Saturday, 20 August 2016

A Cornwall-Isles of Scilly Mini-Tour, Canada Dates & More!

Hello, I  hope you're having a wonderful weekend, everyone!

We begin with news of a 'mini-tour'. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will carry out a host of engagements in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly on the 1st and 2nd of September. The two-day visit features a varied itinerary, with visits to local charitable organisations, businesses and Duchy of Cornwall initiatives planned. The Cambridges will one day be the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, so aides said it's a "good chance for them to find out more and meet local people". The Palace added on Twitter: "The Duke and Duchess are very much looking forward to visiting Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. Stay tuned for updates on the day!"


What's on the agenda for the two days? Thursday, 1 September will see the couple begin their visit in Cornwall, carrying out six engagements throughout the course of the day. Their first stop is Truro, Cornwall's only city, where they will visit Truro Cathedral and meet civic dignitaries and cathedral representatives.


As mentioned above, the Palace tweeted stay tuned for more updates. This likely alludes to engagements two and three which are "to be announced" closer to the date. Afterwards, the Duke and Duchess will travel to Newquay to visit two Duchy of Cornwall projects, the first of which is Nansledan, a 218-hectare site that will provide future business and housing for the local area. They will then visit the recently finished Tregunnel Hill project, a new neighbourhood development on Duchy of Cornwall-owned land.


More on the Duchy of Cornwall from the Mirror's story:

"Prince William and Kate will visit Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly next month - where William will learn more about the Duchy estate which will one day pay him millions. A large part of the visit will also introduce them to residents and projects on the Duchy of Cornwall estate - 53,000 hectares of land across 23 counties that was established in 1337 to fund the heir to the throne.
It netted Prince Charles a cool £20million last year to spend on private and public expenditure and William will inherit the revenue when his father becomes King. In January 2014 William began a 10-week bespoke agricultural management course at Cambridge University designed to help him when he inherits the Duchy."

Day one wraps up on Newquay's Towan Beach, where William and Kate will be given an introduction to the work of the Wave Project - an organisation using surfing as a method to reduce anxiety in children.

The Wave Project

On Friday, 2 September, the Cambridges will begin their visit at Portmellon beach on St Mary's, the largest of the Isles of Scilly. There, they will meet local people from St Mary's Gig Club who regularly take part in gig rowing, a traditional and popular sport on the Isles of Scilly. The Duke and Duchess will then visit St Mary's Harbour, where they will see the recently completed quay extension.

We Are Cornwall

The next stop of the day is the beautiful Tresco Abbey Gardens. William and Kate will view the sub-tropical garden and meet staff.

Visit Isles of Scilly

William and Kate will visit Scilly's postal flower service Scilly Flowers and meet Ben and Zoe Julian, the second generation of the family to run the successful Isles of Scilly business, and see how the island's flowers are stored, packaged and then posted to customers across the UK. The visit will conclude with an engagement at St Martin's community centre, which acts as a hub for locals and tourists.


I have long been anticipating an 'away day' to Cornwall for the Cambridges. In my opinion, it's one of the most beautiful places in Britain, home to outstanding natural beauty, scenic harbour villages and hidden away gems in terms of fantastic local businesses, from hotels to eateries and local produce markets. For our friends across the pond who are fans of the television series Poldark (an enjoyable watch for those missing their Downton Abbey fix) you'll be familiar with images of the beautiful Cornish coastline.


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

A number of our Canadian readers have been in touch enquiring about potential dates for the Canada tour and the possibility of seeing the Cambridges. Whilst there's been no official word from Kensington Palace just yet on specific dates, royal reporter Emily Andrews says they are due fly into Vancouver with the tour dates scheduled for 25 September - 1 October.

Emily Andrews Twitter Feed

Given dates that have previously been reported I imagine this is roughly correct. The Sunday Times reported the tour would be "eight days long", meaning they may stay on a day or two longer than reported above. Word is we'll hear more within the next week or two.

***********

Next, a quick update on Kate's Saloni Martine Dress.


The popular dress has been reworked in a rich magenta hue for Fall 2016. The label signature is described: "This matelassΓ© piece is designed to flatter - it has a fitted waist and a full, box-pleated skirt. Showcase the chic V-back with an updo." It is available in most sizes at Net-A-Porter.

Net-A-Porter
************

We often receive comments of interest in Kate's choice of hair and beauty products. Unlike her sartorial selections they are practically impossible to identify unless official word is released in the media. There's been quite a buzz in the media regarding a £42 face oil the Duchess reportedly swears by - the Beauty Sleep Elixir by British brand Beuti Skincare.


Beuti Skincare

More from the Telegraph:

'"Last year we gave the Duchess of Cambridge three bottles of the face oil through a family friend, who works at Kensington Palace," said Beuti Skincare founder Leila Aalam. "A few months later, we were told that one bottle sits on her dressing table."
The naturally rich elixir contains 14 plant-based oils, including sandalwood nut kernel oil, camellia oil and strawberry seed oil. The blend provides the skin with potent antioxidant protection - which helps to soothe redness and gives the skin a youthful appearance over time. 
"At 34 years old, the Duchess is the perfect age to start using the oil," continues Aalam, who is a trained beauty therapist. "It helps to repair the skin from sun damage and gives a very natural glow. It's also perfectly safe to use during pregnancy. When I had the first samples of the product back in November last year, the Duchess was the first to get it fresh off the conveyor belt."'

There's been quite a few reports over the years claiming Kate is a fan of organic face oils. Last year it was reported the Duchess has been using the £19.50 Organic Rosehip Oil by New Zealand-based brand Trilogy.

************ 

Before we leave you, a quick word on how much fun it's been seeing all of your 'Dream Looks for the Canada Tour'. There's been such thought, consideration and an abundance of creativity poured into each selection. For anyone who still wishes to participate, submissions for the blog post featuring all the looks will be accepted until Sunday afternoon. Click here if you would like to join in!

Wishing you all a great weekend! :)

143 comments:

  1. Love that dress in magenta. That color would look beautiful on Kate. Classic style, appropriate for many events.

    ReplyDelete
  2. oh lovely I think we hear from them it some other time love poldark too

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just order the skin care product! The fact it says "helps with redness" caught my eye, along with, of course, that Kate reportedly uses it. And at that price, I better be looking just like her soon! ;)

    Thanks for doing the "dream look"! I'm not participating because there's no way, with my limited fashion knowledge, that I could dress Kate but I really look forward to seeing everyone's picks. So fun! Like playing dress-up as a kid!

    Thanks Charlotte for this wonderful "place" I get to stop by and visit! :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm so excited for them to come to my neck of the woods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden20 August 2016 at 21:24

      How exciting! Do you think you'll go see them? :) I think it's great that they are visiting and getting to know the area since it will be closely tied to them in the future!

      Delete
    2. Julia from Leominster21 August 2016 at 16:29

      Hope you get to see them Brenda - how fun that would be!

      Florida Girl - while it is too late this time - hope you will consider jumping in in the future - few of us have fashion knowledge - but in spite of that , people have come up with brilliant ideas - really better than professional stylists might have done, who would have been governed by the trends of the hour more than what would really suit Kate.

      There is always the chance to choose a casual or sporting outfit if you're not keen on gowns - since many of Kate's engagements often call for a casual look.

      Delete
  5. I LOVE that grey hat on Kate. Hopefully, William and Kate will actually get to surf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love the hat as well. Hope to see more of the larger ones! :)

      Delete
    2. I like the hat, but the combination with the high coat collar makes Kate look oddly scrunched. It was not a good overall style.

      Delete
  6. Victoria from North Carolina20 August 2016 at 18:11

    So they wont be Prince and Princess of Wales? I thought since Charles will be King one day, William and Kate would take the Prince and Princess of Wales title. But at the same time, I think that is special that Diana will always be known as the Princess of Wales. Will Harry get a new title once Charles is King?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden20 August 2016 at 21:26

      They might be. The title Duke of Cornwall automatically goes to the eldest son of the monarch. The Prince of Wales title must be granted by the monarch. It probably will be, but for Charles for example it took a while to give it to him (the Queen wanted him to understand it before getting it hence waiting until he got older).

      Harry probably wont get a new title unless he marries. But it's up to Charles.

      Delete
    2. I have been a long time follower of this blog, but never posted before - they will be both the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall AND the Prince and Princess of Wales. Prince Charles himself carries both titled.

      Delete
    3. Sarah Maryland USA20 August 2016 at 21:57

      They have to be officially given the title from Prince Charles when Charles becomes king When the queen dies they automatically become the duke and duchess of Cornwall but when Prince Charles bestows on them the title of Prince and princess of Wales they will have that as a title as well
      I remember reading when Edward Vii became king he waited for 9 months to make his son Prince George Prince of Wales since King Edward was Prince of Wales for 60 years
      Wondering if Charles would do the same thing?

      Delete
    4. Victoria, the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall will be *one* of their titles.....and thank goodness because thinking of Kate as the Duchess of Cornwall will be a tough pill to swallow on my end. :)

      http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-prince-of-wales/titles-and-heraldry

      Delete
    5. No, William and Kate will still become the Prince and Princess of Wales when Charles becomes King - but they'll also become the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall at the same time. They can receive more than one title at once

      Delete
    6. I was wondering the same thing. I think Camilla cannot be princess of Wales out of respect to the late Diana, as she was the Princess, and Willism and Harry's mother. I hope when Charles becomes King, that Katd becomes Princess of Wales. But, she might use Duchess of Cornwall instead, like Camills does now. I don't know what Camillas title will be when Charles is King, and I don't know what happens to Harry's title either.

