Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

The Mystery of Missing Kate

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Good evening! Well, I had planned a different post for today, but the mystery of Kate missing the wedding has more or less eclipsed all else. I apologize for the confusion in the last post. A lot of weird details flew about and several of them surfaced after I had posted. Let's just pop through what we know at the moment, since I know there are a lot of different ideas running around. 



We have it on very solid authority that Kate was supposed to be at the weekend wedding in Thurlestone. Sebastian Shakespeare is quite a good source when it comes to the celebrity social circuit. He claims that Kate was a no-show at the very last moment and that her name was still on the place-cards. 
The hosts appeared to have been informed so late that Kate’s name was still on the seating plan at the reception in a marquee overlooking the village green. ‘The names William and Catherine Wales were written on the plan, which appeared on an antique-looking mirror,’ a source claims. ‘They were due to sit at the top table. Kate had been expected to attend.'
As a side note, I am a little charmed to see that the Cambridges continue to go by "Wales." As you may recall, the story went that William introduced Kate to the guests at this wedding reception as "Mrs. Wales." Of course, we also have heard that Kate has used her current title as a surname as well, os I suspect their is an element of interchangeability and perhaps transition. In any event, a cute detail that I very much enjoyed. Back to the story.

So,  we have it on good authority that Kate had planned to be there. There were multiple reports that Kate was spotted with William on the train down to Devon (not Cornwall. ;)). Unfortunately, this is a little harder to verify, but ultimately, it might not be terribly important. 

William did show, but there are two different reports. One said he came alone, but the Sebastian report seems to suggest that Pippa, rather than just happening to be at the same wedding, actually filled in for Kate as Will's date. Does this mean she sat at the head table with him? I don't know. But the implication in the Daily mail articles is that she did. 

Again, this isn't super important to know, but it could tell us whether Kate had some warning that she wouldn't be able to attend. Did she have a day to ring up Pips and say, "Sis, I need you to pinch hit for me. William needs a buddy. Can you book it down to Devon?" Or, was it the morning of the big-do that Kate backed out,a nd did the hosts, not wanting to shuffle the seating, just moved the royal's sister-in-law to the head table? 

I do not find it strange that William and Pippa spent the weekend together. If William was without Kate, and Pippa was without any date, it makes sense they would stick together. They are, after all, family, and no one likes to float about alone at a wedding. 

I also do not find it odd that William stayed the entire weekend. Why should he rush home just because Kate was not there? He had two reasons for staying on: his own personal enjoyment, and consideration for his hosts. 

Let us assume that Kate was unable to make the event for some reason other than a deathly malady that would demand William's presence at her sickbed. Wouldn't she urge him to enjoy the weekend as planned? Wouldn't you urge a loved one to do the same? Isn't love actually willing the good of another? Selflessly? Wherever Kate was, I am sure she was comfortable and safe. Just because she could not make the weekend does not mean that she wouldn't urge William to proceed as planned. Plus, if Pippa was going solo, expecting to be kept company by her family, Kate would take Pippa's feelings and comfort into consideration, as well. I would urge my spouse to look out for my little sister, too. Some things don't change, no matter how "adult" you are.

The second consideration, is of course, that William and Kate were obviously going to be the celebrity guests. Every party has a few people on the list who are particularly fun or exciting. If those particular guests bail, it is a disappointment. So, losing Kate was bad enough. William probably felt a renewed need to stay to the bitter end of the festivities so as not to further dampen the fun and the festivities. Nothing odd here at all. He was gracious in attending the entire weekend as planned. 

So finally, the million dollar question. Where was Kate? To which I respond, I don't know---but, does it matter? The most obvious likelihood is that either she, or one of her children, was taken ill. It happens even to royals. Life has a weird way of springing those things at the most inopportune of times.

Nothing suggests there is trouble in paradise. Au contraire, I believe that if William and Kate were dealing with strain in their marriage, they would be at pains to project the opposite picture to the world, and so I think Kate would have been present and smiling. When you are truly on the rocks, you put on a good show. You paint a smile on your face, and you soldier through. There is absolutely nothing to suggest anything is amiss with the Waleses. 

This is a tempest in a teapot, a mountain made from a mole hill, whatever other charming sayings we have inherited from posterity. DOn't give it anymore mind. It happens, it was too bad, and I am sure that Kate was as disappointed as anyway, except maybe the bride. Kate owes her dinner at KP. 

Let's reconvene on Friday, all y'all. 

93 comments:

  1. Jane's comment: "Isn't love actually willing the good of another? Selflessly?"

    YES. And I am so glad you made this point. If Kate or one of the children was sick, it is reasonable that he attended out of respect for the hosts. For both W&K to be no shows would have been a bigger disappointment as well as unnecessary drama with people wondering what happened. Had it been something truly serious, I believe his priorities are in order and I doubt he would have attended. I also believe that Pippa's attendance (with William) suggests that there isn't any trouble in paradise. If my brother in law was not being a good husband to my sister, I would not "condone" it with a similar gesture.

