Tuesday, 4 February 2014

Kate takes George for a Stroll, Mustique Details + Kate pens Foreword for RAF Wives Book

We're back again with several updates to share. As you may have heard Kate and six-month-old George returned to London yesterday following a week-long holiday on the Caribbean Island of Mustique. No doubt Prince William will be delighted to be reunited with his family, as he continues his studies at Cambridge University.

It was very much business as usual today for The Duchess of Cambridge who was spotted out walking with Prince George and Lupo at Kensington Gardens.

Photo used with kind permission of Katharina

One of our lovely readers Katharina said she was walking in the direction of the Royal Albert Hall when she noticed a dog which looked very much like Lupo. Katharina then noticed a woman walking with a stroller and realised it was in fact Her Royal Highness. Katharina said she was on her phone and accompanied by a royal protection officer.

Photo used with kind permission of Katharina

Kate repeated the look she was photographed wearing at Kensington Gardens late last year. It's a common tactic used by celebrities and public figures to avoid paparazzi, and the Duchess often wore the same outfit whilst shopping in Anglesey in order to deter the paps. We can see Kate was wearing her trusty Barbour Ladies Defence Jacket, J Brand jeans and 5:11 Tactical baseball cap. Katharina noted the Duchess also wore a white and blue print scarf and her shoes appeared to be new.

Barbour/5:11 Tactical

George was in his SilverCross stroller, a royal tradition which has continued with the Prince.


Silver Cross

With many thanks to Katharina for sharing her sighting and photos!

************

Back to Kate and George's holiday in Mustique. There's an array of photos available at PopSugar.

Hello! Magazine

The Daily Mail shared details from the holiday in this article:

'The four-bedroom villa, staffed by a butler, chef, housekeeper and gardener, has an outdoor dining area overlooking the sea, as well as a lush tropical garden.
 Their villa which is smartly decorated in crisp whites and tasteful tropical prints, was filled with flowers and candles. Designer built in the 1970s and refurbished a few years ago, it has four bathrooms, upper and lower decks and a gazebo for extra hot days.'

The UK media led with headlines questioning why the Palace did not object to the paparazzi photos published in Hello! Magazine this week, compared to previous occasions when they were published in other British publications, including The Telegraph. It has been suggested there was a prior agreement in relation to the photos meaning they could be published after the holiday once the family was afforded total privacy aside from the airport departure - although I stress this is merely a suggestion and there is nothing to confirm this.

There's been varying opinions on the subject. Royal commentator offered this:

'The photographs set a significant precedent. In the past palace aides have jumped up and down and cried foul about gross intrusion of privacy. It suggests that if other organisations follow the royals on holiday and get photographs taken on public beaches the palace will no longer complain.'

Ingrid Seward editor-in-chief of Majesty Magazine shared her thoughts with The Mirror:

“I think this could be more of a one-off thing. It was in a public place, they weren’t harassed or followed and they probably feel it’s pointless making a fuss.
 I would think this is a bit of a one-off.I think they are using a bit of intelligence, you can’t go potty for everything because it would have no effect at all. I think they will complain about privacy when they have been really upset and on this occasion they haven’t.
 There has to be a line somewhere and this is where they’ve drawn it obviously.” But she added: “There’s no doubt in my mind that the palace are just as vigilant as ever about the Cambridge’s privacy.”

I've always believed it's a very fine line and it's become increasingly fine with the addition of George to the family. I suspect the Palace (knowing photos are taken every year) felt this was an unavoidable situation and it all comes down to a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they had been taken in Mustique, I imagine it would have been a very different story. What are your thoughts?

************

Moving onto a very interesting story. Kate has turned her talents to writing and penned a foreword for an upcoming publication about life as an RAF wife - 'Living in the Slipsteam'.

Amazon

Kate and William enjoyed three years on Anglesey where the Prince worked as a Search and Rescue pilot at RAF Valley. The Duchess recall her time fondly, but noted the sense of concern one feels as an RAF wife:

'I loved my time in Anglesey. But I can't pretend I didn't feel anxious when William was flying in challenging conditions, but he loved it and I felt incredibly proud of him.'

A royal source said, "The Duchess was approached about doing something for the book and she thought she would like to do a foreword." Living in the Slipstream is available to pre-order on Amazon and all profits go to the Royal Air Forces Association and the RAF Benevolent Fund. Kate's involvement will help sales enormously. An excellent way to support RAF organisations, and I'm very much looking forward to reading it :)

113 comments:

  1. Hi Charlotte.

    First of all I want to thank you for this blog, I've really enjoyed it and appreciate the hard work you put in.

    However, I have noticed, with some dismay, a change in the tone of some of the commentators. It has become a place for people to moan and complain about Catherine, William, the Middletons, Camilla et al.

    I'm sure that this is not what you intended. This is first and foremost a fashion blog and critical comments about what Catherine actually wears seems ok to me, but personal comments about her and her own and royal family is not ok. I think this is the wrong forum for that - there are plenty of other places where people can make those type of comments.
    I would have DM'd you with my view but I don't have the information.

    Good luck with what you are doing.

    Regards

    CP



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bluhare in Washington State4 February 2014 23:43

      There's a contact form on the side of the page to contact Charlotte privately. I've used it, and she's very kind and responsive.

      By the way, assuming that I'm one of the moaners and complainers you don't like, I'd like to proffer an invitation to discuss any comments I make. I'm very happy to tell you why I hold my opinions, and am also willing to listen to why you think I'm wrong. Word to the wise, though. The RAF wife thing is a topic on which I'm quite inflexible. It's pretty much the only one.

      I have told Charlotte I am happy to quit posting if she feels I am too disruptive. So far she hasn't asked.

      Delete
    2. Hello everyone!

      Thank you all for reading and commenting. CP you can contact me any time at hrhcatherineblog@hotmail.com :)

      Delete
    3. @CP...

      Actually, Charlotte has been very kind in *allowing* us to discuss and debate off-topic subjects on her blogs. As long as the comments are civil, I think it's interesting to share different opinions. And personally, I am thrilled that it has sort of taken off and others are joining in. :)

      Delete
    4. If we want to discuss seriously about the way Catherine dresses, we must think about things laying behind it. Otherwise it would be really nonsense. Her choices are not just hers, there are behind the Queen, Charles (he is paying for and he is becoming the new king), the fact that she is the wife of the second in line etc. The choice of her outfits for the official engagements is determined by a large amount of symbolism, not just by her personal taste. She is struggling to balance both sides, and the result is what we see in pictures and videos.