      Delete
    7. William will inherit the Duke of Cornwall title, but Prince of Wales is a title granted by the monarch to his or her oldest son. The Queen gave it to Charles when he was nine years old if I remember correctly. He had been known as both Prince Charles and the Duke of Cornwall from birth. There were violent protests in Wales when Charles was installed as POW, and there has been some discussion about whether William will be given the title. Welsh posters can perhaps comment about the current attitude in Wales. I wonder whether William having lived and worked in Wales makes him a more welcome candidate. But the English monarchy has long replaced the ancient Welsh royalty, and the native Welsh prince, and that has always caused considerable resentment in Wales.

      As for Harry, he will no doubt be given an inheritable dukedom by the monarch when he marries, unless like Prince Edward he is made an earl.

      Delete
    8. They will most likely be Prince and Princess of Wales once Charles becomes King. This is at the monarch's discretion, but will almost certainly happen. They will also become the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and will have several other titles as well. Right now, Charles is the Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and has several other titles as well. I imagine the reason that Camilla goes by the title the Duchess of Cornwall and not the Princess of Wales, is because it is so closely associated with Diana. Harry will probably not get a new title until he is married, just like William received the title Duke of Cambridge once he got married.

      Delete
    9. I'm pretty sure they will be Prince/Princess of Wales, but ALSO Duke/Duchess of Cornwall. The Duchy is the financial support for the heir. Prince Charles is currently both Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall right now and Camilla is Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall. I believe out of the memory of Diana who was so famously Princess of Wales, they don't use that title for Camilla despite the fact that it is technically hers. It's not uncommon for there to many titles per person, and they commonly go by the highest "rank" they hold.

      Delete
    10. The Prince of Wales is the Duke of Cornwall. The titles go together.

      Delete
    11. 01:28,

      I believe Kate will be called the Princess of Wales as William will want that. He has given Kate his mother's ring and perhaps those sapphire and diamond earrings were Diana's also, so wanting her to be called the Princess of Wales as Diana was seems very likely. Wanting her to be called the Duchess of Cornwall as Camilla has been seems less likely.

      Delete
    12. anon 01:32- an interesting thought for me is that if the oldest son of the monarch is traditionally POW, what happens now-with the end of male primogeniture
      in the succession? The first born and therefore heir could be a daughter and the
      POW would be separate from the heir.The heir would still be Duke of Cornwall.
      I think the oldest son stipulation implied also being the heir. As far as I
      know, those titles were nominally vacant with the then Princess Elizabeth heir
      to her father George VI.
      This may all be a moot point with the succession assured a male heir for many
      years to come.
      Regarding the Welsh royalty. I don't believe there was ever a King of Wales, as
      one monarch ruling all the country. Border and territorial battles among the various Welsh landowner/nobles required intervention to settle disputes. At
      least that is the English version.

      Delete
    13. Julia from Leominster21 August 2016 at 17:00

      Love your take, royalfan.
      As noted the title Duke and Duchess of Cornwall will come immediately to William and Kate, when and if Charles succeeds, while the title of Prince and Princess of Wales must be granted by the monarch - which I hope will happen quite quickly both to avoid the press fueling the fire of the Welsh issue and to avoid the complications of Cambridge/Cornwall, Camilla formerly duchess of Cornwall bit - it could all get to be a muddle.

      As for Camilla, the original idea would be that she would become princess consort rather than Queen Consort - frankly, I don't see Charles doing this - I think she wants that crown on her head - and he wants it put there - but a lot of the public (all right, a lot of my friends) still believes she will hold to the original idea and become princess consort.'
      This could set a trend, if it happens. With the idea of making the monarchy gender neutral - if that's the proper term - there has been talk that the wife of a monarch should be princess consort rather than queen consort to keep in line with the fact husbands of the monarch are prince consorts rather than king-consort - the implication in the past being that a king consort would sound more powerful than a regnant queen. Thus Kate in the future may be a princess consort as well, not Queen Catherine.
      Prince consorts have been the norm in Europe as well - with a host of queens in the future - Leonor, Estelle, Ingrid, Elisabeth and Catharina - it will be interesting to see what happens - so far, with Victoria and Daniel - it looks like he will remain a prince/duke.
      It will probably be out of my lifetime now George has been born - but it will also be interesting to see if a future female monarch under the new rules of succession becomes Princess of Wales. The present queen did not - but there was always the possibility she could be supplanted by a little brother - however unlikely - which is no longer the case. I imagine Britain will follow Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands where the princesses hold the traditional titles of Asturias, Brabant and Orange.
      As for Harry, I assume he will be given a dukedom on marriage - not the traditional younger son title of York, since Andrew still holds that - and still could produce a male heir to it - something people are apt to forget when saying the title would go someday to a prospective younger brother of George. But then we get into the complications of whether the main title for Charlotte will be Princess Royal or whether girls will get dukedoms too in the future.
      I've heard Clarence suggested for Harry although it always seems an unlucky title to me with the exception of William IV.
      Edward was supposedly made an earl because he will be granted the titke of Duke of Edinburgh someday when his father is gone - either when the duke dies and the queen makes him so, or when the queen dies and the title merges with the monarchy unless Charles grants it to Edward as expected - I've heard both ideas put forward.
      So while some things are virtually known - William and Kate will become Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and most likely Prince and Princess of Wales - there are a lot of unknowns too.

      Delete
    14. I believe when Camilla and Charles were married they said she could not become the Princess of Wales because she is a divorcee. She does not have the title princess, only duchess.

      Delete
    15. Julia from Leominster21 August 2016 at 19:41

      I mentioned some of this in an answer not yet printed but I would anticipate that when a future oldest child of the monarch is a girl that she will be made Princess of Wales (I mentioned Orange, Branbant and Asturias as present day examples.) One interesting thing will be whether she will be styled the Duke of Cornwall, as the queen is styled the Duke of Lancaster or whether the change it to be Duchess of Cornwall (not to mention the curious idea of what her husband will be styled - the European examples may give some idea in the near future, but the British system is a bit different.)
      I can't remember if there is a male restriction on the Duchy of Cornwall - if so, it was probably swept away along with male primogeniture - as it is specifically intended to support the heir to the throne.

      This was never the case with Princess Elizabeth because there was always the possibility her father could have a son - she was an heir presumptive not an heir apparent.
      To give a comparable example Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands was an heir presumptive - she was never titled Princess of Orange (although Orange-Nassau is part of Dutch royal titles.) However, her grand-daughter Catharina is an heir apparent and thus is styled Princess of Orange. Even if Maxima should have a boy, Catharina remains heir to the throne.
      Should something happen to George (God forbid - but say he decided to abdicate his position for some reason) Charlotte would now be the heir apparent - and would take even if William has another boy. So she would be the heir apparent and would presumably become Princess of Wales.

      Delete
    16. Julia, i had a feeling that you would appreciate my take on it.

      I never believed that Camilla will be known as princess consort. That was nothing but PR to make the marriage an easier sell. A spoon full of sugar, as Mary Poppins would say! I totally agree with you...both C&C want the crown on her head. Charles has been very invested in the way she is treated and perceived. OHHHHH, the irony.

      If/when the time comes, I do hope that Charles will not withhold the PoW titles from W&K (to avoid references to Diana). Big mistake IMO.

      Delete
    17. Julia-you just put the first big smile of the day on my face-"all right, a lot of my friends." You tickled my funnybone.

      Delete
    18. Julia-are you sure a son of Andrew would inherit the York title? I can't recall
      any Dukes of York who passed the title on to a son. I think it is reserved for
      the younger son of a monarch and William and Catherine's second son (or Charlotte!) would have it when
      William is king. The title would revert to the crown once Andrew dies, not to
      Andrew's child. Otherwise, why wouldn't Beatrice be eligible?
      I hoped Harry would become Duke of York, when Charles is king, once Andrew is gone. But I don't see
      Andrew passing it on, son or no son. (think about it-Andrew re-marrying with
      Sarah alive? Not gonna happen.)
      I would very much appreciate any input from persons more knowledgeable than I on this subject. (I still think of looking it up on the internet as cheating)

      Delete
    19. Here are some examples. King George V had two sons, in addition to David (Edward VIII) and Albert (George VI). These younger sons were Henry and George. Prince Henry on marriage was made Duke of Gloucester. Prince George was made Duke of Kent when he married. George died in an air crash during WWII, and his young son Edward became Duke of Kent. Henry lived to a good age, but his oldest son William also died in an air crash. When Henry died, his younger son Richard became Duke of Gloucester. Edward and Richard still hold those titles. Their oldest sons are known by secondary titles (Earl of Ulster and Earl of St. Andrews) granted along with the dukedoms. My understanding is that these great grandsons of George V will inherit the dukedoms when their fathers die, though they will not be HRH, since they are third generation heirs in male lines. If this is correct, and Andrew had a son and grandson, they would in turn become Duke of York.

      Delete
    20. By the way, King George V and King George VI were both second sons, and were Dukes of York before they became king. The older brother of George V died. The older brother of George VI abdicated. George V was made Prince of Wales; his brother never held the title, dying before his father. George VI was never Prince of Wales because his brother held the title and as king would have granted it to a son if he'd had one.

      Delete
    21. 22:55: "Not gonna happen." LOL. How true!!

