Here are more photos of the Duchess of Cambridge at this year’s BAFTAs. There’s some question about her emeralds and what they “mean.” I personally think Kate is so basic that she just thought “I’m wearing a green dress, I should wear emeralds to match” and that was the end of her thought process. But according to the Daily Mail, Kate wore the emeralds as a signal of “support” for Time’s Up. You know how she could have supported Time’s Up? By wearing any of the black or black-patterned gowns in her closet. I don’t get why people are bending over backwards to look for “signals” and make excuses for why she didn’t wear black or why she couldn’t. She could have. She didn’t. Did it matter? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But the real reason for this post? Kate is keen about Victorian-era photographs of children. Keen Kate wrote a foreward for the National Portrait Gallery exhibition catalogue about her keenness:
Kate Middleton is putting pen to paper — to talk about her love of art! Princess Kate, who is the patron for London’s National Portrait Gallery, is set to open the exhibition Victorian Giants: The Birth of Art Photography, on Feb. 28. And ahead of the exhibition’s opening, she penned the foreword to the exhibition catalog, where she talks about her passion for the subject of photography — and her love of pictures of children, in particular.
The exhibition will explore “the birth of art photography in England,” Kate writes in the page-long foreword and will contain photos from Julia Margaret Cameron, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Rejlander, Clementina Hawarden and more photographers from the Victorian era. It will also focus on photographs of children, a subject Kate, who frequently snaps official photos of her kids, Prince George and Princess Charlotte, is well familiar with.
“Children held a special place in the Victorian imagination and were celebrated for their seemingly boundless potential,” Kate writes. “This notion still rings true for us today and it underpins much of my official work and the charities I have chosen to support, and, indeed, my role as a young mother.”
Kate, who dubbed herself an “enthusiastic amateur photographer,” is something of an art buff: She studied art history at the University of St. Andrews — where she met Prince William in the their shared freshman dorm. This exhibition in particular has a special connection for Kate, as this era of photography was the focus of her thesis in school.
“As a student at the University of St. Andrews, I chose it as the subject of my undergraduate thesis and photographs of children in particular, which feature prominently in the exhibition, are of real interest to me,” she wrote.
The opening of the exhibition is set for Feb. 28, and Kate will attend the event at the National Portrait Gallery solo. It’s a reminder of her pregnancy with Prince George — just a few months before giving birth to her eldest child, she attended an event at the National Portrait Gallery in April 2013.
I’ve spent how many years writing about Kate and this is the first time I’ve read that her university thesis was about Victorian photographs of children. This actually explains a lot about Kate – she’s always had a sort of throwback vibe, sometimes a throwback to the 1950s ideal of the role of womanhood. But she’s also had that Victorian vibe too, in her clothing and her view of her “role” as a duchess and wife of the heir’s heir. I often called this her Downton Abbey cosplay, but Downton Abbey was actually set in the Edwardian era, not Victorian. Kate would prefer to be buttoned up and bustled and to just think of children and the empire, thank you very much.
Photos courtesy of Backgrid, WENN.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ seems fine. I have a friend who I believe was 45 when I met her (reality 18) haha
I think she’s gotten poor advice regarding the Time’s Up! movement-I liked Lainey’s take about the fact that people believe this is political when it should be a human rights issue.
What I mainly took from this, however, is im going to fall down an Edwardian vs. Victorian rabbit hole now. Good way to spend a travel day after vacation.
Categorizing Time’s Up as a political issue let’s people choose sides or stay out of it, and that’s the problem. There is only one morally correct side, it’s not a matter of difference of opinion.
But we know she’s keen on photography, not using her position for change.
That is why the excuses weren’t believable. Is there a Pro side to that argument?
She was actually very effective in shutting down the times up movement wasn’t she. No one is talking about sexual harassment or the fact that Emma Watson donated lots of money combat SH for women of all walks of life.
It was interesting to see that all the women royal reporters were disappointed with her in real time while the male ones were backing her.
I’m a museum curator and just did an exhibition on Victorian photography – it was an important time in photographic technology and a time when notions of childhood were changing. It’s a topic that has been studied quite a bit, I wonder what Kate wrote about…
I’d love to read that thesis. She doesn’t come across well prepared at all in her mid 30s and for all I know people grow in time through work and experience. I would not expect a top level thesis from her just because she shows so little now as an adult. But she never work before either – she hadn’t have any incentive whatsoever to grow as a person and as a professional. The only incentive she’s had was to land William the Ordinary and a title. So no, from my POV her involvement in said exhibition does not bear any weight or professionalism whatsoever.