      Delete
    5. Theresa, from Paris5 February 2014 15:21

      I agree with royalfan and bluhare : the fun on this blog and in our community around Charlotte is being able to give our opinions in a civil way. Like in real life, if we all met up for drinks one day :-)
      It is good to have different opinions and to be able to share them politely = that's democracy at its best !
      I love the way Charlotte moderates her blog since the beginning. Please continue as it is, dear Charlotte ! Great fun !
      All best to all :-)

      Delete
  2. bluhare in Washington State4 February 2014 22:00

    Too bad she didn't support them while she was on Anglesey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not certain why you would say this. There is plenty evidence that she DID support RAF. She was involved with the program that read stories for the kids.

      I know that there are posters on other forums that have created the myth that she was detached from the RAF. But there is no evidence of this other than wishful thinking and borderline slander by people trying to belittle Kate for everything. Rumour and gossip is not truth. No matter how many people or gossip forums repeat it.
      Mel (Ontario)

      Delete
    2. bluhare in Washington State6 February 2014 23:14

      I wasn't very clear. My issue is that Kate refused to join the officers' wives club on Anglesey. When she and William married, it was reported that she would join the club once they got back to Anglesey. She didn't.

      So she wouldn't join the officers' wives club, yet writes a foreword for a book about RAF wives. Seems a bit hypocritical.

      Delete
  3. I think it's sensible for them to allow some photos to be taken and ask for privacy in return. This way they can set the terms. It's not a new approach although it didn't always work in the past. The paparazzi who make up their own rules, could make it difficult for the photographers who ARE willing to abide by such an agreement.

    And I can totally appreciate Kate's statement regarding her worrying about William flying in challenging conditions. It's something all military wives have in common, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another thought...

    Kate is keeping the price on these park stroll pictures down by wearing essentially the same outfit. Sure, they will still take pictures of her, but they aren't as valuable when you can't distinguish one set from another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bluhare in Washington State4 February 2014 23:44

      Smart move!

      Delete
    2. Portia from Chicago5 February 2014 02:39

      That is a really good observation. I bet you are so right, royalfan. And that is why we keep seeing her in the bretton top and skinny jeans in candids and for her duties.

      Delete
    3. That could be but it also could be that, like many of us, she prefers to wear casual clothes in casual settings. I can't think of too many modern women, even royal women, who would dress in bespoke Temperley to take their baby for a walk in the park or to make a nine-hour flight home from vacation.

      Delete
  5. Interested Canadian4 February 2014 23:50

    My thoughts regarding the photos taken in Mustique and published in HELLO are as follows. Firstly, lest we forget, Charles has recently taken over all palace media communications, including the press office of William, Kate and Harry. This means that any decisions taken emanate from Charles, not William, etc., as the royal correspondents and reporters, in general, well know. Hence, the very recent article published in The Telegraph, a newspaper generally Charles-friendly, casting minor aspersions regarding the Duke and Duchesses inconsistency in their reaction to published pap photos, is disingenuous at best. It was no longer their decision to make.

    Secondly, it is my opinion that most of the photos in HELLO have been negatively photoshopped, perhaps part of any deal Charles may have made before permitting publication. And strangely enough, I have noted of late that just as wrinkles have suddenly appeared on Will and Kates foreheads, wrinkles have disappeared on Camillas face.

    The above, I believe, is all part-and-parcel of the ongoing attempt to enhance Charles and Camilla, at the expense of Will and Kate. And Charles and Camilla, as ever, play dirty; they have to since their character reputations are shot and since neither, even in their heyday, could hold a candle to Will and Kate in the looks department.

    I expect to see more of the same, at least on an intermittent basis, in the future, just as I expect that any major success Will and Kate may have in their upcoming tour to be played down in the British press.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I share many of your concerns. And, as I said to a friend recently, I will eat my hat if I am wrong about the implications of Charles being in charge (mainly because of his closest "advisor"), BUT...I remain wary.

      Delete
    2. Some of those photos in Hello were really unflattering of Kate. And we all know Kate does not look like that. I wondered the same, if they were photoshopped. I just would hate to think Charles is that jealous of his own son and daughter in law.

      Delete
    3. Portia from Chicago5 February 2014 02:37

      I think that the wrinkle part is stretching it. I mean, seriously.

      Delete
    4. Eve from Germany5 February 2014 07:33

      I love all these discussions, but quite frankly, this time my "inner voice" (very trustworthy, I can tell you from nearly 50 years of experience - should have listened to "her" more often in the past, I can tell you... ;-))) ) clearly says you are "seeing ghosts" as we say in Germany. Putting wrinkles in Catherine´s face - I mean, really, I definitely think Charles has got better things to do than that kind of thing.... Please remember that William has made it quite clear time and again that he is NOT keen on becoming king too soon. As far as he himself is concerned he would have happily spent another couple of years staying in Anglesey and working as an RAF rescue pilot. If this rescue part of the RAF basis had not been privatized I guess he would have fought for another couple of years there. I can assure you from the way William acts e.g. when interviewed, he will most definitely NOT let his father walk over him and photoshop his or his wife´s pictures in the press in order to look more unfavourable.... no way, absolutely no way. William will use every given opportunity to "lay low" for as along as possible and give his father any possible opportunity to "shine" - simply because he is "craving" for any kind of "normalcy" he can get. Many reporters repeated time and again that one of the things that sort of drew him to Catherine was this kind of "normalcy" he could experience with her and her family. His whole university time was "orchestrated" so that he could lead as normal a life as possible. And it was reportedly Charles and the Palace who made this possible. So, was this another "stunt" in order to promote Charles and Camilla? NO. Charles lived in the spotlight and in the shadow of being "Prince of Wales" his whole life. It affected everything - including the choice of wife and the disaster that followed. I am certainly not a particular "Charles fan", but I understand why everything that happened happened this way. He certainly has his flaws (don´t we all) I do not deny that, but there has always been ONE issue both he and Diana absolutely saw eye to eye: that their children should be allowed to lead as normal a life as possible and for as long as possible. I don´t think a "jealous" Charles would have "allowed" William to quit his job at RAF and take over a more active royal role. It wouldn´t make any sense, would it? He would have gladly packed him and Catherine away on some other island where he could spend his days on rescue flights, away from the public.....
      I´ve said it before, in my opinion, the Queen is nearly 90 now and certainly wants to decrease her workload (I mean who can blame her!), Charles is 65 (we would enjoy our retirement by that time), so it only makes sense to slowly shift the workload and introduce William step by step into his future duties. And that, of course, includes Catherine. So at the moment they still enjoy some "normalcy". I hope the new "consolidated" press office is intelligent enough to get this message over sooner or later so that people can understand what is going on. Whether it will "silence" negativity about Charles, Camilla, William and Kate - well, I sincerely doubt it. People tend to project all kinds of things on other people, so-called "V.I.P´s" are prefered "targets".... as they are usually unable to defend themselves and you usually never come face-to-face to them. Which means you never have to face their direct reactions to your "opinions" - so you never have to question them. Quite handy, isn´t it? ;-)))) It´s not very nice or fair, but very human!