      Delete
    22. Julia from Leominster22 August 2016 at 01:34

      I'm reasonably sure there is no such restriction on the dukedom of York or any other royal dukedom, (other than Cornwall and Lancaster) - it just happens that dukes of York have not produced male heirs to take the title (George V had a male heir but he became George VI.)

      The change in the laws of succession didn't cover royal dukedoms (or other nobility) and that issue is still out there - (Tatler recently raised the interesting issue of what would happen should a daughter decide to change her sex.) And while I expect that a way will be found for the dukedom of Cornwall to pass to a female heiress - it would not make much sense otherwise - I'm not certain this has yet been provided for.
      As far as I know, had Andrew had a son, he would have been heir to the dukedom, just as the titles of Kent and Gloucester (also traditional royal dukedoms) are being passed down. And while I agree it is unlikely Andrew plans to remarry, (I doubt even to Sarah as has sometimes been suggested) you never know. If he does not, as I understand it, the dukedom will merge with the crown until it is again re-created - the ninth creation according to Wiki.
      Given the longevity of Prince Philip I can see Andrew living well into his nineties leaving the title for the children of George assuming nothing has changed by then and titles are normally granted on marriage.

      (Say for instance, William and Kate have a son born in 2018, who marries at 32 - Andrew would be ninety and if he is as long-lived as his father - may still be around, although Julia is a bit less likely to be.)

      Delete
    23. Julia from Leominster22 August 2016 at 01:50

      I should also add that I am looking things up on the Internet but I'll check my book on dukes tomorrow, although I'm not certain they will shed specific light on this question - and I'm always happy for anyone with more knowledge than me - and that includes most of the world, to jump in.

      For now though I believe a hypothetical son of Andrew would be Prince (Whoever) of York. His son, who would not be a royal prince under the present rules, would take the next title of his father, as a courtesy title and so on. Since the two York girls take the title of princess, I assume a son of Andrew's would be titled as prince as well.

      Delete
    24. Annette New Zealand22 August 2016 at 04:34

      Yes, I thought Duke of York was reserved for the second son of the King or Queen, so what happens if Catherine has another boy and the Queen dies while Andrew is still alive? It all seems incredibly involved. Also the Tudors were descended from Owen Tudor, a Welshman, so they do have Welsh blood as well as English, Scottish, German etc, etc) My father was born in St Ives in Cornwall so I will be interested to follow their visit next month.

      Delete
    25. Sonja from Bavaria22 August 2016 at 08:16

      But I do think it would be possible (at least for an Earl title, not sure about a Duke). Edward is the Earl of Wessex and James, his son, is Viscount Severn (one of his 'lower' titles). So Edward will one day pass the title of the Earl of Wessex to James.

      Delete
    26. Sarah Maryland USA22 August 2016 at 11:45

      Anon- the current holders of the dukes of Kent and glouscester are the sons of the men who were originally given the title so I don't know how long they keep passing down the title until it reverts back to the crown

      Delete
    27. 00:49- not examples of the Duke of.York title being passed to a son, however.
      It is not associated with land or property as are the Dukedoms of Cornwall and
      Lancaster, both titles associated with a role in the succession.
      The Duke of York and Cornwall are not titles inherited in the usual aristocratic
      sense. The Duke of Kent and Gloucester titles are and the heirs can inherit without intervention by the monarch.

      Delete
    28. I cheated-I consulted the always reliable, vastly informative oracle Wikipedia,
      my memory and education having failed me.
      To my absolute amazement, out of eight creations of the title of Duke of York,
      Andrew's being the eighth, only the first holder, Edmund of Langley (Edward III's
      4th son)-he was the ONLY Duke of York to pass the title to a son. The others
      either died without a male heir or became king through more almost unbelievable
      circumstances-the death of the first son and heir. Terribly unlucky lot; or lucky
      for some.EACH TIME the title was returned to the Crown.

      One can understand my assumption that the title was not inherited by the Duke's
      heir because in 700 years, give or take, it hasn't been. So I was kinda right when I said I can't recall the name of a son who inherited the title
      and those who said the title was inheritable in the usual manner were technically correct.

      Apparently there is precedent for the second son of a Prince of Wales to become
      DOY, the title being conferred by Queen Victoria and not inherited.(I can hope for Harry, although that would mean, sadly, the loss first of
      the present DOY.)I Think Edward VII's second son (George V?) became DOY while Edward VII was still POW. Also, I believe there was a brother of a monarch who took the title, possibly after the merging of the Duke of York and Duke of Albany titles.
      anon 22:55

      Delete
    29. Anon 1:29: I suppose Queen Victoria began the practice of making a second son the Duke of York, when she granted the title to the future George V. She did not expect him to become king. George V passed the title on to his own second son after he did become king, and it had evidently reverted to the crown. Had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, and his brother the Duke of York had a son, I think that son would eventually have inherited the title. As you pointed out, the Duchy of York is not like the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which provide income for the monarch and the heir to the throne. It appears to be more like the royal Duchies of Gloucester and Kent and should behave like them. There would have been no reason for the younger sons of George V to hold different kinds of titles. That was my reason for comparing these titles. Anon 00:49

      Delete
    30. Camilla does not use the title of Princess of Wales because public opinion about Diana said she should not be styled as Princess of Wales. However, she is Princess of Wales, even though she uses Duchess of Cornwall. It has nothing to do with the fact she's divorced. Charles is divorced too and he's still Prince of Wales.

      It's all semantics and the monarchy isn't a popularity contest. It's not like the next king/queen is who the people pick; it's based on genealogical lineage. And Charles is next up and would like his wife beside him when he assumes the throne. I imagine William will want his wife beside him when he takes the throne too. Absent any legal impediment, I don't see why either of them should not be allowed to do that.

      Delete
    31. Camilla can be Princess of Wales as a divorced person but I can't imagine her becoming an anointed queen as George VI's wife was. Camilla's former spouse is still living. Otherwise, why was Edward VIII forced to abdicate? Not because his
      intended wife was divorced, but because her spouse(es) still lived. This apparently was an obstacle to their marriage, as long as Diana lived, because an anointed king
      cannot have two living spouses. The possibility of Charles renouncing the throne if his wife cannot be anointed queen is remote and certainly not as traumatic as an abdication, but the thought may be keeping the queen and church leaders awake at night. A compromise seems likely. Camilla will be crowned, if/when Charles becomes king; she will not share the anointing.
      Legal status aside, the CofE will not allow Camilla's anointing as tradition now dictates.Charles likely was reminded of this. You can bet Camilla will be right beside Charles, however.

      Delete
    32. 16:18, remote indeed. Charles will never renounce the throne; he wants it all and has devoted a good deal of money, time, and effort over the last two decades to achieving it.

      Also agree with your bet that Camilla will be at his side although, in my humble opinion, she is as "entitled" to it as someone who knows how to drive is "entitled" to get behind the wheel. Think about that one! And there's the technicality of being The Defender of the Faith, but hey....! :)

      Delete
    33. royalfan-like the car analogy. I would also compare to Owning a car entitles
      one to drive. Certain requirements must first be met.
      I am afraid the Defender of the Faith aspect of the monarchy has been battered
      and bruised beyond recognition in times past. HM appears to take such matters
      seriously. I don't know how much actual clout she carries-my guess, a Lot-but
      I hope I will be around for the battle. I doubt the public will see much of it,
      however.

      Delete
    34. Exactly, 14:45. Exactly. Call me crazy, but I find it difficult to define a presence that rocked the monarchy and, ultimately, contributed to the lives of two young men being changed forever as an oops.

      Delete
  7. FIONA CAIRNS

    DOES THE CAKES FOR CAROLE AND MICHAEL'S PARTY PIECES WEBSITE. I FIND THAT ASTONISHING AND VERY, VERY GOOD NEWS. The Party Pieces website is so beautifully done and their products are very special. I was looking for their e-mail address to e-mail our designs there and lo and behold who should pop up on their website but the best cake person in the world, Fiona Cairns. That, obviously, makes me so happy. I am ordering one of her cakes, now that seeing them has made me crave cake today. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yum!! You'll have to report back to us... :)

      Delete
    2. How lovely would it be to step into that seaside photo!? Beautiful...

      Delete
    3. That is amazing that the Middletons have formed such an ongoing friendship with Ms. Cairns. Very nice. What fun. Kate's support circle grows even more.

      Delete
    4. Fiona Cairns not only provides cakes for Carole and Michael's Party Pieces, she also writes a monthly piece on cake baking and cake decorating on their website.

      Delete
    5. She provides cakes for Waitrose and other vendors also.

      Delete
  8. Sonja from Bavaria20 August 2016 at 22:50

    I love their 'away days' so I am looking forward to them visiting Cornwall - hopefully the weather will be fine because the scenery seems to be beautiful.

    Thanks for giving all of us more time to get our 'dream Tour looks' in. I have really enjoyed clicking through all those outfits and am so excited to see them put together in images!
    I'm afraid you won't be able to fit all of them into one post because there are so many (I'd say hundreds!) of talented stylists on this blog ;)

    One thing I noticed: In the article you quoted, it says William 'began' an agricultural course in 2014. Did he not finish it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia from Leominster21 August 2016 at 17:07

      I don't believe that it is clear that he completed it.

      Delete
    2. I do believe Richard Palmer once tweeted in reply to this question and that he did complete the course.