And the timing is shady now that Meghan is in the picture. And Keen Kate is pregnant now. She didn’t do much during the other pregnancies. Why now? KP are working hard to make her look better but I’m not buying it at all.
Jeez, even when she works more and takes an interest in something you find a reason to drag her. The original poster didn’t even ask her if her involvement bore any weight or professionalism but for some odd reason, you decided to add it in there.
And about working more – it was always known that once William stopped working for the Air Ambulance and the family moved from Norfolk to London William and Kate would work more. Maybe Meghan has woken them up but she isn’t the only reason they are working more.
We’ve just seen an example of her writing skills…. Not great. I read quite some time ago that her thesis has restricted access.
Kates passion.
lolz, her only passion is associating with rich people. And since when do you complete a post graduate thesis as part of a bachelors undergra degree in the U.K. More B.S.
It’s quite common to have a thesis as part of your final year degree as an undergrad in the UK. In my own university, it just meant people who opted to do that could do so instead of an exam, for one of their subject areas.
My son went to Vassar,and as a history major, he had to do a year long thesis.
When you are an undergraduate in a UK university a ‘thesis’ is really just a dissertation but thesis sounds better.
@OriginalLaLa, have you seen this? It shows a Victorian couple cracking up in between having their formal photo taken, and is wonderful: https://twitter.com/lcvsleeds/status/962957874279403521
@tina- I’ve seen this one before and LOVE it! Such a gem, wish there were more of these candies. It makes them seem more human because you actually see some personality rather then them just staring off into space.
The recently published Romanov family pics are also fascinating. Czar Nicholas was in love with his little Brownie instant camera and thankfully we now have these amazing photographs.
I love that photo.
@EA The Czar’s photographs are sad too. He loved his children dearly and it sad to know what happened to them. They are so vibrant in the photos.
I love Victorian photography as well. So so interesting to see the very first photos of humans, royals (such as Victoria herself and her family), just the world in general at that time. I could look at Victorian photos for hours, along with Edwardian era.
I thought Kate had done her u/g thesis on Lewis Carroll images.
She was not well-regarded by her fellow students, one of whom claimed she copied work from her. She was not known to be an original writer either.
Is it a british expression to call a mother of small children a “young mother”? To my American ears it sounds funny, a mid-30 yo wouldn’t use that expression. Maybe teens or 20- somethings.
Kate is in no way a ‘young mother’ and no one in Britain (unless sycophantic) would describe her as such. She’s almost geriatric in terms of pregnancies. Young mothers are really anyone still a teenager and / or still at school when pregnant. I’m so fed up of this ‘young royals’ thing, they are almost 40!!
Edit: She described HERSELF as a young mother?!?! Good grief. Maybe it’s how the ‘posh’ talk, or its her word salad acting up again. ‘Mother of young children’ – there, fixed it for you Kate!
ABC I love your edit!
@ABC Nope it’s not posh talk either… I live in the U.K. and I’ve never heard anyone use that expression for a woman in her 30’s.
The NHS categorises pregnancy in women over 35 as “geriatric pregnancy” so…
From my experience, a young mum in the UK would be teens or early 20s. At a (big) push, under 30.
No one describes me as a young mother and she’s older than me. Young mothers are meant to be younger than the average age of women having children and that is under 30 somewhere.
It’s the infantilization of Kate Middleton so as to excuse her mediocrity.
Hi, Eliza. That hit me straight away, too. I don’t know about Britain, but here in Australia, mid-30s is definitely not “young mother”. Down here, mothers of her age are the norm. Mums aged 21 and under are considered “young mothers” here. It’s about time she cut the tickets off herself. She looks good n the green dress.
The quote has a typo. The actual letter is on Twitter. She said mother of a young family.
First, I doubt Kate wrote the introduction to the exhibition. Someone did it for her. When does she uses words like ‘notion’? Describing her as a “young mother” is a piece of sycophancy or some underling being ordered to do so. I am so over two middle-aged balding men described by media as ‘the boys’ and the quartet as ‘young royals’. In what universe? It simply infantilises them so that they don’t have to step up or be accountable.
Did the university make her thesis publicly available?…I remember reading at the time that it had something to do with children’s literature as well. I’d love to read it.
I think it was on Lewis Carroll’s photography of children. I loved Morton N. Cohen’s biography of Carroll and would love to read Kate’s thesis too.
No, it’s under lock and key apparently. Not available for anyone to see.