      Delete
    5. Portia, I realize you were serious, but your wrinkle/stretching comment added a smile to my morning coffee. :)

      Delete
    6. bluhare in Washington State5 February 2014 16:47

      Eve, that was very astute. Has your inner voice ever considered moving to Washington State? I've got a vacancy right now . . . .

      Delete
    7. Theresa, from Paris5 February 2014 20:19

      So true, Eve ! Wonderfully said !

      Delete
    8. Eve, thank you for a very wise and realistic message. I don't understand how Charles could dictate photoshopping to a magazine, or even to the Palace PR people. That would surely backfire. Pictures of Kate on vacation sans makeup are just that - casual vacation snapshots. We don't even know whether a photographer was present, or someone with a cell phone. I am happy to see posters who are willing to deflate the criticisms joining in.

      Delete
    9. Portia from Chicago6 February 2014 00:01

      Ha ha.. Royalfan - I did not realized what I said until you pointed it out.. :)

      I do like a good conspiracy as much as the next person, but really !
      Interested Canadian - I don't know whether you are serious or just having fun at our expense but you have expressed pretty explosive views here. Last week you said that William cheats on Kate, something to the effect of Harry getting into Sandhurst by cheating and all sorts of inflammatory things, that I have forgotten because they frankly offended my sense of delicacy. And now you have come up with even more extreme and very dark views on Charles. I think you're pulling our leg - seriously no one can have such dark views of humanity, can they ? Do you really think that it's that easy to just stop loving your son and grandson ? Do you have kids? Only real pyschopaths actually hate and actively wish harm on their children - you know that, right ? Loving and wishing well for children is biologically programmed - fathers cannot get away from it , mothers can't either.
      It is one thing to say that Charles is conveniently using the media to control his image by shoving W&K into the background - and many of our readers hold that view.. but this is borderline ridiculous.

      Are you just a troll ? Because you know, sooner or later we will be wise to you.

      Delete
    10. First of all, even though the photos in Hello look like the photographer was standing right next to the plane, I'd expect they were taken from a distance with a long lens. Modern digital photography can accomplish quite a bit, even without digital retouching. I don't expect that the plane photos were retouched. Kate was on vacation or just returning, the angles in those photos aren't the best so the photos themselves, while clearly showing Kate and the baby, aren't the polished and posed event photos that we're used to seeing.
      I think Charles taking over the media duties could very well backfire on all of them. He dislikes the media and William and Harry do too. Queen Elizabeth II famously said "I have to be seen to be believed." In this age where the enormous cost to UK taxpayers of keeping the royal family going, through Household Budget expenses, is always a hot-button issue, for Charles, William and Kate and Harry to suddenly turn reclusive and shun the press attention would be the worst thing to do. They market themselves as boosting UK tourism and travel to the UK but they can only do that if they're out and about and meeting people and attending events, not mewed up inside KP or Bucklebury or Anmer Hall.
      I think Charles does genuinely love, insofar as he is able to, his sons. It's certainly not the closeness many fathers enjoy with their children but there's no doubt there's affection there. Taking control of the media office wasn't some diabolical plot, it was a matter of a quiet, orderly switchover of duties to make a future transition as easy as possible for everyone involved.
      If Charles genuinely wants Will and Kate and Harry to focus on and get involved more with their causes instead of their social lives, celebrity friends and material goods, then good for him, I say.

      Delete
  6. Emily J, I so enjoy reading your comments and most of the time I agree with you, but I also enjoy the fashion aspect of Charlottes blog. I have learned so much about what to and not to wear. The fashion portion of Charlottes blog is extremely knowledgeable, and sometimes I wonder if Charlotte might be going to design school or something similar. Just a side note....are those skinny jeans removable? Sometimes I think maybe she can't get them off or something. Maybe she could at least switch up the color. Idk

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love the fact that this blog is a little bit about everything. Keep up the good work Charlotte.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hope we start seeing Kate and George out a little more often.
    I'm sure not many people agree with me when I say this but, I find it rather interest that if there are no 'formal' photos of George released that the people of Australia and so forth will get a real look at George before Britain does. I'm not saying that they owe anybody photos of George. It's the opposite of that, just strikes me as odd. I hope that they start to get out more and show the cute little baby off. In my opinion I don't think in the future people will be as accepting of any members of the royal family if they keep up this air of secrecy around them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blair, I agree. I would like to see them release "informal" official photos periodically like C&D did with W&H. It would be *priceless* PR for them to present themselves as a young, happy, and loving family. Maybe before they go to Australia...? We can hope... :)

      Delete
    2. bluhare in Washington State5 February 2014 01:51

      I'm with you, Blair, except for one thing. George is a future King of England and I believe his parents do "owe" the public something.

      I turn into the biggest idiot on the planet around babies. If I ever came in contact with George, I'd get hauled off to the Tower for Attempted Skutchery of the Royal Cheeks! George would love me, though. I play a mean game of Peek A Boo.

      Delete
    3. @bluhare that's so funny, I'm not much of a baby person myself, but when I saw that photo of Kate holding George I just thought he was the most adorable thing ever and would love to hold him. I get what you mean though about George being the future king of England. As he gets older there is going to be a lot of mounting interest surrounding him, and if people feel like they don't know anything about their King then it's going to be hard to accept him. It's like how they elect the president in the US, you vote for the candidate on what you've heard and seen about them. You wouldn't just vote sight unseen so to speak. Even though the UK is a monarchy, I hope I'm making sense.

      @royalfan I'm hoping we will see some kinda photos before they go on tour as well, although I really doubt it unfortunately.

      Delete
    4. Kate, Texas USA5 February 2014 06:46

      Bluhare, your comment is hilarious!