    Also, as much as people may wonder about Kate's absence at some of these weddings, I believe there would be a different type of criticism if she *did* attend all of these weddings. Perhaps her choices would be seen as "selective" and I will not expand on that.

    I believe that W&K have a healthy marriage with healthy priorities. (I'm not sure Diana would have had the same luxury of similar priorities.) Every single marriage/relationship is different and if it works for the two people in it, it's no one's business. And we cannot compare what Kate did or didn't do before they were married or even before they had children. It's a different ball game now...and the rules are *theirs* to set.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Jane!
    A big and resounding 'THANK YOU' for your post which so eloquently distinguishes between what is known and what is speculation. It gives me chills -and makes me sad- at times to see how quickly people jump on -and chime in with- the speculations of woe and doom. Until sight of the teapot is lost in all the tempest ... But that right there, the recounting of facts and separating them from contentions, that's why I love your blog.
    ... and not to be outdone by those who thrive on speculations: My take is that Catherine stumbled over a blog mentioning the possibility of a state dinner in her near future and she is scrambling to get the perfect outfit. :P Because, as any woman knows, one can have the best stocked wardrobe but still have nothing to wear ;) ...
    Sara Bee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane's post has a fair amount of speculation. You just like where her speculation went. At the end of the day, speculation is speculation whether it is perceived as positive or negative.

      Delete
  3. Hi! I like your take on why she wasnt there..it doesn't matter and it makes complete sense William would hang with his sis in law Pippa. :) what a nice family unit they have! If it was one of the kids or Kate not feeling well I hope they are better very soon!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just love your writing style, Jane! Fabulous post clearing things up as twitter has been crazy the past few days.

    I have no more patience for news articles on Kate anymore, they are mostly all mean spirited and trite. Why is it such a terrible thing that Kate doesn't show up at social events more since having George? Isn't it common sense that after you have children, your social life takes a back-seat?

    Also, I am completely with you. Of course William was a respectful guest and stayed for what was planned because the hosts spent money on them and it would be rude to leave. Also great that he took Pippa (if that's what happened) since again, the hosts paid and whatever came up with Kate (which really doesn't matter) was able to be resolved with Pippa. Anyway, I think people look far too much into these things ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, the Kate mystery has been discussed and discussed. Wherever she was it wasn't at the wedding and I think you're right that it was actually Pippa that was seen on the train and not Kate. Now...that being said I have a completely different question. Are Pippa and Nico still a couple? It's been awhile since we have seen them together and if Pippa was originally invited to the wedding in the first place, wouldn't he have been there as well as her plus one? Actually, it lends itself to the probability that Pips was specifically there to stand in for Kate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you Jane. I couldn't agree more.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't believe Pippa was a stand-in date. I think they have attended weddings together that Kate has not and they have not teamed up together.

    And while I think Kate is a grin-and-bare it type person many of couples have had one cancel an event due to an argument.

    I also don't think selflessly telling your spouse to enjoy a weekend away is as common once you have (sick) kid(s). If he is truly working full time shift work - which may have him home while his kids sleep & away when they're awake - I think freebie weekends like this become less common. Not to say he still couldn't go, but not spend as much time with the full weekend itinerary.

    However, I do think an illness of Kate or the children was at play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I'm not sure I would define any wedding as a "freebie" weekend. For most people (W&K included) attending a friend's wedding is a combination of joy and obligation as we rearrange our own lives to accommodate the event(s). And with a last name like Wales or Cambridge, if they both canceled, it would have been twice the drama and speculation. There's been enough with just Kate bowing out.

      Delete
    2. Do you have or have you had very small kids royalfan ? Any weekend away from them when they are young is a freebie weekend. When our kids were toddlers we would joke that there is the "work week" and then there is the "work weekend". Of course we had no help during the weekend, so things may be different for Kate - maybe it does not feel as much of "work" for her.

      Delete
    3. I hear you 9:21! My first weekend away from my three small children was the first time I slept through the night in five years! It was heaven! After that we resolved to do it twice a year. It was a life saver for me.

      Delete
    4. But if it was Kate that was ill I wound think being a good loving husband William would have stayed home. Or at least go to the wedding but return yo his wife's side. We will never know what went on and why Kate cancelled at the last minute

      Delete
    5. Exactly, ladies. I don't think they have a bad marriage. I just don't think it is likely that a parent who works shift work would spend an entire weekend away. Especially if it involves illness. I think if it was illness he would have attended the weekend, maybe another social event with guests, but cut the weekend short to rush home.

