Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Pippa's Nico is Moving to Geneva and Kate Might Visit Malta

Friday, July 11, 2014



Summertime and the living is easy... So they say. Let's get to the Cambridges in just a few, but let us start with the Pipster. After attending Wimbledon with her handsome man twice, she was spotted flying coach to Vienna (shared on Instagram by dancinflo) with Nico and his family. Nothing like a little quality family bonding, I'll tell ya. While these two have vacationed with her family many times--their relationship went public after photos of them wandering a beach on Mustique during the Middleton vacation went viral--we don't get to hear about Pippa spending time with his family as much. So, this was kind of fun.



This isn't the only interesting news, though. More intriguing is the report that Nico will be quitting his job to move to Geneva. The Evening Standard is reporting that Nico will be taking a job with a Swiss hedge fund next month, making the Middleton/Jackson romance officially a long-distance relationship... Unless, as the rumor mill begins to whir, Nico has popped the question and plans to abscond to Geneva with his beautiful bride.  The two have been dating two years, and there are a lot of reasons why I could see Pippa welcoming a move to Geneva. Still, an argument can certainly be made against it. In the big scheme of long-distance romances, London to Geneva is only a short flight away. They could rotate weekends. It could be worse...

In addition, I do wonder at where that leaves Pippa's recent and positively received interview with Matt Lauer aired on American television. Elements did seem strategic. There is still speculation that Pippa might be being wooed by the broadcast network and that the adventurous sister of the Duchess may be considering a move across the pond. It is possible the pair have chosen to both run off and chase their dreams for a year before settling down together. 

There isn't really enough to make a decent prediction. We will know Pippa's next life move when she decides to tell us. Until then, well, work on your patience. My advice: Marry the guy and move to Geneva for a few years. It's prime skiing and they have amazing chocolate! Plus, Georgie needs some cousins with whom to tussle over toys. He can't go about clapping the commoners over the head forever. It is bound to garner some bad press. 



Speaking of George... let's roll through some recent Cambridge headlines:

Kate Wearing the "Dreaded Moloh"


This blog post made the rounds on Twitter and Facebook. Major sigh. Right off the bat I am suspicious since the single label that gets the most copy space is Moloh. I'll say this, the thesis of the piece is certainly correct if Kate has been buying up that much Moloh, because heaven knows we haven't seen her in much of it. In complete seriousness, though, this is something of a fabricated crisis. Kate wears some pieces that are still available in stores, sometimes, she wears pieces from past seasons, and sometimes she wears custom creations. Is she trying to regulate the market? I don't think so. But, if Kate did buy some items and hold off so there wasn't a run on the bank, why couldn't we chalk that up to her desire to keep the headline about the charity rather than how many milliseconds it took the coat or dress to empty off the shelves? The explanation doesn't have to be tinged with negativity. Ultimately, she is trying to look as lovely and put together as possible, and she will draw from many sources to accomplish that--including her closet. I think Kate is a shopper. Shoppers shop and sometimes that dress you know you will love and that you don't want to miss doesn't always get out immediately. As the saying goes, slow news day. 


Prince William and Kate bid to create no-fly zone over new country home

William and Kate have complained about arial photos that were taken over their home, claiming the pilot flew below the legal height restriction. They now want Anmer Hall to be a no-fly zone. I am torn on this. I am against the pilot flying illegally, IF he did, so, but I would be against the no-fly zone for fairness's sake. My concern is always security, and so my only question on the no-fly zone rests in how necessary is it for their safety over the years in a turbulent and violent world...  



Kate may be on the cusp of her first foreign engagement flying solo. The Duchess is rumored to be planning a trip to Malta in September to mark the island's 50th independence anniversary. Despite the very confident headline, this has not been confirmed, but is almost certainly to take place. Keep your fingers crossed...

