Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Kate Pictured Shopping with George + Video at Berry Bros. & Rudd

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

We love official engagements, but there is something special about the candids. Today I have two to share. Woman's Day Australia publishes a lot of candid photos of Kate, and perhaps more controversially, of George. They have released a new set. In these photos, Kate is shopping with George in a bit of a new ensemble.

A photo posted by @theladywallace on


Kate was wearing a new coat by Katherine Hooker. This is the Hendre coat and features a longer length, fitted at the waist and flared at the hips. It has reversible cuffs and small belt detail at the back. Kate's version is in Navy with Chocolate Alcantara trim and a mushroom lining. With Thanks to Susan at What Kate Wore for this ID and the for spotting Kate's new shoes! 

Katherine Hooker
As you can see in the snap, Kate was wearing new shoes. These are the "Chester" tassel loafers from Russell & Bromley. Kate's pair appear to have a lighter sole, which suggests they are in navy, not black, as they appear in the photo. This would make sense given she was wearing a navy coat. 



I think the most surprising thing about this ensemble is that Kate wore socks with her loafers!! Very frankly, it is a fashion faux pas to me, but I think that is also what makes this photo so special. Kate is a normal girl, a normal mom, and...she is cold in chilly weather! Sometimes, she puts comfort over fashion--as we all do on occasion! It is fun to see her just wearing what is comfortable. 



I don't like the shoes themselves. I think the heel is too chunky. Kate is very comfortable with these thicker soles, but I just can't get on board with them. Her Half 'n Half boots (above) have the same problem. Footwear made for rough, outdoor terrain, like heavy duty riding boots, or the like, might call for this, but I don't like it for a city shoe. Soles or no soles, this was just a charming little candid. I love that Kate is out shopping and spending time with George. Remember that for every candid we see of Kate, there are multiple outings that never surface. She is one dedicated mummy soaking up time with her son. 

Onto our next candid! Last week, an "New Old" sighting of Kate surfaced. Ashley, purveyor of many wonderful royal stories, found this video on Instagram. The video shows William and Kate leaving Berry Bros. & Rudd, an expensive restaurant in London.



Berry Bros. & Rudd has a very impressive lineage, and describes their history thus:
We are Britain's oldest wine and spirit merchant, established in the 17th century. Our flagship store has been located at No. 3 St James's Street, London since 1698 when it was founded by the Widow Bourne. A supplier to the royal family since the reign of King George III, historic customers have included Lord Byron, William Pitt the Younger and the Aga Khan. We created the Cutty Sark whisky, and pioneered the vintage concept for The Glenrothes single malt Scotch whisky. Today members of the Berry and Rudd families continue to own and manage the family-run wine merchant.
It's swanky. Supposedly, this video is from August, but in June the couple celebrated with the Queen at the exclusive establishment. The Mirror reported on it at the time:
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge enjoyed their first night out together since the arrival of Princess Charlotte – with the Queen in a wine bar. Wills and Kate left their baby daughter and her big brother Prince George with the nanny to celebrate the Queen’s 89th birthday with Prince Harry and other members of the Royal Family. The couple arrived at exclusive private dining club Berry Brothers & Rudd in London’s Kensington just after 8pm and stayed until 10.45pm.
I think this video is from that event, not from an August outing. It is not that I think the Cambridges never go out on their own, but my guess is, this is a video from June. First of all, Kate is wearing a very light and airy dress. Based upon her dressing habits, I think she would have likely been wearing a coat or some jacket by August. I know, but, hey, it is London! There are a few other reasons I think this was the June outing, not an August date, but I could be wrong. Whatever the case, it is lovely to see Kate out and about, and in a new dress!

The Duchess is wearing the "Madison" Chiffon Print dress from L.K. Bennett London. The dress is 100% silk and features a multicolored animal print. It manifests Kate's more playful side, and continues her trend for the midi-length. I need to get shopping to get in line! The dress initially retailed at $525 and was last on the market for the sale price of $367. I have no idea when Kate purchased it, but if you are into tracking these things, likely she bought it full price. Oh, to be a princess! :) 



Several of you have already commented on this outing. I know there have been a few remarks that this doesn't look like Kate, so let me quickly address those. First, all circumstances surrounding should prove it is Kate. William's presence, Mr. Security keeping a watchful, etc. But, this is very Kate in and of itself. I don't know how many live videos everyone watches, since we follow much of Kate's activity via still shots, but I watch a lot, and this is her gait. It's kind off a lateral walk, where she moves very deliberately from one foot to the other. In this videos she seems to hesitate on one foot for a split second as she anticipates the move of the security guard opening her door. This might distort her walk just a little, but it is most definitely the Duchess. 

Well, all, that is the scoop for the moment. The big question still looms. Will the Cambridges escape the London chill for Mustique at the end of the month. I am desperately hoping they will. Life is a shifting thing, and sometimes you have to let go of old customs, but I hope they hold onto this one. For everyone's sake! 

95 comments:

  1. So with you on the socks thing. BTW the title has a slight typo, should be "pictured" not "pictures." Obviously up to you but I won't mind if you edit this comment :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha, oh thank you! Typo corrections are always welcome. When I finally read the "Best Of" post to my family, there were more than a few typos. I told my mom I wished she had read it and told me about the spelling problems. She said, "Oh, I read it several days ago, I just didn't tell you about the typos." Aaaah! I felt deep betrayal. :)
      I have amended the post title!

      Delete
    2. I cannot see any of the videos, Jane. Is it my age or the low temperatures in Scotland? I'm not in/on Facebook or Twitter. Help, please.

