looks? You’d think she’d change it asap if it weren’t permanent.
The older she gets the harsher and more aging that hideous eye makeup she wears looks. It’s entirely ringed around her eyes making them look smaller. She must think it looks good and enhances her appearance. I wonder if anyone in her inner circle has dared to tell her just how awful it looks. Probably they don’t dare. She isn’t bad from a distance but close up is starting to look a little scary.
@Duchess-at-large
Well, it seems then the York princesses and the Queen herself are lower class than riche-nouveau Kate Middleton. LOL BTW, what class is she? Upper middle at best.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/17/article-1056834-02B27BC000000578-886_468x503.jpg
http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Princess+Beatrice+Princess+Eugenie+York+Visit+UeGZdKjfm0nl.jpg
And while they too wear eyeliner: http://1uyxqn3lzdsa2ytyzj1asxmmmpt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Princess-Eugenie.png it’s always, always properly put. In fact, the make up is gentle and very flattering.
The eyeliner! GAH!!!!!
Ahem, that is all.
I dont know why, but it kinda infuriates me that William will be “working” as a pilot. Like really dude? If he was that passionate about flying he Should start a rescue group and head it or something. How about he host a competition helicopter show and invite all the allies to show off their pilots and birds? I can come up with things he would enjoy doing and they’d serve a royal purpose. I’m sitting in the bathroom at work! Uhhhg. He can do so much from where he is! And so can Kate!
It infuriates me, too. It’s like he’s “playing” at being just a regular guy, but then goes home to absolute luxury. I might be wrong, but how could he possibly be an asset to the air ambulance company? What about security for him? And his safety? It seems to me that he would be much more of a headache than anything else. And is he taking a job away from someone who needs the money? I just don’t understand why he can’t find something meaningful to do with all of the opportunities available to him.
EAAA is run completely on donations: “To continue this critical work we need to raise £7.6 million every year, for which we rely 100% on charitable donations from the people of East Anglia.”
IF this nonsense is true (I’m hoping it isn’t), then he is 1) taking a job from someone else who needs it and 2) the salary he does not need is all from donations. On one of the boards, someone shared that there were no job openings on the site in the last X number of months, which makes this more questionable.
“Well if he volunteered his time, would that be okay?” The answer is, “No. His job is serving all of the people of the UK and Commonwealth, not hiding away at Anmer complaining about legal flights over his gifted mansion.”
Why doesn’t he get his helicopter jollies flying himself and his wife to 600 royal engagements per year?
What is worse is, he is going to take a job somebody else needs AND won’t actually work. I really doubt Will loves flying that much. It is just another way to avoid his royal duties.
It truly infuriates me that he’ll be drawing a salary, and that he took a salary from the RAF. Just no sense of awareness or shame.
@AM AFAIK he cannot withdraw the salary but it is his right to decide what to do with it.
If it is a legal question that they must be paid staff, not volunteers, why not pay him £1/year? Moot point because I think he should be doing his real job instead.
I don’t think it is about a love of flying, it is just a way to hide that looks good for PR. “Oh, he wants to SAVE people. Flying helicopters is so dashing. Leave him alone, he wants to be useful, etc.” He’d be playing this same avoid-royal-duty game if he was an accountant, a gardener, or a deep-sea fisherman.
Can you imagine people defending that choice so vigorously? “Oh, he just wants to FEED people. He loves the sea. Leave him alone. Let him go fishing on a deep sea trawler for 9 months a year. He doesn’t need to stay home and use his position to raise millions for Oxfam instead.”
He never should have left the RAF. Like Harry, I think he enjoyed his time in the military and there would have been nothing wrong with him continuing to serve his country in that capacity.
Jeez, Megan, quit being so reasonable. I’m agreeing with you again! 🙂
I think he could have taken a London-centered military job, like Harry did. That way, he could do many more royal engagements and stay in the military. Wasn’t there talk of him doing that (Household Cavalry), then the surprise was that it was Harry that was taking the London-based desk job?
Notasugarhere – please don’t act like you are not hater, because you are. Look at everything you have said. No matter what William and Kate do, you find fault. Don’t try to take the high road now when you have so publicly taken the low road all day.
Please do not presume to think that you know how I feel. I do not hate them. I do not even dislike them. I dislike their actions and their lack of positive action.
P Willnot Is total waste of important work the rescuers s provide in emergencies, and he as a liabilty than asset. By dodging his royal duties with waity doolittle Cannot he is phony with other charities, and the RF goodwill leadership in the important work the harworkers service of the family Princess Anne and the Yorks provide and most ofll P Harry, perform for GB UK and Commonwealth countries.