34 comments:

  1. London-Geneva is nothing. I know a couple of people who work in London and live (primary residence) in a village near Geneva. Four days in London, three days in Switzerland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Long distance is the worst--I am happy to hear this isn't so far by European standards. I am not convinced they are engaged...

      Delete
  2. I can understand them wanting a no fly zone. Then they can do what they like outside, with PG and not worry about invasion of privacy. However, it would mean we don't get to be the fly on the wall.

    Would be interesting to see Kate go solo.

    KiwiNic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am more concerned, not with this particular instance, but the precedent of allowing the rich and and famous a level above the common law. I am all about the Duke and Duchess invoking all the privilege they are entitled to, but I also think there is a give and take. My concern is not privacy--that is the luck of the draw. My concern is terrorism. If they need a no-fly zone for protection, then they must have it.

      Delete
    2. I totally agree regarding the terrorism aspect. They would be a prime target.

      KiwiNic

      Delete
    3. I completely agree about the rich and famous being above the law concern. If the pilots follow the proper rule of being above a certain height than privacy isn't an issue - the ariel shots that I have seen that are above that distance don't show a person. So, really the request seems over the top. If a pilot flew below the height that is allowed by law, then by all means, press charges against her or him.

      Delete
  3. I think a no-fly zone is a necessity for their safety, privacy and peace of mind. It is a common sense request, and I am all for it!

    The roof color is so bright that it is staggeringly ugly in my personal opinion.
    There are so many different colors for clay tile roofs, I cannot fathom this choice.
    I would love to see how she has decorated the inside.
    Hope they enjoy this lovely retreat from KP!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right, it is bright and there was a bit of an outcry when it was installed. The good news is that the roof should mellow over time. I read that it will grow darker and darker and ultimately blend in. I am not a roof expert, but I trust Kate's sense of decorum. ;)

      Delete
  4. I think everyone needs some privacy, but William seems obsessed, so obsessed that it suggests that what he really wants is secrecy...to go hunting in Spain with whomever he wants without getting caught, to attend weekend wedding parties without his wife, with the press and public none the wiser, etc. However, as a permanent public servant, which in essence is what the Windsors are, and as a potential future Head of State, everyone in every Realm country also has a right to attempt to discern his trustworthiness/character. If William persists in rejecting the notion of transparency, people are going to ask why? what is he hiding?

    Hence, I am against any no-fly zone; he should have no more rights than any other Brit with a house in the country who is also a public servant.

    The Queen is known for her never complain, never explain policy, and 50 years ago, with a deferential press on her side and little technology to contend with, that worked. It won't work for William; transparency will, assuming that his character is rather better than that of his father and paternal grandfather; i.e. that he is not a womanizer from hell and does not consort with the likes of Jimmy Saville, aka Charles.

    The last thing I would want is a lack of freedom of the press in Great Britain; the press should be able, and willing, to expose the truth. Hopefully, the truth they expose will be a pleasant one, because Williams days of riding on the goodwill his mother left behind are over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honestly,y I don't think tho is fair. William isn;t cheating on Kate, the cam bridges are hiding nothing, they just want privacy to raise George in seclusion and normalcy, and to be a normal couple. This is simply another manifestation of their--frankly, natural--desire for privacy. I am not sure it is commensurate with their station, but there is not funny business attache dot this. I just don't think you can assume that there is something nefarious going on here.

      Delete
  5. @Jane. I work very hard not to assume anything about anyone. However, given his family history, only a fool would assume that William is a good husband and father. Unhappily, given said history, William needs to show people that he is a different and better sort of man and his penchant for privacy/secrecy works against him. Anon July 11 6:57. (We can only hope, but not assume, that in this case, the apple does indeed fall far from the tree.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But even that is not fair. William has watched his father cheat on his mother, betray her, and break her heart. He has seen his mother's response of infidelity, and he himself has suffered thanks to his parents' mistakes. At the same time, he has watched his mother forced to play out he heart break and the disintegration of her marriage on a public stage, and ultimately her very public death. I believe that as a result, he understands more than ever the need for spousal commitment and fidelity, and he is desperate to protect his family from the glare of the press and of public opinion. Both of these traits are reactions to his childhood and his raw experience, but neither are fundamentally bad. Are there times when I feel he overreacts to the press? Yes. Is it well meant? Absolutely. He is a good man determined that history will not repeat itself. I respect him for that.