      A close friend of ours is a firefighter, and likes his independence, but having a kid and a wife with shift work means he tries to do as much as he can, but usually sacrifices some aspect of socializing to balance all - friends, family, and shift work.

      Delete
    6. Again there are very strong rumors that they are about to separate again. So maybe that is why she did not attend. But again it is just rumor.

      Delete
    7. Anon 7:50 if there were those rumors, but you actually weren't separating, all the more reason to flaunt your love! Although skeptics would judge that is faking it. *sigh*

      My opinion: they aren't separating :-)

      Delete
    8. What is the source of these "very strong rumours", Anon? Other than "journalists" stirring the pot and non-fans lining up to eat the stew, I am not aware of any.

      We can only guess and speculate about the reasons for Kate not attending the wedding. But the appearances they have made together do not support any issues in the marriage.

      They may be public figures, but they are human beings and do not deserve some of the speculation that borders on wishful thinking.

      Delete
    9. With you royalfan. The only "rumors" of them separating are coming from the negative posters. Kate and Wills body language at the last event certainly did not bear that out.

      Delete
  8. You make some good points, Jane. Thank you! But why hasn't she been at very many of the weddings since her marriage? I'm asking that, being truly curious, and not wanting there to be anything wrong. Was Sebastian just being dramatic?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If she were attending weddings and going to all the social events with friends, the media would be writing stories about how Kate is a neglectful mother and that the children are being raised by the nanny. She is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The articles that everyone is referencing were trying to hint at problems with William's character. If you read between the lines you will see that they are very sympathetic to Kate while actually questioning William's judgement.

      Delete
    2. I would question his judgement too

      Delete
    3. Anon 12:29 hear what you are saying with damned if you do and damned if you don't. However, her name was on the table assignments, which means she RSVPed and didn't cancel BEFORE they went to print. From experience with my wedding, we firmed everything up 2 weeks in advance.

      Delete
    4. I firmed everything up 2 weeks before my wedding too and still had ten people not show up on the day of the wedding. Their reasons for not showing up ranged from their children coming down with chicken pox ( the vaccine was not available at the time) to getting stuck in a massive traffic jam on the freeway. All ten guests sent their apologies. I am sure Kate did the same, if she had to back out at the last minute. Stuff happens, especially when you have young children. Yes, she has a nanny but when your children are sick, you are loathed to leave them with anyone else. Besides, can you imagine the flack if that had left her sick children to attend a wedding?

      Delete
  10. Dear Jane,
    Thanks for a large dollop of commonsense.
    I have done a fair amount of searching, trying to discover where the two reported train journeys were going, without success.
    Could they have been a trip to London on Tuesday and back on Friday? After all Friday was the day "the letter" was published.
    Most probably someone was unwell---one of the children; Catherine or Nanny.
    I missed two close family weddings because my son was unwell--it happens. My husband went, as they were his side of the family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's definitely ok that he went alone, it's spending an entire weekend away from his family that I think is curious.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you. He should have attened then return if not that night then the next morning. He did not have to stay and party all weekend.

      Delete
    3. The fact that he stayed the weekend may not be fact at all. People Magazine has come out this morning with the "fact" that Kate had declined weeks before and was not expected. So who do y up believe? I certainly would lean a little more to People than to the DM

      Delete
  11. I have seen on Twitter that there is some speculation that Kate is pregnant - and this was my first thought when I read the article. I think it would have to be something fairly significant for Kate to pull out of a wedding so last minute...but I guess also one of the children might have been unwell (less likely if it is true that Kate travelled to Devon)

    On a related topic, I think the Daily Mail has been unnecessarily mean to Kate recently! I really don't think she's not seeing her friends or ordering William not to. Their priorities will necessarily have changed with children and each wedding William had attended alone there had been good reason for - either very close to Kate's due date or in a different country!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pregnancy is unlikely, but not impossible. As a teenager I knew two brothers that were in the same grade - they were exactly 9 months a part (their poor mother!). While 9 months is far too soon to be doing that, some women think that breastfeeding is birthcontrol, and therefore can be less...diligent.

      As for Daily Mail...I think they are a bit gossip-y. However, it is the job of the media to hold people/companies accountable. They will write flattering articles of her sometimes, and unflattering other times. Glean from them what you want, is how I take it :-)

      Delete
    2. Yes, just so all you girls know :) one of the most fertile times in your life will be the few months after you've just given birth! Most women start ovulating again within weeks of childbirth so from that point on, watch out!

      Doctors are constantly amazed how many women think they can't get pregnant right after giving birth, or that breastfeeding is a form of contraception. At the first postpartum check-up most doctors will have a detailed conversation with their patients about birth control, since getting pregnant that quickly can be quite dangerous.

      Claudia

      Delete
    3. My first thought whe'n I read about her not attending the wedding

      Delete
  12. The Cambridges -they were never the "Waleses"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they know better than we who they are!