      Delete
  2. Love the chiffon!
    And the candids. I agree with you on the shoes/soles.
    Nice surprise post:)

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's no fashion faux pas to wear socks when it's cold enough for a jacket with sweater under it.
    Not to me. I was brought up wearing penny loafers and tassel loafers. Between November and April you wear socks-- in my climate, for sure. Kate's, too, I should think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree too. When its cold, it looks silly not to have socks imo. Anyway, the shoes are sturdy loafers and look better with a sock. Without, they might just look like big old clown shoes on her feet.

      I am in love with the jacket! Really nice shape with great details. I think the way in which she is wearing it over the oversized soft sweater is perfect.

      Delete
    2. I think socks with sandals-Birkenstocks?- is an issue.Never heard of the socks with
      loafers thing, but there are a lot of things I've never heard about.

      Delete
    3. For me the sock issue is due to skinny jeans and the inseam length. If the jeans were longer with a slight flare they would cover the socks, then it would be to my taste

      Delete
    4. I agree with that, anon 4:33. At least we still get a long unbroken dark leg with the socks. Not too bad of a look for a quick errand about town though.

      Delete
    5. These look like what I call trouser socks. They are thinker than cotton knit socks. Makes sense if it is chilly weather that requires wearing a jacket. Only think that looks a bit off is that she is wearing them with skinny jeans. They would definitely look more appropriate with boot-cuts or straight leg jeans.

      Again, regarding the candid photos, I still argue that when they are out in public, on a city street or sidewalk, or even a public park, then the photographers can take pictures without recriminations. Obviously, George was not stressed out by their presence.

      Delete
    6. Agree it is the length of the jeans. I stated that people wear boots in chilly weather but actually lots of people wear loafers, tie shoes etc with socks in winter but the pant comes down to the shoe. That length looks like one for Spring summer and sandals or covered by a boot. Ali

      Delete
    7. Perhaps. the awesome sweater/jacket combo makes up for any pant length faux pas.

      Delete
  4. I love and enjoy your blog always. No one is perfect, so no worries :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. George is adorable and this takes me back to some of Diana's mother and son(s) outings. Whenever we see photos like this, it's clear how focused she is on him. George and Charlotte are very lucky indeed. And William didn't exactly get the short end of the stick! :)

    Regarding fashion... I am in love with this jacket. Exactly my cup of tea. And I do agree with you, Jane, regarding the heels on the boots. The shoes aren't too bad, although I am unsure about combining socks with ankle length skinny jeans. But the shoes and socks look black to me. Perhaps the monitor is playing tricks on me. :)

    Regarding the video...totally agree on your gait analysis. 100%

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It reminded me too of some of the Diana outings with William and Harry. She was also not afraid to do a little scolding if needed - and with William it was needed quite a bit in the beginning!

      Delete
  6. Hi Jane, I don't know if the video is from June or August, but I'd say it could easily be a warm August evening in London; I grew up in Scotland and August is often the best month there weather-wise. In any case, I have seen this video several times and I just love the way she walks here - she floats! :0)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My understanding was we largely believed the Cambridges to be at Anmer in August. I'm not sure on dates, but August the Queen retreats to Balmoral. That is mainly why my guess is June. I've also been in London in June, late-Aug and September and think weather wise it's anyone's best guess.

      Delete
  7. Like you, Jane, I am really, really hoping that all four of the Cambridges...and Nanny--because I happen to think that Kate could use a 10-day break (my preferred time-line)--head for Mustique, and I hope that they have a great time. I hope that Mom and Pop get to do some deep-sea diving together and that Mom gets the chance to study underwater photography (yes, Mustique seems to have this on offer) just because Mom strikes me as an excellent photographer whose talent should be pursued. In another life, had she not met William, I rather think that Kate might have stumble-bummed her way into photography as a profession. She might well have preferred to be behind the lens as opposed to being in front.

    Regarding the citizen/pap shots of George and Kate, which you have determinedly reproduced as per your long-ago declaration that anything you saw, we would see--I do appreciate your honesty; kudos, Jane. I haven't weighed in on shots such as these for a long time--actually, am not entirely sure I ever have--just because I had a hard time choosing between freedom of the press (HUGE) and the best interests of the child (equally HUGE).My bottom line, which I am still refining, by the way, is that the best interests of a minor child trumps freedom of the press most of the time. Freedom of the press comes first re pics of child abuse--but what constitutes child abuse? More than simple physical abuse, certainly. Does making a naive one-year-old face the world press to visit his newborn sister qualify as emotional/psychological child abuse? Does making a naive one-year-old on the way to his sisters christening--and I hope I wasn't the only one who noted that George was crying on said occasion--walk the gauntlet of of the public result in child abuse? Personally, I think it does.

    So, given my views, the BRF abuse George pretty much at will, yet complain when the paps take usually far less intrusive photos.

    My not-necessarily-writ-in-stone conclusion is that until the BRF stop using young heirs and spares to shore up the Monarchy--apparently, Monarchy trumps all as far as the Queen and her 19th century courtiers are concerned--they have no moral leg to stand on--forget a court case--when it comes to the paparrazi which might explain why no court case in the UK has ever been brought.

    Fact is, I have a bit of difficulty deciding who disgusts me most: the Monarchy or the paps--but I have to give the top sewer honours to the Monarchy, to the extended family of George and Charlotte, the people who, more than others, should be protecting them.

    Jane, you're the trainee lawyer, please weigh in; maybe I missed the obvious altho perhaps I should warn you that I happen to be big on civil disobedience.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ummmm, child abuse? Wow.... I had to read your comment several times to see if I was missing something. Could you elaborate on why you feel it's child abuse because I definitely don't see it that way.

      Delete
    2. The usual criticism of the Cambridges is that they do not allow enough photos of their children. There are frequent statements that their children should be produced with as much regularity as some of the European royals do.
      If you look carefully at the few times George has been at public events this year, you will see that on all three occasions, he looks interested ; trying to work out what is going on, but never, ever abused.
      With all due respect, I am astonished that you are allowed to publish such an accusation. such an accusation.