      Delete
    5. Eve from Germany5 February 2014 07:44

      I agree with all of you. I respect that "privacy" subject very much, but this is the 21st century and if you want to survive as a monarchy, you have to give the public sometimes what they want. I personally think Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden is doing that bit quite well. We regularly see photos or get "official" information about little Estelle, e.g. on occasions like birthdays or Xmas. And boy, does the public respond to that!! The little girl is doing so much for the monarchy, just by being the cutie she is! The Swedish monarchy definitely had its fair share of "scandals" during the past months - but all "disappears" as soon as little Estelle and her parents appear on the scene. It´s in fact only a tiny amount of times during the year, but you are somehow satisfied and therefore they are mostly left alone during the rest of the time. I do not mind seeing new pictures of Prince George while he is in Australia - but I must admit, I understand if the British feel a little different about this....

      Delete
    6. bluhare, I have to agree with you on that. As a future King, I guess W&K do owe the public some photos. After all, they can't "hide" him the way Sophie and Edward hid their two children. It would have been nice to see some informal pictures released before Christmas. Most of the European royals do that and it's a nice, normal touch.

      Delete
    7. bluhare in Washington State5 February 2014 16:41

      Thank you everybody. You should see me in the checkout line at the supermarket. Nothing makes a boring trip more fun than trying to get a baby to laugh and flap their hands at you. Nothing!! Except maybe a great sale. Naw, not even that.

      Delete
    8. Agree with everyone about the release of the odd pics from an informal photocall. It may help with the hungry press. It's a difficult one!

      Delete
    9. Blair: Are you forgeting that George is the future King of Australia too? The Queen is head of state of 16 countries. One of those countries is Australia therefore the British aren't losing out if Australia sees him before they do and vice versa.

      assuming the other countries do not vote out the monarchy, Charles, William and George are the future heads of state of 16 countries.

      Delete
    10. Sophie and edward are minor royals with their children, who will not take on royal duties. Therefore why should they show them they are of no Consequence. Whereas George will be king and bound by duty therefore the British do have a right to see him at points through his life. It's history too and should be documented. Ann London

      Delete
    11. Maybe they have been allowed to publish due to the reshuffle of press office maybe charles is aware of the bad press and whispers that surround the cambridges. Ann London

      Delete
    12. bluhare in Washington State5 February 2014 23:45

      Australian Anonymous: I forgot about that when I called him King of England. I forgot about the rest of Great Britain and the Commonwealth too. Apologies, everyone.

      Delete
  9. Interested Canadian5 February 2014 03:28

    Interesting post, Blair. It is true that Charles and Diana invited photographers into Kensington Palace when William was only six months old, giving the British photo ops of Wills before exposing/displaying him like some sort of trophy during their Australian/New Zealand tour some four months later.

    Just two thoughts. Firstly, Charles had a lot more money to pay for the deliberate invasion of Wills privacy at the early age of six months--he was already Prince of Wales--than William has now. So forget a repeat, even if Will and Kate were as willing to exploit their child.

    Secondly, unless William is particularly thick--doubtful, given his early introduction to lies and betrayals, not to mention the fact that he has consistently bested Charles, academically/intellectually--William might well fear negative photoshopping of his child, care of jealous Charles and Camilla. No parent wants that. But, in New Zealand/Australia, Charles has far less media influence-- altho to be sure, this will not necessarily translate into fair and true pics of George taken on tour, as seen through the prejudiced lens of the British press. We must never forget that Charles has spent a fortune hiring press spin doctors, many of whom have contacts within the British press.

    Charles is rich, and that means he has influence. William and Kate are not rich; they have little influence.

    I do not believe that William and Kate carry around an air of secrecy--privacy maybe, secrecy no. Secrecy is the province of those who have much to hide; privacy is something we all want and have the right to expect until we break a law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bluhare in Washington State5 February 2014 04:58

      Do you really think Charles is so nutzo he'd mess with his grandson's photos? Really?

      I think all the privacy stuff is William. I don't think Kate minds nearly as much. Yeah, I bet she wouldn't like being photographed if her hair, makeup and clothes weren't up to snuff, but that's about it. She didn't look unhappy at being photographed on holiday.

      Delete
    2. William is rich but not Charles rich, that is for sure.
      Just wondering, did.Camillla bring any money in her marriage with Charles?

      Delete
    3. Agree CP, the tone did change in January. As long as Charlotte is happy though, I believe some discussion and disagreement adds to the flavour of this blog!

      Delete
    4. Interested Canadian, you have me wondering... :) What do you mean by having a lot of money to pay for the deliberate invasion of privacy?

      Delete
    5. why would Charles deliberately sabotage his own legacy? He wants the monarchy to outlive him and he hopes to hand it over in good nick to William and eventually George. Why would he sabotage them?

      Delete
    6. To Emily J: Camilla comes from a rich military family. But the £2 million house she owns was supposedly bought with some loans from "friends". Also, Charles refused to execute a prenuptial agreement with Camilla, despite his experience with having to pay Diana £17 million or so in their divorce settlement. I couldn't find out anything about the Parker Bowles divorce settlement. What Camilla's true net worth is, is anyone's guess. But my guess would be that marrying Charles was a huge financial step up for her.

      Delete
    7. Didn't Charles and Camilla get married very shortly after questions arose regarding just how much Charles was paying for on her behalf?

      Delete
    8. Yes. Some sources claim that the Ray Hill house was part of her divorce settlement from Parker Bowles. Other sources claim that Charles gave Camilla a chunk of money to purchase the house after her divorce from PB. Perhaps Charles is the "friend" who lent Camilla money to complete the purchase that she started with divorce money. Also, public money now pays for security, etc. for that property. And of course Charles pays Camilla's expenses. It sounds as though Camilla brought no money to her marriage, but keeps it for herself, probably primarily in the form of the Wiltshire property where she entertains her children and grandchildren.

      Delete
    9. Yes, I suspect Charles is the "friend" who helped Camilla financially. And quite a bit IMO. I also think it's ironic that she has held onto her house to have a place to escape to with her children and grandchildren (with how many homes available to her?) and the added cost of security, etc doesn't seem to be an issue. Yet when W&K visit the Middleton's, some people have suggested that they should stay put at KP because of the added expense for security.

      Delete
  10. Charles may be rich and influential, with lots of spin doctors, but I think that all of his focus should just be on appearing dignified, which jealous people aren't.

    The DM ariticle, about the queen and a review of the duchesses wardrobe, while appearing to notify us that Kate will be looking more "royal", I also see it a bit belittling, of how charming she has looked so far.