      Delete
    2. Technically they're the Mountbatten-Windsors :) Informally they generally use title the Queen styles them by to identify family: Yorks, Wessexes, etc... William has used William Wales most of his life, not surprising he continues to do so with friends and they do same with Kate.

      And when you think of it, in the not too distant future they'll be Wales primarily again, as will their children. So maybe he just wants to stick with that with his set. Funny, they will be styled as Cambridge publicly for the least amount of time over their lives! I see a trivia question years from now "King William was known by what title when he was first married?"

      I also remember reading Kate was not thrilled with the Duchess title, thinking it not terribly youthful. But she would never have been styled as anything higher than that publicly, since the wife of the Prince of Wales is also styled as Duchess of Cornwall... and they are first in line :)

      Claudia

      Delete
    3. I believe that Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, is only choosing that styling out of respect for the memory of Diana - she has a right to be styled the PoW but went with the next styling down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

      Delete
    4. You're absolutely right Tsipa which is why I wrote "Publicly" :)
      Camilla is the Princess of Wales but for obvious reasons is publicly styled by one of Charles' many other titles.

      Kate is also "Princess William" but they are styled publicly by a dukedom given to William at his marriage. My opinion was that she would never be styled publicly by anything higher than title the Prince of Wales' wife uses publicly - due to the inner politics of the royals :)

      Claudia
      (Technically Diana was "Princess Charles" later, "Diana, Princess of Wales" but obviously public and press go with Princess Diana as they will with go with Princess Kate when she becomes Princess of Wales; only some very particular royal buffs get their knickers in a twist over that!)

      Delete
  13. I really don't know why people are freaking out over Kate not going to a wedding. People RSVP and then back out of commitments all the time; it happens. Maybe she wasn't feeling well, maybe one of the kids wasn't feeling well, maybe Carol and/or Maria wasn't feeling well and even though she planned to go she ended up staying home? I mean, it could be anything. I don't find it strange that William went, nor do I find it strange that he and Pippa might have teamed up during the weekend; she is his sister in law. Tempest in a teapot indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What kind if teaming up yo you mean

      Delete
    2. Just hanging out, as they are family! Nothing improper implied!

      Delete
  14. Cat Ray agree completely. :) Ali

    ReplyDelete
  15. As always, very thoughtful and sensitive insights. I agree completely.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh my gosh! They have two very young children. Most people I know with children of that age either would have sent their regrets or only one would attend. It's too bad she couldn't attend last minute but it happens. Who knows, maybe Nanny Maria got sick and Kate thought it best to stay home. Geez people, calm down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably someone was sick but it is a big deal not to show up to a wedding that you've already rspv'd to. You have to have a very good reason which I'm sure she had but still it's something that is rarely done.

      Delete
    2. If one of the children were sick or Kate being sick you would think William would attend the wedding then return home to help with the children or help Kate. He is to be a hands on father, so isn't that what hands on daddys do???

      Delete
  17. Hi Jane, I wrote a lengthy response to this post outlining all the weddings Kate has attended, and the weddings Kate has missed, with explanations as to why - a rebuttal to the Daily Mail's insinuations and a helpful resource for concerned Kate fans. Was there a problem publishing it, or has it not shown up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Edythe! Thank you for asking! It never appeared, BUT, I just checked the spam account and it is there! This is very unusual. Often, when a reader complains, I check the spam and there is nada, but I am stoked to see your time and effort have not been wasted. I am heading back to that tab now to a) read and b) approve your comment out of spam. :)

      Delete
    2. I'm looking forward to reading it Lady Edythe! Thanks for researching and putting it together.

      Delete
    3. Looking forward to reading that, Edythe. As you are a writer, it should be well done.
      Appreciate your post, Jane.mk

      Delete
    4. Hi Jane - I don't see it yet. Is there a technical issue? If it's lost, I can type it up again, since people are interested. (Wish I'd saved it in the first place)

      Delete
    5. Ok, Edythe, you are going to be so irritated with me, and justly so... I deleted it. Not intentionally! It was in spam, I read it and enjoyed it, and the button placement that is usually "approve" in the normal moderation section is actually delete in the "spam" folder. I am so, so sorry. I feel like an idiot, at best. It was a great post, and it even gave a shout out to Kate's Clothes! I truly am sorry, and in the future I will slow down more and look at what I am doing before I do it. I feel really bad. :(

      Delete
    6. It's ok, Jane, these things happen. I knew the moment I pressed 'Publish' I should have saved it. This one is saved, by the way!