The air ambulance does operate exclusively on donations. William’s association with the service will undoubtedly go along way in meeting their annual funding needs.
According to their website, they flew 665 missions from December to April and were the first air ambulance to be approved to fly at night. That sounds like a real job to me.
http://www.eaaa.org.uk
He can become their patron. He doesn’t need to take a job away from someone else in order to raise funds for EAAA.
But Megan – William isn’t going to be promoting air ambulance services. How is he going to be meeting their annual funding needs?
Perhaps he could acquaint himself with the main issues these services face (see http://www.associationofairambulances.co.uk/key-issues) and use his privileged position to help work towards achieving them. That’s what royals are supposed to do.
If he wanted to adopt air ambulance services as a patronage, I’d say “way to go, Willy”. But he doesn’t. He just doesn’t want to be a full-time royal (yet/ever). If that’s the case, and he wants to put it off until Charles succeeds and he’s the actual heir, then fine. Just say so. He can live on the salary from being a pilot and stop using taxpayer money to fund royal status.
It would be completely, and frankly deliberately, naive to think William’s association with the air ambulance service won’t attract dollars.
I don’t think anyone is saying that him being associated *in some way* with EAAA couldn’t help in fund raising. The point being made is that he can be associated with them as their patron without working there and taking a job away from someone else.
Notasugarhere – are there so many helicopter pilots in East Anglia out of job? I get that haters are going to hate, but do it without the melodrama.
I think the point is more that by assuming a position there he is becoming both a patron and an employee. I highly doubt that someone is going without a job because Prince William stole it from them. This is a good thing! He’s been doing more events and is getting involved with a local service. Maybe in a few years he won’t seem like such a Little Lord Fauntleroy.
Well said, Ayre.
No hate involved, please don’t play that game and sink to that level. As Bluhare noted yesterday, this has been a fairly balanced and respectful place until recently. Throwing out “hater” as your argument doesn’t seem respectful to me.
Prince Charles has launched Prince’s Operation Entrepreneur through the Prince’s Trust, so veteran employment must be an issue in the UK and Commonwealth. I suspect there are other ex-military helicopter pilots who might appreciate a job in their field, one who has to earn a living unlike William.
There have been no job postings for EAAA in the past 6 months or so. That means 1) this job is made up so it is costing extra outside their regular budget 2) William grabbed the job before it was made public so there was no fair competition allowed 3) someone was made redundant to make way for William.
@ notasugarhere – I thought that this position was created for him. Therefore he’s not taking a job away from anyone, because it’s a job that didn’t exist.
I’m not that worried about William “stealing” someone else’s job – if indeed, that’s what he’s doing. Nepotism is alive and well and any job he got would have those implications. I’m not that worried about him deciding he’d rather work for a living like normal people and not be a full-time royal until he absolutely has to – presumably when Charles succeeds.
My objection is that he can’t have it both ways. If he wants the taxpayer support – the £4m for official London residences and the like – then he can be a full-time Royal. And if he wants to further the MANY air ambulance services THROUGHOUT the UK, he can become a patron for them ALL and work towards highlighting the issues involved. That’s highly appropriate for a royal.
But he doesn’t want to do that. He wants to take a job as a private citizen – and one that will cause as many hassles with security and regular attendance as it will gain extra “dollars”.
If he wants to be a private citizen, let him be one. And I’ll have my £4m back.
Is Malta really “overseas”? I guess she’ll be crossing the English Channel and traversing the Mediteranean sea, but in reality it’s a short enough trip that she could actually be back at her palace in time for dinner.
I think it’s more down to Malta being an “easy” visit. No awkward political issues of any substance – you won’t see her in Gibraltar, for example. Lots of connections to the UK, quite a positive pro-British sentiment there (the George Cross given to the whole island population for their heroism in WWII is still on their flag), and a reasonably-sized ex-pat community.
I think Malta because it’s very difficult to imagine anything – other than knicker flashes – that could go wrong.
I was thinking that too, that Malta probably won’t have any “tricky” political situation that Kate would have to weigh in on. *hair toss*
Does Malta get much in the way of sea breezes?
ncboudicca – I see what you did there.
Why diss Malta for not being “overseas” enough or for lacking in political controversy? Is that really Malta’s fault? She’s going to celebrate an anniversary that is clearly meaningful to the people of Malta. Isn’t that a good enough reason to go?
Yes, it is.
Who is dissing Malta? I’m lost!
It *is* properly overseas. And it’s also a member of the Commonwealth. A visit to Malta certainly qualifies as a proper overseas royal visit. A golden jubilee for independence is also certainly a good enough reason to go.