    I wonder if she ever wakes up and thinks, I can't believe this is happening to me. I bet all of us would like to be dripping in finery and jewels...awesome vacations, a palace, blah, blah, blah, but honestly, sometimes I look at Charlotte's blog, and think, at least someone has it all. And I hope that she is loved, because I love the dream.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bluhare in Washington State5 February 2014 16:40

      Awww, wolfpup, that was very nice.

      Delete
    2. Such a lovely comment wolfpup!

      Delete
    3. Yes, very nice comment, wolfpup. :)

      And I happen to agree with you about the not-so-nice twist to the DM article.

      Delete
  11. Fascinating stuff about the jealous father having photos altered to make his daughter-in-law appear less attractive. And his son who inherited about ten million from Diana is "not rich". Reads like a bad soap opera. I'd say the monarchy is doomed if any of this is true. And since I am American, the Cambridges owe me nothing. If they refuse to cooperate with photos of their infant son, that's an issue for his future subjects. Without some horrible tragedy, heaven forbid, that baby will be an old man when he ascends the throne. Time for millions of intrusive photos. Children should be left alone.

    ReplyDelete
  12. bluhare in Washington State ~ You are so right about Prince George being the future King of England, & like it or not, his parents will have to share him with his future subjects. I'm not saying that we have to see weekly photos of the little prince, but I'd be happy with photos taken by Grandpa Middleton from time to time. As Prince George's 6th month birth date approaches, it's an appropriate time for a photo op.

    As far as Charles, we discovered Charles' jealousy when Princess Diana got more attention on they're early walk-abouts. If you've listened to Diana's "secret tapes," she makes it clear that Charles was ticked & very jealous. He informed her that the crowds were there for him, not her. At some point (not sure of timing), Charles insisted they do solo walk-abouts. If he was jealous of his wife, which I consider abnormal, you'd better believe Charles would be jealous of the Cambridges, as well as Prince Harry. Charles would do anything to make himself look good & downplay the Cambridges. However, as far as money, don't forget, Prince William inherited millions from his mother. My hope is that Prince William & Prince Harry are able to stand up to Charles on issues they deem important. After all, they were both witnesses to what really happened behind closed doors.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kate, Texas USA5 February 2014 06:45

    Glad to have a chance to finally post! Loved seeing Kate and little George in the few snapshots. I feel it was a wise move by the palace not to pursue any invasion of privacy arguments. If there are going to be pictures snapped, better ones like these than some pap stalking them on the beach sunbathing. George looks, happy and healthy, but disappointed we can't see more of his chubby cheeks....SO cute!

    When I read that Kate had gone on vacation with her family last week, I cringed at first. I thought people were going to get on the "no work bandwagon". I am glad they had the opportunity to go and I hope they had a lovely time. I think it's great that the Middleton family is so close and has the opportunity to escape the winter blues and jet off. I read a few comments from previous posts and figure I would give my opinion here. As far as no work, we do not know all the research and or preparation for the upcoming tour going on behind close doors and possibly private visits to charities. I believe it was Jean who stated that January is typically a quiet month on the Royal front. The Queen stays at Sandringham and I'm sure rests up. As far as the horrible flooding and Kate "jetting off" on holiday, is she the only Royal who can show up to show support and didn't Charles visit the region yesterday? I am in no way trying to diminish the seriousness of the tragic flooding, but think there are plenty of full-time working Royals who are not on maternity leave who could lend their support and presence. Again, I hope they had a great vacation! The Aurora House looks divine!

    I do hope we get a little photo-op with the Cambridge family, especially Prince George soon...real soon! It would be a treat! Thanks for the post Charlotte!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Kate,

      I hope you and your family are well. Your little ones have been in my prayers!

      I totally agree with an informal photocall, if we saw little George now and again the demand and value of pap pics would decrease significantly. It's a point the more respected photographers make often.

      Delete
  14. Not every blogger is journalist. Having said that, I like and read both blogs other commenters mention. I think there shouldn't be debate on whethere which one is "better" than the other since the owner of each side is individual and naturally has their own take on things and choice of topics. It's amazing to see one or two people spending so much time and energy to research and gather such large amount of information. Good job Charlotte and Susan (“the other site")

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bluhare in Washington State5 February 2014 16:53

      I agree. And I shudder to think of what they have to deal with behind the scenes.

      Delete
    2. I think there's room for so many blogs/websites about Kate. I have a huge amount of respect for Susan and the stellar work she does over at WKW. Always so interesting and professional.

      Delete
  15. Hi Charlotte great post not sure if you saw this article at the telegraph about Kate and the photo of Prince George and why she won't take action against the photographer from hello
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/10615637/Duchess-of-Cambridge-will-not-take-action-over-paparazzi-pictures-of-Prince-George.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Mellie,

      There's a lot of debate going on within the UK media. As you all may recall photos of William going to Cambridge were posted on The Telegraph and swiftly removed, however we now know Hello! etc agreed not to publish holiday pics until they had returned and the Palace were made fully aware of this.

      Delete
  16. Jean from Lancs5 February 2014 17:46

    There seems to be a lot of dislike and distrust of Prince Charles, but in my opinion he seems to want to ensure that his little grandson has what he himself never had---the undivided care by his mother.
    He was only just turned 3 when she became Queen, but she had already left him with his grandparents twice(and Princess Ann once) at Christmas, whilst she went to Malta to the Duke of Edinburgh.
    Of course once she became Queen she had little alternative---but it must have been hard for him.
    The final straw was a committee to decide his education and upbringing--can you imagine the effect of that on any child?
    It seems to me that Catherine herself wishes to have the care of her baby and that Prince Charles and Prince William support her in this. A happy childhood, hopefully, leads to a contented man (or woman)---something I suggest neither Charles nor William were fortunate enough to have.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jean from Lancs5 February 2014 17:46

    There seems to be a lot of dislike and distrust of Prince Charles, but in my opinion he seems to want to ensure that his little grandson has what he himself never had---the undivided care by his mother.
    He was only just turned 3 when she became Queen, but she had already left him with his grandparents twice(and Princess Ann once) at Christmas, whilst she went to Malta to the Duke of Edinburgh.
    Of course once she became Queen she had little alternative---but it must have been hard for him.
    The final straw was a committee to decide his education and upbringing--can you imagine the effect of that on any child?
    It seems to me that Catherine herself wishes to have the care of her baby and that Prince Charles and Prince William support her in this. A happy childhood, hopefully, leads to a contented man (or woman)---something I suggest neither Charles nor William were fortunate enough to have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean I agree. I get the impression Charles wants the best for William, Kate and George and is supporting Kate with her wish of being a hands on Mum.