      Here's pretty much what I wrote originally:

      The Daily Mail, in addition to misreporting the recent wedding (it is now known that Kate had declined the invitation and was never expected to attend), followed up by noting the social events that Kate has not attended (and William has), generating a lot of concerned discussion among Kate fans about the state of W&K's marriage on this blog and others. Here is the link to the article which caused the problem: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201634/Mystery-Duchess-Cambridge-misses-wedding-minute.html

      Here are the weddings Kate has attended since 2011, with thanks to Kate's Clothes:

      Zara Phillips (July '11)
      Hannah Gillingham (April '12)
      Emily McCorquodale (June '12)
      Alice St. John Webster (June '12)
      Mark Tomlinson (March '13)
      William Van Cutsem (May '13)
      Lucy Meade (March '14)
      friends (December '14)
      (This list is not complete, off the top of my head I can recall Adam Middleton's wedding (May/June '14)

      It is worth noting that in the aforementioned article, the DM claims, and I quote 'The couple attended dozens of weddings in the run-up to their own nuptials in 2011, but Kate went to none in the two years afterwards.'

      What a load of rubbish. Especially since the DM covered all of these weddings.

      Here are the social events the Daily Mail has reported Kate as not attending/William attending:

      > Thomas van Straubenzee's wedding (June '13). The DM correctly reported that Kate was seen shopping that day. However, Kate was shopping close to her family home – as opposed to a big society wedding about 300 miles away in Northumberland. If you will remember, Prince George was born a month later, and he arrived late. Kate had already stopped royal engagements to prepare for his birth.
      > Guy Pelly's wedding(May '14). This was immediately after the NZ/Aus tour, and the wedding was held in Memphis, USA.
      > Victoria Inskip's wedding (September '14). This was shortly after Charlotte's pregnancy announcement. Kate had to cancel her engagements for this period due to hyperemesis gravidarum, including her first solo tour of Malta, also in September, which William undertook in her stead.
      > James Meade's wedding (September '13). Prince George was just seven weeks old – and didn't yet have a nanny.
      > Olga Powell's funeral (October '12). I had to smile when researching this one – my first source was the Daily Mail, who conveniently mentioned that Kate was undertaking engagements in Newcastle at the same time. (Newcastle Civic Centre, Fields in Trust park/community garden, youth charity Keyfund. Source: Duchess Kate blog)
      > Mia Tindall's christening (late November '14). This was the ONLY event I cannot find any obvious explanation for. Kate was around 4 months pregnant with Charlotte, but had already carried out several engagements that month.

      I hope that this information clears up any concerns Kate fans have after reading the Daily Mail's insinuations.

      I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you, Jane, for your excellent work on Kate's Clothes. It has been an invaluable resource for me, this encyclopaedia of the clothes, shoes, hats, and jewellery Kate has worn. Thank you so much for your efforts!

      Delete
    7. How do we know she declined and was not expected to attend?

      Delete
    8. People Magazine reported that they had learned that that was the case. Your question is still valid though - who do we believe, Daily Mail's source or People's source? At least one thing we can be sure of - she didn't attend the wedding.

      Since I'm trying to deal with facts and reasonable, supportable opinion here, I'm happy to take the criticism. My main point was that regardless of what happened for this wedding, there's no major reason to worry about the other social events Kate has missed (although I am curious about Mia's christening).

      I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't for Charles and Diana's marital difficulties, we wouldn't be so concerned about William and Kate.

      Delete
    9. If you scroll down further you will see it posted that Simon Perry of People has reported that she declined the invitation weeks ago and was not expected to attend. Perry is usually quite accurate in his reporting.

      Delete
    10. I'm going to put People Magazine on the same level as the DM and agree wtth you Edythe that we just don't know. However, you are right. She has attended more events than she is being given credit for while the ones she has missed have been with good reason. Mia Tindall's christening? Maybe back to she or George was sick. We will never know for sure. That was interesting Edythe. Thanks for taking the time to do the research.

      Delete
    11. Edythe, THANK YOU so much for doing this research!!! I tried to present some of the logical reasons Kate was not at several of the events, but didn't have time to do the in depth research it required. Thank you again!!! This is what I call "good journalism".

      Delete
    12. Thanks, Edythe!

      Delete
  18. Hi Jane. Great post as always. But it still does not make any sense to me why she was a no show.
    And what about the sightings of them on a train. Have you found anything out about that? Could it be possible that they went to the wedding sight, got into their hotel room, then got a call that one of the kids or the nanny got sick.
    It just is not Kate to do something like this. But I think we will never know for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Simon Perry is reporting that Kate was never expected to attend the wedding as she had sent her regrets.
    IMO this is all a storm in a teacup. Media trying to stir to get through the drought of engagements.
    Kate and Wills interaction in Portsmouth appeared no different from any of their engagements over the years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ....and drought of engagements is never an excuse for spreading rumor and speculation.
      In answer to someone else- no, unfavorable speculation is not as acceptable as favorable speculation for publication. I think we
      saw that fact hit close to home with a commenter in the last post.mk

      Delete
    2. And I believe you did that hitting home in a very unkind way!