      Delete
    3. If the course was "bespoke" as some call it I doubt it had specific course
      requirements, including an ending or finishing, or length of time specified. I doubt it was for credit. It's not as though he was "Joe College."
      It was probably convenient to center the education regimen there where resources
      were located. Perhaps a few others joined in. Otherwise, I don't believe it was thought of as a university
      class as such. I doubt his learning package appeared in the course catalog, for
      example.

      Delete
    4. Julia from Leominster22 August 2016 at 00:57

      I'm happy to believe the Richard Palmer tweet but can't find it - I'll look more in the morning or if Anon has a link, that would be great.

      Wiki, for what that's worth, doesn't claim he finished it nor can I find anything that says he did. But Wiki isn't always correct. I did see something that said William stopped it to start his helicopter training but it didn't look to be a reliable source. William and Kate did go off to the Maldives during the ten weeks but if it was a bespoke course, presumably he could have completed it after their return. So who can say.

      Delete
    5. Julia unfortunately I don't have that link, but remember reading it on his Twitter feed probably a year or so ago. As has been mentioned it was a bespoke course and probably does not carry any credentials with it. Probably done to gain knowledge and insight into what he is to inherit.

      Delete
    6. Julia from Leominster24 August 2016 at 14:30

      You're like me - I'll mention I saw something - and know I did, but can't find it later for love or money! I agree the course was more for insight into managing the Duchy than anything else - although agriculture is of course only one part of the Duchy's holdings.

      Delete
  9. That is really neat about Fiona Cairns. I would like to know how many cakes of hers they sell. Apparently they sell a lot as they offer so many different designs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Melanie from California21 August 2016 at 05:51

    For fans of the Odele coat from Temperley London, first worn in November 2012, the Via Spiga RepliKate is back in stock at Nordstrom for $224 on sale from $318

    Faux Leather and Faux Fur Trim Belted Wool Blend Coat
    http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/via-spiga-faux-leather-faux-fur-trim-belted-wool-blend-coat/4276029?origin=keywordsearch-personalizedsort&fashioncolor=BLACK

    A similar style by Via Spiga is available at Macy's, on sale for about $280

    Faux-Fur-Collar Mixed Media Wool-Blend Walker Coat, Only at Macy's
    http://www1.macys.com/shop/product/via-spiga-faux-fur-collar-mixed-media-wool-blend-walker-coat-only-at-macys?ID=2807453&CategoryID=269&selectedSize=&swatchColor=Black#fn=sp%3D1%26spc%3D26%26ruleId%3D65%26slotId%3D1%26kws%3Dvia%20spiga

    A design by Guess is also available for $275, full retail price

    Guess, Faux-Fur-Collar Mixed-Media Asymmetrical Coat
    http://www1.macys.com/shop/product/guess-faux-fur-collar-mixed-media-asymmetrical-coat?ID=2789003&CategoryID=269&selectedSize=#fn=GENDER%3DFemale%26sp%3D1%26spc%3D35%26ruleId%3D65%26slotId%3D19%26kws%3DGUESS%20Coats%26searchType%3Dac%26ackws%3DGuess

    ReplyDelete
  11. The best Eugenie has ever looked, IMO, is shown via photograph in an article by Richard Kay reporting that Eugenie is moving into Ivy Cottage at Kennsington Palace. The design of the dress is THE BEST she has ever worn. She looks like a different person, no offense. That just shows how badly she has been dressing all the years previously. This style shows the true beauty that she is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WOW, she does look like a different person. amazing.

      Delete
    2. 14:17,

      In that article the photo of Kensington Palace shows that William and Kate have Apartment 1A
      plus about a third of the building across the clock tower courtyard and eight garages in another part of the palace. I didn't know they had that portion across the courtyard and I didn't know where the garages were located. It also shows who else lives where in the palace and how long they have lived there, including Ivy Cottage. They say that that will be Eugenie's new home.

      Delete
    3. Annette New Zealand22 August 2016 at 04:44

      I thought the York sisters had an apartment at St James Palace as well as often staying at the Royal Lodge at Windsor where the Duke of York lives? And last week I read that the Cambridges were to move into Diana's old apartment at Kensington Palace which had been refurbished and they would be mainly based there and not at Amner Hall. If this report is true, this seems rather extravagant and will surely lead to lots of criticism.

      Delete
    4. Diana's old apartment has been revamped into offices where they meet people. When Kate did Huffington Post it was done there and when they all invite various people to meet them it is done in those rooms. It is not a residential living space anymore.

      Delete
  12. Now that it is Sunday afternoon and time for submitting our dream tour look has ended, will you put everybody's choices in pictures into one huge post? Or only a smaller one today and another smaller one tomorrow?

    Thank you so much for hosting this fun activity during a time when we don't see much of Kate!
    GermanGirl

    ReplyDelete
  13. Looks beautiful. I wonder if Kate, William and kids have had a stay with the Queen in Scotland yet this August? If anyone has heard anything would love to know. Balmoral looks like such a spectacular place to explore. Ali

    ReplyDelete
  14. Love Poldark, not as good as Downton but I am not complaining. Season 2 is coming!

    Look forward to your coverage from the Cornwall engagement, Charlotte!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maggie - Minneapolis21 August 2016 at 22:59

    I'm a little disappointed by all the joint engagements - Kate and William don't do many engagements as it is and combining so many, over the past year especially, means they are making even less of a difference in terms of number of causes/events. They seem to be the only royal couple who avoids solo engagements on tours too. I hope this changes once they move to London full-time next year as planned, since I imagine their decision to base their lives at Anmer and thus be far from their offices, etc., has led to them trying so hard to group engagements together and with each other to minimize being far away from the family, etc.
    Also, frankly, it just feels like a step backwards for Kate in her royal development. She's not going to learn as fast if she can lean on William all the time. And despite having better numbers than usual, it's been pretty light for Kate in the past year in terms of depth, etc. Most of the summer was just ceremonial stuff and Wimbledon. The mental health push has actually been pretty light for the first 8 months of the year. It honestly feels like this is all a strategy to limit how much effort she has to be put into prep and at an event - William being there lightens the load quite a bit. And even more frankly, I've never been comfortable with her entire adult life seeming to be pretty much all about William (and now their kids of course), and I'd just like to see her develop more of an identity of her own. William still does plenty of solo engagements - I'm not sure why she can't as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you design an outfit, Maggie?

      Delete
    2. Sarah Maryland USA22 August 2016 at 11:43

      Because she wants to focus on being a mother lol
      You better watch out royalfan is going to come after you lol
      Agree with you 100% Maggie
      I don't get all the joint engagements because they could cover more ground if they did more separately
      I get that William is he main focus because he is going to be king and Kate will be his consort but the queen mother went out and forged an identity of her own whole she was monarch and the duchess of York
      Let's be real Kate altered her whole life to fit with William. She never got a full time job so she could be with him as much as possible which the feminist side of me never felt comfortable with because she never used that university degree she got!
      I continue to say that if I were in her shoes id be out there constantly trying to promote charitable causes because I would know that I would get the media attention to promote them
      Again and again I say you can still be a good mother and have an actual career

      Delete
    3. Well, I love their joint engagements and hope they have a lot more of them in the future.

      Delete
    4. Despite what some people seem to think, William is the royal prince and the heir to the throne, not Kate. As such I feel it is good that he has more solo engagements and more engagements in general.

      We all saw what happened the last time the consort developed a bit too much of her own identity, in my opinion. The royal family has learned its lesson about a wife overshadowing the heir and will not allow it to happen again.

      Delete
    5. I love joint engagements! No need to over-read things, Maggie. Besides, away days are usually done jointly.

      Delete
    6. My comment @1:32 was my original reply in this thread. And, on that note, Sarah, apparently royalfan has some sympathetic troops who agree... :)

      The BRF does not want, nor can they afford, to have another Diana on their hands; not at this point when they have to sell Camilla as the future queen...or princess consort (cough). Anyone who was around during the 80's and 90's knows what an unpopular figure she was, and that a lot of PR money has gone into tweaking her image. Do you honestly believe that if Kate *was* out there several times a week as some here suggest, that this would not present a problem for CH? Really? Because if you do, then you are not acknowledging, or simply dismissing, a very unfortunate chapter of the history of this royal family.

      Do I believe that Kate wants to be as hands-on with her children as possible? YES. Does this also *work* for others in the Firm? YES. And by the way, there are some in the RF who perhaps would have benefited from a more family-oriented approach.

      Delete
    7. Take a look at Prince Daniel's bio on the Swedish Royal Court's website.

      He is very much a supportive spouse (and Victoria is closer to the throne than William).

      http://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/royalfamily/hrhprincedaniel.4.40e05eec12926f2630480004385.html

      Delete
    8. With William and Catharine don't think it is about "divide and conquer", but more about "united we stand"! Believe that there is a strategy to them doing joint engagements and do not for one minute think it is about shirking work or responsibilities. I agree with royalfan in that Kate may not have the typical or traditional job that many hold, but what she does do definitely takes a certain character and poise. Not to mention the behind the scenes preparation that must take place! I think Kate takes her unique role seriously and does her homework for all engagements. As with all jobs, to do it well, you must learn all aspects of it and that is acquired with time and experience. I am sure that she uses her university degree on many occasions....and not just to pick out a painting for her home! Many women, myself included, use their education daily even if they don't work in their chosen field or are stay at home moms.