But it’s also entirely reasonable to point out that it’s probably been chosen as a “soft” destination for a first royal solo official overseas trip. And, from my own perspective, I’ll add a risk-free choice for a royal who has yet to demonstrate any awareness on just about any issue anyone could ever care to mention.
No disrespect to Malta intended, but since I live in California an “overseas” trip to me means a 10 hour flight, jetlag, and a profound sense of geographic distance from my familiar world. So when I saw the word “overseas” I thought she was going to China or somewhere far enough to really experience that sense of geographic distance.
I don’t think there is a time limit on overseas… If you travel…over…seas and internationally I’m pretty sure that counts.
Lucky, I agree, but as Sixer points outs, Malta does seem like a “soft” visit as it’s a country with little to no state issues or international controversies (maybe some immigrant problems?). Kate seems to be getting better at small talk during meet and greets, but in other countries with more going on, she might have to rely on her intellect or political awareness. Maybe someone running the BRF show doesn’t think she’s ready for that kind of situation.
@bettyrose “overseas” means “in, from or to other countries ” (taken from Cambridge Dictionary)
I’m Portuguese and if I go to Spain on holidays, I’m going overseas…The word is confusing because it has the “sea” in it… But it has nothing to do with crossing water, just going to a different country.
Hope that clears it all…. 😀
Basically overseas and abroad are synonyms; Its origin comes from the empires in the 16th century, Portuguese, Spanish and English, mainly in which you had to cross seas and oceans; with time the word changed to be similar to abroad, since those empires are non-existant now….
To explain myself a little bit better; overseas was a word mainly used for the empires (to travel overseas); In the portuguese language we’ve managed to eliminate that problem, since the word “overseas” – ultramar (beyong the sea) is now only used with reference to the Portuguese empire, so in historical texts; we don’t use it anymore, we just use “abroad”;
The English language continues to use it with 2 meanings: beyond the sea and external, foreigner, abroad.. Hence the confusion…
Maybe, overseas here is applied because of Commonwealth (that is a “legacy of the british empire”????
“overseas” in Portuguese is related mainly to war; the overseas war in the decade of 60’s until 1974, when colonies gained independence; for us, overseas connects directly to war, not a word we wish to recall…
I am from Europe so I am confused how Malta does not count overseas. It is even literally over a sea trip.
I think she means in terms of distance of flight. It is about what a 2-3 hour flight. It would take me longer to fly to California.. and I would have a long layover.
So the distance is very minor. Maybe the phrase “overseas” is not the best term; even if accurate. It just makes it sound like she is going to have a very long and taxing travel time. Which is not the case.
@Chinoiserie, check my answer above…
sonalaceae et al – I live literally 15 minutes from the Mexican border, close enough to go there for lunch. I would not call that an overseas trip. I’ve also boarded 14 hour flights to countries on other sides of the globe where I didn’t know the language. It’s an entirely different experience.
When you cross a sea or an ocean, it counts as an overseas trip. For an American that trip does mean jet lags and long flights but for me, as an Europian it is basically 1-hour flight.
@Sona That’s the first time I hear the word “overseas” used as the same as “abroad” in modern English. But English is my third language and I have just learned it recently ( I am sure you can tell by my grammar mistakes). Are you sure the meaning didn’t change in time?
Europeans are very lucky in that regard. It’s true. But with Kate -or any young woman who’s been largely coddled throughout life- the experience of being * far * away from one’s support system and in such a remote time zone that even phone calls home are difficult to schedule, is about more than just being in a different culture. Even for a woman with a private jet and large staff, I think it would be a truly interesting experience for her to not have access to the people she’s close to as she navigates her daily routines.
I think with us Americans, overseas travel connotes “super important/significant” as well as length of flight (as in grueling), i.e., negotiations in China, Korean missile talks, summits in Davos, etc.
Not to diss Malta or the importance of the event, but I think this is a low-stakes event and a “trial” for Kate. As other people have pointed out, it’s highly doubtful that Kate will be challenged to pull from a treasure trove of background knowledge, have to be politically astute or even clever or conversationally witty. Hope she doesn’t f*ck it up. Because if she does “Ooooh. She is grounnnnndddddedddd” and she will never be able to go outside again–even with the bum-watcher.
Do you think Carole and the Pipster will be with her? Lurking in the shadows?
In terms of royal visits – which is the topic here! – overseas means foreign, not domestic. It indicates that the people being visited are not future subjects. Y’dig? A visit to the Republic of Ireland would be overseas but to Northern Ireland would not.
What Sixer said…
Cambridge Dictionary, overseas adjective , adverb
in, from or to other countries
We need to open up overseas markets.