      Delete
    3. Well, first of all, until the two follow up comments came in, I only had seen your first paragraph. I don't think it is remotely child abuse. People take their kids to amusement parks, to church, to loud cultural events (think a St. Patrick's Day event in a big hall with bagpipes and loud toe shoes, etc), people take their kids to all manner of places where they are exposed to massive numbers of noisy crowds, sometimes interested in them, sometimes not. I think George wanted to stay in Daddy's arms at the hospital, but un every other respect looked interested to see the photographers. At church, he was even more comfortable and outgoing. His brief tears--which I did see--were par for a two year olds course, and dried quickly. He seemed very self-confident in front of the crowds.

      As a lawyer in training, I am very, very wary of infringing on the rights of parents to raise their children. It is a fundamental bedrock of a good society, and you will see throughout history, and even in places in the world today, that evil comes about when governments and/or majorities think they can make decisions better than individual families. Physical abuse is obviously something society should shun, but when you start wading into judging what "mental abuse" or "conditioning" is, you start to approach a slippery slope where one group gets to impose their personal and subjective mindset upon another. I am not ok with that.

      Finally, while I very strongly disagree with JC's child abuse comments, I think it is something we can debate, and I won't be deleting the comment. Once it has been voiced and discussed, I don't think I would allow it to be a frequent opinion stated publicly here on this blog, but I am comfortable with an initial conversation, particularly since I know there are others who agree with JC, and some who are still trying to make up their minds.

      It is the mark of a civilized society that we can voice our opinions and have them weighed and debated in the public forum without immediately being hushed, ignored, or censured.

      Delete
    4. Child abuse?!! Gosh, does that mean parents who take their toddlers to church services are abusing them too? The two yrs olds sometimes start to cry and have to be taken out for a few minutes. (George was only a few weeks away from turning two when Charlotte was christened so not exactly an average "1 yr old") I'll leave it to those from the UK to debate whether there should be a monarchy. But as long as there is, its a bit much IMO to say a future king is being "used and abused" by the monarchy simply because it recognizes there is interest in him as an heir. But if it IS all abuse, then Kate's picture of George kissing Charlotte must have been abusive too (as I doubt the kiss was a spontaneous gesture on George's part)

      Delete
    5. I totally disagree with JC.
      Again I say why do follow this blog or the BRF? You stated in your comment that the Monarchy disgusts you?

      Debate is good but again JC continues to make comments that are over the top and snide. Child abuse? Oh come on now JC. Surely you do not believe that is the case?

      Yet another happy little post of a boy and his Mum turned into a debate about all things NOT about the post.

      Meh

      DB

      Delete
    6. PC

      Love the jacket! As to the shoes and socks? We do that in Upstate NY in the Fall as it is cold. But not cold enough for the total Winter regalia. I say if the socks are thin and not chunky under the skinny jeans and it makes for one long color effect that who cares ?

      LOL

      DB

      Delete
    7. Top sewer award?

      WOW

      Delete
    8. JC, I'm afraid I can't agree with you. The BRF is an institution and, like it or not, George is part of that institution. There would be far more flak if he was never produced for the public to see. So, given that, you say that it is abuse for him to be paraded out for births and christenings. I guess some would agree that it isn't the best situation given the cameras and press, but since he is part of that institution, it is in his best interests that he be exposed to it (to the extent his parents deem appropriate) from the start. So if we agree that the BRF is an institution and if we agree that George is part of it, then taking him out on these kinds of occasions, in the hand of his father (note he was in William's arms for the birth and for the Trooping the Color and in his hand for the christening) who is also part of the institution and understands it first hand, how can it be abuse? If you follow your logic, then taking a child for a vaccination is abuse because the child would likely cry when stuck with the needle. George did shed some tears at the Christening, but that was after a long service and after he had shown signs of wanting to tear off on his own. He was probably prevented from doing that (also in his best interests) and was likely making his distress known. But Jane is right, for the most part, he seemed more curious than anything throughout the whole ordeal. Same with the birth and the Trooping. He showed no signs of distress. I have no doubt that if he had been distressed, William and/or Kate would have removed him from the situation and he would not have been brought out again until he was older.

      So if it is a debate that you want, this is my two cents. I see no argument for abuse and certainly no argument that the BRF is not protecting their own and I certainly can't agree that William is not doing everything humanly possible, given his position, to protect his children from the very abuse you accuse him of. Time to let the Cambridges off the hook on this. It is their right to determine what is in the best interests of their children. If the Queen insisted that George be paraded around on a daily basis, I have no doubt that William would refuse to allow it, The Firm be damned. I think we all agree that William is no slouch when it comes to doing things his way.

      Delete
    9. Brava!!!!! Thank you Jane in Canada! Well said!

      If I might add one cannot complain that they are not showing us the children and rant on about that and then turn around and say the attendance of the children is abusive. You cannot have it both ways!

      Well said ...well said!

      DB

      Delete
    10. JC, I think it would be irresponsible of W&K to *not* expose him to his future reality. I see a very curious little boy. When George accompanied his parents to Australia, he was taking it all in; you could almost see the wheels spinning. :) When he was crawling around on the polo field with a lot of people, horses, and fuss around him, he did not seem to mind it at all; he was focused on what he wanted to do (crawl and explore) and the rest appeared to be a non-issue. When he accompanied William to the hospital, he did gesture for William to pick him up, but he seemed to be fine as soon as he was in his father's arms. We don't see him burying his head in mom or dad's shoulder and crying; he pays attention and takes it all in. And, IMO, he was just fine during the walk to church; it was only after sitting through the service that he had enough and was ready to bolt; very understandable given his age. If he was traumatized by his surroundings, he would have cried on the way to church as soon as he spotted the crowd waiting for them. And I believe, quite strongly, that if W&K thought he would have a hard time of it, they could have arrived by car and avoided the walk. Forgive my bluntness here, but in my humble opinion William has a set and is not afraid to use it. Amen.