Will’s too? What did he write about? He is the (possibly) future King after all. Do people deserve to know? LOL!
That’s weird. I worked at a university here in the US for a while and every thesis written for a graduate degree at that university was bound and placed in the library. You could go check them out like any other book. I always assumed that would be the case everywhere.
@Chaine
No idea how it is in the UK.
I was asked by my prof if i’ll allow it. I signed an agreement (very silly… one page with 2 sentences If i remember well).
In the UK only PhD theses are deposited in the home insitution’s library.
I very much doubt any undergradute’s thesis would be publically available, unless they turn out to be a great mind, like Stephen Hawking – whose undergrad thesis is at the UL in Cambridge I believe.
In either case, I’m surprised so many people would want to read someone’s undergrad ‘thesis’ – which, if of a similar standard to the average undergrad thesis is just a long essay, and fairly rubbish. I mean, I would never want to read another undergrad thesis again, if it weren’t my job!
@Chaine I remember reading years ago that Hillary Clinton’s undergraduate thesis was “locked up,” not sure if it still is. So probably for people like that they keep them locked away.
@Chaine
That applies to graduate theses, but not to undergraduate theses. The latter are full-blown affairs, the latter coursework and much smaller in scope – more like an extended essay.
“Young mother” ? Really ? What’s a standard aged mother then ?
It was a misquote. The original was, “mother of a young family.”
IMO there’s a decent chance she doesn’t even know about Times Up or the dress code. Unless it’s a rare event she’s personally interested in, all she ever seems to take in is the absolute bare minimum of information. All the speeches where it’s as though she has zero idea what’s she’s saying or why, all the awkward exchanges with people where it’s clear she can’t think of anything even vaguely relevant to say…if her people still bother briefing her she clearly doesn’t listen.
I’d agree with that Jussie. When push comes to shove, she and William utter the same phrases when meeting people, like “You’re all brilliant! Keep it up.” It’s meaningless drivel but for some reason, people get a buzz out of a do-nothing couple praising people who actually do something. The speeches are written by someone else and are as shallow as can be, and her knowledge is almost non-existent. The Mental Health kick they were one saw the trio bleat the same phrases over and over, nothing more.
She looks so pretty here. That dress and jewels are gorgeous! IMO, she looks better with more weight on her.
Yes, I don’t think that I have ever seen her look better!
I agree. The colour is lovely on her. Although her hair is out, it is off her face, and she looks more… polished, if that makes sense. I think she looks fantastic with some flesh on her.
Honestly, I think the emeralds look pretty with her dress, even if they don’t match. Someone commented here yesterday that the RF owns all kinds of beautiful jewelry, so why not show it off?
Funny how we’re now hearing her thesis was on Victorian photography as for years we were told it was on the works on Lewis Carroll.
And i agree with Laineys take on it, bad advice but at the same time she’s 36. What kind of 36 year old needs advice on what to wear.
Better to be criticised for standing up for something than for not (which comes off as not supporting it at all)
Thank you for pointing out her age. People make a lot of excuses for her and give William somewhat of a pass but the thing is that both are almost forty. 4. 0. Forty. As in, they are now closer to being 50 than they are 20. It’s time society, and their fans, stopped treating them like sleep-tossed infants. Diana’s babies are grown and the cotton wool has been off of Kate for a long time now.
Whew. I don’t know where that came from but there it is. I think I just needed to say it. Rant over😊
Reminds me of how the press always gave JFK Jr. a pass because of being a “young” man, but he was pushing 40…
They talk about her like she is a blushing bride of 18. Very strange.
I hated the emerald set. If she was going for matchy matchy, which was her goal and had nothing to do with secret signals, she should have worn emeralds the color of Gemma Artherton’s or diamonds. But that’s Kate. As for the Victorian photography, well that explains a lot.
Re: the dress and the protocol vs. political opinion. William did talk about sexual harassment. In writing. So his underwhelming royal highness William the Ordinary did take a stance on the issue. Why couldn’t Kate wear a black dress? Did she not care? I think she didn’t care to wear a black dress because she wanted to stand out in the crowd as if her manic grin woudn’t do it. Or her title.
I refuse to believe she didn’t know about it. Her well paid senior staff plus #poorjason who is a North American PR person from what I know, did know about this. BAFTA knew about this, duh. No, she doesn’t have any excuse. Her husband talked about this. She knew about this. No excuse for Snowflake Christmas tree Kate.