      Delete
    2. Just to be fair....Diana cheated while in the marriage, too. I know it is believed Charles was always cheating; however, two wrongs don't make a right. William grew up with BOTH parents being cheaters and I assume he felt & saw it from both sides.

      I agree with some of Anonymous' sentiments about William trying to physically "hide" a lot and demanding too much given the role he was born into and hasn't rejected. He enjoys frequent, expensive vacations. He gets a swanky KP apartment and a swanky country house. He drives nice cars. He wooed a beautiful wife. Being a prince has afforded him MANY things. Therefore, I think he should be more gracious. BUT I don't think that means he is hiding because he has tons of skeletons in his closet. I just think he is making too many demands for his public role that he has chosen to follow through with. He can't have the best of both worlds - a "normal" life, while living a rich life thanks to being a royal. :-)

      Delete
    3. You are definitely making an assumption with your "given his family history". Since when are the sins of the father passed on to the child? I do agree however that they reap the benefits of being royal and should not whine about their lack of privacy. No job is perfect after all.

      Delete
  6. P.S. I watched the CNN docu, on The Little Prince earlier tonight. Very pleasant, although much of it was a regurgitation of earlier film clips. I was most interested in the segment in which the photographer employed by the Royals--Jason Bell--spoke of his experiences taking pics of George. On George: He is a charming little fellow. Who could disagree? Anon July 11 6:57

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Jane. Most people, instinctively, follow the patterns set out by their parents. It takes an exceptional individual to say: the buck stops here. Is William an exception to the rule? I might be more convinced if he distanced himself from his father, but he hasn't. He could easily have taken his wife, for instance, on his recent engagement with BSAC (British Sub-Aqua Club)--Kate is a member of said Club--but instead he showed up with his father. He could easily have told his grandmother that he would prefer to live in another of her many properties on the Sandringham Estate, one in which his father had not committed adultery with the then very married Camilla Parker-Bowles, but he did not.

    It is necessary to remember that ever since his mother died--and she was far from saintly herself--William has been heavily influenced by his father and grandmother, who closed her eyes whilst her husband fooled around.

    In sum, realistically, we can't expect much from William--or from Harry, for that matter. Only an exceptional man would be able to withstand not only his rotten personal background, but the Men in Grey Suits, who run the monarchy and whose only aim is to keep it running smoothly, which means quashing individuality.

    If William is such a rarity, an exceptional man, I have yet to see any concrete evidence. Sure, he's smarter than his father and grandmother, but apparently he lacks the strength to stand up to them in a consistent manner, assuming, as you have, that he is a good man. A good man, a decent man, would distance himself from those who are not. He would stand by his wife, and refuse to marginalize her--eg, BSAC.

    Maybe he is good, as you assume, but in that case he is weak. (Better good and weak,I suppose, than bad and strong.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon,

      In your last post you stated that you work very hard not to assume anything about anyone, I suggest you work a lot harder on that as you make many assumptions about Will here.

      William attended the BSAC with Charles because Charles is the immediate past president and now William is the new president. Also William and his father work together with conservation causes that are close to both of their hearts.

      How horrible to feel that virtually no one can't rise above their upbringings to better themselves and the world around them. To truly believe that one can't "learn from lessons done in the past" (William's words) is to condemn pretty much all of mankind to a life time after life time of suffering.

      William still has a lot to learn about being a king, being a father, husband and the best person he can be. We all do, we (hopefully) spend our lives learning and growing as a person. Willam and Kate both work very hard to live their lives the way they (not the Queen, not Charles, not the Men in Grey Suits) want to live them. They both want the best for their son and are willing to buck tradition (spending the first week of George's life with the Middletons) to do that.