      Delete
    11. Regarding some of the objections to JC's posts, I do not have a problem with them. I may or may not agree with all of her opinions, but I do not view her as a pot stirrer by any stretch. She is not afraid to express her opinions and say it like she sees it, but that does not necessarily equal pot stirring. Her posts are well thought out and thought provoking, and she does not engage in one or two line hit and runs. My two cents, anyway. :)

      Delete
    12. This is JCs posting style and insight into her personality. I don't think coming back swinging at her is the way to handle it - if you are appalled by what she says, keep scrolling. Just my two cents :-)

      I think what they are doing is conditioning George in small doses. I do agree they have to capitalize, or as you said "shore up the Monarchy", on younger royals. However, I think if this was a top priority the Queen and William would be at blows over George's presence...and we'd probably see more of George.

      I don't think these photos make Kate an amazing mom. I think they make her a mom. Other moms would probably have their baby in a buggy/stroller, but who Kate is means she probably needs to keep life simple when running errands, and one child is enough. She's also trying to expose him to normal things, like being dragged around by mom doing errands.

      JC - yes, abuse comes in so many different forms. If a person even has a remote interest in psychology this becomes very clear very fast. Codependence, triangulation, criticism, withdrawing, etc. One never knows what happens behind the closed doors of ANY family.

      Delete
    13. Re: the use of the word "abuse" to describe public appearances by babies and toddlers. I don't think William would have chosen the hospital and christening walk-about appearances. I think he was obliged.His father took George in his arms to comfort him. William first tried having George walk along side of him.
      George was not merely curious, except for his peeking at his baby sister in her carriage. His non-verbal behavior demonstrated more than
      cranky 21 1/2 month toddler,which is what he was at the hospital-and nearly two years
      old at the christening. I especially think of the photo of George standing in front of the
      adults gathered in front of the church entrance. Go back and review it-there is
      also video.His stance and facial expression don't resemble a happy or even a
      curious child.
      I can understand, looking at the collection of photos as a whole, JC's use of the word "abuse;"The public
      appearances upset George. If you want to see interested and curious George,review
      George's nursery school photos taken by his Mum in private.
      Perhaps there are different meanings and personal feelings ascribed to the word
      abuse and that is the problem here. If abuse means actions that tend to cause harm
      to someone,then forcing George into those situations could be called abuse.
      The harm is represented in George's response. Whether short-term or long-term harm-
      that is another question. Is it something that can be soothed by a lolly, or damage that could effect the rest of his life?
      I will never understand or accept that children, no matter what their expected
      future role, owe anything to the public.Why the demand to see Charotte regularly then?
      She will likely never be a monarch.

      I've had some experience dealing with pot-stirers (personal attack?) and I don't think JC is one. She does seem to be sincere in her opinions, if somewhat rash at times in her expression of them. Pot stirers goal is stirring the pot and being able to brag about all
      the angry responses. I think JC is just saying what she feels. I think she could do
      quite nicely without the angry responses.
      Exploitation of children, with Catherine the Mum of two herself, is certainly a
      fair topic here, in my opinion. Not just nice little vanilla remarks.
      People can give well-thought out responses, ( see Jane in Canada's response, although I don't agree with much of it) No matter how an original comment was
      expressed. No need for a knee-jerk reply.


      Delete
    14. Not sure how you translate George going to the hospital securely in his father's arms to see his new sister or him walking hand in hand with his father as abuse. I did not see him screaming or acting like he was frightened. Not at all, what I saw was a VERY reassured 2 year old asserting his independence. He certainly didn't recoil from his father nor did he act like he was afraid of him as would be typical of a so called abused child. I feel that accusing William and Kate of Child Abuse is actually an affront to children who are truly abused and ones who Kate is trying to help through her charities.

      As far as JC's not being a "pot sirer " - When someone says the Monarchy disgust's them on a fan blogg as well as almost every post they make criticise personal attributes or attacks the family in someway there is no other conclusion one can reach. This person obviously and by their own admission dose not like the BRF and are trying to do whatever they can (and definitely not is a nice way) to discredit them. This time I feel they went way to far and posters are going to defend William and Kate. These are not so called "knee-jerk repl(ies).

      I think it very odd that on one post some complain that they deserve and have a right to see the children and then when they do three controlled appearances they are child abusers and are accused of exploiting the children.

      Delete
    15. Hello All, I think we have kind of strayed away from the points made by JC to discussing JC herself, and I would like to pull it back to either a discussion of the initial content (which is probably the only time I will allow this to be discussed, in future, a post accusing or suggesting the royals of child abuse will not be approved.) I would ask everyone to always be respectful in the content you post here.
      I will reiterate that respectful and charitable discussion of all members of the BRF is required. Sometimes, comments get by me, but I will be renewing my efforts constantly, to try and make sure we are maintaining that standard. If I approve a comment and you got one by me, I will delete it despite whatever other good content it had. Blogger does not give me the opportunity to edit some of the comment, as other platforms do. it is all or nothing, so please be mindful of this, for yourself, and for me. Don't make the comment section harder than it needs to be, please.

      Delete
    16. I still do not see this as abuse and think it call it abuse diminishes the generally understood serious meaning of the term.