      Delete
    3. Nor does a drought of engagements give posters the right to be nasty to other posters.

      Delete
    4. Unfortunately, a poster took an example of unfavorable speculation and the harm it can cause personally. I think the point was made, but apparently it's ok only if it relates to Kate. With the new info from People, the need to with hold
      personal opinions supporting rumor might be again emphacised.mk
      Yes, it has "always been done," but does that justify continuing it? Child abuse has always been done, too.
      We are hopefully making strides in preventing that- a. slow process.
      Question-07:23- were some of the remarks made about Kate unkind? I will be happy to apologise for any
      misunderstanding my post may have prompted if the person will apologise for spreading rumor about Kate.
      Seems fair to me.



      There is a saying, "If the shoe fits...."

      Delete
    5. The person did not spread rumour. The person and all the other posters were sharing what they had read or heard. Sharing not spreading publicly. This is a blog. We share what we here. No harm was done to Kate. But you were nasty and mean spirited. It was offensive to many.

      Delete
    6. To compare the post to child abuse is quite a stretch as well my

      You are kidding?

      Delete
    7. You know what mk 1:30? Nina is or was a regular contributor to this blog. A lot of us have interacted with her many times either by reading or replying to her comments. To throw her under the bus because you didn't like something she said about a woman you will most probably never interact with is unfathomable at least to me.

      Delete
    8. I think this is obvious, but it was an example of something else that has always been done and that we are hopefully working to eradicate. Those are the two points of similarity I mentioned.mk
      A rumor involves publically repeating unsubstantiated information, often unfavorable.This blog is not private. It is
      a public forum, unless I missed the dues-paying, membership card part.. I was speaking about those who associated Kate with
      post partum depression, negligence of duty, marriage instability.... And speaking of mean-spirited...those remarks aren't exactly kindly and understanding. But again. It was said about Kate. No need for kindness. Right?

      This is my final response to this . We are ruining things for those who want to discuss gowns and tiaras,
      as well as any other fan favorite topics suitable for a fan site: her charities; her roles as a mother and
      representative of UK across the world, for example.mk
      And, quite frankly, I'm not interestd in finding out what other insults you can direct at me personally..."Nasty?"

      Delete
    9. Woah, I really, really missed something. People are attacking Nina? People are attacking...other people? I am lost as to how we got so off topic. I will address the comment section in a post and we will set down new rules.

      Delete
    10. Agreed, Jane. I don't think this has been a productive discussion at all. All speculation and no substance just because of a missed wedding. It's not up to W&K to "reveal" to the public why or why not they attend a social event. They certainly don't deserve to have people assume it's because they're having problems. They look perfectly happy together. Charles and Diana looked perfectly miserable together. Where is the justification for this?

      Delete
  20. No matter what, I wish Kate was out more... So I could admire her clothes;)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Congrats, Jane Barr! What an incendiary article--and, if i might suggest, completely lacking in logic.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there, JC. While I am sure there are other elements that could be discussed in your comment, I am only going to ask you to verify that you are the same JC who participates in this forum on a regular basis using the sign-off "JC." Yes? No?

      Delete
    2. Jane-I will re-word my comment. Perhaps it will be acceptable.I have left out my suggstions regarding identity theft of internet bloggers.
      I thought "JC" 11:22 was referring to the DM story,
      not your blog. I don't see how it could possibly be about your current post.
      I thought you made an admirable attempt to encourage a bit of reason and kindness for W&C.
      JC will be horrified at how her alleged comment was construed. The wording was awkward-maybe, "congrats, Jane
      re your post regarding the incendiary DM story...." from the huge social media response that DM story ignited, I
      don't think "incendiary" would be an unreasonable description.mk

      Delete
    3. I'm confused. Are JC and MK the same people?

      Delete
    4. No!! We are not the same person.

      JC

      Delete
  22. I think that Kate prefers having quiet, private time with the children, lying low. I believe that, at the last moment, she decided she didn't fancy attending the wedding with all the scrutiny that involves. And people might have questioned her priorities regarding doing more public engagements if she was able to attend the wedding.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Possibly the main point is that William is more gregarious than Kate. Kate does tend to shut herself away with the children, somewhat. I strongly believe that Kate had second thoughts about attending. The fact that William was there for the entire weekend shows that he doesn't want to spend all his free time holed up in their Norfolk pad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again Anon. We do not know that he really did spend the weekend. Again it is only a less than reputable source that is reporting this ( if you can call it reporting).

      Delete
    2. Anon 3:47, a mother focusing on her children does not mean she is shutting herself away. We have no idea what the family's daily life is like. Kate has friends and family...the children have aunts, uncles, godparents, etc.