Her minder, Catherine Quinn, attended and wore black so there is no way on earth Kate would not have been aware of Time’s Up. She just didn’t want to. End of story. When has she ever supported women? Her history points to her being in competition with women.
I love the emeralds and I love when Kate wears big jewels for big occasions (as opposed to when she wears those fancy tanzanite earrings in the daytime, or something small in the evening for a formal event, etc.) I agree that she just thought “green dress, green emeralds” and they really don’t work with the dress. The diamond necklace she wore to the diplomatic reception may have worked well.
Anyway, I also really don’t buy that the emeralds are a “subtle nod” to times up. She could have worn black if she wanted to show solidarity with Times Up. She didn’t. For whatever reason – she didn’t think about it, didn’t care, didn’t have a black dress, decided she liked this one better – whatever – she didn’t. So I’m not willing to buy the whole “she didn’t wear black BUT SHE KIND OF DID BECAUSE HER RIBBON IS BLACK” argument. People are bending over backwards to prove that she was supporting Times Up and I just don’t think she thinks that way, with that much care to her every accessory. (I don’t think she “doesn’t” support Times Up, I just think its probably not much on her radar.)
I’ve noticed this happens frequently where the press/twitter/fan sites try to give significant meaning to every clothing choice she makes, ESPECIALLY if the clothing choice is somewhat questionable. “She’s thinking of Diana” or “she’s wearing this shade of blue because its the color of the font used on the front of X national building” or something. It can get quite ridiculous.
The black ribbon is part of the dress.
If the metoo movement is successful Kate will claim she had always supported it aka black ribbon.
If the metoo movement isn’t successful Kate won’t ever mention her might-be support.
It is opportunism. Same as the Queen. While Margaret Thatcher was prime minister and making life miserable for the bottom 40% the Queen didn’t say anything. When Thatcher was gone and the judgement on Thatcher’s cruel policies became established then the Queen let it be known she hadn’t liked Thatcher and that Thatcher always sat on the edge of her chair very nervously during her weekly visits to the Queen.
Idolising Victorian childhood potential really spotlights her bubble of privilege because only the well off could afford to idolise their children and treat them to wonderful childhoods and paint/ photograph them in wonderful scenes looking cherubic.
For everyone else, get those children to work as soon as possible. Often with little to no food or care. School was a pipe dream. The Victorian age was vile to children.
She really is ignorant. She just shows that all the money in the world and an above average education really does nothing for some people. I used to believe it was such a shame such a woman became a Royal spouse with such an unlimited platform and resources. Now I wonder if royals are even worth caring about and whatever little it is they think of.
Victorian era photography always creeped me out – esp when they photographed themselves with dead relatives.
This!
RIGHT??? I find them to be sooo creepy.
Agree, but IMO the Victorian hair art was even creepier.
Word! I have second hand knowledge about children’s rights through a friend who works for a charity. And from the little I know about Britain, the working class had a very hard time in the Victorian period. British literature highlighted that too, including in regards to children. I remember seeing some spots on the BBC last week about child poverty in the UK and lack of opportunities for children from unprivileged backgrounds in the UK as per education opportunities. Factor in mental health for children. Snowflake takes on “easy” subjects because she is unprepared and does not care. #awfullydisappointmentagainSnowflake
Exactly, LAK! The only happy, beautiful children were the children of the wealthy. Of course, Kate has idolized the era.
@LAK nail on the head.
Waxing lyrical about period that was unarguably an awful time to be a child in Britain…Kate your privilege is showing.
How exactly is she idolising victorian childhood? By writing a thesis about victorian photography? What If her focus was the crass difference between artful staged photos of rich kids and the reality of victorian life?
Ollie: Please no more of this ‘so what you are saying is….’ method of putting words in my mouth.
The foreword that *Kate* wrote for the exhibition states “Children held a special place in the Victorian imagination and were celebrated for their seemingly boundless potential,”
If you know anything about the victorian era, you would know that childhood was very grim indeed for anyone who wasn’t well off. Children were expected to work almost as soon as they could walk nevermind being celebrated for their potential.
I didn’t say a word about Kate’s thesis. However since you went there, we do know she wrote about C S Lewis’s photographs of children. A subject that is well documented and freely available on the internet if only because the photographer is a very well known children’s author.
Given the *controversy surrounding his photography, if i were to speculate about Kate’s thesis, i’d wonder whether she touches on the controversy or simply writes about composition and tableaux he created in his photographs.