      I also think that it is not fair (as Anon Jan 13, 7:49 did) to compare TWO single presumably carefully selected snapshots of George’s first day at school to the longer photographic record of the christening day. If we had only two shots of the christening day we might have a very different idea of what happened that day too. In addition, George is nearly 6 months older in the school shots. Six months represents an awful lot of development for a child George’s age. His facial expressions are slightly different now due to age and we would expect him to have gained confidence to face unfamiliar situations over time. But that confidence is not a magical function of time itself…it is also partly BECAUSE of his earlier experiences in unfamiliar surroundings, not IN SPITE of them. Children build confidence from feelings of mastery, not from being over-protected.

      Parents—royal or not---have a responsibility to expose their children to situations they will face in the world. For a toddler, the world is a fascinating AND an overwhelming place. But it doesn’t become less overwhelming by avoiding exposure. Toddlers do have frequent meltdowns. Most are brief as George’s was (and I agree with Jane that was most likely because he could not do exactly what he wanted to do right then). But haven’t we all seen either our own children or others meltdown when: visiting Santa even though the child was excited about doing it, at naptime, at toy stores, at grocery stores, when told a tutu or Superman PJs can’t be worn in the snow, at family gatherings, at parks, at playgrounds, at child-friendly restaurants, when given unfamiliar food, when not given dessert on demand, at diaper change time, during toilet-training, when clothes must be changed, after a family move, at pools, at playgroups, when left with a baby-sitter so mom and dad can have a night out, in the car, when mom is on the phone, when there are loud noises, or when a new baby joins the family. I doubt even JC would call those things abuse. I think we’ve all seen toddlers lift their arms to be picked up even at gatherings of close and familiar family members. The fact that the child wants the comfort of a parent’s arms doesn’t mean he was experiencing EXTREME distress much less abuse.

      I do question whether parents should take their young children on long airplane flights IF the only purpose is vacation (not family relocation, emergency, etc) Expecting a small child to tolerate severe and lengthy activity restrictions and ear pain from pressure changes is a bit much. And a toddler’s distress typically is felt by everyone on the plane! I realize IF Will and Kate do go to Mustique they will go by charter. So that eliminates the other passengers issue and partly—but not fully—lessens the activity restrictions. Still, I would bet if we were a fly on the wall we’d see some melting down during that 9 hr flight. I still would not call that abuse though!

      Delete
    17. To summarize what I actually said and taking it as a whole:
      1)I not only did not blame William for these appearances, I absolved him by saying
      he was "obliged." So-no criticism or blame of the parents.
      2)We need to define "abuse" before we argue about it.
      3)I offered causing harm as a definition.
      4)I suggested that the harm could have short or long-term effects.

      If one wishes to skew what I said into some how dishonoring children who are
      "truly abused," you would first need to define what is true abuse.
      In other words:

      Christening photos in a controlled palace environment are a royal tradition.
      Newborn photos of Mum and babe, again in a controlled environment-no public
      allowed, were usual-prior to the last generation.
      Posed photos of young heirs entering Eton had become common-not heirs to the heir, I don't think,
      Balcony appearances of young heirs are tradition.I'm not sure when toddlers started
      being included.
      I have no idea who was the motivating force behind hospital and christening
      walk-abouts-I think public demand played more of a part than the BRF.

      So I did not diss the BRF.As much as it would be comforting to think William is
      all-powerful and can dictate to the Queen or totally ignore public opinion, I
      sincerely doubt it.
      Good point about George being older in the nursery school photos. I do think George's curious, interested face was seen in his nine month old photos at the
      zoo. I doubt it has changed much.
      Children become more aware of people outside the world of parents the older
      they grow-not less. I just think that world shouldn't be filled with shouting,
      jostling, and flashing lights until his emotional and social development can
      handle it. There is a process of maturation that progresses from stage to stage . The rate of that progress is quite individualized. I think parents such as the Cambridges should be able to decide when their child is ready for a given experience. Charlotte's dispostion has been completely different from the day she
      was born. Maybe she will do fine with walk abouts.

      In the meantime, what is the objection to private photos taken by his Mum? Other
      than the" we can't make money off those" objections.
      7:49

      Delete
    18. Oh, JC, you've got a passionate discussion going here. I do have to say, along with the others, that I disagree completely with your view of the BRF, and William & Kate in particular, that any of these outings qualify for the label of child abuse. If a child being told 'no' or being made to attend and pose for photos at a family event consists of abuse then there is not a child anywhere in the world who hasn't been abused. Yes, there are more cameras pointed at the Cambridge family than what would be considered normal, however, this is George's life. Not to prepare him would be the real abuse. If taking children into public situations where there are crowds and a lot of cameras is abuse - Disney would be a failure. Even at "the happiest place on earth" there exists the phrase "Disney rage." Sometimes there is just a meltdown. "No, you're not tall enough for that ride." "No, you can't run ahead and you must hold a hand." "Yes, you have to sit down on the rides." I don't think anyone, especially a young child, would call going to Disneyland an abuse. But, I guarantee the little ones will all have a melt down at least once a day there. (The teenagers will have their own brand of meltdown. Give me the toddler version any time.) George is a little boy who sometimes gets told "no" by mum and dad - he cries - it's normal. I think we need to be very careful about tossing around serious accusations such as abuse.

      Delete
    19. The difference is-the Disney cameras are not all pointed at your child by aggressive
      photographers who earn money this way.

      Still need to define abuse before we give examples of what is normal and not
      considered abuse. It's like holding up an apple and saying, this apple is more
      normal than that apple-but failing to show the other apple.

      As I emphasized above, Charlotte may do fine. George seems like he's more reactive
      to his environment. I had one child who would hide behind my skirts in company;
      the other would be grabbing someone's hand to show off his toys. Are you suggesting I should have forced that child to face the stranger? To get the child "used to"
      strangers?
      I don't know why this respect of a child's unique make-up and a parent's right to
      make choices based on this- why can't this be allowed the Cambridge children?
      Are you saying that NOT parading George in front of a group of photographers IS
      child abuse? ("Not to prepare him would be the real abuse.") Actually, the Cambridges
      are trying to prepare him, using methods tailored to him. He's not even three years
      old! I promise. There is plenty of time.