      I think Kate does very well when she is on her own at engagements. Whatever the master plan or strategy is there appears to be a steady scheduling of duties for all the royals and think Kate has stepped up and in when asked. She does have a lifetime ahead of her to step into her future role and I for one am enjoying seeing her growth and individual personality develop. The fact that she does get to do joint engagements, and enjoys doing so, with her husband William is a testament to their strength as a couple and has merit when championing causes. Not many can say the same and I for one want to see a happily ever after to this story! So I hope that they continue more joint engagements and grow together and individually as a result. cc

      Delete
    9. Sarah Maryland USA23 August 2016 at 01:50

      I'm not saying to stop all joint engagements but I want to see them do more solo than together simply for the fact that they can cover more ground

      Delete
    10. Julia from Leominster23 August 2016 at 17:51

      I would change royalfan's remark to the idea that the royal family "Perceives" they can't afford another Diana. Actually, another Diana would be an excellent thing at this point as youthful interest in the royal family seems to be dropping off considerably, both at home and in the Commonwealth. Holding the youthful interest is always going to fall to the youngest active members of the family - and this is an age group not heavily represented by the royal family at the moment - William, Kate and Harry are it - and none of them have full schedules.

      The idea that "avoiding" making Kate into a Diana is helping Camilla is nonsense. (There was a recent article claiming Camilla is more popular than the "work shy" Kate but reading it, it is clear it is all babble without a single fact to support it.) Every poll shows Camilla remains very unpopular. And regardless of popularity, there is a complete lack of interest in Camilla - and that isn't just an age thing - the queen mum and the queen herself generate a lot more interest.
      As for young people, I suspect it is less whether they like or dislike Camilla than that she is perceived as an irrelevant royal snooze and so is Charles, in part thanks to her. They always appear like a couple of doddery old timers - a decade older than they actually are. Charles always had trouble appearing young, even when he was and Camilla has helped make him into an old, old man. Given his obviously sincere interest in helping youth, it shows the price of his marriage.

      If you are wise, you ever, ever help one person succeed at the expense of others - that only harms the whole institution.
      As for me, I'm just glad to see some engagements for William and Kate - joint or not. I would like to see some heavy hitting engagements - ones that are less the sort of thing we do on tourist holidays and sports - and are more about caring for people in general. William started that way but of late his involvement with serious human issues have fallen off. I still hold great hopes the mental health scheme will change this but it needs to be broader - William and Kate, you are not a tourist office - get ye to more hospitals, hospices, schools, and the like. The coming Luton engagement is what I hope to see more of. The Cornish engagement sounds delightful - I love Cornwall myself having met the man I love in Penzance - and I'm a huge believe that William and Kate need to "tour" their own country more - but it also sounds heavy on sports and sight-seeing. As nice as this is, there needs always to be a balance of fun and weighty.

      Delete
    11. Bravo. cc. Your comments make so much sense.
      I concur with what you said about William and Kate. The tares, their relentless critics, will always be around in this dispensation, but thank God William and Kate, like healthy wheat, are growing stronger and better day by day. I believe that there is not even one unaltruistic goal in their hearts, not one. Yet, people find fault. Kate was very brave to marry into William's future. Very brave.

      Delete
    12. Today a lot of serious issues are dealt with through the power of sport and I think W,K and H are championing that. Unfortunately many people who do not like sport and have never been involved in sports do not realize its value. Also when the royals visit areas, quite clearly those areas want to highlight their area and so it seems touristy, but they always manage to highlight some causes as well. The way their schedule is planned also likely appeals to a younger generation who likes to see them involved and less formal, so certain issues are addressed in a less formal way- but it is there.
      The Canadian trip is planned by Heritage Canada who no doubt want to portray the best of the beautiful west, but I am sure there will be weightier meetings highlighting certain social issues that do exist.

      Delete
    13. CC, I will add a second "BRAVO!" Very well said.

      Julia, when I say that the BRF cannot afford another Diana, I mean **given that C&C are next in line and have popularity issues** (something you refer to in many of your comments). Imagine how much more difficult C&C's marriage, and ultimate path, would be if Diana was still alive. I am not suggesting that Kate is Diana, but many of the same "threat factors" are present. And I'm sorry but minimizing the threat does help Camilla (and Charles).

      Delete
    14. Not everyone cares about what she wears, whoever asked the question. Why should Maggie or anyone else put an outfit up? Is that a prerequisite for commenting?

      Basically I think there are two sets of people here (and I admit to some exaggerations coming up!) . Those who think she's lovely, looks beautiful, and is apparently (according to 2136) practically perfect. Not one single unaltruistic goal in her heart. And those people love seeing her photos and how beautiful she is, and what lovely children she produced, and how she and her husband seem to be making a very good go of their marriage. There's a real fairy tale component there -- the lovely normal woman marrying her prince -- and it's really compelling.

      Then there are those like me, who actually did buy in to the fairy tale initially, but were hoping there would be more wheat and less chaff. I'm not particularly interested in the fashion, although I like looking at photos of her and her family as much as the next person, but I would like to see more effort when she does get out. And that is the fundamental difference as I see it.

      And it's totally OK to think one way or the other. Unfortunately, some people's tolerance is not what it could be. In my opinion, of course.

      Delete
    15. Julia from Leominster24 August 2016 at 14:59

      Bluhare I agree on what you say above - although we can agree to disagree on Charles and Camilla - they said she was to be princess consort and I believe they should stay with their word. (I love the fact so many participated in the fashion post but there's certainly no requirement.) I'm always sad when I see people describe thoughtful criticism as "vitriolic hatred" fueled by jealously - this is like saying every teacher who gave a C was against the student - or every film critic is a frustrated director (well, maybe - but they can still give thoughtful reviews.) If I come home and say that was a film which had it points but could have been so much better, it doesn't mean I envied the actors or feel a vitriolic hatred towards the producer.
      I will even go so far to say I think the best royals out there have been moulded by thoughtful criticism far more than uncritical praise - and I'm speaking of now admired royals like Anne and Sophie - who took plenty of heat in the past but have used it to mend difficulties and help develop a strong royal persona. (as have all European royals and - while I don't know much about Mrs Obama - every politician's wife I do know about has faced plenty of criticism. Compared to Cherie Blair or Samantha Cameron - Kate has it very light indeed.

      I believed in a fairy tale once - it was called the fairy tale marriage of Charles and Diana - and looking back, I don't know why I did believe in it except out of pure hopefulness. But lessons learnt. I see the monarchy as an extremely valuable institution when done well - but one that has also made serious mistakes that should be critiqued. Since William and Kate basically are the future of the monarchy - like Charles and Camilla or not - it's going to be a case of just riding through that period - I want to see them do the best they can. Already, I believe we're seeing results from the critical comments in the press.

      To give an example, I'm working on a big project now and I constantly ask for critical reviews from Mr Leo and those I'm doing it for - because as unhappy as I may be when others tell me something I thought was brilliant isn't working as it should - it is much easier to fix as I go along than try to redo at the end. It is the same with William and Kate - when the gloss of youthful attraction wears off, people are going to be looking closely on how they handle things.

      I don't agree that young people don't want to see formal events - the dress Kate post makes that rather plain - young people love the glamour as much as us old biddies. I'm not a sports lover but appreciate it's value just as I enjoy William and Kate at film premieres and against beautiful scenery - but many will see attending a sailing event or Wimbledon or a scenic hike or surfing as pleasurable things - and that needs to be balanced with serious engagements such as those today.

      Delete
    16. Bluhare,

      I don't see much "chaff", if any, in the lives of William and Kate. I don't think that that is what was meant. I think perhaps the negative press was the "chaff" referred to. I think the "wheat" of William and Kate's lives is amply substantial and progressing nicely. They are in the process of growth, first the sprout, then the stem, leaves and then the full fruit. They are building a solid foundation for their monarchy and time will prove it was done wisely I think. No offense to you Bluhare.

      Delete
    17. Hi Julia,

      Love agreeing to disagree! However, Camilla will be Queen consort whether she's called that or not, no? If Charles is King, she will be Queen even if she's called Princess Consort.

      The reason I follow this blog is not because of a personal like of Kate (although I don't dislike her; I don't know her!). It's because she married William and is Duchess of Cambridge. I would pay attention to whomever William had married. It just happens to be her. (Another big difference between me and other commenters here!) I say that because that is my point with Camilla. She occupies a position -- whether people think she should or not. And to treat her differently because some people don't approve of what happened over 25 years ago is not appropriate, in my opinion. It's not about her. It's about the Queen consort of Great Britain, and if she or her husband have not done anything that would legally or constitutionally bar her from taking that role, then I think that it sets a very bad precedent to essentially demote the position. The monarchy is littered with unpopular monarchs and consorts. So it isn't necessarily because I think Camilla's redeemed herself (although I do think she has a good start). I think it's because not to do it is worse than doing it in the long run.

      Now whether the King and Queen should be chosen by the public instead of a genetic lottery is another question altogether!

      Delete
    18. No, Bluhare,

      I was genuinely interested to find out what kind of outfits Maggie, among others, would choose for Kate. I have asked that of others in the past.

      Delete
    19. Bluhare,

      From every photo I have seen of Kate and every video of Kate I have seen, every article I have read, I have yet to find any malice in Kate. Couple that with their statement of purpose read at their wedding, I conclude that their hearts lean strongly to altruism. Are they perfect? I didn't say that. Are their goals without dross or malice, yes, from all indications, yes.

      Delete
    20. bluhare 16:05- the point is-will it be Princess Camilla or Queen Camilla?
      If she is titled "Princess Consort," she will be addressed as Princess Camilla, as in (former queen) Princess Beatrix.