* https://news.artnet.com/art-world/was-lewis-carroll-a-pedophile-his-photographs-suggest-so-237222
And you know what? The children in those photographs belonged to well to do people which closes the circle of my original point that the grim reality of majority of the children in the Victorian era didn’t leave room for celebration of potential unless you were well off.
Just a little correction. I think you mean Lewis Carroll’s photographs of children, not C.S. Lewis. Both wrote classic children’s books and were professors at Oxford, but Lewis lived in the 20th century and did not take photographs. I’m sure you know this, but just to avoid anyone thinking that the Narnia author took pictures of naked girls.
Justme: Thank you for correction. That’s who i meant. Didn’t realise my typo mistake. 😊
I think it’s possible she could have been required to use theory during her thesis. If theory was used, I also think it’s possible she could have critiqued the notion of children being held up as idyllic or celebratory. She might have been asked to explain what was absent. Her supervisor would have offered feedback and could have advised her go beyond the limits of celebration. I also don’t know if her supervisor would have wanted her to write anything too basic. I’m only speculating though.
For the purposes of this kind of exhibition, I think what she wrote works for the purpose of being simple. The public at large isn’t going to want to read something highly theoretical.
I’m not saying she’s a searing intellect. I just think her professor would have expected her to write more than what’s seen on the surface in order to pass (people talk about St. Andrews as being a fairly good university so I would probably err on the side of thinking she’d have to do some form of actual critique.)
The cult of childhood thing was prominent among male authors during that period. The reality was grim, but that doesn’t mean some artists wouldn’t have tried to idealize children on some level. Children were seen as exhibiting more creativity and emotion and as being closer to God. So I don’t really think Kate’s description is wholly wrong or anything. She did also use the word “seemingly”.
Perplexed: That may indeed be true, but the exhibition is very specific about what it is celebrating. Her quote makes a sweeping statement about the era that ignores the grim reality of many children in that era.
I did wonder when I learned it was Lewis Carroll. The family of girls he photographed, his photos of Alice are extremely questionable, cut him off abruptly. He was sexually stunted and obsessed with little girls.
The Victorian era also had a high number of child prostitutes, and there are photos of them as well. Sad little urchins that no one cared about and they weren’t protected by laws.
It was a harsh period for children. The Industrial Revolution was a scary time for them, and the rising Middle Class wanted nothing but a lot of distance from their humble roots.
I don’t think she is talking about photos of the children in the Workhouse. Or the ones who were farmed out because the mothers were unmarried.
Just pretty little white cherubs with nannies and rosy cheeks.
I always found the subject of her thesis strange. Lewis Carroll’s photographs of children are a potential minefield of exploitation and pedophilia. Of all the options out there, why choose that?
She might have taken a course on Lewis Carroll that one of her professors taught, and then decided to expand on an idea she found in class. Sometimes one might choose a topic based on the person advising you. Obviously I wouldn’t know how she came to her topic choice — I just think sometimes students pick a topic based on the professor they have a preference for. Sometimes you like a certain professor and choose something they’re interested in. But again, I don’t know how she actually did come to her topic choice. I just think a lot of students prefer to be advised by a professor they have a good working relationship with rather than picking another topic they might have a greater interest in and then ending up with the professor from hell. I mean, it can happen and sometimes you have to be pragmatic if you want to keep your sanity during the term and get a good grade. Ideally, one should thrive on the love of learning blah blah blah, but some professors can take the joy out of that. At the undergrad level, one might as well work with someone one likes and trusts and isn’t about to throw you a curveball at the end. But again I don’t know her and I have no idea how she came to her topic. But I imagine whatever she took in her coursework and the professors who taught her and what they were willing to supervise could have had some influence on her decision.
Reports out of Marlborough plus her Uncle Gary said she wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. However she came to the topic, it is still one that was going to have to include an examination of the exploitation and pedophilia. Given what we’ve seen of her in the last 15 years, she doesn’t seem the type to be able to handle a topic like that with depth or sensitivity. Of all she could have chosen, she picked Carroll and his creepy photos of kids? Really?
When I hear someone talk about children in the Victorian era, I just think about Dickensian kids. Geez, didn’t those working children living in squallor really live a special existence, Kate?
I think someone like Lewis Carroll did idealize children though. The “cult of the girl” is associated with him. Then again, he might have been a weirdo.
Right?!
I know. Oliver Twist? I mean come on. She is just too much sometimes.
It’s very disappointing she didn’t wear black.
This was her chance to actually stand for something- without saying a thing ( as per the royal protocol of not expressing personal opinions).
What a wasted opportunity to have people talking about something other than her clothing, as usual.