      Delete
    20. Oh my I do so agree with RobinfromCA.:):):)
      Ali

      Delete
    21. Anon 12:47/4:02 - First, your apple analogy is confusing given that I said what was 'normal' was a toddler crying at being told "no" when he wants to do something. If your children never cried because they were told "no" then good on you. I do believe I was in the position of supporting Kate taking George out and preparing him to see what it is like in his world.

      As to me suggesting that you force your shy child to come out from behind your skirts - I don't know you (or even your name since you choose to remain anonymous) so I was obviously not saying anything of the kind. I don't think, however, that your children were born into a monarchy or a public life so it doesn't seem critical that they learn about the pack of photographers following them around. I am curious about one thing...how can you tell the nature of Charlotte's personality from the two times anyone saw her in public? I am a parent, grandparent, and teacher. I would never presume to judge a child's personality from so vague an experience as two public appearances and a handful of photographs during their infancy.

      Delete
    22. Full disclosure. It is never my intent to dishonour fellow posters, and will frequently ignore those who make no bones about disliking my ideas--which often strays into a general dislike of myself. Not into that.

      Am into speaking my mind, again, generally without the intent to annoy other posters--and I am frequently astonished by the reactions I seem to reap. Wow! Raise the word *abuse* and many on this site take automatic offence. Why!?

      My concern is always, always with George and Charlotte, and their personal wellbeing. They, more than anyone else, will determine the latter 21st British monarchy--whether it exists or not.

      My sincere belief is that the British Monarchy will cease to exist unless TPTB begin to think outside the box. You may not like what I have to say, but I do make an attempt to think logically and in a fast-forward manner. (How many of you have plotted a great educational program for George--and Charlotte? I have, and it aint what it used to be.)

      Its not that I don't care; I do.

      We should all care; we should all be prepared to debate each others ideas, respectively.

      I owe a great deal to those posters on this site who, for whatever reason, think that I am okay--who think that I like Kate, like her kids, and speak from the heart. (They'd be right.)

      JC

      Thats it folks. Lets try to get these crazy Windsors into the mid-21st century.

      Delete
  8. I could be wrong, but I think London is generally warmer in August than in June. It's possible the video is from August and she was able to wear the chiffon dress.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No August is always very warm here in the UK!

      Delete
    2. That's what I thought too Hannah. I was in London in June and I found it cold!

      Delete
    3. That's what I thought too Hannah. I was in London in June and I found it cold!

      Delete
  9. I love the jacket too! The socks is a little bit off with the skinnies and loafers but totally understandable in this weather. I'm a bit put off by the magazine as it has an ill reputation of being a paparazzi cash source and I'm uncomfortable looking at pap pics of children. Happy new year to all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have not watched that many videos and yet when I saw this one you are so right about the gait not counting the fact that is definitely William. I love the dress. Light airy and so feminin. Mid length looks so good on Kate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. I just think we aren't used to seeing her hair so straight and flat.

      Delete
    2. Love her hair but I know from friends with her frizz that it took several hours to get that look. I actually am not a fan of the dress but it did look lovely on her in the video. It was the pattern I did not like, the shape and flow was great.ali

      Delete
  11. I agree with you, looks very much like Kate in the Video! Not sure though why this should not be from August; its just as warm, but probably even warmer than in june. But she seemed to have been very much styLed that evening, so maybe you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great post Jane! Just a thing about the weather....August is still very warm with in the UK and London is generally the warmest of the lot! Coats aren't generally needed until at least the middle of September (unless, of course, it rains which is always a high probability!!)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Socks are just fine! Those are thick winter shoes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes...but if it's winter and you need thick socks wouldn't you wear regular length jeans, not cropped jeans? Trust me, I live somewhere in winter. My cropped, above the ankle jeans go into hibernation this time of year, just like the bears!

      Delete
    2. Hee hee I commented elsewhere that it was the jeans that were odd, most folks in cold weather wear short or knee high boots with their jeans in the winter when it is chilly. I have to say it shows to me what I have always suspected that Catherine is just not that into fashion, my 18 year old daughter would never have gone out in that jean/shoe combo:) Which is just fine with me, she still has access to great clothes and stylists so love to see what she puts together.

      Delete
  14. great post jane prince George not naughty I love the duchess dress

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think its fine to wear thin "trouser" type socks with loafers. What throws the look off to me is the kind of jeans. These jeans are not just skinny jeans...they are more akin to what I call form-fitting ankle-length leggings and so socks make the calf area look kind of lumpy and the jeans look an odd length. Jeans that are slim but cut a tiny bit wider at the bottom might look better when its cold enough for socks. I do love the jacket though as so many tops look too short on Kate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree to me it is the pants. I would have worn either a straight leg jean that came over the shoe or most likely a slight flair leg, not baggy but fitted.ali

      Delete
    2. Agreed! It is the pant length. I honestly thought it was an ankle boot until Jane pointed out socks + loafers.

      Delete
  16. Seeing loafers, socks or otherwise has me wondering: Does London get very cold, snowy winter weather? No one ever appears too bundled up, no puffer coats, boots, etc. I do wish we'd get to see Kate dressed for everyday winter ( as so many of us have to) for a little inspiration sometimes! The only time I have seen her in winter gear is on actual ski slopes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The first time I saw the video, I thought of Angelina Jolie, the hair, the type of shoes, everything! jajajaaja Then I saw Kate and I love her!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the same exact thing! Something about the hair and the dress being flowy.