      Delete
    2. Jean, I respectfully disagree. I am sure Charles loves his son and grandson, but I think there is more to it than him wanting George to have his mother's undivided care. If he feels that strongly about a mother's input into her child's life (based on his own experience), perhaps he should have been more supportive of Diana in that role. And perhaps some of his own private time back in the day could have been spent at home with Diana and his sons, instead of "elsewhere". Yes, lessons are learned and people can change, but there also happens to be a huge personal advantage to him and his wife if Kate is not a f/t royal. I would really like to believe your interpretation of it, but I can't.

      Delete
    3. bluhare in Washington State5 February 2014 23:54

      Just one pet peeve. How can anyone be less than a full time royal? They get called HRH and Sir/Ma'am all day, right? I know you're talking duties, but it just never looks right.

      Delete
    4. bluhare, I consider their time in Anglesey to be an example of that, and most definitely if taking care of George will be Kate's main focus (I mean time-wise, naturally) in the near future.

      Delete
    5. Sarah from Calif.6 February 2014 13:23

      Well said Jean. I totally agree with you.

      Delete
    6. bluhare in Washington State7 February 2014 00:15

      royalfan, I understand what you mean, it's just that being royal seems to me to be like being pregnant. You either are or you aren't.

      I know, I'm just picking a semantic fight on this one. I know they mean that they aren't carrying a full load of engagements. Part time royal just seems funny to me . . . like they're called HRH and Sir/Ma'am from 9-5pm, and then are regular people the rest of the ime.

      Delete
  18. Royal correspondents confirm Angela Kelly has NOT been asked to advise Kate on her tour wardrobe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bluhare in Washington State5 February 2014 19:49

      Wow. I take everything I said back. Sort of.

      DM's got egg on their face with that one!

      Delete
    2. Portia from Chicago5 February 2014 23:51

      Well the DM is not known for their attention to detail. So, although perhaps AK has not been assigned to help her, I still think that Kate has been assigned a dresser and we will see more conservative clothes.
      Bluhare - you're folding way too fast. We need to stick it out till the end .. lol..

      Delete
    3. Kate may have been assigned a dresser; I won't dispute that. But I think the reference to AK implied that someone needed to take charge of Kate vs. helping her. Most royal ladies experiment in the beginning and determine what does or does not work, so a different style could also be a refection of that process.

      Delete
    4. bluhare in Washington State6 February 2014 23:48

      Thanks, Portia . . . don't know what got into me.

      After re-reading the article, if Angela Kelly is involved it's to select jewelry. Really strange that the DM/Katie Nicholls would publish an article that could be verified true/false so easily.

      Delete
    5. bluhare, I'm not surprised. My impression of KN is that she doesn't sweat the small stuff (like accuracy).

      Delete
    6. Portia from Chicago7 February 2014 04:36

      You ladies are funny :) Yes, makes sense AK is to select jewels.

      Delete
  19. Jean from Lancs5 February 2014 19:02

    Sorry---seem to have managed to get my blog up twice.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It was nice to see Prince Charles supporting those in flooded Somerset. I thought he came across really well in the footage I saw and I liked his honesty. I remember the 2007 floods here in Gloucestershire, how awful it was to see all the flooded homes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since I did criticize Charles for showing up in a suit and dress shoes during a 2007 visit to support flood victims (and thereby making it necessary for others to do likewise), I will give him credit for getting it totally right this time.

      Yes, bluhare, I did just give Charles credit. :) Fair is fair.

      Delete
    2. bluhare in Washington State6 February 2014 23:49

      I see what you mean about giving advance warning of agreement, royalfan. Would have saved my jaw from hitting the floor hard!

      Delete
    3. bluhare, hopefully, your jaw is mending nicely. :)

      Delete
    4. Royalfan your comment made me smile! You gave Charles credit :D! Loving the debates that are going on! Thank goodness we are all different! And thank you Charlotte for providing a lovely blog to give one's opinion!

      Delete
    5. Lol. Hi Kathryn... :) And I second your thank you to Charlotte.

      Delete
  21. Portia from Chicago5 February 2014 23:50

    The CP Mary said the following recently :

    "Work is very important in our daily lives, and you can’t just say, ‘now she’s private, and now she is the Crown Princess.’"

    All Royals face the same problem with media intrusion. And it is very mature of Mary to recognize this.
    I think that the latest move by the Palace has gotten a few feathers ruffled and they will need to find their footing and comfort zone again. William in particular is just way too controlling of his pictures - his stance is that they should only get photographed on duties. I don't think that really works, not when taxpayers want to see what their money is paying for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Portia, that is mature of Mary to recognize.

      Related question...it is my understanding that the press is particularly aggressive in the UK. Maybe someone can offer some insight on that...

      Delete
    2. There are great pictures of Mary over on the Royal Digest.

      As far as the press goes, some of the Scandinavian gossip magazines are intrusive and brutal. Remember one of them was planning to publish the topless photos of Kate. And worse, Mary has been faced with some really unpleasant blogging on the Internet. There is a group out there who apparently thought Frederic should have married an earlier Danish girlfriend (a stunning girl his mother supposedly didn't like) and have attacked Mary relentlessly.

      I really admire Mary. She isn't as beautiful or as sparkling as Kate but she does a lot and she just carries on, no matter what is said. She has four young children, including toddler twins and the Danes I spoke to in Copenhagen said she is a very involved mother but she is also involved in a full schedule of activities including her recent independent trip to Myramar.

      She took on a lot from day one, with great confidence. I think one difference with Mary (and Maxima in the Netherlands) is that they had worked professionally which gives them a sense of how to do a lot and yet balance time with their families. Kate, after school, never had that kind of disclipline. Working for your family is not the same. Even if you work hard at times, they are apt to let you do as you wish.

      I certainly think it is very worthwhile for Kate to be a hands on mother to George but I also think she should be able to work part time and banish the Duchess Dolittle moniker before, like Prince Andrew (once so dashing and popular and according to business types, really a hard worker on behalf of British industry but stuck with Air Miles Andy for the rest of his days) she gets permanently stuck with that nickname long after she is no longer young and as crowd pleasing.

      Delete
    3. Mary is very attractive IMO, and always a class act, too. And what a beautiful family.

      I too am aware of a need to bring her down and imply that her marriage isn't a happy one. But it seems like groundless nonsense when you see them together, as a couple or as a family with their four young children.