      Delete
    2. You said: "I work very hard not to assume anything about anyone. However, given his family history, only a fool would assume that William is a good husband and father. " - -- I'm sorry but your posts says the contrary. It's more like you work very hard not to ASSUME positively about anyone but have no problems ASSUMING negatively- that William is not capable of learning "lessons from the past" and not being able to become a good father and husband because of his parents' troubled marriage.

      Charles is BSAC's outgoing president so it makes sense he was there with William. It was a hand-over ceremony of the presidency from Charles (outgoing) to William (incoming). I don't know how you managed to turn that into a proof that William is marginalizing his wife by not bringing her. That's quite a stretch.

      You seem to have made up your mind about William. I actually wonder if you know the guy personally because some of your accusations - he is weak, does not stand up to his father, Queen, men in grey suits - are surely matters known only by those who actually works around him and knows him on a personal level.

      Delete
  8. Anon-William is now heading up BSAC as did both Charles & Philip. Also you can't blame him for being close to his only parent.& he has hated the media since Diana's death--& before.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the no fly request is a safety issue rather than a privacy issue. Unfortunately, our world is no longer a safe and predictable place anymore. We live in a violent and unsafe
    society where a no fly zone over high profile prominent individual's homes should be a non issue. What better target for terrorists than a future heir to the throne's unprotected home? If I were them, low flying planes would scare the heck out of me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Lauri. I was aware of the fact that Charles was handing over BSAC to his son, but since when do members of the Royal family do this sort of public patronage handover? In my view, Charles merely wanted a photo op with his more popular son.

    Of course people can better themselves, and so could William if he cared to put his back into it.

    Regarding their mutual interest in conservation, I wonder how much is driven by true interest and how much by Palace decision; it seems the Palace has decided that conservation is an acceptable objective for members of the Royal family. Some others disagree, including other conservationists, particularly those who disapprove of hunting and those who recognize that if organic farming were to really take off, a lot of people would starve to death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon,

      Prince Phillips has handed over several of his charities to Prince Edward, who by the way will inherit his title when Prince Phillip passes.

      Anon, I have no interest in engaging you any further on the matter of William being/or not being like his parents, you obviously have your mind made up on this matter and I don't want to waste my time any further.

      Delete
    2. Can't we just assume that the two probably have fun together? :-) No need to troll and keep stirring up trouble.

      Delete
  11. A no fly zone does seem to be necessary. No one would want to have multiple planes and helicopters circling and hovering constantly over your property. It is not fair to the Cambridges nor to their neighbors who would also be buzzed by the aircraft. For the Cambridges it is even more invasive. Everytime they wander out of their home they would be spotlighted by numerous cameras. That's a stalking harassment and potentially dangerous

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Jane, thanks for the great post, such great info. Do you think Pippa will make the move to Switzerland? Since she could write her columns from almost anywhere, she might decide to follow Nico there. But on the other hand, she is very close with her family and moving that far away might be too much for her. I guess time will tell.

    I am undecided as to how I feel about the no fly zone. On one hand it does make sense not only for W&K but for their neighbors too. On the other hand if every well known person requested that there would be precious little air space for the pilots of smaller planes to fly in. It's been said on another blog site that communications between KP and the royal reporters is already very strained. Long time royal photographers that take pictures of W&K on their off time will no longer be allowed to official events. I understand Will's desire for privacy but biting the hands that feed you isn't a really smart move either.

    I am very excited about Kate's trip to Malta. I wonder if she'll bring George along? She may not considering it's only for a few days, might be better not to disrupt his schedule and sleep. Malta holds a very special place in the heart of the Queen, so I bet Kate is honored that she was chosen to make this trip.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's strange to hear of a possible "solo" overseas trip for Kate. I guess she will not have William with her, but the retinue surely will be present! Not quite a solo trip in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, yes, of course. It is a public engagement--she will have the usual staff and security. Solo refers simply to Kate being the only royal headlining. It is a bit of a landmark if it happens, just as her first solo engagement in the UK was a big deal after the wedding, and her first speech was a big deal...