      Delete
  18. I like the chunky heel look but not with the socks. I know sometimes comfort is key but it would have looked better either without the socks or with boots...That coat is fabulous though and is similarly styled like the cape she wore last month with the slash pockets...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think not wearing socks is a bit dirty, I wear them even in summer, thinner ones, you can wash the socks, not the shoes though..

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I forgot, in summer pikis.

      Delete
  19. jane, I live in London and think it is pretty mild year round. I think she probably would have been wearing a jacket in either scenario, since she isn't, though, kind of hard to tell. I think some people have different heat tolerances actually, which is why there is a lot of disagreement in the posts here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't know in USA, Jane, in Europe we wear socks, it's in fashion.. xxx

    ReplyDelete
  21. I REALLY love this dress and look! Any idea on the shoes, Jane?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Re video: I would have to agree with Jane. June seems more likely, since we already knew about their attendance at the June Phillip celebration.

    However, the woman doesn't look like the June
    Kate to me-think of her on the balcony and at polo that Sunday. Her post baby contours.The hairdo is exactly
    like one a well-known Kate double often uses.I don't recall seeing Kate with that hair do
    before. The dress?
    Mr. Security looks as dropped in as some claim Charlotte was in the family photo.I don't
    recall seeing the short, bald PPO before.
    If the picture was snapped at the last minute in the seconds involved, I would assume the
    person used a camera phone without a long range lens. It doesn't look like a photo taken through such a lens. Think of the pap photos of Kate and baby George on the grounds of Government House in Canberra.

    How is it that Mr. Security allowed
    someone up that close, obviously with phone at the ready? Why was he in the street, rather
    than close to either Kate or William? So, I do have questions.
    Maybe all these questions have
    been answered elsewhere. I would hope that they have been asked, but I don't read "elsewhere."

    Re:JC- the vigorous defenders of "freedom of the press" might want to recall that it
    works both ways; if YOU can say whatever, so can I. Just keep in mind, for whatever is
    said, there may be consequences.Say what you will, but don't whine when you get
    back-lash. JC doesn't seem to have a problem defending her views.


    By the way, I made a comment about the video seeming strange on the last post. The gist of my remarks was NOT -"Is it or is it not Kate?"-my main concern as expressed was about the TIMING.
    If the photo had been broadcast initially as taken at the June celebration, it would
    have made more sense to me. Or if the video had emerged soon after the event.

    One of the unfortunate aspects of internet and social media commenting is that it is
    encouraging a whole generation to ignore the over-all intent of a comment by zooming in on
    one part of the remarks. A disparagement of one part is seen as a refutation of the whole.
    This is a tactic used successsfully in court rooms, (" If it doesn't ("don't") fit, you must acquit") but one would hope for more insight
    in a community such as FBTB.

    Kate or not Kate? June or August? Or both? Well, we know the couple was there at that super
    exclusive club in June as guests of the Queen. A private
    return trip in August is something else. So WHEN the video was taken figures in to how many visits-
    which feeds into criticism of eliteness and exclusivity of the royal family. "I certainly
    could not afford such a place-why should they?" Yes, that is actually the basis of a
    popular criticism of the RF-
    which formed the root of my remarks about the timing of the recent drawing of attention to the video-in the midst of events that showed William and Catherine as a relatable couple.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No one could dispute that JC is firm on her comments. I admire that. I just think they border on being mean at times.... Is Kate a governess? Cannot stand the Queen or the Queen Mother... the family gets the sewer award... they like to break up families etc etc etc..... for someone with so much disdain for them I just don't get why she would even bother reading about them.

    Not saying she cannot make a comment but it just is a pattern of a nice little post and here comes JC and now we are going down a path of rather ugly commmentary. I don't see why a post of a little boy and him Mum ends wits child abuse? What? Seriously? Over the top!!

    It often takes the fun out if reading the comments. I know I am not the only one who has said this or feels this way.

    The rule say we cannot bash the BRF but seems to me we are right on the edge with those comments.

    DB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree JC usually walks a fine line, but Jane allows it. My thought on JC is why wouldn't she continue with the people she always riles up? I think if she repeatedly had no responses, or no responses that strongly opposed her, she may stop. Fellow readers and commenters probably keep her motivated and engaged. I suspect she enjoys a good debate and firing people up :-)

      Delete
    2. DB, I so agree with you.. If terms like "sewer award" and accusing the BRF of Child abuse, comments made about the Queen and the Queen mother in the last post as well as others made in other posts is not bashing the Royal Family then I don't know what is. I come to this site because I can pretty much be assured that every posts comment section will not turn into a free for all of negativity towards Kate and the Family. Most of us are here because we want to follow Kate and what she is doing, I for one am not here to be dissuaded that the Monarchy should be abolished. It is so frustrating to always see a women who loves her husband and is doing her best to raise two small children as well as perform the duties of a future queen consort consistently torn apart (and I am not referring to wether she wears socks with her loafers or the length of her hemline). I think JC's last comment is more that over the top. Can you also tell me what "civil disobedience" has to do with falsely accusing some one of "child abuse"?

      Delete
    3. Good point Anon 7.43

      Just hard for me to be silent when tacky comments are made against the BRF.


      DB

      Delete
    4. I completely agree Anon 10.28. As I stated before I am fine with a debate and if it is about clothes etc. But the name calling and assumptions "is Kate a governess"? I just find that over the top more and more. It's not one post it is all the posts lately.

      But as Jane said this is not about JC (though I respectfully disagree that the comments have become about her and it should not. But I have trouble not speaking up when a'sewer award' is handed etc).