There are a lot of overseas students in Cambridge.
My brother is a student overseas.
Many more people go/travel/live/work overseas these days.
The thesaurus from Cambridge first entry is abroad as a synonymn.
From Collin online Thesaurus:
Adj. 1. overseas – in a foreign country; “markets abroad”; “overseas markets”
abroad
foreign – of concern to or concerning the affairs of other nations (other than your own); “foreign trade”; “a foreign office”
2. overseas – being or passing over or across the sea; “some overseas trade in grain arose”
Adv. 1. overseas – beyond or across the sea; “He lived overseas for many years”
2. overseas – in a place across an ocean
abroad
In the title, I find it is correct… even in the English-Portuguese and English-Spanish you get overseas as meaning abroad, foreign…
I like her teeth
I just wanted to say they look like poorly done veneers. They don’t suit her at all.
Kate’s eyes look way older than her years. Have we established that she is a secret smoker?
I hope she takes George along. I like her more when he’s with her.
She is. She’s been photographed with packs in her bags, and even photographed smoking as recently as their holiday to France a couple of years ago (although those pictures have vanished from the Internet).
Well, at least if she is on her own, she will have to actually do something. Who knows, she may even shine without Willy there.
She will shine, regardless, because anything she does the press will bless as endearing and charming. I also think she will bring the nanny and George along because that would be good press and something to talk about.
In fairness, even Diana made few international visits without Charles, and she was the wife of the heir.
Also in fairness, Diana’s first solo international visit was in the fall of 1982, when she was 21, and it was the state funeral of Grace of Monaco. Her second was in February 1984 to Oslo. But there weren’t many after that until her separation.
Yeah, I think the treating her gingerly thing has a lot to do with the mistakes they made in this position the last time around. They’re overdoing it, but since they pushed Diana too fast and too hard and she had no time to adjust, I see why they’re going out of their way not to make the same mistake with Kate.
That 19-year-old was naturally better at the job than the 30-year-old. Diana worked hard from day one and enjoyed her duties. She said, repeatedly, that she loved her work and it was what she lived for (along with her sons) when the marriage fell apart.
notasugarhere You are so right!! Excellent observation.
Diana’s husband was 33 when she married him and had already been a working royal for five years.
Diana had a natural ability to connect with people, which has nothing to do with Charles’s age at the time of anything. Some people have it, some people don’t, some people work at it. Sophie R-J lived with Edward for 5 years, they married when she was 34, and she hit the ground running with engagements. Entrapments aside, Sophie has a good PR background and understands the job. The only way to learn this odd royal job is to do it.
Just thought about this. By Diane’s own words she was “thick.” Finally, being able to find something she was good at and could achieve–show competence and excel–surely propelled her forward.
Other than, hooking William, Kate hasn’t found her passion (I don’t think).
The Palace hadn’t wanted Diana to go to Grace’s funeral, but Diana insisted. I’ve thought of that in terms of Kate’s not working – if Kate was really raring to go, no one would stop her (and I’m not one who believes BP ever tried to stop Kate from working). But that requires drive and purpose and a strong personality.
I think that she is very sweet, and just waits to be told what to do.
I’m not so sure about the sweet part, wolfpup, but I agree with you about the rest.
@wolfpup & bluhare
and just waits to be told what to do
*****
I don’t know what to say. “Wow.” I mean . . . I agree, but I just can’t imagine my life being that . . . just tell me what to do. . . where to stand . . . what to think.
Is life really easier that way?
(earlier comment lost?) @Kaiser. Jolie refused the invite to the ridiculous Hollywood add-on to the Canada tour. Whatever else she may do, AJ does not suffer fools unless there is some benefit to it. I don’t see how a meetup with Kate Middleton would benefit AJ and her work, and would make KM look even worse that she already does in terms of life accomplishment (and style).
You speak the truth but how sad is it that Kate isn’t a potential ally in AJ’s human rights efforts?
Does Duchess Catherine even care? She is not that deep. She would rather leave such “issues” to Camilla. She would rather concentrate on sports and art in her patronages. Not that there is anything wrong with those issues.
For some reason, I would guess that Kate was Team Aniston.
As people have commented here before, Angie and Diana found themselves through charity. Kate just isn’t there, and maybe never will be.
AM, I was thinking the same thing but, IMO, I don’t think Kate has developed the depth of character (yet?) to want to serve as a human rights advocate or to view Angie as an ally (and role model!), either (just saw sunsetnow’s comment). And, her PR team doesn’t seem capable of effectively handling an alliance if Angie was even amenable to it.