      Similarly, a man attending a friend's wedding and related festivities is not synonymous with him not wanting to spend his free time "holed up" at home.

      Extreme conclusions, IMO.

      Delete
  24. Good heavens what is going on these last few days? Is this what the comments section is always like?

    Did someone actually just use child abuse as a comparison to speculating about a public figure?

    Blogs like this are supposed to be fun, an escape from children, work, school, whatever routine commitments may be going on in your life. This is a beautifully done blog, and Jane, your work on Kate's Clothes is second to none, truly outstanding. But I hope you don't mind me saying, surely everyone realizes this is more or less a fan site? It brings you news and updates and opinion on someone Jane happens to admire, and many share that view.

    Some people are fans with unabashed adoration, their idol can do no wrong. Some are fans, or admirers, but with a more critical view, nothing wrong with that either. Some are just objective onlookers so can be supporters of some acts and critics of others. As is stated in Jane's guidelines, insults, vulgarity, really hateful tone or language should be excluded and rightfully so. It seems to me some has slipped by recently.

    It's ok if people don't see eye to eye, as the saying goes "different strokes for different folks" ~ no one should be getting worked up or taking things personally, this should be an enjoyable place to visit!

    Don't let passion for Kate run amuck, if one doesn't have the same passion as another it's not an indictment on anyone personally! Someone may pick at your opinion, it doesn't mean they're picking at you! Your opinion is just something you're thinking at a particular moment in time, and can be quite fluid. No need to rush your first thought out into the world, or your first response to something... and is any of this really worth getting upset over?

    I'm not sure what about this post was "incendiary"... frankly it's a classic case of what passes as royal news in the dog days of August. Who knows what's going on? There was a lot of press coverage about some weddings, and apparently some tweets about trains. Jane was putting her favorable view on the situation, as she tends to do - no offense meant there, she is an admitted Kate fan.

    Just recognize that EVERYONE on EVERY side is doing nothing but speculating here, even gossiping. As you do every time you discuss why Kate did something, what she chose to wear, where she chose to live, how she's raising her children.. etc etc etc. You may perceive "good" gossip as kinder, but it's still gossip. And I think Faith said in a previous post, isn't that part of the draw to these blogs? If you only discussed what you knew to be fact we'd all be hearing crickets.

    Diana used to be on the front page of every paper almost every day, at the time her mother lived in a remote part of Scotland and often helped out in a shop she owned there. When a customer asked what she thought of that day's front page story on Diana (not realizing who she was) she said "Oh I couldn't possibly comment" - the customer replied "Quite right dear, a shopkeeper shouldn't give opinions on these things."

    Claudia :)


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Claudia-you have a very unique style and use of words.mk
      And I believe we have discussed that favorable speculation is less likely to cause harm than unfavorable.
      Of course, if one doesn't mind being made to look like an idiot when one's rumors prove false....and possibly
      being left open to libel charges.

      Delete
    2. Claudia, I respect the spirit of your post. I honestly do. And I do not disagree with much of what you wrote.


      But I would like to expand on part of it....



      You referred to "fans with unabashed adoration, their idol can do no wrong". I get the sense that most of the posters here who have a generally favorable opinion of Kate are past the stage in their lives where they have posters on their bedroom walls (myself included :). Kate is not my idol.


      I followed Diana and was happy for her when she had personal happiness...admired her strength when she suffered public humiliation...respected her work...and admired her willingness to share her own problems/imperfections.


      And, as a result, I have followed William (and Harry) as they grew into the men their mother hoped they would become. From the very beginning, Kate struck me as being the perfect match for William....and here I am; not idolizing her, but happy to see the joy she has brought to William and the blessing she is to the Firm (whether they recognize it or not).


      You also referred to posters "with a more critical view" and "objective onlookers" who can be both supporters and critics. All fair and I have no issue with that.


      But, IMHO, you did not address the opposite end of the "idol" category. And by that I mean the folks on the internet who do not join these conversations with goodwill. As a matter of fact, there is none to be found when it comes to Kate. No one needs to idolize her...no one needs to agree with everything she does...love everything she wears...etc. But the frustration enters the equation when people are quick to jump to the most negative conclusion, and appear to delight in doing so. I have stated this many times before...it isn't a question of different opinions...it's the spirit behind them.

      Delete
    3. But royalfan, if you are implying that there are those who jump to the most negative conclusion and delight in it participating in this forum, I will have to
      disagree. Claudia can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that she was talking about this blog. I've been here for a while and very few comments that could be described as mean spirited toward Kate actually make it past Jane. However, I will say that I have read more than several comments directed at other posters that I would categorize as rather negative and written with an apparent
      delight .

      Delete
    4. Faith, my response was more of a general observation. I recognize that Jane runs a tight ship and it is appreciated because it makes everyone's experience more pleasant. (Although, I will say that her busy schedule has resulted in some envelope pushing.)