      It is on the edge. I am going to ignore her going forward ( says with teeth clenched as I am protective of the BRF BUT not to the degree of a comment if I feel the are in error etc. I am not blind to their human fraility. But name calling is always less than classy IMHO )

      DB

      Delete
  24. Love the dress and love the posts! I can never anticipate when my little one will be upset in public - seems to me that JC is intentionally stirring the pot with those comments.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kate needs to have normal time like this with George, and every child needs one-on-one time with their parents. Before we know it George will be at boarding school. George will have far less opportunities as a teen for normal family time, so get it in while you can (although I know boarding school is "normal" for some social classes in certain countries).

    Isn't the sweater new too? Kate has been shopping!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Most of the time I find JC to be rather cranky. I think he/she enjoys playing the black sheep/ devil's advocate in our midst. This is not to say that JC doesn't make some valid points (and very well spoken,too, I believe), but I do find it all a bit too much at times. We come here to enjoy the Kate sightings, official and non. If a bee is constantly up one's bonnet, one should go to another blog better suited for those opinions IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I, too, think that JC has her opinions and her style of posting and I quite enjoy it when she participates. You can always count on her to say what she really thinks. No problem there. As for stirring the pot - I don't understand why that has a negative connotation. The soup wouldn't be very good if it wasn't stirred once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane-10:46 pm- I agree mixing things up and throwing out new or controversial ideas makes
      for a lively discussion.
      I do think there are commenters who came to this blog as
      respite from the sometimes overly contentious world of Kate-focused blogs. I admit, I
      was one of those people. However, One can grow bored with sock and weather discussions.

      Pot-stirring-is probably in the eye of the beholder. One person's pot-stirrer is
      another's chef. Personally, I feel it goes to motivation-is there an underlying
      effort to cause ill-will?
      Of course, we can't see into the minds and hearts of commenters. The best we can do
      is-" ...if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...," it
      may not be a duck, but it still may get served up for dinner.

      Delete
    2. Anon 11:43, I agree with your statement... "Personally, I feel it goes to motivation-is there an underlying effort to cause ill-will?" It's really that simple.

      Delete
  28. I think JC is...just ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  29. George did not look anything at all, it was one snap. Who knows what a 2 plus is thinking, maybe a scuffed toe, maybe a more serious "please the store lady was giving me candy, why do we have to leave", or maybe just a moment of no meaning on a small child's face caught in a moment of photo taking. ali

    ReplyDelete
  30. While it does seem unusual that W & K would have done a repeat dinner at Berry Bros so soon after the Queen's birthday celebration, I don't think the video is from June. And it's not because of speculation about the weather. It's the darkness of the evening. The article that describes the Queen's birthday dinner says W & K stayed until 10:45p. In June, it stays fairly light well into the late evening in London. In the video, the sky is quite dark, suggesting it's either later in the year or later on a June night than the article suggested for departure time for the Cambridges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wondered about that---but in my part of England it stays light a little longer in June, than it does in the South.
      However, some time since I lived in London, but don't think the difference is too great.

      Delete
  31. Late on the post here because sometimes real life pokes it's nose into my play time! I haven't read all of the other posts yet so I'm not sure of the overall response but I love this jacket on Kate and I think the layers underneath are perfect. I'm with you on the "chunky" soles of the shoes. Never my favorite but a sturdy shoe in winter is a must. The socks would not bother me if she weren't wearing skinny jeans. A flared leg or a boyfriend cut would look better with them. But, Kate loves her skinnies!

    I am so surprised there are people who think it's not Kate in the video! I don't think William and Mr. Security go to dinner at expensive restaurants with a doppelgänger. As for the dress - I love it! I'm not fond of animal prints but these colors make the fabric beautiful. I also love the longer length, although I am sure there are people "above" me complaining about it, but it's very attractive on Kate. What I love most - the abandonment of the suede shoes! Oh how I wish she would do that more often - especially in the evening!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RobinfromCA: Happy New Year. I so agree with you. The chunky soles are great for walking in the city-they protect feet and I find them comfortable. As for the midi length, it has been around for a while, but not many royals have worn it. Countess Sophie is the only royal who has been wearing it regularly and wears it well. This longer length looks great on the Duchess, but then she is able to wear any length with ease.

      Regards,

      RW.

      Delete
  32. I wouldn't dream to wear flats with socks, I either freeze to dead or wear boots. This just shows how little Kate really care about fashion, lol. Having said that, I love the jacket!

    And I agree that Kate looks so much like Angelina Jolie in that video! The whole look is great, very chic!

    And Jane and everyone, did you heard about the Kate guest-editing The Huffington Post? Now that doesn't happen everyday! Can't way!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Did everyone notice what looked like nude heels on Kate in the dinner video?
    Ah, the beloved nude heels! #flashbackfriday:)

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think her shopping-with-George outfit would have been fine with a different pair of jeans--ANY other pair of jeans--instead of the superskinny/jeggings. Something of a decent length and maybe flared, and you wouldn't have noticed the hosiery.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Another thought on the video-one source, possibly from the same article Jane quoted,
    stated that the royals, including the Cambridges,arrived via a secluded back entrance for
    the June event.Why would they not leave the same way? The video does not seem to show a
    secluded back entrance, rather the main street in front of the bistro.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Perhaps they are opaque stockings instead of socks. They do seem quite thin. Stockings are fine with loafers, in my opinion :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'm very excited because after seeing this post, I've repliKated the Hendre coat, in the Fox Brothers print shown here :) It's a splurge for sure but I'm telling myself that it's a classic and I'll wear it for years and years... It's only my third repliKate since Kate became a princess (the other two are Kiki McDonough earrings) so I'm psyched :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Her hair is straight! I really like it that way. I love her curls and blowouts and I am always very jealous, but I would definitely like to see her wear her hair as she has in the video more often. I also hope we get to see that dress again this spring or summer, maybe in India. It's very pretty.

    I also love the little caption at the bottom of the picture of Kate and George: "George isn't a fan of shopping..." He's such a cute kid. And growing so fast!

    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!