This is interesting in terms of who is attracted to charity work and who isn’t. Diana’s childhood wasn’t happy (and Jolie’s wasn’t either? Not sure on that one.), and she gravitated to helping people. Kate had a very happy family life by all accounts, had everything handed to her, and other than William never had to work for anything. One would think she’d be grateful for the opportunity her platform brings to either actively help people or really bring awareness to causes, but she hasn’t done anything remotely like that yet on any scale. Diana had two children and a full time schedule at the same point in time that Kate is now.
bluhare – Kate was also raised with nouveau riche values, the worst kind. Which is why I keep saying Kate is the Paris Hilton of the BRF.
MinnFinn – what exactly are ” nouveau riche” values? Are you suggesting that self made individuals are somehow lacking in compassion or an interest in others?
Well, ‘nouveau riche’ offspring certainly end up with a different set of values, from what I’ve have seen and experienced in my life. Not all ‘nouveau riche’ are self made in the sense that self made implies starting from the bottom and working their way up. Nouveau riche definitely earn their disdain, IMO, as do their offspring. I’m living among it as we speak, though I’m in CA. Entitlement, materialism, lack of civic responsibility [basic things like not driving your SUV onto a common park to unload sports equipment, not cleaning up after you dog in ‘other peoples yards!’, etc. Actually, the city had to plant trees and boulders bordering said park to prevent it from happening, after years of destroying the grass.]
This is an upscale area with a sought after school district. It’s disgusting, the attitude and lack of common decency towards others. My child recently told me of having only ‘one friend’ of the bunch who ‘doesn’t talk about the kind of car their parents have or how big their house is’. That was an observation my child made solo, without my input. ] And many other examples. And, yes, not a focus on giving back, philanthropy or even basic volunteer work…
Heck, there’s not even a focus on NOT running over people in the parking lot while driving your Hummer, or hitting them with your shopping cart in the grocery store! So why would there be emphasis on charity and compassion? It really is a different attitude than the proverbial and literal ‘old money’. It’s a stereotype that holds weight, in my book, sadly.
OK, this is becoming a much longer post than planned, but I will also add that the old money attitude is smart in the sense that in order to keep one’s position and status, the lower classes must be placated through charity and donation, and through being less ostentatious and showy. Flamboyance has been the downfall of many a monarchy-that and overextending the empire/lifestyle of the elite. The nouveau riche do not understand the delicate interplay among classes and how one can only remain a top dog through savvy and planning. It’s a complicated web this world has woven. lol
I don’t know old money vs. nouveau riche, but there are studies about wealth and generosity, and they aren’t pretty. See Goleman’s Rich People Just Care Less piece in the New York Times for authors and studies.
I think what’s being suggested is not that Kate is less than because of her ‘nouveau riche’ upbringing. More that given her apparent love for fine things and apathy for charity, she lacks the ‘old money’ sense of noblesse oblige.
I grew up in what many of you would consider a “nouveau riche” family and I find your comments grossly off base. I own a public interest lobby firm. I earn a fraction of what I could if I I represented for profit entities, and I do that by choice, not for lack of opportunity. Believing in stereotypes can you lead you to very wrong assumptions.
This might be a little off topic, but technically Paris Hilton is not nouveau riche. She comes from old money, but behaves like the stereotypical nouveau riche – i.e. people with more money than class. In the U.S., any way, that term is not applied to just anyone with new money. It’s specifically a reference to people prone to ostentatious displays of wealth.
@Megan:
Not judging but when you said I own a public interest lobby firm. I think this is an example of the divide of old and new attitudes. Nowadays, good works are monetized and leveraged in ways that they weren’t in the past. There have always been big-money philanthropist and conoodling behind the scenes for causes and fundraisers. But the fact that you said “I own a public interest lobby firm” is a new money thing IMO. Not less valuable. Not judging. I am sure you and your firm are above par excellent. However, it is a nouveau riche past-time much like the seemingly relentless sea, no ground-swell, of hedge fund managers popping up almost daily who are ostentatious (crass) in the acquisition and flaunting of their wealth.
When we look at Kate’s profile, she looks to have lived a very insular life. That may be more of a problem than anything else.
AM – Yes exactly. I abhor the old money snobbery about pedigree but I do applaud their sense of obligation to the poor.
Megan 3:46
Kate, her parents and Pippa do not understand the old money concept of noblesse oblige. AM defined the concept perfectly.