      Regarding Kate, for now, I would like to see her do two engagements a week. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but two is doable, even with a baby and the preparation time required. Now that W&K are in London and transitioning into being f/t royals, it's important for her to define her role. (I guess I agree with Anon on there being a "window"...)

      Delete
    4. Portia from Chicago7 February 2014 04:47

      Royalfan, I don't know whether the UK media is more intrusive or not. I think that compared to the US media it might be.. at least that is what the US media say, don't they .. ha ha.

      But yes, I also am aware of the ridiculous suggestions about Mary floating out there. People can be such animals to each other.. Mary clearly is a woman who has it all - or as much as one can have. Beauty, brains, gorgeous kids, money, fame, clothes, power, a legacy through her work.. all of it and I guess that people just can't leave that alone. Lots of jealous ones out there.

      I did not even know that Denmark had a royal family 2 years ago. But somehow I stumbled upon them and have kept up with Mary's clothes and doings. I think that what Anon said - her having worked and climbed the corporate ladder gave her the chops to handle public life with confidence and poise. What is impressive is that she was completely fluent in Danish from day 1 of her duties. She had tutors and lessons, but the discipline and intelligence is hers. I saw a documentary on her where she went back home to Oz after her wedding and it was a real close look at her life, her past, who she is, her loving close-knit family, her mother's death, how she left home to work, travelled the world with a backpack at 27 and so on... A girl after my own heart. She was also raised by loving parents, but was encouraged early on to be independent, enjoy life and be out on her own and apply herself. I like that she is spunky, fearless, obviously confident, sure of her abillities and clearly does not let anyone run her or her life.
      The Danish royal family also seems WAY way less oppressive stuffy and stuck up - their queen is extremely educated, very intelligent, and well-spoken and great fun !

      Delete
    5. bluhare in Washington State7 February 2014 20:35

      Out of curiosity, royalfan, any theories about why prep time is so important for Kate but not mentined for anyone else? Honestly, I'm curious. You don't see anyone else using that as a reason for not being out in public.

      Delete
    6. Portia, I think you summed up Mary's strengths and contribution to the RF beautifully. I didn't follow the coverage of her from the very beginning, but in recent years I did begin to pay attention and I really admire her.

      And although I hesitated to "go there" and use the "J" word to refer to SOME of her critics, I do believe you nailed that as well. She certainly appears to have it all.

      Delete
    7. bluhare, I think it's a given that *all* royals have "prep time", and I don't think *Kate* has been using it as an excuse. It has been offered as a reasonable reality on her behalf when her critics have complained about her workload. Time spent before a camera is not the extent of her responsibilities. Just as it isn't for anyone else in the RF.

      Delete
  22. Thanks for sharing the 'PopSugar' link, and the photos of Kate taken in the park recently. I agree with the readers who say that Kate's face looks a bit different in the 'Hello' photos; though I think it's only the photo on the 'Hello' cover. Her face looks a slightly different shape in this photo. Charlotte, in this post you have included Kate's forward for the book about RAF wives, is this the complete forward? Re. publishing the 'Hello' photos, I agree with the people who say that it's hugely controversial. It's as though Kate is trying to 'manipulate' her image as she has obviously approved these photos, yet other informal photos of her out and about are NOT allowed to be published in the UK. I think her team made a major mistake in agreeing the publication of these images. It also shows that 'Hello' does, indeed have a close relationship with the Palace, as they were granted permission. I suppose that, if things were not as tightly controlled as they are, though, (re. private photo publishing of Kate et al) other newspapers would not even seek permission from the Cambridge's press office first. However, 'Hello' had the sense and courtesy to do this, and by doing so, was granted permission to publish AND protected its 'special relationship' with the monarchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Mo,

      The media just shared a couple of lines from the foreward, I imagine we will hear plenty more in the weeks to come and of course see Kate's input in its entirety when the book is released.

      Another engagement for the Duchess on the 17th as a commenter mentioned. HRH will join the Queen at Buckingham Palace for a reception for the arts.

      Delete
    2. I suspect that agreeing to the Hello photos was a necessary evil as it appears that privacy during the vacation itself was part of the deal, as well as the pictures being released after the fact. Not bad considering other possibilities.

      Delete
  23. Royalfan: many 'intrusive' photos of Kate shopping etc. have been published overseas but not in the UK, the publication will be sued. I think it's more difficult for the Palace to control what's published in overseas publications, but they will pursue them if they consider them to be highly invasive, such as the legal action against France's 'Closer' re. the toplesss photos of Kate. However, UK citizens can usually view such photos on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  24. there is a new engament announced a reception with the queen

    ReplyDelete
  25. Melanie from California6 February 2014 20:26

    Here is the link to pre-order Living in the Slipstream in the United States. The book retails for $20.08.

    http://www.amazon.com/Living-Slipstream-Foreword-Duchess-Cambridge/dp/1909716243/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391718222&sr=1-1&keywords=living+in+the+slipstream

    ReplyDelete
  26. Apparently Kate hosted a luncheon for an animal rights charity today (Thursday).

    There has been a lot of discussion about the difference between the Palace reaction to pictures of William in the Cambridge train station and pictures of Kate and George at the St. Lucia airport. Does this reflect a difference in their personalities as well as perhaps a policy difference? William always looks uptight in the face of photographers, even during official activities, while Kate relaxes and smiles. Although I know she doesn't want the sort of constant pestering she endured during her London working days, Kate seems to accept non-intrusive photographers cheerfully when she is in public. I wonder how this will play out where Prince George is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've always admired Kate's attitude towards the photographers. She just seems to take it in her stride, which is a good thing since I do believe this is a major issue for William (understandably so). Regarding George, well, I suppose Kate will have a calming affect on William; she may just be the more level headed one on this subject.

      Delete
    2. bluhare in Washington State7 February 2014 17:25

      I have always thought that Kate does not mind the attention nearly as much as William. Of course, she wants it on her terms (who wouldn't?), but I don't think she minds the photographers much at all. In fact, just to roil the waters, if the stories are true about the holiday photos being a set up to either get some privacy on holiday or stick a finger up at Charles, I'd say she can use them quite well.

      Delete
    3. bluhare, roil away :) but I cannot see Kate wanting to "stick a finger up" at Charles. First of all, I do not believe that is her personality, nor do I see her doing that to William. But since you threw it out there, what would she have to gain? Why would she want to do such a thing?

      Delete
    4. PS I meant to add that I *do* believe the pictures were "okayed" for the sake of privacy.

      Delete
  27. Hello!