In this case talking about her clothes hurt the #metoo movement and gave ammunition to people that want to keep the power structures as they are. Sexual Harassment is about power and should not be a political issue but ultimately is.
No, sexual harassment…any kind of harassment truly….is not political. It’s a human rights issue. It’s a feminist issue. It’s a men’s issue. It’s a woman’s issue. She could have worn black and still worn her beautiful emeralds. Wearing black would not have been political. It could have been read in many different ways, but I do agree the fact she wore green vs black ..she could have worn something interesting in black that wasn’t funeral-ish. Lots of women managed to look sophisticated, classy and interesting..in black….. (ah, but now i’m remembering she has no imagination….so the rest of my thought has become moot)…
It’s odd that she would claim that the Victorians celebrated childhood potential. Perhaps the upper classes did towards the end of the era, but my understanding of the time is that childhood was so fraught with dangers and poverty, that children were celebrated for their innocence (as in, they’re closer to Godly purity and untouched by earthly matters of sex and commerce) or ability to work and help support the family. Generally speaking, childhood potential is a product of the modern age, when parents can limit the number of children, assume that their children will all live to adulthood, and further assume that said children will have career and life options. That was the situation for very few families of the time.
I studied history and literature in school. Maybe art historians view the matter differently.
No, they don’t. Those syrupy images pushed by some of the mainstream artists, genre scenes with happy chubby angels is considered unimaginative art and was at the time. Then there was a backlash against the lack of reality and a rise of Eastern influence on aesthetics. Artists began to deconstruct the images. The results were Impressionism, Post Impressionism, offshoots of Abstract Art and lots of other movements as a direct opposition to High Victorian Art. You started seeing more thought into the meanings behind images and working with color and method to relay emotions and invoke responses. High Victorian was sweet and smugly moral, and then around late 1880s-1890s you get Art Nouveau, and it was sensual and hedonistic along with other movements.
(moral lessons) Emily Mary Osborn 1857; https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/nameless-and-friendless-the-rich-mans-wealth-is-his-strong-city-etc-proverbs-x-15-201160
William Powell Frith 1872: https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-fair-toxophilites-english-archers-nineteenth-century-95942/search/actor:frith-william-powell-18191909/page/2#
Emilie Munier 1880s
http://www.emilemunier.org/view_image.html?image_no=609
We may be poor, but we’re happy Victorian style! Emile Munier again.
http://www.emilemunier.org/view_image.html?image_no=325
I don’t think you should expect Kate to be clever nor educated. St. Andrews failed her.
I remember the school lessons about the victorian era similarly to graymatters.
There is a typo in that article. Kate wrote she was the mother of a young family. Not that she was a young mother. There is a picture of the letter on Twitter.
just here to say-
those EMERALDS!! esp. the colour of the lower one. sigh.
and a baby belly. gorgeous and makes my day.
They would have really popped with a black dress. Lol
Well, uh, whatever floats her boat, I guess.
St Andrew’s “a fairly good university?”. It is probably the best university in Britain after Oxford and Cambridge and the best in Scotland. Scottish students, at any rate, don’t get in unless they have top grades in all their “Highers”.
Yes, it’s categorized as extremely good. I was just afraid of saying anything more than “fairly good” because I was afraid of people coming after me for over-inflating her education. But, yes, it’s top-ranked.
The Brits are very good at advertising their universities. But if you look at how few Nobel prizes they get you get an idea how much marketing there is behind those costly universities in Britain.
Compare their Nobel prizes with the amount of Nobel prizes other countries get. And put it into relation to their number of population.
Apart from that both Kate and William attended St. Andrews. Neither of them has ever shown any deeper interest into art or into doing something with their life except holidays. And nope, writing a lousy forword about how keen you are about photography doesn’t really count. Because 1. I doubt she wrote it alone. 2. it seems a mere pr exercise if you consider she has barely done anything in arts: neither art charity nor visited exhibitions. Nothing really.
Brits have won more Nobel prizes than any other country, except the United States. Where’s your evidence?
Still very curious to know if these emeralds were from the Saudis. Even more interesting to wear a gift from that country for the first time at an event where she chose not to support a pro-women cause.
Those emeralds are amazing. Kate really needs to up her jewelry game and wear more pieces like that.
Two things:
1. Her eyes look so jacked in these pics. If makeup can make one look like they got an eye lift please point me to that YouTube tutorial.
2. I would hardly call her a young mother. She’s on baby #3 and she’s in her mid 30s ffs.