      As Claudia pointed out, blogs like this are supposed to be an enjoyable escape. Imagine a fun family day at the beach. Everyone is relaxing and having a good time, except for Aunt Betty who keeps complaining about the sand and heat. I think most of us know what we'd be thinking.... :))

      Delete
    5. Lol!! Are you suggesting that I'm Aunt Betty? :-) Yes, they should be fun and we should all be having a great time. Hopefully, there will be no more attempts
      by certain posters to shut down
      commenters with whom they disagree,
      and we will all have a great time. Bullies
      always ruin the fun.

      Delete
    6. Faith I appreciate your support and it means so much. For the record I never NEVER said anything derogatory about Kate. I was only sharing as others were. Even the blog post was initially speculation. I thought we were all just sharing things that we read. I have read and reread all of this and I don't see where I was in any way slandering Kate. I have always stood up for her and stated many times that none of know what really goes on... not sure why some feel the need to be brutal. But as I have said if one follows long enough and I was fairly new here you can see the .. break. The need of a few to take control and shame others. I ignored mostly and I am ashamed now that I did not speak up for those other posters who have felt the wrath. Because when it happens to you ..you just shut down. I have. I came here for the love of the BRF. I grew up in the Diana years and of course I followed her sons and now Kate. I say again that I was not spreading gossip. I truly thought we were all sharing things we read. For anyone to assume that I am vile and trying to slander Kate ? You are wrong. I for one do not hide my name or initials in the middle of my post. Why do you do that mk? Yes.. I have called you put here. I have always read your comments with interest and respect. But I see at times a .... well one can just smell your disdain for others. I ignored. Shame on me. I apologize to others who have been scolded or made to feel they are ignorant. I have no ill will towards you mk. But I will NOT apologize as you suggested for something I did not do! And frankly. .. your tiara is off center. Try to find your kind spot dear ..... this place is to be fun. We should not be bashing each other and as women I find that to be oh so wrong. I cannot write as well as you so I expect a thread that will once again rip me apart. .. go ahead.

      As to the rest of you! I have so enjoyed the blog and the comments and shared thoughts. I have learned much.

      God Bless the BRF and I will continue to watch and read and learn... but NOT here. Jane yout have a great blog. But I just don't feel comfy sharing. .. there are a few here that are kind of taking over. There should never be an attack on another poster.

      And dear Faith... thank you... be well my friend

      Nina

      Delete
    7. Lol. Nooo...I was not suggesting that. :) I thought it was an appropriate (and general) analogy...comparing folks who enjoy the "destination" (subject matter) vs. those who don't like it and ruin it for others.

      Delete
    8. I'm sorry roylfan. I misunderstood. I do get the point you were making :-)

      Delete
    9. You will probably never see this Nina but I wish you well and am sorry this happened to you. You're right. This should be a fun spot, not stressful nor
      hurtful. You'll be missed by me because
      we critical (read not negative but
      objective) posters are rather
      outnumbered here. Hope you find
      another Kate blog that you feel
      comfortable contributing on. All the best....

      Delete
  25. Royalfan,
    Your last few words say it all.
    I have been watching the British Royal Family since, as a child I cut pictures from newspapers of the then King and Queen visiting bombed areas and the occasional pictures of the two princesses at Windsor.
    Throughout all those years, I cannot remember a single one of the family who has not been first built up by the press and then condemned.
    Catherine is now at that stage. We get the same story---she has a full time nanny, so there can be nothing for her to do. However nannies---even royal ones do not work 24 /7 or for fifty two weeks per year. It's August---nanny might very well be on holiday.
    Then there are those who complain she is using taxpayers ' money---she is not. Look at the finances of the royal family--I suspect HM is the only head of state of any country, who actually pays the government for being so. Look it up.
    For those who wonder why Prince William did not return on Saturday evening, I would ask one question---have you ever tried the journey from Devon to Norfolk?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I would bet a sizy sum that Charlotte had a bad reaction to her 16 week inoculations and that was why Kate was a no show. The jabs are a slightly different set to the 8 and 12 week jabs, so even if she sailed through those, this new lot could have affected her. I would think she'd have had them on the Friday, hence the late notice

    ReplyDelete
  27. Catherine is the mother of a newborn, and was invited to a wedding that lasted an entire weekend, and included a "river estuary swim"... I would have declined from the start, rather than leave a baby I am breastfeeding--or try to bring my children and their nanny along. I think she was put in a difficult spot with this "over the top" wedding. Are all weddings in the UK this involved for days? Even Will and Kate left the morning after the DAY of their wedding for their honeymoon. If it had been a wedding service, reception, and then back home, I bet she would have gone.

    ReplyDelete

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!