    Where did you hear about the luncheon? I know the Duchess of Cornwall hosted a reception for an animal rights charity but didn't hear about Kate. Thank you very much :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. None of us (at least as far as I am aware) know the players in the Royal Family personally so all we can do is speculate and surmise based on media reports, rumors and observation. I am really surprised that people can see evil schemes behind the recent consolidation of the communciations offices of Charles and the Cambridges. Seems more likely an attempt to make things more efficient and coordinated as the Queen starts taking a step back from her duties. In the photos I have seen of Charles and his son and Kate, I see genuine affection. DIana herself said Charles was a wonderful father. If Camilla is pulling strings behnd the scenes, I fail to see what she gains. Seems like public attitude towards her has risen to "acceptance." Messing around with PR efforts that are positive towards Kate just seems to likely to backfire. Camilla doesn't strike me as stupid, so I would think she'd just as soon plug along trying to raise her own image, and leave the Cambridges be. Maybe Diana is smiling down on all those who promote the Camilla Is Evil theories, but I take Wm and Harry at their words when they express fondness for their stepmother. I do think W&K would be wise to plump up their images as hardworking part-time Royals, and share some pix of George, and hopefully Charles will help them see the benefit of such. I think the current picture of the Cambridges has been shaped by Wm's desire for privacy and "normalcy" and Kate is letting him the show on that score. She seems like a very smart, very astute woman who surely understands that neediness, insecurity and attention-grabbing behavior of Diana (and Fergie too) helped to put a demise in her marriage. I am sure Kate doesn't want to repeat the Bad Marriage trend and defers to Wm a great deal on how much or little royal exposure to take on. Her history suggests that she is an obedient girl (not the same as being a doormat). If the Queen or Charles were ever to suggest to her (or her staff) that she needs to step it up, I bet we'd be seeing a lot more Iin the way of engagements. For now, they are probably content to let Wm enjoy his domestic bliss. Fortunately for Wm, Kate was the product of a loving and stable home (unlike Diana) so she doesn't appear to need public adoration and approval to feed her soul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to admit some of the Charles comspiracy goes much too far and yet there seems no question that he was much more threatened by Diana than he needed to be. She could have been an asset to him had he just realised that a young, beautiful girl was always going to draw a lot of superficial attention but he could use that. We have no way of knowing how much Camilla, very much in his life back then, encouraged those feelings but the one call we do have of them talking privately showed her very much as a flatterer.

      While we can hope Charles has matured and is proud of his sons, "Not in Front of The Corgis" makes mention of the strong sense of competition among the royals regarding engagements, so I'm not convinced the present situation is a completely benign one.

      I think one reason a lot of people are uneasy about the Middletons, even while generally admiring a close family situation, is that Kate does seem from the little we know, too strongly influenced by others. No one wants to see her strike out as boldly as Diana and Fergie but if she is to be a successful queen consort, she needs to have a strong and independent judgement, not just be a nice "obedient girl".

      That's where outside work experience would have helped. Kate seems sometimes too much guided by others and as such, hasn't really developed the sense of identity she will need long term to maintain public good will. The best royal ladies have been very strong characters, even while being loyal wives. Think of Queen Mary and the Queen Mother and Princess Alexandra, not to mention the queen herself. Camilla does carry the great burden of the past and always will, but she also in her last interview, still seemed caught up way too much in Charles flattery. (Although I realise it was for his birthday but that alone says something, his birthday, not her causes.)

      Hopefully, Kate will get the confidence to strike out on her own a bit. Building up a fuller schedule of independant engagements and gaining experience should help. Watching her now on her occasional engagments, she seems too cautious. Character is what makes a successful member of the royal family and that means taking some risks, not just doing exactly as you think others want.

      Delete
    2. I see no "evil", but I cannot ignore Charles' past and current priorities. I question how W&K will fare for two main reasons.... I believe Charles has always put his needs first; I think it's his nature. And second, he has to keep the Camilla PR moving along and W&K's star power is a threat to that goal. Camilla, who is not a stupid woman (I agree there), understands that perfectly well and she too is prone to take care of number one.

      Delete
    3. Anon 01:18 "Obedient" is not how I would describe Kate (not that I would call her a rebel.) I think she is able to assess her circumstances and proceed accordingly. She is well aware of what pushed her in-law's buttons in the past and she is being very careful not to ruffle any feathers. I agree that she may be too careful in some ways, but time is on her side and she will be able to become more direct on her own behalf. For now, I think she understands who has the starring role(s).

      Delete
  29. Re Kate's face in the Hello! Magazine pix: Her cheeks are a little fuller, the way they were when she was younger and before she started dieting. I think she looks younger that way. It also tells me where George gets his adorable cheeks from.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I thought the Hello pics were great.
    They show Kate laughing and smiling, obviously caring for and being engaged with her baby, they show the baby in a relaxed and happy setting.
    If her face looks more full in some photos, it's because her head is turned, making the side of her face appear larger, that's just a fluke of how the camera caught her.
    Photos like these do Will and Kate nothing but good, in my humble opinion. They're great PR for them, they show them being relaxed and happy and doing things we all can do (flying to vacation, that is, not the pricey Mustique villa!). If I were Charles's press person, I wouldn't have objected either.
    Also, there were certainly enough close protection officers as well as airport security around that if there had been a real objection, the photographer would have been removed.
    Even shooting with a long lens, as these clearly were, Kate's party seems to be aware that there is a photographer, a couple of the photos show James Middleton and the woman I assume to be a protection officer scowling right at the camera.
    My guess is that some ground rules have been established for Will and Kate by Charles and his press team and they've been told what they can complain about and what they need to deal with and I'd guess this is the latter.
    Someone also pointed out and I would agree that Kate seems far better able to deal with the paparazzi in casual situations than is William, who, frankly, acts pretty childish at times still. She seems more able to just go about her duties with the knowledge and acceptance that they're there.
    I think we all forget from time to time - even with their immense popularity - Will and Kate aren't making the rules and they're not about to ascend the throne. Even though she's slowing down, Queen Elizabeth II still is firmly in charge as is Charles over some things.

    ReplyDelete
  31. any1 knows the brand/model of spots shoes kate middleton was wearing at the park thanks

    ReplyDelete

Comments are most welcome! Constructive discussion is always encouraged but off topic or hateful remarks will not be published. If you wish to share your name and where you're from without using the sign in options, simply select the "Name/URL" option on the drop down menu and insert your name, and if you wish the country/state you're from. You can leave the URL blank.