The Middletons are not and have never been altruistic (selfless concern for the well-being of others) or charitable (assisting those in need) and they have an uninterrupted history of conspicuous consumption (annual vacations to private island Mustique and luxury ski villas in the Alps; parents 2012 move from 5 bedroom/$1.5m home to 7 bedroom/$7.3m estate; signet rings, etc)
I don’t understand the importance you give to compassion. It is just an emotion that does not speak to character. It is a worthless feeling unless it motivates a person to help someone less fortunate. To answer your question – I believe some self-made wealthy people are compassionate and/or interested in others. I don’t know if Kate is but it doesn’t matter because prior to her marriage, it never motivated her to do anything for someone less fortunate and post marriage, even with a FTE staff of at least 15, she still refuses to work full-time. I won’t be impressed until she does 40+ hours per week of charity work.
bettyrose – It crossed my mind that the Hilton fortune at maybe 100 years old (?) might be old money in the U.S but I didn’t know for sure.
Notasugarhere – that “ridiculous Hollywood add on” was to attend the BAFTA awards. I don’t understand why the BAFTA awards are held in Hollywood, rather than England, but they are.
Megan, this is reminding me of a few weeks ago when you insisted on here that Australia and New Zealand are larger than Canada. That was your reasoning for why W&K couldn’t do more engagements than C&C did in Canada – because of travel time within the country. AU and NZ combined are *smaller* than Canada.
No, they did not attend the BAFTA ceremony. The BAFTA ceremony takes place in February in London. For the past few years it has been hosted by Stephen Fry, whom I think does a fabulous job.
W&K attended a sort of “meet the up and coming British stars” event. It is not an event that usually happens in Hollywood, much less at that time. That thing plus the charity polo event were scheduled to justify a trip to Hollywood. One of those California fund raising events was the one where KM is on video rolling her eyes after one of the donors moves away from her.
From what I remember, that questionable polo charity seems to have folded, and the BRF have broken ties with the person who was running it.
Notasugarhere – go to BAFTA.org. They have a lot on the visit by Kate and William. They seem to think it was rather a big deal.
And perhaps you are unaware that 40% of Canada’s square mileage is in the Arctic Circle. So technically, the distance to events in Australia and New Zealand is quite a bit bigger than Canada. While I don’t remember my own comment on that, I appreciate that you do.
I’m aware of Nunuvut, and the point about geographical size stands. The inaugural Brits to Watch event happened in 2011, the make something up Hollywood trip. The event was so unimportant it doesn’t seem to have happened since. They do screenings, but the meet-and-greet was a made up event for the Hollywood trip.
Notasugarhere – you are determined to find fault in everything the royals do.
No I am just fond of facts. If royals are going to exist in 2014, they need to work for their privileges. There are many royals out there who do well and I’m GLAD that they do well (Hm & Phillip, Charles & Camilla, Edward & Sophie, Letizia & Felipe, W-A & Max, Victoria & Daniel). I would like to see W&K step it up, get on their game, do their jobs, and do them well. I suspect that is never going to happen, but I would like it to.
If you’re not invited
Daily Mail
21 May 2011
“A source told The Mail on Sunday: ‘The Royal visit is the talk of Hollywood. The deal is that several stars and organisations have been asked to put forward proposals for charity events and galas. ‘William and Kate will go through all the options and it will be down to them to pick what they want to do.’”
further on:
“The Prince, who is president of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, has asked the organisation to propose an event. A Bafta insider said: ‘We are suggesting several ideas, including a tea party, a cricket match and also a more formal gala evening to promote the British film industry.’
They decided to go to California. Events were made up to justify it after the fact.
Notasugarhere – the Daily Mail is your source? Have you not been following the Clooney news? Find a credible source, please.
Who cares if they “made up” a reason for a trip to California?? They were already in Canada, which cuts out most of the travel time. Even if they just wanted to go to California because they felt like it, they picked a time to go where they were already most of the way there and they did an event promoting British film/actors and a polo match that probably raised oodles for charity. I fail to see what is wrong with this. Could they not have just gone to California on vacation after the Canada trip and not done anything for anyone?
And, aren’t the majority of Royal events, by definition, made up after Royals decide they want to go somewhere?
LNG – +1
Megan – you are confusing the BAFTA award ceremony, which takes place in London, with a one-off BAFTA-organised event, which was organised by BAFTA at the behest of the Cambridges and took place in Hollywood. That event was to do with BAFTA but not to do with its annual awards. Two entirely different things.
I don´t understadt why they sent Kate to Malta? It´s the 50th anniversary of Malta’s independence, that´s something special, something to celebrate. Why do they “need” Kate there? Why only the wife of the son of the heir? Sounds as if this is just a visit second class
I assume she is going because she was invited.
Oh I predict a bum-flash for sure. It’s a hot windy climate there, perfect for a wafty little dress and butt floss.
hahaha! hee hee…
Her face looks so doughy/puffy in many of her pictures.