      Delete
  14. I'm curious. Why is Moloh so "dreaded"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Kathy! I always refer to that Moloh coat as "The Dreaded Moloh" here. It has become the coat's official title. It is partially tongue in cheek, but it stems from an earlier post in which I explained my deep antipathy for it... :)

      Delete
  15. Hi Jane. Thank you for your lovely blog. I am curious as to why you and others (Hello! mag, Daily Mail etc.) refer to Kate as Kate Middleton. When a woman marries she is then called by her married name. I never hear Camilla referred to as Camilla Parker-Bowles or Sophie as Sophie Rhys-Jones. I am not being critical at all, merely curious.
    Beth in NY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Beth: it is certainly a question that comes up and one that some people get very worked up over. (I know you aren't, by the way, and thank you for that clarification:)) In general, Kate is referred to as Kate Middleton because she found fame as Kate Middleton. For the media and fans who followed Kate from the start, she has been Kate Middleton for almost ten years. That is a huge habit to break, and I don't know that it will be fully broken. Much of the world know who Kate Middleton is, but would not be able to tell you who the Duchess of Cambridge is... Camilla never had Kate's fame,so despite the Parker Bowles, it wasn't too hard to make the change. Sophie just isn't on the famous scale at all, nor did we see much of her before she married. Diana came out of nowhere and married Charles, so she was Diana Spencer only briefly before she was dubbed Princess Diana for all time. A name that isn't even technically correct... So, generally, Kate has always been Kate Middleton and it is so hard to break that. But, virtually impossible for those who know who she is, but do not follow Britain or royalty. If I showed my brother--who has no interest in royals-- a picture of Kate and said, who is this? He would tell me Kate Middleton. If I then said, but what is her name now? He would draw a blank. He'd stutter something about probably she is a princess or something, but he would not know... She is world famous as Kate Middleton. There is some sense that the media has to work with that reality.

      On this blog, I try to only say Kate Middleton when referring to her during the time before her marriage. But, to me, "Middleton" is a loved part of her name. I call her Kate Middleton in conversation, but I also call her Kate Cambridge, The Duchess, the Prettiest Princess... :) But, here, because I know some people get worked up about it, AND I agree that she is not Kate Middleton anymore, I do try to not call her by her maiden name... But, I still love her old name. :) She was Kate Middleton for a long time...

      It doesn't bother me that the media call her Kate Middleton. They often headline with that and then refer to her as the Duchess of Cambridge, etc in the article. I think that is fair. I don't like it when the article says, "It was a lovely day, Middleton, 32, was wearing..." In that case her maiden name should not be used, she is not Middleton anymore. BUT, the headline can be Kate Middleton. That is the name that she is known by, even the most sports interested men who couldn't pick out Camilla in a line up, or even know that Sophie exists.

      So, those are my 2 cents. :)

      Delete
    2. I've also heard that most media refer to her as Kate Middleton because that is the name many use in a search engine when looking her up. Have you noticed that Hello Magazine usually refers to her as the Duchess of Cambridge (nee Kate Middleton) at the start of their articles? That will mean that the article would come up in a search for Kate Middleton OR Duchess of Cambridge. It's all about making sure that their articles are found in a global search.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, Jane for that clarification. That makes a lot of sense.
      Beth

      Delete
    4. Jane in Canada--yes, absolutely, the search keywords are absolutely part of the situation. I will tag Twitter posts with #katemiddleton because honestly, a lot of people are searching that over #duchessofcambridge. It's the price of fame.

      My pleasure, Beth! I appreciated the question. It is always nice to be given the opportunity to clarify something like that. :)

      Delete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!