      Delete
  16. Spouses usually accompany each other on away days. Phillip mostly accompanies queen and C & C normally go together. This Cornwall tour is probably all about inheritance and so they should be together. Another aspect is logistics. They are packing a lot into two days and if they separated security costs are elevated etc. In Canada as well, eight days is a short space of time and distances are vast, even if they are only doing BC and Yukon. It's easy for us to say do separate engagements, but behind the scenes it may not be as practical to carry out. Good to see them getting out to different areas of their country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good points 0106.

      Delete
  17. Maggie, when Kate is on her own, she certainly appears to do quite well. I do not believe she leans on William; I do believe that the two being a package deal as often as they are has more to do with strategy and history.

    As for her life being "all about William", well, she did meet and fall in love with a future king, and agreed to be his wife and future consort. Hers may not be a typical role for a young woman in 2016, but in no way is she simply looking pretty in his shadow. She has a university degree (the first future queen in the BRF to have one), and add to that the personal qualities and strength of character it takes to fulfill her role. IMO, it's nothing to sneeze at.

    I will sound old here, but I think modern society tends to dismiss roles that are not associated with a traditional work environment, job title, and salary. It's almost like telling a stay at home mom that she doesn't really work. I wouldn't dare!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie - Minneapolis22 August 2016 at 23:18

      Royalfan - I'm certainly not trying to say Kate is terrible on her own or anything. On the contrary, I enjoy watching her at solo engagements. It just feels like a lot of times when they do things together, William is the one who drops the 2-3 lines or paragraph/speech about the causes, and she always takes a backseat - unless it's explicitly for one of her patronages, in which case it seems like neither of them say much.

      Although I honestly do think her confidence could use some work. It's odd to me because it really seems like she was way more confident when she first married William. And even if she's great at solo engagements, she can always get better. She's been doing them for less than 5 years. Here's an example of something small that bugs me - when she, Harry, and William have all spoken at the same event, she always says the least. If you look at that Heads Together speech and then the super short Olympic video - Harry and William say pretty similar/equal amounts, and then she's relatively quite a bit less (the video obviously being a small sample size :P but still). She outranks Harry! She doesn't need to be supportive of him shining more than her even if we think she has to be supportive of William.

      And we can say it's her job to be supportive all we want but I don't think that addresses the key issue that they are supporting substantially fewer causes. Camilla and Sophie do a higher percentage of solo engagements. Camilla is married to a future king who's closer to the throne. Sophie also married into the royal family, even if not to a future king. No one thinks they aren't being supportive.
      If Kate and William worked as much as the Queen and Prince Philip, that's fine. But when they are working like 15% of the days in a year, I think it's unfortunate to not at least try to broaden their impact as much as possible.

      Delete
    2. Maggie - Minneapolis22 August 2016 at 23:22

      As for Kate's role as the wife of a future King - I'm not sure why agreeing to be his wife means agreeing to play a purely supportive role in a way where "supportive" means taking a back seat. Sophia and Camilla certainly don't have traditional work environments or job titles or salaries. They certainly also lead incredibly privileged lives but for royals, they're doing more. And heck, I don't even care about more total numbers right now - just the solo vs joint.

      But here's why I REALLY don't get arguments about her position/role being so unique. So Kate married into the royal family in 2011. In the 4 Christmases since, she missed 1 Sandringham one entirely and then missed the celebrations with the royals a second time. Her parents have been invited to more high-profile royal events than any other royal in-laws. When she gave birth to her first-born, she ignored the many, many royal properties available and immediately went to stay with her mom for a month. She and William work less than future monarchs and consorts usually do at their age. They insist on more privacy than most royals, both for themselves and for their children. They have already said they don't want to do 400+ engagements a year with a bunch of ribbon-cuttings like the other royals, and want to focus more. Prince William is the first future monarch to have a civilian job.
      ....that's a lot of expectations they seem absolutely fine ignoring.
      So yeah, I don't think Kate HAD to make their relationship not a typical role for a young woman in 2016. Obviously some things, yes, but for the most part? Especially since William clearly isn't jealous of her star power. She chooses to play a secondary role. And you know what, that's absolutely fine, although I still think she's not doing her job if she's not maximizing her impact. And yeah, technically we don't know the exact thinking that went into the way the Cambridges' relationship is structured. But even when they dated - William worked when he wanted to, and she was expected to be available when he was. People keep saying he was a Prince and had certain demands in his life but he worked even less than he does now! So I really think we're being a little easy on him. I'm not sure why being a Prince means the relationship has to be so much more on your terms. In fact, like you mentioned, it requires a certain strength of character to deal with the scrutiny of Kate's position - so actually, shouldn't it have been all about her? Especially since William seems very committed now to doing less work at times, etc., in order to show commitment to his wife and children. He leads an incredibly flexible life now as a royal husband. But he couldn't then, when there was even less scrutiny b/c lower expectations?

      Delete
    3. Personally it does not worry me whether joint or solo engagements are performed. However a short while ago Joe Little of Majesty Magazine said exactly what Royalfan is saying. The Cambridges according to him are damned if they do more and damned if they don't. According to him, and he is a veteran of royal reporting, Will and Kate have to walk a fine line when it comes to Charles and Camilla, yet the public are wanting more from them. I guess it is better to keep peace in the family and take the flack from the public.

      Delete
    4. 00:30, thank you, and I believe that you summed it up perfectly: "better to keep the peace in the family..."

      Maggie, anyone who marries into the RF (especially a senior royal), is in a supportive role ... supportive of their spouse AND, naturally, supportive of the Queen. That is the nature of the beast.

      William and Kate are a younger and different generation and they are making some refreshing changes which have been long overdue. Diana started the process and, fortunately, William has taken her lead. I don't think they have abandoned tradition, but I do think that *when possible* they will apply a more reasonable or human approach to it. For example, after George was born, they did spend one night at KP and the Queen visited her great grandson. The next day, they left for Bucklebury. I see nothing wrong with this. How much happier would Diana's life have been if she had received comparable consideration from her husband....

      And I agree...William isn't jealous of his wife's star power, but her father-in-law would be. He could not deal with Diana's appeal and he was part of the team! :) Just imagine a single day where HM, Charles, Camilla, Anne, Sophie, William and Kate all have engagements. Where do you think the press will be? Who will make the front pages and generate the most clicks online? .... The Queen? Charles or Camilla? Anne? Sophie? You get my drift. So while I don't disagree that royals need to be seen, the appeal/popularity angle here cannot be dismissed. If Charles was still married to Diana, things would be a little different, but Camilla is no Diana; he is no longer 50% of a popular team. And THIS is where the eggshells become part of the equation.......

      Delete
    5. Did you design an outfit Maggie? If you did, I must have missed it.

      Delete
    6. Annette New Zealand23 August 2016 at 17:43

      It is quite interesting to compare recent royal visits to New Zealand by Charles and Camilla and William and Kate. A moderate number of die hard royal fans turn out for Charles and Camilla, but nowhere near the numbers that turn out for the younger royals (including Harry). Of course it might just be the age gap, but certainly younger people here don't seem to be interested in the Prince of Wales, although he is the heir to the throne. I do feel sorry for Prince Charles. He works hard and has taken lots of initiatives which have had long term benefits for many people, even if he is a bit controversial at times. But his reputation has been ruined by the failure of his first marriage. I am sure there were faults on both sides in his marriage to Diana - they were totally unsuited to each other. It shows arranged marriages don't always work, especially for modern couples in western society who have different expectations than in the past. Previous royalty like King Edward and Queen Alexandra stayed together in spite of marriage problems. The men were able to get away with serious infidelity and their wives just had to put up with being treated that way. Of course these days the Press is on to any hint of scandal like a shot and in that case it must make it much harder to ignore or forgive bad behaviour by your partner. On the other hand some more recent European royalty have weathered similar things and stayed together. (eg the present Swedish King and Queen and the Monaco royal couple.) Do British people have less tolerance for such lapses?

      Delete
    7. RF,

      I am so happy that William and Kate are doing like you said they are. William HAS learned from lessons in the past and it is obvious to me that he has thought things through thoroughly as to how to incorporate more realistic and family-oriented goals into his life. Again, I think the statement they made at their wedding speaks volumes. If you look at where they started then, at Angelsey, and look at everything they have done, it is a lot. They have done all that thoughtfully and seamlessly, and I doubt it was easy. There are people who will always find fault.
      But William and Kate's accomplishments within the past five years speak positively for themselves.

      If you look at the lives of Victoria, her son Edward, King George IV, etc. we should all be giving William and Kate kudos for their stated purpose and their corresponding actions thus far.
      Further, if you look at 95% of past monarchs, I think, in comparison, then we would all be rejoicing at the attitude and actions of the up and coming monarchs, William and Kate. I think history will speak very positively and very affirmatively of King William and Catherine, his Queen. So far, to me, they are both doing an exemplary job.

      Delete
    8. Annette NZ, I'm not sure that I would describe the C/D/C triangle as a lapse, nor do I believe that people are critical of Charles because his first marriage failed. It has more to do with the circumstances behind the failure, and a playing field that was anything but level from day one.

      21:04, I do agree; I too believe that W&K are doing a great job, and will continue to do so. And, IMHO, William doesn't receive the credit he deserves for turning things around from one generation to the next. Diana's experience compared to Kate's is like night and day.