I’m not sure it’s just the press who infantalizes her. I believe she does it herself. She hasn’t behaved like an adult yet. The hair flicking, the bum flashing, the moronic facial expressions, the manic laughter, AND the lack of talent delivering a three sentence speech – she acts like a juvenile, if you ask me. (OK, I know you didn’t ask me.). I don’t have high expectations for this trip to Malta.
Exactly! This is the new Kate. This is how she wants the world to see her. This isn’t how she was during the 10 year quest for the ring.
I second that. It will be the same boring matronly outfits, bland shoes, too much hair, mouth wide open smiling and laughing. Fake interest and passion in whatever is going on and a terrible speech in her fake posh accent. Yawn. Nothing new to see here.
LMBO at the fake posh accent. I wonder if she slips up sometimes when she thinks no one is around.
sunsetsnow – Since she probably acquired the posh accent after getting with William, I wonder if she speaks that way in private with him or her family.
MinnFinn, she has a posher accent than her family and the BRF, as seen in videos.
notasugarhere – Interesting point. Since I’m a Yankee, I can’t usually discern subtle differences in a Brit’s accent. I can hear the less subtle differences such as Kate vs. Pippa and the differences in regional accents.
VAVA, Boom-preach!
This is not a overseas trip either. She is in EU and or no passport travel docs needed. What a waste good time for waity CanNOT doolittle flashing!
Seems the Middlekardasion PR is up and trollying.
I really resent how she is treated for that “bum flash”. It happens, yes she’s “royalty” but is she no longer human? It just seems extreme in 2014 to criticize a woman for the length of her skirt. Sure she should have been smarter about walking on the tarmac like that but perhaps us ladies behind our computers need to stop nit picking.
I really have little to no opinion on her since it’s not my tax money that goes towards her lifestyle but the royals should be exercising their power, influence, and wealth to better the U.K and other areas where they have influence. This may be a “soft” trip but I’m sure it is important to the people of Malta. Respect.
It was her 14th on-duty flash/exposure in 3 years. It is not nit picking. It is the rest of us being professional enough to realize 1) this is a problem and 2) it needs to be solved. Pretty simple: “If I did that at work, I’d be fired. I need to address this issue and make sure it does not happen again.” It is not brain surgery. It is a stupid mistake that she keeps making. Repeatedly.
Totally agree. It has happened over and over and over to the point where I think she does it on purpose. I’m 57 years old, and I fly often and wear dresses often and that has happened to me once. Fortunately, I was wearing underwear. It’s ridiculous that it happens so often.
You would be fired if you did that at work?
It’s embarrassing and a bit gauche, but it’s not quite as big of a deal as it’s been made out to be. A point worth criticizing? Sure. A shock-horror situation? Not really.
Yes, actually, many people have discussed many times over on here. They have dress standards at work, and flashing co-workers would get you fired. It is basic: follow the professional dress standards or it is grounds for dismissal.
Imagine it was a man who kept flashing his naked bum at co-workers. You think he wouldn’t be fired? No matter if he claimed, many times over, that is was “accidental.”
She did not pick up her skirt and display, as the Daily Mail would say, her bum. She didn’t flash people as if she were some dirty old man in a trench coat.
Your hyperbole is not helping your point. It was gauche, not an ethics violation.
As typed on here often, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’ll bow out here. I feel like I’m poking a bear and don’t want to bore our little commenting community with aggressive back and forth.
I don’t see aggressive back and forth going on here or on some of the other royal articles lately. What I’ve noticed is directed antagonism, and it’s changing the whole tone of this board, and getting really boring. If most of us wanted that kind of coarse discourse, we’d go read the DM and comment there. Some people need to be a bit more tolerant and rather than constantly picking others’ comments apart or accusing them of having personal feelings about the royals (who could give a sh*t about any of us), just let them have their say and move on. This is a gossip site, FFS, and it can be fun if you let it!
Good point, Olenna! Just what I meant. I am all for tolerance and a light touch. No one wants to read a bunch of antagonistic claptrap. We can disagree and debate without taking a certain “tone” with one another. We don’t know them, they don’t know us, and this is all just diverting speculation. Commenters with a positive or not wholly negative opinion of these two can be piled on here, but it’s best not to be too defensive.
It’s the 14th flash in 3 years of royal duties. She’s being lambasted because it is utterly ridiculous that a 31 yo, college educated woman has to be told to wear proper attire when working/representing the Crown. She’s being lambasted because there are simple solutions to prevent these flashes from occurring. She’s being lambasted and mocked because it was clear she just didn’t care and probably wouldn’t have changed anything about her attire if not for Bum Gate.
What nash said. She was given lots of passes — even here — but keeps on doing it.
I will say, not all of those 14 skirt fly ups exposed anything, though. I think the serious bum exposure is less than 5.
I was trying to make note of that with the “flash/exposure”. Some were bum flashes, other are the infamous full-frontal exiting the plane in NZ, flashing high inner thigh while exiting a car or walking in a dress with too high of a slit, flashing her bra and chest at kids, etc.
It’s utterly immature and unprofessional. She’s not out clubbing, she’s representing the Royal Family, and it should be in a respectful and understated manner, not in skin-tight jeggings and belly flashing crop tops, nor in flimsy dresses that repeatedly fly up with every puff of wind to reveal either a tiny thong or a total lack of underwear.
She’s a vapid, lazy creature who somehow managed to snag Prince William but who is not only NOT living up to the standards and responsibilities expected of an important member of the BRF, but becoming a continuing embarrassment to them.
Java, preach- you said it!
Jaded –
+1000 right on!
We learn veneer teeth, tatoo eyeliner n the likes (not to mention padded butt for BRF wedding!). Such a shame and show of materialism from these middlekardashions!
Obvious with upgrade home to several millions for midds, re P WiilNOT supporting hangers on with tax payers / Duchy RF funds. Reading someplace due to P George n Willnot visits.
Kat – You sure do have an opinion of Kate. To paraphrase your post – ‘bum flashing is not a big deal and wearing short skirts to work while representing QEII and the most conservative institution in the commonwealth should not be criticized.
But other than that, you have no opinion of Kate.
Well said, Kat.
I read that this trip is for ONE DAY! If that’s the case, can we stop acting like she is doing anything of note?
She will use the next 2.5 months to “prepare for her big, huge, solo overseas tour” which will last all of 12 hours. She’ll probably spend more time flying there than she will doing any “engagements.”
Then she’ll need a vacation to recover and then won’t be seen again for another 2 months until Christmas. Then she’ll declare she’s pregnant and will need then next 7 months for pregnancy…then another year-long maternity leave from her grueling work schedule of 1 “engagement” every two months.
She – and Willy – are pathetic excuses for “hardworking” royals.
Before Malta, she will also go on vacation.
Yeah, one day is not exactly an “overseas tour.”
Inthekitchen – since she, William and Harry are headed to Belgium in two weeks to commemorate the start of WWI, I don’t think she will be spending the next 2.5 months preparing for her trip to Malta.
Oh, I didn’t know that! Well, that’s another promising uptick in her work schedule.
I’m excited about this trip mainly because I’m hoping she’ll bring George.
Why don’t they give that assignment to Camilla? It’s not fair that she gets to stay home and Kate had to go considering that she has a baby to take care of even if she has a nanny.
Camilla will be working. She doesn’t work as much as she should, but at least Camilla works more than KM – and appears engaged and informed on duty. I’m sure PGTips will survive 12 hours without KM. Remember, he survived 8 days without her when W&K left him behind so they could go to the beach in the Maldives.
Wait a minute, I’m missing something. Has Camilla ever gone on an overseas visit solo?
May 2013 to Paris, events related to Emmaus homelessness charity.
Kate does not strike me as a solo vacation type. She likely avoids being alone for too long. And by solo and alone I mean with security but without family or friend. She seems to avoid it to the point that if she must go solo to unofficial duties, she brings Lupo if she can.
“Hello, I say, I am such a fan of Royal Unibrew, and I love your little dogs!”
(day-tripper hustled back onto private plane)
Ha!
I can’t believe how low the bar is for these two by so many…
Seriously, it really is hard to believe.
Hate to veer off subject, but I wonder how her new kitchen project is coming?
I’m mostly alone here but I think she does a great job for a non royal. I wouldn’t want it! I like her, I think she has beautiful hair and a fantastic figure. I’d kill for her legs!
A two day trip to Malta should be something she can easily handle. We’ll see if this materializes.
I wouldn’t mind at all if Angelina and Kate were to meet. In my ideal world Angelina and Kate would become friends and Angelina would become a good influence on Kate and she actually take on more causes and make a difference.
Fat chance at that happening I know but it would be nice.
AJ works too hard for Waity Cannot doolittle; and without the hair, makeup artist Waity would not be able to survive PR.
AJ wouldn’t risk this, she is HM. P Charles and Camila serious, not flighty Waity Cannot playdate. Waity is posh VB type, nothing deep.
NO worries- this trip won’t happen as she’ll beg off after the next pregnancy announcement.