      Delete
  18. Great news about the Cambridges Charlotte can't wait to hear when the Canadian itinerary is confirmed and where exactly they will go and how many public visits they will do!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello Charlotte and this community,
    Even knowing it will mean quite some task for you presenting "your dream look" entry, I am eagerly waiting for that post. I did not participate this time. It will be as much fan looking at peoples creative "dream look".
    Take care and stay well

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia from Leominster23 August 2016 at 18:13

      Hello, Anon 15 - hope all is well with you - I've missed you of late. Hope you continue to chime in - I always enjoy your remarks.

      Delete
    2. Hello Julia,
      Thank you for your kind thoughts. All is indeed well except pressure with time, due to work. I stop by to read though. I am looking forward for the presentation of styles by Charlotte's web site as well as another favorite thing here, W&K's tour out side of Europe. Due credit to you, Julia, for the original idea of "the dream look" around the "famine" last summer, it will deliver some fans( at times including my self) from the "famine times kind of "extras"' of discussions on this site.
      Take care and stay well and good.

      Delete
    3. Oh something I forgot. I did not open any of the links from the participants this time deliberately, because want to see it all at the same time. Most likely it might have a lot of red included for Canada’s flag color. Last time highlighted red and some gold for the Chinese state dinner. May be in the future, “the dream look” blog might have to start after the itinerary of W&K’s tour, or major event/state dinner etc is posted. That way, participants will include styles fitting visits. What does one wear to see a bear in Canada?

      Delete
  20. Then you feel the queen has failed to develop an identity of her own, as she has nearly always had Philip at her side? Or perhaps that's ok since it doesn't involve a female
    being the supportive spouse? Neither seemed to be the primary home parent, at any rate.

    Regarding your statements about the Cambridge's work individually and as a unit- to use your word-
    Frankly, it feels you dashed off your comment without seriously investigating what has
    been done-the public part we are aware of.It's a bit dΓ©jΓ  vue as though the writer
    has been on an extended vacation in the Himalayas, without benefit of news updates.

    Perhaps you prefer the Diana/ Charles arrangment-she probably made mostly solo visits.
    But then there were reasons for that.
    A caring, committed partnership can be a beautiful thing, Maggie. Both in marriage and
    in work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie - Minneapolis22 August 2016 at 22:47

      I don't think it's useful to compare Kate with someone 2 generations older than her. Although yes, I do think it's different when it's a man being supportive because there isn't a whole societal structure forcing his gender to do that. But mostly, I just think the Queen was born and spent her young adult life during a time that women did not have nearly as much independence, etc.. And also, given that she was a female monarch, I think there's arguably a public relations kind of reason to have her husband appear with her a lot, at least at first. Because otherwise there might have been talk about Philip not being able to figure out how to not be the dominant person in the relationship - that kind of thing. But sure, I'll let you have the comparison to the Queen - if Kate did as many engagements as the Queen, then I think she could probably start shining and really showing personality and getting even more important experience even if not a single engagement was solo.

      To be honest I'm not sure what this Himalayas reference is about - I'm missing something obvious I'm sure :) I do think it's ironic that your criticism of me is that I dashed off a comment without seriously investigating....since, you know, I was making a comment about public figures whose public work is easily looked into, whereas you dashed off a comment about someone you don't know at all haha.

      But I will say - the royals make a difference most when they do things publicly, and pictures, etc., are released. Yes, behind the scene stuff certainly happens. But I'm not sure why I should judge them on anything aside from their impact on public good as it can be measured. It's not like my boss (or most bosses I know) is ever like "oh yeah Maggie you only came to work twice in the past 3 weeks when we expected more but it's fine because I'm sure you did things at home or spent a lot of time prepping for those 2 days". Also if Kate is doing a LOT privately to the point that it trades-off with public appearances, then honestly, she's not doing her job. For example, she's not a trained mental health expert. She maybe COULD organize one of the engagements she's going to be attending herself but that would be an utter waste of her utility to important causes. Royals do the most good by lending their names and faces to causes and events.
      Also I'm really not sure why it's relevant whether or not they do behind the scenes work. The point is, Kate has steadily been doing less and less solo engagements. Behind the scenes work or not, why doesn't it make sense for a couple who doesn't do many engagements to begin with to split up more so at least more causes get their attention? It's the same amount per person, just separate. Nothing to do with behind the scenes work.

      And lastly, about 99% of all the happily married people I know don't work with their spouses. Sure, in Charles and Diana's case, esp after the beginning of their marriage, a lot of it probably had to do with their marriage floundering and no one making sure Diana had the support she needed. But just because it happened to be that two royals worked separately a lot and also ended up struggling marriage-wise doesn't mean that royal spouses working together IS a caring committed partnership or that you can't have one if you don't work together a lot.

      Delete
    2. Sarah Maryland USA23 August 2016 at 01:47

      All I have to say Maggie is πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»

      Delete
    3. Well I am part of the 1%. My husband and I do work together and I love it. We manage to spend 10 hours or more a day working together and come home to share dinner and be involved with our other interest. Everyone should be allowed to make their own way. Why should William and Kate be any different? When did Kate ever declare that she wanted to be a feminist leader? Don't think she has or needs to.

      Delete
    4. Well I am part of the 1%. My husband and I do work together and I love it. We manage to spend 10 hours or more a day working together and come home to share dinner and be involved with our other interest. Everyone should be allowed to make their own way. Why should William and Kate be any different? When did Kate ever declare that she wanted to be a feminist leader? Don't think she has or needs to.

      Delete
    5. Well I am part of the 1%. My husband and I do work together and I love it. We manage to spend 10 hours or more a day working together and come home to share dinner and be involved with our other interest. Everyone should be allowed to make their own way. Why should William and Kate be any different? When did Kate ever declare that she wanted to be a feminist leader? Don't think she has or needs to.

      Delete
    6. May I respectfully ask why you feel the need to be so critical of Kate? Are you as critical of your own(US) first lady? Or do you feel that she is beyond criticism? I am also from the US and I am really curious.

      Delete
    7. Anon at 3:05 - Of course a caring marriage is a wonderful thing. But just because two people work together does not mean that they are in a loving relationship. And just because two people carry out separate engagements does not mean that they are not in a loving caring marriage.
      Of course a caring marriage is a good thing. I am sure that Maggie, who is in medical school, and judging by the content of her comments is not an unintelligent person, knows that and probably doesn't need one of us to explain it to her patronizingly.
      I think that you make several leaps in your logic through the one paragraph you have written. And FWIW the QUeen and PP rarely carry out joint engagements. Same with Sophie and Edward. CP Mary and Fredrick of Denmark. Etc Etc.

      Anyway I think that the joint engagements are increasing because they want to maximize time as a foursome. So they do engagements together 1-2 days a week, William works 1-2 days a week and they have 3-5 days a week to spend as a family. I think that is why they are lumping things together like this.

      Delete
    8. Did I say royal spouses working together is always a caring committed partnership?

      No, I gave W&C as an example of one that is. Neither did I say you can't have a caring committed relationship if you dont'work together a lot.(Sorry, there were a few double negatives in your remarks-hard to decipher.)I merely said it CAN be a beautiful thing and gave W&C as an example. They work well together; they have chemistry and seem to support each other.
      I won't argue whether or not they do"enough" work. Iit is pointless. I will say they do at least as much as other second in line couples in BRF have.Plus raise a future king that just might not marry unhappily,go on wild adventures with pals, or embarrass himself and his country by dabbling in questionable activities.

      And one most certainly does need to consider meetings and conferences relating to
      royal duties and charities done out of the public's eye as part of their work-including preparing for tours both wardrobe wise and background- material wise, and writing and recording interviews and speeches.


      Delete
    9. Take a deep breath Maggie, and think some positive, happy thoughts.

      Delete
    10. Julia from Leominster23 August 2016 at 18:40

      I do have to agree with Maggie to the extent I don't think Kate is quite as confident as she might be - I've felt at times she is a little too cautious, (perhaps more afraid of putting a foot wrong than she need be). I've drawn this opinion by watching her at engagements, noticing that when William isn't present she relies a lot on Lord Lieutenants and other officials to guide her, also from listening to her speak and listening to her interview for the queen's birthday. When she does let herself go - often with children - it is fantastic but I worry about statements she has made such as she has been accused of taking too much time with people and want to scream - "whoever is saying that - don't listen to them - the royal family has made a tonne of mistakes in the past, not all of which they understand - use your own judgement."
      I don't mean this as harsh criticism, and I don't see this as meaning she won't be a brilliant princess in the future but I do think this will come from the experience of doing a number of engagements including joint ones but also single ones where she can develop confidence and the security of expressing herself independently and sometimes off the cuff as the saying goes.
      It's nice to be a stay at home mum, and I think most of us agree Kate should have ample time with the children -but I've known stay at home mums who had to go to work in their late thirties or forties, due to divorce or financial problems and they have all said the same thing - that it is enormously harder to go to work when you're older than if you had started it in your twenties - this applies to royal work too.
      It is always best if experience is built up steadily rather than suddenly be thrust upon one - and the public will expect a lot of Kate if she is to be a successful consort to William.
      So I still sing the same tired old song - one or two engagements a week - at least some of them single - good for the children who will know they have a working mum setting an example for what will be expected for them in the future - good for Kate to add more confidence to all the assets she naturally has - and good for the nation to have a beautiful princess stepping out. I remain very hopeful of this with the coming engagements - that we will see an active autumn to come.
      As for the Diana lesson - I think actually Diana gained much more than she may have understood by being thrust out without a lot of support - her instinct and naturalism is what made her so adored by the people. And I have never been a believer, then or now, that false egos and jealousy should be guiding an institution that wants to survive and flourish. Kate is not an unwanted wife - William clearly adores her - she can be as bold as she wishes and the public will love her far more than if she is quiet one step behind consort (which Philip never has been - the public loves his outspoken views - even when shocked by it.

      Delete
    11. Linda@VA, I too am from the US and agree there is some imbalance on the level of criticism aimed at Kate. I would be curious as well to know why? Michelle Obama and other European royals don't get near the flak. It seems to be based on her level of work, or perceived idea of the lack of it (at least that is my take). What is the imaginary scorecard that is being kept? It's not a race or a contest. Don't feel that it should be so much about how many engagements, either joint or solo, does she make, but rather about the quality and substance of those engagements. I would much rather see her choose those causes close to her heart and champion them in earnest rather than make as many appearances as possible for all causes. Then she would probably be accused of being disingenuous. I think she is doing a fine job of trying to achieve a fair balance as a new wife, a young mother and as a new and young royal. Think she should be given the space to grow and the benefit of the doubt as she makes her own way. cc

      Delete
    12. Here is the article by Joe Little referenced above by Anon 00:30.

      http://royal-fans.com/2016/07/29/he-queen-and-prince-philip-are-still-putting-the-younger-royals-to-shame-at-90-and-95-respectively/

      Guess there is a scorecard!! At any rate, this article supports the idea that William, Harry and Kate have been advised to "focus on quality over quantity, campaigning on edgier issues such as removing the stigma surrounding mental health problems and highlighting the renewed dangers of HIV/Aids in Britain." By the numbers, the senior royals aren't giving up any engagements to the younger royals. The younger royals are making their own way and championing what is important to them. cc

      Delete
    13. VERY good advice 0510. Not just for Maggie but for us all.

      Delete
    14. 0220, I very much agree.

      Kate's mother is not a feminist in the general sense of the word but she isn't stifled at all in my opinion. She is more a Proverbs 31 woman IMO, and that trumps feminism any day of the week.

      Delete
    15. I very much agree, cc.

      Why the vitriolic hatred toward Kate exists is a complete mystery to me.
      The only key that comes to my mind about it is jealousy. I know people have boo hooed the jealousy issue but I think it is foundational to the strange hatred and intense criticisms of Kate.
      It isn't like she is playing around on William, neglecting her children or trying to undermine the monarchy. She isn't gambling, doing drugs, spending inordinate amounts of monies on bling and clothes. She is faithful to her husband, nurturing and there for her children. She seems very respectful and cooperative with the monarchy and she extends herself to others through her charities. HOW DARE SHE? :)
      ¥#%€}{€%¥#€..........

      Delete
    16. Kate is better judged after 40. I hope she listens to her inner voice, tune into her partner/husband's interest/outlook/plans, bond with her young family, "believe in" the people who love her, and learn from the senior royals like the queen and Princess Anne who can share lessons from their experience and mistakes, of their roles.

      Overall other people's marriages and how they choose to partner and function within their lives and in public service should not necessarily be other peoples business all the time. If and when necessary and it benefits or harms society, may be yes. Solo or as a couple, balance is good, but partnership in duty should not call for criticism or unnecessary objection.

      Delete
  21. hmm I love that prince harry will be could be the duke of York but what the tittle would be given to princess Beatrice and princess eugeine hmm I hope more joint engagement miss them a lot they have do more engagement

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia from Leominster23 August 2016 at 18:11

      Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I'm sorry Beatrice and Eugenie weren't given a defined royal role early one, especially if they are going to accept royal benefits such as housing. (I'm a bit shocked that Eugenie is being given housing at Kensington Palace when she is doing no royal work,even if "fair" rent is paid.)

      The royal family needs - rather desperately I think - a more youthful feel, and that has left a huge focus on William and Kate and Harry - one that they have more waded than plunged into. In the meantime, by not providing a role for Beatrice and Eugenie, it has left them without a goal - they don't seem to be able to hold down jobs and the endless holidays has delighted the press but damaged the royal family enormously at a time when the work ethic of younger royals is being questioned. But I fear it is too late now and would just like to see them gainfully employed and settled.

      Delete
  22. Where is Kate (and when) in the picture of her wearing the blue Saloni Martine dress standing in front of the food?

    ReplyDelete
  23. If the Telegraph's story is true,think it's too bad that Beuti Skincare founder revealed she used a family friend who works at KP to send some to Kate and then told the world Kate uses it. I mean it seems bad form, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say it's good business.Many people/business profit from Kate using there products or wearing their clothes. Its a win-win.

      Delete
  24. Not only do William and Kate have

    an additional four windows across, four story building across from Apartment 1A, but they have employee quarters above their eight car garage in another part of the palace, and Antonella Fresalone has her apartment in another part of Kensington Palace so apparently she is still with them. This is in addition to employees office and apartments and storage in the basement and attic of Apartment 1A. So William and Kate have plenty, plenty of room there. I wonder if Harry will assume all that when William and Kate move into Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and Balmoral. And I wonder if Rebecca Deacon resides at the palace. That would make sense since she seems to be with them all the time. I noticed a photo of her with William and Kate the day Kate wore that brown suede Jacket and her Wellies to watch polo. That was the day William was photographed holding Lupo and giving him a sweet kiss. I had thought, since that didn't seem like an official event, per se, that Becca wouldn't be there. She was. I am finding out as I look at previous photos that she is more often than not with Kate and William even when you might not expect that to be so. Kind of like James Matthews being in the background around Pippa all those years prior to their engagement in a way as far as frequency of appearance goes.

    There were still many parts of Kensington Palace that Richard Kay did not specify as to who or what is occupying those areas, although he did specify where others in the royal family reside. I would like to know who is utilizing those other areas. There is a lot of space there "unaccounted for". Like it is really any of my business, lol. I still want to know though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you implying? This has got to stop. Please let William and Kate conduct their marriage without the gossip and speculation some seem
      to thrive on.Marriage is hard enough
      without it. I think the royal family could do with more care given to family than was the case in previous generations.

      It's almost as if Kate is being punished for falling in love with a royal. Is that really the intention? Was William suppose to stand back and let everyone else choose his bride? We are treading on ground where we don't belong.

      Maybe we should all take a step back and let them be a couple/family without the peanut gallery always chiming in. Kate has many years to spend in public service. Why not let her spend this time with her very young children. They will be the better for it. Harry and his wife will benefit from the changes in royal life that William and Kate are making. I believe the monarchy will be the better for it. Healthy happy people = a healthier monarchy.

      Delete
    2. Amen 01:45, AMEN.

      Delete
    3. Does any one know if Rebecca Deacon also resides at Kensington Palace?

      Delete
    4. I saw a documentary about Buckingham Palace and there is strong speculation that Charles will choose not to reside there when he becomes king. It apparently is not required that the monarch live there.

      Delete
    5. I wonder if they checked with Camilla on that one. Me thinks the curtains have been picked out. :)

      Delete
  25. Tour dates released by the Department of Canadian Heritage are:

    Sept. 24: Victoria.
    Sept. 25: Vancouver.
    Sept. 26: Bella Bella, B.C.
    Sept. 27: Victoria and Kelowna, B.C.; Whitehorse, Yukon.
    Sept. 28: Whitehorse and Carcross, Yukon.
    Sept. 29: Victoria.
    Sept. 30: Haida Gwaii, B.C.
    Oct. 1: Victoria.
    Events and activities along the Royal Family's trip will highlight the work Canadians are doing to preserve the environment, empower young people, improve mental health, encourage active living and highlight Indigenous culture and heritage, according a release from the Department of Canadian Heritage.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am sooo looking forward to seeing the final results of 'choose your dream tour look for kate'! I always like to look at the links b4, but it is just totally different to see the whole outfit together in pictures. When will that post be up, Charlotte? ( Not trying to put pressure on you, I just want to plan some 'me/alone time' so that I can relax and have time to look at all the submissions without a hurry :) I hope you are not drowning in work with all those gowns, clutches and earrings! We all really appreciate what you do, you are phantastic! )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, THANK YOU Charlotte. You make a lot of people very happy through all your efforts. :)

      Delete
  27. You are right on point Maja 17:25. Thanks for expressing those thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am always amazed by the number of words used when one of these work discussions takes over a thread. Fortunately it is happening less often! I am reminded of political analysts who believe infinite verbage is persuasive. On television, their purpose appears to be preventing others from presenting facts or expressing alternate viewpoints. Here, it is just tiresome. Conciseness is a welcome thing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Political discussions, often, like the work

      discussions, are not unlike one chasing one's own tail. Thankfully, on a delightfully positive note, our sartorial masterpieces will be presented soon and the tedious rhetoric will fall by the wayside until the next lull. Thank you so very much Julia for the dynamic respite your suggestion has generated.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Julia.

      Delete
    3. I wonder if anyone else remembers the context and tone of the comment section
      was when she first suggested fashion distraction?

      Delete
  29. The Duke of Cambridge was in Dusseldorf today to celebrate the military connections between Britain and Germany.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thankfully, they are peaceful connections these days.
    Thank God.

    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.

If there are a large number of comments, it is necessary to click the 'Load More' button at the end of the comments section to see the latest additions.